What is the answer to the objection raised by Imam al-San'ani regarding the definition of 'adalah (fairness) in an authentic hadith, given that they permitted narrating from innovators under certain conditions?

The questioner : Here is a question from our Shaykh regarding a detail in the definition of an authentic hadith, which is that its chain of narration is connected by the transmission of a fair (adl) narrator. Imam al-San'ani, in *Tawdih al-Afkar*, raised objections regarding the term "fair" after mentioning the interpretation of fairness among them, which is the well-known statement concerning the Muslim, adult, sane person who is free from the factors that destroy honor. He said: "Among us, the innovators, the people of innovation, the Khawarij, and the Shi'ah, and others, the scholars accepted their hadiths under known conditions. So either they must abandon this definition of fairness, because they accepted the innovator and considered his hadith authentic, or they must reject the hadith of the innovator." This was their statement, may Allah preserve you, in *Tawdih al-Afkar*. How is the way out of what they said?

The Shaykh : We must clarify from him, or from whoever adopts his view, what is meant by "fairness." I find a contradiction in my mind between the condition of fairness in the narrator and their acceptance of the narration of the innovator. What is intended by fairness, as understood?

The questioner : I am quoting, for example,

The Shaykh : al-San'ani.

The questioner : His statement, or the statement of whoever adopts his statement, so that we may know, if Allah wills, how to arrive at the truth.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : If the definition established by the scholars for "fairness" is the Muslim, adult, sane person who is free from the causes of open sinfulness (fisq) and innovation, then it is open sinfulness.

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : Yes, it is permissible in terms of figurative interpretation (ta'wil).

The Shaykh : No, no, it is from here that it is derived.

The questioner : That is, from the causes of open sinfulness.

The Shaykh : It is derived from here.

The questioner : Yes, please go ahead.

The Shaykh : Well, we do not consider the innovator an open sinner (fasiq); we consider him a misguided person who exercised independent reasoning (ijtihad), and this is not an open sinner. However, if it is established for us that he is an open sinner due to his innovation, then fairness does not include him.

The questioner : Well, Shaykh, whatever they call them regarding open sinners of interpretation (ta'wil), the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says: "The difference between the open sinners of interpretation and the open sinners of desires." There are some scholars who called the innovators open sinners...

The Shaykh : Pardon me, I did not understand this last question. What is the Hafiz saying?

The questioner : And this is from the open sinners of interpretation. That is, their open sinfulness came to them because of interpretation, not because of desire, such as unlawful sexual intercourse, theft, falsely accusing a chaste woman of adultery, highway robbery, and the like. Their open sinfulness came to them while they thought they were purifying the religion of Allah, defending the religion of Allah. So their open sinfulness came to them because of false interpretation, and the Hafiz called them the open sinners of interpretation.

The Shaykh : He says this in the definition of fairness.

The questioner : No, it is not in the chapter on the definition of fairness; it is in the context of discussing the hadith of the innovators, and that if we accepted the words of people regarding some of them, we would reject the Sunnah...

The Shaykh : So we are currently concerned with the definition.

The questioner : No, his statement is not in the place of the definition. I mean that he called them open sinners because of interpretation. Is it possible to interpret the scholars' statement such that it is not so, and that they are free from the causes of open sinfulness, meaning the open sinfulness that leads to indifference in narration and leads to taking the Prophetic hadith lightly, allowing what is not part of it to enter, and that does not happen except from the open sinners of desire?

The Shaykh : But may Allah bless you, is not the qualification you mentioned earlier sufficient?

The questioner : And you mean your statement that you said: "No... he is not called an open sinner, but rather a misguided person who exercised independent reasoning."

The Shaykh : He is not called an open sinner, yes.

The questioner : He is not called an open sinner.

The Shaykh : Is it not sufficient, I say?

The questioner : The objection is completely resolved. But if it is brought up that some scholars called him an open sinner in his interpretation.

The Shaykh : Well, if we return to the root of the word "fisq" (open sinfulness) in the language, what does it give?

The questioner : Going out.

The Shaykh : Going out from what?

The questioner : Going out from the Sunnah, going out from obedience, going out from obedience.

The Shaykh : Going out from obedience.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, this person who exercised independent reasoning and erred and innovated has gone out from obedience.

The questioner : If he is a person who exercised independent reasoning, he is rewarded, he has his reward, and his error is forgiven.

The Shaykh : Do not say "and if."

The questioner : If he is a person who exercised independent reasoning, because every person who exercises independent reasoning.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you, I placed this condition so you do not say "if," because I have relieved you of it.

The questioner : Well, he is rewarded and his error is forgiven, he is not an open sinner.

The Shaykh : Can he be an open sinner and rewarded?

The questioner : He cannot be.

The Shaykh : So he is not an open sinner.

The questioner : Well, this is regarding the person who exercises independent reasoning, Shaykh. What about the common people of the Shi'ah, the common people of those whose hadith was accepted?

The Shaykh : Let us stick to the principle first, then we will agree on the branch. We have agreed on the principle now.

The questioner : That if a person who exercises independent reasoning errs in an issue and exercises independent reasoning, the hadith includes him.

The Shaykh : And whether it is in the principles or the branches.

The questioner : This question is with me; I will ask it, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : You take the answer in advance, and there is no difference whether it is in the principles or the branches.

The questioner : No difference, Shaykh, even if he brings up an issue that is known from the religion by necessity.

The Shaykh : No difference, no difference, because the fact that something is known from the religion by necessity is a matter that became available over time.

The questioner : That is, perhaps it appeared and became known to him, unlike what was the case in his time.

The Shaykh : And the evidence for this is that Ibn Mas'ud recited the two protective chapters (al-Mu'awwidhatayn) from the noble Mushaf. If he did this the next day, what would we say?

The questioner : It has another ruling, meaning it is known from the religion by necessity, the issue of humility (khushu') considering the times and considering the individuals.

The Shaykh : This is from hidden knowledge.

The questioner : Yes, may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, we have agreed then on the first point.

The questioner : Regarding the person who exercises independent reasoning.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Well, I say there is no difference between a person who exercises independent reasoning and a person who follows a person who exercises independent reasoning.

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : The important thing in the matter, whether in the person who exercises independent reasoning or the follower, is avoiding following one's desires. It is avoiding following one's desires.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Because following one's desires is disobedience and open sinfulness. But if a person errs while intending guidance, this, as we said earlier, is rewarded, and we are not among those who are overly strict and answer for every individual Muslim. It is not only that he should be a follower, but also that he should be a person who exercises independent reasoning. No, we do not say that it is obligatory for every individual Muslim to be a person who exercises independent reasoning, nor do we say that it is obligatory for him to be a follower, but at least hear thisThe questioner : for the people of knowledge, a follower, a person who follows. These are technical terms. And if we want to be precise, when we say, we Salafis, the follower is the one who strives to know the evidence and walks with insight, there is no doubt, this is the law of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. But the common Muslims cannot do this. The common Muslims are those to whom the noble address was directed: So if he asks a scholar, even if this scholar errs, whether he is a person who exercises independent reasoning or one who follows his desires, if it is the former, there is no harm on the one who followed. But if it is the latter, the sin is on him and on the one who issued the ruling to him, but the one who asked the question has no sin. If we know this breadth of these meanings, then we know that the matter is not as al-San'ani initially thought, that there is a contradiction between their condition of fairness and their acceptance of the narration of the innovator. Because you can note the meaning I quoted from al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani, that they are open sinners. We do not use this term. We are content to say about the other sects that they are misguided sects, but we do not rule on a specific person that he is misguided and will enter Hellfire, because he may be a person who exercises independent reasoning and be rewarded, and he may surpass many of the people of the Sunnah because they follow their desires in other issues. So I think there is no objection, if Allah wills.

The questioner : So, regarding the person who exercises independent reasoning, the hadith includes him, and regarding the follower of the person who exercises independent reasoning, if he is one who respects the religion and is not following his desires, then the term open sinfulness is not applied to him either.

The Shaykh : That is correct.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.