بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

12 Dhul Qa’dah, 1444 AH (Friday, 9 June, 2023)

We were discussing the statement where ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ stated:

فهذا هو الحديث الذي يحكم له بالصحة بلا خلاف بين أهل الحديث.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned that if the conditions and qualities that he mentioned in the definition are found, then definitely all scholars would grade such a narration as authentic.

The point that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is trying to make is: The conditions that he mentioned are the ideal case and the highest level. That means that everyone will definitely accept a narration that fulfils those stringent conditions. Since those conditions are on the absolute highest level, there are scholars who would be a little lax and rule that a narration does not have to very rigidly fulfil a particular condition.

Since that scholar is agreeing that the narration can be graded as authentic if it does not fulfill a specific condition, then if it does actually fulfil that condition, then all the more reason it will be accepted. The fact that they are lax means that if the narration fulfils those conditions then most definitely it will be Ṣaḥīḥ.

However, there are two issues:

1. There were some scholars who added more additions. That means that even if the narrations fulfills these conditions, then too, the narration will not be authentic, because there are more conditions that have to be fulfilled/there are more boxes that have to be ticked.

For example, Imām Mālik ruled that a narrator should be someone who has a reputation of seeking Ḥadīth. ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī explained:

وكان مالك – رحمه الله – يشترط للقبول أمرا آخر، وهو كون الراوي معروفا بطلب الحديث موصوفا بين أهله (النكت الوفية – 1 / 85)

If this is a condition, then it means that even if the conditions that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned are fulfilled, then too, the narration still cannot be graded as authentic. It still have to fulfill this additional condition of being authentic. Thus, the above statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ will not be entirely correct.  ‘Allāmah Baqā‘ī said:

وعلى هذا لا يسلم قول ابن الصلاح: (بلا خلاف بين أهل الحديث). (النكت الوفية – 1 / 85)

We will discuss about this shortly and I will mention the explanation – or, if you prefer to call it: the interpretation – of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar. For now, just understand, that some scholars, added ‘additional’ conditions.

2. Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is being specific in this statement. He is saying:

بلا خلاف بين أهل الحديث.

Previously, we quoted that the fuqahā do not stipulate ‘Adam ash-Shudhūdh’ and ‘Adam al-Illah’. If we are saying that the Fuqahā and the Uṣūliyīn are lax with those two conditions, then they too will agree that if a narration fulfills all these conditions, then – all the more reason it will be authentic.  If the Fuqahā and Uṣūliyyīn are more flexible and more lenient on these conditions, then if these more stringent conditions are fulfilled, then they will definitely accept that narration as ‘Ṣaḥīḥ’. That means that if a narration fulfills these conditions, it will be authentic according to everyone, not only according to the Muḥaddithīn.

To cover this, ‘Allāmah Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd suggested that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ should have phrased this differently. He said:

ولو قيل في هذا الحديث الصحيح ‌المجمع على صحته هو كذا وكذا إلى آخره لكان حسنا (الاقتراح في بيان الاصطلاح – ص: 5)

In suggesting that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ should have phrased it in this manner, ‘Allāmah Ibn Daqīq al-Īḍ is subtly raising this objection on ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. ‘Allāmah Baqā‘ī explained what ‘Allāmah Ibn Daqīq al-Īd is hinting and indicating:

إن تقييده بأهل الحديث لا يفيد، بل ينقص من المعنى شيئا ينبغي تحصيله، وهو أن الحديث الجامع لهذه الأوصاف صحيح عند من لا يشترط بعض هذه الشروط من الفقهاء من باب الأولى. (النكت الوفية – 1 / 85)

Ibn al-Mulaqqin said:

فالصحيح المجمع عليه ما اتصل إسناده بالعدول الضابطين من غير شذوذ ولا علة. (المقنع في علوم الحديث – 1 / 41)

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ now mentions the statements that we alluded in the past lessons and actually quoted it a few times already:

وقد يختلفون في صحة بعض الأحاديث لاختلافهم في وجود هذه الأوصاف فيه،

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is explained two reasons as to why scholars would differ on grading a narration as Ṣaḥīḥ.

In this segment of the sentence he is explaining one point, and in the next portion, he is mentioning another point. We will refer to this as the first point. The first point is:

1. Scholars would differ in grading certain narrations as authentic because they differ on whether these conditions are fulfilled or not.

The way ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ phrased this sentence is with using pronouns. He said: ‘Hādhih al-Awṣāf fihī’, which literally means: ‘these qualities of it’

Instead of using a pronoun, it would have been better if ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ clearly mentioned the noun. Instead of saying Ḥādhih and Fīhi, he should have said: :  al-Awṣāf al-Madhkūrah fi Ḥadd aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ.

The reason is that: a pronoun refers back to the closest antecedent (A Ḍamīr will refer back to the earliest Marja’).

If we apply the principle of a narration referring back to the closest pronoun, the words: Ḥādhihil Awṣāf fihi (these qualities) will refer to what was mentioned two sentences back. It will then refer to Mursal, Munqaṭi’, Mu’ḍal, Ṣhādh etc. This is how ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī understood it. He said:

وفيه نظر من حيث قوله: وجود الأوصاف فيه، يعني: الأوصاف المتقدمة من إرسال، وانقطاع، وعضل وشذوذ، وشبهها (إصلاح كتاب ابن الصلاح – ص: 67)

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī objected:

يريد بقوله هذه إلاوصاف أى ‌أوصاف ‌القبول التي ذكرها في حد الصحيح وإنما نبهت على ذلك وإن كان واضحا لأنى رأيت بعضهم قد اعترض عليه. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 76)

He then quoted these words from ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī, and then remarked:

وهذا الاعتراض ليس بصحيح فإنه إنما أراد ‌أوصاف ‌القبول كما قدمته (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 76)

Nevertheless, the meaning of this is that scholars will differ whether these conditions will be fulfilled or not. One scholar might consider a narration to be Shādh, whereas another scholar will find no difficulty in creating harmony between the two narration, and hence, he will say that there is no Shudhudh.

One scholar might consider a particular narrator to have a weak memory, whilst another might say that his memory is absolutely fine.

Hence, they agree that all of these are valid conditions, however, they differ on whether these valid conditions are being fulfilled. ‘Allāmah Zarkashī said:

فهذا هو ‌الأغلب. (النكت على مقدمة ابن الصلاح للزركشي – 1 / 117)

(‘Allāmah Zarkashī got this point from ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ himself, as will be seen in the text that we quote ahead.)

‘Allāmah Zarkashī provides an example for this: the narrator ʿAlā’ ibn ʿAbd al-Rahmān al-Hurafī is considered by Imām Ahmad ibn Sa’d and Imām Tirmidhī thiqah. Likewise, Abū Hātim labels him sālih, with many thiqah narrators narrating from him. Therefore, these scholars would accept his narrations and grade them as Ṣaḥīḥ.

On the other hand:

• Ibn al-Ma’īn (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) states: ليس بحجة
• Abu Zur’ah states: ليس بالقوي

They will therefore not grade his narrations as authentic.

Explaining this point, ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Jamā’ah mentioned:

وكل ما اختلف فيه فإما لانتفاء بعضها يقينا أو شكا أو لعدم اشتراطه عند مخرجه ولذلك خرج البخاري عن عكرمة وعمرو بن مرزوق وغيرهما دون مسلم وخرج مسلم عن حماد بن سلمة وأبي الزبير محمد بن مسلم دون البخاري وسببه اختلافهما في وجود الشروط المعتبرة فيه. (المنهل الروي في مختصر علوم الحديث النبوي – ص: 33)

In short, some scholars consider the narrator to be competent enough and hence they grade the narration as authentic, whereas other scholars feel that the narrator is not good enough, and due to that they disregard his narration.

Similarly, there could be a difference of opinion regarding whether the chain is muttasil. A famous difference is regarding whether Liqā took place. Imām Muslim discusses this in the introduction of his Ṣaḥīḥ. Those scholars who stipulate that it must be proven that two narrators met, they will regard narrations as weak if there was only the possibility of them meeting. However, Imām Muslim will accept the narration, since he claims that it is fine if there was the possibility for them to meet.

It is clear from the above that such differences will affect the conclusion one reaches i.e. the grade of the hadith.

That is the first portion of this sentence of Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh: scholars might differ on whether these qualities are fulfilled or not.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned the second reason that will cause scholars to differ on the status of a narration:

أو لاختلافهم في اشتراط بعض هذه الأوصاف،

2.They might differ on whether these conditions are essential, integral and conditional to begin with.

One scholar might claim that a particular condition is an important condition that must be fulfilled, then only will a narration be graded as authentic. Another scholar might say that it is an invalid condition.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ presents the example:

كما في المرسل

Ḥanafīs and Mālikīs believe that a Mursal narration is acceptable. They do not rule that there has to be Ittiṣāl after a Tābi’ī (as long as that Tābi’ī fulfils certain conditions).

‘Allāmah Zarkashī mentions additional examples:

ومثله قبول المستور  ، وكذلك اختلفوا في الصحيح: هل من شرطه أن يكون خالصا من الشذوذ مطلقا أم لا. (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 117)

This is sufficient to illustrate that there are quite a few differences in the very conditions that ‘Allāmah ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned.

Summary

Thus far, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned that:

1. If these conditions are fulfilled, then everyone will accept it as Ṣaḥīḥ
2. There are two reasons why scholars will differ in whether a narration is Ṣaḥīḥ or not:
   1. They differ on whether the conditions are fulfilled or not
   2. They differ on the conditions themselves

This is what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh is saying.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ expressed these same points in the introduction of his commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. He wrote:

فكل حديث اجتمعت فيه هذه الأوصاف فلا خلاف بين أهل الحديث في صحته وما اختلفوا في صحته من الأحاديث فقد يكون سبب اختلافهم انتفاء وصف من هذه الأوصاف بينهم خلاف في اشتراطه كما إذا كان بعض رواة الحديث مستورا أو كما إذا كان الحديث مرسلا وقد يكون سبب اختلافهم في صحته اختلافهم في أنه هل اجتمعت فيه هذه الأوصاف أو انتفى بعضها وهذا هو الأغلب في ذلك وذلك كما إذا كان الحديث في رواته من اختلف في ثقته وكونه من شرط الصحيح (صيانة صحيح مسلم – ص: 72)

Additional Conditions

In his definition, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned five conditions for a narration to be Ṣaḥīḥ. Shaykh ‘Awwāmah explained that they are actually seven. He wrote:

والاوصاف التي ذكرت هي خمسة إجمالا، لكنها سبعة تفصيلا، وهي: الاتصال، والعدالة والضبط، وعدم شذوذ السند، وعدم شذوذ المتن، وعدم العلة القادحة في السند، وعدم العلة القادحة في المتن (تعليقه على التدريب – 2 / 193)

Other scholars added further conditions.

Later on, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ himself says:

الصحيح يتنوع إلى متفق عليه، ومختلف فيه. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 14)

We will quote the explanation of Imām Ḥākim there regarding narrations in which there are differences of opinion.

A point to remember from the outset is: this science is an Ijtīhādī science and earlier scholars placed their own conditions and had their unique system of accepting a narration. They did not have a mass conference and agree that we will all agree on these essential conditions. There were great scholars from the East to the West, and each one laid down his conditions.  Scholars would mention some of their conditions in passing.

1)     Mashhūr bi ‘t-ṭalab

There were many earlier scholars who ruled that the narrator must be mashhūr bit-talab i.e. he has a known reputation of being involved in acquiring Ḥadīth. We quoted this earlier from ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī.

These scholars felt that knowledge can only be taken from an individual who is known to be a student of Ḥadīth. If a businessman and shopkeeper for example, hear a narration, they are bound to err when quoting the narration. Thus, a narration can only be authentic if it is transmitted by someone who is dedicating lots of his time to studying Aḥādīth, that he actually because known for officially learning Aḥādīth.  Hereunder are some examples of earlier scholars who stipulated this:

‘Allāmah Rāmahurmuzī quotes with his chain to ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Awn that he said:

لا نكتب الحديث إلا ممن كان عندنا معروفا بالطلب. (المحدث الفاصل – ص: 422)

He then quotes with his chain that Sufyān Thawrī said:

خذ الحلال والحرام من المشهورين في العلم، وما سوى ذلك فمن المشيخة. (المحدث الفاصل – ص: 423)

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar explained that this also seemed to be the condition of Imām Bukhārī. He said:

قال شيخ الإسلام: والظاهر من ‌تصرف ‌صاحبي الصحيح اعتبار ذلك، إلا إذا كثرت مخارج الحديث فيستغنيان عن اعتبار ذلك، كما يستغنى بكثرة الطرق عن اعتبار الضبط التام. (تدريب الراوي – 2 / 165)

Thus, this is the additional condition above what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ said.

قال شيخ الإسلام: ويمكن أن يقال: اشتراط الضبط يغني عن ذلك، إذ المقصود بالشهرة بالطلب أن يكون له مزيد اعتناء بالرواية لتركن النفس إلى كونه ضبط ما روى. (تدريب الراوي – 2 / 165)

2)     The Narration Being Well-Circulated

The great scholar in Shāfi’ī, Abū Isḥāq, Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥamamd al-Isfirāīnī said in his Uṣūl:

‌تعرف ‌صحة ‌الحديث ‌باشتهاره عند أئمة الحديث ولم ينكروه. (النكت للزركشي – 2 / 113)

(This is a valuable quotation, since we do not have this book at our disposal.)

We could say that this is simply an indication. It is not a condition.

3)     Understanding the Narration

Other scholars mention that the narrator should be someone who understands the meaning of the Ḥadīth. They felt that a narrator should posses an understanding of the topic being narrated. They stipulated this due to chances of a person misquoting something that he does not understand.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Hajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) says this point is also covered by ‘Adam ash-Shudhūdh:

قال شيخ الإسلام: والظاهر أن ذلك إنما يشترط عند المخالفة أو عند التفرد بما تعم به البلوى. (تدريب الراوي – 2 / 168)

In is important to clarify that there are people who attributed this view to Imām Abū Hanīfah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on them all). There are others who attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah that he stipulated that the narrator of Ahādīth al-Ahkām must be a Faqīh.

The truth is that there is no proof that Imām Abū Hanīfah held this view, neither did his students nor did any other senior Hanafī scholars make this claim. Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) explained:

وهل صحيح أن الإمام أبا حنيفة يشترط كون الراوي فقيها ليقبل حديثه؟ الجواب: أن هذا كلام لا يعرف عن الإمام أبي حنيفة، ولا عن غيره من أصحابه ، أو من أهل العلم عامة (تعليقه على تدريب الراوي – 2 / 167)

Allāmah ‘Alā ud-Dīn al-Bukhārī explained this in detail in Kashf al-Asrār. He concluded saying:

ولم ينقل عن أحد من ‌السلف ‌اشتراط ‌الفقه في الراوي فثبت أن هذا القول مستحدث. (كشف الأسرار عن أصول فخر الإسلام البزدوي – 2 / 383)

Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah explains:

بل لفقه  الراوي أثر في أمرين (تعليقه على تدريب الراوي – 2 / 167)

This principle can be used:

1. To give tarjīh
2. If a narrator paraphrases a narration

‘Allāmah Kawtharī (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) states:

إنما تأثير كون الراوي فقيها: ترجيح روايته على رواية غيره ، وقبول روايته بالمعنى، بخلاف الراوي غير الفقيه فإنه مظنة الغلط في الموضعين. (النكت الطريفة  – 262)

Hence, the chances of a ghayr faqīh making a mistake is higher.

4)     Being Known as Having Good Understanding Skills and Attending Many Gatherings

Combining the first and third opinions mentioned above, others stipulated that the narrator should also have a good reputation of understanding well and attending many gatherings of hadith.

وقد قالوا: أن الصحيح ‌لا ‌يعرف ‌بالرواية من الثقات فقط وإنما بالفهم والحفظ وكثرة السماع (قواطع الأدلة في الأصول – 1 / 399)

Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar explained how this is incorporated in the conditions of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ:

قال شيخ الإسلام: وهذا يؤخذ من اشتراط انتفاء كونه معلولا؛ لأن الاطلاع على ذلك إنما يحصل بما ذكر من الفهم والمذاكرة وغيرهما. (تدريب الراوي – 2 / 165)

5)     Tallaqqī

(This is not directly linked to the above and ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ discusses this shortly. Thus, although those who wrote Nukat brought up this at this juncture, we will discuss it when ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ discusses it in the next paragraph, in shā Allāḥ.)

6)     The Narrators Meeting

‘Allāmah Suyūṭī presents another example of a condition stipulated by some:

ومنها: اشتراط البخاري ثبوت السماع لكل راو من شيخه، ولم يكتف بإمكان اللقاء والمعاصرة كما سيأتي. (تدريب الراوي – 2 / 168)

This has nothing to do with whether the narration is authentic or not. Rather, it was the condition that he chose for his book (in fact, when we reach the relevant chapter, we will prove that this claim is actually incorrect; this is not even the view of Imām al-Bukhārī. But for now, even if we assume that Imām Bukhārī placed this condition….), because he wanted the highest level of authentic narrations in his Ṣaḥīḥ.

وقيل: إن ذلك لم يذهب أحد إلى أنه شرط الصحيح بل الأصحية. (تدريب الراوي – 2 / 168)

Conclusion

The point is: Even though there are what might seem as additional conditions, they are actually encompassed within these conditions. Rather than claiming that they are additional conditions, we could say that they are different ways of mentioning the same conditions. Abū Ya’lā Kukabī explains:

وكما رأيت: كل هذا يعد من قبيل اختلاف العبارات، لا اختلاف الاعتبارات، وهو ليس من قبيل الاختلاف في الحقيقة، كما يتوهم الذين لا يمعنون النظر، فإنهم كلما رأوا اختلافا فبالعبارة عن شيء ما ، سواء كان في تعريف أو تقسيم أو غير ذلك ، حكموا بأن هناك اختلاف في الحقيقة ، وإن لم تكن تلك العبارات مختلفة في المأل (بذل المهج – ص: 553)

One may apply this to all other conditions that he comes across. For example, we quoted in other lessons the additional conditions of Imām Mālik. ‘Allāmah Rāmahurmuzī quotes with his chain:

حدثنا عبد الله بن الصقر السكري، حدثنا إبراهيم بن المنذر الحزامي، حدثنا معن القزاز -وقال مرة: محمد بن صدقة الفدكي أحدهما أو كلاهما- قال: سمعت مالك بن أنس يقول: لا يؤخذ العلم عن أربعة، ويؤخذ ممن سوى ذلك: لا يؤخذ من صاحب هوى يدعو الناس إلى هواه، ولا من سفيه معلن بالسفه، وإن كان من أروى الناس، ولا من رجل يكذب في أحاديث الناس، وإن كنت لا تتهمه أن يكذب على رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم -، ولا من رجل له فضل وصلاح وعبادة إذا كان لا يعرف ما يحدث. (المحدث الفاصل – ص: 419)

If you apply your mind, you should be able to incorporate these in the conditions that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned.

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

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