Explanation of Their Specious Arguments
[See Al-Hadeeth Hujjah bi Nafsihi and Wujoob al-Akhdh bi Ahaadeeth al-Aahaad fi’l-Aqaa’id wa’l-Ahkaam, by Shaykh Naasiriddeen al-Albaani, and our book Asl al-I’tiqaad.]
We have noted that their argument is based on the claim that the reports used as evidence regarding matters ‘aqeedah should reach the level of certainty, and that if the meanings of the aahaad ahaadeeth, the texts of the Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth are not definitive, then they do not reach that level of certainty; rather they are conjecture, and conjecture cannot be used as evidence with regard to these matters because Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) says:
...They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire,...
(Qur’aan 53: 23)
And:
...They follow but a guess, and verily, guess is no substitute for the truth.
(Qur’aan 53: 28)
And there are other aayaat (verses) in which Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala), condemns the mushrikeen (idolaters) for following conjecture.
Their use of these and similar aayaat as evidence may be rejected, because the kind of conjecture or guess referred to in the aayaat is not the conjecture that they are referring to. The texts that they refuse to accept as evidence concerning matters of ‘aqeedah reached a level of high probability, whereas the conjecture which Allah condemns in the aayah: ...They follow but a guess... (Qur’aan 53: 23) is the kind of doubt which is mere speculation and conjecture, but in An-Nihaayah, Al-Lisaan and other Arabic dictionaries it is stated that zann (translated as “guess” in the aayah quoted above) refers to “when you have doubts about something but you accept it and judge according to it.”
This is the zann or guess which Allah condemned on the part of the mushrikeen. What supports this view is the fact that Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala), said concerning them:
...They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie.
(Qur’aan 6: 116)
So zann refers to conjecture which is mere speculation and guessing. If the zann for which the mushrikeen were condemned was high probability, then it would not be permitted to use the Qur’aan and ahaadeeth as evidence for rulings either, because Allah condemned the mushrikeen (idolaters) for following any kind of zann whatsoever. He did not condemn only zann in the case of beliefs and ignore the matter of rulings; in some aayaat (verses) He explains that the zann for which the mushrikeen are to be condemned includes their ideas about rulings too. Here is what Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) says, on this matter:
Those who took partners (in worship) with Allah will say: ‘If Allah had willed, we would not have taken partners (in worship) with Him, nor would our fathers...’
(Qur’aan 6: 148)
- this refers to belief or ‘aqeedah;
...And we would not have forbidden anything (against His Will)...
(Qur’aan 6: 148)
- this refers to rulings or hukm.
...Likewise belied those who were before them, (they argued falsely with Allah’s Messengers), till they tasted Our Wrath. Say: ‘Have you any knowledge (proof) that you can produce before us? Verily, you follow nothing but guess and you do nothing but lie.’
(Qur’aan 6: 148)
We do not accept what they say about the aahaad ahaadeeth not reaching the level of certainty. They do indeed reach that level. Siddeeq Hasan Khan said: “The dispute is with regard to aahaad reports for which there is no corroborating evidence and whether they constitute conjecture or certainty. In the case of aahaad reports for which there is corroborating evidence, there is no such dispute.
There is no dispute concerning aahaad reports where there is consensus (ijmaa’) that they should be acted upon, because this (ijmaa’) takes them to the level of certainty as it brings them to a point where they are known to be true. The same applies to aahaad reports which are accepted by the ummah, and followed according to the apparent meaning or an interpretation of their meaning, as is the case with the ahaadeeth in the Two Saheehs of Bukhari and Muslim.”
Al-‘Allaamah as-Safaareeni said in Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyah:
“If an aahaad report is well-known and widely accepted, suggests certainty, as if narrated by ‘Allaamah ibn Muflih and others from Ibn Ishaaq al-Asfaraayini and Ibn Foorak. It is also said that this brings it up to the level of being definite (definitely saheeh).”
Then he mentioned the view that if an aahaad report is not well known and widely accepted, this brings it to the level of probability (not certainty), because there is the possibility of confusion and error. But it is narrated that Imam al-Muwaffaq (Ibn Qudaamah), Ibn Hamdaan and At-Toofi concluded that such reports should reach the level of certainty if there is corroborating evidence.
Al’Allaamah ‘Alaa’ ad-Deen ‘Ali ibn Sulaymaan al-Mirdaawi said in Sharh at-Tahreer:
“This is a stronger, clear opinion and is correct.” He explained that corroborating evidence means “that one feels at ease with the aahaad reports just as one feels at ease with the mutawaatir reports, or something similar to that, to the extent that one has no doubts at all.”
He also stated that aahaad reports which are not well known and widely accepted may reach the level of certainty if it is narrated by one of the Imams whose scholarly pre-eminence and precise knowledge of ahaadeth is agreed upon.
He narrated from Al-Qaadi Abu Ya’laa, “This is the correct view (the view of the Hanbalis). Abu’l-Khattaab said, this is the apparent meaning of our companions’ view.”
As-Safaareeni mentioned that this was the view adopted by Ibn al-Zaa’ooni and Imam Taqiuddeen ibn Taymiya, then he said that this was the opinion of “the usooliyeen among the companions of Abu Haneefah, Ash-Shaafa’i and Ahmad – may Allah have mercy on them all – (who said that) if an aahaad report is accepted and followed by the ummah, then it reaches the level of certainty.”
Then he stated that those among the followers of the Aimmah (Imams),
(The founders of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence – Abu Haneefah, Maalik, Shafi’i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah be merciful to them all).
- who opposed this view were very few, and they were influenced by the scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam. He said that among those who said that aahaad reports reach the level of certainty were “Abu Ishaaq and Abu at-Tayyib. This has been mentioned by ‘Abdul Wahhab and his colleagues among the Maalikis, and by As-Sarkhasi and his colleagues among the Hanafis.” He said: “This is the view of most of the fuqahaa’, scholars of hadeeth, the salaf and most of the Ash’aris and others.”
Ibn as-Salaah said:
“What is narrated by Bukhari and Muslim reaches the level of certainty, contrary to the opinion of those who deny that on the basis that it only reaches the level of probability. But they explain that the ummah has widely accepted these ahaadeeth because they have to act upon a hadeeth even if it reaches the level of probability only. He said: ‘but ahaadeeth which only reach the level of probability may be wrong.’”
Ibn as-Salaah said:
“I used to favour this view and thought that it was valid, then it became clear to me that what we referred to first was the correct view, because it is thought to be correct by one who is infallible and whose thoughts cannot be wrong, for the ummah (Muslim community) in its consensus is infallible and is protected from error.” Ibn as-Salaah meant that the ummah had agreed unanimously that the ahaadeeth of Bukhari and Muslim are authentic.
As-Safaareeni said:
“When Ibn Katheer examined the view of Ibn as-Salaah that what is narrated in As-Saheehayn (the two collections of sound ahaadeeth – Bukhari and Muslim) is definitely correct, he said: ‘I agree with what Ibn as-Salaah stated and pointed out.’”
Then he mentioned that Ibn Katheer saw some written statements of his shaykh. Ibn Taymiyah, the conclusion of which was that he stated that the ahaadeeth which were well known and widely accepted by the ummah and transmitted from many scholars were definitely sound. After mentioning some of their names, he (i.e., Ibn Taymiyah) said:
“This is the view of all the scholars of hadeeth and most of the salaf.”
(Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyah, Pp. 17)
The correct view is that the saheeh aahaad ahaadeeth reach the level of certainty if they are supported by corroborating evidence, as we have narrated from a group of scholars. The ahaadeeth which were transmitted in the books of Sunnah and classed as saheeh (sound) by the scholars, with no doubts about their soundness and authenticity expressed by any of the scholars, reach the level of certainty by the consensus of the ummah that they are saheeh. This includes those ahaadeeth which were agreed upon by the two authors of the saheehs (i.e., Bukhari and Muslim), or which were narrated in either of the saheehayn, and about which no doubts were expressed by any scholars. The same applies to any other reports which are well known and widely accepted or have been narrated by one of the major celebrated scholars such as Maalik from Naafi’ from Ibn ‘Umar.
In conclusion: the Sunni scholars accept the saheeh aahaad ahaadeeth concerning both ‘aqeedah and ahkaam, without differentiating between the two. This is indicated by the fact that the aaimmah (Imams) of the Ahl ass-Sunnah, such as Maalik, Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’i, Ad-Daarimi and others, narrated in their compilations ahaadeeth which speak of ‘aqeedah, and that there are few mutawaatir reports among them. If they did not believe that such reports could be used as evidence, they would not have bothered to narrate them, examine them and record them. Whoever narrates anything other than that from them is lying about them, and it is not the issue whether the aahaad reports reached the level of high probability or certainty.
Those who say that these reports do not reach the level of certainty say that they can be accepted with regard to ‘aqeedah if they are proven sound. Even if they only reach the level of probability (in the view of some scholars), this does not mean that they are to be rejected if they talk about ‘aqeedah.
Ibn ‘Abdul Barr (may Allah have mercy on him), although he suggested that the aahaad reports do not reach the level of certainty, still believed that they should be accepted concerning matters of ‘aqeedah, just as they should be accepted concerning rulings (ahkaam). He attributed this view to Ahl as-Sunnah.
(Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, At-Tamheed, 1/7)