Follow Us

Analysis of the Book of Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs: Al-Ḥadīth al-Ḥasan li Dhātihi wa li Ghayrihi

Analysis of the Book of Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs: Al-Ḥadīth al-Ḥasan li Dhātihi wa li Ghayrihi

26 min readMay 10, 2022
PDF 📄
image_printDownload PDF Version

بسم الله وحده والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده

Ālimah Siddiqa al-Fārsiyyah
Student, Takhassus Fi 'l-Hadith
Checked and Approved:
Mufti Ismail Moosa
www.ulumalhadith.com

Overview

One of the more perplexing and highly disputed terminologies in the Science of Ḥadīth is undoubtedly the category of ḥasan. It is well-known by those involved in the Science of Ḥadīth that ʿUlum al-Ḥadīth was initially not systemised and contained very few terminologies. This can be gauged by the fact that none of the sciences of Islam were organized, codified, and documented until much later, as the first Muslims predominantly depended on the verbal teachings of the Prophet (ﷺ). As Islam spread, the need increased to document the teachings of the Qur’ān, Tajwīd, Arabic, etc. Likewise, as Islam grew, so did the enemies of Islam, hence triggering the need to compile the aḥadīth of the Prophet (ﷺ) and develop a science through which any reports attributed to him may be authenticated and verified.

Thus, the science of Ḥadīth slowly emerged, although many categories did not yet possess technical definitions. This is understandable since the Companions had direct links to the Prophet (ﷺ) and the scholars of the early generations had short links to the Companions (raḍī Allāhu ʿanhum), alleviating from them the need to document. With the progression of time from the era of prophethood, a greater need arose for the arrangement and categorization of the various branches of our religion in a systematic and methodical way, specifically ʿUlum al-Ḥadīth, as all other branches of knowledge, from Fiqh, to Tafsīr, rely upon it. One of the terms that we find both the early and latter-day scholars using is the term ḥasan. However, due to the differences among the scholars in their usage and definition of this term, it remained difficult to properly understand its implications, until recent times.

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs’s thesis on the term ḥasan in general, and Imām Tirmidhī’s usage of it in specific, is by far the most detailed book on the subject, containing almost 2,700 pages. He has conducted a thorough study on the usage of the term by the former and latter-day scholars, citing strong proofs for his conclusions, and providing examples to further clarify his position. Despite the length of the thesis, he has methodically divided the subject into various sections, briefly yet comprehensively discussing the various branches of the topic, and concluding every section with a summary, allowing the reader to follow the discussions easily and understand the discussions coherently. This article will focus on analysing the contents of his book, and his overall presentation of the topic.

The Author’s Objective

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs commences his book with an introduction wherein he explains his reason for choosing to conduct his research on ḥasan ḥadīth for the requirements of his doctorate degree. He elaborates on the importance of this topic and mentions four main reasons for his decision:

  1. Ḥasan ḥadīth, with both of its categories, is an authoritative category of ḥadīth according to the vast majority of scholars, and we find scholars of the past and present grading aḥadīth with this term excessively. Consequently, it is necessary to understand the details of the qualities and conditions of a ḥasan ḥadīth.
  2. Every book of muṣtalaḥ contains a designated chapter for the category of ḥasan ḥadīth, and every learner knows that it contains a multitude of objections and discussions which results in a need for critical study and research on this term. One of the leading reasons is that many senior scholars of the past and present have expressed how difficult it is to understand this term due to its severe abstruseness.
  3. It is very rare that a specialist of ḥadīth encounters issues which are linked to ḥasan ḥadīth, except that there are differences of opinion surrounding them, which further affect the acceptance or rejection of a ḥadīth.
  4. Understanding the methodology of the scholars of ḥadīth and their opinions regarding ḥasan ḥadīth is important for every researcher in the field of ḥadīth, especially those who embark on the task of grading ḥadīth.

After discussing some questions that he will be answering throughout the book, he again mentions five reasons why he chose this topic for his thesis. It seems that there is minimal difference between what he mentioned above and what he mentions a few pages later. Regardless, other reasons why he researched this topic are:

  • the importance of this topic as it relates to the acceptance and rejection of aḥadīth,
  • the absence of a comprehensive book which includes the discussions pertaining to ḥasan li dhātih iand ḥasan li ghairihi,
  • the difficulty of this topic, its depth and the various opinions mentioned regarding its details,
  • his desire to be able to distinguish between the methodology of the early and latter-day scholars in this matter, and
  • his interest from his days as a university student on the topic of ḥasan ḥadīth contributed to his desire to compile a thesis on it.

The Most Significant Objections

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs mentions some of the most prominent objections that are made regarding the category of ḥasan, which he aims to discuss and answer:

  1. What are the various ways that the muḥaddithūn (traditionists) have used the term ḥasan? When did it originate? How was it used by the senior muḥaddithūn until the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), and their usage after his era until the era of Imam Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ?
  2. From amongst the former-day scholars, Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) has used this term the most, and several questions arise with regards to his usage:
    • Does the definition of Imām Tirmidhī in his book Al-Jāmiʿ include ḥasan ḥadīth according to the muḥaddithūn, or is it a unique definition specific only to his book?
    • To what extent are the objections of other scholars against the definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) plausible in terms of the validity and strength of their arguments?
    • Imām Tirmidhi (raḥimahullāh) stipulated three conditions concerning ḥasan ḥadīth: firstly, he placed the condition that the narrators of a ḥasan ḥadīth must not be muttaham (accused of lying). Which narrators are then considered muttaham according to Imām Tirmidhī? How does he establish ittihām (the state of accusation)? Secondly, he placed the condition that a ḥadīth should not be shādh; does shudhudh according to Imām Tirmidhī simply refer to general tafarrud (isolation)and mukhālafah (contradiction) with which a reliable narrator has narrated? Lastly, he placed the condition that the ḥadīth should be narrated from another chain; does he intend for this additional chain to be connected to the Prophet (ﷺ), or that there should be an additional narrator narrating from the same Companion? Would this condition still be fulfilled if the additional chain was from the same tābiʿī (successor) or someone below him?
    • Has Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) graded a ḥadīth as ḥasan despite it not meeting the conditions stipulated by him? In contrast to this, has he weakened [ḍaʿafa] or suspended judgment [tawaqqafa] from grading a ḥadīth that met the conditions of ḥasan? Furthermore, why has he graded many aḥadīth as ḥasan despite explicitly mentioning that their chains are ghair muttaṣil (disconnected)?
    • What is the strength of a ḥasan ḥadīth according to Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh)?
    • Imām Tirmidhī has excessively used the term ‘ḥasan’ as a compound with other terms such as ‘ḥasanun ṣahihun’ and scholars have given various explanations for this; which one is the most correct?
  3. The most difficult aspects of the category of ḥasan li dhātihi:
    • There are severe contradictions and differences of opinion among scholars regarding the definition of this term. How can one determine which is correct?
    • Why have senior scholars of muṣṭalaḥ before ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ not discussed the category of ḥasan ḥadīth? Can we find them using the term ‘ḥasan’ in their statements?
    • Is a ḥasan ḥadīth ḥujjah (authoritative as a source of evidence)?
    • Are ḥasan aḥadīth a sub-category of ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth? Which scholars have included it under the category of ṣaḥīḥ?
    • Who are the narrators whose aḥadīth obtain the label of ḥasan li dhātihi? Is a mukhtalaf fīh (differed upon narrators)’s ḥadīth generally graded as ḥasan?
    • Is the default ruling regarding a narrator who is ṣadūq (truthful) and the like, qabūl (acceptance) or tawaqquf (suspending judgement) until his narration is further examined?
  4. The most difficult aspects of the category of ḥasan li ghairihi:
    • Is the basis of this issue rooted in the time before Imām Tirmidhī(raḥimahullāh)?
    • What is the reality of the term al-Iʿtibār(corroboration) according to the muḥaddithūn, and which narrators can be brought as corroborators?
    • What are the types of weak aḥadīth suitable as support?
    • What are the conditions of strengthening weak aḥadīth and have any conditions not been mentioned in the books of muṣṭalaḥ?
    • Are ḥasan li ghairihi aḥadīth ḥujjah in the category of aḥkām (Sacred Law)? What are the evidence of those who consider it ḥujjah and those who do not?

Previous Works

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs lists several previous works on this topic, and briefly explains their strengths and weaknesses and why he felt that they did not suffice for this topic. He claimed that this topic has not been thoroughly researched in a manner that covers all the statements of scholars, as well as all the details of the topic through exhaustive fact-finding and extrapolation from one angle, and scientific analysis from another, whilst simultaneously comparing the different views. He listed the works of three contemporaries who he felt, partially researched this topic:

  1. Nūr ad-Dīn ʿItr wrote his doctorate thesis titled: Al-Imām at-Tirmidhī wa ’l-Muwāzanah Bayna Jāmiʿihi wa ’ṣ-Ṣaḥīhayn. In this treatise, he researched the definition of ḥasan ḥadīth according to Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), which is what Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusse sin the second chapter of his own thesis. Shaykh Khālid also says that Dr. Nūr ad-Dīn ʿItr did not include all the necessary discussions such as the ruling of the aḥadīth that Imām Tirmidhī has graded as ḥasan, the application of his definition of ḥasan in his compilation, and which aḥadīth do not meet the criteria of ḥasan.
  1. Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī wrote his book titled: Taqsīm al-Ḥadīth ilā Ṣaḥīḥ wa ḥasan wa Ḍaʿīf Bayna Wāqiʿī al-Muḥaddithīn wa Mughāliṭāt al-Mutaʿaṣṣibīn as a refutation to some contemporaries. His treatise only includes one discussion: have the previous scholars used Imām Tirmidhī’s term ḥasan in its technical meaning, or did they divide ḥadīth only according to the categories of ṣaḥīḥ and ḍaʿīf? It also contains some discussions regarding some muḥaddithūn utilizing the term ḥasan in grading some of their aḥadīth. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs states that he feels that this is the most comprehensive work that has been authored until now on this topic, although the author missed out important texts which he ought to have mentioned. In addition, because it was primarily written as a refutation, it contains some deficiency in presenting an overall accurate conclusion.

 

  1. Murtaḍā Zayn Aḥmad wrote his doctorate thesis titled: Manāhij al-Muḥaddithīn fī Taqwiyat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḥasanah wa ’ḍ-Ḍaʿīfah” which was published in the year 1415 by Maktabat ar-Rushd in Riyadh. The author mentions the main topic of this thesis saying:

I did not see a book in the Islamic library that had collected the statements of the scholars in mentioning the strengthening factors through which ḍaʿīf and ḥasan ḥadīth ascend higher, along with their examples, so I sought the help of Allāh in doing this myself.

 The thesis mentions the types of ḍaʿīf ḥadīth suitable for strengthening and examples for every type. Some of the discussions of this thesis match with the discussions of the fourth chapter of Shaykh Khālid ad-Dar īs book, with some differences in their method of research.

 Author’s Methodology of Research

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs used an inductive research approach, which involves the search for pattern from observation and the development of explanations – theories – for those patterns through a series of hypotheses. In the field of muṣṭalaḥ, this would mean that the author started his research by observing the usage of the early day scholars for the term ḥasan, then highlighting the patterns he finds in their usage, and concluding with developing theories. He followed four fundamental steps in presenting his theories:

  1. He referred to the reliable books of muṣṭalaḥ for every topic of his research, as well as books of rijāl (narrators of ḥadīth), ʿilal (hidden defects), and other books that are connected to the topic.
  2. He presented the views of the muḥaddithūn in every topic along with their evidence and at-tarjīḥ (strengthening factors).
  3. Through analytical study, he fully examined and observed the usage of the early scholars of the term ḥasan, especially those scholars who came before Imām Tirmidhī.
  4. He studied the aḥadīth that Imām Tirmidhī graded as ‘ḥasan’ and ‘ḥasan gharīb’ to evaluate and compare the accuracy of his definition with his practical application. He relied upon a manuscript of Al-Karūkhī to cite the gradings of the aḥadīth.

Reflections on the Contents of the Book

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs divided his entire research into four broad topics, which make up the four chapters of his book. They are:

  1. The usage of the term ḥasan according to the ḥadīth scholars
  2. The term ḥasan according to Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh)
  3. Al-ḥasan li dhātihi
  4. Al-ḥasan li ghairihi

The usage of the term ḥasan according to the ḥadīth scholars

In this first chapter, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs includes four fuṣūl (subchapters). First, he discusses the linguistic definition of ḥasan from nine different sources and ends the discussion with how the linguistic definition of ḥasan relates to ḥadīth. This is a perfect start to the topic, as it provides the reader with absolute clarity on the ḥadīth term that the book expounds on, and what the term means linguistically before the term began to be used technically in the field of ḥadīth.

In the second section, he delves into the discussion on the earliest usage of the term ḥasan according to the muḥaddithūn. He mentions the names and quotations of fourteen early scholars and narrators of ḥadīth who used the term ḥasan. After each quotation, he expands on who transmitted the quotation, the strength of the quotation, and what the word ‘ḥasan’ means in each of them. These examples brought forth by the author are very constructive, as they not only allow the reader to better understand the initial discussion on the linguistic definition of ḥasan, but also help in clarifying their implications in the context of different statements of the early scholars. It also indicates to the reader the possibility of slightly different linguistic meanings for the term ḥasan. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs ends this discussion by summarising the linguistic meaning of the word ḥasan in these quotations, and reiterating how the word ḥasan has not been used in any iṣṭilāḥī (technical) meanings in the quotations of the early scholars.

In the third section, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses the usage of the word ḥasan by the second century scholars through bringing the examples of seven leading muḥaddithūn of that time. By now, scholars were using the word ḥasan more often than those in the first century. Thus, the purpose of this section is to understand the usage of the word ḥasan according to the scholars of the second century — until right before the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) — in order to understand their usage and determine whether there are any similarities among them. The seven muḥaddithūn whom he selected and whose usage he expounded on are undoubtedly the best, as not only do they hold high positions in the field of Ḥadīth, but they are also among its pioneers and used the word ḥasan extensively. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs methodically presents each of their quotations, and from them, he extracts the various meanings that the word ḥasan contains. This lays out a clear paradigm of how the early scholars used the word ḥasan, which allows the reader to understand how the later technical term for the word ḥasan took its form.

In the fourth section, he discusses the usage of ḥasan after the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh)until the era of the codification of ḥadīth muṣṭalaḥ (terminology): the era of Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh). Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs expresses why he selected the era of Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) as the final era by saying that it was Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) who gathered all of the previous definitions into two different categories, namely; ḥasan li dhātihi and ḥasan li ghairihi, and the scholars have accepted this reconciliation and have treaded upon this usage until our present era. The gap between the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) [d. 279 AH] and Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) [d. 643 AH] is approximately four centuries, and there were many scholars during this period who used the word ḥasan. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs selects seven scholars of this era and explains their usage of the word ḥasan. Thereafter, he mentions that he kept this section of his thesis brief because it would have been difficult to encompass all or majority of the statements of those scholars. Other reasons for the brevity include:

  • After studying the material related to this section, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs arrived at the conclusion that the meanings of the word ḥasan that the scholars between the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) and Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) used, do not differ from the meanings that the scholars before them used.
  • The scholars of muṣṭalaḥ did not mention the usage of the scholars between the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) and Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) for the word ḥasan, rather they mentioned the usage of the leading scholars prior to the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh).
  • Expanding on the usage of the scholars of the era between Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) and Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) would have elongated the thesis and taken more time without contributing any new usages or implications for the word ḥasan, except what has already been mentioned.

Finally, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses indications of the term ḥasan and what they mean according to the muḥaddithūn. He explains that after having studied hundreds of quotations which contain the word ḥasan, he concludes that the term ḥasan has two main meanings:

  • At-Taḥsīn al-Iḥtijābī, which encompasses the following five usages:
  1. used for a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth;
  2. what a mukhtalaf fīh (differed upon) narrator, who does not have a jarḥ mufassar (explained criticism) has narrated;
  • used in the meaning of a ḥasan li dhātihi ḥadīth defined by Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalaḥ (raḥimahullāh)and latter-day scholars;
  1. used for aḥadīth that contain minimal weakness according to some critics; and
  2. when weak aḥadīth ascend to a higher level, known in the terminology of the latter-day scholars as ḥasan li ghairihi.
  • At-Taḥsīn al-Iʿjābī, which encompasses the following four usages:
    1. used for al-Ḥadīth al-Gharīb;
    2. used for a ḥadīth which includes a benefit in its sanad or matn;
  • used for aḥadīth that possess as-Sanad al-ʿĀlī (high chains); and
  1. used to refer to the goodness of a particular text of ḥadīth.

This categorization is ingenious, as Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs summarizes all the meanings thatused by the previous muḥaddithūn for the word ḥasan in only two categories, making it easy for the reader to comprehend how so many meanings and implications can in reality be summarized in two categories. Although there are contradictions between some of the meanings written under the same category, there is no objection at this point in the thesis, as Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs’s objective here is only to gather the various meanings and categorize them into two broad categories based on certain similar aspects.

The term ḥasan according to Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh)

This chapter also includes four subchapters. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs brought a separate chapter to solely discuss the usage of Imām Tirmidhī since, as he mentioned, he is the earliest known scholar who used the term ḥasan to grade the aḥadīth of his Jāmiʿ. Imām Tirmidhī uses the term ḥasan excessively in his collection, grading a third of the aḥadīth in his collection with it, either using it singularly, or as a compound phrase. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs then brings the statements of many scholars to support the precedency and pre-eminence of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) in the field. Thereafter, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses the issue of the manuscripts of Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī differing in the grading of its aḥadīth, the methodology he himself followed and the manuscript he used when comparing and studying the gradings of its aḥadīth.

The first topic Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses in this chapter is the definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) for the term ḥasan, and whether it is a term that has been coined by him, or by someone else. He brings the statements of scholars who say that he coined the term and of those who say that he took it from his shaykhs, such as Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh), and clarifies that his usage of the term ḥasan differs from the usage of Imām Bukhārī, contrary to what ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar (raḥimahullāh) has stated. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs reconciles both opinions by concluding that claiming that Imām Tirmidhī has coined this term without any degree of influence from previous scholars is questionable, but he is certainly the earliest to officially define this term with this definition, clarify its details, and use it extensively.

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs thereafter dedicates a section to answer the following three objections that have been raised against the definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh):

  • He did not distinguish a ḥasan ḥadīth from a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth;
  • He graded certain aḥadīth as ḥasan despite them not being narrated except through one chain; and
  • There is unnecessary repetition in his definition.

After providing responses to the above objections, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs then discusses the definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) in more detail, expounding on every part of the definition, providing examples, and clarifying any confusions that arise. He dedicates part one to discussing the aspect of ‘the absence of a narrator who is muttaham bi al-kazib (accused of lying),’ followed by the ‘absence of shudhūdh (reliable narrator contradicting another reliable narrator),’ and ‘the necessity of the narration to be narrated via an additional chain.’ This section is coherent and well-presented, as the concise definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), followed by three detailed sections elaborating on each condition separately, and clarifying any objections and confusions related to them, facilitate a clear and simple understanding of the overall definition of the term.

Next, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses why Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) graded some aḥadīth as only ‘ḥasan’ and others as ‘ḥasan gharīb.’ Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) graded 382 aḥadīth of his collection as ḥasan, and Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs compares these aḥadīth to the definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), examines their chains, searches for corroborators, and studies the application of the definition of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) to these aḥadīth. He concludes that the majority of the aḥadīth that Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) graded as ḥasan, are stronger than ‘corroborated weak narrations’ which are known as ‘ḥasan li ghairihi.’Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs further discusses the aḥadīth classified as ḥasan gharīb by Imām Tirmidhī, which he counted as 513 aḥadīth. He also scrutinized the statement of scholars who claim that ‘ḥasan gharīb’ according to Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) is Ḥasan li Dhātihi, and that Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) distinguishes between ḥasan li ghairihi and ḥasan li dhātihi by using the term ‘ḥasan’ for the former, ḥasan li ghairihi; which he has also defined in his ʿIlal aṣ-Ṣaghīr, and ‘ḥasan gharīb’ for the latter, ḥasan li dhātihi. In total, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs studied 895 aḥadīth, which took him almost a year.

Thereafter, Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses the aḥadīth that Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) did not classify as ḥasan despite them having fulfilled his conditions. He presents eight examples and goes into some detail as to why he thinks they fulfill the conditions of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), often citing the conclusions that Shaykh Albānī (raḥimahullāh) and other later scholars reached, as proof. This section is somewhat fragmented, and it would perhaps have been more convincing if Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs elaborated on how these aḥadīth met the conditions stipulated by Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), even if he merely presented the research of some of the scholars whose conclusions he cited. Finally, he concludes this chapter by dedicating 200 pages of his thesis to charts that include examples of many aḥadīth of Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī, along with their corroborators, and the grading of former and latter-day scholars.

 Al-ḥasan li Dhātihi

The third chapter includes seven subchapters. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs discusses the opinion of the muḥaddithūn regarding the definition of ḥasan li dhātihi, the terminologies that resemble ḥasan li dhātihi, and the position of the muḥaddithūn regarding the inclusion or exclusion of ḥasan in the category of ṣaḥīḥ. Furthermore, he discusses the different levels of the chains of ḥasan aḥadīth and their sources, narrators who have sound aḥadīth, and the opinion of muḥaddithūn regarding a ḥadīth narrated solitarily by a ṣadūq (truthful) narrator. In the last subchapter, he discusses the authority of ḥasan li dhātihi aḥadīth as evidence.

Al-ḥasan li Ghairihi

The final chapter includes eight subchapters. Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs first defines ḥasan li ghairihi ḥadīth and those that resemble it, the inception of the opinion of strengthening ḍaʿīf ḥadīth and its development, the types of ḍaʿīf  aḥadīth which are suitable for corroboration, and the books in which such aḥadīth are found. Thereafter, he discusses iʿtibār (corroboration), its conditions, the narrators through which support is given, and the difference among certain present-day scholars regarding some ḍaʿīf aḥadīth which have been strengthened by a ḥadīth similar to it in strength. Finally, he discusses the methodology of the early ḥadīth critics concerning a ḥadīth which is strengthened by its like, and the difference of opinion regarding the usage of ḥasan li ghairihi in the aḥadīth of aḥkām (Islamic Law).

Strengths of the Thesis

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs’s thesis has many strong features, such as:

  • His overall structure is very organized and coherent, which facilitates ease for the reader in grasping the numerous arguments, proofs, and examples.
  • The topic is well-researched, thoroughly covering almost all the discussions related to the subject. This is further proven by the initial discussions on the historical development of the term, its usage by the scholars of different eras, as well as its application to the book of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh).
  • He presents ample examples where required, which distinguishes the book from others like it on the topic, as the reader not only understands the principles in theory, but also studies their applications.
  • Many discussions are broken up into lists and bullet-points, which aids the reader in easily following the growing diagram of discussions and opinions.
  • Another outstanding feature of his thesis is that he concludes every chapter and subsection with a summary, which helps the reader eliminate any confusion, and follow the discussion without perplexity.
  • He consistently refers to the primary sources when studying the opinion of the scholars, allowing him to reach sounder and more convincing conclusions.

Conclusion

Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs’s thesis titled Al-Ḥadīth al-ḥasan li Dhātihi wa li Ghairihi is by far the most comprehensive work on the category of ḥasan. It is further promoted by the fact that he studied all the other notable books written by contemporaries on this subject, such as the four books he mentioned in the introduction of his thesis. He studied the linguistic and technical definition of the word ḥasan and its usage, starting from the scholars prior to the era of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh), until the era of Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh), when definitions were documented. He referred to the original sources of almost all the early and latter-day scholars who used the term, studied their usages, and compared them. The most impressive section of his thesis is the section in which he presented examples of hundreds of aḥadīth, their mutābaʿāt and shawāhid (corroborators), and how the scholars graded them. This allowed one to observe how the various principles and theories were applied. This thesis should be studied by every student of Ḥadīth. We ask Allāh to reward the author immensely, āmīn.

 

Menu

Archives

Categories

Meta