A hadith benefit on when the companion says “We were commanded and forbidden”, does this always imply the Rasul?
The noble ‘Alim and Mujahid, Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Qahtani (تقبله الله) says:
“The point being, is that these narrators, ‘Abdur-rahman Ibn Zayd, Usamah and ‘Abdillah were not from the deeply rooted persistent men of hadith and its people, however, they were people of righteousness, worship and abstinence (from worldly pleasures).
This also implies that not everyone who’s a person of piety in his Din, that he’s suitable for other matters, such as narrating hadiths, knowledge, handling the affairs of the people, rather these are abilities and talents, which Allah the exalted and majestic grants to whomever He wishes, and everyone is facilitated to what he’s created for (i.e. there’s no extra burden upon him).
Based upon this, what would the Prophet say to Abi Thar, despite his righteousness and Taqwa:
“There is no one on earth, or under the sky, who speaks more truthfully than Abu Thar.”
But despite that, he said, “O Aba Thar, you are indeed weak.”
And he prevented him from attaining leadership, despite his righteousness and Taqwa.
So if a man is seen as upright and pious, this doesn’t necessitate his precision and suitability for all matters.
Therefore, what’s correct is that this hadith [refer to the last line] is mawquf upon ‘Abdillah Ibn ‘Umar (as stated by Imam Ahmad, Abu Zur’ah, Ad-Daraqutni and others), being from his statement.
The scholars stated, if it’s mawquf, then it takes the hukm of being marfu’, because he said “it was made lawful for us”, this was mentioned by al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Hajr, and others.
So if a Sahabi says, “we were commanded”, or “we were forbidden from the sunnah”, or “it was made lawful for us”, all these expressions are indicative that he acquired it from the Prophet.
The scholars of hadith summarized the discussion concerning these expressions, and there’s a dispute among the scholars, may Allah have mercy upon them.
And we also say, this is not upon that unrestricted citation, which some mention. Not everything that a companion says of, “we were commanded”, or “we were forbidden”, or “it was made lawful for us”, that who’s intended is the Prophet.
Rather, the default basic principle is that the Prophet is intended, if it’s not acceptably valid except to be attributed to the Shari’ah.
However, in some situations as it’s recorded in several narrations, some of the Sahabah would say “we were commanded”, so if it’s said to him, as it’s mentioned in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah from Anas, he said in some rulings, “we were commanded”, so it was said to him:
“Who commanded you”
So Anas replied, “’Umar Ibn al-Khattab”.
Because the rightly guided caliphs have a sunnah which was commanded (by the rasul) to follow, their commands and prohibitions would have a reputable and noble position in the Shari’ah, which is renowned.
So the sahabah could say “we were commanded”, i.e. By the (rightly guided) caliphs, the A’immah, such as Abi Bakr, ‘Umar, and so forth.
But the statement, “It was made lawful from us in the sunnah”, is generally referring to the sunnah of the Prophet, his declarations of what’s lawful and what’s prohibited.
And this is the meaning of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar’s statement, “Two kinds of dead meat and two kinds of blood have been lawful to us”.”
– Refer to “The explanation of Bulugh al-Maram” (Lesson 11/13), minute 19:59-23:32.