Summary

The Main Issue

Al Dawwani raised an important objection. The ulama agreed that Sharia rulings are not established by daif hadith (weak hadith).

At the same time, many later ulama said that it is permissible, and even recommended, to act upon daif hadith in fada’il al a’mal (virtues of deeds). Al Dawwani saw an issue here, because permissibility and recommendation are themselves from the five Sharia rulings. If a weak report cannot establish rulings, then how can it establish permissibility or recommendation? (Anmudhaj al Ulum by al Dawwani, p. 2. Qawaid al Tahdith by al Qasimi, p. 117–118. al Manhaj al Sawi by al Ahdal)

The Early Rejection of Acting Upon Weak Hadith

Al Muallimi places the first clear rejection of acting upon weak hadith in virtues with Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi (d. 543AH).

His position was that virtues are also taken from the Lawgiver, so proving a virtue through a weak report can become a way of inventing worship and making something part of religion without permission from Allah. This is the core objection against making weak hadith a basis for new acts of worship. (Fath al Mughith by al Sakhawi, 1/333. Tadrib al Rawi by al Suyuti, 1/351. al Fath al Mubin by Ibn Hajar al Haytami, p. 36.)

The Conditions Mentioned By Ibn Hajar

Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH) mentioned three conditions for acting upon weak hadith in virtues. The weakness must not be severe. The report must fall under an already established general basis. The person acting upon it must not believe it is firmly established from the Prophet ﷺ, but only act with caution.

The first condition excludes liars, those accused of lying, and narrators whose mistakes are gross.

The second condition excludes invented acts that have no basis in the Sharia at all.

The third condition protects the Prophet ﷺ from having speech attributed to him without certainty. (Tabyin al Ajab by Ibn Hajar, p. 9. Tadrib al Rawi by al Suyuti, 1/351.)

Ibn Daqiq al Id’s Restriction

Ibn Daqiq al Eid (d. 703AH) added an important restriction. A weak hadith may only be placed under general proofs if there is no more specific proof preventing it. He used the prayer of the first Friday night of Rajab as an example.

Even though prayer in general is virtuous, that specific prayer cannot be justified by general proofs because there is an authentic report forbidding singling out the night of Friday for prayer. So a weak hadith cannot create a specific time, act, or manner when a stronger proof prevents it. (Ihkam al Ahkam by Ibn Daqiq al Eid, 2/150. al Ilam bi Fawaid Umdat al Ahkam by Ibn al Mulaqqin, 2/398–404. Sahih Muslim 1144.)

Al Nawawi’s Position

Al Nawawi (d. 676AH) made the permissibility of acting upon weak hadith in virtues famous. He said that weak hadith may be acted upon in virtues, encouragement, and warning, so long as it is not fabricated.

He separated this from rulings such as halal, haram, sale, marriage, and divorce, where only sahih (authentic) or hasan (sound) reports may be used, except in matters of caution. (al Adhkar by al Nawawi, p. 8. al Arba’in by al Nawawi, p. 12. al Tibyan by al Nawawi. al Ajwibah al Fadilah by al Laknawi, p. 43–44. al Qawl al Badi by al Sakhawi, p. 195.)

Al Nawawi also rejected the prayer of the first Friday night of Rajab as an ugly bid’ah (innovation). This shows that his permission was not meant to open the door to every weak report. Even according to his approach, a weak report does not justify a newly invented act when the act has no proper Sharia basis or when it goes against stronger evidence. (al Majmu Sharh al Muhadhdhab by al Nawawi, 4/56. al Ba’ith by Abu Shamah, p. 145 onward.)

Al Muallimi’s Main Critique

Al Muallimi argues that the early imams were speaking about leniency in narration, not about using weak hadith to establish acts of worship.

Their statements say that they were strict with isnad (chain of narration) in halal, haram, and rulings, but more lenient in virtues, reward, and warning. Al Muallimi says this does not prove that they permitted making new acts recommended through weak reports. It only proves that they narrated such reports with less strictness when no ruling was being created. (Fath al Mughith by al Sakhawi, 1/331–332. al Kifayah by al Khatib, p. 133–134. Jami Bayan al Ilm by Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/152.)

The main difference is between narrating a weak report and building a religious act upon it. The early imams may narrate a weak report about extra reward for an act already proven by the Sharia. But this does not mean that a weak report can make a new act part of religion.

The Correct Meaning of Leniency

Leniency does not mean accepting everything weak. Al Muallimi explains that the early imams would not narrate what they knew to be fabricated.

In aqidah (belief) and rulings, if a report was severely weak and not suitable for proof or support, they would avoid narrating it or clarify its weakness. In virtues and reminders, they may narrate what was not known to be fabricated, because the report was not being used to create a ruling. (Fath al Mughith by al Sakhawi, 1/331–332.)

This gives a balanced meaning. A report may be weak but still mentioned for reminder, hope, or fear. It may not be used to establish a new worship, a new time, a new manner, or a new ruling.

The Types of Weak Reports in Virtues

Al Muallimi divides weak reports in virtues into different types. The safest type is a weak report that mentions extra reward for an act already established specifically, such as the five prayers, fasting Ramadan, voluntary fasting in general, or fasting Monday and Thursday. Since the act is already established, the weak report does not create the act.

Another type is a report that gives a virtue to a specific act that falls only under a broad general proof, such as fasting a particular day of Safar or reciting a specific surah in a specific prayer. This is more serious, because the weak report is now adding a special virtue to a specific act.

A third type is a report that gives virtue to something merely mubah (permissible), such as standing in the sun on one leg. Al Muallimi strongly rejects making such an act worship through a weak report. Without valid proof, turning a merely permissible act into worship means claiming that Allah legislated something without proof.

A fourth type is a report that encourages something already proven to be haram or makruh (disliked). This cannot be acted upon by agreement. The stronger Sharia proof remains binding.

Why a Weak Report Cannot Make a New Act Worship

If an act is merely permissible, then doing it as worship requires proof. Without proof, claiming reward for it becomes speaking about Allah without knowledge.

Al Muallimi connects this to the principle that the religion was completed and preserved. A weak report cannot change a merely permissible act into a recommended act.

Allah Most High said:

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ

“Or do they have partners who legislated for them from the religion that which Allah did not permit?” (al Shura 21)

Allah Most High also said:

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ

“Today I have perfected your religion for you.” (al Ma’idah 3)

Allah Most High also said:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

“Indeed, We sent down the reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it.” (al Hijr 9)

Allah Most High also said:

وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَـٰذَا حَلَالٌ وَهَـٰذَا حَرَامٌ لِّتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ لَا يُفْلِحُونَ

“Do not say, because of the lie your tongues describe, ‘This is halal and this is haram,’ so as to invent a lie against Allah. Indeed, those who invent lies against Allah will not succeed.” (al Nahl 116)

The meaning is that the Sharia is not completed by weak and uncertain reports. If a proof for a specific worship existed, the ulama would have known it and transmitted it. A weak report cannot become the basis for claiming that Allah loves a specific new form of worship.

Al Albani’s Warning

Al Albani (d. 1420AH) warns that many people repeat the statement that weak hadith may be acted upon in virtues without knowing its limits. This becomes dangerous because a report may be severely weak or fabricated. In such cases, narrating it is not permissible unless its condition is clarified and people are warned against it, let alone acting upon it. (Silsilat al Ahadith al Daifah by al Albani, vol. 1, hadith no. 321.)

Al Albani stresses that the principle is not unrestricted.

The hadith related restriction is that the weakness must not be severe. The fiqh related restriction is that the weak report must not create a new act, new description, new time, or new ruling. It may only relate to an act already established by valid proof.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Take

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) gives one of the clearest explanations. Weak hadiths that are neither sahih nor hasan may not be relied upon in the Sharia. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others only permitted narrating reports in virtues when they were not known to be lies. The act itself must already be known to be legislated through another Sharia proof.

The reward mentioned in the weak report may be hoped for, but the act does not become wajib (obligatory) or mustahabb (recommended) through that weak report. Ibn Taymiyyah says that none of the imams said it is permissible to make something obligatory or recommended through a weak hadith. Whoever says that has opposed consensus. (Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/250–261.)

The Difference Between Hope and Legislation

Ibn Taymiyyah compares weak reports in virtues to Israelite reports. They may be narrated for targhib (encouragement) and tarhib (warning) when the matter is already known to be commanded or forbidden in our Sharia. But they cannot establish a Sharia ruling by themselves.

For example, if the act is already known to be good, a weak report about extra reward may lead the soul to hope for that reward.

If the act is already known to be forbidden, a weak report about extra punishment may lead the soul to fear that punishment. But the weak report itself does not make the act good or bad. It only adds a possible reward or warning around something already established. (Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/250–261.)

Ahmad’s Use of the Word “Weak”

Ibn Taymiyyah explains that some people misunderstood Ahmad ibn Hanbal. When earlier imams used the word daif (weak), their terminology was not always the same as later terminology. Before al Tirmidhi, hadith was often divided into sahih and weak. Some reports that later scholars would call hasan were called weak by Ahmad, and he may use them as proof because they were not rejected weak reports.

Al Tirmidhi (d. 279AH) was the first known scholar to divide hadith clearly into sahih, hasan, and weak in his Jami. According to his usage, hasan refers to a report with multiple routes, no accused narrator, and no anomalous wording. So when Ahmad used some weak reports as proof, Ibn Taymiyyah says this may refer to what later scholars call hasan, not to rejected weak or fabricated reports. (Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/250–261.)

Weak Reports Cannot Establish Tawassul Through Created Persons

Ibn Taymiyyah applies this rule to reports used for tawassul (seeking nearness) through created persons. He says the reports used in this field are weak, feeble, or fabricated, and no imam of Islam relied upon them.

He gives examples of reports attributed to Abu Bakr al Siddiq رضي الله عنه and Adam عليه السلام, then analyses their narrators and shows their weakness or fabrication. The point is that such reports cannot establish a Sharia practice. (Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/250–261.)

He also warns against relying on the authentication of al Hakim alone, because al Hakim authenticated some reports that hadith masters regarded as fabricated or mistaken. This strengthens the broader rule that religion is not built on weak and uncertain reports, especially when the report establishes an act, wording, practice, or belief. (Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/250–261.)

The Practice of Later Authors in Books of Virtues

Ibn Taymiyyah explains that many later authors collected whatever was narrated in a field, whether strong, weak, or fabricated.

They did this especially in works on the virtues of times, places, people, and acts of worship. Their purpose was often to gather what had been narrated, not to declare every report usable as proof.

This applies to works by authors such as Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani, Abu Nuaym al Asbahani, Ibn Asakir, and others. Some of them might say that a report is strange, rejected, or weak. At other times, they might remain silent. Silence in such collections does not mean the report is authentic or suitable for Sharia proof. (Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/250–261.)

Al Shatibi’s Agreement

Al Shatibi (d. 790AH) agrees with this restrictive approach. He criticises innovators for relying on very weak and fabricated hadiths that the people of hadith do not accept as a basis. He mentions examples such as reports about applying kohl on Ashura, honouring the white rooster, eating aubergine according to intention, and reports connected to shaking during listening.

He says rulings are not built upon such reports, and they are never made a foundation in legislation. (al Itisam by al Shatibi, 1/229. al Maqasid al Hasanah by al Sakhawi. al Ahadith al Daifah wal Mawduah by al Albani, no. 558.)

Al Shatibi also explains that if Muslims accepted every report from every narrator, then there would be no purpose in narrator criticism, chains, or distinguishing reliable narrators from weak and accused narrators.

The purpose of the isnad is to know whether it is likely that the Prophet ﷺ truly said the report. Weak reports do not give that level of likelihood, so rulings cannot be built upon them. (al Kifayah by al Khatib, p. 391–397.)

Conclusion

The strongest combined position is that weak hadith is not a proof for creating Sharia rulings. It cannot make an act wajib, mustahabb, haram, or makruh. It cannot create a specific prayer, a specific time, a specific wording, a specific number, or a specific manner of worship.

A weak hadith may be narrated in fada’il al a’mal (virtues of deeds), targhib (encouragement), and tarhib (warning), only when its weakness is not severe, it is not known to be fabricated, the act is already established by valid Sharia proof, and the person does not believe the report is firmly established from the Prophet ﷺ.

So the weak report may increase hope for reward or fear of punishment in an act already known from the Sharia. It does not create religion. It does not establish worship. It does not stand as proof by itself.

End of Summary.

Al Muallimi’s on Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

Kitab Ahkam al Hadith al Daif, included within Athar al Muallimi_removed

The Issue Raised by al Dawwani

Al Jalal al Dawwani (d. 908AH) said in his book Anmudhaj al Ulum: “They agreed that legal rulings of the Sharia are not established by daif hadith (weak hadith). Then they mentioned that it is permissible, rather recommended, to act upon daif hadith in fada’il al a’mal (virtues of deeds) … There is an issue here, because permissibility and recommendation are both from the five legal rulings.” (Anmudhaj al Ulum by al Dawwani, p. 2. Jamal al Din al Qasimi quoted it from him in Qawaid al Tahdith, p. 117–118.) Al Sayyid al Imam Abd al Rahman ibn Sulayman al Ahdal quoted it in al Manhaj al Sawi. (al Manhaj al Sawi by Abd al Rahman ibn Sulayman al Ahdal)

The First Clear Speech on Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues

The first one from whom I remember clear speech on the issue of acting upon daif hadith in fada’il (virtues) is Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi (d. 543AH). It has been quoted from him that he rejected the permissibility of acting upon it. (See Fath al Mughith by al Sakhawi, 1/333, and Tadrib al Rawi by al Suyuti, 1/351.) Perhaps he is the author of the wording which Ibn Hajar al Haytami (d. 974AH) quoted from some of those who prevent it: “Virtues are only taken from the Lawgiver. So establishing them through what has been mentioned is inventing worship and legislating what Allah has not permitted.” (al Fath al Mubin by Ibn Hajar al Haytami, p. 36.)

The Conditions Mentioned by Ibn Hajar

Then came Shaykh Izz al Din ibn Abd al Salam (d. 660AH). Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH) mentioned three conditions for the permissibility of acting upon daif hadith. (Tabyin al Ajab lima Warada fi Fadl Rajab by Ibn Hajar, p. 9.)

The first is that the weakness must not be severe. So the one who is alone in narrating from the liars, those accused of lying, and those whose mistakes are gross, is excluded. Al Alai (d. 761AH) quoted agreement upon this. (Al Suyuti quoted it in al Tadrib.)

The second is that it must fall under a basis that is already acted upon.

The third is that, when acting upon it, one must not believe it to be established. Rather, one must believe that it is being acted upon out of caution.

He said: “These two were mentioned by Ibn Abd al Salam and Ibn Daqiq al Eid.” This is how al Suyuti (d. 911AH) quoted it in Tadrib al Rawi. (Tadrib al Rawi by al Suyuti, 1/351.)

Then Ibn Daqiq al Eid was born in 635AH and died in 703AH. The quote from Ibn Hajar has already passed concerning the condition of the two previous conditions.

Ibn Daqiq al Eid’s Restriction

Al Zarkashi (d. 794AH) said in the introduction to al Dhahab al Ibriz, after mentioning the permissibility of acting upon daif hadith:

“There are two matters here. The first: Abu al Fath al Qushayri, meaning Ibn Daqiq al Eid, said: When we say that daif hadith may be acted upon because it falls under general proofs, then its condition is that there must not be evidence that prevents it which is more specific than those general proofs. An example of this is the prayer mentioned on the night of the first Friday of Rajab.

The hadith concerning it is weak.

So whoever wishes to perform it and place it under the general proofs which show the virtue of prayer and tasbih (glorification), this is not correct, because it is authentically reported from the Prophet ﷺ that he forbade singling out the night of Friday for prayer. This is more specific than the general proofs which show the virtue of prayer.” (al Dhahab al Ibriz fi Takhrij Ahadith Fath al Aziz by al Zarkashi, manuscript. See al Fihris al Shamil, Hadith Section, 2/797. The speech of Ibn Daqiq al Eid is in Ihkam al Ahkam bi Sharh Umdat al Ahkam by Ibn Daqiq al Eid, 2/150, with the marginal notes of al Sanani. Ibn al Mulaqqin also quoted it in al Ilam bi Fawaid Umdat al Ahkam, 2/398–404. Sahih Muslim 1144.)

al Nawawi and the Spread of This View

Al Nawawi was born in 631AH and died in 676AH. He is the one from whom this view became famous. He clearly said it in several of his books, and he quoted agreement upon it. In most of his books, he only mentions permissibility. (See al Arba’in by al Nawawi, p. 3, and al Majmu by al Nawawi, 1/59.) In al Adhkar, he mentions both permissibility and recommendation. (al Adhkar by al Nawawi, p. 8.) He did not clearly state any condition at all, as al Suyuti said in al Tadrib. (Tadrib al Rawi by al Suyuti, 1/351.) However, the mentioned conditions are taken from many of his statements.

Salat al Ragha’ib and the Start of the Research

It appears to me that the prayer on the night of the first Friday of Rajab is what stirred this research. Abu Shamah (d. 665AH) mentioned in his book al Ba’ith that Ibn al Salah (d. 643AH) held the position of issuing fatwa. He was asked for a fatwa concerning the mentioned prayer, so he answered by rejecting it and saying that it was newly introduced.

Then he was asked for a fatwa a second time, so he answered with something similar to his first answer. Then he was removed from the position of fatwa, and Izz al Din ibn Abd al Salam was appointed to it. He strongly rejected Salat al Ragha’ib. Ibn al Salah opposed him.

He permitted it, excusing that by saying that a hadith had come concerning it, and that it fell under the general encouragement to prayer, especially night prayer. Ibn Abd al Salam and his students, such as Abu Shamah and Ibn Daqiq al Eid, replied with what is seen in the book al Ba’ith by Abu Shamah. (al Ba’ith by Abu Shamah, p. 145 onward. There is a treatise titled A Scholarly Exchange Between the Two Imams al Izz ibn Abd al Salam and Ibn al Salah Concerning the Newly Introduced Salat al Ragha’ib, published by al Maktab al Islami, edited by al Albani.)

Al Nawawi was among those who replied to Ibn al Salah, and he clearly said that the mentioned prayer is an ugly bid’ah (innovation). (See al Majmu Sharh al Muhadhdhab by al Nawawi, 4/56.)

Then it is as though al Nawawi drew from the research the permissibility of acting upon daif hadith in fada’il. He supported this with what he quoted from the imams of the Salaf concerning their leniency in narrating what did not contain a hukm (ruling), as will be seen.

It is as though this was also strengthened in his view by certain branches of fiqh from al Shafi’i which will come, if Allah wills. So he firmly said there was agreement on that. Then he saw that mere permissibility had no benefit, because the assumed point is that it is already established without the daif hadith. So he added recommendation, as he clearly said in al Adhkar. (al Adhkar by al Nawawi, p. 8.)

It is strange that Abu Shamah’s book al Ba’ith ala Inkar al Bida’ wa al Hawadith did not set out to speak about acting upon daif hadith, even though its first aim was to invalidate the mentioned prayer. In it, he mentioned most of what occurred from the proof used by both sides. Yes, what is taken from it opposes the view of al Nawawi, as will be seen, if Allah wills.

The Later Responses to al Nawawi

Then those after al Nawawi came. Among them were those who rejected his statement from its root, such as the verifying imam al Shatibi (d. 790AH) in al I’tisam. (al I’tisam by al Shatibi, 2/16–20, edition of Mashhur.) Among them were those who were alarmed by the quote of agreement, but did not see any clear way to affirm recommendation.

Al Zarkashi said in the introduction to al Dhahab al Ibriz, after what was quoted from him earlier:

“The second: This possibility which we mentioned, namely the permissibility of placing it under the general proofs, is intended in relation to the act.

It is not intended in relation to giving the ruling that this specific thing, with its specific manner, is recommended. This is because giving the ruling that it is recommended in its specific manner must have evidence for it, without doubt. This is unlike when it is built upon the view that it is among the general good deeds which are not specific to that time, nor to that manner. This is what we said is possible and permissible to act upon.”

Al Khatib al Shirbini (d. 977AH) said something similar in Sharh al Minhaj. (Sharh al Minhaj by al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/62. The speech of Ibn Qasim is in his marginal note on Tuhfat al Muhtaj, 1/240.) Ibn Qasim objected to him and affirmed recommendation.

Among them were those who became unsure and set out the issue, such as al Dawwani.

Among them were those who followed al Nawawi and forced an excuse for it, such as Ibn Hajar al Haytami.

Despite that, he said in Risalat al Basmalah: “It is only acted upon where it is not opposed by that which is more worthy of reliance and action. This is known from their speech without doubt. So if a daif hadith indicates encouragement to perform a specific act, but a sahih (authentic) hadith opposes it by indicating that it is disliked, for example, even through a general proof, then it is obligatory to act upon the meaning of that general proof in this specific matter. It is not permissible to act upon the daif hadith in it.”

This, even if the one who said it did not notice, uproots the permissibility of acting upon daif hadith from its root, as will be seen, if Allah Most High wills.

Among them were those who gave detail. There is no need to cover all of their sayings. Rather, we must examine the proofs and evidences, and draw the truth from its proper source.

The Reports from the Imams of the Salaf

The reports narrated from the imams of the Salaf, upon which al Nawawi seems to have relied when quoting consensus, do not contain anything that is apparent in showing the permissibility or recommendation of acting upon daif hadith. Rather, when carefully considered, they are clear in showing the opposite. These are the most famous of them.

Al Sakhawi (d. 902AH) said in Fath al Mughith: “Al Hakim (d. 405AH) said: I heard Abu Zakariyya al Ghubari say: When a report comes and it does not make anything halal (permissible) haram (impermissible), does not make anything haram halal, and does not establish a ruling, and it is in encouragement or warning, then it is overlooked and leniency is shown concerning its narrators.

The wording of Ibn Mahdi (d. 198AH), as transmitted by al Bayhaqi (d. 458AH) in al Madkhal, is: When we narrated from the Prophet ﷺ concerning halal, haram, and rulings, we were strict with the isnad (chain of narration) and careful in examining the men.

When we narrated concerning virtues, reward, and punishment, we were lenient with the isnad and tolerant concerning the men.

The wording of Ahmad (d. 241AH), in the narration of al Maimuni from him, is: Reports of softening the heart may be tolerated with leniency until something comes that contains a ruling.” End of quote from Fath al Mughith, p. 130. (Fath al Mughith by al Sakhawi, 1/332. In the original it says al Ghubari, as in the edition from which the author quoted, but the correct form is al Anbari, as in the verified edition. The statement of al Anbari was mentioned by al Khatib in al Kifayah, p. 134. It is not in the printed edition of al Madkhal. Al Hakim transmitted it in al Mustadrak, 1/490, and in al Madkhal ila al Iklil, p. 59.)

Al Khatib (d. 463AH) said in al Kifayah: “Chapter: strictness concerning the hadiths of rulings and leniency concerning the virtues of deeds. It has been reported from more than one of the Salaf that it is not permissible to carry hadiths connected to making things halal and haram except from one who is free from accusation and far from suspicion. As for the hadiths of encouragement and admonition, it is permissible to write them from all shaykhs.”

Then he narrated several reports with their chains. Among them is the statement of Imam Ahmad:

“When we narrated from the Messenger ﷺ concerning halal, haram, the Sunnah, and rulings, we were strict with the isnad. When we narrated from the Prophet ﷺ concerning virtues and that which does not establish a ruling or remove one, we were lenient with the isnad.” End from al Kifayah, p. 134. (al Kifayah by al Khatib, p. 133.)

Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463AH) said in Kitab Fadl al Ilm, after mentioning a weak hadith concerning the virtue of knowledge: “Virtues are narrated from anyone. The proof from the side of the isnad is only closely examined in rulings, and in halal and haram.” End from Mukhtasar Jami Bayan al Ilm 1/152.

There are other phrases which do not go beyond this meaning. That meaning is leniency in taking and narrating from weak narrators in what they narrated concerning virtues, where there is no ruling, no halal, no haram, and no Sunnah.

Ibn al Salah summarised the phrases of the people in his Muqaddimah with complete caution, despite what was quoted from him later of forced justification for the prayer of the night of the first Friday of Rajab and things similar to it, as Abu Shamah mentioned in al Ba’ith. (Muqaddimah by Ibn al Salah, p. 103. al Ba’ith by Abu Shamah, p. 145.)

It is as though Ibn al Salah, may Allah forgive him, wanted his book al Muqaddimah to be a foundation for the people of hadith until the Day of Resurrection. So he was cautious not to introduce into it any newly made matter or give shelter to one who introduces newly made matters.

As for al Nawawi, despite his rejection of the mentioned prayer, he added a harsh addition in his abridgement of Muqaddimah Ibn al Salah. His wording is:

“It is permissible, according to the people of hadith and others, to be lenient with the isnad, to narrate what is other than fabricated from daif hadith, and to act upon it without clarifying its weakness, in matters other than the attributes of Allah Most High and rulings, such as halal, haram, and other matters. That is like stories, virtues of deeds, admonitions, and other things which have no connection to aqidah (belief) and rulings. And Allah knows best.”

His saying “and to act upon it” is from his own addition. If the view of the permissibility of acting upon it had not been mass transmitted from al Nawawi, and if he had not clearly said it in many of his books, I would have said: this phrase was inserted into his wording.

That is because, as will be known, it contradicts what comes before it and after it, and it contradicts the texts which he summarised. It is not found in the wording of his original source. (al Taqrib li Sunan al Bashir al Nadhir by al Nawawi, 1/350, with its commentary Tadrib al Rawi.)

I have hurried in giving this judgement before compelling the reader of this treatise to share it with me. However, the matter is light.

The Meaning of Leniency in Narrating Weak Hadith

The texts that have passed from Ibn Mahdi and others do not contain any mention of the permissibility or recommendation of acting upon daif hadith. They only contain their leniency in narrating it with its condition. However, it may not be far fetched that al Nawawi saw their leniency in narrating daif hadith concerning virtues, but not concerning rulings, as requiring the permissibility of acting upon it in virtues. Otherwise, there would be no meaning to making a difference.

Their strictness in narrating what contains a ruling was only because they knew that, if they were not strict in narrating it, it would be feared that whoever heard it might act upon it, and that is not permissible. So their leniency in virtues shows that they did not see any concern in someone who heard them acting upon them. This is the meaning of permissibility.

Then he saw that the action expected from the common people, when they hear daif hadith concerning virtues, is action in search of the virtue. The meaning of this is that they see it as something through which reward may be gained.

Based on this, if those imams held the view that acting upon it was not something through which reward may be gained, they would have held that acting upon it in search of reward was bid’ah, and every bid’ah is misguidance.

So how could leniency occur from them in a way that leads people into misguidance? It became necessary, therefore, that they held the view that acting upon it was something through which reward may be gained. This is recommendation. For this reason, al Nawawi clearly said in al Adhkar that it is recommended. (al Adhkar by al Nawawi, p. 8.) It is as though he understood their clear statements, that they are not lenient in narrating anything that contains a ruling, or a Sunnah,

or removes a ruling or establishes one, as referring to other than that type of permissibility and recommendation.

What Leniency Was in the Practice of the Early Imams

First, it is necessary to know what leniency was relied upon by Ibn Mahdi and others.

The summary of what is in Fath al Mughith is that leniency means not clearly stating the weakness of the hadith. Rather, it is enough to mention its isnad, or to mention it using a wording of uncertainty, such as “it was narrated” and “it is narrated”.

There is something to be examined here. We find in books weak hadiths concerning aqidah and rulings that were narrated by Ibn Mahdi and others without them clarifying their weakness. This Musnad of Ahmad contains many weak hadiths concerning aqidah and rulings, and he did not clarify their weakness. Rather, most of the writings of the earlier scholars are like that, such as the two Musannafs of Abd al Razzaq (d. 211AH) and Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235AH), the Musnads of Ishaq (d. 238AH), al Humaydi (d. 219AH), and Abd ibn Humayd (d. 249AH), al Sunan al Kubra of al Nasai (d. 303AH), Sunan al Darimi (d. 255AH), Sunan Ibn Majah (d. 273AH), Tarikh al Bukhari (d. 256AH), and others.

What I see is that the strictness of Ibn Mahdi was that he would consider the hadith which he had heard. If it concerned aqidah and rulings, he would begin by looking at its isnad and matn (wording). If it became clear to him that the hadith was severely weak, to the point that it was not suitable as proof and not suitable for supporting consideration, he would not narrate it at all. If he was forced to narrate it, he would clarify its weakness.

If the hadith was about other than aqidah and rulings, he would narrate it as long as he did not know that it was fabricated. If he knew that it was fabricated, he would not narrate it at all. If he was forced to narrate it, he would clarify its fabrication. This practice is what matches what we find

in the books from Ibn Mahdi, Imam Ahmad, and most of the imams. So know this. And Allah knows best. (Fath al Mughith by al Sakhawi, 1/331–332.)

The Types of Reports in the Virtues of Deeds

Then, thirdly, it is necessary to verify the matters concerning which they were lenient in narrating what came about them, when it was not fabricated but was not suitable for follow up.

It is known from the practice of al Nawawi and those who agreed with him that this includes what came with a virtue for a specific act, while that specific virtue was not established, but the act falls under a general proof that is established as recommended.

An example is when a daif hadith comes concerning a virtue for fasting the first day of Safar, or standing in prayer during its night, or a virtue for reciting Surat al An’am in the morning prayer or in two rak’ahs of voluntary prayer. It appears from the speech of some of them that they also attached to this what falls under a general proof of permissibility. An example is when a daif hadith comes concerning the virtue of wearing a silver ring with agate.

Al Nawawi said that acting upon the likes of this is permissible and recommended. Some of them limited it to permissibility. Some of them found the issue problematic, as has passed. Al Alai saw that, if the likes of this is permissible in a daif hadith that is suitable for follow up, then its permissibility cannot be imagined in one that is severely weak. Therefore, he added this condition and quoted agreement upon it, as has already passed, while Ibn al Salah and al Nawawi said: “whatever is other than fabricated.”

We must reflect on the previous texts and others to verify the matters in which they were lenient.

The hadiths that come concerning the virtues of deeds are of different types.

The first: What comes with a virtue for an act whose legislation is already established specifically. An example is when a daif hadith comes with a virtue for the five prayers, fasting Ramadan, voluntary fasting in general, fasting on Monday and Thursday, and the like.

The second: What comes with a virtue for a specific act where the legislation of something broader than it is established, but no special merit is established for that specific act. An example is when a daif hadith comes with a virtue for fasting the second day of Safar, or standing in prayer during its night, or a virtue for reciting Surat al An’am in the morning prayer or in two rak’ahs of voluntary prayer.

The third: What comes with a virtue for an act which, apart from the daif hadith, is merely mubah (permissible). An example is when a daif hadith comes with a virtue for standing in the sun on one leg.

The fourth: What comes with a virtue for an act that other than the daif hadith has shown to be haram or makruh (disliked).

As for the fourth, there is no disagreement that it is not permissible to act upon it. The speech of Ibn Daqiq al Eid and Ibn Hajar al Haytami has already passed.

The Case of a Merely Permissible Act

As for the third, in order to know what is in it, one must look at the mubah. Is it permissible to do it under the claim that it is worship? Among its examples is that a person intentionally sits facing the rising point of Suhayl, or sleeps in moonlight, or refrains from things that break the fast on the night of Eid, claiming that whoever does these acts may hope for reward.

We say to whoever makes a claim of this kind: Is performing this act in search of reward and recompense something legislated?

If he says: “No,” then he has spared us his matter.

If he says: “Yes,” we say: Did Allah Mighty and Majestic legislate it, or did someone else?

If he says: “Someone else,” then he has associated partners with Allah. Allah Most High said:

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ

“Or do they have partners who legislated for them from the religion that which Allah did not permit?” (al Shura 21)

If he says: “Rather, Allah Mighty and Majestic legislated it.”

It is said to him: Did He inform the Messenger ﷺ of it?

If he says: “No.”

It is said to him: Then how did this become known to you? Do you know the unseen? Or do you claim prophethood for yourself or for anyone after Muhammad ﷺ, while Allah Blessed and Most High said:

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ

“Today I have perfected your religion for you.” (al Ma’idah 3)

It was revealed shortly before the death of the Prophet ﷺ.

It has come from Umar, Ibn Abbas, and others,

such as Malik (d. 179AH), al Shafi’i (d. 204AH), Ahmad, al Bukhari, and others, that they explained it to mean that all the rulings of the religion had been revealed by Allah to His Prophet ﷺ, and that the Prophet ﷺ conveyed them to his ummah. (See Tafsir al Tabari by al Tabari, 8/79–80, and al Durr al Manthur by al Suyuti, 2/456.)

If he says: “Rather, Allah Mighty and Majestic informed His Messenger ﷺ of the legislation of this act.”

It is said to him: Did He command him to convey that?

If he says: “No.”

It is said to him: Then, in that case, it is not from what He legislated for the ummah. If it had been from what was legislated for the ummah, He would have commanded him to convey it. Also, how did you know that Allah legislated it?

If he says: “Rather, He commanded him to convey it.”

It is said to him: Did he convey it?

If he says: “No,” then he has disbelieved, because he has accused the Prophet ﷺ of not conveying what Allah commanded him to convey. Also, how did you know it?

If he says: “Rather, he conveyed it.”

It is said to him: Did the ummah preserve it?

If he says: “No.”

It is said to him: Then where is the saying of Allah Mighty and Majestic:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

“Indeed, We sent down the reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it.” (al Hijr 9)

The verse also indicates the preservation of the Sunnah, because the purpose of preserving the Qur’an is that the proof remains standing and guidance remains continuous until the Day of Resurrection, so that there is no need to send a prophet after the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ.

For this reason, when it was said to Ibn al Mubarak (d. 181AH): “What about these fabricated hadiths?” He said: “The great critics will live for them.”

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

“Indeed, We sent down the reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it.” (al Hijr 9)

So he used the verse as proof that the Sunnah is preserved from having that which is not from it attached to it in a way that cannot be distinguished. We use it as proof that the Sunnah is preserved from losing a proof for which nothing else can replace it.

Also, how did you know it?

If he says: “Rather, the ummah preserved it.”

It is said to him: Then bring it to us in the Sharia.

If he says: “I do not have it present in mind, but perhaps it is found in the indication of a verse from the Qur’an which I have not noticed, or in an established preserved Sunnah which I have not come across.”

It is said to him: From where did you know that this exists and is preserved? The original rule is that there is no legislation. If there were a proof for the legislation of these acts, the ulama would have known it, or some of them would have known it. If they had known it, they would have informed others of it, and it would have been transmitted from them.

Your claim against Allah Mighty and Majestic, that He legislated that act while you have no proof for it, is a lie against Allah. Allah Most High said:

The Weak Hadith Does Not Make an Act Part of the Religion

So you see that whoever intentionally performs something from the mubah matters, claiming that reward and recompense may be hoped for by the one who does it, is circling between shirk, kufr (disbelief), lying against Allah, and denying His verses. At the very least, if we excuse him and do not declare him a disbeliever, he is an innovator and misguided.

Once this is established, how can it be sound to reverse the ruling merely because of a daif hadith, so it is said: If the daif hadith had not come, then intentionally doing this act in hope of reward and recompense would have been either shirk or kufr. If the one doing it was excused and not declared a disbeliever, he would have been an innovator and misguided. But when the daif hadith came indicating its recommendation, intentionally doing it in hope of reward and recompense became permissible or recommended.

In other words: If not for the daif hadith, this act would not have been from the religion. But the coming of the daif hadith made it from the religion.

When looking at the previous texts, we say: Do you not see that this daif hadith contains a ruling, halal, haram, and Sunnah, and that it establishes a ruling and removes one? So return to those texts and look. Do they indicate that the people used to be lenient in narrating something of this kind?

The Type of Weak Hadith in Which They Were Lenient

With the established evidences, in general and in detail, there is nothing extra in that daif hadith beyond what is already established. This is what the previous texts indicate that the ulama were lenient in narrating, because they saw that no concern was feared from their leniency in it except that some Muslims might hear it and consider it possibly authentic, so they would increase in their turning to obedience. This is the benefit in their leniency in narrating what is of this kind.

Kitab Ahkam al Hadith al Daif, included within Athar al Muallimi by Abd al Rahman al Muallimi al Yamani 163–178

Al Nawawi on Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

Ruling on Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues, Encouragement, and Warning

The ulama among the hadith scholars, fuqaha, and others said: It is permissible and recommended to act, in virtues, encouragement, and warning, upon a weak hadith, so long as it is not fabricated. (Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar mentioned three conditions for that.

The first is that the weak report must not be severely weak. This excludes what is narrated alone by a narrator from those declared liars, those accused of lying, and those whose mistakes are gross. Al Alai quoted agreement upon this.

The second is that it must fall under a general basis. This excludes what is invented in a way that has no basis at all.

The third is that, when acting upon it, one must not believe that it is firmly established, so that something the Prophet ﷺ did not say is not attributed to him. Rather, one should believe that it is done out of caution. He said: The last two were mentioned by Shaykh Izz al Din ibn Abd al Salam and his companion Ibn Daqiq al Eid.)

As for rulings, such as halal, haram, sale, marriage, divorce, and other matters, only a sahih (authentic) or hasan (sound) hadith is acted upon in them, except where there is caution in something from that. For example, if a weak hadith comes about the dislike of certain sales or marriages, then it is recommended to avoid it, but it is not obligatory. (The author said in al Arba’in, p. 12: “The ulama agreed on the permissibility of acting upon weak hadith in virtues of deeds.” He also said in the introduction to his book al Tibyan fi Adab Hamalat al Qur’an: “Know that the ulama from the people of hadith and others permitted acting upon weak hadith in virtues of deeds.” End quote. Also review al Ajwibah al Fadilah by al Laknawi, edited by Abd al Fattah Abu Ghuddah رحمه الله, p. 43, 44, where he quoted the statement of al Hafiz Ibn Hajar al Asqalani رحمه الله from al Sakhawi in al Qawl al Badi, p. 195.)

I only mentioned this chapter because hadiths will come in this book which I clearly say are sahih, hasan, or weak, or which I remain silent about due to being unaware of that or other than it. So I wanted this principle to be settled with the one who reads this book.

Kitab al Adhkar by al Nawawi pg 36–37

Al Albani on Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

Kitab Sahih al Targhib wa al Tarhib by Nasir al Din al Albani 1_removed (2)

The Most Serious Prohibited Matter: Acting Upon Weak Hadith, Which May Even Be Fabricated

The other matter is more serious. It is well known and widespread among most of the people of knowledge and their students that weak hadith may be acted upon in fada’il al a’mal (virtues of deeds). They regard this as a scholarly principle over which there is no argument among them. However, it is not accepted without restriction by the verifying ulama, as will be quoted from them.

So when such people hear a weak hadith, they quickly act upon it. They do not pay attention to the possibility that it may be severely weak or fabricated.

In that case, it is not permissible to narrate it except while clarifying its condition and warning against it, let alone acting upon it. So the first prohibited matter occurs, and more besides, as is clear. If he had explained that to them, they would not have acted upon it, if Allah Most High wills. (See an important example of this in Silsilat al Ahadith al Daifah by al Albani, volume 1, a fabricated hadith numbered 321. Some virtuous ulama of Sind used it to strengthen a weak hadith because the ulama were silent about its fabrication, and some of them only limited themselves to declaring it weak.)

The Principle of Acting Upon Weak Hadith Is Not Unrestricted

Then the claimed principle is not unrestricted. Rather, it is restricted in two places: one is hadith related, and the other is fiqh related.

The Hadith Related Restriction

As for the hadith related restriction, it is their saying: “weak hadith”. This is restricted, by agreement, to a weak hadith whose weakness is not severe, let alone a fabricated hadith.

Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (d. 852AH) explained this in his treatise Tabyin al Ajab fima Warada fi Fadl Rajab by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani. I have not found it now in my library, so I quote that from him through his reliable student, al Hafiz al Sakhawi (d. 902AH). He said at the end of his valuable book al Qawl al Badi fi Fadl al Salah ala al Habib al Shafi by al Sakhawi, p. 195, Indian print, after quoting from al Nawawi (d. 676AH):

Recommendation Is a Sharia Ruling

“Recommendation is a Sharia ruling, so it is not established except by a Sharia proof. Whoever informs about Allah that He loves one deed from the deeds without a Sharia proof has legislated in the religion what Allah did not permit, just as if he affirmed obligation or prohibition. For this reason, the ulama differ over recommendation just as they differ over other matters. Rather, it is from the foundation of the legislated religion.”

What the Ulama Intended by Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues

“What they intended by that is that the deed itself must be something already established as something Allah loves, or something Allah hates, through a text or consensus. Examples are reciting the Qur’an, tasbih (glorifying Allah), dua (supplication), charity, freeing a slave, doing good to people, and the dislike of lying, betrayal, and the like.

So if a hadith is narrated concerning the virtue and reward of some recommended deeds, or the dislike and punishment of some deeds, then if a hadith is narrated about the amounts and types of reward and punishment, and we do not know it to be fabricated, it is permissible to narrate it and act upon it. The meaning is that the soul hopes for that reward, or fears that punishment. This is like a man who knows that trade brings profit, then it reaches him that it brings a large profit. If this is true, it benefits him. If it is false, it does not harm him.”

An Example of Acting Upon Weak Hadith With Its Condition

“An example of this is targhib (encouragement) and tarhib (warning) through Isra’iliyyat (Israelite reports), dreams, the words of the Salaf and ulama, events involving the ulama, and similar matters. None of these alone may be used to establish a Sharia ruling, neither recommendation nor anything else. However, it is permissible for them to be mentioned in encouragement, warning, giving hope, and creating fear, regarding what is already known to be good or bad through the proofs of the Sharia. That benefits and does not harm, whether in reality it is true or false.

As for what is known to be false and fabricated, it is not permissible to pay attention to it, because lying gives no benefit. If it is established as authentic, rulings are established by it. If it may be either true or false, it is narrated because it may be true, and because there is no harm if it is false.

Ahmad (d. 241AH) only said: ‘When encouragement and warning come, we are lenient with the chains.’ The meaning is: we narrate in that field with chains, even if those who narrated them are not among the reliable narrators whose reports are used as proof.

Likewise, the saying of those who said: ‘They are acted upon in virtues of deeds,’ only means acting upon the righteous deeds found in them, such as recitation and dhikr (remembrance), and avoiding the evil deeds disliked in them.

Similar to this is the saying of the Prophet ﷺ in the hadith narrated by al Bukhari (d. 256AH) from Abdullah ibn Amr رضي الله عنه: ‘Convey from me, even if only one verse. Narrate from the Children of Israel, and there is no sin. Whoever lies upon me intentionally, let him take his seat in the Fire.’ (Sahih al Bukhari 3461.)

This is alongside the saying of the Prophet ﷺ in the authentic hadith: ‘When the People of the Book narrate to you, do not believe them and do not reject them.’ (Sahih al Bukhari 4485.) He gave permission to narrate from them, and along with this, he forbade believing them and rejecting them. If there were no benefit in unrestricted narration from them, he would not have permitted it and commanded it. If it were permissible to believe them merely because they reported something, he would not have forbidden believing them. So souls benefit in some places from what they think may be true.”

It Is Not Permissible to Fix Amounts and Specific Forms Through Hadiths of Virtues

“If weak hadiths about virtues contain a fixed amount or specific form, such as a prayer at a specific time, with a specific recitation, or in a specific manner, then that is not permissible. This is because the recommendation of this specific description has not been established by a Sharia proof.

This is unlike if it were narrated concerning it: ‘Whoever enters the market and says: La ilaha illa Allah (there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah) … he will have such and such.’ (Jami al Tirmidhi 3428. I say: al Tirmidhi graded it strange. However, it has routes through which it rises to the level of hasan, as I mentioned in my notes on al Kalim al Tayyib by al Albani, hadith no. 229. Al Mundhiri also graded its chain hasan, as will come in al Sahih, 16/3, first hadith.)

Remembering Allah in the market is recommended because it contains remembrance of Allah among the heedless, as came in the well known hadith: ‘The one who remembers Allah among the heedless is like a green tree among dry trees.’ (It will come in al Daif, 16/3.)

As for the fixed amount of reward narrated in it, its being established or not established does not harm. In something like this came the hadith which al Tirmidhi (d. 279AH) narrated: ‘Whoever receives from Allah something containing virtue, then acts upon it hoping for that virtue, Allah gives him that, even if it is not actually so.’ (Attributing it to al Tirmidhi is an error or a slip of the pen. It is referenced in the previous source through three routes, all of them fabricated. See numbers 451–453. Ibn al Jawzi included it in al Mawduat by Ibn al Jawzi, and al Suyuti agreed with him.)

The result is that this field is narrated and acted upon in encouragement and warning, not in recommendation. Then believing what it implies, namely the fixed amounts of reward and punishment, depends upon Sharia proof.”

Summary of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Speech on Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues

I say: All of that is from the speech of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH), may Allah Most High have mercy upon him and reward him well on behalf of the Muslims. From it, we can draw out that weak hadith has two states.

The first: It carries within it a reward for a deed whose legislation is already established by a Sharia proof.

Here, acting upon it is permissible, meaning that the soul hopes for that reward. His example for this is tahlil (saying there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah) in the market, based on the fact that its hadith was not established according to him. Our view concerning it has already been known.

The other: It contains a deed that has not been established by a Sharia proof, while some people think it is legislated. This is not permissible to act upon. Some other examples of it will come.

The great verifying usul scholar, Imam Abu Ishaq al Shatibi al Gharnati (d. 790AH), agreed with him on this in his great book al Itisam by al Shatibi.

He dealt with this issue with clarity and strength, with what he is known for of clear explanation, strong proof, and beneficial knowledge. This was in a chapter he set for clarifying the ways of those who turn away from the straight path.

He mentioned that they are so many that they cannot be counted. He used the Book and the Sunnah as proof for that, and that they continue to increase as days pass. He also said that after him, other forms of proof may be found, especially when ignorance becomes widespread, knowledge becomes scarce, and those who look into it are far from the level of ijtihad (qualified legal reasoning). So, in that case, they cannot be counted. He said in al Itisam by al Shatibi, 1/229:

“However, we will mention general ways from that, by which other matters can be measured.”

From the Ways of the Innovators Is Reliance Upon Very Weak Hadiths

“From them is their reliance upon very weak hadiths and hadiths falsely attributed to the Messenger ﷺ, which the people of the hadith craft do not accept as a basis to build upon. Examples are the hadith of applying kohl on the day of Ashura, honouring the white rooster, eating aubergine according to one’s intention, and that the Prophet ﷺ entered a state of emotion and shook during listening until the cloak fell from his shoulders, and similar reports. (All of these hadiths are fabricated. You will find speech on them in al Maqasid al Hasanah by al Sakhawi and elsewhere.) (A fabricated hadith, as a group clearly said. I have referenced it in al Ahadith al Daifah wal Mawduah by al Albani, no. 558.)

It is known that rulings are not built upon the likes of these hadiths, and they are never made a basis in legislation. Whoever makes them such is ignorant and mistaken in quoting knowledge. Taking anything from them has not been quoted from anyone whose path in knowledge or path in conduct is given weight.

Some ulama only took the hasan hadith (sound hadith) because the hadith scholars attached it to the sahih (authentic) hadith, since its chain does not contain anyone criticised with an agreed upon criticism. Likewise, those who took the mursal report only did so because it was attached to the sahih report, in the sense that the omitted narrator is like one who is mentioned and declared reliable. (Despite that, it is rejected according to the hadith scholars, as al Khatib clarified in al Kifayah by al Khatib, p. 391–397.)

As for anything lower than that, it is not taken at all according to the ulama of hadith.

If the practice of the people of Islam were to take from hadiths everything that came from whoever brought it, then there would be no meaning to their standing for declaring narrators reliable or criticised, despite the fact that they agreed upon that. Nor would there be any meaning to seeking the chain. For this reason, they made the chain part of the religion.

They do not mean by that merely saying, ‘So and so narrated to me from so and so.’ Rather, they intend what it contains of knowing the men from whom narration is being made, so that narration is not taken from an unknown person, nor from one criticised, nor from one accused, except from someone whose narration brings confidence.

That is because the core of the matter is that it becomes more likely, without suspicion, that the Prophet ﷺ said that hadith, so that we may rely upon it in the Sharia and base rulings upon it.

As for weak hadiths, it is not more likely that the Prophet ﷺ said them. So it is not possible to base a ruling upon them. So what do you think about hadiths known to be lies?

Yes, what usually leads to relying on them is what has already passed: followed desire.”

Kitab Sahih al Targhib wa al Tarhib by Nasir al Din al Albani 1/47 & 56–61

Ibn Taymiyyah’s On Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

majmu fatawa ibn taymiyyah volume 1 Copy_removed

Relying on Weak Hadiths in the Sharia

It is not permissible to rely in the Sharia upon weak hadiths that are neither sahih (authentic) nor hasan (sound). However, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241AH) and others from the ulama permitted narrating in the virtues of deeds what is not known to be established, so long as it is not known to be a lie.

That is because, when an act is known to be legislated through a Sharia proof, and a hadith is narrated about its virtue while it is not known to be a lie, then the reward may be true. None of the imams said that it is permissible to make something obligatory or recommended through a weak hadith.

Whoever says this has opposed consensus. This is just as it is not permissible to declare something forbidden except through a Sharia proof. However, when its prohibition is known, and a hadith is narrated about the threat against the one who does it, while it is not known to be a lie, then it is permissible to narrate it.

So it is permissible to narrate in targhib (encouragement) and tarhib (warning) what is not known to be a lie, but only concerning what is already known that Allah encouraged or warned against through another proof besides this hadith whose condition is unknown. This is like Israelite reports. It is permissible to narrate from them what is not known to be a lie for encouragement and warning in matters that are known that Allah Most High commanded in our Sharia or forbade in our Sharia.

As for establishing a Sharia ruling for us merely through unestablished Israelite reports, no scholar says this. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and similar imams never relied on such hadiths in the Sharia. Whoever quoted from Ahmad that he used as proof a weak hadith that was neither sahih nor hasan has erred against him.

Rather, in the terminology of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the ulama before him, hadith was divided into two types: sahih and daif (weak). According to them, the weak type was divided into a rejected weak hadith that is not used as proof, and a hasan weak hadith, just as a person’s weakness through illness is divided into a feared illness that prevents donating from the main wealth, and a light weakness that does not prevent that.

The Division of Hadith Into Sahih, Hasan, and Weak

The first person known to have divided hadith into three categories, sahih, hasan, and weak, was Abu Isa al Tirmidhi (d. 279AH) in his Jami. According to him, hasan is what has multiple routes, does not have in its narrators anyone accused, and is not anomalous.

So this hadith and its likes were called weak by Ahmad, while he still used them as proof. For this reason, Ahmad gave as examples of the weak hadith that may be used as proof the hadith of Amr ibn Shuayb, the hadith of Ibrahim al Hajari, and their likes. This is explained at length in its place.

The hadiths narrated in this matter, namely asking by the persons of creation, are from the weak, feeble, and even fabricated hadiths. There is no one among the imams of Islam who used them as proof or relied upon them. An example is the hadith narrated from Abd al Malik ibn Harun ibn Antarah, from his father, from his grandfather, that Abu Bakr al Siddiq came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: “I learn the Qur’an, but it slips away from me.”

The Messenger ﷺ said to him: “Say: O Allah, I ask You by Muhammad, Your Prophet, and by Ibrahim, Your close friend, and by Musa, the one whom You spoke to privately, and Isa, Your spirit and Your word, and by the Torah of Musa, the Gospel of Isa, the Psalms of Dawud, the Furqan of Muhammad, and by every revelation You revealed and every decree You decreed.” Then he mentioned the rest of the hadith.

This hadith was mentioned by Razin ibn Muawiyah al Abdari (d. 535AH) in his Jami, and Ibn al Athir (d. 606AH) quoted it in Jami al Usul by Ibn al Athir. Neither of them traced it back to any book from the books of the Muslims. However, it was narrated by some who wrote on the deeds of the day and night, such as Ibn al Sunni (d. 364AH) and Abu Nuaym (d. 430AH). In books like these, there are many fabricated hadiths which it is not permissible to rely upon in the Sharia by agreement of the ulama.

Shaykh al Asbahani narrated it in Kitab Fada’il al A’mal, and in this book there are many lying, fabricated hadiths. Abu Musa al Madini (d. 581AH) narrated it from the hadith of Zayd ibn al Hubab (d. 203AH), from Abd al Malik ibn Harun ibn Antarah, and said: “This is a hasan hadith,” despite the fact that it is not connected. Abu Musa said: “Muhriz ibn Hisham narrated it from Abd al Malik, from his father, from his grandfather, from al Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him. Abd al Malik is not that strong, and he was in Rayy. His father and grandfather are both reliable.”

The Condition of Abd al Malik ibn Harun ibn Antarah

I say: Abd al Malik ibn Harun ibn Antarah is among those known for lying.

Yahya ibn Main (d. 233AH) said: “He is a liar.”

Al Sadi said: “A great deceiver, a liar.”

Abu Hatim ibn Hibban (d. 354AH) said: “He fabricates hadith.”

Al Nasai (d. 303AH) said: “Abandoned.”

Al Bukhari (d. 256AH) said: “Rejected in hadith.”

Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “Weak.”

Ibn Adi (d. 365AH) said: “He has hadiths in which no one follows him.”

Al Daraqutni (d. 385AH) said: “He and his father are both weak.”

Al Hakim (d. 405AH) said in Kitab al Madkhal: “Abd al Malik ibn Harun ibn Antarah al Shaybani narrated fabricated hadiths from his father.”

Abu al Faraj ibn al Jawzi (d. 597AH) included it in Kitab al Mawduat by Ibn al Jawzi. The statement of al Hafiz Abu Musa, “It is disconnected,” means that even if its men were reliable, its chain would still be disconnected.

Abd al Malik also narrated other hadiths connected to this matter about the People of the Book seeking victory through him, as will be mentioned.

In that, he opposed most of what the commentators, the people of biography, and what the Qur’an itself indicates. This shows the truth of what the ulama said about him, namely that he is abandoned, either because he deliberately lied or because of his poor memory. It has become clear that there is no proof in this nor in that.

The Report of Adam Seeking by the Right of Muhammad

Similar to that is the hadith narrated by Abd al Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 182AH), from his father, from his grandfather, from Umar ibn al Khattab, as a raised report and as a stopped report upon him: “When Adam committed the sin, he said: My Lord, I ask You by the right of Muhammad that You forgive me. He said: How did you know Muhammad?

He said: Because when You created me with Your Hand and breathed into me from Your spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the supports of the Throne: There is no true god except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

So I knew that You did not join to Your name except the most beloved of creation to You. He said: You have spoken truthfully, O Adam. Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created you.”

Al Hakim narrated this hadith in his Mustadrak from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Muslim al Awfi, from Ismail ibn Salamah, from him. Al Hakim said: “It is the first hadith I have mentioned from Abd al Rahman in this book.” Al Hakim said: “It is sahih.”

Shaykh Abu Bakr al Ajurri (d. 360AH) narrated it in Kitab al Sharia by al Ajurri as a stopped report upon Umar, from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Ismail ibn Abi Maryam, from Abd al Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, as a stopped report. Al Ajurri also narrated it through another route, from the hadith of Abd al Rahman ibn Abi al Zinad (d. 174AH), from his father, as a stopped report upon him.

He said: Harun ibn Yusuf al Tajir narrated to us. Abu Marwan al Uthmani narrated to us. Abu Uthman ibn Khalid narrated to me from Abd al Rahman ibn Abi al Zinad, from his father, that he said: “Among the words through which Allah accepted the repentance of Adam was that he said: O Allah, I ask You by the right of Muhammad upon You.

Allah Most High said: What makes you know what Muhammad is? He said: My Lord, I raised my head and saw written upon Your Throne: There is no true god except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. So I knew that he is the most noble of Your creation.”

I say: Al Hakim’s narration of this hadith is from what was criticised against him. He himself said in Kitab al Madkhal ila Marifat al Sahih min al Saqim by al Hakim: “Abd al Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam narrated from his father fabricated hadiths which are not hidden from anyone among the people of this craft who reflects on them, that the blame in them falls upon him.”

I say: Abd al Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is weak by their agreement. He made many mistakes. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Zurah (d. 264AH), Abu Hatim al Razi (d. 277AH), al Nasai, al Daraqutni, and others declared him weak. Abu Hatim ibn Hibban said: “He used to invert reports without knowing, until this became frequent in his narration, such as raising disconnected reports and giving chains to stopped reports, so he deserved to be abandoned.”

The Issue With al Hakim’s Authentication

As for al Hakim declaring this hadith and its likes authentic, this is from what the imams of knowledge of hadith criticised against him. They said: Al Hakim declares hadiths authentic while they are fabricated and lied reports according to the people of hadith knowledge. An example is how he declared authentic the hadith of Zurayb ibn Barthamla, which mentions the successor of the Messiah, while it is a lie by agreement of the people of knowledge, as al Bayhaqi (d. 458AH), Ibn al Jawzi, and others clarified.

Likewise, there are many hadiths in his Mustadrak that he declares authentic, while according to the imams of the people of knowledge of hadith, they are fabricated. Some of them are stopped reports that he raises.

For this reason, the people of knowledge of hadith did not rely merely upon al Hakim declaring a hadith authentic. Most of what he declares authentic is authentic, but among those who authenticate, he is like a reliable narrator who makes many mistakes, although correctness is more common with him.

Among those who declare hadith authentic, there is no one whose authentication is weaker than his. This is unlike Abu Hatim ibn Hibban al Busti, for his authentication is above the authentication of al Hakim and has a higher rank. Likewise, the authentication of al Tirmidhi, al Daraqutni, Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311AH), Ibn Mandah (d. 395AH), and their likes among those who authenticate hadith.

These men, even though there is disagreement over some of what they quote, are more precise in this field than al Hakim. Still, the authentication of one of these does not reach the level of the authentication of Muslim ibn al Hajjaj (d. 261AH), and the authentication of Muslim does not reach the level of the authentication of al Bukhari.

Rather, the book of al Bukhari is the most honoured book written in this field. Al Bukhari is among the most knowledgeable of Allah’s creation concerning hadith and its hidden defects, along with his fiqh in it. Al Tirmidhi mentioned that he did not see anyone more knowledgeable than him regarding hidden defects.

For this reason, it was the habit of al Bukhari that, when he narrated a hadith whose chain or some of its words were differed over, he would mention that difference so that no one would be deceived by his mentioning it, because he only mentioned it while linking it to the disagreement over it. For this reason, in most of what was criticised against al Bukhari from what he authenticated, his view is stronger than the view of the one who disagreed with him.

This is unlike Muslim ibn al Hajjaj. He was opposed regarding a number of hadiths that he brought out, and correctness in them was with those who opposed him. An example is what he narrated in the hadith of the eclipse, that the Prophet ﷺ prayed with three bowings and with four bowings, just as he narrated that he prayed with two bowings.

The correct view is that he only prayed with two bowings, and that he only prayed the eclipse prayer once, on the day Ibrahim died. Al Shafi’i (d. 204AH) clarified this, and it is the view of al Bukhari and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in one of the two narrations from him. The hadiths that contain three and four bowings state that he prayed it on the day Ibrahim died. It is known that he did not die on two eclipse days, and that the Prophet ﷺ did not have two sons named Ibrahim. Whoever quoted that he died on the tenth of the month has lied.

Likewise, Muslim narrated: “Allah created the soil on Saturday.” Those who were more knowledgeable than him, such as Yahya ibn Main, al Bukhari, and others, opposed him in this. They clarified that this is an error, and that it is not from the speech of the Prophet ﷺ.

The Correct View Concerning Some Reports in Muslim

The proof is with these imams. It has been established by the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus that Allah Most High created the heavens and the earth in six days, and that the last thing He created was Adam, and his creation was on Friday.

This hadith which is differed over requires that He created that in the seven days. A chain more authentic than this has also been narrated, stating that the beginning of creation was on Sunday.

Likewise, Muslim narrated that when Abu Sufyan accepted Islam, he asked the Prophet ﷺ to marry Umm Habibah and to take Muawiyah as a scribe.

A group of hadith masters declared him mistaken in this. However, the majority of the wordings of the two Sahih collections are agreed upon among the imams of hadith. They received them with acceptance and agreed upon them. They know with certain knowledge that the Prophet ﷺ said them. Expanding upon this has another place.

The Unestablished Reports About Adam

This mentioned hadith concerning Adam is mentioned by a group of authors without any chain, and so are reports of its type, along with other additions. This is as Qadi Iyad (d. 544AH) mentioned.

He said: Abu Muhammad al Makki, Abu al Layth al Samarqandi (d. 373AH), and others quoted that “when Adam committed his sin, he said: O Allah, by the right of Muhammad, forgive my sin.”

He said: “It is also narrated: accept my repentance.” Allah then said to him: “How did you know Muhammad?” He said: “I saw written in every place of Paradise:

There is no true God except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” He said: “It is also narrated: Muhammad is My servant and My Messenger. So I knew that he is the most noble of Your creation to You.” So He accepted his repentance and forgave him.

The likes of this may not be used to build the Sharia, and it may not be used as proof in the religion by agreement of the Muslims.

This is from the type of Israelite reports and similar reports whose authenticity cannot be known except through an established transmission from the Prophet ﷺ. If reports like these had been transmitted by the likes of Kab al Ahbar (d. 32AH), Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. 114AH), and their likes among those who transmit the reports of the beginning of creation and the stories of earlier peoples from the People of the Book, it would not be permissible to use them as proof in the religion of the Muslims by agreement of the Muslims.

So how about when they are transmitted by someone who does not transmit them from the People of the Book, nor from the reliable ulama of the Muslims? Rather, he only transmits them from someone who, according to the Muslims, is criticised and weak, whose hadith is not used as proof. He was also confused in them in a way that shows he did not preserve that.

None of the reliable ulama of the Muslims, whose transmission is relied upon, transmits that or anything like it. Rather, it is from the type of what Ishaq ibn Bishr and his likes transmit in the books of the beginning of creation. If these reports were established from the prophets, they would be a Sharia for them. In that case, using them as proof would be built upon the question: Is the Sharia of those before us a Sharia for us or not? The disagreement over this is well known.

However, what the imams and most of the ulama are upon is that it is a Sharia for us so long as our Sharia does not come with what opposes it.

This only applies to what is established as a Sharia for those before us through an established transmission from our Prophet ﷺ, or through what is mass transmitted from them. It does not apply to what is narrated in this way, because no Muslim may use this as proof in the Sharia of the Muslims.

The Fabricated Report About Preserving the Qur’an and Knowledge

From this same field is a hadith mentioned by Musa ibn Abd al Rahman al Sanani, the author of the tafsir, with his chain from Ibn Abbas as a raised report, that he said: “Whoever would be pleased that Allah gives him understanding and preservation of the Qur’an and preservation of the types of knowledge, let him write this supplication in a clean vessel, or on sheets of glass, with honey, saffron, and rainwater.

Then let him drink it on an empty stomach. Let him fast three days, and let his breaking of the fast be upon it.

Let him supplicate with it after his prayers: O Allah, I ask You because You are asked, and no one like You has been asked, nor is anyone asked. I ask You by the right of Muhammad, Your Prophet, Ibrahim, Your close friend, Musa, the one whom You spoke to privately, and Isa, Your spirit, Your word, and the one honoured before You.” Then he mentioned the rest of the supplication.

This Musa ibn Abd al Rahman is from the liars. Abu Ahmad ibn Adi said about him: “Rejected in hadith.” Abu Hatim ibn Hibban said: “A great deceiver who fabricates hadith. He fabricated against Ibn Jurayj (d. 150AH), from Ata (d. 114AH), from Ibn Abbas, a book of tafsir which he gathered from the speech of al Kalbi (d. 146AH) and Muqatil (d. 150AH).”

Something like this is narrated, without the fasting, from Ibn Masud through the route of Musa ibn Ibrahim al Marwazi: Waki ibn al Jarrah (d. 197AH) narrated to us, from Ubaydah, from Shaqiq (d. 82AH), from Ibn Masud. Yahya ibn Main said about this Musa ibn Ibrahim: “A liar.” Al Daraqutni said: “Abandoned.” Ibn Hibban said: “He was careless. He would be prompted and would accept prompting, so he deserved to be abandoned.”

This is also narrated from Umar ibn Abd al Aziz (d. 101AH), from Mujahid ibn Jabr (d. 104AH), from Ibn Masud, through a route weaker than the first.

Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani (d. 369AH) narrated it from the hadith of Ahmad ibn Ishaq al Jawhari: Abu al Ashath narrated to us. Zuhayr ibn al Ala al Utbi narrated to us. Yusuf ibn Yazid narrated to us from al Zuhri (d. 124AH), and he raised the hadith. He said: “Whoever would be pleased to memorise, let him fast seven days, and let his breaking of the fast on the last of the seven days be upon these words.”

I say: These are dark chains by which nothing is established.

Abu Musa al Madini narrated it in his dictations, and Abu Abdullah al Maqdisi narrated it according to the habit of their likes in narrating what is narrated in a field, whether it is authentic or weak. This is as most later hadith narrators became accustomed to doing. They narrate what has been narrated concerning virtues, and they place the responsibility for that upon the transmitter.

The Habit of Authors in Books of Virtues

This is the habit of authors in the virtues of times, places, persons, and acts of worship. It is like what Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani narrates in Fada’il al A’mal by Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani and elsewhere, where he gathers many hadiths due to the abundance of his narration. Among them are many strong hadiths, sahih and hasan, and many weak, fabricated, and feeble hadiths.

The same applies to what Khaythamah ibn Sulayman (d. 343AH) narrates in Fada’il al Sahabah, what Abu Nuaym al Asbahani narrates in Fada’il al Khulafa by Abu Nuaym al Asbahani in a separate book, and at the beginning of Hilyat al Awliya by Abu Nuaym al Asbahani, and what Abu al Layth al Samarqandi, Abd al Aziz al Kinani (d. 240AH), Abu Ali ibn al Banna (d. 471AH), and their likes among the shaykhs narrate.

The same applies to what Abu Bakr al Khatib (d. 463AH), Abu al Fadl ibn Nasir (d. 550AH), Abu Musa al Madini, Abu al Qasim ibn Asakir (d. 571AH), al Hafiz Abd al Ghani (d. 600AH), and their likes narrate from those who have knowledge of hadith.

They often narrate in their writings whatever has been narrated in general, according to their usual habit, so that what has been narrated in that field may be known, not so that every narration is used as proof. One of them may speak about a hadith and say: “strange,” “rejected,” or “weak.” Sometimes he may not speak about it.

This is unlike the imams of hadith who use hadith as proof and build their religion upon it, such as Malik ibn Anas (d. 179AH), Shubah ibn al Hajjaj (d. 160AH), Yahya ibn Said al Qattan (d. 198AH), Abd al Rahman ibn Mahdi (d. 198AH), Sufyan ibn Uyaynah (d. 198AH), Abdullah ibn al Mubarak (d. 181AH), Waki ibn al Jarrah, al Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (d. 238AH), Ali ibn al Madini (d. 234AH), al Bukhari, Abu Zurah, Abu Hatim, Abu Dawud (d. 275AH), Muhammad ibn Nasr al Marwazi (d. 294AH), Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn al Mundhir (d. 318AH), Dawud ibn Ali (d. 270AH), Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari (d. 310AH), and others.

These are the ones who build rulings upon hadiths. They need to strive in knowing their authentic and weak reports, and in distinguishing their men.

Likewise are those who spoke about hadith and narrators in order to distinguish between this and that for the purpose of knowing hadith, as Abu Ahmad ibn Adi, Abu Hatim al Busti, Abu al Hasan al Daraqutni, Abu Bakr al Ismaili (d. 371AH), Abu Bakr al Bayhaqi, Abu Ismail al Ansari (d. 481AH), Abu al Qasim al Zanjani, Abu Umar ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463AH), Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm (d. 456AH), and their likes may do. Expanding upon these matters has another place.

We have not mentioned those who do not narrate with chains, such as Wasilat al Mutaabbidin by Umar al Malla al Mawsili, Kitab al Firdaws by Shahryar al Daylami, and their likes. Such people are below those levels, and there is a serious matter in the lies they mention.

The Intended Point

The intended point here is that, in this field, there is not a single raised hadith to the Prophet ﷺ which may be relied upon in a Sharia issue, by agreement of the people of knowledge of his hadith. Rather, what is narrated in this field is known by the people of hadith knowledge to be fabricated, either through deliberate fabrication by its fabricator or through his mistake.

There are reports from the Salaf in this field, most of which are weak. Among them is the hadith of the four who gathered at the Kaʿbah and asked. They were Abdullah and Musab, the two sons of al Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Umar, and Abd al Malik ibn Marwan. Ibn Abi al Dunya (d. 281AH) mentioned it in Kitab Mujabi al Dua by Ibn Abi al Dunya and narrated it through the route of Ismail ibn Aban al Ghanawi.

Majmuʿ al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah 1/250–261

Author

ISHAQ. K

Navigation Menu

Summary

The Main Issue

The Early Rejection of Acting Upon Weak Hadith

The Conditions Mentioned By Ibn Hajar

Ibn Daqiq al Id’s Restriction

Al Nawawi’s Position

Al Muallimi’s Main Critique

The Correct Meaning of Leniency

The Types of Weak Reports in Virtues

Why a Weak Report Cannot Make a New Act Worship

Al Albani’s Warning

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Take

The Difference Between Hope and Legislation

Ahmad’s Use of the Word “Weak”

Weak Reports Cannot Establish Tawassul Through Created Persons

The Practice of Later Authors in Books of Virtues

Al Shatibi’s Agreement

Conclusion

Al Muallimi’s on Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

The Issue Raised by al Dawwani

The First Clear Speech on Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues

The Conditions Mentioned by Ibn Hajar

Ibn Daqiq al Eid’s Restriction

al Nawawi and the Spread of This View

Salat al Ragha’ib and the Start of the Research

The Later Responses to al Nawawi

The Reports from the Imams of the Salaf

The Meaning of Leniency in Narrating Weak Hadith

What Leniency Was in the Practice of the Early Imams

The Types of Reports in the Virtues of Deeds

The Case of a Merely Permissible Act

The Weak Hadith Does Not Make an Act Part of the Religion

The Type of Weak Hadith in Which They Were Lenient

Al Nawawi on Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

Ruling on Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues, Encouragement, and Warning

Al Albani on Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

The Most Serious Prohibited Matter: Acting Upon Weak Hadith, Which May Even Be Fabricated

The Principle of Acting Upon Weak Hadith Is Not Unrestricted

The Hadith Related Restriction

Recommendation Is a Sharia Ruling

What the Ulama Intended by Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues

An Example of Acting Upon Weak Hadith With Its Condition

It Is Not Permissible to Fix Amounts and Specific Forms Through Hadiths of Virtues

Summary of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Speech on Acting Upon Weak Hadith in Virtues

From the Ways of the Innovators Is Reliance Upon Very Weak Hadiths

Ibn Taymiyyah’s On Acting Upon Weak Hadiths

Relying on Weak Hadiths in the Sharia

The Division of Hadith Into Sahih, Hasan, and Weak

The Condition of Abd al Malik ibn Harun ibn Antarah

The Report of Adam Seeking by the Right of Muhammad

The Issue With al Hakim’s Authentication

The Correct View Concerning Some Reports in Muslim

The Unestablished Reports About Adam

The Fabricated Report About Preserving the Qur’an and Knowledge

The Habit of Authors in Books of Virtues

The Intended Point

Author

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Related Post

Discover more from ATHARI ARCHIVE