Here too is a statement from Imam Ahmad: "Acting upon a weak hadith is more beloved to me than opinion." Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and those who followed him interpreted this statement.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Here too is a statement from Imam Ahmad: "Acting upon a weak hadith is more beloved to me than opinion". Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and those who followed him, including Ibn al-Qayyim, and later scholars continued to speak of it, including the scholar Ahmad Shakir (may Allah have mercy on him). They stated that what is meant by "weak hadith" in Ahmad's statement is a hasan hadith, and some qualified this by specifying it as hasan li-ghayrihi (hasan due to supporting chains).
The Shaykh : What do you take from my being preoccupied with your phrase "those who followed him"? Does this expression mean it is acceptable?
The questioner : "Those who came after him." There is something in this expression, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I mean, perhaps it would have been better to say "along with him."
The questioner : Because his student is either "behind him" or "after him."
The Shaykh : Yes, just a word. The word "behind him" means...
The questioner : That he followed him in his opinion.
The Shaykh : I mean...
The questioner : So, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Sheikh al-Islam Ibn al-Qayyim...
The Shaykh : Well done.
The questioner : And some of the later scholars...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : They said that what is meant by it is a hasan hadith. Some of them distinguished and said "hasan li-ghayrihi" because, in the time of the early scholars, there was only sahih and da'if; they did not have the category of hasan. Does this mean, my Shaykh, through induction and practice, that you have found this statement to be correct?
The Shaykh : As for induction, no. But as for agreeing with them, yes.
The questioner : So, if we ask why, and the statement is clear, how is a hasan hadith called "weak" in Ahmad's terminology?
The Shaykh : As they mentioned, the classification of hadith into sahih and hasan was not known to them as we use it today, such as "sahih li-ghayrihi" and "sahih li-dhatihi." These technical terms are later innovations, but they express real matters, and that is necessary. So, how did the early scholars express themselves? They would say "a sahih hadith" and they would say "a weak hadith." Some of them, before Imam al-Bukhari and his student al-Tirmidhi, who popularized this usage... Since we cannot, Professor, accuse the early scholars of error merely because of our ignorance, we have no choice but to accept what they say. Since Ibn Taymiyyah, along with Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and others, said that this terminology of "sahih" and "hasan" was not known at that time, then it was either a sahih hadith or a weak hadith. But this "weak" category, according to the later technical term, was divided into two sections, just as we divide hadith into "weak" and "very weak." It appears that in their hearts at that time, they imagined that some of the weak hadith were at the level we now recognize as a hasan hadith. Since we have nothing to refute this justification or this description, we have no choice but to accept their statement. As far as I know, it is agreed upon that a weak hadith, in the technical sense that emerged after the division of hadith into sahih and hasan, is not suitable to establish a legal ruling, nor is it suitable to be preferred over the opinion that is mentioned, which, as is clear to you, refers to ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). Therefore, there are indications that compel us to accept what these Imams justified or followed in their negation of that classification and their interpretation of Imam Ahmad's statement as meaning that by "weak hadith" he intended what is known to us as a hasan hadith.
The questioner : This confirms what you established previously: when scholars mention or establish something, and we have nothing to refute or contradict it, acting upon their words is obligatory until we see a contradiction to their statement in the words of scholars or in the principles of scholars.
The Shaykh : That is so. Please proceed.
The Shaykh : What do you take from my being preoccupied with your phrase "those who followed him"? Does this expression mean it is acceptable?
The questioner : "Those who came after him." There is something in this expression, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I mean, perhaps it would have been better to say "along with him."
The questioner : Because his student is either "behind him" or "after him."
The Shaykh : Yes, just a word. The word "behind him" means...
The questioner : That he followed him in his opinion.
The Shaykh : I mean...
The questioner : So, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Sheikh al-Islam Ibn al-Qayyim...
The Shaykh : Well done.
The questioner : And some of the later scholars...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : They said that what is meant by it is a hasan hadith. Some of them distinguished and said "hasan li-ghayrihi" because, in the time of the early scholars, there was only sahih and da'if; they did not have the category of hasan. Does this mean, my Shaykh, through induction and practice, that you have found this statement to be correct?
The Shaykh : As for induction, no. But as for agreeing with them, yes.
The questioner : So, if we ask why, and the statement is clear, how is a hasan hadith called "weak" in Ahmad's terminology?
The Shaykh : As they mentioned, the classification of hadith into sahih and hasan was not known to them as we use it today, such as "sahih li-ghayrihi" and "sahih li-dhatihi." These technical terms are later innovations, but they express real matters, and that is necessary. So, how did the early scholars express themselves? They would say "a sahih hadith" and they would say "a weak hadith." Some of them, before Imam al-Bukhari and his student al-Tirmidhi, who popularized this usage... Since we cannot, Professor, accuse the early scholars of error merely because of our ignorance, we have no choice but to accept what they say. Since Ibn Taymiyyah, along with Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and others, said that this terminology of "sahih" and "hasan" was not known at that time, then it was either a sahih hadith or a weak hadith. But this "weak" category, according to the later technical term, was divided into two sections, just as we divide hadith into "weak" and "very weak." It appears that in their hearts at that time, they imagined that some of the weak hadith were at the level we now recognize as a hasan hadith. Since we have nothing to refute this justification or this description, we have no choice but to accept their statement. As far as I know, it is agreed upon that a weak hadith, in the technical sense that emerged after the division of hadith into sahih and hasan, is not suitable to establish a legal ruling, nor is it suitable to be preferred over the opinion that is mentioned, which, as is clear to you, refers to ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). Therefore, there are indications that compel us to accept what these Imams justified or followed in their negation of that classification and their interpretation of Imam Ahmad's statement as meaning that by "weak hadith" he intended what is known to us as a hasan hadith.
The questioner : This confirms what you established previously: when scholars mention or establish something, and we have nothing to refute or contradict it, acting upon their words is obligatory until we see a contradiction to their statement in the words of scholars or in the principles of scholars.
The Shaykh : That is so. Please proceed.