Why did al-Daraqutni limit ijtihad?

The Shaykh : In my mind, and this has been the case for years, I read or heard a tape of his in which he makes Imam al-Daraqutni be like that as well.

The questioner : We raised this question to him, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Ah

The questioner : He said, I did not say it that way.

The Shaykh : What did he say?

The questioner : He said, I say that the general rule is that whoever came after al-Daraqutni.

The Shaykh : Look at these words.
Abu Malik: I say, O our Shaykh, the limit is the beginning of the statement of this fabrication; the one who said it is the one who begins the new era in this issue.

The questioner : But, O our Shaykh, there is an issue.
Al-Albani: Ah, go ahead.

The questioner : Al-Milbary, O Shaykh, adds to the division; he distinguishes, saying the correct division is not three hundred. The correct division is to say there is a stage of narration, and there is a stage after narration. The stage of narration is what is now called the early period, the era of isnad and the era of narration, which is taken by memorization. As for the stage after narration, it is the stage up to after the sixth century and so on.
Abu Malik: There is no power and no strength except by Allah.

The questioner : Those who sat down and did not memorize in the first stage.

The Shaykh : There is no power and no strength except by Allah. What does this mean? That the science of hadith and its terminology has been finished, meaning?

The questioner : I say, O Shaykh, he makes a distinction, as you mentioned in your speech, between the early and the later scholars. The difference between them is that whoever came after al-Daraqutni, in the general case, the methodology changed. Then he says that from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and after him, the correct methodology of the science of hadith changed, and this is written here in al-Kafiyah. Then he distinguishes, saying al-Khatib’s methodology in al-Kafiyah is on the methodology of the later scholars, but in al-Ziyadah and what relates to it, and this is a manuscript of al-Khatib that has not yet been published, he followed the way of the early scholars.

The Shaykh : I seek refuge in Allah. Does this mean that the man encompassed the knowledge of the early and the later scholars in hadith, and then was able to distinguish the early from the later? He can barely encompass knowledge of what was written in the books of the later scholars, let alone encompass the knowledge of the early scholars, which is scattered and distributed in dozens of books. May Allah help us. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke the truth. Allah is the Greatest. Yes.

The questioner : The young students. One of them stood up and said to one of the teachers in our department of Hadith and Principles of Religion: “O Shaykh, the distinguishing difference between the early and the later scholars is what the author of Mizan al-I’tidal, al-Dhahabi, wrote in the introduction of his book, namely his statement: ‘The distinguishing limit between the early and the later is the year three hundred.’” This is what the young ones say. And he says that whoever came after al-Daraqutni, in the general case, the methodology changed. And al-Milbary says that the early and the later scholars, this is not our terminology for distinction. Our terminology for distinction is to say there is a stage, which is the stage of narration, like al-Bukhari and Ahmad, who wrote down from their memorization. These people stood upon narration. And there is another stage, which is called by us the methodology of the later scholars, which is the stage after narration. The first stage, which is the stage of narration, begins from the stage after the Companions to the end of the fifth Hijri century. And the other, which is the stage after narration, begins after this.

The Shaykh : Now, what is the benefit of this distinction, if we grant it for the sake of argument? What is the benefit of this distinction?

The questioner : Its benefit, O Shaykh, is referring to their understanding.

The Shaykh : There is no clarification in the man’s speech that those who were in the stage of narration, did they proceed in narration with authentication, weakening, preference, and vindication, and the like? Did they proceed during narration with these sciences that were recorded later and named the “Terminology of Hadith”? There is no clarification of this idea. Without a doubt, the science of narrating hadith was cut off in the later centuries, but what is the benefit of this distinction? It is not in it. Perhaps in another place he addresses explaining the benefit of this distinction. That is, the early imams of hadith, like the authors of the Sunan and the Sahihs and the like, are these from the scholars of narration in what is transmitted? Does it mean that they did not have knowledge?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : This is the problem. So the speech, describe the speech, has no benefit beneath it, and no philosophy, meaning it has no end and no direction for students of knowledge. What do they benefit from this division? Nothing at all, because while.