What is your opinion regarding al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s restriction of accepting the mursal report of a Companion to only those hadiths concerning rulings?

The questioner : Here, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in *Fath al-Bari*, Volume 1, page 144, restricted the acceptance of the mursal report of a Companion to only those hadiths concerning rulings, and not others. He said, “For some Companions may have transmitted it from some of the Tabi’un, such as Ka’b al-Ahbar.” What do you think of that?

The Shaykh : The answer to this has already been given.

The questioner : Such a matter is not worth paying attention to.

The Shaykh : The answer was given previously. When I think I asked, “What is the ruling on a hadith mawquf at a Companion? Is it used as evidence or not?” I answered, as I have held in my mind for many years, that a mawquf report from a Companion, if it is a matter of ijtihad, research, or opinion, is not used as evidence and is not attributed to the status of a marfu’ report. This is different from when it concerns the unseen matters (ghaybiyyat) about which the human mind has no room to speak with its own opinion. Naturally, this statement is regarding Muslims. As for the expression we use in Syria for geographers or non-Muslims in general, these people mean... no, what is it? No, what is it? After disbelief, what do they say? Ah, is it not a sin after disbelief? The point is, our discussion is naturally about these Muslims who adhere to the rulings of the religion. Among those rulings is that a Muslim does not speak about the unseen based on guesswork. So, if a mawquf report from a Companion speaks about something, as it is said today, “beyond nature,” meaning matters of the unseen, this cannot be said based on opinion, ijtihad, guesswork, or conjecture, and so on. However, I made an exception that it should not be possible for it to be from the Isra’iliyyat.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And at that time, it should have been, and I do not know why we turned away from it at that time, to give an example of a mawquf hadith that is undoubtedly in the status of a marfu’ hadith. It is the hadith of Ibn Abbas in his interpretation of some Qur’anic verses, stating that the Qur’an was sent down in one piece, with this precision, to the House of Glory in the lowest heaven. This cannot be said based on opinion or ijtihad. First, it is a matter of the unseen: who knows that it was sent down in one piece? Second, who knows that there is a house in the sky called by this specific name? And the lowest heaven is not above it, nor is it above that. These are indications that lead the reader’s mind to believe that this mawquf hadith from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was received from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). On the other hand, if a hadith from Ibn Abbas speaks about matters known among scholars as the beginning of creation, for example, concerning the creation of the heavens and the earth, or the creation of the jinn and shayatin, or the creation of Adam himself, and so on, it is possible that this is from the Isra’iliyyat. Here comes what I mentioned earlier: it is possible that it was with Ka’b al-Ahbar, or with others from the People of the Book who embraced Islam. You remember, if Allah wills, well what is mentioned in the biography of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As that he stood upon scrolls of the People of the Book at the Battle of Yarmouk, or yes, he narrated some things from them. Therefore, this scale must be applied to distinguish what is in the status of a marfu’ report and what is not. Also, on this occasion, I say that this is related to the prayer of the majority of Muslims today. When we read in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, with its authentic chain, from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, that Ibn Mas’ud said: and mentioned the tashahhud: Is this ijtihad? Impossible. Does he say, “We said it from ourselves”? This is impossible, especially since the one saying it is Ibn Mas’ud, from whom it is authentically reported that when he taught the tashahhud to some of his Companions, such as al-Aswad and ‘Uqba and their like, he said, “I take the letter from you; I take the letter from you.” This is the one who took the teaching of the tashahhud from his Companions letter by letter. Is it conceivable that he would come to the phrase “peace be upon you, O Prophet” and change it, having heard it directly from the teaching of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and say from himself, “Do not say ‘peace be upon you, O Prophet’ after the death of the Messenger, but rather say ‘peace be upon the Prophet’”? This, if it is not impossible, is close to impossibility. This is also said to be mawquf in the status of marfu’, and the reason is what we mentioned earlier. Then, this correct understanding is supported by this mawquf, which is apparent, by what ‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated in his *Musannaf* with a sound chain from Tawus, who said, “The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say in the tashahhud after the death of the Messenger, ‘peace be upon the Prophet.’” For this reason, some of the Shafi’i jurists, including Imam al-Subki, said, “If this is authentic, then the Sunnah today is for the one praying to say in the tashahhud, ‘peace be upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family).’” In this, and in this, is a lesson to block the path for the people of innovation who say, “If the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not hear the peace upon him, it would not have been prescribed for us to say today, ‘peace be upon you, O Prophet.’” The answer comes to the core: this was the case, and then it was raised.