What is the meaning of al-Iraqi's statement: "It does not follow from the fact that a thing has a valid origin or that its origin is valid that it itself is valid"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is the meaning of al-Iraqi's statement: "It does not follow from the fact that the valid origin of a thing is in a valid origin that it itself is valid"? And what is the concept of their saying: "the origin of the hadith"?
The Shaykh : This is an important question in reality for students of knowledge in general, and for students of the terminology of hadith in particular. We give an example to understand this statement. It is said regarding a hadith narrated by so-and-so and so-and-so that its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. That is, this hadith in its complete form is not in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, but rather its origin, meaning a portion of it, and especially in most cases from its beginning, is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. As for this complete form, it is attributed to him in its entirety, but its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. We give a clarifying and alerting example for many people who do not care about performing the invocations and dhikr that came from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). They do not care to mention them as they came, without addition or subtraction. It is customary for these people that when they are told that there is an addition in the narration, dhikr, or du'a they mentioned that is not established, they say to you: "My brother, what is the harm? An addition of good is good." An example of what many people fall into is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, and the hadith is in *Sahih al-Bukhari* from the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih al-Bukhari 614 This is how the hadith is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, and this is how the hadith is in other than one book of the books of Imam al-Bukhari, for example, the book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad* by Imam al-Bukhari. This hadith came in *Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra* and through the path of Imam al-Bukhari with an addition at the end of the du'a, which is: . And you hear people today preserving this addition such that you hardly find anyone who stops at his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: Sunan an-Nasa'i 680Sahih (Darussalam) They do not stop here, but rather they add: Muwatta Malik 20:132. If we want to say in the takhrij of this hadith: It was narrated by Imam al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, and its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, this is an example. That is, the addition: Muwatta Malik 20:132 does not exist in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. And based on that, measure and understand this phrase mentioned by the questioner, quoted from al-Hafiz al-Iraqi.
The questioner : I mean the addition is established, O Shaykh? Is the addition established?
The Shaykh : The addition is shadh (anomalous), and we have evidence for that which we discussed in detail, I think, in *Irwa' al-Ghalil*. But what comes to my mind as I answer this question is that the hadith, as you heard just now, was narrated by al-Bukhari in his *Sahih* and also in *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. Why did I mention the book *Af'al al-'Ibad*, which is not from the Sahih, and in which he narrates what is authentic and what is not, like his other books in which he did not commit to authenticity, such as his famous book *Al-Adab al-Mufrad* by Imam al-Bukhari, where he narrates what is authentic and what is not? Why did I add, in conjunction with his saying "al-Bukhari narrated it in his *Sahih*": "and he also narrated it in his book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*"?
To draw attention to the fact that in both books he did not narrate the hadith with this addition that al-Bayhaqi narrated in his *Sunan* through the path of al-Bukhari himself, or perhaps I am correcting myself now: through the path of al-Bukhari's shaykh. So al-Bukhari's narration of this hadith in his two books is without the addition. That is one of the evidences that this addition is not established. It is narrated in *Sunan al-Bayhaqi*, but it is shadh (anomalous), because al-Bukhari in his two books, and because Imam Ahmad also narrated this hadith without the addition, and many narrators or imams extracted the hadith as it came in *Sahih al-Bukhari* and in *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. So the hadith is valid without the addition. If the one who mentions the hadith with the addition attributes it to al-Bayhaqi, he may say: "Its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*," meaning: that this hadith has an existence in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, but not in this complete form.
This is what a person says when the situation does not allow him to detail the speech. But the truth, and the truth must be said, is that such a statement does not satisfy and does not suffice to say "its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*" to indicate the speaker's intent. Therefore, clarification drives away the Shaytan. Instead of saying "its origin is in al-Bukhari," he should say: "And it is in *Sahih al-Bukhari* without this addition." This is clearer and further from confusion and from misunderstanding the words of this Imam who says: "So-and-so narrated it, and its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*." It is better to be explicit rather than to hint.
And on this occasion, I point to an example similar to this, and students of knowledge should know it and understand it. It is established in the books of hadith terminology that it is not permissible to narrate a hadith with a formulation that suggests the validity of the hadith. So it is not said regarding a weak hadith: "The Messenger of Allah said," or "It came from the Messenger of Allah," or "The Messenger of Allah used to do so and so," and so on. Rather, they said: It is only said regarding a weak hadith: "It was narrated," "It was reported," "It was mentioned," and similar forms of weakening based on the passive voice. This is an established matter in the books of terminology. My personal opinion, which I have not seen anyone before me express, and I hope it is correct, is that this is because the scholars say.
The Shaykh : This is an important question in reality for students of knowledge in general, and for students of the terminology of hadith in particular. We give an example to understand this statement. It is said regarding a hadith narrated by so-and-so and so-and-so that its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. That is, this hadith in its complete form is not in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, but rather its origin, meaning a portion of it, and especially in most cases from its beginning, is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. As for this complete form, it is attributed to him in its entirety, but its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. We give a clarifying and alerting example for many people who do not care about performing the invocations and dhikr that came from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). They do not care to mention them as they came, without addition or subtraction. It is customary for these people that when they are told that there is an addition in the narration, dhikr, or du'a they mentioned that is not established, they say to you: "My brother, what is the harm? An addition of good is good." An example of what many people fall into is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, and the hadith is in *Sahih al-Bukhari* from the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Whoever after listening to the Adhan says, 'Allahumma Rabba hadhihi-dda` watit-tammah, was-salatil qa'imah, ati Muhammadan al-wasilata wal-fadilah, wa b`ath-hu maqaman mahmudan-il-ladhi wa`adtahu' [O Allah! Lord of this perfect call (perfect by not ascribing partners to You) and of the regular prayer which is going to be established, give Muhammad the right of intercession and illustriousness, and resurrect him to the best and the highest place in Paradise that You promised him (of)], then my intercession for him will be allowed on the Day of Resurrection
من قال حين يسمع النداء : اللهمَّ ربَّ هذه الدَّعوة التَّامَّة ، والصَّلاة القائمة ، آتِ محمَّدًا الوسيلةَ والفضيلة ، وابعثه مقامًا محمودًا الذي وعدته حلَّت له شفاعتي يوم القيامةYou do not fear the meeting.
إنك لا تخاف الميعادand resurrect him to the praised position that you have promised
وابعثه المقام المحمود الذي وعدتهYou do not break Your promise
إنك لا تخلف الميعادYou do not break Your promise
إنك لا تخلف الميعادThe questioner : I mean the addition is established, O Shaykh? Is the addition established?
The Shaykh : The addition is shadh (anomalous), and we have evidence for that which we discussed in detail, I think, in *Irwa' al-Ghalil*. But what comes to my mind as I answer this question is that the hadith, as you heard just now, was narrated by al-Bukhari in his *Sahih* and also in *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. Why did I mention the book *Af'al al-'Ibad*, which is not from the Sahih, and in which he narrates what is authentic and what is not, like his other books in which he did not commit to authenticity, such as his famous book *Al-Adab al-Mufrad* by Imam al-Bukhari, where he narrates what is authentic and what is not? Why did I add, in conjunction with his saying "al-Bukhari narrated it in his *Sahih*": "and he also narrated it in his book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*"?
To draw attention to the fact that in both books he did not narrate the hadith with this addition that al-Bayhaqi narrated in his *Sunan* through the path of al-Bukhari himself, or perhaps I am correcting myself now: through the path of al-Bukhari's shaykh. So al-Bukhari's narration of this hadith in his two books is without the addition. That is one of the evidences that this addition is not established. It is narrated in *Sunan al-Bayhaqi*, but it is shadh (anomalous), because al-Bukhari in his two books, and because Imam Ahmad also narrated this hadith without the addition, and many narrators or imams extracted the hadith as it came in *Sahih al-Bukhari* and in *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. So the hadith is valid without the addition. If the one who mentions the hadith with the addition attributes it to al-Bayhaqi, he may say: "Its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*," meaning: that this hadith has an existence in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, but not in this complete form.
This is what a person says when the situation does not allow him to detail the speech. But the truth, and the truth must be said, is that such a statement does not satisfy and does not suffice to say "its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*" to indicate the speaker's intent. Therefore, clarification drives away the Shaytan. Instead of saying "its origin is in al-Bukhari," he should say: "And it is in *Sahih al-Bukhari* without this addition." This is clearer and further from confusion and from misunderstanding the words of this Imam who says: "So-and-so narrated it, and its origin is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*." It is better to be explicit rather than to hint.
And on this occasion, I point to an example similar to this, and students of knowledge should know it and understand it. It is established in the books of hadith terminology that it is not permissible to narrate a hadith with a formulation that suggests the validity of the hadith. So it is not said regarding a weak hadith: "The Messenger of Allah said," or "It came from the Messenger of Allah," or "The Messenger of Allah used to do so and so," and so on. Rather, they said: It is only said regarding a weak hadith: "It was narrated," "It was reported," "It was mentioned," and similar forms of weakening based on the passive voice. This is an established matter in the books of terminology. My personal opinion, which I have not seen anyone before me express, and I hope it is correct, is that this is because the scholars say.