Is the rule that the consideration is the narrator's narration, not his opinion, correct?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The rule is that if the narrator narrates a narration that contradicts...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Wiping over the leather socks.
The Shaykh : Wiping over the leather socks is mass-transmitted (mutawatir).
The questioner : Wiping over the socks.
The Shaykh : Perhaps you mean wiping over the socks. In any case, complete your statement so we can see.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not considered, but you are making a double error. First, regarding what you uttered about wiping over the leather socks, this is... weak because it is mass-transmitted... and it is also weak to say that the hadith is about wiping over the leather socks, whereas the hadith is about wiping over the socks. And a weaker possibility is that the hadith is about wiping over the turban, which is the weakest. But I am certain that neither the first, nor the second, nor the third is an example of this rule you are transmitting. After this simple clarification, I say that this rule is a point of disagreement between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is and the majority of the imams. The Hanafis say: The consideration is the opinion of the narrator, not his narration. The majority, including the Shafi'is, reverse this, and the truth is with them, saying: The consideration is the narration of the narrator, not his opinion. The example that comes to mind now, which some Hanafi scholars mention in their books, is the hadith of seven washings: This hadith is narrated by Abu Hurayrah in the authentic collections. Then it was reported from Abu Hurayrah that he was asked about what a dog had licked, and he said: So the Hanafi scholars took the hadith of three washings and opposed the hadith of seven washings based on that rule: if the narrator contradicts his narration, the consideration is his opinion, not his narration, contrary to the majority. There is no doubt or ambiguity that the truth is not with them, but with those who oppose them. Among the general rules that you all know is that the Muslim is obligated to follow the Shari'ah, the Book and the Sunnah, and is not obligated to take the opinion of anyone, however high and exalted, if his opinion contradicts something from the Book or the Sunnah. This rule is agreed upon, and it is not permissible to depart from it or contradict it except by a text that necessitates this departure or necessitates an exception from it, just as is the treatment of the general and specific text, and the absolute and restricted text. If a general text comes, no one is permitted to specify this general text with the opinion of a jurist. Likewise, if an absolute text comes, it is not permissible to restrict it with the opinion of a jurist. It should be... the general rule applies in its generality until something comes to specify it. The absolute applies in its absoluteness until a restricted text comes, and so on. And I do not think except that Ibn Rajab supports this opinion, but I am most astonished from this...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. You took the answer. You took the answer when I said a jurist (mujtahid), not every narrator is a jurist. If you said it is not permissible to restrict the general text with the opinion of a jurist, to specify the general text with the opinion of the jurist, to restrict the absolute text with the opinion of the jurist, completely... the hadith scholar is below the jurist... because, as is said, and this is known by experience, not every hadith scholar is a jurist, and not every hadith scholar is a jurist. So every jurist is a jurist, but not every hadith scholar is a jurist. If you took the first answer, the other is included in it.
The questioner : Here, too, it is said, O our Shaykh, that the action of the narrator contrary to his narration is subject to possibility. He may be inattentive, forgetting, or forgetting his narration, too, or he may have exerted his judgment in something other than the known text. There are many things.
The Shaykh : Many possibilities. All of this is mentioned, even among the points (nukhbat) that some scholars of usul al-hadith mention. They mention from one of them: So-and-so narrated to me from me. Huh? How is this? For example, I narrated to Abu Malik, then I forgot it after a time. The topic comes... So if I say, Abu Malik narrated to me from me, this is very natural. Therefore, as is said, and man is not called man except for his forgetfulness, as you know. The infallible text is preserved. How is it turned away from this preserved, infallible text by the opinion of one who is not infallible... I do not know anyone from... who narrated the hadiths of wiping over the leather socks and then contradicted it. Even if found, he is contrary to the consensus of the scholars. I do not say only the hadith, but also the jurists who exerted judgment on... wiping over the leather socks, except for those you are afflicted with.
The questioner : Regarding... as well.
The student : No, wait a moment, O...
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Welcome, Abu 'Umar.
The student : Khaled Hamdan from Bahrain.
The Shaykh : Welcome, how are you?
The student : May Allah bless you.
The questioner : He greets you. The issue is the same...
The Shaykh : The rule.
The questioner : The rule, yes. If the narrator... one hadith, the narrator of the hadith is one, and he contradicted... his opinion as well, does it apply to him... or does it not apply...
The Shaykh : It is our previous hadith... if he shared with him... this is stronger.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Wiping over the leather socks.
The Shaykh : Wiping over the leather socks is mass-transmitted (mutawatir).
The questioner : Wiping over the socks.
The Shaykh : Perhaps you mean wiping over the socks. In any case, complete your statement so we can see.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not considered, but you are making a double error. First, regarding what you uttered about wiping over the leather socks, this is... weak because it is mass-transmitted... and it is also weak to say that the hadith is about wiping over the leather socks, whereas the hadith is about wiping over the socks. And a weaker possibility is that the hadith is about wiping over the turban, which is the weakest. But I am certain that neither the first, nor the second, nor the third is an example of this rule you are transmitting. After this simple clarification, I say that this rule is a point of disagreement between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is and the majority of the imams. The Hanafis say: The consideration is the opinion of the narrator, not his narration. The majority, including the Shafi'is, reverse this, and the truth is with them, saying: The consideration is the narration of the narrator, not his opinion. The example that comes to mind now, which some Hanafi scholars mention in their books, is the hadith of seven washings:
If a dog licks the vessel of one of you, wash it seven times, one of which is with earth.
إذا وَلَغَ الكلبُ في إناء أحدهم فاغسِلْه سبعًا إحداهما في الترابWash it three times.
يغسله ثلاثًاThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. You took the answer. You took the answer when I said a jurist (mujtahid), not every narrator is a jurist. If you said it is not permissible to restrict the general text with the opinion of a jurist, to specify the general text with the opinion of the jurist, to restrict the absolute text with the opinion of the jurist, completely... the hadith scholar is below the jurist... because, as is said, and this is known by experience, not every hadith scholar is a jurist, and not every hadith scholar is a jurist. So every jurist is a jurist, but not every hadith scholar is a jurist. If you took the first answer, the other is included in it.
The questioner : Here, too, it is said, O our Shaykh, that the action of the narrator contrary to his narration is subject to possibility. He may be inattentive, forgetting, or forgetting his narration, too, or he may have exerted his judgment in something other than the known text. There are many things.
The Shaykh : Many possibilities. All of this is mentioned, even among the points (nukhbat) that some scholars of usul al-hadith mention. They mention from one of them: So-and-so narrated to me from me. Huh? How is this? For example, I narrated to Abu Malik, then I forgot it after a time. The topic comes... So if I say, Abu Malik narrated to me from me, this is very natural. Therefore, as is said, and man is not called man except for his forgetfulness, as you know. The infallible text is preserved. How is it turned away from this preserved, infallible text by the opinion of one who is not infallible... I do not know anyone from... who narrated the hadiths of wiping over the leather socks and then contradicted it. Even if found, he is contrary to the consensus of the scholars. I do not say only the hadith, but also the jurists who exerted judgment on... wiping over the leather socks, except for those you are afflicted with.
The questioner : Regarding... as well.
The student : No, wait a moment, O...
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Welcome, Abu 'Umar.
The student : Khaled Hamdan from Bahrain.
The Shaykh : Welcome, how are you?
The student : May Allah bless you.
The questioner : He greets you. The issue is the same...
The Shaykh : The rule.
The questioner : The rule, yes. If the narrator... one hadith, the narrator of the hadith is one, and he contradicted... his opinion as well, does it apply to him... or does it not apply...
The Shaykh : It is our previous hadith... if he shared with him... this is stronger.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.