بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

17 Shaban, 1444 AH  (Sunday,  10 March , 2023)

Continuing the discussion of Taqsīm al-Ḥadīth, we thus far explained the objection against ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ; that earlier scholars did not divide Aḥādīth in the manner that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned here. We quoted the objection of ‘Allāmah Ibn Kathīr:

قلت: هذا التقسيم إن كان بالنسبة إلى ما في نفس الأمر، فليس إلا صحيح أو ضعيف )اختصار علوم الحديث – ص: 21)

I said: If this division is with regards to reality then there is only Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) and Ḍa‘īf (weak) (Ikhtaṣār ‘ulūm il ḥadīth- pg: 21)

Based on what ‘Allāmah Ibn Kathīr said, there are many objections:

1) If Ḥadīth can only be Maqbūl and Mardūd, how can ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ divide them into three categories?

2) Even worse, how can he attribute this to earlier scholars by saying ‘Inda Ahlihī?

These are the objections against ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ.

It becomes crucial for us to analyze these objections because it is due to this statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ that these three categories became the official categories after him. ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is the one responsible for making these categories seem as if they are the official categories of Aḥādīth.

Most scholars after ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ blindly followed what he said and continued to mention that Ḥadīth is divided into three categories. We cannot present all the hundreds of examples, but to see 2-3 examples from the books of those scholars whose works became the basis:

Imām Nawawī did not rectify this statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. Rather, he accepted and supported it by writing:

قال العلماء: الحديث ثلاثة أقسام، صحيح وحسن وضعيف. (إرشاد طلاب الحقائق إلى معرفة سنن خير الخلائق صلى الله عليه وسلم – 1 / 110)

“The scholars say: ‘Ḥadīth is divided into three categories Ṣaḥīḥ, Ḥasan and ḍa‘īf.”(Irshād duṭ ṭullāb il ḥaqā’iq ilā ma‘rifah sunan khair il khalā’iq ṢallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam -1 / 110 )

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī mentioned the same in his poem:

وأهل هذا ‌الشأن ‌قسموا ‌السنن … إلى صحيح وضعيف وحسن. (ألفية العراقي التبصرة والتذكرة – ص: 93)

“And the experts of this field categorised Sunan, into Ṣaḥīḥ, Ḍa‘īf and Ḥasan.” (Alfiyah Al ‘irāqī at tabṣirah wat tadhkirah- pg: 93)

‘Allāmah Suyūṭī also mentioned that there are three categories:

‌والأكثرون ‌قسموا ‌هذي ‌السنن … إلى صحيح وضعيف وحسن. ألفية السيوطي نظم الدرر في علم الأثر – ص: 4)

“And the majority categorised this Sunan, into Ṣaḥīḥ, ḍa‘īf and Ḥasan.(Alfiyah As Suyūṭī naḍhm ad durar fī ‘ilm il Athar – pg: 4)

We first need to study the claim that this is ‘inda Ahlihī’ (according to the scholars of Ḥadīth – before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ). We need determine whether it is correct that all scholars before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ divided Aḥādīth in this manner, and whether it is fine for scholars after ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ to continue quoting this division.

By inspecting and scrutinizing the responses in this manner, besides confirming whether these objections and the answers are correct, we will learn from the very outset:

1) The impact that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ had and how he was trusted on a lot of what he said; even if it clearly contradicted reality,

2) The development of terminologies, categorization and codification,

3) The importance of verifying every claim made in this book. 

4) You will also learn to dissect and analyze arguments, and not just accept a response, simply because a response was presented. Rather, we need to evaluate and study whether the response to an objection or an answer to a question is really valid or not.

(Attempted) Answers

1) There are indeed very senior scholars who divided Aḥādīth in this manner.

• There is a greater scholar who divided it in this way

• There is also a much earlier scholar who attributed this categorization to others.

As for the much greater scholar, it is none other than Imām Shāfi’ī:

قلت: وذكر الأستاذ أبو منصور البغدادي في كتاب الرد على الجرجاني أن الرشيد لما امتحن الشافعي قال له: كيف علمك بالسنة؟ قال: أعرف منها المنقول بالتواتر وما يوجب العمل من أخبار الآحاد وأميز منها بين الصحيح الذي يجب قبوله والسقيم الذي لا يجب قبوله ويجب رده والمتوسط [الذي] يتوقف فيه. (النكت على مقدمة ابن الصلاح للزركشي – 1 / 95)

“I said: Ustādh Abu Manṣūr Al baghdādī mentioned in Kitāb ar rad ‘alā Al Jurjānī that when Khalifa Ar Rashīd tested Imām ash Shafi‘ī he said to him, ‘What do you know of the Sunnah?’ He said: ‘I know that there are those transmitted with Tawātur, those necessary to practice upon-Khabar wāhid-and I differentiate between the Ṣaḥīḥ which is necessary to accept and the Saqīm which is not necessary to accept and has to be rejected and in between those which are suspended.” (An nukat ‘alā muqaddimah ibn Ṣalāḥ Liz Zarkashi 1 / 95)

Whilst the three categories differ from the categories of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – as will be understood when and we explain these categories of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – this at least proves that there was one earlier scholar who divided Aḥādīth into three categories. We can hence say that the division of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is an amended/edited version of these three categories.

Thereafter, Imām Muslim mentioned in his introduction of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:

وهو إنا نعمد إلى جملة ما أسند من الأخبار عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فنقسمها على ‌ثلاثة أقسام. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 3)

“We will focus on all the narrations that have been narrated with full chains to the Prophet (ṢallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and divide it into 3 categories.( Muqaddimah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim – 1 / 3)

Imām Muslim then explained these categories:

فأما القسم الأول فإنا نتوخى أن نقدم الأخبار التي هي أسلم من العيوب من غيرها وأنقى، من أن يكون ناقلوها أهل استقامة في الحديث وإتقان لما نقلوا، لم يوجد في روايتهم اختلاف شديد ولا تخليط فاحش، كما قد عثر فيه على كثير من المحدثين،  (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 3)

“As for the first category our aim was to prioritize the narrations that are purer and freer from flaws than others,with those transmitting it being upright in the field of Ḥadīth and precise in what they transmit, (such that) there isn’t any severe differences in their narrations nor any grave mistakes, as has been encountered is the case with many scholars of Ḥadīth.” Muqaddimah ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1 / 3)

This refers to Ṣaḥīḥ.

As for the second category, he says:

فإذا نحن تقصينا أخبار هذا الصنف من الناس، أتبعناها أخبارا يقع في أسانيدها بعض من ليس بالموصوف بالحفظ ‌والإتقان، كالصنف المقدم قبلهم على أنهم، وإن كانوا فيما وصفنا دونهم فإن اسم الستر والصدق وتعاطي العلم يشملهم. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 4)

“As we quoted the narrations of this category of narrators, we followed them with narrations that include individuals in their chains who are not described with (the same level of) memory and precision like that of the previous category. Although they may be less than others in what we have described, the attributes of satr, honesty, and engagement in knowledge encompass them (Muqaddimah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim– 1 / 4).

This refers to Ḥasan. He then mentioned the third category:

وكذلك من الغالب على حديثه المنكر أو ‌الغلط، أمسكنا أيضا عن حديثهم. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 5)

“And similarly, the one whose narrations predominantly differ from those who are more reliable, or they are filled with mistakes, we refrain from (quoting) their narrations as well. (Muqaddimah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim -1 / 5)

However, this was simply for Imām Muslims personal usage. This is not the view of all the scholars.

Thereafter, there is another earlier scholar who:

Divided it in the very same manner that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned

Attributed this division to others.

That is none other ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī (d. 388). He wrote in Ma’ālim as-Sunan:

ثم اعلموا أن الحديث عند أهله ‌على ‌ثلاثة ‌أقسام حديث صحيح وحديث حسن وحديث سقيم. (معالم السنن – 1 / 6)

“Then know that Ḥadīth according it its experts are three categories: Ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth, Ḥasan Ḥadīth and Saqīm Ḥadīth.” (Ma‘ālim us sunan  1 / 6)

Actually, looking at this statement of this scholar who lived two centuries before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, it seems as if ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ copied (and slightly amended) this sentence from him. The wording is exactly the same, with just Saqīm changed to Ḍa’īf!

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī comments on this:

ولكن الخطابى ‌نقل ‌التقسيم عن أهل الحديث وهو إمام ثقة فتبعه المصنف على ذلك هنا ثم حكى الخلاف في الموضع الذي ذكره فلم يهمل حكاية الخلاف والله أعلم. (التقييد والإيضاح شرح مقدمة ابن الصلاح – 1 / 60)

“But ‘Allāmah Al Khaṭṭābī transmitted the division from the experts of Ḥadīth – and he (Allāmah Al Khaṭṭābī) was a reliable Imām – hence the author (‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ) followed him in that here, then he narrated the difference in the place where he mentioned it but did not take into consideration mentioning the difference and Allāh knows best.” (At taqyīd wal īḍāḥ sharḥ muqaddimah ibn Ṣalāh -1 / 60)

A contemporary of ‘Allāmah Ibn as-Ṣalāḥ who was his elder, ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Athīr also divided it in the very similar manner:

والعلم بأقسام ‌الصحيح، والكاذب، وانقسام الخبر إليهما، وإلى الغريب، والحسن وغيرهما. (جامع الأصول – 1 / 38)

“Knowledge has different categories: Saḥīḥ (correct) and Kādhib (false). Hadīth is divided into these two categories and also Gharīb and Ḥasan etc.” (Jami‘ Al Uṣūl- 1 / 38)

Counter Response

This is the response given. However, these are only three scholars – and even then, it can clearly be noticed that we had to really stretch it to even present these three quotations – but ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is attributing the response to ‘the people of Ḥadīth’

If there was nothing in contrast proven, then we could have accepted the statements of these three esteemed scholars.

However, here the opposite is proven. It is clearly proven that the earlier scholars only divided Aḥādīth into two categories.

Thus, even if ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī is attributing this division to Muḥaddithīn, then he would need to present proof to demonstrate which earlier scholars divided Aḥādīth in this manner. The objection raised on ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ falls squarely on ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī.

It would have been fine to accept the argument of ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī; that ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī is a reliable expert and hence we should blindly follow him and with closed eyes accept what he says, this argument would be valid if we did not know about the division of earlier scholars. However, once we know about the division of so many earlier scholars, and it is very clear that they are dividing Aḥādīth into only two categories: 1) Maqbūl and 2) Mardūd, we have no option but to reject this claim of ‘Allāmah Khattābī, and this response of ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī.

Therefore, this response is not satisfactory.

‘Allāmah Suyūtī quotes two responses of Ibn Ḥajar (after ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī’s answer, these become the second and the third):

2) Although ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī used the word: ‘Inda Ahlihi which is ‘Ām (general/broad/all encompassing), they intend a specified and particular group:

قال [الحافظ ابن حجر]: “قول ابن الصلاح كقول الخطابي عند أهل الحديث من [العام] الذي أريد به الخصوص، أي الأكثر أو الأعظم )البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1 / 309)

“Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said: ‘Ibn Ṣalāh’s statement according to the experts of Ḥadīth is like ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī’s; it’s a generalization which excludes some, meaning the majority.” (Al baḥrul ladhī zakhar fī sharḥ alfiyyah Al Athar 1 / 309)

(Note: This is not in the printed editions of the Nukat of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar. Probably it might be in the larger copy of Nukat which has not been printed.)

In short, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar is saying that you can use the word ‘Inda Ahlihī and intend: ‘The Majority’. It does not strictly refer to ‘ALL’, rather it can refer to ‘most’.

Thus, even though the apparent words of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (and ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī) makes it seem as if there is Ijmā’, the reality is that it is the view of the majority.

 ‘Allāmah Suyūtī preferred this answer of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, and hence he said:

وعلى هذا [أيضًا] يحمل قول العراقي: (وأهل هذا الشأن قسموا السنن) (البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1 / 309)

“And it is possible that ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqīs saying: ‘(the experts of this field divided Sunan) was also on this basis. (Al baḥrul ladhī zakhar fī sharḥ alfiyyah Al Athar  1 / 309)

Thus, ‘Allāmah Suyūṭi phrased his poem by attributing this view to the majority:

وقولي (والأكثرون) سالم من ذلك يصرح بالخلاف. (البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1 / 309)

“And by me saying: ‘the majority; saves me from that (objection); it clearly explains the differences.” (Al baḥrul ladhī zakhar fī sharḥ alfiyyah Al Athar 1 / 309)

Counter Responses

There are four reasons why we cannot accept this first answer of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar:

A) The apparent meaning that a listener will immediately understand when hearing ‘inda Ahlihī’ is that this is the view of ALL scholars. This is Mutabādir ila ‘dh-Dhahn.

B) Even if we have to accept that the words: ‘Inda Ahlihī’ could refer to the majority, proof will have to be brought forth to prove that this is indeed the view of the majority. The reality is that:

I. From almost all the scholars before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ whose works have reached us, 99.9% only divide Aḥādīth into two categories; Maqbūl and Mardūd.

II. Only ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī mentioned about the exact three categories.

III. When we reach the chapter of Ḥasan, we will learn that this categorization of ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī is not even clear.

IV. All these scholars who are trying to defend ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, they are all acknowledging that there were scholars who divided Aḥādīth into two categories.

C) Under the chapter of Ḥasan, Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar himself says:

واعلم ‌أن ‌أكثر أهل الحديث لا يفردون الحسن من الصحيح. (النكت على كتاب ابن الصلاح لابن حجر – 1 / 480)

This statement of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar is in stark contrast to the claim that he just made.

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī said:

فالمتقدمون إلا القليل ليس الثاني عندهم (شرح التقريب والتيسير – ص: 37)

In short, there is a vague and ambiguous statement of ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī and it contradicts the clear and emphatic statements of numerous other Muḥaddithīn, yet, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī is advising that we should blindly accept what ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī mentioned.

(The second answer that Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar presented was):

3) Initially the Muḥaddithīn had lots of categories. However, ultimately, they all settled on this categorization. ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī said:

والذي استقر عليه اتفاقهم بعد الاختلاف )البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1 / 309)

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī preferred response of his respected teacher, and hence he mentioned in his commentary of At-Taqrīb wa ‘t-Taysīr:

فإطلاق المؤلف في أصله يحمل عليه ثلاثة أقسام: صحيح، وحسن، وضعيف، وذلك بالنظر لما اجتمع من كلامهم (شرح التقريب والتيسير – ص: 37)

Likewise, he mentioned in Fatḥ al-Mughīth:

وذلك بالنظر لما استقر اتفاقهم بعد الاختلاف عليه. (فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث – 1 / 21)

Counter Responses

The responses to this are:

• It has to be proven that all scholars agreed and settled on this. Can it be proven that they really agreed? From the galaxy of Muḥaddithīn, just bring five scholars before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ who agreed on this division.

• The opposite is proven: scholars did not agree and settle on this. Scholars after ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ are objecting on him, which shows that there was no settlement.

In short, those scholars who are trying to defend ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, they are either:

– Contradicting themselves

– Suggesting that we blindly follow even if it contradicts the clear statements of everyone else.

Objection Two

(Note: This could be part of the above objection. We are simply separating it to facilitate easier understanding.)

Even if we have to accept that there are really three categories of Aḥādīth, can the second category really be Ḥasan? Meaning, are there scholars before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ really agree that Ḥāsan is the second category; in between Ṣaḥīh and Ḍa’īf?

Everyone before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ:

I. used Ḥasan synonymously with Ṣaḥīḥ. This was how the overwhelming majority used the term.

Or:

II. They used Ḥasan interchangeably with Ḍa’īf. A small group used the term in this manner.

We just quoted from Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar:

واعلم ‌أن ‌أكثر أهل الحديث لا يفردون الحسن من الصحيح. (النكت على كتاب ابن الصلاح لابن حجر – 1 / 484)

Likewise, we just quoted ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī:

فالمتقدمون إلا القليل ليس الثاني عندهم (شرح التقريب والتيسير – ص: 37)

‘Allāmah aṣ-Ṣalāḥ himself says:

قلت: كل هذا مستبهم لا يشفي الغليل، وليس فيما ذكره الترمذي والخطابي ما يفصل الحسن من الصحيح. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 30)

‘Allāmāh Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ also claimed:

التاسع: من أهل الحديث من ‌لا ‌يفرد ‌نوع ‌الحسن، ويجعله مندرجا في أنواع الصحيح، لاندراجه في أنواع ما يحتج به، وهو الظاهر من كلام الحاكم أبي عبد الله الحافظ في تصرفاته، وإليه يومي في تسميته كتاب الترمذي بالجامع الصحيح، وأطلق الخطيب أبو بكر أيضا عليه اسم الصحيح، وعلى كتاب النسائي. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 40)

Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar commented on this:

هذا ينبغي أن يقيد به إطلاقه في أول الكلام على نوع الصحيح، وهو قوله: “الحديث ينقسم عند أهله إلى صحيح وحسن وضعيف. (النكت لابن حجر – 1 / 483)

‘Allāmah Suyūṭī said:

فقد ذهب طائفة إلى أنّ الحديث قسمان فقط، صحيح، وضعيف، وأن الحسن مندرج في أنواع الحديث،)البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1 / 309)

In light of all of these, ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī explained:

ذكر الشيخ رحمه الله في هذا الكتاب في نوع الحسن أن طائفة أدرجته مع الصحيح، فكان ينبغي له أن يحتزر عنه هنا (إصلاح كتاب ابن الصلاح – ص: 64)

Even if the answer is given that it is because of ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī, the same objection would then apply to ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābi.

The reality is that Maqbūl has two categories: Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan. And Mardūd has numerous categories, which incorporate everything; from mild weakness until an outright fabrication. Most earlier scholars used Ḥasan and Ṣaḥīḥ in one category. There was an incorrect assumption that Ḥasan falls into the category of Da’īf: Allāmah Zarkashī quoted from Ibn Taymiyyah:

وقال إنما هذا اصطلاح للترمذي خاصة وأن غير الترمذي من أهل الحديث كافة الحديث عندهم إما صحيح وإما ضعيف والضعيف عندهم ما انحط عن درجة الصحيح ثم قد يكون ضعيفا متروكا وهو أن يكون راوية متهما او سيئ الحفظ وقد يكون حسنا وهذا معنى قول أحمد بن حنبل العمل بالحديث الضعيف أولى من القياس يريد بالضعيف الحسن وهذا كما في ضعف المريض فتارة يكون ضعفه قاطعا له فيكون صاحب فراش عطاياه من الثلث وتارة لا يكون قاطعا له فيكون عطاياه من رأس المال كوجع الضرس والعين والرأس ولهذا قال أبو داود ذكرت في كتابي هذا الصحيح وما يشبهه وما يقاربه ولم يذكر إلا نوعين انتهى. (النكت على مقدمة ابن الصلاح للزركشي – 1 /96-95)

(Attempted) Response to Second Objection

1) ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ intends to very briefly indicate that there are differences in the level of using a narration, and he will elaborate upon it when he reaches the applicable chapters.

‘Allāmah Bulqīnī said:

ولعل المراد بالانقسام المذكور، الاصطلاحي بالنسبة إلى المراتب في الاحتجاج وعدمه في الجملة، وما يأتي بعد ذلك تفصيلٌ لهذه الجملة، وسيأتي في نوع ” الحسَن ” أن طائفة درجَتْه مع ” الصحيح ” وذكر العدالة والضبط يخرِجُه. انتهت “. (محاسن الاصطلاح – ص: 151)

However, this is not a good answer, because then he ought to at least also add Mawḍū’, to show that those are narrations that absolutely worthless. Even though later ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ does mention the Mawḍū’ is part of Ḍa’īf, but the same argument could definitely apply here; then he is explaining it briefly and will elaborate just now.

2) This division is regarding the broad categories. The subcategories will be separate

وحاول الإمام أبو زيد عبد الصمد الديلمي في: “غاية الوصول إلى أحاديث الرسول” دفع هذا السؤال بطريق آخر ، فقسم أقسامه إلى قسمين: نوعية وصنفية قال: فالنوعية ثلاثة ‌الصحيح والحسن والضعيف والصنفية: المسند المتصل المرفوع الموقوف المقطوع المنقطع إلى آخره قال: وابن الصلاح جعل الكل أنواعا ولا شك أن تقسيم الحديث إلى صحيح وحسن وضعيف هو التقسيم الأول وهو النوعي وتقسيم الحديث [إلى] المرسل والشاذ والمعلل وغيرها تقسيم ثان فهو القسم الصنفي كما إذا قلت: العبادة إما بدنية أو مالية، فالبدنية كالصلاة والصوم والمالية كالزكاة وكل واحد من البدنية والمالية ينقسم إلى أقسام أخرى مثل انقسام الصلاة والصوم إلى فرض ونفل وكذلك المالية إلى زكاة الفرض والتطوع وإلى زكاة المال وزكاة الفطر وكذا انقسام الزكاة إلى كونها من النقدين أو المواشي أو الحيوان فالتقسيم الأول نوعي والثاني والثالث صنفي. )النكت للزركشي – 1 / 93)

This too is not correct, because Ḥasan is partially a subcategory of Ṣaḥīḥ and partially a subcategory of Ḍa’īf. If it there is partial defect, it could be added into Ḍa’īf. If there is some support and corroboration, it will be authentic. It is not an independent category of its own.

3) ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh is following ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī, as we explained earlier.

That does not solve the issue. Rather, the objections then apply to ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī.

4) These three categories include all the other categories. They are all-encompassing.

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī said:

وخصت الثلاثة ‌بالتقسيم لشمولها لما عداها. (فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث – 1 / 22)

This is true for Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḍa’īf, but there is really no need for Ḥasan. Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḍa’īf incorporates everything, so ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ should have just left it in two categories like how almost all his predecessors left it.

5) Since Ḥasan can be in either of these two categories, he mentioned it separately.

‘Allāmah Baqā’ī explained:

وأحسن من هذا التقدير أن الحسن لما كان ينزع إلى كل من الصحيح والضعيف، خص بالذكر، أما نزعه إلى الصحيح فباعتبار اشتراط عدالة رواة الحسن لذاته وضبطهم، مع باقي شروط الصحيح، وإن كان ضبطهم موصوفا بكونه أخف من ضبط رواة الصحيح، وأما نزعه إلى الضعيف؛ فإن الحسن لغيره هو ماله سندان فأكثر، كل ضعيف متماسك فهو موصوف بالضعف قبل معرفة ما يعضده مطلقا، وبعد ذلك باعتبار كل سند على انفراده، وبالحسن باعتبار المجموع. النكت الوفية – 1 / 76)

However, this Taqsīm is according to latter day scholars. Therefore, this answer will not be precise. Furthermore, he could not attribute this to the earlier scholars.

Because none of these objections seems satisfactory, in Nuzha an-Naḍar, Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar says:

وفيها ‌المقبول [وهو ما يجب العمل به عند الجمهور] والمردود. (نخبة الفكر – ص: 4)

Conclusion on the Very First Point Mentioned in Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh

We have no option but to differ with ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ.

  May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك ، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت

،أستغفرك وأتوب إليك