Reconciling Two Hadiths Related to Judicial Rulings and Independent Legal Reasoning
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
How do we reconcile the following two hadiths? The saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Abi Dawud 3573Sahih (Al-Albani) narrated by Abu Dawud. And the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whose meaning is: "The one who exercises independent legal reasoning, if he is correct, has two rewards, and if he errs, he has one reward." How do you reconcile the two hadiths?
There is no contradiction between them, praise be to Allah the Exalted; rather, the meaning is clear. The first hadith concerns the one who issues rulings for people out of ignorance, having no knowledge of the Shari'ah of Allah by which to judge between people; he is threatened with the Fire because of His saying: "without knowledge." Likewise, the one who knows the truth but acts unjustly out of desire, whether out of love for a person, for a bribe, or something similar, and thus acts unjustly in his ruling; these two are in the Fire. The first is in the Fire because he has no knowledge by which to judge, so he is ignorant and not qualified for the judiciary. As for the second, he deliberately acted unjustly and oppressively, so he is in the Fire. As for the first [in the context of the second hadith], he knew the truth and ruled by it, so he is in Paradise.
As for the hadith of independent legal reasoning narrated by 'Amr ibn al-'As (may Allah be pleased with him) and what came in its meaning, which is in the two Sahihs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said:Sahih Muslim 1716a This concerns the scholar who knows the rulings of the Shari'ah and is not ignorant, but some matters may be hidden from him and some things may be confusing to him. He exercises independent legal reasoning, seeks the truth, and looks into the evidence of the Shari'ah from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, seeking the ruling of the Shari'ah, but he does not hit the mark. So he has the reward of independent legal reasoning, and the reward of being correct is missed by him, and his error is forgiven; because he is a scholar who knows about the judiciary, but in some issues he may err after independent legal reasoning, seeking the truth, and having a good intention. So he is given the reward of independent legal reasoning, and the reward of being correct is missed by him.
The second [scholar] exercised independent legal reasoning in seeking the truth and cared about the evidence of the Shari'ah; he had no bad intention, but was an independent legal reasoner seeking the truth. So he was guided to it and ruled by the truth. So he has two rewards: the reward of being correct, and the reward of independent legal reasoning. And by this, it is known that there is no contradiction between the two hadiths, and praise be to Allah.
How do we reconcile the following two hadiths? The saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):
Judges are of three types, one of whom will go to Paradise and two to Hell. The one who will go to Paradise is a man who knows what is right and gives judgment accordingly; but a man who knows what is right and acts tyrannically in his judgment will go to Hell; and a man who gives judgment for people when he is ignorant will go to Hell.
القضاة ثلاثة: واحد في الجنة واثنان في النار؛ فأما الذي في الجنة فرجل عرف الحق فقضى به، ورجل عرف الحق فجار فهو في النار، ورجل قضى للناس على جهل فهو في النارThere is no contradiction between them, praise be to Allah the Exalted; rather, the meaning is clear. The first hadith concerns the one who issues rulings for people out of ignorance, having no knowledge of the Shari'ah of Allah by which to judge between people; he is threatened with the Fire because of His saying: "without knowledge." Likewise, the one who knows the truth but acts unjustly out of desire, whether out of love for a person, for a bribe, or something similar, and thus acts unjustly in his ruling; these two are in the Fire. The first is in the Fire because he has no knowledge by which to judge, so he is ignorant and not qualified for the judiciary. As for the second, he deliberately acted unjustly and oppressively, so he is in the Fire. As for the first [in the context of the second hadith], he knew the truth and ruled by it, so he is in Paradise.
As for the hadith of independent legal reasoning narrated by 'Amr ibn al-'As (may Allah be pleased with him) and what came in its meaning, which is in the two Sahihs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said:
When a judge gives a decision, having tried his best to decide correctly and is right, there are two rewards for him; and if he gave a judgment after having tried his best (to arrive at a correct decision) but erred, there is one reward for him.
إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد ثم أصاب فله أجران، وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجرThe second [scholar] exercised independent legal reasoning in seeking the truth and cared about the evidence of the Shari'ah; he had no bad intention, but was an independent legal reasoner seeking the truth. So he was guided to it and ruled by the truth. So he has two rewards: the reward of being correct, and the reward of independent legal reasoning. And by this, it is known that there is no contradiction between the two hadiths, and praise be to Allah.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.