What is the remedy for one who doubts many of the mass-transmitted reports, such as the seven readings, and says, “Since we have not seen a connected chain of narration for them in the approved books, they may be the independent legal reasoning and juristic preferences of some scholars”?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is the remedy for one who doubts many of the mass-transmitted reports, such as the seven readings, and says?
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
Another questioner: I have two questions.
The questioner : And he says, “Since we have not seen a connected chain of narration in the approved books, they may be the independent legal reasoning and juristic preferences of some scholars.” He does not accept much of what the scholars say is a collective obligation, but rather he wants a clear text for all of that?
The Shaykh : Excuse me, it seems the question is... clear, so please repeat it for me?
The questioner : What is the remedy for one who doubts many of the mass-transmitted reports, such as the seven readings?
The Shaykh : How can it be among the mass-transmitted reports when, first of all, he doubts it, and then he says, “I want a chain of narration”?
The questioner : I say that these readings are mass-transmitted. He doubts these readings by which we read, and in my belief, they are mass-transmitted. But I doubt... is that the meaning of the question?
The Shaykh : Does he mean that the scholars of readings, for example, say that they are mass-transmitted?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But the questioner doubts their statement!
The questioner : Is the questioner facing this problem because he is a student at the college?
The Shaykh : No, you presented the problem to me in a contradictory way!
The questioner : Yes, I am reading from the question.
The Shaykh : In any case, we answer with a response that covers the question, while clarifying that there is an error in it. Because if he says he is asking about mass-transmitted matters, but he or someone else doubts them, how can a Muslim doubt a mass-transmitted matter? But I understand that his question means the following: the scholars, such as the scholars of the seven readings, say that these readings are mass-transmitted, but he is not convinced that they are mass-transmitted because he is asking for the chain of narration. So, our answer in the end is: O brother, O questioner, it is obligatory to refer to the specialists in every field of knowledge and to ask them about what pertains to their knowledge. It is not permissible for the ignorant person to scrutinize and be precise, demanding a chain of narration when he has no knowledge of this subject. For example, I might authenticate a hadith for him, and he would say, “Okay, what is the chain of narration for your authentication of this hadith?” I would tell him... [he pauses]... years of studying the science of hadith terminology and the science of narrators are required for you to understand how I authenticate this hadith. And the same applies to the reverse, for example, a weak hadith, and so on. The general public cannot understand the sciences in which the specialists specialize, simply because the answer did not enter his mind. We remind him of the verse we have often recited to your ears on other occasions:[An-Nahl 16:43] Therefore, the one who doubts the readings can never know the truth of these readings as scientific research requires, unless he is among the specialists. So he is one of two people: either he is a specialist, in which case he is told to research to know, like a hadith among the hadiths where it is said that I have weakened it, or that it is a mass-transmitted hadith. Who is able to know whether this statement is correct or not? The specialists. If a questioner asked me about a hadith among the hadiths that I claim is mass-transmitted, like the hadith, for example, Sahih al-Bukhari 3651 How do I claim... that this hadith is mass-transmitted... I would give you a general statement, but this does not provide the knowledge he is reassured by. Rather, he must apply this verse: [An-Nahl 16:43] Similarly, I am a specialist in readings, so I cannot discuss or criticize specifically someone who claims that a certain verse is mass-transmitted in its reading in a specific way.
So what is obligatory for us? It is obligatory, just as I do when an illness strikes me, and I do not rely on my own independent reasoning, which is based on ignorance of medicine, to... even to provide treatment for myself. This is impossible. I ask the specialists among the doctors, and they are the ones who guide me to the treatment and the medicine. And so, this questioner is told: It is not permissible for you to demand a chain of narration, because you cannot know the chain of narration pertaining to that knowledge until you study the study of those people who say, “This is mass-transmitted,” or “This is a reading of a limited chain that is not relied upon,” or “It is not read with,” or so on.
And this is a rule that is actually not just in the science of readings, but in all the sciences that the questioners are ignorant of. This is a condition before chaos, which has no end, as we said earlier. Everyone does independent legal reasoning and says, “This is halal for me,” even if so-and-so said it is haram, for example, or the reverse, or something similar. And this chaos is now spreading widely in the books you see. One person may not be good at reading an expression, and this appears in the annotations. He writes, “The verification of such-and-such book by so-and-so.” What is this verification? It is a patchwork to cooperate on this patchwork with some modern indexes, and then he becomes a verifier. Let us see the amazing things in these new annotations!
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And all of this is due to not applying the Shari'ah in everything a person needs. So the answer is:[An-Nahl 16:43] You will find many like them with your hand. At that time, you turn to research, and you may reach the point of knowing the truth they claim, or proving their error in what they say.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is that it?
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
Another questioner: I have two questions.
The questioner : And he says, “Since we have not seen a connected chain of narration in the approved books, they may be the independent legal reasoning and juristic preferences of some scholars.” He does not accept much of what the scholars say is a collective obligation, but rather he wants a clear text for all of that?
The Shaykh : Excuse me, it seems the question is... clear, so please repeat it for me?
The questioner : What is the remedy for one who doubts many of the mass-transmitted reports, such as the seven readings?
The Shaykh : How can it be among the mass-transmitted reports when, first of all, he doubts it, and then he says, “I want a chain of narration”?
The questioner : I say that these readings are mass-transmitted. He doubts these readings by which we read, and in my belief, they are mass-transmitted. But I doubt... is that the meaning of the question?
The Shaykh : Does he mean that the scholars of readings, for example, say that they are mass-transmitted?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But the questioner doubts their statement!
The questioner : Is the questioner facing this problem because he is a student at the college?
The Shaykh : No, you presented the problem to me in a contradictory way!
The questioner : Yes, I am reading from the question.
The Shaykh : In any case, we answer with a response that covers the question, while clarifying that there is an error in it. Because if he says he is asking about mass-transmitted matters, but he or someone else doubts them, how can a Muslim doubt a mass-transmitted matter? But I understand that his question means the following: the scholars, such as the scholars of the seven readings, say that these readings are mass-transmitted, but he is not convinced that they are mass-transmitted because he is asking for the chain of narration. So, our answer in the end is: O brother, O questioner, it is obligatory to refer to the specialists in every field of knowledge and to ask them about what pertains to their knowledge. It is not permissible for the ignorant person to scrutinize and be precise, demanding a chain of narration when he has no knowledge of this subject. For example, I might authenticate a hadith for him, and he would say, “Okay, what is the chain of narration for your authentication of this hadith?” I would tell him... [he pauses]... years of studying the science of hadith terminology and the science of narrators are required for you to understand how I authenticate this hadith. And the same applies to the reverse, for example, a weak hadith, and so on. The general public cannot understand the sciences in which the specialists specialize, simply because the answer did not enter his mind. We remind him of the verse we have often recited to your ears on other occasions:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونThe best people are those living in my generation, and then those who will follow them, and then those who will follow the latter
خير الناس قرني ثم الذين يلونهم ثم الذين يلونهمSo ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونSo what is obligatory for us? It is obligatory, just as I do when an illness strikes me, and I do not rely on my own independent reasoning, which is based on ignorance of medicine, to... even to provide treatment for myself. This is impossible. I ask the specialists among the doctors, and they are the ones who guide me to the treatment and the medicine. And so, this questioner is told: It is not permissible for you to demand a chain of narration, because you cannot know the chain of narration pertaining to that knowledge until you study the study of those people who say, “This is mass-transmitted,” or “This is a reading of a limited chain that is not relied upon,” or “It is not read with,” or so on.
And this is a rule that is actually not just in the science of readings, but in all the sciences that the questioners are ignorant of. This is a condition before chaos, which has no end, as we said earlier. Everyone does independent legal reasoning and says, “This is halal for me,” even if so-and-so said it is haram, for example, or the reverse, or something similar. And this chaos is now spreading widely in the books you see. One person may not be good at reading an expression, and this appears in the annotations. He writes, “The verification of such-and-such book by so-and-so.” What is this verification? It is a patchwork to cooperate on this patchwork with some modern indexes, and then he becomes a verifier. Let us see the amazing things in these new annotations!
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And all of this is due to not applying the Shari'ah in everything a person needs. So the answer is:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is that it?