Terms: “Saḥīḥ al-Isnād” and “Rijāluhu Rijāl aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ”

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Saḥīḥ al-Isnād

When a muḥaddith says “هذا حديث صحيح” it means that that ḥadīth meets all the five conditions of authenticity (ṣiḥḥah) and an extensive study was done to come to the conclusion that there are no contradictions and defects in that particular ḥadīth. On the other hand, when a muḥaddith says “صحيح الإسناد” then there has to be a reason for him to use that term, because he could have just said “حديث صحيح”. In an-Nukat al-Wafiyyah, it is related by ʿAllāmah Baqāʿī (raḥimahullāh):

قال شيخنا: والذي لا أشك فيه أن الإمام منهم لا يعدل عن قوله “صحيح” إلى قوله “صحيح الإسناد” إلا لأمر ما. انتهى

“Our Shaykh (ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar) has said: I do not doubt that an imām from amongst them would not shift from saying Ṣaḥīḥ to saying Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād except due to a reason.”

The reason for a muḥaddith using the term Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād in some instances is because the muḥaddith has only inspected the chain of a particular ḥadīth. Therefore, when he comes to the conclusion that the chain is authentic, he says Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād to indicate that only the chain of that ḥadīth is authentic. This means that the muḥaddith has not checked for possibilities of there being hidden defects, contradictions, etc. Thus, when a muḥaddith only examines the sanad of a particular matn (text of a ḥadīth), but has not examined other asānīd of that same matn, he will use the term Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād.

ʿAllāmah Ibn Ṣalaḥ says that a ḥadīth that is termed Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād is lower in rank from a ḥadīth that is termed Ṣaḥīḥ. Almost all commentators of Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ agree with this. The crux of the matter is that when a chain is authentic, it does not mean that the matn is also authentic.

Shaykh Mahmūd At-Ṭaḥḥān says in his Uṣūl at-Takhrīj page 198-199:

مر بنا أن كشف العلة والشذوذ في الحديث نفيا أو إثباتا أمر صعب جدا لا يقوي عليه كل باحث أو مشتغل بالحديث. لذا يستحسن في حق الباحث في الأسانيد أن يقول في نهاية بحثه عن مرتبة الحديث “صحيح الإسناد” أو “ضعيف الإسناد” ولا يتعجل فيقول “صحيح” أو “حسن” أو ضعيف”…إلخ

In short, he says that discovering the shudhūdh and ʿilal of aḥādīth is a difficult task that not every researcher possesses the expertise for. Therefore, it is better for those who research the strength of aḥādīth to say at the end of their research that this ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād or Ḍaʿīf al-Isnād and not hasten and say Ṣaḥīḥ, Ḥasan, or Ḍaʿīf (alone)…

Rijāluhu rijāl aṣ-ṣaḥīḥ

Linked to this is the term “رجاله رجال الصحيح”. Based on the explanation given above, this term would be even more inferior than “صحيح الإسناد” because this only indicates that the narrators are thiqah (reliable); but it does not indicate that the chain is muttaṣil (connected), and that there are no ʿilal and shudhūdh. Therefore this term does not indicate that a ḥadīth meets all the conditions of ṣiḥḥah (authenticity).

In Manhaj An-Naqd page 274, Shaykh Nūr ad-Dīn ʿItr (raḥimahullāh) says:

ويتصل بهذا فائدة أخرى نضمها إلى ما ذكره العلماء في هذا الصدد وهي ما درج عليه الحافظ الهيثمي في كتابه العظيم “مجمع الزوائد” من قوله في الحديث: “رجاله ثقات” أو “رجاله رجال الصحيح”، فهذه العبارة ينبغي أن تكون دون قولهم: “صحيح الإسناد” لأنها تزيد على عدم ذكر السلامة من الشذوذ والعلة فقد الحكم باتصال السند، وإن كان الظاهر من تتبع كلامه أنه يميز المنقطع بالتنبيه عليه، كان يقول: رجاله رجال الصحيح غير أنه منقطع، أو مرسل.

“Another benefit related to this is regarding what Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī has included in his book Majmaʿ az-Zawāʾid from the statement “Its narrators are authentic” or “Its narrators are the narrators of a Ṣaḥīḥ“. This phrase is lower [in strength] than their statement “Ṣaḥīḥ al-Isnād” because it indicates that along with not being free from shudhūdh, ʿillah, its chain is also not connected. Although, one may distinguish [the disconnected chains] because it is alerted to [by scholars] with the statement: Its narrators are the narrators of a Ṣaḥīḥ but it is munqaṭiʿ or mursal (disconnected)”