A question on the terminology of hadith, including Ibn Hittan’s authentication of narrators.

The Shaykh : It is not hidden from you that any science a student studies theoretically is insufficient and does not mature until he studies it practically; because this practical application will reveal to him errors or correctness that were not apparent to him theoretically and intellectually alone. Therefore, recently, some people were with me and mentioned my book, "Al-Rawd al-Nazir fi Tartib wa Takhrij Mu'jam al-Tabarani al-Saghir" (The Beautiful Garden in the Arrangement and Tracing of al-Tabarani’s Small Encyclopedia). You must have come across this name in some of my takhrij and comments, especially in works like Sahih al-Jami' and Da'if al-Jami'. "Al-Rawd al-Nazir" is the title, but the full title is "In the Arrangement and Tracing of al-Tabarani’s Small Encyclopedia." Our companion yesterday asked me why I do not print this book. I said: Because it is the first fruit of my work; it is the first thing that can be called my authorship. Without a doubt, I return to it often and find in it energy and thorough investigation of narrations and routes, and so on. I remember and say, quoting:
"Would that youth would return one day, *** So I could show it what old age has done."
But at the same time, when I remember this energy, I find in it errors and I say, Glory be to Allah, this is how our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) created the disposition of His servants, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Another example occurred to me following those before me, such as al-Haythami and others, and such asThe Shaykh : Ahmad Shakir, the Egyptian, the learned and virtuous man. When we would find in the chain of a hadith a man whom Ibn Hittan authenticated, we would say, "The chain is authentic," because all its narrators are known, trustworthy, and biographies are written for them in al-Tahdhib and so on. But for a man who seemed unknown, we would soon find someone who said that Ibn Hittan authenticated him, and thus the hadith would be considered authentic. But later, I realized that Ibn Hittan’s authentication is not to be relied upon, and I publicized this in all my books and spent many years refuting it. Then it became clear to me that not relying on Ibn Hittan’s authentication is not absolute; rather, it has conditions and restrictions. Some of these were mentioned by the scholarThe Shaykh : Abd al-Rahman al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him) in his book "Al-Tankil." Then I continued in this regard and arrived at a scientific reality that I believe is very important. I found it mentioned in some books of al-Dhahabi and al-'Asqalani, but they did not mention the path they took to reach this result, which is relying on Ibn Hittan’s authentication when he is unique in this authentication without the others...
Al-Halabi : You mean, Shaykh, the formulation of the rule.

The Shaykh : The formulation of the rule, yes. I found that if Ibn Hittan authenticates a man, and this man is of unknown status in the terminology of hadith—meaning no one else authenticated him—but many trustworthy narrators narrated from him, then the soul is reassured to say that this one whom Ibn Hittan authenticated is in a position of trust. This is what I arrived at only after about twenty years, while even today many of those engaged in the science of hadith rely on Ibn Hittan’s authentication absolutely. Some of them, who followed these writings and our criticism of Ibn Hittan’s authentication, agreed with us that Ibn Hittan’s authentication is not to be relied upon, but they did not reach this rule with us. As our companion said, if the one whom Ibn Hittan authenticated has many trustworthy narrators from him, then his authentication of him is to be relied upon. In such cases, al-Dhahabi and al-'Asqalani say "truthful" (siddiq). If you went back to all the books of men, you would not find the word "truthful" issued by any of the early scholars. How did al-'Asqalani arrive at this? There are about seven hundred years between him and the man. And al-Dhahabi? He arrived at this through this investigation, this research, this thorough examination, and this knowledge of the number of trustworthy narrators who narrated from this trustworthy man whom Ibn Hittan authenticated. Knowing that Ibn Hittan, in his book, does not mention a narrator for the one he authenticated except one person. Sometimes he might say, "So-and-so narrated from him," naming him, or "others," or "the people of his land narrated from him," a general term. This is not sufficient, does not satisfy, and does not quench thirst, unless we should trace other books to know whether this man whom Ibn Hittan authenticated has trustworthy narrators, or if it is just one or two. This is a second example that a person in this science must, in reality, not be hasty, and must be polite and slow in judging hadiths as authentic or weak. Even more so, he should direct criticism and objection to those who differ with him in opinion. And a third thing, which is perhaps the last regarding this topic, is that there are issues in the science of hadith that are considered relative, meaning the opinion differs regarding some scholars from others. In fact, the matter is more precise than that sometimes; it may be relative for the same person, for the same hadith scholar, for the same researcher. The authentication of a narrator may be, for him, sometimes a trustworthy one, sometimes a weak one, sometimes in between. And I saw... from the meaning of the hasan hadith, it mentions what its meaning is, that the hasan hadith is one of the most precise types of hadith sciences...
Abu Layla : From whom, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, yes. Why? Because you know, I believe, what the hasan hadith is? Of course, hasan li-dhatihi (hasan in itself) and hasan li-ghayrihi (hasan due to other factors) are two known categories. The hasan li-dhatihi is where the narrator is trustworthy, but his memory is below the memory of the narrator of the authentic hadith and above the narrator of the weak hadith. This ratio may be looked at by one researcher sometimes, and he may classify this narrator with the weak in memory and weaken his hadith. And sometimes, due to deep consideration of what was said about him, he may raise his status from weakness to hasan and make his hadith hasan. This is one person. What do you think if you look at this issue regarding Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr, and the people who follow all of them, who are all engaged in the science of hadith? Without a doubt, the relativity here will be very, very wide. This is regarding the hasan li-dhatihi. And the hasan li-ghayrihi is more complex and more complex because it relates to the ratio of the routes the researcher first stands upon, and then the ratio of the weakness present in its individual components. So Zayd among people may gather these routes, while others do not gather them... So the hasan li-ghayrihi, as we said, is based on the multiplicity of routes, many, and the ratio of weakness in them, strong or weak, and so on. This is a very wide field for disagreement. So if there is a person who has not spent a long time in research, it may appear to him that so-and-so authenticated what is weak or weakened what is authentic. The truth is that the issue requires patience and composure. This is what I have regarding this issue.

The questioner : Regarding the supporting chains (mutaba'at) that he mentionsThe Shaykh : Abdullah al-Duwaish, as passed to you, perhaps, what is the level of them, I mean?

The Shaykh : I told you a general statement that in some things he hit the mark. And now I am mentioning another thing: he says, for example, this hadith was weakened byThe Shaykh : here; but it was authenticated there. And this we know, and the reason is what we mentioned earlier.