Is the cause of the existing disagreement between you and the people of the Hijaz in jurisprudential issues related to hadith issues or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: O Shaykh, through reading some of the books that you wrote, you wrote them
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner: Yes, we have noticed some differences between your statement and the statement of the people of the Hijaz in some issues. Is the basis of this disagreement in the issue of authenticating and weakening the hadiths that each side cites as evidence?
The Shaykh: Not always
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Not always. There may be another reason. It is good to clarify the issue by providing one or more examples.
The questioner: With an example
The Shaykh: With one or more examples
The questioner: For example, the Prayer of Tasbih. Does the difference in the issue mean
The Shaykh: Clarify the example now. The example clarifies a side of the question and the answer at the same time. I will answer you with two answers. The first answer is that the cause of the disagreement is the difference in the methods that one of the two groups has examined. One group examines, for example, three methods, while the other examines two. The disagreement may be more precise than this difference, returning to the opinion of each group regarding some of the narrators of these methods. Some of these narrators may be considered weak with poor memory by one group. This narrator may be considered weak in his memory by one group, but he finds another narrator like him in the other method, so one strengthens the other. This falls under some of the sciences of hadith known as supporting chains (mutaba'at) and corroborating narrations (shawahid). From this, they derive the rule that a hadith is strengthened by the multiplicity of its methods. We see, both in the past and present, that many of those who engage in this science and weaken some hadiths do not raise their heads to the aforementioned rule, namely strengthening a hadith by the multiplicity of its methods. In short, the disagreement here returns to the disparity between the disputants in their knowledge of hadith science, theoretically first, and practically second. This is one of the causes of disagreement. Some may consider a strange meaning in the hadith, which helps them to prefer the weakness of the hadith, while others do not agree with this observation. Rather, they observe something else, which is that some of the scholars of the Salaf acted upon this hadith, so they consider that a strengthening corroboration for the hadith after it was strengthened by the sum of its methods. This example shows you, meaning, one of the causes of disagreement, which is the disagreement in authenticating and weakening a hadith, and the cause of this disagreement is what I mentioned and explained to you just now.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner: Yes, we have noticed some differences between your statement and the statement of the people of the Hijaz in some issues. Is the basis of this disagreement in the issue of authenticating and weakening the hadiths that each side cites as evidence?
The Shaykh: Not always
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Not always. There may be another reason. It is good to clarify the issue by providing one or more examples.
The questioner: With an example
The Shaykh: With one or more examples
The questioner: For example, the Prayer of Tasbih. Does the difference in the issue mean
The Shaykh: Clarify the example now. The example clarifies a side of the question and the answer at the same time. I will answer you with two answers. The first answer is that the cause of the disagreement is the difference in the methods that one of the two groups has examined. One group examines, for example, three methods, while the other examines two. The disagreement may be more precise than this difference, returning to the opinion of each group regarding some of the narrators of these methods. Some of these narrators may be considered weak with poor memory by one group. This narrator may be considered weak in his memory by one group, but he finds another narrator like him in the other method, so one strengthens the other. This falls under some of the sciences of hadith known as supporting chains (mutaba'at) and corroborating narrations (shawahid). From this, they derive the rule that a hadith is strengthened by the multiplicity of its methods. We see, both in the past and present, that many of those who engage in this science and weaken some hadiths do not raise their heads to the aforementioned rule, namely strengthening a hadith by the multiplicity of its methods. In short, the disagreement here returns to the disparity between the disputants in their knowledge of hadith science, theoretically first, and practically second. This is one of the causes of disagreement. Some may consider a strange meaning in the hadith, which helps them to prefer the weakness of the hadith, while others do not agree with this observation. Rather, they observe something else, which is that some of the scholars of the Salaf acted upon this hadith, so they consider that a strengthening corroboration for the hadith after it was strengthened by the sum of its methods. This example shows you, meaning, one of the causes of disagreement, which is the disagreement in authenticating and weakening a hadith, and the cause of this disagreement is what I mentioned and explained to you just now.
The questioner : Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.