If a trustworthy narrator explicitly states that he heard the hadith, but the imams agree that he did not hear it, which should be acted upon: the explicit statement of the trustworthy narrator or the agreement of the imams?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Also, this, our Shaykh, reminds us of the issue of the agreement of the imams. If, for example, they agree that so-and-so did not hear from so-and-so, and we have, meaning, the apparent chain of narration is continuous with trustworthy narrators, and it says "I heard" or "I asked" about such and such, or he asked him about issues, or one person heard it, is this relied upon despite the imams' explicit statement that he did not hear it?
The Shaykh : It is relied upon, because this negates the agreement.
The questioner : Simply by bringing the chain of narration.
The Shaykh : The correct one.
The questioner : The correct chain of narration, which is the intended one, because there is a place, our Shaykh, in al-Razi's "Al-Ilal" (Defects) where there is also disagreement regarding the hearing. Abu Hatim al-Razi's apparent view is that it is direct hearing, and Abu Hatim al-Razi said, but the people of hadith agreed or concurred that it was not so. The agreement of the scholars is a proof, so it is excluded from the musnad (book of hadiths) despite the explicit statement of hearing in the narration. He said it is excluded from the musnad. What about the confusion like this?
The Shaykh : I do not see anything other than what I mentioned.
The questioner : The first one I mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Yes, because if we study the denial, what do we imagine is their basis for the denial? Is there anything other than lack of knowledge of the matter?
The questioner : It is lack of knowledge.
The Shaykh : And this is a defect.
The questioner : Also, this, our Shaykh, reminds us of an issue.
The Shaykh : May Allah have mercy on you.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, sometimes I know by my words, may Allah preserve you, that knowledge takes precedence over ignorance.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Meaning, that is ignorance and this is knowledge, so knowledge takes precedence over ignorance.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : But as Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentioned in his book "Al-Ilal," some examples of this, and Imam Ahmad narrates, mentioning that there is an explicit statement of hearing, saying "he did not hear anything," despite the fact that he explicitly stated the hearing. He says so-and-so heard from so-and-so, and he says "he did not hear anything."
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Imam Ahmad does not care about the explicit statement and the hearing, and he also considered it a broken chain.
The Shaykh : No problem, why?
The questioner : I do not know what the reason is, Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Well, we stand by what we know. We are not obligated to examine what is in the hearts and minds of the scholars. We are obligated by the apparent, and Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, takes charge of the secrets. I said earlier that these scholars or memorizers who denied a narrator's hearing do not have anything other than the fact that they did not look into his hearing. But when the hadith comes to us through a correct chain with no blemish, it can be said, for example, in a chain where there is, for example, some talk.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It can be said of this, for example, that it is not attended to, or he did not attend to it. But if the chain is not of this kind, but rather it is correct, I remember some negating statements regarding hearing where the hearing exists in Sahih al-Bukhari, and perhaps something of this has passed you. What do we do with such a denial when we have the correct chain of al-Bukhari that establishes the hearing? The summary is that we do not have what obligates us to take the statement of the denier, and we have the correct chain that negates it. Yes.
The questioner : But our Shaykh, I remember a statement of yours from the past sessions, and from what is in the books or the tapes, for example, as the hadith was in Baqiyyah, despite the fact that our talk is general and not specific to Baqiyyah, but I wanted to mention what preceded from your excellence, which is that the students of Baqiyyah look at the "an'anah" between him and his shaykhs and narrate by meaning, converting the "an'anah" into hearing. And what sticks in my mind now from your books or your tapes is that it is possible that the explicit statement of hearing, with the imams' explicit statement of no hearing, is from the action of the narrators, or from a scribal error, or so on. Is this statement possible to benefit us in our research?
The Shaykh : This can benefit us if the statement of the deniers is directed at this specific chain of narration.
The questioner : At this specific chain of narration.
The Shaykh : Yes, this benefits us.
The questioner : As for generality.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : I say, may Allah preserve you, a little while ago also.The Shaykh : Al-Basit mentions in it, our brother Abu al-Hasan mentioned a little while ago that this statement is possible if there is in the chain what drives us to it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : But if they are trustworthy or established, the matter is different, and Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : It is relied upon, because this negates the agreement.
The questioner : Simply by bringing the chain of narration.
The Shaykh : The correct one.
The questioner : The correct chain of narration, which is the intended one, because there is a place, our Shaykh, in al-Razi's "Al-Ilal" (Defects) where there is also disagreement regarding the hearing. Abu Hatim al-Razi's apparent view is that it is direct hearing, and Abu Hatim al-Razi said, but the people of hadith agreed or concurred that it was not so. The agreement of the scholars is a proof, so it is excluded from the musnad (book of hadiths) despite the explicit statement of hearing in the narration. He said it is excluded from the musnad. What about the confusion like this?
The Shaykh : I do not see anything other than what I mentioned.
The questioner : The first one I mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Yes, because if we study the denial, what do we imagine is their basis for the denial? Is there anything other than lack of knowledge of the matter?
The questioner : It is lack of knowledge.
The Shaykh : And this is a defect.
The questioner : Also, this, our Shaykh, reminds us of an issue.
The Shaykh : May Allah have mercy on you.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, sometimes I know by my words, may Allah preserve you, that knowledge takes precedence over ignorance.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Meaning, that is ignorance and this is knowledge, so knowledge takes precedence over ignorance.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : But as Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentioned in his book "Al-Ilal," some examples of this, and Imam Ahmad narrates, mentioning that there is an explicit statement of hearing, saying "he did not hear anything," despite the fact that he explicitly stated the hearing. He says so-and-so heard from so-and-so, and he says "he did not hear anything."
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Imam Ahmad does not care about the explicit statement and the hearing, and he also considered it a broken chain.
The Shaykh : No problem, why?
The questioner : I do not know what the reason is, Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Well, we stand by what we know. We are not obligated to examine what is in the hearts and minds of the scholars. We are obligated by the apparent, and Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, takes charge of the secrets. I said earlier that these scholars or memorizers who denied a narrator's hearing do not have anything other than the fact that they did not look into his hearing. But when the hadith comes to us through a correct chain with no blemish, it can be said, for example, in a chain where there is, for example, some talk.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It can be said of this, for example, that it is not attended to, or he did not attend to it. But if the chain is not of this kind, but rather it is correct, I remember some negating statements regarding hearing where the hearing exists in Sahih al-Bukhari, and perhaps something of this has passed you. What do we do with such a denial when we have the correct chain of al-Bukhari that establishes the hearing? The summary is that we do not have what obligates us to take the statement of the denier, and we have the correct chain that negates it. Yes.
The questioner : But our Shaykh, I remember a statement of yours from the past sessions, and from what is in the books or the tapes, for example, as the hadith was in Baqiyyah, despite the fact that our talk is general and not specific to Baqiyyah, but I wanted to mention what preceded from your excellence, which is that the students of Baqiyyah look at the "an'anah" between him and his shaykhs and narrate by meaning, converting the "an'anah" into hearing. And what sticks in my mind now from your books or your tapes is that it is possible that the explicit statement of hearing, with the imams' explicit statement of no hearing, is from the action of the narrators, or from a scribal error, or so on. Is this statement possible to benefit us in our research?
The Shaykh : This can benefit us if the statement of the deniers is directed at this specific chain of narration.
The questioner : At this specific chain of narration.
The Shaykh : Yes, this benefits us.
The questioner : As for generality.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : I say, may Allah preserve you, a little while ago also.The Shaykh : Al-Basit mentions in it, our brother Abu al-Hasan mentioned a little while ago that this statement is possible if there is in the chain what drives us to it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : But if they are trustworthy or established, the matter is different, and Allah knows best.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.