Does a weak hadith become stronger if modern scientific experiments support its meaning?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah.
O Shaykh, if modern science agrees with the meaning of a weak hadith; for example, what came in the hadith that I had classified among the weak hadiths: "Fire is burned for a thousand years until it turns red, then it is burned for a thousand years until it turns white, then it is burned for a thousand years until it turns black; so it is black and dark"; does what modern science presents strengthen the meaning of the weak hadith? Especially since we studied in the science of hadith terminology that a weak hadith, even though it is weak, no one can assert that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say it; so what is your opinion?
The Shaykh : Yes, first, the answer in brief is: it is not necessary that if experimental science supports the meaning of a weak hadith, the hadith is authentic and was said by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family); because it is possible that that weak hadith was said by a wise person who looks at his detailed studies regarding the consequences of things, and it happens that what he perceived matched reality later; so it is not permissible to attribute the hadith to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) for such a meaning that we assume has been scientifically established. But I say to you: where do you get the idea that this weak hadith that you recited in full has been scientifically established?
The questioner : ... The scientific miracle in the Qur'an and the Sunnah; it was mentioned that it has been established that black fire is hotter than white, and white is hotter than red.
The Shaykh : This statement—may Allah reward you—does not support the hadith; because the hadith, as you mentioned, mentions a specific duration; is that not so? Fire is burned for how long? A thousand years. Has this been scientifically established? Therefore.
The questioner : He used the hadith as evidence; he used this hadith as evidence.
The Shaykh : What concerns me is the use of evidence, my brother. Your original question was clear, then you deviated from it when the argument was established. Your question was like this: If a hadith comes with a weak chain, and then the meaning of this hadith is scientifically established; does that necessitate that the hadith is authentic? My answer in brief was: It is not necessary, and I mentioned to you the reason for that. But I objected to you and said: Where is this science that testifies to the meaning of this hadith? You said: So-and-so, the noble scholar, used it as evidence. He used it as evidence for what? For a part of what came in this hadith. But your question was originally general: If a hadith comes with a weak chain and science testifies to its correctness; does that mean the hadith is authentic? The answer was no; because it is not permissible to attribute to the Messenger (peace be upon him) except what is established by the modern Islamic scientific method. As for what is established by experimental scientific methods; this has another aspect which we do not deny, rather we affirm it if it is established, and we do not exploit it in the path of supporting some texts from the Book and the Sunnah; because the Book and the authentic Sunnah are in no need of support from modern scientific experiments.
So the point is: that there is not, until this hour—as far as I know—anything that testifies to this hadith in the detail it contains that supports it from experimental science. As for it happening that science agrees with a part of a hadith; this does not indicate that the entire hadith was said by him (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, I say: if a hadith explicitly states one issue and its chain is weak, and then science testifies to the correctness of this hadith in that specific issue it addressed; it is not permissible for us to say this is an authentic hadith said by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Why? I mentioned earlier the possibility that this hadith may have been said by some people of knowledge, acumen, and shrewdness, and it happened that science came to witness it. Why do we attribute it to the Messenger (peace be upon him)? Rather, it is possible that what came in this weak hadith and was agreed with by science; it is possible that it is from the Isra'iliyyat. In the Torah and the Gospel there are matters that speak about the beginning of creation, for example, and about what came in the formation of this universe regarding the actions of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in it. It is possible that a hadith from the weak hadiths has its origin from the Isra'iliyyat, and then science came to witness it; so it witnesses to it because of what came in the Torah and the Gospel, and it does not make us say that this weak hadith is authentic because science witnesses to it. There are many, many reasons.
And therefore we said to some of them—and they exist in the present age—these who measure hadiths by their opinions; whatever their minds and opinions accepted from the hadiths, they said these are authentic hadiths; even if they were weak according to the imams of hadith. And the opposite is the opposite with them; if an authentic hadith came to them and their minds did not accept it, they rejected it; even if it was from what the Muslims agreed upon in accepting it from "Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim." We said to some of these people: If a person lied about the Messenger of Allah and fabricated a hadith whose meaning is correct; does that mean the Messenger (peace be upon him) said it? The answer is: No. Why? Because wisdom is not limited to the messengers and prophets, rather our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) may grant it to whom He wills of His servants. You know, for example, that Luqman (peace be upon him)—or may Allah be pleased with him—was known as Luqman the Wise, and our Lord the Lord of the Worlds related in the Noble Qur'an some of his advice to his son:[Luqman 31:13]. So if a wisdom comes to us from a wise person like this Luqman, and it came in the hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not know if some people were prophets or not, and we also do not know if this Luqman was a prophet or not, but he was a possessor of wisdoms. So if a wisdom attributed to a person comes to us; is it permissible for us to say: The Messenger of Allah said it because it is wisdom? Of course, it is not permissible for us to say this. And every one of us can speak a word, the least that can be said about it is that its meaning is correct. So if a malicious person wanted to spread his word—and it is truth—he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said it. So what is the standard to know that this specific word is foreign and fabricated against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), even if its meaning is acceptable?
There is no way to know that except by the paths of chains of narration and reports that the early scholars of Islam established for us—may Allah reward them with good.
This is what I have on the occasion of that question.
Please proceed.
O Shaykh, if modern science agrees with the meaning of a weak hadith; for example, what came in the hadith that I had classified among the weak hadiths: "Fire is burned for a thousand years until it turns red, then it is burned for a thousand years until it turns white, then it is burned for a thousand years until it turns black; so it is black and dark"; does what modern science presents strengthen the meaning of the weak hadith? Especially since we studied in the science of hadith terminology that a weak hadith, even though it is weak, no one can assert that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say it; so what is your opinion?
The Shaykh : Yes, first, the answer in brief is: it is not necessary that if experimental science supports the meaning of a weak hadith, the hadith is authentic and was said by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family); because it is possible that that weak hadith was said by a wise person who looks at his detailed studies regarding the consequences of things, and it happens that what he perceived matched reality later; so it is not permissible to attribute the hadith to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) for such a meaning that we assume has been scientifically established. But I say to you: where do you get the idea that this weak hadith that you recited in full has been scientifically established?
The questioner : ... The scientific miracle in the Qur'an and the Sunnah; it was mentioned that it has been established that black fire is hotter than white, and white is hotter than red.
The Shaykh : This statement—may Allah reward you—does not support the hadith; because the hadith, as you mentioned, mentions a specific duration; is that not so? Fire is burned for how long? A thousand years. Has this been scientifically established? Therefore.
The questioner : He used the hadith as evidence; he used this hadith as evidence.
The Shaykh : What concerns me is the use of evidence, my brother. Your original question was clear, then you deviated from it when the argument was established. Your question was like this: If a hadith comes with a weak chain, and then the meaning of this hadith is scientifically established; does that necessitate that the hadith is authentic? My answer in brief was: It is not necessary, and I mentioned to you the reason for that. But I objected to you and said: Where is this science that testifies to the meaning of this hadith? You said: So-and-so, the noble scholar, used it as evidence. He used it as evidence for what? For a part of what came in this hadith. But your question was originally general: If a hadith comes with a weak chain and science testifies to its correctness; does that mean the hadith is authentic? The answer was no; because it is not permissible to attribute to the Messenger (peace be upon him) except what is established by the modern Islamic scientific method. As for what is established by experimental scientific methods; this has another aspect which we do not deny, rather we affirm it if it is established, and we do not exploit it in the path of supporting some texts from the Book and the Sunnah; because the Book and the authentic Sunnah are in no need of support from modern scientific experiments.
So the point is: that there is not, until this hour—as far as I know—anything that testifies to this hadith in the detail it contains that supports it from experimental science. As for it happening that science agrees with a part of a hadith; this does not indicate that the entire hadith was said by him (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, I say: if a hadith explicitly states one issue and its chain is weak, and then science testifies to the correctness of this hadith in that specific issue it addressed; it is not permissible for us to say this is an authentic hadith said by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Why? I mentioned earlier the possibility that this hadith may have been said by some people of knowledge, acumen, and shrewdness, and it happened that science came to witness it. Why do we attribute it to the Messenger (peace be upon him)? Rather, it is possible that what came in this weak hadith and was agreed with by science; it is possible that it is from the Isra'iliyyat. In the Torah and the Gospel there are matters that speak about the beginning of creation, for example, and about what came in the formation of this universe regarding the actions of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in it. It is possible that a hadith from the weak hadiths has its origin from the Isra'iliyyat, and then science came to witness it; so it witnesses to it because of what came in the Torah and the Gospel, and it does not make us say that this weak hadith is authentic because science witnesses to it. There are many, many reasons.
And therefore we said to some of them—and they exist in the present age—these who measure hadiths by their opinions; whatever their minds and opinions accepted from the hadiths, they said these are authentic hadiths; even if they were weak according to the imams of hadith. And the opposite is the opposite with them; if an authentic hadith came to them and their minds did not accept it, they rejected it; even if it was from what the Muslims agreed upon in accepting it from "Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim." We said to some of these people: If a person lied about the Messenger of Allah and fabricated a hadith whose meaning is correct; does that mean the Messenger (peace be upon him) said it? The answer is: No. Why? Because wisdom is not limited to the messengers and prophets, rather our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) may grant it to whom He wills of His servants. You know, for example, that Luqman (peace be upon him)—or may Allah be pleased with him—was known as Luqman the Wise, and our Lord the Lord of the Worlds related in the Noble Qur'an some of his advice to his son:
O my son, do not associate [anything] with Allah. Indeed, association [with him] is great injustice."
يا بني لا تشرك بالله إن الشرك لظلم عظيمThere is no way to know that except by the paths of chains of narration and reports that the early scholars of Islam established for us—may Allah reward them with good.
This is what I have on the occasion of that question.
Please proceed.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.