There is a statement transmitted by al-Hafiz from Ibn al-Qattan in *al-Nukat* in the context of his discussion on the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith, and he said
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There is a statement transmitted by al-Hafiz from Ibn al-Qattan in *al-Nukat* in the context of his discussion on the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith, and he said: "It is not the case that every weak hadith is capable of being strengthened; if it comes from two or slightly more routes, it is not to be used as evidence to the extent of basing rulings upon it, and so on. Rather, he says we take it in the chapter of spiritual exhortations and asceticism, unless the routes multiply to a degree that leads the mind to believe in the authenticity of this hadith." Then he mentioned, meaning the substance of this statement, and al-Hafiz said at the end: "My inclination is toward what Ibn al-Qattan mentioned." So I do not know, meaning what is your opinion on this...
The Shaykh : I remember I mentioned something and forgot something. Did al-Hafiz mention the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith or not?
The questioner : No, the discussion is about the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith.
The Shaykh : He mentioned it, then.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Ah, what was his final position regarding the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith after this detail you have related?
The questioner : He says it is possible to say it is *hasan li-ghayrihi*, but he does not accept it at the level of being used as evidence.
The Shaykh : No, that is not what he said.
The questioner : Yes, in *al-Nukat*, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : His statement is that the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith is sometimes used as evidence and sometimes not used as evidence.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : How? Yes, my brother, what you are saying is different from this.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Well, review it. As for me, my opinion is that this is a statement that is not well digested.
The questioner : Al-Hafiz's statement.
The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz's statement, yes, is not well digested. The *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith: why is it used as evidence? Because the collection of routes, regardless of their number, either instills in the researcher's mind a preponderance of probability regarding the establishment of this hadith, in which case it is evidence, or it does not, in which case it is not evidence.
So if it is said of a hadith with multiple routes that it is not *hasan*, then at that point it is not evidence. And if it is said that it is *hasan*, then at that point it is evidence. But to say that the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith, which we have described as *hasan li-ghayrihi*, is sometimes not evidence—how can this statement be digested? There is a great difference between saying, "This hadith with these routes does not reach the rank of *hasan li-ghayrihi*," and saying, "This hadith with these routes reaches the rank of *hasan li-ghayrihi*." That is a straight statement. But to say, "There is a *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith that is not used as evidence"—that is what makes no sense.
The questioner : Because the disagreement is only in the naming.
The Shaykh : No, the disagreement in naming expresses the reality. When we say a hadith is *hasan li-ghayrihi*, what does that mean? It means that these routes strengthened the hadith.
The questioner : Many, O Shaykh, of the students of knowledge.
The Shaykh : I am asking you: is this not the case?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Well, if the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, do we remove the word *hasan* from the equation? Is it used as evidence or not?
The questioner : No, if its routes multiply, yes, it is used as evidence.
The Shaykh : Not just if they multiply, but if it is strengthened. If the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, it is used as evidence.
The questioner : It is used as evidence.
The Shaykh : Well, is it valid in reason to say it is used as evidence at one time and not used as evidence at another time?
The questioner : No, it is not valid in reason. But this is not the statement of Ibn al-Qattan which Ibn Hajar supported...
The Shaykh : The research is not about this.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Now I am presenting the issue in this form: a hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes. I called it *hasan*. I called it *sahih*. The issue is not now about the naming, because you know that names do not change the realities of the named things.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Very well.
So is it valid to say that at one time the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, and at another time it is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, yet it is taken at one time and not taken at another time? Is this said?
The questioner : Absolutely not.
The Shaykh : Well, I qualify it: at one time the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, and at another time it is not strengthened by the multiplication of routes. Is there a contradiction here?
The questioner : No, there is no contradiction.
The Shaykh : Well, in the first case, if it is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, what is its technical name?
The questioner : *Hasan li-ghayrihi*.
The Shaykh : Is it said that it is used as evidence at one time and not used as evidence at another time?
The questioner : No, this is not said.
The Shaykh : And this is what he said.
The questioner : And the disagreement is verbal, O Shaykh, in this.
The Shaykh : God willing. How is that?
The questioner : The discussion revolves around one axis, which is that not every hadith that has more than one weak route becomes *hasan li-ghayrihi*.
The Shaykh : No, that is not the statement. The *hasan* hadith, he says, is sometimes used as evidence and sometimes he has a pause and does not use it as evidence.
The questioner : *Hasan li-ghayrihi* is in the concept of the multiplication of routes, but not in its reality that it is *hasan li-ghayrihi*.
Because, meaning, the *hasan* hadith is the weak one when its routes multiply. This *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith: one route and another route, both are weak, so it becomes *hasan li-ghayrihi*. Is this rule accepted or not? This is the statement of Ibn al-Qattan which Ibn Hajar supported. It is not accepted absolutely, but rather if the routes multiply to a degree that leads the mind to...
The Shaykh : I do not know, by Allah, why the disagreement is in such an issue, as in others, despite its clarity, my brother. We have a hadith with routes. These routes either raise it to the rank of *hasan* or leave it in the rank of weakness. Yes or no?
The questioner : Yes, that is correct.
The Shaykh : Well, if we assume the first case, that this hadith, with the sum of its routes, rose to the rank of *hasan*, is it always used as evidence, as we say and as is mentioned in the science of terminology, or is it not always used as evidence?
The questioner : A trustworthy one is used as evidence.
The Shaykh : always
The questioner : Unless a contradicting one is found.
The Shaykh : Did you see how you paused?
The questioner : If a contradicting one is found, O Shaykh, for the hadith.
The Shaykh : My brother, a hadith in *Sahih* [Bukhari/Muslim], if a contradicting one is found for it, it is not used as evidence. What does "this stick in the donkey" mean? Glory be to Allah.
I am saying that al-Hafiz's statement makes no sense, because he is not speaking of two hadiths, one of which is strengthened by the multiplication of routes and is therefore *hasan* with them, and the other is not strengthened by the multiplication of routes and is therefore weak with them. He does not say of this one, "This is a self-evident matter." But he says the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith is sometimes used as evidence and sometimes not used as evidence. The issue is very clear. This is what makes no sense.
As for the fact that a hadith has routes, and at one time it is strengthened and at another time it is not strengthened, that is correct and there is no problem with it.
The Shaykh : I remember I mentioned something and forgot something. Did al-Hafiz mention the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith or not?
The questioner : No, the discussion is about the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith.
The Shaykh : He mentioned it, then.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Ah, what was his final position regarding the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith after this detail you have related?
The questioner : He says it is possible to say it is *hasan li-ghayrihi*, but he does not accept it at the level of being used as evidence.
The Shaykh : No, that is not what he said.
The questioner : Yes, in *al-Nukat*, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : His statement is that the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith is sometimes used as evidence and sometimes not used as evidence.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : How? Yes, my brother, what you are saying is different from this.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Well, review it. As for me, my opinion is that this is a statement that is not well digested.
The questioner : Al-Hafiz's statement.
The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz's statement, yes, is not well digested. The *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith: why is it used as evidence? Because the collection of routes, regardless of their number, either instills in the researcher's mind a preponderance of probability regarding the establishment of this hadith, in which case it is evidence, or it does not, in which case it is not evidence.
So if it is said of a hadith with multiple routes that it is not *hasan*, then at that point it is not evidence. And if it is said that it is *hasan*, then at that point it is evidence. But to say that the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith, which we have described as *hasan li-ghayrihi*, is sometimes not evidence—how can this statement be digested? There is a great difference between saying, "This hadith with these routes does not reach the rank of *hasan li-ghayrihi*," and saying, "This hadith with these routes reaches the rank of *hasan li-ghayrihi*." That is a straight statement. But to say, "There is a *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith that is not used as evidence"—that is what makes no sense.
The questioner : Because the disagreement is only in the naming.
The Shaykh : No, the disagreement in naming expresses the reality. When we say a hadith is *hasan li-ghayrihi*, what does that mean? It means that these routes strengthened the hadith.
The questioner : Many, O Shaykh, of the students of knowledge.
The Shaykh : I am asking you: is this not the case?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Well, if the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, do we remove the word *hasan* from the equation? Is it used as evidence or not?
The questioner : No, if its routes multiply, yes, it is used as evidence.
The Shaykh : Not just if they multiply, but if it is strengthened. If the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, it is used as evidence.
The questioner : It is used as evidence.
The Shaykh : Well, is it valid in reason to say it is used as evidence at one time and not used as evidence at another time?
The questioner : No, it is not valid in reason. But this is not the statement of Ibn al-Qattan which Ibn Hajar supported...
The Shaykh : The research is not about this.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Now I am presenting the issue in this form: a hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes. I called it *hasan*. I called it *sahih*. The issue is not now about the naming, because you know that names do not change the realities of the named things.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Very well.
So is it valid to say that at one time the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, and at another time it is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, yet it is taken at one time and not taken at another time? Is this said?
The questioner : Absolutely not.
The Shaykh : Well, I qualify it: at one time the hadith is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, and at another time it is not strengthened by the multiplication of routes. Is there a contradiction here?
The questioner : No, there is no contradiction.
The Shaykh : Well, in the first case, if it is strengthened by the multiplication of routes, what is its technical name?
The questioner : *Hasan li-ghayrihi*.
The Shaykh : Is it said that it is used as evidence at one time and not used as evidence at another time?
The questioner : No, this is not said.
The Shaykh : And this is what he said.
The questioner : And the disagreement is verbal, O Shaykh, in this.
The Shaykh : God willing. How is that?
The questioner : The discussion revolves around one axis, which is that not every hadith that has more than one weak route becomes *hasan li-ghayrihi*.
The Shaykh : No, that is not the statement. The *hasan* hadith, he says, is sometimes used as evidence and sometimes he has a pause and does not use it as evidence.
The questioner : *Hasan li-ghayrihi* is in the concept of the multiplication of routes, but not in its reality that it is *hasan li-ghayrihi*.
Because, meaning, the *hasan* hadith is the weak one when its routes multiply. This *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith: one route and another route, both are weak, so it becomes *hasan li-ghayrihi*. Is this rule accepted or not? This is the statement of Ibn al-Qattan which Ibn Hajar supported. It is not accepted absolutely, but rather if the routes multiply to a degree that leads the mind to...
The Shaykh : I do not know, by Allah, why the disagreement is in such an issue, as in others, despite its clarity, my brother.
Deeds are only by their endings
إنما الأعمال بالخواتيمThe questioner : Yes, that is correct.
The Shaykh : Well, if we assume the first case, that this hadith, with the sum of its routes, rose to the rank of *hasan*, is it always used as evidence, as we say and as is mentioned in the science of terminology, or is it not always used as evidence?
The questioner : A trustworthy one is used as evidence.
The Shaykh : always
The questioner : Unless a contradicting one is found.
The Shaykh : Did you see how you paused?
The questioner : If a contradicting one is found, O Shaykh, for the hadith.
The Shaykh : My brother, a hadith in *Sahih* [Bukhari/Muslim], if a contradicting one is found for it, it is not used as evidence. What does "this stick in the donkey" mean? Glory be to Allah.
I am saying that al-Hafiz's statement makes no sense, because he is not speaking of two hadiths, one of which is strengthened by the multiplication of routes and is therefore *hasan* with them, and the other is not strengthened by the multiplication of routes and is therefore weak with them. He does not say of this one, "This is a self-evident matter." But he says the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith is sometimes used as evidence and sometimes not used as evidence. The issue is very clear. This is what makes no sense.
As for the fact that a hadith has routes, and at one time it is strengthened and at another time it is not strengthened, that is correct and there is no problem with it.