An example of distinguishing between the methodology of the early and later scholars (tadlis)

The questioner : We will mention one example of what they keep harping on regarding the disagreement between the methodology of the early and later scholars

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : which is tadlis

The Shaykh : Tadlis

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: Okay

The questioner : and they argue with the common and well-known example, the hadith of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : for the intended target

The Shaykh : is it

The questioner : with a sound hadith in Muslim

The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.

The questioner : They say that none of the early scholars declared the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) defective due to tadlis, but rather the later scholars are the ones who introduced this religious innovation and they are the ones who declared the hadith defective with this tadlis. So what is your response to this?

The Shaykh : Now, we should know whether tadlis, as one of the defects of hadith, is only from the opinions of the later scholars, or is it also from the opinions of the early scholars?

The questioner : No, according to their claim, it is from the opinions of the later scholars. And for that reason, they say that a muddallis (one who practices tadlis) has all his hadiths as sound unless it is proven that he practiced tadlis. That is, if a chain of narration comes to us, for example, through Muhammad ibn Ishaq, and he narrates this chain in a connected manner, we rule that this chain is sound unless another path comes to us in which the intermediary between Muhammad ibn Ishaq and his shaykh is clarified. At that point, we declare this hadith defective.

The Shaykh : By Allah, one of the most difficult things is understanding the ignorant claimants of knowledge. Do they say, or do they know, that Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the author of the Sirah, actually practiced tadlis, meaning he narrated from some of his shaykhs what he had not heard from them? Do they know this fact or not?

The questioner : I do not know about them, but

The Shaykh : this is a problem. Therefore, understanding a person who is far from you is very difficult, because if you addressed him face to face, his ignorance would be established in the session immediately. We would say to him: those who established the tadlis of Muhammad ibn Ishaq, which is his narration from some of his shaykhs of what he did not hear from them, are the early scholars. If this fact is established, how do you not distinguish between what he says about Nafi', because Nafi' is actually one of his shaykhs? How do you not distinguish between the narration in which he says "Nafi' narrated to me" and the narration in which he says "from Nafi'", when he has narrations from Nafi' that he did not hear from him? Is it permissible to rule based on the weaker opinion in Islamic jurisprudence, and in that, in attributing the hadith to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), upon which many, many rulings will be built? So in my belief, as I told you, and adding to what I said earlier, they studied the terminology theoretically, but they did not study it even theoretically, because if they had studied it, they would have stopped at this example, and it would have become clear to them that declaring a hadith defective due to a man who habitually narrates from those he met what he did not hear from them, in this case, one must verify whether he heard this narration from him or not. Also, another proof is sufficient: these people equate those who are careful to avoid tadlis with those who practice tadlis, equating the hadith of these with the hadith of those. This is injustice, and this is contrary to . And even if there is weakness in this hadith, its meaning is correct. Does the imam who does not narrate except what he heard equal another who narrates from those he did not hear, like al-Hasan al-Basri, for example? And many others. And now I will mention another example, and this in reality makes me offer an excuse for not gathering the evidence to demolish this opinion. I think al-Hasan al-Basri is treated according to this deviant rule?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Al-Hasan al-Basri admits in some of his narrations that he narrates things he did not hear from the Companions, but rather heard from others. This is explicit in the biography of the man. But I want to mention an example, a hadith I mentioned in al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah in the interpretation of the saying of Allah the Exalted: . The verse is problematic on its surface