Are reports stopping at the Companions treated like reports traced to the Prophet in terms of the conditions for validity? And the Shaykh spoke about declaring the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever.

The questioner: Our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Regarding reports stopping at the Companions, are the same conditions required for them as for reports traced to the Prophet in order for their validity to be established? We have read that some say that if statements are attributed to the Companions and jurists have transmitted them, that is sufficient without studying their chains of narration?

The Shaykh : This statement is absolutely untenable. Is the meaning that this suffices for establishing validity, or is the meaning that it is not necessary for us to know the establishment of these reports in the same way we know the establishment of hadiths? If it is the first meaning, the second meaning is that there is no doubt that the matter does not require Muslim scholars to know the validity of the Companions' reports in the same way it is obligatory for them to know the validity of the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). However, this brevity alone is accepted in general terms, but in detail, I will say the exact opposite. If the intent of the report is to use it as evidence to establish a legal ruling, following that Companion and disregarding our personal knowledge, then it is necessary to establish that report just as we establish a hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But if the intent is not to establish a legal ruling, then the status of these reports is like that of weak hadiths which are not used as evidence but are cited for reference and guidance. It is not correct to say absolutely that reports from the Companions are sufficient just because scholars mentioned them and presented them as established facts. We say this is acceptable if it is for the purpose of reference and citation, but if it is for the purpose of legal argumentation, it is not acceptable, and establishing validity is necessary. For example, many issues come to us where we have no explicit text in the Shari'ah, in the Sunnah, let alone in the Book, but we are presented with the opinion of some Companion. Is it permissible for us to adhere to this opinion and make it a matter of religion without knowing that it is authentic from that Companion? I think the answer is known from the previous details, but I feel compelled to give you an example known to students of knowledge. There are many authentic hadiths in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade drinking while standing, but we do not have a single hadith forbidding the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) from eating while standing. So if a question is asked: What is the ruling on eating while standing? Is it like drinking while standing or not? The original ruling is permissibility, based on the principle that the original state is the absence of obligation, and so on. We find an answer to such a question in the report of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that when he narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he forbade drinking while standing, and when he was asked about eating, he said: "It is worse." I, for example, am reassured by this answer from this Companion for reasons, the most important of which is that we do not have anything contradicting this answer from this Companion, whether in reports stopping at him or traced to the Prophet. This Companion lived with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and served him, as he himself reported, for ten years, so he is the most knowledgeable, or more accurately, among the most knowledgeable people about the state of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So I say according to the statement of Anas. But is it permissible for me to say according to the statement of Anas if I do not know the establishment of this statement from Anas? The answer is no. So in such a case, the report must be treated in terms of verifying its validity just as we treat a hadith traced to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is a very broad and very important field. Knowing the reports narrated from the Companions, if they are authentic, helps us to remain on the right path in our understanding of legal rulings, and thereby we verify our claim that we are upon the Book and the Sunnah and upon what the righteous Salaf were upon. So it is obligatory for us to know what the righteous Salaf were upon in anything narrated from them, that it be established from them, and not merely that it is mentioned in some books. We find this often, and very often, when the schools of jurisprudence are cited, for example, on the serious issue where some of our brother scholars in Najd still sing and explicitly declare the one who abandons prayer out of laziness, not denial, a disbeliever. For the one who abandons prayer out of denial is a disbeliever and an apostate from the religion, as is well known. But as for the one who abandons prayer out of laziness while acknowledging its obligation, we find dozens of citations from the Companions and the Tabi'un that they used to say that he is a disbeliever. And when we find some of these reports, at least in books of reports like the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, the Musannaf of 'Abd al-Razzaq, and Sharh al-Sunnah by al-Baghawi, and similar books that have special attention to narrating reports from the Companions with chains of narration, we find that not much of these reports is authentic. So what is the value of these reports if they are not authentically attributed to the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? In such a serious issue, where we find from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) what completely contradicts the statement attributed to these Salaf that they used to say that the one who abandons prayer is a disbeliever, we know from the principles of jurisprudence that the legal texts...