The Importance of understanding the Terminologies of Imams of Jarah and Ta’deel January 9, 2008

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Importance of understanding the Terminologies of Imams of Jarah and Ta’deel

It is extremely important to know what a muhaddith imam of jarah and ta’deel means by different terminologies, especially when the same terminology is used by other imams to mean differently. We will try to give examples:

1. Imam Abu Haatim Al-Raazi saying هو علي يدي عدل (Huwa ‘Ala Yadai ‘Adal)

This has been erroneously understood by some, including Ibn Hajr and Al-’Ainee Al-Hanafi’s teacher Al-Iraaqi, to mean that these are words of ta’deel(commendation) by Imam Abu Haatim. However, these are words used by Imam Abu Hatim to mean the narrator is weak. Infact Ibn Hajar himself said:
و ظن بعضهم انها من الفاظ التوثيق و لم يصب
“Some people think that these are words for commendation, but that is not correct” (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb p 142 v 9)

قوله علي يدي عدل معناه قرب من الهلاك
i.e. “these words mean that the narrator is on the verge of destruction” (ibid p 144 v 9)

Perhaps this was due to presence of the word عدل ‘adl, which is synonymous with thiqa (trustworthy). But Ibn Hajr’s student Al-Shakhawi explains:
“our sheikh ibn hajr said: Imam Al-Iraqi took them as words for commendation (ta’deel), which is is incorrect, as these are words of disparage (jarah) in the termnology of Abu Hatim. Actually, the King of تبع Tubba’, had a soldier called ‘Adl. Whenever the king wanted someone killed, he would hand him over to ‘Adl and he would execute the damned person. And hence it became a proverb for anyone of whom hope was lost to say “هو علي يدي عدل he is at the hands of ‘Adl” to mean he is gone.” (Fath Al-Mugheeth v1 pp377-8)
Infact even if we look closely to what Abu Hatim himself says, it can be seen that it only means jarah (disparage):
ضعيف الحديث ليس بقوي هو علي يدي عدل
“Weak in Hadith, not strong, he is at the hands of ‘Adl” (Al-Jarah Wa Al-Ta’deel by his son Ibn Abi Haitm v3 p 103)

(See Sharh Alfaadh Al-Tajreeh Al-Naadirah Aw Qaleelah Al-Isti’maal by Dr Sa’di Al-Hashimi v1 p37-43)

2. Al-Haithami saying رجاله رجال الصحيح (the narrators of this chain are
the narrators of Al-Saheeh [Al-Bukhari])and رجاله كلهم موثوقون (all
the narrators of this chain have been commended ).

It is taken by some contemporaries to mean that the narration itself has been authenticated by Al-Haithami rahimahullah. But this is incorrect. Infact Imam Al-Zaila’ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah said:
لا يلزم من كون الراوي محتجا به في الصحيح انه اذا وجد في اي حديث كان ذالك الحديث علي شرطه
“If a narrator has been used by (Imam Al-Bukhari) in Al-Sahih, it does not mean that if that narrator is found in any other (outside the Sahihs of Imams Al-Bukhari and Muslim) hadith, that that hadith itself becomes authentic fulfilling the strict conditions of Shahi Al-Bukhari” (Nasb Al-Raiyah v1 p 342)
The same has been said by ibn hajr in Al-Nukat and Ibn Abdil Hadi in Al-Saarim Al-Manki p 256,259. [Of course, the narrator maybe thiqa but there maybe gaps in the chain i.e. narraotrs not having met each other. In another case the narrator may be thiqa but mudallis and hence may narrate with clarity in Al-Saheeh but without it elsewhere. Or he maybe thiqa but oppose others even more thiqa or those who are greater in number than himself etc.--Abu Maryam]

[Adapted for Shaikh IrshadulHaq Al-Atharee's 'Maulana Sarfaraz Safdar Apni Tasaneef Kai Ainay Main (Urdu)' p 35-44, Idarah Al-'Uloom Al-Athariyyah, Faisalabad, Pakistan]

3. Difference between Salih صالح and Salih Al-Hadith صالح الحديث

For example Imam Abu Hatim Al-Razi said about Ja’far bin Maimoon that he is Salih (good and pious). However some contemporaries took it to mean that Imam Abu Hatim is crediting his hadith, which is incorrect. Imam Ibn Hajr said:

وقول الخليلي : إنه شيخ صالح أراد به في دينه لا في حديثه لأن من عادتهم إذا أرادوا وصف الراوي بالصلاحية في الحديث قيدوا ذلك ، فقالوا : صالح الحديث . فإذا أطلقوا الصلاح ، فإنما يريدون به في الديانة . والله أعلم .

“Khalili’s saying that he is a good sheikh (شيخ صالح) is intended to mean he is Saalih (good) in his religion and peity, not in his narration of reports. Because the muhadditheen’s (traditionalists) practice is that when they wanted to describe a narrator with respect to his goodness in (narrating the) hadith, they would be more specific and say: Saalih Al-Hadith (good in hadith). But when they would not be specific and speak about goodness in general terms, they would only intend his goodness n piety and religion” (Al Nukat ‘ala muqaddimah ibn salah v 2 p 280)

[Adapted from Tanqih Al-Kalam fi Ta’yeed Taudheeh Al-Kalam [fi Wujoob Fatihah Khalf Al-Imam] (Urdu) p 179-180 by Sheikh IrshadulHaq Al-Atharee]

4. The difference between حديث صحيح (‘Authentic hadith’) and صحيح الاسناد (‘authentic chain’)

There is a difference as most later writers on the science of hadith terminology pointed out in their works. And the example in part (2) of Al-Haithami is a particular point in case. Ibn Qayyim, the famed student of Ibn Taymiyyah (another great scholar of hadith in later times) said in his book Al-Sawaiq Al-Mursalah 2/395 [publisher Maktabah Al-Riyadh]:

أنَّ أهل العلم بالحديث لم يزالوا يقولون: صح عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- وذلك جزم منهم بأنه قاله ولم يكن مرادهم ما قاله بعض المتأخرين إنَّ المراد صحة السند لا صحة المتن ، بل هذا مراد من زعم أنَّ أحاديث رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- لا تفيد العلم، وإنما كان مرادهم صحة الإضافة إليه وأنه قاله، كما يجزمون بقولهم قال رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم-، وأمر ونهى وفعل رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم-، وحيث كان يقع لهم الوهم في ذلك يقولون يذكر عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- ويروى عنه ونحو ذلك، ومن له خبرة بالحديث يفرق بين قول أحدهم ” هذا حديث صحيح” وبين قولهم “هذا إسناد صحيح”، فالأول جزم بصحة نسبته إلى رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- والثاني شهادة بصحة سنده وقد يكون فيه علة أو شذوذ فيكون سنده صحيحا في نفسه

“The scholars of the science of hadith have always said ‘It has been authentically reported from the Propher sallallaho’alaihiwasallam’ (Sahha ‘Anhu); and this is doubtless affirmation from them that the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam said that, contrary to what some latecomers thought that this means authenticating the chain only and not the text. Instead such a saying [that this means authenticating the chain only and not the text] can only come from one who claims that the ahadith of Rasool ‘alaihisalam donot result in [the listener having attained] knowledge [but just unsure thoughts that these may have been his words]. Instead they (the scholars of hadith) say ‘It has been authentically reported from him’ to mean that the saying is his, sallallaho’alaihiwasallam and that he said that. And this why they insist that ‘He said’, or ‘He ordered’ or He forbade’ or ‘He did’ etc. But, when they have uncertainity that the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam said that, they would just say [using passive instead of active voice] ‘It is reported from him or he is reported to have said’ etc.
Whoever has experience in this science, then he differentiates between حديث صحيح (‘Authentic hadith’) and صحيح الاسناد (‘authentic chain’). The first is a doubtless affirmation to the authenticity of these words having been said by the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam and the second is only an affirmation that the chain itself is correct and authentic, while it is possible that the text may have defects like oddness (shuzooz: i.e. trustworthy narrators reporting differently from those who are even more trustworthy or against what is narrated by those who are greater in number than him and are as trustworthy as himself) or other defects ['illah: for example the memory of the trustworthy narrator became weak later and it is not possible to say whether he heard the hadith and narrated after or before memory loss etc.: Abu Maryam]“

Hence a chain maybe correct, but still if it has some defect or a muhaddith is unsure of its authenticity, he would only affirms its chain, which does not necessitate authentication of the hadith itself.

[adapted from: Mauqif Abil Hasan min Akhbaar Al-Ahaad by Sh Rabi bin Hadi Al-Madkhali]

This shows that the student must pay close attention to what a Muhaddith is saying and be well versed in the usage of terminology before arriving at a conclusion. Similarly ليس بشيء by ibn Ma’een, منكر الحديث by Ahmed, etc have different meanings than when the same are used by others.

5) Difference between Ghareeb غريب when used by Al-Zaila’ee and others:

Hafidh Al-Zaila’ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah, the student of ‘Ala Al-Din Ibn Al-Turkamani did the famous search (Takhrij) for the sources of narraions found in the Hanafi fiqh handbook ‘Al-Hidaya’. Imam Ibn Hajar summarize his famous ‘Al-Diraya fi takhrij ahadith al-hidaya’ from Al-Zaila’ee’s book called ‘Nasb Al-Raya’. However, Al-Zaila’ee has a special usage for the term Ghareeb:

قال الشيخ الألباني في الضعيفة (2/44) عن حديث (من صلى خلف عالم تقي فكأنما صلى خلف نبي):
((لا أصل له، وقد أشار لذلك الحافظ الزيلعي بقوله في نصب الراية (2/26): (غريب)
وهذه عادته في الأحاديث التي تقع في (الهداية) ولا أصل لها،فيما كان من هذا النوع: (غريب).
فاحفظ هذا فإنه اصطلاح خاص به))

Shaikh Albani rahimahullah said in Al-Da’eefah:
Whenever Al-Zaila’ee finds a narration in Al-Hidaya which has no basis (fabricated), then he says ‘Ghareeb’, which is a terminology used by him exclusively.
(Al-Da’eefah v 2 p 44)It is well known that ghareeb when used by other scholars is applied to mean the fard (singular) type of ahad reports, i.e. only a single reporter in the chain of narration with none of his contemporaries sharing that narration from a common teacher. This is what Al-Tirmidhi means when he says:

غريب لا نعرفه الا من هذا الوجه

‘Ghareeb, we do not know except by this route.’ This agrees with the standard dfinition of ghareeb.PS: A fard hadith may still be authentic. Tawatur and ahad are innovated definitions, in the context they are used today and have nothing to do with authenticity of a narration.

Methodology of Imam Al-Tirmidhi in his classification of narrations in Sunan Al-Trimidhi. January 1, 2008

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

By: Shaikh AbdulAziz Al-Taraifi

Translated by: Abu Maryam Al-Salafi

[Courtesy: Multaqa Ahl Al-Hadith]

 

Type 1:

This is when Imam Al-Tirmidhi says:
a) Hadith Hasan Sahih
b) Hadith Sahih Hasan
c) Hadith Sahih
d) Hadith Sahih Gharib
e) Hadith Gharib Sahih
f) Hadith Sahih Hasan Gharib
It means he is authenticating the hadith in majority of cases. The highest of these tyoes is “Hasan Sahih” in the majority of the cases, and this is because many of the ahadith about which he says “Hasan Sahih” are found in Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim or in one of them or fulfilling the condtions of both of the Sahihs or one of them, which comes with an authentic and strong chain of narrators. Below the level of Hasan Sahih is “Sahih”.
Similar is his saying “Jayyid” (Good). However he does not use “Jayyid” by itself only, except in the correct place.
His saying “Sahih Gharib Hasan” is rare and he applied it on a few ahadith which are Sahih (authentic) and this is stronger than saying “Gharib Hasan Sahih” as he applied it on less than 10 ahadith some of which are sahih and some contain weakness. This “Gharib Hasan Sahih” is similar to his saying “Sahih Hasan Gharib”
And it becomes apparent to the one who studies “Al Sunan” (of tirmizi) that Imam Al-Trimidhi does not apply “Sahih Gharib” except in the second part of his Al-sunan and mostly on ahadith which are not related to Ahkaam (ahadith on which commandments of Sahree’ah are based). Apparently this is the lowest grade of authentication (tas-heeh) from him and sometimes he has applied it to ahadith which are weakened by other muhadditheen.
Imam Tirmizi uses these and other terminologies for authenticating ahadith. This is the most dominant type and it is clear and there are many examples of this type.

Type 2:

This is the type which has some weakness(Zu’f) in it, on this type Tirmizi apllies the term “Hadithun Hasanun (Hasan Hadith)”. Some people are decieved by this as they think that Imam Tirmizi’s application of “Hasan Hadith” is the same as that used in common terminology of the muhadditheen and this is not so. When Tirmizi applies this terminology he means a weak hadith and not saheeh hadith. Following are proofs for that.

1. He himself mentioned in his book ‘Ilal “What we mention in this book as a hasan hadith, then we only mean by it the goodness (husn) of its chain of narration apparent to us,i.e. any hadith which does not contain a person accused of lying in its chain, and that the hadith should not be shaaz (odd, i.e. This same narration does not contain words which contradict words of narrators of the same hadith with another chain better or more than the narrators of this hadith )”. This means that Altirmizi refrained from applying “Hasan” on a chain containing a person accused of lying or a hadith that is shaaz, but he did not refrain from applying this terminology on what is less weak than this, but is still weak (Da’eef) and he does not say whether it can be used as evidence or not.
2. So some great scholars of hadith apply “Hasan” on a hadith to show the uprightness and googness (istiqaamah and husn) of its text even though in terms of its chain of narration is rejectable. This is found in the sayings of the mutaqaddameen.
3. This is well known for the one who studies thoroughly the methodology of Tirmizi in his Sunan and compares it to the authentication of ahadith other Imaams and their sayings.
4. Among the evidences is that Tirmizi after saing this hadith is “hasan”, points the weakness of the narration by telling the weakening reason in the hadith or saying that another hadith is preferred over this one. e.g. saying “its chain is not connected” or “its chain is not that upright” or “its chain is not like that (i.e. it is weak)” etc.
   e.g. After narrating a hadith on wuzoo he said “this hadith is hasan but its chain is not that upright”
   Similarly after narrating the hadith of invocations said during entering and exiting a mosque, he said “this hadith is hasan, its chain is not connected because fatimah bint alhusain didnot live at the time of her grandmother, Faatimah bint muhammad sallallaholaihiwasallam.”

This is the use of “hasan” in majority of the cases. However hw also uses “hasan” to show a defect in the chain which does not make the hadith weak, or when Tirmizi hismelf is in doubt whether to reject or accept the narration.
Sometimes he applies “hasan” to ahadtih even in Saheehs of Bukhari and Muslim e.g. the hadith recomending praying naafil prayers at home. He mentions the difference of narrators: some narrate from the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam and some from the companion (sahabi). He applies “hasan” on it, while the difference itself is not a weakening defect.

Type 3:

This is when he says about a hadith one of the following:

1. Ghareeb.
2. Hasan Ghareeb.
3. Ghareeb Hasan.
4. Laisa bil Qawi (not ‘strong’).
5. Isnadahu Laisa bi Dhaak. (Its chain of narrators is not ‘that strong’).
6. Laisa sanadahu bil Qaayim. (Its chain is not ‘upright’).
7. Laisa isnadah bi sahih (Its chain is not authetic).
8. Isnaadahu Da’eef (Its chain is weak).
9. La Yasih. (It’s not authentic).
10. Hadithun Munkarun. (A ‘rejected’ narration).
11. Fihi fulaan laisa bil qawi. (In it is so and so (a narrator), who is not ‘strong’).

 

If he applies these terminologies, then it means he is pointing to the weakness of that particular hadith. If he says “Munkar (rejected)”, and he does so very rarely, then this means that the hadith is of the weakest type. The terminology he uses most from this type is “Gharib”, followed by “Hasan Gharib”, by which he means that the text of the narration is free from faults of ‘oddness’ (shuzooz, nakarah and gharabah), but the fault lies in the chain of narrators, which may be a defect (‘illah) causing the rejection of that narration.

A hadith about which Al-Tirmizi says, “Ghareeb” is weaker than the hadith about which he says “Hasan Ghareeb” or “Hasan”. However, A hadith about which he says, “Hasan Ghareeb” is weaker than the one about which he says “Hasan”.

Sometimes, we would say “Ghareeb” or “Hasan Ghareeb” and also explain the ‘defect’ (‘illah) in it. An example of this is what he narrated in his Sunan from the route of Yahya bin Yaman (who narrated) from Shaikh from Al-Harith bin Abdilrahmaan from Talhah from the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam that he said “Every prophet has a companion and my companion in the paradise is ‘Uthmaan”. This hadith is very weak (‘Da’eef Jiddan’), so after narrating it, Al-Tirmizi said “It is Ghareeb (terminology 1 of type 3). Its chain is not strong (terminology 4 of type 3) and the chain is broken (munqati’, i.e . some of the narrators did not directly hear the hadith from the person they narrate from) ”.

Another example of this is what he narrates from the route of Kharijah bin Mus’ab…that the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam said “Indeed for the Wudoo (ablution for prayers), there is devil called Al-Wulhaan (who casts doubts in the heart of the worshipper)…. ”. After narrating it, Al-Tirmizi said “It is Ghareeb (terminology 1 of type 3). Its chain is not strong (terminology 4 of type 3) and nothing in this regard is authentically narrated from the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam”.

Yet another example is the long hadith which he narrated about the description of the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam. After narrating it he says: “It is Hasan Ghareeb (terminology 2 of type 3). Its chain is not connected (, i.e . some of the narrators did not directly hear the hadith from the person they narrate from))”.

So, in the majority of cases, when he classifies a hadith according to the terminology found in this type, then he means that this hadith is weaker than a hadith on which type 2 terminology is used. However, sometimes, he uses terminology from type 3 to show that weakness of the hadith is not that great (laisa bi shaded Al-Du’f) , such that it can accept mutaabi’aat (‘supporting evidence’, so that this hadith becomes acceptable). Hence, sometimes when he says “Hasan Ghareeb”, he means that the weakness is not too great. We would illustrate it with the following example.

He narrated from the route of Salamahbin Fadhl from Muhammad bin Ishaaq from Hameed (Al-Taweel) from Anas that “The Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam used to do Wudoo (ablution) for every prayer, whether he was in a state of purity fit for prayers or not”. So Hameed Al-Taweel asked him, “How about you (i.e. the companions of the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam)”. Anas replied, “He used to only one Wudoo (for all the prayers)”.

(Similar text is found is Sahih Bukhari too, which by concensus is authenic). After narrating this, Al-Tirmizi said, “The hadith of Hameed from Anas is “Hasan Ghareeb” as far is this route (chain of narration) is concerned”.

However, when he narrated the Mutabi’ (‘supporting evidence’) for this hadith from the route of Sufyan from ‘Amr bin ;Aamir from Anas with a wording similar to the words of the hadith of Hameed from Anas, he said: “This hadith is “Hasan Sahih” and the hadith of Hameed from Anas is “Jayyid (‘good’) Ghareeb Hasan” ”.

So, here he raised its status by saying “Jayyid” after mentioning its supporting evidence, after having weakened it before.

Type 4:

This is when he says about a hadith one of the following:

1. Hadithun Munkarun. (A ‘rejected’ narration).
2. La Yasih. (It’s not authentic).

I had mentioned them under type 3, because of their rare occurrence in Sunan Al-Timizi. These comprise the ‘extremely rejectable’ (Munkar jiddan) and ‘False’ (Batil) type of narrations.

 

So these are in sum, these are most of the terminologies employed by Imam Al-Tirmizi. However there are very few other terminologies that he uses, which require a more detailed essay, May Allah Make it easy.

 

Shaykh Abdul Aziz Al-Tareefi,

Dhul-Hijjah, 1423 H.