Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (7/825)

Silsilat al-Ahadith al-SahihahNasir al-Din al-Albani

so I may think that he is telling the truth and rule in his favour. Whoever, then, I rule in favour of concerning a Muslim’s right has merely been given a piece of the Fire; so let him take it or leave it.” Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim—the wording being Muslim’s—and documented in al-Sahihah (455) and al-Irwa’ (1423), (8/258/2635), on the authority of Umm Salamah.

The point is that, in his judgments concerning people or between them, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, judged by virtue of his being human, not by virtue of his being an infallible Prophet. Do you not see his statement, peace and blessings be upon him: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah. When they say it, their blood and property become inviolable to me except where legally warranted, and their reckoning is with Allah”? Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim, and documented previously under no. 407.

For this reason, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in al-Fath, while mentioning the benefits of Umm Salamah’s hadith (13/174):

“It shows that he, peace and blessings be upon him, exercised independent legal reasoning in matters concerning which nothing had been revealed to him. Some differed over this, but this hadith is among the clearest proofs that may be adduced against them. It also shows that his independent legal reasoning could perhaps lead him to a matter on which he would rule, while the reality of the matter was otherwise; yet, were such a case to occur, he, peace and blessings be upon him, would not be left uncorrected, on account of his established infallibility.”

On the basis of this sound knowledge and judicious understanding, the hadith concerning the accused man is properly understood, al-Ghazali’s claim that it is impossible is disproved, and every discerning researcher sees that the man is bankrupt of beneficial knowledge: he belongs neither among the scholars of fiqh nor among the scholars of hadith—“neither to these nor to those”!

What further confirms this is his stance toward the following hadith and his impugning it, despite his acknowledgment that its chain of transmission is authentic and his contradiction of the principle he had just stated! *

فأحسب أنه صادق؛ فأقضي له، فمن قضيت له بحق مسلم؛ فإنما هي قطعة من النار، فليحملها أو يذرها". متفق عليه- واللفظ لمسلم-، وهو مخرج في "الصحيحة" (٤٥٥) ، و"الإرواء" (١٤٢٣) ، (٨/٢٥٨/٢٦٣٥) عن أم سلمة. والمقصود: أن النبي ﷺ في حكمه على الناس أو بين الناس؛ إنما يحكم بمقتضى كونه بشراً، وليس بحكم كونه نبياً معصوماً، ألا ترى إلى قوله ﷺ: "أُمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله، وأني رسول الله، فإذا قالوها عصموا مني دماءهم وأموالهم إلا بحقها، وحسابهم على الله "؟! متفق عليه، وهو مخرج فيما تقدم برقم (٤٠٧) . ولهذا؛ قال الحافظ ابن حجر في "الفتح "، وهو يذكر فوائد حديث أم سلمة (١٣/١٧٤) : "وفيه: أنه ﷺ كان يقضي بالاجتهاد فيما لم يُنزل عليه شيء، وخالف في ذلك قوم، وهذا الحديث من أصرح ما يُحتج به عليهم، وفيه أنه ربما أداه اجتهاده إلى أمر يحكم به، ويكون في الباطن بخلاف ذلك؛ لكن مثل ذلك- لو وقع- لم يُقرَّ عليه ﷺ؛لثبوت عصمته ". وعلى هذا الوجه من العلم الصحيح والفهم الرجيح: يُخرَّج حديث الرجل المتهم، ويبطل ما ادعاه الغزالي من الاستحالة فيه، ويتبين لكل باحث لبيب أن الرجل مفلس من العلم النافع، فلا هو من أهل الفقه، ولا من أهل الحديث (لا إلى هؤلاء ولا إلى هؤلاء) ! وإن مما يؤكد ذلك: موقفه من الحديث التالي وطعنه فيه؛ مع اعترافه بصحة سنده، ونقضه للقاعدة التي ذكرها بين يديه! *