If the implication of a hadith that is authentic in itself (sahih li-dhatihi) conflicts with the explicit text of a hadith that is good due to other chains (hasan li-ghayrihi), do we still say that the explicit text of the hasan li-ghayrihi takes precedence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : All right, based on what has been mentioned, if the following question were asked: If the implication of a hadith that is authentic in itself (sahih li-dhatihi) conflicts with the explicit text of a hadith that is good due to other chains (hasan li-ghayrihi), do we still say that the explicit text of the hasan li-ghayrihi takes precedence?
The Shaykh : Yes, and that is the meaning of the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in *Sharh al-Nukhba*: "When two hadiths from the category of acceptable ones conflict, and they are reconciled by one of the methods of reconciliation". For an acceptable hadith, meaning hasan or above, reconciliation between them is obligatory. It is known in the principles of jurisprudence that the indication of the explicit text (manṭūq) is stronger than the indication of the implication (mafhūm). It is known from the principles of jurisprudence that the indication of the explicit text is stronger than the indication of the implication.
The questioner : Without a doubt.
The Shaykh : Ah, in the terminology, it is said that if two hadiths from the category of acceptable ones come, the hasan is acceptable and the sahih is acceptable a fortiori. So, if the indication of the explicit text of the sahih conflicts with the hasan in the text, and the indication of the hasan is explicit while the indication of the sahih is an implication, there is no doubt that the indication of the explicit text is preferred over the indication of the implication from this same perspective. And in hadith terminology, the hasan is equal to the sahih in terms of being used as evidence. So the answer is as previously stated. Is that clear?
The questioner : Yes, but does the term hasan apply to this hasan li-ghayrihi?
The Shaykh : Whether it is hasan li-ghayrihi or hasan li-dhatihi, because I think it is not hidden from you why the hadith scholars agreed to name a type of hadith hasan. They said that the hasan hadith is one in which all the conditions of the sahih hadith are present, but the condition of precision (ḍabṭ) that is required in the sahih is not fully present in the hasan. Rather, one of its narrators has less precision than the narrator of the sahih hadith. To indicate the rank of this narrator for the hadith, they called his hadith the hasan hadith. This is a treatment of psychological matters that a person feels completely.
For example, we do not hesitate to say that a hadith narrated by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq is not like a hadith narrated by a Bedouin. And as some of the Tabi'un said, may Allah forgive us and him, when the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr was presented to him, contrary to what Abdullah ibn Mas'ud narrated, he said: In contrast to what Abdullah ibn Mas'ud narrated, he said: It was said to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i: "Where do you stand regarding the hadith of Wa'il which affirms raising the hands at times other than the takbir of ihram?" He answered: "We would not abandon the narration of Ibn Mas'ud for a Bedouin like Wa'il, even if he were on his heels." This is undoubtedly a diminishment of the value of this Companion. But there is no doubt or doubt that we cannot equate Wa'il ibn Hujr with Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. The narration of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq is of the utmost strength, whereas for the narration of Wa'il, it is sufficient for us that it be sahih.
So these relative matters are not hidden from researchers.
So when the discussion turns to the hasan hadith, it is the one in which a narrator does not have that level of firmness in precision. To point to this simple, easy distinction, they called his hadith hasan. Then they agreed, for further clarification and attention, to divide both the sahih and the hasan into sahih li-ghayrihi and hasan li-ghayrihi, to express these distinctions that the established researcher in this science feels. But these distinctions, as we gave the example earlier with the narrations of Abu Bakr and Wa'il al-Yamani, did not make the difference between the two men lead us to discard the reliance on the hadith of Wa'il. Likewise, no difference found between a hasan li-dhatihi hadith and another hasan li-ghayrihi hadith leads us to do so, because the confidence we feel in our hearts regarding the narrator's narration of a hadith that is hasan is the same confidence that is present in the heart when we find chains for the hadith that raise it to the rank of hasan li-ghayrihi. They are merely verbal conventions that lead to a psychological meaning known to the people of knowledge and experience. This is the answer to what you asked.
The questioner : All right, he says, "O Shaykh, there is a question here in *al-Isabah* which says: 'Chapter of Sad: Suhban ibn Uthman, or al-Talasa al-Harasi, with the fathah on both hamzas. Ibn Manda narrated from the path of Abdullah ibn Abd al-Kabir from his father, who said: I heard my father, Suhban, Abu Talasa, say: Abd al-Jabbar ibn al-Harith came to us after the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then he returned and fought with him in battles, and he was killed in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). I said: Ibn Hibban mentioned Suhban ibn Abd al-Jabbar al-Lakhami, whose kunya is Abu Talasa, in the Tabi'un. He narrated from Amr, and the people of Palestine narrated from him, so it seems he is the one. So it seems he is the one... I heard my father, Suhban, Abu Talasa'."
The Shaykh : Excuse me, with the sad?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : I heard my father, Suhban, Abu Talasa, say.
The Shaykh : Is it with the fathah on the sad, not the dammah?
The questioner : Of course, the diacritics are not mentioned here, but...
The Shaykh : I mean, you are not mentioning it.
The questioner : No, it is Abu Suhban.
The Shaykh : I think it is with the dammah on the sad.
The questioner : Fine.
The Shaykh : And what do you have from books on this occasion that fix the names? What do you have?
The questioner : It says: "He said: Abd al-Jabbar came to us after the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then he returned and fought with him in battles, and he was killed in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). I said: Ibn Hibban mentioned Suhban ibn Abd al-Jabbar al-Lakhami, whose kunya is Abu Talasa, in the Tabi'un. He narrated from Amr, and the people of Palestine narrated from him".
So the question is: How was he killed in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and then the people of Palestine narrated from him? Is the intention that Abd al-Jabbar ibn al-Harith is the one who was killed, or that this Suhban mentioned is the one who was killed? If he was killed, how does the Hafiz say that the people of Palestine narrated from him? Does he mean directly or indirectly?
The Shaykh : Give me the book.
The Shaykh : Yes, and that is the meaning of the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in *Sharh al-Nukhba*: "When two hadiths from the category of acceptable ones conflict, and they are reconciled by one of the methods of reconciliation". For an acceptable hadith, meaning hasan or above, reconciliation between them is obligatory. It is known in the principles of jurisprudence that the indication of the explicit text (manṭūq) is stronger than the indication of the implication (mafhūm). It is known from the principles of jurisprudence that the indication of the explicit text is stronger than the indication of the implication.
The questioner : Without a doubt.
The Shaykh : Ah, in the terminology, it is said that if two hadiths from the category of acceptable ones come, the hasan is acceptable and the sahih is acceptable a fortiori. So, if the indication of the explicit text of the sahih conflicts with the hasan in the text, and the indication of the hasan is explicit while the indication of the sahih is an implication, there is no doubt that the indication of the explicit text is preferred over the indication of the implication from this same perspective. And in hadith terminology, the hasan is equal to the sahih in terms of being used as evidence. So the answer is as previously stated. Is that clear?
The questioner : Yes, but does the term hasan apply to this hasan li-ghayrihi?
The Shaykh : Whether it is hasan li-ghayrihi or hasan li-dhatihi, because I think it is not hidden from you why the hadith scholars agreed to name a type of hadith hasan. They said that the hasan hadith is one in which all the conditions of the sahih hadith are present, but the condition of precision (ḍabṭ) that is required in the sahih is not fully present in the hasan. Rather, one of its narrators has less precision than the narrator of the sahih hadith. To indicate the rank of this narrator for the hadith, they called his hadith the hasan hadith. This is a treatment of psychological matters that a person feels completely.
For example, we do not hesitate to say that a hadith narrated by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq is not like a hadith narrated by a Bedouin. And as some of the Tabi'un said, may Allah forgive us and him, when the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr was presented to him, contrary to what Abdullah ibn Mas'ud narrated, he said:
That he saw the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he entered the prayer, he raised his hands, and when he bowed, he raised his hands, and when he said "Allahu has heard the one who praises Him," he raised his hands.
في أنه رأى النبي عليه السلام حينما دخل في الصلاة رفع يديه وحينما ركع رفع يديه وحين قال سمع الله لمن حمده رفع يديهShall I pray for you the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)? So he raised his hands and then did not do it again.
ألا أصلي لكم صلاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فرفع يديه ثم لم يعدSo these relative matters are not hidden from researchers.
So when the discussion turns to the hasan hadith, it is the one in which a narrator does not have that level of firmness in precision. To point to this simple, easy distinction, they called his hadith hasan. Then they agreed, for further clarification and attention, to divide both the sahih and the hasan into sahih li-ghayrihi and hasan li-ghayrihi, to express these distinctions that the established researcher in this science feels. But these distinctions, as we gave the example earlier with the narrations of Abu Bakr and Wa'il al-Yamani, did not make the difference between the two men lead us to discard the reliance on the hadith of Wa'il. Likewise, no difference found between a hasan li-dhatihi hadith and another hasan li-ghayrihi hadith leads us to do so, because the confidence we feel in our hearts regarding the narrator's narration of a hadith that is hasan is the same confidence that is present in the heart when we find chains for the hadith that raise it to the rank of hasan li-ghayrihi. They are merely verbal conventions that lead to a psychological meaning known to the people of knowledge and experience. This is the answer to what you asked.
The questioner : All right, he says, "O Shaykh, there is a question here in *al-Isabah* which says: 'Chapter of Sad: Suhban ibn Uthman, or al-Talasa al-Harasi, with the fathah on both hamzas. Ibn Manda narrated from the path of Abdullah ibn Abd al-Kabir from his father, who said: I heard my father, Suhban, Abu Talasa, say: Abd al-Jabbar ibn al-Harith came to us after the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then he returned and fought with him in battles, and he was killed in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). I said: Ibn Hibban mentioned Suhban ibn Abd al-Jabbar al-Lakhami, whose kunya is Abu Talasa, in the Tabi'un. He narrated from Amr, and the people of Palestine narrated from him, so it seems he is the one. So it seems he is the one... I heard my father, Suhban, Abu Talasa'."
The Shaykh : Excuse me, with the sad?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : I heard my father, Suhban, Abu Talasa, say.
The Shaykh : Is it with the fathah on the sad, not the dammah?
The questioner : Of course, the diacritics are not mentioned here, but...
The Shaykh : I mean, you are not mentioning it.
The questioner : No, it is Abu Suhban.
The Shaykh : I think it is with the dammah on the sad.
The questioner : Fine.
The Shaykh : And what do you have from books on this occasion that fix the names? What do you have?
The questioner : It says: "He said: Abd al-Jabbar came to us after the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then he returned and fought with him in battles, and he was killed in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). I said: Ibn Hibban mentioned Suhban ibn Abd al-Jabbar al-Lakhami, whose kunya is Abu Talasa, in the Tabi'un. He narrated from Amr, and the people of Palestine narrated from him".
So the question is: How was he killed in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and then the people of Palestine narrated from him? Is the intention that Abd al-Jabbar ibn al-Harith is the one who was killed, or that this Suhban mentioned is the one who was killed? If he was killed, how does the Hafiz say that the people of Palestine narrated from him? Does he mean directly or indirectly?
The Shaykh : Give me the book.