Explanation of the Chain of Narration of the Hadith: “Whoever washes a corpse and keeps it secret, Allah will forgive him forty major sins,” and the other narration . . . . .

The Shaykh: As for what follows, the best of speech is the speech of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) ...
We have already passed through in the last lesson a hadith regarding the virtue of washing the corpse and burying it, and two narrations passed through us in that regard concerning the fact that whoever washes a corpse and keeps it secret, Allah will forgive him forty major sins. In the other narration, there is no explicit mention of “major sins”; rather, it says “forty times.” And we said last night that we had not noticed this difference, so we would verify in the narration whether each one is valid in itself, as we mentioned, or whether one is established and the other is weak. I promised you that I would bring you the answer in this lesson, and Allah the Exalted has made it easy for me, so here I am doing so.
The hadith here, in terms of the first narration, which is his saying, “and he kept it secret, Allah will forgive him forty major sins,” is reported by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, and its narrators are those relied upon in the authentic collections. As for the narration “Allah will forgive him forty times,” he attributed it to al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, and he said, “The authentic one is on the condition of Muslim.” Naturally, I returned to these two sources. The first source is al-Tabarani’s al-Mu'jam al-Kabir, which reported the first narration with the wording “forty major sins.” I found the chain as the author stated: its men are men of the authentic collections. However, I am currently in the process of writing an introduction containing some elaboration on certain fundamental principles of hadith, especially those related to this book, on the basis that I am in the process of printing the two parts of this book: the first is Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, and the other is Da'if al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib. So I am in the process of writing the introduction for these two books. There, I mentioned that when the author says, “In what al-Tabarani reported, its men are men of the authentic collections,” and likewise when al-Hafiz Nur al-Din al-Haythami does so in his book Majma' al-Zawa'id wa Manba' al-Fawa'id, doing as al-Mundhiri does in al-Targhib, and also specifically regarding this hadith, saying as al-Mundhiri said, “Its men are men of the authentic collections,” we must be alert to an important point here. It is that whenever we see al-Mundhiri, al-Haythami, and their like among the preservers saying in a narration like this one of al-Tabarani or others, “Its men are men of the authentic collections,” we must remember the following fact: this is a matter of predominance. “Its men are men of the authentic collections” is a matter of predominance, whereas it is supposed to be a matter of generality and comprehensiveness.
I mean, its men are men of the authentic collections, exceptThe Shaykh : al-Tabarani. This is a consistent rule. Why? Because al-Tabarani’s shaykhs did not reach the tier that is the tier of the shaykhsThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim; they are below that in tier, in era, and in chain. So a convention has taken place, with some regrettable leniency, that when they say “its men are men of the authentic collections,” they look at the lowest man in the chain. In a chain like al-Tabarani’s, if he is from the shaykhs of al-Bukhari and Muslim or one of them, or above, they say “its men are men of the authentic collections.” But what is below that, they do not include in such an expression. Clearer than this is what al-Hakim extracts in al-Mustadrak. Al-Hakim is a later tier than al-Tabarani, and yet he himself extracted hundreds of hadiths and said in them, “Its chain is authentic on the condition ofThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari, its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim.” He means what is below al-Hakim’s shaykh, and even what is below the shaykh of al-Hakim’s shaykh. This is a very important point. Sometimes, and sometimes it is a matter of formalities, in the first case, they often use this statement, and al-Tabarani’s shaykh, or al-Hakim’s shaykh, who reported the hadith from one of the shaykhsThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim, may not be trustworthy. He may not be one relied upon. In that case, what does it benefit us that one of us says, “Its men are men ofThe Shaykh : of the authentic collections, its men are those relied upon in the two authentic collections,” as long as what is below the chain, which is from the menThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim, even if one person is weak or unknown, or has other defects and criticisms?
Therefore, take this as a rule: whenever you see such a statement, do not assume first that this chain is authentic for the reasons we have mentioned repeatedly. “Its men are men of the authentic collections” means its men are trustworthy men, but there may be other defects, and disconnection, and tadlis, and the like. I do not want, of course, to delve into this now, but it is sufficient for us where we are now: if he says “men of the authentic collections,” do you recall? What is the state of al-Tabarani’s shaykh? What is the state of al-Hakim’s shaykh and the shaykh of his shaykh? It is necessary to review. What we did now was return to al-Tabarani’s al-Mu'jam al-Kabir, especially since the volume containing this hadith has been printed, and praise be to Allah. As for al-Hakim, it has been with us since old times.
The hadith, in terms of the paths, in al-Tabarani and in al-Hakim, revolves around a man from the menThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and from the shaykhsThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and he is 'Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri' al-Misri. So he is from the shaykhs of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and above them, and also from the menThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim or one of them. So al-Hakim said, “Its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim,” meaning al-Muqri' and above. As for what is below him, they are not from the shaykhsThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim. Likewise, al-Tabarani reported it from al-Tabarani via a path from al-Muqri', and al-Hakim from two paths from al-Muqri'. Al-Tabarani, who said his narration is “forty major sins,” his shaykh first is not from the shaykhsThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim, as we mentioned. Second, we did not find a biography for him in all the sources we have. And the least that can be said about him is that he is unknown to us. His name is Harun ibn Malul. In the printed copy, he is from al-Basrah, and in my mind from old times, he is to be from Egypt, especially since his shaykh, as I mentioned to you just now, is also from Egypt.
The important thing is that this man, Harun ibn Malul, al-Tabarani’s shaykh who reported the hadith from al-Muqri', is the one who said “forty major sins.” Al-Hakim, who reported it with the wording “forty times,” reported it from two shaykhs who are not his, but are from the shaykhs of his shaykhs. He said, meaning two shaykhs from al-Muqri' with the wording “forty times.” What do we have left? We have two narrations: “forty major sins,” which Harun ibn Malul, the Basran or Egyptian, reported uniquely, and “forty times,” which two shaykhs from the shaykhs of the hadith reported with this wording. If Harun ibn Malul were known for trustworthiness, integrity, and precision, we would say it is anomalous because he contradicted two trustworthy men. When a single hadith comes in two different forms, it is necessary in that case to prefer one over the other. The way to prefer is to say: if the one who contradicted is trustworthy and the one he contradicted is more trustworthy or more numerous, it is said of the contradicting narration that it is an anomalous narration. And if the one who contradicted is weak or unknown, it is said of his narration that it is denounced because it contradicted the authentic narration. In summary, after this explanation and clarification, many of you may benefit, if Allah wills. The narration “forty major sins” is weak, and the narration “forty times” is the healthy narration. Let this be in your minds, and let those who care about recording note this in the margin of the book.