Arabic text of Nuzhah al-Nazar by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, merged with English translation taken from Ather Shahbaz Hussain’s thesis on “The Nuzhah of Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1449); a translation and critical commentary”.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
(( وبه ثقتي ))
(( وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم (( .
(( وبه ثقتي وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم تسليماً ((
(( رب يسر وتمم بالخير ((
(( الحمد لله رب العالمين ، وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلّم تسليماً كثيراً ((
(( وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم ((
(( وما توفيقي إلا بالله ((
الحمدُ للهِ الذي لَمْ يَزَلْ عَليماً قديرا حيّاً قيُّوماً (( مريداً (( سَميعاً بَصيراً ، وأَشهدُ أَنْ لا إِله إِلا اللهُ وحدَهُ لا شريكَ لهُ ، وأُكبِّرُه تَكبيراً .
All praise is to Allah, Who remains the All-Knowing, All-Able, the Ever-Living, the Firm, the All-Listening, and All-Seeing. I testify that there is no god except Allah, He is Alone with no partner and I glorify Him excessively.
وصلّى اللهُ عَلى سَيدِنا مُحَمَّدٍ الذي أَرْسَلَهُ إِلى النَّاسِ كافةً بَشيراً ونَذيراً ، وعلى آلِ محمدٍ وصَحْبِهِ وسَلَّمَ تَسْليماً كثيراً .
I testify that Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger. May Allah send blessings upon our Leader Prophet Muhammad, who was sent to humanity in its entirety, as a bringer of glad-tidings and as a warner. And many salutations be upon his family and his Companions.
أَمَّا بَعْدُ : فإِنَّ التَّصانيفَ في اصْطِلاحِ (( أَهلِ الحَديثِ )) قَدْ كَثُرَتْ للأئمةِ في القديمِ (( والحَديثِ )) :
Undoubtedly, there is an abundance of literature in the science of hadith, [written] by classical and contemporary scholars.
فَمِن أَوَّلِ مَن صَنَّفَ في ذلك القاضي أبو محمَّدٍ الرَّامَهُرْمُزِيّ في كتابه (( المحدِّث الفاصل )) ، لكنَّه لم يَسْتَوْعِبْ .
Amongst the first to write in this area was al-Qadi Abu Muhammad al-Ramahurmuzi, his book called al-Muhaddith al-fasil. However, he did not complete this work.
والحاكِمُ أبو عبدِ اللهِ النَّيْسَابوريُّ ، لكنَّه لم يُهَذِّبْ ولم يُرَتِّبْ .
Then came al-Hakim Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Nisaburi; but the book was not ordered systematically or refined.
وتلاه أَبو نُعَيْم الأصبهانِيُّ ، فعَمِل على كتابهِ (( مُسْتَخْرَجاً )) ، وأَبقى أَشياءَ للمُتَعَقِّبِ
He was followed by Abu Nu’aym al-Isbahani, who added to his predecessor’s works, and left out areas for those after him [to complete].
ثمَّ جاءَ بعدَهم الخطيبُ أبو بكرٍ البَغْدَاديُّ ، فصنَّفَ في قوانينِ الروايةِ كتاباً سمَّاه (( الكفايةَ )) ، وفي آدابِها كتاباً سمَّاه (( الجامعَ لآدابِ الشَّيْخِ والسَّامِع )) .
Then came al-Khatib Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Thus he wrote al-Kifaya on the rules of narration and al-Jami’ li akhlaq al-ruwah wa adab al-samah on the etiquettes of narration.
وقلَّ فنٌّ مِن فُنونِ الحَديثِ إِلاَّ وقد صَنَّفَ فيهِ كتاباً مُفْرَداً ، فكانَ كما قال الحَافظُ أبو بكرِ بنُ نُقْطَةَ : كلُّ مَن أَنْصَفَ عَلِمَ أَنَّ المحَدِّثينَ بعدَ الخَطيبِ عِيالٌ على كُتُبِهِ .
[In fact] he wrote separate treatises on almost all areas of hadith criticism. As al-Hafiz Abu Bakr ibn Nuqta said: ‘Every impartial observer knows that all hadith scholars after al-Khatib al-Baghdadi were dependent upon his books.’
ثمَّ جاءَ [ بعدَهُم ] [ بعضُ ] مَن تَأَخَّرَ عنِ الخطيبِ فأَخَذَ مِن هذا العلمِ بنَصيبٍ :
Then after them came others and they took a portion from this knowledge.
فجمَع القاضي عِياضٌ كتاباً لطيفاً سمَّاهُ الإِلْماع (( في كتاب الإسماع )) .
Thus al-Qadi ‘Iyad compiled a wonderful book which he called al-Isma.
وأبو حفْصٍ المَيَّانِجيُّ جُزءاً سمَّاه (( ما لا يَسَعُ المُحَدِّثَ جَهْلُه )) .
and Abu Hafs al-Mayyanishi wrote a pamphlet called Ma la yasa’u al-muhaddith jahluh.
وأَمثالُ ذَلك مِنَ التَّصانيفِ الَّتي اشتُهِرَتْ وبُسِطَتْ ليتوفَّرَ عِلْمُها ، واخْتُصِرَتْ ليتيسَّرَ فهْمُها .
Examples of these literary works which became famous are plentiful, (of which) some were detailed to offer comprehensive knowledge, and some were abridged (to make understanding easy).
إِلى أَنْ جاءَ الحافِظُ الفقيهُ تقيُّ الدِّينِ أَبو عَمْرٍو عُثْمانُ بنُ الصَّلاحِ عبدِ الرحمنِ الشَّهْرَزُوريُّ – نزيلُ دمشقَ – ،
Until al-Hafiz al-Faqih Taqi al-Din Abu ‘Amr ‘Uthman ibn al-Salah Abd al-Rahman al-Shahruzi, a resident of Damascus, appeared.
[ فجَمَعَ ] – لما وَلِيَ تدريسَ الحديثِ بالمدرَسَةِ الأشرفيَّةِ – كتابَه المَشهورَ ، فهَذَّبَ فنونَهُ ، وأَملاهُ شيئاً بعدَ شيءٍ ، فلهذا لمْ يَحْصُلْ ترتيبُهُ على الوضعِ المُناسِبِ ، واعتنى بتصانيفِ الخَطيبِ المُتفرِّقةِ ، ( فجمَعَ شَتاتَ ) مقاصِدِها ، وضمَّ إِليها مِن غَيْرِها نُخَبَ فوائِدِها ، فاجتَمَعَ في كتابِه ما تفرَّقَ في غيرهِ ، فلهذا عَكَفَ النَّاسُ عليهِ وساروا بسَيْرِهِ ، فلا يُحْصى كم ناظِمٍ [ له ] ومُختَصِر ، ومستَدْرِكٍ [ عليهِ ] ومُقْتَصِر ، ومُعارِضٍ لهُ ومُنْتَصِر !
He gathered his famous book when he took over teaching at al-Madrasa al-Ashrafiyya. He refined the fields of hadith (in this piece) and dictated it bit by bit. For this reason, its order was not achieved in a suitable manner. He included the various works of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, gathering its antecedent points and adding selected beneficial points himself. In this book, he gathered what had hitherto been scattered in different books. For this reason, people adhered to it and followed its path. The book resulted in countless literature devoted to it, such as poems, abridged versions, commentaries, shortened versions, and (indeed) critical literature.
فسأَلَني بَعْضُ الإِخوانِ أَنْ أُلَخِصَ لهُ المُهِمَّ مِنْ ذَلكَ فلخَّصْتُهُ في أوراقٍ لطيفةٍ سمَّيْتُها (( نُخْبَةَ الفِكَر في مُصْطَلحِ [ أَهلِ ] الأثَر )) على ترتيبٍ ابْتَكَرْتُهُ ، وسبيلٍ انْتَهَجْتُهُ ، مع ما ضمَمْتُه إِليهِ مِن شوارِدِ الفرائِدِ وزَوائدِ الفوائدِ .
Some friends of mine asked me to offer a brief overview of the important parts of this book. Hence, I wrote it on a few papers and named it “Nukhbat al-fikar fi Mustalah al-Athar” with an order I produced and a style I pursued, adding unique and additional points.
فرَغِبَ إِليَّ [ جماعةٌ ] ثانياً أَنْ أَضعَ عَليها شرحاً يحُلُّ رموزَها ، ويفتحُ كنوزَها ، ويوضِحُ ما خَفِيَ على المُبْتَدئ من ذلك ، فأَجَبْتُه إِلى سُؤالِهِ ؛ رجاءَ الاندِراجِ في تلكَ المسالِكِ .
My friends re-approached me and asked me to write a commentary for it, which would unlock its secrets and open its treasures, and expose what had been hidden before. I duly obliged in hope of being included among the people of Hadith
فبالغتُ في شَرْحِها في الإِيضاحِ والتَّوجيهِ ، ونبَّهْتُ عَلى خَبايا زواياها ؛ لأنَّ صاحِبَ البَيْتِ أَدْرَى بِما فيهِ ، وظَهَرَ لي أَنَّ إِيرادَهُ على صُورةِ البَسْطِ أليقُ ، ودَمْجَها ضِمْنَ تَوضيحِها أَوْفَقُ ، فسلكْتُ هذهِ الطَّريقَةَ القَليلةَ المسالِكِ .
and made extensive effort in explaining the hidden facets, since the homeowner knows best as to what is in his home. It became apparent to me that a comprehensive account was more suitable, and an amalgamation (of the original and the commentary) was more useful. Hence, I adopted this rare style,
[ فأقولُ ] طالِِباً مِن [ اللهِ ] التَّوفيقَ فيما هُنالِك :
and I say, seeking assistance from Allah…
الخَبَرُ (( قسم من أقسام الكلام يأتي في تعريفه ما يعرف به الكلام (( ثم يخرج من أقسام الكلام لأنه محتمل للصدق والكذب )) و [ هو ] )) عندَ عُلَماءِ [ هذا ] الفنِّ مرادفٌ للحَديثِ .
The Khabar – according to the scholars of this field – is synonymous with [the meaning of] Hadith.
وقيلَ : الحَديثُ : ما جاءَ عَنِ النَّبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وعلى آلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، والخَبَرُ ما جاءَ عن غيِره ، ومِنْ ثَمَّ قيلَ لمَن يشتغلُ بالتَّواريخِ وما شاكَلَها : الإخبارِيُّ ، ولمن يشتغلُ بالسُّنَّةِ النبويَّةِ : المُحَدِّثَ .
It is said Hadith is that which derives from the Prophet, and Khabar is that which derives from others. Furthermore, it is said to a person who occupies himself with history and similar [disciplines] ‘Al-Akhbar’, and a person who occupies himself with Hadith ‘Muhaddith’.
وقيل : بيْنهما عُمومٌ وخُصوصٌ مُطْلقٌ ، فكلُّ حَديثٍ خبرٌ من غيرِ عَكْسٍ .
It is [also] said that the difference between them is ‘umm and khass Mutlaq; thus, every Hadith is a Khabar, and not vice versa.
وعبَّرْتُ هنا بالخبَرِ ليكونَ أشملَ ، فهو باعتبارِ وصولِهِ إِلينا إِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ طُرُقٌ ؛ أي : [ أسانيدُ ] كثيرةٌ ؛ لأنَّ طُرُقاً جمعُ طريقٍ ، وفعيلٌ في الكثرةِ يُجْمَعُ على فُعُلٍ – بضمَّتينِ – ، وفي القلَّةِ على أَفْعِلَةٍ .
It has been described here with Khabar to be more encompassing. So according to the consideration of how it reached us, the Khabar either has Tawatur, namely many chains, because the plural of Tariq is Turuq. The word [on the template] of fa‘il pluralizes on fu‘ul for kathra – with two dhammas – and af‘ilah for qilla.
والمرادُ بالطُّرُقِ الأسانيدُ ، والإِسنادُ حكايةُ (( عن )) طريقِ المَتْنِ .
And what is meant by ‘Turuq’ is chains [isnads]. The Isnad is the report of the path leading to the matn.
(( والمتن هو غاية ما ينتهي إليه الإسناد من الكلام )) .
The matn is the final text at which the chain finishes.
وتلكَ الكثرَةُ أَحدُ شُروطِ التَّواتُرِ إِذا وَرَدَتْ بِلاَ حَصْرِ عَددٍ مُعَيَّنٍ ، [ بل ] [ تكونُ ] العادةُ قد أحالتْ تواطؤهُم (( أو توافقهم )) على الكذِبِ ، وكذا وقوعُه منهُم اتِّفاقاً مِن غيرِ قصدٍ .
And the ‘numerous chains’ are one of the conditions of Mutawatir when it appears. [Either the Khabar has many paths but] without a specified number; rather, experience makes it impossible for them to collude on a lie. Additionally [it is impossible] to occur coincidentally [and] unintentionally.
فلا مَعْنى لِتعْيينِ العَدَدِ على الصَّحيحِ ، ومِنْهُم مَنْ عيَّنَهُ في الأربعةِ ، وقيلَ : في الخمْسةِ ، وقيل : في السَّبعةِ ، وقيل : في العشرةِ ، وقيلَ : في الاثنَيْ عَشَر ، وقيل : في الأربعينَ ، وقيلَ : في السَّبعينَ ، وقيلَ غيرُ ذلك .
According to the correct [position], there is no requirement in specifying the number. Amongst them are those who have specified four [as the minimum number of reporters required in each generation]; though five, seven, ten, twelve, forty, seventy and other figures have [also] been mentioned.
وتَمَسَّكَ كُلُّ قائل بدليل جاءَ فيه ذِكرُ [ ذلكَ ] العَدَدِ ، فأفادَ العِلْمَ (( للحال )) ، وليسَ بلازِمٍ أَنْ يَطَّرِدَ في غَيْرِهِ لاحتمالِ الاخْتِصاصِ .
Every advocate has held to some evidence that mentions that number, and thus gives knowledge. It is not necessary to repel other [opinions], due to the possibility of specification.
فإذا وَرَدَ الخَبَرُ كذلك وانْضافَ إليهِ أَنْ يستويَ الأمْرُ فيهِ في الكثرةِ المذكورةِ من ابتدائِهِ إلى انتهائهِ – والمرادُ بالاستواءِ أَنْ لا تَنْقُصَ الكَثْرَةُ المَذكورةُ في بعضِ المَواضِعِ لا أَنْ لا تَزيدَ ، إذ الزِّيادَةُ [ هُنا ] مطلوبةٌ مِن بابِ أَوْلى – ، وأَنْ يكونَ مُسْتَنَدُ انتهائِهِ الأمرَ المُشاهَدَ أو المَسموعَ ، لا مَا ثَبَتَ بِقَضِيَّةِ العَقْلِ الصِّرْفِ .
Hence, when the Khabar is mentioned as such and this is coupled with the aforementioned number manifesting itself from the beginning to the end – and what is meant by this is that the aforementioned number does not lessen in some places, not that it increases, since an increase is desired by all means – and that the end information is a witnessed or heard matter and not something proven by mere conjecture;
فإِذا جَمَعَ هذهِ الشُّروطَ الأربعةَ ، وهي :
عَدَدٌ كثيرٌ أَحَالَتِ العادةُ تواطُؤهُمْ [ و توافُقَهُم ] على الكَذِبِ .
thus when these four conditions are found – and they are a large number which makes it impossible for them to have colluded on a lie or coincidentally agreed on a lie;
(( و )) رَوَوْا ذلك عن مِثْلِهِم من الابتداء إلى الانتهاءِ .
they narrate it from their likes from the beginning to the end;
وكان مُسْتَنَدُ انْتِهائِهِمُ الحِسَّ .
the last person witnessed the matter,
وانْضافَ إلى ذلك أَنْ يَصْحَبَ خَبَرَهُمْ إِفَادَةُ العِلْمِ لِسامِعِهِ .
and that their Khabar gives the benefit of knowledge to its listener
فهذا هو المتواتِرُ .
– then this is Mutawatir
وما تَخَلَّفَتْ إِفَادَةُ العِلْمِ عنهُ ( كانَ مَشْهوراً فقَط .
Anything that is short of giving the benefit of knowledge is Mashhur only.
فكلُّ متواتِرٍ مشهورٌ ، من غيرِ عَكْسٍ .
So, every Mutawatir is Mashhur, and not vice versa.
وقد يُقالُ ) : إِنَّ الشُّروطَ الأربعةَ إِذا حَصَلَتْ اسْتَلْزَمَتْ حُصولَ العِلْمِ ، وهُو كذلك في الغالِبِ ، (( و )) لكنْ قد تَتَخَلَّفُ عنِ البَعْضِ لمانعٍ .
It is said that when the four conditions are achieved, it necessitates the attaining of knowledge. This is the case mostly, but it does not sometimes due to a hindrance.
(( كأن تحصل الإفادة ولم يحصل العلم كما إذا أخبر من لم يعتقد ذلك الخبر حصلت الإفادة ولم يحصل العلم )) .
وقد وَضَحَ بهذا (( التقرير )) تَعْريفُ المُتواتِرِ .
And by this, the definition of Mutawatir is clear.
وخِلافُهُ قدْ يَرِدُ بلا حَصْرٍ [ أَيضاً ] ، لكنْ مع فَقْدِ بعضِ الشُّروطِ ، أَو مَعَ حَصْرٍ بِما فَوْقَ الاثنيْنِ ؛ أي : بثلاثةٍ فصاعِداً ما لمْ يَجْمَعْ شُروطَ المُتواتِرِ ، أو بِهما ؛ أي : باثْنَيْنِ فقطْ ، أو بواحِدٍ [ فقَطْ ].
The opposite [of Mutawatir] sometimes appears with indefinite numbers too, but with the absence of other conditions. [The Khabar reaches us with numerous Isnads] or reaches us with a limit, of more than two; namely three or more, so long as it does not fulfil the conditions of Mutawatir; or [it reaches us] with two only, or one only.
والمرادُ بقولِنا : (( أَنْ يَردَ باثْنَيْنِ )) : أنْ لا يَرِدَ بأَقلَّ مِنْهُما ، فإِنْ وَرَدَ بأَكْثَرَ في بعضِ المَواضِعِ مِن السَّنَدِ الواحِدِ لا يَضُرُّ ، إذ الأقلُّ في هذا [ العِلْمِ ] يَقْضي على الأكْثَرِ .
What is meant by our saying ‘that it reaches us with two’ is that less than two is not found. Thus, if it appears with more than two in some places in one chain, it does not harm [it], since the minimum is considered in this field over the maximum.
فالأوَّلُ : (( و )) (( هو )) المُتواتِرُ ، وهو المُفيدُ للعِلْمِ اليَقينِيِّ ، فأخرَجَ النَّظريَّ على ما يأْتي تقريرُه ، بِشروطِهِ [ (( أي )) التي تَقَدَّمَتْ .
So, the first is Mutawatir with its conditions. This gives the benefit of certain knowledge (‘ilm al-yaqin). [By mentioning this], this excludes controvertible knowledge (‘ilm al-nazar), which will soon be explained.
واليَقينُ : هو الاعتقادُ الجازِمُ المُطابِقُ ، وهذا هو المُعْتَمَدُ : أَنْ ] الخَبَرَ (( الواحد )) المُتواتِرَ يُفيدُ العِلْمَ الضَّروريَّ ، وهو الذي (( لا )) يَضْطُّر الإِنْسانُ إليهِ بحيثُ لا يُمْكِنُهُ دفْعُهُ .
And ‘yaqin’ is strong belief corresponding [to the truth]. This is the trusted opinion; that Khabar Mutawatir gives the benefit of definitive knowledge. This [knowledge] forces a person to accept it in such a way it is not possible to refute.
وقيلَ : لا يُفيدُ العلمَ إِلاَّ نَظَرِيّاً !
وليس بشيءٍ ؛ لأنَّ العِلْم بالتَّواتُرِ حاصِلٌ لمن ليس لهُ أهليَّةُ النَّظرِ كالعامِّيِّ ، إذ النَّظرُ : ترتيبُ [ أُمورٍ معلومةٍ ] أَو مَظْنونةٍ يُتَوَصَّلُ بها إلى عُلومٍ أَو ظُنونٍ ، وليس في العامِّيِّ أهلِيَّةُ ذلك ، فلو كان نَظَرِيّاً ؛ لما حَصَل لهُم .
It has also been said that [Mutawatir] does not give knowledge except controvertible knowledge. This is not so. The reason is that knowledge via Mutawatir is achieved by him who does not have the ability of contemplation (nazar), like a layperson. ‘Contemplation’ (nazar) requires the ordering of known or presumed facts, leading to [further] facts or presumptions. A layperson does not have the ability to do that. Thus, if [the result of Mutawatir] were controvertible knowledge, it would not be achieved for them.
ولاحَ بهذا التَّقريرِ الفرْقُ بين العِلْمِ الضَّرورِيِّ والعِلْمِ النَّظَرِيِّ ، [ إِذ ] الضَّرورِيُّ يُفيدُ العِلْمَ بلا اسْتِدلالٍ ، والنَّظريُّ يُفيدُهُ لكنْ مع الاستِدْلالِ على الإِفادةِ ، وأنَّ الضَّروريَّ يحْصُلُ لكُلِّ سامعٍ ، والنَّظَرِيَّ لا يَحْصُلُ إِلاَّ لِمَنْ فيهِ أهليَّةُ النَّظَرِ .
With this discussion, the difference between definitive knowledge and controvertible knowledge is clear; definitive knowledge gives benefit without evidence-building and controvertible knowledge gives benefit but with evidence-building. And controvertible knowledge can only be attained by the one who has the ability to contemplate.
وإِنَّما أََبْهَمْتُ شُروطَ التواترِ في الأَصْلِ ؛ لأنَّهُ على هذهِ الكيفيَّةِ ليسَ مِن مباحِثِ عِلْمِ الإِسْنَادِ ، ((وإنما هو من مباحث أصول الفقه )) إِذ عِلمُ الإِسْناِد يُبْحَثُ فيهِ عن صِحَّةِ الحديثِ أَوْ ضَعْفِهِ ؛ لِيُعْمَلَ بِهِ أَو يُتْرَكَ مِن حيثُ صفاتُ الرِّجالِ ، وصِيَغُ الأداءِ ، والمُتواتِرُ لا يُبْحَثُ عَنْ رجالِهِ ، بل يجبُ العملُ بهِ مِن غيرِ بَحْثٍ .
The conditions of Mutawatir have not been mentioned in the original [text of the Nukhbah], because on this basis, it is not part of the discussions of ‘ilm al-hadith, since ‘ilm al-isnad involves the investigation of the authenticity and weakness of the Hadith so it can be acted upon or discarded, in terms of the attributes of the narrators and the words of delivery. And the narrators are not investigated in Mutawatir, but rather it is compulsory to act upon it without investigation.
فائدةٌ : ذَكَرَ ابنُ الصَّلاحِ أَنَّ مِثالَ المُتواتِرِ عَلى التَّفسيرِ المُتَقَدِّمِ يَعِزُّ وُجودُهُ ؛ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُدَّعَى ذلك في حَديثِ : (( مَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيَّ [ مُتَعَمِّداً ؛ فلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ ] )) .
Note: Ibn al-Salah has mentioned that the examples of Mutawatir – based upon the aforementioned definition – are rare in existence, apart from what he claims for, ‘Whoever deliberately ascribes a lie to me, let him find a seat for himself in hell.’
وما ادَّعَاهُ مِن العِزَّةِ مَمْنوعٌ ، وكذا مَا ادَّعاهُ غيرُهُ مِن العَدَمِ ؛ لأنَّ ذلك نَشَأَ عَنْ قِلَّةِ الاطِّلاعِ على كَثْرَةِ الطُّرُقِ ، وأَحْوالِ الرِّجالِ ، وصفاتِهِمُ المُقتَضِيَةِ لإِبعادِ العادَةِ أَنْ يَتَواطَؤوا عَلى كَذِبٍ ، أو يَحْصُلَ منهُمُ اتِّفاقاً .
What he has claimed of its rarity is unfound, as is the claim of other [scholars] who say that there are no Mutawatir at all. This is because [these opinions] stemmed from a lack of awareness of the excessive number of chains, the states of the narrators, and the [other] characteristics required to repel experience from allowing them to collude on a lie or for them to narrate the same coincidentally.
ومِن أَحْسَنَ مَا يُقَرَّرُ [ بِهِ ] كونُ المُتواتِرِ مَوجوداً وُجودَ كَثْرةٍ في الأَحاديثِ أَنَّ الكُتُبَ المشهورةَ المُتَداوَلَةَ بأَيدي أَهْلِ العِلْمِ شَرْقاً وغَرْباً المَقْطوعَ عِنْدَهُم بِصِحَّةِ نِسْبَتِها إلى مُصَنِّفيها ، إذا اجْتَمَعَتْ على إِخراجِ حَديثٍ ، وتعدَّدَتْ طُرُقُه تعدُّداً تُحيلُ العادةُ تواطُؤهُمْ على الكَذِبِ إِلى آخِرِ الشُّروطِ ؛ أَفادَ العِلْمَ اليَقينيَّ بصحَّتِهِ إِلى قائِلِهِ .
The best explanation for proving the significant existence of such reports is that the famous, widespread books in the hands of the people of knowledge, east and west, that are definitively proven to be ascribed to their compilers, when these compilers agree on recording a Hadith, and their Isnaads are sufficient to allow the impossibility of colluding on a lie, along with the other conditions, this gives definitive knowledge of correctly ascribing it to its speaker.
ومِثْلُ [ ذلكَ ] في الكُتُبِ المَشْهُورَةِ [ كَثيرٌ ] .
Such examples in the famous books are plentiful.
والثَّاني – وهُو أَوَّلُ أقسام الآحادِ – : ما لَهُ طُرُقٌ مَحْصورةٌ بأَكثرَ مِن اثْنَيْنِ وهُو المَشْهورُ عندَ المُحَدِّثينَ : سُمِّيَ بذلك لوُضوحِهِ ، وهُوَ المُستفيضُ ؛ عَلى رأْيِ جماعةٍ مِن أَئمَّةِ الفُقهاءِ ، [ سُمِّيَ بذلك لانْتشارِهِ ، [ و ] مِنْ فاضَ الماءُ يَفيضُ فيضاً .
The second – and this is the first division of al-Ahad – is that which has limited chains but more than two. This is Mashhur, according to the Hadith scholars. It is so called because of its apparentness. This is also called Mustafid based upon the opinion of a group of the imams of the jurists. It is thus called because of its dispersion, from the verb “fada al-ma yyafudu.”
ومِنْهُم مَن غَايَرَ بينَ المُسْتَفيضِ والمَشْهورِ ؛ بأَنَّ المُسْتَفيضَ يكونُ في ابْتِدائِهِ وانْتِهائِهِ سَواءً ] ، والمَشْهورَ أَعَمُّ مِنْ ذلكَ .
There are some who have differentiated between Mustafid and Mashhur; that Mustafad is where the beginning and ending are equal, and Mashhur is more general than that.
ومنهُمْ مَن غايَرَ على كيفيَّةٍ أُخْرى ، وليسَ مِن مَباحِثِ هذا الفَنِّ .
Then there are some scholars who have differentiated them upon another basis, and this is not part of discussions in this field of it knowledge.
ثمَّ المَشْهورُ يُطْلَقُ على مَا حُرِّرَ هُنا وعلى ما اشْتُهِرَ على الألْسِنةِ ، فيشْمَلُ ما لَهُ إِسنادٌ واحِدٌ فصاعِداً ، بل [ ما ] لا يوجَدُ لهُ إِسنادٌ أَصْلاً .
Then, Mashhur is the name given to what we have explained and what is famous on the tongues. Thus, this latter type can consist of that which has one Isnad or more; in fact, it can refer to that which does not have an Isnad at all.
والثَّالِثُ : العَزيزُ وهُو : أَنْ لا يَرْويَهُ أَقَلُّ مِن اثْنَيْنِ عنِ اثْنَيْنِ ، وسُمِّيَ بذلك إِمَّا لِقِلَّةِ وُجودِهِ ، [ وإِمَّا ] لكونِهِ عَزَّ – أَي : قَوِيَ – بمَجيئِهِ مِن طَريقٍ أُخْرى .
The third is ‘Aziz. This is where a minimum of two reporters narrate from two others. It is so called either because of its rare existence or because it strengthens; in other words, it strengthens with its appearance via another path.
ولَيْسَ شَرْطاً للصَّحيحِ ؛ خِلافاً لمَنْ زعَمَهُ ، وهو أَبو عَليٍّ الجُبَّائيُّ مِن المُعْتزلةِ ، وإِليهِ يُومِئُ كلامُ الحاكِمِ أَبي عبد اللهِ في (( علومِ الحديثِ )) [ حيثُ ] قال : الصَّحيحُ أَنْ يَرْوِيَهُ الصَّحابِيُّ الزَّائِلُ عنهُ اسمُ الجَهالةِ ؛ بأَنْ يكونَ لهُ راوِيانِ ، ثمَّ يتداوَلَهُ أَهلُ الحَديثِ إِلى وَقْتِنِا كالشَّهادَةِ [ عَلى الشَّهادَةِ ] .
‘Aziz is not a condition for the Sahih, as opposed to whoever assumes so. This is Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i of the Mu’tazila. The writings of al-Hakim Abu ‘Abd Allah also indicate this opinion when he states: ‘The Sahih is that which is narrated by a Companion void of ambiguity who then narrates it to two; then the people of Hadith circulate it until our time, like the testimony upon the testimony.’
وصَرَّحَ القاضي أَبو بَكْرٍ بنُ العربيِّ في (( شَرْحِ البُخاريّ )) بأَنَّ ذلك شَرْطُ البُخاريِّ ، وأَجاب عمَّا أُورِدَ عليهِ مِنْ ذلك بِجوابٍ فيهِ نَظرٌ ؛ لأَنَّهُ قال : فإِنْ قيلَ : حديثُ (( (( إنما )) الأعْمَالُ بالنِّيَّاتِ )) فَرْدٌ ؛لم يَرْوِهِ عَنْ عُمرَ إِلاَّ عَلْقَمَةُ !
قالَ : قُلْنا : [ قَدْ ] خَطَبَ بِهِ عُمَرُ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] عَلى المِنْبَرِ بحَضْرةِ الصَّحابَةِ ، فلولا أَنَّهُمْ يَعْرِفونَهُ لأنْكروهُ ! كذا قالَ !
Also, al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi has clarified in the commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari that this was the condition of al-Bukhari.In response to the argument presented to them, they offer a contentious answer. This is because they said, if it is said the Hadith ‘actions are judged by intentions’ is fard [as] no one narrated it from ‘Umar except ‘Alqama, we say that ‘Umar narrated it on the pulpit in the presence of the Companions. If the Companions did not know of it, they would have surely questioned it; this is what they have said.
وتُعُقِّبَ (( عليه )) بأَنَّهُ لا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ كَوْنِهِم سَكَتُوا عنهُ أَنْ يَكُونوا سَمِعوهُ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ ، وبأَنَّ هذا لو سُلِّمَ في عُمَرَ مُنِعَ في تَفَرُّدِ عَلْقَمَةَ [ عنهُ ] ، ثمَّ تَفَرُّدِ مُحَمَّدِ بنِ إِبْراهيمَ بِه عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ ، ثُمَّ تَفَرُّدِ يَحْيَى بنِ سَعيدٍ بهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ ؛ عَلى ما هُو الصَّحيحُ المُعْروفُ عِنْدَ المُحَدِّثينَ .
This is followed up with [the response] that the silence [of the Companions] does not necessitate that they could not have heard it from someone else. Moreover, though the argument can be accepted in [the case of] ‘Umar, it cannot be accepted in the singularity of ‘Alqama from him. Then Muhammad ibn Ibrahim was solitary from ‘Alqama. Then Yahya ibn Sa’id was solitary from Muhammad, based upon the authentic, known [path] from the Hadith masters.
وقَدْ وَرَدَتْ لُهْم مُتابعاتٌ لا يُعْتَبَرُ بِها [ لِضَعْفِها ] .
Yes, supporting chains have appeared but they cannot be considered.
وكَذا لا نُسَلِّمُ جَوابَهُ في غَيْرِ حَديثِ عُمَرَ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] .
Likewise, we do not accept the answer in other than the Hadith of ‘Umar.
قالَ ابنُ رُشَيْدٍ : ولَقَدْ كانَ يَكْفي القاضيَ في بُطْلانِ ما ادَّعَى أَنَّهُ شَرْطُ البُخاريِّ أَوَّلُ حَديثٍ مَذكورٍ فيهِ .
Ibn Rushayd states that it is sufficient to refute the claim of al-Qadi Abu Bakr (that it is a condition of al-Bukhari) that this is the first Hadith of al-Bukhari mentioned in his Sahih.
وادَّعَى ابنُ حِبَّانَ نقيضَ دَعْواهُ ، فقالَ : إِنَّ رِوايَةَ اثنَيْنِ عَنِ اثنَيْنِ إِلى أَنْ يَنْتَهِيَ لا تُوجَدُ أَصْلاً .
Ibn Hibban has made the opposite of this claim. He said that the narration of two from two to its end cannot be found at all.
قُلْتُ : إِنْ أرادَ [ [ بهِ ] أَنَّ ] رِوايَةَ اثْنَيْنِ فَقَطْ عَنِ اثْنَيْنِ فَقَطْ لا تُوجَدُ [ أَصْلاً ] ؛ فيُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُسَلَّمَ ، وأَمَّا صُورَةُ العَزيزِ الَّتي حَرَّرْناها فمَوْجودَةٌ بأَنْ لا يَرْوِيَهُ أَقَلُّ مِن اثْنَيْنِ عَنْ أَقَلَّ مِنَ اثْنَيْنِ .
I say, if he intends the narration of two only from two only cannot be found at all, then it is possible to accept. As for the form of ‘Aziz that we have explained, thus it is present: that less than two do not narrate from two.
مثالُهُ : ما رَواهُ الشَّيْخانِ مِن حَديثِ أَنَسٍ ، والبُخاريُّ مِن حديثِ أَبي هُرَيْرَةَ (( رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ )) : أَنَّ رَسولَ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ قالَ : (( لا يُؤمِنُ أَحَدُكُمْ حَتَّى أَكُونَ أَحَبَّ إِليهِ مِنْ والدِهِ وولَدِهِ … )) الحديث .
Its example is that which the two Shaykhs have narrated from Anas – and al-Bukhari from Abu Huraira – that the Prophet said: ‘No one is a [true] believer until I become more beloved to him than his father, his son…[to the end of] the Hadith.
[ و ] رواهُ عَنْ أَنَسٍ : قَتادَةُ وعبدُ العزيزِ بنُ صُهَيْبٍ ، ورواهُ عَنْ قتادَةَ : شُعْبَةُ وسعيدٌ ، ورواهُ [ عَنْ] عبدِ العزيزِ : إِسماعيلُ بنُ عُلَيَّةَ وعبدُ الوارِثِ ، ورواهُ عن كُلٍّ جَماعةٌ .
From Anas, Qatada and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Suhayb have narrated it. Shu’ba and Sa’id have narrated it from Qatada. And Isma’il ibn ‘Ulayya and ‘Abd al-Warith have narrated it from ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. Then a group have narrated it from each one [of them].
والرَّابِعُ : الغَريبُ وهُو : ما يَتَفَرَّدُ بِروايَتِهِ شَخْصٌ واحِدٌ في أَيِّ مَوْضِعٍ وَقَعَ التَّفَرُّدُ بِهِ مِنَ السَّنَدِ عَلى مَا سَيُقْسَمُ إِليهِ الغَريبُ المُطْلَقُ والغَريبُ النِّسبيُّ .
The fourth is Gharib. This is where one person is alone with its narration, regardless of
where the singularity occurs in the Isnad, [based] upon the forthcoming division into Gharib Mutlaq and Gharib Nisba.
وكُلُّها أي : الأقسامُ الأرْبَعَةُ [ المَذْكورةُ ] سوى الأوَّلِ ، وهو المُتواتِرُ آحادٌ ، ويُقالُ لكُلٍّ منها : خَبَرُ واحِدٍ .
And all of them – namely the four aforementioned types, except the first which is Mutawatir – are Ahad. Each one of them is [individually] called Khabar al-Wahid.
وخَبَرُ الواحِدِ في اللُّغَةِ : ما يَرويهِ شَخْصٌ واحِدٌ ، وفي الاصطِلاحِ : ما لَمْ يَجْمَعْ شُروط المُتواتِرِ .
Khabar al-Wahid literally is that which is narrated by one person. In Hadith terminology, [it is] that which does not meet the conditions of Mutawatir.
وفيها ؛ أي : [ في ] الآحَادِ : المَقْبولُ وهو : ما يَجِبُ العَمَلُ بِهِ عِنْدَ الجُمْهورِ .
Amongst them – namely in Ahad – are the ‘accepted.’ This is a report which is compulsory to act upon, according to the majority.
وَفيها المَرْدُودُ ، وهُو [ الَّذي ] لَمْ يَتَرَجَّحْ صِدْقُ المُخْبِرُ بِهِ ؛ لتوقُّفِ الاستدلالِ بها عَلى البَحْثِ عَنْ أحوالِ رواتِها ، دُونَ الأوَّلِ ، وهو المُتواتِرُ .
Amongst them are [also] the ‘rejected.’ This is a report where the truthfulness of the transmitter has not been established. [The division is such] because of the investigation [required] on the states of the narrators before using as evidence, to the exception of the first, which is Mutawatir.
فكُلُّهُ مَقْبولٌ لإِفادَتِهِ القَطْعَ بِصِدْقِ مُخْبِرِهِ بِخلافِ غَيْرِهِ مِنْ أَخبارِ الآحادِ .
Thus all Mutawatir are accepted because of the certainty in the truthfulness of th Khabar, as opposed to the other types of Khabar al-Ahad.
لكنْ ؛ إِنَّما وَجَبَ العَمَلُ بالمَقْبولِ مِنها ، لأَنَّها إِمَّا أَنْ يُوْجَدَ فيها أَصلُ صِفَةِ القَبولِ – وهُو ثُبوتُ صِدْقِ النَّاقِلِ – ، أَوْ أَصلُ صِفَةِ الرَّدِّ – وهُو ثُبوتُ كَذِبِ النَّاقِلِ – أَوْ لاَ :
But it is only compulsory to act upon the accepted of them. This is because either an essence of acceptance is found in it – and this is the proving of the transmitter’s truthfulness – or an attribute of rejection is found in it; and this is the proving of the untruthfulness of the transmitter.
فالأوَّلُ : يَغْلِبُ على الظَّنِّ [ ثُبوتُ ] (( به )) صِدْقِ الخَبَرِ لِثُبوتِ صِدْقِ ناقِلِهِ فيُؤخَذُ بِهِ .
Thus [with] the first, the truthfulness of the Khabar is overwhelmingly established because of the truthfulness of the transmitter.
والثَّانِي : يَغْلِبُ على الظَّنِّ (( به )) كَذِبُ الخَبَرِ لِثُبوتِ كَذِبِ ناقِلِهِ فيُطْرَحُ .
[With] the second, the untruthfulness of the Khabar is overwhelmingly established because of the untruthfulness of the transmitter. Therefore, it is repelled.
والثَّالِثُ : إِنْ وُجِدَتْ قرينَةٌ تُلْحِقُهُ بأَحَدِ القِسْمَيْنِ الْتَحَقَ ، وإِلاَّ فَيُتَوَقَّفُ فيهِ ، The third; if an external factor is found which can be linked to one of the two types, it will be connected accordingly. If not, then we will pause on giving a ruling
وإِذا تُوُقِّفَ عَنِ العَمَلِ بهِ صارَ كالمَرْدودِ ، لا لِثُبوتِ [ صِفَةِ ] الرَّدِّ ، بل لكَوْنِه لمْ تُوجَدْ (( به )) فيهِ صفةٌ توجِبُ < القَبولَ ، واللهُ أعلمُ .
When acting upon the Khabar is paused upon, it becomes like the rejected [but] not because of the proving of an attribute of rejection, but because an attribute that necessitates acceptance is not found. And Allah knows best.
وقد يَقعُ [ فيها ] ؛ أي : في أَخْبارِ الآحادِ المُنْقَسِمَة إِلى مَشْهورٍ وعَزيزٍ وغَريبٍ ؛ مَا يُفيدُ العِلْمَ النَّظريَّ بالقَرائِنِ ؛ عَلى المُختارِ ؛ خِلافاً لِمَنْ أَبى ذلك .
Sometimes a factor is found in Khabar al-Ahad – which is divided into Mashhur, Gharib, and ‘Aziz – that gives the benefit of controvertible knowledge, based upon the chosen opinion. This is as opposed to those who deny that.
والخِلافُ في التَّحْقيقِ لَفْظيٌّ ؛ لأنَّ مَنْ جَوَّزَ إِطلاقَ العِلْمِ قَيَّدَهُ بِكونِهِ نَظَريّاً ، وهُو الحاصِلُ عن الاسْتِدلالِ ، ومَنْ أَبى الإِطلاقَ ؛ خَصَّ لَفْظ العِلْمِ بالمُتواتِرِ ، وما عَداهُ عِنْدَهُ [ كُلُّهُ ] ظَنِّيٌّ ، لكنَّهُ لا يَنْفِي أَنَّ ما احْتفَّ (( منه )) بالقرائِنِ أَرْجَحُ ممَّا خَلا عَنها .
The dispute, in reality, is literal. This is because those who permit the benefit of knowledge specify that the knowledge [given] is controvertible; this is achieved from evidence. Then those who refute it specify the word ‘knowledge’ to mean Mutawatir, and other than that, it is controvertible. But this does not negate that those [traditions] marked by factors are more preferred than those void of it.
والخَبَرُ المُحْتَفُّ بالقَرائِن أنواعٌ :
مِنْها مَا أَخْرَجَهُ الشَّيْخانِ في صَحيحَيْهِما ممَّا لَمْ يَبْلُغْ [ حَدَّ ] المتواتِرِ ، فإِنَّهُ احْتُفَّتْ بِهِ قرائِنُ ؛ منها :
جَلالتُهُما في هذا الشَّأْنِ .
The [advantageous] factors that can be attached to the Khabar are of many types. From them is that which the two Shaykhs have recorded in their Sahih when it does not reach the stage of Mutawatir. This [itself] is attached with many factors; amongst them is their rank in this field,
وتَقَدُّمُهُما في تَمْييزِ الصَّحيحِ على غيرِهما .
their precedence in differentiating the Sahih from others,
وتَلَقِّي العُلماءِ كِتابَيْهِما بالقَبُولِ ، وهذا التَّلقِّي وحدَهُ أَقوى في إِفادةِ العلمِ مِن مُجَرَّدِ كَثْرَةِ الطُّرُقِ القاصرةِ عَنِ التَّواتُرِ .
and the scholars’ acceptance of their books. [In fact], this acceptance alone is stronger in terms of giving the benefit of knowledge than mere numerous chains that are short of being Mutawatir.
إِلاَّ أَنَّ هذا مُخْتَصٌّ بِمَا لَمْ يَنْقُدْهُ أَحدٌ مِنَ الحُفَّاظِ [ مِمَّا ] في الكِتابينِ ، وبِما لَمْ يَقَعِ التَّجاذُبُ بينَ مَدْلولَيْهِ مِمَّا [ وَقَعَ ] في الكِتابينِ ، حيثُ لا تَرْجيحَ لاستِحالَةِ أَنْ يُفيدَ المُتناقِضانِ العِلْمَ بصِدْقِهِما من [ غيرِ ] ترجيحٍ لأحدِهِما على الآخرِ .
However, this is specific to those [traditions] in the two books that have not been criticised by anyone from the experts, and to those [traditions] where a contradiction has not occurred between the two texts in the books, in such a way that one cannot be preferred; since it is impossible for two opposing facts to be truthful without preferring one over the other.
وما عَدا ذلك ؛ فالإِجماعُ حاصِلٌ على تَسْليمِ صِحَّتِهِ .
With the exception of these two, the [scholarly] consensus exists upon accepting their authenticity.
فإِنْ قِيلَ : إِنَّما اتَّفَقوا على وُجوبِ العَمَلِ بِهِ لا عَلى صِحَّتِهِ ؛ مَنَعْنَاهُ .
If it is said, the [scholars] have merely agreed on the necessity of acting upon them, not on their authenticity, we will disagree.
وسَنَدُ المَنْعِ أَنَّهُمْ مُتَّفِقونَ عَلى وُجوبِ العَمَلِ بِكُلِّ مَا صَحَّ ولوْ لَمْ يُخْرِجْهُ الشَّيْخانِ ، فلمْ يَبْقَ للصَّحيحينِ في هذا مَزيَّةٌ ، والإِجماعُ حاصِلٌ على أَنَّ لهُما مَزِيَّةً فيما يَرْجِعُ إِلى نَفْسِ الصِّحَّةِ .
The reason for disagreement is that they are unanimous upon the necessity of acting upon all [traditions] that are Sahih, even if the two Shaykhs do not record it. Thus no uniqueness would remain for the two Sahihs, though the consensus exists regarding their uniqueness.
ومِمَّن صَرَّحَ بإِفادَةِ مَا خَرَّجَهُ الشَّيْخانِ العِلْمَ النَّظَرِيَّ : الأسْتاذُ أَبو إِسْحاقَ الإِسْفَرايِينِيُّ ، ومِن أَئِمَّةِ الحَديثِ أَبو عبدِ اللهِ الحُمَيْدِيُّ ، وأَبو الفَضْلِ بنُ طاهِرٍ وغيرُهُما .
Amongst the scholars who clarify that whatever the two Shaykhs have recorded gives the benefit of controvertible knowledge are the al-Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Isfaraini, and from the imams of Hadith Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Humaydi, Abu al-Fadl ibn Tahir, and others.
ويُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يُقالَ : المَزِيَّةُ المَذْكُورَةُ كَوْنُ أَحادِيثِهِما أَصَحَّ الصَّحيحِ .
It is possible to say that the aforementioned uniqueness refers to them being the most authentic of reports.
ومِنها : (( المَشْهورُ )) إِذا كانَتْ لهُ طُرُقٌ مُتبايِنَةٌ سالِمَةٌ مِنْ ضَعْفِ الرُّواةِ ، والعِلَلِ .
Amongst [the factors] is the Mashhur when it has clear, individual chains free from the weakness of narrators and hidden ailments.
وممَّن صَرَّحَ بإِفادَتِهِ العِلْمَ النَّظَرِيَّ الأسْتاذُ أَبو مَنْصورٍ البَغْدادِيُّ ، والأسْتاذُ أَبو بَكْرِ بنُ فُورَكٍ (( – بضم الفاء – )) وغيرُهُما .
Amongst those who have asserted that it gives the benefit of controvertible knowledge are al-Ustadh Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, al-Ustadh Abu Bakr ibn Firqak, and others.
ومِنها : (( المُسَلْسَلُ )) بالأئمَّةِ الحُفَّاظِ المُتْقِنينَ ، حيثُ لا يكونُ غَريباً ؛ كالحَديثِ [ الَّذي ] يَرْويهِ أَحمَدُ بنُ حَنْبَلٍ مَثلاً ويُشارِكُهُ فيهِ غَيْرُهُ عَنِ الشَّافِعِيِّ ، ويُشارِكُهُ [ فيهِ ] غيرُهُ عنْ مالِكِ بنِ أَنسٍ ؛ فإِنَّهُ يُفيدُ العِلْمَ عندَ سَامِعِهِ بالاستِدْلالِ مِن [ جِهَةِ ] جَلالَةِ رُواتِهِ ، وأَنَّ فيهِمْ مِنَ الصِّفاتِ اللاَّئِقَةِ المُوجِبَةِ للقَبولِ مَا يقومُ مَقامَ العَدَدِ الكَثيرِ مِنْ غَيْرِهِم .
Amongst [the factors] is the continuous Isnad consisting of the expert, competent imams, in such a way that it is not Gharib. [For instance], like the Hadith narrated by Ahmad ibn Hanbal (when someone else partners him) from al-Shafi’i (when someone else partners him), from Malik ibn Anas. For undoubtedly it gives the benefit of knowledge with evidence to the listener, in view of the grandeur of its narrators, and because they have suitable attributes that make them necessary to accept, which equals that which is narrated by a large number from others.
ولا يَتَشَكَّكُ مَنْ لَهُ [ أَدْنَى ] مُمارَسَةٍ بالعِلْمِ وأَخْبارِ النَّاسِ أَنَّ مالِكاً مَثلاً لو شافَهَهُ بخَبَرٍ أَنَّهُ صادِقٌ فيهِ ، فإِذا انْضافَ إِليهِ (( أيضاً )) مَنْ هُو في تِلْكَ الدَّرَجَةِ ؛ ازْدَادَ قُوَّةً ، وبَعُدَ عَمَّا يُخْشَى عليهِ مِنَ السَّهْوِ .
There can be no doubt for one who has the smallest knowledge of this field and of the information of people that if Malik – for example – participates in a Khabar, then he is truthful in it. When this is coupled with someone who is of that same rank, it increases in strength and the fearing of mistakes becomes distanced.
وهذهِ > الأنْواعُ الَّتي ذكَرْناها لا يَحْصُلُ العلمُ بصِدْقِ الخَبرِ منها إِلاَّ للعالِمِ بالحَديثِ ، المُتَبَحِّرِ فيهِ ، العارِفِ بأَحوالِ الرُّواةِ ، المُطَّلِعِ عَلى العِلَلِ .
With these types that we have mentioned, the knowledge of its authenticity is not attained except for a scholar of Hadith, who is emerged in its study, learned of the states of the narrators, and aware of the hidden ailments.
وكَوْنُ غيرِهِ لا يَحْصُلُ لهُ [ العِلْمُ ] بصِدْقِ ذلك لِقُصورِهِ عن الأوْصافِ المَذكورَةِ لا يَنْفي حُصولَ العِلْمِ للمُتَبَحِّرِ المَذْكورِ ، [ واللهُ أَعلمُ ] .
Others will not attain the knowledge of its authenticity because of his lack of these mentioned attributes, though it will for the experts.
ومُحَصّلُ الأنْواعِ الثَّلاَثَةِ الَّتي ذَكَرْناها :
أنَّ الأوَّلَ : يَخْتَصُّ بالصَّحيحينِ .
The attainment of these three types we have mentioned – the first is that which is specific to the two Sahihs,
والثاني : بِما لَهُ طُرُقٌ مُتَعَدِّدَةٌ .
and the second is that which has many chains,
والثَّالِثُ : بِما رواهُ الأئمَّةُ .
and the third is that which is narrated from the imams
ويمكِنُ اجْتماعُ الثَّلاثةِ في حَديثٍ واحِدٍ ، فلا يَبْعُدُ حينئذٍ القَطْعُ بصِدْقِهِ ، [ واللهُ أَعْلمُ ] .
is possible in one Hadith. At this time, it will not be far from being definitive in its authenticity. And Allah knows best.
[ ثمَّ الغَرابَةُ إِمَّا أَنْ تَكونَ في أَصلِ السَّنَدِ ؛ أي : [ في ] الموضعِ الَّذي يَدورُ الإِسنادُ عليهِ ويَرْجِعُ ، ولو تَعَدَّدَتِ الطُّرقُ إِليهِ ، وهو طرَفُهُ الَّذي فيهِ الصحابيُّ أَوْ لاَ ] يَكونُ كَذلكَ ؛ بأَنْ يَكونَ التَّفَرُّدُ في أَثنائِهِ ، كأَنْ يَرْوِيَه عَنِ الصَّحابيِّ أَكثَرُ مِنْ واحِدٍ ، ثمَّ يتفرَّدُ بروايَتِه عنْ واحِدٍ منهُم شَخْصٌ واحِدٌ .
Then the singularity is either at the root of the Isnad – which is the place where the chain circulates and returns to, even if the paths to it are numerous; namely the Companion’s side – or it is not at the root of the Isnad. This [latter form] is when the singularity occurs in its duration. [This is] like when more than one narrates from the Companion, then one person is alone in its narration.
فالأوَّلُ : الفَرْدُ المُطْلَقُ ؛ كَحديثِ النَّهْيِ عَنْ بيعِ الوَلاءِ وعَنْ هِبَتِهِ ؛ تفرَّدَ بهِ عبدُ اللهِ بنُ دينارٍ عنِ ابنِ عُمرَ .
Thus the first is Fard Mutlaq, like the Hadith of the prohibition of selling wal’ and of its gift. ‘Abd Allah ibn Dinar was alone from Ibn ‘Umar.
وقد يَتَفَرَّدُ بهِ رَاوٍ عَنْ ذلك المُتفرِّدِ ؛ كحديثِ شُعَبِ الإِيمانِ ؛ وقد تفرَّدَ بهِ أَبو صالحٍ عَنْ أَبي هُريرةَ ، وتفرَّدَ بهِ عبدُ اللهِ بنُ دينارٍ عَنْ أَبي صالحٍ .
Sometimes one narrator is solitary from that single person, like the ‘Branches of Faith’ Hadith. Abu Salih is alone from Abu Huraira, and ‘Abd Allah ibn Dinar is alone after Abu Salih.
وقدْ يَسْتَمِرُّ التفرُّدُ في جميعِ رواتِهِ أَوْ أَكْثَرِهمْ ، وفي (( مُسْنَدِ البَزَّارِ )) و (( المُعْجَم الأوسط ))للطَّبرانيِّ أَمثلةٌ كثيرةٌ لذلك .
Sometimes the singularity continues throughout the transmission or most of it. Many examples of such are in the Musnad of al-Bazzar and al-Mu’jam al-Awsat of Tabarani.
والثَّانِي : الفَرْدُ النِّسْبِيُّ سُمِّيَ نسبيّاً لكونِ التفرُّدِ فيهِ حصلَ بالنسبةِ إِلى شخصٍ معيَّنٍ ، وإِنْ كانَ الحَديثُ في نفسِه مشهوراً .
The second is Fard Nisb. It is called Nisb because the singularity has occurred in relation to a specific person, even if the Hadith per se is Mashhur.
ويقلُّ إِطلاقُ الفَرْدِيَّةِ عليهِ ؛ لأنَّ الغَريبَ والفَرْدَ مُترادِفانِ لغةً واصْطِلاحاً ؛ إِلاَّ أَنَّ أَهْلَ (( هذا ))الاصطِلاحِ غايَروا بينَهُما من حيثُ كَثْرَةُ الاستِعمالِ وقِلَّتُهُ .
Rarely is the term Fard applied to Fard Nisb, though Gharib and Fard are synonymous, literally and terminologically. However, the people of terminology have differentiated between the two in terms of frequent and infrequent usage.
فالفرْدُ أَكْثَرُ ما يُطْلِقونَهُ على الفَرْدِ المُطْلَقِ .
Thus Fard is mostly applied to Fard Mutlaq,
والغَريبُ أَكثرُ ما يُطْلِقونَهُ عَلى الفَرْدِ النِّسْبيِّ .
and Gharib is mostly applied to Fard Nisb.
وهذا مِن حيثُ إِطلاقُ الاسمِ عليهِما .
This is in terms of their usage as nouns.
وأَمَّا مِنْ حيثُ استِعْمالُهم الفِعْلَ المُشْتَقَّ ؛ فلا يُفَرِّقونَ ، فَيقولونَ في المُطْلَقِ والنِّسْبيِّ : تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ فُلانٌ ، أَوْ : أَغْرَبَ بِهِ فُلانٌ .
As for their usage in terms of the derived verb, then they do not differentiate. Thus they say for Mutlaq and Nisb, tafarrada bih fulan (‘x was solitary in reporting it’) or aghraba bih fulan (‘x was solitary in reporting it’).
وقَريبٌ مِن هذا اختِلافُهُم في المُنْقَطِعِ والمُرْسَلِ ؛ (( و )) هلْ هُما مُتغايِرانِ أَوْ لاَ ؟
Similar to this difference is Munqati’ and Mursal. Are they different or not?
فأَكْثَرُ المُحَدِّثين على التَّغايُرِ ، لكنَّهُ عندَ إطلاقِ الاسمِ ، وأمَّا عندَ اسْتِعمَالِ الفِعْل المُشْتَقِّ فيستَعْمِلونَ الإِرسالَ فقَطْ فيَقولونَ : أَرْسَلَهُ فلانٌ ، سواءٌ كانَ [ ذلكَ ] مُرْسَلاً أَوْ مُنْقَطِعاً .
Most scholars [agree] upon its difference, but [only] in terms of its usage as a noun. As for usage as the derived verb, they use irsal only. So they say arsalah fulan (‘x made it discontinuous’), regardless of whether that was Mursal or Munqati’.
ومِن ثَمَّ أَطْلَقَ غيرُ واحِدٍ – مِمَّن لم يلاحِظْ مواضِعَ اسْتِعمالِهِ – على كثيرٍ مِن المُحدِّثينَ أَنَّهُم لا يُغايِرونَ بينَ المُرْسَلِ والمُنْقَطِعِ !
وليسَ كذلك ؛ لما حَرَّرناهُ ، وقلَّ مَن نبَّهَ على النُّكْتَةِ في ذلك ، [ واللهُ أعلمُ ] .
Then there are numerous [scholars] who do not consider the place of its usage, in that they do not differentiate between Mursal and Munqati’. And they are not the same, for the reasons we have explained. Only a few are aware of this point. And Allah knows best.
وخبرُ الآحادِ ؛ بنقلِ عَدْلٍ تامِّ الضَّبْطِ ، مُتَّصِلَ السَّنَدِ ، غيرَ مُعَلَّلٍ ولا شاذٍّ : هو الصَّحيحُ لذاتِهِ ، وهذا أَوَّلُ تقسيمٍ مقبولٍ إِلى أربعةِ أَنواعٍ ؛ لأَنَّهُ إِمَّا أَنْ يشتَمِلَ مِن صفاتِ القَبولِ على أَعْلاها أَوْ لاَ :
الأوَّلُ : الصَّحيحُ لذاتِهِ .
The khabar al-hadith with the transmission of upright and completely accurate [narrators], coupled with the continuation of the isnad, without it being shadhdh or mu‘allal, is called sahih li-dhatih. This is the first division of the accepted into four types. This [division exists] because either it consists of attributes of acceptance upon its highest form, or it does not. The former is sahih li-dhatih,
والثَّاني : إِنْ وُجِدَ ما يَجْبُرُ ذلكَ القُصورَ ؛ ككثْرَةِ الطُّرُق ؛ فهُو الصَّحيحُ (( لذاته )) أَيضاً ، لكنْ لا لذاتِهِ .
and the second – if something is found which compensates for that shortcoming, like numerous chains – then it is sahihtoo, but not li-dhatih.
وحيثُ لا جُبْرانَ ؛ فهُو الحسنُ لذاتِهِ .
And where there is no compensating factor, then it is hasan li-dhatih.
وإِنْ قامَتْ قرينةٌ تُرَجِّحُ جانِبَ قَبولِ مَا يُتَوَقَّفُ فيهِ ؛ فهُو الحسنُ أيضاً ، [ لكنْ ] لا لذاتِهِ .
If an indication is found that gives preference to the side of acceptance in what was [previously] paused upon, then this is hasan too, but not li-dhatih.
وقُدِّمَ الكَلامُ على الصَّحيحِ لذاتِهِ لعُلُوِّ رُتْبَتِهِ .
The dialogue for sahih li-dhatih has been preceded because of its high rank.
والمُرادُ بالعَدْلِ : مَنْ (( ما )) لهُ مَلَكَةٌ تَحْمِلُهُ على مُلازمةِ التَّقوى والمُروءةِ .
What is meant by ‘upright’ is whosoever possesses a force that carries him upon the adherence of pious, courteous behaviour.
والمُرادُ بالتَّقوى : اجْتِنابُ الأعمالِ السَّيِّئةِ مِن شِرْكٍ أَو فِسقٍ أَو بِدعةٍ .
What is meant by piety (taqwa) is the refraining from evil acts, namely polytheism, lewdness, and innovation.
والضَّبْطُ (( ضبطان )) :
ضَبْطُ صَدْرٍ : وهُو [ أَنْ ] يُثْبِتَ ما سَمِعَهُ بحيثُ يتمكَّنُ مِن استحضارِهِ مَتى شاء .
‘Accuracy’ is of two types; the accuracy of the chest; this is that he preserves what he has heard in a fashion such that he can present it when he wishes.
وضَبْطُ كِتابٍ : وهُو صيانَتُهُ لديهِ مُنذُ سمِعَ فيهِ وصحَّحَهُ إِلى أَنْ يُؤدِّيَ منهُ .
[And the second type of accuracy] is accuracy of the book; this is protecting it in his possession from the time that he heard it, to verify it, until the point he gives it.
وقُيِّدَ بـ (( التَّامِّ )) إِشارةً إِلى الرُّتبةِ العُليا في ذلكَ .
Added is the condition of ‘completely’ to indicate the higher rank in that.
والمُتَّصِلُ : ما سَلِمَ إِسنادُه مِن سُقوطٍ فيهِ ، بحيثُ يكونُ كُلٌّ مِن رجالِه سَمِعَ ذلكَ المَرْوِيَّ مِنْ شيخِهِ .
‘Continuation’ is that whose isnad is free from any drop, in the sense that all of them from the men have heard the narrated [text] from their shaykh.
والسَّنَدُ : تقدَّمَ تعريفُهُ .
The ‘sanad’; its definition has been mentioned.
والمُعَلَّلُ لُغةً : ما فِيهِ عِلَّةٌ ، واصطِلاحاً : ما فيهِ عِلَّةٌ خَفِيَّةٌ قادِحةٌ .
‘Mu‘allal’ literally is that which contains a defect. Terminologically, it is that in which there is a hidden, defamatory, defect.
والشَّاذُّ لُغةً : المُنفَرِدُ ، واصطِلاحًا : ما يُخالِفُ فيهِ الرَّاوي مَنْ هُو أَرْجَحُ منهُ .
ولهُ تفسيرٌ آخرُ سيأْتي .
Shadhdh literally means solitarily and terminologically, it is that [tradition] in which the narrator has been opposed by someone more preferred. And for it is another interpretation; this will soon come, if Allah wills.
تنبيهٌ : قولُهُ : (( [ و ] خبرُ الآحادِ )) ؛ كالجِنْسِ ، وباقي قُيودِهِ كالفَصْلِ .
Note: His saying ‘and the khabar al-hadith’ is like the jins and the remaining conditions are like fasl.
وقولُهُ : (( بِنَقْلِ عَدْلٍ )) ؛ احْتِرازٌ عَمَّا يَنْقُلُهُ غيرُ العَدْلِ .
His saying ‘with the transmission of upright’ excludes what is transmitted by non-upright [reporters].
وقوله : (( هُو )) يسمَّى فَصْلاً يتَوَسَّطُ بينَ المُبتَدَإِ والخَبَرِ ، يُؤذِنُ بأَنَّ ما بَعْدَهُ خَبرٌ عَمَّا قَبْلَهُ ، وليسَ بِنَعْتٍ لهُ .
His saying ‘it’ [huwa] is called fasl; it appears between the predicate and the news. It states that whatever appears after it is the news for what is before it and is not its description.
وقولُهُ : (( لذاته )) ؛ يُخْرِجُ ما يسمَّى صحيحاً بأَمرٍ خارِجٍ عنهُ ؛ كما تقدَّمَ .
And his saying ‘li-dhatih’ excludes that which is sahih through an external matter, like it has passed.
وتتفاوَتُ رُتَبُهُ ؛ أي : الصَّحيحُ ، بـِ [سببِ ] تفاوُتِ هذهِ الأوْصافِ المُقْتَضِيَةِ للتَّصحيحِ في القُوَّةِ ؛ فإِنَّها لمَّا كانَتْ مُفيدةً لغَلَبَةِ الظَّنِّ الَّذي عليهِ مَدارُ الصِّحَّةِ ؛ اقْتَضَتْ أَنْ يكونَ [ لها ] دَرجاتٌ بعضُها فَوْقَ بعضٍ بحَسَبِ الأمورِ المُقَوِّيةِ .
The ranks of sahih differ, according to the varying attributes that are required for authenticity in terms of strength. For indeed when it gives the benefit of overwhelming thought – upon which is the basis of soundness – this stipulates that for it will be stages, some higher than others in accordance to the strengthening matters.
وإِذا كانَ كذلك فما يَكونُ رُواتُهُ في الدَّرجةِ العُليا مِن العدالَةِ والضَّبْطِ وسائِرِ الصِّفاتِ التي تُوجِبُ التَّرجيحَ (( له )) ؛ كانَ أَصحَّ ممَّا دونَهُ .
When the matter is as such, then that [report] whose transmitters are of the highest calibre in reliability and accuracy and all of the other attributes that necessitate soundness will be more authentic than what is void of this.
فَمِنَ المَرْتَبَةِ العُلْيا في ذلك ما أَطْلَقَ [ عليهِ ] بعضُ الأئمَّةِ أَنَّهُ أَصحُّ الأسانيدِ :
كالزُّهْريِّ عن سالِمِ بنِ عبدِ اللهِ بنِ عُمَرَ عن أَبيهِ .
Thus from the highest rank in that [matter] is that which some imams have declared as the most sound of chains; like al-Zuhri — Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar — his father;
وكمحمَّدٍ بنِ سيرينَ عن عَبيدةَ بنِ عَمْروٍ [ السَّلْمانِيِّ ] عَن عَليٍّ (( بن أبي طالب )) .
and like Muhammad ibn Sa‘id — ‘Ubayda ibn ‘Amr — ‘Ali; and
وكَإِبراهيمَ النَّخَعِيِّ عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ عن ابنِ مَسعودٍ .
like Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i — ‘Alqama — Ibn Mas‘ud.
ودونَها في الرُّتبةِ : كرِوايةِ بُرَيْدِ بنِ عبدِ اللهِ بنِ أَبي بُرْدَةَ عن جَدِّهِ عن أَبيهِ أَبي مُوسى (( الأشعري )) .
Less than that in rank is like Burayd ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar ibn Abi Burda — his grandfather — his father Abu Musa;
وكَحمَّادِ بنِ سَلَمَةَ عن ثابِتٍ (( البناني )) عَنْ أَنسٍ .
and like Hammad ibn Salama — Thabit — Anas.
ودُونَها في الرُّتْبَةِ :
[ كسُهَيْلِ ] بنِ أَبي صالحٍ عَنْ أَبيهِ عن أَبي هُريرةَ .
Less than that in rank is like Suhayl ibn Abi Salih — his father — Abu Huraira;
وكالعَلاءِ بنِ عبدِ الرحمن عن أَبيهِ عن أَبي هُريرةَ .
and like ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman — his father — Abu Huraira.
فإِنَّ الجَميعَ يشمَلُهُم [ اسمُ ] العَدالَةِ والضَّبْطِ ؛ إِلاَّ أَنَّ (( في )) للمَرْتَبَةِ الأولى (( فيهم )) مِن الصِّفاتِ المُرَجِّحَةِ ما يقتَضي تقديمَ روايتِهِم على الَّتي تَليها ، وفي الَّتي تليها مِنْ قوَّةِ الضَّبْطِ ما يقتَضي تقديمَها على الثَّالِثَةِ ، وهِي مُقدَّمةٌ على رِوايةِ مَن يُعَدُّ مَا يَنْفَرِدُ بِهِ حَسناً ؛ كمحمَّد بنِ إِسحاقَ عن عاصمِ بنِ عُمرَ (( بن قتادة )) عن جابرٍ ، و (( عن )) عمروِ بنِ شُعَيْبٍ عنْ أَبيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ .
For verily, all of them comprise the name of integrity and accuracy, except that in the highest stage are preferred attributes that stipulate precedence over the ones which are next. In the next stage are strengths of accuracy that stipulate precedence upon the third. And this [third stage] is preceded upon the ones which are considered as Fair only, like Muhammad ibn Ishaq ‘Usim ibn ‘Umar Jabir; and [like] ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather.
وقِسْ على هذهِ المراتِبِ ما يُشبِهُها .
Perform analogy with these stages with that which is similar to it in [terms of] preferred attributes.
(( و )) المرتَبَةُ الأولي هِيَ الَّتي أَطلَقَ عليها بعضُ الأئمَّةِ أَنَّها أَصحُّ الأسانيدِ ، والمُعْتَمَدُ عدمُ الإِطلاقِ لترجَمةٍ معيَّنةٍ منها .
The highest rank is that which some imams have declared as the ‘most sound of chains.’ The depended [opinion] is the non-declaration [with this title] to a specific chain.
نعم ؛ يُستَفَادُ مِن مجموعِ ما أَطلقَ الأئمَّةُ عليهِ ذلك أَرجَحِيَّتُهُ على ما لَمْ يُطْلِقوهُ .
Yes, the chains that the imams have mentioned [as such] are deserved of precedence over the chains they have not declared as such.
ويلْتَحِقُ بهذا التَّفاضُلِ ما اتَّفَقَ الشَّيخانِ على تَخريجِه بالنِّسبةِ إِلى ما انْفَرَدَ بِهِ أَحَدُهُما ، وما انْفَرَدَ بهِ البُخاريُّ بالنِّسبةِ إلى ما انْفَرَدَ بهِ مُسلمٌ ؛ لاتِّفاقِ العُلماءِ بعدِهِما على تلقِّي كِتابَيْهِما بالقَبولِ ، واختِلافِ بعضِهِم على أَيِّهِما أَرْجَحُ ، فما اتَّفقا عليهِ أَرجَحُ مِن هذهِ الحيثيَّةِ ممَّا لم يتَّفقا عليهِ .
Related to this superiority is that which the two shaykhs have agreed upon in [recording it in their] compilations, in relation to what [only] one of them has recorded. [This is followed by] what al-Bukhari has recorded in relation to what Muslim has recorded alone. [This is] because of the agreement of the scholars after them of taking their books with acceptance. There is a dispute regarding which one of them is preferred; [though] what they both agree on is more preferred in this respect over what they have not agreed upon.
وقد صرَّحَ الجمهورُ بتقديمِ (( صحيحِ البُخاريِّ )) في الصِّحَّةِ ، ولم يوجَدْ عنْ أحدٍ التَّصريحُ بنقيضِهِ .
The majority has clarified the precedence of the Sahih of al-Bukhari in terms of soundness. The opposite claim (that Sahih of Muslim is preferred) has not been found from anyone.
وأَمّا ما نُقِلَ عَن أبي عليٍّ النَّيْسابوريِّ أَنَّهُ قالَ : ما تحتَ أَديمِ السَّماءِ أَصحُّ مِن كتابِ مُسلمٍ ؛ فلمْ يُصرِّحْ بكونِه أَصحَّ مِن صحيحِ البُخاريِّ ؛ لأَنَّهُ إِنَّما نَفَى وُجودَ كتابٍ أَصحَّ مِن كتابِ مسلم ؛ إِذ المَنْفِيُّ إِنَّما هُو ما تَقْتَضيهِ صيغَةُ أَفْعَلَ من زيادَةِ صحَّةٍ في كتابٍ شارَكَ كتابَ مُسلمٍ في الصِّحَّةِ ، يمتازُ بتلكَ الزِّيادَةِ عليه ، ولم يَنْفِ المُساواةَ .
As for what has been reported from Abu Ali al-Nasibi that ‘there is nothing under the sky more authentic than the book of Muslim,’ he did not state that it is more authentic than the Sahih of al-Bukhari. This is because he merely negated the existence of a book more authentic than the book of Muslim, since the negated fact here – by use of the term af‘al – is a book similar to Muslim’s in authenticity.He did not negate the [possible] equality [of the two in terms of authenticity].
وكذلكَ ما نُقِلَ عنْ بعضِ المَغارِبَةِ أَنَّهُ فَضَّلَ صحيحَ مُسلمٍ على صحيحِ البُخاريِّ ؛ فذلكَ فيما يرجِعُ إِلى حُسْنِ السِّياقِ وجَوْدَةِ الوَضْعِ والتَّرتِيبِ .
Similar to this is what has been reported from some scholars of the west (North Africa) in giving superiority to the Sahih of Muslim over the Sahih of al-Bukhari. This [statement] refers to the good style, excellent placing and arrangement; no one has said that this superiority refers to its authenticity.
ولم يُفْصِحْ أَحدٌ منهُم بأَنَّ ذلكَ راجِعٌ إِلى الأصحِّيَّةِ ، ولو أَفْصَحوا به لردَّهُ عليهِمْ شاهِدُ الوُجودِ ، فالصِّفاتُ الَّتي تدورُ عليها الصِّحَّةُ في كتابِ البُخاريِّ أَتمُّ منها في كتابِ مسلمٍ وأَشَدُّ ، وشرطُهُ فيها أَقوى وأَسَدُّ .
Were they to maintain [the claim], then the clear reality would refute them. For instance, the attributes upon which the soundness rotates are more complete and rigid in the book of al-Bukhari than in the book of Muslim. His conditions in it are stronger and firmer.
أَمَّا رُجْحانُهُ مِن حيثُ الاتصالُ ؛ فلاشْتِراطِهِ أَنْ يكونَ الرَّاوِي قَدْ ثَبَتَ لهُ لِقاءُ مَنْ روى عنهُ ولو مَرَّةً ، واكْتَفى مُسْلِمٌ بمُطْلَقِ المُعاصَرَةِ ، وأَلْزَمَ البُخاريَّ بأَنَّهُ يحتاجُ [ إِلى ] أَنْ لا يقْبَلَ العَنْعَنَةَ أَصلاً !
His conditions in it are stronger and firmer. As for preferring al-Bukhari in terms of the continuity [of the isnad], his condition is that the meeting of the reporter from whom he heard from must be proven, even if it is [only] once. Muslim merely depended on them being contemporaries. As a result, al-Bukhari has been objected upon that he should be required not to accept mu‘an‘an at all.
وما أَلْزَمَهُ بهِ ليسَ بلازِمٍ ؛ لأنَّ الرَّاويَ إِذا ثبتَ [ لهُ ] اللِّقاءُ مرَّةً ؛ لا يجْري في رواياتِهِ احْتِمالُ أَنْ لا يكونَ (( قد )) سمِعَ [ منهُ ] ؛ لأنَّهُ يلزمُ مِن جَريانِهِ أَنْ يكونَ مُدَلِّساً ، والمسأَلةُ مَفروضَةٌ في غير المُدَلِّسِ .
This objection directed upon him is not valid, because when the meeting of a narrator has been proven once, the possibility that he has not heard from him no longer exists. And if he has not heard from him, then it follows that he is a mudallis; and this matter is regarding other than the mudallis.
وأَمَّا رُجْحَانُهُ مِنْ حيثُ العَدالَةُ والضَّبْطُ ؛ فلأنَّ الرِّجالَ الَّذينَ تُكُلَِّمَ فيهِم مِن رجالِ مُسلِمٍ أَكثرُ عَدداً مِن الرِّجالِ الَّذينَ تُكُلِّمَ فيهِم مِن رجالِ البُخاريِّ ، معَ أَنَّ البُخارِيَّ لم يُكْثِرْ مِن إِخراجِ حَديثِهِمْ ، بل غالِبُهُمْ مِن شيوخِهِ الذينَ أَخَذَ عنهُم ومَارَسَ حَديثَهُم ، بخِلافِ مُسلمٍ في الأمْرَينِ .
As for his preference in terms of the credibility and accuracy [of the reporters], the men who have been criticised from the men of Muslim are more in number than the men of al-Bukhari, along with the fact that al-Bukhari did not utilise them often. In fact, most of them are his own shaykhs who he [directly] took from and was familiar with their reports. [This is] as opposed to Muslim in both matters.
وأَمَّا رُجْحانُهُ مِن حيثُ عدمُ الشُّذوذِ والإِعلالِ ؛ فلأنَّ ما انْتُقِدَ [ على البُخاريِّ مِن الأحاديثِ أَقلُّ عدداً مِمَّا انْتُقِدَ ] على مُسْلِمٍ ، هذا مع اتِّفاقِ العُلماءِ على أنَّ البُخاريَّ كانَ أَجلَّ مِن مُسْلِمٍ في العُلومِ وأَعْرَفَ بصِناعةِ الحَديثِ مِنهُ ، وأَنَّ مُسلماً تِلْميذهُ وخِرِّيجُهُ ، ولم يزَلْ يَسْتَفيدُ منهُ ويتَتَبَّعُ آثارَهُ حتَّى (( لقد )) قالَ الدَّارَقُطنِيُّ : لولا البُخاريُّ لَما راحَ مُسْلِمٌ ولا جَاءَ .
As for [al-Bukhari’s] preference in terms of not being shadhdh or mu‘allal, the reports of al-Bukhari that have been criticised are less than the reports of Muslim that have been criticised. This along with the consensus of the scholars upon the fact that al-Bukhari was more competent than Muslim in the disciplines, more learned in hadith, and that Muslim was his student and graduate who continued to take benefit from him and follow his steps. To the extent that al-Daraqutni said: ‘If al-Bukhari had not [existed], there would never have been Muslim.’
ومن ثَمَّ ؛ أي : (( و )) من هذه الحيثيَّةِ – وهي أَرجحيَّةُ شَرْطِ البُخاريِّ على غيرِه – قُدِّمَ (( صحيحُ البُخاريِّ )) على غيرِه من الكُتُبِ المُصَنَّفةِ في الحديثِ .
From this – namely from the aspect of the preference of al-Bukhari’s conditions over others – the Sahih of al-Bukhari is preferred over others from the books written in hadith;
ثمَّ صحيحُ مُسْلِمٍ ؛ لمُشارَكَتِه للبُخاريِّ في اتِّفاقِ العُلماءِ على تَلَقِّي كِتابِهِ بالقَبولِ أَيضاً ، سوى ما عُلِّلَ .
then the Sahih of Muslim, because of its coupling with al-Bukhari in the agreement of the scholars of accepting their books, other than those which are mu‘allal;
ثمَّ يُقَدَّمُ في الأرجحيَّةِ من حيثُ الأصحِّيَّةُ ما وافَقَهُ شَرْطُهُما ؛ لأنَّ المُرادَ به رواتُهُما معَ باقي شُروطِ الصَّحيحِ ، ورواتُهما قد حَصَلَ الاتِّفاقُ على القَوْلِ بتَعديلِهِمْ بطريقِ اللُّزومِ ، فهم مُقَدَّمونَ على غيرِهم في رِواياتِهم ، وهذا أَصلٌ لا يُخْرَجُ عنهُ إِلاَّ بدليلٍ .
then preferred in terms of soundness is that which complies with both of its conditions, because what is meant by this is their reporters with the present of their conditions. And the consensus has been reached in accepting their reporters as credible by the means of necessity; thus they are preferred over others. This is a principle that cannot be reversed except with evidence.
فإِنْ كانَ الخَبَرُ على شَرْطِهما معاً ؛ كانَ دونَ ما أَخرَجَهُ مسلمٌ أَو مثله .
If [the narration] complies with both of their conditions together, it will be less than what Muslim narrates or his likes.
وإِنْ كانَ على شَرْطِ أَحَدِهما ؛ فيُقَدَّمُ شَرْطُ البُخاريِّ وحْدَه على شرطِ مُسلمٍ وحدَه تَبَعاً لأصلِ كُلٍّ منهُما .
If [the narration] complies with one of their conditions, then the report that complies with al-Bukhari alone is preferred over the one that complies with Muslim alone, following the principle for each.
فخَرَجَ لنا مِن هذا سِتَّةُ أَقسامٍ تتفاوتُ دَرَجاتُها في الصِّحَّةِ .
Thus, derived from this account are six types that differ in rank of soundness.
وثَمَّةَ قسمٌ سابعٌ ، وهو ما ليسَ على شرطِهما اجتِماعاً وانْفراداً .
Then there is a seventh type; and that is what complies with neither of their conditions, collectively and individually.
وهذا التَّفاوتُ إِنَّما هو بالنَّظرِ إِلى الحيثيَّةِ المذكورةِ .
And this ranking is merely in view of the aforementioned method.
أَمَّا لو [ رُجِّحَ ] قِسْمٌ على ما (( هو )) فَوْقَهُ بأُمورٍ أُخرى تقتَضي التَّرْجيحَ ؛ فإِنَّهُ يُقَدَّمُ على ما فَوْقَهُ – إذ قَدْ يَعْرِضُ للمَفوقِ مَا يجعَلُهُ فائقاً – .
And this ranking is merely in view of the aforementioned method. If, for instance, one type is preferred over another through a means which necessitates preference, then it is preceded, as sometimes a factor features which makes it higher in ranking.
كما لو كان الحديثُ عندَ مُسلم [ مثلاً ] ، وهُو مشهورٌ قاصِرٌ عن دَرَجَةِ التَّواتُرِ ، لكنْ حَفَّتْهُ قرينةٌ صارَ بها يُفيدُ العِلْمَ ؛ فإِنَّه يُقَدَّمُ (( بها )) على الحديثِ الذي يُخْرِجُهُ البُخاريُّ إِذا كانَ فَرْداً مُطْلقاً .
Like [for example] a hadith with Muslim that is mashhur though short from the stage of mutawatir, that possesses a factor which makes it give the benefit of knowledge; undoubtedly this is preferred to a hadith that al-Bukhari records alone.
وكما لو كانَ الحَديثُ الَّذي لم يُخْرِجَاهُ مِن ترجمةٍ وُصِفَتْ بكونِها أَصَحَّ الأسانيدِ كمالِكٍ عن نافعٍ عن ابنِ عُمرَ ؛ فإِنه يُقَدَّمُ على ما انفرَدَ بهِ أَحدُهُما مثلاً ، لا سيَّما إِذا كانَ في إِسنادِهِ مَن فيهِ مَقالٌ .
Similarly, a hadith that neither have recorded but has been deemed as the ‘most sound of chains’ like Malik, from Nafi‘, from Ibn ‘Umar; for indeed this is preferred over that which only one of them records, especially when their isnad contains a reporter in which there is doubt.
فإِنْ خَفَّ الضَّبْطُ ؛ أي: قلَّ – يُقالُ : خَفَّ القومُ خُفوفاً : قَلُّوا – والمُرادُ معَ بقيَّةِ الشُّروطِ [ المُتقدِّمَةِ ] في حَدِّ الصَّحيحِ ؛ فـهُو الحَسَنُ لذاتِهِ (( لاشتهاره )) [ لا لِشيءٍ خارِجٍ ] ، وهُو الَّذي (( قد ))يكونُ حُسْنُهُ بسببِ الاعْتِضادِ ، نحوُ حديثِ المَسْتُورِ إِذا تعَدَّدَتْ طُرُقُه .
If the accuracy is lighter – namely less; it is said khaffa al-qawm khuf f, when it decreases – and what is meant here is with the presence of the remaining aforementioned conditions in the definition of sahih, then this is hasan li-dhtih, and not by other. Hasan is a report whose [grade of] fairness is because of compensating factors, like, for example, a master hadith when its paths become numerous.
وخَرَجَ باشْتِراطِ باقي الأوْصافِ الضَّعيفُ .
By mentioning the remaining conditions of [sahih], the weak is excluded.
وهذا القِسْمُ مِنَ الحَسَنِ مُشارِكٌ للصَّحيحِ في الاحتِجاجِ بهِ ، وإِنْ كانَ دُونَه ، ومشابِهٌ لهُ في انْقِسامِه إِلى مراتِبَ بعضُها فوقَ بعضٍ .
By mentioning the remaining conditions of [sahih], the weak is excluded. This type of hasan is synonymous to sahih in terms of usage as evidence, though it is less than it [in rank].
وبِكثْرَةِ طُرُقِهِ يُصَحَّحُ ؛ وإِنَّما يُحْكَمُ لهُ بالصِّحَّةِ عندَ تعدُّدِ الطُّرُقِ ؛ لأنَّ للصُّورةِ المجموعةِ قُوَّةً تَجْبُرُ القَدْرَ الَّذي قَصَّرَ (( الوصفين )) بهِ [ ضَبْطُ ] راوِي الحَسَنِ عن راوي الصَّحيحِ ، ومِن ثَمَّ تُطلَقُ [الصِّحَّةُ ] على الإِسنادِ الَّذي يكونُ حسناً لذاتِه لو تفرَّدَ إِذا تَعَدَّدَ .
It is [also] synonymous to it in its division into ranks, some above others. And with numerous chains, it becomes sound. It is declared as sound with more chains because the collective form now has a power by which the lack of accuracy of the fair narrator is compensated for. Then [the term] sound is called upon the chain which is hasan li-dhtih, when the chains become numerous.
وهذا حيثُ ينفردُ الوصفُ .
And this is [only] when the attribute is solitary.
فإِنْ جُمِعا ؛ أي : الصَّحيحُ والحسنُ في وصفِ [ حديثٍ ] واحدٍ ؛ كقولِ التِّرمذيِّ وغيرِه : [ حديثٌ ] حَسَنٌ صحيحٌ ؛ فللتَّرَدُّدِ الحاصلِ مِن المُجتهدِ في النَّاقِلِ ؛ هل اجتَمَعَتْ فيهِ شُروطُ الصِّحَّةِ أَو قَصَّرَ عَنْها ؟!
وهذا حَيْثُ يَحْصُلُ منهُ التَّفرُّدُ بتلكَ الرِّوايةِ .
Thus if they both gather, namely sahih and hasan in one description; like the saying of al-Tirmidhi and others: ‘[this is a] hasan sahih hadith’, then this results in confusion for the mujtahid in its transmission. Does it entail the conditions of sahih or not? This is the case when the report in question is solitary.
وعُرِف بهذا جوابُ مَن اسْتَشْكَلَ الجَمْعَ بينَ الوصفينِ ، فقالَ : الحسنُ قاصرٌ عنِ الصَّحيحِ ، ففي الجمعِ بينَ الوَصفَيْنِ إِثباتٌ لذلك القُصورِ ونَفْيُه !
ومُحَصّلُ الجوابِ أَنَّ تردُّدَ أَئمَّةِ الحديثِ في حالِ ناقلِه اقْتَضى للمُجتهدِ أَنْ لا يصِفَهُ بأَحدِ الوَصفَينِ ، (( معيناً )) فيُقالُ فيهِ : حسنٌ ؛ باعتبارِ وَصْفِه عندَ [ قومٍ ] ، صحيحٌ باعتبارِ وصفِهِ عندَ قومٍ (( آخرين )) .
And it will be clarified in this [discussion] the answer to those who deem it difficult to reconcile between the two attributes and who say ‘hasan is less than sahih’ like it is known from each of the definitions. So in gathering the two attributes is an affirmation for that shortcoming and its negation.
وغايةُ ما فيهِ أَنَّه حَذَفَ [ منهُ ] حرفَ التردُّدِ ؛ لأنَّ حقَّهُ أَنْ يقولَ : حَسَنٌ أَو صحيحُ .
The summary of the answer [to this] is that it is required from the mujtahid not to describe it with one attribute [to the exclusion of the other]. Thus it can be said ‘hasan’ with consideration of its attribute according to one community, ‘sahih’ with consideration of its attribute according to another community.
وهذا كما حَذَفَ حَرْفَ العَطفِ مِن الَّذي (( يقول )) بَعْدَهُ .
The conclusion of this is that the particle of doubt (i.e. ‘or’) has been omitted. This is because he should have said ‘hasan or sahih’. This is similar to how the particle of conjunction has been omitted from the type described after this.
وعلى هذا ؛ فما قيلَ فيهِ حَسَنٌ صحيحٌ ؛ دونَ ما قيلَ فيهِ : صَحيحٌ ؛ لأنَّ الجزمَ أَقوى مِن التَّردُّدِ ، [ وهذا حيثُ التفرُّدُ ] .
Upon this [basis], that which is described as being ‘hasan sahih’ is less in rank than that in which is described as ‘sahih’, because conviction is stronger than doubt. This is when the report is solitary.
وإِلاَّ ؛ [ أَي ] : إِذا لم يَحْصُلِ التَّفرُّدُ ؛ فـإِطلاقُ الوَصفَيْنِ معاً على الحديثِ يكونُ باعْتِبارِ إِسنَادَيْنِ، أحدُهُما صحيحٌ ، والآخرُ حسنٌ .
When it is not, namely when the narration is not solitary, then the calling of two attributes simultaneously on one report is done according to it possessing two chains; one of them is sahih and the other is hasan.
وعلى هذا ؛ فما قيلَ فيهِ : حسنٌ صحيحٌ ؛ فوقَ ما قيلَ فيهِ : صحيحٌ ؛ [ فقطْ ] إذا كانَ فَرْداً ؛ لأنَّ كثرةَ الطُّرقِ تُقَوِّي .
And upon this [basis], that which is described as being ‘hasan sahih’ is higher in rank than that in which is described as ‘sahih’ only when it is fard, because numerous chains strengthen [the report’s validity].
فإِنْ قيلَ : قدْ صَرَّحَ التِّرمِذيُّ بأَنَّ شَرْطَ الحَسَنِ أَنْ يُرْوى مِن غيرِ وجْهٍ ، فكيفَ يقولُ في بعضِ الأحاديثِ : حسنٌ غَريبٌ لا نعرِفُه إِلاَّ مِن هذا الوجهِ ؟!
فالجوابُ : أَنَّ التِّرمذيَّ لم يُعَرِّفِ الحَسَنَ المُطْلَقَ ، وإِنَّما عَرَّفَ بنوع خاصٍّ منهُ وقعَ في كتابِه ، وهُو ما يقولُ فيهِ : (( حسن )) ؛ من غيرِ صفةٍ أُخرى ، وذلك أَنَّهُ يقولُ في بعضِ الأحاديثِ : (( حسنٌ )) ، وفي بعضِها : (( صحيحٌ )) ، وفي بعضِها : (( غريبٌ )) ، وفي بعضِها : (( حسنٌ صحيحٌ ))، وفي بعضِها : (( حسنٌ غَريبٌ )) ، وفي بعضِها : (( صحيحٌ غريبٌ )) ، [ وفي بعضِها : [((حسنٌ صحيحٌ غريبٌ )) ] ] .
If it is said that al-Tirmidhi has clarified that the condition of hasan is that it is narrated by more than one path, then how can he say in some reports, ‘hasan gharib, we do not know of it except by this path’? The answer is that al-Tirmidhi did not define hasan in general; he merely defined it specifically for his book. This is for when the report is ‘hasan’ without another attribute [attached to it]. In [describing] some reports, he says ‘hasan’ and in some ‘sahih’ and in some ‘gharib’ and in some ‘hasan sahih’ and in some ‘hasan gharib’ and in some ‘hasan sahih gharib’.
وتعريفُه إِنَّما (( هو )) [ وقعَ ] على الأوَّلِ فقطْ ، وعبارتُه تُرشِدُ إِلى ذلك ، حيثُ قال في آخِرِ كتابِه : وما قُلْنا في كتابِنا : (( حديثٌ [ حسنٌ ] )) ؛ فإِنَّما أَرَدْنا بهِ حَسَنٌ إِسنادِهِ عندَنا ، [ إِذْ ] كُلُّ حديثٍ يُرْوي (( و )) لا يكونُ راويهِ مُتَّهَماً بكَذِبٍ ، ويُروي مِن غيرِ وجْهٍ نحو ذلك ، ولا يكونُ شاذّاً ؛ فهو عندَنا حديثٌ حسنٌ .
His definition [of hasan] only applied to the first (hasan). His writings suggest that when he said at the end of his book:
And a hadith described as hasan in our book, we merely intend it to mean hasan in terms of its chain according to us. Every hadith which is narrated by people who have not been accused of lying, and is narrated by more than one chain of its like, and is not shadhdh, this is considered as hasan according to us.
فعُرِف بهذا أَنَّهُ إِنَّما عَرَّفَ الَّذي يقولُ فيه : (( حَسنٌ )) فقطْ ، أَمَّا ما يقولُ فيهِ : (( حسنٌ صحيحٌ )) ، أو : (( حسنٌ غريبٌ )) ، أو : (( حسنٌ صحيحٌ غريبٌ )) ؛ فلم يُعَرِّجْ على تعريفِه ؛كما لم يُعَرِّجْ على تعريفِ ما يقولُ فيهِ : (( صحيحٌ )) فقط ، أو : (( غريبٌ )) فقط .
Hence it is deduced from this that he only defined that hadith which is called ‘hasan’ only. As for that for which he says ‘hasan sahih’ or ‘hasan gharib’ or ‘hasan sahih gharib’ he did not indulge in its definition, like he did not indulge in the definition of ‘sahih’ only or ‘gharib’ only.
وكأنَّهُ تَرَكَ ذلك اسْتِغناءً بشُهرَتِه عندَ أَهلِ الفنِّ ، واقْتصرَ على تعريفِ ما يقولُ فيهِ في كتابهِ : ((حسنٌ )) فقط ؛ إِمَّا لغُموضِهِ ، وإِمَّا لأنَّهُ اصطِلاحٌ جديدٌ ، ولذلك قيَّدَهُ بقولِه : (( عندنا )) ، ولم ينْسِبْهُ إِلى أَهلِ الحديثِ كما فعل الخَطَّابيُّ .
It is as if he left out defining these because of lack of need, as they were known by the people of this discipline. He sufficed on the definition of ‘hasan’ only either because of its ambiguity or because it was a new terminology. And that is why he added ‘according to us’ to his definition and he did not ascribe it [universally] to the people of hadith, just as al-Khatib did.
وبهذا التَّقريرِ يندفعُ كثيرٌ مِن الإِيراداتِ التي طالَ البحثُ فيها ولمْ يُسْفِرْ وجْهُ توجيهِها ، فللهِ الحمدُ على ما أَلهَم وعَلَّمَ .
With this analysis many objections that lengthen the discussion and do not lead to a preferential view are repelled. So for Allah is praise upon what He has inspired and taught.
وزِيادةُ راويهِما ؛ أي : الصَّحيحِ والحَسنِ ؛ مقبولةٌ ؛ مَا لمْ تَقَعْ مُنافِيَةً لِـروايةِ مَنْ هُو أَوْثَقُ ممَّن لم يَذْكُرْ تلك الزِّيادةِ :
[ لأنَّ الزِّيادةَ ] : إِمَّا [ أَنْ ] تكونَ لا تَنافِيَ بينَها وبينَ روايةِ مَن لم يَذْكُرْها ؛ فهذه تُقْبَلُ مُطْلقاً ؛ لأنَّها في حُكْمِ الحديثِ المُستقلِّ الذي ينفرِدُ بهِ الثِّقةُ ولا يَرويه عن شيخِهِ غيرُه .
The addition of their narrators, namely hasan and sahih, is accepted so long as it does not contradict the narration of someone more authoritative who has not mentioned that addition. [This is] because the addition is either such that it does not contradict between it and between the report that does not mention it. Thus this is generally accepted, because it is like the principle of a solitary hadith which an authoritative narrator has reported alone and no one else reports it from his shaykh
وإِمَّا أَنْ تكونَ مُنافِيةً بحيثُ يلزمُ مِن قبولِها رَدُّ الرِّوايةِ الأخرى ، فهذه (( هي )) التي يَقَعُ التَّرجيحُ بينها وبينَ معارِضِها ، [ فيُقْبَلُ الرَّاجحُ ] ويُرَدُّ المرجوحُ .
Or either it contradicts it in the sense that accepting this one will necessitate rejecting the other narration. Thus this is the one in which comparison is required between it and the one opposing it; so the more preferred will be accepted and the other will be rejected.
واشْتُهِرَ عَنْ جَمْعٍ مِن العُلماءِ القَوْلُ بقَبولِ الزِّيادةِ مُطْلقاً مِن غيرِ تفصيلٍ ، ولا يَتَأَتَّى ذلك على طريقِ المُحَدِّثينَ الَّذينَ يشتَرِطونَ في الصَّحيحِ أَنْ لا يكونَ شاذّاً ، ثمَّ يفسِّرونَ الشُّذوذَ بمُخالَفةِ الثِّقةِ مَن هو أَوثقُ منهُ .
There is a famous opinion from the scholars that the addition is unequivocally accepted without detail. This [opinion] cannot make sense from the [same] hadith scholars who identify the condition in sahih that it must not be shadhdh. They then define shadhdh as the opposition of a reliable narrator of someone more authoritative.
والعَجَبُ مِمَّنْ أَغفلَ ذلك منهُم معَ اعْتِرافِه باشْتِراطِ انْتفاءِ الشُّذوذِ في [ حدِّ ] [ الحديثِ ] الصَّحيحِ ، وكذا الحَسنِ .
It is surprising to see such negligence from them though they accept the condition in sahih of not being shadhdh, as well as in hasan.
والمَنقولُ عن أَئمَّةِ الحَديثِ المُتَقَدِّمينَ – كعبدِ الرحمنِ [ بنِ ] مَهْدي ، ويحيى القَطَّانِ ، وأَحمدَ بنِ حنبلٍ ، ويحيى بنِ مَعينٍ ، وعليِّ بنِ المَدينيِّ ، والبُخاريِّ ، وأَبي زُرْعةَ (( الرازي )) ، وأَبي حاتمٍ ، والنَّسائيِّ ، والدَّارقطنيِّ وغيرِهم – اعتبارُ التَّرجيحِ فيما يتعلَّقُ بالزِّيادةِ وغيرها ، ولا يُعْرَفُ عن أَحدٍ منهُم إِطلاقُ قَبولِ الزِّيادةِ .
Examination of the addition when deciding its worth has been transmitted from the classical hadith masters, like ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi (d. 198/814), Yahya al-Qattan (d. 198/813), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), Yahya ibn Ma‘in (d. 233/847), ‘Ali ibn al-Madini (d. 234/848), al-Bukhari (d. 256/870), Abu Zur‘a al-Razi (d. 264/877), Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327/938), al-Nasa’i (d. 303/915), al-Daraqutni (d. 375/985), and others. It is not known from any of them to accept the addition unequivocally.
وأَعْجَبُ مِن ذلك إِطلاقُ كثيرٍ مِن الشَّافعيَّةِ القَوْلَ بقَبولِ زِيادةِ الثِّقةِ ، معَ أَنَّ نصَّ الشافعيِّ يدلُّ على غيرِ ذلك ؛ فإِنَّهُ قالَ في أَثناءِ كلامِه على ما يُعْتَبَرُ [ بهِ ] حالُ الرَّاوي في الضَّبْطِ ما نَصُّهُ : ((ويكونُ إِذا أشْرَك أَحداً مِن الحُفَّاظِ لم يُخالِفْهُ ، فإِنْ خالَفَهُ فوُجِدَ حديثُهُ أَنْقَصَ كانَ في ذلك دليلٌ [ على ] صحَّةِ مَخْرَجِ حديثِهِ ، ومتى خالَفَ ما وَصَفْتُ أَضرَّ ذلك بحديثِهِ )) [ انتهى كلامه ] .
More surprising is the opinion of some Shafi’i scholars who unequivocally accept the addition, though the text of al-Imam al-Shafi’i indicates otherwise. For indeed he said, when describing the state of a narrator’s accuracy, that:
“…and when one of the hafiz share the report he does not oppose them. If it does, and the hadith is shorter, then this is proof upon the authenticity of the source of the hadith. And when it is not shorter [but exists some other shortcoming] then this proves the inaccuracy of the hadith.”
ومُقتَضاهُ أَنَّهُ إِذا خَالَفَ فوُجِدَ حديثُهُ [ أَزْيَدَ ] (( من )) أَضرَّ ذلك بحديثِه ، فدلَّ على أَنَّ زيادةَ العَدْلِ عندَه لا يلزَمُ قَبولُها مُطْلقاً ، وإِنَّما تُقْبَلُ مِن الحافِظِ ؛ فإِنَّهُ اعْتَبَرَ أَنْ يكونَ حديثُ هذا المُخالِفِ أَنْقَصَ مِن حديثِ مَن خالَفَهُ مِن الحُفَّاظِ ، وجَعَلَ نُقصانَ هذا الرَّاوي مِن الحديثِ دليلاً على صحَّتِه ؛ لأنَّه لا يَدُلُّ على تَحَرِّيهِ ، وجَعَلَ ما عَدا ذلك مُضِرّاً بحديثِه ، فدَخَلَتْ فيهِ الزِّيادةُ ، فلو كانتْ [ عندَه ] مقبولةً مُطْلقاً ؛ لم تكنْ مُضِرَّةً [ بحديثِ ] صاحِبِها ، [ واللهُ أَعلمُ ] .
The [text] stipulates that when the report contradicts another and it is longer, this can harm the [authenticity of the] hadith. This indicates that the addition of a reliable narrator according to him does not necessitate acceptance unconditionally; merely it is accepted from the hafiz. For he has considered [and preferred] the shorter hadith than the hadith of the one he opposes from the hafiz; and he has made the shortcomings of this narrator’s hadith evidence of its authenticity since it indicates precaution. Then he has made what is other than that harmful for the hadith. So if it was accepted unequivocally according to him, it would not be harmful for the narrator of the hadith.
فإِنْ خُولِفَ – [ [ أي ] الراوي ] – بأرْجَحَ منهُ ؛ لمزيدِ ضَبْطٍ [ أَوْ كثرةِ ] عدَدٍ أَو غيرِ ذلك مِن وُجوهِ التَّرجيحاتِ ؛ فالرَّاجِحُ يقالُ لهُ : المَحْفوظُ .
ومُقابِلُهُ – وهو المرجوحُ – يُقالُ لهُ : الشَّاذُّ .
Thus if it is opposed (i.e. the narrator of a hasan or sahih), because [in contrast] a narration is to be found which has more accuracy in the narrator, or more in number or other reasons of preference are found, then the preferred is called mahfuz, and the rejected is called shadh.
مثالُ ذلك : ما رواهُ التِّرمذيُّ والنَّسائيُّ وابنُ ماجَة مِن طريقِ [ ابنِ ] عُيَيْنَةَ عن عَمْرو [ بنِ ] دينارٍ عن عَوْسَجة ، عن ابنِ عباسٍ [ – رضي الله عنهما – ] : أَنَّ رجُلاً تُوُفِّي في عهدِ رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، ولم يَدَعْ وارِثاً إِلاَّ مولىً هو أَعتقَهُ . الحديثَ .
An example is that [narration] which al-Imam al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah recorded from Ibn ‘Uyayna, from ‘Amr ibn Dinar, from ‘Awsaja, from Ibn ‘Abbas that ‘a man passed away in the time of the Prophet and did not leave an heir except for a slave which he had freed…
وتابَعَ ابنَ عُيَيْنَةَ على وَصْلِهِ ابنُ جُريجٍ وغيرُه .
Mutaba’ has been done for its continuation for Ibn ‘Uyayna by Ibn Jurayj and others.
وخالفَهُم حمَّادُ بنُ زَيْدٍ ، فرواهُ عَنْ عَمْرو بنِ دينارٍ عَن عَوْسَجَةَ ولم يَذْكُرِ (( حديث )) ابنَ عباسٍ .
Hammad ibn Zayd has opposed this narration as he narrated it from ‘Amr ibn Dinar from ‘Awsaja and did not mention Ibn ‘Abbas.
قال أبو حاتمٍ : المَحفوظُ حديثُ ابنِ عُيَيْنَةَ . أهـ كلامُه .
Ibn Abi Hatim said ‘the hadith of Ibn ‘Uyayna is mahfuz.’
فحمَّادُ بنُ زيدٍ مِن أَهلِ العدالةِ والضَّبطِ ، ومعَ ذلك رجَّحَ أبو حاتمٍ روايةَ مَن هُم أَكثرُ عدداً منهُ .
So Hammad ibn Zayd is from the narrators of accuracy and trustworthiness; despite this Ibn Abi Hatim gave preference to the narration which has more numbers.
وعُرِفَ مِن هذا التَّقريرِ أَنَّ : الشَّاذَّ : ما رواهُ المقْبولُ مُخالِفاً لِمَنْ هُو أَوْلَى مِنهُ .
It is thus deduced from this explanation that shadh is where an accepted narrator is opposed by someone more authoritative.
وهذا هُو المُعْتَمَدُ في تعريفِ الشاذِّ بحَسَبِ الاصْطِلاحِ .
This is the established definition of shadh according to [hadith] terminology.
وَإِنْ وَقَعَتِ المُخالفةُ [ لهُ ] معَ الضَّعْفِ ؛ فالرَّاجِحُ يُقالُ لهُ : [ المَعْروفُ ] ، ومُقابِلُهُ يُقالُ [ لهُ ] : المُنْكَرُ .
If the opposition occurs with the weak [reporter], then the preferred is called ma’ruf, and the opposing one is called munkar.
مثالُه : ما رواهُ ابنُ أَبي حاتمٍ مِن [ طريقِ ] حُبَيِّبِ بنِ حَبيبٍ – وهو أَخو حَمزَةَ بنِ [ حَبيبٍ ] الزَّيَّاتِ المُقرئِ – عن أَبي إِسحاقَ عن العَيْزارِ بنِ حُريثٍ عن ابنِ عبَّاسٍ (( رضي الله عنهما )) عن النبي صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ قالَ : (( مَن أَقامَ الصَّلاةَ وآتى الزَّكاةَ وحَجَّ [ البيتَ ] وصامَ وقَرَى الضَّيْفَ ؛ دَخَلَ الجنَّةَ )) .
Its example is that which is reported by Ibn Abi Hatim from Hubbayb ibn Habb, the brother of Hamza ibn Habb al-Zayyat al-Muqri, from Abu Ishaq, from al-‘Uzair ibn Hurayth, from Ibn ‘Abbas from the Prophet who said: ‘Whoever performs Prayer, gives zakat, performs the hajj, fasts, and is hospitable to guests, will enter Paradise.’
قالَ أَبو حاتمٍ : (( و )) هُو مُنْكَرٌ ؛ لأَنَّ غيرَه مِن الثِّقاتِ رواهُ عن أَبي إِسحاقَ مَوقوفاً ، وهُو المَعروفُ .
Ibn Abi Hatim said: ‘This tradition is munkar because others from the reliable narrators have recorded the tradition as being from Abu Ishaq only, [and not up to the Prophet]. This is the ma’ruf narration.’
وعُرِفَ بهذا أَنَّ بينَ الشَّاذِّ والمُنْكَرِ [ عُموماً وخُصوصاً مِن وَجْهٍ ؛ لأنَّ بينَهُما ] اجْتِماعاً في اشْتِراطِ المُخالفَةِ ، وافْتراقاً في أَنَّ الشَّاذَّ راويهِ ثقةٌ أو صدوقٌ ، والمُنْكَرَ رَاويهِ ضعيفٌ .
It is known from this that between shadh and munkar is [a relation of] ‘umm wa-khass min wajh, because between them there is similarity in terms of opposition and there is a difference in that shadh is the narration of an authoritative or truthful, and munkar is the narration of a weak.
وقد غَفَلَ مَن سَوَّى بينَهُما ، واللهُ أَعلمُ .
Ignorant are those who made them synonymous. And Allah knows best.
وَما تقدَّم ذِكرُه مِن الفَرْدِ النِّسْبِيِّ ؛ إِنْ وُجِدَ – بعدَ ظَنِّ كونِه فَرْداً – [ قد ] وافَقَهُ غيرُهُ ؛ فهُو المُتابِعُ؛ بكسرِ [ الباءِ ] الموحَّدةِ .
[With regards to] what has been mentioned regarding fard nisba; if it is found – after assuming that it was solitary – that others have agreed with it, then this is mutaba’, with a kasra on the b’.
والمُتابَعَةُ على مراتِبَ :
[ لأنَّها ] إِنْ حَصَلَتْ للرَّاوي نفسِهِ ؛ فهِي التَّامَّةُ .
Mutaba’ has stages; if the agreement is with the [original] narrator, then it is [called] tamma.
وإِنْ حَصَلَتْ لشيخِهِ فمَنْ فوقَهُ ؛ فهِيَ القاصِرةُ .
And if it occurs for his shaykh or whoever is below him, thus it is qasira.
ويُستفادُ منها التَّقويةُ .
The benefit of this is strengthening.
مِثالُ المُتابعةِ (( التامة )) : ما رواهُ الشَّافعيُّ في (( الأمِّ )) عن مالِكٍ عن عبدِ اللهِ بنِ دينارٍ عن ابنِ عُمرَ أَنَّ رسولَ الله صلى الله [ تعالى ] عليه [ وآله ] وسلم قالَ : (( الشَّهْرُ تِسْعٌ وعِشرون ، فلا تَصوموا حتَّى تَروُا الهِلالَ ، ولا تُفْطِروا حتَّى تَرَوْهُ ، فإِنْ غُمَّ عليكم ؛ فأَكْمِلوا العِدَّةَ ثلاثينَ )) .
The example of mutaba’ tamma is that which al-Imam al-Shafi’i narrated in al-Umm, from Malik, from ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar, from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘The month is twenty-nine days. Thus do not fast until you see the crescent [of the moon] and do not cease [the fasts] until you see it. Therefore if it is cloudy upon you, then complete the period [of] thirty.’
فهذا الحديثُ بهذا اللَّفظِ ظَنَّ قومٌ أَنَّ الشافعيَّ (( رحمه الله تعالى )) تفرَّدَ بهِ عن مالِكٍ ، فعَدُّوهُ في غرائِبِه ؛ لأنَّ أَصحابَ مالِكٍ روَوْهُ عنهُ بهذا الإِسنادِ ، [ و ] بلفظِ : (( فإِنْ غُمَّ عَلَيْكُمُ فاقْدُروا لهُ )) !
لكِنْ وجَدْنا للشَّافعيَّ مُتابِعاً ، وهو عبدُ اللهِ بنُ مَسْلَمَةَ القَعْنَبِيُّ ، كذلك أَخرجَهُ البُخاريُّ عنهُ عن مالكٍ .
So this hadith with these words, a group thought that al-Shafi’i was alone in narrating it from Malik, thus counting it as one of his gharibs (solitary reports). This is because the companions of Malik have transmitted from him with the word ‘therefore if it is cloudy upon you, then count (faqdir la-h) for it.’ But we have found a mutaba’ for [the report of] al-Shafi’i. And this is ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama al-Qa‘nabi – this is how al-Bukhari has recorded it – from Malik.
فهَذهِ متابَعةٌ تامَّةٌ .
This is mutaba’ tamma.
ووَجَدْنا لهُ أَيضاً مُتابَعَةٌ قاصرةً في (( صحيحِ ابنِ خُزَيْمةَ )) مِن روايةِ عاصمِ بنِ محمَّدٍ عن أبيهِ [محمَّدِ ] بنِ زيدٍ عن جدِّهِ عبدِ اللهِ بنِ عُمرَ بلفظِ : (( فكَمِّلوا ثلاثينَ )) .
We have also found for it mutaba’ qasira in the Sahih of Ibn Khuzayma, from the narration of ‘Usaim ibn Muhammad, from his father Muhammad ibn Zayd, from his grandfather ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar with the word ‘thus complete (fa-kammil) thirty.’
وفي (( صحيحِ مسلمٍ )) من روايةِ عُبيدِ اللهِ بنِ عُمرَ عن نافعٍ عن ابنِ عُمرَ بلفظ : (( فاقْدُروا ثلاثينَ )) .
And [also] in the Sahih of Muslim from the narration of ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Umar, from Nafi’, from Ibn ‘Umar with the word ‘thus count (faqdir) thirty.’
ولا اقْتِصارَ في هذه المُتابعةِ – سواءٌ كانتْ تامَّةً أَم قاصرةً – على اللَّفْظِ ، [ بل ] لو جاءَتْ بالمعنى ؛ لكَفَتْ ، لكنَّها مختَصَّةٌ بكونِها مِن روايةِ ذلك الصَّحابيِّ .
In this mutaba’, there is no condition that the exact words [are mentioned], regardless of whether it is tamma or qasira. Rather, if it is transmitted with [mere] meaning, it is sufficient, though the condition is that it is from that [same] Companion.
وإِنْ وُجِدَ مَتْنٌ يُروى مِن حديثِ صحابيٍّ آخَرَ يُشْبِهُهُ في اللَّفظِ والمعنى ، أَو في المعنى فقطْ ؛ فهُو الشَّاهِدُ .
If a matn is found that is narrated from another Companion that resembles it in wording and meaning, or meaning alone, then this is shahid.
ومثالُه في الحديثِ الَّذي قدَّمناهُ ما رواهُ النَّسائيُّ مِن روايةِ محمَّدِ بنِ حُنَينٍ عن ابن عبَّاسِ (( رضي الله عنهما )) عن النبي صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، فذَكَرَ مثلَ حديثِ عبد اللهِ بنِ دينارٍ عنِ ابنِ عُمرَ سواءً .
The example is al-Nasa’i’s version of the same hadith which we have mentioned, from the narration of Muhammad ibn Jubayr, from Ibn ‘Abbas, from the Prophet who said: ‘Whoever performs Prayer, gives zakat, performs the hajj, fasts, and is hospitable to guests, will enter Paradise.’ Thus he mentioned the likes of the hadith of ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar, from Ibn ‘Umar equally.
فهذا باللَّفظِ .
This is in terms of wording.
وأَمَّا بالمَعْنى ؛ فهو ما رواهُ البُخاريُّ مِن روايةِ محمَّدِ بنِ زيادٍ عن أَبي هُريرةَ بلفظ : (( فإِنْ غُمَّ عليكُمْ فأَكْمِلُوا عِدَّةَ شَعْبانَ ثلاثينَ ))
As for in terms of meaning, then it is that which al-Bukhari has reported, from the narration of Muhammad ibn Ziyad, from Abu Huraira with the words: ‘therefore if it is cloudy upon you, then complete the period of Sha’ban thirty.’
وخَصَّ قومٌ المُتابعةَ بما حَصَلَ [ باللَّفظِ ، سواءٌ كانَ مِن روايةِ ذلك الصَّحابيِّ أَم لا ، والشاهدَ بما حصلَ ] بالمَعنى كذلك .
A group [of scholars] has specified mutaba’ with that [report] which occurs [the same] in wording, regardless of whether it is from that [same] Companion or not, and that shahid is that [report] which occurs [the same] in meaning.
وقد تُطْلَقُ المُتابعةُ على الشَّاهدِ وبالعكسِ ، والأمرُ [ فيهِ ] سَهْلٌ .
Moreover sometimes mutaba’ is applied to shahid, and vice versa. The matter in it is easy.
وَاعْلمْ أَنَّ تَتَبُّعَ الطُّرُقِ مِن الجوامعِ والمسانيدِ والأجزاءِ لذلك الحديثِ الذي يُظنُّ أَنَّه فردٌ لِيُعْلَمَ هلْ لهُ متابِعٌ أَم لا هُو : الاعتبارُ .
Know that the examining of chains, from the jami’s, the musnads, and the juz’s, to know whether that hadith which was assumed to be solitary does in fact have a mutaba’ is called i’tibar.
وقولُ ابنِ الصَّلاحِ : (( معرفةُ الاعتبارِ والمتابعاتِ والشَّواهِدِ )) قد يوهِمُ أَنَّ الاعتبارَ قَسيمٌ لهُما ، وليسَ كذلك ، بل هُو هيئةُ التوصُّلِ إِليهِما .
The statement of Ibn al-Salah: ‘Knowing the i’tibar, the mutaba’, and the shawahid’; some have assumed that i’tibar is a division like the [other] two. That is not the case; rather it is the means of attaining the two.
وجَميعُ ما تقدَّمَ مِن أَقسامِ المَقبولِ تَحْصُلُ فائدةُ تقسيمِهِ باعتبارِ مَراتِبِهِ عندَ المُعارضةِ ، واللهُ أَعلمُ .
The benefit of the division of everything that has passed from the types of the accepted is preference when there is conflict. And Allah knows best.
ثمَّ المَقبولُ ينقسِمُ [ أَيضاً ] إلى مَعمولٍ بهِ وغيرِ مَعْمولٍ بهِ ؛ لأنَّهُ إِنْ سَلِمَ مِنَ المُعارَضَةِ ؛ أَي : لم يَأْتِ خبرٌ يُضادُّهُ ، فهُوَ المُحْكَمُ ، وأَمثلتُه كثيرةٌ .
Then the accepted can also be divided into the acted upon and the non-acted upon. This [division exists] because if it is immune from opposition – in the sense that a report contradicting it does not appear – then it is muhkam. Its examples are plentiful.
وإِنْ عُورِضَ ؛ فلا يَخْلو إِمَّا أَنْ يكونَ مُعارِضُةُ مقبولاً مثلَه ، أَو يكونَ مَردوداً ، فالثَّاني لا أَثرَ [ لهُ ]؛ لأنَّ القويَّ لا تُؤثِّرُ فيهِ مُخالفةُ الضَّعيفِ .
If the report is opposed, then either the opposing is accepted just like it or it is rejected. As for the latter [case] there is no effect for it, since the strong is not affected by the opposition of the weak.
وإِنْ كانتِ المُعارضةُ بِمِثْلِهِ فلا يخلو إِمَّا أَنْ يُمْكِنَ الجَمْعُ [ بين ] مدلولَيْهِما بغيرِ تَعَسُّفٍ أَوْ لاَ :
فإِنْ أَمْكَنَ الجَمْعُ ؛ فـهو النَّوعُ المُسمَّى مُخْتَلِفَ الحَديثِ ، [ و ] مثَّلَ لهُ ابنُ الصَّلاحِ بحديثِ : (( لا عَدْوى ولا طِيَرَةَ ، [ ولا هامَّةَ ، ولا صَفَر ، ولا غُول ] )) مع حديث : (( فِرَّ مِنَ المَجذومِ فِرارَكَ مِن الأسَدِ )) .
If the opposing [report] is equal to it, then either it is possible to harmonise between the two meanings without deviation, or it is not. Thus if harmonisation is possible, then it is the type called mukhtalif al-hadith. Ibn al-Salah has given the example of the hadith: ‘There is no contagion or evil fortune’ with the hadith ‘Flee from a leper as you would from a lion.’
وكلاهُما في الصَّحيحِ ، وظاهِرُهما التَّعارُضُ !
ووجْهُ الجمعِ بينَهُما أَنَّ هذهِ الأمراضَ لا تُعْدي بطبْعِها ، لكنَّ الله [ سبحانَه و ] تعالى جَعَلَ مُخالطةَ المريضِ بها للصَّحيحِ سبباً لإعدائِهِ مَرَضَه .
Both of them are sound and are apparently contradictory. The form of harmonisation is that illnesses do not infect by their nature. But Allah has made the mixing with the ill a reason for a sound person to become ill,
ثمَّ قد يتخلَّفُ ذلك عن سبَبِه كما في غيرِهِ من الأسبابِ ، كذا جَمَعَ بينَهما ابنُ الصَّلاحِ تَبعاً لغيرِه !
والأَوْلى في الجَمْعِ بينَهُما أَنْ يُقالَ : إِنَّ نَفْيَهُ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ للعَْدوى باقٍ على عُمومِهِ ، وقد صحَّ قوله صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ : (( لا يُعْدِى شيءٌ شيئاً )) ، وقولُه صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ]وسلَّمَ لِمَن عارَضَهُ : بأَنَّ البَعيرَ الأجْرَبَ يكونُ في الإِبلِ الصَّحيحةِ ، فيُخالِطُها ، فتَجْرَبُ ، حيثُ ردَّ عليهِ بقولِه : (( فمَنْ أَعْدى الأوَّلَ ؟ )) ؛ يعني : أَنَّ الله [ سبحانَه و ] تعالى ابتَدَأَ ذلك في الثَّاني كما (( في )) ابْتَدَأَ في الأوَّلِ .
but then sometimes He does not, like with other causes. This is how Ibn al-Salah has harmonised between the two, in similar fashion to others. The best [opinion] in harmonisation between the two is to say that the negation from the Prophet remains in its generality. For it has been authenticated from him that he said: ‘Nothing infects another,’ and that he refuted the one who remarked that an ill camel mixes with sound camels and thus becomes ill by saying: ‘Then who infected the first?’ In other words, Allah initiated the illness in the second just as He did in the first.
وأَمَّا الأمرُ بالفِرارِ مِن المَجْذومِ فمِن بابِ سدِّ الذَّرائعِ ؛ لئلاَّ يَتَّفِقَ للشَّخْصِ الذي يخُالِطُه شيءٌ مِن ذلك بتقديرِ اللهِ (( سبحانه و )) تعالى ابتداءً لا بالعَدْوى المَنْفِيَّة ، فيَظُنَّ أَنَّ ذلك بسببِ مُخالطتِه فيعتقدَ صِحَّةَ العَدْوى ، فيقعَ في الحَرَجِ ، فأَمَرَ بتجنُّبِه حسْماً للمادَّةِ ، [ والله أعلم ] .
As for the order to flee from the leper, it is to stop the means [of wrongful thought]; that if a person mixes with the ill, then this [has occurred] with the will of Allah originally, not from the negated contagion. Lest in which case he will think that mixing with the ill was the reason for his illness, and that he will [now] believe contagion does exist and thus he will occur in sin. So he is ordered to stay away to prevent such thought. And Allah knows best.
وقد صنَّفَ في هذا النَّوعِ [ الإِمامُ ] الشافعيُّ كتابَ (( اختِلافِ الحديثِ )) ، لكنَّهُ لم يَقْصِدِ استيعابَه .
Al-Imam al-Shafi’i has written a book in this type called Ikhtilaf al-hadith, but he never intended to cover all aspects.
و [ قد ] صنَّفَ فيهِ بعدَهُ ابنُ قُتيبةَ والطَّحاويُّ وغيرُهما .
After him, Ibn Qutayba, al-Tahawi, and others have also compiled literature.
وإِنْ لم يُمْكِنِ الجمعُ ؛ فلا يخْلو إِمَّا أَنْ يُعْرَفَ التَّاريخُ أوْ لاَ :
فإِنْ عُرِفَ وَثَبَتَ المُتَأَخِّرُ [ بهِ ] ، أَو بأَصرحَ منهُ ؛ فهو النَّاسِخُ ، والآخَرُ المَنْسُوخُ .
If harmonisation is not possible, then there are possibilities; either the date is known [of the tradition] or not. If the date is known and one is proven as being later, or it is clarified [elsewhere], then this is naskh and the other is mansukh.
والنَّسْخُ : رفْعُ تعلُّقِ حُكمٍ شرعيٍّ بدليلٍ شرعيٍّ متأَخِّرٍ عنهُ .
Naskh is lifting the principle of a proof from shar ‘a with a later proof from shar ‘a.
والنَّاسخُ : ما يدلُّ [ على ] الرَّفعِ المذكورِ .
Naskh is that which indicates this mentioned lifting.
وتسميتُهُ ناسِخاً مجازٌ ؛ لأنَّ النَّاسخَ في الحقيقةِ هو اللهُ تعالى .
Calling it naskh is metaphorical, because the abrogator in essence is Allah Almighty.
ويُعْرَفُ النَّسخُ بأُمورٍ :
أَصرحُها : ما ورَدَ في النَّصِّ كحديثِ بُريدَةَ في (( صحيحِ مسلمٍ )) : (( كُنْتُ نَهَيْتُكُم عن زِيارةِ القُبورِ (( ألا )) فزُوروها ؛ فإِنَّها تُذَكِّرُ الآخِرَةَ ))
ومِنها ما يجزِمُ الصَّحابيُّ بأَنَّه متأَخِّرٌ كقولِ جابرٍ : (( كانَ آخِرَ الأَمْرَيْنِ مِن رسولِ الله صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ تَرْكُ الوُضوءِ مِمَّا مَسَّتِ النَّارُ )) أَخرَجَهُ أَصحابُ السُّننِ .
The abrogation is identified by [several] means; the clearest of them is the clarification in the text. [This is] like the hadith of Burayda in Sahih Muslim [that the Prophet said]: ‘I had forbidden you to visit graves. Visit them; for indeed it reminds of the hereafter.’ Among [the means of identification] is that which the Companion states is the latter. [This is] like the saying of Jabir, ‘The last of the two orders from the Messenger of Allah was the abandoning of ablution for what is touched by fire.’ The Companions of the Sunan have recorded this.
ومِنْها ما يُعْرَفُ بالتَّاريخِ ، [ وهُو كَثيرٌ ] .
Also among [the means of identification] is that which is known by the date; these are plentiful.
وليسَ مِنْها مَا يَرويهِ الصَّحابيُّ المُتأَخِّرُ الإِسلامِ مُعارِضاً للمُتَقَدِّمِ عليهِ ؛ لاحْتمالِ أَنْ يكونَ سَمِعَهُ مِن صَحابيٍّ آخَرَ أَقدمَ مِنَ المُتَقَدِّمِ [ المذكورِ ] أو مثلِهِ فأَرْسَلَهُ .
Not included is that which is narrated by a Companion who accepted Islam late opposing that which is reported by someone who preceded him, because of the possibility that he heard it from a Companion [even] older than the one he is opposing, or like it, and he made it mursal.
لكنْ ؛ إِنْ وَقَعَ التَّصريحُ بسماعِه [ لهُ مِن النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ فيَتَّجِهُ أَنْ يكونَ ناسِخاً ؛ بشَرْطِ أَنْ يكونَ [ المُتَأَخِّرُ ] لمْ يَتحمَّلْ مِنَ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ] شَيْئاً قبلَ إِسلامِهِ .
However, if clarification occurs of him hearing it from the Prophet, then it directs it towards it being the abrogating, with the condition that he did not narrate anything from the Prophet before his Islam.
وأَمَّا الإِجماعُ ؛ فليسَ بناسِخٍ ، بل يدُلُّ على ذلكَ .
As for the Consensus (ijma), thus this may not abrogate, but rather it indicates that.
وإِنْ لمْ يُعْرَفِ التَّاريخُ ؛ فلا يخلو إِمَّا أَنْ يُمْكِنَ ترجيحُ أَحدِهِما على الآخَرِ بوجْهٍ مِن وجوهِ التَّرجيحِ المُتعلِّقَةِ بالمتْنِ أَو بالإِسنادِ أَوْ لاَ :
فإِنْ أَمْكَنَ التَّرجيحُ ؛ تعيَّنَ المصيرُ إِليهِ ، وإِلاَّ ؛ فلا .
If the date is not known, then there are possibilities. Either it is possible to prefer one report over the other by the many means of preference that pertain to the matn or isnad, or it is not possible. If harmonisation is possible, the preferred is specified. And if not, then it is not.
فصارَ ما ظاهِرُهُ التَّعارُضُ واقِعاً على [ هذا ] التَّرتيبِ :
§ الجمعُ إِنْ أَمكَنَ .
Thus in reports in which there is apparent contradiction, it materialises in the following order; harmonisation if possible,
§ فاعْتبارُ النَّاسِخِ والمَنْسوخِ .
then consideration for the abrogation and the abrogated,
§ فالتَّرْجيحُ إِنْ تَعيَّنَ .
then preference if specified,
§ ثمَّ التوقُّفُ عنِ العَمَلِ بأَحدِ الحَديثينِ .
then the paused upon from acting on one of the two reports.
والتَّعبيرُ بالتوقُّفِ أَولى مِن التَّعبيرِ بالتَّساقُطِ ؛ لأَنَّ خفاءَ ترجيحِ أَحدِهِما على الآخَرِ إِنَّما هُو بالنِّسبةِ للمُعْتَبِرِ في الحالةِ الرَّاهنةِ ، معَ [ احتِمالِ ] أَنْ يظهَرَ لغيرِهِ ما خَفِيَ عليهِ ، واللهُ أعلمُ .
Describing it as ‘paused upon’ is better than describing it as ‘dropped’, because the impossibility of preferring one over the other is only in relation to the researcher at that [particular] moment. [There exists a] possibility that what is hidden becomes apparent [later] for someone else. And Allah knows best.
ثمَّ المردودُ : وموجِبُ الرَّدِّ [ إِمَّا أَنْ يكونَ لِسَقْطٍ مِن إِسنادٍ ] ، أَوْ طَعْنٍ (( من إسناد )) في رَاوٍ على اخْتِلافِ وُجوهِ الطَّعْنِ ، أَعَمُّ مِن أَنْ يكونَ لأمْرٍ يرجِعُ إِلى دِيانةِ الرَّاوي أَو إِلى ضبْطِهِ .
Then the rejected and the reasons that necessitate it are either because of a drop in the isnād or because of defamation in the narrator; according to the varying reasons for defamation that are more general than for a matter pertaining to the narrator’s piety and his accuracy.
والسَّقْطُ إِمَّا أَنْ يَكونَ مِنْ مَبادئ السَّنَدِ مِن تصرُّفِ مُصَنِّفٍ ، أو [ من ] آخِرِهِ ؛ أي : الإِسنادِ بعدَ التَّابعيِّ ، أَو غير ذلك ، فالأوَّلُ : المُعَلَّقُ سواءٌ كانَ [ السَّاقِطُ ] واحداً أَو أَكثرَ .
Thus, the drop is either at the beginning of the isnād from the actions of the compiler or at the end, after the Successor, or other than that. Thus the first is mu‘allaq, regardless of whether the drops are one or more.
وبينَهُ وبينَ المُعْضَلِ الآتي ذِكْرُهُ عمومٌ وخُصوصٌ مِن وجْهٍ .
Between mu‘allaq and mu‘d!il, that will soon be explained, is ‘umm wa-khusūs/min wajh.
فمِنْ حيثُ تعريفُ المُعْضَلِ بأَنَّهُ سقَطَ منهُ اثنانِ فصاعِداً يجتَمِعُ معَ بعضِ صُورِ المُعَلَّقِ .
Thus in terms of the definition of mu‘d!il – that two or more narrators are dropped – it resembles mu‘allaq in some cases.
ومِن حيثُ تقييدُ المُعَلَّقِ بأَنَّه مِن تصرُّفِ مُصَنِّفٍ مِن مبادئِ السَّنَدِ يفتَرِقُ منهُ ، إِذْ هُو أَعَمُّ مِن ذلك .
In terms of specifying mu‘allaq that it is [a result] of the actions of the compiler at the beginning of the chain, then it is different from mu‘d!il, as that is more general.
[ و ] مِن صُوَرِ المُعَلَّقِ : أَنْ يُحْذَفَ جميعُ السَّندِ ، ويُقالَ [ مثلاً ] : قالَ رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ .
Amongst the forms of mu‘allaq is that the entire chain is omitted, and it is said, for example, ‘the Messenger of Allah said x.’
ومنها : أَنْ يُحْذَفَ (( جميع السند )) [ إِلاَّ ] الصَّحابيَّ أَوْ [ إِلاَّ ] الصَّحابيَّ والتَّابعيَّ [ معاً ] .
Another form is that it is [all] omitted except the Companion, or the Successor and the Companion.
ومنها : أَنْ يَحْذِفَ مَن حَدَّثَهُ ويُضيفَهُ إِلى مَنْ فوقَهُ ، فإِنْ كانَ مَن فوقَه شيخاً لذلك المصنِّفِ ؛ <فقد اخْتُلِفَ فيه : هل يُسمَّى تعليقاً أَوْ لاَ ؟
والصَّحيحُ في هذا : التَّفصيلُ : فإِنْ عُرِفَ بالنَّصِّ أَو الاستِقْراءِ أ َنَّ (( كان )) فاعِلَ ذلك مُدَلِّسٌ قضي بهِ ، وإِلاَّ فتعليقٌ .
Another form is that the person the report is reported from is omitted, and it is ascribed to the one above. If the one above is the shaykh for the compiler, then there is a dispute; is it called mu‘allaq or not? The correct opinion in this matter is that detail [is required]. If it is known through textual evidence or investigation that the one doing this is a mudallis, then it is declared as such. Otherwise, it is [declared as] mu‘allaq.
وإِنَّما ذُكِرَ التَّعليقُ في قسمِ المردودِ للجَهْلِ بحالِ المحذوفِ .
Mu‘allaq has been mentioned in the section of the rejected because of the ignorance surrounding the omitted narrator.
وقد يُحْكَمُ بصحَّتِهِ إِنْ عُرِفَ بأَنْ يجيءَ مسمَّىً مِن وجهٍ آخَرَ ، فإِنْ قالَ : جميعُ مَن أَحْذِفُهُ ثقاتٌ ؛ جاءتْ مسأَلةُ التَّعديلِ على الإِبهامِ .
However, sometimes it is declared as sound if the [same] report is mentioned elsewhere with the narrator named. If someone says ‘everyone that I have omitted are authoritative (thiqa),’ then the issue of ‘authentication by ambiguity’ arises.
و [ عندَ ] الجُمهورِ لا يُقْبَلُ حتَّى يُسمَّى .
According to the majority, it will not be accepted until he names them.
لكنْ قالَ ابنُ الصَّلاحِ هنا : إِنْ وَقَعَ الحَذْفُ في كتابٍ التُزِمَتْ [ صحَّتُه ] ؛ كالبُخاريِّ ؛ فما أَتى ((فيه )) بالجَزْمِ دلَّ على أَنَّه ثَبَتَ إِسنادُهُ عِندَه ، وإِنَّما حُذِفَ لغَرَضٍ مِنَ الأَغْراضِ .
However, Ibn al-Salah said here: ‘If the omission occurs in a book devoted to authentic traditions only, like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, then if the words of narrations are words of conviction and certainty, then it will be accepted, and [it will be assumed] that he omitted the chain for a [genuine] reason from the various reasons.
ومَا أَتى فيهِ بغيرِ [ الجَزْمِ ] ؛ ففيهِ مقالٌ .
And if the words of narration are not words of conviction, then there is a dispute.
وقد أَوْضَحْتُ أَمثلةَ ذلك في (( النُّكتِ على ابنِ الصَّلاحِ )) .
I have explained such examples in al-Nukat ‘al Ibn al-Salah.
والثَّاني : وهو ما سَقَطَ مِن آخِرِهِ مَن بعدَ التَّابعيِّ هو المُرْسَلُ :
وصورَتُه أَنْ يقولَ التابعيُّ سواءٌ كانَ كبيراً أو صغيراً قالَ رسولُ الله صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ كذا ، أو : فعَلَ كذا ، أو : فُعِلَ بحضرتِه كذا ، أو نحوُ ذلك .
The second – and this is where there is a drop after the successor (tābi‘) – is mursal. And from its forms is that the tābi‘ will say – regardless of whether he is a senior or junior tābi‘ – that ‘the Prophet said x,’ or ‘did x,’ or ‘x was done in his presence,’ or its likes.
وإِنَّما ذُكِرَ في قسمِ المَردودِ للجَهْلِ بحالِ المحذوفِ ؛ لأَنَّه يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يكونَ صحابيّاً ، ويُحْتَمَلُ [ أَنْ يكونَ ] تابعيّاً ، وعلى الثَّاني يُحْتَمَلُ [ أَنْ يكونَ ضَعيفاً ، ويُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يكونَ ثقةً ، وعلى الثَّاني يُحْتَمَلُ ] أَنْ يكونَ حَمَلَ عن صحابيٍّ ، ويُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يكونَ حَمَلَ عن تابعيٍّ آخَرَ ، وعلى الثَّاني فيعودُ الاحتمالُ السَّابقُ ، ويتعدَّدُ (( و )) أَمَّا بالتَّجويزِ العقليِّ ، فإِلى ما لا نهايةَ لهُ ، وأَمَّا بالاستقراءِ ؛ فإِلى ستَّةٍ أَو سبعةٍ ، وهو أَكثرُ ما وُجِدَ مِن روايةِ بعضِ التَّابعينَ عن بعضٍ .
Mursal is mentioned in the types of rejected traditions because of ignorance surrounding the missing reporter. This is because it is possible the missing person is a sahabi or a tābi‘. In the latter case, then he could be weak or authentic. In the case of him being authentic, he could have narrated it himself from a sahabi or from a fellow tābi‘. And in the latter case, the previous possibility returns and multiplies. As for in theory, this pattern could continue endlessly. In practice, this has occurred up to six or seven times; this is the most found where Successors have narrated from one another.
فإِنْ عُرِفَ مِن عادةِ التَّابعيِّ أَنَّه لا يُرسِلُ إِلاَّ عن ثِقةٍ ؛ فذهَبَ جُمهورُ المحُدِّثينَ إِلى التوقُّفِ ؛ لبقاءِ الاحتمالِ ، وهُو أَحدُ قولَيْ أَحمدَ .
If it is known from the habit of a tābi‘ to drop only from an authoritative narrator, then the majority of hadith scholars are of the opinion of tawaqquf (pausing) because of the [aforementioned] existing possibility. This is one of the opinions of al-Imam Ahmad.
وثانيهِما – وهُو [ قولُ ] المالِكيِّينَ والكوفيِّينَ – يُقْبَلُ مُطْلقاً .
His second opinion – which is also the opinion of the Maliki’s and Kharijites – is that it will be accepted unequivocally.
وقالَ الشَّافِعيُّ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] : يُقْبَلُ إِنِ اعْتَضَدَ بمجيئِهِ مِن وجْهٍ آخَرَ يُبايِنُ الطُّرُقَ الأولى مُسْنَداً كانَ أَو مُرْسَلاً ؛ ليترجَّحَ احتمالُ كونِ المحذوفِ ثقةً في نفسِ الأمرِ .
Al-Imam al-Shafi‘i said that if support is found in another hadith – whether this second supporting narration is continuous or mursal – then this favors accepting the hadith and assuming the missing person is authoritative.
ونقلَ أَبو بكرٍ الرَّازيُّ مِن الحنفيَّةِ وأبو الوليدِ الباجِيُّ مِن المالِكيَّةِ أَنَّ الرَّاويَ إِذا كانَ يُرْسِلُ عنِ الثِّقاتِ وغيرِهم لا يُقْبَل مُرسَلُه اتِّفاقاً .
It has been reported from Abu Bakr al-Razi (from the Hanafis) and Abu al-Walid al-Baji (from the Maliki’s) that when the narrator performs irsal from authoritative narrators and other than them, their mursal report will unanimously not be accepted.
وَالقسمُ الثَّالِثُ مِن أَقسامِ السَّقْطِ مِن الإِسنادِ إِنْ كانَ باثنَيْنِ فصاعِداً مَعَ التَّوالي ؛ فهو المُعْضَلُ ، وإِلاَّ فإِنْ كانَ السَّقْطُ باثنينِ غيرِ متوالِيَيْنِ في مَوضِعَيْنِ > مثلاً ؛ فـهُو المُنْقَطِعُ ، وكذا إِنْ سَقَطَ واحدٌ فقط ، أَو أَكثرُ مِن اثنينِ ، لكنَّه بشرطِ عدمِ التَّوالي .
The third type pertains to the drop in the chain; if it is two drops or more consecutively, then it is mu‘d-il. And if it is not [consecutive], namely that the drops are two inconsecutively in two [separate] places, for example, then it is munqat‘i‘. Similarly, if there is one single drop only, or there is more but with the condition of being inconsecutive [then this is also mu‘d-il].
ثمَّ إِنَّ السَّقطَ مِن الإِسنادِ قدْ يَكونُ واضِحاً يحصُلُ الاشْتِراكُ في معرفَتِه ككَوْنِ الرَّاوي مثلاً لم يُعْاصِرْ مَن روى عنهُ أَوْ يكونُ خَفِيّاً ؛ فلا يُدْرِكُهُ إِلاَّ الأئمَّةُ الحُذَّاقُ المُطَّلِعونَ على طُرُقِ الحديثِ وعِلَلِ الأسانيدِ .
Then the drop in the chain is sometimes visible so all [observers] can identify it because the narrator – for example – is not a contemporary of the one he narrated from; or sometimes the drop is hidden.
فالأَوَّلُ وهُو الواضحُ يُدْرَكُ بعَدمِ التَّلاقي بينَ الرَّاوِي وشيخِهِ بكونِه لمْ يُدْرِكْ عصْرَهُ أَو أَدْرَكَهُ لكنَّهما لم يجْتَمِعا ، وليستْ لهُ [ منهُ ] إِجازةٌ ولا وِجَادَةٌ .
Thus the first – the visible one – is identified by the non-meeting between the narrator and the shaykh as he did not live in his time, or he did live in his time but did not meet him and did not have permission from him or discovery.
ومِنْ ثَمَّ احْتِيجَ إِلى التَّاريخِ لتضمُّنِهِ تحريرَ مواليدِ الرُّواةِ ووَفياتِهِم وأَوقاتِ طَلَبِهِم وارْتِحالِهم .
For this, historical records are required as they consist of the birthdates of the narrators, their death-dates, the dates of their studies and their travels.
وقد افْتُضِحَ أَقوامٌ ادَّعَوا الرِّوايةَ عن شيوخٍ ظهرَ بالتَّاريخِ كَذِبُ دعْواهُم .
Verily groups [of reporters] have achieved notoriety by claiming to have narrated from their shaykhs, only for historical records to refute their claims.
وَالقسمُ الثَّانِي : وهو الخَفِيُّ المُدَلَّسُ ؛ بفتحِ اللاَّمِ ، سُمِّي بذلك لكونِ الرَّاوي لم يُسَمِّ مَن حَدَّثَهُ ، وأَوهَمَ سماعَهُ للحَديثِ مِمَّن لم يُحَدِّثْهُ بهِ .
The second type – the hidden one – is mudallas (with a fatha on the lam). [This is] so-called because the narrator has not named the one he heard from and has created doubt in hearing the hadith from someone he did not narrate from.
واشْتِقاقُهُ مِن الدَّلَسِ – بالتَّحريكِ – وهو اختلاطُ الظَّلامِ [ بالنُّورِ ] ، سُمِّيَ بذلك لاشتراكِهِما [ في ] الخَفاءِ .
Its origin is from ‘dalas’ with a haraka [on the lam]; and this means ‘the mixing of darkness’. This [type of hadith] is so-called because both involve concealment.
ويَرِدُ المُدَلَّسُ بِصيغَةٍ مِن صيغِ الأداءِ تَحْتَمِلُ وقوعَ اللُّقِيَّ بينَ المُدَلِّسِ ومَن أَسنَدَ عنهُ كَعَن وَكذا قَاَلَ.
The one committing tadlis mentions it with the words of delivery that give the possibility of the occurrence of the meeting between him and the one he ascribes it to, like ‘an and like qala.
ومتى وقَعَ بصيغةٍ صريحةٍ لا تَجَوُّزَ فيها ؛ كانَ كذِباً .
When it occurs with the words of certainty, he will be [classified as] a liar.
وحُكْمُ مَن ثبتَ عنهُ التَّدليسُ إِذا كانَ عَدْلاً أَنْ لا يُقْبَلَ منهُ إِلاَّ ما صرَّحَ فيهِ بالتَّحديثِ على الأصحِّ .
it is proven that he has committed tadlis is that he will not be accepted until he clarifies he heard the report, according to the most correct opinion.
وكَذا المُرْسَلُ الخَفِيُّ إِذا صَدَرَ مِنْ مُعاصِرٍ لَمْ يَلْقَ مَن حَدَّثَ عنهُ ، بل بينَه وبينَه واسِطةٌ .
Also [rejected] is mursal khafi when it emits from a contemporary who has not met the one he reports from, but rather between him and the [alleged] reporter is a gap [of another reporter].
والفَرْقُ بينَ المُدَلَّسِ والمُرْسَلِ الخفيِّ دقيقٌ حَصَلَ تحريرُه بما ذُكِرَ هنا :
وهو أَنَّ التَّدليسَ يختصُّ بمَن روى عمَّن عُرِفَ لقاؤهُ إِيَّاهُ ، فأَمَّا إِن عاصَرَهُ ولم يُعْرَفْ أَنَّه لقِيَهُ ؛ فَهُو المُرْسَلُ الخَفِيُّ .
The difference between mudallas and mursal khafi is intrinsic; this explanation can be outlined with that which is mentioned here. Tadlis is specific to the narration from someone he is known to have met. As for when he is the contemporary of him and his meeting with the narrator is not known, then this is mursal khafi.
ومَن أَدْخَلَ في تعريفِ التَّدليسِ المُعاصَرَةَ ، ولو بغيرِ لُقي ؛ لزِمَهُ دُخولُ المُرْسَلِ الخَفِيِّ في تعريفِهِ .
Whoever has added in the definition of tadlis ‘being a contemporary even if they have not met’ has thus necessitated including mursal khafi in the definition [too],
والصَّوابُ التَّفرقةُ بينَهُما .
though the correct [opinion] is that there is a difference between the two.
ويدلُّ على أَنَّ اعتبارَ اللُّقي في التَّدليسِ دونَ المُعاصرةِ وحْدَها لابُدَّ منهُ إِطْباقُ أَهلِ العلمِ بالحديثِ على أَنَّ روايةَ المُخَضْرَمينَ كأَبي عُثمانَ النَّهْديِّ وقيسِ بنِ أَبي حازِمٍ عن النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ مِن قبيلِ الإِرسالِ لا مِن قَبيلِ التَّدليسِ .
The evidence that indicates consideration of having met in tadlis – and not just being mere contemporaries – is the agreement of the people of knowledge in hadith that the reports of the mukhadramun, like Abu ‘Uthman al-Nahdi and Qays ibn Abi Hazim, from the Prophet are classified as irsal and not tadlis.
ولو كانَ مجرَّدُ المُعاصرةِ يُكْتَفى [ بهِ ] في التَّدليسِ ؛ لكانَ هؤلاءِ مُدلِّسينَ لأنَّهْم عاصَروا النبيَّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ قطعاً ، ولكنْ لمْ يُعْرَفْ هل لَقُوهُ أَمْ لا؟
If being contemporaries was sufficient in tadlis, then these [people] would be mudallises, because they certainly lived in the time of the Prophet but it is not known if they met him or not.
وممَّن [ قالَ ] باشْتِراطِ اللِّقاءِ في التَّدليسِ الإِمامُ الشافعيُّ وأَبو بكرٍ البزَّارُ ، وكلامُ الخطيبِ في ((الكِفايةِ )) يقتَضيهِ ، وهُو المُعْتَمَدُ .
Amongst the scholars who have agreed with the [condition of] meeting in [the definition of] tadlis are al-Imam al-Shafi‘i and Abu Bakr al-Bazzi and the writings of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in al-Kifaya stipulate this. This is the trusted opinion.
ويُعْرَفُ عدمُ المُلاقاةِ بإِخبارِهِ عنْ نفسِهِ بذلك ، أَو بجَزْمِ إِمامٍ مُطَّلعٍ .
The absence of meeting is identified by the reporter himself informing such, or by the firm statement of a versed imam.
ولا يَكْفي أَنْ يَقَعَ في بعض الطُّرُقِ زيادةُُ راوٍ [ أَو أَكثرَ ] بينَهُما ؛ لاحتمال أَنْ يكونَ مِن المزيدِ ، ولا يُحْكَمُ في هذه الصُّورةِ بحُكْمٍ كُلِّيٍّ ؛ لتَعارُضِ احتمالِ الاتِّصالِ والانْقِطاعِ .
It is not sufficient that an addition of one reporter or more occurs in some variations because of the possibility that this is an addition. Thus in this form, a definitive ruling will not be applied because of the conflicting possibility of continuation and discontinuation [of the isnad].
وقد صنَّفَ فيهِ الخَطيبُ كتابَ (( التَّفصيلِ لمُبْهَمِ المراسيلِ )) ، وكتاب (( المزيدِ في مُتَّصِلِ الأسانيدِ )) .
Verily al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi] has compiled a book on this called al-Tafsir li-mubham al-mursal and al-Mazid fi muttasil al-asnad.
و[ قد ] انْتَهَتْ هُنا (( حكم )) أَقسامُ حُكمِ السَّاقِطِ مِن الإِسنادِ .
ثمَّ الطَّعْنُ يكونُ بعشرةِ أَشياءَ ، بعضُها (( يكون )) أَشدُّ في القَدْحِ مِن بعضٍ ، خمسةٌ منها تتعلَّقُ بالعدالَةِ ، وخمسةٌ تتعلَّقُ بالضَّبْطِ .
Then defamation is with ten things, some are worse than others in severity. Five from them pertain to the integrity (‘adala) [of the reporter], and five pertain to the accuracy (dabt).
ولم يَحْصُلِ الاعتناءُ بتمييزِ أَحدِ القِسمينِ مِن الآخَرِ لمصلحةٍ اقْتَضَتْ ذلك ، وهي ترتيبُها على الأشدِّ فالأشدِّ في موجَبِ الرَّدَِّ على سَبيلِ التَّدلِّي ؛ لأنَّ الطَّعْنَ إِمَّا أَنْ يكونَ :
لِكَذِبِ الرَّاوِي في الحديثِ النبويِّ بأَنْ يرويَ عنهُ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ما لمْ يَقُلْهُ متَعمِّداً لذلك .
Care for the [separation] of each type has not been done [here in the text] for a reason; this is to arrange [these ten] from the worse in terms of rejection downwards. [The division varies] because the defamation is either because of the lying of the narrator in a Prophetic report, in that he deliberately narrates something from the Prophet which he did not say.
أو تُهْمَتِهِ بذلكَ ؛ بأَنْ لا يُرْوى ذلك الحديثُ إِلاَّ مِن جِهتِهِ ، ويكونَ مُخالِفاً للقواعِدِ المعلومةِ ، وكذا مَنْ عُرِفَ بالكذبِ في كلامِهِ ، و [ إِنْ ] لم يَظْهَرْ منهُ وقوعُ ذلك في الحَديثِ النبويِّ ، وهذا دُونَ الأوَّلِ .
Or [the rejection is due to] accusation of lying, in that the hadith has not been reported except by him and that it contradicts known principles; and similarly, the reporter is known to lie in his [everyday] conversation though his lying has not been proven in Prophetic traditions. This [type] is less than the first [in terms of severity].
أَو فُحْشِ غَلَطِهِ ؛ أي : كَثْرَتِه .
Or [the rejection is due to] his obscene mistakes, meaning plentiful [mistakes].
أَو غَفْلَتِهِ عن الإِتْقانِ .
Or [the rejection is due to] his negligence of accuracy.
أَو فِسْقِهِ ؛ أي : بالفعلِ والقَوْلِ ممَّا لا يبلُغُ الكُفْرَ .
Or [the rejection is due to] his lewdness in action or sayings when it does not reach the stage of disbelief.
[ و ] بينَهُ وبينَ الأوَّلِ عُمومٌ (( وخصوص مطلق )) ، وإِنَّما أُفْرِدَ الأوَّلُ لكونِ القَدْحِ بهِ أَشدَّ في هذا الفنِّ .
The former has been mentioned separately because the defamation in it is worse in this discipline [of ‘ilm al-hadith].
وأَمَّا الفِسقُ بالمُعْتَقَدِ ؛ فسيأْتي بيانُه .
As for lewdness in terms of doctrine, its explanation will follow soon.
أَو وَهَمِهِ بأَنْ يَرْوِيَ على سبيلِ التوهُّمِ .
Or [the rejection is due to] his doubts, in that he reports ambiguously.
أَو مُخالَفَتِه ؛ أَي : للثِّقاتِ .
Or [the rejection is due to] his opposition, namely of the authoritative narrators.
أو جَهالَتِهِ ؛ (( أي )) بأَنْ لا يُعْرَفَ فيهِ تعديلٌ و [ لا ] تَجريحٌ [ مُعيَّنٌ ] .
Or [the rejection is due to] his ignorance, in that his credibility or lack of it is not identified clearly.
أَو بِدْعتِهِ ، وهي اعتقادُ ما أُحْدِثَ على خِلافِ المَعروفِ عن النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، لا بِمعانَدَةٍ ، بل بنَوْعِ شبهةٍ .
Or [the rejection is due to] his innovative beliefs; and this is belief in something that contradicts the established from the Prophet, not out of conviction but with a shade of doubt.
أَو سوءِ حِفْظهِ ، وهِيَ عبارةٌ عن أَنْ لا يكونَ غَلَطُهُ أَقلَّ مِن إِصابتِه .
Or [the rejection is due to] his bad memory, an expression to mean his mistakes are more than his corrections.
فـالقسمُ الأوَّلُ ، وهُو الطَّعْنُ [ بكَذِبِ ] الرَّاوي في الحَديثِ النبويِّ هو المَوضوعُ ، والحُكْمُ عليهِ بالوَضْعِ إِنَّما هُو بطريقِ الظَّنِّ الغالِبِ لا بالقَطْعِ ، إِذ [ قَدْ ] يَصْدُقُ الكَذوبُ ، لكنَّ لأهلِ العلمِ بالحديثِ مَلَكَةً قويَّةً يميِّزون بها (( بين )) ذلك ، وإِنَّما يقومُ بذلك منهُم مَن يكونُ إِطِّلاعُهُ تامّاً ، وذهْنُهُ ثاقِباً ، وفهمُهُ قويّاً ، ومعرِفتُهُ بالقرائنِ الدَّالَّةِ على ذلك متمَكِّنَةً .
Thus the first type – and this is defamation due to the lying of the reporter in the Prophetic tradition – is mawdu‘. The declaration of forgery is merely by the means of overwhelming evidence and not definitive [knowledge], since [even] the liar sometimes tells the truth. [To combat forgery] the people of knowledge in [‘ilm] al-hadith possess a strong ability to differentiate the reports [from the sound]. Only those scholars whose knowledge is comprehensive, whose intellect is penetrating, whose insight is complete, and whose knowledge of the different indications of forgery is sound can stand [successfully] in this field.
وقد يُعْرَفُ الوضعُ بإِقرارِ [ واضِعِه ] ، قالَ ابنُ دقيقِ العيدِ (( رحمه الله )) : لكنْ لا يُقْطَعُ بذلك ؛ لاحتمالِ أَنْ يكونَ كَذَبَ في ذلك الإِقرارِ أ.
هـ .
Sometimes the forgery is identified by the admission of the forger. Ibn Daqiq al-‘Iyd said: ‘But that [confession] will not be considered definitively due to the possibility of him lying in the confession.
وفهِمَ منهُ بعضُهم أَنَّهُ لا يُعْمَلُ بذلك الإِقرارِ أَصلاً ، وليسَ ذلكَ مرادَهُ ، وإِنَّما نفى القَطْعَ بذلك ، ولا يلزَمُ مِن نفيِ القَطْعِ نفيُ الحُكْمِ ؛ لأنَّ الحُكْمَ يقعُ بالظَّنِّ الغالِبِ ، وهُو هُنا كذلك ، ولولا ذلك لَما ساغَ قتْلُ المُقرِّ بالقتلِ ، ولا رَجْمُ المُعْتَرِفِ بالزِّنى ؛ لاحتمالِ أَنْ يكونا كاذِبَيْن فيما اعْتَرَفا به!
Some have understood from this [statement] that his confession will not be acted upon at all because he is a liar. But this is not what he meant. He only negated accepting it definitively. And negating it definitively does not result in negating its ruling, because a ruling can be made with overwhelming evidence, as is the case here. If this was not the case, then it would not be permissible to apply capital punishment to the confessor of murder, nor to the confessor of adultery, due to the possibility of their lying in their confession.
ومِن القَرائنِ الَّتي يُدْرَكُ بها الوَضْعُ ما يؤخَذُ مِن حالِ الرَّاوي ؛ كما وقَعَ لمأْمونِ بنِ أَحمدَ أَنَّه ذُكِرَ بحضرَتِه الخلافُ في كونِ الحسنِ سَمِعَ مِن أَبي هُريرةَ أَوْ لاَ ؟ فساقَ في الحالِ إِسناداً إِلى النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ أَنَّهُ قالَ : سمِعَ الحسنُ مِن أَبي هُريرة .
Amongst the indications by which the forged is identified is that which is found in the state of the reporter, like what occurred to Ma’mun ibn Ahmad; in his presence, the debate of whether Hasan has heard from Abu Hurayra was mentioned.Thus he read an isnad immediately to the Prophet, who [allegedly] said: ‘Hasan heard from Abu Hurayra.’
وكما وقعَ لِغياثِ بنِ إِبراهيمَ حيثُ دخَلَ على المَهْدي فوجَدَهُ يلعبُ بالحَمَام ، فساقَ في الحالِ [ إِسناداً ] إِلى النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ : أَنَّه [ قالَ ] : (( لا سَبَقَ إِلاَّ في نَصْلٍ أَو خُفٍّ أَو حافِرٍ أَو جَناحٍ )) ، فزادَ في الحديثِ : (( أَو جَناحٍ )) ، فَعَرَفَ المهديُّ أَنَّه كذبَ لأجلِهِ ، فأَمرَ بذَبْحِ الحَمَامِ .
Similar to this is what occurred with Ghiyath ibn Ibrahim when he entered upon al-Mahdi; who was playing with his pigeons. Immediately, he read an isnad up to the Prophet, who [allegedly] said: ‘There is no competition except in archery, camel racing, horse racing, and pigeon racing.’ He had added the words ‘and pigeon racing’ [himself]. Al-Mahdi knew that he had lied for his sake and thus ordered the pigeons to be killed.
ومِنها ما يُؤخَذُ مِن حالِ المَرويِّ كأَنْ يكونَ مُناقِضاً لنَصِّ القُرآنِ أَو السُّنَّةِ المُتواتِرَةِ أَو الإِجماعِ القطعيِّ أَو صَريحِ العَقْلِ ، حيثُ لا يَقْبَلُ شيءٌ مِن ذلك التَّأْويلَ .
Amongst the indicating factors [by which the forged is identified] is the state of the text, such as contradicting the text of the Qur’an or the mutawatir sunna, or the firm consensus or the clear, common sense in a manner that [harmonizing] interpretation is not possible.
ثمَّ المَرويُّ تارةً يختَرِعُهُ الواضِعُ ، وتارةً يأْخُذُ [ مِن ] كلامِ غيرِهِ كبَعْضِ السَّلفِ الصَّالحِ أَو قُدماءِ الحُكماءِ أَو الإِسرائيليَّاتِ ، أَو يأْخُذُ حَديثاً ضَعيفَ الإِسنادِ ، فيُرَكِّبُ لَهُ إِسناداً صحيحاً ليَرُوجَ .
Then the reporter sometimes invents the text, and sometimes he takes the dialogue from others [and then ascribes it to the Prophet], like [the words of] some of the pious predecessors, or the ancient wise, or from biblical sources. Or he sometimes takes a weak-chained hadith and invents a sound isnad for it so it can circulate.
والحامِلُ للواضِعِ على الوَضْعِ :
إِمَّا عَدَمُ الدِّينِ ؛ كالزَّنادقةِ .
The reasons for the forger to fabricate are either the absence of religion, like the zindiqs (disbelievers);
أَو غَلَبَةُ الجَهلِ ؛ كبعضِ المتعبِّدينَ .
or the prevalence of ignorance, like some worshippers;
أَو فَرْطُ العَصبيَّةِ ؛ كبعضِ المُقلِّدينَ .
or some adherents [to a madhhab];
أَو اتِّباعُ هوى بعضِ الرُّؤساءِ .
or in pursuit of pleasing some leaders;
أَو الإِغرابُ لقصدِ الاشتِهارِ !
وكُلُّ ذلك حَرامٌ بإِجماعِ مَن يُعْتَدُّ بهِ ، إِلاَّ أَنَّ بعضَ الكَرَّاميَّةِ وبعضَ المُتصوِّفةِ نُقِلَ عنهُم إِباحَةُ الوَضْعِ في التَّرغيبِ والتَّرهيبِ (( والترتيب )) ، وهو خطأ مِن فاعلِهِ ، نشَأَ عَن جَهْلٍ ؛ لأنَّ التَّرغيبَ والتَّرهيبَ مِن جُملةِ الأحكامِ الشَّرعيَّةِ .
or rarity with the intention of attaining fame.
All such acts are forbidden by consensus of [all the scholars] considered in it. However, it has been reported from some Karra miyya and some Sufis the permissibility of lying in the area of targhib and tarhib (instilling virtue and inspiring fear). This is the mistake from the one who does it and it stems from ignorance. This is because targhib and tarhib too are part of the rulings of sharia.
واتَّفقوا على أَنَّ تَعَمُّدَ الكذبِ على النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ مِن الكَبائِرِ .
The scholars are unanimous that deliberately ascribing a lie to the Prophet is from the major [sins].
وبالَغَ (( فيه )) أَبو مُحمَّدٍ الجُوَيْنِيُّ فكَفَّرَ مَن تعمَّدَ الكَذِبَ على النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ .
Abi Muhammad al-Juwayni has over-emphasized [this ruling] by decreeing the deliberate forger a disbeliever.
واتَّفَقوا على تَحْريمِ روايةِ الموضوعِ إِلاَّ مقروناً ببيانِه ؛ لقولِه صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ : (( مَن حَدَّثَ عَنِّي بحديثٍ يُرى أَنَّهُ كذبٌ ؛ فهُو أَحدُ الكاذِبَيْنِ )) ، أَخرجَهُ مسلمٌ .
The scholars have agreed on the prohibition of reporting a forged report, except by explaining its forgery, due to the saying of the Prophet: ‘If anyone narrated a hadith from me which he knew was fabricated, then he is one of the liars.’ Al-Imam Muslim reported this.
وَالقسمُ الثَّاني مِن أَقسامِ المَردودِ ، وهو ما يكونُ بسبَبِ تُهمَةِ الرَّاوي بالكَذِبِ ، (( و )) هُو المَتْروكُ.
The second type from the rejected [traditions] is by reason of the narrator being accused of lying, [which is called] Mārk.
والثَّالِثُ : المُنْكَرُ ؛ على رَأْيِ مَن لا يَشْتَرِطُ في المُنْكَرِ قيدَ المُخالفةِ .
The third is Munkar according to the opinion of those who do not add the condition of opposition in Munkar.
وكذا الرَّابِعُ والخَامِسُ ، فمَنْ فَحُشَ غَلَطُهُ ، أَو كَثُرَتْ غَفلَتُه ، أَو ظهَرَ فِسْقُه ؛ فحديثُهُ مُنْكَرٍ .
And similarly, the fourth and the fifth [is also called Munkar]. So whoever makes severe mistakes, or whose negligence is excessive, or his lewdness is apparent, then the hadith is Munkar.
ثمَّ الوَهَمُ ، وهُو [ القِسمُ ] السَّادسُ ، وإِنَّما أُفْصِحَ بهِ لِطولِ الفَصْلِ ، إِنِ اطُّلعَ عَليهِ ؛ أي : على الوَهَمِ بِالقَرائِنِ الدَّالَّةِ على وَهَمِ راويهِ مِن وَصْلِ مُرْسَل أَو مُنْقَطع ، أَو إِدخال حَديثٍ في حَديثٍ ، أَو نحوِ ذلك مِن الأشياءِ القادحةِ .
Then the doubt – and this is the sixth type; and it has been clarified by name because of the long explanation of it137 – if the doubt in it is known through the means of indicating factors, such as making the mursal or the munqat!i‘ continuous, or such as inserting a hadith into another or harmful acts similar to these;
وتَحْصُلُ معرفةُ ذلك بكثرةِ التَّتبُّعِ ، وجَمْعِ الطُّرُقِ ؛ فـهذا هو المُعَلَّلُ ، وهو مِن أَغمَضِ أَنواعِ عُلومِ الحديثِ وأَدقِّها ، ولا يقومُ بهِ إلاَّ مَن رَزَقَهُ اللهُ [ تعالى ] فهْماً ثاقِباً ، وحِفْظاً واسِعاً ، ومعرِفةً تامَّةً بمراتِبِ الرُّواةِ ، ومَلَكَةً قويَّةً بالأسانيدِ والمُتونِ ، ولهذا لم يتكلَّمْ فيهِ إِلاَّ القليلُ مِن أَهلِ هذا الشأْنِ ؛ كعليِّ بنِ المَدينيِّ ، وأَحمدَ بنِ حنبلٍ ، والبُخاريِّ ، ويَعقوبَ بنِ (( أبي )) شَيْبةَ ، وأَبي حاتمٍ ، وأَبي زُرعةَ ، والدَّارَقُطنيُّ .
and this is identified by intensive investigation and the gathering of the [numerous] chains, then this is [called] Mu‘allal. This is one of the deeply [ambiguous] types [to uncover] in ‘ilm al-hadith and one of the most intrinsic. No one can aspire to [tackle it] except he whom Allah Almighty has favored with a penetrating understanding, a vast memory, a complete awareness of the different ranks of reporters and a strong grasp of chains and texts. For this reason, only a few have spoken on the issue from the people of this field, like ‘Ali ibn al-Madani, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari, Ya‘qub ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Zur‘a and al-Daraqutni.
وقد تَقْصُرُ عبارةُ المُعَلِّل عَن إِقامةِ الحُجَّة على دَعْواهُ ؛ كالصَّيْرَفيِّ في نَقْدِ الدِّينارِ والدِّرهَمِ .
Sometimes the investigator of Mu‘allal falls short from establishing evidence for his claim [that a particular report is Mu‘allal], like a money exchanger in deeming counterfeit dirhams and dinars.
ثمَّ المُخالفَةُ وهو القسمُ السابعُ إِنْ كانتْ واقعةً بـسببِ تَغْييرِ السِّياقِ ؛ أي : سياقِ الإسنادِ ؛ فـالواقعُ فيهِ ذلك التَّغييرُ هو مُدْرَجُ الإِسْنادِ ، وهو أَقسامٌ :
الأوَّلُ : أَنْ يَرْوِيَ جماعةٌ الحديثَ بأَسانيدَ مُختلفةٍ ، فيرويهِ عنهُم راوٍ ، فيَجْمَعُ الكُلَّ على إِسنادٍ واحِدٍ مِن تلكَ الأسانيدِ ، ولا يُبَيِّنُ الاختلافَ .
Then the opposition – and this is the seventh type – if it occurs by reason of the changing of the text or the changing of the isnad, then that alteration is mudraj al-isnad. And this is of many types. The first is that a group reports a hadith with different chains. Then one from them reports it by gathering all into one chain from the numerous chains and then does not explain the variation.
[ و ] الثَّاني : أَنْ يكونَ المتنُ عندَ راوٍ إِلاَّ طَرفاً منهُ ؛ [ فإِنَّه عندَه بإِسنادٍ آخَرَ ، فيرويهِ راوٍ عنهُ تامّاً بالإِسنادِ الأوَّلِ .
The second is that a narrator has the text except part of it. The remainder he has with a different isnad. He then reports the entire text using the first isnad.
ومنهُ أَنْ يسمَعَ الحديثَ مِن شيخِهِ إِلاَّ طرفاً منهُ ] فيسمَعَهُ عَن شيخِهِ بواسطةٍ ، فيرويهِ راوٍ عنهُ تامّاً بحَذْفِ الواسِطةِ .
And from [this type too] is that the narrator hears a text from his shaykh and hears the rest of it indirectly. He then narrates it collectively with the omission of the indirect [reporter].
الثَّالِثُ : أَنْ يكونَ عندَ الرَّاوي متْنانِ مُخْتَلِفان بإِسنادينِ مختلفينِ ، فيرويهِما راوٍ عنهُ مُقتَصِراً على أَحدِ الإِسنادينِ ، أَو يروي أَحَدَ الحَديثينِ بإِسنادِهِ الخاصِّ بهِ ، لكنْ يزيدُ فيهِ مِن المَتْنِ الآخَرِ ما ليسَ في [ المَتْنِ ] الأوَّلِ .
The third is that the reporter has two reports with two different chains. He then reports both of the reports using one of the chains only, or he narrates one of the reports with its own specific chain and adds in the second text that which is not found in the first.
الرَّابعُ : أَنْ يسوقَ [ الرَّاوي ] الإِسنادَ ، فيَعْرِضُ لهُ عارِضٌ ، فيقولُ (( له )) كلاماً مِن قِبَلِ نفسِهِ ، فيظنُّ بعضُ مَن سَمِعَهُ أَنَّ ذلكَ الكلامَ هُو متنُ [ ذلكَ ] الإسنادِ ، فيَرويهِ عنهُ كذلك .
The fourth is that the narrator reads an isnad and is then distracted, after which he says something himself. Some of the listeners think the [distracted] dialogue is the text for that chain and then narrates it [to others] as such.
هذهِ أَقسامُ مُدْرَجِ الإِسنادِ .
These are the types of mudraj al-isnad.
وأَمَّا مُدْرَجُ المَتْنِ ، فهُو أَنْ يَقَعَ في المتنِ كلامٌ ليسَ منهُ ، فتارةً يكونُ في أَوَّلِه ، وتارةً (( يكون ))في أَثنائِه ، وتارةً (( يكون )) في آخِرِهِ – وهو الأكثرُ – لأنَّهُ يقعُ بعطفِ جُملةٍ على جُملةٍ ، أو بِدَمْجِ مَوْقوفٍ مِن كلامِ الصَّحابةِ أَو مَنْ بعْدَهُم بِمَرْفوعٍ مِن كلامِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ]وسلَّمَ مِن غيرِ فصلٍ ، فـهذا هُو مُدْرَجُ المَتْنِ .
As for mudraj al-matn, this is when dialogue occurs in the matn that does not belong to it. Sometimes it is at the beginning of the matn, sometimes in the middle, and sometimes in the end, which is the most common because it occurs by joining a sentence to the next. Or [mudraj can be] by the merging of a mawquf from the speech of the Companions or those after them into a marfu‘ from the speech of the Prophet without clarification. This is then mudraj al-matn.
ويُدْرَكُ الإِدراجُ :
بوُرودِ روايةٍ مُفَصِّلةٍ للقَدْرِ المُدْرَجِ مِمَّا أُدْرِجَ فيهِ .
The interpolated can be identified by the appearance of a detailed report highlighting the interpolated part,
أَو بالتَّنصيصِ على ذلك مِن الرَّاوي ، أَو مِن بعضِ الأئمَّةِ المُطَّلعينَ .
or [it can be identified] by the statement from the reporter or from some of the versed imams,
أو باستحالَةِ كونِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ يقولُ ذلك .
or [it can be identified] due to the impossibility that the Prophet could have said it.
وقد صنَّفَ الخَطيبُ في المُدْرَجِ كتاباً ولخَّصْتُهُ وزدتُ عليهِ قدْرَ ما ذكَرَ مرَّتينِ أَو أَكثرَ ، وللهِ الحمدُ .
Al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi] has compiled a book on mudraj, and I have summarized it and added to it twice or more than what he mentioned. And for Allah is praise.
أَوْ [ إِنْ ] كانَتِ المُخالفةُ بِتَقْدِيمٍ أَو تَأْخيرٍ ؛ أي : في الأسماءِ كَمُرَّةَ بنِ كعبٍ ، وكَعبِ بنِ مُرَّةَ ؛ لأنَّ اسمَ أَحدِهِما اسمُ أَبي الآخَرِ ؛ فـهذا هو المَقْلوبُ ، وللخطيبِ فيهِ كتابُ (( يُسمى )) (( رافعِ الارْتِيابِ (( في المقلوب من الأسماء والأنساب )) )) .
If the opposition is due to preceding and delaying, namely in the names like Murra ibn Ka‘b and Ka‘b ibn Murra, as the name of one of the two is the name of the father of the other, then this is maqlub. For al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi] has a book on this called Rifa‘ al-Irtiyab.
وقد يَقَعُ القلبُ في المتنِ أَيضاً ؛ (( ويصير )) كحديثِ أَبي هُريرةَ (( رضي الله تعالى عنه )) عندَ مُسلمٍ في السَّبعةِ الَّذينَ يُظِلُّهُم اللهُ تحتَ ظلِّ عَرْشِهِ ، ففيهِ : (( [ و ] رَجلٌ تصدَّقَ بصدَقةٍ أَخْفاها حتَّى لا تَعْلَمَ يمينُهُ ما تُنْفِقُ شِمالُهُ )) ، فهذا ممَّا انْقَلَبَ على أَحدِ الرُّواةِ ، وإِنَّما هو : (( حتَّى لا تعْلَمَ شِمالُه ما تُنْفِقُ يمينُهُ )) ؛ كما في الصَّحيحينِ .
The mixing sometimes occurs in the text too, like the hadith of Abu Hurayra recorded by al-Imam Muslim, regarding the seven who Allah will shade on the Day of Judgment beneath His throne, which includes ‘a man that gives charitable donations discreetly to the extent that the right hand does not know what the left hand has spent.’ This has been mixed up by one of the narrators; in reality, it is ‘to the extent the left hand does not know what the right hand has spent,’ as it is recorded in the two Sahihs.
أَوْ إِنْ كانتِ المُخالفةُ بِزيادةِ راوٍ في أَثناءِ الإِسنادِ ، ومَن لم يَزِدْها أَتقَنُ ممَّن زادَها ، فـهذا هُو المَزيدُ في مُتَّصِلِ الأَسانِيدِ .
Or if the opposition is due to the addition of a narrator in the duration of the isnad – and the narrator who does not include the addition is more reliable – then this is mazd fi muttasil al-asanid.
وشرطُهُ أَنْ يقعَ التَّصريحُ بالسَّماعِ في مَوْضِعِ الزِّيادةِ ، وإِلاَّ ؛ فمتى كانَ مُعَنْعَناً – مثلاً – ؛ ترجَّحَتِ الزِّيادةُ .
Its condition is that clarification of hearing it [is found] in the place of addition. If not, then when it is mu‘an‘an, for example, the addition will be preferred.
أَوْ [ إِنْ ] كانتِ المُخالفةُ بِإِبْدَالِهِ ؛ أي : الراوي ، ولا مُرَجِّحَ لإِحدى الرِّاويتينِ على الأخرى ، فـ [ هذا ] هو المُضْطَرِبُ ، وهو يقعُ في الإِسنادِ غالباً ، وقد يقعُ في المتْن .
Or if the opposition is with the changing of a narrator and there is no means of preferring one report over the other, then this is mudhtarib. This usually occurs in the chain and sometimes occurs in the text.
لكنْ قلَّ أَنْ يَحْكُمَ المحدِّثُ على الحديثِ بالاضطرابِ بالنِّسبةِ إلى الاختلافِ في المَتْنِ دونَ الإِسنادِ .
But rarely does a hadith master declare a hadith as mudhtarib in relation to the text (matn) rather than the isnad.
وقد يَقَعُ الإِبدالُ عَمْداً لمَن يُرادُ اخْتِبارُ حِفْظِهِ امتحاناً مِن فاعِلِهِ ؛ كما وقعَ للبُخاريِّ والعُقَيْليِّ وغيرِهِما ، وشَرْطهُ أَنْ لا يُستمرَّ عليهِ ، بل ينتهي بانْتهاءِ الحاجةِ .
Sometimes the changing happens deliberately for whom is intended to be tested, like what happened to al-Bukhari, ‘Uqayli, and others. The condition [for such a practice] is that the report should not remain [in that altered state]. Rather the practice should stop as the need for it ceases.
فلو وَقَعَ الإِبدالُ [ عمداً ] لا لمصلحةٍ ، بل للإِغرابِ مثلاً ؛ فهو مِن أَقسامِ الموضوعِ ، ولو وقعَ غَلَطاً ؛ فهُو مِن المقلوبِ أو المُعَلَّلِ .
If the alteration occurs intentionally and not for a certain purpose, like to make the report rare for example, then this is from the types of forgery. If it occurs due to a mistake, then it is from the maqlub or mu‘allal.
أَوْ إِنْ كانتِ المُخالفةُ بتَغْييرِ حرفٍ أَو حُروفٍ مَعَ بَقاءِ صورةِ الخَطِّ في السِّياقِ .
If the opposition is due to the changing of a letter or several letters though the form of the word remains the same;
فإِنْ كانَ ذلك بالنِّسبةِ إِلى النَّقْطِ ؛ فالمُصَحَّفُ .
then if the changing is because of the dots [on the letter] then it is musahhaf.
وَإِنْ كانَ بالنِّسبةِ إلى الشَّكْلِ ؛ فـالمُحَرَّفُ ، ومعرفةُ هذا النَّوعِ مُهمَّةٌ .
If the changing is because of the form [of the word], then [it is] muharraf.
وقد صنَّف فيهِ : العَسْكَريُّ ، والدَّارَقُطنِيُّ ، وغيرُهما .
Indeed al-Imam al-‘Askari, al-Daraqutni, and others have compiled books on this.
وأَكثرُ ما يقعُ في المُتونِ ، وقد يقعُ في الأسماءِ الَّتي في الأسانيدِ .
It most often occurs in the text and sometimes occurs in the names [to be found] in the chains.
Ikhtisar al-hadith and riwaya bi-al-ma‘na – Shortening the hadith and transmission by meaning.
ولا يَجُوزُ تَعَمُّدُ تَغْييرِ صورَةِ المَتْنِ مُطلقاً ، ولا الاختصارُ منه ُ بالنَّقْصِ ولا إِبْدالُ اللَّفْظِ المُرادِفِ باللَّفْظِ (( و )) المُرادِفِ لهُ ؛ إِلاَّ لِعالمٍِ بمَدْلولاتِ الألْفاظِ ، وبِما يُحيلُ المَعاني على الصَّحيحِ في المسأَلَتَيْنِ :
It is not permissible to deliberately change the form of the matn at all, or shorten it with deletions, or by changing a word with an equivalent one, or by changing it to divert the meaning, except by a scholar aware of the indications of the words, according to the correct opinion in both issues [of shortening and transmission by meaning].
أَمَّا اخْتِصارُ الحَديثِ ؛ فالأكْثَرونَ على جَوازِهِ بِشرطِ أَنْ يكونَ الَّذي يختَصِرُهُ عالِماً ؛ لأنَّ العالِمَ لا يَنْقُصُ مِن الحديثِ إِلاَّ ما لا تعلُّقَ لهُ بما يُبْقيهِ [ منهُ ] ؛ [ بحيثُ ] لا تختِلفُ الدِّلالةُ ، ولا يختَلُّ البَيانُ ، حتَّى يكونَ المَذكورُ والمَحذوفُ بمنزِلَةِ خَبَرينِ ، أَو يَدُلُّ ما ذَكَرَهُ على [ ما ] حَذَفَهُ ؛ بخِلافِ الجاهِلِ ، فإِنَّهُ قد يَنْقُصُ ما لَهُ تعلُّقٌ ؛ كتَرْكِ الاستِثناءِ .
As for the shortening of the hadith, the majority [of scholars] express its permissibility with the condition that the one shortening it is an expert. This is because the expert will not omit except that which has no link with the remaining text [and he will do it] in such a way that the indicated meaning will not differ, and the explanation will not suffer from shortcomings, to the extent that the included and the excluded will be like two [independent] reports, or that which is included will [at least] indicate that which is excluded. This is as opposed to the ignorant, for he may omit that part which holds significance, like omitting the exception.
وأَمَّا الراوية بالمعنى ؛ فالخِلافُ فيها < شَهيرٌ ، والأكثرُ على الجَوازِ أَيضاً ، ومِن أَقوى حُججهِم الإِجماعُ على جوازِ شرحِ الشَّريعةِ للعَجَمِ بلسانِهِم للعارِفِ بهِ ، فإِذا جازَ الإِبدالُ بلُغةٍ أُخرى ؛ فجوازُهُ باللُّغةِ العربيَّةِ أَولى .
As for transmission by meaning, thus the difference [amongst the scholars] is well-known. Most are also of the opinion of its permissibility. Their strongest proof is the consensus on the permissibility of commentaries on shar ‘a [sources] done by non-Arabs undertaken by their experts. So when it is permissible to change it into another language, then changing it into Arabic is [certainly] allowed.
وقيلَ : إِنَّما يَجوزُ في المُفْرَداتِ دونَ المُرَكَّباتِ !
وقيلَ : إِنَّما يَجُوزُ لمَن يستَحْضِرُ اللَّفْظَ ليتَمَكَّنَ مِن التَّصرُّفِ فيه .
It is said that transmission by meaning is only permissible with solitary words and not sentences. It is also said that it is permissible for he who knows the original words so that he can revert to it.
وقيلَ : إِنَّما يَجوزُ لمَن كانَ يحفَظُ الحَديثَ فنَسِيَ لفظَهُ ، وبقيَ معناهُ مُرْتَسماً في ذِهنِه ، فلهُ أَنْ يروِيَهُ بالمعنى لمصلَحَةِ تحصيلِ الحُكْمِ منهُ ؛ بخِلافِ مَن كانَ مُسْتَحْضِراً لِلَفْظِهِ .
Additionally, it is said it is only permissible for he who had memorized the hadith but then forgets it and the meaning still remains firm in his mind. Thus for him is the permissibility to narrate by meaning in order to explain a ruling, as opposed to someone who knows the hadith by its wording.
وجَميعُ ما تقدَّمَ يتعلَّقُ بالجَوازِ وعَدَمِه ، ولا شكَّ أَنَّ الأوْلى إِيرادُ الحَديثِ بأَلفاظِهِ دُونَ التَّصرُّفِ فيهِ .
Everything here that has been mentioned concerns the permissibility and
impermissibility of it. [However] there is no doubt that it is preferred that the hadith is reported with its [exact] words without change.
قالَ القاضي عِياضٌ : (( يَنْبَغِي سَدُّ بابِ الرِّاويةِ بالمَعْنَى لئلاَّ يتَسَلَّطَ مَن لاَ يُحْسِنُ ممَّن (( به ))يظنُّ أَنّهُ يُحْسِنُ ؛ كما وقَعَ لِكثيرٍ مِن الرُّواةِ قديماً وحَديثاً )) ، واللهُ المُوَفِّقُ .
Al-Qadhi ‘Iyad said: ‘It is
desirable that the practice of transmission by meaning is stopped so that those who
think that they are good at it but are not do not become prevalent, as it has
happened with reporters in classic and modern times. And Allah is the provider of
guidance.
فإِنْ خَفِيَ المَعْنَى بأَنْ كانَ اللَّفْظُ مستَعْمَلاً بقلَّةٍ احْتيجَ إِلى الكُتُبِ المصنَّفَةِ في شَرْحِ الغَريبِ ؛ ككتابِ أَبي عُبَيْدٍ (( الله )) القاسِمِ بنِ سلامٍ ، وهو غيرُ مرتَّبٍ ، وقد رتَّبَهُ الشيخُ مُوفَّقُ الدِّينِ ابنُ قُدامَة على الحُروفِ .
Thus if the meaning is unclear – that the word is used rarely – then the compiled books in the commentary of rare words are required, like Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam’s work; and this is unarranged. Shaykh Muwaffaq al-Din ibn Qudama arranged the book in order of letters.
وأَجْمَعُ منهُ كتابُ أَبي عُبيدٍ الهَرَوِيِّ ، وقد اعتَنَى بهِ الحافظُ أَبو موسى المَدينِيُّ فنَقَّبَ عليهِ واسْتَدْرَكَ .
The most comprehensive book is the book of Abu ‘Ubayd al-Harawi. Al-Hafiz Abu ‘Umar al-Madani edited this work and made improvements to it.
وللزَّمَخْشَرِيِّ كتابٌ اسمُهُ (( الفائِقُ )) حسنُ التَّرتيبِ .
And by al-Zamkhashari is a book called al-Faiq [which is] arranged well.
ثمَّ جَمَعَ الجَميعَ ابنُ الأثيرِ في (( النِّهايةِ )) ، وكتابُهُ أَسهَلُ الكُتُبِ تناوُلاً ، مع إِعواز قليلٍ فيهِ .
Then Ibn al-Athir gathered all in al-Nihaya; this is the easiest book to use as a reference, with only a few places where additional help is required.
وإِنْ كانَ اللَّفْظُ مُستَعْملاً بكثرةٍ ، لكنَّ في مَدلُولِهِ دِقَّةً ؛ احْتِيجَ إلى الكُتُبِ المُصنَّفَةِ في شَرْحِ معاني الأخْبارِ وبيانِ المُشْكِلِ منها .
If a particular word is used often, but [in the hadith] it is used in a specific context, then compiled works like Sharh ma‘ani al-akhbar (commentaries on the meanings of the report) and Bayan al-mushkil (explanation of the difficult) are needed.
وقد أَكثرَ الأئمَّةُ مِن التَّصانيفِ في ذلك ؛ كالطَّحاويِّ والخَطَّابيِّ وابنِ عبدِ البَرِّ وغيرِهم .
Many scholars have written books in this field, like al-Tahawi, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, and others.
ثمَّ الجَهالةُ بالرَّاوِي ، وهِيَ السَّببُ الثَّامِنُ في الطَّعْنِ ، وسَبَبُها أَمْرانِ :
أَحَدُهُما : أَنَّ الرَّاوِيَ قَدْ تَكْثُرُ نُعوتُهُ مِن اسمٍ أَو كُنْيَةٍ أَو لَقَبٍ أَو صِفَةٍ أَو حِرْفةٍ أَو نَسَبٍ ، فيشتَهِرُ بشيءٍ مِنها ، فيُذْكَرُ بِغَيْرِ مَا اشْتُهِرَ بِهِ لِغَرَضٍ مِن الأغْراضِ ، فيُظنُّ أَنَّه آخرُ ، فيَحْصُلُ الجهْلُ بحالِهِ .
Then the unknown [state] of the reporter – this is the eighth reason for defamation – can appear for two reasons. One of them is that the narrator has numerous [means of] references, like [his] name, lineage, title, occupation, description, or ancestry. He becomes known by one of them, only then to be mentioned with a name he is not known with, for one reason or another. So it is thus assumed it is someone else [when in fact it is the same person]. Hence, his state becomes unknown.
وصنَّفُوا فِيهِ ؛ أي : في هذا النَّوعِ المُوْضِحَ لأوهامِ الجمْعِ والتَّفريقِ ؛ أَجادَ فيهِ الخَطيبُ ، وسبَقَهُ [إِليه ] عبدُ الغنيِّ [ بنُ سعيدٍ المِصْريُّ وهو الأَزْدِيُّ (( أيضاً )) ، ] ثمُّ الصُّورِيُّ .
The scholars have written in this discipline al-Muwaddihi li-awham wa-al-tafriq; al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi] has done excellently in it. He was preceded by ‘Abd al-Ghani, then al-Suyuti.
ومِن أَمثلتِهِ محمَّدُ بنُ السَّائِبِ بنِ بِشْرٍ الكَلْبِيُّ ؛ نَسَبَهُ بعضُهم إِلى جَدِّهِ ، فقالَ : محمَّدُ بنُ بِشرٍ ، وسمّاهُ بعضُهم حمَّادَ بنَ السَّائبِ ، وكَناهُ بعضُهُم أَبا النَّصرِ ، وبعضُهُم أَبا سعيدٍ ، وبعضُهم أَبا هِشامٍ ، فصارَ يُظَنُّ أَنَّهُ جماعةٌ ، وهو واحِدٌ ، ومَن لا يعرِفُ حقيقةَ الأمرِ فيهِ لا يعرِفُ شيئاً مِن ذلك .
An example [of an unknown narrator] is Muhammad ibn al-Sa‘ib ibn Bishr al-Kalbi. Some have ascribed his name to his grandfather and have said ‘Muhammad ibn Bishr’. Others have named him Hammad ibn al-Sa‘ib. Some have ascribed him to his son [by calling him] Abu al-Nadur and Abu Sa‘id and Abu Hisham. It became [to the point] where it was assumed these were a group of reporters, though it is one. He who is not aware of the reality of the matter will be oblivious to this.
وَالأمرُ الثَّاني : أَنَّ الرَّاويَ قد يكونُ مُقِلاً مِن الحديثِ ، فلا يَكْثُرُ الأَخْذُ عَنْهُ :
وَقد صَنَّفوا فِيهِ الوُحْدانَ – وهو [ مَن ] لم يَرْوِ عنهُ إِلاَّ واحِدٌ ، ولو سُمِّيَ – فمِمَّن جَمَعَهُ مُسلمٌ ، والحسنُ بنُ سُفيانَ ، وغيرُهما .
The other [reason] is that the reporter sometimes only narrates rarely, and thus reports are not taken from him often. The scholars have written [compilations called] wahdan; namely those reporters from whom only one narration exists, even if he is named. From [the scholars] who have compiled [in this area] are Muslim, al-Hasan ibn Sufyan, and others.
أَوْ لاَ يُسمَّى الرَّاوِي اختِصَاراً مِن الرَّاوي عنهُ ؛ كقولِه : أَخْبَرَني فلانٌ ، أَو شيخٌ ، أَو رجلٌ ، أَو بعضُهم ، أَو ابنُ فلانٍ .
Or the [ambiguity of the reporter can occur] because the reporter is not named from the one he is reporting from due to shorthand, like ‘such and such informed me’ or ‘the shaykh informed me’ or ‘the man informed me’ or ‘the son of such and such informed me’ and its likes.
ويُستَدَلُّ على معرفَةِ اسمِ المُبْهَمِ بوُرودِه مِن طريقٍ أُخرى [ مسمّىً [ فيها ] ] :
وَصنَّفوا فيهِ المُبْهَمات .
Identifying the obscure [person’s] name is achieved by his mentioning in another isnad with his name. The scholars have written mubhamat in this field.
ولا يُقْبَلُ حديثُ المُبْهَمُ ما لم يُسَمَّ ؛ لأنَّ شرطَ قَبولِ الخَبَرِ عدالَةُ راويهِ ، ومَن أُبْهِمَ اسمُه لا تُعْرَفُ عَيْنُهُ ، فكيفَ [ تُعْرَفُ ] عدالَتُهُ ؟!
وكذا لا يُقْبَلُ خَبَرُه ، [ و ] لو أُبْهِمَ بِلَفْظِ التَّعْديلِ ؛ كأَنْ يقولَ الرَّاوي عنهُ : أَخْبَرَني الثِّقُة ؛ لأنَّهُ قد يكونُ ثقةً عندَه مجروحاً عندَ غيرِه ، وهذا عَلى الأصَحِّ في المسأَلةِ .
The hadith of the obscure is not accepted until he is named because the condition of acceptance is the credibility of the reporter. When a person whose name is obscure cannot be identified, how will his credibility be known? And similarly, the report will not be accepted when his name is obscured with a credible title, like ‘the authoritative informed me’. This is because he may be credible according to him but not to others. This is the most correct opinion in the matter.
ولهذه النُّكتةِ لم [ يُقْبَلِ ] المُرسلُ ، ولو أَرسَلَهُ العدلُ جازِماً بهِ لهذا الاحتمالِ بعينِه .
Because of this point, the mursal is not accepted, even if a reliable person does the irsal with certainty.
وقيلَ : يُقْبَلُ تمسُّكاً بالظَّاهِرِ ، إِذ الجَرْحُ على خِلافِ الأصْلِ .
It is said that the hadith will be accepted, in adherence to the apparent state, since defamation (jarh) is not the default state.
وقيلَ : إِنْ كانَ القائلُ عالِماً أَجْزأَ ذلك في حقِّ مَن يوافِقُهُ في مَذْهَبِهِ .
It is [also] said that it is accepted if the one doing it is a [reputed] scholar or someone who shares the same school of thought.
وهذا ليسَ مِن مباحِثِ (( عُلومِ )) الحَديثِ ، واللهُ المُوفِّقُ .
This is not part of the discussions on ‘ilm al-hadith. And Allah provides religious guidance.
فإن سُمِّيَ الرَّاوي وانْفَرَدَ راوٍ واحِدٌ بالرِّوايةِ عَنْهُ ؛ فـهو مَجْهولُ العَيْنِ ؛ كالمُبْهَمِ ، [ فلا يُقْبَلُ حديثُهُ ] إِلاَّ أَنْ يُوَثِّقَهُ غيرُ مَنْ ينفَرِدُ عنهُ على الأصحِّ ، وكذا مَن يَنْفَرِدُ عنهُ (( على الأصح )) إِذا كانَ مُتَأَهِّلاً لذلك .
If the reporter names the source, and one reporter is solitary in reporting from him, then this is majhul al-‘ayn. This is like mubham [in that it is rejected] unless someone other than him verifies him, according to the most sound opinion. Likewise, it will be accepted if the sole person reporting from him is an authority.
أَوْ إِنْ روى [ عنهُ ] اثنانِ فصاعِداً ولم يُوَثَّقْ ؛ فـ [ هو ] مَجْهولُ الحالِ ، وهُو المَسْتورُ ، وقد قَبلَ روايتَهُ جماعةٌ بغيرِ قيدٍ ، وردَّها الجُمهورُ .
If two or more report from him but he is not verified as credible, then this is majhul al-hal, [also called] mastur. A group of scholars have accepted such a narration without condition, though the majority has rejected this [stance].
والتَّحقيقُ أَنَّ روايةَ المستورِ ونحوِهِ ممَّا فيهِ الاحتِمالُ لا يُطلَقُ [ القولُ ] بردِّها ولا بِقَبولِها ، بل ((يقال )) هي موقوفةٌ إِلى اسْتِبانَةِ حالِه كما جَزَمَ بهِ إِمامُ الحَرمينِ .
The detail is that the narration of a mastur and its likes in which there is a possibility will neither be unequivocally accepted nor rejected. Rather it is paused upon until its state is clarified, as Imam al-Haramayn has asserted
ونحوُهُ قولُ ابنِ الصَّلاحِ فيمَن جُرِحَ بجَرْحٍ غيرِ مُفَسَّرٍ .
and Ibn al-Salah regarding someone who defames someone without a detailed reason.
ثمَّ البِدْعَةُ ، وهي السَّببُ التَّاسعُ مِن أَسبابِ الطَّعنِ في الرَّاوي ، وهي إِمَّا أَنْ تَكونَ بمُكَفِّرٍ ؛ كأَنْ يعتَقِدَ ما يستَلْزِمُ الكُفْرَ ، أو بِمُفَسِّقٍ :
فالأوَّلُ : لا يَقْبَلُ صاحِبَها الجُمهورُ ، وقيلَ : يُقْبَلُ مُطلقاً ، وقيلَ : إِنْ كانَ لا يعتَقِدُ حِلَّ الكَذِبِ لنُصرَةِ مقالَتِه [ قُبِلَ ] .
Then the innovation – and this is the ninth reason for defamation in the narrator – either it necessitates disbelief, in that he believes in something which results in disbelief, or the innovation necessitates fisq (deviance). Thus the majority do not accept the first, though it is said that it is accepted unequivocally and it is [also] said that it is accepted if the person does not believe in the permissibility of lying to assist his opinion.
والتحقيق : أنه لا يُرَدُّ كُلُّ مُكفَّرٍ ببدعَتِه ؛ لأَنَّ كلَّ طائفةٍ تدَّعي أَنَّ مخالِفيها مبتَدِعةٌ ، وقد تُبالِغُ فتُكفِّرُ مخالِفها ، فلو أُخِذَ ذلك على الإِطلاقِ ؛ لاسْتَلْزَمَ تكفيرَ جميعِ الطَّوائفِ ، فالمُعْتَمَدُ أَنَّ الَّذي تُرَدُّ روايتُهُ مَنْ أَنْكَرَ أَمراً مُتواتِراً مِن [ الشَّرعِ ] ، معلوماً مِن الدِّينِ بالضَّرورةِ ، وكذا مَن اعتقدَ عكسَهُ .
The reality is that every report of the mubtadi‘ that leads to disbelief will not be rejected. This is because every sect claims that the opposing party is heretical and sometimes they exaggerate the claim by declaring them disbelievers. If this opinion were to be accepted generally, then it would necessitate that all sects are disbelievers. Hence the trusted opinion is that the narration of someone who denies the multiply-attested (mutawatir) matters of shar‘a, known in religion through conviction, will be rejected. And similar is the case for one who does the opposite (in that he believes in something which is definitively known to be forbidden in shar‘a).
فأَمَّا مَن لم يَكُنْ بهذهِ الصِّفَةِ ، وانْضَمَّ إِلى ذلك ضَبْطُهُ لِما يَرويهِ مَعَ وَرَعِهِ وتَقْواهُ ؛ فلا مانِعَ مِن قَبولِهِ (( أصلاً )) .
As for someone who is not of this attribute, coupled with the fact that he is careful in what he reports with awareness and piety, then there is no hindrance to accepting his report.
والثاني : وهو مَن لا تَقْتَضي بدعَتُهُ التَّكفيرَ أَصلاً ، [ و ] قد اختُلِفَ أَيضاً في قَبولِهِ ورَدِّهِ :
فقيلَ : يُرَدُّ مُطلَقاً – وهُو بَعيدٌ – .
In the second – namely the one whose innovative beliefs do not lead to disbelief – there lies a dispute too in accepting and rejecting it. Thus it is said that it is unequivocally rejected. This opinion is far-fetched.
وأَكثرُ مَا عُلِّلَ بهِ أَنَّ في الرِّوايةِ عنهُ تَرْويجاً لأمرِهِ وتَنْويهاً بذِكْرِهِ .
The most common reason given for its rejection is that narrating from him will be promoting his belief and will be an approval of it.
وعلى هذا ؛ فيَنْبَغي أَنْ لا يُرْوى عنْ مُبْتَدعٍ شيءٌ يُشارِكُه فيهِ غيرُ مُبتدعٍ .
If this is the case, then the report of a mubtadi‘ in which a non-mubtadi‘ also features should also be rejected.
وقيلَ : يُقْبَلُ مُطْلقاً إِلاَّ إِن اعْتَقَدَ حِلَّ الكَذِبِ ؛ كما تقدَّمَ .
It is also said that the report of the agent is accepted in general, except if he believes in the permissibility of lying, like what has already been mentioned.
وقيلَ : يُقْبَلُ مَنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ داعِيةً إِلى بِدعَتِهِ ؛ لأنَّ تزيينَ بِدعَتِه قد يَحْمِلُهُ على تَحريفِ الرِّواياتِ وتَسويَتِها على ما يقتَضيهِ مذهَبُه ، وهذا في الأصَحِّ .
It is also said the mubtadi‘’s report is accepted if he does not propagate his bid‘a. This is because appeal to his innovation may result in distorting the narrations [in his favor] and molding it to comply with the requirements of his innovation. This is the most correct opinion.
وأَغْرَبَ ابنُ حِبَّانَ ، فادَّعى الاتِّفاقَ على قَبولِ غيرِ الدَّاعيةِ مِن غيرِ تفصيلِ .
Ibn Hibban has deviated by claiming the consensus on accepting the agent’s report without further investigation when he does not propagate it.
نَعَمْ ؛ الأكثرُ على قَبولِ غيرِ الدَّاعيةِ ؛ إِلاَّ إنْ رَوى ما يُقَوِّي بِدْعَتَهُ ، فيُرَدُّ على المذهَبِ المُخْتارِ ، وبهِ صرَّحَ الحافِظُ أَبو إِسحاقَ إِبراهيمُ بنُ يعقوبَ الجُوْزَجانِيُّ شيخُ أَبي داودَ ، والنَّسائِيِّ في كتابِه ((معرفة الرِّجال )) ، فقالَ في وَصْفِ الرُّواةِ : (( ومِنهُم زائغٌ عن الحَقِّ – أَيْ : عنِ السُّنَّةِ – صادقُ اللَّهجَةِ ، فليسَ فيهِ حيلةٌ ؛ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُؤخَذَ مِن حديثِه (( غير )) ما لا يكونُ مُنْكراً إِذا لم يُقَوِّ [ بهِ ] بدْعَتَهُ )) اهـ .
Yes, most are of the opinion of accepting such a report, but if he reports that which strengthens his innovation, then it is rejected according to the preferred, majority opinion. This is what al-Hafiz Abu Ishaaq Ibrahim Ya‘qub al-Jurjaani, the shaykh of Abu Dawood has clarified, as well as al-Nasa’i in his book Ma‘rifat al-‘ilal. In this he said when describing the different grades of a narrator, of which one of these is ‘turning away from the truth’ (za’igh ‘an al-haqq):
If such a person speaks the truth and his hadith is not munkar, even if he is a mubtadi‘, then there is nothing to stop us from accepting his narration as long as he does not promote his innovative beliefs openly.
وما قالَه متَّجِهٌ ؛ لأنَّ العلَّةَ التي لها رُدَّ حديثُ الدَّاعيةِ وارِدةٌ فيما إِذا كانَ ظاهِرُ المرويِّ يُوافِقُ مذهَبَ المُبْتَدِع ، ولو لم يكنْ داعيةً ، واللهُ أَعلمُ .
This opinion is strong because the reason why we reject a sectarian’s hadith is when the text of the hadith apparently promotes his own innovative beliefs, even if he is not an open propagator. And Allah knows best.
ثمَّ سوءُ الحِفْظِ وهو السَّببُ العاشِرُ مِن أَسبابِ الطَّعنِ ، والمُرادُ بهِ : مَن لم يُرَجَّحْ جانِبُ إِصابتِه على جانِبِ خَطَئهِ ، وهو على قسمينِ :
إِنْ كانَ لازِماً للرَّاوي في جَميعِ حالاتِه ، فـهُو الشاذُّ ؛ على رَأْيِ [ بعضِ أَهلِ الحَديثِ .
Then the bad memory – and this is the tenth reason for defamation in the reporter; and what is meant by this is the narrator’s ability to be correct is outweighed by his tendency to be incorrect – is of two types. If this attribute is permanent for the reporter in all states then this is shadh according to the opinion of some people of hadith.
أَوْ (( إن )) كانَ سوءُ الحفظِ ] طارِئاً على الرَّاوي إِمَّا لكِبَرِهِ أَو لذَهابِ بصرِه ، أَوْ لاحتِراقِ كُتُبِه ، أَو عدمِها ؛ بأَنْ كانَ يعْتَمِدُها ، فرَجَعَ إِلى حفظِهِ ، فساءَ ، فـهذا هو المُخْتَلِطُ .
Or if the bad memory is sudden on the reporter, either because of old age, or loss of sight or the burning of his books or its loss; in that he used to depend on them, reverted to memory and found that it worsened, then this is mukhtalat.
والحُكْمُ فيهِ أَنَّ ما حَدَّثَ بهِ قبلَ الاختلاطِ إِذا تَميَّزَ قُبِلَ ، وإِذا لم يَتَمَيَّزْ تُوُقِّفَ فيهِ ، وكذا مَن اشتَبَهَ الأمرُ فيهِ ، وإِنَّما يُعْرَفُ ذلك باعْتِبارِ الآخِذينَ عنهُ .
The principle for it is that what was reported before the loss is accepted when one can [clearly] identify it [as belonging to the period before the loss]. And that which cannot be identified is paused upon, as is that in which it cannot be known either way. This is only identified by investigating those who took from him.
ومَتى تُوبِعَ السَّيِّءُ الحِفْظِ بِمُعْتَبَرٍ ؛ (( أي )) كأَنْ يكونَ فوقَهُ أَو مِثْلَه لا دُونَه ، وكَذا المُخْتَلِطُ الَّذي لم يتَمَيَّزْ و (( كذا )) المَسْتورُ والإِسنادُ المُرْسَلُ وكذا المُدَلَّسُ إِذا لم يُعْرَفِ المحذوفُ منهُ صارَ حديثُهُم حَسناً ؛ لا لذاتِهِ ، بل وَصْفُهُ بذلك بـاعتبارِ المَجْموعِ من المتابِعِ والمتَابَعِ ؛ لأنَّ [ معَ ] كلِّ واحدٍ منهُم احْتِمالَ كونِ روايتِه (( معه )) صواباً أَو غيرَ صوابٍ على حدٍّ سواءٍ .
When supporting attestations from someone above him [in rank] or equal, but not less, is found for a reporter suffering from memory loss, or for a master report, or for a mursal hadith, or likewise for a mudallas report when the omission is not known, then the hadith becomes hasan li-ghayrih, not li-dhatih (per se). This is because each type of report has an equal chance of being correct and incorrect.
فإِذا جاءَتْ مِنَ المُعْتَبَرينَ روايةٌ مُوافِقةٌ لأحدِهِم ؛ رُجِّحَ أَحدُ الجانِبينِ مِن الاحْتِمالينِ المَذكورَيْنِ ، ودلَّ ذلك على أَنَّ الحَديثَ مَحْفوظٌ ، فارْتَقى مِن درَجَةِ التوقُّفِ إِلى دَرَجَةِ القَبولِ ، [ واللهُ أَعلمُ ] .
When a supporting narration is found for one of them from the attesters, then one of the two possibilities is preferred and this then indicates that the hadith is preserved. Thus it is promoted from the rank of ‘paused upon’ to the rank of the accepted. And Allah knows best.
ومعَ ارْتِقائِهِ إِلى دَرَجَةِ القَبولِ ؛ فهُو مُنْحَطٌّ عنْ رُتْبَةِ الحَسَنِ لذاتِه ، ورُبَّما توقَّفَ بعضُهم عنْ إِطلاقِ اسمِ الحَسَنِ عليهِ .
Though it is promoted to the rank of accepted, it is short of the rank of hasan (and thus is called li-ghayrih), though some scholars have refused to call this type hasan.
وقد انْقَضى ما يتعلَّقُ بالمَتْنِ [ مِن حيثُ ] القَبولُ والرَّدُّ .
And this concludes the discussion on that which pertains to the matn, in terms of acceptance and rejection.
ثمَّ الإِسْنادُ وهُو الطَّريقُ المُوصِلَةُ إِلى المتنِ .
Then the isnad – this is the path leading to the matn;
والمَتْنُ : هُو غايَةُ ما يَنْتَهي إِليه الإِسنادُ مِن [ الكلامِ ] ، وهُو إِمَّا أَنْ يَنْتَهِيَ إِلى النَّبِيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، ويقتَضي لفظُهُ – إِمَّا تَصْريحاً أَوْ حُكْماً – أَنَّ المنَقْولَ بذلك الإِسنادِ مِن قولِهِصلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، أَوْ مِن فِعْلِهِ ، أو مِن تَقريرِهِ .
and the matn is the dialogue at which the isnad terminates – either ends at the Prophet, and the wording suggests either explicitly or implicitly that the transferred text is from his sayings, or from his actions and from his silent approvals.
مثالُ المَرفوعِ مِن القولِ تَصريحاً : أَن يقولَ الصَّحابيُّ : سمعتُ النبيَّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ يقولُ : كذا ، أَو : حدَّثَنا رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ بكَذا ، أَو يقولُ هو أَو غيرُه : قالَ رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ كذا ، أَو : عنْ رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ أَنَّه قالَ كذا ، أو نحوَ ذلك .
An example of an explicit (tasrih) marfu’ from his sayings is that the Companion says: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say x’, or ‘the Messenger of Allah informed us (haddathana) of x’ or the Companion or someone else says: ‘The Messenger of Allah said x’, or ‘from (‘an) the Messenger of Allah that he said x’ and its likes.
ومِثالُ المَرفوعِ مِن الفِعْلِ تَصريحاً : أَن يقولَ الصَّحابيُّ : رأَيْتُ رسولَ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ فعَلَ كذا ، أَو يقولَ هُو أَو غيرُه : كانَ رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ يفعَلُّ كذا .
An example of an explicit (tasrih) marfu’ from his actions is that the Companion says: ‘I saw the Messenger of Allah do x’, or the Companion or someone else says: ‘the Messenger of Allah used to do x.’
ومِثالُ المَرفوعِ مِن التَّقريرِ تَصريحاً : أَنْ يقولَ الصَّحابيُّ : فعَلْتُ بحضرَةِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ كذا ، أَو يقولَ هو أَو غيرُه : فعَلَ فُلانٌ بحَضْرَةِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ كذا ، ولا يذكُرُ إِنكارَهُ لذلك .
An example of an explicit (tasrih) marfu’ from his silent approvals is that the Companion says: ‘I did x in the presence of the Prophet’ or the Companion or someone else says: ‘such and such person did x in the presence of the Prophet and he did not object to it.’
ومثالُ المرفوعِ مِن القولِ حُكْماً لا تَصْريحاً : (( مصدرية )) أَنْ يقولَ الصَّحابيُّ – الَّذي لم يأْخُذْ عَنِ الإِسرائيليَّاتِ – ما لا مجالَ للاجْتِهادِ فيهِ ، ولا [ لهُ ] تعلُّقٌ ببيانِ لُغةٍ أَو شرحِ غريبٍ ؛ كالإِخْبارِ عنِ الأمورِ الماضيةِ مِن بدْءِ الخَلْقِ وأَخْبارِ الأنبياءِ (( عليهم الصلاة والسلام )) ، أَو الآتيةِ كالملاحمِ والفِتَنِ وأَحوالِ يومِ القيامةِ .
An example of an implicit (hukm) marfu’ and not explicit from his sayings is when the Companion – who does not take biblical reports (isra’iliyyat) – says something which does not concern his independent thought (ijtihad) and has no reference to an ambiguous word or commentary of a rare word. [For instance] informing of past events like the beginning of creation and the occurrences of the [previous] prophets (peace be upon them), or informing of future events, like the [forthcoming] calamities and events, and the descriptions of the Day of Judgement.
وكذا الإِخْبارُ عمَّا يحْصُلُ بفِعْلِهِ ثوابٌ مَخْصوصٌ أَو عِقابٌ مَخْصوصٌ .
And likewise, [when the Companion gives] information of an act which results in a specific reward or specific punishment, [this too will also be considered as marfu ‘implicitly].
وإِنَّما كانَ لهُ حُكْمُ المَرفوعِ ؛ لأنَّ إِخبارَهُ بذلك يقتَضي مُخْبِراً لهُ ، و [ ما ] لا مَجالَ للاجتِهادِ فيهِ يَقتَضي مُوقِفاً للقائلِ بهِ ، ولا مُوقِفَ للصَّحابَةِ إِلاَّ النبيُّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، أَو بعضُ مَن يُخْبِرُ عَن الكُتبِ القديمةِ ، فلهذا وقعَ الاحْتِرازُ عنِ القسمِ الثَّاني ، وإِذا كانَ كذلك ؛ فلهُ حُكْمُ ما لو قالَ : قالَ رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ؛ فهُو مَرْفوعٌ ؛ سواءٌ كانَ ممَّا سمِعَهُ منهُ أَو عنهُ بواسِطةٍ .
This is given the ruling of marfu’ because the information stipulates that there must be an informer for it, and in that in which there is no link to independent thought, it also demands that there is an informer for it. There is no informer for the Companions except the Prophet, or [possibly] some people who report from the old scriptures. For this reason precaution is taken against it being the second type. When it is as such, then for it is the ruling as though he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah said x’. This is marfu ‘ regardless of whether it originates from the one who heard from the Prophet [directly] or from him through a means.
ومِثالُ المَرفوعِ مِن الفِعْلِ حُكماً : أَنْ يفعَلَ الصَّحابيُّ ما لا مَجالَ للاجْتِهادِ فيهِ فيُنَزَّلُ على أَنَّ ذلك عندَه عنِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ كما قالَ الشافعيُّ [ – رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ – ] في صلاةِ عليٍّ (( كرم الله وجهه )) في الكُسوفِ في كُلِّ ركعةٍ أَكثرَ مِن رُكوعَيْنِ .
An example of an implicit (hukm) marfu ‘from his actions is that the Companions does something that has no link with his own independent thought, and it becomes manifest that this action stemmed from the Prophet. [This is] like what al-Imam al-Shafi’i said about the Prayer of Eclipse performed by ‘Ali; in which each unit consisted of more than one bowing.
ومثالُ المَرفوعِ مِن التَّقريرِ حُكْماً : أَنْ يُخبِرَ الصَّحابيُّ أَنَّهُم كانُوا يفْعَلونَ في زمانِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ كذا ؛ فإِنَّهُ يكونُ لهُ حُكمُ الرَّفعِ مِن جهةِ أَنَّ الظَّاهِرَ (( هو )) اطِّلاعُهُ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ على ذلك لتوفُّرِ دَواعِيهِم على سُؤالِهِ عن أُمورِ دِينِهم ، ولأنَّ ذلك الزَّمانَ زمانُ [ نُزولِ ] الوَحْيِ فلا يقعُ مِن الصَّحابةِ فِعْلُ شيءٍ ويستمرُّونَ عليهِ إِلاَّ وهُو غيرُ ممنوعِ الفعلِ .
An example of an implicit (hukm) marfu’ from his silent approvals is that the Companion informs others that they used to perform a certain act in the time of the Prophet. For indeed this has the ruling of being marfu ‘in the sense that it is clear the Prophet told them of it, as they had the full means to question him on religious affairs. Moreover, this was the period of divine revelation; no wrongful action occurred from the Companions on a continual basis except it was prohibited.
وقدِ استدلَّ جابِرٌ وأَبو سعيدٍ [ الخُدريُّ ] – رضي الله عنهما – على جوازِ العَزْلِ بأَنَّهُم كانوا يفعَلونَه والقرآنُ ينزِلُ ، ولو كانَ ممَّا يُنْهَى عنهُ لنَهى [ عنهُ ] القُرآنُ .
Indeed Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah and Abu Sa’id (may Allah be pleased with them) used this point to prove the permissibility of the withdrawal method [of contraception], in that they used to perform this whilst the Qur’an was being revealed. If it was from the actions which were prohibited, then the Qur’an would have outlawed it.
ويلتَحِقُ بقَولي : (( حُكْماً )) ؛ ما وردَ بصيغةِ الكنايةِ في موضعِ الصِّيَغِ الصَّريحةِ بالنِّسبةِ إِليه صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ؛ كقولِ التَّابعيِّ عنِ الصَّحابيِّ : يرفعُ الحَديثَ ، أو : يرويهِ ، أو : يَنْميهِ ، أَو : روايةً ، أَو : يبلُغُ بهِ ، أَو : رواهُ .
[Also] applicable to my saying ‘implicitly’ [in the text] is that which is mentioned through an indirect word (kinayah) in the place of a direct word (sarih), in relation to the Prophet. [This is] like the saying of the Successor from a Companion: ‘he raises the hadith (yarfa‘)’, or: ‘he narrates the hadith’ (yarwi) or: ‘he ascribes the hadith’ (yanwi), or: ‘the narration’ (riwayah) or: ‘he reaches it to’ (yablughu bih), or: ‘he narrates it’ (rawa).
وقد يَقْتَصِرونَ على القولِ معَ حَذْفِ القائلِ ، ويُريدونَ بهِ النبيَّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ؛ كقولِ ابنِ سيرينَ عنْ أَبي هُريرةَ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] قالَ : قالَ : (( تُقاتِلونَ قَوْماً )) الحديث .
Sometimes they suffice with the saying with the omission of the speaker, and they intend the [omission to be the] Prophet. [This is] like the saying of Ibn Sa’ran from Abu Huraira who said: ‘you will fight with a community…’
وفي كلامِ الخَطيبِ أَنَّه اصْطِلاحٌ خاصٌّ بأَهلِ البَصرَةِ .
In the works of al-Khatib al-[Baghdadi] is the suggestion that this is the specific terminology of the people of Basra.
ومِن الصِّيَغِ المُحْتَمِلةِ : قولُ الصَّحابيِّ : مِِن السُّنَّةِ كذا ، فالأكثرُ على أَنَّ ذلك مرفوعٌ .
Amongst the possible words [of delivery] is the saying of the Companion: ‘from the sunna is x’. Thus most of the scholars are of the opinion that this is marfu ‘.
ونقلَ ابنُ عبدِ البرِّ فيهِ الاتِّفاقَ ؛ قالَ : وإِذا قالَها غيرُ الصَّحابيِّ ؛ فكذلك ، ما لم يُضِفْها إِلى صاحِبِها كسُنَّةِ العُمَرينِ .
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr has transmitted a consensus on this matter. He said: ‘And when someone other than the Companions says this, then it is as such (namely marfu ‘), so long as it is not ascribed to another person, like ‘the sunna of the two ‘Umars.’
وفي نَقْلِ الاتِّفاقِ نَظَرٌ ، فعَنِ الشَّافعيِّ في أَصلِ المسأَلةِ قولانِ .
In saying that there is a consensus on this is contentious, as al-Imam al-Shafi’i has two opinions on this issue.
وذَهَبَ إِلى أَنَّهُ غيرُ مرفوعٍ أَبو بكرٍ الصَّيرفيُّ مِن الشَّافعيَّةِ ، وأَبو بكرٍ الرَّازيُّ مِن الحنفيَّةِ ، وابنُ حزمٍ مِن أَهلِ الظَّاهِرِ ، واحتَجُّوا بأَنَّ السُّنَّةَ تتردَّدُ بينَ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ وبينَ غيرِه ، وأُجِيبوا بأَنَّ احْتِمالَ إِرادةِ غيرِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ [ عليهِ ] وسلَّمَ بعيدٌ .
Abu Bakr al-Shayrafi has said that such a saying is not marfu’, along with Abu Bakr al-Razi from the Hanafis and Ibn Hazm from the Ahl al-zahir. Their evidence is that the [word] sunna can be used for the Prophet and others. The answer to this is that the possibility of the sunna of other than the Prophet being meant is far-fetched.
وقد روى البُخاريُّ في صحيحِه في حديثِ ابنِ شِهابٍ ، عن سالِمِ بنِ عبدِ اللهِ بنِ عُمَرَ عن أَبيهِ في قصَّتِه معَ الحجَّاج حينَ قالَ لهُ : إِنْ كُنْتَ تُريدُ السُّنَّةَ فهَجِّرْ بالصَّلاةِ [ يومَ عَرَفَةَ ] .
For al-Imam al-Bukhari has recorded in his Sahih in the hadith of Ibn Shihab, from Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, from his father; in the story of the pilgrims when he said: ‘If you intend the sunna, then leave before the Prayer.’
قالَ ابنُ شِهابٍ : فقلتُ لسالِمٍ : أَفَعَلَهُ رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ؟ فقالَ : وهل يَعْنونَ [ بذلك ] إِلاَّ سُنَّتَهُ [ صلى الله تعالى عليه وآله وسلم ] ؟!
فنَقَلَ سالمٌ – وهو أَحدُ الفُقهاءِ السَّبعَةِ مِن أَهلِ المدينةِ وأَحدُ الحفَّاظِ مِن التَّابعينَ [ عنِ الصَّحابةِ ] – أَنَّهم إِذا أَطلَقوا السُّنَّةَ ؛ لا يُريدونَ بذلك إِلاَّ سُّنَّةَ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ .
Ibn Shihab said: ‘I asked Salim: ‘Did the Prophet do this?’ He replied: ‘And what do they mean by sunna except his sunna?’ So Salim transmitted – who is one of the seven jurists from the people of Madina and one of the hafizs from the Successors – that when the Companions use the term ‘sunna’ they only mean the sunna of the Prophet.
وأَمَّا قولُ بعضِهِم : إِذا كانَ مرفوعاً ؛ فلمَ لا يقولونَ فيهِ : قالَ رسولُ اللهِ (( صلى الله عليه وسلم ))؟ فجوابُهُ : إِنَّهُم تَرَكوا الجَزْمَ بذلك تورُّعاً واحتِياطاً .
As for the opinion of some, that if it is marfu’, then why do they not say: ‘the Prophet said’, then the answer is that they left [the words of] conviction due to piety and precaution.
ومِن هذا : قولُ أَبي قِلابةَ عن أَنسٍ : (( مِن السُّنَّةِ إِذا تزوَّجَ البِكْرَ على الثَّيِّبِ أَقامَ عندَها سَبعاً )) ، أَخرَجاهُ في [ الصَّحيحينِ ] .
An example of this is the saying of Abu Qilaba, from Anas that: ‘From the sunna is that when a man marries a virgin over a non-virgin, then he stays with the virgin for seven days.’ This report has been recorded in the two Sahihs.
قالَ أَبو قِلابةَ (( عن أنس )) : لو شِئْتُ لقلتُ : إِنَّ أَنساً رفَعَهُ إِلى النبيِّ [ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ] .
Abu Qilaba said: ‘If I wished, I could have said that Anas reported this marfu’ from the Prophet.’
أَي : لو قُلتُ : لمْ أَكْذِبْ ؛ لأَنَّ قولَه : (( مِن السُّنَّةِ )) هذا معناهُ ، (( و )) لكنَّ إِيرادَهُ بالصِّيغَةِ التي ذَكَرها الصَّحابيُّ أَوْلى .
In other words, had he said such, he would not have lied, because saying ‘from the sunna’ implies this, but it is better to mention it with the [exact] words the Companion did.
ومِن ذلك : قولُ الصَّحابيِّ : أُمِرْنا بكَذا ، أَو : نُهينا عنْ كذا ، فالخِلافُ [ فيهِ ] كالخِلافِ في الَّذي قَبْلَهُ ؛ لأنَّ مُطْلَقَ ذلك ينصَرِفُ بظاهِرِه إِلى مَنْ لهُ الأمرُ والنَّهْيُ ، وهُو الرَّسولُ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ .
From the forms of marfu’ [also] is the saying of the Companion ‘we were ordered x’ or ‘we were prohibited from x’. The dispute in this is the same as the previous dispute, because the generality of the statement apparently ascribes it to the one who orders and prohibits, and this is the Messenger.
وخالفَ في ذلك طائفةٌ (( و )) تمَسَّكوا باحْتِمالِ أَنْ يَكونَ المُرادُ غيرَه ، كأَمرِ القُرآنِ ، أَو الإِجماعِ ، أَو بعضِ الخُلفاءِ ، أَو الاستِنْباطِ !
وأُجيبوا بأَنَّ الأصلَ هو الأوَّلُ ، وما عداهُ مُحْتَمَلٌ ، لكنَّهُ بالنسبةِ إليهِ مرجوحٌ .
A group [of scholars] have disputed this and have held on to the possibility that what is meant is something (or someone) other than the Prophet, like the order of the Qur’an, or the order of the Consensus or the order of some of the caliphs or the order of the derived ruling. The answer given is that the default position is the Prophet and anything else is [merely] a possibility.
وأَيضاً ؛ فمَن كان في طاعةِ رئيسٍ إِذا قالَ : أُمِرْتُ ؛ لا يُفْهَمُ عنهُ أَنَّ آمِرَهُ [ ليس ] إِلاَّ رئيسُهُ .
It is most likely to be the Prophet since whosoever is under the rule of a leader, when he says ‘I have been ordered’ it is not understood from this except that the one ordering is the leader.
وأَمَّا قولُ مَن قالَ : يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يُظنَّ ما ليسَ بأمرٍ أمراً ! فلا اخْتِصاصَ لهُ بهذهِ المسأَلَةِ ، بل [ هُو] مذكورٌ فيما لو صرَّحَ ، فقالَ : أَمَرَنا رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ بكذا .
As for the opinion of those who say that the Companion could think something which is not an order, as an order, then there is no specification in this matter and in fact is possible when there is clarification in when he says: ‘the Prophet ordered us x.’
وهو احْتِمالٌ ضعيفٌ ؛ لأنَّ الصَّحابيَّ عدلٌ عارفٌ باللِّسانِ ، فلا يُطلقُ ذلك إِلاَّ بعدَ التحقُّقِ .
This is a weak possibility because [all of] the Companions are credible and competent Arabic speakers. They would not say such a thing except after assurance.
ومن ذلك : قولُه : كنَّا نفعَلُ كذا ، فلهُ حُكْمُ الرَّفعِ أَيضاً كما تقدَّمَ .
Also from the forms of marfu’ is their saying: ‘we used to do x’. This too has the ruling of marfu’, like it has been mentioned.
ومِن ذلك : أَنْ يَحْكُمَ الصَّحابيُّ على فِعلٍ مِن الأفعالِ بأَنَّه طاعةٌ للهِ (( تعالى )) أَو لرسولِهِ [ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وآلهِ وسلَّمَ ] ، أَو معصيةٌ ؛ كقولِ عَمَّارٍ : (( مَن صامَ اليومَ الَّذي يُشَكُّ فيهِ ؛ فقدْ عَصى أَبا القاسِمِ (( صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ )) )) .
From the forms of marfu’ is when the Companion decrees an action as being the obedience of Allah and His Messenger, or the disobedience. [This is] like the saying of ‘Ammar: ‘Whosoever fasts on the day of doubt, then he has shown disobedience to Abu al-Qasim.’
فلهذا حُكْمُ الرَّفعِ أَيضاً ؛ لأنَّ الظَّاهِرَ أَنَّ ذلك ممَّا تلقَّاهُ عنِ [ النبيِّ ] صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ .
This has the ruling of marfu’ too because it apparently seems he has taken this from him.
أَوْ تَنْتَهي غايةُ الإِسنادِ إلى الصَّحابِيِّ كَذلكَ ؛ أَي : مِثْلَ ما تقدَّمَ في كونِ اللَّفْظِ يَقْتَضي التَّصريحَ بأَنَّ المَقولَ هُو مِن قولِ الصَّحابيِّ ، أَو مِن فعلِهِ ، أَو مِن تقريرِه ، ولا يَجيءُ فيهِ جَميعُ ما تقدَّمَ بل مُعْظَمُه .
[The isnad either ends at the Prophet] or at the Companion (Sahabi) in a similar fashion. In other words, like what has passed in that the wording clarifies that the transmitted text is from the saying of the Companion, or from his actions or from his silent approvals. Not all of the types previously mentioned are applicable to this, but rather most of it.
والتَّشبيهُ لا تُشْتَرَطُ فيهِ المُساواةُ مِن كلِّ جهةٍ .
Similarity does not entail resemblance in every aspect.
ولمَّا [ أَنْ ] كانَ هذا المُخْتَصرُ شامِلاً لجَميعِ أَنواعِ [ عُلومِ ] الحَديثِ اسْتَطْرَدْتُ [ منهُ ] إِلى تَعريفِ الصَّحابيِّ مَن (( ما )) هو ، فقلتُ : وهُو : مَنْ لَقِيَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ [ تَعالى ] عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ُمؤمِناً بهِ وماتَ عَلى الإِسلامِ ، ولو تَخَلَّلَتْ رِدَّةٌ ؛ [ في ] الأَصَحَّ .
Since this short treatise covers all of the branches of ‘ilm al-hadith, I have embarked on offering a definition of the Companions and who they are. Thus I say [that a Sahabi is] “he who met the Prophet as a believer in him and [then] died as a Muslim, even if he became an apostate in between, according to the most correct opinion.”
والمرادُ باللِّقاءِ ما هُو أَعمُّ مِن المُجالَسَةِ والمُماشاةِ ووصولِ أَحدِهِما إِلى الآخَرِ وإِنْ لم يُكالِمْهُ ، وتدخُلُ [ فيهِ ] رُؤيَةُ أَحدِهما الآخَرَ ، سواءٌ كانَ ذلك بنفسِه أَو بغيْرِه .
What is meant by meeting the Prophet is a more general application than sitting with him, walking with him, and going to one another; even if they did not talk to one another, he is still considered a Companion. Inclusive in this is one seeing the other, regardless of whether this occurs through his means or through the means of someone else.
والتَّعْبيرُ بـ (( اللُّقِيَّ )) أَولى مِن قولِ بعضِهم : الصَّحابيُّ مَن رأَى النبيَّ [ صلى الله تعالى عليه وآله وسلم ] ؛ لأنَّهُ يخرُجُ [ حينئذٍ ] ابنُ أُمِّ مكتومٍ ونحوُهُ مِن العُميانِ ، وهُم صحابةٌ بلا تَرَدُّدٍ ، واللُّقي في هذا التَّعريفِ كالجِنْسِ .
Referring to it with ‘meeting’ rather than ‘seeing’ the Prophet is preferred because with the latter, the definition would not include Ibn Umm Maktum and his likes from the blind, as they are undoubtedly classified as Companions. ‘Meeting’ in this definition here is like the jins,
و (( في )) قَوْلِي : (( مُؤمناً )) ؛ كالفَصْلِ ، يُخْرِجُ مَن حَصَلَ لهُ اللِّقاءُ المذكورُ ، لكنْ في حالِ كونِه كافراً .
and my saying ‘as a believer’ is like a fasl that excludes those who achieved the meeting but as a disbeliever.
وقَوْلي : (( بهِ )) فصلٌ ثانٍ يُخْرِجُ مَن لَقِيَهُ مُؤمِناً لكنْ بغيرِه مِن الأنبياءِ (( عليهم الصلاة والسلام )).
My saying ‘in him’ is the second fasl that excludes those who met him as a believer but in the state of believing in someone else from the previous prophets.
لكنْ : هل يُخْرِجُ مَن لَقِيَهُ مُؤمِناً بأَنَّهُ سَيُبْعَثُ ولم يُدْرِكِ البِعْثَةَ (( كبحيرة )) ؟ (( و )) فيهِ نَظرٌ !
But does this exclude he who met the Prophet as a believer [prior to the public announcement of Prophethood] and knew he would be declared a Prophet [later], and then did not live until the announcement? In this is a dispute.
وقَوْلي : (( وماتَ على الإِسلامِ )) ؛ فصلٌ ثالِثٌ يُخْرِجُ مَنِ ارتَدَّ بعدَ أَنْ لَقِيَه مُؤمِناً [ بهِ ] ، وماتَ على الرِّدَّةِ ؛ كعُبَيْدِ اللهِ بنِ جَحْشٍ وابن خَطَلٍ .
My saying ‘and [then] died as a Muslim’ is the third fasl which excludes those who became apostates after meeting him as a believer and then subsequently died as disbelievers, like ‘Abd Allah ibn Jahsh and Ibn Khatmal.
وقَوْلي : (( [ ولو ] تَخَلَّلَتْ رِدَّةٌ )) ؛ أي : بينَ لُقِيِّهِ لهُ مُؤمِناً [ بهِ ] وبينَ موتِه على الإِسلامِ ؛ فإِنَّ اسمَ الصُّحبةِ باقٍ لهُ ، سواءٌ أَرجَعَ إِلى الإسلامِ في حياتِهِ [ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ] أَو بعدَه ، [ و ] سواءٌ أَلَقِيَهُ ثانياً أَمْ لا !
وقَوْلي : (( في الأصحِّ )) ؛ إِشارةٌ إِلى الخِلافِ في المسأَلةِ .
My saying ‘even if he became an apostate in between’ – namely between meeting the Prophet as a believer and between dying as a Muslim – means the attribute of Companionship still remains, irrespective of whether he reverted to Islam during the Prophet’s life [or not] or whether he met the Prophet again [as a reverted Muslim] or not.
My saying ‘according to the most correct opinion’ is an indication of the dispute [that exists] regarding the issue [of defining the Companion].
ويدلُّ على رُجْحانِ الأوَّلِ قصَّةُ الأشْعَثِ بنِ قيسٍ ؛ فإِنَّه كانَ ممَّنِ ارتَدَّ ، وأُتِيَ بهِ [ إِلى ] [ أَبي بكرٍ ] [ الصدِّيقِ ] أَسيراً ، فعادَ إِلى الإسلامِ ، فقَبِلَ منهُ ذلك ، وزوَّجَهُ أُخْتَهُ ، ولم يتخلَّفْ أَحدٌ عنْ ذِكْرِهِ في الصَّحابةِ ولا عنْ تخريجِ أحاديثِه في المَسانيدِ وغيرِها .
The story of al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays gives preference to the first opinion; for he is from the ones who became an apostate and he was brought to Abi Bakr as a prisoner. He then reverted to Islam, and Abi Bakr accepted it and he married him to his sister. No one [from the scholars or other Companions] refrained from calling him a Companion, and no one refused to mention his hadiths in the musnads and other sources.
تَنْبيهانِ :
أَحَدُهما : لا خَفاءَ برُجْحانِ رُتبةِ مَن لازَمَه صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، وقاتَلَ معَهُ ، أَو قُتِلَ تَحْتَ رايتِه ، على مَن لم يُلازمْهُ ، أَو لم يَحْضُرْ معهُ مشهداً ، و على مَن كلَّمَهُ يَسيراً ، أَو ماشاهُ قَليلاً ، أَو رآهُ على بُعْدٍ ، أَو في حالِ الطُّفولةِ ، وإِن كانَ شرفُ الصُّحْبةِ حاصِلاً للجَميعِ .
Two notes: One of them is that there is no hiding the fact of the preferred rank of him who adhered to the Prophet for a long time, fought with him, or died under his commandership over one who did not stay with him for long, did not participate with him in the [key] events, or spoke to him or walked with him only rarely, or saw him as a child. This is despite the fact that the honor of Companionship is still applicable to all of them.
ومَنْ ليسَ لهُ مِنهُم سماعٌ منهُ ؛ فحديثُهُ مُرْسَلٌ من حيثُ الرِّوايةُ ، وهُم معَ ذلك معددونَ في الصَّحابةِ ؛ لما نالوهُ مِن شرفِ الرُّؤيةِ .
The hadith of one who did not hear from him is mursal in terms of narration, though they themselves are classified as Companions, as they attained the honor of seeing him.
(( و )) ثانيهِما : يُعْرَفُ كونُه صحابيّاً ؛ بالتَّواتُرِ ، أَو الاستفاضَةِ ، أَو الشُّهْرةِ ، أَو بإِخبارِ بعضِ الصَّحابةِ ، أَو بعضِ ثقاتِ التَّابِعينَ ، أَو بإِخبارِهِ عنْ نفسِهِ بأَنَّهُ صحابيٌّ ؛ إِذا كانَ دعواهُ ذلكَ تدخُلُ تحتَ الإِمكانِ !
وقد استَشْكَلَ هذا الأخيرَ جماعَةٌ مِن حيثُ [ إِنَّ ] دعواهُ ذلك نظيرُ دَعْوى مَن قالَ : أَنا عَدْلٌ !
ويَحْتاجُ إِلى تأَمُّلٍ !!
The second of the two notes is that a person’s Companionship is known by the means of mutawatir, through the dispersed and famous nature of this fact, through the means of another Companion informing such, through the means of a credible Successor informing such or through the means of the person affirming it himself, when his claim is plausible. A group of hadith scholars have expressed concern over this last means in the sense that such a claim from someone is akin to someone claiming ‘I am credible,’ and [thus] this requires [further] analysis.
أَوْ تنتَهي غايةُ الإِسنادِ إِلى التَّابِعيَ ، وهو مَنْ لَقِيَ الصَّحابِيَّ كذلكَ ، وهذا متعلِّقٌ باللُّقيِّ ، وما ذُكِرَ معهُ ؛ إِلاَّ قَيْدُ الإِيمانِ بهِ ؛ فذلكَ خاصٌّ بالنبيِّ صلى الله عليه [ وآله ] وسلم .
[The isnad either ends at the Prophet, at the Companion (Sahabi)] or at the Tabi‘i (Successor). The Tabi‘i is the one who met the Companion(s) with the same detail as before (as a believer in the Prophet and then died as a Muslim), except the condition of faith in the Companion, as this is specific to the Prophet only.
وهذا > هُو المُختارُ ؛ خلافاً لمَن اشْتَرَطَ في التَّابعيِّ طولَ المُلازمةِ ، أَو صُحْبَةَ السَّماعِ ، أَو التَّمييزَ .
This is the chosen opinion, as opposed to those scholars who add the condition of extensive adherence for the Successor [to the Companion], the validity of hearing from him, or the condition of acknowledgement.
وبَقِيَ بينَ الصَّحابةِ والتَّابعينَ طبَقَةٌ اخْتُلِفَ في إِلحاقِهِم بأَيِّ القِسمينِ ، وهُم المُخَضْرَمونَ (( من))الَّذين أَدْرَكوا الجَاهِليَّةَ والإِسلامَ ، ولم يَرَوا النبيَّ صلى الله عليه [ وآله ] وسلم ، فعدَّهُم ابنُ عبدِ البرِّ في الصَّحابةِ .
There lies between the Companions and the Successors a group upon which there is a dispute regarding which of the two [aforementioned] categories they belong to. These are the Mukhadramun, who lived through the period of Ignorance and the period of Islam but did not see the Prophet. Thus Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr has [seemingly] classified these as Companions,
وادَّعَى عِياضٌ وغيرُه أَنَّ [ ابنَ ] عبدِ البرِّ يقولُ : إِنَّهُم صحابةٌ ! وفيهِ نظرٌ ؛ لأنَّهُ [ أَفصَحَ ] في [ خُطبةِ ] كتابِه بأَنَّهُ إِنَّما أَورَدَهُم ليكونَ كتابُه جامِعاً مُستوعِباً لأهْلِ القرنِ الأوَّلِ .
and ‘Iyad and others have claimed that Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr has explicitly said such. In this opinion lies doubt because Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr clarified in the introduction of his book that he included the mentioning of the Mukhadramun so that it could entail all those who lived in the first generation.
والصَّحيحُ أَنَّهُم مَعددونَ في كبارِ التَّابعينَ سواءٌ عُرِف أَنَّ الواحِدَ منهُم كانَ مُسلماً في زمنِ النبيِّ [ صلى الله عليه [ وآله ] وسلم ] – كالنَّجاشيِّ – أَمْ لا ؟
لكنْ إِنْ ثبتَ أَنَّ النبيَّ صلى الله عليه [ وآله ] وسلم ليلةَ الإِسْراءِ كُشِفَ لهُ عن جَميعِ مَن في الأرْضِ فرَآهُمْ ، فيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُعَدَّ مَنْ كانَ مُؤمِناً [ بهِ ] [ في حياتِه ] [ إِذْ ذاكَ ] – وإِنْ لمْ يُلاقِهِ – في الصَّحابةِ ؛ لحُصولِ الرُّؤيَةِ من جانِبِهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ .
The correct opinion is that they are classified as the senior Successors, irrespective of whether it is known one of them became a Muslim in the time of the Prophet – like al-Najashi – or not.
However, if it is proven that all of the people of the earth were unveiled to the Prophet on the Night of Ascension and he observed them all, then the Mukhadramun should be classified as among those who believed in him during his lifetime, even if he did not meet them as [conventional] Companions, since the seeing has been achieved by the Prophet.
فـالقسمُ الأوَّلُ ممَّا تقدَّمَ ذِكْرُهُ مِن الأقْسامِ الثَّلاثةِ – وهُو ما تَنْتَهي إلى [ النَّبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ ] غايةُ الإِسنادِ – هُو المَرْفوعُ ، سواءٌ كانَ ذلك الانتهاءُ بإِسنادٍ مُتَّصلٍ أَم لا .
Thus, the first type – in what has passed from the three types – and that is where the end of the isnad concludes at the Prophet, is called marf‘, irrespective of whether that is with a continuous isnad or not.
والثَّانِي : (( هو )) المَوْقوفُ ، وهو ما انْتَهَى إلى الصَّحابيِّ .
The second is mawquf; and that is what ends at the Companion.
والثَّالِثُ : المَقْطوعُ ، وهو ما ينْتَهي إلى التَّابعيِّ .
And the third is maqtu‘: and that is what ends at the Successor,
ومَنْ (( هو )) دُونَ التَّابِعِيِّ مِن أَتْباعِ التَّابعينَ فمَنْ بعْدَهُم ؛ فيهِ ؛ أَي : في التَّسميةِ ، مِثْلُهُ ؛ أَي : مثلُ ما ينتَهي إِلى التَّابعيِّ في تسميةِ [ جميعِ ] ذلك مَقطوعاً ، وإِنْ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ : موقوفٌ على فُلانٍ .
and those beneath the Successors, namely the Followers of the Successors (atba‘ al-tabi‘in) and those after them. It is equal in terms of naming it maqtu‘, namely that which is from the Successor and that which is from those after them. And if you like, you can say: ‘[the report is] mawquf to such and such.’
فحَصَلَتِ التَّفرقةُ في (( جميع )) الاصطِلاحِ بين المَقطوعِ والمُنْقَطِعِ ، [ فالمُنْقَطِعُ ] مِن مباحِثِ الإِسنادِ كما تقدَّمَ ، والمَقْطوعُ مِن مباحِثِ المَتْنِ كما ترى .
So there is a difference in terminology between maqtu‘ and munqati‘: the latter relates to the isnad, like it has already been mentioned, and the former relates to the matn, as you can see.
وقد أَطلَقَ بعضُهُم هذا في موضِعِ هذا ، وبالعكْسِ ؛ تجوُّزاً عنِ الاصطِلاح .
Some scholars have placed one in the place of the other, contrary to the [correct] terminological use.
ويُقالُ للأخيرينِ ؛ أي : الموقوفِ والمَقطوعِ : الأَثَرُ .
And the last two, namely mawquf and maqtu‘ are [also] called athar.
والمُسْنَدُ في قولِ أَهلِ الحَديث : هذا [ حديثٌ مُسنَدٌ ] : هو : مرفوعُ صَحابِيٍّ بِسَنَدٍ ظاهِرُهُ الاتِّصالُ ، فقولي : (( مرفوعٌ )) كالجنسِ ، وقولي : (( صحابيٍّ )) كالفصلِ ، يَخرُجُ بهِ ما رفعهُ التَّابعيُّ ؛ فإِنَّه مُرْسَلٌ ، أَو مَن دونَه ؛ [ فإِنَّه ] مُعْضَلٌ أَو مُعلَّقٌ .
The musnad – in the saying of the hadith master ‘This is a musnad hadith’ – is a marf‘ [through the means of the] Companion with a chain that it is visibly continuous [leading to the Prophet]. Thus my saying ‘marf‘’ is like a jins and my saying ‘[through the means of the] Companion’ is the fasl that excludes that which the Successor raises [to the Prophet]. That [will be declared as a report which] is mursal and [if the report is raised by] someone below the Successor, then that is mu‘dal or mua‘llaq.
و (( في )) قولي : (( ظاهِرُهُ الاتِّصالُ )) يُخْرِجُ ما ظاهِرُه الانقطاعُ ، ويُدخِل [ ما ] فيه الاحتمالُ ، وما يوجَدُ فيه حقيقةُ الاتِّصالِ مِن بابِ أَولى .
My saying ‘visibly continuous’ excludes that which apparently looks discontinuous and includes that report which seemingly looks continuous. Clearly, that which is in reality continuous [though looks otherwise] will also be included in musnad.
ويُفهَمُ مِن التَّقييدِ بالظُّهورِ أَنَّ الانقطاعَ الخفيَّ كعنعَنَةِ المدلِّسِ والمُعاصرِ الذي لم [ يثبُتْ ] لُقِيُّهُ ؛ لا يُخرِجُ (( عن )) الحديثَ عن [ كونِه ] مُسنَداً ؛ لإِطباقِ [ الأئمَّةِ ] الَّذينَ خَرَّجوا المسانيدَ على ذلك .
It becomes apparent from the condition of ‘visibly looking continuous’ that a hidden discontinuation – like the ‘an‘ana from a mudallis and the contemporary for whom the meeting [with his shaykh] has not been proven – does not exclude a report from being musnad, by virtue of the fact that the imams [of hadith] have recorded musnads upon this form.
وهذا التَّعريفُ مُوافِقٌ لقَولِ الحاكمِ : (( المُسْنَدُ : ما رواهُ المحدِّثُ عن شيخٍ يَظْهَرُ سماعُه منهُ ، وكذا شيخُه من شيخِهِ مُتَّصلاً إِلى صحابيٍّ إِلى رسولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه [ وآله ] وسلم )) .
This definition complies with the saying of al-Hakim [when he writes]: ‘The musnad is that which a hadith master reports from his shaykh in which he seemingly heard from him, and likewise so has his shaykh from his shaykh, continuous to the Companion and to the Prophet.’
وأمَّا الخَطيبُ فقالَ : المُسْنَدُ : المُتَّصلُ .
As for al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi], [he says that the] musnad is continuous.
فعلى هذا : الموقوفُ إِذا جاءَ بسندٍ مُتَّصلٍ يسمَّى عندَه مسنداً ، لكنْ قال : إِنَّ ذلك قد يأْتي ، لكنْ بقلَّةٍ .
For this reason, then the mawquf, when it is reported with a continuous chain, is called musnad according to him. However, he says that this [terminology] is used rarely.
وأَبعدَ ابنُ عبدِ البرِّ حيثُ قالَ : (( المُسندُ المرفوعُ )) ولم يتعرَّضْ للإِسنادِ ؛ فإِنَّهُ يصدُقُ على المُرسلِ والمُعضَلِ والمُنقطِعِ إِذا كانَ المتنُ مرفوعاً ! ولا قائلَ بهِ .
Far-fetched is the remark of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr when he said: ‘The musnad is the marf‘’ with no consideration for the continuity of the isnad. This definition then will also befit the mursal, the mu‘dal, and the munqati‘, when the text (matn) is raised [to the Prophet]. There is no one [else] of this opinion.
فإِنْ قَلَّ عَدَدَهُ ؛ أي : عددُ رجالِ السَّندِ ، فإِمَّا أَنْ يَنْتَهِيَ إِلى النَّبِيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَبذلك العددِ القليلِ بالنِّسبةِ إِلى [ أَيِّ ] سندٍ آخَرَ يَرِدُ بهِ ذلك الحَديثُ بعينِه بعددٍ كثيرٍ ، أَوْينتَهِيَ إِلى إِمامٍ مِن أَئمَّةِ الحَديثِ ذي صِفَةٍ عَلِيَّةٍ كالحفظِ [ والفِقهِ ] والضَّبطِ والتَّصنيفِ وغيرِ ذلك من الصِّفاتِ المُقتَضِيَةِ للتَّرجيحِ ؛ كشُعْبَةَ ومالكٍ والثَّوريِّ والشَّافعيِّ والبُخاريِّ [ ومُسلمٍ ] ونحوِهم :
فالأوَّلُ وهُو ما ينتَهي إِلى النَّبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ : العُلُوُّ المُطْلَقُ ، فإِن اتَّفَقَ أَنْ يكونَ سندُهُ صحيحاً ؛ كانَ الغايةَ القُصوى ، وإِلاَّ فَصُورةُ العلوِّ فيهِ موجودةٌ ما لم يكُنْ موضوعاً ؛ [ فهُو ] كالعدَمِ .
If the numbers are less – namely the numbers of the people of the isnad – then either it ends at the Prophet with that small number, in comparison to another isnad for that same hadith that has more numbers, or either it ends with a highly-attributed imam from the imams of hadith, such as attributes of memorization, accuracy, literary works, and so on, from the demanded attributes for the sake of preference, like Shu‘ba, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi’i, al-Bukhari, Muslim, and other highly-decorated imams. Thus, the first type, which ends at the Prophet, is ‘uluww Mutlaq.
If coincidentally the shorter isnad is sound, that will be the most desired matter. If it is not, then the form of ‘uluww is still present in it, so long as it is not forged; for this is synonymous with non-existence.
والثَّانِي : العُلُوُّ النِّسْبِيُّ : وهُو ما يقلُّ العددُ فيهِ إِلى ذلك الإِمامِ ، ولو كانَ العددُ من ذلك الإِمامِ إِلى مُنتهاهُ كَثيراً .
The second type is ‘uluww nisbi. This is where the numbers are fewer leading to that imam, even if the number from that imam to the end of the chain is numerous.
وقد عَظُمَتْ رغبةُ المُتأَخِّرينَ فيهِ ، حتَّى غَلَبَ ذلك على كثيرٍ منهُم ، بحيثُ أَهْمَلوا الاشتِغالَ بما هُو أَهمُّ منهُ .
Certainly, the efforts of the earlier reporters have been great in seeking the elevation (‘uluww) to the extent that this has deviated them from more pressing matters.
وإِنَّما كانَ العلوُّ مَرغوباً فيهِ ؛ لكونِه أَقربَ إِلى الصحَّةِ ، وقلَّةِ الخطأِ ؛ لأنَّهُ ما مِن راوٍ مِن رجالِ الإِسنادِ إِلاَّ والخطأُ جائزٌ عليهِ ، فكلَّما كَثُرتِ الوسائطُ وطالَ السَّندُ ؛ كَثُرَتْ مظانُّ التَّجويزِ ، وكلَّما قلَّتْ ؛ قلََّتْ .
This elevation is dearly sought because it is closer to authenticity and nearer to fewer mistakes. This is because there is not a reporter in an isnad except the possibility of error exists for him. As the means increase and the isnad extends, then the possibility of errors increases. As this decreases, so do the chances of errors.
فإِنْ كانَ في النُّزولِ مَزِيَّةٌ ليستْ في العلوِّ ؛ كأَنْ يكونَ رجالُه أَوثقَ [ منهُ ] ، أَو أَحفَظَ ، أَو أَفقهَ ، أَو الاتِّصالُ فيهِ أَظهرَ ؛ فلا تردُّدَ في أَنَّ النُّزولَ حينئذٍ أَولى .
If a distinction exists in the non-elevated isnad that is not found in the elevated isnad – like the men of the isnad are more authoritative, or more outstanding in memorization or more learned in jurisprudence, or that the continuation is more apparent – then there is no hesitation in deeming the non-elevated isnad as better.
وأَمَّا مَن رجَّحَ النُّزولَ مُطلقاً ، واحْتَجَّ بأَنَّ كَثرةَ البحثِ تقتَضي المشقَّةَ ؛ فيعظُمُ الأجْرُ !
فذلك ترجيحٌ بأَمرٍ أَجنبيٍّ عمَّا يتعلَّقُ بالتَّصحيحِ والتَّضعيفِ .
As for those people who prefer the non-elevated in general because the extensive analysis demands more hardship which subsequently results in more reward, then this is showing preference owing to an alien matter, not linked to the soundness and weakness of a hadith.
وفيهِ ؛ أي : (( في )) العلوِّ النسبيِّ المُوافَقَةُ ، وهي الوُصولُ إلى شيخِ [ أحدِ ] المُصَنِّفينَ مِن غيرِ طريقهِ ؛ أَي : الطَّريقِ التي تصلُ إِلى ذلك المصنِّفِ المُعيَّنِ .
In it – namely ‘uluww nisb – is muwafaqa. This is reaching one of the shaykhs of compilations through another independent means, namely the path that leads to that specific compiler.
(( و )) مثالُه : روى البُخاريُّ عن قُتيبةَ عن مالكٍ حديثاً .
An example is that al-Bukhari has reported a hadith from Qutayba through Malik.
فلو رَوَيْناهُ مِن طريقِهِ ؛ كانَ بينَنا وبينَ قُتَيْبَةَ ثمانيةٌ ، ولو رَوْينا ذلك الحَديثَ [ بعينِه ] مِن [ طريقِ]أَبي العبَّاس السَّرَّاجِ عن قُتيبةَ مثلاً ؛ لكانَ بينَنا وبينَ قُتيبةَ (( مثلاً )) (( فيه )) سبعةٌ .
If we narrate it through his means, then there will be eight reporters between him and Qutayba. And if we report that same hadith through the means of Abu al-‘Abbas al-Sarrj from Qutayba, for example, then there will be seven reporters between him and Qutayba.
فقدْ حَصَلَتْ لنا المُوافقةُ معَ البُخاريِّ في شيخِهِ بعينِهِ معَ عُلوِّ الإِسنادِ [ على الإِسنادِ ] إِليهِ .
So muwafaqa has been achieved with al-Bukhari with his own shaykh, along with the elevated isnad to it.
وفيهِ ؛ أَي : (( في )) العلوِّ النسبيِّ البَدَلُ ، وهو الوُصولُ إِلى شيخِ شيخِهِ [ كذلكَ ] .
Also in it – namely ‘uluww nisb – is badal. This is reaching the shaykh of his shaykh in a similar fashion.
كأَنْ يقعَ لنا ذلك الإِسنادُ (( على الإسناد إليه )) بعينِهِ مِن طريقٍ أُخرى إِلى القعنَبِيِّ عن مالكٍ ، فيكونُ القَعْنَبيُّ بَدلاً فيهِ مِن قُتَيْبَةَ .
An example is the same isnad through another means to Qa‘nabi from Malik. Thus Qa‘nabi will be in the substitute place for Qutayba.
وأَكثرُ ما يعتَبِرونَ المُوافَقَةَ والبَدَلَ إِذا قارَنَا العُلُّوَّ ، وإِلاَّ ؛ فاسمُ المُوافقةِ والبَدلِ [ واقِعٌ ] بدُونِه .
The terms muwafaqa and badal are mostly applied when it couples with elevation (‘uluww). If it does not occur with elevation, then the terms muwafaqa and badal are still applied, even in the absence of elevation.
وفيهِ ؛ أَي : العُلوِّ النسبيِّ المُساواةُ ، وهي : استواءُ عدَدِِ الإِِسنادِِ مِن الرَّاوي إِلى آخِرِهِ ؛ أَي : الإِسنادِ مَعَ إِسنادِ أَحدِ المُصَنِّفينَ .
In it – namely ‘uluww nisb – is musawah. This is equating the number in the isnad from the reporter to its end, namely in the isnad of ‘uluww nisb, with the isnad of one of the compilers.
كأَنْ يروِيَ النَّسائيُّ مَثلاً حَديثاً [ يقعُ ] بينَهُ وبينَ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ [ فيهِ ] أَحدَ عشرَ نفساً ، فيقعُ لنا ذلك الحديثُ بعينِه بإِسنادٍ آخَرَ إِلى النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ يقعُ بينَنا فيه وبينَ النَّبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ أَحدَ عشرَ نفساً ، فنُساوي النَّسائيَّ مِن حيثُ العددُ معَ قطعِ النَّظرِ عن مُلاحظةِ ذلك الإِسنادِ الخاصِّ .
Like, for example, [al-Imam] al-Nasa’i reports a hadith in which between him and the Prophet there are eleven people. The same hadith with another isnad has come across us in which there are eleven people between us and the Prophet. Hence we have equaled al-Nasa’i in terms of the number, excluding that specific isnad of al-Nasa’i’s.
وفيهِ ؛ أَي : [ في ] العلوِّ النسبيِّ أَيضاً المُصافَحَةُ ، وهي : الاستواءُ مَعَ تِلْميذِ ذلكَ المُصَنِّفِ على الوجْهِ المَشروحِ أَوَّلاً .
Also in it – namely ‘uluww nisb – is musafaha. This is the equating with the disciple of that compiler in the aforementioned form.
وسُمِّيتْ مُصافحةً لأنَّ العادةَ جرتْ في الغالبِ بالمُصافحةِ بينَ مَن تلاقَيا ، ونحنُ في هذهِ الصُّورةِ كأَنَّا لَقينا النَّسائيَّ ، فكأَنَّا صافَحْناهُ .
It is called musafaha because it is usually a habit for two people to shake hands when they meet. And we, in this form, have almost met al-Nasa’i; thus it is as if we have shaken hands.
ويُقابِلُ العُلُوُّ بأَقْسَامِهِ المَذكورةِ النُّزولُ فيكونُ كلُّ قسمٍ مِن أَقسامِ العُلوِّ يُقابِلُهُ قسمٌ مِن أَقسامِ النُّزولِ ؛ [ خِلافاً ] لمَن زعمَ أَنَّ العُلوَّ قد يقعُ غيرَ تابعٍ للنُّزولِ .
The opposite of ‘uluww with its aforementioned types is nuzul. So each type of ‘uluww has an opposite form in nuzul, contrary to those who assume that ‘uluww does not have its contrasting type in nuzul.
فإِنْ تَشارَكَ الرَّاوِي ومَنْ روى عَنْهُ في أَمرٍ مِن الأمورِ المتعلِّقَةِ بالرِّوايةِ ؛ مثلِ السِّنِّ واللُّقِيِّ ، و [ هو ] الأخذُ عن المشايخِ ؛ فهُو النُّوعُ الَّذي يُقالُ لهُ : روايةُ الأقْرانِ ؛ لأنَّهُ حينئذٍ يكونُ راوياً عن قَرينِهِ .
If the narrator shares similarities with the one he reported from in a matter related to narration, such as age or taking reports from the same shaykhs, then this is a type called the narration of the aqran, so named because the narrator is of the same type.
وإِنْ رَوى كُلِّ مِنْهُما ؛ أَي : القَرينَيْنِ عَنِ الآخَرِ ؛ فـهو المُدَبَّجُ ، وهو أَخصُّ مِن الأوَّلِ ، فكلُّ مُدَبَّجٍ أَقرانٌ ، وليسَ كلُّ أَقرانٍ مدبَّجاً .
Thus, when each one from the contemporaries reports from the other, then this is mudabbaj – this is more specific than the first, as every mudabbaj is aqran, and not every aqran is mudabbaj.
وقد صنَّفَ الدَّارقطنيُّ في ذلك ، وصنَّف أَبو الشيخِ الأصبهانيُّ في الَّذي قبلَه .
Indeed, al-Daraqutni has compiled a book on the latter, and Abu al-Shaykh al-Isbahani has compiled a book on the former.
وإِذا روى [ الشَّيخُ ] عن تلميذِهِ صَدَق أَنَّ كلاًّ منهُما يروي عنِ الآخَرِ ؛ فهل يُسمَّى مُدبَّجاً ؟
فيهِ بحثٌ ، والظَّاهرُ : لا ؛ لأنَّهُ مِن [ روايةِ ] الأكابِرِ عَنِ الأصاغِرِ ، والتَّدبيجُ مأْخوذٌ مِن دِيباجَتَيِ الوجهِ ، فَيَقْتَضِي أَن يكونَ [ ذلك ] مُستوِياً مِن الجانبَيْنِ ، فلا يجيءُ فيهِ هذا .
When the shaykh reports from his disciple, it is true that each one has now reported from the other. So is it called mudabbaj? In this, there is a debate. Apparently, it is not called mudabbaj because it is considered as the reporting of the seniors from the juniors. Tadbaj is derived from the dabaj (cheeks) of the face. So this suggests that each one should be equal on both sides. So it does not appear as such with the case of the shaykh taking from the student.
وإِنْ رَوى الرَّاوي عَمَّنْ [ هُو ] دُونَهُ في السنِّ أَو (( في )) اللُّقيِّ أَو في المِقدارِ ؛ فـهذا النَّوعُ هو روايةُ الأكابِرُ عَنِ الأصاغِرِ .
If the reporter narrates from someone who is younger than him in age or in terms of meeting frequency or in terms of rank, then this type is the narration of the seniors from the juniors.
ومِنهُ ؛ أَي : (( و )) مِن جُملةِ هذا النَّوعِ – وهو أَخصُّ مِن مُطلَقِهِ – روايةُ الآباءُ عَنِ الأبْناءِ ، والصَّحابةِ عنِ التَّابعينَ ، والشَّيخِ عن تلميذِهِ ، ونحوِ ذلك .
This application of the term includes narration of the fathers from the sons, the Companions from the Successors, the shaykh from his disciple, and its likes.
وفي عَكْسِهِ كَثْرَةٌ ؛ لأنَّهُ هُو الجادَّةُ المسلوكةُ الغالبةُ .
The opposite of these forms is common because this is the overwhelming form of narration.
[ ومِنْهُ : مَنْ رَوى عَنْ أَبيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ ] .
From the opposite of this form is he who reports from his father, from his grandfather.
وفائدةُ معرِفَةِ ذلك : التَّمييزُ بينَ مراتِبِهِم ، وتَنْزيلُ النَّاسِ منازِلَهُم .
The benefit of this is differentiation between the different ranks and putting people in their place.
وقد صنَّفَ الخَطيبُ في راويةِ الآباءِ عنِ الأبناءِ تصنيفاً ، وأَفردَ جُزءاً لطيفاً في روايةِ الصَّحابةِ عن التَّابِعينَ .
Verily, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi has written a book on the narration of the fathers from the sons and has dedicated a beautiful treatise on the narration of the Companions from the Successors.
وجَمَعَ الحافظُ صلاحُ الدِّينِ العَلائيُّ – مِن المتأَخِّرينَ – مُجلَّداً [ كبيراً ] في معرفةِ مَن روى عن أَبيهِ عن جدِّهِ عن النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ [ وآلهِ ] وسلَّمَ ، وقسَّمهُ أَقساماً ، فمنهُ ما يعودُ الضَّميرُ في قولِه : (( عن جدِّهِ )) على الرَّاوي ، ومنهُ ما يعودُ الضَّميرُ فيهِ على أَبيهِ ، وبيَّن ذلك ، وحقَّقَهُ ، وخرَّج في كلِّ ترجمةٍ حديثاً مِن مرويِّهِ .
Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi from the later scholars has compiled a large volume in identifying those who reported from their father, from their grandfather, from the Prophet. He has divided them into types; that from which the his in the statement ‘from his grandfather’ refers to the narrator, and that from which the his in the statement ‘from his grandfather’ refers to the narrator’s father. He has explained it and evaluated it, as well as referred to the hadith to be found in each form.
وقد لخَّصتُ كتابَه المذكورَ ، وزِدْتُ عليهِ تراجِمَ كثيرةً جدّاً ، وأَكثرُ ما وقعَ فيهِ ما تسلْسَلَتْ فيهِ الرِّاويةُ عن الآباءِ بأَربعةَ عشر أَباً .
Indeed, I summarised the aforementioned book and added many other variations. The most number to be found where there is the continuous narration from the father to the son is fourteen fathers.
وإِنْ اشْتَرَكَ اثْنَانِ عَنْ شَيْخٍ ، وتَقَدَّمَ مَوْتُ أَحَدِهِما على الآخَرِ ؛ فهُوَ : السَّابِقُ واللاَّحِقُ .
If two reporters share in reporting from one shaykh, and one’s death precedes the other’s, then this is sabiq and lahiq.
وأَكثرُ ما وَقَفْنا عليهِ مِن ذلك ما بينَ الرَّاوْيَيْنِ فيهِ في الوفاةِ مئةٌ وخَمْسونَ سنةً ، وذلك أَنَّ الحافظَ السِّلفيَّ سمِعَ منهُ أَبو عليٍّ البَرْدانيُّ – أَحدُ مشايخِهِ – حَديثاً ، ورواهُ عنهُ ، وماتَ على رأَسِ الخَمْسِ مئةٍ .
The most we have come across between two reporters in terms of death is one hundred and sixty years. This is as such because Abu ‘Ali al-Burduzi heard a hadith from al-Hafiz al-Silafi, who was one of his shaykhs. He narrated from him and died in 500/1106.
[ ثمَّ ] كانَ آخِرُ أَصحابِ السِّلفيِّ بالسَّماعِ سِبْطَهُ أَبا القاسمِ عبدَ الرحمنِ بن مَكِّيٍّ ، وكانتْ وفاتُه سنةَ خمسينَ وستِّ مئةٍ .
Then the last of the companions of al-Silafi to hear from him was his grandson Abu al-Qasim ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Makk, who died in 650/1252.
ومِن قديمِ ذلك أَنَّ البُخاريَّ حدَّثَ عن تِلميذِهِ أَبي العبَّاسِ السَّرَّاجِ شيئاً في التَّاريخِ وغيرِه ، وماتَ سنةَ ستٍّ وخمسينَ ومئتينِ ، وآخِرُ مَن حدَّثَ عن السَّرَّاجِ بالسَّماعِ أَبو الحُسينِ الخَفَّافُ ، وماتَ سنةَ ثلاثٍ وتسعينَ وثلاثِ مئةٍ .
An older example is that of al-Bukhari, who heard from his disciple Abu al-‘Abbas al-Sarraj some reports on history and its likes. He died in 256/870. The last to hear from al-Sarraj was Abu al-Hasan al-Khaffaf, who died in 393/1002.
وغالِبُ ما يقعُ مِن ذلك أَنَّ المسموعَ منهُ قد يتأَخَّرُ بعدَ [ [ موتِ ] [ أَحدِ ] ] (( أخذ )) الرَّاويينِ عنهُ زماناً ، حتَّى يسمَعَ منهُ بعضُ الأحداثِ ، ويعيشَ بعدَ السَّماعِ منهُ دَهْراً طويلاً ، فيحْصُلُ مِن مجموعِ ذلك نَحْوُ هذهِ المدَّةِ ، واللهُ الموفِّقُ .
The most common reason for this gap is that of the two reporters who have heard from the shaykh, one lives for a considerable time after the other. Then in the final days of the shaykh’s life, the other reporter (of lesser age) hears a report from him and lives for a long period thereafter. This results in the large time gap. And Allah provides assistance.
وإِنْ رَوى الرَّاوي عَنِ اثْنَيْنِ مُتَّفِقَيِ الاسْمِ ، أَو معَ اسمِ الأبِ ، أَو معَ اسمِ الجدِّ ، أَو معَ النِّسبةِ ، ولَمْ يَتَمَيَّزا بما يخُصُّ كُلاًّ منهُما ، فإِنْ كانا ثقَتَيْنِ لم يَضُرَّ .
If a reporter narrates from two people who share the same name, or have the same father’s or grandfather’s name, or the same ascription, and one cannot be differentiated from the other, then if both are credible, it does not harm the authenticity of the Hadith.
ومِن ذلكَ ما وقَعَ في البُخاريِّ مِن روايتِه عن أَحمدَ – غيرَ مَنسوبٍ – عن [ ابنِ ] وَهْبٍ ؛ فإِنَّهُ إِمَّا أَحمدُ بنُ صالحٍ ، أَو أَحمدُ بنُ عيسى ، أَو : عن محمَّدٍ – غيرَ منسوبٍ – عن أَهلِ العراقِ ؛ فإِنَّهُ إِمَّا محمَّدُ بنُ سَلاَمٍ أَو محمَّدُ بنُ يَحْيى الذُّهليُّ .
An example is that which occurred with al-Bukhari in his narration from ‘Ahmad’ – who is not described further – from Ibn Wahb. This is either Ahmad ibn Salih or Ahmad ibn ‘Isa. Or the example of ‘Muhammad’ – who is not described further – of the people of Iraq. For this is either Muhammad ibn Salim or Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Dhuhali.
وقدِ استَوْعَبْتُ ذلك في مقدِّمةِ (( شرحِ البُخاريِّ ))
ومَن أَرادَ لذلك ضابِطاً كُلِّيّاً يمتازُ بهِ أَحدُهما عنِ الآخَرِ ؛ فباخْتِصاصِهِ ؛ [ أَي [ الشيخِ المرويِّ عنهُ ] ] (( الراوي )) بأَحَدِهِما يَتَبَيَّنُ المُهْمَلُ .
Verily, I have encompassed these obscurities in the introduction to the Commentary of al-Bukhari. Whosoever desires a comprehensive and accurate means by which one is identified from the other and one from the two is specified, then muhmal is required.
ومتى لم يتَبَيَّنْ ذلك ، أَو كانَ مختَصّاً بهما معاً ؛ فإشكالُه شديدٌ ، فيُرْجَعُ فيهِ إِلى القرائنِ ، والظَّنِّ الغالِبِ .
When one is not clear from the other in that the descriptions are shared by both, then this results in severe difficulty. One must then resort to external factors and overwhelming evidence.
وإِنْ روى عن شيخٍ حَديثاً ؛ فـجَحَدَ الشيخُ مَرْوِيَّهُ .
If the reporter narrates a Hadith from a Shaykh, and the Shaykh then denies reporting it,
فإِنْ كانَ جَزْماً – كأَنْ يقولَ : كذِبٌ عليَّ ، أَو : ما روَيْتُ هذا ، أَو نحوَ ذلك – ، فإِنْ وقعَ منهُ ذلك ؛ رُدَّ ذلك الخبرُ لِكَذِبِ واحِدٍ منهُما ، لا بِعَيْنِه .
if he rejects it outright by saying, “he lied to me” or “I did not report this to him,” and a rejection occurs from him for that report, then it means one of them has lied, without specifying who.
ولا يكونُ ذلك قادِحاً في واحدٍ منهُما للتَّعارُضِ .
Moreover, this will not be detrimental for any one of them because of the contradiction found in the verification.
[ أَوْ ] كانَ جَحَدَهُ احْتِمالاً ، كأَنْ يَقولَ : ما أَذْكُرُ هذا ، أَو : لا أَعْرِفُهُ ؛ قُبِلَ ذلك الحَديثُ في الأصَحِّ ؛ لأَنَّ ذلك يُحْمَلُ على نِسيانِ الشَّيخِ ، وقيلَ : لا يُقْبَلُ ؛ لأنَّ الفرعَ تَبَعٌ للأصلِ في إِثباتِ الحَديثِ ، [ بحيثُ ] إِذا ثَبَتَ أَصلُ الحَديثِ ؛ ثَبَتَتْ روايةُ الفرعِ ، فكذلكَ ينْبَغي أَنْ يكونَ فرعاً عليهِ وتَبَعاً لهُ في التَّحقيقِ .
If he rejects it with uncertainty by saying, “I do not remember this” or “I do not know,” then the Hadith will be accepted according to the most correct opinion. This is because the Shaykh may have forgotten. It is also said that the Hadith will not be accepted because the peripheral (i.e., that the disciple took it from the Shaykh) follows the core (i.e., that the Shaykh possessed the Hadith originally) in affirming the authenticity of the Hadith. In other words, when the core (Shaykh) affirms the Hadith, the reporting of the peripheral (disciple) is proven. Similarly, it is desirable that the same is applied in terms of verification.
وهذا مُتَعَقَّبٌ بأَنَّ عدالَةَ الفرعِ تقتَضي صِدْقَهُ ، وعدمُ عِلْمِ الأصلِ لا يُنافيهِ ، فالمُثْبِتُ مقدَّمٌ على النَّافي .
This opinion is refuted by the fact that the credibility of the periphery (disciple) stipulates his truthfulness, and the fact the core does not know of it will not negate it. Thus, affirmation is preceded over negation.
وأَمَّا قياسُ ذلك بالشَّهادةِ ؛ ففاسِدٌ ؛ لأنَّ شهادةَ الفرعِ لا تُسْمَعُ معَ القُدرةِ على شَهادةِ الأَصلِ ؛ بخلافِ الرِّوايةِ ، فافْتَرَقَا .
As for analogy with the testimony, this is invalid because the testimony of the witness (periphery) is not heard over the testimony of the original witness when he is able to do so, as opposed to Hadith narration. Hence, they are different cases.
وفيهِ ؛ أَي : (( و )) في هذا النَّوعِ صنَّفَ الدَّارقطنيُّ [ كِتابَ ] (( مَنْ حَدَّثَ ونَسِيَ )) ، وفيه ما يدلُّ على تَقْوِيَةِ المذهب الصَّحيحِ لكونِ كثيرٍ مِنهُم حدَّثوا بأَحاديثَ [ أَوَّلاً ] ، فلمَّا عُرِضَتْ عليهِم ، لم يتذكَّروها ، لكنَّهُم – لاعْتِمادِهم على الرُّواةِ عنهُم – صارُوا يروونَها عنِ الَّذينَ رَوَوْها عنهُم عن أَنْفُسِهِم .
In this discipline, al-Daraqutni has compiled a book called “Man hadatha wa nasiya.” In it is that which offers support for the correct opinion. This is because there are many cases mentioned in this book where reporters narrated traditions. When these traditions were presented to them, they did not recall reporting them. But because of their trust with those who heard from them, they began to hear from those they had reported to.
كحَديثِ سُهَيْلِ بنِ [ أَبي ] صالحٍ عن أَبيهِ عن أَبي هُريرةَ – مرفوعاً – في قِصَّةِ الشَّاهِدِ واليَمينِ .
Like the Hadith of Suhayl ibn Abi Salih, from his father, from Abu Huraira as a raised report in the story of the testimony and the oath.
قالَ عبدُ العزيزِ بنُ محمَّدٍ الدَّراوَردِيُّ : حدَّثني بهِ ربيعةُ بنُ أَبي عبدِ الرحمنِ عن سُهيلٍ ؛ قالَ : فلقيتُ سُهيلاً ، فسأَلتُه عنهُ ؟ فلم يَعْرِفْهُ ، فقلتُ (( له )) : إِنَّ ربيعةَ حدَّثني عنكَ بكذا ، فكانَ سُهَيْلٌ بعدَ ذلك يقولُ : حدَّثني ربيعةُ عنِّي أَنِّي حدَّثتُه عن أَبي بهِ .
‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Muhammad al-Darwardi said: ‘Rabia ibn Abd al-Rahman informed me, from Suhayl. He said: ‘I met Suhayl and asked him about it. He did not know of it. I said to him, “Verily Rabia informed me of it from yourself.” Thereafter, Suhayl used to say: “Rabia informed me that I reported it to him, from his father.”
ونظائِرُهُ كثيرةٌ .
Examples as such are plentiful.
وإِنْ اتَّفَقَ الرَّواةُ في إِسنادٍ مِن الأسانيدِ في صِيَغِ الأَداءِ ؛ [ كـ : سمعتُ فلاناً ، قالَ : سمعتُ فُلاناً .
If the narrators coincide with one another in a chain from the chains in terms of words of delivery, such as “I heard x who said I heard x”
أَوْ : حدَّثنا فُلانٌ ؛ [ قالَ : حدَّثنا فُلانٌ ] .
or “x reported to me who said x reported to me,”
و غيرِ ذلك من الصِّيَغِ ، أَوْ غَيْرِها مِن الحالاتِ القوليَّةِ ] ؛ كـ : سمعتُ فلاناً يقولُ : أُشْهِدُ اللهَ لقد حدَّثَني فلانٌ . إِلخ ،
and similarly other words of delivery, or in terms of other verbal forms, like “I heard x say I bear witness with Allah that verily x reported to me” to the end of the chain,
أَو الفِعليَّةِ ؛ كقولِه : دَخَلْنا على فُلانٍ ، فأَطْعَمَنا تَمراً . إِلخ ،
or in terms of an action, like “we entered upon x and he gave us a date to eat” to the end of the chain,
أَو القوليَّةِ والفِعليَّةِ معاً ؛ كقولِه : حدَّثَني فلانٌ و [ هُو ] آخِذٌ بلحْيَتِه ؛ قالَ : [ آمنْتُ ] بالقَدَرِ .
or in terms of the same words and actions together, like their saying “x reported to me while holding his beard saying ‘I believe in fate'” to the end,
إلخ ؛ فهُو : المُسَلْسَلُ ، وهو مِن صفاتِ الإِسنادِ .
then this is called musalsal. This pertains to the description of the isnad.
وقد يقعُ التَّسلسُلُ في معظمِ الإِسنادِ ؛ كحديثِ المُسَلْسَلِ بالأوَّليَّةِ ، فإِنَّ السِّلْسِلَةِ تنْتَهي فيهِ إِلى سُفيانَ بنِ عُيينَةَ فقط ، ومَن رواهُ مُسلْسَلاً إِلى منتهاهُ ، فقد وَهِمَ .
Sometimes the enchaining occurs in most of the isnad, like the Hadith with Awwaliyya. The enchaining ends at Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna only. Those who report this tradition enchained to its end have erred.
وصِيَغُ الأدَاءِ المشارُ إِليها على ثمانِ مراتِبَ :
الأولى : سَمِعْتُ وحَدَّثَني .
The words of delivery that indicate reporting are of eight stages. The first is “sami’tu” and “haddathan.”
ثمَّ : أخْبَرَني وقرَأْتُ عليهِ ؛ وهي المرتبةُ الثَّانيةُ .
Then “akhbaran” and “qara’tu ‘alayhi” – and this is the second stage.
ثمَّ : قُرِئَ عَلَيْهِ وأَنا أَسْمَعُ ، وهي الثالثةُ .
Then “quri’a ‘alayhi wa-ana asma'” – and this is the third.
ثمَّ : أَنْبَأَني ، وهي الرَّابعةُ .
Then “anba’an” – and this is the fourth.
ثمَّ : ناوَلَني ، وهي الخامسةُ .
Then “nawalan” – and this is the fifth.
ثمَّ : شافَهَني ؛ أَي : بالإِجازةِ ، وهي السَّادسةُ .
Then “shafahan,” namely with ijaza, and this is the sixth.
ثمَّ : كَتَبَ إِليَّ ؛ [ أَي ] : بالإِجازةِ ، وهي السَّابعةُ .
Then “kataba ilayya,” namely with ijaza, and this is the seventh.
ثمَّ : عَنْ ونَحْوُها مِن الصِّيغِ المُحْتَمِلةِ للسَّماعِ والإِجازةِ ولِعدمِ السَّماعِ أَيضاً ، وهذا مثلُ : قالَ ، وذكرَ ، وروى .
Then “an” and its likes from the words of delivery that can possibly mean listening or ijaza, or [even] not hearing it. This is like with the words “qala” and “dhakara” and “rawa.”
فـاللَّفظانِ الأوَّلانِ مِن صيغِ الأداءِ ، وهُما : سمعتُ ، وحدَّثني صالِحانِ لمَن سَمِعَ وَحْدَهُ مِن لَفْظِ الشَّيْخِ .
Thus, the first two words from the words of delivery – “sami’tu” and “haddathan” – are suitable for when he hears it alone from the words of the Shaykh.
وتَخْصيصُ التَّحديثِ بما سُمِعَ مِن لفظِ الشَّيخِ هو الشَّائعُ بينَ أَهلِ الحَديثِ اصطِلاحاً .
The [terminological] specifying of “tahdith” for what he hears from the words of the Shaykh (from memory) is famous amongst the people of Hadith.
ولا فرقَ بينَ التَّحديثِ والإِخبارِ مِن حيثُ اللُّغةُ ، وفي ادِّعاءِ الفرقِ بينَهما تكلُّفٌ شديدٌ ، لكنْ لمَّا (صار ) تقرَّر الاصطلاحُ صارَ ذلك حقيقةً عُرفيَّةً ، فتُقَدَّمُ على الحقيقةِ اللُّغويةِ ، معَ أَنَّ هذا الاصطلاحَ [ إِنَّما ] شاعَ عندَ المَشارِقَةِ ومَن تَبِعَهُم ، وأَمَّا غالِبُ المَغارِبَةِ ؛ فلمْ يستَعْمِلوا هذا الاصطِلاحَ ، بل الإِخبارُ والتَّحديثُ عندَهُم بمعنىً واحدٍ .
Literally, there is no difference between “tahdith” and “ikhbar
There is severe hardship in claiming a difference between the two (“tahdith” and “ikhbar”). However, since they have become established [as being synonymous] in terms of terminology, it has become a reality through customary use. Thus this opinion is preceded over what they mean literally. Moreover, this terminology [citing the difference between the two] has merely stemmed from the eastern scholars and those who follow them. As for the majority of the western scholars, they have not employed this terminology; rather for them, “tahdith” and “ikhbar” have the same meaning.
فإِنْ جَمَعَ الرَّاوي ؛ أي : أَتى بصيغةِ الجَمْعِ [ في الصِّيغةِ ] الأولى ؛ كأَنْ يقولَ : حدَّثَنا فلانٌ ، أَو : سَمِعْنا فلاناً يقولُ : ؛ فـهُو دليلٌ على أَنَّه سَمِعَ منهُ مَعَ غَيْرِهِ ، وقد تكونُ النُّونُ للعظمةِ لكنْ بقلَّةٍ .
If the narrator uses the plural form – namely he brings forth the first two words in the plural sense by saying “sami’n” and “haddathan” – then this is evidence that he heard the Hadith in the presence of others. Sometimes the “nan” is for respect [and not to say he heard it with others], but this is seldom applied.
وأوَّلُها أَي : [ صيغُ ] المراتِبِ أَصْرَحُها ؛ أَي : أَصرحُ صِيغِ الأَداءِ في سماعِ قائلِها ؛ لأنَّها لا تحتَمِلُ الواسِطةَ ، ولأنَّ (( حدَّثني )) قد يُطْلَقُ في الإِجازةِ تدليساً .
The first of the two (namely “sami’n” or “sami’tu”) is the clearest [word of delivery] to clarify the speaker heard it because it does not result in the possibility of an [additional] source [in between], and because the word “haddathan” is sometimes said in ijaza with tadalus.
وأَرْفَعُها مِقداراً ما يقعُ في الإِمْلاءِ لما فيهِ مِن التثبُّتِ والتحفُّظِ .
The highest [form of words of delivery] is that which occurs through imla’, because it entails [added] accuracy and memorization.
والثَّالِثُ ، وهو أَخبَرَني .
The third – and this is “akhbaran”
والرَّابِعُ ، وهو قرأْتُ (( عليه )) لِمَنْ قَرَأَ بِنَفْسِهِ على الشَّيخِ .
– is like the fourth which is “qara’tu ‘alayhi” for whosoever reads himself to the Shaykh.
فإِنْ جَمَعَ كأَنْ يقولَ : أَخْبَرَنا ، أَو : قَرَأْنا عليهِ ؛ فـهو كالخامِسِ ، وهو : قُرىءَ عليهِ وأَنا أَسمعُ .
If he uses the plural form in that he says “akhbaran” or “qara’n,” then this is like the fifth, which is “quri’a ‘alayhi wa-ana sami’.”
وعُرِفَ مِن هذا أَنَّ التَّعبيرَ بـ (( قرأتُ )) لمَن قرأَ خيرٌ مِن التَّعبيرِ بالإِخبارِ ؛ لأنَّهُ أَفصحُ بصورةِ الحالِ .
It is known from this [analysis] that when he has read it [to the Shaykh], referring to it with “qara’tu ‘alayhi” is better than “akhbaran,” because it better indicates the actual state.
تنبيهٌ : القراءةُ على الشَّيخِ أَحدُ وجوهِ التحمُّلِ عندَ الجُمهورِ .
Note: According to the majority [of scholars], reading in the presence of the Shaykh is one of the forms of receiving reports.
وأَبعدَ مَن أَبى ذلك مِن أَهلِ العِراقِ ، وقد اشتدَّ إِنكارُ الإِمامِ مالكٍ وغيرِهِ مِن المدنيِّينَ عليهِم في ذلك ، حتَّى بالغَ بعضُهُم فرجَّحَها على السَّماعِ مِن لفظِ الشَّيخِ !
وذهَبَ جمعٌ [ جمٌّ ] – منهُم البُخاريُّ ، وحكاهُ في أَوائلِ (( صحيحِهِ )) عن جماعةٍ مِن الأئمَّةِ – إِلى أَنَّ السَّماعَ مِن لفظِ الشَّيخِ والقراءَةَ عليهِ يعني في الصِّحَّةِ والقُوَّةِ [ سواءً ] ، واللهُ أَعلمُ .
Distanced [from the correct opinion] are those who have denied this, from the people of ‘Iraq. Verily, al-Imam Malik and other scholars of Madinah have vehemently refuted such an opinion to the extent that some have ranked “qara’tu ‘alayhi” higher than “sami’tu” from the words of the Shaykh. A large group of scholars – from them al-Bukhari [as mentioned] in the beginning of his Sahih who cites from the Imams – have opted for the opinion that listening from the words of the Shaykh and recitation to him are equal in terms of authenticity and strength. And Allah knows best.
والإِنْباءُ من حيثُ اللُّغةُ واصطلاحُ المتقدِّمينَ بمعْنَى الإِخْبارِ ؛ إِلاَّ في عُرْفِ المُتَأَخِّرينَ ؛ فهُو للإِجازَةِ ؛ كـ (( عن )) لأنَّها في عُرفِ المتأَخِّرينَ للإِجازةِ .
Inba’ – literally and terminologically – is the same as “ikhbar” according to the earlier scholars, though the later scholars use it for ijaza (licensing) like “an.”
وعَنْعَنَةُ المُعاصِرِ مَحْمولَةٌ عَلى السَّماعِ ؛ بخلافِ غيرِ المُعاصِرِ ؛ فإِنَّها تكونُ مُرسَلةً ، أَو مُنقطِعَةً ، فشرْطُ حمْلِها [ على السَّماعِ ] ثُبوتُ المُعاصرةِ ؛ إِلاَّ مِنْ مُدَلِّسٍ ؛ فإِنَّها ليستْ محمولةً على السَّماعِ .
The statement of ‘an from the contemporary is deemed as an audible report (sam’), as opposed to a non-contemporary, as this is mursal or munqati’. Therefore, the condition for deeming it as sam’ is the proof of being contemporaries, except from the mudallis; this is not deemed as sam’.
وقيلَ : يُشْتَرَطُ في حملِ عنعَنَةِ المُعاصرِ على السَّماعِ ثُبوتُ لِقائِهِمَا أَيْ : الشيخِ والرَّاوي عنهُ ، ولَوْ مَرَّةً واحدةً ليَحْصُلَ الأمنُ [ في ] باقي العنعَنَةِ عن كونِهِ مِن المُرسلِ الخفيِّ ، وهُو المُخْتارُ ؛ تبعاً لعليِّ بنِ المَدينيِّ والبُخاريِّ وغيرِهما مِن النُّقَّادِ .
It is said that the condition for deeming the mu’an’an as sam’ from the contemporary is evidence of the meeting between the Shaykh and the disciple, even if it is once. This is so immunity is achieved from the report being mursal khafi. This is the chosen opinion, in compliance with ‘Ali ibn al-Madini, al-Bukhari, and the other scholars.
وأَطْلَقُوا المُشافَهَةَ في الإِجازَةِ المُتَلَفَّظِ بِها تجوُّزاً .
The scholars have referred to verbal licensing as “mushafaha.”
[ وَكذا المُكاتَبَةَ ] في الإِجازَةِ المَكْتُوبِ بِها ، وهُو موجودٌ في عِبارةِ كثيرٍ مِن المُتأَخِّرينَ ؛ بخلافِ المُتقدِّمينَ ، فإِنَّهُم إِنَّما يُطلِقونَها فيما كتَبَ بهِ الشَّيخُ مِن الحديثِ إِلى الطَّالبِ ، سواءٌ أَذِنَ لهُ في رِوايتِه أَم لا ، لا فيما إذا كتَبَ إِليهِ بالإِجازةِ فقطْ .
Similarly, they have referred to written licensing as “muktaba,” and this is common practice in the texts of the later scholars, as opposed to the earlier scholars. For they only call it “muktaba” when the Shaykh writes the Hadith for the disciple, irrespective of whether he permitted him to narrate it or not. They do not call it “muktaba” when the Shaykh writes to him with licensing alone.
واشْتَرَطُوا في صِحَّةِ الرِّوايةِ بـالمُناوَلَةِ اقْتِرانَها بالإِذْنِ بالرِّوايةِ ، وهِيَ إذا حَصَلَ هذا الشَّرطُ أَرْفَعُ أَنْواعِ الإِجازَةِ ؛ لما فيها مِن التَّعيينِ والتَّشخيصِ .
The scholars have placed the condition of permission to narrate for the legitimacy of a narration of munawala. When this is achieved, then it constitutes the highest form of ijaza (licensing) because it entails specification and [exact] personage.
وصورَتُها : أَنْ يَدْفَعَ الشَّيخُ أَصلَهُ أَو ما قامَ مَقامَهُ للطَّالِبِ ، أَو يُحْضِرَ الطَّالِبُ الأَصْلَ للشَّيخِ ، ويقولَ لهُ في الصُّورتينِ : هذا رِوايَتي عنْ فلانٍ فارْوِهِ عنِّي .
Its form is that the Shaykh gives his original manuscript or its equivalent to the disciple, or the disciple is presented with the Shaykh’s original manuscript, and in both forms he says: “These are my narrations from x, so narrate them from me.”
وشَرْطُهُ أَيضاً : أَنْ يُمَكِّنَهُ منهُ ؛ إِمَّا بالتَّمليكِ ، وإِمَّا بالعاريَّةِ ، لِيَنْقُلَ منهُ ، ويُقابِلَ عليهِ ، وإِلاَّ ؛ ( و ) إِنْ ناوَلَهُ واستردَّ (( منه )) في الحالِ فلا تُتَبَيَّنُ [ أَرفعيَّتُهُ ، لكنَّ ] لها زيادةَ مَزيَّةٍ على الإِجازةِ المعيَّنَةِ ، وهيَ أَنْ يُجيزَهُ الشَّيخُ بروايةِ كتابٍ معيَّنٍ ، ويُعَيِّنَ لهُ كيفيَّةَ روايتِهِ لهُ .
Its [other] condition is that he has control over the manuscript, either through ownership or lease so that he may transfer it and study it. And if not, namely the student takes it and it is taken back immediately, then this is no longer the highest form, though it still has some distinction over the specified licensing (ijaza mu’ayyana); this is when the Shaykh grants permission to narrate a specific book of his and [also] specifies the method to narrate them.
وإِذا خَلَتِ المُناولَةُ عن الإِذنِ ، لم يُعْتَبَرْ بها عندَ الجُمهورِ .
When the munawala is void of permission, then according to the majority of scholars, it will not be considered [worthy of narration].
وجَنَحَ مَنِ اعْتَبَرَها إِلى أَنَّ مُناولَتَهُ إِيَّاهُ [ تقومُ مقامَ إرسالِهِ إليهِ ] بالكتابِ مِن بلدٍ إِلى بلدٍ .
Those scholars who have permitted this have compared it to sending a book from one country to another.
وقد ذهَبَ إِلى صحَّةِ الرِّوايةِ بالمُكاتبةِ المُجرَّدةِ جماعةٌ مِن الأئمَّةِ ، و [ لو ] لم يقتَرِنْ ذلك بالإِذنِ بالرِّوايةِ ؛ كأَنَّهُم اكْتَفَوْا في ذلك بالقرينةِ .
Hence a group from the Imams of Hadith have deemed such a practice as correct, even if this sending is not coupled with permission. It is as if the [actual] sending itself of the books is an indication of permission.
ولمْ يَظْهَرْ لي فرقٌ قويٌّ بينَ مُناولةِ الشَّيخِ الكِتابَ [ مِن يدهِ ] للطَّالبِ ، وبينَ إِرسالِهِ [ إِليهِ ]بالكتابِ مِن موضعٍ إِلى آخَرَ ، إِذا خَلا كلٌّ منهُما عن الإِذنِ .
I do not see a strong difference between the Shaykh giving the book to the disciple and between sending the book from one place to the other when both are void of permission.
وكَذا اشْتَرَطُوا الإِذْنَ في الوِجَادَةِ ، وهي : أَنْ يَجِدَ بخطٍّ يعرِفُ كاتِبَهُ ، فيقولُ : وجَدْتُ بخطِّ فلانٍ ، ولا يسوغُ فيهِ إِطلاقُ : أَخْبَرَني ؛ بمجرَّدِ ذلك ، إِلاَّ إِنْ كانَ لهُ منهُ إِذنٌ بالرِّوايةِ عنهُ .
Similarly, the scholars have laid down the condition of permission with “wijdā”; this is when he finds [the book] with the handwriting of one he knows. Thus he says: ‘I found with the handwriting of x.’ By finding it, he cannot merely say ‘x informed me’ (akhbaran) except when he has permission to narrate from him.
وأَطلقَ قومٌ ذلك فغَلِطوا .
Some people have used this term [of “akhbaran” when one finds the book] and by doing so have erred.
وَكذا الوَصِيَّةُ بالكِتَابِ ، وهي أَنْ يُوصِيَ عندَ موتِه أَو سفرِهِ لشخْصٍ معيَّنٍ بأَصلِه أَو بأُصولِهِ ؛ فقد قالَ قومٌ مِن الأئمَّةِ المتقدِّمينَ : يجوزُ لهُ أَنْ يروِيَ تلكَ الأصولَ عنهُ بمجرَّدِ (( هذه )) الوصيَّةِ !
وأَبى ذلك الجُمهورُ ؛ إِلاَّ إِنْ كانَ لهُ منهُ إِجازةٌ .
Similar is the case with “wasiyya”; this is when the Shaykh bequeaths the book or books at the time of his death or at the time of traveling to a specific person. Verily, a group from the earlier Imams has allowed the narration merely by the means of the bequest. The majority have not permitted the narration, except when it is coupled with permission.
وَكذا شَرَطوا الإِذْنَ بالرِّوايةِ في الإِعْلامِ ، وهُو أَنْ يُعْلِمَ الشَّيخُ أَحدَ الطَّلبةِ بأَنَّني أَروي الكِتابَ الفُلانيَّ عن فُلانٍ ، فإِنْ كانَ لهُ منهُ إِجازةٌ [ اعْتبرَ ] ، وإِلاَّ ؛ فلا عِبْرَةَ بذلك ؛ كالإِجَازَةِ العَامَّةِ في المُجازِ لهُ ، لا [ في ] المُجازِ بهِ ، كأَنْ يقولَ : أَجَزْتُ ( به ) لجَميعِ المُسلمينَ ، أَو : لمَنْ أَدْرَكَ حَياتِي ، أَو : لأَهْلِ الإِقليمِ الفُلانيِّ ، أَو : لأهْلِ البَلدةِ الفُلانيَّةِ .
Similarly, the scholars have specified the condition of permission in “i‘lām”; this is when the Shaykh informs one of his disciples that he has narrated book x from person y. If this is coupled with permission, then it is considered. And if not, it is not, just like the ijāza ‘āmma (general permission) in which he says: ‘I grant permission to all Muslims’ or ‘to everyone who is a contemporary of mine’ or ‘to the people of x territory’ or ‘to the people of x country.’
وهُو أَقربُ إِلى الصِّحَّةِ ؛ لقُرْبِ الانحصارِ .
[This last form] is closest to correctness because of more restriction.
وَكذلك [ الإِجازةُ ] للمَجْهُولِ ؛ كأَنْ يَكونَ مُبْهَماً أَوْ مُهْملاً .
Likewise, permission is required for the ijāza majhūl, in that he states an unidentified person or unidentified book.
وَكذلك الإِجازةُ للمَعْدومِ ؛ كأَنْ يَقولَ : أَجَزْتُ لِمَنْ سَيولَدُ لِفُلانٍ .
Similarly, permission is required for the ijāza ma‘dūm, in that he says: ‘I give permission to whom shall soon be born.’
[ و[ قد ] قيل : إن عطفَهُ علَى مَوجودٍ ؛ صحَّ ؛ كأَنْ يقولَ : أَجَزْتُ لكَ ، ولِمَنْ سيُولَدُ لكَ ] ، والأقرَبُ عدَمُ الصحَّةِ أَيضاً .
It is said that specifying a living person is correct, in that he says: ‘I give permission to you and whoever you bore.’ The opinion closest to the correct position is that it is not legitimate either.
وكذلك الإِجازةُ لموجودٍ أَو معدومٍ عُلِّقَتْ بشَرْطِ [ مشيئةِ ] [ الغيرِ ] ؛ كأَنْ يقولَ : أَجَزْتُ لكَ إِنْ شاءَ فلانٌ ، [ أَو : أَجزتُ لمَن شاءَ فُلانٌ ] ، لا أَنْ يقولَ : أَجزْتُ لك إِنْ شئْتَ ( فإن هذا تجوز ) .
And similarly, permission is required for the permission to the present or non-existent, which is dependent on the wish of others, in that he says: ‘I give you permission if x wishes’ or ‘I give permission to whomever x wishes,’ as opposed to when he says: ‘I give you permission if you wish.’
وهذا على الأصَحِّ في جَميعِ ذلكَ .
This is the correct opinion in all these cases [that it will not be considered].
وقد جَوَّزَ الرِّوايةَ بجَميعِ ذلك سِوى المَجْهولِ – ما لم يَتَبَيَّنِ المُرادُ منهُ – الخَطيبُ ، وحَكاهُ عن جَماعةٍ مِن مشايخِهِ .
Verily al-Khatib has permitted all of these forms except the [ijāza] majhūl when the person [or book] is not specified. He has cited the permissibility from a group of his shaykhs.
واستَعْمَلَ الإِجازةَ للمَعدومِ مِن القُدماءِ أَبو بكرِ بنُ أَبي دَاودَ ، و [ أَبو ] عبدِ اللهِ بنُ مَنْدَه .
From the classical scholars, ijāza ma‘dūm has been employed by Abū Bakr ibn Abi Dawud and Abū ‘Abd Allāh ibn Manda.
واستَعْمَلَ المُعَلَّقةَ منهُم أَيضاً أَبو بكرِ بنُ أَبي خَيْثَمَة .
The attached [form of permission] has been used too, by Abū Bakr ibn Abi Khaythama.
وروى بالإِجازةِ العامَّةِ جَمعٌ كَثيرٌ ، جَمَعَهُم بعضُ الحُفَّاظِ في كِتابٍ ، ورتَّبَهُم على حُروف المعجَمِ لكَثْرَتِهم .
Many scholars have permitted ijāza ‘āmma; some of the hafiz have gathered these forms in a book in alphabetical order due to their sheer number.
وكلُّ ذلك – كما قالَ ابنُ الصَّلاحِ – توسُّعٌ غيرُ مَرْضِيٍّ ؛ لأنَّ الإِجازةَ الخاصَّةَ المعيَّنَةَ مُخْتَلَفٌ في صحَّتِها اختِلافاً قويّاً عندَ القُدماءِ ، وإِنْ كانَ العملُ (( قد )) استقرَّ على اعْتبارِها عندَ المتأَخِّرينَ ، فهِيَ دونَ السَّماعِ بالاتِّفاقِ ، فكيفَ إِذا حصَلَ فيها الاسترسالُ المَذكورُ ؟! فإِنَّها تَزدادُ ضَعفاً ، لكنَّها في الجُملةِ خيرٌ مِن إِيرادِ الحَديثِ مُعْضلاً ، واللهُ (( تعالى )) أَعلمُ .
All of these forms, as Ibn al-Salah states, are a disliked leniency. This is because there is a severe dispute in accepting the specified ijāza, though the later scholars accept this form. This is less than the audible (sam’) unanimously, so how less in rank will the aforementioned forms be? Verily, it will be much weaker. However, these forms are still better than narrating them as mu‘dil. And Allah knows best.
[ و ] إِلى هُنا انْتَهى الكلامُ في [ أَقسامِ ] صِيَغِ الأداءِ .
With this, the discussion on the words of delivery has ended.
ثمَّ الرُّواةُ ؛ إِنِ اتَّفَقَتْ أَسماؤهُمْ وأَسْماءُ آبائِهِمْ فَصاعِداً ، واخْتَلَفَتْ أَشْخَاصُهُمْ ، سواءٌ اتَّفَقَ في ذلك اثْنانِ مِنهُم أَمْ أَكثرُ ، وكذلك إِذا اتَّفَقَ اثْنانِ فصاعِداً في الكُنيةِ والنِّسبةِ ؛ فهُو النَّوعُ الذي يُقالُ لهُ : المُتَّفِقُ والمُفْتَرِقُ .
Then the reporters; if their names and the names of their fathers upwards are the same and they are [in reality] different people – regardless of whether two share the same name or more – and likewise when two or more share the same kunya and nisba, then this is a type which is called “muttafiq” and “muftariq.”
وفائدةُ معرفَتِه : خَشْيَةُ أَنْ يُظَنَّ الشَّخصانِ شَخْصاً واحِداً .
The benefit of this [discipline] is to [prevent] the fear of assuming two different people being one.
وقد صنَّفَ فيهِ الخَطيبُ كتاباً حافِلاً .
Verily al-Khatib has compiled a vast book on this.
وقد لخَّصْتُهُ وزِدْتُ عليهِ أَشياءَ كثيرةً .
I summarised this and added much more.
وهذا عَكسُ ما تقدَّمَ مِن النَّوعِ المسمَّى بالمُهْمَلِ ؛ لأنَّهُ يُخْشى منهُ أَن يُظَنَّ الواحِدُ اثنَيْنِ ، وهذا يُخْشى منهُ أَنْ يُظَنَّ الاثنانِ واحِداً .
This type is the opposite of the type which has passed, called “muhmal.” With muhmal, it is feared that one person is actually two. With this type, it is feared that two people are really one.
وإِنِ اتَّفَقَتِ الأَسْماءُ خَطّاً واخْتَلَفَتْ نُطْقاً سواءٌ كانَ مرجِعُ الاختلافِ النَّقْطَ أَم الشَّكْلَ ؛ فهُو : المُؤتَلِفُ والمُخْتَلِفُ .
If the names are the same in terms of writing but differ in pronunciation, irrespective of whether this difference is in terms of the dots or the form, then this is “mu’talif” and “mukhtalif.”
ومعرِفَتُه مِن مهمَّاتِ هذا الفنِّ ، [ حتَّى ] قالَ عليُّ بنُ المَدينيِّ : (( أَشدُّ التَّصحيفِ ما يقعُ في الأسماءِ)) ، ووجَّهَهُ بعضُهم بأَنَّهُ شيءٌ لا يَدْخُلُهُ القياسُ ، ولا قَبْلَهُ شيءٌ يدلُّ عليهِ ولا بعدَه .
Knowing this is one of the most important [parts] of this discipline [of ‘ilm al-hadith]. This is to the extent that ‘Ali ibn al-Madini said: ‘The most errors [in reading] occur in the names.’ Others have explained that [there is severe difficulty in correctly reading the names] because identifying it cannot be based on analogy, nor is there something prior or after the text to indicate [the correct form].
وقد صنَّفَ فيهِ أَبو أَحمدَ العسكريُّ ، لكنَّه أَضافَهُ إِلى كتابِ (( التَّصحيفِ )) [ له ] .
Verily, Abu Ahmad al-‘Askari compiled a book on this field but he amalgamated it with another book compiled on spelling errors (tasahhuf).
ثمَّ أَفرَدَهُ بالتَّأْليفِ عبدُ الغنيِّ بنُ سعيدٍ ، فجمَعَ فيهِ كِتابينِ ، كتاباً في (( مُشتَبِهِ الأسماءِ )) ، وكتاباً في (( مُشْتَبِهِ النِّسبةِ )) .
Then ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Sa’id wrote an independent treatise on it and he included in it two books; one [mentioning] the confusing names and one [mentioning] confusing ascriptions.
وجَمَعَ شيخُهُ الدَّارقطنيُّ [ في ذلك ] كتاباً حافِلاً .
Then the Shaykh [of ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Sa’id], al-Daraqutni, compiled a comprehensive book on the topic.
ثمَّ جَمَعَ الخَطيبُ ذَيلاً .
Then, al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi] completed this book.
ثمَّ جَمَعَ الجَميعَ أَبو نَصْرِ [ بنُ ] ماكُولا في كتابِه (( الإِكمالِ )) .
Thereafter, Abu Nasr ibn Makula gathered all of the previous works in his book al-Ikmal.
واسْتَدْرَكَ عليهِم في كتابٍ آخَرَ جَمَعَ فيهِ أَوهامَهُمْ وبيَّنَها .
In another treatise, he gathered all of the obscure names not mentioned in previous works and offered an explanation for each.
وكتابُه مِن أَجمعِ ما [ جُمِعَ ] في ذلك ، وهُو عُمدةُ كلِّ محدِّثٍ بعدَه .
His book is the most comprehensive [of the ones prior to him] and thus is the depended source for hadith scholars after him.
وقد استَدْرَكَ عليهِ أَبو بكرِ بنُ نُقطَةَ ما فاتَه ، أو تجدَّدَ بعدَه في مجلَّدٍ ضَخْمٍ .
Names which Abu Nasr missed out or the new names [of obscurity] were compiled in a large volume of work by Abu Bakr ibn Nuqtah.
ثمَّ ذَيَّلَ عليهِ منصورُ بنُ سَليمٍ – بفتحِ السَّينِ – في مجلَّدٍ لطيفٍ .
Then, Mansur ibn Salim – with a fath/a on the letter sin – completed this in an outstanding volume.
وكذلك أَبو حامدِ ابنُ الصَّابونيِّ .
Similarly, Abu Hamid ibn al-Sabooni also offered a completion of this work.
وجَمَعَ الذهبيُّ في ذلكَ [ كِتاباً ] مُخْتَصراً جِدّاً ، اعتَمَدَ فيهِ على الضَّبْطِ بالقَلَمِ ، فكَثُرَ فيهِ الغَلَطُ والتَّصحيفُ المُبايِنُ لموضوعِ الكِتابِ .
Al-Dhahabi also wrote a very brief treatise on the discipline. He depended on mere indication when writing the exact pronunciation, and thus there are many mistakes and clear errors in it, which therefore contradict the purpose of the book.
وقد يسَّرَ اللهُ (( سبحانه )) [ تَعالى ] بتوضيحِهِ في كتابٍ سمَّيْتُهُ (( (( بـ )) تَبْصير المُنْتَبِه بتَحرير المُشْتَبِه )) ، وهو مجلَّدٌ واحدٌ ، فَضَبَطتُهُ بالحُروفِ على الطَّريقةِ المَرْضِيَّةِ ، وزدتُ عليهِ شيئاً كثيراً ممَّا أَهْمَلَهُ ، أَو لَمْ يَقِفْ عليهِ ، وللهِ الحمدُ على ذلك .
Allah has enabled ease for us in clarifying this in a book which I named “Tafsir al-Muntabih bi Tahrir al-Mushtabih.” This consists of one volume, and I have arranged the names alphabetically in a manner worthy of praise. In it, I added a considerable amount which al-Dhahabi did not include or did not come across. Praise is for Allah in this.
وإِنِ اتَّفَقَتِ الأسْماءُ خطّاً ونُطْقاً ، واخْتَلَفَتِ الآباءُ نُطْقاً مع ائْتِلافِها خطّاً ؛ كمحمَّدِ بنِ عَقيلٍ – بفتحِ العينِ – ، ومحمَّدِ بنِ عُقَيْلٍ – بضمِّها – : الأوَّلُ نيسابوريٌّ ، والثاني فِرْيابيٌّ ، وهُما مشهورانِ ، وطبقتُهما مُتقارِبةٌ ، أَوْ بالعَكْسِ ؛ كأَنْ تَختَلِفَ الأسماءُ [ نُطْقاً ] وتأْتِلِفَ خطّاً ، وتتَّفقَ الآباءُ خطّاً ونُطقاً ، كشُريحِ بنِ النُّعمانِ ، وسُرَيْجِ بنِ النُّعمانِ ، الأوَّلُ بالشِّينِ المُعجمةِ والحاءِ المُهملةِ ، وهو تابعيٌّ يروي عن عليٍّ [ رضيَ اللهُ (( تعالى )) عنهُ ] ، والثَّاني : بالسِّينِ المُهمَلَةِ والجيمِ ، وهُو مِن شُيوخِ البُخاريِّ ؛ فهُو النَّوعُ الَّذي يُقالُ لهُ : المُتشابِهُ .
If the names resemble one another in [terms of] writing and pronunciation, and the [name of the] father’s names differ in terms of pronunciation though similar in writing, or the opposite occurs where the [actual] name differs in terms of pronunciation and is different in writing, and the [name of the] father’s name is similar in pronunciation and writing, then this is a type called “mutashbih.”
[ وكَذا إِنْ وَقَعَ ذلك [ الاتِّفَاقُ ] في الاسمِ واسمِ الأبِ ، والاختلافُ في النِّسبَةِ . ]
The same is said if the name and father’s name are similar but there is a difference in the nisba.
وقد صنَّفَ فيهِ الخَطيبُ كتاباً جَليلاً سمَّاهُ (( تَلخيصَ المُتشابِهِ )) .
Verily, al-Khatib [al-Baghdadi] has written an outstanding book which he called “Talkhis al-Mutashabih.”
ثمَّ ذَيَّلَ [ هُو ] عليهِ أَيضاً بما فاته أَوَّلاً ، وهُو كثيرُ الفائدةِ .
He then added that which he had previously not mentioned [in a new book] which is of great benefit.
ويَتَرَكَّبُ مِنْهُ ومِمَّا قَبْلَهُ أَنْواعٌ :
مِنها : أَنْ يَحْصُلَ الاتِّفاقُ أو الاشتِباهُ في الاسمِ واسمِ الأبِ مثلاً ؛ إلاَّ : في حَرْفٍ أَو حَرْفَيْنِفأَكثرَ ، مِن أَحدِهِما أو مِنهُما .
Many categories are generated from this type (namely mutashbih) and the one before it (namely mu’talif and mukhtalif). From these categories is when the resemblance occurs in the name and the father’s name, for instance, except in a letter or two.
وهُو على قسمينِ :
إِمَّا أَنْ يكونَ الاخْتِلافُ بالتَّغييرِ ، معَ أَنَّ عدَدَ الحُروفِ ثابِتٌ في الجِهَتَيْنِ .
This is then of two types; either the number of letters in the names is the same but there is a difference in one or two letters,
أَوْ يكونَ الاختِلافُ بالتَّغييرِ معَ نُقصانِ بعضِ الأسماءِ عن بعضٍ .
or the number of letters is not the same in one name compared to the other.
فمِن أَمثِلَةِ الأوَّلِ :
محمَّدُ بنُ سِنان – بكسرِ [ السِّينِ ] المُهمَلَةِ ونونينِ بينَهُما أَلفٌ – ، وهُم جماعةٌ ؛ منهُم : العَوَقيُّ – بفتحِ [ العينِ ] والواوِ ثمَّ القافِ – شيخُ البُخاريِّ .
For example, in the first type, Muh’ammad ibn Sinan (with a kasra on the siin and two nuuns divided with an alif) can refer to a group of [possible] individuals. From them include al-‘Awaqi (with a fatha on the ‘ayn and alif) who is the shaykh of al-Bukhari.
ومحمَّدُ بنُ سيَّارٍ – بفتحِ [ السِّينِ ] المُهملَةِ وتشديدِ الياءِ التَّحتانيَّةِ وبعد الألف راءٌ – ، وهُم أيضاً جماعةٌ ؛ منهُم اليَمامِيُّ شيخُ عُمرَ بنِ يونُسَ .
From this type also include Muh’ammad ibn Sayyir (with a fatha on the siin, a doubleaa followed by an r) who can also refer to many individuals, which include al-Yamami who is the shaykh of ‘Umar ibn Yunuss.
ومنها :
محمَّدُ بنُ حُنَيْنٍ – بضمِّ [ الحاءِ ] المُهمَلَةِ ونونينِ ، الأولى مفتوحةٌ ، بينَهما ياءٌ تحتانيَّةٌ – تابعيٌّ ((و )) يروي عن ابنِ عبَّاسٍ وغيرِه .
From this type includes Muh’ammad ibn Hunayn (with a dhamma on the h and two nuuns, the first having a fatha and divided with a y); he is a Successor who reported from Ibn ‘Abbas as well as others,
ومحمَّدُ بنُ جُبيرٍ – بالجيمِ ، بعدها [ باءٌ ] موحَّدةٌ ، وآخِرُه راءٌ – ، وهُو محمَّدُ بنُ جُبيرِ بنِ مُطْعِمٍ ، تابعيٌّ مشهورٌ أَيضاً .
and Muh’ammad ibn Jubayr (with a jim, followed by a b and r) along with Mu’ammad ibn Jubayr ibn Mutamim, the renowned Successor.
ومِن ذلك : معرِّفُ بنُ واصِلٍ : كوفِيٌّ مشهورٌ .
Amongst these types include Mu‘arrif ibn Wisal, the famous Kufan,
ومُطَرِّف بنُ واصِلٍ – بالطَّاءِ بدلَ العينِ – شيخٌ آخرُ يروي عنهُ أَبو حُذيفَةَ النَّهْدِيُّ
and Mutarrif ibn Wisal (with a ta in place of the ‘ayn), who is another shaykh from which Abu Hudhayfa al-Nahd; has reported.
ومنهُ أَيضاً :
أَحمدُ بنُ الحُسينِ – صاحِبُ إِبراهيمَ بنِ سعيدٍ – وآخرونَ .
Also from this type is Ahmad ibn Husayn, companion of Ibrahim ibn Sa’id as well as others,
وأَحيَدُ بنُ الحُسينِ مثلُهُ ، لكِنْ بدلَ الميمِ ياءٌ تحتانيَّةٌ ، وهو شيخٌ بخاريٌّ يروي عنهُ عبدُ اللهِ بنُ محمَّدِ [ بنِ ] البِيكَنْدِيِّ .
and Ahmad ibn Husayn, which is similar to the first name except there is a mim in place of the ya. He is the shaykh of al-Bukhari, from which ‘Abd All:h ibn Muhhammad al-Baykandi has reported.
ومِن ذلك أَيضاً :
حفْصُ بنُ مَيْسَرَةَ شيخٌ مشهورٌ مِن طبَقَةِ مالكٍ .
From these types is also Hafs ibn Maysara, the famous shaykh from the generation of Malik,
وجَعْفَرُ بنُ مَيْسَرَةَ ؛ شيخٌ لعُبَيْدِ اللهِ بنِ مُوسى الكُوفيِّ ، الأوَّلُ : بالحاءِ المُهْمَلَةِ والفاءِ ، بعدَها صادٌ مهْمَلَةٌ ، والثَّاني : بالجيمِ و العينِ المُهْمَلَةِ بعدَها فاءٌ ثمَّ راءٌ .
with Ja‘far ibn Maysara, the shaykh of ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Musa al-Kufi. The first is read with a ha, fa, and sa, and the second is read with a ja, ‘ayn, and then a ra.
ومِن أَمثلَةِ الثَّاني :
عبدُ اللهِ بنُ زيدٍ : جماعةٌ :
منهُم في الصَّحابةِ صاحِبُ الأذانِ ، واسمُ جدِّهِ عبدُ ربِّهِ .
And the example of the second type is ‘Abd Allah ibn Zayd, who can be [referring to] many; of them from the Companions include the one who reported the hadith regarding the call to Prayer (adhan) whose grandfather’s name was ‘Abd Rabbih,
وراوِي حديثِ الوُضوءِ ، واسمُ جدِّهِ عاصِمٌ ، وهُما (( أيضاً )) أَنصاريَّانِ .
and the one who reported the hadith on ablution whose grandfather’s name was ‘A’sim. Both were Ansar.
وعبدُ اللهِ بنُ يَزيدَ – بزيادةِ ياءٍ في أَوَّلِ اسمِ الأبِ والزَّايُ مكسورةٌ – وهُم أَيضاً جَماعةٌ :
[ منهُم ] في الصَّحابةِ : الخَطْمِيُّ يُكْنى أبا موسى ، وحديثُهُ في الصَّحيحينِ .
[Then there is] ‘Abd Allah ibn Yazid (with an extra alif in the name of the father, and a kasra on the z), which too can refer to many [individuals]. Of them from the Companions include al-Khatmiyy;, who was given the kunya Abu Musa and whose hadith can be found in the two Sahihs.
و [ منهُم ] : القارئُ ، له ذِكْرٌ في حديثِ عائشةَ (( رضي الله عنها )) ، وقد زعَمَ بعضُهم أَنَّه الخطْمِيُّ ، وفيهِ نظرٌ !
[The name ‘Abd Allah ibn Yazid also] includes al-Qar, who is mentioned in the hadith of ‘A’isha. Some have deemed him to be al-Khatim, in which there is doubt.
[ ومنها : عبد الله بن يحيى ، وهم جماعةٌ . ]
From this type include ‘Abd Allah ibn Yahya,
[ و ] (( منها )) عبدُ اللهِ بنُ نُجَيٍّ – بضمِّ النُّونِ وفتحِ الجيمِ وتشديدِ الياءِ – تابعيٌّ معروفٌ ، يروي عن عليٍّ [ رضيَ اللهُ (( تعالى )) عنهُ ] .
which again refers to many, and ‘Abd Allah ibn Nujayy (with a damma on the n and a fatha on the j and a double y); he is a famous Successor who reported from ‘Ali.
أَوْ يَحْصُلُ الاتِّفاقُ في الخَطِّ والنُّطْقِ ، لكنْ يَحْصُلُ الاخْتِلافُ أَو الاشتِباهُ بالتَّقْديمِ والتَّأْخيرِ ، إِمَّا في الاسمينَ جُملةً أَو نَحْوَ ذلكَ ، كأَنْ يقَعَ التَّقديمُ والتَّأْخيرُ في الاسمِ الواحِدِ في بعضِ حُروفِهِ بالنِّسبةِ إِلى ما يشتَبِهُ بهِ .
[Also included in the category of mutashbih is where] there is similarity in terms of writing and pronunciation, but there is a difference and confusion in terms of preceding and delaying. This is either in both names or its likes, in that the preceding and delaying happens in one name in relation to some letters.
مثالُ [ الأوَّلِ ] : الأسودُ بنُ يزيدَ ، ويزيدُ بنُ الأسوَدِ ، وهُو ظاهِرٌ .
The example of the first is al-Aswad ibn Yazid and Yazid ibn al-Aswad, and this is apparent.
ومنهُ : عبدُ اللهِ بنُ يَزيدَ ، ويزيدُ بنُ عبدِ اللهِ .
And [another example of this is] ‘Abd Allah ibn Yazid and Yazid ibn ‘Abd Allah.
ومثالُ الثَّانِي : أَيُّوبُ بنُ سَيَّارٍ ، وأَيُّوبُ بنُ يَسارٍ .
The example of the second is Ayyub ibn Sayyir and Ayyub ibn Yasir;
الأوَّلُ : مدَنيُّ مشهورٌ ليسَ بالقويِّ ، والآخَرُ : مجهولٌ .
the former is a famous resident of Madinah who is not strong and the latter is unknown (majhul).
خاتِمَةٌ
ومِنَ المُهِمِّ عندَ المحدِّثينَ مَعْرِفَةُ : طَبَقاتِ الرُّواةِ .
Important for the hadith masters is knowing the generations (tabaqat) of reporters.
وفائدتُهُ : الأمْنُ مِن تَداخُلِ المُشتَبِهينَ ، وإِمكانُ الاطِّلاعِ على تَبيينِ التَّدليسِ ، والوُقوفُ على حَقيقةِ المُرادِ مِن العَنْعَنَةِ .
The benefit of this discipline is immunity from possible confusion, an increased ability to identify the reliability of narrators, and a better understanding of the nuances of ‘anana.
والطَّبَقَةُ في اصْطِلاحِهِم : عبارةٌ عنْ جَماعةٍ اشْتَركوا في السِّنِّ ولقاءِ المشايخِ .
In the terminology of hadith scholars, tabaqat refer to groups of individuals who are similar in age and who had the opportunity to meet the same shaykhs (teachers).
وقد يكونُ الشَّخصُ الواحِدُ مِن طبَقَتَيْنِ باعْتِبارينِ ؛ كأَنَسِ بنِ مالكٍ [ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] ؛ فإِنَّهُ ] مِن حيثُ ثُبوتُ صُحبتِه للنبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وعلى [ آلهِ ] وسلَّمَ يُعَدُّ في طبقةِ العشرةِ مثلاً ، ومِن حيثُ صِغَرُ السنِّ [ يُعَدُّ ] في طَبَقَةِ مَن بعدَهُم .
Sometimes, a single individual can belong to two different generations through two different factors, like Anas ibn Malik. For instance, in terms of companionship with the Prophet, he is regarded as part of the generation of “Ten.” And in terms of his young age when he met the Prophet, he is classified as being from the generation thereafter.
فمَنْ نَظَرَ إِلى الصَّحابةِ باعْتِبارِ الصُّحبَةِ ؛ جَعَلَ الجَميعَ طبقةً واحِدَةً ؛ كما صنَعَ ابنُ حِبَّانَ وغيرُه .
Thus, those who view the Companions solely according to their companionship have classified them all as one generation, similar to what Ibn Hibban and others have done.
ومَنْ نَظَرَ إِليهِم باعْتبارِ قَدْرٍ زائدٍ ، كالسَّبْقِ إِلى الإِسلامِ أَو شُهودِ المشاهِدِ الفاضِلَةِ جَعَلَهُم طَبقاتٍ .
On the other hand, those who consider additional factors like when they accepted Islam or their participation in significant events or the Migration have categorised the Companions into multiple generations
وإِلى ذلك جَنَحَ صاحِبُ (( الطَّبقاتِ )) أَبو عبدِ اللهِ محمَّدُ بنُ سعدٍ البَغداديُّ ، وكتابُه أَجمَعُ ما جُمِعَ في ذلك .
This is the approach adopted by Abi ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa’d al-Baghdadi. His book is the most comprehensive in this field.
وكذلك مَن جاءَ بعدَ الصَّحابةِ – وهُم التَّابعونَ – مَن نَظَرَ إِليهِم باعتبارِ الأخْذِ عن بعضِ [ الصَّحابةِ ] فقطْ ؛ جَعَلَ الجَميعَ طبقةً واحِدَةً كما صَنَعَ ابنُ حِبَّانَ أَيضاً .
The same principles apply to those who came after the Companions, known as the Successors (Tabi’un). Some scholars categorise them into a single generation if they have taken reports from some Companions, similar to what Ibn Hibban has done.
ومَنْ نَظَرَ إِليهِم باعتبارِ اللِّقاءِ قسَّمَهُم ؛ كما فعَلَ محمَّدُ بنُ سعدٍ .
Others divide them into different generations based on the individuals they met, following the methodology of Muhammad ibn Sa’d.
ولكلٍّ منهُما وجْهٌ .
وَمِن المُهمِّ أَيضاً معرِفةُ مواليدِهِمْ ، ووَفَياتِهِمْ ؛ لأنَّ بمَعْرِفَتِهما يحصُلُ الأمْنُ مِن دَعْوى المُدَّعي للقاءِ بعضِهِم وهُو في نَفْسِ الأمرِ ليسَ كذلكَ .
It is also crucial to know the birthdates and death dates of narrators. This knowledge can help verify claims regarding meetings, ensuring that someone who claimed to meet another actually did.
وَمِن المُهمِّ أَيضاً معرِفةُ بُلْدَانِهِمْ وأَوطانِهم ، وفائدتُه الأمنُ مِن تداخُلِ الاسمَيْنِ إِذا اتَّفقا [ نُطْقاً ] ، لكنْ (( قد )) افْتَرَقا بالنَّسَبِ .
Knowledge of their countries is also essential for distinguishing between two similar names that differ in terms of affiliation.
وَمِن المُهِمِّ أَيضاً معرفةُ أَحْوالِهِمْ ؛ تَعْديلاً ، وتَجْريحاً ، وجَهالةً ؛ لأنَّ الرَّاويَ إِمَّا أَنْ تُعْرَفَ عدالَتُه ، أَو يُعْرَفَ فِسْقُه ، أَوْ لا يُعْرَفَ فيهِ شيءٌ مِن ذلك .
Also important is knowing the reporters’ state in terms of discrediting, accrediting, and whether their actual state is unknown. This is because either the reporter is known for his integrity, for his lewdness, or nothing is known about his state.
وَمِن أَهمِّ ذلك – بعدَ الاطِّلاعِ – معرِفةُ مَراتِبِ الجَرْحِ [ والتَّعديلِ ] لأنَّهُم قد يُجَرِّحونَ الشَّخصَ بما لا يستَلْزِمُ ردَّ حديثِه كلِّهِ .
After knowing this, it is important to know the stages of discrediting and accrediting, because the scholars sometimes defame a person with something that does not necessitate rejecting all of his reports.
وقد بيَّنَّا أَسبابَ ذلك فيما مَضى ، وحَصَرْناها في عَشرةٍ ، وتقدَّم شرحُها مفصَّلاً .
Indeed, we have explained the reasons for defamation previously and have confined them to ten reasons, along with detailed commentary for each.
والغَرَضُ هُنا ذِكْرُ الألفاظِ الدَّالَّةِ في اصطِلاحِهِم على تِلكَ المراتِبِ .
The purpose here is to mention the words that indicate the different stages according to the hadith masters’ terminology.
وللجَرْحِ مراتِبُ :
[ و ] أَسْوَأُها : الوَصْفُ بما دلَّ على المُبالَغَةِ فيهِ .
For discrediting, there are stages. The worst is that word that indicates exaggeration in the matter
وأَصرحُ ذلك التَّعبيرُ بأَفْعَلَ ؛ كـ : أَكْذَبِ النَّاسِ ، وكذا قولُهم : إِليهِ المُنْتَهى في الوضعِ ، أَو : هُو ركنُ الكذبِ ، ونحوُ ذلك .
and features the word in the form of af‘al, like “akdhab al-nas” (the greatest of the people in lying), or when they say “ilayhi al-muntahaf al-wadu'” (he is the last word in fabrication), or “rukn al-kidhb” (the pillar of lying), and its likes.
ثمَّ : دجَّالٌ ، أو : وَضَّاعٌ ، أو : كَذَّابٌ ؛ لأنَّها وإِنْ كانَ فيها نوعُ مُبالغةٍ ، لكنَّها دونَ الَّتي قبلَها .
Then there are words like “dajjal” (compulsive liar), or “wadda'” (excessive fabricator), or “kadhdhab” (excessive liar). These form the next stage because even though they contain indications of exaggeration, they are still deemed less severe than the first stage.
وأَسْهَلُهَا ؛ أَي : الألفاظِ الدَّالَّةِ على الجَرْح : قولُهم : فُلانٌ ليِّنٌ ، أو : سيِّئ الحِفْظِ ، أَوْ : فيهِ أَدنى مَقَالٍ .
The most lenient words of discrediting are when they say someone is “layyin” (lenient), or has “sayyi’ al-hifz” (bad memory), or “fihi maqul” (in him is dispute).
وبينَ أَسوأ الجَرْحِ وأَسهَلِهِ مراتِبُ لا تَخْفى .
Between the first (which is the worst) stage and the most lenient stage are further stages,
فقولُهُم : متْروكٌ ، أَو ساقِطٌ ، أَو : فاحِشُ الغَلَطِ ، أَو : مُنْكَرُ الحَديثِ ، أَشدُّ مِن قولِهم : ضعيفٌ ، أَو : ليسَ بالقويِّ ، أَو : فيهِ مقالٌ .
like their saying “matruk” (discarded), or “saqit” (dropped), or “fahish al-ghalat” (maker of blatant mistakes), or “munkar al-hadith” (one whose hadith is rejected), which is more severe in discrediting than when they say “da’if” (weak), or “laysa bi-al-qawi” (he is not strong), or “fihi maqul” (in him is dispute).
وَمن المهمِّ أَيضاً معرِفةُ مراتِبِ التَّعديلِ .
Also important is identifying the stages of accrediting.
وأَرْفَعُها : الوَصْفُ [ أَيضاً ] بما دلَّ على المُبالغةِ فيهِ .
The highest form is also the one that indicates exaggeration
وأَصْرَحُ ذلك : التَّعبيرُ بأَفْعَلَ ؛ كـ : أَوْثَقِ النَّاسِ ، أَو : أَثبَتِ [ [ النَّاس ] ، أَو : إِليهِ المُنْتَهى في التَّثَبُّتِ ] .
and features the word in the form of af‘al, like “awthaq al-nas” (the most reliable of people), or “athbat al-nas” (the most proven of people), or “ilayhi al-muntahaf al-tathabit” (he is the last word in dependency).
ثمَّ ما تَأَكَّدَ بِصِفَةٍ مِن الصِّفاتِ الدَّالَّةِ على التَّعديلِ ، أَو صِفَتَيْنِ ؛ كـ : ثقةٌ ثقةٌ ، أو : ثبتٌ ثبتٌ ، أَوْ : ثقةٌ حافظٌ ، أَو : عدلٌ ضابِطٌ ، أو نحوُ ذلك .
The next stage is when an attribute of accreditation is stressed or when there are two attributes mentioned collectively, like “thiqa thiqa” (reliable, reliable), “thabt thabt” (proven, proven), or “‘adl dabit” (just, accurate), and its likes.
وأَدْناها : ما أَشْعَرَ بالقُرْبِ مِنْ أَسْهَلِ التَّجْرِيحِ ؛ كـ : شيخٌ ، و : يُرْوى حديثُه ، و : يُعْتَبَرُ بهِ ، ونحوُ ذلك .
The lowest form of accreditation includes words that indicate leniency in accrediting, like “shaykh,” and “yu’rau hadithuh” (his hadith is reported), “yu‘tabaru bih” (he is considered), and its likes.
وبينَ ذلك مراتِبُ لا تَخْفى .
Between these two stages (the highest and the lowest), there are other stages.
وَهذهِ أَحكامٌ تتعلَّقُ بذلك ، ذكَرْتُها هُنا لتَكْمِلَةِ الفائدةِ ، فأَقولُ :
تُقْبَلُ التَّزكِيَةُ مِنْ عَارِفٍ بأَسْبَابِها لا مِنْ غيرِ عارِفٍ (( بأسبابها )) ؛ [ لئلاَّ ] يُزكِّيَ بمجرَّدِ ما يظهَرُ [ لهُ ] ابْتِداءً مِن غيرِ ممارسةٍ واخْتِبارٍ .
These are the rulings pertaining to accrediting and discrediting. I have mentioned [further detail] to complete the benefit and thus I say: the accreditation is accepted from the one who knows the reasons [behind accrediting and discrediting], and not from one who does not know of the reasons. This is to prevent one from accrediting someone from the apparent state without expertise and analysis.
ولَوْ كانتِ التَّزكيةُ صادِرةً مِن مُزَكٍّ واحِدٍ عَلى الأصَحِّ ؛ خلافاً لمَن شَرَطَ أَنَّها لا تُقْبَلُ إِلاَّ مِنَ اثْنَيْنِ ؛ إِلْحاقاً لها بالشَّهادَةِ في الأصحِّ أَيضاً !
والفَرْقُ بينَهُما أَنَّ التَّزكية تُنَزَّلُ منزِلَةَ الحُكْمِ ، فلا يُشْتَرَطُ فيها العددُ ، و (( تزكية )) [ الشَّهادةُ تقعُ مِن ] الشَّاهِدِ (( تقع )) عندَ الحاكِمِ ، فافْتَرقا .
[This is the case] even if the accrediting stems from one creditor, according to the most authentic opinion. This [opinion] contrasts with those who specify that the accrediting will not be accepted except from two (men), like it is necessary in a [conventional] testimony. The difference between the two is that accrediting is the same as a ruling (hukm) and so therefore there is no condition of numbers for it. [Moreover] the testimony occurs from the witness in the presence of a ruler (hakim) [and therefore it is not the same as a ruling] and thus differs.
ولَوْ قيلَ : يُفَصَّلُ بينَ ما إِذا كانتِ التَّزكيةُ في الرَّاوي مُستَنِدَةً مِن المُزكِّي إِلى اجْتِهادِهِ ، أَو إِلى النَّقْلِ عنْ غيرِه ؛ لكانَ مُتَّجهاً .
If it is said to differentiate between when the accrediting in the narrator stems from the creditor’s own independent thought (ijtihad) and when it stems from ascribing the accrediting to others, then there is a case [for dispute].
لأنَّه إِنْ كانَ الأوَّلُ ، فلا يُشْتَرَطُ (( فيه )) العددُ أَصلاً ؛ [ لأنَّهُ حينئذٍ ] يكونُ بمنزلةِ الحاكمِ .
This is because in the first form [where the opinion stems from the creditor’s own independent thought], there is no condition of number, since it is the same as a ruling (hukm).
وإِنْ كانَ الثَانيَ ؛ فيُجْرى فيهِ الخِلافُ ، ويَتَبَيَّنُ أَنَّه – أَيضاً – لا يُشْتَرَطُ العددُ (( أصلاً ))((أيضاً )) ؛ لأنَّ أَصلَ النَّقلِ لا يُشْتَرَطُ فيهِ العددُ ، فكَذا ما تفرَّعَ عنهُ ، واللهُ أَعلمُ .
If it is the second form [where the creditor ascribes the opinion to another person] then there is a difference of opinion. It is apparent however that in this second form, there is no condition of number. This is because when the core did not require the condition of number, the periphery should not require the condition of number either. And Allah knows best.
و [ كذا ] يَنْبَغي أَنْ لا يُقْبَلَ الجَرْحُ والتَّعْديلُ إِلاَّ مِن عدلٍ مُتَيَقِّظٍ ، فلا [ يُقْبَلُ ] جَرْحُ مَنْ أَفْرَطَ فيهِ مُجَرِّحٌ بما لا يقْتَضي رَدَّ حديثِ المُحَدِّثِ .
It is desirable that the discrediting and accrediting is not accepted except from a reliable and acquainted person. Therefore the discrediting is not accepted from one who shows prejudice in the matter and thus criticizes the muhaddith’s hadith with something that does not deserve rejection.
كما [ لا ] يُقْبَلُ تزكِيَةُ مَن أَخَذَ بمجرَّدِ الظَّاهِرِ ، فأَطلَقَ التَّزكيةَ .
Likewise, the accrediting is not accepted from one who relies merely on the apparent state and decrees on this basis.
وقالَ الذَّهبيُّ – وهُو مِن أَهْلِ الاستِقراءِ التَّامِّ في نَقْدِ الرِّجالِ – : (( لمْ يجْتَمِعِ اثْنانِ مِن عُلماءِ هذا الشَّأنِ قطُّ على تَوثيقِ ضَعيفٍ ، ولا [ على ] تَضعيفِ ثِقةٍ )) أ.هـ
ولهذا كانَ [ مذهَبُ ] النَّسائيِّ أَنْ لا يُتْرَكَ حديثُ الرَّجُلِ حتَّى يجتَمِعَ الجَميعُ على تَرْكِهِ .
Al-Dhahabi, who is one of the people of outstanding competence in the criticism of men, said:
Two scholars from this discipline have never agreed on deeming a weak reporter reliable and a reliable reporter as weak.
It is for this reason that the position of al-Nasa’i was not to discard the hadith of a man until all the scholars [of this discipline] rejected him.
ولْيَحْذَرِ المتكلِّمُ في هذا الفنِّ مِن التَّساهُلِ في الجَرْحِ والتَّعديلِ ، فإِنَّهُ إِنْ عدَّلَ [ أَحداً ] بغيرِ تثبُّتِ ؛ كانَ كالمُثْبِتِ حُكْماً ليسَ بثابتٍ ، فيُخْشى عليهِ أَنْ يدْخُلَ في زُمرةِ (( مَن روى حَديثاً وهُو يظنُّ أَنَّهُ كَذِبٌ )) .
The agent in this field should be wary of leniency in discrediting and accrediting. This is because if he accredits someone without due care, then it is as if he has affirmed a disapproved ruling. It is then feared such a person will be considered in the group of people who authentically report narrations, though in reality he thinks of the hadith as false.
وإِنْ جَرَّحَ بغيرِ تَحرُّزٍ ، [ فإِنَّه ] أَقْدَمَ على الطَّعنِ في مُسلمٍ بَريءٍ مِن ذلك ، ووسَمَهُ بِميْسَمِ سُوءٍ يَبْقى عليهِ عارُهُ أَبداً .
[Conversely] if he discredits someone without precaution, then he has inflicted defamation on an innocent Muslim and has coloured him with an evil trait that will remain with him forever.
والآفةُ تدخُلُ في هذا : تارةً مِنَ الهَوى والغَرَضِ الفاسِدِ – وكلامُ المتقدِّمينَ سالِمٌ مِن هذا غالباً – ، وتارةً مِن المُخالفةِ في العَقائدِ – وهُو موجودٌ كثيراً ؛ قديماً وحَديثاً – ، ولا ينْبَغي إِطلاقُ الجَرْحِ بذلك ، فقد قدَّمْنا تحقيقَ الحالِ في العملِ بروايةِ المُبتَدِعةِ .
Prejudice sometimes occurs [in accrediting or discrediting someone] due to ill-behaviour or corrupt motives, [though] the opinions of the earlier scholars are mostly free from this. Sometimes it occurs due to disagreement in Islamic creed, and this is widespread in earlier and later times. It is not desirable to use this [alone] as a means of discrediting; we have previously mentioned the discussion on the narration of an agent of bid’a.
والجَرْحُ مُقَدَّمٌ عَلى التَّعْديلِ ، وأَطلقَ ذلك جماعةٌ ، ولكنَّ محلَّهُ إِن صَدَرَ مُبَيَّناً مِن عَارِفٍ بأَسْبَابِهِ ؛ لأنَّه إِنْ كانَ غيرَ مفسَّرٍ لم يَقْدَحْ فيمَنْ ثبَتَتْ عدالَتُه .
Discrediting is preceded before accrediting and a group [of scholars] have said this is the case unequivocally. However [the correct opinion is that] discrediting is preceded when it is explained in detail from one who knows the reasons of defamation. This is because if the discrediting is without detail, it will not be defamatory in someone whose integrity has been proven.
وإِنْ صدَرَ مِن غيرِ عارفٍ بالأسبابِ لم يُعْتَبَرْ بهِ أيضاً .
Also, if the discrediting stems from someone who does not know the reasons for defamation, it will not be considered.
فإِنْ خَلا المَجْروحُ عَنِ التَّعديلِ ؛ قُبِلَ الجَرْحُ فيهِ مُجْمَلاً غيرَ مبيَّنِ السَّببِ إِذا صدَرَ مِن عارفٍ عَلى المُخْتارِ ؛ لأنَّهُ إِذا لمْ يكُنْ فيهِ تعديلٌ ؛ [ فهو ] في حيَّزِ المَجهولِ ، وإِعمالُ قولِ المُجَرِّحِ أَولى مِن إِهمالِه .
According to the chosen opinion, if the defamed was void of accreditation before being discredited, then the discrediting will be accepted [when expressed] in a brief form without requiring the reasons for defamation, if the opinion stems from an expert. This is because when he has not been accredited, he is deemed as one whose state is unknown. And [then in such a case] acting upon the opinion of the one who defames [the reporter in question] is better than ignoring the opinion.
ومالَ ابنُ الصَّلاحِ في مثلِ هذا إلى التوقُّفِ [ فيهِ ] .
In this case, Ibn al-Salah has inclined to pausing [on decreeing the state of the reporter].
فصلٌ
ومِنَ المُهِمَّ في هذا الفنِّ معْرِفةُ : كُنَى المُسَمَّيْنَ [ ممَّن اشْتُهِرَ باسمِهِ ولهُ كُنيةٌ لا يُؤمَنُ أَنْ يأْتِيَ في بعضِ الرِّاوياتِ مُكَنيّاً ] ؛ لئلاَّ يُظَنَّ أَنّه آخرُ .
Important in this field [of hadith] is knowing the paidonymics (kunya) of the named [reporters], from those who are renowned by their names but they have a kunya. One is not immune from the situation where in some narrations, he is mentioned by his kunya, lest that one assumes he is someone else.
وَمعرفةُ أَسْمَاءِ المُكَنَّيْنَ ، وهو عكسُ الَّذي قبلَهُ (( كابن جريج )) .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the names of those called by their kunya. This is the opposite of the aforementioned case.
وَمعرِفةُ مَنْ اسمُهُ كُنْيَتُهُ ، وهُم قليلٌ .
[Also important in this field is] knowing he whose name is his kunya. Such instances are rare.
وَمعرِفةُ مَنْ اخْتُلِفَ في كُنْيَتِهِ ، [ وهُم كثيرٌ ] .
[Also important in this field is] knowing those reporters in which there is a difference of opinion regarding the kunyas. Such instances are common.
وَمعرِفةُ مَنْ كَثَُرتْ كُناهُ ؛ كابنِ جُريجٍ ؛ لهُ كُنيتانِ : [ أَبو ] الوليدِ ، وأبو خالدٍ .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters who have several kunyas, – like Ibn Jurayj; he has two kunyas, Abu al-Walid and Abu Khalid
أَوْ كَثُرتْ نُعُوتُهُ وأَلقابُه .
or has several descriptions (sifa) and several laqabs.
وَمعرِفةُ مَنْ وافَقَتْ كُنْيَتُهُ اسمَ أَبيهِ ؛ كأَبي إِسحاقَ إبراهيمَ بنِ إِسحاقَ المَدنيِّ أَحدِ [ أَتباعِ ]التَّابِعينَ .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters whose kunya is the same as the name of their father, like Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Madani, one of the Successors of the Successors.
وفائدةُ معرِفَتِه :
نفيُ الغَلَطِ عمَّنْ نَسَبَهُ إِلى أَبيهِ ، فقالَ : أَخْبَرنا ابنُ إِسحاقَ ، فَنُسِبَ إِلى التَّصحيفِ ، وأَنَّ الصَّوابَ : [ أَخْبَرنا ] أَبو إِسحاقَ .
The benefit of knowing this is to prevent mistakes from one who ascribes it to his father and says: ‘Ibn Ishaq informed me’ and by doing so makes an error; the correct form is ‘Abu Ishaq informed me’.
أَو بالعَكْسِ ؛ كإِسحاقَ بنِ أَبي إِسحاقَ السَّبيعيِّ .
The opposite case [should also be known where the name of the reporter is the same as the kunya of the father] like Ishaq ibn Abu Ishaq al-Saba‘i.
أَوْ وافقتْ كُنْيَتُهُ كُنْيَةَ زَوْجَتِهِ ؛ كأَبي أَيُّوبَ الأنصاريِّ وأُمِّ أَيُّوبَ ؛ صحابيَّانِ [ مشهورانِ ] .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters whose kunya is the same as the kunya of the wife, like Abu Ayyub and Umm Ayyub who are two renowned Companions.
أَو وافقَ اسمُ شيخِه اسمَ أَبيِه ؛ كالرَّبيعِ بنِ أَنسٍ عن أَنسٍ ؛ هكذا يأْتي في الرِّوايات ، فيُظنُّ أَنّه يَروي عن أَبيهِ ؛ كما وقعَ في (( الصَّحيحِ )) : عن عامِرِ بنِ سعدٍ عن سعدٍ ، وهو أبوهُ ، وليسَ أَنسٌ شيخُ الرَّبيعِ والِدَهُ ، بل أَبوهُ بكرِيٌّ وشيخُهُ أَنصاريٌّ ، وهُو أَنسُ بنُ مالكٍ الصَّحابيُّ المشهورُ ، وليسَ الرَّبيعُ المذكورُ مِن أَولادِه .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters whose shaykh’s name corresponds with the father’s name, like ‘Rabia‘ ibn Anas, from Anas’. This is how it appears in some narrations. It is assumed [sometimes] that he is reporting from his father, similar to what has occurred in the Sahih of al-Bukhari: ‘from ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d, from Sa‘d’ who is his father. Anas, the shaykh of ‘Rabia‘, is not his father but rather his father is Bakari and his shaykh is Ansar. The aforementioned ‘Rabia‘ is not from his children, [namely Anas ibn Malik’s].
وَمعرِفةُ مَنْ نُسِبَ إِلى غَيْرِ أَبيهِ ؛ كالمِقدادِ بنِ الأسودِ ، [ نُسِبَ إلى الأسودِ ] الزُّهْرِيِّ لكونِه تبنَّاه ، وإِنَّما هُو مِقدادُ بنُ عَمْرٍو .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters who are ascribed to someone other than their fathers, like Miqdad ibn al-Aswad. He was ascribed to al-Aswad al-Zuhri because he was his mukataba though his real name is al-Miqdad ibn ‘Amr.
أَوْ [ نُسِبَ ] إِلى أُمِّهِ ؛ كابنِ عُلَيَّةَ ، هُو إِسماعيلُ بنُ إبراهيمَ بنِ مِقْسَمٍ ، أَحدُ الثِّقاتِ ، و عُلَيَّةُ اسمُ أُمِّهِ ، اشتُهِرَ بها ، وكانَ لا يحبُّ أَنْ يُقالَ لهُ : ابنُ عُلَيَّة .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters who are ascribed to their mothers, like Ibn ‘Ulayya. He is Isma‘il ibn Ibrahim ibn Miqsam, one of the reliable [reporters]. ‘Ulayya was the name of his mother, and he became famous with this name. He did not like being called Ibn ‘Ulayya;
[ ولهذا [ كانَ ] يَقولُ الشَّافِعيُّ : أَخْبَرَنا إِسْماعِيلُ الَّذي يُقالُ لَهُ : ابنُ عُلَيَّةُ ] .
for this reason, al-Shafi‘i would say:
‘Isma‘il – who is known as Ibn ‘Ulayya – informed me.’
أَوْ نُسِبَ إِلى غَيْرِ مَا يَسْبِقُ إِلى الفَهْمِ ؛ كالحَذَّاءِ ، ظاهِرُه أَنّه منسوبٌ إِلى صناعتِها ، أو بيعِها ، وليس كذلك ، وإِنما كانَ يجالِسُهم ، فنُسِبَ إليهِم .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters who are ascribed to something that does not make apparent sense, like [Khalid] al-Haddad (shoemaker). Apparently, it seems it is a reference to his manufacturing or business, though this is not the case. Merely, he used to keep the company of shoemakers and so he was ascribed accordingly.
وكسُليمانَ التَّيميِّ ؛ لم يكنْ مِن بَني التَّيْم ، ولكنْ نزلَ فيهِم .
Similarly, [the case of] Sulayman al-Taymi; he was not from [the clan of] Banu Taym but rather resided with them.
وكَذا مَن نُسِبَ إِلى جدِّهِ ، فلا يؤمَنُ التِباسُه بمَن وافقَ اسمُه [ اسمَه ] ، واسمُ أَبيهِ اسمَ الجدِّ المذكورِ .
Likewise [it is important to know] those who have been ascribed to their grandfather so that confusion does not arise when a person’s name and his father’s is the same as the grandfather’s.
وَمعرِفةُ مَنِ اتَّفَقَ اسمُهُ واسمُ أَبيهِ وجَدِّهِ ؛ كالحسنِ بنِ الحسنِ بنِ الحسنِ بنِ عليِّ بنِ أَبي طالبٍ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the reporters whose own name, father’s name, and grandfather’s name are the same, like Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them.
وقد [ يقعُ ] أَكثرُ مِن ذلك ، وهُو مِن فُروعِ المُسَلْسَلِ .
Sometimes this similarity of name occurs more frequently, and [thus] is a type of musalsal.
وقد يتَّفِقُ الاسمُ واسمُ الأبِ مع اسمِ الجَدِّ واسمِ أَبيهِ فصاعِداً ؛ كأَبي اليُمْنِ الكِنْديِّ ، (( و )) هُو زيدُ بنُ الحسنِ بنِ زيدِ بنِ الحسنِ [ بنِ زيدِ بنِ الحسنِ ] .
Sometimes the name of the reporter and the name of his father is the same as the grandfather’s, like Abu al-Yumn al-Kindi, whose full name is Zayd ibn al-Hasan ibn Zayd ibn al-Hasan ibn Zayd ibn al-Hasan.
أَوْ اتَّفَقَ < اسمُ الرَّاوي واسمُ شيخِهِ وشَيْخِ شَيْخِهِ فصاعِداً ؛ كعِمْرانَ عن عِمْرانَ عَن عِمْرانَ ؛ الأوَّل : يُعْرَف بالقَصِيرِ ، والثَّاني : أبو رَجاءٍ العُطارِديُّ ، والثَّالثُ : ابنُ حُصينٍ الصَّحابيُّ [ رضيَ اللهُ عنهُ ] .
[It is important to know the cases where] the reporter’s name coincides with the name of his shaykh and his shaykh’s shaykh upwards, like ‘Imran, from ‘Imran from ‘Imran. The first is known as ‘Imran al-Qasari, the second is Abu Rajah al-Umari, and the third is Ibn Husayn, the Companion.
وكسُليمانَ عن سُليمانَ عن سُليمانَ : الأوَّلُ : ابنُ أحمدَ بنِ أيوبَ الطَّبرانيُّ ، والثَّاني : ابنُ أَحمدَ الواسطيُّ ، والثَّالثُ : ابنُ عبد الرحمنِ الدِّمشقيُّ المعروفُ بابنِ [ بنتِ ] شُرَحْبيلَ .
Likewise is the example of ‘Sulayman, from Sulayman, from Sulayman. The first is Ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Tawaranah, the second is Ibn Ahmad al-Wasiti, and the third is Ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Dimashqi, renowned with the name Ibn bint Shurahbil.
وقد يقعُ ذلك للرَّاوي ولشيخِهِ [ معاً ] ؛ كأَبي العلاءِ الهَمْدانيَّ العطَّارِ المَشْهورِ بالرِّوايةِ عن أَبي عليٍّ الأصبهانيِّ الحدَّادِ ، وكلٌّ منهُما اسمُه الحسنُ بنُ أَحمدَ بنِ الحَسنِ بنِ أَحمدَ (( بن الحسن بن أحمد )) ، فاتَّفقا في ذلك ، وافْتَرقا في الكُنيةِ ، والنِّسبةِ إِلى البلدِ والصِّناعةِ .
[The similarity between the reporter’s name and his father’s] sometimes occurs in the reporter and his shaykh collectively, like Abu al-‘Ali al-Hamadani al-‘Atmatur, known for narrating from Abu ‘Ali al-Isbahani al-Haddad. Both of them share the name al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ahmad. They are similar in this respect but differ in kunya, nisba to their country,
و (( قد )) صنَّفَ فيهِ أَبو موسى المَدينيُّ جُزءاً حافِلاً .
and occupation. Abu Maysa al-Madani has written a comprehensive treatise on this.
وَمعرفةُ مَنِ اتَّفَقَ اسْمُ شَيْخِهِ والرَّاوِي عَنْهُ ، وهو (( من )) نوعٌ لطيفٌ ، لم يتعرَّضْ لهُ ابنُ الصَّلاحِ .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the cases where the name of the reporter’s shaykh coincides with the one he reported from. This is a unique form which Ibn al-Shalah did not come across.
وفائدتُه : رفعُ اللَّبْسِ عمَّن يُظنُّ أَنَّ فيهِ تَكراراً ، أو انقلاباً .
The benefit of knowing this is immunity from assuming repetition or swapping in the chain.
فمِن أَمثلتِه : البُخاريُّ ؛ روى عَن مُسْلمٍ ، وروى عنهُ مُسلمٌ ، فشيخُهُ مسلمُ بنُ إبراهيمَ الفَراهيديُّ البَصريُّ ، والرَّاوي عنهُ مُسلمُ بنُ الحجَّاجِ القُشيريُّ صاحِبُ الصَّحيحِ .
From such examples is al-Bukhari, who narrated from Muslim and also narrated to Muslim. Thus his shaykh is Muslim ibn Ibrahim al-Faradi al-Basri, and the one who reported from him is Muslim ibn al-Hujjah al-Qushayri, compiler of the Sahih.
وكذا وقعَ ذلك لعبدِ بنِ حُميدٍ أيضاً : روى عن مُسلمِ بنِ إبراهيمَ ، وروى عنهُ مُسلمُ بنُ الحجَّاجِ في صحيحِه حديثاً بهذه التَّرجمةِ بعينها .
The same case occurred for ‘Abd ibn Humaayd; he reported from Muslim ibn Ibrahim and Muslim ibn al-Hujjaj narrated from him in the Sahih with this exact chain [featuring the aforementioned Muslim ibn Ibrahim al-Faradi al-Basri].
ومنها : يحيى بنُ أَبي كَثيرٍ ، روى عن هِشامٍ ، وروى عنهُ هِشامٌ ، [ فشيخُه هشامُ بنُ عُروةَ ، وهو مِن أَقرانِه ، والرَّاوي عنهُ هِشامٌ بنُ أبي عبدِ اللهِ الدَّسْتُوائِيُّ .
From this [form] is [also] the example of Yahya ibn Abu Ibn Kathir. He reported from Hisham, and Hisham also reported from him. Thus his shaykh is Hisham ibn Urwa who was from his generation, and the one reporting from him is Hisham ibn Abu ‘Abdullah al-Dastawa’i.
ومنها : ابنُ جُريْجٍ ، روى عن هشامٍ ، وروى عنهُ هِشامٌ ] ، فالأعْلى ابنُ عُروةَ ، والأدْنى ابنُ يوسُفَ الصَّنعانيُّ .
From this is also [the example of] Ibn Jurayj; he narrated from Hisham, and Hisham reported from him. The higher (shaykh) is Ibn Urwa, and the lower (disciple) is Ibn Yusuf al-San‘ani.
ومنها : الحكمُ بنُ عُتَيْبَةَ ، روى عن ابنِ أَبي ليلى ، و [ روى ] عنهُ ابنُ أبي لَيْلى ، فالأعْلى عبدُ الرَّحمنِ ، والأدْنى (( محمد )) بنُ عبدِ الرَّحمنِ المذكورِ .
From this is also [the example of] al-Hakam ibn ‘Utayba; he reported from Abu Layla, and Abu Layla reported from him. The higher (shaykh) is ‘Abd al-Rahman, and the lower (disciple) is the aforementioned Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman [al-Dimishqi].
وأَمثلَتُه كثيرةٌ .
Such examples are plentiful.
وَمِن المهمِّ في هذا الفنِّ مَعْرِفَةِ الأَسْماءِ المُجَرَّدَةِ ، وقد جَمَعَها جماعةٌ مِن الأئمَّةِ : فمنهُم مَن جَمَعَها بغيرِ قَيدٍ ، كابنِ سعدٍ في (( الطَّبقاتِ )) ، وابنِ أَبي خَيْثَمَة ، والبُخاريِّ في (( تاريخَيْهِما )) ، وابنِ أَبي حاتمٍ في (( الجَرْحِ والتَّعديلِ )) .
Also important to know in this field are the solitary names. A group of scholars have gathered [compilations] on this. Some have compiled them without differentiation, like Ibn Sa‘d in Tabaqat, and Abu Khaythama and al-Bukhari in their Tarikh, and Ibn Abi Hatim in al-Jarh-wa-al-ta‘dil.
ومنهُم مَن أَفردَ الثِّقاتِ [ بالذِّكرِ ] ؛ كالعِجْلِيِّ ، وابنِ حِبَّانَ ، وابنِ شاهينَ .
From the scholars are those who have singled out the credible [reporters who have solitary names], like ‘Ijli, Ibn Hibban, and Ibn Shahin.
ومنهُم مَن أَفْرَدَ المَجْروحينَ ؛ كابنِ عديٍّ ، وابنِ حبّانَ أَيضاً .
From the scholars are those who have singled out the defamed [reporters who have solitary names], like Ibn ‘Addi and again Ibn Hibban.
ومنهُم مَنْ تَقيَّدَ بكتابٍٍ مَخصوصٍ : كـ (( رجال البُخاري )) لأبي نصرٍ الكَلاَباذيِّ ، و (( رجالِ مسلمٍ )) لأبي بكرِ بنِ مَنْجَوَيْهِ ، ورجالِهما معاً لأَبي الفضلِ بنِ طاهرٍ ، و (( رجالِ أبي داودَ ))لأبي عليٍّ الجيَّانِي ، وكذا (( رِجال التِّرمذيِّ )) و(( رجال النَّسائيِّ )) لجماعةٍ مِن المَغاربةِ ، ورجالِ السِّتَّةِ : الصَّحيحينِ وأَبي داودَ والتِّرمذيِّ والنَّسائيِّ وابنِ ماجة ؛ لعبدِ الغنيِّ المقدِسيِّ في كتابِه (( الكمالِ )) ، ثمَّ هذَّبَهُ المِزِّيُّ في (( تهذيبِ الكَمالِ )) .
From the scholars are those who have singled out the reporters from a specific compilation, like the reporters of al-Bukhari; done by Abu Nasr al-Kalabadhi, and the reporters of Muslim; done by Abu Bakr ibn Manjuya, and the reporters of both [al-Bukhari and Muslim]; done by Abu al-Fadl ibn Taahir, and the reporters of Abu Dawood; done by Abu ‘Ali al-Jayyani. Likewise the men of al-Tirmidhi and the men of al-Nasa’i; which has been done by a number of Western scholars, and the men of the six canonical collections – the two Sahihs, Abu Dawood, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah – done by ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi; in the book al-Kamal.
وقد لخَّصْتُهُ ، وزدتُ عليهِ أَشياءَ كثيرةً ، وسمَّيْتُه (( تهذيب التَّهذيب )) ، وجاءَ معَ ما اشتَمَلَ عليهِ من الزِّياداتِ قدْرَ ثُلُثِ الأصلِ .
This work was then refined by al-Mizzi; in Tadhhib al-Kamal. I summarized this work and also added many new aspects to it, and I named it Tadhhib al-Tadhhib. This is an additional one-third to the original [aforementioned] work.
وَمِن المُهمِّ أَيضاً معرِفةُ الأسماءِ المُفْرَدَةِ ، وقد صنَّفَ فيها الحافظُ أَبو بكرٍ أَحمدُ بنُ هارونَ البَرديجيُّ ، فذكرَ أَشياءَ تَعَقَّبوا عليهِ بعضَها ، مِن ذلك قولُه : (( صُغْديُّ بنُ سِنانٍ )) ، أَحدُ الضُّعفاءِ ، وهو بضمِّ [ الصَّادِ ] المُهملةِ ، وقد تُبْدلُ سيناً مُهملة ، وسكونِ الغينِ المُعجمةِ ، بعدها دالٌ مُهملةٌ ، ثمَّ ياءٌ كياءِ النَّسبِ ، وهو اسمُ علمٍ بلفظِ النَّسبِ ، وليسَ هُو فرداً .
Also important is to know the unique names. Verily, al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Bardiji compiled a work on this. He wrote many things in it which were [later] criticized. From these criticisms is his mentioning Sughd ibn Sinan, one of the weak reporters. This is with a d/amma on the s/ d, changed from a s n, and with a sukun on the ghayn, followed by a dal and a ya similar to one used for nasab (affiliation). This is a common [name] and is not unique.
ففي (( الجَرحِ والتَّعديلِ )) لابنِ أَبي حاتمٍ : صُغْديٌّ الكوفيُّ ، وثَّقَهُ ابنُ مَعينٍ ، وفرَّقَ بينَه وبينَ الَّذي قبلَه فضعَّفَهُ .
For in Ibn Abi Hatim’s al-Jarh-wa-al-ta‘dil there is a reporter named Sughd al-Kufi, who has been deemed credible by Ibn Ma‘in. Ibn Abi Hatim has differentiated between him and [the previously-mentioned] Sughd ibn Sinan, who he considers as weak.
وفي (( تاريخِ العُقيليِّ )) : صُغْديُّ بنُ عبدِ اللهِ يروي عن قَتادةَ ، قال [ العُقيليُّ ] : حَديثُهُ غيرُ محفوظٍ .
أهـ >
Also, in Tarikh al-‘Uqayli there is a Sughd ibn ‘Abdullah who reported from Qatadah. Al-‘Uqayli said of him: ‘His reports are not preserved.’
وأَظنُّهُ هُو الَّذي ذكرَهُ ابنُ أَبي حاتمٍ ، وأَمَّا كونُ العُقَيْليِّ ذكرَه في (( الضُّعفاءِ )) ؛ فإِنَّما [ هُو ] للحديثِ الذي ذكَرَهُ ، وليستِ الآفةُ منهُ ، بل [ هِيَ ] مِن الرَّاوي عنهُ عَنْبَسَةُ بنُ عبدِ الرحمنِ ، واللهُ أعلمُ .
I believe it is the same person which Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned. As for al-‘Uqayli and the fact that he mentioned him as one of the weak reporters, it is because of the hadith he reported from him. The weakness is not because of him; rather it is due to the reporter ‘Unaysa ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman [who is in the isnad]. And Allah knows best.
ومِن ذلك : (( سَنْدَر )) بـ (( بفتح )) المُهْمَلةِ والنُّون ، بوزنِ جَعْفرٍ ، وهو مولى (( محمد )) زِنْبَاعٍ الجُذاميِّ ، له صُحبةٌ وروايةٌ ، [ و ] المشهورُ أَنَّه يُكْنَى أَبا عبدِ اللهِ ، وهُو اسمٌ فردٌ لم يتسمَّ بهِ غيرُه فيما نعلمُ ، لكنْ ذكرَ أَبو موسى في (( الذَّيلِ )) على (( معرفةِ الصَّحابةِ )) لابنِ منده : سَنْدَرٌ أَبو الأسودِ ، وروى لهُ [ حديثاً ] ، وتُعُقِّبَ عليهِ ذلك ؛ فإِنَّه هُو الذي ذكَرَهُ ابنُ منده .
From such examples is that of Sandar, on the same template as Ja‘far. He is the mawla (client) of Zinbah al-Judhami, who has companionship [of the Prophet] and narrations [from him]. He is known with the kunya Abu ‘Abd Allah. This is a unique name not to be found in others according to our knowledge, but Abu Bakr al-MizzI has mentioned in al-Dhayl ‘ala Ma‘rifat al-Sahih by Ibn Mandaa reporter called Sandar Abu al-Aswad and has reported a hadith from him. This [opinion of Abu Bakr al-MizzI is refuted by the fact that he is the same Sandar mentioned by Ibn Manda.
وقد ذكرَ الحديثَ المذكورَ محمَّدُ بنُ الرَّبيعِ [ الجِيزيُّ ] في (( تاريخِ الصَّحابةِ الَّذين نَزلوا مِصرَ ))في ترجمةِ سَنْدَرٍ مولى زِنْباع .
Muhammad ibn al-Rabi‘ al-Jazi has mentioned that same hadith in the historical account of the Companions who took residence in Egypt, under the section mentioning Sandar Mawla Zinbah.
وقد حرَّرتُ ذلك في كتابي (( في )) الصَّحابة .
I have clarified this in my book on the Companions.
وَكذا معرِفةُ الكُنَى المُجرَّدَةِ [ و [ المُفْرَدَةِ وَ [ كذا مَعرِفَةُ ] ] ] الألْقابِ ، وهي تارةً تكونُ بلفظِ الاسمِ ، وتارةً (( تكون )) بلفظِ الكُنيةِ ، و (( قد )) تقعُ [ نِسبةً ] [ إلى ] عاهَةٍ (( كالأعمش )) أَو حِرفةٍ .
Likewise, it is important to know the kunyas that are solitary and are unique, as well as knowing the unique laqabs. This sometimes occurs with the name, sometimes with the kunya, sometimes with a defamatory reason
– like al-A‘mash – and sometimes with the occupation.
وَكذا [ مَعْرِفَةُ ] الأنْسابِ .
Similarly, knowing the nasab is important.
وَهي تارةً تَقَعُ إِلى القَبائِلِ ، وهي في المتقدِّمينَ أَكثرُ بالنِّسبةِ إلى (( أكثر )) المتأَخِّرينَ .
This sometimes occurs through the tribes – this is more common in the older names than the modern ones
وَتارةً إِلى الأوْطانِ ، وهذا في المتأَخِّرينَ أَكثرُ (( أي )) بالنِّسبةِ إِلى المتقدِّمين .
– and sometimes through the place; this is more common practice in the later names than the older ones.
والنِّسبةُ إِلى الوطنِ أَعمُّ مِن أَنْ يكونَ بلاداً ، أو ضياعاً ، أو سِكَكَاً ، أو مُجاوَرَةً وتقع إِلى الصَّنائعِ كالخَيَّاطِ والحِرَفِ كالبَزَّازِ .
Nisba can refer to the town, rural area, or temporary residence. It can also occur through occupation, like al-khayyat (tailor) or trade, like bazzar (cloth merchant).
ويقعُ فيها الاتِّفاقُ والاشتباهُ ؛ كالأسماءِ .
The nasab can be subject to similarity and ambiguity like it does in names.
وقد تَقعُ الأنْسابُ أَلقاباً ؛ كخالِدِ بنِ مَخلَدٍ القَطوانيِّ ، كانَ كوفيّاً ، ويلقَّبُ بالقَطَوانيِّ ، وكان يغضَبُ منها .
Sometimes the nasab is mentioned as a laqab, like Khalid ibn Makhlad al-Qatmawani; he was Kufi; and was given the laqab of al-Qatawani, which he disliked.
وَمِن المُهمِّ أَيضاً مَعْرِفةُ أَسبابِ ذلك ؛ أي : الألقابِ [ والنِّسبِ الَّتي باطِنُها على خِلافِ ظاهِرِها ] .
Also important is to know the reasons for the nicknames and nasabs which are contrary to the apparent.
[ وَ ] [ كَذا ] (( و )) مَعْرِفَةُ المَوالي مِنْ أَعْلى و [ مِنْ ] أَسْفَلَ ؛ بالرِّقِّ ، أَو بالحِلْفِ أو بالإِسلامِ ؛ لأنَّ كلَّ ذلك يُطْلَقُ عليهِ مولى ، ولا يُعْرَفُ تمييزُ ذلك إِلاَّ بالتَّنْصيصِ عليهِ .
Also, it is important to know the mawlas (clients) in terms of the higher and lower, by reason of slavery or by reason of clientage through alliance and protection, or by reason of accepting Islam. Both forms are called mawla, and one cannot be identified from the other except through contextual evidence.
وَ (( كذا )) مَعْرِفَةُ الإِخْوَةِ والأخَواتِ ، وقد صنَّفَ فيهِ القُدماءُ ؛ كعليِّ بنِ المَدينيِّ .
[Also important in this field is] knowing the brothers and sisters. The classical scholars have compiled works on this, like ‘Ali ibn al-Madini.
وَمِن المهمِّ أَيضاً مَعْرِفَةُ آدابِ الشَّيْخِ والطَّالِبِ : ويشتَرِكانِ في :
تصحيحِ النِّيَّةِ ، والتَّطهيرِ مِن أَعراضِ الدُّنْيا ، وتَحسينِ الخُلُق .
Also important is to know the etiquettes of the shaykh and disciple. Both share the requirement of the correct intention, purity from the distractions of the world, and sublime morals.
وينفَرِدُ الشَّيخُ بأَنْ :
· يُسمعَ إِذا احْتيجَ إِليهِ .
The shaykh’s requirement alone is that he reports when he is required to do so;
· ولا يُحدِّثُ ببلدٍ فيهِ [ مَن هُو ] أَولى منهُ ، بل يُرْشدُ إِليهِ .
he should not report when there is a more senior hadith master in the town but rather should refer the disciple to him.
· ولا يَتْرُكُ إِسماعَ أَحدٍ لنيَّةٍ فاسدةٍ .
He should not refuse to relate prophetic traditions to anyone on the basis of a corrupt intention.
· وأَنْ يتطهَّرَ ويجْلِسَ بوَقارٍ .
Moreover, he should perform ritual purity before relating the traditions and sit with dignity.
· ولا يُحَدِّثُ قائماً ولا عَجِلاً ، ولا في الطَّريقِ إِلاَّ إِنِ اضطُرَّ إِلى ذلك .
He should not report while standing, in a hurry, or in the streets unless he is compelled to.
· وأَنْ يُمْسِكَ عنِ التَّحديثِ إِذا خَشِيَ التَّغَيُّرَ أَو النِّسيانَ لمَرَضٍ أَو هَرَمٍ .
He should resign from reporting when he fears alteration and forgetfulness due to illness or old age.
· وإِذا اتَّخَذَ مَجْلِسَ الإِملاءِ ؛ أَنْ يكونَ لهُ مُسْتَملٍ يقِظٌ .
When he reports in a gathering using dictation, he should employ an alert mustamil.
وينفَرِدُ الطَّالِبُ بأَنْ :
· يوقِّرَ الشَّيخَ ولا يُضْجِرَهُ .
The disciple’s requirement alone is that he respects the shaykh and does not trouble him.
· ويُرشِدَ غيرَهُ لِما سَمِعَهُ .
He should inform others of what he has learned from the shaykh.
· ولا يَدَعَ الاستفادَةَ لحَياءٍ أَو تكبُّرٍ .
He should not cease deriving benefit on the basis of embarrassment or pride.
· ويكتُبَ ما سمِعَهُ تامّاً .
He should accurately record in writing what he has heard
· ويعتَنِيَ بالتَّقييدِ والضَّبطِ .
and take due care in recording the harakat (vocalizations) to it
· ويُذاكِرَ بمحفوظِهِ ليَرْسَخَ في ذهْنِه .
He should revise the recordings often so they remain rigid in his mind.
وَمِن المهمِّ [ أَيضاً ] معرِفةُ سِنِّ التَّحَمُّلِ والأداءِ ، والأصحُّ اعتبارُ سنِّ التَّحمُّلِ بالتَّمييزِ ، هذا في السَّماعِ .
Also important is to know the method of receiving and delivering the reports. The most correct opinion on receiving it is at the age of ‘differentiation’.
وقد جَرَتْ عادةُ المحدِّثينَ بإِحضارِهِمُ الأطفالَ (( في )) مجالِسَ الحَديثِ ، ويكتُبونَ لهُم أَنَّهم حَضَروا .
Verily, the muhaddithin made it customary to bring their children to the gatherings of hadith and recorded their attendance.
ولابدَّ (( لهم )) في مثلِ ذلك مِن إِجازةِ المُسْمِعِ .
It is necessary to seek permission from the shaykh if the child, after reaching the age of maturity, desires to narrate the reports.
والأصحُّ في سنِّ الطَّالبِ بنفسِه أَنْ يتأَهَّلَ لذلك .
The most correct opinion on seeking hadith himself is that he possesses the ability to do so.
ويَصِحُّ تحمُّلُ الكافِرِ أَيضاً إِذا أَدَّاهُ بعدَ إِسلامِه .
The receiving of the non-Muslim is correct too when he delivers it after his Islam.
وكذا الفاسِقِ مِن بابِ أَوْلى إِذا أَدَّاهُ بعدَ توبتِه وثُبوتِ عدالَتِه .
The same, therefore, applies to the wrong-doer (fasiq) for sure when he delivers it after his repentance, and his credibility is proven once again.
وأَمَّا الأداءُ ؛ فقد تقدَّمَ أَنَّه لا اختصاصَ له بزَمنٍ مُعيَّنٍ ، بل يُقيَّدُ بالاحتياجِ والتأَهُّلِ لذلك .
As for delivering the hadith, for it has already been mentioned that there is no specific age for it, but instead, the criteria are his requirement to deliver it and his ability to do so.
وهُو مُخْتَلِفٌ باخْتِلافِ الأشخاصِ .
This age differs from person to person.
وقالَ ابنُ خُلاَّدٍ : إِذا [ بلَغَ ] الخَمسينَ ، ولا يُنْكَرُ عندَ الأربعينَ .
Ibn Khallad said: ‘When he reaches fifty, he is fit to deliver to others, and he cannot be criticized if he does so as forty.’
وتُعُقِّبَ (( عليه )) بمَن حدَّثَ قبلَها ؛ كمالكٍ .
This has been criticized as Malik reported before this age.
وَمِن المهمِّ معرفَةُ صِفَةِ كِتابَةِ الحَديثِ ، وهو أَنْ يكتُبَهُ مُبيَّناً مفسّراً ويَشْكُلَ المُشْكِلَ [ منهُ ] و يَنْقُطَهُ ، ويكتُبَ السَّاقِطَ في [ الحاشيةِ ] اليُمنى ، ما دامَ في السَّطرِ بقيَّةٌ ، وإِلاَّ ففي اليُسرى .
Also important is to know the method of writing the correct lettering in the book, and the method of recording it in it. This is that he writes the hadith clearly and with explanation, adding the harakat to the difficult words and the dots. The remaining text, when something has been missed, should be written on the right-hand margin as long as there is space to do so; otherwise on the left margin.
وَصفةِ عَرْضِهِ ، وهُو مُقابَلتُهُ معَ الشَّيخِ المُسمِع ، أَو معَ ثقةٍ غيرِه ، أَو معَ نفسِه شيئاً فشيئاً .
He should know the correct means of presentation; this is reading the written text to the shaykh, or with a reliable person, or with himself bit by bit.
(( وَصفةِ سَمَاعِهِ بأن لا يتشاغلُ بما يخلُ به من نسخٍ أو حديثٍ أو نعاسٍ )) .
وَصفةِ إِسْمَاعِِهِ كذلك ، وأَنْ يكونَ (( الذي )) ذلك مِن أَصلِهِ الَّذي سمِعَ فيهِ [ كِتابَهُ ] ، أَو مِن فرْعٍ قُوبِلَ على أَصلِه ، فإِنْ تعذَّرَ ؛ فليَجْبُرْهُ بالإِجازةِ لما خالَفَ إِنْ خالَفَ .
He should know the correct way of listening to reports, in that he does not occupy himself with matters that distract him, like copying, talking, and tiredness.
وَصفةِ الرِّحْلةِ فيهِ ، حيثُ يَبْتَدِئُ بحديثِ أَهلِ بلدهِ فيستوْعِبُهُ ، ثمَّ يرحلُ فيُحَصِّلُ في الرِّحلةِ ما ليسَ عندَه ، ويكونُ اعتناؤهُ [ في أَسفارِهِ ] بتكثيرِ المَسموعِ أَولى مِن اعتنائِهِ بتكثيرِ الشُّيوخِ .
Also important to know are the attributes of traveling for hadith, in that the disciple commences with the reports of his town and encompasses them all, then travels to acquire that which he does not already have. His desire for excessive reports should outweigh his desire for excessive shaykhs.
وَصفة تَصْنِيفِهِ وذلك إِمَّا على المسانيدِ ، بأَنْ يجْمَعَ مسنَدَ كلِّ صحابيٍّ على حِدَةٍ ، فإِنْ شاءَ رتَّبَهُ على سوابِقِهِم ، وإِنْ شاءَ رتَّبَهُ على حُروفِ المُعْجَمِ ، وهو أَسهَلُ تناوُلاً .
Also important to know are the types of compilations. This can either be in the form of musnads, in that the compiler gathers the reports of each Companion individually. If he wishes, he can then arrange them according to their precedence to Islam or arrange them alphabetically for easier reference.
أَوْ تصنيفِه على الأَبْوابِ الفِقهيَّةِ أَو غيرِها ، بأَنْ يَجمَعَ في كلِّ بابٍ ما ورَدَ فيهِ ممَّا يدلُّ على حُكمِه إِثْباتاً أَو نفياً ، والأوْلى أَنْ يقتَصِرَ على ما صحَّ أَو حَسُنَ ، فإِنْ جَمَعَ الجَميعَ فَلْيُبَيِّنْ علَّةَ الضَّعْفِ .
Or the compilation can be done in chapters of jurisprudence or its like, in that he gathers all the reports that affirm or negate a certain principle. It is better to suffice with what is deemed as sahih and hasan; if he does include all, then he should explain the reason for the inclusion of weak reports.
أَوْ تصنيفِه على العِلَلِ ، فيذكُرُ المتنَ وطُرُقَهُ ، وبيانَ اختلافِ نَقَلَتِه ، والأحْسَنُ أَنْ يرتِّبَها على الأبوابِ ليسهُلَ تناوُلُها .
Or the compilation can be done through the means of ‘ilal. He mentions the matn with its path, along with the different variations of the isnad. It is best to arrange them according to chapters for easier reference.
أَوْ يجمَعُهُ على الأطْرافِ ، فيذكُرُ طرَفَ الحديثِ الدَّالَّ على بقيَّتِه .
Or the compilation can be done through the means of at-tarif: here he mentions part of the hadith which is sufficient to indicate the remainder,
ويجْمَعُ أَسانيدَه : إِمَّا مستوعِباً ، وإِمَّا متقيِّداً بكُتُبٍ مخصوصةٍ .
and then gathers the isnads for it, either comprehensively or specifically for certain books.
وَمِن المُهِمِ مَعْرِفَةُ سَبَبِ الحَديثِ :
وقَدْ صَنَّفَ فيهِ بَعْضُ شُيوخِ القَاضي أَبي يَعْلى [ بنِ ] الفَرَّاءِ [ الحنبليِّ ] ، وهو أبو حفصٍ العُكْبريُّ .
Also important is to know the reasons of hadith. On this, the shaykh of al-Qadi Abu Ya’la ibn al-Farra’ al-Hanbali has compiled a book, namely Abu Hafs al-Ukbari.
وقد ذكَرَ الشيخُ تقيُّ الدِّينِ بنُ دَقيقِ العيدِ [ أَنَّ ] بعضَ أَهلِ عصرِه شرعَ في جَمْعِ ذلك ، فكأَنَّهُ ما رأى تصنيفَ العُكْبريِّ المذكور .
Shaykh Taqi al-Din ibn Daqiq al-‘Id said that some scholars of his generation began writing on this topic area, perhaps because they were unaware of Abu Hafs al-Ukbari’s existing work.
وصنَّفوا في غالبِ هذهِ الأنْواعِ على ما أَشَرْنا إِليهِ غَالِباً .
The scholars have compiled works on most of the types that we have touched upon in this concluding section.
وهِيَ ؛ أي : هذهِ الأنواعُ المَذكورةُ في هذهِ الخاتمةِ نَقْلٌ مَحْضٌ ، ظاهِرَةُ التَّعْريفِ ، مُسْتَغْنِيَةٌ عنِ التَّمْثيلِ .
We have merely introduced the types by defining them and have not given their examples.
[ وحَصْرُها مُتَعَسِّرٌ ] ؛ فلْتُراجَعْ لَها مَبْسوطاتُها ؛ لِيَحْصُلَ < الوُقوفُ على حقائقِها .
Including them all in this work is difficult. Therefore, one should refer to the more comprehensive treatises to understand their true reality.
واللهُ المُوَفِّقُ والهَادي (( إلى الصواب ، و )) لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُو ، (( محمد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وأصحابه وسلم تسليماً و )) عليهِ توكَّلْتُ وإِليهِ أُنيبُ ، (( ولا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم ، وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم ، والحمد لله رب العالمين )) [ وحسبُنا اللهُ ونِعمَ الوَكيلُ ] .
And Allah is the provider of religious assistance, the Guide to the truth. There is no God but He. Upon Him we trust, and to Him we return. Sufficient for us is Allah, and great is He as a Guardian.
(( والحمد لله رب العالمين ، ولا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم )) .
All Praise is for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
(( والحمد لله رب العالمين ، الحمد لله على الإتمام ، وعلى نبينا أفضل الصلاة وأكمل السلام وصحابته سادتنا الكرام وتابعيهم بإحسان إلى يوم القيامة ، يا حنان يا منان .
وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلّم تسليماً كثيراً ))
(( والحمد لله رب العالمين )) .
[ وصلَّى اللهُ على سيِّدنا محمَّدٍ و (( على )) آلهِ وصحبهِ وسلَّمَ ] > ، (( تسليما كثيراً إلى يوم الدين ورضي الله عن أصحاب رسول الله أجمعين )) .
And salutations be upon the best of His creations, the Prophet of mercy, Muhammad; and salutations be upon his family, his Companions, his wives, his lineage till the Day of Judgement.
