And peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, and I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. As for what follows, O our Shaykh, may Allah preserve you.

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, and I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. As for what follows, O our Shaykh, may Allah preserve you. In some of the books of 'Ilal and biographies, they mentioned that Imam Malik ibn Anas, Ibn Sirin, and Hammad ibn Zayd stop marfu' reports as a precaution. The narration is marfu' in their view, but they stop it as a precaution, so they consider it mawquf (stopped at a Companion).

The Shaykh : So, you mean they stop it.

The questioner : They stop it. Yes, you have done well. May Allah preserve you. They stop the hadith as a precaution, even though it is marfu' in their view. Here, the question is as follows: If Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), who holds a high status in verification, precision, and integrity, were contradicted by a trustworthy narrator who traced the hadith to the Prophet, while Imam Malik stopped it, can it be said that Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) stopped the hadith as a precaution, and that the hadith is to be considered valid in both forms? And following up on the question, if the one contradicting Malik is also a truthful narrator, is the ruling the same, or does it change? May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : What appears to me, and Allah knows best, is that what is reported about Imam Malik—that he stops marfu' reports as a precaution—is not that he stops every marfu' report in his view. That is what I do not think. Because if we answered in the affirmative, we would contradict the documented reality. This is a step that leads us to conclude that this absolute statement is not intended to be comprehensive and general; rather, it is restricted, necessitated by observing the reality we alluded to earlier. If that is the case, we must now stop at discovering the restriction. What is it? I believe that Imam Malik, I do not think, and perhaps I may dare to say, I believe that the hadith about him was narrated by him from a trustworthy person, such as his Shaykh Nafi', from Ibn Umar, as marfu', and then he stops it at Ibn Umar. I do not think this is the case. In fact, I am certain that he does not do this. Therefore, Imam Malik’s reservation must be regarding a narrator in whom he does not have full trust in his precision, memorization, and mastery of the hadith. Here, this hesitation to trace it to the Prophet has a basis. If this is correct, it makes it easy for us to reach the answer to the crux of the matter, as they say, which is: If there is a difference between a hadith narrated by Malik as mawquf and a narration by a truthful narrator who traced this mawquf report to the Prophet, is the tracing to the Prophet accepted, or is it left aside because Malik, the trustworthy one, stopped it? I say that if the situation is like this, or if the cause is as we mentioned, the consideration and argumentation with the marfu' narration of the truthful narrator is what should be relied upon, not the reservation of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him). Especially since we do not know that narrator whom it is assumed Imam Malik narrated from and doubted his precision and firmness.The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, I heard you in this answer saying that Imam Malik ibn Anas (may Allah have mercy on him) does not have full trust in him. Does the word "full" imply a specific distinction? I mean, if we assume, for example, that the word "full" is a distinction from a specific type, but it includes the trustworthy (thiqah) and the truthful (siddiq), and the trustworthy is not like the full trust, such as the full trust in Ibn Nafi', for example?

The Shaykh : Let it be so. We have an unknown truthful narrator and a known truthful narrator. This one is more probable for us than that unknown truthful narrator. In any case, the result is the same in my opinion.

The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, these places in the 'Ilal of al-Daraqutni were...The Shaykh : Imam Malik is famous in hadith, but considering the description of the situation here, I do not have the examples mentioned. So, I cannot mention an example for that. What I mention is that he is a famous, well-known Shaykh, and there is no one like him whom Malik would criticize.

The Shaykh : How do you mean?

The questioner : I mean.

The Shaykh : Imagine now, don't imagine something that is not present to you. Our previous example, our previous example, and for Malik from Nafi'.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : For Malik from Nafi' from Ibn Umar.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I mean, this is how the example would be here in your imagination.

The questioner : As far as I remember, this is as far as I remember, in the status of Malik or close to Nafi'. Yes.

The Shaykh : No problem, we accept this closeness.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : And he stopped them as a precaution. He stopped them and did not trace them to the Prophet. Imam al-Daraqutni combined the two forms and said, "It is known from the madhab of Imam Malik..." He also mentioned in another place regarding Ibn Sirin, saying, "It is known from the madhab of Ibn Sirin that he may stop, meaning in some marfu' reports in his view, as a precaution, so the hadith is considered valid in both forms, out of his piety. He said, 'Out of his piety, such and such.'"

The Shaykh : No problem, may Allah bless you.

The questioner : And you.

The Shaykh : Now we stop at Imam Malik, because he is more famous than Imam Ibn Sirin, despite his virtue and knowledge. How did Imam al-Daraqutni discover that Imam Malik narrated from...The Shaykh : So-and-so, who in the example is Nafi'.

The questioner : Yes, hypothetically.

The Shaykh : How did Imam al-Daraqutni discover that Malik said, "From Nafi' from Ibn Umar, Ibn Umar said," while the reality is that Malik heard it from Nafi' from Ibn Umar, and Ibn Umar said, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said," but he, as a precaution, traced this marfu' report and stopped it? How was he able to uncover this?

The questioner : This is directed to Imam al-Daraqutni. This is me asking with the difficulty, but I expect, for example, in such a case, by combining the routes, it became clear to him that Malik narrated the hadith in both forms, which indicates that it was preserved in his view as marfu'.

The Shaykh : Okay, and from where can he say that he intentionally stopped it as a precaution?

The questioner : This is the statement of al-Daraqutni, not my statement.

The Shaykh : No problem, not every statement has a perspective. Not every... opinion.

Another questioner : "Not every difference is considered *** Except a difference that has a share of consideration."

The Shaykh : I mean, not every opinion has a share of consideration. The important thing is that we do not bring new rules, but we do not submit to individual opinions. There is a difference. If a man, an Imam famous for his knowledge, virtue, memorization, and sifting, critiques a hadith that is authentic in narration but may not be authentic in understanding, and the critic did not mention the cause, neither in narration nor in understanding, and the follower of this critic, like us, for example, did not uncover that it contradicts a narration or that it contradicts an understanding, in this case, these same scholars do not impose on us to be their followers blindly.

The questioner : Yes, I mean, Shaykh, this is a great benefit. I benefit from it with the famous, well-known rules. Nothing like them is displaced by the statements of individual scholars.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : If we can confine the statements of individual scholars to a specific narrow scope with its evidence and indications, otherwise nothing like them displaces the famous rules that the majority of scholars of knowledge work with.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Please, proceed.

Another questioner : Shaykh, may Allah preserve you, a perspective comes to my mind regarding the issue that our brother Abu al-Hasan spoke about in the words of al-Daraqutni.

The Shaykh : Please.

Another questioner : I say, may Allah preserve you, perhaps Imam al-Daraqutni, through the routes he stopped at that were marfu', was reassured about the tracing to the Prophet. So when he found Malik's narration, he wanted, out of good opinion, to interpret it in this way, not to reject it or to attribute error and mistake to him. So, to interpret it out of good opinion as piety, scrupulousness, and caution, in contrast to that group who traced it to the Prophet, which is more probable, is easier than to accuse him of error or to imply that he preferred those over him.

The Shaykh : This is an acceptable explanation, if not for...

The questioner : If not for...

The Shaykh : If not for the fact that there is an exit that we always mention on such an occasion, and I remember well that we mentioned it in a session among our considered sessions with the presence of Abu al-Hasan, may Allah bless him. When we say that if a trustworthy narrator narrates a hadith sometimes as marfu' and sometimes as mawquf, we explain this stopping by saying that the narrator may be active sometimes and trace it to the Prophet, and may not be active sometimes and stop it. And the session may not support him to narrate in the way of the hadith scholars, so he limits himself to mentioning the hadith as mawquf. I mean, there are other reasons that do not criticize this trustworthy narrator who traced the hadith to the Prophet sometimes and stopped it another time. This is preferable to attributing to him that he was cautious because the reality, which I mentioned earlier, came to my weak mind.