Explaining the errors that new students make in the science of hadith.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The new students today in this science, the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) and the terminology of hadith, think that this science is like some other sciences, such as the science of grammar, for example, where the subject is always in the nominative case and the object is always in the accusative case, with no difference in this between the object for the sake of which and the object of specification.
This science is not like the science of hadith in its rules, nor in the biographies of its men, like this science which has fixed rules, many of which are fixed with final precision. If a reader reads "Ahmad hit Muhammad," the scholars in this science would agree to strengthen it, but it is not so in what is of the precise sciences of hadith, such as the hadith hasan li-ghayrihi (good due to other supporting chains), and even the hadith hasan li-dhatihi (good in itself). I have spent what I have spent, nearly half a century of time, and I usually say more than half a century, but regarding the following issue, it is not permissible for me to say I have spent half a century or more; rather, I said, and I mean what I say, that I have spent less than or close to half a century of time in studying this science. Not theoretically, for studying it theoretically is easy and requires only a few years if the student has been given talents and free time, and the like of what are aids to enable him to master this theoretical science. Rather, I spent and mentioned [time] in studying this science practically. Before I reached half a century of time in studying this science, I came upon a manuscript in the al-Zahiriyyah Library by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, a very nice treatise that was printed in our recent times, titled *al-Muqizah* (The Awakening). In that period that has passed for me, which is less than half a century of time while I was studying, the reality became clear to me which al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi expressed in that treatise. I was greatly pleased in my expression because it agreed with what was in my heart, that the hadith hasan is among the most precise sciences of hadith. Because al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in this treatise the meaning I had felt throughout that period. That is his statement that the hadith hasan is among the subtleties of the science of hadith, not because one hadith scholar differs in his opinion on this hadith, sometimes grading it hasan and sometimes weakening it, and he is one person. So what do you think if this observation moves to two people who differ in understanding, knowledge, and age? Then the matter will be more precise than what al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentioned in his treatise *al-Muqizah*, and more precise than the hadith hasan li-ghayrihi. One may find, like this example which is before you, that the first route is more than the other route, and it may not equal in his own self that it is a hasan hadith. But when he sees that this hadith has come in the interpretation of that noble verse, and it does not bear many meanings, but rather means exactly what came in this hadith, then at that time it dawns in the mind of this researcher that this hadith, by the first route and the other route, and the excess, is the meaning of the content in the verse. Then at that time it dawns in his mind that it is a hasan hadith. If another comes and critiques it textually, saying this is a weak hadith because the first route has a defect such and such, and the other route has a break in its chain, this does not mean that he has brought something that establishes the argument against the one who graded it hasan. Rather, perhaps the opposite is correct. Therefore, I said at the beginning that in such an issue, we may not reach a written opinion, because I observe in the many observations that come to me from some of those engaged in this science of hadith, some of them send me their letters, and some of them rush to print and publish, that I observe that these and those have some knowledge of the terminology or the biographies of the men, but they have not been kneaded with this science by applying it practically. And so they fall into many [errors], the least of which can be said is that there is no benefit in the research, because it will not bring anything new to the critic except in some cases. And we observe some of these with our own selves, and they observe some of them. As if I say, for example, in a hadith in one book that it is hasan, and I say in another book that it is weak. This contradiction is, without doubt, an apparent matter and requires preferring one of the two grades. As for one appointing himself to come with what is not hidden from the critic, as is this case, he should be lenient with himself. Why did the Shaykh grade this hadith as hasan, and the weakness is clear in both routes? They never mention such an observation as mentioned by Imam al-Dhahabi in *al-Muqizah*. And this is what opens the circle of discussion in something that is not sufficient.
This is what comes to my mind as an answer to this question.
This science is not like the science of hadith in its rules, nor in the biographies of its men, like this science which has fixed rules, many of which are fixed with final precision. If a reader reads "Ahmad hit Muhammad," the scholars in this science would agree to strengthen it, but it is not so in what is of the precise sciences of hadith, such as the hadith hasan li-ghayrihi (good due to other supporting chains), and even the hadith hasan li-dhatihi (good in itself). I have spent what I have spent, nearly half a century of time, and I usually say more than half a century, but regarding the following issue, it is not permissible for me to say I have spent half a century or more; rather, I said, and I mean what I say, that I have spent less than or close to half a century of time in studying this science. Not theoretically, for studying it theoretically is easy and requires only a few years if the student has been given talents and free time, and the like of what are aids to enable him to master this theoretical science. Rather, I spent and mentioned [time] in studying this science practically. Before I reached half a century of time in studying this science, I came upon a manuscript in the al-Zahiriyyah Library by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, a very nice treatise that was printed in our recent times, titled *al-Muqizah* (The Awakening). In that period that has passed for me, which is less than half a century of time while I was studying, the reality became clear to me which al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi expressed in that treatise. I was greatly pleased in my expression because it agreed with what was in my heart, that the hadith hasan is among the most precise sciences of hadith. Because al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in this treatise the meaning I had felt throughout that period. That is his statement that the hadith hasan is among the subtleties of the science of hadith, not because one hadith scholar differs in his opinion on this hadith, sometimes grading it hasan and sometimes weakening it, and he is one person. So what do you think if this observation moves to two people who differ in understanding, knowledge, and age? Then the matter will be more precise than what al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentioned in his treatise *al-Muqizah*, and more precise than the hadith hasan li-ghayrihi. One may find, like this example which is before you, that the first route is more than the other route, and it may not equal in his own self that it is a hasan hadith. But when he sees that this hadith has come in the interpretation of that noble verse, and it does not bear many meanings, but rather means exactly what came in this hadith, then at that time it dawns in the mind of this researcher that this hadith, by the first route and the other route, and the excess, is the meaning of the content in the verse. Then at that time it dawns in his mind that it is a hasan hadith. If another comes and critiques it textually, saying this is a weak hadith because the first route has a defect such and such, and the other route has a break in its chain, this does not mean that he has brought something that establishes the argument against the one who graded it hasan. Rather, perhaps the opposite is correct. Therefore, I said at the beginning that in such an issue, we may not reach a written opinion, because I observe in the many observations that come to me from some of those engaged in this science of hadith, some of them send me their letters, and some of them rush to print and publish, that I observe that these and those have some knowledge of the terminology or the biographies of the men, but they have not been kneaded with this science by applying it practically. And so they fall into many [errors], the least of which can be said is that there is no benefit in the research, because it will not bring anything new to the critic except in some cases. And we observe some of these with our own selves, and they observe some of them. As if I say, for example, in a hadith in one book that it is hasan, and I say in another book that it is weak. This contradiction is, without doubt, an apparent matter and requires preferring one of the two grades. As for one appointing himself to come with what is not hidden from the critic, as is this case, he should be lenient with himself. Why did the Shaykh grade this hadith as hasan, and the weakness is clear in both routes? They never mention such an observation as mentioned by Imam al-Dhahabi in *al-Muqizah*. And this is what opens the circle of discussion in something that is not sufficient.
This is what comes to my mind as an answer to this question.