17 Minutes Read Time.

3rd Year

Abstract:

This paper provides a table stating the names of some of the narrators found in the Taysīr Muṣṭalāh al-Ḥadīth of Dr. Maḥmūd al-Ṭaḥḥān, their dates of passing away, their grading’s and ranks as per the Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb of Ḥāfiẓ Aḥmad ibn ꜤAlī ibn Muḥammad al-ꜤAsqalānī (d.852 AH) In addition to this, there are annotations which provide better context to the table and elaborate on some worthy points mentioned in other books of ꜤUlūm al-Ḥadīth.

Bibliography

al-Lakhnawī, M. Ꜥ.-Ḥ. (2018). Al-Raf’ Wal-Takmīl Fī al-Jarḥ wa al-Ta’dīl Taḥqīq ꜤAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah. Cairo: Dār al-Salām.

al-Qaḥṭānī, N. (1433). Muṣṭalaḥ 2. 64.

al-Shahrzūrī, Ꜥ. b.-R. (2018). ꜤUlūm al-Ḥadīth Li-Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ Taḥqīq wa Sharḥ Nūr al-Dīn ꜤIṭr. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.

al-Shīrbīnī, Ḥ. M. (n.d.). Al-Madkhal Ilā ꜤIlm al-Jarḥ wa al-Ta’dīl. Beirut: Maktabah ꜤAṣriyyah.

al-Suyūṭī, J. a.-D. (2016). Tadrīb al-Rāwī Fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawāwī Taḥqīq Muḥammad ꜤAwwāmah. Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj.

al-Taḥḥān, M. (1978). Uṣūl al-Takhrīj wa Dirāsah al-Asānīd. Riyāḍ: Maktabah al-MaꜤārif.

al-Thanwī, Ẓ. A.-Ꜥ. (1984). QawāꜤid Fī ꜤUlūm al-Ḥadīth Taḥqīq ꜤAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah. Aleppo: Maktab al-MaṭbūꜤāt al-Islāmiyyah.

al-ꜤAsqalānī, A. i. (1991). Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb Taḥqīq Muḥammad ꜤAwwāmah. Damascus: Dār al-Qalam.

al-ꜤAsqalānī, A. i. (2011). Sharḥ Nukhbah al-Fikr Taḥqīq Nūr al-Dīn ꜤIṭr. Karachi: Maktabah al-Bushrā.

Kolar, Ꜥ. (2016). Al- Rūwāt al-Muttahmūn bī al-BidꜤah Fī al-Tabaqah al-Thālithah Min Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb Lī Ibn Ḥajar al-ꜤAsqalānī. 114.

Taḥḥān, M. (2014). Taysīr Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth. Karachi: Maktabah al-Bushrā.

[1] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb is the culmination of a few books on Rijāl. There were some ꜤUlamā who documented the narrators found in the six canonical books of ḥadīth. Amongst them was Ḥafīẓ ꜤAbdul Ganiyy al-Maqdisī (d. 600 AH) who wrote al-Kamāl Fī Asmā al-Rijāl. This book was considered too long and needed some refining. Thus Ḥāfiẓ Abul Ḥajjāj Yūsuf bin al-Zakiyy al-Mizzī (d.742 AH) took on this task and wrote Tahdhīb al-Kamāl. Thereafter Ḥāfiẓ Bin Ḥajar al-ꜤAsqalānī (d. 852 AH) wrote Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb wherein he refined the Tahdhīb al-Kamāl of al-Mizzī (d.742 AH). After some time, one scholar requested Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar (d.852 AH) to give a final verdict on each narrator without any extras. He acceded to this request and wrote Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. The rulings found in this book are considered to be mostly accurate. Note: There were other works done on the Tahdhīb al-Kamāl by Dhahabī (d.748 AH)and Mughlaṭāy (762 AH). (al-Taḥḥān, 1978)

[2] It is a well-known fact that Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar (d.852 AH) had his own categories of Jarḥ and Ta’dīl for the narrators in his Taqrīb. His categories are as follows as mentioned in Taqrīb: (al-ꜤAsqalānī A. i., 1991)

المرتبة الأولى: الصحابة: فأصرح بذلك لشرفهم

المرتبة الثانية: من أكد مدحه إمَّا بأفعل: كأوثق الناس، أو بتكرير الصفة لفظا: كثقة ثقة، أو معنى: كثقة حافظ

المرتبة الثالثة: من أفرد بصفة، كثقة، أو متقن، أو ثبت، أو عدل

المرتبة الرابعة: من قصر عن درجة الثالثة قليلًا، و إليه الإشارة: بصدوق، أو لا بأس به، أو ليس به بأس

المرتبة الخامسة: من قصر عن الرابعة قليًا، و إليه الإشارة بصدوق سيئ الحفظ ، أو صدوق يهم، أو له أوهام، أو يخطئ، أو تغير بأخرة. و يلتحق بذلك من رمي بنوع من البدعة، كالتشيع و القدر، و النصب، و الإرجاء، و التجهم، مع بيان الداعية من غيره

المرتبة السادسة: من ليس له من الحديث إلا القليل، و لم يثبت فيه ما يترك حديثه من أجله، و إليه الأشارة بلفظ مقبول، حيث يتابع، فلين الحديث

المرتبة السابعة: من روى عنه أكثر من واحد و لم يوث، و إليه الإشارة بلفظ: مستور، أو مجهول الحال

المرتبة الثامنة: من لم يوجد فيه توثيق لمعتبر، و وجد فيه إطلاق الضعف، و لو لم يفسر، و إليه الإشارة بلفظ: ضعيف

المرتبة التاسعة: من لم يرو عنه غير واحد، و لم يوثق، و إليه الإشارة بلفظ: مجهول

المرتبة العاشرة: من لم يوثق ألبتة، و ضعف مع ذلك بقادح، و إايه الإشارة: بمتروك، أو متروك الحديث، أو واهي الحديث، أو ساقط.

المرتبة الحادية عشرة: من اتهم بالكذب

المرتبة الثانية عشرة: من أطلق عليه اسم الكذب، و الوضع

As mentioned, these are the categories mentioned by Ḥāfīẓ ibn Ḥajar in his Taqrīb only. The categories of Jarḥ and Ta’dīl that most ꜤUlamā use are as follows: (Taḥḥān, 2014)

مراتب التعديل و ألفاظها:

المرتبة الأولى: ما دل على المبالغة في التوثيق أو كان على وزن أفعل، و هي أرفعها مثل: فلان إليه المنتهى في التثبيت، أو فلان أثبت الناس

المرتبة الثانية: ما تأكد بصفة أو صفتين من صفات التوثيق، كثقة ثقة، أو ثقة ثبت

المرتبة الثالثة: ما عبر عنه بصفة دالة على التوثيق من غير توكيد، كثقة، أو حجة

المرتبة الرابعة:ما دل على التعديل من دون إشعار بالضبط، كصدوق، أو محله الصدق، أو لا بأس به

المرتبة الخامسة: ما ليس فيه دلالة على التوثيق أو التجريح مثل: فلان شيخ، أو روى عنه الناس

المرتبة السادسة: ما أشعر بالقرب من التجريح مثل: فلان صالح الحديث، أو يكتب حديثه

The narrators from the first three categories can be used as حجة. For category four and five, the narrators’ hadiths may be written, however, the precision of the narrator would be weighed against strong and precise narrators. If = =the narration conforms to what the others say, it will then be considered. As for the sixth category, the hadiths’ may just be written for consideration purposes. (Taḥḥān, 2014) Note: Shaykh Nūrūddīn ꜤIṭr (d.1442 AH), in his annotation of Nuzhah al-Naẓr, counts category 4 and 5 to be one. He makes category 1 for the Ṣaḥābah May Allah be pleased with them. (al-ꜤAsqalānī, 2011)

مراتب الجرح و ألفاظها:

المرتبة الأولى: ما دل على التليين- و هي أسهلها في الجرح- مثل: فلان لين الحديث، أو فيه مقال.

المرتبة الثانية: ثم ما صرح بعدم الاحتجاج به و شبهه، مثل: فلان لا يحتج به، أو ضعيف، أو له مناكير

المرتبة الثالثة: ما صرح بعدم كتابة حديثه و نحوه، مثل: فلان لا يكتب حديثه، أو لا تحل الرواية عنه، أو ضعيف جدا

المرتبة الرابعة: ما فيه اتهام بالكذب و نحوه،: مثل فلان متهم بالكذب، أو متهم بالوضع، أو يسرق الحديث، أو ساقط، أو متروك، أو ليس بثقة.

المرتبة الخامسة: ما دل على وصفه بالكذب و نحوه، مثل: كذاب، أو دجال، أو وضاع، أو يكذب، أو يضع.

المرتبة السادسة: ما دل على المبالغة في الكذب- و هي أسوأها- مثل: فلان أكذب الناس، إليه المنتهى في الكذب، أو هو ركن الكذب.

The Aḥādīth from the first two categories may be written for consideration purposes only. As for the last four categories, their Aḥādīth cannot be used as حجة, nor can it be written or considered. (Taḥḥān, 2014) (al-ꜤAsqalānī A. i., 1991)

Interestingly, these categories were categorized by Ibn Abī Ḥatim al- Rāzī (d.327AH) in his book al-Jarḥ wa al-Ta’dīl. Imām Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) and Ḥāfiẓ al-ꜤIrāqī (d.806 AH) had included the category of adding a صفة to theتوثيق. Ibn Ḥajar alꜤAsqalānī (d. 852 AH), in his Nuzah, had included the صيغة التفضيل, thus making it six categories in Ta’dīl. As far as the Jarḥ categories are concerned, Imām Dhahabī ((d.748 AH) and Ḥāfiẓ al-ꜤIrāqī (d.806 AH) included the صيغة of فعَّال making it five categories. Ḥafīẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ꜤAsqalānī (d.852 AH), in his Nuzah, then added the صيغة of مبالغة. Thus making it six categories in Jarḥ. (al-Shahrzūrī, 2018)

[3] In his Taqrīb, Ibn Ḥajar (d.852 AH) indicates to the era of most of the narrators. This purpose of this is to easily identify the narrators and the times they lived in. He made the eras into 12 ranks which are:

و أما الطبقات: فالأولى: الصحابة… الثانية: طبقة كبار التابعين… الثالثة: الطبقة الوسطى من التابعين.. الرابعة: طبقة تليها، جل روايتهم عن كبار التابعين.. الخامسة: الطبقة الصغرى منهم.. السادسة: طبقة عاصروا الخامسة، لكن لم يثبت لهم لقاء أحد من الصحابة،، السابعة: كبار أتباع التابعين.. الثامنة: الطبقة الوسطى منهم.. التاسعة: الطبقة الصغرى من أتباع التابعين. العاشرة: كبار الآخذين عن تبع الأتباع ممن لم يلق التابعين.. الحادية عشرة.. الطبقة الوسطى من ذلك.. الثانية عشرة: صغار الآخذين عن تبع الأتباع..

He also mentions that the first two ranks were in the first century of Islām. The third to eighth rank was in the second century of Islām. The Ninth to twelfth rank was in the third century of Islām. These ranks are a speciality of his Taqrīb. (al-ꜤAsqalānī A. i., 1991)

[4] The ꜤUlamā differ as to what are the أصح الأسانيد. Here below are a few, but not all: =

1. الزهري عن سالم عن أبيه   =
2. محمد بن سيرين عن عبيدة عن علي
3. الأعمش عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن ابن مسعود =
4. الزهري عن علي بن حسين عن أبيه عن علي =

[5] The ꜤUlamā have three different opinions with regards to a Mursal narration:

• It is weak and should be discarded. This is the opinion of a lot of the Muḥaddithūn and Fuqahā.
• It is strong and can be used as a حجة. This is the opinion of Imāms Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH), Mālik (d.179 AH) and Aḥmad (d. 241 AH). This is on condition that the narrator who is making إرسال is a strong narrator.
• It is accepted with certain conditions. This is the opinion of Imām al-ShāfīꜤī (d.204 AH). Some of the conditions are that the narrator making إرسال must be from the senior TabiꜤīn, the narration must not be opposed by other strong narrators and the narration must be supported by Muttaṣil or Mursal narration, or by Fatāwā of other ꜤUlamā’. (Taḥḥān, 2014)

[6] There are two opinions with regards to narration of a Mudallis:

1. The narration should be discarded in totality. This opinion is not relied upon
2. If the Mudallis makes it clear that he heard the narration like using سمعتُ or حدَّثَنَا or أَخْبَرَنَا, then the narration will be accepted. If he uses the معنعنة form, the narration will not be accepted. (Taḥḥān, 2014) (al-Suyūṭī, 2016)

[7] The different types of BidꜤah were as follows:

1. إرجاء- Īmān is only belief and confession and requires no action at all

2. تشيع- Giving preference to ꜤAlī (d.40 AH) May Allah be pleased with him over all the other Ṣaḥābah. And if preference is given over Abū Bakr (d. 13 AH) and ꜤUmar (d.23AH) May Allah be pleased with them over, then they are too referred to as غال في التشيع or رافضي.

3. قدرية- Evil is the action of man only

4. جهمية- Those who negate the Ṣifāt of Allāh and say that the Qur’ān is created

5.نصب- Hating ꜤAlī (d.40AH) and giving others preference over him

6. خوارج- Denying the authority of ꜤAlī (d. 40AH) and ꜤUthmān (d. 35AH) May Allāh be pleased with them.

Imām Dhahabī (d.748 AH) mentions that the narration of a Mubtadi’ cannot be discarded totally, because then a major portion of the Sunnah would be lost. (Kolar, 2016)The ꜤUlamā mention, that if the BidꜤah is tantamount to= =Kufr, then the narration will be discarded. If the BidꜤah is tantamount to Fisq, the narration would be accepted provided that= the Mubtadi’ is not inviting to his BidꜤah. (Taḥḥān, 2014) (al-Shahrzūrī, 2018)

[8] The Marāsīl of Ibrāhīm al-NakhaꜤī (d.96 AH) are ṣaḥīḥ according to ibn MaꜤīn (d.233 AH), and ibn ꜤAbd al-Barr al-Mālikī (d.463 AH). (al-Thanwī, 1984)

[9][9] The entire chain is بهز بن حكيم عن أبيه عن جده.  It also translates as بهز بن حكيم بن معاوية بن حيدة. This chain is considered to be Ṣaḥīḥ according to ibn MaꜤīn (d.233 AH) and Imām Bukhārī (d.256 AH) uses it in his Ṣaḥīḥ. These type of chains fall under the category of رواية الأبناء عن آبائهم. (al-Suyūṭī, 2016)

[10] The entire chain of this sanad is عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده. There is a lot of discussion around this chain. The ḍamīr in أبيه refers to شعيب, and there is no difference of opinion in that. There is a difference of opinion in the ḍamīr of جدِّهِ. If it refers to شُعَيْب, then the جد is the Ṣaḥābī ꜤAbdullāh bin ꜤAmr bin al-ꜤĀṣ (d. 65 AH) May Allah be pleased with him. If the ḍamīr refers to عمرو, then the جد is Muḥammad bin ꜤAbdillāh bin ꜤAmr bin al-ꜤĀṣ (d.145 AH). Most ꜤUlamā opine, that the ḍamīr refers to شعيب and he did meet his grandfather ꜤAbdullāh (d.65AH). Thus this chain would be muttaṣil. This is the opinion of Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal (d.241 AH), ꜤAlī al Madīnī (d.234 AH), Isḥāq bin Rahway (d.238AH), Ḥumaydī (d.488 AH), Yaḥyā bin MaꜤīn (d.233 AH), Abū Khaythamah (d.234 AH), Aḥmad bin SaꜤīd al-Dārīmī (d.253 AH)and others. All of these ꜤUlama consider this chain to be fine and use as حجة. However, ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH) has listed this chain in his Majrūḥīn and said that this chain is either Munqaṭi’ or Mursal. It is Munqaṭi’, because شعيب did not meet his grandfather ꜤAbdullāh or it is Mursal, because the ḍamīr in جد refers to ꜤAmr. His جد was Muḥammad bin ꜤAbdillāh bin ꜤAmr bin al-ꜤĀṣ (d.145 AH). This means a TābꜤī is narrating directly from Nabī ﷺ which renders the narration as Mursal.  Imām Dāraquṭnī (d.385 AH) refutes this claim and cites an incident of how شعُيب met his grandfather ꜤAbdullāh. ibn Ḥibbān (d.354 AH) later on retracted his statement and considered this chain to be authentic. (al-Suyūṭī, 2016)

[11] ꜤIjlī (d.261 AH) was considered Mutasāhil in the grading of ḥadīth. (al-Shīrbīnī). For the benefit of the readers, those who graded Aḥādīth were of different categories. Some were Mutashaddid, others Mutawassiṭ and others Mutasāhil. Those who were Mutashaddid, were likes of Shu’bah bin Ḥajjāj (160 AH), Yaḥyā bin SaꜤīd al Qaṭṭān (d. 198 AH), ibn MaꜤīn, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 322 AH) and Nisāī (d.303 AH). Those who were Mutawassiṭ were the likes= = of Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal (241 AH), al–Bukhārī (d.256 AH), Abū ZurꜤah al-Rāzī (d.264 AH), Dāraquṭnī (d.385 AH) and ibn ꜤAdiyy (d.277 AH). Those who were Mutasāhil were the likes of Tirmidhī (d.279 AH), ꜤIjlī (d.261AH), Bin Shāhīn (d.385 AH), al-Ḥākim (d. 405 AH) and ibn Ḥibbān (d.354 AH). (al-Qaḥṭānī, 1433) (al-Lakhnawī, 2018)

Note: These are not all the graders of Aḥādīth, but rather some. Some ꜤUlamā, further categorize them into further categories. We rely on the ꜤUlamā of the past who graded ḥadīth, and we do not grade ḥadīth on our own.