بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

23 Muharram,1444 AH (Friday, 11 July, 2023)

Thus far we explained that Imām Nawawī understood that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is claiming that it is not permissible for a latter day scholar to grade a narration without having some basis from an earlier scholar. There must be some earlier who graded a narration as such.

Subsequently, the commentators of the next two centuries all just followed what Imām Nawawī said, and they all echoed the same sentiments.

Since most of them actually quoted Imām Nawawī, we understand clearly that they did not try to analyse the statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ themselves. Rather, they simply followed the understanding of Imām Nawawī.

They then objected on ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and presented examples of contemporaries of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and even of scholars who came after him who graded narrations, using their action to prove that it is fine to grade narrations.

Other scholars objected on this in other ways, but ultimately, they are all agreeing that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is wrong and he deserves to be refuted.

Defence of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ

‘Allāmah Suyūtī attempted to provide some defence of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. In the treatise: At-Tanqīh fī Masalah at-Taṣḥīḥ, ʿAllāmah Suyūṭī explained that we could consider that ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is prohibiting scholars to grade Ṣaḥīḥ Li Dhatihi, and he is not talking about Ṣaḥīḥ li Ghairihi.

 Ṣaḥīḥ Li Dhātihī = What fullfills the conditions mentioned earlier in the book.

 Ḥasan Li Dhātihi = What fulfils all the conditions except that the narrator has a slightly weak memory.

 Ṣaḥīḥ Li Gharihi = A combination of many narrations that are Ḥasan Li Dhātihi.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ agrees that a latter day scholar may grade a narration as Ṣaḥīḥ Li Ghayrihī (combination of Ḥasan Li Dhātihi), but he cannot grade it as Ṣaḥīḥ Li Dhātihī.

This means that probably an earlier scholar graded a narration as Ḥasan due to a certain narrator having a slightly defective memory. So a then a latter day scholar may find many chains of narrators of slightly defective memories and he adds them together and now grades the narration as Ṣaḥīḥ.

والتحقيق عندي أنه لا اعتراض على ابن الصلاح ولا مخالفة بينه وبين من صحح في عصره أو بعده. وتقرير ذلك أن الصحيح قسمان: صحيح لذاته ، وصحيح لغيره كما هو مقرر في كتاب ابن الصلاح وغيره. والذى منعه ابن الصلاح إنما هو القسم الأول دون الثاني كما تعطيه عبارته، وذلك أنه يوجد في جزء من الأجزاء حديث بسند واحد من طريق واحد لم تتعدد طرقه ويكون ظاهر الإسناد الصحة لاتصاله وثقة رجاله فيريد الإنسان أن يحكم لهذا الحديث بالصحة لذاته بمجرد هذا الظاهر ولم يوجد لأحد من أئمة الحديث الحكم عليه بالصحة فهذا ممنوع قطعا لأن مجرد ذلك لا يكتفي به في الحكم بالصحة بل لابد من فقد الشذوذ ونفي العلة، والوقوف على ذلك الآن متعسر بل متعذر ، لأن الاطلاع على العلل الخفية إنما كان للئامة المتقدمين لقرب أعصارهم من عصر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فكان الواحد منهم من تكون شيوخه التابعين أو اتباع التابعين أو الطبقة الرابعة، فكان الوقوف على العلل إذ ذاك متيسرا للحافظ العارف، وأما الأزمان المتأخرة فقد طالت فيها الأسانيد، فتعذر الوقوف على العلل إلا بالنقل من الكتب المصنفة في العلل، فإذا وجد الإنسان في جزء من الأجزاء حديثا بسند واحد ظاهره الصحة لاتصاله وثقة رجاله لم يمكنه الحكم عليه بالصحة لذاته، لاحتمال أن يكون له علة خفية لم نطلع عليها لتعذر العلم بالعلل في هذه الأزمان.

وأما القسم الثاني: فهذا لا يمنعه ابن الصلاح ولا غيره، وعليه يحمل صنع من كان في عصره ومن جاء بعده، فإني استقريت ما صححه هؤلاء فوجدته من قسم الصحيح لغيره لا لذاته (التنقيح لمسألة التصحيح ص 21 و نقله الشيخ نور الدين عتر في كتابه: منهج النقد في علوم الحديث ص:263ـ265، من رسالة التنقيح لمسألة التصحيح، للسيوطي، مخطوطة في الظاهرية، في مجموع رقم:5896 عام)

Rejection of ʿAllāmah Suyūṭī’s attempt at reconciliation

Whilst this attempt at reconciliation and removal of criticism against ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is commended and definitely appreciated, it is difficult to accept. We have to consider a few points:

Firstly, a narration may outwardly seem to be Ḥasan, but that narration too has the potential of being Maʿlūl or Shādh. It is not only narrations that apparently seem to be Ṣaḥīh that have this possibility; Ḥasan narrations too could be the same. That ultimately will mean that by gathering all of the chains, the narration might seem to upgrade to Ṣaḥīḥ Li Ghayrihī, but it could also be Shādh or Mu’allal. Hence, all that ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī mentioned about the difficulty of latter day scholars detecting Shudhūdh and ‘Ilal will aptly apply on grading a narration as Ṣaḥīḥ Li Ghayrihī. Shaykh Ḥamzah Malībārī said:

فقد لوحظ في كلام السيوطي ما يلفت الانتباه من كونه خص الحديث الصحيح لذاته بضرورة انتفاء الشذوذ والعلة كشرط أساسي له، دون الصحيح لغيره، وهذا منه غير مقبول، بل هو مرفوض قطعا، لأن الخلو من الشذوذ والعلة شرط أيضا للصحيح لغيره، كما هو شرط كذلك في الحسن لذاته ولغيره، و (تصحيح الحديث عند ابن الصلاح – ص: 35)

Thus, the same problem or objection that is found in the case of Ṣaḥīḥ li-Dhātihī is also present in the case of Ṣaḥīḥ li-Ghayrihi and Ḥasan li-Dhātihī.

Shaykh Ḥamzah Malībārī then explained:

فبما أن سلامة الحديث من الشذوذ والعلة تعتبر أهم شروط القبول ـ على اختلاف مستوياته ـ فتخصيصه الصحيح لذاته بذلك الشرط دون سواه أمر يرفضه الإنصاف العلمي. وبناء على هذا، فإن كان كشف الشذوذ والعلة مما يعجز عنه المتأخرون لبعد عصرهم عن عصر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وطول الأسانيد عندهم، فإن المنع وارد أيضا في الصحيح لغيره إذا كان في رجال إسناده راو خف ضبطه، إضافة إلى وروده من طريق أخرى سواء على وجه المتابعة أو الاستشهاد. فالفصل بينهما بالمنع والجواز تكلف ظاهر. (تصحيح الحديث عند ابن الصلاح – ص: 36)

In short, a narration could be Shādh or Mu’allall despite there being multiple chains.

Secondly, in contrast to what ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī is saying here, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ did actually mention that a latter day scholar will be able to detect Shudhūdh and ‘Ilal.

يضاف إلى هذا أنه ورد عن ابن الصلاح ما يرد دعوى السيوطي رحمه الله من أن الكشف عن الشذوذ والعلة من طرف المتأخرين متعسر بل متعذر، وذلك قوله في مبحثه حول كتاب المستدرك للحاكم: ” فالأولى أن نتوسط في أمر فنقول: ما حكم بصحته ولم نجد ذلك فيه لغيره من الأئمة، إن لم يكن من قبيل الصحيح فهو من قبيل الحسن يحتج به ويعمل به إلا أن تظهر فيه علة توجب ضعفه “،

Shaykh Malībārī comments on this and says:

فهذا كلامه رحمه الله صريح في احتمال توصل المتأخرين إلى اكتشاف العلة، فأصبح قول السيوطي ـ رحمه الله تعالى ـ مجرد دعوى بلا دليل. (تصحيح الحديث عند ابن الصلاح – ص: 38)

Thirdly, there are very slim chances of a latter day scholars discovering many chains and all the earlier scholars being oblivious of them. Earlier scholars would consciously gather as many chains as possible for every narration. Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn mentions:

سمعت يحيى يقول لو لم نكتب الشيء من ‌ثلاثين ‌وجها ‌ما ‌عقلناه. (تاريخ ابن معين – رواية الدوري 4 / 271)

Likewise, Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said:

الحديث إذا لم ‌تجمع ‌طرقه ‌لم ‌تفهمه والحديث يفسر بعضه بعضا. (الجامع لأخلاق الراوي وآداب السامع – 2 / 212)

Furthermore, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī states:

الباب إذا لم ‌تجمع ‌طرقه ‌لم ‌يتبين ‌خطؤه». (الجامع لأخلاق الراوي وآداب السامع – 2 / 212)

When we speak about Imām Aḥmad knowing a million narrations off by heart, then it refers to knowing all of the chains.

It will be almost impossible or very rare that the multiple chains simply slipped pass all of these scholars, and it was only a scholar who came later who was able to detect that.

Due to these reasons, Shaykh Malībārī wrote:

فعسى الحافظ السيوطي رحمه الله من خلال هذا التحليل أن يوجه كلام ابن الصلاح توجيها حسنا كي يوفق بينه وبين المعترضين عليه في مجال التصحيح، إلا أن سعيه هذا ذهب بعيدا عن الواقع العلمي، وعن المرتكزات الأساسية التي استند إليها ابن الصلاح تدعيما لرأيه. (تصحيح الحديث عند ابن الصلاح – ص: 35)

Proofs That the Understanding of Imām Nawawī etc. Cannot Be Precise

Undoubtedly, on face value and just looking at the literal meaning of the words, it seems as if ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is prohibiting a later day scholars from grading narrations.

However, when we take note of other factors, we realise that this actually cannot be the case. There are four points that leads us to understand this:

1) ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is writing an entire book in ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth.

If we ponder about it a little, why would ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ write a book on ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth? He surely does not intend to just write a glossary on the terms. What is the objective of this book?

The entire objective of writing a book on ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth is sufficient to prove that he was not against at-Taṣhīh fīz Zaman al-Muta’akhir.

ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wrote a book on ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, in the book he is instructing the reader to make research on ḥadīth and he himself passed verdicts on ḥadīth, one understands that the above statement of ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ cannot be taken at face value.

The next point will clarify this point further.

1) There are numerous statements of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ within this book where he clearly invites the reader to research.

A) Just few pages later, he advises the reader to research the narrations of Mustadrak and ‘grade’ the narrations accordingly:

وهو ‌واسع ‌الخطو في شرط الصحيح، متساهل في القضاء به. فالأولى أن نتوسط في أمره فنقول: ما حكم بصحته، ولم نجد ذلك فيه لغيره من الأئمة، إن لم يكن من قبيل الصحيح فهو من قبيل الحسن، يحتج به ويعمل به، إلا أن تظهر فيه علة توجب ضعفه. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 22)

B) When speaking about whether a weak narration can be upgraded to Ḥasan, he said:

وهذه جملة تفاصيلها تدرك ‌بالمباشرة ‌والبحث، فاعلم ذلك، فإنه من النفائس العزيزة. والله أعلم. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 34)

He is inviting the reader to make research on narrations that ‘earlier’ and other scholars graded as weak, and then to determine if he could grade these as Ḥasan. If he finds the narrator to be too weak, then the reader should ‘grade’ it accordingly. And if the narrator’s memory is not too weak, then the reader should grade it as Hasan.

C) Under the topic of Shādh, he tells the reader:

إذا انفرد الراوي بشيء ‌نظر ‌فيه: فإن كان ما انفرد به مخالفا لما رواه من هو أولى منه بالحفظ لذلك، وأضبط كان ما انفرد به شاذا مردودا. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 79)

If the reader conducts this research and discover that there is one narrator who is differing with another, then what will that inevitably lead him to do?

Interestingly, when coming across passages like these within the book, instead of considering to re-visit and to properly analyze what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is saying, ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī casually claims that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ forgot about his position. He wrote:

قول منه ‌بإمكان ‌التصحيح في هذا الزمان، وقد تقدم نفيه له في شرح قوله: (وعنده التصحيح ليس يمكن) فكأنه نسي ما قال هناك. (النكت الوفية – 1 / 466)

Does that even make sense? Even if he forgot, he would have remembered when he taught the book again! What about his students, did all of them also forget? What about the readers before Imām Nawawī?

Shaykh Aḥmad Ma’bad claimed that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ changed his position. He wrote:

فيمكن اعتبار التأخر المكاني لكلامه الذي في معرفة الشاذ قرينة ظاهرة على تغير رأيه وأن كلامه في نوع الشاذ هو قوله الأخير في الموضوع ، كما هو القاعدة في تعدد الأقوال (الحافظ العراقي وأثره في السنة – 3 / 1023 – 1024)

This is absolutely incorrect, because ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ completed the book in Muḥarram 634 AH, and he taught the book thereafter for many years. He only passed away in 643 AH. If he really changed his view, then why did he not edit the book? It is clear, this paragraph does not denote upon prohibiting latter day scholars from grading a narration.

There are many other examples like these; where ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is advising the reader to research, and we will, in shā Allāh, highlight these as we go along.

2) ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ himself passed a ruling on a ḥadīth.

His verdicts on various narrations can be found in his books such as Amālī and Sharḥ Mushkil al-Wasīṭ. With due respect, all the respected scholars who followed Imām Nawawī looked right past ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. They looked at the scholars around him, but not for one moment did they even consider to analyse whether ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ also graded narrations just like his contemporaries. The reason they did not bother to check this is because they already pre-conceived that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ does not allow scholars to grade narrations.

In a magazine in the faculty of Islām in the University of Kuwait, Dr ‘Abdur Razzāq ibn Khalīfah cited numerous examples of narrations that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ independently graded (35th edition, Majjallah Kulliyah ash-Sharī‘ah, page 255).

It is hard for us to claim that these scholars were unaware of the gradings of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. They had the relevant books of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and were constantly referring to them. ʿAllāmah ʿIrāqī – who objected- quoted the rulings of ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ at least three times in his takhrīj of Iḥyā ʿUlūm ad-Dīn.

قال ‌ابن ‌الصلاح لم أجد له أصلا. (تعليقة إحياء علوم الدين – 1 / 137)

ورواه ابن عمر لم يقف عليه ‌ابن ‌الصلاح فقال في مشكل الوسيط إنه غير معروف. (تعليقة إحياء علوم الدين 1 / 147)

قال ‌ابن ‌الصلاح لم أجد له أصلا معتمدا. (تعليقة إحياء علوم الدين – 2 / 41)

When saying that he did not find any Aṣl, it clearly means that he attempted to grade the narration. Even if one were to argue that in these statements, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalaḥ is not really grading, since he is claiming that he did not find any basis, then too, we know that ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī had the verdicts of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ infront of him – he was going through the verdicts of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and he would have definitely come across those instances where he independently graded narrations, yet he objected on him. It is all because of this predetermined notion.

Likewise, Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in his At-Talkhīs at-Ḥabīr quoted the ruling of ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ at least 50 times. In fact, there are many occasions where Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar quoted Imām Nawawī who quoted the narrations of ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and he then quoted Imām Nawawī agreeing to the verdict passed by ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ.

In summary, all those scholars who have criticised ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ on this matter probably would have known better that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ graded narrations himself.

3) None of the contemporaries and no scholar before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ criticized him

The scholars who came more than a century after ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh quoted how contemporaries of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ were grading narrations. It raises the question: why did the very contemporaries then note oppose ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ? Why did his students not question him?

Dr Rashwān Abū Zayd Maḥmūd said:

أن أحدا ممن عاصر ابن الصلاح لم يرد عليه في هذه المسألة – فيما نعلم – وأول من رد عليه الإمام النووي (دراسة لموقف ابن الصلاح المطبوع ب مجموع فيه أربعة رسائل – ص: 31)

Why is it that only Imām Nawawī objected? Why did the other elder scholars in the life of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and after him not object?

The reasoning is clear; they knew well that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is not prohibiting them from grading narration.

Background

Question:

If ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ does not intend the apparent meaning, that what does he intend? If he clearly contradicted the apparent meaning and took the liberty of authenticating narrations himself, then what is the meaning of this text? What is he then trying to say here?

Answer

Undoubtedly on face value, the understanding of Imām Nawawī and all of the other stalwarts does seem to be correct. This is if we simply look at the apparent meaning of the words without considering the context and external factors.

However, when looking at external factors such as the state of the science of ḥadīth in the era of ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and his life, then you would easily understand that he cannot be referring to what Imām Nawawī and others have understood.

To understand what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is trying to say, we would need to consider the context and environment of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, and then look at these words in that light. The context in which this statement was made will shed proper light on its true meaning.

وبكيفية معينة: “بمجرد اعتبار الأسانيد” مما يجعل إدراك الواقع الحديثي في عصر ابن الصلاح، والملابسات المحيطة به، والمستجدات التي طرأت وتأثرت بها نظم الرواية أداء وتحملا، له أكبر الأثر في فهم كلام هذا الإمام. (تصحيح الحديث عند ابن الصلاح – ص: 10)

There are three important points to consider of the era of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ:

1) By the 630s, most narrations were documented, and scholars would study from official books, rather than read to scholars each narration with a chain going over 600 years.

Shaykh Ḥamzah Malībārī explains in detail how there were two phases in transmitting Aḥādīth:

a) The era when a Shaykh used to quote with a chain from him to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

b) The era then when scholars would rely on books, for example: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, etc.

Of course, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ was from this second period.

2) By the seventh century, people were losing interest in Aḥādīth.

In the introduction ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ lamented and expressed his concerns about the condition of the students and the lack of interest in properly studying. He mentioned:

فلم يزالوا في انقراضٍ، ولم يزل في اندراسٍ، حتى آضت به الحال إلى أن صار أهله إنما هم شرذمة قليلة العدد، ضعيفة العُدد، لا تعنى على الأغلب في تحمله بأكثر من سماعه غفلا. ولا تتعنى في تقييده بأكثر من كتابته عطلا مطرحين علومه التي بها جل قدره، مباعدين معارفه التي بها فخم أمره. فحين كاد الباحث عن مشكله لا يلفي له كاشفا، والسائل عن علمه لا يلقى به عارفا. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 6)

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah explained:

أما دائرة البحث – ويتصل بها التعليل العام – : فهي: أن ابن الصلاح لاحظ بنفسه، ومن خلال أقوال من سبقه بنحو مئتي سنة وثلاث مئة سنة: الرامهرمزي (360)، الخطابي (388)، والبيهقي (458)، والخطيب (463)، كلهم يشكو من النقلة التي حصلت للرواية والتحمل، فقد كان الأمر على دقة متناهية في التحمل والأداء، ثم بدأ الأمر ينتناقص إلى أن ظهر من أقوال هولاء الأئمة كلمات كثيرة يشكون فيها مما طرأ على الرواية (تعليقة تدريب الرواية – 1 / 540)

This means that this decline started from roughly two to three centuries before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. Scholars were already complaining about the decline in the interest of Ḥadīth. Scholars such as ʿAllāmah Rāmahurmuzī (d. 360 AH), ʿAllāmah Khaṭṭābi in (d. 388 AH), ʿAllāmah Bayhaqī (458 AH) and ‘Allāmah Khaṭīb (d. 463) all raised the same concern and complained about the new methods of receiving and conveying a narration. Initially, there were such stringent laws governing Taḥammul and Adā. But students became lax in how they got the narration, and scholars became easier going in their transmission of the narration.

3) Scholars and students were now placing their full focus on simply gaining ʿālī asānīd (short chains) rather than the studying Aḥādīth properly.

Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah mentioned that the reason why there was a decline was because people started to focus solely and only on procuring many Asānīd and obtaining the shortest of chains. They would hence take babies to the Majālis of the elderly Shuyūkh. They would do this for Barakah and with the hope that these babies will grow to become great Muḥaddithīn. For many, this objective would materialise and those children would really become further scholars. However, for many others, this would not happen.

He explained that they would not study the Fiqh of the Aḥādīth, and they would not properly understand the narrations. As they got older, people would still want to get Asānīd through them, since they were fortunate that their parents took them to these Majālis. They would then be pushed to the category of passing on narrations, yet they knew absolutely nothing about the laws of Riwāyah. Thus, the teachers were not fit to be teachers, and students would flock to them just so that they can also have these short chains. So they too, lowered the standards of previous students.

He said:

وسبب هذه النقلة الخطيرة: حضور طائفتين من الناس مجالس الرواية: كبار في السن لكنهم من العامة، وصغار في السن كان أباؤهم وذووهم يحضرونهم تلك المجالس: للبركة، وأملا أن يكونوا في المستقبل طلاب علم وحديث، وكثيرا ما يتحقق لهم هذا الرجاء، وكثيرا ما لا يتحقق، ومع مستقبل الأيام جلس الكبار والصغار للرواية والأداء ، وكلاهما لم يكونوا أهل للتحمل وكثير منهم بقي غير متأهل، ولكنه جلس –أو أجلس – للرواية، طلبا لعلو الإسناد، وتكثير الطرق وهذه مزلة قدم لا تحمد (تعليقة تدريب الراوي – 2 / 540)

In shā Allāh, in the next lesson we will dissect statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ in light of this, and thereafter check if other scholars mentioned the same.

Optional Extra Reading

It is recommended to browse through the following books:

1) at-Tanqīḥ Fī Masalah at-Tasḥīḥ of ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī

2) Dirāsah Li Mawqif ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ min at-Taṣḥīḥ wat-Taḥsīn Fīl ‘Uṣūr al-Muta’akharah of Dr Rashwān Maḥmūd

3) Taṣḥīḥ al-Ḥadīth ‘inda Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ of Ḥamzah Malibārī

4) Footnotes of Ṭāriq ibn ‘Iwaḍallāh on ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, (1 /106 – 117)

5) At-Takmīl wal Īḍāḥ (155 – 284)

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

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