The Ṣaḥīḥ-Hadith

Abstract

This paper introduces Ṣaḥīḥ Hadiths and their required criteria. A “Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith” can be translated as “a sound or authentic tradition.” This term first appeared in ʿilm al-muṣṭalaḥ (the science of Hadith terminology). The following paper consists of the definition, conditions and categories of Ṣaḥīḥ hadiths along with examples and a conclusion including of the most authentic chains of narration. 

Introduction

The development of the science of hadith established diverse criteria for identifying the authenticity of a hadith. Hadith scholars divided hadiths into three main categories (of which the first of two are authentic): ṣaḥīḥ (sound), ḥasan (good), and ḍaʿīf (weak). They further divided ḍaʿīf hadiths into two: slightly ḍaʿīf and very ḍaʿīf. In addition to authentic hadiths (ṣaḥīḥ and ḥasan), some jurists also accept using slightly ḍaʿīf hadiths as evidence in matters related to jurisprudence. Only very ḍaʿīf hadiths are outright rejected, such as if the chain of narration includes a dishonest or incompetent narrator.

According to some hadith scholars Imām al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892), from Termiz (which now falls within Uzbekistan), is the first to classify hadiths into the three aforementioned categories as found in his hadith-collection al-Sunan.[1] Although, some hold that the hadith scholar ʿAli b. al-Madīni (d. 234/849) preceded him in the use of ḥasan as a specific category of hadiths.[2] Before that, scholars only classified hadith into two: maqbūl (acceptable)/ṣaḥīḥ hadiths (authentic) and mardūd (rejected)/ḍaʿīf hadiths (inauthentic), granted that ḥasan was sporadically used prior to that. Based on this, some scholars conclude that al-Tirmidhi was the first to authoritatively categorize hadiths into three by including ḥasan as an individual category, which thereafter was widely adopted by hadith scholars.[3]

Slightly ḍaʿīf hadiths were considered as a separate category according to al-Tirmidhi, as he termed them ḥasan. He further expounded on this category by listing three conditions for it. They are as follows: 1. The chain of narration is free from anyone suspected of lying (muttaham bi al-kadhib); 2. The hadith must not differ from a stronger narration (free from shudhūdh); and 3. Another chain of narration of at least equal strength must support it.[4]

Furthermore, later hadith scholars divided ḥasan into two, ḥasan li ghairih (fair due to external factors) and ḥasan li dhātih (fair in and of itself), as they found different applications for both. The former is what al-Tirmidhi referred to as just ḥasan. It is a slightly ḍaʿīf hadith which is strengthened and supported by another slightly ḍaʿīf hadith or more until it reaches the lowest level of acceptability/authenticity.

The latter, ḥasan li dhātih, is a hadith that fulfills the minimum criteria of acceptability/authenticity without the need for any supporting hadith. It differs from a ṣaḥīḥ hadith in that one of its narrators or more does not reach the highest level of ability to preserve what he wrote or memorize.

The definition of Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith

Hadith scholars use the term “ṣaḥīḥ hadith” to refer to hadiths that reach the highest level of authenticity, also known as ṣaḥīḥ li dhātih (sound in and of itself). This term (saḥīḥ li dhātih) is used to distinguish between an authentic hadith without external factors and an authentic one due to external factors (ṣaḥīḥ li ghairih) as both are equal in their religious authority.

The well-known hadith scholar Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (d. 643/1245) defines a ṣaḥīḥ hadith as “a hadith with a connected chain of narration (musnad), in which each narrator, throughout the whole chain, is credible (ʿadl) and competent in his ability to memorize or preserve the text (ḍābiṭ), free from any irregularity (shādhdh) and hidden defect (muʿallal).” [5]

Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) adopted Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’s definition albeit with various additions. He says, “It is a hadith with a connected chain of narration (musnad) in which each narrator is credible (ʿadl) and competent in his ability to memorize or preserve the text (ḍābiṭ) until the Messenger of Allah ﷺ or the (respective) end of the hadith chain – a Prophet’s companion or someone after. Furthermore, it is free from any irregularity (shudhūdh) and hidden defect (ʿilla).” [6]

Recapitulating their definitions, al-Nawawi (d. 676/1277) writes, “It is a hadith with a connected chain of narration, in which all the narrators are credible and accurate, free from any irregularity (shudhūdh) and hidden defect (ʿilla).”[7]

The conditions of a Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith

According to the aforementioned definitions, they all stipulated the need for the narrator to be credible, reliable and competent in his memory or ability to preserve. In addition, the content (text) of the hadith itself must not have any defect or irregularity (does not differ from a stronger narration).

The conditions of Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith can be enumerated as follows:

1. The hadith must have a connected chain of narration (ittiṣāl al-sanad). This means that every narrator of the hadith must have directly heard it from the one he narrated. This condition thus excludes any hadith with a broken or disconnected chain of narration, such as but not limited to, Mursal (literally means sent), Munqaṭiʿ (disconnected), and Mudallas (literally means deceived) hadiths.
2. All narrators must be credible (ʿadl). By credibility (ʿadāla), scholars mean righteousness of a narrator which is defined as “The continuous preservation of religiosity, piety, and virtue. This leads to credibility through honesty and reliability.”[8]
3. All narrators must be reliable (ḍabṭ). This refers to the ability of a narrator to accurately preserve a narration, by either memory or writing it down until it is further passed down unaltered. This also includes the understanding of what has been narrated and the ability to use correct synonyms if it is not passed on literally.
4. It must be free from any irregularity (al-salamah min al-shudhūdh). An irregularity could be in the dissimilarity of wording in a specific hadith by a reliable narrator (thiqa) to an even more reliable narrator or more narrators, without the ability to reconcile between their wordings.
5. It must be free from any hidden defect (al-salamah min al-ʿilla). A hidden defect, as its name suggests, is a very subtle and unnoticeable defect in a hadith that otherwise seems authentic. Only very adept hadith scholars can leach them out such as when a narrator incorrectly attributes a Mawqūf hadith (the statement of a companion of the Prophet) to the Prophet ﷺ himself (Marfūʿ hadith) or transmits from a contemporary by using words that explicitly suggest direct transmission when in fact he did not hear a single word from him.

The Categories of a Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith

A ṣaḥīḥ hadith can be either ṣaḥīḥ li dhātih (sound in and of itself) or ṣaḥīḥ li ghairih (sound due to external factors).

Ṣaḥīḥ li dhātih is a hadith that fulfills all the previously mentioned conditions of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith, and thus has already been discussed.

As for ṣaḥīḥ li ghairih, it refers to a ḥasan li dhātih hadith, which is a hadith that fulfills all the criteria of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith except complete competency in preservation. It is authentic in and of itself but not to the level of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith. However, if strengthened by other comparable hadiths, it becomes ṣaḥīḥ li ghairih, meaning it reaches the authenticity of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith. Thus, Ṣaḥīḥ li ghairih hadith is essentially a ḥasan hadith that has been elevated to the authenticity of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith due to supporting hadiths, since it does not completely fulfill the conditions of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith in and of itself (ḥasan li dhātih + ḥasan li dhātih + … = ṣaḥīḥ li ghairih).[9]

An application-oriented example of a Ṣaḥīḥ Hadith.

In al-Shamāʾil al-Muḥammadīyyah, in the chapter ‘The Way the Messenger of Allah ﷺ Drank,’ al-Tirmidhi narrates, “ʿAli b. Ḥujr reported to us directly that Ibn al-Mubārak reported to us directly from ʿĀṣim al-Aḥwal on al-Shaʿbi that Ibn ʿAbbās said, “When I gave the Prophet ﷺ zamzam water to drink, he drank it standing up.”[10]

  

This hadith is authentic because it fulfills all the conditions of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith. Al-Tirmidhi states that he heard the hadith from his teacher ʿAli b. Ḥujr, who in turn says that he explicitly heard it from his teacher ʿAbdullāh b. al-Mubārak. Ibn al-Mubārak’s use of the term “ʿan” (ʿanʿanah)[11], which could possibly entail that he did not hear it directly from his teacher ʿĀṣim al-ʾAḥwal, does not disrupt the chain of narration because it is known that Ibn al-Mubārak learned from ʿĀṣim. In addition, Ibn al-Mubārak’s narrations in which he explicitly states he heard directly from ʿĀṣim appears in other hadith collections, such as Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and al-Nasāʾi. Moreover, Ibn al-Mubārak is not known to be a mudallis (deceiver) and it is established that he is among ʿĀṣim’s disciples and ʿĀṣim is among Ibn al-Mubārak’s teachers. Similarly, the ʿanʿana between ʿĀṣim and al-Shaʿbi does not disrupt the chain as ʿĀṣim is not known to be a mudallis and his narrations from al-Shaʿbi are known in the six canonical hadith books (al-kutub al-sittah). What is more is that Al-Shaʿbi is from the teachers of ʿĀṣim. The same can be said about al-Shaʿbi’s narrations from Ibn ʿAbbās. Indeed, al-Shaʿbi is not known to be a mudallis and his narrations from Ibn ʿAbbās are plenty in al-kutub al-sitta.

Through this brief explanation, it becomes clear that this hadith fulfills the condition of having an unbroken chain of narration.

As for the second and third conditions, we refer to Ibn Ḥajar’s words. He says about ʿAli b. Ḥujr, “(he is) trustworthy and competent in memory (thiqa, ḥāfiẓ).”[12]  Here we see that ʿAli b. Ḥujr is said to combine both trustworthiness (ʿadāla) and competence in preservation (ḍabṭ).

With respects to ʿAbdullāh b. al-Mubārak, Ibn Ḥajar writes, “(he is) trustworthy, safe (thiqa, thabt), a jurist in Islamic Jurisprudence (faqīh), a scholar, generous, (and) a fighter (mujāhid). The traits of goodness subsist in him.”[13] Thus, according to Ibn Ḥajar, he too possesses the two required qualities.

Concerning ʿAṣim b. Sulaimān al-ʾAḥwal, Ibn Ḥajar says, “(he is) trustworthy (thiqa).” Therefore, he also possesses them.[14]

Regarding al-Shaʿbi, ʿĀmir b. Sharāḥīl al-Shaʿbi, Ibn Ḥajar says, “(he is) trustworthy (thiqa), well-known, knowledgeable in law, and excellent.” Thus, Ibn Ḥajar has also attested for al-Shaʿbi’s credibility and competency.[15]

So far, as we see, the hadith fulfills the first three conditions of a ṣaḥīḥ hadith as it consists of a connected chain of narration and all of its narrators are righteous and competent in preservation. Thus, one can conclude that the chain of narration (isnād) is authentic.

Ultimately, the search for irregularities (shudhūdh) and hidden defects (ʿilla) in the hadith remains. By comparing it to other versions of the hadith, we learn that it neither contradicts them and so is free from irregularities nor exhibits any hidden defects. Therefore, we can conclude that this hadith is a ṣaḥīḥ hadith. One possible problem that can negate its authenticity is the hadith in which it is narrated that the Prophet ﷺ forbade drinking while standing. However, that is an independent hadith and thus does not explicitly affect the overall authenticity of the hadith in question. Furtherly, hadith scholars do not deal with this type of difference, rather it is for the scholars in Islamic jurisprudence, as they have numerous ways to reconcile between these types of apparent contradictions.

Other uses of the term Ṣaḥīḥ

1. The chain of narration is authentic (ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād).

Hadith scholars sometimes use the term ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād (sound chain of narration), which some might assume it implies the authenticity of the hadith. Rather, ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād means that a hadith’s chain of narration is free of error without implying that its text (matn) is authentic. This is because the text could contain irregularities (shudhūdh) or hidden defects (ʿilla), so the soundness of the chain does not necessitate the soundness of the text. To refer to a hadith with an authentic chain and text, hadith scholars use terms such as ‘sound hadith (ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ)’ or ‘sound (ṣaḥīḥ).’ [16]

2. The most authentic hadith in a particular topic (aṣaḥḥ shayʾ fi al-bāb).

According to hadith terminology, the expression aṣaḥḥ shayʾ fi al-bāb does not imply the authenticity or soundness of a hadith. Instead, scholars often use this term to refer to the soundest hadith from a group of hadiths pertaining to one topic, regardless of its actual authenticity.[17]

The Ṣaḥīḥ works/collections

Hadith scholars of old collected many hadith collections, some better than others. Among the oldest of them is the book al-Muwaṭṭaʾ by Imam Mālik b. Anas (d. 179 CE). His book is widely held in high regard, but he did not limit himself to only Marfūʿ hadiths (hadiths traced back to the Prophet ﷺ). Instead, he also included reports with incomplete chains (balāghāt),[18] as well as statements of the ṣaḥāba and tābiʿīn (successors to the ṣaḥāba) to substantiate legal judgments. Thus, when scholars list pure Ṣaḥīḥ works, they usually exclude it and rather mention the following books: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaima, Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Mustadrak by al-Ḥākim.

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri and his Methodology

Strangely enough, Al-Bukhāri mentions he had a dream in which he saw himself standing in front of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ with a palm frond[19] in his hand to keep flies away from him ﷺ. Amazed, he inquired dream interpreters about its interpretation. They told him that it was a sign that he will protect the Prophet ﷺ from lies against him. Thus, this dream became another incentive for him to complete his work al-Jamiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ (popularly referred to as Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri).[20]

Al-Bukhāri, in his al-Jamiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, never intended to mention all the hadiths that he himself considered ṣaḥīḥ. He says, as quoted by Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, the following, “In this book of mine (al-Jāmiʿ), I have only included those hadiths that I find ṣaḥīḥ but that does not mean that I have included every hadith I consider ṣaḥīḥ in order to keep the book concise.”[21]

Al-Bukhāri intended in his Ṣaḥīḥ collection to only include the most authentic and soundest hadiths in every field of Islam and to group them under cleverly chosen headings that reflect the gist of each group of hadith. It is said that these group headings are evidence for al-Bukhāri’s sound knowledge in Fiqh and analytic thinking.

He sometimes pairs some headings with a hadith without specifying its chain of narration or with an incomplete one. These are referred to as muʿallaqāt (suspended hadiths). Some of the headings are summaries of sayings of the Prophet’s ﷺ companions, legal opinions of his successors, or a reference that he took from the Qur’an.

The hadith scholar al-Suyūṭi writes about al-Bukhāri’s muʿallaqāt, “Most of the muʿallaqāt in the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri appear elsewhere in the book with an unbroken chain of narration (mawṣūl). His only reason for mentioning these narrations with an incomplete chain (ʿmuʿallaq) was to keep the work concise and avoid repetition.” [22]

Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and his Methodology

Imam Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūri was a disciple of Al-Bukhāri. He studied with him and accompanied him for a long time.

Muslim writes in his Ṣaḥīḥ work (popularly known as Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim), “I have not recorded here all that I consider authentic but only that on whose authenticity is agreed upon.“[23]

Imam Muslim intended to order the hadith in terms of their authenticity. He first narrates the hadiths with authentic chains of narration and then follows them up with lesser authentic ones. In the preface of his Ṣaḥīḥ work (muqaddimah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim), he points out that he included two categories of hadith:

1. Narrations from the great memorizers and highly competent (al-ḥuffāẓ al-mutqinūn).
2. Narrations from those less competent without the ability to precisely measure it (al-mastūrūn al-mutawassiṭūn).

Makki b. ʿAbdān reported, “I heard Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj say, ‘I showed my book to Abu Zurʿa al-Rāzi. I then removed any hadith in which he pointed out to me a hidden deficiency.’ “[24] Al-Suyūṭi mentions that Imam Muslim composed his Ṣaḥīḥ work, according to the report of Abu al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. Salama, in 250 CE.[25] Al-Nawawi mentions that the number of hadiths in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim without repetition is approximately 4,000 hadiths.

Muḥammad b. Bashshār al-Ḥāfiẓ, one of al-Bukhārīʿs teachers, said, “The world has four Ḥuffāẓ (great memorizers): Abu Zurʿa in Rayy, Muslim in Nizhapur, ʿAbdullāh b. ʿAbdir-Raḥmān al-Dārimi in Samarkand, and Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhāri in Bukhāra.”

Al-Nawawi writes: “It is correct that only little of the five essential works (al-ʾuṣūl al-khamsa) escaped him.”[26]

The comparison of the two Ṣaḥīḥ works

Islamic scholars agree: “The two most authentic books after the Book of Allah are Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhari and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.”[27]

However, scholars never hesitated in giving precedence to one over the other yet making clear that this does not necessitate defaming the other. Most scholars, including Fiqh and hadith scholars, prefer Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

Ibn Ḥajar writes, “There is no doubt that Al-Bukhāri and Muslim were more knowledgeable than their contemporaries and those after them in identifying Ṣaḥīḥ narrations and picking out hidden defects. They agree that the most knowledgeable contemporary in the field of picking out a hadith’s hidden defects was ʿAli b. al-Madīni, and it was from him that al-Bukhāri learned this art. He (Al-Bukhāri) even used to say, ‘Other than in front of  ʿAli b. al-Madīni, I have never felt small in front of anyone.’ “[28]

Ibn Ḥajar then lists some aspects of why Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri is considered more authentic than Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and they are the following:

1. Completeness (in isnād): Al-Bukhāri requires that both narrators of a hadith in which the narrator used the word ‘ʿan’ (muʿanʿan), the narrator and the one from who he is narrating, must have physically met so that there can be certainty that there is no gap in the chain of narration. For Muslim, on the contrary, it is sufficient that both narrators were contemporaries and that a meeting was possible as long as the narrator who narrated upon the other was not a mudallis.[29]
2. Credibility (ʿadāla) and Competence in Preservation (ḍabṭ) of the narrators: Only 80 individuals from whom al-Bukhāri narrated were criticized by hadith scholars. Al-Bukhāri rarely narrates their hadiths and in the case he does, it must be known that most of them are his teachers, whose hadiths he knew very well and had previously critically reviewed. Moreover, he usually mentions them as secondary evidence for a hadith that he has previously mentioned a chain of narration that does not contain any criticized narrator. The number of the criticized narrators in Muslim’s work, conversely, amounts to 160; double that of al-Bukhāri!
3. Irregularities and Hidden Defects: About 80 hadiths were criticized in al-Bukhāri, on the contrary, about 130 were criticized in Muslim. In addition, most of the criticisms in al-Bukhāri’s hadiths have been refuted, whereas only some of the criticisms in Muslim’s hadiths have been refuted.
4. Narrators in the uṣūl (essential parts of the book) and mutābaʿāt (supplementary parts of the book): Al-Bukhāri narrates hadiths from trustworthy narrators (thiqāt) of the highest class and precision in the uṣūl. As for in mutābaʿāt, he narrates from narrators of second-class and lower accuracy. Contrastingly, Muslim narrates much more often from the second-class narrators than al-Bukhāri and often narrates from them in the uṣūl.

Ibn Ḥajar concludes, “Scholars agree that al-Bukhāri is generally more knowledgeable than Muslim and specifically in the science of hadith, and that Muslim is his student. Muslim never ceased to benefit from him, which led al-Darāquṭni to remark, ‘Had it not been for al-Bukhāri, Muslim would neither come nor go.’ “[30]

It must be noted that preferring Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is in a general sense and in no way implies the preference of each individual hadith in al- Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhāri over that of Muslim. Often, hadiths are found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that are more authentic than those in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri.

The reason some scholars in Maghreb preferred Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī

It is has been reported that some scholars from the Maghreb preferred Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri. Since none of them explicitly stated that their preference was grounded upon the two book’s authenticity, most scholars assume it was based upon the two book’s methodology of writing, choice of headings and arrangement of hadiths. One of the scholars summarized this in the following two lines of poetry:

One argued with me about Muslim and al-Bukhāri and asked which is better?

I said, “Al-Bukhāri based on authenticity … but Muslim’s is more beautiful (based on style and structure).”

Imam Muslim sought researchers to locate the hadiths that are in his book (takhrīj). That is why al-Suyūṭi writes, “Muslim’s specialty was to collect the ways of a hadith’s transmission (ṭuruq) by presenting its various chains of narration and version s in one place. This makes it easier to compile all the versions. Al-Bukhāri, on the flip side, abridged the hadiths and spread them out over several chapters to derive rulings (ʾaḥkām) from them.” [31]

Nevertheless, these are very few individuals, thus Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri retains its position as the most authentic book after the Qur’an.

The degrees of authenticity between Ṣaḥīḥ Hadiths

Even though Ṣaḥīḥ hadiths are regarding as the soundest and most authentic hadiths, there are levels between them in authenticity. Ṣaḥīḥ hadiths appear in all six canonical hadith books (al-kutub al-sitta). Many hadith scholars agree with the following method of grading authenticity in a Ṣaḥīḥ hadith:

1. A hadith narrated by both al-Bukhāri and Muslim in their Ṣaḥīḥ works.
2. A hadith narrated only by al-Bukhari in his Ṣaḥīḥ work.
3. A hadith narrated only by Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ work.
4. A hadith narrated in accordance with the conditions of al-Bukhāri and Muslim without them narrating it in their Ṣaḥīḥ works.
5. A hadith narrated in correspondence to the conditions of al-Bukhāri without him narrating it in his Ṣaḥīḥ work.
6. A hadith narrated in correspondence to the conditions of Muslim without him narrating it in his Ṣaḥīḥ work.
7. A hadith declared authentic by other scholars, as the hadith meets the general conditions of authenticity.

The most authentic chains of narration (aṣaḥḥ al-asānīd)

As there are levels of Ṣaḥīḥ, there too are levels for the sound chains of narration. hadith scholars were concerned with comparing between the trustworthy narrators in order to identify the soundest and best asānīd (chains of narration). The criteria for choosing them are based on the narrator possessing well-grounded knowledge, together with his righteousness and competency. By these criteria, hadith scholars could determine which isnād (chain of narration) is the soundest and most authentic, which is known by them as “aṣaḥḥ al-ʾasānīd” (the strongest chain of narration).

The hadith scholars differed as to which chain is the most authentic; each naming the one he personally viewed as best. For example, Imam al-Bukhāri believes that it is the narration of Malik on Nāfiʿ on Ibn ʿUmar. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ writes, “And we narrate that Abu ʿAbdillāh al-Bukhāri, the author of the Ṣaḥīḥ work, said, ‘The strongest chain of narration is the narration of Mālik on Nāfiʿ on Ibn ʿUmar.’ “ [32]

Since the best narrator of Imam Mālik was al-Shāfiʿi and his best narrator was Imam Aḥmad, some later scholars asserted that the strongest chain of narration is the narration of Imam Aḥmad on Imam al-Shāfiʿi on Imam Mālik on Nāfiʿ on Ibn ʿUmar. This isnād is referred to as the golden chain (silsilat adh-dhahab). [33]

Ibn Rāhūya believes that the best chain is the narration of al-Zuhri on Sālim on his father Ibn ʿUmar. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ writes, “We transmit that Ibn Rāhūya said, ‘The strongest chain of narration is the narration of al-Zuhri on Sālim on his father.’“ [34]

According to al-Zarkashi, Yaḥya b. Maʿīn favored the following chain of narration, “ʿUbaydullāh b. ʿUmar on al-Qāsim on ʿĀʾisha; a golden chain.” [35]

In view of these various statements, it must be stated that there is no chain of narration par excellence. The most authentic asānīd can be divided into two categories: 1. According to the Prophet’s companions (ṣaḥāba); and 2. According to the location of the narrators.

The most authentic ways of transmission to some Prophet’s companions:

Abu Bakr al-Ṣiddīq: Ismāʿīl b. Abi Khālid on Qays b. Abi Ḥāzim on Abu Bakr.

ʿUmar: al-Zuhri on Sālim on his father ʿAbdullāh on his grandfather ʿUmar.

Abu Hurayra: al-Zuhri on Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib on Abu Hurayra.

Abdullāh b. Masʿūd: Al-ʾAʿmash on Ibrāhīm on ʿAlqama on ʿAbdullāh b. Masʿūd.

Ali b. Abi Ṭālib: Muḥammad b. Sirīn on ʿUbayda b. ʿAmr al-Salmāni – Abu Muslim al-Kūfi – on ʿAli b. Abi Ṭālib.

The most authentic chain of narration according to the locations of the narrators:

The most authentic chain of narration of the Meccans is Sufyān b. ʿUyayna on ʿAmr b. Dīnār on Jābir.

The most authentic Medinese chain of narration is: Ismāʿīl b. Abi Ḥakīm on ʿUbayda b. Sufyān al-Ḥaḍrami on Abu Hurayra.

The most authentic chain of narration of the Yemenis is: Maʿmar of Hammām b. Munabbih on Abu Hurayra.

The most authentic chain of narration from the Egyptians is: al-Layth b. Saʿd on Yazīd b. Abi Ḥabīb on Abu al-KHayr on ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir al-Juhani.

The most authentic Levantine (al-Shāmiyyīn) chain of narration is ʿAbdurraḥmān b. ʿAmr al-ʾAwzāʿi on Hassān b. ʿAṭiyya on the Prophet’s Companions (ṣaḥāba).

 

 

[1] Cf. Ibn Taimiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwa, vol. 18, p. 23; Ibn Ḥajar, an-Nukat, vol. 1, p. 264.

[2] Ibid, pp. 261-262.

[3] Ibid, p. 266.

[4] Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Maʿrifat anwāʿ ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, p. 175.

[5] Ibid, p. 151.

[6] Ibn Kathīr, Ikhtiṣār ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, p. 22.

[7] As-Suyūṭi, Tadrīb ar-rāwi, Bd. 1, S. 79.

[8] Cf. Ibn Ḥajar, Nuzhat an-Nazar, p. 29.

[9] See: Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Qāsimi, Qawāʿid al-taḥdīth, p.80.

[10] Al-Tirmidhi, al-Shamāʾil al-muḥammadiyyah, p. 126.

[11] The narration of a hadith using the word “on”, or in Arabic “ʿan” (referred to as ʿanʿana)’ does not always imply that a narrator must have heard a Hadith from someone. For example, if he says it is narrated on so-and-so, there is a possibility that he did not directly hear it from the person mentioned. Hence, narrators who have stated that they heard the Hadith from someone, even if they do not intend to deceive others with regards to explicitly hearing from the narrated or not (tadlīs), must explicitly say, ‘I heard so-and-so’ say/report. From narrators about whom tadlīs is unheard of, narrating using “on” (ʿanʿana’) is accepted without them explicitly saying that they heard from who they are narrating.

[12] Ibn Ḥajar, Taqrīb al-tahḏīb, biography no. 4700.

[13] Ibid, biography no. 3570.

[14] Ibn Ḥajar, Taqrīb al-tahḏīb, biography no. 3060.

[15] Ibid, biography no. 3092.

[16] As-Suyūṭ, Tadrīb ar-rāwi, Bd.1, S. 116.

[17] Ibid, p. 116.

[18] The (partial) omission of some chains on Imām Mālik’s part was also because he assumed that some of their chains of narration were already known. Therefore, it can be considered as a type of abbreviation.

[19] Palm frond is a compound leaf of a palm.

[20] See: as-Suyūṭi, Tadrīb ar-rāwi, vol.1, p. 117.

[21]  Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Maʿrifat anwāʿ ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, p. 19.

[22] As-Suyūṭi, Tadrīb ar-rāwi, Bd.1, S. 117.

[23] Muslim, al-Jāmiʿ, no. 404.

[24] Nūr ad-Dīn Muḥammad ʿItr, Manhaj an-naqd fi ʿulūm al-Ḥadīth, p. 256.

[25] As-Suyūṭi, Tadrīb ar-rāwi, vol.1, p. 121.

[26] Aḏ-Ḏahabi, as-Siyar, vol. 12, 227.

[27] Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Maʿrifat anwāʿ ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, p. 14.

[28] Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bāri, vol. 1, S. 346.

[29] As-Suyūṭi, Tadrīb ar-rāwi, vol. 1, S. 122 f.

[30] Ibid, vol .1, S. 124.

[31]  Ibid, vol. 1, p. 127.

[32] Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Maʿrifat anwāʿ ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, p. 16.

[33] Ibid, p. 16.

[34] Ibid, p. 15.

[35] See: Al-Zarkashi, an-Nukat ʿala muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, vol. 1, p. 155.