Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah (Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām), vol. 2, p. 299
Is it correct to say that a certain ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ in chain (isnād) but weak in text (matn)? In other words — narrationally authentic (riwāyatan ṣaḥīḥah) but contextually weak (dirāyatan ḍaʿīfah)? Also, are the two branches of ḥadīth sciences —
— known to the Muḥaddithīn, or are they a modern invention?
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
If a ḥadīth contains a ʿillah qādiḥah (defective cause) or shudhūdh (contradiction to stronger narration), then it is correct to say:
"This ḥadīth is (apparently) ṣaḥīḥ in chain but weak in text."
Such a ḥadīth is considered weak because of the defect.
Note: Determining the presence of a ʿillah qādiḥah or declaring a report maʿlūl can only be done by the expert Muḥaddithīn who specialise in ʿIlal al-Ḥadīth.
If the phrase “apparently” (bi’l-ẓāhir) is removed and one says:
"This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ in chain but weak in text"
or
"Narrationally authentic but contextually weak"
— this is incorrect.
If a ḥadīth’s chain is authentically ṣaḥīḥ, free of shudhūdh and free of any ʿillah qādiḥah, and the Muḥaddithīn have graded it ṣaḥīḥ, then it will always remain ṣaḥīḥ — both in chain and in text.
Some chains may outwardly appear ṣaḥīḥ, but their text seems weak or doubtful. In such cases, only the Muḥaddithīn — through identifying shudhūdh and ʿillah qādiḥah — can reveal the reality of the weakness.
The scholars of ḥadīth agree that a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth must meet five conditions:
➊ Each narrator is ʿadl (upright in character).
➋ Each narrator is ḍābiṭ (precise in memory/recording).
➌ The chain is muttaṣil (continuous without breaks).
➍ It is free from shudhūdh (contradicting a stronger report).
➎ It is free from ʿillah qādiḥah (a hidden defect that harms authenticity).
Muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ with the commentary of al-ʿIrāqī, p. 20
Shudhūdh and ʿillah are issues related to dirāyah (understanding and critical analysis).
If some Muḥaddithīn criticise a narrator but the majority declare him thiqah (trustworthy) or ṣadūq (truthful), he may have some weakness in precision. Such a narrator’s ḥadīth is classified as ḥasan li-dhātihi.
Both ṣaḥīḥ and ḥasan li-dhātihi aḥādīth are ḥujjah (authoritative) and must be acted upon.
ʿIlm al-Riwāyah includes the branch of ʿIlm al-Dirāyah, which covers topics such as ʿilal and shudhūdh.
In modern times, some revisionists and ḥadīth rejecters have artificially separated the two and use this as a pretext to dismiss authentic aḥādīth by claiming they contradict the Qur’ān or intellect. This methodology is false and rejected.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
❖ Question
Is it correct to say that a certain ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ in chain (isnād) but weak in text (matn)? In other words — narrationally authentic (riwāyatan ṣaḥīḥah) but contextually weak (dirāyatan ḍaʿīfah)? Also, are the two branches of ḥadīth sciences —
- ʿIlm al-Riwāyah
- ʿIlm al-Dirāyah
— known to the Muḥaddithīn, or are they a modern invention?
❖ Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
① When the Statement Is Correct
If a ḥadīth contains a ʿillah qādiḥah (defective cause) or shudhūdh (contradiction to stronger narration), then it is correct to say:
"This ḥadīth is (apparently) ṣaḥīḥ in chain but weak in text."
Such a ḥadīth is considered weak because of the defect.
Note: Determining the presence of a ʿillah qādiḥah or declaring a report maʿlūl can only be done by the expert Muḥaddithīn who specialise in ʿIlal al-Ḥadīth.
② When the Statement Is Incorrect
If the phrase “apparently” (bi’l-ẓāhir) is removed and one says:
"This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ in chain but weak in text"
or
"Narrationally authentic but contextually weak"
— this is incorrect.
If a ḥadīth’s chain is authentically ṣaḥīḥ, free of shudhūdh and free of any ʿillah qādiḥah, and the Muḥaddithīn have graded it ṣaḥīḥ, then it will always remain ṣaḥīḥ — both in chain and in text.
③ Why Some Chains Appear Authentic but the Text Seems Problematic
Some chains may outwardly appear ṣaḥīḥ, but their text seems weak or doubtful. In such cases, only the Muḥaddithīn — through identifying shudhūdh and ʿillah qādiḥah — can reveal the reality of the weakness.
Conditions for a Ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth
The scholars of ḥadīth agree that a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth must meet five conditions:
➊ Each narrator is ʿadl (upright in character).
➋ Each narrator is ḍābiṭ (precise in memory/recording).
➌ The chain is muttaṣil (continuous without breaks).
➍ It is free from shudhūdh (contradicting a stronger report).
➎ It is free from ʿillah qādiḥah (a hidden defect that harms authenticity).
Muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ with the commentary of al-ʿIrāqī, p. 20Shudhūdh and ʿillah are issues related to dirāyah (understanding and critical analysis).
Note on Narrators with Minor Weakness
If some Muḥaddithīn criticise a narrator but the majority declare him thiqah (trustworthy) or ṣadūq (truthful), he may have some weakness in precision. Such a narrator’s ḥadīth is classified as ḥasan li-dhātihi.
Both ṣaḥīḥ and ḥasan li-dhātihi aḥādīth are ḥujjah (authoritative) and must be acted upon.
On ʿIlm al-Riwāyah and ʿIlm al-Dirāyah
ʿIlm al-Riwāyah includes the branch of ʿIlm al-Dirāyah, which covers topics such as ʿilal and shudhūdh.
In modern times, some revisionists and ḥadīth rejecters have artificially separated the two and use this as a pretext to dismiss authentic aḥādīth by claiming they contradict the Qur’ān or intellect. This methodology is false and rejected.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
