Weak Hadeeth

[Turaabie]

as-Salamu 'Alaikum.

Do a number of weak hadeeth make the action part of Islam?

Jazzaka-Allaahu Khayr.

Wa 'Alaikum as-Salam.

[Turaabie]

Anyone... br.Abuz-Zubair?

I know of Brealwies who use this in their favour to make certain acts justifibale...

[Umm Ahmed]

This is on Islamweb

Abu Bakr Ibn ‘Arabi said: “The weak Hadeeth should be absolutely avoided and not dealt with.”

Second, we should know that the scholars of Hadeeth who permitted the use of weak Hadeeth have set very strict rules applying to their use. Al-Haafith Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalaani

said: “There are three conditions that must be fulfilled in order to use the weak Hadeeth:

a. It is well accepted that the weakness should only be slight. This will help to exclude Hadeeth reported by liars or accused reporters (of lying) who are known to commit big mistakes.

b. The weak Hadeeth should be used under already well-established principles and should not bring in ideas of its own.

c. When a weak Hadeeth is used (after it fulfills the above two conditions), it should not be believed to be said by the Messenger of Allaah ; to do so we would be crediting him with that which he did not say.

For the above conditions to be satisfied, people planning to use the weak Hadeeth should have the ability to:

1. Distinguish between the weak and the authentic Hadeeth in order to fulfill condition (c) above, otherwise they may fall into lying about the Messenger .

2. Distinguish between the slightly weak Hadeeth and those which are very weak or fabricated, in order to fulfill condition (a) above.

What should be very clear to Muslims is that the ability to make the above two distinctions is not possessed except by a very small category of the scholars of Hadeeth (who can be counted on the fingers).

In particular with reference to item (2) above, only a few of the scholars of Hadeeth in all of the history of Islam have dealt with it.

Someone might justifiably ask: “Why are we so strict in this matter (of using weak Hadeeth), when some scholars of Hadeeth have permitted it?”

The answer to this question was given by a great scholar of Hadeeth, Muhammad Naassir Ad-Deen Al-Albaani who said:

“The earlier scholars used to mention the Hadeeth with their full Isnaad (chain of Narrators), so that any other scholar reading their treatise could know from the chain of Narrators the degree of authenticity of the Hadeeth.”

We pray that this small introduction to the subject of weak Hadeeth and using it as proof has helped in clarifying how dangerous this is.


By: Abu ‘Abdullaah Muhammad Al-Jibaaly

[Turaabie]

Jazzaaki-Allaahu Khayran Katheeran (L)

[Abuz Zubair]

If the ahadeeth are VERY weak, such that there may be a liar in the chain, or two narrators missing from the chain, etc, then even if there are hundreds of such narrations, they still remain weak, and in fact, are considered even weaker.

But if ahadeeth are not VERY weak, such that there is one dha'if narrator involved, or there is tadlis involved, etc... then yes, a few weak ahadeeth can be considered hasan due to all the different chains coming together.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Assalamoalaikum

But if ahadeeth are not VERY weak, such that there is one dha'if narrator involved, or there is tadlis involved, etc... then yes, a few weak ahadeeth can be considered hasan due to all the different chains coming together.

This is not always true. Shaikh Haytham Hamadan replied to this:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=695

The shaykh gave some examples of that too. I remember there was a long discussion on it in the arabic multaqa ahlulhadith, but till the time i followed it there were no conclusions drawn. Maybe brother justabro can shed more light.

[Abuz Zubair]

I agree with brother badr al-deen there:

Respectable brother Haitham,

I have a comment to make.

The Hadeeth of “whomsoever memorizes 40 hadeeth …”. didn't become Hasan li-thatihi because it didn't fulfill what sister Um Abdullah has stated, that's why it is declared weak by the salaf. Sister Um Abdullah said: "But if the weakness was because of fisq or lying, then it can't become hasan." And this is what actually happened with this report. Imam Ibn al-Jauzi mentioned all these reports relating to this hadeeth with all their chains in his "al-'ilal al-mutanahiya" and pointed out all weak links. They are all lyers and the like.

Barakallahu fiekum wa ghafara lana jamee'an

I looked through the thread and each and every chain has someone very weak, matruk, etc, etc... and as I said, this many extremely weak chains only increase the hadeeth in weakness.

I would like someone to quote me from one of the works on mustalah where this issue is discussed, which suggests that this isn't a dhabit, or even if it is, then sometimes it isn't, and what is the dhabit to determine when the previous rule is or is not a dhabit?

[Abuz Zubair]

justabro, what's you take on this?

[sunnih]

As for: "But if the weakness was because of fisq". No doubt that fisq consists of different things and just like it's judgement could be relative also the ruling on the reporter acused of fisq can be relative. However, just because the narrator can be a fasiq, this does not automatically make the hadith rejected or denied the chance to become hasan. This is in line with the order of Allah to us that we should verify the news from a fasiq but the order did not mention to reject it. So the matter goes further and not all the types of fisq are equal. These rules presented are there for guidance and are not rigid. Each hadith is judged individually but if the weakness of them is grave then they can not be used to strengthen each other as bro Abu Zubayr did mention. Also when a hadith is taken as hasan as a support it does not mean that the hadith is hasan in itself but when used as support it can be viewed as hasan otherwise it remains daif. So the matter is a broad one and of course disagreements will exist. However the ahadith that the sufis and their likes try to use do not have a leg to stand upon so nothing from this applies to them.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Assalamoalaikum
I would like someone to quote me from one of the works on mustalah where this issue is discussed, which suggests that this isn't a dhabit, or even if it is, then sometimes it isn't, and what is the dhabit to determine when the previous rule is or is not a dhabit?
I would try to find the multaqa thread i was talking about and paste it here.

[justabro]

Arggh

I wrote an extremely long post and then it vanished. Qaddarallahu Wa Ma Sha'a Fa'al. I will try and address this issue again tomorrow.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Arggh
I wrote an extremely long post and then it vanished. Qaddarallahu Wa Ma Sha'a Fa'al. I will try and address this issue again tomorrow.

It had to me once too. I wrote a lengthy piece here on iA regarding the latest tahreef in the noor of the Prophet salallahoalaihiwasallam narration of abdur razzaq by UAE soofies. When i was about to post it, it vanished. I never tried again.

It's a good idea to write it in word and then copying it here (though i never do it myself)

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
If the ahadeeth are VERY weak, such that there may be a liar in the chain, or two narrators missing from the chain, etc, then even if there are hundreds of such narrations, they still remain weak, and in fact, are considered even weaker.
The soofi methodology:
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=a6abefed1662976d9845652a2c7f32cb
The salafi methodology:
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&QR=34715

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
This is not the one i was talking about, but it has a quote from nukat:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=42109

[Abuz Zubair]

The soofi methodology:
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...45652a2c7f32cb (http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=a6abefed1662976d9845652a2c7f32cb)
The salafi methodology:
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&QR=34715

Yes, because it involves strengthening a very weak hadeeth.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Assalamoalaikum
Yes, because it involves strengthening a very weak hadeeth.
Yeah i was trying to examplify your point like they do in mustallah works.

U know it is criminal. That narration is in fazaail e a'amaal by kandhalvi, the tablighi handbook. These and other fabricated narration are translated into urdu for the common man. The level of it its authenticity is written in arabic either in brackets with the arabic text or in some publication in footnotes. The common man thinks this is hadith and cannot even read what the publisher wrote in footnotes to absolve himself. This is true for even the ameers of the tablighis in most mosques.

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, I agree... it is very irresponsible, because then, not only the people, but even the jahil-alims themselves begin to defend such narrations!

[justabro]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وبه أستعين
Ok, here goes... *deep breath*

I would like someone to quote me from one of the works on mustalah where this issue is discussed, which suggests that this isn't a dhabit, or even if it is, then sometimes it isn't, and what is the dhabit to determine when the previous rule is or is not a dhabit?

This is a very good question, as I doubt you will find such a quote forthcoming. However, unfortunately this is not the first issue that seems to be neglected in the books of Mustalah. Take, for example, the issue of Tafarrud. Al-Dhahabi has made some very interesting points about it in his al-Muqizah, but hardly a single authority other than him in the post-ibn al-Salah era has even attempted to deal with this issue properly. This is problematic because we see numerous examples of the early Huffaz rejecting the hadiths of some narrators, even though they are trustworthy, on the grounds of tafarrud at times while accepting their hadiths otherwise.

To understand this issue of al-Hasan Li Ghayrih, let us look at its history. The first one to really directly tackle it amongst the later scholars is ibn al-Salah in his famous Muqaddimah. He bases his category of Hasan Li Ghayrih upon the Hasan of al-Tirmidhi. Almost all of those who come after him generally just take his categorization at face value and they attribute the origin of this category to the words of al-Tirmidhi.

Ironically, these same authorities will frequently abuse al-Tirmidhi for using the grade of Hasan far too loosely. So, the category and definition of Hasan Li Ghayrih is drawn from al-Tirmidhi, and he himself does not know what he is doing? In fact al-Dhahabi has stated that al-Tirmidhi is mutasahil in authentication of reports (tashih). However, I think it was really al-Tirmidhi’s Hasan grades that were bothering him, not his Hasan Sahih grades as most of them are sound without a doubt. Many of the later scholars will extend tashih to include tahsin because Hasan is just a low class of Sahih. In any case, the reason I believe al-Dhahabi had al-Tirmidhi’s Hasan grades in mind is that he has stated elsewhere, I believe in al-Mizan, concerning al-Tirmidhi’s Hasan grades: (عند المحاققة أكثرها ضعاف ) “Upon verification, most of them are weak.”

This, to me, is indicative of a problem.

Ibn Hajar seems to have realized there was a problem when he discussed the issue of Hasan in his al-Nukat `Ala Muqaddimah ibn al-Salah:

وإذا تقر ذلك بقي وراءه أمر آخر . وذلك أن المصنف وغير واحد نقلوا الاتفاق على أن الحديث الحسن يحتج به
كما يحتج بالصحيح ، وإن كان دونه في المرتبة . فما المراد على هذا بالحديث الحسن الذي اتفقوا فيه على ذلك هل هو القسم الذي حرره المصنف وقال : إن كلام الخطابي ينزل عليه . وهو رواية الصدوق المشهور بالأمانة ... إلى آخر كلامه أو القسم الذي ذكرناه آنفاً عن الترمذي مع مجموع أنواعه التي ذكرنا أمثلتها ، أو ا هو أعم من ذلك ؟
لم أر من تعرض لتحرير هذا ، والذي يظهر لي أن دعوى الاتفاق إنما نصح على الأول دون الثاني وعيه أيضاً يتنزل قول المصنف أن كثيراً من أهل الحديث لا يفرق بين الصحيح والحسن كالحاكم كما سيأتي وكذا قول المصنف : (( إن الحسن إذا جاء ارتقى إلى الصحة ، كما سيأتي إن شاء الله تعالى .
فأما ما حررناه عن الترمذي أنه يطلق عليه اسم الحسن من الضعيف والمنقطع إذا اعتضد ، فلا يتجه إطلاق الاتفاق على الاحتجاج به جميعه ولا دعوى الصحة فيه إذا أتى من طرق . ويؤيد هذا قول الخطيب : (( أجمع أهل العلم أن الخبر لا يجب قبوله إلا من العاقل الصدوق المأمون على ما يخبر به )) وقد صرح أبو الحسن ابن القطان أحد الحفاظ النقاد من أهل المغرب في كتابه (( بيان الوهم والإيهام )) بأن هذا القسم لا يحتج به كله بل يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال ويتوقف عن العمل به في الأحكام إلا إذا كثرت طرقه أو عضده اتصال عمل أو موافقة شاهد صحيح أو ظاهر القرآن .
وهذا حسن قوي رايق ما أظن يأباه والله الموفق

This is a partial translation:

“There is another matter: the author (ibn al-Salah) and numerous others have reported an agreement that the Hasan Hadith is a proof just as the Sahih Hadith is a proof, although it is lower in rank. What is meant by the Hasan Hadith concerning which they have this agreement…”

He then asks: does this apply Hasan Li Dhatih only, or Hasan Li Ghayrih, or both of them together.

I have not seen anyone who has attempted to address this. It appears to me that the claim of agreement is only true concerning the first class (Hasan Li Dhatih), not the second. Additionally, the statement of ibn al-Salah which is to come that many of the Ahl al-Hadith do not make a distinction between Sahih and Hasan applies to this category (in particular)…”

He then goes on to discuss al-Hasan Li Ghayrih:

As for what we have explained – that Tirmidhi applies the term Hasan to weak and disconnected reports when they are strengthened – it is not correct to state there is agreement that all of this class is a proof, nor to claim that it is authentic if it comes from a number of routes. This is supported by the statement of al-Khatib, “The scholars have reached consensus that it is not obligatory to accept a report unless it comes from a rational, truthful narrator who is trustworthy in what he reports.” Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan, one of the verifying Huffaz from amongst the People of the West (al-Maghrib) has explicitly stated in his book, Bayan al-Wahm Wa al-Iham, that this category (i.e. Hasan Li Ghayrih) is not used as a proof always. Rather, it is acted upon in Fada’il al-A’mal, but one should refrain from acting on it in al-Ahkam, unless it has numerous routes, or it is supported by action (in accordance with what it states), an authentic witnessing report, or the apparent meaning of the Qur’an. This (view) is good, strong, and delightful. I do not think a fair person would refuse it. And Allah is the granter of success.”

This raises the question: do multiple routes for a hadith prove that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said or did what is being attributed to him? If that was true, we would have to accept such Hasan Li Ghayrih Hadiths in Ahkam just as we do in Fada’il al-A’mal. Therefore, ibn Hajar and ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi must not think that the multiplicity of routes establishes that a report is indeed thabit, established, from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Put another way, just because a report has multiple routes, we cannot claim that it is verified that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) stated this.

So then, what do multiple routes tell us? To understand this question, we need to apply a little logic and a little historical knowledge. How many times will a person hear a hadith just a single time and remember it just as he heard it? Many times, when I had first learned Arabic, I would hear a hadith for the first time in a khutbah and I would remember it with out any effort. In fact, even in English this is not that difficult. So many people can quote the meanings of hadiths they have read or heard without having made conscious effort to memorize those hadiths. Now, let us look at another aspect of the issue. How many times have you memorized the isnad of a hadith? Many times, a person will put great effort into memorizing an isnad and still forget the isnad while still remembering the matn, even though he may not have put any effort to remembering the matn. This is not to say errors in the matn do not occur, but errors in the isnad are at least just as common, if not more common.

Keeping this reality in mind, what is the guarantee that a given isnad is not the invention of an overactive imagination or a careless narrator. In al-Kamil, ibn `Adi quotes Imam Ahmad as saying, “When the people of Basrah err, they will attribute it to the chain: ‘Thabit, from Anas’ and when the people of Madinah err, they will attribute it to: ‘ibn al-Munkadir, from Jabir.’” It is possible that the narrator simply heard a given hadith in mudhakarah, and it stuck in his memory and became confused with the chain of another hadith. Mudhakarah, or study sessions, were an integral part of the culture of Ahl al-Hadith in the era of narration. The hadiths heard in such sessions were not acceptable for narration because the scholars would not apply the strict standards necessary for narration in these sessions. The purpose of these sessions to benefit one another with regards to knowledge already attained, to bring to the attention of others hadiths they may not have heard due to their rarity, amongst other purposes.

Other factors have to be kept in mind as well. Who is the shaykh from whom this weak narrator is reporting. If it is someone like al-Zuhri or Malik who had numerous students who heard his hadiths – particularly his close students who were with him for years and heard all his hadiths many times over – it is unacceptable for a weak narrator to come along and narrate something from him that his reliable students did not have. Such a hadith is to be rejected. [For this issue of Tafarrud, one may refer to the Muqaddimah of Sahih Muslim, al-Dhahabi’s al-Muqizah, and also a contemporary book on the topic by al-Lahim] Two Tabi’is with poor memory but generally trustworthy

One should also keep in that in the later generations, the isnads had multiplied and become very lengthy, making errors much more likely. This problem is not so great when one comes nearer to the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Therefore, one should not treat the report of a weak Tabi’i as there is much less for him to mess up in the isnad.

In any case, the number of factors (qara’in) that can influence the final judgment on a hadith cannot be limited to a certain number nor can they be put in a neat list. For that reason, ibn Rajab mentions time and again in his Sharh `Ilal al-Tirmidhi that “the critique of each hadith is unique” (لكل حديث نقد خاص).

In any case, I am not denying that certain hadiths could be strengthened to the point that we could say that it has been verified from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but this is more an exception than the rule. It should be kept in mind that to make such an assertion, we would have to feel confident that these two narrators are reporting with genuinely independent chains that corroborate one another.

However, what is particularly telling is that you will find some scholars declaring that the hadiths concerning a certain topic are batil and munkar while other scholars will claim the same hadiths to be mutawatir.

Another “evidence” for this view is that if we look to the works of the early scholars who attempted to compile authentic reports, such as al-Bukhari, Muslim, and even ibn Khuzaymah, ibn Hibban, and al-Hakim, and we could include ibn al-Jarud’s al-Muntaqa as well - as generally all of it is at least Hasan as stated by al-Dhahabi – it does not seem that these authors gave considerable attention to hadiths strengthened in this fashion. Perhaps, with thorough study, we might find examples where they have authenticated reports based on multiple routes, but even then, I think they would be rare.

I personally feel this issue of the Hasan Hadith is one of the most difficult in all of Mustalah. It had even been my hope that if Allah allows for me to write a graduate-level thesis, that it be concerning this topic in particular. However, Sh. al-Durayyis has written his PhD dissertation concerning this topic under the title (لحديث الحسن لذاته ولغيره دراسة استقرائية نقدية), which was printed in five volumes (it seems that this is another case of publishers inflating books more than is necessary, but I am sure it must be quite extensive nonetheless). Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of this book, but one section of it devoted to a sub-issue of the topic of Hasan Hadiths is available online as a series of lengthy articles:

http://www.alukah.net/Articles/authorarticles.aspx?authorid=146

These articles are quite impressive and so I am optimistic that the remainder of the book will be as well. Sh. al-Durayyis wrote his Master’s thesis concerning the dispute between al-Bukhari and Muslim over the necessary conditions for an isnad to be considered continuous (muttasil), another hot topic of debate amongst the hadith scholars:

http://saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=91&book=1119

(For the other side of this debate, one may refer to Sh. Hatim al-`Awni’s work: http://saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=91&book=781)

One book of interest concerning this topic is that of Sh. Abu Mu`adh Tariq b. Awad Allah has written an excellent and very exhaustive book concerning the mistakes that are frequently made in strengthening hadiths with follow-up and witnessing narrations. This book can be found here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SJBOZDMN

In my opinion, this book should be a mandatory read for anyone who presumes to put himself forward to pass judgments on the authenticity of any hadith. This is more a book on how NOT to authenticate hadiths by multiple routes than it is about the conditions for how to do so. Another book of interest related to this topic is Sh. Abu Mu`adh’s al-Naqd al-Banna’ Li Hadith Asma’. In this work, he has written extensively in explanation of al-Shafi’i's words concerning when one may use a mursal report.

I have previously written the following article which did address this issue towards the beginning, mentioning many of the same points mentioned here, although there are some other points/quotes one may find there:

http://islamicsciences.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/the-total-number-of-authentic-hadiths/

In conclusion, what I have written here is representative of my personal view. As I said before, I feel this is an area that requires considerable research, and Allah knows best.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
Assalamoaalikum all
jazakallahu khair akhi. Very informative post. May Allah increase you in knowledge and eeman.

The way imam dhahabi attacks imam tirmidhi decreased his respect in my eyes, till i did further research in the terminology 'hasan' by al-tirmidhi.

قال الذهبي في " الميزان " 4 / 416: فلا يغتر بتحسين الترمذي، فعند المحاققة غالبها ضعاف، وقال أيضا 3 / 407: فلهذا لا يعتمد العلماء على تصحيح الترمذي



وقد انتقد الذهبي - رحمه الله - في أكثر من ترجمة في كتابه " ميزان الاعتدال " تصحيح الترمذي، أو تحسينه، وبين أنه لا يعتمد قوله في ذلك إذا انفرد، وفي الحديث علة تمنع من القول بصحته.

فقد قال في ترجمة كثير بن عبدالله بن عمر بن عوف المزني - 3 / 407 -: قال ابن معين: ليس بشئ، وقال الشافعي وأبو داود: ركن من أركان الكذب، وضرب أحمد على حديثه، وقال الدارقطني وغيره: متروك.

وقال أبو حاتم: ليس بالمتين.

وقال النسائي: ليس بثقة.

وقال مطرف بن عبدالله المدني: رأيته، وكان كثير الخصومة، لم يكن أحد من أصحابنا يأخذ عنه ...وأما الترمذي: فروى من حديثه: " الصلح جائز بين المسلمين " وصححه.

فلهذا لا يعتمد العلماء على تصحيح الترمذي.

وقال في ترجمة يحيى بن يمان: 4 / 416، بعد ذكر حديث ابن عباس أن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم دخل قبرا ليلا، فأسرج له سراج،: حسنه الترمذي مع ضعف ثلاثة فيه، فلا يعتد بتحسين الترمذي، فعند المحاققة غالبها ضعاف ".

وقال في ترجمة محمد بن الحسن بن أبي يزيد الهمداني الكوفي: 3 / 514: قال ابن معين: قد سمعنا منه، ولم يكن بثقة، وقال مرة: كان يكذب وقال أحمد: ما أراه يسوى شيئا، وقال النسائي: متروك.

وقال أبو داود: ضعيف، وقال مرة: كذاب.

وقال أبو حاتم: ليس بالقوي... ثم قال، بعد ذكر حديث أبي سعيد الخدري مرفوعا: يقول الله: من شغله قراءة القرآن عن دعائي ومسألتي أعطيته افضل ثواب الشاكرين: حسنه الترمذي، فلم يحسن

I think one of the later scholars to apply it too often (and loosely) was sheikh al-albani rahimahullah. To the point of almost authenticating the narrations of lylat nisf sha'baan! I had compiled a few quotes from nawawi etc about strengthening thru routes a couple of months back. Maybe i will post it later.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Oh, forgot to add. I have a lot of respect and love for Sh Al-Albani [and unlike what abu ibrahim pointed out i have heard a lot of his tapes and read many of his writings]. Disagreeing is one matter and disrespect another.


Justabro, i will add what u said to the relevant thread in multaqa, if you don't mid, with credit to you, ofcourse.

[Abuz Zubair]

I understand it slightly differently. Setting aside al-Tirmidhi's tasahul, in terms of what he considers Hasan, he clearly states that it is a hadeeth with no one accused of lying, etc, that it is not shaadh, and that it is narrated from other wujuh. This, as far as I remember, from Ibn rajab, is referring to hasan li ghayrihi, that which is considered hasan due to other supporting mu'tabar reports.

This also goes hand in hand with the fact that the Salaf only discussed in terms of sahih and da'if, and amongst the da'if category, they used some ahadeeth is hujja but not others. And if we look at riwayat from Imam Ahmad, and the Hanbali Usul in general, we find what supports this view that dha'if hadeeth is not, in and of itself, a hujjah, but it is still part of hujja and a qareena amongst many qarain. This is also supported by what Ibn al-Qattan is quoted to have said above:

بأن هذا القسم لا يحتج به كله بل يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال ويتوقف عن العمل به في الأحكام إلا إذا كثرت طرقه أو عضده اتصال عمل أو موافقة شاهد صحيح أو ظاهر القرآن

This indicates that a dha'if hadeeth is a qareena, which is hujja in ahkam if coupled with other qarain, such as 1) many turuq, 2) the scholars act accordingly, 3) it has a sahih shahid, or 4) agrees with the dhahir of the quran.

There are also many other qarain, and Imam Ahmad in particular is often reported to have made ihtijaj with a da'if hadeeth because "al-'amal 'alayhi," i.e. the scholars have acted upon it, even if it is weak in and of itself.

al-Sakhawi also quotes al-Nawawi agreeing with this understanding and quotes Ibn al-Qattan's this very statement and further says that Ibn Hajar agreed with this.

The problem comes when some scholars like al-Suyuti begin to apply this principle to ahadeeth that are very weak or even mawdu'! Because by doing so they are ignoring what al-Tirmidhi had said, i.e. the hadeeth mustn't have a muttaham, or be shaadh, etc... And this is what Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim emphasised that Imam Ahmad and other Salaf didn' make ihtijaj with batil ahadeeth or very weak ones... but those that weren't very weak, if there are other qarain present to strengthen the hadeeth.

[nobody]

Bismillah
Assalamoalaikum

Yeah i was trying to examplify your point like they do in mustallah works.

U know it is criminal. That narration is in fazaail e a'amaal by kandhalvi, the tablighi handbook. These and other fabricated narration are translated into urdu for the common man. The level of it its authenticity is written in arabic either in brackets with the arabic text or in some publication in footnotes. The common man thinks this is hadith and cannot even read what the publisher wrote in footnotes to absolve himself. This is true for even the ameers of the tablighis in most mosques.

in some riwayat, like a sahabi prayed while he was bleeding, he has added notes that it is waek hadeeth but in fazail weak hadeeth is acceptable. also at one place he said ibn ishaq is a mudallis so the hadeeth is weak (probably he wa narrating with un). i know both of this has to do with his maddhab. irony is that few people read these from the 'benefit' (FAIDAH). also their ulema do not approve that layman should read sahih bikhari. becasue it will be confusing. but the same book has stories like a muhaddith was teaching hadeeth in masjid nabwi there was a young man sitting nearby with head down. the muhaddith asked the man to join the halqa the young man said i am listening from the Razzaq (the muhaddith of 'abdur Razzaq).

[justabro]

I understand it slightly differently. Setting aside al-Tirmidhi's tasahul, in terms of what he considers Hasan, he clearly states that it is a hadeeth with no one accused of lying, etc, that it is not shaadh, and that it is narrated from other wujuh. This, as far as I remember, from Ibn rajab, is referring to hasan li ghayrihi, that which is considered hasan due to other supporting mu'tabar reports.

This is a very good point. I agree that he is referring to what was later termed Hasan Li Ghayrih. What I disagree with is (1) the assertion that Hasan Li Ghayrih is hujjah in and of itself, and (2) the assertion that something that is deemed Hasan Li Ghayrih is to be considered verified from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

This also goes hand in hand with the fact that the Salaf only discussed in terms of sahih and da'if, and amongst the da'if category, they used some ahadeeth is hujja but not others. And if we look at riwayat from Imam Ahmad, and the Hanbali Usul in general, we find what supports this view that dha'if hadeeth is not, in and of itself, a hujjah, but it is still part of hujja and a qareena amongst many qarain. This is also supported by what Ibn al-Qattan is quoted to have said above:

بأن هذا القسم لا يحتج به كله بل يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال ويتوقف عن العمل به في الأحكام إلا إذا كثرت طرقه أو عضده اتصال عمل أو موافقة شاهد صحيح أو ظاهر القرآن

This indicates that a dha'if hadeeth is a qareena, which is hujja in ahkam if coupled with other qarain, such as 1) many turuq, 2) the scholars act accordingly, 3) it has a sahih shahid, or 4) agrees with the dhahir of the quran.

There are also many other qarain, and Imam Ahmad in particular is often reported to have made ihtijaj with a da'if hadeeth because "al-'amal 'alayhi," i.e. the scholars have acted upon it, even if it is weak in and of itself.I agree that the da'if hadith can be a hujjah when coupled with other qara'in. I feel the same applies to Hasan Li Ghayrih.

The problem comes when some scholars like al-Suyuti begin to apply this principle to ahadeeth that are very weak or even mawdu'! Because by doing so they are ignoring what al-Tirmidhi had said, i.e. the hadeeth mustn't have a muttaham, or be shaadh, etc...This is no doubt true, irrespective of whether we consider Hasan Li Ghayrih a form of hujjah or only fit for istishhad/isti'nas, as hadiths such as these are fit for neither!

And this is what Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim emphasised that Imam Ahmad and other Salaf didn' make ihtijaj with batil ahadeeth or very weak ones... but those that weren't very weak, if there are other qarain present to strengthen the hadeeth.This is true.

A point I would like to add:

Al-Tirmidhi defined what he meant by Hasan. He did not state that if a hadith meets such conditions, this means that it is verified as true from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). I feel that al-Tirmidhi's usage of the term Hasan, rather than being misapplied, was simply misunderstood.

If we consider the categorization of Hadith from a rational perspective, we can say that all hadiths fall into two categories: true (sahih) and false (batil). Every statement that is attributed to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was either stated by him or it was not. There is no other possibility. However, this cannot always be known with certainty. Therefore, from our perspective, hadiths are of three categories:

(1) that which can be proven true,
(2) that which can be proven false, and
(3) that concerning which no decisive judgment can be made.

Category 1 would consist of those hadiths proven true as they meet the conditions of authenticity.

Category 2 could include reports that are proven fabrications or even reports from reliable narrators which have proven to be erroneous, or as the hadith scholars say: shadh. No, you did not misread, I said: RELIABLE NARRATORS. This is because once a hadith is proven to be incorrect, it does not matter who it was from, it is known that this statement was not made by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). It is a figment in the imagination of the narrator.

Category 3 would consist of reports with broken chains, weak narrators, or other causes of weakness that prevent us from including this hadith in category 1. At the same time, we are unable to state certainly that what the narration states is false. It is important to note here: just because a narrator is weak or unknown, it does not mean that what he is narrating is automatically false.

The hadiths in this last category would technically be called da'if, but qara'in relating to a given hadith might lead us to feel there is a reasonable probability of this hadith being true, or they might lead us to feel there is a considerable possibility of it being false.

I feel that al-Tirmidhi's usage of the term Hasan helps to categorize such hadiths, and Allah knows best.

It should also be noted that the other early authority to provide a definition of Hasan was al-Khattabi, but his definition has also been the subject of considerable dispute, but perhaps that topic can be addressed later.

[justabro]

Justabro, i will add what u said to the relevant thread in multaqa, if you don't mid, with credit to you, ofcourse.

Go ahead, I was actually going to do that but I'm moving to another city this weekend and probably wont get a chance.

[Abuz Zubair]

The difference might only be in semantics, since I think both parties are saying that the hadeeth does not become hujja in and of itself, but it is still part of hujja. But you have a point. Even Imam Ahmad, despite of using weak ahadeeth in some cases due to other qarain that making it stronger, he still considered, and labelled the hadeeth is dha'if. But again, because they only had two main categories.

The latter scholars often used the terms: hasan, without even feeling the need to affix 'li ghayrihi' or 'lidhatihi'...

But sometimes, though, there are some ahadeeth that are weak for various reasons, but since there are so many mutaba'at and shawahid, it does give the feeling that the Prophet MUST have said it for it to have so many turuq, not only mutaba'at but also shawahid.

Yet, there are also other cases where we only have two dhai'f hadeeth, and there is still a great possibility that the Prophet didn't say it.

I see the logic in your argument.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Assalamoalaikum

But sometimes, though, there are some ahadeeth that are weak for various reasons, but since there are so many mutaba'at and shawahid, it does give the feeling that the Prophet MUST have said it for it to have so many turuq, not only mutaba'at but also shawahid.

If there are sahih shawahid or mutaba'at of a contemporary who is not as weak as the original narrator, then this is a type of hasan/sahih lighairihi where there is no dispute. Even scholars who totally reject da'eef+da'eef+....da'eef=hasan lighairihi, say that the acceptable hasan lighairihi is a weak report which has a shahid which is hasan li dhaatihi.
I feel that al-Tirmidhi's usage of the term Hasan, rather than being misapplied, was simply misunderstood.
Sh Al-Tareefi discussed it here (http://ahlalhdeeth.cc/vbe/showthread.php?t=22&highlight=hasan+gharib):

[Abu_Abdallah]

This was a great read, espec. Justabro's long post.. Barakallahu fikum.

Concerns the Hasan Hadith.

[Adeel]

Assalam O Alaikum!

I know one scholar who says that there are no hasan hadiths! He says that the earlier authorities like Imam Ahmed only categorized hadith as either "Sahih" or "Weak" it was not until the time of tirmidhi that category "hasan" came into being and he likes to stick with the earlier authorities in this matter!