What is your opinion of the one who says, "The hadith scholars did not establish a specific methodology for understanding the hadiths, so they used the methodology of the jurists"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The hadith scholars did not establish a specific methodology for understanding the hadiths.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : So they used a specific methodology, and the jurists tested the foundations of the jurists.
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : Is this opinion correct or not, my teacher?
The Shaykh : There is no harm in that. In the science of the principles of hadith, there are things that the jurists know in the science of the principles of jurisprudence that the hadith scholars may not know, and this is a specialization. Each of them benefits from the other. In fact, the science of the principles of jurisprudence is what truly helps in understanding the hadiths. But this is after foreignness (ajam) infiltrated the Muslims due to the large number of non-Arab Muslims. As for the Companions, they had no need to establish the science of hadith terminology and the science of jurisprudence terminology. But this is also a reality, and there is no blame on the hadith scholars for it, just as there are many, many sciences: the science of exegesis, the science of history, the science of language, and so on. If we find a man specialized in the science of language, we do not blame him, we do not fault him, we do not criticize him for not knowing the science of jurisprudence or the science of hadith. But we blame him and hold him accountable if he relies on his knowledge of the Arabic language and starts to strike blindly in the dark night in authenticating and weakening hadiths, and in understanding verses and hadiths. Here he is criticized. But if he specializes in his field, there is no harm in that. And we believe the following truth: the sciences that the jurists say are collective obligations (fard kifayah) cannot be performed by one individual of the Muslim community. So this person performs this duty, and this person performs that duty, then they cooperate and become one block. So if the hadith scholars did not establish guidelines and rules for the jurisprudence of hadith and the understanding of the science of hadith, that is because they were occupied with their specialization in hadith, which is sufficient for them as a service to Islam and the Muslims. And in contrast, the jurists and the principles scholars, and then the branch scholars who derive the specific issues from the rules and principles, that is it.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : I think, and Allah knows best, that this statement is intended, as you know, to express the sectarian bias (asabiyyah) that exists there, and the Hanafi sectarian bias. It is intended to belittle the hadith scholars and disparage them. So I say here: if we go back to the early eras, which are the eras of narrating and transmitting the hadith and establishing its guidelines and rules, which are still influential today and upon which scholars and students of knowledge live, we also find that those who established the other sciences, such as the science of the principles of jurisprudence and other sciences that help in understanding these texts, were the hadith scholars themselves. Like Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him); he would not have established the science of the principles of jurisprudence were it not for his extraordinary ability to understand the Prophetic texts.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : And similarly, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) and others came. It is also sufficient for us to say that even if Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), who is the imam of the school that these people are biased toward, had said... I mean, his statements on this matter are more famous and more widespread than for us to mention them to prove the truth and correctness of his opinion in these issues. He forbade dispensing with hadith in favor of jurisprudence, and that hadith is the broad foundation upon which Islamic jurisprudence was established.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : So they used a specific methodology, and the jurists tested the foundations of the jurists.
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : Is this opinion correct or not, my teacher?
The Shaykh : There is no harm in that. In the science of the principles of hadith, there are things that the jurists know in the science of the principles of jurisprudence that the hadith scholars may not know, and this is a specialization. Each of them benefits from the other. In fact, the science of the principles of jurisprudence is what truly helps in understanding the hadiths. But this is after foreignness (ajam) infiltrated the Muslims due to the large number of non-Arab Muslims. As for the Companions, they had no need to establish the science of hadith terminology and the science of jurisprudence terminology. But this is also a reality, and there is no blame on the hadith scholars for it, just as there are many, many sciences: the science of exegesis, the science of history, the science of language, and so on. If we find a man specialized in the science of language, we do not blame him, we do not fault him, we do not criticize him for not knowing the science of jurisprudence or the science of hadith. But we blame him and hold him accountable if he relies on his knowledge of the Arabic language and starts to strike blindly in the dark night in authenticating and weakening hadiths, and in understanding verses and hadiths. Here he is criticized. But if he specializes in his field, there is no harm in that. And we believe the following truth: the sciences that the jurists say are collective obligations (fard kifayah) cannot be performed by one individual of the Muslim community. So this person performs this duty, and this person performs that duty, then they cooperate and become one block. So if the hadith scholars did not establish guidelines and rules for the jurisprudence of hadith and the understanding of the science of hadith, that is because they were occupied with their specialization in hadith, which is sufficient for them as a service to Islam and the Muslims. And in contrast, the jurists and the principles scholars, and then the branch scholars who derive the specific issues from the rules and principles, that is it.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : I think, and Allah knows best, that this statement is intended, as you know, to express the sectarian bias (asabiyyah) that exists there, and the Hanafi sectarian bias. It is intended to belittle the hadith scholars and disparage them. So I say here: if we go back to the early eras, which are the eras of narrating and transmitting the hadith and establishing its guidelines and rules, which are still influential today and upon which scholars and students of knowledge live, we also find that those who established the other sciences, such as the science of the principles of jurisprudence and other sciences that help in understanding these texts, were the hadith scholars themselves. Like Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him); he would not have established the science of the principles of jurisprudence were it not for his extraordinary ability to understand the Prophetic texts.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : And similarly, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) and others came. It is also sufficient for us to say that even if Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), who is the imam of the school that these people are biased toward, had said... I mean, his statements on this matter are more famous and more widespread than for us to mention them to prove the truth and correctness of his opinion in these issues. He forbade dispensing with hadith in favor of jurisprudence, and that hadith is the broad foundation upon which Islamic jurisprudence was established.