📘 সুনানুত তিরমিযী - ত আর-রিসালাহ (আত-তিরমিযী - মৃত্যু 279 হিজরী)

Its subject matter, method of arrangement, and inclusion of multiple sciences—for he, may Allah have mercy on him, did not remain free from criticism directed at his book, nor from accusation of not relying on what his corrections and improvements of the hadiths he included in his book "al-Jami'" ultimately led to. Imam al-Dhahabi criticized him in his book "Mizan al-I'tidal"(1) in the biography of Kathir ibn 'Abdullah al-Muzani, saying after quoting the scholars' statements on his severe weakness: "As for al-Tirmidhi, he narrated from his hadith 'Reconciliation is permissible among Muslims' and declared it authentic (sahih). For this reason, scholars do not rely on al-Tirmidhi's authentication!" He also said in the biography of Yahya ibn Yaman: "Al-Bukhari said: There is something questionable about him. From Hajjaj ibn Artah, from 'Ata', from Ibn 'Abbas, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, entered a grave at night, and a lamp was lit for him. Al-Tirmidhi declared it good (hasan) despite the weakness of three of its narrators, so let no one be deceived by al-Tirmidhi's improvement!" For upon close examination, most of them are weak.

This criticism, which al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, reached, is not accepted from him in its absolute form, and there is much to be said about it. For Imam al-Tirmidhi is a great imam in the jurisprudence of hadith, its defects ('ilal), and its narrators, and his statement is an authority in the science of hadith. Al-Dhahabi himself counts him among those whose word is relied upon in jarh and ta'dil(2). These few criticisms that were made against him—and most of them are not accepted—do not diminish his standing, nor detract from his knowledge, nor lower him from his rank. For there is no hadith memorizer (hafiz) among the memorizers who is exempt from what Imam al-Tirmidhi fell into, and their works are between--------------------------------------------
(1) 3/407.
(2) In his book "Dhikr man yu'tamad qawluhu fi al-jarh wa al-ta'dil" within four treatises, in the sixth class.

Our hands contain hadiths whose authenticity they were asked to verify, and which were criticized against them, yet we have not heard any of them issue this harsh generalization that Imam al-Dhahabi ultimately reached regarding them.

The scholar Ibn al-Wazir(1) said: This is a rare error, and infallibility is lifted from the imams, hadith masters, and scholars.

The scholar Ahmad al-Ghumari said: No one has said that al-Tirmidhi's authentication is rejected outright in an absolute sense. Rather, his authentication is accepted except in a few hadiths in which his judgment was weak, just as occurred with al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Hakim, al-Nasa'i, and others(2).

Al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi(3) criticized this statement of al-Dhahabi, saying in his commentary on the hadith "Reconciliation is permissible among Muslims..."(4), verbatim: The author of "al-Mizan" discussed al-Tirmidhi's authentication of this hadith, mentioning al-Tirmidhi's authentication of it, then said: For this reason, scholars do not rely on al-Tirmidhi's authentication. I say (the speaker being al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi): What he transmitted from the scholars—that they do not rely on his authentication—is not sound, and people have continued to rely on his authentication. Moreover, the author (al-Dhahabi) has taken al-Bukhari to task for accepting many of--------------------------------------------
(1) In "Tanqih al-Anzar" 1/171.
(2) "Al-Fatawa wa al-Rasa'il al-Sughra" p. 60.
(3) In "Sharh al-Tirmidhi," volume five, folio 115, recto.
(4) Al-Tirmidhi (1352).

Abd Allah—for he asked him about the hadith of Kathir ibn Abd Allah, from his father, from his grandfather, concerning the hour on Friday in which [supplication] is hoped for (1): he said: a hasan hadith, except that Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to criticize Kathir and declare him weak. He said: Yahya ibn Sa'id also narrated from Kathir. And al-Tirmidhi had asked al-Bukhari about his hadith concerning the takbir in the prayer of the two Eid festivals (2), and he said: there is nothing in this chapter more authentic than this (and by it I speak) (3). Al-Tirmidhi deemed hasan for him four hadiths: these two hadiths, the hadith "Whoever revives my Sunnah," and the hadith "Indeed faith will retreat to Medina," and he deemed sahih for him the hadith of the chapter. Ibn Khuzaymah also included him in his Sahih. And it is al-Tirmidhi's practice that a hasan hadith, when narrated through more than one chain, is elevated to the degree of sahih. He explicitly stated this when mentioning the hadith of Muhammad ibn Amr, from Abu Salamah, from Abu Hurayrah, from the Prophet, peace be upon him, that he said: "Were it not that I would burden my ummah, I would have commanded them to use the siwak at every prayer." He deemed it sahih, then said: the hadith of Abu Hurayrah is only sahih because it has been narrated through more than one chain. And it is al-Bukhari's practice to deem hasan the individual narrations of Muhammad ibn Amr, and he deemed this one sahih and explained the reason for that, for it was narrated through more than one chain. Ibn al-Salah affirmed this principle in his 'Ulum al-Hadith (4). Thus the hadith of Kathir ibn Abd Allah concerning the reconciliation is strengthened by the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, and for that reason al-Tirmidhi deemed it sahih. And God knows best.

--------------------------------------------
(1) Al-Tirmidhi (490).
(2) Al-Tirmidhi (536), and see al-'Ilal al-Kabir 1/287 (87).
(3) What is between the parentheses is an addition from al-Tirmidhi's al-'Ilal 1/288.
(4) P. 104.

He also said, while explaining the hadith of the hour on Friday in which supplication is hoped to be answered (1), the following verbatim: The author of *al-Mīzān* said: For this reason, scholars do not rely on the correction of al-Tirmidhī. I say: This criticism of his against al-Tirmidhī is not acceptable... for he is an imam whose authority is relied upon, and there is no impediment to his ijtihād differing from that of others regarding some narrators. It seems that the author (al-Mīzān) adopted what al-Bukhārī held, for the author transmitted from al-Bukhārī that he said regarding the hadith of Kathīr, from his father, from his grandfather, concerning the takbīr of the two ʿĪds: It is a ḥasan hadith. He only judged it ḥasan by virtue of its supporting witnesses, for it carries the same meaning as the earlier hadith of Abū Mūsā (meaning his hadith in *Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim*, 853), and thus, due to the existence of a supporting hadith, it was elevated to the rank of ḥasan.

And al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab said (2): Al-Tirmidhī, may Allah have mercy on him, transmits the hadith of the trustworthy and precise narrator, and of the one who errs occasionally, and of the one who errs frequently. As for the one whose error predominates, he transmits his hadith rarely, and he clarifies this and does not remain silent about it. He did transmit the hadith of Kathīr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī, and there was no consensus to abandon his hadith; rather, some people strengthened it, and some of them preferred his hadith over the mursal of Ibn al-Musayyab... And al-Tirmidhī reported in *al-ʿIlal* from al-Bukhārī that he said regarding his hadith on the takbīr of the two ʿĪds: It is the most authentic hadith on this topic. He said: And I adopt it.

--------------------------------------------
(1) 1/ folio 164, and the hadith is numbered by al-Tirmidhī as (1352).
(2) *Sharḥ al-ʿIlal al-Ṣaghīr* 1/397–398.

Dr. Nur al-Din ‘Itr said:¹ Now that we have come to know the status of Abu ‘Isa and his imamate, we find that this criticism from al-Dhahabi conflicts with what has been established regarding al-Tirmidhi’s imamate in hadith and its sciences, and with the consensus on accepting the sahih and hasan from his book.

If we search for the truth, we find the weakness of al-Dhahabi’s claim that no reliance is placed on Abu ‘Isa’s authentication (tashih) and grading as hasan (tahsin), and we find its falsehood to be evident. Likewise, we find that error accompanies their criticism of al-Tirmidhi regarding the hadiths they objected to in his authenticating or grading as hasan, except for very few cases. And that small error is the nature of human judgment, for human work, however lofty and perfect it may be, is not free from criticism. Thus Malik was criticized, and likewise al-Bukhari and Muslim, and none of the prominent scholars was free from criticism. Yet that did not harm the validity of citing them as proof, taking from them, and relying upon them.

And if we investigate this doubt raised by al-Dhahabi, and examine it by understanding its causes, we find exaggeration and extreme excess in what al-Dhahabi said, and we discern the soundness of what we have established regarding the authoritativeness of al-Tirmidhi’s rulings on hadiths.

We establish this from two angles: the first is general, and the second is detailed.

As for our general response to al-Dhahabi, it is that through investigation we see al-Tirmidhi’s work in al-Jami‘ as the work of the great imams; the ummah cites his rulings on hadiths as proof, by the consensus of its scholars in both ancient and modern times.

--------------------------------------------
¹ In his book _al-Imam al-Tirmidhi wa al-Muwazanah bayn Jami‘ihi wa bayn al-Sahihayn_, pp. 240–241.

Clarification of this and its evidence:

1. No one doubts the firm standing of Imam al-Bukhari and his precedence over the scholars of his time, and al-Tirmidhi was his student and graduate in hadith. He explicitly stated at the end of al-Jami' his reliance upon his teacher al-Bukhari, saying: "Whatever is in it — meaning al-Jami' — of mention of defects (ilal) in hadiths, narrators, and history, it is what I extracted from the books of history, and most of that is what I debated with Muhammad ibn Isma'il, and some of it is what I debated with 'Abdullah ibn 'Abd al-Rahman (al-Darimi) and Abu Zur'ah (al-Razi). Most of that is from Muhammad, and the least of it is from 'Abdullah and Abu Zur'ah."

If what he brought in al-Jami' of hadith defects was the result of his debates with al-Bukhari, and then some of it with his peers al-Darimi and Abu Zur'ah, then how can the claim be valid that he is not relied upon?!

2. The undisputed imam of the art, Abu 'Amr ibn al-Salah and others among the scholars of hadith criticism, have made al-Tirmidhi's authentication in al-Jami' one of the authoritative sources of authenticity for sound hadiths beyond what is in the Two Sahihs... And this refutes al-Dhahabi's claim that scholars do not rely upon his authentication.

3. The practical application in the books of the imams of hadith invalidates al-Dhahabi's claim and demonstrates to us their reliance upon al-Tirmidhi's authentication and his grading of hadiths as sound (tahsin). The hadith books are full of transmission from al-Tirmidhi and citation of his authentication as evidence.

and its improvement. This Imam al-Mundhiri, in his abridgment of Sunan Abi Dawud, transmits al-Tirmidhi's rulings on authenticity regarding what the two books agree upon. Had his authentication not been relied upon, al-Mundhiri would not have mentioned them(1) — otherwise, it would have been mere toil and prolongation of the book without benefit.

We say: Then Dr. 'Itr mentioned the detailed rebuttal, and clarified that the criticisms directed at Imam al-Tirmidhi reduce to three matters:

1. Differences among the manuscripts of al-Jami'.
2. Neglect of al-Tirmidhi's terminology.
3. Differences of ijtihad concerning the narrators of hadith and their rank.

And see the entirety of his discussion on this, for it is beneficial.

**The Hadith Hasan li-Dhatihi (Hasan in Itself), or Hasan li-Ghayrihi (Hasan due to Others) according to al-Tirmidhi:**

Indeed, the hadith hasan li-dhatihi is: the hadith with a connected chain of transmission, narrated by transmitters known for truthfulness, but whose precision falls short of the rank of the narrators of sahih — and it is neither defective (mu'allal) nor anomalous (shadhdh). It and the sahih are equal except in the disparity of precision. For the narrator of sahih, it is required that he be described as possessing the highest degrees of precision, whereas the narrator of hasan is not required to reach that degree, though he is not devoid of precision altogether.

--------------------------------------------
(1) Nor Ibn Hajar in "Fath al-Bari" and "Takhrij Ahadith al-Adhkar" and other books of his, nor al-Nawawi in his "Riyad" and others, nor al-Mizzi in "Tuhfat al-Ashraf" and other scholars and hadith masters.

This type [of hadith] they have unanimously agreed upon as admissible as evidence, and that if it comes through multiple chains, or if there is something in the chapter that bears witness to it, it rises to the rank of ṣaḥīḥ li-ghayrihī (sound due to others). Indeed, more than one of the hadith scholars who committed themselves to authenticity in their compilations have included it, while stating that it is below the ṣaḥīḥ (sound) level—such as Imam al-Bukhārī and Imam Muslim, for they, may Allah have mercy on them, did not commit themselves in the hadiths of their two books to all of them being at the highest degrees of authenticity. Likewise, the two Imams Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Ḥibbān. This type of ḥasan (fair) hadith—which is ḥasan li-dhātihī (fair in itself)—is present in al-Jāmiʿ [of al-Tirmidhī], but he, may Allah have mercy on him, distinguishes it by saying: "ḥasan gharīb" (fair and singular) or something similar. An example of it is the hadith of Isrāʾīl (1), son of Yūnus, son of Abī Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, from Yūsuf, son of Abī Burdah, son of Abī Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah, who said: "When the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, came out from the privy, he would say: 'Ghufrānaka' (Your forgiveness)." Al-Tirmidhī said: "Ḥasan gharīb; we do not know it except from the hadith of Isrāʾīl, from Yūsuf, son of Abī Burdah, and this is not known except in the hadith of ʿĀʾishah."

As for al-ḥasan li-ghayrihī (fair due to others), its origin is ḍaʿīf (weak), such as when its chain contains an obscure narrator, or one with poor memory, or one described as having become confused (ikhtilāṭ), or as a mudallis (one who conceals), or one whose disparagement and praise are disputed in a way that makes weighing [the evidence] difficult. Rather, fairness comes upon it only through the supporting witness (al-ʿāḍid) that supports it, so it becomes acceptable due to the existence of the supporting witness. Were it not for the supporting witness, the quality of weakness would have continued to apply to it.

--------------------------------------------
(1) The hadith (no. 7).

Imam al-Tirmidhi devoted the utmost care to the ḥasan ghayruh (fair due to others) in his book al-Jāmiʿ, and his approach received full appreciation from the scholars of ḥadīth. They regarded it as a scholarly foundation to be referenced for this category. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said in ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (1): "The book of Abū ʿĪsā, may God have mercy on him, is a foundation for the knowledge of the ḥasan ḥadīth, and it is he who brought attention to its name and mentioned it frequently in his Jāmiʿ." Imam al-Tirmidhi also made clear his terminology for the ḥasan ḥadīth as he understood it, saying in al-ʿIlal al-Ṣaghīr (2): "Whatever we have mentioned in this book as a ḥasan ḥadīth, we only mean by it that its chain is ḥasan according to us: every ḥadīth that is narrated in whose chain there is no one accused of lying, and which is narrated through another route in a similar manner, is in our view a ḥasan ḥadīth." Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ added in ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (3): "And that it not be from the narration of one who is heedless and frequently mistaken." This addition, although not indicated by al-Tirmidhi's words here, is derived from his statement in al-ʿIlal before this: that whoever is heedless and frequently mistaken, his ḥadīth is not cited as evidence, nor is one occupied with narrating from him, according to the majority.

Among the examples of ḥasan ghayruh according to al-Tirmidhi:

1 - A ḥadīth he described as ḥasan, which is from the narration of a weak narrator with poor memory, narrated by him under number (1113) via Shuʿbah, from ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUbayd Allāh,--------------------------------------------
(1) p. 109.
(2) 6/251.
(3) p. 104.

On the authority of ʿAbdullah ibn ʿĀmir ibn Rabīʿah, from his father, who said: A woman from Banī Fazārah was married for a pair of sandals, and the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Are you satisfied with yourself and your wealth for a pair of sandals?" She said: "Yes." ... Al-Tirmidhī said: This is a ḥasan ḥadīth, and on this topic there are reports from Abū Hurayrah, ʿĀ'ishah, and Abū Ḥardad ...

And ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUbaydullah has been weakened by the majority of scholars, and they described him as having poor memory, and Ibn ʿUyaynah criticized Shuʿbah for narrating from him. Al-Tirmidhī deemed this ḥadīth of his ḥasan because it came through multiple chains, as he stipulated.

2 - A ḥadīth he deemed ḥasan, and it is narrated by a weak transmitter described as prone to error and mistake, numbered (1263), via ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus, from Mujālid, from Abū al-Waddāk, from Abū Saʿīd, who said: We had wine belonging to an orphan, and when Sūrat al-Mā'idah was revealed ... He said: This is a ḥasan ḥadīth. Mujālid was weakened by a group of scholars, and they described him as prone to error and mistake. He only described it as ḥasan because it came through multiple chains from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, including the ḥadīth of Anas and others.

3 - And among the examples of what he described as ḥasan while it is narrated by one who heard from a transmitter who became confused after his confusion began is what he narrated under number (365), via Yazīd ibn Hārūn, from al-Masʿūdī, from Ziyād ibn ʿIlāqah, who said: Al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah led us in prayer, and when he prayed two rakʿahs, he stood up and did not sit, so those behind him said "Subḥān Allah" ... He said: This is a ḥasan ḥadīth. And al-Masʿūdī — whose name is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān — is among those described as having become confused, and Yazīd's hearing from him was after he had become confused. He only described it as ḥasan because it came through other chains, some of which are also found with the author.

4 - Among the examples of what he described as ḥasan (good/fair) while it is from the narration of a mudallis (one who conceals) who used ʿanʿanah (the ambiguous phrase "on the authority of"), is what he narrated (982) via Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, from al-Muthannā ibn Saʿīd, from Qatādah, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Buraydah, from his father, raised to the Prophet: "The believer dies with sweat on his brow." He said: This is a ḥasan ḥadīth, and he described it as ḥasan because it has supporting witnesses from the ḥadīth of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd and others.

5 - And among them is what he described as ḥasan while its chain is interrupted (munqaṭiʿ), what he narrated (3760) via ʿAmr ibn Murrah, from Abū al-Bakhtarī, from ʿAlī, that the Prophet ﷺ said to ʿUmar regarding al-ʿAbbās: "Indeed, a man's paternal uncle is the equivalent of his father." And ʿUmar had spoken concerning his charity. He said: This is a ḥasan ḥadīth. And Abū al-Bakhtarī — whose name is Saʿīd ibn Fayrūz — did not hear from ʿAlī, may Allah be pleased with him, so the chain is interrupted, and he described it as ḥasan because it has well-known supporting witnesses from the ḥadīth of Buraydah and others.

The application of the term "ḥasan" to certain ḥadīths by the imams before al-Tirmidhī:

Indeed, the imams of ḥadīth before Imam al-Tirmidhī applied "ḥasan" in its technical sense to both types: ḥasan li-dhātihi (ḥasan in itself) and ḥasan li-ghayrihi (ḥasan due to others) to a number of ḥadīths, and from some of these imams al-Tirmidhī took and derived. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said: ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī frequently described ḥadīths as ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) and ḥasan in his Musnad and in his ʿIlal, and the apparent meaning of his expression is that he intended the technical sense, and he was as if the preceding imam in this terminology, and from him al-Bukhārī and Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah and several others took, and from al-Bukhārī al-Tirmidhī took.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr transmitted in his *Musnad ʿUmar* the statements of ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī in a number of hadiths, saying: “a ḥasan hadith,” or “a ḥasan chain,” or “a sound chain,” or “a good chain.” See these in *Musnad ʿUmar* 1/111, 132, 277, 288, 307, 333, 357, 512, 326, 544, and 605. However, because al-Tirmidhī applied this terminology extensively in his *Jāmiʿ* and drew attention to it, he became more famous for it than anyone else. Among such instances is what al-Tirmidhī mentioned in his *ʿIlal al-Kabīr* 1/175–176: that he asked al-Bukhārī about the hadiths specifying the time limit for wiping over the leather socks, and he said: “The hadith of Ṣafwān ibn ʿAssāl (96) is ṣaḥīḥ, and the hadith of Abū Bakrah is ḥasan.”(1)

In the *ʿIlal al-Kabīr* and the *Jāmiʿ*, there are not a few hadiths in which he transmitted from al-Bukhārī that he deemed them ḥasan.(2) Al-Sakhāwī mentioned that Ibn al-Madīnī used “ḥasan” for what is considered ḥasan in itself, while al-Bukhārī used it for what is considered ḥasan due to other factors. He then mentioned that al-Tirmidhī was the one who used this expression extensively and drew attention to it, and then gave an example of what al-Bukhārī deemed ḥasan while al-Tirmidhī and others deemed it ṣaḥīḥ. Thus, with al-Tirmidhī it is frequent, whereas with those before him it is rare—especially according to the terminology he established.(3)

--------------------------------------------
(1) As for the hadith of Ṣafwān to which he referred, it contains the conditions of authenticity. As for the hadith of Abū Bakrah, Ibn Mājah narrated it (556) via the narration of al-Muhājir Abū Makhlad, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakrah, from his father, may Allah be pleased with him. Regarding al-Muhājir, Wahīb said that he was not a precise memorizer, Ibn Maʿīn said he was ṣāliḥ, al-Sājī said he was ṣadūq, and Abū Ḥātim said he was layyin al-ḥadīth and his hadith is written down. Thus, this is on the condition of ḥasan in itself.

(2) *Al-ʿIlal al-Kabīr*, hadiths (13), (15), (16), (245), (297), and (322).

(3) *Fatḥ al-Mughīth Sharḥ Alfiyyat al-Ḥadīth* by Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī, 1/72.

What al-Tirmidhi says: ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ.

The statements have differed regarding what al-Tirmidhi means by this combination and what he intends by it. The view that al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar approved of among those statements is: that if the ḥadīth has multiple chains of transmission, then the description refers to the ḥadīth by virtue of the two chains or the multiple chains, as if it were said: ḥasan by such-and-such a chain, ṣaḥīḥ by such-and-such a chain.

And if the ḥadīth is solitary after intense investigation and complete review, then the description is given according to the disagreement of the critics regarding its transmitter. The mujtahid among them—like al-Tirmidhi—sees that some of them say, for example, "ṣadūq" (truthful), and some of them say "thiqah" (reliable), and neither one of the two views is preponderant in his estimation, or one is preponderant, but he wanted to point to what people have said about him, so he says: ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ—that is, ḥasan according to some people, because his transmitter is ṣadūq in their view, and ṣaḥīḥ according to others, because his transmitter is thiqah in their view. This is analogous to the jurist's saying: "In this matter there are two opinions." Or it is according to the mujtahid's own hesitation regarding the transmitter: sometimes his ijtihād leads him—by considering his ḥadīth and comparing it with the ḥadīths of the ḥuffāẓ and the like—to the deficiency of his precision, and sometimes to its completeness. In that case, it is as if he said: ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ, and the utmost of it is that he omitted the word "or," and its omission is common in their speech. (1)

--------------------------------------------
(1) Nuzhat al-Naẓar, Sharḥ Nukhbat al-Fikar, pp. 46–47.

The Opinion of Imam al-Tirmidhi on the Addition of a Reliable Narrator:

The statements of the imams differed regarding the acceptance of the addition (ziyādah) narrated by a reliable narrator, amounting to several opinions. What Imam al-Tirmidhi—may Allah have mercy on him—concluded is that the addition of a narrator is not accepted merely because he is reliable (thiqah), but he added the condition that, along with his being trustworthy, he must be among the preservers of hadith (ḥuffāẓ) described as possessing greater care and precision (iḥkām). He explicitly stated this in his book al-ʿIlal al-Ṣaghīr after mentioning the hadith of Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar concerning the Zakāt al-Fiṭr, and Mālik's addition in the hadith: "from the Muslims" (min al-Muslimīn). He said: "So when a preserver (ḥāfiẓ) whose memory is relied upon makes an addition, it is accepted from him."

Imam Muslim supported this opinion that he (al-Tirmidhi) concluded regarding additions, in his book al-Tamyīz, as transmitted from him by Ibn Rajab in Sharḥ al-ʿIlal (1/435), where he said: "Additions in reports are only binding when they come from the preservers whose memory has not been found to contain error."

Al-Khaṭīb said in al-Kifāyah (p. 424) after mentioning the statements of the people of knowledge regarding the ruling on additions: "What we choose from these statements is that the addition that is transmitted is accepted in all respects and acted upon, when its narrator is upright (ʿadl), a preserver (ḥāfiẓ), precise (mutqin), and accurate (ḍābiṭ)."

Likewise, Imam Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Tamhīd (3/206): "The addition is only accepted from the preserver when it is established from him, and he is more retentive and more precise than the one who fell short, or his equal in memory, because it is as if it were another new hadith. As for when the addition comes from one who is not a preserver nor precise, then no attention is paid to it."

--------------------------------------------
(1) Thus in al-Tamyīz, p. 189, and in Sharḥ al-ʿIlal by Ibn Rajab: "frequent" (yakthur).

As for what the two memorizers Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and al-Nawawī concluded, and which the two memorizers Ibn Ḥajar and al-Suyūṭī deemed preponderant, it is that the addition (ziyādah) is of three types:

The first type: that it not be in conflict with the narration in which it occurs. In this case, it is accepted by consensus, because it is in the status of an independent ḥadīth that a trustworthy narrator alone reports, and no one other than him narrates it from his shaykh.

The second type: that the addition be in conflict with the narration in which it occurs, but its conflict is of the kind that restricts an unrestricted statement or the like. This type is deemed preponderant to be accepted.

The third type: that the addition be in conflict with the narration in which it occurs. This type is rejected and not accepted.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said in *Nuzhat al-Naẓar*, p. 19: "The addition of the narrator of a ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan ḥadīth is accepted as long as it does not conflict with the narration of one more trustworthy than him who did not mention that addition. For the addition is either such that there is no conflict between it and the narration of the one who did not mention it—this one is accepted absolutely, because it is in the status of an independent ḥadīth that a trustworthy narrator alone reports and no one other than him narrates from his shaykh—or it is in conflict, such that accepting it necessitates rejecting the first narration. It is in this case that weighing occurs between it and its counterpart, so the preponderant is accepted and the outweighed is rejected." It is well known from a group of scholars that they hold the view of accepting the addition absolutely, without differentiation. But that cannot be upheld on the way of the ḥadīth scholars, who stipulate for the ṣaḥīḥ that it not be shādhdh (anomalous), and then explain shudhūdh as the conflict of a trustworthy narrator with one more trustworthy than him. And it is astonishing that one would be heedless of this while acknowledging the stipulation of the absence of shudhūdh in the definition of the ṣaḥīḥ, and likewise the ḥasan.

What is transmitted from the leading imams of hadith among the early scholars—such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, Yaḥyā ibn al-Qaṭṭān, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā ibn Muʿīn, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, al-Bukhārī, Abū Zurʿah, Abū Ḥātim, al-Tirmidhī, al-Nasāʾī, al-Dāraquṭnī, and others—is the consideration of tarjīḥ (preponderance) with regard to additions and other matters. It is not known from any of them that they held an unqualified acceptance of additions. More astonishing than that is the unqualified statement of many Shāfiʿīs that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted, even though the explicit text of al-Shāfiʿī indicates otherwise.

Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd said: Whoever reports from the people of hadith, or most of them, that when a musnad (connected) narration and a mursal (disconnected) narration conflict, or a rafiʿ (elevating) narration and a wāqif (stopping) narration conflict, or a deficient and an additional narration conflict, the ruling is for the additional one—he has not been correct in this unqualified statement, for that is not a consistent rule. By reviewing their specific rulings, you will recognize the correctness of what we say. The ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī affirmed this in his "Jāmiʿ al-Taḥṣīl," saying: The statements of the early imams in this field—such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Bukhārī, and their likes—are that no universal ruling is given in this matter; rather, their practice in it revolves around tarjīḥ according to what is stronger in the view of each of them regarding a particular hadith.

As for al-Bukhārī's statement, "The addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted," he only said it when he was asked about the hadith "There is no marriage except with a guardian," which Shuʿbah and Sufyān—both mountains in memorization—had transmitted as mursal, while Isrāʾīl ibn Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī and others transmitted it as musnad. Al-Bukhārī then said, "The addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted," and ruled in favor of those who connected it.

Al-Bukhārī (may Allah have mercy on him) did not rule it to be connected merely because the connected version contains an addition, but rather he ruled for its being connected due to other considerations that, in his view, tipped the balance in favor of the connected report. Among these is that Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq, his son Isrāʾīl, and ʿĪsā all narrated it from Abū Isḥāq as connected, and there is no doubt that a man's family are more closely acquainted with him than others. They were also joined in this by Abū ʿAwāna, Sharīk al-Nakhaʿī, and Zuhayr ibn Umayya, making a total of ten of Abū Isḥāq's students, despite the differences in their sessions of taking from him and their hearing it from his own utterance. As for the narration of those who reported it as interrupted—namely Shuʿba and Sufyān—they both took it from Abū Isḥāq in a single session… And it is not hidden that what is taken from the narrator's own utterance in multiple sessions outweighs what is taken from him by way of presentation in a single place. This is so even if we say that Sufyān's and Shuʿba's memory stands in contrast to the number of the others, although al-Shāfiʿī holds that the greater number is more deserving of reliable memory than the single individual. Thus it becomes clear that al-Bukhārī's preference for the connected version of this ḥadīth over its interrupted one was not merely because the one who connected it had an addition not found with the one who interrupted it, but rather due to the indications of preference that became apparent.

This is further reinforced by his preferring the interrupted version in other places. An example of this is what al-Thawrī narrated from Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ḥazm, from ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Abī Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from his father, from Umm Salama, who said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to her: "If you wish, I will complete seven circuits for you." And Mālik narrated it from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Abī Bakr ibn al-Ḥārith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Umm Salama… Al-Bukhārī said in his *Tārīkh*: "The correct view is the statement of Mālik, despite its being interrupted." So here he deemed the interrupted version correct.

Because a contextual indication appeared to him, and he deemed the connected transmission correct there due to a contextual indication that appeared to him. Thus it became clear that he had no consistent practice in that regard. (1)

By this, you come to know the error of those who give absolute precedence to the first opinion among those who engage in the craft of hadith in our own time, and who take it as a uniform rule for every hadith in which two trustworthy narrators differ over its connectedness and its disconnection.

Ibn Ḥibbān, author of the Ṣaḥīḥ, has an opinion on the addition of a trustworthy narrator that carries significance, which he mentioned in the introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ, 1/159. Here it is verbatim: "As for the addition of wording in narrations, we do not accept any of it except from one whose predominant trait was jurisprudence, so that it may be known that he narrated the thing knowingly, and it may not be doubted whether he removed it from its proper course or altered its meaning or not. For the people of hadith are predominantly concerned with preserving names and chains of transmission rather than texts, while the jurists are predominantly concerned with preserving texts, mastering them, and conveying them by meaning rather than preserving chains and the names of transmitters. So if a transmitter raises a report [to the Prophet], and jurisprudence was his predominant trait, I do not accept his raising it except from his book, because he does not know the connected from the disconnected, nor the stopped from the interrupted; his only concern is mastering the text. Likewise, I do not accept from a hadith scholar who is precise and meticulous if he brings an addition of a word in a report, because his predominant concern is mastering the chain and preserving names, while overlooking the texts and the wording within them—except from his book. This is the precautionary approach in accepting additions in wording." Reflect on the words of this imam, for they are truly precious.

--------------------------------------------
(1) "Sharḥ al-Alfiyya" 1/165, and "Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī" 1/426.

On the meaning of al-Tirmidhī’s statement: “And in this chapter, on the authority of so-and-so,” and the benefit of that:

Among the most distinguished features of the Jāmiʿ book over the other six canonical collections is its indication at the end of each chapter of those who narrated the ḥadīth from the Prophet ﷺ on that topic. This guides the reader at first glance to the fact that the text of the ḥadīth is narrated from such-and-such Companion, and thereby it becomes clear to him whether the ḥadīth is among the solitary reports (āḥād), the well-known reports (mashhūr), or the mutawātir reports—thus increasing his confidence and reassurance. This is a remarkable distinction in which no one who authored works on this subject, compiled ḥadīths, and arranged them has shared with him.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī said: “It was among his methods—meaning Imam al-Tirmidhī, may God have mercy on him—that when he introduced a chapter containing a well-known ḥadīth from a Companion whose chain of transmission was sound and which he had cited from that Companion’s narration in the ṣaḥīḥ collections, he would then present in that chapter the same ruling from the ḥadīth of another Companion whose narration they had not cited, and whose chains of transmission were not like the first chain, even though the ruling was sound. Then he would follow it by saying: ‘And in this chapter, on the authority of so-and-so and so-and-so,’ enumerating a group that included that well-known Companion and others. He rarely followed this method except in a limited number of chapters.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Fatḥ Ibn Sayyid al-Nās al-Yaʿmarī said: “Among what the Jāmiʿ of Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī, may God have mercy on him, included of concision in—

Classification: He mentions the hadith in the chapter with its chain of transmission, from its Companion, then follows it with his statement: "And in this chapter, from so-and-so and so-and-so," until he covers what exists in that chapter, or most of it. For if he were to exhaust all the chains of transmission for that, the book would become extremely long, and if he were to omit it entirely, he would miss strengthening his transmitted hadith by adding what he adds to it, and drawing attention to those hadiths, so that whoever has an interest in tracking them down may pursue their sources. However, it is fitting that what he transmits with full chain in that chapter should be stronger than what he does not mention its chain, and that is the majority of his practice.¹

Al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi said: Likewise, al-Tirmidhi does this when he says: "And in this chapter, from so-and-so and so-and-so," for frequently he intends by that hadiths other than the hadith he transmits with full chain at the beginning of the chapter, but on the condition that they are suitable to be cited in that chapter. This is a sound practice, except that most people only understand him to mean that specific hadith, and God knows best.²

It may be that some of these hadiths relate to the subject only slightly, but all of them together support the ruling of the chapter.

**The Attention of Scholars to the Jami' through Commentary, Hadith Verification, Abridgment, and Extraction:**

The attention of scholars and hadith specialists, both early and late, has continued to be devoted to this great work, whose fame has spread far and wide, and whose merit has been recognized by near and far. It is unique in its field, and the aspirations of later generations have fallen short of producing anything like it.

---

¹ *Al-Nafh al-Shadhi fi Sharh Jami' al-Tirmidhi*, 1/315-317.
² *Turuq al-Tathrib fi Sharh al-Taqrib*, 2/5.