Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah (Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām), vol. 2, p. 300
Is there any difference between the principles of the Muḥaddithīn (ḥadīth scholars) and the Fuqahā’ (jurists) in relation to the principles or acceptance of ḥadīth? It is said that in Imām al-Suyūṭī’s famous book Tadrīb al-Rāwī it is mentioned that the criteria for accepting ḥadīth according to the Fuqahā’ differ from those of the Muḥaddithīn. This is cited as a reason for the disagreement between the Four Imāms — especially Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله — and the Muḥaddithīn.
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
All scholars agree that a ḥadīth is considered ṣaḥīḥ if it meets these five conditions:
❀ ʿAdl – the narrator is upright and trustworthy.
❀ Ḍabṭ – the narrator has strong memory and precision.
❀ Ittiṣāl – the chain is continuous and unbroken.
❀ ʿAdam al-Shudhūdh – the ḥadīth is free from shudhūdh (contradicting stronger reports).
❀ ʿAdam al-ʿIllah al-Qādiḥah – there is no hidden defect that undermines its authenticity.
There are some partial and subsidiary differences between the Muḥaddithīn and certain other scholars, for example:
➊ Addition by a Reliable Narrator
If such an addition is free from shudhūdh, is it accepted absolutely, or is it considered opposition?
➋ Disagreements in Jarḥ wa-Taʿdīl
Muḥaddithīn sometimes differ regarding the reliability of specific narrators.
If by “Fuqahā’” we do not mean blind-following, sectarian jurists, then Muḥaddithīn and Fuqahā’ are essentially one group under two descriptive titles.
Examples:
❀ Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله was not only a great Muḥaddith — “Amīr al-Mu’minīn fī al-Ḥadīth” — but also an Imām in fiqh al-ḥadīth. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote about him:
"Wa-Imām al-dunyā fī fiqh al-ḥadīth" (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, no. 5727).
❀ Imām Muslim رحمه الله, compiler of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, was also highly proficient in fiqh. Ibn Ḥajar wrote:
"ʿĀlim bi-l-fiqh" (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, no. 6623).
Thus, to claim that Muḥaddithīn and Fuqahā’ are two separate and opposing groups is incorrect.
It is true that blind-following, sectarian jurists differ from Muḥaddithīn in approach. They may accept or reject mursal reports according to personal preference — accepting them when in favour, and rejecting them when against.
Shāh Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (Deobandī) admitted:
“I have examined these people and found that they create contradictory principles. If they find a weak ḥadīth supporting their madhhab, they say that the weakness is removed by multiple chains. But if they find a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth against their madhhab, they declare it shādh.”
(Fayḍ al-Bārī, vol. 2, p. 348; see also Taʿdād al-Rakaʿāt Qiyām Ramaḍān, p. 50)
Books such as Tadrīb al-Rāwī contain statements that may be:
❀ Ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf
❀ Proven or unproven
❀ In agreement or in contradiction
The only correct approach is:
❀ Trace the isnād of each statement.
❀ Investigate its authenticity.
❀ If it is not proven, it must be rejected and cannot be used as proof.
The alleged “principles” attributed to the Four Imāms have no authentic chain of transmission from them.
Example:
Some claim that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah or Imām Mālik رحمهما الله considered mursal ḥadīth to be ḥujjah. This has no proof with a ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan chain.
If personal desires are set aside and both sides return to the agreed-upon principles of the Muḥaddithīn and the Fuqahā’ who were themselves Muḥaddithīn, then the issue of whether a ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf will be resolved quickly — and that is the path to salvation.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
❖ Question
Is there any difference between the principles of the Muḥaddithīn (ḥadīth scholars) and the Fuqahā’ (jurists) in relation to the principles or acceptance of ḥadīth? It is said that in Imām al-Suyūṭī’s famous book Tadrīb al-Rāwī it is mentioned that the criteria for accepting ḥadīth according to the Fuqahā’ differ from those of the Muḥaddithīn. This is cited as a reason for the disagreement between the Four Imāms — especially Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله — and the Muḥaddithīn.
❖ Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
Five Agreed Conditions for a Ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth
All scholars agree that a ḥadīth is considered ṣaḥīḥ if it meets these five conditions:
❀ ʿAdl – the narrator is upright and trustworthy.
❀ Ḍabṭ – the narrator has strong memory and precision.
❀ Ittiṣāl – the chain is continuous and unbroken.
❀ ʿAdam al-Shudhūdh – the ḥadīth is free from shudhūdh (contradicting stronger reports).
❀ ʿAdam al-ʿIllah al-Qādiḥah – there is no hidden defect that undermines its authenticity.
Some Minor and Secondary Differences
There are some partial and subsidiary differences between the Muḥaddithīn and certain other scholars, for example:
➊ Addition by a Reliable Narrator
If such an addition is free from shudhūdh, is it accepted absolutely, or is it considered opposition?
➋ Disagreements in Jarḥ wa-Taʿdīl
Muḥaddithīn sometimes differ regarding the reliability of specific narrators.
Muḥaddithīn and Fuqahā’: Qualitative and Scholarly Overlap
If by “Fuqahā’” we do not mean blind-following, sectarian jurists, then Muḥaddithīn and Fuqahā’ are essentially one group under two descriptive titles.
Examples:
❀ Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله was not only a great Muḥaddith — “Amīr al-Mu’minīn fī al-Ḥadīth” — but also an Imām in fiqh al-ḥadīth. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote about him:
"Wa-Imām al-dunyā fī fiqh al-ḥadīth" (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, no. 5727).
❀ Imām Muslim رحمه الله, compiler of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, was also highly proficient in fiqh. Ibn Ḥajar wrote:
"ʿĀlim bi-l-fiqh" (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, no. 6623).
Thus, to claim that Muḥaddithīn and Fuqahā’ are two separate and opposing groups is incorrect.
Reality of the Blind-Following Fuqahā’
It is true that blind-following, sectarian jurists differ from Muḥaddithīn in approach. They may accept or reject mursal reports according to personal preference — accepting them when in favour, and rejecting them when against.
Shāh Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (Deobandī) admitted:
“I have examined these people and found that they create contradictory principles. If they find a weak ḥadīth supporting their madhhab, they say that the weakness is removed by multiple chains. But if they find a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth against their madhhab, they declare it shādh.”
(Fayḍ al-Bārī, vol. 2, p. 348; see also Taʿdād al-Rakaʿāt Qiyām Ramaḍān, p. 50)
On Sources Like Tadrīb al-Rāwī
Books such as Tadrīb al-Rāwī contain statements that may be:
❀ Ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf
❀ Proven or unproven
❀ In agreement or in contradiction
The only correct approach is:
❀ Trace the isnād of each statement.
❀ Investigate its authenticity.
❀ If it is not proven, it must be rejected and cannot be used as proof.
Warning About So-Called “Principles” of the Blind-Following Fuqahā’
The alleged “principles” attributed to the Four Imāms have no authentic chain of transmission from them.
Example:
Some claim that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah or Imām Mālik رحمهما الله considered mursal ḥadīth to be ḥujjah. This has no proof with a ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan chain.
If personal desires are set aside and both sides return to the agreed-upon principles of the Muḥaddithīn and the Fuqahā’ who were themselves Muḥaddithīn, then the issue of whether a ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf will be resolved quickly — and that is the path to salvation.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
