Continuation of the discussion regarding the accusation that the Salafis do not show respect to the four Imams

The Shaykh : I give this as an example from among our Imams, we the people of hadith, so that everyone knows that we have no fanaticism for anyone or against anyone. The Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) is the first of the four Imams in terms of generation, and he is famous for his fiqh (may Allah have mercy on him). We undoubtedly benefit from his knowledge in his fiqh, but we do not describe him with the six Imams; we describe him with the four Imams in fiqh, but we do not describe him with the six Imams in what concerns hadith, in terms of preservation, authentication, and weakening. This is because the Imam Abu Hanifah was not known for traveling and touring the lands to collect the Sunnah and hadiths from various narrators, as happened with many of the Imams of hadith, and especially from among them the six Imams: al-Bukhari and the rest. But as I said earlier, we classify him with the four Imams in fiqh, but we also do not elevate him above the station that Allah has placed him in. We do not say he is like Ahmad, the Imam of the Sunnah, due to his abundance of narrating hadith and his knowledge of the men, in terms of vindication and criticism. Nor do we attach him to the Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), from whom it is authentically reported that he used to say to his student, the Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), "When a hadith comes to you as authentic, inform me of it, whether it is from Kufa, Basra, Egypt, or the Hijaz, so that I may act upon it." The Imam al-Shafi'i acknowledged to the Imam Ahmad his superiority in comprehending the Sunnah over the Imam al-Shafi'i himself (may Allah have mercy on him). It is like this. But we also say that the Imam al-Shafi'i is stronger in understanding from the Book and the Sunnah than the Imam Ahmad. If it were not for the Imam Ahmad assisting him to surpass all the Imams of ijtihad, if it were not for the abundance of his material in hadith, the Imam al-Shafi'i would have been superior to him in fiqh, because he is stronger than him in derivation. But the Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) was content with hadiths and athar, so he did not need to employ opinion and ijtihad as the Imam al-Shafi'i did. Likewise, we say that the Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) is not the Imam of the City of Migration in the same way as the Imam al-Shafi'i in comprehending the Sunnah and understanding it, let alone being like the Imam Ahmad in comprehending the Sunnah. So each has his station. Therefore, if we say that the Imam Abu Hanifah is a jurist among the four jurists, but he is not a hadith scholar, we do not wrong him or deprive him of his right, because this was his reality. His preoccupation with fiqh and derivation, and the lack of ease in traveling and touring the lands, made him rely on derivation from the Book and the Sunnah within the limits that Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) opened for him. I do not want to withhold the answer to what came in the question, which some people today may attack Abu Hanifah regarding, relying on many, and I do not say some, of the statements that came regarding Abu Hanifah, and that he is not relied upon in hadith. Here we must also say a word of truth. There are many scholars and jurists who were known, due to their preoccupation with fiqh, to have weak memory and retention, so they were not known for their abundance in narrating hadith first, and then they were not known for their precision in what they narrated of hadith second. Among these was Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, who is one of the seven jurists. And among these was Abu Hanifah, the first Imam of the four Imams. If we say that Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla is a jurist but weak in hadith, this was not an attack on him, but rather a description of him and an explanation of his state in narrating hadith, so that we take his hadith with caution and give him the rank he deserves when the scholars of hadith described him as weak in memory and retention. What indicates that all people, except whom Allah protects, are between excess and deficiency, as for justice, as for description, this is rarely found. And this is what we call people to. You find the fanatics for Abu Hanifah elevating him to the sky in what? If they had limited this to the precision of understanding and derivation, as came from the Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) when he said, "People are dependents in fiqh upon Abu Hanifah," if his fanatical followers had elevated him to the sky only in what concerns fiqh, we would have found an excuse for them, because the Imam al-Shafi'i, who he is! in knowledge and fiqh, as we said earlier, they would have had an argument for that. But to describe him with precision and memory first, and then to turn to sneering, mocking, and attacking the great Imams, among whom are the Imam Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, 'Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, and others who described Abu Hanifah as weak in memory, the fanaticism of these people for Abu Hanifah reached the point where they say that the description of these Imams of Abu Hanifah with poor memory was due to their fanaticism against him. And the meaning of that is that these Imams, the Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) whom we rely upon in this field, in the field of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, are not pious, in that they criticized Abu Hanifah in narration without right, but rather out of fanaticism against him. So what did the fanatics for Abu Hanifah do?
To save Abu Hanifah from a matter for which he is not held accountable by the Shari'ah, they attacked Imams among the Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil. If their attack on them were valid, it would be a criticism of them. So the saving of an Imam from among the Imams of the Muslims from what does not harm him, which is the description that he was poor in memory, was an attack on those Imams. And I had investigated the majority of them, and they reached about fifteen hadith scholars from the early and later generations, all of whom followed one another in describing Abu Hanifah as weak in his hadith. They attacked all these persons, the great Imams, the giants, for what! Saving Abu Hanifah from poor memory is not a defect. And what indicates to you and confirms for you that sectarian fanaticism is doing its work is that you do not find in them such enthusiasm in defending Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla. 'Abd al-Rahman was a great Tabi'i, and his son Muhammad is one of the seven jurists, a jurist, a great Imam. But in hadith, his case is like the case of Abu Hanifah. They do not defend Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla because he is not an Imam, he has no standing in fiqh, even though he is an Imam from among the Imams of the Muslims in fiqh. So they defend their Imam with falsehood, and they do not defend others because they only care about the victory of their Imam with falsehood. I return to say: Is describing a narrator with what is in him considered an impermissible attack in the Shari'ah? The answer is: No. And if it were not for that, this science, the well-known science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, would not be serious. If the scholars of hadith had been scrupulous like the cold Sufis, and had not described every narrator with what is in him of weakness in his memory or an accusation against his truthfulness, the Shari'ah of Islam would have become like the Shari'ah of the Jews and the Christians, and there would be no way for us to distinguish what is authentic from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), just as the Jews and the Christians cannot distinguish between the authentic narrations reported from their prophets and the weak narrations. Therefore, it was among the characteristics of this Islamic community that it was unique in something called isnad (the chain of narration). And some of the Imams of hadith said, "The isnad is part of the religion, and if it were not for the isnad, whoever wished would say what he wished." And what is the meaning of "the isnad is part of the religion"? The chain of narrators who take from one another, and the hadith reaches the Companion to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is the isnad. If we do not know the state of every narrator from among these narrators, we will not be able to benefit from the sanad (the chain of narration) first, and then to know the authentic hadith from the weak one second. The Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil went to the extent that they seek nearness to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) in their saying, "So-and-so is truthful but poor in memory," "So-and-so is truthful but makes many mistakes," "So-and-so is excessive and poor in memory," "So-and-so is abandoned and accused," "So-and-so is a liar," "So-and-so is a fabricator," "So-and-so is a deceiver." And describing the narrators of hadith by the Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil is part of their complete advice to their community, as you know in the authentic hadith . So if you are bored, I am not yet bored, and therefore I hope for your attention, otherwise we will move on and you will move on with us, guided, if Allah wills, to the Imams of the Muslims and their common people. And whoever advises the common people of the Muslims to distinguish the good from the bad, first for the knowledge of the narration, and second for the right of companionship, of the companionship of the believer, as came in the hadith
So, if you see a man associating with an open sinner or associating with an innovator, even if this innovator is righteous in appearance, and you come to this companion who is deceived by this righteous-looking innovator and say to him, "My brother, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said ," then this is an innovator, this is a man of bad character. You are not to be a backbiter, nor an abuser, nor a slanderer. The believer is not a slanderer, nor a curser, as came in the authentic hadith. But if you place the criticism in its proper place, you will be pleasing to your Lord, and it may be beneficial in this regard that we narrate to you the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and others. The hadith of Abu Hurayrah was narrated by Imam al-Bukhari in *Al-Adab al-Mufrad* with a good chain that rose to the level of authenticity due to its coming from another path. A man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said, "O Messenger of Allah, my neighbor has wronged me." Pay attention now. This wronged man's statement, "My neighbor has wronged me," is it not criticism? It is criticism. Is it not backbiting? Yes, it is backbiting. So look at what the position of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was.
"My neighbor has wronged me." He said, So the man did it. And the road, naturally, is called a road only because it is traveled. So whenever people passed by and saw this phenomenon that attracted their attention, they said, "What is the matter with you, so-and-so?" He said, "My neighbor has wronged me." And what they did was nothing but say, "May Allah kill him, may Allah curse him." Is this criticism or not? It is terrible criticism. And the wronging neighbor heard all these criticisms, so he ran to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to say to him, "O Messenger of Allah, order my neighbor to return his belongings to his house, for the people have cursed me." He (peace and blessings be upon him) said, . From such a hadith and long research, but I will summarize it with two verses of poetry that I memorized in my youth. This is legal poetry that should be memorized because it is smooth and beautiful, and it contains rulings scattered in the Book and the Sunnah. They said:
"Criticism is not backbiting in six cases: *** The complainant, the one who informs, and the one who warns
And the one who exposes open sin, and the one who asks for a ruling, and the one *** Who seeks except for the removal of a wrong
" Criticism is backbiting and forbidden, but in these six things it is not forbidden. On this legal principle, the Imams of hadith proceeded when they criticized and vindicated, advising the Ummah. Then, out of their scrupulousness and fear of their Lord, no blame from a blamer affected them. So the fact that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layth was among the jurists did not prevent them from describing him as having poor memory in his narration of hadith. Likewise, the fact that they knew, as al-Shafi'i said, that Abu Hanifa was "the people are dependent on him in his jurisprudence" did not prevent them from describing him as weak in hadith, advising the Ummah. Why? This is Abu Dawud, the author of the Sunan, who accuses his son Abdullah ibn Abu Dawud, saying with a word more severe than what was said about Abu Hanifa regarding criticism: "My son is a liar, my son is a liar." And Ali ibn al-Madini also testifies that his father Abdullah is weak. So why do these partisan people care about the words of the Imams of criticism regarding some jurists, and do not look at their fairness when this one criticizes his son and that one criticizes his father? All of this is to protect the Prophetic hadith from having what is not from it mixed into it. In summary, in answering this question: The Salafis do not criticize any of the Imams of the Muslims, but they place each one in the position that Allah has placed him in. This is first. And second, their saying, following the Imams of criticism and vindication, that an Imam among the Imams of the Muslims is weak in hadith or that his hadith is not taken, this is not criticism of the kind that it is not permissible for a Muslim to fall into. Rather, it is among the six exceptions mentioned earlier. Perhaps this news is sufficient... One question.

The questioner : One question only.

The Shaykh: One question, please.