Can a weak hadith rise to the level of authentic without passing through the level of good?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Can a weak hadith rise to the level of authentic without passing through the level of good? In other words, if there is a weak hadith and other weak routes are found for it, can we say: by the sum of its routes it rises to authenticity?
The Shaykh : This is what I understood and answered, and if you asked for more clarification after requesting a repetition, it is because what I understood is that you are asking about the authentic for other reasons and the good for other reasons in both the authentic and the good, is that not so?
The questioner : Repeat, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I say that what I understood when you asked me that question is that you mean by authentic and good, the authentic for other reasons and the good for other reasons.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is that so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And on this basis was my answer, as you heard, and it remains as it is.
The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, are three routes sufficient, or is it a condition that there be four routes?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Three routes for the hadith, or four?
The Shaykh : The answer to this is "it depends," meaning according to the degree of weakness.
The questioner : There is the hadith, the ninety-ninth hadith, the ninety-ninth hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The hadith You mentioned that its chain is weak and you cited other chains for it, some of which are very weak. If you want me to mention them, the important thing is that you mentioned all its chains are weak, and then you said that this hadith, meaning you categorized the hadith, meaning you authenticated it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : This is why I raised this question.
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : So how do we reconcile this, O Shaykh? How did you say that it must pass through the good, and then you said the hadith is authentic, even though all its routes are weak, and you did not say it is a good hadith?
The Shaykh : Before I answer this question, when you asked me and I answered you, did you understand what I intended?
The questioner : Yes, I understood.
The Shaykh : But it seems to me that the matter is not so when you repeated the question in this way, not specifically regarding this hadith, because it has become clear to me that the one mentioned there is 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd, who is the weak and very weak one who narrated the hadith of Adam when Adam committed the sin, and so on. But I see that the most important thing now is to clarify my previous answer. I mean that any researcher who judges a hadith with a weak chain and gives a final result on this hadith that it is authentic for other reasons, has looked at the set of these routes before him. But if we wanted to, if we imagined the previous question and there was a questioner like this before me, I would have detailed it and said the following. However, in terms of presenting the result, there is no need for the following detail. So I would say, for example: here are four routes, or three routes, or five routes. I would say, for example, that by the first, second, and third routes it rises to the good, and then adding a fourth and fifth route it rises to the authentic. But there is no need to detail this.
The questioner : This is what we want, this is what we do not need, this is what we want.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because the answer would be that the hadith rises from weak to authentic by the sum of its routes.
The Shaykh : It is like that, but the researcher, when he thinks, does not make this leap; rather, it may not be possible for him to do so except gradually. For example, two or three routes gather in my mind that this weak hadith, in its individual components, is good, and I leave it aside before issuing the final judgment, meaning: before expending the effort to know the ruling received with this hadith. Then later, it is made easy for him to find two other routes, as I exemplified just now, and he reaches the end and says this is an authentic hadith by the sum of its routes. But the detail that goes through the researcher's mind does not need to be spoken about, because this is not beneficial, especially for the general people, and in any book that circulates in the hands of all people. As for the thought, it is on this detail.
The questioner : And this first good is good for other reasons, not good in itself.
The Shaykh : No, this is another issue. It may be good in itself, and it rises by the other routes to being authentic for other reasons.
The questioner : And this rising to authenticity, we call it authentic, what? For other reasons?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Authentic for other reasons.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And there is no need to detail it; saying authentic is sufficient.
The Shaykh : Because if we say regarding the second good, which is the second good in mention, if we say that this is a good chain and it has a corroborating narration or two corroborating narrations, we say that thereby the hadith moves to the level of authentic. It is clear from this statement, clearer than the first example or image.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The first image, we did not mention that it rose by a set of routes to good for other reasons, and then rose to authentic for other reasons. But here, with the example of good in itself, when we judged the chain of a hadith to be good in itself, and then we came upon some corroborating narrations for it, it rose thereby to being authentic for other reasons. It is clear that the process here is represented in the reader's mind, and the summary is: good in itself plus a corroborating narration or two corroborating narrations, so it became authentic for other reasons.
The questioner : This statement is good, O Shaykh, and I mentioned it because it is not found, or I have not come across it, in the series, although it is, of course, not for the general public but for students of knowledge. And there are those who have criticized some hadiths that a man from Sudan authenticated, based on this, that there is a set of hadiths that he raised. He says that you raised them from authenticity to weakness directly without passing through the good, like this.
The Shaykh : This is because he is not a scholar of this science.
The questioner : So this kind of statement, O Shaykh, if it were written in such books that are for students of knowledge and researchers in the authenticity of hadiths, they would benefit from it, because it is not for the general public.
The Shaykh : Do you know this Sudanese personally?
The questioner : I do not know him.
The Shaykh : Have you seen his first statement in the introduction?
The questioner : You did not notice it.
The Shaykh : And you do not remember?
The questioner : I do not remember anything old about him.
The Shaykh : It is feared that he is from the group of declaring people disbelievers.
The questioner : Perhaps you mean his statement about faith and Islam and his refutation of you.
The student: The treatise is available.
The questioner : And his refutation of you in understanding Islam and faith.
The Shaykh : In the treatise?
The questioner : In the same treatise, yes.
The Shaykh : And the treatise is with you?
The questioner : I have it, but it needs to be circulated.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : It needs research.
The Shaykh : Circulated, rest, okay, someone else.
The questioner : Another question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is what I understood and answered, and if you asked for more clarification after requesting a repetition, it is because what I understood is that you are asking about the authentic for other reasons and the good for other reasons in both the authentic and the good, is that not so?
The questioner : Repeat, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I say that what I understood when you asked me that question is that you mean by authentic and good, the authentic for other reasons and the good for other reasons.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is that so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And on this basis was my answer, as you heard, and it remains as it is.
The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, are three routes sufficient, or is it a condition that there be four routes?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Three routes for the hadith, or four?
The Shaykh : The answer to this is "it depends," meaning according to the degree of weakness.
The questioner : There is the hadith, the ninety-ninth hadith, the ninety-ninth hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The hadith
The seven heavens in the Footstool are like a ring cast in a flat land, and the excess of the Throne over the Footstool is like the excess of that flat land over that ring.
ما السموات السبع في الكرسي إلا كحلقة ملقاة بأرض فلاة، وفضل العرش على الكرسي كفضل تلك الفلاة على تلك الحلقةThe Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : This is why I raised this question.
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : So how do we reconcile this, O Shaykh? How did you say that it must pass through the good, and then you said the hadith is authentic, even though all its routes are weak, and you did not say it is a good hadith?
The Shaykh : Before I answer this question, when you asked me and I answered you, did you understand what I intended?
The questioner : Yes, I understood.
The Shaykh : But it seems to me that the matter is not so when you repeated the question in this way, not specifically regarding this hadith, because it has become clear to me that the one mentioned there is 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd, who is the weak and very weak one who narrated the hadith of Adam when Adam committed the sin, and so on. But I see that the most important thing now is to clarify my previous answer. I mean that any researcher who judges a hadith with a weak chain and gives a final result on this hadith that it is authentic for other reasons, has looked at the set of these routes before him. But if we wanted to, if we imagined the previous question and there was a questioner like this before me, I would have detailed it and said the following. However, in terms of presenting the result, there is no need for the following detail. So I would say, for example: here are four routes, or three routes, or five routes. I would say, for example, that by the first, second, and third routes it rises to the good, and then adding a fourth and fifth route it rises to the authentic. But there is no need to detail this.
The questioner : This is what we want, this is what we do not need, this is what we want.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because the answer would be that the hadith rises from weak to authentic by the sum of its routes.
The Shaykh : It is like that, but the researcher, when he thinks, does not make this leap; rather, it may not be possible for him to do so except gradually. For example, two or three routes gather in my mind that this weak hadith, in its individual components, is good, and I leave it aside before issuing the final judgment, meaning: before expending the effort to know the ruling received with this hadith. Then later, it is made easy for him to find two other routes, as I exemplified just now, and he reaches the end and says this is an authentic hadith by the sum of its routes. But the detail that goes through the researcher's mind does not need to be spoken about, because this is not beneficial, especially for the general people, and in any book that circulates in the hands of all people. As for the thought, it is on this detail.
The questioner : And this first good is good for other reasons, not good in itself.
The Shaykh : No, this is another issue. It may be good in itself, and it rises by the other routes to being authentic for other reasons.
The questioner : And this rising to authenticity, we call it authentic, what? For other reasons?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Authentic for other reasons.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And there is no need to detail it; saying authentic is sufficient.
The Shaykh : Because if we say regarding the second good, which is the second good in mention, if we say that this is a good chain and it has a corroborating narration or two corroborating narrations, we say that thereby the hadith moves to the level of authentic. It is clear from this statement, clearer than the first example or image.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The first image, we did not mention that it rose by a set of routes to good for other reasons, and then rose to authentic for other reasons. But here, with the example of good in itself, when we judged the chain of a hadith to be good in itself, and then we came upon some corroborating narrations for it, it rose thereby to being authentic for other reasons. It is clear that the process here is represented in the reader's mind, and the summary is: good in itself plus a corroborating narration or two corroborating narrations, so it became authentic for other reasons.
The questioner : This statement is good, O Shaykh, and I mentioned it because it is not found, or I have not come across it, in the series, although it is, of course, not for the general public but for students of knowledge. And there are those who have criticized some hadiths that a man from Sudan authenticated, based on this, that there is a set of hadiths that he raised. He says that you raised them from authenticity to weakness directly without passing through the good, like this.
The Shaykh : This is because he is not a scholar of this science.
The questioner : So this kind of statement, O Shaykh, if it were written in such books that are for students of knowledge and researchers in the authenticity of hadiths, they would benefit from it, because it is not for the general public.
The Shaykh : Do you know this Sudanese personally?
The questioner : I do not know him.
The Shaykh : Have you seen his first statement in the introduction?
The questioner : You did not notice it.
The Shaykh : And you do not remember?
The questioner : I do not remember anything old about him.
The Shaykh : It is feared that he is from the group of declaring people disbelievers.
The questioner : Perhaps you mean his statement about faith and Islam and his refutation of you.
The student: The treatise is available.
The questioner : And his refutation of you in understanding Islam and faith.
The Shaykh : In the treatise?
The questioner : In the same treatise, yes.
The Shaykh : And the treatise is with you?
The questioner : I have it, but it needs to be circulated.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : It needs research.
The Shaykh : Circulated, rest, okay, someone else.
The questioner : Another question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.