Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (13/371)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

some hadith scholars have criticized Suhayl ibn Abī Hazm.”] (*).

It has likewise been reported that some scholars among the Prophet’s Companions, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and others strongly warned against interpreting the Quran without knowledge. As for the reports that Mujāhid, Qatādah, and other scholars interpreted the Quran, we should not suppose that they spoke about it and interpreted it without knowledge or merely on their own authority. Indeed, reports from them support what we have said: they did not speak on their own authority without knowledge.

Whoever speaks about the Quran on the basis of his own opinion has undertaken something of which he has no knowledge and followed a course other than the one he was commanded to follow. Even if he arrived at the correct meaning, he would still have erred, because he did not approach the matter properly. He is like someone who judges between people in ignorance: he is destined for the Fire even if his judgment happens to be correct, though his offense is less grave than that of someone whose judgment is wrong. And Allah knows best.

Likewise, Allah Most High called those who accuse others of unlawful sexual intercourse liars, saying:

“Since they have not produced the witnesses, it is they who are the liars in the sight of Allah.”

Thus, the accuser is a liar even if the person he accused actually committed unlawful intercourse, because he reported something he was not permitted to report and ventured into a matter of which he had no knowledge. And Allah knows best.

For this reason, a number of the early generations scrupulously refrained from interpreting what they had no knowledge of. Thus, Shu‘bah narrated from Sulaymān, from ‘Abd Allāh ibn Murrah, from Abū Ma‘mar, who said:

Abū Bakr al-Siddīq said: “What earth would bear me, and what sky would shelter me, if I were to say about the Book of Allah what I do not know?”

Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām said: Mahmūd ibn Yazīd narrated to us

Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 113): This is how it appears in al-Fatāwā. Text has been omitted from the beginning of each chain of transmission. The missing text appears to be: Imam Ahmad said in his Musnad: “Mu’ammal narrated to us: Sufyān narrated to us: ‘Abd al-A‘lā narrated to us…” followed by the remainder of the hadith. It appears in al-Musnad, 1:269. Ahmad also narrated the following hadith from Wakī‘: “Sufyān ibn ‘Abd al-A‘lā narrated to us…” followed by the remainder of the hadith; al-Musnad, 1:233. As for his statement, “wa-bihi ilā al-Tirmidhī” (and through it, to al-Tirmidhī), the shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—may have narrated something through his chain before this hadith that was subsequently omitted from the manuscript. He then followed it with this hadith, using the same chain back to al-Tirmidhī, saying “wa-bihi” (and through it)—meaning through the preceding chain. Alternatively, “wa-bihi ilā” may be a scribal corruption of “wa-rawā” (and he narrated). This is the more likely possibility, and Allah knows best. There is also a scribal error in al-Tirmidhī’s chain of transmission: “Hassān ibn Hilāl” appears where the correct reading is “Habbān ibn Hilāl.” See al-Tirmidhī (2952).

تَكَلَّمَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ فِي سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي حَزْمٍ] (*) . وَهَكَذَا رَوَى بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَغَيْرِهِمْ أَنَّهُمْ شَدَّدُوا فِي أَنْ يُفَسَّرَ الْقُرْآنُ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَأَمَّا الَّذِي رُوِيَ عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ وقتادة وَغَيْرِهِمَا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ أَنَّهُمْ فَسَّرُوا الْقُرْآنَ فَلَيْسَ الظَّنُّ بِهِمْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَفَسَّرُوهُ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ أَوْ مِنْ قِبَلِ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنْهُمْ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى مَا قُلْنَا أَنَّهُمْ لَمْ يَقُولُوا مِنْ قِبَلِ أَنْفُسِهِمْ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ فَمَنْ قَالَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ بِرَأْيِهِ فَقَدْ تَكَلَّفَ مَا لَا عِلْمَ لَهُ بِهِ وَسَلَكَ غَيْرَ مَا أُمِرَ بِهِ فَلَوْ أَنَّهُ أَصَابَ الْمَعْنَى فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ لَكَانَ قَدْ أَخْطَأَ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَأْتِ الْأَمْرُ مِنْ بَابِهِ كَمَنْ حَكَمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ عَلَى جَهْلٍ فَهُوَ فِي النَّارِ وَإِنْ وَافَقَ حُكْمُهُ الصَّوَابَ فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ؛ لَكِنْ يَكُونُ أَخَفَّ جُرْمًا مِمَّنْ أَخْطَأَ وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ. وَهَكَذَا سَمَّى اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الْقَذَفَةَ كَاذِبِينَ فَقَالَ: {فَإِذْ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِالشُّهَدَاءِ فَأُولَئِكَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْكَاذِبُونَ} فَالْقَاذِفُ كَاذِبٌ وَلَوْ كَانَ قَدْ قَذَفَ مَنْ زَنَى فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ أَخْبَرَ بِمَا لَا يَحِلُّ لَهُ الْإِخْبَارُ بِهِ وَتَكَلَّفَ مَا لَا عِلْمَ لَهُ بِهِ وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ. وَلِهَذَا تَحَرَّجَ جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ السَّلَفِ عَنْ تَفْسِيرِ مَا لَا عِلْمَ لَهُمْ بِهِ كَمَا رَوَى شُعْبَةُ عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُرَّةَ عَنْ أَبِي مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ: أَيُّ أَرْضٍ تُقِلُّنِي وَأَيُّ سَمَاءٍ تُظِلُّنِي إذَا قُلْت فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مَا لَمْ أَعْلَمْ؟: وَقَالَ أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ الْقَاسِمُ بْنُ سَلَامٍ: حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ

قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ١١٣): كذا ورد في الفتاوى، وقد حصل سقط في بدايات كل سند، ويظهر أن السقط هو: قال الإمام أحمد في مسنده: حدثنا مؤمل حدثنا سفيان حدثنا عبد الأعلى. . . الحديث، وهو في المسند: ١/ ٢٦٩. والحديث الذي بعده رواه أحمد أيضاً عن وكيع حدثنا سفيان بن عبد الأعلى. . . الحديث: المسند: ١/ ٢٣٣. وأما قوله: (وبه إلى الترمذي)، فيحتمل أن الشيخ رحمه الله روى بإسناده قبل هذا الحديث شيئاً ولكنه سقط في النسخة، ثم ثنى بذكر هذا الحديث بالإسناد نفسه إلى الترمذي فقال (وبه - أي بالإسناد السابق -)، ويحتمل أن يكون (وبه إلى) مصحف من (وروى)، وهو الأقرب والله أعلم. هذا، وقد وقع تصحيف في سند الترمذي حيث وقع فيه (حسان بن هلال)، وصوابه (حبان بن هلال)، وانظر الترمذي (٢٩٥٢).