Alerting to the phrase "Sadiq, perhaps he errs" and similar expressions in al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the topic where Ibn Hajar says: "Sadiq, perhaps he errs, or Sadiq who errs, or Sadiq who sometimes makes mistakes", for example, through my tracking of some men, I found that the person about whom Ibn Hajar says "Sadiq, perhaps he errs"—this phrase "perhaps he errs" is actually an explanation of the term "Sadiq." It means this narrator was lowered from the rank of Thiqah to Sadiq because he perhaps errs. In other words, we can say he is a Thiqah who perhaps errs. Such a narrator must have a Hasan hadith, unless he is described as "one who makes mistakes." In that case, there is danger, because if he is said to "make mistakes," it means his errors are numerous. But if he is said to "perhaps err" or "err," this means, according to what I found, that it is an explanation or clarification of the reason for his descent from the rank of Thiqah to Sadiq.
The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not know. By Allah, this statement holds true if you can reconcile this saying: "Sadiq, perhaps he errs," with his saying: "Sadiq." What is the difference?
The questioner : He rarely says just "Sadiq." Ibn Hajar rarely says "Sadiq" alone; he always adds: "perhaps he errs."
The Shaykh : No, how?
Well, perhaps he says: "Sadiq." So what is the reconciliation between "Sadiq," "Sadiq Haffaz," and "Sadiq, perhaps he errs"? What is the difference in his view in that case?
The questioner : If we return to the explanations in *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib*, we find that when Ibn Hajar says "Sadiq," for example, he may be quoting from others, such that there is no statement regarding the narrator's weakness, nor any authentication, but rather he is described as "Sadiq" or "no problem with him" or something of that sort. Then Ibn Hajar judges him and says: "Sadiq." But there are narrators about whom there is disagreement; some said he is Thiqah, some said he is Da'if, and some said such-and-such. Then Ibn Hajar combines these opinions, leaving aside the Thiqah and the Da'if, and says "Sadiq, perhaps he errs" or "Sadiq who errs." As for the Sadiq...
Another questioner: Sadiq is originally a Thiqah who perhaps errs, so he became a Sadiq. This is the result of his speech; it seems he wants to take the middle path.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the answer, if it is correct, would be good. That is, you can say, within the limits of your research, that he does not say "Sadiq Haffaz" except by quotation?
The questioner : No, not by quotation. I mean, generally, this person has no authentication and no criticism; he is in the middle: Sadiq, or "no problem with him," or a Shaykh like this.
The Shaykh : I do not think it is so.
The questioner : Perhaps he is unable to judge!
Another questioner: He says about some narrators that he himself is a Thiqah who perhaps errs.
The Shaykh : No, he says this!
The questioner : He contradicts this.
The Shaykh : I wanted to benefit from this point: that he does not say "Sadiq" except for a narrator in whom he finds no authentication and no criticism. Is that what you said?
The questioner : Ah.
The Shaykh : If this is established, it would be beneficial, but I do not believe this at the moment.
The questioner : Well, Shaykh, what about *al-Taqrib*?
The Shaykh : Well, if we are asked: What is the difference in that case between his saying "Sadiq" and his saying "Maqbul"?
The questioner : "Maqbul" means, according to my knowledge, that we cannot accept his saying "Maqbul."
The Shaykh : My question, excuse me: What is the difference in his view between his saying "Sadiq" according to your definition and his saying "Maqbul"?
The questioner : "Maqbul" is, according to what was mentioned in the introduction, that he generally considers him to have few narrations.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : If we return to the explanations in *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib*, I found, for example, a narrator whom Ahmad, Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Numayr, and a third person authenticated, and one Azdi or another person said he was Da'if. Ibn Hajar came and judged him as "Maqbul." Such a thing is impossible; he must authenticate him.
The Shaykh : This is correct. This is one of his errors. He has many of these.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But the rule is: What is the difference in his specific concept or terminology: What is the difference between the one about whom he said "Sadiq" according to your guidance and the one about whom he said "Maqbul"?
As for him saying "Maqbul" about a Thiqah sometimes, that is very common from him and is rejected. But no, when we find him saying "Maqbul" and he is on the right path and has not contradicted [the evidence], what is the difference in that case?
The questioner : The Sadiq, God willing, has a Hasan hadith, but the Maqbul is...
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. I am not asking you about the rank of the hadith of one described as Sadiq. I am asking: What is the difference in Ibn Hajar's view, according to your understanding, between the one about whom he said "Sadiq" and the one about whom he said "Maqbul"?
The questioner : "Maqbul" is, he said: "Maqbul where he is supported by another chain, otherwise his hadith is weak". This means that support by another chain is a condition for the Maqbul, whereas for the Sadiq, support by another chain is not a condition.
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, you are repeating his words to me. I have summarized this. I want to know the photograph of your mind, meaning your combination of the two expressions and that they do not lead to the same meaning. I am telling you something now, perhaps of this kind, and you might be able to give me an answer:
Does he say "Sadiq" about a narrator who has many narrators and was not authenticated, while for a narrator who does not have many narrators like the one described as Sadiq, he says "Maqbul"?
The questioner : It needs study.
Another questioner: Of course, Sadiq is different from Maqbul.
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, Shaykh, I know that it is different. I know that it is different.
The questioner : Even with Ibn Hajar, there is a difference between Sadiq and Maqbul. According to what I recall, he placed the Sadiq in the rank of Hasan or one whose hadith is relied upon.
The Shaykh : And I tell you: This is well known. May Allah bless you.
The questioner : Whereas for the Maqbul, it is a condition that he be supported by another chain.
The Shaykh : Well, I tell you now: The example I mentioned earlier, I researched it, and it is a fundamental difference:
When I graded some narrations as Hasan that contained a man whom no one authenticated except Ibn Hibban—I do not remember now where I conducted this research and verification—I said about this narrator, quoting from the practice of Ibn Hajar and before him al-Dhahabi: "Ibn Hibban said he is Thiqah or mentioned him in *al-Thiqat*, and so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated from him, and they are all Thiqah, so he is Sadiq". I found that this practice preceded me by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi in *al-Mizan* and Ibn Hajar in *al-Taqrib*. He says about a Thiqah in whom Ibn Hibban is unique, but a group of Thiqah narrated from him, that he is Sadiq—not always, not absolutely, but sometimes. He also says about one from whom no authentication is quoted, because a group of Thiqah narrated from him: "Sadiq". Similarly, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi did that before him. So I followed their path and emulated their methodology. Thus, I can say: al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar distinguishes between the one about whom he said "Sadiq" and the one about whom he said "Maqbul." That is, the Sadiq has Thiqah narrators, whereas the Maqbul may have one or two narrators, because in reality, we observe that the term "Maqbul" is synonymous for him with "Mastur" and synonymous with "unknown status." And I think you have reached this conclusion.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Ah.
As for Sadiq, this is a higher rank than that. So who does he say it about?
What I have found is that he says it about one whom Ibn Hibban authenticated, or one whom Ibn Hibban did not authenticate but a group of Thiqah narrated from him. But I cannot, and this is what I wanted to benefit from you, I cannot say now that he does not say "Sadiq" about a narrator even if Ibn Hibban said "Sadiq" about him—excuse me—even if Ibn Abi Hatim said "Sadiq" about him. It is possible that this is prior to him. This needs clarification. As for the issue of him saying "Sadiq" about a narrator based on the fact that a group of Thiqah narrated from him and Ibn Hibban authenticated him or did not authenticate him, I believe in this:[Adh-Dhariyat 51:23], yes.
The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not know. By Allah, this statement holds true if you can reconcile this saying: "Sadiq, perhaps he errs," with his saying: "Sadiq." What is the difference?
The questioner : He rarely says just "Sadiq." Ibn Hajar rarely says "Sadiq" alone; he always adds: "perhaps he errs."
The Shaykh : No, how?
Well, perhaps he says: "Sadiq." So what is the reconciliation between "Sadiq," "Sadiq Haffaz," and "Sadiq, perhaps he errs"? What is the difference in his view in that case?
The questioner : If we return to the explanations in *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib*, we find that when Ibn Hajar says "Sadiq," for example, he may be quoting from others, such that there is no statement regarding the narrator's weakness, nor any authentication, but rather he is described as "Sadiq" or "no problem with him" or something of that sort. Then Ibn Hajar judges him and says: "Sadiq." But there are narrators about whom there is disagreement; some said he is Thiqah, some said he is Da'if, and some said such-and-such. Then Ibn Hajar combines these opinions, leaving aside the Thiqah and the Da'if, and says "Sadiq, perhaps he errs" or "Sadiq who errs." As for the Sadiq...
Another questioner: Sadiq is originally a Thiqah who perhaps errs, so he became a Sadiq. This is the result of his speech; it seems he wants to take the middle path.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the answer, if it is correct, would be good. That is, you can say, within the limits of your research, that he does not say "Sadiq Haffaz" except by quotation?
The questioner : No, not by quotation. I mean, generally, this person has no authentication and no criticism; he is in the middle: Sadiq, or "no problem with him," or a Shaykh like this.
The Shaykh : I do not think it is so.
The questioner : Perhaps he is unable to judge!
Another questioner: He says about some narrators that he himself is a Thiqah who perhaps errs.
The Shaykh : No, he says this!
The questioner : He contradicts this.
The Shaykh : I wanted to benefit from this point: that he does not say "Sadiq" except for a narrator in whom he finds no authentication and no criticism. Is that what you said?
The questioner : Ah.
The Shaykh : If this is established, it would be beneficial, but I do not believe this at the moment.
The questioner : Well, Shaykh, what about *al-Taqrib*?
The Shaykh : Well, if we are asked: What is the difference in that case between his saying "Sadiq" and his saying "Maqbul"?
The questioner : "Maqbul" means, according to my knowledge, that we cannot accept his saying "Maqbul."
The Shaykh : My question, excuse me: What is the difference in his view between his saying "Sadiq" according to your definition and his saying "Maqbul"?
The questioner : "Maqbul" is, according to what was mentioned in the introduction, that he generally considers him to have few narrations.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : If we return to the explanations in *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib*, I found, for example, a narrator whom Ahmad, Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Numayr, and a third person authenticated, and one Azdi or another person said he was Da'if. Ibn Hajar came and judged him as "Maqbul." Such a thing is impossible; he must authenticate him.
The Shaykh : This is correct. This is one of his errors. He has many of these.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But the rule is: What is the difference in his specific concept or terminology: What is the difference between the one about whom he said "Sadiq" according to your guidance and the one about whom he said "Maqbul"?
As for him saying "Maqbul" about a Thiqah sometimes, that is very common from him and is rejected. But no, when we find him saying "Maqbul" and he is on the right path and has not contradicted [the evidence], what is the difference in that case?
The questioner : The Sadiq, God willing, has a Hasan hadith, but the Maqbul is...
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. I am not asking you about the rank of the hadith of one described as Sadiq. I am asking: What is the difference in Ibn Hajar's view, according to your understanding, between the one about whom he said "Sadiq" and the one about whom he said "Maqbul"?
The questioner : "Maqbul" is, he said: "Maqbul where he is supported by another chain, otherwise his hadith is weak". This means that support by another chain is a condition for the Maqbul, whereas for the Sadiq, support by another chain is not a condition.
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, you are repeating his words to me. I have summarized this. I want to know the photograph of your mind, meaning your combination of the two expressions and that they do not lead to the same meaning. I am telling you something now, perhaps of this kind, and you might be able to give me an answer:
Does he say "Sadiq" about a narrator who has many narrators and was not authenticated, while for a narrator who does not have many narrators like the one described as Sadiq, he says "Maqbul"?
The questioner : It needs study.
Another questioner: Of course, Sadiq is different from Maqbul.
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, Shaykh, I know that it is different. I know that it is different.
The questioner : Even with Ibn Hajar, there is a difference between Sadiq and Maqbul. According to what I recall, he placed the Sadiq in the rank of Hasan or one whose hadith is relied upon.
The Shaykh : And I tell you: This is well known. May Allah bless you.
The questioner : Whereas for the Maqbul, it is a condition that he be supported by another chain.
The Shaykh : Well, I tell you now: The example I mentioned earlier, I researched it, and it is a fundamental difference:
When I graded some narrations as Hasan that contained a man whom no one authenticated except Ibn Hibban—I do not remember now where I conducted this research and verification—I said about this narrator, quoting from the practice of Ibn Hajar and before him al-Dhahabi: "Ibn Hibban said he is Thiqah or mentioned him in *al-Thiqat*, and so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated from him, and they are all Thiqah, so he is Sadiq". I found that this practice preceded me by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi in *al-Mizan* and Ibn Hajar in *al-Taqrib*. He says about a Thiqah in whom Ibn Hibban is unique, but a group of Thiqah narrated from him, that he is Sadiq—not always, not absolutely, but sometimes. He also says about one from whom no authentication is quoted, because a group of Thiqah narrated from him: "Sadiq". Similarly, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi did that before him. So I followed their path and emulated their methodology. Thus, I can say: al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar distinguishes between the one about whom he said "Sadiq" and the one about whom he said "Maqbul." That is, the Sadiq has Thiqah narrators, whereas the Maqbul may have one or two narrators, because in reality, we observe that the term "Maqbul" is synonymous for him with "Mastur" and synonymous with "unknown status." And I think you have reached this conclusion.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Ah.
As for Sadiq, this is a higher rank than that. So who does he say it about?
What I have found is that he says it about one whom Ibn Hibban authenticated, or one whom Ibn Hibban did not authenticate but a group of Thiqah narrated from him. But I cannot, and this is what I wanted to benefit from you, I cannot say now that he does not say "Sadiq" about a narrator even if Ibn Hibban said "Sadiq" about him—excuse me—even if Ibn Abi Hatim said "Sadiq" about him. It is possible that this is prior to him. This needs clarification. As for the issue of him saying "Sadiq" about a narrator based on the fact that a group of Thiqah narrated from him and Ibn Hibban authenticated him or did not authenticate him, I believe in this: