Imam al-Tirmidhī’s Criteria of Ḥasan and Ibn Ḥazm’s Position on Authentication
Source: Qur’an and Hadith Based Rulings and Issues, Vol. 01, p. 548
Question
In your book, it was mentioned:
“If Imam al-Tirmidhī declares a ḥadīth to be ḥasan, it does not necessarily mean that the ḥadīth, in reality—or even in his own view—is a valid proof for reliance.”
It was further stated that you cited three or four examples in which Imam al-Tirmidhī called a ḥadīth ḥasan, yet he suspended practice upon it and considered it void.
Additionally, clarification was sought regarding Ibn Ḥazm’s stance on ḥasan and ṣaḥīḥ narrations.
Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
Conditions for a Narration to Reach the Level of Proof
According to the muḥaddithīn, certain essential conditions are required for a narration to be accepted as authoritative evidence (ḥujjah):
◄ All narrators must be thiqah (upright and reliable in memory).
◄ The chain (isnād) must be connected (without breaks).
◄ The narration must not be ʿilal (containing hidden defects).
◄ It must not be shādh (contradictory to stronger reports).
◄ Neither the chain nor the text should contain any defect or irregularity.
If even one of these conditions is absent, the narration falls short of being accepted as valid evidence among the muḥaddithīn.
Imam al-Tirmidhī’s Criteria of Ḥasan
Imam al-Tirmidhī (RA) did not require all of the above conditions to be fulfilled for calling a narration ḥasan.
He himself defined ḥasan as follows:
"وَمَا ذَکَرْنَا فِی ہٰذَا الْکِتَابِ حَدِیْث ٌ حَسَنٌ فَإِنَّمَا أَرَدْنَا حُسْنَ إِسْنَادِہِ عِنْدَنَا کُلُّ حَدِیْثٍ یُّرْوَی لاَ یَکُوْنُ فِیْ إِسْنَادِہِ مَنْ یُتَّہَمُ بِالْکَذِبِ وَلاَ یَکُوْنُ الْحَدِیْثُ شَاذًا وَّیُرْوَی مِنْ غَیْرِ وَجْہٍ نَحْوِ ذٰلِکَ فَہُوَ عِنْدَنَا حَدِیْثٌ حَسَنٌ”
(al-ʿIlal at the end of Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī)
From this definition, it becomes clear that:
◄ In his view, it was not necessary that the narration be free from hidden defects.
◄ It was not necessary that it be free from irregularity in the text.
◄ It was not necessary that the chain be connected.
◄ It was sufficient if the narrators were not accused of lying.
While for the muḥaddithīn in general (including Imam al-Tirmidhī himself in the capacity of a muḥaddith), a narration had to meet all the earlier mentioned conditions to be deemed authoritative.
Example – Ḥadīth of ʿAbdullāh b. Masʿūd (RA)
The ḥadīth about not raising the hands (rafʿ al-yadayn) in ṣalāh is, according to Imam al-Tirmidhī’s definition, classed as ḥasan.
Yet even Imam al-Tirmidhī himself did not consider it as valid for proof, since he cited the statement of ʿAbdullāh b. al-Mubārak (RA):
“لَمْ یَثْبُتْ”
“It is not established.”
Thus, despite calling it ḥasan, he did not uphold it as authoritative.
Ibn Ḥazm’s Position
Ibn Ḥazm (RA) declared this narration ṣaḥīḥ, but this is considered an error on his part, because some of the essential conditions of acceptance and proof were missing in it.
This matter is explained in further detail in my book.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
