In the previous lesson, we explained the meanings of Ḥadīth and Khabar.

Very quickly, I would also like to touch on another word: Athar. The reason I want to discuss this word is that it features in the name of this book. As mentioned on the previous page, Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) gave the initial name:

نخبة الفكر في مصطلح أهل الأثر

Therefore, it is essential that we explain this word Athar.

The word Athar

Linguistically, Athar comes in three meanings:

1. In the meaning of Baqiyyah. In English, it refers to: remnants/remains/traces of something. From this meaning, you also use the term for: footsteps and footprints.
2. In the meaning of effect and impact.

• In the meaning of something that is really beautiful (this is the view of Mubarrad).

Allah Ta’ālā uses the word Athar at around thirteen places in the noble Qur’ān, and each time it comes in either the first or the second meaning. Take the following examples.

• (1) Surah ar-Rūm, Verse 50:

فَانْظُرْ إِلَى آثَارِ رَحْمَةِ اللَّهِ كَيْفَ يُحْيِي الأرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا

“So, look to the effects of Allāh’s mercy, how He gives life to the earth after its death.”

• (2) Surah as-Ṣāffāt, Verse 70:

فَهُمْ عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ يُهْرَعُونَ

“So, they run in their footsteps.”

Footsteps are the traces that a person leaves when he is walking. Hence, this complies with the first meaning that we presented.

• (3) Surah az-Zukhruf, Verses 22 and 23:

وَإِنَّا عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ مُهْتَدُونَ

“And we are on their footprints, fully guided.”

وَإِنَّا عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ مُقْتَدُونَ

“And we are following their footprints.”

As for its usage in Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth, the word Athar is used interchangeably with Ḥadīth and Khabar. Many Muḥaddithīn used the term Athar in the same meaning as Ḥadīth and Khabar.

That would mean that it encompasses anything attributed to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), and also the statements and actions of the Ṣaḥābah and the Tābi’īn.

There were scholars of Ḥadīth who wrote books and they used the term Athar (or the plural: Āthār) in the titles of their books, yet their books contains narrations that reaches up to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), and also includes statements and actions of the Ṣaḥābah and the Tābi’īn. For example:

1) Imām Muḥammad (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) called his book: Kitāb al-Āthār;

2) Imām aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī named his books: Sharḥ Ma’āni al-Āthār al-Mukhtalafah al-Ma’thurah (take note of the full name) and Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār;

3) Ibn Jarīr (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) named his book, Tahẓīb al-Āthār.

4) This very book of Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) has the word Athar in the title: Nuzha an-Nadhar Fī Tawdhī Nukhba al-Fikar Fī Muṣtala ahl al-Athar

It is also in this light that scholars refer to the supplications of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) as: al-Ad’iyyah al-Ma’thūrah. The prayers and supplications are from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), and they are being described with the word Athar.

This is according to majority of the scholars of Ḥadīth. Mawlāna ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawi (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) attributed this view (of Athar  and Ḥadīth  having the same meaning) to majority of the scholars. In Zafr al-Amāni, he first defines Athar as:

هو المروي عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أو عن صحابي أو عن تابعي مطلقا (ظفر الأماني – ص: 25)

“It is that which is reported from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), or from a companion or from a Tabi’ī unrestrictedly.”

He used the term Muṭlaqan. In the footnotes, Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) explains that Muṭlaq means that irrespective whether it is a senior Tābi’i or whether it is a junior Tābi’ī, you may used the word Athar when attributing anything to him.

Mawlāna ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawi then says:

وعليه جمهور المحدثين من السلف والخلف، وهو المختار عند الجمهور، كما ذكره النووي في شرح صحيح مسلم (ظفر الأماني – ص: 25)

“and upon this (opinion) are the majority of the Muḥaddithīn from the Salaf and the Khalaf, and it is the chosen opinion according to the majority, just as Imām an-Nawawī mentioned it in his commentary of Saḥiḥ Muslim.”

Since it is the view of majority, and not all, there were (a minority group of) scholars who differed. These were the scholars of Khurāsān.

The Fuqahā of Khurāsān only used Athar for the reports of the Ṣaḥābah (Mawqūfāt), and not for that which is related from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam). If something pertained to the Prophet (ṣallā llāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), then it cannot be called Athar according to them.

The famous Shāfi’ī scholar of the fifth century, ‘Allāmah ‘Abul Qāsim ‘Abdur Rahmān ibn Muḥammad al-Furāni al-Marwazi (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) said:

الفقهاء يقولون الخبر ما كان عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم والأثر ما يروى عن الصحابة (فتح المغيث – 1/ 187)

“The Fuqahā say that Khabar is that which is reported from the Prophet (ṣallā llāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) and Āthār is that which is reported from his companions.”

This view of Allāmah al-Marwazi is also quoted in Im’ān an-Naẓar (p.11). (As a parenthetical comment: In the footnotes, it is written that ‘Allāmah al-Marwazi passed away in 388 AH but this is incorrect as he was only born in 387 AH. In Siyar ‘A’lām an-Nubalā, Imām aẓ–Ẓahabi (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) says that he passed away in 461 AH:

توفي سنة إحدى وستين وأربع مئة (سير أعلام النبلاء – 18/ 265)

“He passed away in the year 461”

Likewise, Ibn Khallikān says in Wafayāt al-A’yān wa ambā Abnā az-Zamān:

وكانت وفاته في شهر رمضان سنة إحدى وستين وأربعمائة بمدينة مرو، وهو ابن ثلاث وسبعين سنة، رحمه الله تعالى. (وفيات الأعيان –  3/ 132)

“His death was in the month of Ramadan in the year 461 AH in the town of Marw. He was 73 years old, may Allāh have mercy on him.”

That is just in passing.

The final view to mention concerning the word Athar is that according to the Uṣūliyyīn, Athar relates only to that which is transmitted from the Tabi’īn.

However, moving forward, as this book is a book on ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, we will follow the understanding of the terminology according to the scholars of Ḥadīth.

Looking at the text, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) continues:

فهو باعتبار وصوله إلينا:إما أن يكون له طرق، أي أسانيد كثيرة-لأن طرقا جمع طريق،

و”فعيل” في الكثرة يجمع على “فعل” بضمتين، وفي القلة على “أفعل”- والمراد بالطرق الأسانيد. والإسناد: حكاية طريق المتن.

“In considering how a “Khabar” reached us: (The Khabar) either has paths, meaning many chains – because “Ṭuruq” is the plural of “Ṭarīq ”.

(An Arabic word that comes on the scale of) Fa’īl will have its plural on the scale of Fu’ul (with two Ḍammās). For Jam’ al-Qilla (the plural between three to ten), the scale will be Af’ul. The meaning of “Ṭuruq” is Asānīd (many chains). (The singular) Isnād: it is transmitting and relating the route of a statement.”

In Nukhba al-Fikar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) commenced with a discussion on the amount of parts and channels via which a narration reached us.

In Nuzha an-Naẓar, he delves into few linguistic points concerning some words that he used in Nukhba al-Fikar.

Although he shares some detail here, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) does not delve into the linguistic intricacies very often, but he rather keeps the focus on the subject matter (i.e terminologies and principles of Ḥadīth) However, some commentators have dissected the words and examined the grammar at many more places in this book.

For example, Mullā ‘Ali al-Qāri (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) delves into lots of linguistic and grammatical explanations in his commentary. Hence, Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) remarked:

لولا أن أدخل فيه رحمه الله تعالى من بحوث النحو، والاشتقاق، والبديع، والمنطق، ما لا دخل له في حل المتن ولا في توضيح المصطلح، وبالغ في بعض المواضع في مناقشة أقوال بعض الشراح والمحشين السابقين، بما هو بعلم الجدل أشبه منه بعلم المصطلح (مقدمة الشيخ عبد الفتاح أبو غدة – ص 2)

Mullā ‘Ali al-Qāri (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) frequently goes on a tangent and digresses, and he discusses many things which are not related to the objective of this book.

Nonetheless, our focus is on the science of ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth; therefore, we will not elaborate on grammatical points and we will not spend time explaining why the author chose a specific word or constructed a sentence in a particular manner.

Many times, the author himself would not know that the usage of a specific word in a particular sentence has that special benefit that the commentator is explaining.

Mullā ‘Ali al-Qāri (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) himself said:

وإلا فكم من شارح أظهر من المعاني ما لم يخطر ببال صاحب المباني. (شرح علي القاري – ص: 151)

Thus, we will only discuss the usage of words and grammar where the author himself has discussed about them, and we will not explore all the grammatical and linguistic intricacies at other places, as that is not our focus.

Since the author brings forth a discussion of grammar and linguistics at this point in the book, we too will discuss it here.

Before turning to the text, we must understand the point that Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) intends to make. His main point is that a narration could either be:

(1) Narrated through multiple different pathways, or

(2) It could be narrated via just a few path ways, or

(3) It could be narrated through just one pathway.

Once this is understood, we can now look at the text, which digresses into choice of words and linguistic laws.

The Word Tarīq

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) said:

فهو باعتبار وصوله إلينا: إما أن يكون له طرق،

“In considering how a “Khabar” reached us: (The Khabar) either has paths,

أي أسانيد كثيرة – لأن طرقا جمع طريق،

“Meaning many chains – because “Ṭuruq” is the plural of “Ṭarīq ”.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) used the word: “Ṭuruq”. This is the plural of the word Ṭarīq. The literal meaning of Ṭarīq is: “a path”.

Mullā ‘Ali al-Qāri defines Ṭuruq as:

بمعنى سبيل، وهو ما يوصل إلى المقصود الحسي. استعير للموصل إلى المطلوب المعنوي (شرح علي القاري – ص: 157)

In dissecting the text, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) explains why he used the word Ṭuruq.

The singular of the word Ṭuruq is Ṭarīq. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) clarifies why he brought the plural of Ṭarīq on the scale of Fu’ul (فعل) and not on the scale of Af’ul (أفعل) (i.e. he used the Ṭuruq as opposed to Aṭruq). He explains:

و”فعيل” في الكثرة يجمع على “فعل” بضمتين، وفي القلة على “أفعل”

An Arabic word that comes on the scale of) Fa’īl will have its plural on the scale of Fu’ul (with two Ḍammās). For Jam’ al-Qilla (the plural between three to ten), the scale will be Af’ul.”

In Arabic, we have two types of plural: Jam’ al-Qillah and Jam’ al-Kathra. If something is plural and it is few in number; that is, it is from three to ten, then it will be called: Jam al-Qilla.

If something is plural and it is a lot in number; that is, it is more than ten, then it will be called: Jam al-Kathra.

So Jam al-Kathra is anything from 10…

إلى ما لا نهاية له

“….to that which there is no end for it”

Anything from ten to an unlimited amount is: Jam’ al-Kathra.

The plural of Jam’ al-Qillah will be on the scale of: Af’ul whilst the plural of Jam’ al-Kathra will be on the scale of Fu’ul.

Applying this grammar rule to the text, if Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) intended to demonstrate that a narration is transmitted via three to ten pathways, then he would have used the word Aṭruq (on the scale of Af’ul). However, since he intended to indicate that there are many pathways (i.e., more than ten), he used the plural of Jam’ al-Kathra and thus he used the word Ṭuruq (on the scale of Fu’ul).

It is to be noted that the use of the term Ṭuruq led to many criticisms against Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) because even a Mutawātir narration can be transmitted with less than ten pathways. In Im’ān an-Naẓar, it is mentioned:

يرد عليه أنه يقتضي أن يكون أقل عدد يتحقق معه جمع الكثرة، مأخوذ في التواتر، وهو خلاف ما ذهب إليه الجمهور (إمعان النظر – ص 14)

That pertains to the plural.

The Word al-Asānīd

Moving on, in spite of the fact that he used the word Ṭuruq, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) points out that there is a technical term in this field. He says:

والمراد بالطرق الأسانيد

“….and what is intended/meant by Ṭuruq is Asānīd (many chains)”

Since he was defining a plural (Ṭuruq), he brought the plural of the technical term al-Asānīd (الأسانيد). This plural contradicts grammar, and it is made up by scholars of Ḥadīth. ‘Allāmah al-Laqqāni (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) said:

ولا يكاد يوجد في كلام المحدثين إلا الأسانيد ، لكنها ليست جمعا قياسيا ولا سماعيا ، لعدم سماعها إلا من المحدثين دون العرب. نعم قياس جمعه: سناد كجبل وجبال (قضاء الوطر – ص: 464)

Then Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) defines the term al-Asānīd (الأسانيد) with the singular al-Isnād (الإسناد), and he says:

والإسناد: حكاية طريق المتن

“And Isnād: it is transmitting and relating the route of a statement.”

Objection

In Tawjīh an-Naẓar, ‘Allāmah Ṭāhir al-Jazāiri (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) said:

وأما الإسناد فقد عرفت أنه مصدر أسند ولذلك لا يثنى ولا يجمع (توجيه النظر إلى أصول الأثر – 1/ 95)

“As for Isnād, you know that it is the Maṣdar of the word Asnada. Therefore, it cannot have a dual or a plural.”

Answer

One may remember the rules concerning whether a Maṣdar can have a dual or plural from earlier years when being taught morphology and syntax. It is only prohibited when the Maṣdar denotes a: Jam’ al-Fi’l.

However, when a Maṣdar comes for Ta’addud, then there is no difference of opinion that it is permissible for a Maṣdar to have a dual or plural.

In the Alfiyyah of Ibn Malik, it is stated:

وما لتوكيد فَوَحِّدْ أبدا

        وثَنِّ واجمعْ غيره وأَفْرِدا

Badr ad-Dīn al-Murādi (d. 749 AH) said:

هو المختص معدودا كان أو غير معدود. أما المعدود ، فلا خلاف في جواز تثنيته “وجمعه” قياسا.

وأما غيره من المختص ، ففي تثنيته وجمعه خلاف؛ منهم من قاسه لاختلاف أنواعه، ومنهم من لم يقسه وهو مذهب سيبويه (توضيح المقاصد والمسالك بشرح ألفية ابن مالك – 2/ 649)

So the preferred view is that it is permissible.

an interesting incident is narrated about al-Mutannabī. He once went to the gathering of the ruler:

وفيه أبو علي الآمدي الأديب المشهور

“…and in it was Abu ‘Ali al-Āmidi, the famous scholar of eloquence”

 فأنشد المتنبي أبياتا

“al-Mutannabī started to say some verses (of poetry)”

And he said the couplet:

إنما التهنيات للأكفاء

Abu ‘Ali al- Āmidi immediately objected and said:

التهنية مصدر والمصدر لا يجمع

“التهنية” is a Maṣdar and there is no plural for a Maṣdar”

al-Mutannabī politely nudged the person next to him and asked:

أمسلم هو؟

“Is he a Muslim?”

That person jumped up and said:

سبحان الله هذا أستاذ الجماعة أبو على الآمدي

“Glory be to Allah! This is the teacher of our group, Abu ‘Ali al- Āmidi.”

al-Mutannabī calmly responded:

فإذا صلى المسلم وتشهد أليس يقول التحيات

“When a Muslim performs his prayers, then does he not say in every prayer: Attahiyyatu (that too is the plural of a Maṣdar)”

قال فخجل أبو علي وقام (لسان الميزان – 1/ 160)

“He said: Abu ‘Ali al- Āmidi became embarrassed and stood (i.e., he excused himself from that gathering).”

Thus, our proof that a Maṣdar  can have a plural is that every Muslim – including those who object – use a plural of a Maṣdar in every prayer of theirs.

Nevertheless, reverting back to main topic, the meaning of Ṭarīq in this text is that an individual narrates from another person, who in turn narrates from someone else. Take the following example:

The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said something, and his companions heard it. From those companions, only one companion narrates it to the Tābi’īn. From the Tābi’īn, only one Tābi’ī narrates it. This narration will have one pathway. We also call this pathway ‘a chain’.

If there are multiple people in every link; for example, there are a few narrators quoting many people, who in turn are also transmitting from numerous other individuals, who quote from many companions, who quote from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), then this would mean that there are many pathways or multiple chains.

In Nukhba al-Fikar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) mentioned that a narration could be narrated through multiple pathways (Ṭuruq) without a specified number of people in every link (meaning that there are multiple narrators quoting from numerous people above). He then explained that when a narration is transmitted like this, such a narration will be called Mutawātir. This is the main and important lesson to remember.

Isnād- literal meaning

والإسناد: حكاية طريق المتن

 “And Isnād: it is relating the route of a statement.”

Here, we have two words: Sanad and Isnād.

Isnād is literally defined as al-I’timād, which means to rely on something. It is explained as:

ما أسندت اليه من جدار ونحوه

We may translate it as a support or a pillar. It is also used for:

ما قابلك من الجبل مما علا من السفح

Isnād – technical meaning

As for the technical meaning, there is an ostensible contradiction.

At this juncture, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) defines Isnād as:

حكاية طريق المتن

“Relating the route of a statement”

However, on page 106, he defines Isnād as:

وهو الطريق الموصلة الى المتن

As one may note, there is a difference between the two definitions.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) used the word: Ḥikāya. Ḥikāya refers to: the act of relating/transmitting/mentioning/narrating/ascribing.

That is, according to this definition, the action of saying the names of those who narrated to us, who in turn are quoting from those who narrated to them, and they in turn are taking the names of those who informed them, (this action) is called Isnād.

This is further supported by the fact that Isnād comes from Bāb If’āl, and one of the specialties of Bāb If’āl is that such words have a transitive meaning.

However, on page 106, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) explained Isnād as: “the chain” (in and of itself). That is, Isnād comes in the meaning of a noun (i.e. the exact same meaning as the word Sanad) – there is no action involved. It does not refer to “the act of relating”, rather, it refers to the actual chain.

Sanad and Isnād

In order to establish the correct meaning as to whether Isnād refers to the act of narrating or whether it comes in the meaning of Sanad, we need to study further.

For this, we will first refer to other books and then return to this book.

In the book, al-Isnād min ad-Dīn (p.11), Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) says:

قال العلماء: الإسناد هو مصدر من قولك: أسندت الحديث الى قائله، إذا رفعت اليه بذكر ناقله     

On page 14, he says:

 وعرفوا الإسناد بقولهم: هو حكاية طريق متن الحديث

“And they defined Isnād by saying: it is transmitting and relating the route of a statement of Ḥadīth.”

To emphasise that Isnād refers to the action of narrating, he then says:

وعلى هذا فالإسناد هو قولك أو قول البخاري مثلا: حدثنا فلان قال حدثنا فلان، والسند: هو أولئك الرواة الناقلون المذكورون قبل متن الحديث.

This emphatically illustrates that Sanad and Isnād have two different meanings.

However, this creates a huge problem because when grading Aḥadīth, scholars of Ḥadīth frequently say:

هذا إسناد صحيح ،     هذا إسناد ضعيف

“This Isnād is Ṣaḥiḥ and this Isnad is Da’īf.”

Based on the definition provided by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) here, as well as on the basis of the text that we have just quoted from al-Isnād min ad-Dīn, the meaning of the above statement would be:“This act of narrating is correct/The way in which this was transmitted is weak.”

Thus, the Muḥaddith is not grading the narration but rather, he is informing us whether the person used the correct words when transmitting the narration. As such, this statement could be used in relation to weak or fabricated narrations too, because if a liar uses the correct words for Adā (transmitting a Ḥadīth), then it would be accurate to say that the way in which he narrated is correct. It then follows from this definition, that if there was a chain in which all the links were filled with liars and sinners, if they used the correct words when transmitting the narration, it would be accurate to say:

هذا إسناد صحيح

However, the issue with this definition is that scholars use the above statement in books of Takhrīj (books that give the source of a narration) and also when grading narrations.

If we are going adopt this definition, then there would be no benefit to the statement because the scholars would not be informing us of the authenticity of the narration, but rather, he will be commenting on the act of narrating and whether that was done correctly. Clearly, this is not the case.

Thus, Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) clarifies on page 15 that the Muḥaddithīn use the terms Isnād and Sanad interchangeably:

المحدثون يستعملون كلا من السند والإسناد في موضع الأخر.

“The Muḥadditūn use Sanad and Isnād in place of the other (i.e. each other)”

Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) acquires this from a very famous statement of ‘Allāmah ibn Jama’ah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him), mentioned in his book al-Manhal ar-Rawī (p.p 29-30):

المحدثون يستعملون السند والإسناد لشيء واحد (المنهل الروي – 30 – 29)

“The Muḥadditūn use Sanad and Isnād for one thing (i.e. the same thing)”

‘Allāmah al-Laqqāni quotes from ‘Allāmah al-Baqā’i, the student of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him):

وأما في الاصطلاح فما يشك محدث أن السند والإسناد مترادفان ، ومعناها: طريق المتن (قضاء الوطر – ص: 462)

Likewise, in his commentary of Nuzha, ‘Allāmah al-Munāwi (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) says:

فلا يشك محدث أن السند والإسناد مترادفان (اليواقيت والدرر – ص 116)

In Mawsū’ah ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth wa Funūnihi, Sayyid ‘Abd al-Mājid al-Ġawrī mentions:

والمحدثون يستعملون كلا من السند والإسناد في موضع الآخر ويعرف المراد بالقرائن (موسوعة علوم الحديث وفنونه – 1 /246)

Thus, when explaining this very text of Nuzha, Mullā ‘Ali al-Qāri (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) said in his commentary:

والمراد به رجال الحديث، فإنهم يسندون الخبر إلى ما  ينتهي إليه السند، فمدار صحته وغيرها عليهم، فالإسناد بمعنى السند الذي عليه الاعتماد . (شرح علي القاري ص: 157)

In short, Isnād has two meanings, as mentioned in Dalīl al-Falāh:

1) عزو الحديث إلى قائله مسندا

2) سلسلة الرجال الموصلة للمتن، وهو بهذا المعنى مرادف للسند (دليل الفلاح – 27 -26)

It is in light of this that Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) defined Isnād in both ways.

Another proof to illustrate that Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) was convinced that Sanad and Isnād both have the same meaning, is that he explained Isnād here, and on page 59 (line four), he says:

والسند تقدم تعريفه

“The definition of Sanad has already passed.”

That is, he uses the word Sanad but is referring to the definition that he gave for Isnād. From the beginning of the book until page 59, he did not define Sanad. He only defined Isnād. Yes, when explaining Sanad, he states that the definition has passed, indicating to the definition of Isnād.

Following, because these two words are used interchangeably, we will find scholars using them in the opposite way too. That is, they sometimes use Sanad in the meaning of the act of narrating.

For example, in al-Khulāṣah fi ‘Ilm Muṣalah al-Ḥadīth (p.33), it is mentioned:

قال الطيبي: السند إخبار عن طريق المتن

“Sanad is the act of informing of the partway of the text”

Likewise, in Mawsū’ah ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth wa Funūnihi, Sayyid ‘Abd al-Mājid al-Ġawrī explains Sanad as:

هو الإخبار عن طريق المتن

“(Sanad) is the act of mentioning the partway of the text”

Similarly, if you turn to 37 (of Nuzha), in the footnote of Shaykh Nūr ad-Dīn ‘Itr, it is written:

والسند: حكاية رجال الحديث الذين رووه عن بعضهم

“Sanad is (the act of) stating the narrators of the Ḥadīth which they narrated from others.”

Likewise, Shaykh Tāriq ibn ‘AwadAllāh mentioned in his footnote on pp. 42-43 of his print:

والسند والإسناد والطريق سواء عند المحدثين، ومن فرق بين السند والإسناد فبحسب المعنى اللغوي، لا الاصطلاحي، فأما من حيث الاصطلاح فالمحدثون يستعملون السند والإسناد لشيء واحد.

All of these prove that there is no contradiction between what Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) wrote here, and what he wrote on page 106.

Objection

We now concluded that the terms Isnād, Sanad and Ṭuruq all have the same meaning. However, an objection is raised against this conclusion by ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbuġā (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) in al-Qawl al-Mubtakar:

والمراد بالطرق الأسانيد مستدرك (وضائع) وصار (الحاصل): أن الطريق حكاية الطريق (القول المبتكر – 31)

He is mentioning that if they all have the same meanings, then this statement of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) will be incorrect:

والإسناد: حكاية طريق المتن

The reason is, you are defining a word with itself. Isnād means Ṭarīq.

Other commentators have also said:

لزم منه إضافة الشيء إلى نفسه

In essence, one is making Iḍāfah (إضافة) of something to itself.

Reading these objections demonstrates to us the sharpness of the minds of the scholars, and how the scholars would listen and read through a critical lens.

Answer

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) responds to this objection by stating:

التحقيق أن تكون الإضافة بيانية في (قولي) حكاية طريق المتن

But this response did not satisfy ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbuġā (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him), hence he remarked:

التحقيق خلاف هذا التحقيق، لأن الحكاية فعل، والطريق أسم الرواة، فلا يصح أن يكون أحدهما عين الآخر

Conclusion

In conclusion, it would have been better if Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) reproduced the definition that he stated on p.106, here at the beginning of the book. In addition, it would also have been ideal if he clearly said that Sanad and Isnād  have the same meaning. Had he done this, then one would not need to go into this long explanation.

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك , أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت , أستغفرك وأتوب إليك