What is your opinion of those who distinguish between the methodology of the early scholars and the later scholars in the science of hadith?

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).The Shaykh : A new methodology has emerged, or rather, it has become widespread and famous among some students of knowledge. There are those who lead this methodology, and they have followers and students. The essence of this methodology is that there is a difference between the methodology of the earliest hadith scholars and the methodology of the later hadith scholars. They draw a line between the early and the later scholars at al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him). From al-Daraqutni to the present, they do not accept the words of any hadith scholar or anyone engaged in the science of hadith, including al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, al-Dhahabi, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, and others, until they reach our Shaykh (may Allah preserve him). They claim that these later scholars have rules that contradict the rules of the early scholars. Consequently, they do not accept any ruling of the type we mentioned. We seek a detailed and clarifying answer so that the matter becomes clear. May Allah reward you all with good.

The Shaykh : Before I answer with what comes to mind, I want to draw attention to two matters. The first, and the most important, is: what is their evidence for this distinction? I see it as a mere theoretical assumption that is not supported by any evidence, neither from the Shari'ah nor from reason. Do they present this theory as a bare claim, devoid of any evidence or proof? Or do they, even by their own claim, bring forth evidence or proof? If they have any of that, I believe that completing the question requires presenting that alleged evidence or proof so that we may discuss it. For you know, and all those present know, the saying of that scholar and poet:
"And claims, unless you establish for them proofs, their offspring are claimants."
And every person can speak according to what seems to him, whether it is based on sincere opinion and independent legal reasoning, or on a desire he follows. This is the first point. The other point that follows is: has this, which appeared with this call after these long centuries in which the scholars of the Muslims agreed to benefit from the efforts of the working scholars in this field, contradicted them? Whether they said so in opinion and erred, or followed a desire, I say that this, which appeared with this opinion, in my view, is not a Shaykh in terms of language or knowledge. Rather, he is one of these young upstarts who have learned something of the science of hadith and the terminology of the hadith scholars theoretically, but have not applied it practically. This is the first and most important matter: if they mention a proof, we want to hear it. After that, I will offer what I have as an answer to this question. The second matter is: is my opinion correct, and it stems from my personal experience, that this one who built this opinion and gathered students around him—naturally, these students, like all students in the world, when they are tested by a caller, whether he is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, they follow this caller—was my suspicion in its place? That he is not a Shaykh in terms of language or terminology? Is that so?

The questioner : I answer.

The Shaykh : is it

The questioner : As for the first matter, which is the evidence of these people, the truth is they do not mention clear evidence. Rather, most of their claim, or most of their evidence, is that they say: "Our methodology is based on the comprehensive study of the knowledge of the predecessors and their words."

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner : And the early scholars. This is their evidence.

The Shaykh : This, may Allah bless you, does not go beyond being a claim, and we are repeating the previous point.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : "And claims, unless you establish proofs for them, their offspring are claimants."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, the second matter.

The questioner : Now, excuse me.

The Shaykh : is it

The questioner : And it is, as you have graciously stated, indeed a claim. One of those who was influenced by this methodology went to learn and was convinced by this methodology for a period, then the matter was clarified to him. So we said: ask him one question: who is with him on this methodology?

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner : The man sat with him for a period, then asked him this question. He said: "I have many people of knowledge with me." He said: "Name one for us." He did not name anyone. Then he returned and said: "I did not bring these rules from myself; rather, they are by comprehensive study of the books of these Imams." He said: "We want names." He said: "I have these people you see now in this lesson."

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner : He said: "There is not a single scholar among them." Then he turned away from him. If he had had evidence, he would have shown it, because this is the place for it.
Abu Malik: They are fans, meaning fans of the ball game.

The Shaykh : laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him).

The questioner : As for what you have graciously stated regarding the second part, it is in its place and it is correct.

The Shaykh : Yes, I return to say...

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : The reality of the person you are referring to is that he did not understand the methodology of the early scholars, nor the methodology of the later scholars. If I were to meet him, I would ask him: I have defined the early scholars by the last of them, al-Daraqutni. As for anyone who came after al-Daraqutni, his opinion, his ijtihad, his authentication, and his criticism are not to be heeded. I would say to him: Did those before al-Daraqutni agree on everything, or did they differ? I think that if he has knowledge, even if it is only theoretical knowledge and not practical, his answer will be that they differed. So, when they differ on an issue, let us take as an example the disagreement between the two great imams, al-Bukhari on one side and Muslim on the other. These are, of course, in the list of the early scholars whose opinions and ijtihad are cited as evidence. There is no god but Allah. As students of this knowledge know, Imam al-Bukhari does not establish a meeting between a student and a teacher merely because the student narrated from him and was his contemporary, unless it is proven that he actually met him. This is al-Bukhari’s opinion. Imam Muslim holds that this student who narrates from his teacher, who was his contemporary and is not known for tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), is considered connected by this contemporaneity alone. What is the position of this man who makes this claim, which first, no one has made before him, and which he has contradicted the path of the believers, and that is sufficient as a proof against him? And second, what does he do between these two opinions? He must adopt one opinion. So what is the benefit of this innovated division between the methodology of the early scholars and the methodology of the later scholars, when there is disagreement and difference of opinion among the early scholars themselves? What is the decisive ruling in the matter? Is it not returning to the evidence that this person is convinced by? I think that if he has some understanding, awareness, and fairness, he will say that it is necessary to let the evidence decide which of the two opinions is stronger. If that is the case, then it is necessary to return to the evidence in matters where people differ, whether the disagreement is old or new, or whether it is between the old and the new. In this situation, it is necessary to return to the evidence. If we assume that al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, who is considered one of the later scholars, contradicted al-Daraqutni, who is considered one of the early scholars, is it sufficient to say that this one is early, so his opinion is stronger than this one because he is late? This has no basis in knowledge at all, merely because this one is early and this one is late. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says in the authentic hadith, as you all know: So the transmitter in this hadith is undoubtedly the later one, and the listener is the early Companion. So perhaps an opinion from someone like al-Khatib is stronger in scientific criticism than the opinion of al-Daraqutni. So, in brief, I say that because this research is actually clearly invalid and does not occupy the mind at all—throughout the life we have spent in service of this knowledge, we never thought to confine our minds to gather the evidence that refutes the opinion of this claimant—but we are content with what we have presented. And the summary of that is that he contradicted the path of the believers, and that it is a waste of the efforts of the scholars I mentioned, such as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, who is rightly titled the Amir al-Mu'minin (Commander of the Faithful) in hadith. And how much did the first leave for the last? How is this classification, where the opinion of an early scholar is taken without looking at his proof and evidence, and is preferred over the saying of a later scholar, even if the evidence is established for the correctness of his opinion? Let us assume that al-Daraqutni criticized a hadith he narrated with a chain containing a man about whom some early scholars said he is unknown (majhul), so based on this saying, and he explicitly stated that he is unknown, the hadith became weak in his view. But there is a narration from some of the early imams authenticating this unknown man, which a later scholar adopted. Let it be al-Khatib al-Baghdadi or someone who came after him, and the last of them, as we said, the Amir al-Mu'minin, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, who adopted the opinion of those who authenticated this unknown man in the view of al-Daraqutni, and based on that, authenticated the hadith. What will be the position of this man who claims this claim, which is among the most invalid things heard in this time, the time of wonders and the time of loving to show off? And as we say repeatedly, loving to show off cuts off showing off. This is what prevents me from answering this question now. If you have anything else, please proceed.