The Meaning of the Hadith Scholars' Phrase "Its Narrators Are the Narrators of the Sahih"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Therefore, they approach the matter via the nearest path: they examine the chain of narration and it becomes apparent to them that its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih. This does not require much review. If one were to pursue further research into the narrators and the soundness of the chain regarding disconnection, concealment of defects, and the like, it would take a long time.
The summary of this statement is: If you see a phrase in a book of hadith similar to this, "It was narrated by so-and-so, and its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih", no one should understand that this means the chain of the hadith is authentic.
And more than that: if it is said that its narrators are trustworthy, it does not mean that the chain is authentic. So remember this.
Also, I must clarify the word "Sahih" in such contexts. I mentioned earlier that if the author says "its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih," he means *Sahih al-Bukhari* or *Sahih Muslim*, even though there are more books of authentic hadith than *Sahih al-Bukhari* and *Muslim*, such as *Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah* and *Sahih Ibn Hibban* and the like. However, due to the fame of the two Sahihs among the scholars—and they deserve that fame for their freedom from criticism—it became established that when the term "Sahih" is used in a general sense, it refers to al-Bukhari and Muslim, or one of them. So why does he not say "its narrators are the narrators of al-Bukhari" or "its narrators are the narrators of Muslim" or "its narrators are the narrators of the two Shaykhs"? Here, there is a nuance: some of the narrators may be from *Sahih al-Bukhari* and some from *Sahih Muslim*. Instead of saying "some of the narrators of this chain are from al-Bukhari and some from Muslim," he summarizes and says, as you heard, "its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih." This is the reason that leads them to use such a phrase.
Another reason is that the one who uses this phrase, "its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih", often has memorized that so-and-so is one of the narrators of one of the two Sahihs, but he does not have it precisely in mind whether he is from al-Bukhari or from Muslim. Therefore, he uses this phrase and is truthful in doing so, without falling into any scientific error. Based on this, we say: It is not correct for a person today to say of a hadith that its chain is authentic but it is not in one of the two Sahihs, "It is in the Sahih." This is not permissible, because this is a technical term; as we mentioned earlier, when "Sahih" is used in a general sense, it refers to one of the two Sahihs. If there is a hadith outside the two Sahihs and its chain is authentic, the author is not permitted to say "It is in the Sahih," because this misleads people into thinking it is in one of the two Sahihs, in al-Bukhari or Muslim. Rather, he should say: "It was narrated with an authentic chain." It is necessary to be explicit here. This falls under the category of speaking to people in a way they can understand, meaning that the Muslim addresses people according to their capacity for understanding and knowledge, so that they do not fall into error. Even if the burden is on the author, if he says "It is in the Sahih," he implies that it is in al-Bukhari, which would be a lie about al-Bukhari, even if unintentional. Therefore, the speaker does not say of an authentic hadith outside the two Sahihs that "It is in the Sahih," but rather says: "It was narrated with an authentic chain." These are benefits I wished to mention on this occasion regarding the tracing of this hadith.
The summary of this statement is: If you see a phrase in a book of hadith similar to this, "It was narrated by so-and-so, and its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih", no one should understand that this means the chain of the hadith is authentic.
And more than that: if it is said that its narrators are trustworthy, it does not mean that the chain is authentic. So remember this.
Also, I must clarify the word "Sahih" in such contexts. I mentioned earlier that if the author says "its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih," he means *Sahih al-Bukhari* or *Sahih Muslim*, even though there are more books of authentic hadith than *Sahih al-Bukhari* and *Muslim*, such as *Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah* and *Sahih Ibn Hibban* and the like. However, due to the fame of the two Sahihs among the scholars—and they deserve that fame for their freedom from criticism—it became established that when the term "Sahih" is used in a general sense, it refers to al-Bukhari and Muslim, or one of them. So why does he not say "its narrators are the narrators of al-Bukhari" or "its narrators are the narrators of Muslim" or "its narrators are the narrators of the two Shaykhs"? Here, there is a nuance: some of the narrators may be from *Sahih al-Bukhari* and some from *Sahih Muslim*. Instead of saying "some of the narrators of this chain are from al-Bukhari and some from Muslim," he summarizes and says, as you heard, "its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih." This is the reason that leads them to use such a phrase.
Another reason is that the one who uses this phrase, "its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih", often has memorized that so-and-so is one of the narrators of one of the two Sahihs, but he does not have it precisely in mind whether he is from al-Bukhari or from Muslim. Therefore, he uses this phrase and is truthful in doing so, without falling into any scientific error. Based on this, we say: It is not correct for a person today to say of a hadith that its chain is authentic but it is not in one of the two Sahihs, "It is in the Sahih." This is not permissible, because this is a technical term; as we mentioned earlier, when "Sahih" is used in a general sense, it refers to one of the two Sahihs. If there is a hadith outside the two Sahihs and its chain is authentic, the author is not permitted to say "It is in the Sahih," because this misleads people into thinking it is in one of the two Sahihs, in al-Bukhari or Muslim. Rather, he should say: "It was narrated with an authentic chain." It is necessary to be explicit here. This falls under the category of speaking to people in a way they can understand, meaning that the Muslim addresses people according to their capacity for understanding and knowledge, so that they do not fall into error. Even if the burden is on the author, if he says "It is in the Sahih," he implies that it is in al-Bukhari, which would be a lie about al-Bukhari, even if unintentional. Therefore, the speaker does not say of an authentic hadith outside the two Sahihs that "It is in the Sahih," but rather says: "It was narrated with an authentic chain." These are benefits I wished to mention on this occasion regarding the tracing of this hadith.