Some hadith scholars sometimes apply to certain hadiths the phrase: "It is not authentic," or "It is not established"; what is the intended meaning of this phrase?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : And in a question regarding hadith and terminology; the subject is that hadith scholars sometimes apply to certain hadiths the phrase: "It is not authentic," or "It is not established"; what is the intended meaning of this phrase? I found a thesis by Shaykh "Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Azami" titled "Ghina'at al-Alami" in which the first question relates to this subject. He says: The intended meaning is usually...
The Shaykh : We missed...
...
The questioner : So Shaykh al-Azami holds that the intended meaning of both is usually to indicate weakness or to indicate fabrication, and it is not intended to mean "hasan" (good) except very rarely, to the point that it is not applied as "hasan" at all. He did not distinguish between the different books, some of which were compiled on topics and weak narrators, and some were compiled in such a way. But I found Shaykh "Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah" insisting on that and supporting his statement.
The Shaykh : Insisting on that, on what?
The questioner : On the fact that there is a difference in applying the two terms to hadiths and their intended meaning, so he says.
The Shaykh : The two terms or the term?
The questioner : "It is not authentic" and "It is not established," the two terms.
The Shaykh : Are you speaking now about the word "It is not authentic" and the word "It is not established"?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : So he says that when hadith scholars apply "It is not authentic" or "It is not established" to hadiths, we look at the sources and books; if they are from books of rulings, they intend by it the negation of technical authenticity, meaning the hadith can be hasan (good) or da'if (weak) and not mawdu' (fabricated). And if they apply them in books of fabrications and weak narrators and other books, the intended meaning is to indicate fabrication and invalidity; what is your opinion?
The Shaykh : I understood from your citation of "Abu Ghuddah" that if it is said: "It is not authentic" and "It is not established" in books of rulings, that negates authenticity but does not negate hasan (good) and da'if (weak). So my opinion is that it negates hasan (good) and establishes da'if (weak), not fabrication.
The questioner : This is what we have known from the words of Shaykh "Abd al-Azimi" and through practice.
The Shaykh : Meaning this is what I believe, whereas if it is said: "It is not authentic" in books of fabrications, it is equivalent to it being fabricated.
The questioner : And if it is in books that combine fabrications and combine weak hadiths, naturally...
The Shaykh : One must investigate.
The questioner : And one must investigate, this is what I supported in the introduction I wrote for the thesis "Ghina'at al-Alami," and I wrote the same statement you mentioned in it; and in support of that, I mentioned that there is no difference or distinction, meaning they are not opposites; books of fabrications and books of rulings; in books of fabrications you find many hadiths of rulings and many hadiths that hadith scholars narrated in rulings, and in books of rulings - also - some hadiths which are fabricated, such as in "Sunan Ibn Majah."
The Shaykh : This is a matter that is not free of it; because a hadith scholar might say in a chain: "Its chain is weak," and it might be very weak, or it might be fabricated.
The questioner : Then, hadith scholars did not all compile on fabrications, or the compilation on fabrications was at the end, and books of fabrications and weak narrators, specifically books of weak narrators, contain many weak and fabricated hadiths, meaning not all are fabricated and invalid, "Al-Kamil" by Ibn Adi, and "Al-Du'afa" by al-Uqayli, so I criticized his statement in the introduction to "Ghina'at al-Alami," and it will reach you in this series, if Allah wills; so I wanted to confirm the correctness of this opinion.
The Shaykh : You have done well.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And beware of that.
The Shaykh : We missed...
...
The questioner : So Shaykh al-Azami holds that the intended meaning of both is usually to indicate weakness or to indicate fabrication, and it is not intended to mean "hasan" (good) except very rarely, to the point that it is not applied as "hasan" at all. He did not distinguish between the different books, some of which were compiled on topics and weak narrators, and some were compiled in such a way. But I found Shaykh "Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah" insisting on that and supporting his statement.
The Shaykh : Insisting on that, on what?
The questioner : On the fact that there is a difference in applying the two terms to hadiths and their intended meaning, so he says.
The Shaykh : The two terms or the term?
The questioner : "It is not authentic" and "It is not established," the two terms.
The Shaykh : Are you speaking now about the word "It is not authentic" and the word "It is not established"?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : So he says that when hadith scholars apply "It is not authentic" or "It is not established" to hadiths, we look at the sources and books; if they are from books of rulings, they intend by it the negation of technical authenticity, meaning the hadith can be hasan (good) or da'if (weak) and not mawdu' (fabricated). And if they apply them in books of fabrications and weak narrators and other books, the intended meaning is to indicate fabrication and invalidity; what is your opinion?
The Shaykh : I understood from your citation of "Abu Ghuddah" that if it is said: "It is not authentic" and "It is not established" in books of rulings, that negates authenticity but does not negate hasan (good) and da'if (weak). So my opinion is that it negates hasan (good) and establishes da'if (weak), not fabrication.
The questioner : This is what we have known from the words of Shaykh "Abd al-Azimi" and through practice.
The Shaykh : Meaning this is what I believe, whereas if it is said: "It is not authentic" in books of fabrications, it is equivalent to it being fabricated.
The questioner : And if it is in books that combine fabrications and combine weak hadiths, naturally...
The Shaykh : One must investigate.
The questioner : And one must investigate, this is what I supported in the introduction I wrote for the thesis "Ghina'at al-Alami," and I wrote the same statement you mentioned in it; and in support of that, I mentioned that there is no difference or distinction, meaning they are not opposites; books of fabrications and books of rulings; in books of fabrications you find many hadiths of rulings and many hadiths that hadith scholars narrated in rulings, and in books of rulings - also - some hadiths which are fabricated, such as in "Sunan Ibn Majah."
The Shaykh : This is a matter that is not free of it; because a hadith scholar might say in a chain: "Its chain is weak," and it might be very weak, or it might be fabricated.
The questioner : Then, hadith scholars did not all compile on fabrications, or the compilation on fabrications was at the end, and books of fabrications and weak narrators, specifically books of weak narrators, contain many weak and fabricated hadiths, meaning not all are fabricated and invalid, "Al-Kamil" by Ibn Adi, and "Al-Du'afa" by al-Uqayli, so I criticized his statement in the introduction to "Ghina'at al-Alami," and it will reach you in this series, if Allah wills; so I wanted to confirm the correctness of this opinion.
The Shaykh : You have done well.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And beware of that.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.