Discussion of some issues in which they distinguished between the methodology of the early scholars and the methodology of the later scholars, such as tadlis, ikhtilat, grading hadiths as hasan, shudhdh, and tafarrud

The questioner : The third paragraph of the scholarly issues in which the claim is raised that there is a difference between the early and later scholars is as follows: tadlis, ikhtilaf, grading hadiths as hasan, shudhdh, nikaarah, ziyadat al-thiqah, tafarrud, and the reasoning (ta'lil) of the imams regarding hadiths that appear valid. For example, they hold that one who is described as a tadlis narrator does not stop accepting a hadith he narrated with 'an ('an) unless there is something indicating that the tadlis narrator omitted the intermediate link. They cite a phrase attributed to Ya'qub ibn Sufyan and Yahya ibn Ma'in in this regard. What is your opinion? And what is similar to this is the description of one as having ikhtilat or taghayyur, such as Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i?

The Shaykh : We do not have a newly formed opinion, of course. We are with the knowledge recorded in the science of terminology, and no more than that. Let us pray, Professor of the Era.

The questioner : They say, O Shaykh, why do we reject everyone who uses 'an ('an), and why do we accept everyone who is a tafarrud narrator?

The Shaykh : Do they speak of the hasan hadith?

The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh, they speak of the hasan hadith.

The Shaykh : What is the meaning of the hasan hadith? Is it like the sahih hadith, or is it below it?

The questioner : It is below the sahih hadith.

The Shaykh : Fine, it is below it for us, and it is also below it for them.

The questioner : For them, it is named sahih.

The Shaykh : No, may Allah bless you. What matters to us now is not the naming. Look, according to the old terminology, every hadith that is used as evidence is sahih.

The questioner : Yes, that is correct.

The Shaykh : And the hasan falls under this category. But whoever is precise among those who came after them, such as this disagreement, may be between the early and later scholars, or it may be a terminological difference that did not change anything in reality. Let their expression be precise. They said sahih, and they said hasan. But the hasan hadith, in reality, is more likely to be lumped in with the weak hadith than the sahih hadith. Here, it is said to them: Why do you critique the hasan hadith when it is below the sahih? For example, one who commits tadlis, if his hadith is traced, it may be found that there is no explicit statement of narration (tadhrib) for him, or no corroborating narration to strengthen it. They want the issue to be rigid, with no flexibility. We say, what is the alternative to flexibility? This is due to their ignorance of the reality. And Allah is the One to be sought for help.