The issue of ahad and mutawatir hadiths, and the Shaykh’s discussion with the Tahrir Party on this issue, and the ruling on denying a mutawatir hadith.

The Shaykh : It occurred to me, on the occasion of Professor 'Umar’s question, that if we return to the evidence, the words of the Malikis fall away and have no value whatsoever. In addition, they contradict what is known from the religion by necessity. Now, he says in Sahih Muslim, in the hadith of Anas ibn Malik, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was overcome by a nap, then he woke up and said: If this is from the surah, there are many texts in it with this meaning. But the problem is the following of the fathers and scholars out of sectarian bias, without any insight into the religion. This insight into the religion, in truth, makes the Muslim believe in things that others deny, and then not exaggerate in denying the deniers, as we mentioned earlier regarding what is authentic from Ibn Mas'ud that it did not reach him. Therefore, what is mentioned in some books of terminology regarding the absolute ruling that one who denies a mutawatir hadith is a disbeliever, and one who denies a valid hadith is an open sinner—I do not see this absolutization at all, for two reasons. The first reason is that the issue of mutawatir and validity is relative. What is mutawatir for Zayd is not mutawatir for 'Amr, and vice versa. From this arose the serious disagreement over whether ahad hadiths are to be accepted in matters of creed or not. As you know, the later scholars, unfortunately, the majority of them are of the opinion that ahad hadiths are not to be accepted in matters of creed. And the Tahrir Party, as you know, I think you know well, adopted this and made it part of their methodology, even though they fluctuated greatly and very much in it, where it wasThe Shaykh : Takiyy al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) was explicit in his book, I think its name is The Path of Faith, do you remember anything of this?
Al-Halabi : He has a book called The Personality.

The Shaykh : No, no, The Path of Faith. The important thing is that he was explicit there in its first edition that it is not permissible to accept ahad hadiths in matters of creed. Then they reprinted the book and changed and replaced the word "not permissible" with "not obligatory," so the phrase became "it is permissible." And may Allah (Mighty and Majestic) have decreed for us to meet them in the prison of al-Hasakah. We spent a month or two with them, and day and night discussions were held between us and them. Then they came out to the people with some other letters with a new interpretation. They said it is not permissible to believe, but it is obligatory to affirm. We said, Glory be to Allah, this is the science of Kalam, changing the words. The word "affirm" (tashdiq) in the Qur'an comes, as you all know, with the meaning of faith. So what is the difference between this and that? The important thing is that I intended to say, since the mutawatir hadith is relative, I said to them, and this is in fact the backbreaker for those who set these conditions for accepting hadiths related to the unseen or to creed. I said to them, this means that you do not believe in any creed except what came in the Qur'an. In fact, I can say you have no creed even in much of what came in the Qur'an, because they are influenced by one of the methods of Kalam, that creed—and this is known in the principles of Hanafi jurisprudence in some issues where they distinguish between fard and wajib—and they say fard is what is established by evidence that is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its indication. If one of the two conditions is lacking, fard is not established, but only obligation is established. Creed also is not established except by evidence that combines the two conditions: definitive in establishment and definitive in indication. Definitive in establishment, of course, does not exist except in the Qur'an or in some mutawatir hadiths. But not everything that is established in the Qur'an and is mutawatir, or established in the mutawatir Sunnah, can be free from another face of interpretation. It is possible that it is definitive in establishment but not definitive in indication. So where do you take your creed from? And the point, I told you, where do you, as individuals, know this rule that it is not permissible to accept, or at least it is not obligatory to accept, ahad hadiths in matters of creed? Look, they know you by the hadith of mutawatir, or rather, they know you by a hadith that is not mutawatir, by the valid and weak hadith, and you are not specialists in this subject. I gave them an example: suppose your leaderThe Shaykh : Takiyy al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) is the Bukhari of his time in hadith, and a hadith related to creed reached him from dozens of chains. This hadith is, without doubt, mutawatir and definitive in establishment for him. So when this eminent scholar, who is the Bukhari of his time, tells you this hadith is mutawatir, is it mutawatir for you? Of course not. It must be for you likeThe Shaykh : dozens, if not hundreds, depending on the difference in the definition of mutawatir among them. Each of these individuals, on his own, rules that this specific hadith is mutawatir. This news came to you as mutawatir for you. And once again, Glory be to Allah, with some of them, from so much of their contention and debate, I said, they claimed that one of these people went to call to Islam in Japan and started first by focusing on creeds and that Islam does not accept anything but certainty in creed, and so on. Among the things he taught them was this rule, that ahad hadiths do not establish creed. So there was a shrewd, smart man who said, "Professor, you say this, so the meaning of your words, combining creed and application, is that you must return to your country and bring us ten of your like who testify that this is creed." If we rest from this issue and assume that mutawatir is relative, and that for the majority of the Ummah it is not mutawatir, for the majority of the Ummah, ignoring what they know by mutawatir, then we are done with the problem of declaring a disbeliever one who denies a mutawatir hadith. Based on this detail, I firmly believe that it is not permissible to absolutely say that one who denies a mutawatir hadith is a disbeliever or is not a disbeliever, and that one who denies a valid hadith is not a disbeliever but is an open sinner. It should not be said absolutely, neither this nor that. Rather, I say, and Allah knows best, that this is the truth: one who denies a hadith that he believes in the depths of his heart that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke it, and then he did not accept it, denied it, and rejected it, he is a disbeliever without doubt. But a person, for example, like the one by whom the Ummah is afflicted now, a man from your country or near your country, here al-'Azali, this is a man who does not believe that these hadiths he denied were said by the Messenger (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, as they say in our region in Syria, "your eye, your eye," he comes to deny them. But due to his ignorance of the science of hadith and his non-recognition of the efforts of the Imams of hadith in this field, he has a doubt and he has a problem, and he returns to denying dozens of valid hadiths with his mind, if not with his desire. I cannot say that this man is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, but I say without doubt he is in danger, and it is between him and his Lord. If he believed that one of these hadiths that he proceeded to deny was actually said by the Messenger (peace be upon him), and nevertheless he denies it, this is the disbeliever, this is the heretic, and this is the atheist. But to take a general rule and build it on personal studies of very few individuals from this Ummah and apply it to every individual of the Ummah, this is very difficult. And if we know this reality, it will no longer pose a problem for us today how Ibn Mas'ud denied the Quranic status of the Mu'awwidhatayn, or how these Malikis continue to doubt the Basmalah. That is a scholar, and the news did not reach him through a path that convinces him. These are ignorant imitators. And as you know, regarding every imitator, there is no difference between an imitator and a beast that is led, as Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi or others (may Allah have mercy on him) said.
Al-Halabi : Ibn 'Abd al-Barr.

The Shaykh : Ibn 'Abd al-Barr also has a word from al-Tahawi on this meaning.
Al-Halabi : No one follows blindly except an ignorant person or a fool.

The Shaykh : Or a fool, correct. What without a meal, without food, or are we in food?
Al-Halabi : We praise Allah for the safety of the methodology that lets us get out of all these disagreements, and praise be to Allah.