Imām Tirmidhī’s “Ḥadīth Ḥasan Ṣaḥīḥ”

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

(Edit: Until I get to update this article, I suggest students refer to the book of Shaykh Khālid ad-Darīs regarding this topic titled: الحديث الحسن لذاته ولغيره دراسة استقرائية نقدية)

Introduction

Two of the primary terminologies of ḥadīth are Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan. Although the absence/weakness of only 1 of the 5 conditions of a Ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth (i.e. ḍabṭ) makes it Ḥasan, both the categories are not on the same level, rather, they are almost opposites. Therefore, using the terms ‘Ṣaḥīḥ’ and ‘Ḥasan’ at one time doe not seem accurate, as they both have such a trait that opposes one another. The memory of a Ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth’s narrator(s) is complete (tām) whilst the memory of a Ḥasan Ḥadīth’s narrator(s) is defective, or weak (nāqis). So what does it mean when the likes of Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) label one single ḥadīth with both terms?

ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar’s explanation

ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (raḥimahullāh) gives two possible explanations for this in his Nuzhat aẓ-Naẓar Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikr:

1. The first explanation for it is that when Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) has a single version of one ḥadīth, but has a doubt regarding its authenticity — whether it is Ṣaḥīḥ or Ḥasan — he chooses to not pass a final verdict on whether the ḥadīth is rigorously authentic (Ṣaḥīḥ) or one or more of its narrators has a defective memory (Ḥasan). Therefore, he chooses to leave it to scholars after him to decide, and he labels the ḥadīth with both terms. It is as if he is saying that “If others [after me] also conclude that this particular narrator has complete memory, then the ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ, otherwise, it is Ḥasan. In this case, he explains, we would have to assume that there is a hidden “أو” (or) between both terms that indicates to Imām Tirmidhī’s doubt. Consequently, a Ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth would be stronger than a “Ṣaḥīḥ (أو) Ḥasan” ḥadīth, as certainty, which the former contains, surpasses doubt, which is found in the latter.

2. On the other hand, Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) could have had the same ḥadīth with two different chains. In this case, it is simple. It means the same ḥadīth with one chain according to him is on the level of Ṣaḥīḥ and with a different chain, at the level of Ḥasan. In this case, we would have to assume that there is a hidden ḥarf ʿaṭf “وَ” between both terms. It is as if he is saying that “This ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ [according to one chain] and Ḥasan [according to another]. Accordingly, a ḥadīth that is “Ṣaḥīḥ (وَ) Ḥasan” would be stronger than a ḥadīth that is only Ṣaḥīḥ because in the former, despite the ḥadīth already being Ṣaḥīḥ, it has another Ḥasan chain that raised its authenticity to a higher rank.

ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalah’s explanation

ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalah (raḥimahullāh) has given two responses:

1. There are two chains of transmission, and the ḥadīth is Ḥasan according to one, and Ṣaḥīḥ according to the other.

2. The author has used Ḥasan in its literal meaning to indicate that the ḥadīth is ‘beautiful’ and Ṣaḥīḥ to state the actual grade of the ḥadīth.

Other views

There are other views such as:

• Ḥasan and Ṣaḥīḥ are synonymous and the author uses both of them for emphasis.
• Ḥasan according to those who have made a distinction between Ḥasan and Ṣaḥīḥ and Ṣaḥīḥ according to those who have not.
• Both words are used to indicate towards a middle level between Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan.
• Ḥasan is stated to grade the sanad and Ṣaḥīḥ to grade the matn of a ḥadīth.
• Ṣaḥīḥ according to one group of scholars, and Ḥasan according to another.
• Ṣaḥīḥ refers to Ṣaḥīḥ li Ghayrihi and Ḥasan refers to Ḥasan li Dhātihi.

All these answers are weak and have been objected to. Therefore, the reality is that we cannot confidently state what Imām Tirmidhī (raḥimahullāh) and other scholars who used these terms in this manner really meant, we can also speculate.

And Allah Taʿālā knows best