(Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to Questions from Visitors to his Facebook Page "Fiqhi")
Answer to a Question
To: Alaeddin Abdullah
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
It was mentioned in the book, The Islamic Personality (Ash-Shakhsiyyah Al-Islamiyyah), Volume III, regarding the Hasan hadith after its division into two parts, the following concerning the second part:
"That its narrator be among those famous for truthfulness and honesty, although he did not reach the level of the narrators of Sahih hadith because he falls short of them. The Hasan hadith is used as evidence just like the Sahih hadith, equally. Whatever hadiths are mentioned in the books of the Imams, their students, and other scholars and jurists are considered Hasan hadith and are used as evidence because they cited them as evidence for a rule or derived a rule from them. Thus, it is a Hasan hadith, whether it appeared in books of Usul al-Fiqh or Fiqh, provided that they are authoritative books like Al-Mabsut, Al-Umm, Al-Mudawwanah al-Kubra, and their like, not like the books of Al-Bajuri, Ash-Shanshouri, and their ilk. As for the hadiths mentioned in books of Tafsir, they are not to be paid attention to nor used as evidence, even if the Mufassir (exegete) was a Mujtahid Imam. This is because they were mentioned to explain a verse, not to derive a rule, and there is a difference between the two. Moreover, the Mufassirs usually do not care about scrutinizing the hadiths they cite; therefore, these hadiths are not considered valid merely by their appearance in Tafsir, as is the case in the books of Fiqh belonging to the Imams and scholars. Rather, it is necessary to research the hadith, even through taqlid (imitation), by asking the people of Hadith or referring to one of the authoritative books of Hadith." [End quote]
Question: How did we conclude that what the jurists (Fuqaha) or the scholars of principles (Usuliyyun) cited as evidence in the major works (Ummahat) of Fiqh or Usul is considered Hasan? Is our trust in their knowledge and status sufficient to consider what they used as evidence as being correctly attributed to the Messenger of Allah (saw), while knowing that the great Imams varied in their knowledge of Hadith?
How do we interpret the statement of Imam al-Shafi'i and other Imams: "If the hadith is authentic (Sahih), then throw my statement against the wall"? It seems to imply investigating what he says, and conducting research and scrutiny into it. Is the appearance of a hadith in one of the authoritative major books of Fiqh and Usul sufficient, or is its appearance in a number of them a condition? If it appears in a number of them, should there not be other criteria, such as it not being confined to the books of a single Madhhab (school of thought), but rather appearing in the authoritative major books across more than one Madhhab?
May Allah be your helper. (Abu Hanifa)
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
If a reputable scholar or Mujtahid uses a hadith as evidence, that hadith must be valid for him to use as evidence in terms of its attribution to the Messenger of Allah (saw). This is because he is deriving a Shari'ah rule from it, and it is inconceivable that he would use it as evidence if it had fallen below the level of being suitable for evidence in his view. The Imams’ use of hadith as evidence, especially the early ones (Mutaqaddimun), and the prominent jurists' use of hadith as evidence, makes us feel confident in using it as evidence just as they did, and we place it in the rank of Hasan hadith, out of trust in their knowledge and piety. This does not mean accepting every hadith mentioned in books of Fiqh or Usul; we may scrutinize a hadith mentioned in the books of the Imams and it may become clear to us that it is weak (Da'if) according to our principles, so we do not adopt it. In fact, we may even scrutinize a hadith mentioned in the authoritative books of Hadith and find it to be weak, and thus we do not use it as evidence.
However, the acceptance and rejection of hadith have their own science and principles. It says in The Islamic Personality, Volume I, in the chapter "The Accepted Hadith and the Rejected Hadith," the following:
"It becomes clear from the division of hadith by its scholars into Sahih, Hasan, and Da'if, that the Sahih hadith and the Hasan hadith are the ones used as evidence, while the Da'if hadith is not used as evidence. What makes a hadith accepted or rejected is the examination of the Sanad (chain of narration), the narrator, and the Matn (text). If no narrator is omitted from the chain whose omission leads to the lack of accreditation of the omitted one, and the narrator is not disparaged, and the text is not weak in style nor contradictory to some parts of the Quran, the Mutawatir Sunnah, or the definitive Ijma' (consensus), then the hadith in this case is accepted, acted upon, and taken as a Shari'ah evidence, whether it is Sahih or Hasan.
As for when the hadith does not possess these characteristics, the hadith is rejected and not used as evidence..."
"One should not be overly pedantic in rejecting a hadith as long as it can be accepted according to the requirements of the chain, the narrator, and the text. This is especially true if the majority of scholars have accepted it and the general body of jurists have used it; then it is worthy of acceptance, even if it does not meet the conditions of Sahih, because it falls under Hasan. Just as it is not permissible to be pedantic in rejecting a hadith, it is also not permissible to be lenient regarding hadith by accepting a hadith that is rejected due to the chain, the narrator, or the text..." [End quote]
It also says in the same book under the chapter "Considering Hadith as Evidence for Shari'ah Rules":
"...However, the Ahad report that is fit to be evidence for a Shari'ah rule is the Sahih hadith and the Hasan hadith. As for the Da'if hadith, it is absolutely unfit to be a Shari'ah evidence. Anyone who uses it as evidence is not considered to have relied on a Shari'ah evidence. However, considering a hadith as Sahih or Hasan is determined by the one using it as evidence, provided he has the competence to know hadith, and not necessarily by all Hadith scholars (Muhaddithun). This is because there are narrators considered trustworthy (thiqah) by some Muhaddithun and considered untrustworthy by others, or considered unknown (majhul) by some and well-known by others. There are hadiths that are not authentic through one route but are authentic through another. There are routes not considered authentic by some but considered authentic by others. There are hadiths that some Muhaddithun did not consider and impugned, while other Muhaddithun considered them and used them as evidence. There are hadiths impugned by some people of Hadith, but accepted and used as evidence by the general body of jurists. Just as it is not permissible to rush to accept a hadith without looking into its authenticity, it is also not permissible to rush to impugn a hadith and reject it just because one of the Muhaddithun impugned its narrator, due to the possibility that he might be accepted by another narrator or because the Imams and the general body of jurists might have used it as evidence. Therefore, one must be deliberate and think about the hadith before proceeding to impugn or reject it. Anyone who tracks narrators and hadiths will find many such differences among the Muhaddithun, and the examples of this are very numerous.
For example: Abu Dawood narrated from Amr bin Shu'aib, from his father, from his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
الْمُؤْمِنُونَ تَتَكَافَأُ دِمَاؤُهُمْ، وَيَسْعَى بِذِمَّتِهِمْ أَدْنَاهُمْ، وَيُجِيرُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَقْصَاهُمْ، وَهُمْ يَدٌ عَلَى مَنْ سِوَاهُمْ، يَرُدُّ مُشَدُّهُمْ عَلَى مُضْعِفِهِمْ، وَمُتَسَرِّيهِمْ عَلَى قَاعِدِهِمْ
'The believers are equal in respect of blood, the lowest of them is entitled to give protection on behalf of them, and the furthest of them provides protection for them, and they are one hand against others; those who are strong among them return to those who are weak, and those who go on expeditions return to those who stay behind.'
The narrator of this hadith is Amr bin Shu'aib, and concerning Amr bin Shu'aib from his father from his grandfather, there is a well-known dispute; nevertheless, many have used his hadith as evidence while others rejected it..." [End quote]
Thus, the hadith that recognized jurists and scholars of Usul act upon is considered Hasan. It is not required for a hadith mentioned in the books of recognized jurists and scholars of Usul to be mentioned in many books to be considered Hasan; it is sufficient for it to be mentioned to an extent that provides confidence in the validity of using it as evidence. However, its appearance in many books and across multiple Madhhabs increases the confidence in using it as evidence.
As for Al-Shafi'i's statement, it is correct, and it does not contradict what we have said. We consider the hadith from which recognized scholars derived a Shari'ah rule to be Hasan, but this is if there is no Sahih hadith stronger than it. Otherwise, we judge the evidences according to the followed principles in terms of reconciling between evidences or preferring (tarjih) between them, as is well known in its respective chapter in Usul al-Fiqh.
Your brother,
Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page.
Link to the answer from the Ameer's website.
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Google Plus page.