If the Salaf agreed on an issue and this scholar came and contradicted them, is he exercising independent legal reasoning in that?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah bless you. Regarding the issue of independent legal reasoning in creed, there is a rule among the people of the Sunnah that matters of transmission are not subject to independent legal reasoning. I once asked a famous shaykh, may Allah reward him with good:
The Shaykh : What did you ask?
The questioner : The Shaykh : A famous one.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And he told me this rule. But what we want to clarify here is: if a scholar comes with a statement, and the Salaf all agreed on it, from the Companions and the Tabi'un to others up to his time, and then this scholar rejected that statement, and he was given such descriptions, being a well-known scholar recognized for his knowledge and attested to by all scholars, and he rejected this statement with his intellect or his opinion or through his own independent legal reasoning, and he used words from his independent legal reasoning regarding these people, thereby denying the attributes, do we say: did he actually exercise independent legal reasoning here, given that the Companions are all agreed upon on that?
The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you. We cannot enter into people's hearts. When we said what we said earlier, we meant by that: is this person held accountable by Allah the Exalted or not? Is he held accountable by Allah in the sense that the argument was established against him, so he is held accountable, or is he not held accountable? Humans cannot delve deep and reach what is in the heart. Only the Knower of the Unseen knows what is in the hearts, as is well known.
The Shaykh: Now, you have been going on and on about what you quoted regarding the issue of consensus. If consensus is valid for one person, does it necessarily have to be valid for every person?
The questioner : The answer is no, of course.
The Shaykh : Of course not. And so, when you assume that the righteous Salaf all agreed on something, and a learned man came and denied this consensus, and said something contrary to them, we can declare this contradictor to be in error, but we cannot declare him a disbeliever. That is, we cannot enter into his heart and rule that he is as Allah the Exalted said about some of the polytheists:[An-Naml 27:14]. We cannot reach that point. All we can do is rule that this person erred. If you wish, or if I wish, I can say, or I said, yes. But as for disbelief and denial, that is a matter of the heart, and we cannot communicate with it.
The questioner : My Shaykh, may Allah bless you. I do not intend by my words declaring someone a disbeliever, or an open sinner, or misguided. But what I mean is: does his rejection, for example, his rejection of the scholars... other than the consensus held by another scholar, but does he actually exercise independent legal reasoning...?
The Shaykh : Your position is clear. There is nothing new in your words. Independent legal reasoning for the one obligated relates to the heart and the action. As for others, they cannot rule that he exercised independent legal reasoning or did not. Is this a self-evident truth or not? That is, you cannot rule that I exercised independent legal reasoning or did not, that I followed the research in a way that intends what he said, peace and blessings be upon him:Sunan an-Nasa'i 5381Sahih (Darussalam). You cannot rule on any person that he exercised independent legal reasoning or did not, so that you build upon his independent legal reasoning that he is excused, or build upon his lack of independent legal reasoning that he is not excused. But he knows what he is doing. So if he exerted his effort to know the truth, by the means that are available to him, and Allah knew from him sincerity and purity of intention in seeking the truth, but he was not successful in reaching it. Here comes the hadith: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1326Sahih (Darussalam). I do not see a difference in repeating what I heard from you earlier. If two scholars differ in authenticating or weakening a single hadith, and the one who weakened it denied its authenticity, then if he denied it while being excused, he is excused. And if he denied it out of spite and denial of the effort of the first successful mujtahid, then he is in clear misguidance. There is no difference between jurisprudence, creed, and hadith in terms of authenticating and weakening. You know that a hadith may be authentic according to all of them, but it may reach the level of mass transmission for some and not for others, and so on. So the issue is relative, and the judgment belongs to the Knower of the Unseen, who knows what is in the hearts. He is the one who will judge and condemn every person for what he did. If he exercised independent legal reasoning and hit the mark, he has two rewards. If he erred, he has one reward in any case. I mean, do not be in difficulty. State what you have so that I understand well and give you what I have, if I have anything.
The questioner : The Shaykh, the issue is that the names and attributes are known to be a matter of transmission, meaning the people of the Sunnah agree on them or affirm them. But as I said, we do not want to use these terms. We say that he exercised independent legal reasoning and erred and was misguided, or terms like that. We do not want to declare anyone a disbeliever in this issue. But my intention is that in such a case, like a foundational issue for the people of the Sunnah and the community:
The questioner: When, for example, a person rejects all these attributes, or one attribute, we say, for example, he exercised independent legal reasoning in a branch of the branches. But when, for example, he rejects all the attributes and denies others, and uses terms that are not permissible for this, this is what I want... to understand.
The Shaykh : I see that the issue has developed. The question was about an imam who denied one attribute. Now you have jumped, you have jumped like gazelles, to denying all the attributes.
The questioner : That is my intention.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That is my intention... it is clear.
The Shaykh : Never mind. Were you the one who asked the first question?
The questioner : No, it wasn't just me.
The Shaykh : Okay, my brother, every question has an answer. I do not think, as they say, we put the dots on the letters. I do not think an imam from the imams of the Muslims denied all these attributes. Who would that be? It would be Jahm ibn Safwan, or Ja'd, or their like. But an imam from the imams of the Muslims denying all the attributes, that is not conceivable. Now you are saying he denied all the attributes. Okay, let's define it: a man denied all the attributes. What is the question? So that I can give you the answer in the briefest words.
The questioner : The question.
The Shaykh : He denied all the attributes. What is the question?
The questioner : Is he in this case exercising independent legal reasoning or not?
The Shaykh : No, he is not a mujtahid.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Of course. But it goes back to the previous research. If he did not deny all the attributes, but believed in some and denied some, could he be a mujtahid?
The questioner : In this case, it is possible.
The Shaykh : If so,
The questioner : My intention is, never mind, I apologize for the issue of, meaning, all the attributes.
The Shaykh : Good, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Now we move to the second question, if you please.
The Shaykh : What did you ask?
The questioner : The Shaykh : A famous one.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And he told me this rule. But what we want to clarify here is: if a scholar comes with a statement, and the Salaf all agreed on it, from the Companions and the Tabi'un to others up to his time, and then this scholar rejected that statement, and he was given such descriptions, being a well-known scholar recognized for his knowledge and attested to by all scholars, and he rejected this statement with his intellect or his opinion or through his own independent legal reasoning, and he used words from his independent legal reasoning regarding these people, thereby denying the attributes, do we say: did he actually exercise independent legal reasoning here, given that the Companions are all agreed upon on that?
The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you. We cannot enter into people's hearts. When we said what we said earlier, we meant by that: is this person held accountable by Allah the Exalted or not? Is he held accountable by Allah in the sense that the argument was established against him, so he is held accountable, or is he not held accountable? Humans cannot delve deep and reach what is in the heart. Only the Knower of the Unseen knows what is in the hearts, as is well known.
The Shaykh: Now, you have been going on and on about what you quoted regarding the issue of consensus. If consensus is valid for one person, does it necessarily have to be valid for every person?
The questioner : The answer is no, of course.
The Shaykh : Of course not. And so, when you assume that the righteous Salaf all agreed on something, and a learned man came and denied this consensus, and said something contrary to them, we can declare this contradictor to be in error, but we cannot declare him a disbeliever. That is, we cannot enter into his heart and rule that he is as Allah the Exalted said about some of the polytheists:
And they rejected them, while their [inner] selves were convinced thereof
وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنْفُسُهُمْThe questioner : My Shaykh, may Allah bless you. I do not intend by my words declaring someone a disbeliever, or an open sinner, or misguided. But what I mean is: does his rejection, for example, his rejection of the scholars... other than the consensus held by another scholar, but does he actually exercise independent legal reasoning...?
The Shaykh : Your position is clear. There is nothing new in your words. Independent legal reasoning for the one obligated relates to the heart and the action. As for others, they cannot rule that he exercised independent legal reasoning or did not. Is this a self-evident truth or not? That is, you cannot rule that I exercised independent legal reasoning or did not, that I followed the research in a way that intends what he said, peace and blessings be upon him:
If a judge passes judgment and strives
إذا حكم الحاكم فإجتهدAnd when he judges and is mistaken, then he receives one reward.
وإن أخطأ فله أجر واحدThe questioner : The Shaykh, the issue is that the names and attributes are known to be a matter of transmission, meaning the people of the Sunnah agree on them or affirm them. But as I said, we do not want to use these terms. We say that he exercised independent legal reasoning and erred and was misguided, or terms like that. We do not want to declare anyone a disbeliever in this issue. But my intention is that in such a case, like a foundational issue for the people of the Sunnah and the community:
The questioner: When, for example, a person rejects all these attributes, or one attribute, we say, for example, he exercised independent legal reasoning in a branch of the branches. But when, for example, he rejects all the attributes and denies others, and uses terms that are not permissible for this, this is what I want... to understand.
The Shaykh : I see that the issue has developed. The question was about an imam who denied one attribute. Now you have jumped, you have jumped like gazelles, to denying all the attributes.
The questioner : That is my intention.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That is my intention... it is clear.
The Shaykh : Never mind. Were you the one who asked the first question?
The questioner : No, it wasn't just me.
The Shaykh : Okay, my brother, every question has an answer. I do not think, as they say, we put the dots on the letters. I do not think an imam from the imams of the Muslims denied all these attributes. Who would that be? It would be Jahm ibn Safwan, or Ja'd, or their like. But an imam from the imams of the Muslims denying all the attributes, that is not conceivable. Now you are saying he denied all the attributes. Okay, let's define it: a man denied all the attributes. What is the question? So that I can give you the answer in the briefest words.
The questioner : The question.
The Shaykh : He denied all the attributes. What is the question?
The questioner : Is he in this case exercising independent legal reasoning or not?
The Shaykh : No, he is not a mujtahid.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Of course. But it goes back to the previous research. If he did not deny all the attributes, but believed in some and denied some, could he be a mujtahid?
The questioner : In this case, it is possible.
The Shaykh : If so,
The questioner : My intention is, never mind, I apologize for the issue of, meaning, all the attributes.
The Shaykh : Good, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Now we move to the second question, if you please.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.