Discussion of the standard for a hasan hadith and the rank of Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the Imam of Sirah
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The point is that the hasan hadith is a rank among the most subtle sciences of hadith, as Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly states in his treatise *Al-Muqni'ah*. The judgment of a single person fluctuates regarding this narrator, oscillating between classifying his hadith as sahih or classifying it as da'if. It is a middle rank; another scholar may elevate it to sahih, and a third may lower it to da'if. Therefore, one should not be hasty in rejecting some hadiths that some of the hafidh critics have graded as hasan.
The hadith of Ibn Ishaq is of this subtle type where his hadith is not elevated to the rank of sahih, nor is it lowered to the rank of a da'if hadith. Rather, it is hasan and can be used as evidence if there is no opposing narration that is stronger than it. I point out one last thing before we move on to listening to another question, which is:
What is known and circulated in the books of hadith scholars and those who do takhrij, and the like, is that the hadith of Ibn Ishaq is weakened solely by the use of 'an 'an (indirect narration). However, one must be aware that it may also be weakened by contradiction, because his memorization is not strong memorization, as understood from our previous discussion, such that it would be at the level of a sahih hadith. Sometimes we find in some of his narrations something of contradiction, which hadith scholars call "shudhdh". An example comes to mind, and we have seen that some who wrote in refuting or authenticating some hadiths have resorted to this:
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates in his great hadith encyclopedia known as *Musnad Imam Ahmad*. He narrates with a sahih chain to Muhammad ibn Ishaq, and Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrates explicitly with direct narration from his sheikh, whom I do not remember now, from Ibn Mas'ud:Sunan Abi Dawud 5223Da'if (Al-Albani) which is known among the majority of praying people today and is known by the name: The Tashahhud of Ibn Mas'ud.
The point is that this narration which Imam Ahmad narrated from Ibn Ishaq with his sahih chain is authentic, but the pause now is at Ibn Ishaq himself. He said:: If this hadith were authentic, it would be conclusive evidence that nothing of the salutation upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or anything of supplication is prescribed in the middle tashahhud after the tashahhud. However, when gathering the various routes of the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud regarding the tashahhud, which are numerous, praise be to Allah, and the most comprehensive collection of these routes that I have seen is by Imam al-Tabarani in *Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir*, which is printed today, praise be to Allah. He paid special attention to gathering the routes of the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud regarding the tashahhud. In none of these routes is there what Ibn Ishaq explicitly stated, that in the middle tashahhud, when he finished, he stood up and rose. Thus, this addition that Ibn Ishaq added to the narrations of the other trustworthy narrators is considered anomalous, indeed denoted. This observation is that the hadith of Ibn Ishaq is sometimes rejected, even if he explicitly narrates directly, due to his contradiction of some of the trustworthy narrators.
The hadith of the tashahhud from Ibn Mas'ud exists in the books of Sunnah, especially in the two Sahihs. And in them, nor in any other of the Sunan and Musnads, is there this addition that he brought, from a route other than the route of Ibn Ishaq. Thus, Ibn Ishaq is unique in this. In that case, this addition of his is not accepted from him, even though he said: "He told me," explicitly narrating directly in this narration. So Ibn Ishaq has two defects: 'an 'an and uniqueness sometimes. But uniqueness is accepted without contradiction and rejected with contradiction. This is the state of Ibn Ishaq in some cases: if he is unique, he is used as evidence, and if he contradicts, he is not used as evidence. Yes.
The hadith of Ibn Ishaq is of this subtle type where his hadith is not elevated to the rank of sahih, nor is it lowered to the rank of a da'if hadith. Rather, it is hasan and can be used as evidence if there is no opposing narration that is stronger than it. I point out one last thing before we move on to listening to another question, which is:
What is known and circulated in the books of hadith scholars and those who do takhrij, and the like, is that the hadith of Ibn Ishaq is weakened solely by the use of 'an 'an (indirect narration). However, one must be aware that it may also be weakened by contradiction, because his memorization is not strong memorization, as understood from our previous discussion, such that it would be at the level of a sahih hadith. Sometimes we find in some of his narrations something of contradiction, which hadith scholars call "shudhdh". An example comes to mind, and we have seen that some who wrote in refuting or authenticating some hadiths have resorted to this:
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates in his great hadith encyclopedia known as *Musnad Imam Ahmad*. He narrates with a sahih chain to Muhammad ibn Ishaq, and Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrates explicitly with direct narration from his sheikh, whom I do not remember now, from Ibn Mas'ud:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: Ibn Umar told a story and said: We then came near the Prophet (ﷺ) and kissed his hand.
أنه تعلم مِن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صفة التشهدThe point is that this narration which Imam Ahmad narrated from Ibn Ishaq with his sahih chain is authentic, but the pause now is at Ibn Ishaq himself. He said:
So when he finished the first tashahhud from the greetings, he said: I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His messenger, he stood up
فإذا انتهى في التشهد الأول مِن التحيات قال: أشهد ألا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن محمدًا عبده ورسوله نهضThe hadith of the tashahhud from Ibn Mas'ud exists in the books of Sunnah, especially in the two Sahihs. And in them, nor in any other of the Sunan and Musnads, is there this addition that he brought, from a route other than the route of Ibn Ishaq. Thus, Ibn Ishaq is unique in this. In that case, this addition of his is not accepted from him, even though he said: "He told me," explicitly narrating directly in this narration. So Ibn Ishaq has two defects: 'an 'an and uniqueness sometimes. But uniqueness is accepted without contradiction and rejected with contradiction. This is the state of Ibn Ishaq in some cases: if he is unique, he is used as evidence, and if he contradicts, he is not used as evidence. Yes.