What is the Shaykh’s opinion regarding the books of al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi and al-Tha'labi, and the hadiths contained in them?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says:The questioner : What is the Shaykh’s opinion regarding the books of al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi and al-Tha'labi, and the hadiths contained in them?
The Shaykh : It is well known that al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, in terms of his creed, is a Sufi, and that people have spoken about his creed, much like what was said about Ibn 'Arabi the disbeliever. The chains of narration he reports in his book *Nawadir al-Usul* are rarely free from defects. Al-Tha'labi is the same. Perhaps you have noticed that in many of the hadiths I traced in *al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah*, a large section was taken from the manuscript of "Tafsir al-Tha'labi", which contains many weak and fabricated hadiths. It is known to scholars that the books of such people contain both authentic and weak hadiths, and the weak are the predominant feature. Among these weak hadiths is a large section of fabricated ones. If we all know that the four Sunan collections, which come after *al-Sahihayn*, contain weak hadiths and some fabricated ones, then it is even more likely that some of that is found in the book of al-Tha'labi or the book of al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, or similar works, that you mentioned.
Yes.
The questioner : The weakness, O Shaykh, is from one side.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Is the weakness from al-Hakim himself, or from the chains of narration he presented?
The Shaykh : Yes, regarding al-Tha'labi, it is regarding the hadiths. As for al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, it is from both sides, yes.
The questioner : The questioner says.
Another questioner: ...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... such as the hadith: This hadith was narrated uniquely by al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi ...
The Shaykh : What is the text of the hadith?
The questioner : I graded this hadith as hasan.
The Shaykh : It was narrated uniquely by al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, I do not have an answer at the moment; I need a paper to write down this note.
The Shaykh : Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi or al-Tirmidhi al-Hakim, and let us agree on this to distinguish between the two men. This does not mean that the hadith has no other narrator from the authors of the accepted books; it does not mean that. But it means that al-Suyuti did not come across this hadith with any other tracing except this one to which he assigned a symbol. So when I authenticate or grade a hadith as hasan, I do not mean that no one else narrated it. But what matters to me is that this hadith is hasan.
And on this occasion, I say: It has become clear to me through experience, from some of the questions and discussions I have heard, that many people, when they benefit from my book *Sahih al-Jami'* for example, quote from me and say "such and such a hadith," and they write underneath: "Al-Albani graded its chain as hasan in *Sahih al-Jami'*." This expression is wrong. I say: I do not know if I will ever be able to correct this that I am telling you about now?
I say: If I were to face my future as I have faced my past, I would have done what I did in *Sahih Abu Dawud*, and you are aware of some examples in it. For there I say: "The chain of this hadith is sahih", and sometimes I say: "The chain of this hadith is hasan sahih", sometimes I say: "This is a sahih hadith", and sometimes I say: "This is a hasan hadith". And I pointed out in the introduction the difference between these four terms. If I say: "Its chain is sahih", then its chain is sahih. If I say: "Sahih", then it is sahih by the totality of its routes. If I say: "Its chain is hasan sahih", then it is hasan in itself and sahih by other means. And if I say: "Hasan", I mean that it is weak in itself but hasan by other means.
So those who quote from me that I graded the chain as hasan in such and such a hadith, relying on the fact that I wrote underneath this hadith in *Sahih al-Jami'*: "Hasan, said al-Albani: Its chain is hasan," this is a mistake in many cases. And to prevent such a mistake in quoting from me, I should have said for the hasan hadith: "Its chain is hasan," and for the hadith that is hasan by other means: "Hasan" only, and I should have specified that in the introduction so that nothing is attributed to me that I do not see.
Likewise, I say at the end of the answer to this question: We should have drawn attention to the fact that al-Suyuti’s attribution of a hadith to a person does not mean that it has no second narrator. It may have a second, and it may have a third and fourth, and so on. I tried to point this out sometimes in *Sahih* by saying, for example: "Its tracing is in *al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*," with two dots above some of them: "Narrated by Ham, meaning Ahmad," and so on. But I was not able to maintain this practice in every hadith.
In summary: I do not say this except to clarify the reality, not as a defense. As you know, every one of us is always and forever exposed to making mistakes. And I think there is no need to bring the book now, because you have understood what we are saying. We are not saying that when al-Suyuti said "Narrated by al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi," and we wrote underneath: "Hasan," that we mean the chain of al-Tirmidhi for this very alleged al-Hakim. It is possible that this is a mistake on my part that occurred.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The questioner : It has another route, meaning.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, so there is another source, meaning?
The questioner : Yes, I do.
The Shaykh : That is it. Fine, but I still say: I do not absolve myself from error, and we are all the same. May Allah reward you with good if you point it out to us; this is a benefit we gain.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Please.
The Shaykh : It is well known that al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, in terms of his creed, is a Sufi, and that people have spoken about his creed, much like what was said about Ibn 'Arabi the disbeliever. The chains of narration he reports in his book *Nawadir al-Usul* are rarely free from defects. Al-Tha'labi is the same. Perhaps you have noticed that in many of the hadiths I traced in *al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah*, a large section was taken from the manuscript of "Tafsir al-Tha'labi", which contains many weak and fabricated hadiths. It is known to scholars that the books of such people contain both authentic and weak hadiths, and the weak are the predominant feature. Among these weak hadiths is a large section of fabricated ones. If we all know that the four Sunan collections, which come after *al-Sahihayn*, contain weak hadiths and some fabricated ones, then it is even more likely that some of that is found in the book of al-Tha'labi or the book of al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, or similar works, that you mentioned.
Yes.
The questioner : The weakness, O Shaykh, is from one side.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Is the weakness from al-Hakim himself, or from the chains of narration he presented?
The Shaykh : Yes, regarding al-Tha'labi, it is regarding the hadiths. As for al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi, it is from both sides, yes.
The questioner : The questioner says.
Another questioner: ...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... such as the hadith:
If you adorn your mosques
إذا زخرفتم مساجدكمThe Shaykh : What is the text of the hadith?
The questioner :
If you adorn your mosques and embellish your Qur'ans, then destruction is upon you
إذا زخرفتم مساجدكم وحليتم مصاحفكم فالدمار عليكمThe Shaykh : It was narrated uniquely by al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, I do not have an answer at the moment; I need a paper to write down this note.
The Shaykh : Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi or al-Tirmidhi al-Hakim, and let us agree on this to distinguish between the two men. This does not mean that the hadith has no other narrator from the authors of the accepted books; it does not mean that. But it means that al-Suyuti did not come across this hadith with any other tracing except this one to which he assigned a symbol. So when I authenticate or grade a hadith as hasan, I do not mean that no one else narrated it. But what matters to me is that this hadith is hasan.
And on this occasion, I say: It has become clear to me through experience, from some of the questions and discussions I have heard, that many people, when they benefit from my book *Sahih al-Jami'* for example, quote from me and say "such and such a hadith," and they write underneath: "Al-Albani graded its chain as hasan in *Sahih al-Jami'*." This expression is wrong. I say: I do not know if I will ever be able to correct this that I am telling you about now?
I say: If I were to face my future as I have faced my past, I would have done what I did in *Sahih Abu Dawud*, and you are aware of some examples in it. For there I say: "The chain of this hadith is sahih", and sometimes I say: "The chain of this hadith is hasan sahih", sometimes I say: "This is a sahih hadith", and sometimes I say: "This is a hasan hadith". And I pointed out in the introduction the difference between these four terms. If I say: "Its chain is sahih", then its chain is sahih. If I say: "Sahih", then it is sahih by the totality of its routes. If I say: "Its chain is hasan sahih", then it is hasan in itself and sahih by other means. And if I say: "Hasan", I mean that it is weak in itself but hasan by other means.
So those who quote from me that I graded the chain as hasan in such and such a hadith, relying on the fact that I wrote underneath this hadith in *Sahih al-Jami'*: "Hasan, said al-Albani: Its chain is hasan," this is a mistake in many cases. And to prevent such a mistake in quoting from me, I should have said for the hasan hadith: "Its chain is hasan," and for the hadith that is hasan by other means: "Hasan" only, and I should have specified that in the introduction so that nothing is attributed to me that I do not see.
Likewise, I say at the end of the answer to this question: We should have drawn attention to the fact that al-Suyuti’s attribution of a hadith to a person does not mean that it has no second narrator. It may have a second, and it may have a third and fourth, and so on. I tried to point this out sometimes in *Sahih* by saying, for example: "Its tracing is in *al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*," with two dots above some of them: "Narrated by Ham, meaning Ahmad," and so on. But I was not able to maintain this practice in every hadith.
In summary: I do not say this except to clarify the reality, not as a defense. As you know, every one of us is always and forever exposed to making mistakes. And I think there is no need to bring the book now, because you have understood what we are saying. We are not saying that when al-Suyuti said "Narrated by al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi," and we wrote underneath: "Hasan," that we mean the chain of al-Tirmidhi for this very alleged al-Hakim. It is possible that this is a mistake on my part that occurred.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The questioner : It has another route, meaning.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, so there is another source, meaning?
The questioner : Yes, I do.
The Shaykh : That is it. Fine, but I still say: I do not absolve myself from error, and we are all the same. May Allah reward you with good if you point it out to us; this is a benefit we gain.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Please.