Explanation on Imam al-Tirmidhī’s “Ḥasan” Ḥadīth and Its Non-Usability as Evidence
Source: Qur’an and Hadith Based Rulings and Issues, Vol. 01, p. 548
Questions
➊ How can it be proven that a ḥadīth which Imam al-Tirmidhī classifies as ḥasan may, in reality, not be usable as evidence—even according to Imam al-Tirmidhī himself?
➋ Please explain the technical terms: qābil al-iḥtijāj, qābil al-istidlāl, qābil al-istishhād, and qābil al-iʿtibār.
Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
(1) Non-Usability of Imam al-Tirmidhī’s “Ḥasan” Ḥadīth
There are multiple examples of this in Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, but due to limited space, only one example is presented here.
At the end of the tafsīr of Sūrah al-Anfāl, Imam al-Tirmidhī (RA) narrates a ḥadīth and then writes:
هٰذَا حَدِیْثٌ حَسَنٌ، وَأَبُو عُبَیْدَۃَ بْنُ عَبْدِ اﷲِ لَمْ یَسْمَعْ مِنْ أَبِیْہِ
Here it is evident that Imam al-Tirmidhī (RA) declared the ḥadīth ḥasan, yet simultaneously stated that it is munqaṭiʿ (disconnected).
Among the muḥaddithīn, it is well-established that mursal and munqaṭiʿ aḥādīth are not acceptable for proof and argumentation, as Imam Muslim (RA) has clearly explained in the introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ.
(2) Explanation of the Terminology
✿ Qābil al-Iḥtijāj / Qābil al-Istidlāl:
A ḥadīth that is ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan and thus valid for legal proof and argumentation.
✿ Qābil al-Istishhād:
A ḥadīth that may be cited as supporting evidence (shawāhid).
✿ Qābil al-Iʿtibār:
A ḥadīth that has the potential to be mentioned in shawāhid and mutābiʿāt (parallel or corroborating reports).
For further detail, one may consult works on the principles of ḥadīth (uṣūl al-ḥadīth).
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
