Is the one who holds that it is obligatory to refer to the early scholars in the science of hadith and does not rely on the words of the later scholars considered to be disparaging them?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In these recent days, a lot of talk has spread regarding the issue that these later scholars who are engaged in the science of hadith, or those who precede them slightly, such as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and others, are not to be relied upon. Some people who put themselves forward for teaching say that their words are not to be relied upon because they are from the later scholars, and that only the words of the early scholars are to be relied upon. And by this, Shaykh, there has arisen disparagement of these scholars, who are known for following the Sunnah, defending it, and waging war against the people of innovation. Shaykh, is this action correct?
The Shaykh : Good intention does not indicate knowledge, and the perfection of knowledge does not necessitate a good intention. These people you mentioned who defend the Sunnah and denounce innovation and the like, this does not necessitate that they are more knowledgeable than those who came before them. However, for us to discard their words and say that they have no value, this is an error. Rather, we follow them in taqlid except where we have established that their words are contrary to the truth. Otherwise, we follow al-Albani, we follow Ibn Hajar, and we follow other of the memorizers. But if we establish an error, we do not follow. If the authentication of an earlier imam contradicts the weakening of these later scholars, we prefer the one who came first, because they are clearer in mind and broader in knowledge. They may authenticate a hadith for reasons these later scholars do not know, such as the acceptance of the Ummah of it. And they may weaken a hadith for reasons these later scholars do not know, such as its anomaly or its being denounced, and the like. But without a contradiction, it is not permissible for us to discard the words of these people at all. These are imams, memorizers, and recognized authorities, and we follow them in taqlid. But it does not mean that if we follow them and see that they are more knowledgeable than us, we should accept from them every error and truth, or believe that they are infallible from error. This is not correct. We suffice with research, or do we take?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes? Because Ali Abu al-Hasan also had a question.
The questioner : I have no question, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Okay?
The questioner : Shaykh, I mean, if we rely on the words of the early imams, there is good and blessing in that. But Shaykh, the student sometimes faces contradictions in the words of the early scholars. For example, Ibn 'Adi (may Allah have mercy on him), the author of the book "Al-Kamil fi al-Du'afa", says regarding the imam 'Abd al-Razzaq ibn Hammam al-San'ani that he is sometimes truthful, and in another instance he authenticates 'Abd al-Razzaq and establishes that he is truthful and that he is an imam. So I mean, combining the words of the early scholars with the understanding of the later scholars to reconcile this, is that good?
Another questioner: ...
The Shaykh : In any case, the dispute is over the opinion, not over the principle. Rather, we see in our view that the early scholars are closer to the truth than the later scholars. And if the authentication of the first group contradicts the weakening of the second group, or vice versa, we take the opinion of the first group, unless we reach a degree of knowledge that negates this or that. But if we reach a degree of knowledge, we have no excuse before Allah. We must take what our knowledge has reached. And this is sound. He has a conclusion.
The questioner : ... he has clear evidence ... .
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : ... a clear argument, clear evidence, this is what ... .
The Shaykh : This is without doubt. The proof is on the claimant. Yes, indeed.
The questioner : I mean, some of the people's talk ... they speak according to desire, they do not speak with evidence.
The Shaykh : Correct, without doubt.
The questioner : There are, Shaykh, students of knowledge who do not acknowledge Ibn Hajar's authentication now, and they say that "Al-Taqrib" is based on this, not on that. Authentication is only what the early scholars authenticated, and that is all. The later scholars like Ibn Hajar and others, their authentication has no value.
The Shaykh : Yes ... I say these people do not ... .
The questioner : But now ... Shaykh, and they know.
The Shaykh : By Allah, my brother Yahya, in any case, the guidance has occurred on occasions. But I say to everyone, there are students of knowledge who have gathered fragments of knowledge and thought that they had gathered all the knowledge, and thought that they were the scholars and that everyone else was their students. These people are problematic. Their matter is truly problematic. I mean, knowledge may be with many of the brothers, but more important than this is also understanding. Understanding, understanding. Even 'Umar said to Abu Musa: "Understanding, understanding in what you convey". Understanding is everything: knowledge, then understanding. And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This is authentic.
The questioner : But ... he was teaching the Sunan. He was asked, why do you not teach the Sahih? Why do you not explain the two Sahihs? He said, if I explained them, I would weaken some hadiths that no one had preceded me in doing so.
The Shaykh : This is the problem.
The questioner : ... and therefore he says, I will not teach the two Sahihs, I will not authenticate, and I will not speak about the men of the two Sahihs.
The Shaykh : It must be said to this man: It is forbidden for you to know that there are weak hadiths in the two Sahihs and then not clarify them, while the people rely on them. Originally, my brother Ali, the door is not open, because the door before these people is closed. The issue of criticizing the two Sahihs or one of them, praise be to Allah, the scholars have answered it with a general answer and a detailed answer. The general answer is that they said: If your opinion contradicts the opinion of al-Bukhari, al-Bukhari is an imam whose imamate is agreed upon, so the two opinions contradict, and he is more deserving of preference than you. And we say the same for Muslim. As for the detail, the scholars have written on this. Ibn Hajar, al-'Iraqi, and others have written in response to this, hadith by hadith, and much more. And what opens the door? No. And many people, and it is a very important issue for the student of hadith who wants jurisprudence, rely on the apparent chain and the trustworthiness of its men, while knowing that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) who defined the Sahih conditioned two conditions that are necessary: freedom from anomaly and from a decisive defect. And yet, many of the later brothers, the young men who are engaged in the science of hadith, rely only on the apparent chain and do not look at the hadith to see if it is in accordance with the principles of the Shari'ah or not. They do not care about this matter.
The Shaykh : Good intention does not indicate knowledge, and the perfection of knowledge does not necessitate a good intention. These people you mentioned who defend the Sunnah and denounce innovation and the like, this does not necessitate that they are more knowledgeable than those who came before them. However, for us to discard their words and say that they have no value, this is an error. Rather, we follow them in taqlid except where we have established that their words are contrary to the truth. Otherwise, we follow al-Albani, we follow Ibn Hajar, and we follow other of the memorizers. But if we establish an error, we do not follow. If the authentication of an earlier imam contradicts the weakening of these later scholars, we prefer the one who came first, because they are clearer in mind and broader in knowledge. They may authenticate a hadith for reasons these later scholars do not know, such as the acceptance of the Ummah of it. And they may weaken a hadith for reasons these later scholars do not know, such as its anomaly or its being denounced, and the like. But without a contradiction, it is not permissible for us to discard the words of these people at all. These are imams, memorizers, and recognized authorities, and we follow them in taqlid. But it does not mean that if we follow them and see that they are more knowledgeable than us, we should accept from them every error and truth, or believe that they are infallible from error. This is not correct. We suffice with research, or do we take?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes? Because Ali Abu al-Hasan also had a question.
The questioner : I have no question, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Okay?
The questioner : Shaykh, I mean, if we rely on the words of the early imams, there is good and blessing in that. But Shaykh, the student sometimes faces contradictions in the words of the early scholars. For example, Ibn 'Adi (may Allah have mercy on him), the author of the book "Al-Kamil fi al-Du'afa", says regarding the imam 'Abd al-Razzaq ibn Hammam al-San'ani that he is sometimes truthful, and in another instance he authenticates 'Abd al-Razzaq and establishes that he is truthful and that he is an imam. So I mean, combining the words of the early scholars with the understanding of the later scholars to reconcile this, is that good?
Another questioner: ...
The Shaykh : In any case, the dispute is over the opinion, not over the principle. Rather, we see in our view that the early scholars are closer to the truth than the later scholars. And if the authentication of the first group contradicts the weakening of the second group, or vice versa, we take the opinion of the first group, unless we reach a degree of knowledge that negates this or that. But if we reach a degree of knowledge, we have no excuse before Allah. We must take what our knowledge has reached. And this is sound. He has a conclusion.
The questioner : ... he has clear evidence ... .
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : ... a clear argument, clear evidence, this is what ... .
The Shaykh : This is without doubt. The proof is on the claimant. Yes, indeed.
The questioner : I mean, some of the people's talk ... they speak according to desire, they do not speak with evidence.
The Shaykh : Correct, without doubt.
The questioner : There are, Shaykh, students of knowledge who do not acknowledge Ibn Hajar's authentication now, and they say that "Al-Taqrib" is based on this, not on that. Authentication is only what the early scholars authenticated, and that is all. The later scholars like Ibn Hajar and others, their authentication has no value.
The Shaykh : Yes ... I say these people do not ... .
The questioner : But now ... Shaykh, and they know.
The Shaykh : By Allah, my brother Yahya, in any case, the guidance has occurred on occasions. But I say to everyone, there are students of knowledge who have gathered fragments of knowledge and thought that they had gathered all the knowledge, and thought that they were the scholars and that everyone else was their students. These people are problematic. Their matter is truly problematic. I mean, knowledge may be with many of the brothers, but more important than this is also understanding. Understanding, understanding. Even 'Umar said to Abu Musa: "Understanding, understanding in what you convey". Understanding is everything: knowledge, then understanding. And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Some conveyer is more understanding than the listener, and some carrier of jurisprudence is not a jurist.
رب مبلّغ أوعى من سامع ورب حامل فقه غير فقيهThe questioner : But ... he was teaching the Sunan. He was asked, why do you not teach the Sahih? Why do you not explain the two Sahihs? He said, if I explained them, I would weaken some hadiths that no one had preceded me in doing so.
The Shaykh : This is the problem.
The questioner : ... and therefore he says, I will not teach the two Sahihs, I will not authenticate, and I will not speak about the men of the two Sahihs.
The Shaykh : It must be said to this man: It is forbidden for you to know that there are weak hadiths in the two Sahihs and then not clarify them, while the people rely on them. Originally, my brother Ali, the door is not open, because the door before these people is closed. The issue of criticizing the two Sahihs or one of them, praise be to Allah, the scholars have answered it with a general answer and a detailed answer. The general answer is that they said: If your opinion contradicts the opinion of al-Bukhari, al-Bukhari is an imam whose imamate is agreed upon, so the two opinions contradict, and he is more deserving of preference than you. And we say the same for Muslim. As for the detail, the scholars have written on this. Ibn Hajar, al-'Iraqi, and others have written in response to this, hadith by hadith, and much more. And what opens the door? No. And many people, and it is a very important issue for the student of hadith who wants jurisprudence, rely on the apparent chain and the trustworthiness of its men, while knowing that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) who defined the Sahih conditioned two conditions that are necessary: freedom from anomaly and from a decisive defect. And yet, many of the later brothers, the young men who are engaged in the science of hadith, rely only on the apparent chain and do not look at the hadith to see if it is in accordance with the principles of the Shari'ah or not. They do not care about this matter.