The Shaykh’s refutation of a person who says, “This is an authentic, anomalous hadith,” with an explanation of the correct terminology in this regard.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : What does “This is an authentic, anomalous hadith” mean?
The Shaykh : “An authentic, anomalous hadith”—who says such a thing?
The questioner : I read it in the book *Taysir Mustalah al-Hadith*.
The Shaykh : *Taysir Mustalah al-Hadith* is undoubtedly a recent book. Who is its author?
The questioner : Al-Tahan.
The Shaykh : ...My guess was correct.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, we hear from him. “An authentic, anomalous hadith”—it is like saying “an authentic, weak hadith.” My brother, you are the one transmitting this; I do not know whether you are the one making the error or the one you are quoting is making the error. It is better to assume that you are the one making the error, because that person, whoever he is, is a doctor. It is better that we attribute the error to our companion rather than to him. It is not permissible, my brother, to say “an authentic, anomalous hadith,” because the anomalous hadith is one of the categories of weak hadith. That is why I told you that saying “an authentic, anomalous hadith” is like saying “an authentic, weak hadith,” or like saying “night and day at the same time.” These are two opposites that cannot coexist, just as a moving letter and a static letter are two opposites that cannot coexist. But what is said? It is said regarding a certain hadith: “This hadith has an authentic chain but a weak text.” Look, we separate the previous contradiction into parts: authentic chain, weak text. What does “authentic chain, weak text” mean? The conditions of authenticity are met in the chain, as far as the outward appearance goes, but there is evidence that the text is erroneous. In that case, if we want to summarize the previous statement, “authentic chain, weak text,” we do not say “an authentic, anomalous hadith”; we say “an anomalous hadith,” meaning a weak hadith. Because, as the scholars say, one of the conditions of an authentic hadith is: “That it is narrated by a just, precise narrator from a like him, from a like him, to the end of the chain, and that it is not anomalous and not defective.” So, if it is said “an anomalous hadith,” it is as if it were said “a defective hadith.” And if it is said “a defective hadith,” it is as if it were said “a weak hadith.” And if it is said “an anomalous hadith,” it is as if it were said “a weak hadith.” As for combining “authentic” and “anomalous,” or “authentic” and “defective,” these two opposites cannot coexist. It is only possible to say this in the sense of being expansive in explaining an authentic chain with a weak text. However, ordinary people are not addressed with this language. They are not told “an anomalous hadith,” nor are they told “a defective hadith.” Rather, it is clear: “a weak hadith,” and the matter is ended. But from the perspective of the philosophy of this sentence, based on the rules of the scholars of hadith, its correctness lies in saying “authentic chain, weak text.” These two phrases ultimately equal a weak hadith. Is that clear?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right, go ahead.
The questioner : What does “This is an authentic, anomalous hadith” mean?
The Shaykh : “An authentic, anomalous hadith”—who says such a thing?
The questioner : I read it in the book *Taysir Mustalah al-Hadith*.
The Shaykh : *Taysir Mustalah al-Hadith* is undoubtedly a recent book. Who is its author?
The questioner : Al-Tahan.
The Shaykh : ...My guess was correct.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, we hear from him. “An authentic, anomalous hadith”—it is like saying “an authentic, weak hadith.” My brother, you are the one transmitting this; I do not know whether you are the one making the error or the one you are quoting is making the error. It is better to assume that you are the one making the error, because that person, whoever he is, is a doctor. It is better that we attribute the error to our companion rather than to him. It is not permissible, my brother, to say “an authentic, anomalous hadith,” because the anomalous hadith is one of the categories of weak hadith. That is why I told you that saying “an authentic, anomalous hadith” is like saying “an authentic, weak hadith,” or like saying “night and day at the same time.” These are two opposites that cannot coexist, just as a moving letter and a static letter are two opposites that cannot coexist. But what is said? It is said regarding a certain hadith: “This hadith has an authentic chain but a weak text.” Look, we separate the previous contradiction into parts: authentic chain, weak text. What does “authentic chain, weak text” mean? The conditions of authenticity are met in the chain, as far as the outward appearance goes, but there is evidence that the text is erroneous. In that case, if we want to summarize the previous statement, “authentic chain, weak text,” we do not say “an authentic, anomalous hadith”; we say “an anomalous hadith,” meaning a weak hadith. Because, as the scholars say, one of the conditions of an authentic hadith is: “That it is narrated by a just, precise narrator from a like him, from a like him, to the end of the chain, and that it is not anomalous and not defective.” So, if it is said “an anomalous hadith,” it is as if it were said “a defective hadith.” And if it is said “a defective hadith,” it is as if it were said “a weak hadith.” And if it is said “an anomalous hadith,” it is as if it were said “a weak hadith.” As for combining “authentic” and “anomalous,” or “authentic” and “defective,” these two opposites cannot coexist. It is only possible to say this in the sense of being expansive in explaining an authentic chain with a weak text. However, ordinary people are not addressed with this language. They are not told “an anomalous hadith,” nor are they told “a defective hadith.” Rather, it is clear: “a weak hadith,” and the matter is ended. But from the perspective of the philosophy of this sentence, based on the rules of the scholars of hadith, its correctness lies in saying “authentic chain, weak text.” These two phrases ultimately equal a weak hadith. Is that clear?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: All right, go ahead.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.