The Hadith: "Nothing breaks the prayer." Ibn Hajar stated that Majlad ibn Sa'id is in it, and a group of scholars have criticized him. It has a corroborating narration (shahid) in al-Daraqutni, and it is hasan (good).

The questioner: Shaykh, in the hadith of Abu Dawud , is Majlad in it?

The Shaykh: What is it?

The questioner: The hadith is from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) a

The Shaykh: Yes ?

The questioner: Majlad is in it. Ibn Hajar graded him as weak, and a group of trustworthy scholars said he is weak. He said it has a corroborating narration in al-Daraqutni, and it is hasan. What is your opinion?

The Shaykh: And what is it?

The questioner: And it is a hasan hadith.

The Shaykh: The shahid, meaning the shahid itself is hasan?

The questioner: Yes, in al-Dira'ah.

The Shaykh: Who said it is hasan?

The questioner: Ibn Hajar said it has a shahid in al-Daraqutni.

The Shaykh: And is the chain of this shahid hasan according to Ibn Hajar?

The questioner: He said it is hasan, like that.

The Shaykh: No, I want to understand first the critique. Does Ibn Hajar consider the chain of the shahid hasan in itself, or does he consider the hadith hasan li ghayrihi (good due to other supporting evidence) because of its shahid?

The questioner: He said it has a shahid in al-Daraqutni and mentioned and it is hasan, the hadith is hasan, like that, or as he said?

Another questioner: The Shaykh is asking whether he said "it has a hasan shahid" or "it has a shahid, and it is hasan"?

The questioner: It seems he is saying the hadith of al-Daraqutni is hasan.

The Shaykh: ... In any case, I will answer now with a definitive answer and another conditional answer.

Another questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh: And upon you be peace. The conditional answer is that when I studied the hadith , which is in Sunan Abu Dawud, which I began editing about forty years ago and divided into Sahih Abu Dawud and Da'if Abu Dawud, from that day to this hour, this hadith is from the portion of Da'if Sunan Abu Dawud. Nothing has appeared to me that would allow me to grade it as hasan, even li ghayrihi, as may have been the intention of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar's statement. This answer is based on the previous research and verification. I now say, after having read the manuscript of al-Muqaddimah by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, which is in the Dar al-Kutub al-Mi'riyyah, I found, subhan Allah, that he expresses a precise and very precise issue that I felt in my own self or in the depths of my soul, but I did not find anyone among the imams of hadith science and its terminology who explicitly stated it, until I saw al-Dhahabi explicitly state what was circulating in my mind, which is that the hasan hadith is one of the most precise sciences of hadith. This is because one man or one scholar hesitates in his judgment regarding the narrator of a hasan hadith; sometimes he grades it as hasan and sometimes he weakens it. The same hadith, the same narrator. Why? We know by experience why. Because when we find a narrator about whom scholars' opinions differ, between being trustworthy (muthaq), weak, and intermediate, the soul sometimes, after studying what was said about this narrator, leans toward the middle, saying he is not trustworthy and not weak, but rather intermediate, so his hadith is hasan. Then another review may come after years, or less or more, and this same researcher descends from the middle to the level of weakness, saying this is weak. He grades the hadith as hasan in the past based on the previous study, and weakens it in the present based on the subsequent study. The subject is the same and the researcher is the same. This is said exactly regarding the hasan li ghayrihi hadith. When a person wants to grade a hadith as hasan li ghayrihi, it means that he is departing from the objective study of the chain of this hadith specifically, if he encompasses this hadith. And now, look with me at how one can grade a hadith as hasan li ghayrihi when there is something contradicting it, such as the authentic hadith . The hadith is in Sahih Muslim from the narration of Abu Dharr, which is well known. So here, two hadiths contradict each other: one is negating, which is the hadith of Abu Dawud, and the other is affirming, which is the hadith of Muslim. First, the known rule is that the affirming is preferred over the negating. Second, what Muslim narrated in general is more trustworthy than what was narrated by others, such as Abu Dawud. Third, what Abu Dawud narrated contains, as I said, Majlad ibn Sa'id, who is not strong, as Ibn Hajar says in al-Taqrib, and that is the case. So how can we grade the hadith "Nothing breaks the prayer" as hasan, while it is established that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said , and so on? Then, suppose the hadith of Abu Dawud is authentic, not just hasan, and not authentic li ghayrihi, but let us assume it is the most authentic in chain. How do you reconcile a hadith that negates and
A hadith that establishes this is a matter that the scholars of hadith have addressed in their terminology, just as the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) have addressed it in the principles of jurisprudence. When a present ruling conflicts with a permissive ruling, the present ruling is given precedence over the permissive one. When a hadith that carries a new legislation conflicts with a hadith that is based on the presumption of innocence and the original state, which is permissibility, the hadith that carries a new ruling within it is given precedence. We fully envision this reality in all the rulings of the Shari'ah. When he (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent, he was sent with tawhid (the oneness of Allah), and practical rulings such as prayer and fasting were not revealed to him directly, but rather came gradually. Likewise, what relates specifically to the form of prayer and its rulings: not all the rulings of prayer came with the obligation of prayer. Perhaps you remember with me that the early Muslims, when they were praying, one of them would speak during the prayer. I clearly remember that one of the stages of legislation was that a man would enter the mosque and find the people standing in prayer, so he would stand in the row and say to the person next to him, "This rak'ah is the first, not the second." This was a normal matter, until one day Mu'adh ibn Jabal came and entered the mosque, followed the imam, and then the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) stood up and completed his prayer, and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . And from here came the well-known hadith in the two Sahihs from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: . And the statement of the Exalted was revealed: This is not part of the completion of this hadith, but rather another hadith: . So the speech that they used to know from before was forbidden, and even more so than this speech, which was permissible, was that one of them, when he greeted the person praying with "Peace be upon you," the person would return the greeting with words, "And upon you peace," as we do today outside of prayer. 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said that when he returned from Abyssinia and met the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) while he was praying, he said, "Peace be upon you." He said, "So he did not return the greeting to me, and I was distressed by what was near and what was far. And when he (peace and blessings be upon him) completed his prayer, he said: . So saying "Peace be upon you" to the person praying at that time and returning it with "And upon you peace" was permissible because it was based on the original state and the original presumption of innocence, as al-Shawkani says in his book *Irsad al-Fuhul ila 'Ilm al-Usul*: "The original presumption of innocence is a rule to which one should return in many cases." So now we have a hadith that we have assumed is authentic in itself: , and another hadith: . Do we negate one with the other and say that the one that cuts off the prayer is abrogated and the one that does not cut off the prayer is the abrogating one? We say, as the scholars of usul, or the principles of hadith and the principles of fiqh, say: One only resorts to claiming abrogation between two conflicting reports if it is not possible to reconcile them by any of the many methods of reconciliation, which al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi mentioned in his commentary on the introduction of Ibn al-Salah on the sciences of hadith as being more than one hundred methods. More than one hundred methods by which two conflicting texts can be reconciled. So when all these methods are exhausted and none of them allows for the reconciliation of two conflicting hadiths, then, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar indicated in his commentary on *al-Nukhba*, one resorts to claiming abrogation. One traces the abrogating from the abrogated if possible. He said: If it is not possible, one resorts to preferring one over the other, and it is said, "This is hasan (good) and this is sahih (authentic)." One cannot claim abrogation because we have no date for them, so we say, "This is more authentic than this," so we take the more authentic one and leave the authentic one. And if they are equal in authenticity, then the matter becomes narrow, and they said it is obligatory to leave the matter and the knowledge to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). So, has the matter between these two hadiths—the first being authentic by assumption and the other being authentic in reality—reached the point where we say one of them is abrogating? The answer is no, because one of them is general and the other is specific. The one that does not cut off the prayer is a general text, and the other is a specific text. So we specify the general with the specific, and this is a well-known rule among all scholars. There are many examples of this, not only in the Sunnah but in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. How many hadiths have restricted the absolute meanings of the texts of the Qur'an, and how many hadiths have specified the general verses in the Qur'an? If this is the case between the Qur'an and the Sunnah, should it not be the same between a hadith that we have assumed to be authentic and another hadith that is authentic in reality? It is necessary to reconcile them, and it is not permissible to negate one with the other. So we say, for example, the hadith: invalidates the hadith: . No, we do not say this because it is possible to reconcile them. And even more so, it is not permissible for a student of knowledge, who may have lived in a specific madhhab (school of jurisprudence) that says this hadith, which some have graded as hasan, does not cut off the prayer, to be influenced by a madhhab that adopted the generality of this hadith. What is his position regarding the hadith: ? It does not concern him to define his position toward this authentic hadith; what is important is that he finds a support for his madhhab, and this is the hadith. And Ibn Hajar has graded it as hasan. It does not concern me now to be precise because there is no way to do so. Was his grading of it as hasan for its own sake or for another reason? And it does not concern us even if it is established that his grading was for its own sake, because we have assumed that it is authentic for its own sake. Does it contradict the hadith: ? The answer is no. The reconciliation is that this is a general text and that is a specific text, and the specific text takes precedence over the general text, on the assumption that it is authentic. But if it is not authentic in reality, then we say, as some people in some countries say, "This dead person does not deserve this condolence," so it is a weak hadith, and we do not give it weight against the authentic hadith. As for the scientific discussion, it is like this: The hadith: is authentic to you from a hadith perspective. There is no harm in your madhhab if you fear Allah in that. But fear Allah in the fiqh aspect. What do you do with the hadith that cuts off the prayer of one of you? You must define your position toward it. There is no way to a legal definition except to say that this hadith, if it is authentic, is general, and that one is specific, and the specific takes precedence over the general. And in conclusion, I bring to you this path based on the scientific hadith and fiqh methodology with a verse from the Qur'an and a hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and how it is not permissible to rely on generalities as long as they have been subjected to specification. So we read in the words of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) His statement (Blessed and Exalted is He): to the end of the verse. And we read in what we read of the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . Do we negate this hadith? And I say in advance that there is a difference in its establishment, although the stronger position with us is that it has been established as mawquf (stopping at a Companion) on Ibn 'Umar, and it is in the ruling of marfu' (traced to the Prophet) because it is not said by mere opinion, and especially since some of this text has been found to have a corroborating narration in Sahih Muslim in the story of Abu 'Ubaydah ibn al-Jirrah when he went out as a mujahid in the path of Allah and their food, which was dates, ran out and they became hungry, so Allah (Mighty and Majestic) cast upon the shore of the Red Sea a huge, very large fish, and they ate from it and provisioned themselves from it to the end of the story. And it was dead. So it is a corroborating narration, but it is a deficient corroborating narration because it corroborates part of Ibn 'Umar's hadith and not its entirety. So let us stop at this authentic hadith in Muslim: "This is carrion, and how did you eat it?" And Allah says: . The answer is that the scholars specified the verse or restricted it with this hadith in Sahih Muslim and with that hadith found in the Sunan, which is established in the stronger position with us. So if it is permissible to specify the generality of the Qur'an or restrict the absolute meaning of the Qur'an with a hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then even more so it is permissible to specify the generality of a hadith with a specific hadith. This is the end of the discussion regarding this hadith... Yes, Shaykh 'Abd al-Muhsin has something, so please proceed.