Takhrij (تخريج) is a crucial science in the study of Hadith, which involves the proper sourcing and referencing of Hadiths. There is no single, rigid way to perform takhrīj. While there are established rules and expectations, the level of detail and depth ultimately depends on personal preference. Shaykh Ḥātim al-‘Awnī outlines a general approach in his work, Muqarrar at-Takhrīj wa Manhaj al-Ḥukm ʿalā al-Ḥadīth, but a student can explore how different scholars apply these principles and then choose the method that best suits their needs.
There are two main aspects to this type of research: Takhrij (the process of identifying sources), and, taḥqīq (editorial work). It’s important to note that taḥqīq al-isnād—the verification of the chain of transmission—is not necessarily part of takhrīj. In the past, a takhrīj that did not include isnād evaluation or the grading of narrators wasn’t considered incomplete. However, in contemporary scholarship, taḥqīq is now generally expected alongside takhrīj, and if a work on takhrīj omits the grading of Hadith or an assessment of the narrators, it is often perceived as lacking proper taḥqīq, even though a true shortcoming in takhrīj occurs only when one does not cite important sources.
Definition of Takhrij
The word takhrīj comes from the verb kharraja (خَرَّجَ), meaning “to extract” or “to bring forth.” In technical terms, it refers to attributing a Hadith to its original source that is musnada, i.e., it contains a full chain of transmission. If this isn’t possible, scholars rely on secondary sources that maintain the chain. The purpose is to ascertain the primary source and authenticity of the Hadith, determining if it is maqbūl (accepted) or mardūd (rejected).
Shaykh Ḥātim al-‘Awnī defines takhrij as:
عزو الحديث إلى مصادره الأصلية المسندة، فإن تعذرت فإلى الفرعية المسندة، فإن تعذرت فإلى الناقلة عنها بأسانيدها، من أجل الوصول إلى منزلة الحديث في القبول أو في الرد
“Attributing the Hadith to its original musnad sources. If that is not possible, then to secondary musnad sources. If that is also not possible, then to those who transmit from them with their chains, to determine whether the Hadith is accepted or rejected.”
(عزو الحديث إلى مصادره الأصلية المسندة) – Attributing the Hadith to its primary sources.
- The term ‘azw (عزو) means “attribution,” and in this context, it refers to linking the Hadith to its original source. This allows researchers to identify the Hadith’s origins, which is crucial for determining its authenticity or weakness. These primary sources are akin to the genealogy of a Hadith, tracing its transmission accurately.
- The term Hadith (حديث) is defined as: كل ما أضيف إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من قول أو فعل أو تقرير أو صفة أو سيرة — This encompasses everything attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ), including his statements, actions, tacit approvals, physical characteristics, or biographical details. Ṣifah (صفة) is mentioned to cover descriptions related to the Prophet (ﷺ)’s traits, while sīrah (سيرة) includes the events of his life.
- The term Masādir aṣliyyah (primary sources) are authoritative texts, such as the books of sunan and their subcategories. The term “primary” emphasises the exclusion of secondary or less significant texts from the definition.
- The term musnad (مسند) refers to books that contain full chains of transmission from the author back to the source. The grading of a Hadith depends on evaluating these chains. If the narrators are not mentioned, the purpose of takhrīj—establishing the Hadith’s authenticity—cannot be achieved.
Primary Sources
Primary sources must have two key characteristics:
- Qidam (قدم): They must be early works, compiled closer to the time of the narrators.
- Ahmiyya (أهمية): They must be recognised and valued for their scholarly importance, having earned widespread acceptance among Hadith scholars.
For instance, if Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī cites from the Ṣaḥīfah of Hammām ibn Munabbih, which reports from Abū Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), it would be incorrect to attribute the Hadith to the Ṣaḥīfah instead of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Despite the Ṣaḥīfah being an early text, it does not have the same scholarly significance as Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
Sometimes, the situation is reversed: a Hadith might be found in an important book that is not early enough to be considered a primary source. For example, if a Hadith is present in both Tārīkh Dimashq by Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571 AH) and Musnad Aḥmad by Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH), Tārīkh Dimashq is considered significant but is not a primary source due to its later compilation. In Tārīkh Dimashq, Ibn ʿAsākir provides his asānīd back to the original books, with his chain linking through al-Qāṭi‘ī, who transmitted from ʿAbdullāh (the son of Imam Aḥmad) from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal himself. If someone were to perform takhrīj and state, “Akhrajahu Ibn ʿAsākir,” without mentioning Musnad Aḥmad, this would be incorrect. Despite Tārīkh Dimashq being a respected work, it remains a secondary (far‘ī) source in this context, while Musnad Aḥmad is the original (aṣlī) source. Therefore, the correct approach in takhrīj would be to first attribute the Hadith to Musnad Aḥmad and only then mention Tārīkh Dimashq as a supplementary reference.
If a Hadith is cited from secondary works like Sharḥ al-Sunnah of Imam al-Baghawī or Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, it should instead be traced to the original six collections of Hadith (Kutub al-Sittah). In the 1940s and 1950s, citing from Mishkāt was more common due to limited access to primary sources. Today, with easy access to these collections, this practice is no longer justified. While works like Mishkāt are important, they do not fulfill the criteria for musnad texts.
How Does One Determine the Significance (Ahmiyya)?
The significance (ahmiyya) of a source is determined by factors such as the reputation of the author and the extent to which the scholarly community (ummah) has accepted and engaged with the work. By his definition explanation, Shaykh Ḥātim is exempting certain manuscripts (nusakh) and texts that are embedded within larger compilations from being considered primary sources. For example, the Maghāzī of Maʿmar ibn Rāshid is often cited within Musnad ʿAbd al-Razzāq. In this case, scholars must ask: How well-known is Maʿmar ibn Rāshid’s Maghāzī compared to the Musnad of ʿAbd al-Razzāq? Which work has received more scholarly attention, citation, and use in teaching? This consideration highlights the need to evaluate the degree of scholarly engagement with these works. If a text like Musnad ʿAbd al-Razzāq has been more widely cited and studied, it is given precedence.
The Two Methods of Tahqiq al-Isnad
1. Authority-Based
The first method is known as “authority-based takhrīj.” This approach relies on established mechanisms that serve as shortcuts or “keys” to determine a Hadith’s authenticity.
For instance, if a Hadith is found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, it is considered ṣaḥīḥ by default, and no further analysis is needed. If the Hadith appears in Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, one would reference the commentary (kalām) of Imam al-Tirmidhī and leave it at that. In the case of Sunan Abī Dāwūd, the principle of sukūt (silence) applies. Imam Abū Dāwūd (d. 275 AH) often remains silent on certain Hadiths, and this silence (sakata ʿanhu) is generally interpreted as a form of acceptance. However, this principle has its nuances and is debated among scholars. When it comes to al-Mustadrak ʿala al-Ṣaḥīḥayn by Imam al-Ḥākim (d. 405 AH), Imam al-Ḥākim typically provides a grading, and Imam al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) offers a summary (takhlīṣ) of the work, often adding his own comments on the Hadith’s authenticity.
Moreover, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH) has done a takhrīj of Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ and follows a principle where his silence indicates the Hadith’s authenticity. Similarly, Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456 AH), in the introduction (muqaddima) of al-Muḥallā, states to the effect: “Any Hadith I do not comment on, I consider authentic.” Thus, when referencing his work, scholars might say, “wa sakata ʿanhu Ibn Ḥazm,” implying its authenticity.
The central idea behind this method is that the scholar performing takhrīj is not personally grading the Hadith. Instead, they rely on these established mechanisms to arrive at a ruling. Many scholars adhere to this method to maintain respect for traditional assessments. A contemporary example of this approach is the book Zujājāt al-Maṣābīḥ, published by Maktaba Ismāʿīl. The editor uses the authority-based method and does not independently analyse the asānīd.
Issue with this Method
While this method is straightforward, its accuracy depends on the consistency and strength of the principles being applied. When referencing Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, the consensus around their authenticity provides a high level of confidence. The rulings of Imam al-Tirmidhī are also generally reliable. However, the principle of sukūt in Sunan Abī Dāwūd is more contested, with debates surrounding what Imam Abū Dāwūd’s silence truly signifies. The silence of Imam al-Dhahabī in his Talkhīṣ al-Mustadrak is even more questionable, and the acceptance of Hadith by Ibn Ḥazm in al-Muḥallā is also a subject of disagreement. Therefore, the strength of the grading depends heavily on how robust and well-applied these principles are.
2. Isnad-Based
This method involves an in-depth analysis of each narrator’s reliability, character, and memory. Scholars study the entire chain to determine the Hadith’s authenticity, providing a more thorough assessment.
A Third Method
In some scholarly circles, the rulings of Shaykh Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1999 CE) are heavily relied upon. Researchers using this approach will source the Hadith and conclude with the grading determined by Shaykh al-Albānī, such as, “ṣaḥḥaḥahu al-Albānī fī as-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah.” While this method simplifies the process, it may not provide the depth and rigor associated with traditional isnād analysis.
The Importance of Attributing Hadith to Primary Sources
Higher Chains and Easier Grading
The original source often provides a shorter chain of transmission, making it easier to study the sanad and grade the Hadith accurately. Shaykh Mahdī Ḥasan Shāhjahanpūrī wrote a critique of Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456 AH) in his al-Muḥallā. While al-Muḥallā is a musnad text containing asānīd, similar to how Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571 AH) would cite Hadiths with a chain back to the author, Shaykh Mahdī Ḥasan criticised a sanad used by Ibn Ḥazm, claiming that one of the narrators (the teacher or teacher’s teacher) was majhūl (unknown). However, he overlooked the fact that the sanad traces back to the Sunan Abī Dāwūd, which renders his critique irrelevant! Therefore, starting with primary sources saves the researcher from the need to scrutinise later portions of the chain.
Primary Sources Are the Original (Aṣl) of Secondary Sources
The primary source serves as the original (aṣl) of the secondary source. It is, therefore, invalid to attribute a Hadith to a secondary text while ignoring the primary one. The primary source is more reliable (awthaq) and stronger (aqwā) than the secondary (farʿ).
Better Preservation and Reliability
Primary texts are more well-known and less prone to transcription errors (taṣḥīf) or alterations (taḥrīf). Due to their prevalence and the abundance of manuscripts (nusakh), these texts have undergone extensive scrutiny. Mistakes are identified and corrected through the efforts of scholars in their commentaries (shurūḥ), verification works (dabṭ), and hadith dictionaries (aṭrāf). In contrast, a lesser-known book that hasn’t been “served” (makhdūm) by scholars is more likely to contain undetected errors.
Avoiding Misleading Assumptions
Citing a Hadith from a secondary source may mislead others into thinking it is absent from a primary source. For instance, if a Hadith is attributed to Sunan al-Bayhaqī by Imam al-Bayhaqī (d. 458 AH) when it is also present in the six major Hadith collections (Kutub al-Sittah), it implies that the primary collections do not contain the Hadith. Scholars of the past criticised this practice, referring to it as “Ibʿādan li ’n-Nujʿah” (إبعاد للنجعة), meaning “taking a longer route unnecessarily.” This phrase literally means “going to collect grass from a place further away when it’s available nearby.”
Our ustadh gave the example of holding your left ear with your right hand by wrapping it behind your neck instead of simply using your left hand directly. An example of Ibʿādan li ’n-Nujʿah is the following given by Shaykh Hatim:
فلمّا عزا الإمام النوويُّ حديثًا إلى مسند عبد بن حميد، تعقّبه ابن المُلقِّن (ت: 804 هـ) بقوله: “قلت: وهو كما قال، لكنّه أبعد النجعة في (عزو) هذا الحديث (إلى) مسند عبد بن حميد، وهو في سنن الدارقطني ومستدرك الحاكم”.
When Imam al-Nawawī attributed a Hadith to the Musnad of ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd, Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 804 AH) critiqued him, saying: “I say: It is as he mentioned, but he unnecessarily went the long way (abʿada al-nujʿah) by attributing this Hadith to the Musnad of ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd, while it is also found in Sunan al-Dāraqutnī and al-Mustadrak of al-Ḥākim.”
Appropriate Wording for Takhrīj
When performing takhrīj, the choice of wording is important. If you are citing a Hadith from a book that contains a complete sanad (chain of transmission), you would use terms like akhrajahu (أخرجه) or kharrajahu (خرّجه). The term kharrajahu is used less frequently and has developed a slightly different connotation in later periods.
For example, if you are referencing a Hadith from a collection like Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or Musnad Aḥmad, akhrajahu would be appropriate, as these works provide full chains. However, if the Hadith is found in a compilation like Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn by Imam al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH), using akhrajahu would be incorrect. The wording akhrajahu al-Nawawī fī Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn implies that Imam al-Nawawī included a complete sanad, which is not the case in this collection. Instead, you should use naqalahu (نقله), meaning “he transmitted.” Thus, the correct phrasing would be: naqalahu Imam al-Nawawī fī Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn.
Although the difference between akhrajahu and naqalahu may seem minor, it reveals the depth of one’s understanding of Hadith sciences. Using the wrong term can indicate a lack of familiarity with the proper conventions of takhrīj.
Clarifying Reports from Muʿallaq and Balāghat Narrations
Another important point is how to cite reports that are incomplete or lack full chains. If you are referencing the muʿallaqāt (suspended reports) of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or the balāghāt (narrations beginning with the word “balagha”) of al-Muwaṭṭaʾ by Imam Mālik (d. 179 AH), you must specify this in your wording. For example, you would say: akhrajahu al-Bukhāriyyu muʿallaqan (أخرجه البخاري معلّقًا) or akhrajahu Mālik balāghan (أخرجه مالك بلاغًا). Failing to clarify the nature of these reports is considered inaccurate and imprecise. If specifying these terms is necessary for works that generally include complete chains, it is even more critical for books that do not contain asānīd (chains) at all. This precision ensures that the citation reflects the actual nature of the Hadith’s documentation.
Secondary Sources
(فإن تعذرت فإلى الفرعية المسندة) – If the Hadith cannot be located in primary sources, the next step is to reference secondary sources with asānīd (chains of transmission).
Secondary sources, or Kutub Farʿiyyah (كتب فرعية), refer to Hadith books with chains that cite from earlier, more authoritative texts. These sources meet two main criteria:
- They are compiled after the primary source.
- They hold less significance compared to the original work.
It’s important to clarify that secondary sources are distinct from books like Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, which do not provide full chains. Secondary sources mentioned here are one tier higher because they include asānīd.
Example 1: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah
Parts of Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah are missing, but Imam al-Bayhaqī (d. 458 AH) had access to this work. He cited it with his own sanad that traces back to Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah. In this case, al-Bayhaqī’s works, such as Sunan al-Kubrā, Maʿrifat al-Sunan wa al-Āthār, or Shuʿab al-Īmān, become secondary sources. Even though Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah is the primary source, we are compelled to rely on al-Bayhaqī’s citations because the original is not fully accessible.
Example 2: Ibn ʿAsākir and Muʿjam al-Kabīr of al-Ṭabarānī
Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571 AH) had access to Muʿjam al-Kabīr by Imam al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 AH), which serves as a primary source. However, because we do not have direct access to Muʿjam al-Kabīr, Ibn ʿAsākir’s Tārīkh Dimashq becomes a secondary reference.
Conclusion
In this article, I’ve discussed what takhrīj is, the two main methods used, the correct wording for citations, and lots of examples to demonstrate proper and improper referencing. Takhrīj is all about getting the sources right and understanding when and how to attribute Hadiths accurately. By using the right terms and distinguishing between primary and secondary sources, we can correctly perform takhrīj and uphold the standards set by our scholars.
Hadithiyya 