Discussion of the hadith of Mu'adh (… by what do you judge? He said: By the Book of Allah, he said ……) in terms of chain and text?

Abu Malik: Our Shaykh, may Allah bless you, your answer to this question with such abundance, may Allah reward you with good, reminded me of a hadith, which is one of the famous hadiths, and which you mentioned or weakened its chain in *The Chain of Weak Hadiths*. That hadith is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Mu'adh when he sent him to Yemen So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) struck his back and said to him: This hadith, in reality, reminds us of something of, and you hinted that the interpretation of the Qur'an, one looks to the Qur'an first, then to the Sunnah, then to the sayings of the righteous Salaf from the Tabi'un and those after them from the blessed centuries. So how do we reconcile this hadith with its apparent meaning and what you mentioned to us of the method of interpreting the Qur'an, and following the correct guidance in this interpretation?

The Shaykh: Excuse me, did you hint that the hadith is not authentic?
Abu Malik: Yes.

The Shaykh: And why reconcile it with what I mentioned?
Abu Malik: No, excuse us, we, even to the one who says the hadith is authentic, meaning even the one who says ...

The Shaykh: We do not accept it from him, we refute his hadith in chain and text.
Abu Malik: We say even with this ... I, this is what I want.

The Shaykh: Well, okay, this hadith, we spoke about it in some of our books in terms of chain and text, as for the chain, the chain ...
Abu Malik: O my brothers, important, you see your listening to this hadith and your understanding of it, as the Shaykh said, he criticized it in chain and text, I hope you understand this hadith well, because this hadith is built upon mountains and hills and castles and heights, therefore Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) turned his entire book, which is "I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin" (The Guidance of the Informed to the Lord of the Worlds), around this hadith.

The Shaykh: So this hadith, yes.
Al-Halabi: He defended it a lot.

The Shaykh : Yes, this hadith is not authentic in its chain of narration in any way. And since we have mentioned Ibn al-Qayyim, we all give him the value he deserves in terms of knowledge and understanding of the Book and the Sunnah. We should say that Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), when he spoke about this hadith regarding its chain, it was not hidden from him that its chain is weak and does not serve as a proof, because it hinges on a man who is unknown to all scholars of hadith. Imam al-Bukhari and others, or others, say that he is a denouncer of hadith. It would not have been hidden from Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) something like this. However, he strengthened it with another hadith which he correctly attributed to Sunan Ibn Majah. But this other hadith turned against him because the name of one of its narrators was reversed, so he thought it was a trustworthy man, or at least one whose testimony is accepted, whereas in reality he is one who was accused of lying, and even of zindiqah (heresy). It is Sa'id al-Musallab, who is described as a zindiq. So Ibn al-Qayyim was deceived into thinking that this hadith had a corroborating narration, but the man he cited as a witness was not the one he thought. Furthermore, the context of the hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah also differs from the context in Sunan Abu Dawud, which contains that unknown man. Our research now concerns this hadith which the scholars of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) have written about, except for a few, or a very few, which did not mention this hadith. Most of them mentioned this hadith in the chapter on qiyas (analogical reasoning). And it is amazing that they use it as an argument against those who deny qiyas, like Ibn Hazm. If we want to argue with him, we must oppose him with a chain as strong as mountains, not with this weak, extremely weak chain. So first, its chain is weak and does not serve as a proof. I had mentioned in a series more than ten people from the early and modern scholars of hadith who weakened this hadith and said that it is a denounced narration. And indeed, it is denounced. This is because, as you heard earlier, legislation is classified into three levels, or the researcher’s inquiry into a matter is classified into three levels. He starts with the Qur'an. If he does not find it in the Qur'an, then in the Sunnah. If he does not find it in the Sunnah, he exerts his effort and applies qiyas. You find here that he has placed this hadith in the position of the Sunnah relative to the Qur'an, and the position of opinion and ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) relative to the Sunnah. That is, when does a person exert his effort and apply qiyas? When he does not find the Sunnah. Well, when does he resort to the Sunnah? When he does not find it in the Qur'an? Is that how it is? The answer is no. And the time is not far from you. In the previous example, If the one standing stopped at this verse, and was asked, or a questioner asked, what is the ruling on dead fish? We looked at the Qur'an as the hadith of Mu'adh commanded us. "By what do you judge?" He said: "By the Book of Allah." We looked in the Book of Allah, and there it says: If the dead of the sea is forbidden, is that sufficient? In the verse prohibiting marriage in marriage what was not mentioned, such as the mother and sister in breastfeeding, and similar things, whereas the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says what? This is not in the Qur'an. So this approach adopted by the narrator of this hadith is not correct, which is that the judge first relies on the Qur'an. If he does not find the answer in the Qur'an, he descends to the Sunnah. If he does not find it in the Sunnah, he descends to opinion and ijtihad and qiyas. The Sunnah and the Qur'an are twins; it is not permissible to separate them. Unlike qiyas and the Sunnah, which are never twins. A person only resorts to qiyas when he does not find the text in the Sunnah. So this classification mentioned in the hadith is not a scientific classification that responds to the urging of the Book and the Sunnah to combine the Book and the Sunnah, as in the authentic hadith So this classification is not permissible. "By what do you judge?" He said: "By the Book of Allah." "If you do not find it?" Then by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. And we ask now, every jurist on this Salafi methodology, by what do you judge? He tells you directly by the Book and the Sunnah, not by the Book alone, because we mentioned not by the Book alone. We mentioned earlier that the Sunnah clarifies what is general in the Qur'an, specifies what is absolute in its generality in the Qur'an, and restricts what is absolute in the Qur'an, and so on. So it is not permissible to take rulings from the Qur'an without looking at the Sunnah. Rather, it is obligatory to combine and gather between them, and then proceed and issue from the reality of this combination. What results from combining them is what must be ruled upon. We say that this kind of statement could be said by a person who is not infallible and not a legislator from the Lord of the Worlds, and that is the Messenger, and no one else. Could another person say, "My brother, the most important thing for us is the Noble Qur'an, then the Sunnah"? On what basis is this classification? On the basis that the Qur'an is established with certainty, as the scholars of usul say, whereas the hadith is established with probability, as we said earlier, in response to those who say there is no definitive text, for example, in the prohibition of musical instruments. The hadith is sufficient for us, even if its indication is probable, but it is a probable indication that is stronger. A person might speak in terms of classification in strength, not in terms of recourse. The recourse to the Book and the Sunnah, it is obligatory to resort to them together. We never separate between Allah and His Messenger whereas we completely separate between the Sunnah and opinion, and we do not resort to opinion and qiyas if what? If there is a Sunnah that suffices us from qiyas. And as it is said: "Whoever reaches the sea, the canals are unnecessary." With this explanation, in my opinion, it may be an answer to those who find difficulty with what is mentioned in some books of usul regarding the address of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab to Abu Musa. That in reality this book, that the ruling is first by the Qur'an, then by the Sunnah. First, we praise Allah that it is not a marfu' (report traced to the Prophet) hadith. And second, it can be understood in the context of this case we mentioned earlier. But the judge, indeed, the one judge of the three whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke about in the well-known hadith This one judge is never allowed to judge between people based on what the hadith of Mu'adh stated first, the Book. No, we say the Book and the Sunnah together. We do not separate between the Book and the Sunnah, because it is impossible for anyone, even if he were Sibawayhi in his time in the Arabic language, to understand the Qur'an without the assistance of the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). For this reason, we believe that this hadith of Mu'adh, in addition to its chain being weak and denounced, its text is also denounced. It contains what carries the discerning jurist, who is aware of his religion, to reject it to this unknown narrator and say, "We believe in Allah and His Messenger."
Abu Malik: To complete the benefit, it is also necessary to mention here the authentic hadith, which is authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is his saying:

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Abu Malik: And of course, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says in the other authentic hadith: meaning the Book and the Sunnah We, of course, in truth, find that some of the brothers, especially those who came from travel to attend this blessed gathering, and of course, there are some brothers who show signs of fatigue and exhaustion on their faces. So we limit the session to two quick questions, in which we first inquire about.