Nuzhat al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikar - Tahqiq al-Qasim - Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani - (122)

Nuzhat al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikar - Tahqiq al-QasimIbn Hajar Al-Asqalani

Accordingly, any report to which the verdict “ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ” is attached is lower than one to which only “ṣaḥīḥ” is applied, because a categorical ruling is stronger than a hesitant one, and this holds when the report is transmitted through a single chain (1).

Otherwise (2), that is, if (3) the narration is not unique (4), applying the two descriptions together refers to two separate isnāds—one of them ṣaḥīḥ and the other ḥasan.

On this basis, a report that is called “ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ” is higher (5) than one that is called merely “ṣaḥīḥ,” provided the latter is solitary (6), for a multiplicity of transmission routes lends extra strength (7).

If it is said: “Al-Tirmidhī (8) has explicitly stated that the condition for a ḥasan report is that it be related through more than one route; so how can he say about some narrations, ‘ḥasan gharīb, and we do not know it (9) except through this route’ (10)?!”

[The ḥasan ḥadīth according to al-Tirmidhī]

The answer is that al-Tirmidhī did not define the ḥasan in absolute terms; he defined only a particular type (11) that appears in his compilation, namely the narration about which he says:

(1) In the margin of MS A, in the author’s own hand, it reads: “thumma balagha kadhalik” (then it likewise reached). (2) MSS A, B, and K add the word “ay” (that is). (3) MS H reads: “idh” (since). (4) MS A reads: “at-taraddud” (hesitation). (5) MS T reads: “duna” (without). (6) MS H reads: “mufridan” (singularly). (7) In the margin of MS W, in the author’s own hand, it again reads: “thumma balagha kadhalik” (then it likewise reached). (8) Cited in his Jamiʿ al-ʿIlal, 6/481. (9) MS T reads: “aʿrifuhu” (I know him). (10) This objection is reported by al-Zarkashi in al-Nukat, 1/308. (11) MS W and the margin of MS B read: “nawʿan khassan” (a distinct category).

وَعَلَى هَذَا؛ فَمَا قِيلَ فِيهِ: حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ؛ دُونَ مَا قِيلَ فِيهِ: صَحِيحٌ؛ لِأَنَّ الجَزْمَ أَقْوَى مِنَ التَّرَدُّدِ، وَهَذَا حَيْثُ التَّفَرُّدُ (١). (وَإِلَّا) (٢) إِذَا (٣) لَمْ يَحْصُلِ التَّفَرُّدُ (٤)؛ (فَـ) إِطْلَاقُ الوَصْفَيْنِ مَعاً عَلَى الحَدِيثِ يَكُونُ (بِاعْتِبَارِ إِسْنَادَيْنِ) أَحَدُهُمَا صَحِيحٌ، وَالآخَرُ حَسَنٌ. وَعَلَى هَذَا؛ فَمَا قِيلَ فِيهِ: «حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ»؛ فَوْقَ (٥) مَا قِيلَ فِيهِ: «صَحِيحٌ» فَقَطْ؛ إِذَا كَانَ فَرْداً (٦)؛ لِأَنَّ كَثْرَةَ الطُّرُقِ تُقَوِّي (٧). فَإِنْ قِيلَ: قَدْ صَرَّحَ التِّرْمِذِيُّ (٨) بِأَنَّ شَرْطَ الحَسَنِ: أَنْ يُرْوَى مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ؛ فَكَيْفَ يَقُولُ فِي بَعْضِ الأَحَادِيثِ: «حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ، لَا نَعْرِفُهُ (٩) إِلَّا مِنْ هَذَا الوَجْهِ» (١٠)؟! [الحديث الحسن عند الترمذي] فَالجَوَابُ: أَنَّ التِّرْمِذِيَّ لَمْ يُعَرِّفِ الحَسَنَ مُطْلَقاً، وَإِنَّمَا عَرَّفَ بِنَوْعٍ خَاصٍّ (١١) مِنْهُ وَقَعَ فِي كِتَابِهِ، وَهُوَ مَا يَقُولُ فِيهِ:

(١) في حاشية أ - بخطِّ المُصنِّف -: «ثم بلغ كذلك». (٢) في أ، ب، ك زيادة: «أي». (٣) في هـ: «إذ». (٤) في أ: «التردد». (٥) في ط: «دون». (٦) في هـ: «مفرداً». (٧) في حاشية و - بخطِّ المُصنِّف -: «ثم بلغ كذلك». (٨) في جامعه - العلل - (٦/ ٤٨١). (٩) في ط: «أعرفه». (١٠) هذا الاعتراض ذكره الزَّرْكشيُّ في النُّكَت (١/ ٣٠٨). (١١) في و، وحاشية ب: «نوعاً خاصاً».