Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that al-Tirmidhi was the first to classify hadith into authentic, good, and weak.

Abu Ishaq: Regarding the good hadith, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says in *Al-Qa'idah al-Jaliyyah* that the first to classify hadith into authentic, good, and weak was al-Tirmidhi; meaning al-Tirmidhi was the first to define the technical term "good." However, the word "good" appeared in the speech of earlier imams, such as al-Bukhari’s statement about the hadith of 'Uthman ibn 'Affan regarding the beard: "It is a good hadith." And Imam Ahmad’s statement about the hadith of Umm Habibah regarding touching the private parts: "It is a good hadith." Also, Ibn Ma'in’s statement about the hadith of the two skins: "Even if Ibn 'Ulayyah did not memorize it, its chain is good, or it is a good hadith," or similar. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in *Al-Nukat 'ala Ibn al-Salah* says that Ibn al-Madini and al-Bukhari intended the technical term "good," and that al-Tirmidhi took it from al-Bukhari; this is unclear, meaning that "good" was used in al-Bukhari’s terminology like al-Tirmidhi’s, for example.

The Shaykh : I do not doubt that al-Bukhari established this good practice of the "good hadith" for his student al-Tirmidhi, but this does not contradict what I quoted from Ibn Taymiyyah. If you wish, remind me of what you quoted from Ibn Taymiyyah so that I can recall how to reconcile al-Tirmidhi’s grading of "good" with al-Bukhari’s. What did Ibn Taymiyyah say?
Abu Ishaq: Shaykh al-Islam says, and the first known to have classified hadith into authentic, good, and weak was al-Tirmidhi, and "good" according to al-Tirmidhi is... al-Tirmidhi’s terminology.

The Shaykh : Fine, and you are, of course, quoting verbatim and not by meaning when you say that Ibn Taymiyyah said he classified hadith into authentic and good, is that how it was?
Al-Halabi : I do not remember this.

The Shaykh : Be patient, may Allah guide you, you are now blocking the path for us.
Al-Halabi : We need to shorten the path for our brother.
(Laughter)The Shaykh : onAl-Halabi : AndThe Shaykh .

The Shaykh : It is no problem; it is more beneficial for him to keep it in his mind, and then either we support it and benefit from it, or we correct his statement. Yes, do you remember this well?
Abu Ishaq: I remember it well. In *Al-Qa'idah al-Jaliyyah*, the first known to have classified hadith into...

The Shaykh : The word "classified" is necessary, we emphasize it, meaning, he classified.
Abu Ishaq: This is the point of discussion.

The Shaykh : No, this is an interjected sentence; if you had not repeated it, I would not have brought it up. Excuse me, I am circling around the word "classified." Ibn Taymiyyah said this, and the only point is that I wanted to say that Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement means the first to popularize this usage. If you remember that he said "classified," then we say this is in Ibn Taymiyyah’s independent reasoning, and we do not say he erred, so that it is not recorded against us that we said Shaykh al-Islam erred, even if he actually did err.
(Laughter)The Shaykh : And the students.
Abu Ishaq: The word "classified," I still remember it as if I am reading it.

The Shaykh : So the answer is: I did not hear this opinion and independent reasoning of his; rather, it can only be said that he popularized this usage.
Abu Ishaq: But the problem here is that I have not found, or in what I have read, any scholar who mentioned that Imam al-Bukhari or others said that "good" is that whose chains are multiple, or similar.

The Shaykh : It is not necessary. Why did you introduce a new factor into the topic now? Is there not a good hadith without multiple chains?
Abu Ishaq: There is.

The Shaykh : Why did you introduce this then?

The Shaykh : Because this is in al-Tirmidhi’s terminology.

The Shaykh: No.
Abu Ishaq: Good for other reasons (hasan li ghayrihi).

The Shaykh : No, no, and may Allah bless you, this is from his terminology.
Abu Ishaq: From al-Tirmidhi’s terminology?

The Shaykh: From whom.
Abu Ishaq: It is not there.

The Shaykh : Not all of it.
Abu Ishaq: Yes.

The Shaykh : The good hadith according to al-Tirmidhi is a good hadith in itself, a good hadith for other reasons; it is not necessary. You say we do not know that al-Bukhari says the good hadith is the one with multiple chains; this is not necessary.
Al-Halabi : The definition of the good hadith according to al-Tirmidhi?

The Shaykh : Be patient a little.

The Shaykh Hmm — since it is not necessary, it is sufficient — and peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings — that we understand that al-Bukhari uses the term "good hadith" as al-Tirmidhi does. So the matter, as I said, is that he received it from his imam al-Bukhari and his teacher al-Bukhari; but the reality we witness and touch with our hands is that al-Tirmidhi uniquely popularized and frequently used the term "good hadith." So if I say that al-Tirmidhi received this from his teacher al-Bukhari, and what I mentioned is, in my opinion, not applicable.
Abu Ishaq: Okay, did al-Tirmidhi take this terminology from al-Bukhari? Was this by way of induction or by way of an explicit text...?

The Shaykh : An explicit text; he is transmitting from al-Bukhari. Al-Tirmidhi himself transmits from al-Bukhari in some hadiths that he said "it is a good hadith," and perhaps you mentioned something of that earlier.
Abu Ishaq: Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh: All right.
Al-Halabi : Our teacher, here is something I want to inquire about.

The Shaykh : There is something before you, please go ahead, Ya 'Adil.
Questioner: I mean that Imam al-Tirmidhi took from his teacher al-Bukhari the definition of Imam al-Tirmidhi; as I remember, he classified that in *Al-'Ilal* where he defined "good for other reasons," so he took this detail from Imam al-Bukhari.

The Shaykh : It seems you are meeting our teacher here in this, and I have previously answered this. Al-Tirmidhi has two types of good hadith: one is good in itself, and the other is good for other reasons. From your speech, it appears that al-Tirmidhi does not have a good hadith except the one with multiple chains, as we heard earlier. But you knew something and missed other things, among them that al-Tirmidhi has a good hadith in itself. This is understood first from his definition of the good hadith for other reasons at the end of the book, and then from his expressions in grading. If he says "this is a good hadith," it is what you mean; and if he says "a good, strange hadith," it is the good in itself. So it is not necessary that al-Bukhari means by "good" the good due to multiple chains. Clear?

The Shaykh: All right, go ahead.
Al-Halabi : My teacher, I want to ask first, if you remember or something, which is the higher rank: Ya'qub ibn Shu'bah or Imam al-Bukhari? It is established that Ya'qub ibn Shu'bah used the term "good" frequently, even in his Musnad, of which a portion has been printed, and he often says "and this is a good hadith" and "this is a good hadith" and similar.

The Shaykh : This is not important, in any case, because the teacher here mentioned from other than al-Bukhari, like Yahya ibn Ma'in and 'Ali ibn al-Madini, and 'Ali ibn al-Madini is a teacher, as you know, of al-Bukhari. The important thing is that al-Tirmidhi did not uniquely use this term, but he was preceded to it. However, he narrates from his teacher in some hadiths that he said "it is a good hadith." Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement that al-Tirmidhi is the one who classified this classification, if it is by the word as we clarified earlier, "classified," then his statement must be interpreted, meaning he popularized this classification. And if it is not by this word, it can be interpreted more clearly.
Al-Halabi : Another point arises, my teacher. Since this piece is a small part of Musnad 'Umar and it uses the term "good" several times, meaning it can be more than fifteen times, and the whole book is two hundred parts, they mention or more or less, is it not possible that it is more, and thus he is the one who popularized this usage, meaning more than al-Tirmidhi on this measure?

The Shaykh : This, my teacher 'Ali, is a relative issue, because which of the two books is more famous in the Islamic world?
Al-Halabi : Al-Tirmidhi, of course.

The Shaykh : Al-Tirmidhi. Suppose it is Ya'qub, the owner of the Musnad. Suppose in terms of frequency of usage, his personal usage is more than al-Tirmidhi’s, suppose so. But since al-Tirmidhi is more famous in the world, Ibn Taymiyyah’s expression has no problem with it. And all this is on the assumption that he is aware of Ya'qub’s Musnad and its usage.
Abu Ishaq: Okay, our Shaykh, the word "popularized," does it not appear better to interpret it as he who defined the rule, and not just the release of the usage? For example, it is not known about Ya'qub ibn Shu'bah that he said to al-Tirmidhi and defined it terminologically by a rule, but al-Tirmidhi did. So does the word "popularized" not mean he who defined the rule, and not...?

The Shaykh : And by Allah, it does not appear that Ibn Taymiyyah is speaking about the use of this term in that sense; it does not appear that he means that definition and that specific limitation. Allah knows best. What do you want to feed us, oh...Abu Layla : Or what? Do you mean lunch and breakfast?
The Shaykh : (Laughter)The Shaykh : And you requested it.
Abu Ishaq : All right, our Shaykh, regarding the term "hasan" (good) when it appears in early biographical dictionaries, before the sciences of terminology had even settled, is this understood as linguistic hasan?

The Shaykh : No, the default is the technical hasan. If the path is blocked for us, we then refer it to the linguistic hasan.
Abu Ishaq : I mean, my intention is that if Imam al-Zuhri narrated a hadith and said, "This is a very hasan hadith," does the technical or the linguistic meaning come to mind?
Abu Ishaq : If you go back to the highest tier, the discussion takes another course. So in your example, it is the linguistic hasan, yes. But the discussion should be within the bounds of the two terms, within the bounds of the terms, regarding the meaning of a specific word. If one of them used this term, is it interpreted with the technical meaning or the linguistic meaning? There is no doubt that the answer in this case is that it is interpreted with the technical meaning, except as I mentioned earlier, if the paths are blocked for us, then we say it is hasan linguistically.
Abu Ishaq :The Shaykh : 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu'allimi, in some places in his commentary on al-Fawa'id on the collection, repeats this phrase: "The ruling of fabrication (wad') may be sufficient with the preponderance of suspicion." I want to clarify this phrase.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that the preponderance of suspicion is the basis for most of the rulings in Islamic law. For example, our ruling that this hadith is sahih (authentic)—is it with certainty?
Abu Ishaq : It is suspicion.

The Shaykh : All right, our ruling that this hadith is hasan—is it certainty? Also suspicion. Our ruling that this hadith is da'if (weak)? Likewise. And that it is mawdu' (fabricated)? Likewise. And this is scholarly discourse.
Abu Ishaq : Does this preponderance of suspicion have specific criteria, or is it merely what occurs to the mind of the critic?

The Shaykh : No, it does not have material criteria that can be placed before all those obligated to follow the law. Rather, it is matters related to the person who is making that ruling.