We find some of the narrators in the two Sahihs to be innovators; are these people just?

The questioner : As you know, may Allah preserve you, the narrators and the memorizers took the justice of the narrator into account when establishing the criteria for authentic and good hadiths. Many of the memorizers, including al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, defined justice or the criterion of justice, saying: It is a disposition that carries the narrator to taqwa (mindfulness of Allah) and adherence to moral integrity. He also explained taqwa in the same book, al-Nukhba, saying: It is avoiding bad deeds, whether innovation, open sinfulness, or shirk (associating partners with Allah). Here, a difficulty arose for me regarding the two Sahihs. I found men among the innovators, such as a Khariji, a Rafidi, or a Murji'i. There is a contradiction here between al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar's definition of the criterion of justice and the practical examples found in the books of the Sahih.

The Shaykh : The two Sahihs.

The questioner : Yes, so how do you reconcile these definitions with what is found in the Sahih? May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : Yes, I think the difficulty arose from stopping at some of the terms in the definition of justice without explaining them from their originator, meaning the one who coined these terms elsewhere. For example, regarding bid'ah (religious innovation): bid'ah, according to al-Hafiz and others, in its relation to the innovator, has two states. Either he is a caller to it, or he is not a caller to it. Is that clear? If he is not a caller to it, it does not contradict the definition I mentioned earlier, because he means the bid'ah that is called to by the just person. Is that clear?

The questioner : I mean, he should have qualified the term bid'ah?

The Shaykh : Yes, but what is the problem? When someone wants to give a definition, if he qualifies every phrase, it becomes a lecture. So he is forced to abbreviate as much as he can and explain later in other places.

Another questioner : Our Shaykh, what is your opinion regarding the definition of justice?

The Shaykh : You got ahead of me, may Allah guide you. I say this considering that there are two opinions regarding the innovator: either he is a caller to it, or he is not. If he is not a caller, he is just. If truthfulness and memorization are added to that, he is a proof.

The questioner : Well, our Shaykh, may Allah bless you, I read long ago, but I do not remember the name of the narrator, that there was found in the Sahih someone who was a caller to his innovation.

The Shaykh : It is coming to you in the speech, may Allah guide you. I am speaking regarding what is found in the terminology. As a science adopted by the majority of scholars, they divide justice and innovation into two categories, and we have defined them. But there is another opinion, which Ibn Hajar himself adopts, that the criterion in narration is, first, Islam and justice, then memorization and precision. If there is a man who is an innovator and a caller to his innovation, but it is established for us that, in terms of his Islam, he is a Muslim... then, in terms of his precision, he is precise, and in terms of his truthfulness, he is truthful, then he is a proof, even if he is an innovator who calls to it. And on this basis, the practice of...The Shaykh : ...is considered, if they narrated from an innovator, for example. Al-Imam al-Bukhari is one of the most famous examples; he narrates from Imran al-Hattan, and this is the one who participated in the killing of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. So we return and make a second distinction. We say there are two opinions in this issue. One is that the innovator is not to be used as a proof by his hadith, even if he is trustworthy, precise, and truthful, and so on. The second opinion accepts his narration as long as he is truthful. And they cite the Khawarij as an example for this, because the Khawarij believe that the one who commits a major sin is a disbeliever, and therefore they are the furthest people from lying. Here, a distinction is made: some scholars say this description applies to the early Khawarij, but afterwards, they also began to lie to support their school of thought. The purpose in narration is two things: Islam, then truthfulness with memorization.

The questioner : Is there a difference between tawthiq (certifying reliability) and ta'dil (certifying justice)?

The Shaykh : Of course.

The questioner : And what is it?

The Shaykh : Ta'dil is that his testimony is accepted because he is considered just. But mere justice is not sufficient in narration unless it is accompanied by precision, meaning he must be known for precision and memorization.

The questioner : So do we say it is tawthiq?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : There is a general and a specific aspect. The just person in hadith is assumed to be a memorizer and precise, whereas the just person in testimony is sufficient if he is not an open sinner.

Another questioner : What is your opinion regarding the following definition of justice: It is a characteristic that carries its possessor to taqwa, avoiding defilements, and what compromises moral integrity in the eyes of people?

The Shaykh : We do not say "characteristic," because he may be diligent and obedient to Allah the Mighty and Majestic until he becomes just. But to say "characteristic" means it is a nature and instinct. I do not believe that.

The questioner : If we say it is an indication of the narrator's truthfulness, if this includes, for example, the innovator and others from what I mentioned now.

The Shaykh : An indication of what?

The questioner : The truthfulness of the narrator. What do you think of this definition of justice: an indication of the narrator's truthfulness? So when...

The Shaykh : Truthfulness is also not sufficient, my brother. Because the witness must be truthful, otherwise he is not just. The important point in the issue, in distinguishing between narration and testimony, is memorization and precision, not the truthfulness of the narrator. Truthfulness is obligatory in both, otherwise it is not clear? I mean, a man comes to testify that he saw so-and-so do such-and-such; is it not required that he be truthful?

The questioner : No, it is not required by justice.

The Shaykh : Leave justice to me. I am judging regarding the witness. The witness wants to say, "I saw so-and-so hit so-and-so, or take so-and-so's money." Is it not required that he be truthful? Where have we reached? Keep up with me.

The questioner : ...Accepting his report requires that he be truthful.

The Shaykh : Subhan Allah, I am not speaking about the report, my brother. I am telling you, a man witnessed that so-and-so hit so-and-so, or so-and-so took so-and-so's money. He testified; is it not required that he be truthful?

The questioner : It is not required.

The Shaykh : Then rights are lost? You have not worked hard. Young men, what Allah willed.

The questioner : Yes, it is clear.

The Shaykh : Truthfulness is required in the witness and in the narrator, but the difference is in terms of being known as precise and a memorizer. Because this precise, memorizing narrator means his mind is filled with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of narrations. So he must be what? Solid in precision. Whereas this witness saw an incident; it is easy for him to convey it as he saw it. But it is required that he be truthful, not a liar. But it is not required of him what is required of the narrator who memorizes many, many narrations. As they say, for example, so-and-so is weak. Why? Because he would connect a broken chain, or elevate a mawquf (report stopping at a Companion), or stop a marfu' (report traced to the Prophet), and so on. Why does he do this? Because the many narrations that filled his mind get mixed up, and he does not have that solid precision and memorization. So he is classed with the weak narrators who are not used as proof. Then these are divided into two categories: some make many mistakes, and it is said he is very weak and not to be cited. Some do not make many mistakes, and it is said he is to be cited. But sometimes they say so-and-so lies, so-and-so does such-and-such. But the first category, they say, is truthful and does not lie. But as Ibn Hibban says in many of his biographies, he was a righteous man, but he narrated munkar (denounced) reports, or from the trustworthy ones, and brought falsehoods from such-and-such, and so on. Not intentionally, because he was righteous, meaning he was truthful in himself.