If you grade a hadith as authentic or good based on the totality of its chains, does this ruling cover all the chains of the hadith that you used as corroborating evidence, which may contain additions or omissions?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : It is merely a question about hadith, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Another question about hadith.
The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The questioner : O our Shaykh, we came to you with some questions regarding hadith and narrators. Therefore, when we bring up some corroborating evidence, we mean evidence for questions related to the hadith.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.
The questioner : We benefited from what you mentioned, may Allah reward you with good, but we will return to the same hadith or the same issue you mentioned.
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : And I think the brother also has an issue close to this one.
We understand from your words, O Shaykh, that if you or any hadith scholar grades a hadith as authentic or good based on the totality of its chains, and the texts are different, does this mean—this is what I am asking now—that we can say this grading applies to the different texts, or only to the text around which this hadith scholar revolves? For example, you mention a hadith in *al-Sahihah* and say that a specific text is authentic or good, then you mention other chains with texts that have an added word or an omission, or differ in some other way, and then you say, for example: "From the totality of these chains, the mind is reassured that it is good, or it is strengthened to be good."
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : Do these chains or these texts in the chains you mentioned fall under this grading of "good," or is the "good" rating only for that specific hadith?
The Shaykh : For that specific hadith.
The questioner : And these texts remain as they are?
The Shaykh : I remind you of the rule around which we revolve and upon which we base our rulings, except for what a person might overlook or forget.
Suppose we have a hadith with a single sentence; we use this example to clarify the matter for minds.
A hadith with a single sentence, and this hadith does not have a sound chain. So we search in the printed and manuscript hadith books, as time and effort allow, hoping to find what corroborates this text, which is a single sentence. We find corroborating evidence for it. This corroborating evidence adds other phrases to this text and this sentence. We list them and assume they all have weak chains. I take from this corroborating evidence what the evidence agrees upon corroborating. In this case, it is assumed they agreed upon the single sentence. This single sentence is what I place as the text in *al-Sahihah*, and then I list the chains to support the establishment of this sentence.
The hadith may have two or three sentences or more. I say that this hadith, or this narration containing this single sentence, is suitable to be corroborated, but it is not suitable to be a corroborator for the other narration mentioned below it. Is this clear?
The questioner : Consequently, the additions do not enter into this calculation?
The Shaykh : They do not enter
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. The hadith may be long and contain an addition to a sound story. I do not rely on this hadith that is long; rather, I mention it as a corroborator for the hadith that is limited to what is less than the long narration. So I make this long narration a corroborator for the shortened narration, and not the other way around. This is how I proceed, and this is how it should be.
And I am mentioning an example now. There is in *al-Sahihah*—I do not know which part, perhaps in the second volume—a hadith of Anas ibn Malik that al-Tirmidhi narrated: I published this hadith in *al-Silsilah*.
The questioner : In the first volume, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : In the first, well done.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : It is this commitment, it is the commitment. And the evidence here is that I published the hadith with its weak chain in al-Tirmidhi, and I strengthened it with the corroborating evidence I listed below it. But it later became clear that the addition "does he embrace him or hold him tightly" was not mentioned in those corroborating evidences. So I deleted it and placed dots in its place in the edition I am preparing for the new printing, as I did in *Sahih al-Jami'*. Do you remember this style?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why? Because al-Tirmidhi was unique in this addition, and the chain is weak. The corroborating evidences that support all the other paragraphs did not mention the addition: This addition remained in its original weakness, which we take from al-Tirmidhi's narration. So, as I said earlier, a person may deviate and make a mistake, but the rule is the one I explained to you earlier, and hopefully it is understood, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Another question about hadith.
The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The questioner : O our Shaykh, we came to you with some questions regarding hadith and narrators. Therefore, when we bring up some corroborating evidence, we mean evidence for questions related to the hadith.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.
The questioner : We benefited from what you mentioned, may Allah reward you with good, but we will return to the same hadith or the same issue you mentioned.
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : And I think the brother also has an issue close to this one.
We understand from your words, O Shaykh, that if you or any hadith scholar grades a hadith as authentic or good based on the totality of its chains, and the texts are different, does this mean—this is what I am asking now—that we can say this grading applies to the different texts, or only to the text around which this hadith scholar revolves? For example, you mention a hadith in *al-Sahihah* and say that a specific text is authentic or good, then you mention other chains with texts that have an added word or an omission, or differ in some other way, and then you say, for example: "From the totality of these chains, the mind is reassured that it is good, or it is strengthened to be good."
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : Do these chains or these texts in the chains you mentioned fall under this grading of "good," or is the "good" rating only for that specific hadith?
The Shaykh : For that specific hadith.
The questioner : And these texts remain as they are?
The Shaykh : I remind you of the rule around which we revolve and upon which we base our rulings, except for what a person might overlook or forget.
Suppose we have a hadith with a single sentence; we use this example to clarify the matter for minds.
A hadith with a single sentence, and this hadith does not have a sound chain. So we search in the printed and manuscript hadith books, as time and effort allow, hoping to find what corroborates this text, which is a single sentence. We find corroborating evidence for it. This corroborating evidence adds other phrases to this text and this sentence. We list them and assume they all have weak chains. I take from this corroborating evidence what the evidence agrees upon corroborating. In this case, it is assumed they agreed upon the single sentence. This single sentence is what I place as the text in *al-Sahihah*, and then I list the chains to support the establishment of this sentence.
The hadith may have two or three sentences or more. I say that this hadith, or this narration containing this single sentence, is suitable to be corroborated, but it is not suitable to be a corroborator for the other narration mentioned below it. Is this clear?
The questioner : Consequently, the additions do not enter into this calculation?
The Shaykh : They do not enter
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. The hadith may be long and contain an addition to a sound story. I do not rely on this hadith that is long; rather, I mention it as a corroborator for the hadith that is limited to what is less than the long narration. So I make this long narration a corroborator for the shortened narration, and not the other way around. This is how I proceed, and this is how it should be.
And I am mentioning an example now. There is in *al-Sahihah*—I do not know which part, perhaps in the second volume—a hadith of Anas ibn Malik that al-Tirmidhi narrated:
A man said, "O Messenger of Allah, when one of us meets his brother, should he bow to him?" He said, "No." He said, "Should he hold him tightly?" He said, "No." He said, "Should he kiss him?" He said, "No." He said, "Should he shake his hand?" He said, "Yes."
أن رجلا قال يا رسول الله أحدنا يلقى أخاه أفينحني له قال: لا ، قال: أفيلتزمه قال: لا قال: أفيقبله قال: لا قال: أفيصافحه ؟ قال: نعمThe questioner : In the first volume, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : In the first, well done.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : It is this commitment, it is the commitment. And the evidence here is that I published the hadith with its weak chain in al-Tirmidhi, and I strengthened it with the corroborating evidence I listed below it. But it later became clear that the addition "does he embrace him or hold him tightly" was not mentioned in those corroborating evidences. So I deleted it and placed dots in its place in the edition I am preparing for the new printing, as I did in *Sahih al-Jami'*. Do you remember this style?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why? Because al-Tirmidhi was unique in this addition, and the chain is weak. The corroborating evidences that support all the other paragraphs did not mention the addition:
Should he embrace him or hold him tightly? He said, "No."
أفيعانقه أو أفيلتزمه قال لاThe questioner : Yes.