Principles of Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil ذب

[Abu_Abdallah]

Bismillah,

Some Qawa'id of Jarh & Ta'dil, i.e. Principles of Disparagement and Crediting of Narrators of Hadith, mentioned by the Ahl al-Hadith which are important to consider when dealing with assessing a Sanad.

Remember, these are generel principles. Guidelines. They are not fixed, for each and every case applied. Yet, they are 'rules' which are to be followed. Knowing these principles, the specific rules and the exceptions, this will help in understanding why a chain is weakened and when not.

We'll mention four which are explicitly stated. Later, we shall follow with other principles. Corrections are welcome.

1. al-Jarh Muqaddam 'ala al-Ta'dil

Meaning: A jarh (disparagement or discrediting) has more priority than a ta'dil.

This principle applies if there are both jarh and ta'dil for a single narrator. Consequently, a narrator or transmitter's quality is double. In this state, according to the majority of 'Ulama, priority is given to jarh.

The reason is because a mu'addil (i.e. the critic who credits the narrator or judges him positive) generally tends to emphasize something on plain view (dhâhir), while a jârih (i.e. the critic who disparages the narrator negatively) tends to stress a hidden profile of a narrator.

This principle effectuate that in such circumstance, the narrator is completely disregarded. Indeed, even if the number of mu'addilûn is more, the majority of 'Ulama still give priority to jarh.

Points of considerations:

* Another opinion says that the priority is given to ta'dil in a condition that there are more mu'addils than jarihs.

* Another opinion favors tawaqquf, i.e. to abstain from giving a judgement.

* Some add certain conditions to this principle, which in themselves are considered to be principles, cf. 1.1 A jarh is not acceptable except accompanied by an explanation (lâ yuqbal al-jarh illa mufassaran); 1.2 A famous 'adl cannot be touched by any jarh; 1.3 Not every jarh is acceptable, etc.

2. al-Ta'dil Maqbûl min ghair Dhikr Sababihi

Meaning: A Ta'dil is acceptable without supplying its reasons or its causes.

This is the logical consequence of the condition (qayd) to the aforementioned principle, i.e. dhâbit: a jarh is not acceptable except accompanied by an explanation. Different from al-jarh which its causes must be explained, ta'dil is possible without describing its causes.

The 'Ulama argued that there are a lot of causes of ta'dil, so no need to explain them. However, jarh is completely different since it only has a particular explanation. Some scholars do argue that for ta'dil too explanation is needed. Others say: there is no need to explain al-jarh or al-ta'dil at all.

The most correct understanding is the first, i.e. that of the principle. For ta'dil no necessary reason have to be mention, to be used. But, the critic who credits needs a condition: the mu'addil must have the competence to credit (or disparage). Similarly, the critic who disparages too: the jârih must have the competence to disparage.

Point of consideration:

* Some say: a mu'addil can sometimes excessively credit a narrator, says al-Khatib; similarly, a jârih can sometimes excessively discredit a narrator. So here comes the competence, particular expertise and orientation of the critic in mind. Is he a fair critic, or extreme? Or maybe lenient?

3. Lâ yajzi al-Ta'dil 'ala al-Ibhâm min ghair Tasmiya al-Mu'addal

Meaning: Crediting can not be accepted if the mu'addal (i.e. creditee) is unknown.

To illustrate. If a narrator says about another: haddathani al-thiqa without mentioning the name of the creditee, there is no ta'dil actually. A narrator might be thiqa to a group of 'Ulama, but not to others. Therefore, it is necessary to mention the name. Moreover, to not mention the name indicates uncertainty.

Point of consideration:

* However, some 'Ulama allow not mentioning the name in individual cases if the narrator who does it is of a considerable fame.

* Important note: it is known that if an imâm of the Madhhab, for example Malik, narrates from another narrator who is unnamed, it is a form of crediting according to the followers of a Madhhab among their own school; this is something that Malikites ans Shafi'ites have stated, though it is an exceptional condition which is questionable to others.

4. Yathbut al-Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil bi-Qawl Wahid

Meaning: One expression of al-jarh or al-ta'dil is enough.

This principle applies when there is only one jârih or one mu'addil for a narrator. The majority of 'Ulama consider that it is not necessary to have several evaluations for a transmitter. Therefore, jarh and ta'dil still work even though with just one evaluation.

There are other scholars who consider as a condition two expressions of disparaging and crediting, in comparison with testimony which absolutely needs two witnesses. But this is a weak opinion, since quantity should not be considered in this case a condition. Like in accepting news or narrations, one single line should suffice.

wa-Allahu A'lam.

[nobody]

* Some add certain conditions to this principle, which in themselves are considered to be principles, cf. 1.1 A jarh is not acceptable except accompanied by an explanation (lâ yuqbal al-jarh illa mufassaran)

bismillah

jazakAllahu khairan.

Q#1: plz explain jarah mufassar. what words are considered to be jarh mufassar. specially if a jarih who came after the death of a narrator do jarh ?

Q#2: i read that if a muhaddith authenticates two chain of narrations in which A is a narrator or says that the chain of narrations are hasan, then the that narrator is a thiqaa rawi ?

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Assalamoalaikum
Dear bro..i am putting ur works on a new blog we are starting. Hope u donot mind

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah

Indeed, even if the number of mu'addilûn is more, the majority of 'Ulama still give priority to jarh.Sh Zubair Ali Zai says that if a narrator is mukhtalaf feeh, the preference is always given to the majority of the imams, whether it is jarah or ta'deel, provided both are mufassar.
To illustrate. If a narrator says about another: haddathani al-thiqa without mentioning the name of the creditee, there is no ta'dil actually. A narrator might be thiqa to a group of 'Ulama, but not to others.
Imams Malik and Shafa'i do that, correct? But both are imams of Ahlul hadith, so u donot have to be partisan to give weight to their accredition. What about some imams saying "da'eefun 'indahum" (weak in their opinion), where as 'they' is unknown. I think Al-Hakim says that alot, or sometimes 'Da'eefun 'inda ahlul hadith', which is more specific. Are both statements equivalent, as they seem so

[Abu_Abdallah]

Sh Zubair Ali Zai says that if a narrator is mukhtalaf feeh, the preference is always given to the majority of the imams, whether it is jarah or ta'deel, provided both are mufassar.

This is something the scholars differed about. Actually, al-Khatib and others have stated that the number or mu'addilun does not matter. One jarh mufassar may be preferred, above the tawthiq of many. And in the works they say: this is the majority view.

Of course, others have disagreed. Shaykh al-Albani does give more weight to the view that tries to balance, taking all verdicts into consideration and the number of verdicts. Hafidh Ibn Hajar is a salaf for this applied method, who did it alot. So if 5 say he's thiqa or 'adil, and one mentions a Jarh that is detailed, the principle fails; the Hafidh gives then a shâmil and 'âdil verdict, which tends to favor the narrator.

This principle is the most important of all, and the disagreement concerning its application is known. I've mentioned it first, since it is a famous one and for the beginner it can cause confusion. I hope you and others could shed light on it. Insha'Allah I will do so too.

[Adeel]

Assalam O Alaikum

The practise of Haafidh confuses me sometimes! But I think the problem is people do not understand Haafidh's terminoligies! Anyways, Haafidh combines the words of scholars where they can be combined! e.g if some imam of jarah and tadil says that X is a liar! Here you obviously cannot combine the words if there is a contradiction on his adalah! What I think would be good if somebody could explain the terminoligies of Haafidh!

Jazak Allah

[Abu_Abdallah]

Q#1: plz explain jarah mufassar. what words are considered to be jarh mufassar. specially if a jarih who came after the death of a narrator do jarh ?

In the Shifâ' al-'Alil, which I consider the best book on the meanings of al-Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil, there is a chapter which deals with the Jarh that is mujmal (i.e. general) and the Jarh that is mufassar (i.e. explained or detailed). Therein he says that:

Jarh is mufassiran if the criticism is levelled against the hifdh (i.e. memorization, preservation) or the 'adala (i.e. trustworthiness, uprightness) of the narrator.

Examples are:

Say' al-hifdh, i.e. bad memory; Laysa bi-hâfidh, i.e. is not a preserver (or memorizer); Laysa bi-mujawwid, i.e. he is not so good; Laysa min ahl al-hifdh wa'l-itqân, i.e. is not from the people of memorization and exactitude; Fulân munkar al-hadith, i.e. so-and-so is rejected in narration; Fulân mudtarib, i.e. so-and-so is confused in narrating; Fulân ikhtalat, i.e. so-and-so mixed up in (later) life; Fulân yuhim, i.e. so-and-so fancies (or makes mistakes) and does not know / or so-and-so makes mistakes and does not understand; Fulân yuhim fi al-shay' ba'd shay', i.e. so-and-so fancies a thing after a thing; Fulân lahu ashyâ' lâ yutâbi' 'alayhâ, i.e. so-and-so has narrations none following them ;Fulân yukhâlif fi hadithih, i.e. so-and-so opposes [others] in his narration; Fulân fâsiq, i.e. so-and-so is unrighteous; Fulân mutahham bi'l-kidhb, i.e. so-and-so is accused of lying; Ramâ-h fulân bi'l-kidhb aw al-wad', i.e. so-and-so is accused of lying and fabrication; Fulân waddâ', i.e. so-and-so is a fabricator of narrations; Kadhdhâb, i.e. a liar; Fulân lam yakun sadûq 'indahum, i.e. so-and-so is not consider trusty with them, etc.
Yusraq al-hadith, i.e. steals narrations (or transmits narratiosn he does not posses), etcetera.

All of these is Jarh mufassar, not Jarh mujmal.

As for the Jarh mujmal, i.e. the general discrediting which is different from the explained or detailed criticism, these are verdicts like:

Fulân layyin, fulân du''if, fulân laysa bi-qawi or laysa bi-qawi or laysa bi-dhâk, fulân ghair mardhi, fihi shay', fulân laysa min ahl al-hadith, etc. Also verdicts as: fulân mutakallim fih, lâ yuhtaj bih, saqîm, ghair maqbul, lâ shay', dhâhib al-hadith, lâ yu'tabir bih, or he is deserved to be left, or his narrations are to be buried, or he deserves to be thrown into a well, etc.

The famous declarations such as: he is weak (da'if), or sakatû 'anhu, or fihi nazr (whether from al-Bukhari or another), are also jarh mujmal; they are not mufassar, unless one of these verdicts is accompanied with explanation. Thus, if someone says: Da'if, he is not followed up in narrations, it is clear that this is Jarh mufassar. Or if it is said: He is not used, cause he has many manâkir.

Importance should be drawn that the verdicts that are Jarh mufassar can be harsh verdicts (jarh shadid) or mild ones (jarh khafif). Of course, the same can count for Jarh mujmal.

Some might think that Jarh mujmal is mild, but that does not have to be; take the verdict of 'they are silent about him' of al-Bukhari. This is a pretty harsh verdict, yet general. The same counts for 'Munkar al-Hadith', which is with al-Bukhari a very harsh jarh but with others not.

This so far the examples of Jarh mufassar and Jarh mujmal.

As for the second thing you mentioned, i.e. how does Jarh mufassar function in relation with a critic who is a contemporary of the majrûh or came afterwards.

What I learned is that critics of narrators, especially the later Huffâdh such as al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar to name examples, give some regard to the relationship of the authority who criticizes and the one criticized:

- if Ahmad, Ibn Ma'in and their likes criticize a narrator they lived with or saw, or who were near their time, they might give their opinions more weight then later critics such as al-'Uqayli, Ibn Hibbân and their likes;

- the tarjih they apply (i.e. the overruling of one opinion over another) can only take place if there is of course a difference of opinion; for example, if some later scholars declare a narrator Da'if when someone earlier found him la ba'sa bih.

Jarh mufassar is usually done if the jârih is a witness or in a position to really explain the Jarh, i.e. based upon the narrations he possesses. Scholars have, for example, made tarjih of later opinions that were critical of certain transmitters. They have overruled them with earlier, contemporary opinions.

For example: al-Bukhari has teachers that have been criticized, yet he declared them to be reliable and made use of their narrations or draw on them; critics who came after have criticzed them, yet their criticism was overruled incl. their explanation based upon the fact that al-Bukhari met and saw them and therefore in a better position to judge them. Surprisely, brother Abu Alqama mention Nu'aym b. Hammad's case which is actually a good example.

If you look into Ibn 'Adi's Kamil you'll find lots of jarh mufassar, yet critics who came later as the authors who drew upon the Tahdhib al-Kamal: al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan and the Ma'rifat al-Ruwat al-mutakallim fihum, Ibn Hajar in the Lisan and elsewhere, ruled differently. Apparently, they disregarded some of the explained or detailed criticism in favor of other evidence and the authority of earlier scholars.

If this is what you were asking about?

Q#2: i read that if a muhaddith authenticates two chain of narrations in which A is a narrator or says that the chain of narrations are hasan, then the that narrator is a thiqaa rawi ?

I dont understand this, I'm afraid.But I'll try..

Do you mean that one Muhaddith, for example al-Dhahabi, authenticates two chains (i.e. all the men are reliable, it is connected and free of hidden flaws, and declared: sahih al-isnad?).

And one narrator, for example Muhammad b. Ishaq, functions as a transmitter of both chains, then the narrator becomes Thiqa?

I've never saw it like this. I just mention so.

But I do know that al-Dhahabi and others have authenticated reports or narrations, i.e. declared them Sahih, while one narrator - Ibn Ishaq particularly - is a transmitter. Surely, he is Saduq or Thiqa in himself, i.e. a trusty man. Yet, this has to do with his 'adâla as for his hifdh or dabt then he has been weakened. And none of the later scholars declare him Thiqa as from the highest marâtib of reliability, even if someone declares one, two in fact a dozen narrations of his Sahih or Hasan.

As for declaring a chain specifically sahih, this implies a verdict on the men who are part of the chain. In this case, one is judging the narrators alone and not the matn. So if this is said, I believe, the spokesman is declaring the narrators reliable.

[This stands in opposite of a verdict on the Hadith or its Matn: here the chain is of no concern, if there functions in the chain obvious weak transmitters]

But a sahih chain, i.e. all narrators are reliable, does not imply that each and every narrator is Thiqa. He might be of a lesser degree: saduq, la ba'sa bih, laysa bih ba's, etc. and these are not Thiqât.

Thiqat is of the 3rd level of reliable narrators, in the scheme of Hafidh Ibn Hajar.

Saduq (without additional wording), la ba'sa bih etc. is of the 4th level of reliable narrators, in the same scheme of Hafidh Ibn Hajar.

al-Dhahabi said in al-Mûqiza:

"Whom the Shaykhân (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim) derived (or extracted) [narrators] of, are two parts:

First of the two: what is made use (ihtijâj) of in the main sources (usûl, i.e. the main texts).

Second of the two: what is derived from him to follow up (mutâbi'a), to wtness (shâhada) or consider (i'tibâr) by.

As from what he made use of, or one of the two, and he has not been declared reliable or disparaged, then he is Thiqat and his hadith is strong."

This statement goes so far to imply that a 'unknown' narrator, from the Usul of al-Bukhari or Muslim, is Thiqat even though none might have declared him so. This, however, does not imply that the narrator is known and a Thiqat person in himself.

In the Sahihayn, to elucidate this, are narrators who are Majhul al-'ain. Yet, scholars haven't weakened these reports or declared the chains unsound. They have called the reports and the chains Sahih. But, these people are unknown. They arent called Thiqat or even Da'if. There is simply no verdict on them, as such.

But still: the chain might be judged sahih, and even al-Dhahabi and others might refer to them as Thiqât (as argued above). This does not make the narrator, in himself, Thiqa. You are Thiqa if declared so by a critic thru knowledge.

And even if you are called Thiqa, if based upon additional circumstantial evidence such as being part of a select group of narrators (i.e. the Usul narrators of al-Bukhari), you might be not in other chains.

Also, many of the mukhtalif fih narrators which fall outside Ibn Hajar's 3rd and 4th level of reliable narrators can be found in the Sahihayn, in the usûl:

The sadûqin [with add] in the Taqrib of the Hafidh are from the 5th level of reliable narrators.

To name a few narrators: Musa b. Ya'qub al-Zam'i, Abu Bakr al-Nahshali, Salim b. Nuh al-'Attar.

These three, and more, have narrated reports that al-Dhahabi authenticated by calling them Hasan or Salih al-Hadith. In fact, these narrators have been even called Thiqât in the intro of his Ma'rifat-book. Yet, they are not so in themselves all. Some are and some not.

Fulayh b. Sulayman, a famous narrator, is sadûq kathir al-khata' accord. to Ibn Hajar, yet al-Bukhari used him alot.

al-Dhahabi, or Ibn Hajar or any other, might say for each and every chain wherein he functions as a transmitter: the chain is sahih. Yet, this does not imply that Fulayh is from the highest narrators, i.e. the 2nd or 3rd category.

In fact, accord. to a researcher, some 244 narrators fall in the 5th level of reliable narrators!

If in each and every chain one such narrator functions, and a later scholar says: the hadith has a sahih chain, or something alike (because al-Bukhari narrates it in the Sahih), this does not make all these 244 of the 4th level let alone of the 3rd or 2nd (i.e. the thiqât)!

The person might be reliable, but this does not raise him to the Thiqât.

So if a scholar says about some chains: they are Sahih, this can imply that all narrators are Thiqât but it can also imply they are Saduqs with fancies, or the ok-narrators or the Hafidh narrator (who is Thiqat).

What is disturbing, I notice, is that whence a scholar of late says about a narration: Sahih. Or about its chain: Sahih. People bring another chain and try to prove its reliability based upon analogy. For example: they might see Ibn Ishaq function as a narrator in a chain with text, and a Hafidh might declare the narration Sahih and even the chain too, others then use this as a means to strenghten other narrations wherein Ibn Ishaq functions when the text may be flawed or worse rejected. Indeed, without regard to the text at all the chain may be weakened because of Ibn Ishaq while elsewhere he might be lifted because of some other qarina within the chain itself.

One should be careful in basing verdicts on men thru verdicts about other chains, let alone narrations. This is running backwards. Chains should be judged based upon the narrator's judgement, not the way around. If Ibn Ishaq is weakened, yet declared Saduq in the Taqrib and the Ma'rifah, from these perspectived one should judge another chain and its text; not because a narration and its chain has been called Sahih, and he 'accidently' functions therein, thus Ibn Ishaq is called Thiqa or something else.

wa-Allahu A'lam

[Abu_Abdallah]

Assalam O Alaikum

The practise of Haafidh confuses me sometimes! But I think the problem is people do not understand Haafidh's terminoligies! Anyways, Haafidh combines the words of scholars where they can be combined! e.g if some imam of jarah and tadil says that X is a liar! Here you obviously cannot combine the words if there is a contradiction on his adalah! What I think would be good if somebody could explain the terminoligies of Haafidh!

Jazak Allah

Hafidh Ibn Hajar divided the narrators of the famous books into 12 levels or categories:

1. The first he devoted to the Sahaba.

2. The second level he devoted to the 'Ulama of Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil, the Imams of Naqd al-Rijâl etc. and they are called:

"The most trusty of people" "Thiqa Thiqa" "Thiqa Thabt" etc.

3. The third level are those narrators about whom the second level scholars, i.e. the critics of Hadith narrators and the collectors, agree upon their reliability (tawthiq). The Hafidh calls them:

"Thiqa" once, "Hujjah" "Hafidh" etc.

4. The fourth level consist of narrators about whom the critics of Hadith narrators agree mostly about their reliability, yet there exist some small difference of opinion. The Hafidh lowers them, because of this, to this level and describes them as:

"Sadûq" "He is ok" "Nothing is wrong with him"

5. The fifth level. The scholars differ about the narrator: some declare him trustworthy while another disparages him, and the difference between the two is clearly present and to be considered upon for scrutiny. He calls them:

"Saduq yuhim" "Saduq, he has fancies" "Saduq he makes mistakes" "Saduq he makes a lot of mistakes" etc.

6. The sixth level consist of narrators who have little narrations. There is no Jarh or Ta'dil about them. The Hafidh names them:

"Maqbûl"

7. The sevent level are the narrators who are 'covered', lit. mastûr. The mastur is the one who is unknown, but from him at least two transmitters narrate from; his ambiguity is thus lifted up a little bit. The majhul is unknown, i.e. only one narrates from him and there is no Jarh or Ta'dil. See level nine for the Majhul.

8. The eighth level. They are the Du'afa, sing. Da'if. The Hafidh puts them in this level when there is jarh against them, either concerning their character or competence.

9. The nineth level is the:

"Majhul"

He is the unknown. The 2nd level scholars haven't declared this one thiqa (or da'if).

10. The tenth level consist of narrators who have been criticized harshly, until they have been warned against of writing from them. The Hafidh calls them:

"Da'if jiddan" "Sâqit" "Matruk"

11. The elevent level. The Hafidh singles the accused ones, i.e. accused of lying of fabricating or making up.

12. The final level are, simply those called Kadhdhâbin or fabricators.

This is in short. To explain in detail each level, this cost time. Insha'allah, maybe some other day.

[justabro]

In the Shifâ' al-'Alil, which I consider the best book on the meanings of al-Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil,

Sh. Muqbil wrote an introduction for Shifa' al-`Alil in which he stated that this book was so excellent that there was no room for anyone to come write another on the same subject.

What is disturbing, I notice, is that whence a scholar of late says about a narration: Sahih. Or about its chain: Sahih. People bring another chain and try to prove its reliability based upon analogy. For example: they might see Ibn Ishaq function as a narrator in a chain with text, and a Hafidh might declare the narration Sahih and even the chain too, others then use this as a means to strenghten other narrations wherein Ibn Ishaq functions when the text may be flawed or worse rejected. Indeed, without regard to the text at all the chain may be weakened because of Ibn Ishaq while elsewhere he might be lifted because of some other qarina within the chain itself.

An excellent observation

[Abu_Abdallah]

Sh. Muqbil wrote an introduction for Shifa' al-`Alil in which he stated that this book was so excellent that there was no room for anyone to come write another on the same subject.

Never noticed this remark of the Shaykh, rahimahullah. There are al-Hamdulillah many studies on Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil, but this work is one of the most comprehensive.

You have also a work by Al-Siddiq Bashir Nasr, Dawâbit al-Riwaya 'inda al-Muhaddithin, which is good and the work of al-A'zami entitled Dirasat fi al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil, and Abu Lubaba's work..

[nobody]

bismillah

jazakAllahu khairan for your detailed response. may Allah put barakah in your 'ilm. i am sorry for not phrasing my questions correctly.


I dont understand this, I'm afraid.But I'll try..

Do you mean that one Muhaddith, for example al-Dhahabi, authenticates two chains (i.e. all the men are reliable, it is connected and free of hidden flaws, and declared: sahih al-isnad?).

And one narrator, for example Muhammad b. Ishaq, functions as a transmitter of both chains, then the narrator becomes Thiqa?

I've never saw it like this. I just mention so.

i had forgotten this rule. i wanted to ask about this rule: "if a majhool rawi is a narrator in two chains authenticated by (one or more than one) muhaddith then he does not remain unknown" ? hope that i am correct this time. this i read about Mahmood bin ishaq al khuzai and not muhammad bin ishaq bin yesar alkufi. the central narrator of both juz from imam bukhari. ibn hajr declared a chain hasan in which he is a rawi.

what you said about the classes of narrations in sahihain (Usul and mutabi'a) i want to ask the following:

1) is this rule of tasheeh is only applied on the narrations used as witness in the two sahihs or it is applied to every work ? i think that it is applied to every book of hadeeth then what is special with the narrations of bukhari and muslim ?

2) is this rule is applied to the ruwaat who are unknown only or is applied generally ? Shaykh zubair 'ali zai hafizahullah wrote several pages about abu bakr bin 'ayyash, a narrator of sahih bukhari. he did mistakes in narrating hadeeth according dhahabi rahimahullah. zubair wanted to weaken a narration of abu bakr in tahawi. though he proved that every marfu' hadeeth in which abu bakr functions as a narrator also had another chain with a narrator of better precision.

these are very important points.


As for declaring a chain specifically sahih, this implies a verdict on the men who are part of the chain. In this case, one is judging the narrators alone and not the matn. So if this is said, I believe, the spokesman is declaring the narrators reliable.

[This stands in opposite of a verdict on the Hadith or its Matn: here the chain is of no concern, if there functions in the chain obvious weak transmitters]


One should be careful in basing verdicts on men thru verdicts about other chains, let alone narrations. This is running backwards. Chains should be judged based upon the narrator's judgement, not the way around. If Ibn Ishaq is weakened, yet declared Saduq in the Taqrib and the Ma'rifah, from these perspectived one should judge another chain and its text; not because a narration and its chain has been called Sahih, and he 'accidently' functions therein, thus Ibn Ishaq is called Thiqa or something else.

wa-Allahu A'lam

[Abu_Abdallah]

i had forgotten this rule. i wanted to ask about this rule: "if a majhool rawi is a narrator in two chains authenticated by (one or more than one) muhaddith then he does not remain unknown" ?

Ibn Kathir said (Ba'ith al-Hathith p.137-138):

"Issue: The unknown [narrator] in terms of reliability ('adala), openly and secretly, his transmission is not accepted with the majority (al-jamâhir). And whose reliability ('adala) is unknown secretly, though he is reliable ('adl) in appearance (fi al-dhâhir) and he is [called] the mastûr, then some of the Shafi'ites have spoken in approval (qubul) of him. Sulaym b. Ayyub, the jurist, choosed that and Ibn al-Salah agreed with him. I have written in research of that in the prefaces; and Allah Knows best.

As for the obscure [narrator], the one who is not named or is named but is not known particularly (i.e. the majhul al-'ayn), then this is from the one whose transmission is not accepted by anyone of our. However, if he (i.e. the narrator) is from the era of the Followers and the generations witnessed for [by the Prophet] in terms of goodness, then he is to be used with his transmission in its right places and times. And in the Musnad of the Imam Ahmad and of others this has occurred in this respect alot; and Allah Knows best.

al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and other then him said: The jahâla from a narrator is lifted up thru knowledge of scholars of him, or thru the transmission of two reliable narrators ('adlayn) from him.

al-Khatib said: The ruling of reliability ('adala) is not affirmed for him by their narrating from him.

In this manner Ibn Hibban and other then him traversed, that is ruling with reliability (al-'adala) on them on the basis of only this condition; and Allah Knows best.."

Ibn al-Salah recorded (Muqaddimah p. 223-224):

"Some of our Imams said: the mastûr (lit. covered up) is the one who is reliable ('adl) in the apparent (fi al-dhâhir), but whose reliability ('adâla) innerly is not known.."

"The third: the majhûl al-'ayn. Those who accept the transmission of the majhûl al-'adala, are those who do not accept the transmission of the majhûl al-'ayn. And those who narrate from him are two reliable narrators ('adlân) who have seen him, then this jahâla of him has been lifted up.."

Ibn al-Qatan al-Fasi said in al-Wahm wa'l-Ihâm (Manhaj Dirâsat al-Asânid p.39):

"The mastûr narrators: they are the one whom from two or more narrate, at the same time one does not know their conditions."

Ibn Hajar said (idem.):

"If two narrate from him, or more, and he is not declared trustworthy, then he is majhûl al-hâl and he is [called] al-mastûr."

So in short, and I've seen more but left it untranslated, there are different types of unknown narrators. The majhul (lit. unknown) can be:

- majhul al-'ayn = the narrator who is unknown to the scholars, nor his narrations, except via one person; the more people narrate from him, at least two upright narrators, his jahâla is lifted up; if just one leading critic does tazkiyyah of him, he is lifted from the jahalat al-'ayn (refer to Tadrib al-Rawi p.211); note: though his jahâla may be lifted up, this does not imply the affirmation of 'adâla as al-Khatib stated

- majhul al-hâl / mastûr = the narrator who is known, even possibly known may more then two persons; he is in his appearance 'adl, i.e. reliable, however there has not come from the critics any jarh or ta'dil; this is also called the mastûr

Now, if two narrators transmit from an unknown and the two are reliable narrators, then the 'unknown' becomes mastûr or majhul al-hâl. This has to do with the direct narrators, not later ones.

If a Muhaddith, i.e. a later one, declares two chains authentic, again, this says something about the chains. Their ruling on the chains, incl. the majhul narrator in it, has no direct baring on the narrator himself in other chains. Chains declared authentic or hadiths declared authentic accompanied with chains containing 'unknown', this says something about the chain or the hadith; not perse about the narrator. The ruling one has to seek is:

What is the rule upon a narrator who is: majhul al-hal or mastur?

We know who the majhul al-hal is or the mastur, as Ibn al-Qatan and the Hafidh succinctly said. There are three opinions on the narration of the mastur:

1) It is accepted unconditionally (al-Nawawi supports this among others)

2) Its is rejected unconditionally (the majority opinion)

3) Tawaqquf, i.e. withholding with rejection or acceptance, until the condition is clarified (Ibn Hajar supports this)

Ibn Hajar says (in the Nukat p.80):

"Verily, the majority of the Muhaddithin do not accept the transmission of the mastur and he is part of the majhul. So his transmission, isolated, is not a proof with them. Rather, it is used by some of them with [certain] conditions (shurût) which al-Tirmidhi has mentioned."

And this, i.e. the support of a narration from a mastur, is done only with the existence of these conditions. For example: there is a 'follow up' to the narration, or something similar is narrated etc. al-Tirmidhi authenticated narrations as these, i.e. a narration from a mastur yet having certain conditions that raises the narration to acceptance.

In fact, al-Tirmidhi even authenticated (lit. said: hasan sahih) a narration of a majhul al-hal / mastur with no mutabi' or shâhid at all:

The narration (al-Tirmidhi no.3779) from Hani b. Hani al-Hamadani al-Kufi from 'Ali b. Abi Talib about 'Ammar b. Yasir, is a narration from a Majhul al-'Ayn.

Only Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i narrates from Hani.

The Hafidh Ibn Hajar ruled him: Mastur.

This Hani is the only one who narrated the hadith in the Manakib of 'Ammar, for this reason al-Bazzar said: We do not know who narrated it from 'Ali except Hani b. Hani.

There is no follow-up or witnessing report. This hadith is then, narrated by a mastur, and it has nothing extra (i.e. it lacks conditions to strenghten it).

Even though, it has been narrated by the Ashab al-Sihâh (i.e. the authors of the Sahih-books: Ibn Hibban, al-Hakim and Diya al-Din, excluding: al-Bukhari and Muslim).

al-Hakim authenticated it, al-Dhahabi agreed with its authentication.

al-Tirmidhi, as preceded, said: Hasan Sahih.

So apparently, yes there are Muhaddithun who authenticated narrations of unknown (i.e. majhul al-hal / mastur). But of course, as we've already said about one of the three groups.

Other examples, all of al-Dhahabi wherein he agrees with al-Hakim, are the masturin:

Abu Bakr b. Ubaydallah b. Anas,
Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Karima (the father of Isma'il al-Suddi),
al-Muthanna b. Abd al-Rahman,

to name a few.

Does this mean that every narration of the mastur is authenticated? No, not at all. Ibn Hajar himself says (Nukat p.402):

"One does not direct unrestrictedly agreement of the use (ihtijâj) of it (i.e. the narration of the mastur), entirely; nor the call of [absolute] authenticity (sihhat) in it if it has come from [several] routes."

So to come back on your question:

If a majhul [al-hal or mastur] is a narrator in two chains. And these two chains have been authenticated by one or more than one Muhaddith. Does the narrator remain majhul?

The narrator always keeps his condition, whatever the ruling that might exist on the chain or the narration (incl. chain) as a whole. He keeps in a state of jahâla, except that he might rise from:

Jahalat al-'ayn to jahâlat al-hâl, i.e. the mastûr condition: meaning that he is apparently reliable, but innerly not; but this can only occur if the narrator is used as authority by others, i.e. reliable narrators who took from him directly and not what later scholars might have taken from him or said about a chain.

So is the narrator 'known', i.e. are there two who narrated from him?

There is only one exception, very important to consider:

Certain scholars have made conditions upon their works of Hadith, i.e. the narrators they relied upon in making up a Jami', Sunan or Musnad collection.

al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Khuzaymah for example - three authors of Sahih-books - have stated certain conditions about the narrators they utilized. Indeed, about al-Bukhari's men as well as Muslim's scholars have given them some status; particularly some of the Usul-narrators, i.e. the transmitters known for Ihtijaj.

Hafidh Ibn Hajar said about the narrators of the Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadiy al-Sari p.384):

"Jahâlat al-hâl is drived off from the entirety of [the narrators] extracted of them in the Sahih, for a condition of the Sahih is that the narrator must be known as being reliable (ma'rufan bi'l-'adâlat). So whoever asserts that anyone of them is Majhul al-hâl, then he has contented the author in his claim that he (i.e. narrator) is known [by 'adala]."

So if al-Bukhari, and he is who he is, stated about his narrators that they are known, reliable, then they are as such. Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So we can conclude that:

Every narrator has his condition. The status of a narrator's condition is based upon rules or conditions set up by the Nuqqâd. If a narrator is called majhul, he is so; if he is raised from a certain Jahâla, that can only be as opinioned by scholars and not based upon an analogy or theory unpreceded by the people of knowledge.

The Majhulin are divided into certain types of unknown narrators: the majhul al-'ayn is the least known; the majhul al-hal or mastur is the one who is also unknown, yet thru his students (at least two) he is raised above the weakest form of Jahâla. Being raised from jahâlat al-'ayn to jahâlat al-hâl is not a rise to 'adâla, at all.

As far as I know, a judgement on a chain says something about the chain and not per definition about the narrators individually. In fact, scholars pay special attention to the difference of the ruling about a chain, a narration's text, a narration as a whole, and particularly a narrator alone.

Of all majahil / masturin the once in al-Bukhari's work, but also Muslim's and some might say other works (but keep up: al-Bukhari and Muslim!), even judged by a certain Jahâla they are of a different category. How far this concerns the same narrators in other works, I don't know; but Ibn Hajar's point (and the agreement of the Umma of the Sahihayn) elevates the contents of these books, and thus the rijal of al-Bukhari.

what you said about the classes of narrations in sahihain (Usul and mutabi'a) i want to ask the following:

1) is this rule of tasheeh is only applied on the narrations used as witness in the two sahihs or it is applied to every work ? i think that it is applied to every book of hadeeth then what is special with the narrations of bukhari and muslim ?

The narrators of al-Bukhari and Muslim are special, because of certain conditions. Scholars enlisted them, and these are based on knowledge and trust.

- It is mentioned, as cited above, that al-Bukhari made a condition that he narrates only from reliable narrators who are known. Thus, even if there are one, two or three Majhul al-'Ayn narrators; some might disagree with the contenter and argue that al-Bukhari knew them enough.

Ibn Khuzaymah, a contemporair of al-Bukhari, stated that in his book al-Sahih he only narrates from reliable narrators all well-linked; when some people argued for the weakness of a narration's chain in a famous debate, a Hafidh argued and refuted their contention by drawing attention to Ibn Khuzaymah's claim that he took care in what he stipulated (as a condition, i.e. shart) before. He said: Ibn Khuzaymah's knowledge is proof against those who don't have that knowledge. al-Bukhari's case can argued also as such.

- It is mentioned by the people of knowledge that the narrators of al-Bukhari (and Muslim) have 'reached passing the bridge', i.e they are 'immune' of tajrih that weakens their narration. This is based upon knowledge too, i.e. experienced knowledge.

al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar are from the Ahl al-Istiqra' (al-tâm). al-Dhahabi said (al-Muqiza p.80):

"Everyone who has been extracted [from the narrators] in the Sahihayn, then he skipped the bridge. One can not turn away from them except by some clear evidence."

Abu'l-Hasan b. al-Mufaddal al-Maqdisi, similarly said about the narrators of the Sahihayn (al-Iqtirâh p.327):

"..this one has passed the bridge"

the author of al-Iqtirâh, Ibn Daqiq al-'Id the Hafidh, explained it saying:

"He means by that: He pays no heed to what is said [in criticism] about them. This is what he believes and this is [also] our opinion."

- The two books have been received well. Incl. the narrators. For this reason scholars afterwards tried to follow the conditions (shurut) of the two, espec. of al-Bukhari. al-Hakim composed the Mustadrak consequently.

These, and many other reasons, have raised the narrators of al-Bukhari, Muslim.

One, however, must not forget that criticism on narrators is a must. al-Bukhari's Sahih or Muslims or anyone's else is subject to that. So there may be some weak narrators, indeed even weak reports in the Sahihayn. Scholars have differed over this.

wa-Allahu A'lam.

[nobody]

"The third: the majhûl al-'ayn. Those who accept the transmission of the majhûl al-'adala, are those who do not accept the transmission of the majhûl al-'ayn. And those who narrate from him are two reliable narrators ('adlân) who have seen him, then this jahâla of him has been lifted up.."

Ibn al-Qatan al-Fasi said in al-Wahm wa'l-Ihâm (Manhaj Dirâsat al-Asânid p.39):

"The mastûr narrators: they are the one whom from two or more narrate, at the same time one does not know their conditions."

Ibn Hajar said (idem.):

"If two narrate from him, or more, and he is not declared trustworthy, then he is majhûl al-hâl and he is [called] al-mastûr."

my bad. this i was looking for. once again jk for your response. there are many points of benefit in it.

[Abu Maryam PK]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Abu Maryam PK]

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

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


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



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

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

Abu Maryam:
Similarly, in the narrative on Al-Khalil bin Murrah, it is mentioned that

الخليل بن مرة الضبعى البصري.
كان من الصالحين.
قال أبو زرعة: شيخ صالح.
وقال البخاري: منكر الحديث.
وقال أبو حاتم: ليس بقوى.
So Abu Zur’ah Al-Raazi said he is a Salih Shaikh and others also testified to his piety, but when compared to what the other imams said it is obvious that the goodness is with respect to his character and peity and not his ability to narrate accurately (Meezan by Al-Dhahbi v 1 p 667)

Similarly in the narrative on Abu ‘Aith, ‘Ufair bin Mi’daan [ibid v3 p83]

عفير بن معدان الحمصى المؤذن، أبو عائذ.
قال أبو داود: شيخ صالح ضعيف الحديث.
وقال أبو حاتم: يكثر عن سليم، عن أبي أمامة بما لا أصل له.
وقال يحيى: ليس بشئ.
وقال - مرة: ليس بثقة.
وقال أحمد: منكر الحديث، ضعيف.
Here again, Abu Dawood speaks about the narrator, describes him as Salih Shaikh, but follows up by saying that he is Da’if al-hadith, hence clarifying that a narrator maybe weak despite being pious (or an Imam from among the Imam of Muslims).

The converse is also true. See for example:


وقال حنبل بن إسحاق: سمعت أبا عبد الله يقول: يحيى بن إسحاق أبو زكريا السيلحيني، شيخ صالح ثقة، سمع من الشماميين، ومن ابن لهيعة، وهو صدوق. ((تاريخ بغداد)) 14/158.

Here Imam Ahmad has described Yahya b Ishaq as a salih sheikh but despite that, he follows that by defining him as thiqa (trustworthy). [Tarikh Baghdad by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi v14 p158]

This again underscores the importance of knowing the difference between similar terminologies. Here we can see that one terminology means commending a narrator in his ‘adala (general uprightness) and the other in his dhabt (ability to transmit correctly a narration).

Up next: Difference between the ‘ghareeb’ of Al-Zaila’ee and Al-Nawawi and other traditionalists.

[Abu_Abdallah]

JazakAllah brother Abu Maryam!

Maybe you could enlighten us also with something on the rules/regulations that govern strengthening [weak] narrations (taqwiyat al-hadith) by mutabi'at etc. to become hasan [li-ghairih), for this is something people come up with mixed up things and confusions..

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Wa iyyakum khairal jaza, ya aba abdillah.
I would, by my research in that area is far from over. Infact when i was teaching some friends mustallah, i gave them my old opinion on hasan lighairihi, but later i took it back and told them we would revisit the chapter afterwards. Once i am able to come arrive at a conclusion i would post it here and multaqa insha'Allah.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
4) The difference between حديث صحيح ('Authentic hadith') and صحيح الاسناد ('authentic chain')


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

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

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

Hence a chain maybe correct, but still if it has some defect or a muhaddith is unsure of its authenticity, he would only affirms its chain, which does not necessitate authentication of the hadith itself.
[B]
[adapted from: Mauqif Abil Hasan min Akhbaar Al-Ahaad by Sh Rabi bin Hadi Al-Madkhali]

[Abu_Abdallah]

my bad. this i was looking for. once again jk for your response. there are many points of benefit in it.

Want to add something, but this is something I see as more sound.

That is: there is no necessity to have to reliable narrators narrating from a majhul to raise him up; if a hadith-master, reliable and precise, narrates from such a 'unknown', this is sufficient; there is then no need to have two thiqât to relate from him.

Som have supported this, and I think that is the most sound opinion. I mean, if a man like al-Zuhri, Malik and its likes narrate from an 'unknown', you dont really need corroboration to give some credit to the narrator.

This is so, since Huffâdh like them are enough in eliminating the doubt; an addition narrator as a witness thus not change this. If a Hafidh might narrate from weak narrators too, occasionally, then one should think twice. But surprisely, the part where I read about this this isn't mentioned.

If al-Thawri, who is a great Hafidh, thabt, narrates, he sometimes does narrate from people who are weak or less accurate. So him narrating alone from a majhul is different that Malik narrating from a Majhul. Malik, al-Zuhri, Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani and their likes are a class whose authorities - even if they are unknown - are not a bad as in other cases.

So, what I want to add, is that: the rule that two thiqât must narrate from a narrator to lift him up from majhul al-'ayn to majhul al-hal/mastur, is not needed according to a view. Men like Malik, al-Zuhri and others narrating from a man only they narrate from is enough..

wa-Allahu A'lam.

[ali]

JazakAllah brother Abu Maryam!

Maybe you could enlighten us also with something on the rules/regulations that govern strengthening [weak] narrations (taqwiyat al-hadith) by mutabi'at etc. to become hasan [li-ghairih), for this is something people come up with mixed up things and confusions..

this is part of the translation of ahmad shaakir's ba'ith al-hatheeth
this was elaborated on by dkh

ISSUE: The mubtadi`, if his bid`ah is kufr, then there is no confusion over rejecting his narrations.
When it is not kufr, then if he allows lying, his narrations are also rejected. If he does not allow lying, then is he acceptable or not? Or is there a difference between his being a caller or not being a caller?
Regarding this, there is an early and a present-day debate. Most distinguish between the caller and one who is not a caller.

This has been mentioned in a quote from ash-Shaafi`i – and Ibn Hibbaan mentioned that there was a consensus about it, he said: “It is not allowed to use him (meaning the mubtadi` who calls to his bid`ah) as evidence with our great Imaams, and I do not know any disagreement among them about it.”
Ibn as-Salaah said: (`Uloom al-Hadeeth p. 104) “And this is the most just of opinions and the best of them, [[Al-Albaani says: “Rather it is the less-preferred view, as comes shortly from Ibn Katheer.”]], and the opinion of absolute rejection is far off, far from what is known from the Imaams of hadeeth, for their books are full of narrations from the mubtadi`ah who aren’t callers. In the Two Saheehs are many of their hadeeths, used as witnessing narrations as well as foundational narrations. And Allaah Knows best.”

I say (Ibn Katheer): Ash-Shaafi`i has said: “I accept the witness of the people of desires except for the Khattaabiyyah from the Raafidhah, because they see it permissable to bear witness to falsehood for those that agree with them.”

So in this quote, ash-Shaafi`i did not make a distinction between the callers and others.
Also, what is the difference in meaning between them? While here is al-Bukhaari who reported from ‘Imraan bin Hittaan al-Khaariji, the one who praised ‘Abdur Rahmaan bin Muljim, ‘Ali’s killer. And he is among the worst of the callers to bid`ah! And Allaah Knows best.

[Ahmad Shaakir said here: “Regarding the people of bid`ah and desires, if their bid`ah is from that which deserves the ruling of ‘kufr’ for the one who holds it, then his narrations are not accepted by consensus, as an-Nawawi mentioned. In at-Tadreeb, as-Suyooti refuted him for claiming consensus, and he quoted another view in which they are accepted absolutely, and another one in which they are accepted if they believe in the prohibition of lying.] Then he quoted from Ibn Hajr (an-Nuzhah) that he said:
[‘And what is correct is that not everyone is rejected because of his bid`ah. This is because every group claims that those that oppose them are mubtadi`ah, and they go even further and make takfeer. So if this is taken absolutely it would necessitate making takfeer of all of the groups. What is relied upon here, is that the one whose narrations are rejected is the one who rejects something mutawaatir from the law which is known from the religion by necessity, or he believes the opposite of it. As for one who is not like this – and it is added to that that he is precise in what he narrates – while having fear and taqwa, then there is nothing to prevent his being acceptable...’
What al-Haafiz said here is the truth that is acceptable upon further examination, and it is supported by correct insight. As for one whose bid`ah does not necessitate kufr, then some do not accept his narrations at all! That is extremism without evidence. Some of them accept his narrations if he does not allow lying to aide his mathhab. This opinion is narrated from ash-Shaafi`i, he said: ‘I accept the witness of the people of desires except for the Khattaabiyyah, because they consider it permissable to bear witness to falsehood for those that agree with them.’ He also said: ‘I have not seen a group of the people of desires that bears witnesses to more falsehood than the Raafidhah.’
As for this restriction – meaning that of not allowing lying – I don’t find any one who claims it. This is a restriction that is known by necessity about every narrator, for we do not accept the narrations of the narrator from whom lying is known of even once, so it is more appropriate that we reject the narration of the one who allows lying or bearing witness to falsehood.
[[Al-Albaani says here: “This response is correct. But perhaps the restriction which is being rejected is not worded like this. Rather, it is worded in a different manner that is not too easy to reject. In al-Musawwadah (p. 264), Shaykh al-Islaam said: ‘Al-Qaadhi mentioned that the narrations of the mubtadi` who calls to his bid`ah are not accepted. He said: “Because if he calls, then he is not safe from making up a hadeeth to support what he calls to!”’ The Shaykh said: “The reasoning that there is some fear of his potential lying is weak. This is because the same could also be feared from those who call to the branch (non-usool) issues in which there is a difference of opinion, as well as those who are not callers, while it is only the caller who deserves to be shunned, so he is not taken as a shaykh in knowledge.”]]
Some of them said: The narrations of the innovator are accepted if he is not a caller to his bid`ah, and they are not accepted if he is a caller. An-Nawawi held this view as being preponderant, and he said: ‘This is the predominant and most just, and the opinion of many, or most.’
Al-Haafiz Abu Ishaaq al-Jawzjaani – the shaykh of Abu Dawood and an-Nasaa’i – has restricted this opinion by accepting such person’s narrations if he does not narrate something that supports his bid`ah.
All of these opinions are speculative, and the true insight into the narrations, is that of truthfulness of the narrator and his trustworthiness, and the one who is thiqah in his religion and conduct.
The one who looks into the affairs of the narrators will see many among the people of bid`ah who are in a position of being thiqah and confident, even if they narrate something what agrees with their opinion. And, he will see many of them that are not thiqah in anything that they narrate. For this reason al-Haafiz ath-Thahabi said in al-Mizaan (vol 1 p. 4) under the biography of Abaan bin Taghlab al-Koofi: ‘A staunch Shii`. But he is sadooq, so for us is his sidq and upon him is his bid`ah.’ And his being thiqah is quoted from Ahmad and others. Then he said:
‘So one might say: How have you called a mubtadi` thiqah, while the limitations of being thiqah are that of `adaalah and precision?! So how can he be ‘adl and he is a practitioner of bid`ah?! The response to him is: Bid`ah is of two types: Minor bid`ah, like being extreme in tashayyu`, or tashayyu` without extremism or fervor – and this is widespread among the taabi`een and those who followed them – along with religion, piety, and sidq – so if the hadeeths of these are rejected, then all of the Prophetic narrations would be lost, and that is a clear evil.
Then there is major bid`ah, like complete Rafdh and extremism in that, and degrading Abu Bakr and `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, and supplicating for this – so this is a type who are not used as evidence, nor are they given respect.
Also, among the likes of these, there are none who are trustworthy nor truthful men, rather lying is their symbol, and taqiyyah and hypocrisy are their clothing, so how can the narrations of one who’s position is like this be accepted?!
No way! So the Shii` who is extreme in the time of the salaf and their culture is the one who talks about and vilifies `Uthmaan, az-Zubayr, Talhah, and Mu`awiyyah. And a group who fought `Ali, may Allah be pleased with (these Companions). While the extreme in our time and our culture is the one who makes takfeer of these great people, and also claim that they are innocent from the Two Shaykhs (meaning Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), so this is one is misguided.’
What ath-Thahabi said – along with what Ibn Hajr said in what has preceded – is the correct opinion which agrees with the principles of narration, and Allaah Knows best.]

[Abu Maryam PK]

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

Hafidh Al-Zaila'ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah, the student of 'Ala Al-Din Ibn Al-Turkamani did the famous search (Takhrij) for the sources of narraions found in the Hanafi fiqh handbook 'Al-Hidaya'. Imam Ibn Hajar summarize his famous 'Al-Diraya fi takhrij ahadith al-hidaya' from Al-Zaila'ee's book called 'Nasb Al-Raya'. However, Al-Zaila'ee has a special usage for the term Ghareeb:
قال الشيخ الألباني في الضعيفة (2/44) عن حديث (من صلى خلف عالم تقي فكأنما صلى خلف نبي):
((لا أصل له، وقد أشار لذلك الحافظ الزيلعي بقوله في نصب الراية (2/26): (غريب)
وهذه عادته في الأحاديث التي تقع في (الهداية) ولا أصل لها،فيما كان من هذا النوع: (غريب).
فاحفظ هذا فإنه اصطلاح خاص به))
Shaikh Albani rahimahullah said in Al-Da'eefah:
Whenever Al-Zaila'ee finds a narration in Al-Hidaya which has no basis (fabricated), then he says 'Ghareeb', which is a terminology used by him exclusively.
(Al-Da'eefah v 2 p 44)

It is well known that ghareeb when used by other scholars is applied to mean the fard (singular) type of ahad reports, i.e. only a single reporter in the chain of narration with none of his contemporaries sharing that narration from a common teacher. This is what Al-Tirmidhi means when he says:
غريب لا نعرفه الا من هذا الوجه
'Ghareeb, we do not know except by this route.' This agrees with the standard dfinition of ghareeb.

PS: A fard hadith may still be authentic. Tawatur and ahad are innovated definitions, in the context they are used today and have nothing to do with authenticity of a narration.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Something really interesting:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?p=763256
Shows that one should not blindly follow without reading every material or most of the material on a topic.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
It seems to be a standard practice to drop the name of a raawi, if he is deemed weak by a muhaddith:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=132970 (http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=132970)
can this be applied across the board, i mean whenever a narrator is mentioned like fulan, abu fulan, wa ghairahu, this means it is out of weakness of that particular narrator?