Ijtihad is the expenditure of mental and intellectual effort to solve an issue.

The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says:

“When a judge endeavours to pass a verdict and he makes ijtihad and his verdict is correct he will receive a double reward, and if he endeavours to pass a verdict and he makes ijtihad but his verdict is wrong even then he will get a reward”. {Bukhari 7352, Muslim 1716}

From the above hadith we see that ijtihad is a human endeavour that is prone to error. This is why the scholars of Usool state concerning issues of ijtihad that “our opinion is correct with the possibility of being incorrect, while the other scholar’s opinion is incorrect with the possibility of being correct”. So to claim that one’s ijtihad is 100% accurate contradicts this authentic hadith and springs from nothing but arrogance.

 Now let us take a look at the issue of classifying and grading ahadith.

• Imam Tirmithi states in his “Ilalus Sagheer” (p. 191):

“The Imams (of hadith) have differed concerning the status of the narrators as they have differed in all other sciences (of Deen)”.

• Hafiz Abu Amr Ibn Salah has stated in his “Uloomul Hadith” (p. 17):

“Sometimes the scholars of hadith differ over the authenticity of certain hadith, either because of their disagreement over whether these conditions (of authenticity) are found in them or because of their disagreement in stipulating the necessity of some of these characteristics”.

• Imam Nawawi said in his commentary on “Muslim”, “al-Mihaaj” (1/16):

“Some people have criticised Muslim for narrating from a group of weak narrators in his ‘Saheeh’. However there is no blame on him for that. This objection can be answered in many ways. One is the narrator may be deemed weak according to another scholar but reliable according to Muslim”. 

• Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taimiyyah said in “Raf’ul Malaam” (p. 13):

“The third reason (why scholars differ in issues of jurisprudence) is because one of them considered a hadith weak based on his ijtihad and in doing so he disagreed with another scholar. There are many reasons for this difference. One is that he considered a narrator weak while the other considered him reliable. The discipline of biographical evaluation (علم الرجال) is a vast science. The scholars of this science agree and disagree in the same manner that all other scholars differ and agree on issues in their respected sciences.”

• Hafiz az-Zahabi said in the preface of his “Tazkiratul Huffaaz” (1/1):

“This is a list of the names of those reliable scholars of hadith, to whose ijtihad, reference is made concerning praising a narrator or criticising him and authenticating a hadith or grading it weak.”

• Hafiz al-Munziri has explained this issue by saying in his “Jawaab” (p. 83):

“The disagreement of the muhadditheen is like the disagreement of the fuqahaa. Both are a product of ijtihad. When a witness is disparaged in front of a judge, he makes ijtihad and tries to figure out if that criticism is admissible to weaken the witness’s credibility or not. Similarly when a muhaddith intends to utilise a hadith of a narrator concerning whom criticism is transmitted, the muhaddith makes ijtihad and tries to figure out whether that criticism is relevant or not. His research will comprise of a study of acceptable reasons of criticism, was the criticism explained or ambiguous, is it necessary to have more than one critic or not etc. The faqeeh would do the same. There is also no difference whether the criticizer is directly informing the muhaddith or relaying what another critic said.”

• Hafiz Abdul Haqq Ashbeeli said in the introduction of his compilation of ahadith concerning jurisprudence, “al-Ahkaamus Sharia’ah al-Wustaa” (1/72):

“Sometimes in this book there will be some narrations concerning which the claim of its chain being broken has been made or some narrators concerning whom disparagement is transmitted, however, it is not that every opinion is taken or every statement is practised upon. If all those narrations were to be discarded concerning which criticism has been related then only a few narrations would remain in the hands of the muhadditheen.”

• Hafiz Ibn Daqeequl Eid has stated in “al-Ilmaam fee Ahaadithil Ahkaam” (1/47):

“My criterion in this book is that I will only place the hadith of such narrators in it that an imam from the scholars of biographical evaluation has praised, and the hadith is classified as authentic based on the principles of some of muhadditheen or an imam of fiqh with deep insight. This is because every one of them has a standard that they intended and followed and a method that they ignored and left out. And there is good in all.”

• Allamah Zafar Ahmed Thanwi concludes this discussion in “Qawaai’d” (p. 55) by saying:

“The statements of the imams of hadith concerning jarh and ta’deel (criticising and praising narrators) being an issue of ijtihad are countless. Therefore if a hadith is authentic according to a scholar it does not necessarily mean that it will also be authentic according to others. Likewise if a hadith is weak according to one scholar it does not necessarily mean that it will be weak in the opinion of others. So be cautious and don’t be fooled.”

Therefore we should not hasten in rejecting the ahadith and sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) simply because so and so Shaikh graded it as dhaeef and weak. We should not brand people as “ahlul bidah” simply because we consider the hadith that they are practicing on to be weak.

In the end, I ask the readers to evaluate the following based on the accepted fact above:

Shaikh Nasir Albani has referenced and graded the ahadith of “Fiqhus Sunnah” by Shaikh Saiyyid Saabiq. He named this book “Tamaamul Minnah”. In this book he has pinpointed the weakness of many narrations of “Fiqhus Sunnah” based on his ijtihad. On the other hand he has authenticated many ahadith that Saiyyid Sabiq considered weak. Thereafter Albani sent the shaikh his research and called him to change his ijtihad and adopt his. When the sheikh ignored majority of what Albani sent him and continued publishing most of “Fiqhus Sunnah” as it was, Albani re-edited “Tamaamul Minnah” and wrote the following in his introduction:

“After comparing the old and new editions of “Fiqhus Sunnah” I realize that the sheikh did not really benefit from my book, neither the one I sent him directly nor the one that was published afterwards with additions. I saw that the errors of fiqh and hadith that were present before are still there without any alteration or modifications except in a few rare places. I do not know if this is because the sheikh did not get a chance to read my research or it is due to him not being satisfied with the sheer academic criticism it contains. Hopefully the former is the case. This is because my book contains the rules that are binding on every scholar to follow with commitment.”

 Does Albani have the right to force the sheikh to change his ijtihad?