What is the method you advise for takhrij: should it be lengthy or concise?

The questioner : Shaykh, the practice of some researchers is that when they perform takhraj, they either elaborate by lengthening the chains of narration, such as mentioning the full chain: "It was narrated by Ibn Majah, who said: Hisham told us..." and "It was narrated by al-Darimi, who said: Hisham told us..." and "It was narrated by so-and-so, who said: Hisham told us..." filling the books with chains of narration. There are also those who are so concise that they stop at the Companion or the Tabi'i at the end. And there are those who identify the person on whom the chains revolve and omit the rest. What method do you advise students of knowledge to follow in takhraj? Should they lengthen it, or shorten it like this, or what?

The Shaykh : First, I do not see the first method as anything but blackening pages. It is like saying: "It was narrated by Imam Ahmad, who said: So-and-so told me," and the chain ends. Then in the second path: "Abu Dawud said: So-and-so told me," and so on. They multiply these takhraj entries and these references to the books of the Sunnah, and then the chains meet, for example, at Imam al-Zuhri, from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, from Abu Hurayrah. I do not see this as praiseworthy, and I fear, I fear that there is a share of the self in it. The correct approach is to gather these sources and link all these sources to the person on whom all the chains revolved, which in our previous example is al-Zuhri, from Sa'id, from Abu Hurayrah. That is it. The third method is to say: "From Abu Hurayrah." This involves wasting or losing for the reader the strength or degree of strength of the hadith on which these paths revolved. Therefore, the best is the middle path: not multiplying the mention of the chains of these Imams, nor shortening it to mentioning only the name of the Companion, but rather starting from where all the chains revolved. In our example, as we mentioned earlier, from al-Zuhri, from Sa'id, from Abu Hurayrah.

The questioner : Shaykh, is it required in this that the intermediaries omitted by the writer or researcher are, in their entirety, sufficient to establish the proof?

The Shaykh : Or in most of them, at least.

The questioner : Yes, the important thing is that they establish the proof.

The Shaykh : Yes, that they establish the proof.

The questioner : But if there is a defect in them, he must clarify it.

The Shaykh : It is necessary, otherwise it would be misleading.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : It would be misleading.

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Shaykh, also in this context, sometimes the books the writer stops at are books that are far from reach, including manuscripts and those that are not easily accessible to every student of knowledge. Is it recommended for the student of knowledge in such a case to present the full chain in such books that are not within the reach of students, as a means of preserving the chain for them?

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : Especially if the paths are not numerous, if the sources are not numerous.

The Shaykh : As for preserving the chain, I see this as an extra in knowledge. But if this chain either strengthens a hadith whose chain in the circulated and printed books does not establish the proof, then it is necessary to present the chain of the hadith from the manuscript from beginning to end so that students of knowledge are aware of the validity of this chain. But if there is no necessity to present it in full, only to preserve this chain that has not reached the hands of researchers or fallen under the eyes of researchers, then this is an extra in knowledge. It is beneficial, but the researcher-critic who is... authenticating or weakening may not meet its condition. He should suffice with mentioning the chain that is necessary, based on the rule we mentioned earlier.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.