He asked about the school of Hasan al-Turabi. ? He was asked about the rules of hadith (the science of hadith): are they rational or scriptural? ?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... This school has begun to spread, even among those who are apparently less dangerous than it. There is no harm in naming it a school and a methodology; the intention is not specifically the school of Hasan al-Turabi. Several schools claim affiliation and operate in the arena based on this claim, asserting that every mujtahid has a share, that it is understood from the Book and the Sunnah, and that it is a carrier of multiple meanings, and so on. And they claim that... and this, of course, contradicts the fact that we have a specific path for understanding. In your question, we are elevating the research a little. Before that, I want to say a word or a rule: the rules of the science of hadith are rational rules, are they not?
The Shaykh: Only rational.
The questioner: I mean, the Lawgiver guided us to them; He directed us.
The Shaykh: I am asking you: are they only rational, or are they scriptural-rational? By "scriptural-rational," I mean understood by the intellect, or is it rational to which the Shari'ah has been applied? These are elastic words, political words used in parliaments?
The questioner: I mean, by the word "rules," I mean, for example, when we say, for instance, who is given precedence: the critique (jarh) or the vindication (ta'dil)?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The connection (wasl) or the disconnection (irsal).
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The stopping (waqf) or the raising (raf').
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Then, I mean, there is another level. By "rules," I mean the practical process of judging the hadith. There is a rule, and there is the application of the rule to the text or the hadith. So here there are two levels: the first level is the rule, and the second level is the application. The process of application is undoubtedly rational, is it not?
The Shaykh: What do you mean by rational?!
The questioner: I am not in the field of understanding the text right now!
The Shaykh: My brother, do not say "I am not," because that is a negation. You should say "I am such and such." I am asking you, and I hope the answer will be affirmative, not negative.
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh: And a point where we stop: among the methods of debaters, as you heard, they say to you "I am not, I am not, I am not."
The questioner: I want to verify.
The Shaykh: No, I am asking you about the behavior.
The questioner: Okay, excuse me.
The Shaykh: I am asking you about the behavior. We need affirmatives. When the scriptural text is applied to the rule, do you say that the intellect is what does this here? This is what I want to theorize! The application of the text to the rule?
The questioner: I do not want to argue, but...
The Shaykh: I know.
The questioner: It seems I misunderstood.
The Shaykh: But, but...
The questioner: Yes, yes, I mean right now I am not in the field of the text (matn), meaning...
The Shaykh: But?
The questioner: In the chain (sanad). The rules of the chain. My intention is the application of rational research in the process of judging the chain itself!
The Shaykh: First of all, we have not accepted rational research!
The questioner: Yes, that is it!
The Shaykh: If we stay at this point, we do not have abstract intellect. We are done with this point, my brother. We do not have abstract intellect; we have intellect nourished by the Shari'ah. Do you agree with this expression?
The questioner : There is no doubt.
The Shaykh: Good. And do we have intellect not nourished by the Shari'ah? Do you agree with this expression?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Fine. So when you say "the intellect," the listener needs to understand something from these two meanings: either abstract intellect not nourished, or nourished by the Shari'ah.
The questioner: I mean the Islamic intellect, the intellect nourished by the Shari'ah, undoubtedly!
The Shaykh: Good. So now, do you see how the definition of words is lenient regarding understanding? Now, repeat your question, you?
The questioner: My question is based on the statement that the rules of the science of hadith, as rules, are rational rules, the intellect which is...
The Shaykh: Rational nourished by the Shari'ah, not abstract intellect!
The questioner: Yes, this word is correct.
The Shaykh: Correct, undoubtedly. Otherwise, how would one understand the scriptural rulings without using his intellect!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: But here comes the question: is the intellect subordinate to the Shari'ah, or is the Shari'ah subordinate to the intellect?
The questioner: This is not the research.
The Shaykh: Yes, it is not the research. Let it be an interjected sentence, even if it is a bit long. The question is: is the intellect for the Shari'ah, or is the Shari'ah subordinate to the intellect?
The questioner: The question is, of course, the intellect is subordinate to the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner: For me, if the transmission (naql) is correct, the intellect testifies to it.
The Shaykh: Proceed, the rest.
The questioner: But my field of research is the essence, the rules of the science of hadith!
The Shaykh: I am telling you, proceed with what you are doing. Fine.
The questioner: Then, the process of using these rules in judging the hadith is a rational issue, meaning...
The Shaykh: Do you see what you are saying? Because I understood it this way and I went back and said, "I am not speaking about the text (matn), I am speaking about the chain (sanad)." You went back and said about the text, the text of the hadith!
The questioner: No, no, about the chain. You...
The Shaykh: But now, what is the text of the hadith!
The questioner: I mean the chain.
The Shaykh: Fine, the chain.
The questioner: I have an example to answer with. When Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) differs in judging a hadith...
The Shaykh: That it is authentic (sahih), and the other says it is good (hasan), and the third says...
The questioner: This is a rational issue: whether the condition is met or not met, meaning...
The Shaykh: Correct.
The Shaykh: Only rational.
The questioner: I mean, the Lawgiver guided us to them; He directed us.
The Shaykh: I am asking you: are they only rational, or are they scriptural-rational? By "scriptural-rational," I mean understood by the intellect, or is it rational to which the Shari'ah has been applied? These are elastic words, political words used in parliaments?
The questioner: I mean, by the word "rules," I mean, for example, when we say, for instance, who is given precedence: the critique (jarh) or the vindication (ta'dil)?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The connection (wasl) or the disconnection (irsal).
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The stopping (waqf) or the raising (raf').
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Then, I mean, there is another level. By "rules," I mean the practical process of judging the hadith. There is a rule, and there is the application of the rule to the text or the hadith. So here there are two levels: the first level is the rule, and the second level is the application. The process of application is undoubtedly rational, is it not?
The Shaykh: What do you mean by rational?!
The questioner: I am not in the field of understanding the text right now!
The Shaykh: My brother, do not say "I am not," because that is a negation. You should say "I am such and such." I am asking you, and I hope the answer will be affirmative, not negative.
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh: And a point where we stop: among the methods of debaters, as you heard, they say to you "I am not, I am not, I am not."
The questioner: I want to verify.
The Shaykh: No, I am asking you about the behavior.
The questioner: Okay, excuse me.
The Shaykh: I am asking you about the behavior. We need affirmatives. When the scriptural text is applied to the rule, do you say that the intellect is what does this here? This is what I want to theorize! The application of the text to the rule?
The questioner: I do not want to argue, but...
The Shaykh: I know.
The questioner: It seems I misunderstood.
The Shaykh: But, but...
The questioner: Yes, yes, I mean right now I am not in the field of the text (matn), meaning...
The Shaykh: But?
The questioner: In the chain (sanad). The rules of the chain. My intention is the application of rational research in the process of judging the chain itself!
The Shaykh: First of all, we have not accepted rational research!
The questioner: Yes, that is it!
The Shaykh: If we stay at this point, we do not have abstract intellect. We are done with this point, my brother. We do not have abstract intellect; we have intellect nourished by the Shari'ah. Do you agree with this expression?
The questioner : There is no doubt.
The Shaykh: Good. And do we have intellect not nourished by the Shari'ah? Do you agree with this expression?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Fine. So when you say "the intellect," the listener needs to understand something from these two meanings: either abstract intellect not nourished, or nourished by the Shari'ah.
The questioner: I mean the Islamic intellect, the intellect nourished by the Shari'ah, undoubtedly!
The Shaykh: Good. So now, do you see how the definition of words is lenient regarding understanding? Now, repeat your question, you?
The questioner: My question is based on the statement that the rules of the science of hadith, as rules, are rational rules, the intellect which is...
The Shaykh: Rational nourished by the Shari'ah, not abstract intellect!
The questioner: Yes, this word is correct.
The Shaykh: Correct, undoubtedly. Otherwise, how would one understand the scriptural rulings without using his intellect!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: But here comes the question: is the intellect subordinate to the Shari'ah, or is the Shari'ah subordinate to the intellect?
The questioner: This is not the research.
The Shaykh: Yes, it is not the research. Let it be an interjected sentence, even if it is a bit long. The question is: is the intellect for the Shari'ah, or is the Shari'ah subordinate to the intellect?
The questioner: The question is, of course, the intellect is subordinate to the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner: For me, if the transmission (naql) is correct, the intellect testifies to it.
The Shaykh: Proceed, the rest.
The questioner: But my field of research is the essence, the rules of the science of hadith!
The Shaykh: I am telling you, proceed with what you are doing. Fine.
The questioner: Then, the process of using these rules in judging the hadith is a rational issue, meaning...
The Shaykh: Do you see what you are saying? Because I understood it this way and I went back and said, "I am not speaking about the text (matn), I am speaking about the chain (sanad)." You went back and said about the text, the text of the hadith!
The questioner: No, no, about the chain. You...
The Shaykh: But now, what is the text of the hadith!
The questioner: I mean the chain.
The Shaykh: Fine, the chain.
The questioner: I have an example to answer with. When Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) differs in judging a hadith...
The Shaykh: That it is authentic (sahih), and the other says it is good (hasan), and the third says...
The questioner: This is a rational issue: whether the condition is met or not met, meaning...
The Shaykh: Correct.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.