The questioner : May Allah preserve you, for example, the teachers of Imam al-Shafi'i sometimes say, "A trustworthy man narrated to me," or "A man I do not suspect narrated to me."

The questioner : May Allah preserve you, for example, the teachers of Imam al-Shafi'i sometimes say, "A trustworthy man narrated to me," or "A man I do not suspect narrated to me," which involves ijtihad. Or al-Hasan al-Basri sometimes says, "A trustworthy man narrated to me," or "A man I do not suspect narrated to me." There are those who defend this by saying that in the time of al-Hasan al-Basri, the Umayyads were in power and there was conflict between the House of the Prophet and them, so he meant a man among the trustworthy ones, so-and-so or such-and-such. Is this specification and this explicit naming of so-and-so acted upon, especially if there is no disagreement about him, or if there is disagreement but everyone revolves around the fact that he is trustworthy? Let us suppose they disagreed, but this one and that one, and the third and the fourth, are all trustworthy. Does this benefit the matter of authenticity, may Allah preserve you?

The Shaykh : According to the rules, many of which have been mentioned previously, I say: if the memorizers agreed on something, there is no refutation of it. But if they disagreed, then it is a matter of ijtihad. We look at the statements of these mujtahids and perform a weighing of their statements. Whatever appears stronger to us, relying on their rules, we act upon; otherwise, we do not. You gave the example of al-Hasan al-Basri. As you know, al-Hasan al-Basri, as you mentioned, lived during the reign of the Umayyads and perhaps could not name his teacher, so he would conceal him and drop his name. We apply the same rule here regarding the teacher of al-Hasan al-Basri. If they agreed—and I do not think such agreement exists, specifically regarding al-Hasan al-Basri and the teacher he drops, so-and-so; I do not have in my mind that such agreement exists. If they disagreed, we apply the rules we indicated.

The questioner : O Shaykh, what is your practice in such a case? "A man narrated to me," "A man I do not suspect narrated to me," "A trustworthy man narrated to me," and they say the man is so-and-so and the trustworthy one is so-and-so. Do you rely on this explicit naming?

The Shaykh : I said this is my practice.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If you recall what I mentioned earlier regarding agreement or disagreement, I take what is agreed upon. As for what is disputed, I apply my reasoning and research and prefer what appears to me to be stronger. But specifically regarding al-Hasan al-Basri, I have no preference in this matter. I say that al-Hasan al-Basri is a tadlis narrator, but I make an exception if he narrates from the Tabi'un.

The questioner : Yes, that has been mentioned before.

The Shaykh : As for if he narrates from a Companion among the Companions, I persist in not using his "from" (an'anah) as evidence. I do not have a specific position here that differs from this.