How does a hadith rise from weakness to goodness to authenticity?

The questioner : All right; there is the hadith, the ninety-ninth after the hundred.

The Shaykh : ... ؟

The questioner : The ninety-ninth after the hundred, the hadith: . You mentioned that its chain is weak, and you cited other chains for it, some of which are very weak. If I were to mention them, the point is that you cited weak chains, and then you said that this hadith is from the category that you authenticated. That is why I raised this question.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : So how do we reconcile... I mean, how did you say that it must pass through the stage of goodness, and then you said it is an authentic hadith, even though all its routes are weak... the good hadith?

The Shaykh : Before I answer this question, when you asked me and I answered, did you understand what I intended?

The questioner: Yes, I understood.

The Shaykh : But it seems to me that is not the case. When I rephrased the question in this way, it is not specifically about this hadith; because it has become clear to me that the one mentioned there, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd, is the weak and very weak one who narrated the hadith, "When Adam committed the sin" to the end. But I see that the most important thing now is to clarify my previous answer. I mean that any researcher, when he judges a hadith with a weak chain and gives a final result that it is authentic due to other evidence, having looked at the set of routes before him, but if we wanted to, if we imagined the previous question, and I had something like this before me,The questioner : I would have detailed it and said the following, but in terms of reducing the result, there is no need for such detail as follows. So I would say, for example: here are four routes, or three routes, or five routes. I would say, for example: with the first, second, and third routes, it rises to the level of goodness, then adding a fourth and fifth route, it rises to the level of authenticity. But there is no need to detail this.

The questioner : And this is what we want. This detail that is not needed is what we want.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because the answer would be: Yes, the hadith rises from weak to authentic by the sum of its routes.

The Shaykh : It is like that, but the researcher, when he thinks, does not make that leap. In fact, it may not be possible for him to do so except gradually. For example, two or three routes gather in my mind, and it settles in my heart that this weak hadith, in its individual components, is good. It is set aside before issuing a new judgment; that is, before expending effort to know the ruling concerning this hadith. Then later, it is made easy for him to find two other routes, as I illustrated just now, and he reaches the end and says: this hadith is authentic by the sum of the routes. But the detail that goes through the researcher's mind does not need to be exceeded... because the general public, in particular, do not benefit from this, and in any book that circulates in the hands of all people. As for the thought, it is on this detail.

The questioner : And the first goodness, this is goodness due to other evidence.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : And not goodness in itself?

The Shaykh : No, that remains another matter. It may be good in itself and rise by the other routes to being authentic due to other evidence.

The questioner : And this agreement on authenticity, you call it authentic... due to other evidence?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Authentic due to other evidence?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And there is no need for detail; it is sufficient to say authentic, is that enough?

The Shaykh : Yes, because if we speak regarding the goodness... and the second goodness mentioned, if we say that this chain is good and it has a corroborating narration or two corroborating narrations; we say that by that, the hadith rises to the rank of authenticity. It is clear from this statement, clearer than the example in the first image. In the first image, we did not mention that it rose by a group of routes to goodness due to other evidence, then rose to authenticity due to other evidence. But here, in the example, the goodness in itself: when we judged the chain of a hadith to be good in itself, then we came upon some corroborating narrations for it; it rose by that to being authentic due to other evidence. So it is clear that the process here is represented in the reader's mind. And the summary: good in itself, plus a corroborating narration or two corroborating narrations for it, so it became authentic due to other evidence.

The questioner : This is good speech, O Shaykh. And I mentioned it because it is not found, or I have not come across it in "Al-Silsilah"... of course, it is not for the general public but for students of knowledge. And there is someone who criticized some of the hadiths that you authenticated, a man from Sudan. Based on this, there is a group of hadiths that you raised from weakness to authenticity directly without passing through goodness.

The Shaykh : This person is not knowledgeable about this science.

The questioner : So this kind of speech, O Shaykh, if it remains in such books that are for students of knowledge and researchers in... they would benefit from it; because it is not for the common person?

The Shaykh : Do you know this Sudanese personally?

The questioner : I do not know him.

The Shaykh : Have you seen my first words in the introduction?

The questioner : I did not notice anything.

The Shaykh : Or do you not remember?

The questioner : I do not remember, it was long ago...

The Shaykh : It is feared that he is from the group of those who declare people disbelievers.

The questioner : Perhaps you mean his speech on faith and Islam, and his response to you on the issue of faith and Islam.

The Shaykh : In the same treatise?

The questioner : In the same treatise.

The Shaykh : Do you have the treatise?

The questioner : ... .