The Shaykh's remarks on whether the hadiths narrated by the two Shaykhs provide certainty or preponderance of probability?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... a question from the Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Regarding the topic of the hasan hadith ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... the sound ahad hadiths in matters of creed, and the known opinion of the majority on this, and ... the four Imams, and ... is there a disagreement regarding the position of the hasan hadith in this matter, is it to be accepted ... .
The Shaykh : What do you mean, my brother, by the hadith, the hadith.
The questioner : Complete the question, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Just complete the question.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Complete the question.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : Some of the Imams ... we have spoken about the hadith ... .
The Shaykh : And peace be upon you.
The questioner : ... in matters of creed, your statement is that this hadith is in the Sahih, in the two Sahihs, for example ... specifically, he says, and especially if the two Shaykhs agreed upon it.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, I think, and no blame on you, you have confused one matter with another. When Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that a hadith is in the two Sahihs, it has no relation to the topic of whether creed is derived from a sound hadith. Rather, he mentions that in the context of whether certainty is established for the hadiths of the two Sahihs, meaning whether what the two Shaykhs narrated in their Sahihs provides preponderance of probability or provides certainty and conviction. In this discussion, the two Sahihs are mentioned, and Ibn Taymiyyah and others elaborate on this, saying, yes, what the two Shaykhs narrated in their Sahihs provides certainty and conviction, except for what has been criticized. Except for what has been criticized. This is a different topic that has no relation to the topic of whether creed is established by a sound hadith in general, whether it is in the two Sahihs or outside the two Sahihs. And Ibn Taymiyyah's statement that what is in the two Sahihs, with the aforementioned condition, provides certainty does not mean from the perspective of the narration or the chain of transmission, but rather it means from another aspect that has no relation to the chain of transmission, but has relation to Islamic creed, which is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) So when the Muslims agree on the soundness of what is in the two Sahihs, with the aforementioned exception, the protection came to these hadiths from containing, for example, a hidden weakness from the hadith scholars. This protection did not come from the side of the chain of transmission; the chain of transmission gives us preponderance of probability, and preponderance of probability means that it appears to us to be sound, but it may be otherwise. But the protection came from the fact that the scholars of the Muslims received the hadiths of the two Sahihs, with the aforementioned exception, with acceptance. So many of the hadiths in which scholars differed regarding their application in jurisprudence are agreed upon as sound, as evidenced by the fact that when one of the disputants argues against the other with a hadith from the two Sahihs, the opponent has no choice but to concede its soundness, but he responds to them from a jurisprudential perspective. So the one who did not act upon the hadith and the one who opposes him, both agree that this is a sound hadith, but they may differ, as we said, regarding its jurisprudential indication. So Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) points to this, meaning that the hadiths of the two Sahihs have certainty of establishment, not from the perspective of their chains of transmission, but from the perspective of the consensus of the Ummah and their reception of them with acceptance. So this is one topic, and the topic of whether creed is to be taken from a hadith outside the two Sahihs or not? The answer, according to the disagreement you pointed out, is that we hold it more likely that there is no difference between creed and rulings, morals, or anything related to Islam in the obligation to accept and adopt it, as long as it is established in the hadith. And I say "established in the hadith" because "establishment" among hadith scholars is broader and more comprehensive than the word "sound." "Sound" means it is hasan and more, so "sound" in terminology does not mean "hasan." This is the predominant terminology. And if one of them wants to clarify that this sound hadith is in a rank lower than the rank of sound, he says "hasan." And if he wants to use an expression that includes both sound and hasan, he says "established." So "established" cannot be interpreted by the listener as "sound" or as "hasan" unless he returns to the chain of transmission or returns to the statement of this speaker and finds it placed in another location, as if he says "sound," so the word "established" is interpreted as "sound" by the usage of the first speaker of the other word, or he said in another place that it came with a hasan chain, so we say "established" means "hasan," and so on.
So whoever says that creed is established by a sound hadith, and there is no difference for him between sound and hasan in terminology, must take creed from the hasan hadith just as he takes the ruling from the same hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Regarding the topic of the hasan hadith ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... the sound ahad hadiths in matters of creed, and the known opinion of the majority on this, and ... the four Imams, and ... is there a disagreement regarding the position of the hasan hadith in this matter, is it to be accepted ... .
The Shaykh : What do you mean, my brother, by the hadith, the hadith.
The questioner : Complete the question, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Just complete the question.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Complete the question.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : Some of the Imams ... we have spoken about the hadith ... .
The Shaykh : And peace be upon you.
The questioner : ... in matters of creed, your statement is that this hadith is in the Sahih, in the two Sahihs, for example ... specifically, he says, and especially if the two Shaykhs agreed upon it.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, I think, and no blame on you, you have confused one matter with another. When Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that a hadith is in the two Sahihs, it has no relation to the topic of whether creed is derived from a sound hadith. Rather, he mentions that in the context of whether certainty is established for the hadiths of the two Sahihs, meaning whether what the two Shaykhs narrated in their Sahihs provides preponderance of probability or provides certainty and conviction. In this discussion, the two Sahihs are mentioned, and Ibn Taymiyyah and others elaborate on this, saying, yes, what the two Shaykhs narrated in their Sahihs provides certainty and conviction, except for what has been criticized. Except for what has been criticized. This is a different topic that has no relation to the topic of whether creed is established by a sound hadith in general, whether it is in the two Sahihs or outside the two Sahihs. And Ibn Taymiyyah's statement that what is in the two Sahihs, with the aforementioned condition, provides certainty does not mean from the perspective of the narration or the chain of transmission, but rather it means from another aspect that has no relation to the chain of transmission, but has relation to Islamic creed, which is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
My Ummah will not agree upon misguidance
لا تجتمع أمتي على ضلالةSo whoever says that creed is established by a sound hadith, and there is no difference for him between sound and hasan in terminology, must take creed from the hasan hadith just as he takes the ruling from the same hadith.