How do jurists derive rulings from hadiths, which may be in the wording of the narrators?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : How do jurists establish the Prophetic wording and derive the ruling from it? For example, we sometimes encounter jurists deriving the ruling from the wording of the hadiths, just as they do from the wording of the Noble Qur'an. We know that hadiths are narrated by meaning, so how do they derive the ruling from the wording of the hadiths?
The Shaykh : My answer is clear and does not deviate from what has been said, but before I repeat myself, do you mean the mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) or the muqallids (those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence)?
The questioner : The mujtahids.
The Shaykh : The mujtahids.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I mean the four Imams, for example, and their like.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And not those who came after them.
The questioner : The four Imams, my teacher, I mean.
The Shaykh : Fine, so your question is: how do they derive? How, I mean?
The questioner : I mean, for example, they say the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used this word there to mean such and such, but we cannot establish the specific wording of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is possible that this wording is not the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) but the narrator's.
The Shaykh : My previous answer contradicts your subsequent denial.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : You say we cannot establish it. Our answer was that any hadith narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) without having multiple narrations is, by default, his speech (peace be upon him). You are now asserting the exact opposite, and this is a clear error?
The questioner: Is it clear?
The Shaykh : Fine, that is one thing. The second thing is that the critics of hadith science say that we have today dictionaries, such as the famous *Qamus al-Fayruzabadi*, for example, besides others. Where do they get the idea that they assign many, many meanings to a single word?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Did they use the same method that hadith scholars used to fix the wording of the hadith and its narration from the Messenger (peace be upon him), or did they not? What is your knowledge on this issue?
The questioner : They may have used it.
The Shaykh : Is my question clear?
The questioner : Clear, my teacher.
The Shaykh : Fine, do you have an answer to that?
The questioner : Yes, my teacher, yes.
The Shaykh : They have nothing but transmission, and not transmission from scholars, but from the Bedouin Arabs. For example, al-Asma'i says, "I heard an Arab, or a Bedouin in the desert, say such and such, so I knew that the meaning of the word is such and such."
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, and we do not know this Bedouin's origin or details.
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Here you see the importance of hadith science on one hand, and the danger of opening these doors of criticism on the other. Because if we concede to them this flimsy criticism of hadith science, which was served by mountains of memorizers, whereas the language was not granted such memorizers to transmit it, knowing that this language is what we use to interpret the Noble Qur'an. If they accept the Arabic language as given, why do they not accept the Prophetic Sunnah as given, given the vast difference between those who transmitted the language and those who transmitted the Prophetic hadith? So the original question is wrong in two aspects. The first aspect, mentioned earlier, is that whenever a hadith established from the Messenger (peace be upon him) comes to us, the default is that this is his speech. When do we depart from this default? When the contrary is established.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, and if the contrary is established, we return to the issue of narration by meaning. What matters to us then? Did the wording go, or what synonym went?
The questioner : It passed.
The Shaykh : It passed and departed, to the end of it. "Came" and "arrived." What matters to us, for example, I am mentioning now a hadith:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1085Da'if (Darussalam), in a narration: Sunan Ibn Majah 1967Da'if (Darussalam). What harm is there if it is this or that, because the meaning is the same? So we only stop at this doubt in one case, which is when multiple narrations come, and these narrations have disturbance and difference in them. And here hadith science comes in, with the anomalous and the defective, and then we exit the problem with hadith science. But if this problem does not arise, the default is that this is the speech of the Messenger (peace be upon him). And if we lower the degree, it is possible that it is not the speech of the Messenger, but its meaning is certain. So what do we have to do with the fact that this meaning is not the wording of the Messenger? The important thing is that its meaning does not become another meaning. This is the answer, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Thank you very much, my teacher.
The Shaykh : Welcome.
The questioner : The last question, my apologies.
The Shaykh : Where did you get your support from?
The Shaykh : My answer is clear and does not deviate from what has been said, but before I repeat myself, do you mean the mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) or the muqallids (those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence)?
The questioner : The mujtahids.
The Shaykh : The mujtahids.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I mean the four Imams, for example, and their like.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And not those who came after them.
The questioner : The four Imams, my teacher, I mean.
The Shaykh : Fine, so your question is: how do they derive? How, I mean?
The questioner : I mean, for example, they say the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used this word there to mean such and such, but we cannot establish the specific wording of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is possible that this wording is not the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) but the narrator's.
The Shaykh : My previous answer contradicts your subsequent denial.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : You say we cannot establish it. Our answer was that any hadith narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) without having multiple narrations is, by default, his speech (peace be upon him). You are now asserting the exact opposite, and this is a clear error?
The questioner: Is it clear?
The Shaykh : Fine, that is one thing. The second thing is that the critics of hadith science say that we have today dictionaries, such as the famous *Qamus al-Fayruzabadi*, for example, besides others. Where do they get the idea that they assign many, many meanings to a single word?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Did they use the same method that hadith scholars used to fix the wording of the hadith and its narration from the Messenger (peace be upon him), or did they not? What is your knowledge on this issue?
The questioner : They may have used it.
The Shaykh : Is my question clear?
The questioner : Clear, my teacher.
The Shaykh : Fine, do you have an answer to that?
The questioner : Yes, my teacher, yes.
The Shaykh : They have nothing but transmission, and not transmission from scholars, but from the Bedouin Arabs. For example, al-Asma'i says, "I heard an Arab, or a Bedouin in the desert, say such and such, so I knew that the meaning of the word is such and such."
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, and we do not know this Bedouin's origin or details.
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Here you see the importance of hadith science on one hand, and the danger of opening these doors of criticism on the other. Because if we concede to them this flimsy criticism of hadith science, which was served by mountains of memorizers, whereas the language was not granted such memorizers to transmit it, knowing that this language is what we use to interpret the Noble Qur'an. If they accept the Arabic language as given, why do they not accept the Prophetic Sunnah as given, given the vast difference between those who transmitted the language and those who transmitted the Prophetic hadith? So the original question is wrong in two aspects. The first aspect, mentioned earlier, is that whenever a hadith established from the Messenger (peace be upon him) comes to us, the default is that this is his speech. When do we depart from this default? When the contrary is established.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, and if the contrary is established, we return to the issue of narration by meaning. What matters to us then? Did the wording go, or what synonym went?
The questioner : It passed.
The Shaykh : It passed and departed, to the end of it. "Came" and "arrived." What matters to us, for example, I am mentioning now a hadith:
When someone whose religion and character you are pleased with comes to you then marry (her to) him
إذا جاءكم مَن ترضَونَ دينه وخلقه فزوِّجوهIf there comes to you one with whose
إذا أتاكم مَن ترضَون دينهThe questioner : Thank you very much, my teacher.
The Shaykh : Welcome.
The questioner : The last question, my apologies.
The Shaykh : Where did you get your support from?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.