The Usage of Weak Narrations

بسم الله وحده والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده

ʿĀlimah Siddiqa al-Fārsiyyah
Student, Takhassus Fil Hadith
Checked and Approved:
Mufti Ismail Moosa
www.ulumalhadith.com

Introduction

The Qur’ān and the Sunnah of the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) are the primary sources of Islām. It is known and accepted among classical and contemporary scholars that the Islamic beliefs (ʿaqā’id) and laws (aḥkām) are established from the Qur’ān and authentic Aḥādīth. The teachings of the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) have been preserved in the Aḥādīth, which have been collected and documented by scholars over centuries. Thus, it is crucial that the authenticity of a narration is verified and established for it to be taken as evidence for matters relating to Islamic Beliefs or Islāmic Law. The authenticity of a narration is determined by a rigorous study of its chain of transmission and its text. Ahadīth is declared as weak (ḍaʿīf)for several reasons, such as if there is a problem with one of the narrators’ memory or if there is a break in the chain of transmission.

Furthermore, a Ḍaʿīf narration can fall into different levels of weakness. It may be considered mildly weak if the only issue is that a reliable narrators known to occasionally make unintentional mistakes due to not remembering accurately from memory. However, if the reputation (‘Adālah) of a narrator is not established, then that is considered a more serious issue. It is even more serious is if there are gaps in the chain of transmission, or if a Ḥadīth is declared as Munkar, which indicates to strong evidence that shows that the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) did not make the statement.

Scholars agree that only authentic Aḥādīth may be used to establish matters of creed, and Aḥādīth that are denounced (Matruk) or fabricated (Mawdhu’) are never to be used for any purpose. However, scholars disagree as to whether mildly weak narrations can be used for establishing Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl(virtues of good deeds; for instance,

Aḥādīth that encourage prayer, charity, etc.),
Mawa’iẓ (advice),
Qiṣaṣ (stories), at-Tarġīb
Wa at-Tarhīb (exhortations and intimidations),
other matters already established in Islām.

In this article, I briefly discuss what makes a narration weak and the various categories of weak narrations. I mention the main opinions regarding Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth and include the statements of many scholars ranging from the second century to the tenth century AH on the usage of Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth and its conditions. Moreover, I provide many examples of how the Muḥaddithūn knowingly narrated weak narrations in their compilations, and how the Fuqahā issued verdicts based upon weak narrations.

Definition of a Ḍa’īf Ḥadīth (Weak Narration)

The word Ḍaʿīf linguistically comes from the word Ḍa-‘u-fa which means to be weak either physically or expressively.[1] In the science of Ḥadīth, Aḥādīth are primarily divided into two broad categories: 1. Maqbūl (acceptable) narrations, which include Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan Aḥādīth, and 2. Mardūd (rejected) narrations, which include Ḍaʿīf and Mawḍū’ Aḥādīth.

In Ḥadīth terminology, a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth is a narration which does not meet the conditions of Ṣaḥīḥ li Ḏātihi and Ḥasan li Ḏātihi. For a Ḥadīth to be considered Ṣaḥīḥ li Ḏatihi, it must meet the following five conditions:

The chain of narrators must be connected (in other words, the Ḥadīth must be traced all the way back to the Prophet (ṣallā llāhuʿalayhī wa-sallam) without the names of any narrators missing from the chain);
All the narrators in the chain must be people of integrity and piety (‘Ādil);
All the narrators in the chain must have precise and strong memories (Ḍābit);
The narration should not contain any Shuḏūḏ (narrations contradicting stronger narrations); and
There must be no ‘Ilal (hidden, damaging defects) in the chain.

A Ḥasan Ḥadīth must also meet the above conditions, excluding the condition of having a complete Ḍabt (precision in memory). When a narrator in the chain has a slightly weaker memory, the Ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth descends slightly to the level of Ḥasan. A Ḥasan narration is still authoritative in all the categories of the religion.

There are numerous reasons why a Ḥadīth is rejected; some more damaging than others. If the Ḥadīth lacks the condition of Ḍabt, then it will descend to the level of Ḥasan li Ḏātihi, and if any other condition is missing, then the Ḥadīth descends to the level of Ḍaʿīf. However, the category of Ḍaʿīf is a vast one, which contains many sub-categories. Furthermore, a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth can rise to the level of Ḥasan with its Mutāba‘āt and Shawāhid (different types of corroborators).

Subcategories of Ḍa’īf Ḥadīth

As mentioned above, Da’if Hadith is a subcategory of Mardud. One would normally assume that the Maqbūl narrations are practiced upon whereas the Mardūd narrations are completely rejected. However, this is not the case. The two categories only indicate whether the Ḥadīth has met the conditions of Ṣiḥḥah (authenticity) or not. Thus, Maqbūl narrations are those that have met all or most of the conditions of authenticity whereas Mardūd narrations are those that lack in one or many of the conditions of authenticity. Furthermore, each of these categories contain sub-categories. For example, the category of Mardūd contains many levels, the lowest of which are Mawḍū’ (fabricated) Aḥādīth.

There are many ways in which a Ḥadīth may be categorised as Ḍaʿīf. At times, the weakness comes about due to a visible or hidden missing link in the chain, which may be at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. This missing link can be one or numerous, and each scenario would result in a different Ḥadīth category. In other instances, the reason behind the weakness of a Ḥadīth is due to Ṭa’n ar-Rāwī (inadequacy of the narrator). The narrator’s inadequacies can range from the narrator being a clear-cut liar, to the narrator simply possessing a weak memory. Thus, the category of Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth is a vast one; with every missing condition, a new sub-category of Ḍaʿīf emerges.

The category of particular concern here is weak Ḥadīth. The defects of weak (Dha’if) Ḥadīth are “minor” in comparison to very weak Ḥadīth (Dha’if Jiddan). For example, a weak Ḥadīth may contain narrators with poor memories but it cannot contain narrators who have been accused of lying or whose piety is in question. If a Ḥadīth is determined to be a fabrication, it is forbidden to narrate it as a Ḥadīth, let alone invoking it as a piece of evidence. In addition, according to Imām aḍ-Ḍahabī, Imām al-ʿAlā’ī (may Allah have mercy on them), and others, the scholars are in agreement that Ḥadīth which are “very weak”—those narrated by people implicated of lying, committers of grave sins, people who make gross errors in their narrations—are not allowed to be invoked as evidence or narrated without indicating their rejected nature. Thus, Imām aḍ-Ḍahabī (Allah have mercy on him) has stated:

“Most of the Imāms are very stringent when it comes to Ḥadīth related to Aḥkām(laws). They make little concession, not complete concession, when it comes to virtues and heart-softening narrations. They accept in those cases what has a slight weakness to it but not that which is suspected [of forgery]. Fabricated and greatly weak Ḥadīth are never turned to. In fact, they narrate them only to warn people about them.”[2]

Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) mentions that the scholars of Al-Jarḥ wat Ta’dil have divided Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth into four levels:

A Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth which is slightly weak;
A Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth which is moderately weak;
A Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth which is severely weak; and
A Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth whose narrator is labelled as a liar or fabricator.[3]

The slight and moderate weakness comes about due to a weakness in the narrator’s precision. As for severe weakness, it comes about due to a defect in the narrator’s uprightness, such as if he has excessive doubts (kathir al-wahm). It would be unreasonable to consider these different levels of weak narrations.

The Ruling on Narrating Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth

Many scholars of Ḥadīth are of the view that narrating weak Aḥādīth and including them in compilations is permissible. The greatest evidence for this is that we find most, if not all, of Ḥadīth compilations containing some weak Aḥādīth, excluding the Ṣaḥīḥayn. Even books whose authors have claimed Siḥḥah (authenticity throughout their book), such as Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah, Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Mustadrak of Imām Ḥākim, Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn as-Sakan,etc. they also have included weak Aḥādīth in them, in different quantities.

There are two methods through which we come to know of this. The first when we analyze the books of Ḥadīth, we find their authors mentioning that they have included weak Aḥādīth in their compilations. For example, Imām Ibn Ṭahir al-Maqdisi (Allāh have mercy on him) said after mentioning the conditions of the Ṣaḥīḥayn:

“As for Imām Abū Dāwūd and those after him, their books are of three different categories: 1) Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) compilations which includes Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhari and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 2) Ṣaḥīḥ (might not be in Sahihayn, but they fulfill the conditions of Ṣaḥīḥayn, and 3) Compilations which contain Aḥādīth that we do not have conviction regarding their authenticity. Sometimes the author of the compilation clarifies the defect of many of the narrations that he has included in it.”

Another example is Imām at-Tirmiḍī (Allāh have mercy on him) – his book contains four categories of Ḥadīth. The fourth category is of those Aḥādīth which, as he stated, the Fuqahā have practised upon. This condition is very encompassing; it can include any Ḥadīth that a Faqīh has taken as evidence or practised upon, regardless of whether it is Ṣaḥīḥ or not.

Regarding his Sunan, Imām Abū Dāwūd (Allāh have mercy on him) stated in his “Risalah ila Ahl Makkah”:

“In this Sunan of mine, I have not included a Ḥadīth from a Matruk al-Ḥadīth narrator. I have disclosed wherever there was too much weakness regarding any Ḥadīth in my collection. But if I happen to leave a Ḥadīth without any comment, it should be considered as Sound, albeit some of them are more authentic than others.”

Likewise, Ḥāfiẓ al-Munḏiri (Allāh have mercy on him him) related in his “Mukhtaṣar as-Sunan” from Abū Bakr ibn Dāsah: “I heard [Imām] Abū Dāwūd saying: ‘I have included Ṣaḥīḥ, and whatever resembles it.’”

The second is through looking at the practice of the scholars in their compilations. After looking through their books, we find that many of them have included weak Aḥādīth. The following are some examples given by Shaykh Khalīl ibn Ibrāhīm Mullā Khatir :[4]

The Muwaṭṭa of Imām Mālik [d. 179AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains Balāghāt, and Aḥādīth which are not connected. If one studies at-Tamhīd, al-Taqassi, or al-Istiḍkar, one will find Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (Allāh have mercy on him) saying: “This is how it has come in the narration of Imām Mālik, but it is not connected”. He says in at-Taqassi: “There are 61 narrations that Imām Mālik has narrated Mursalan (with a broken chain) and attributed it to the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam). I have mentioned them with a connected chain in at-Tamhīd, excluding four narrations.” The Muwaṭṭa also contains many Marāsil.

The books of Imām ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubārak [d.181AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) such his al-Musnad and az-Zuhd wa ar-Raqā’iq.It is very clear for whoever analyzes these books [that they contain weak Aḥādīth].

The Sunan of Imām Ash-Shāfi‘ī [d. 204] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains a total of 42 narrations that are either Mursal, Mu’allaq, Munqaṭi’, or Mu’ḍal, even though there are Mutāba’at and Shawāhid that strengthen these narrations, and there are four weak Aḥādīth.

The Muṣannaf of Imām Abū Dāwūd at-Ṭayālisī [d. 204AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains weakness under numbers 6,7,8, and 10.

The Musnad of Imām al-Ḥumaidī [d. 219AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains weakness under numbers 14, 16, 36, 38, and 45.

The Sunan of Sa‘id ibn Manṣur [d. 227AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains many Marāsil, and its Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth cover almost one fourth of the whole book.

The Muṣannaf of ImāmIbn Abī Shaybah [d. 235AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains weakness under numbers 1-5, and 11.

The Musnadof Isḥāq ibn Rahuyah [d. 238AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) contains weakness under numbers 1-4, and 10.

The Musnad of ImāmAḥmad [d. 241AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): In the 15 volumes that Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir has researched, there are 8108 Aḥādīth of which 853 are weak, which makes up one tenth of the book, even though Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir is known for his leniency.[5]

Is it necessary to mention that a Ḥadīth is weak?

It is permissible to narrate Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth without clarifying their weakness with two conditions:

1) the Ḥadīth must not be regarding ʿAqā’id, and

2) it should not be regarding Ḥalāl and Ḥarām. Rather the Ḥadīth is about Mawa’iḏ, at-Tarġīb Wa at-Tarhīb, Qiṣaṣ, etc.

Moreover, if the chain of the Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth will be omitted, then one should not say: “The Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said…” rather, out of precaution, one should say: “It has been reported from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam)…”[6] Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) has said: “Is it necessary for a scholar to mention that the Ḥadīth he narrated is weak, as it is necessary to do so with fabricated Aḥādīth? The answer to this from our scholars is that it is not necessary.”[7]

Furthermore, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (Allāh have mercy on him) says: “According to the people of Ḥadīth and others, it is permissible to be lenient in the chains (of Ḥadīth) and in narrating all the types of weak narrations, except fabrications, without announcing its weakness…”

In addition, ‘Allāmah al-‘Iraqī (Allāh have mercy on him) says in the commentary of his Alfiyyah:

“As for Aḥādīth which are not Mawḍu’, [the scholars] have permitted leniency in their chains, and in narrating them without announcing their weakness, in the categories that are not Aḥkām and ʿAqā’id, rather in at-Tarġīb and at-Tarhīb which includes advice and stories and virtues of actions, among others.”[8]

Imām as-Suyūṭī [d. 911 AH] (Allah have mercy on him) has also said in his Alfiyyah: “The [scholars] are pleased with not mentioning its weakness, in advice and in the virtues of actions. Not in ‘Aqīdah and Ḥarām and Ḥalāl.”[9]

Acting upon Ḍa’īf Aḥādīth

The scholars differ on the permissibility of acting upon weak Aḥādīth. There are three opinions in this matter:[10]

The first opinion is that weak Aḥādīth may be used unrestrictedly, if no stronger Ḥadīth is found in the matter.
The second opinion is that weak Aḥādīth may be acted upon given certain conditions. This is the correct view adopted by many scholars, and their statements and evidences have been mentioned below.
The third opinion is that weak Aḥādīth should not be acted upon. This view is held by a minority of scholars.

The Statements of Scholars and Their Practice

Imām ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (Allāh have mercy on him) [d.181 AH] narrated a Ḥadīth from a narrator and someone said to him: “This narrator is weak” so Imām ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (Allāh have mercy on him) replied: “Narrating this type from him is tolerated”, or he said, “[Narrating] things like these.” Abū Hātim (Allāh have mercy on him) asked him: “Like which things?” ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (Allāh have mercy on him) replied: “Like [Aḥādīth of] Adab (mannerisms), Maw‘iḏah (advice), Zuhd (asceticism), or similar to these.”[11]

Imām ‘Abd ar-Rahmān ibn Mahdī [d. 198 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him):

“When we narrate pertaining to reward [of good deeds] and punishment [of sins] and the virtues of actions, we are lenient with their asānīd (chains of narrations) and rijāl (narrators). However, when we narrate pertaining to Ḥalāl and Ḥarām and Laws, we are stringent with the narrators [of Ḥadīth].”[12]

Imām Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah[d. 198 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): “Do not listen to what Baqiyyah ibn Walīd [narrated regarding] the Sunnah but listen to him [what he narrates] regarding reward [for good deeds] and other than it.”

The word Sunnah is not used here in its juridical meaning and hence does not refer to the norms set by the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) or deduced from his behaviour and Aḥādīth. Rather, it refers to how the term was in use before the second century. The word was used in the meaning of “the prescribed path of the Sharī‘ah which everyone is obliged to tread.”[13] Moreover, since the word Sunnah in the above excerpt is used as an opposite to “reward of actions”, it refers to all the obligations set by the Sharī‘ah. Thus, Imām Sufyān (Allāh have mercy on him) is instructing that one should not take the Aḥādīth of Baqiyyah regarding Shar‘īlaws but take what he narrated regarding reward.

ImāmAḥmad ibn Hambal [d. 241 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him):

“When we narrate from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) regarding Ḥalāl and Ḥarām, Sunnahs, Aḥkām (laws), we are stringent [over accepting] their transmission chains (asānīd). However, when we narrate from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) regarding Faḍā’il al-A’māl (virtues of actions), and what does not form a ruling, we are relaxed with their asānīd.”

Abu Zakariyyah al-‘Anbari [d. 344 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): “When a report is not regarding Ḥalāl and Ḥarām, and neither does it make something incumbent, and is in regards to exhortations and warnings, or being cautious or lenient, it is necessary to overlook [the weakness] and be lenient in narrating it.”[14]

Imām Abū ‘Abdillāh al-Bukhārī[d. 256 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) was also of the opinion that it is permissible to use Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth in the chapters of Faḍā’il, Adab, even though some scholars have attributed the opinion of general impermissibility to him, such as al-Qāsimī in Qawā’id at-Tahdith(p.113) where he said:

“The first opinion is that it is generally impermissible to use Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth, in Aḥkām and Faḍā’il. This is the opinion of Imāmal-Bukhārī, and this is very clear as this is the very condition of Imāmal-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him) in his Ṣaḥīḥ, and his practise of not including any Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth in his Ṣaḥīḥ.”

Likewise, Shaykh Zāhid al-Kawtharī (Allāh have mercy on him) has also attributed this opinion to Imām al-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him) in his al-Maqālāt on p. 45: “The opinion of generally not using Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth is the opinion of Imāmal-Bukhārī.”

However, Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (Allāh have mercy on him) says in the footnote of Ẓafr al-Amānī p.182:

“Just like Imām Aḥmad, Imāmal-Bukhārī has also narrated a bulk of Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth in his al-Adab al-Mufrad, and has used them as evidence for each chapter, even when the weak narrations were the only ones in the chapter. And what al-Qāsimī and our Shaykh al-Kawtharī have mentioned is not acceptable and it contradicts Imām al-Bukhārī’s practice in al-Adab al-Mufrad. In fact, Imāmal-Bukhārī has followed this opinion even in some of the chapters of his Ṣaḥīḥ, as Imām Ibn Ḥajar has indicated to in Huda as-Sārī 2/162 under the profile of at-Tafawi where he stated: ‘Imāmal-Bukhārī has narrated three narrations from him, the third one in ar-Riqāq, and it seems that he was not strict regarding him because his narration was from the Aḥādīth of at-Tarġīb Wat Tarhīb.’ And al-Qāsimī taking evidence from the practice of Imāmal-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ is out of place because Imām al-Bukhārī compiled it only for Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, thus, it would not make sense for him to include weak narrations in it (even if he was of the opinion of its permissibility, which he is). Hence, al-Qāsimī cannot take this practice of his which is for a specific book as evidence to claim that Imām al-Bukhārī was not of the opinion of leniency with regards to the Aḥādīth of Faḍā’il and its likes.”[15]

In his Ṣaḥīḥ, in the chapter of Bāb Mā Yuzkar fil Fakhiḏ, Imām al-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him) brings the Ḥadīth of Jarhad (raḍi Allāhu ʿanh): “The thighs are ‘aurah” and the Ḥadīth of Anas (raḍiallāhu ʿanh) who said: “The Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) covered his thighs.” In reconciling between these two apparently contradictory narrations, Imām al-Bukhārī says: “The Ḥadīth of Anas is Asnad (more authentic), but the Ḥadīth of Jarhad is Ahwat (more precautionary); as it takes us out of the scope of differences.”[16]

The argument is that even though the Ḥadīth of Jarhad may be weaker in status than the Ḥadīth of Anas (raḍiallāhu ʿanh), Imām al-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him) still gave it preference out of precaution. However, even if it is argued that the Ḥadīth of Jarhad was Ḥasan, and hence it simply did not fit the criteria of Imām al-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him), then too, we can argue that Imām al-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him) still was of the opinion of permissibility when it came to using weak Aḥādīth in the category of Ādāb and Faḍā’il. In his al-Adab al-Mufrad, Imām al-Bukhārī (Allāh have mercy on him) uses more than 200 weak Aḥādīth, and since they all related to matters of Faḍā’il and Adab, it is acceptable for him to have done so.[17]

Imām Abū Zur‘ah ar-Rāzī [d.264 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him):

“It becomes apparent from the action of Imām Aḥmad (ibn Hambal) and his speech that he abandons narrating from those accused (of fabricating), and those who make excessive mistakes due to negligence or poor memory. Instead, he narrates from those lower than them in weakness, such as those who have a slight defect in memory, or the people have differed in considering him weak or authentic.”

Imām Abū Zur‘ah (Allāh have mercy on him) would also do this.

Imām Abū Dāwūd as-Sijistānī [d.275 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) stated in his Risālah ila Ahl al-Makkah: “Sometimes Mursal and Mudallas are found in the absence of Ṣaḥīḥ In my Sunan book, [I have included] Mursal and Mudallas Aḥādīth when no Ṣaḥīḥ Aḥādīth were found.” He further said regarding Mursal narrations:

“The scholars would use it as a source of evidence until (Imām) ash-Shāfi‘ī came and objected on it. Imām Aḥmad (ibn Hambal) and others followed him on that. Thus, if there is no Musnad Ḥadīth against Mursal Aḥādīth, then the Mursal is used as evidence; and it is not like Muttasil in strength.”[18]

In his Sunan, Imām Abū Dāwūd (Allāh have mercy on him) narrated the following Ḥadīth containing a weak narrator in the chapter of Ghusl min al-Janābah: Narrated by Abū Hurayrah (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) that the Messenger of Allāh (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said: “There is sexual defilement under every hair; so, wash the hair and cleanse the skin.” Imām Abū Dāwūd said: “The tradition narrated by Ḥārith ibn Wajīh is rejected (Munkar). He is weak (in transmission).”[19]

Similarly, he narrated the Ḥadīth of Jabir ibn Abdullāh (raḍi Allāhu ʿanh) that the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said: “What the sea throws up and is left by the tide you may eat, but what dies in the sea and floats you must not eat.” Imām Abū Dāwūd (Allah have mercy on him) said:

“This tradition has been transmitted by Sufyān al-Thawrī, Ayyūb, and Ḥammād from Abū al-Zubair as the statement of Jābir himself (and not from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam). It has been also transmitted direct from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) through a weak chain by Abū Ḏi’b, from Abū al-Zubair on the authority of Jābir from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam).”[20]

Imām Abū ‘Īsa at-Tirmiḍī [d. 279 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): There are numerous examples in the Jāmi’ of Imām at-Tirmiḍī that have been weakened by him and are still practised upon by the Ahl al-‘Ilm. The following are some examples:

Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍi Allāhu ʿanh) narrated that the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said: “Whoever combines two prayers without any excuse then he has committed something from the major sins.” Abū ‘Īsa (at-Tirmiḍī) says:

“And this person known as Hanash is Abū ‘Alī ar-Rahabi Husain ibn Qais. He is Ḍaʿīf according to the Ahl al-Ḥadīth; ImāmAḥmad and others have weakened him. According to the Ahl al-‘Ilm, the practice is upon this [Ḥadīth], that prayers should not be combined except whilst on a journey or in ‘Arafah…”[21]

Ziyād ibn al-Ḥārith as-Sudā’ī (raḍiallāhu ʿanh) narrated:

“Allāh’s Messenger (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) ordered me to call the Aḏān for the Fajr prayer. I called the Aḏān, then Bilāl wanted to call the Iqāmah. Allāh’s Messenger (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said: ‘Indeed the brother from Sudā’ has called the Aḏān, and whoever calls the Aḏān should call the Iqāmah.’”

Abū ‘Īsa (at-Tirmiḍī) (Allāh have mercy on him) says: “We know the Ḥadīth of Ziyād from the Ḥadīth of al-Ifriqiyyi, and al-Ifriqiyyi is Ḍaʿīf according to the Ahl al-Ḥadīth; Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd al-Qaṭṭān and others have weakened him…”[22]

Imām Ibn Mājah [d. 273 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): In his Sunan, Imām Ibn Mājah (Allāh have mercy on him) has included several narrations from weak narrators. Below are some examples:

It was narrated that Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh (raḍiallāhu ʿanh) said: “The Messenger of Allāh (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) forbade us to urinate while standing.”[23] In the chain of this narration, there is a narrator named ‘Adi ibn al-Faḍal. The scholars have agreed on his weakness. Yet Imām ibn Mājah (Allāh have mercy on him) has narrated from him.[24]

It was narrated from Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh (raḍiallāhu ʿanh) that whenever the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) ascended the pulpit, he would greet (the people with Salām).[25] In the chain of this Ḥadīth, there is Ibn Lahī‘ah, who is a Ḍaʿīf narrator.[26]

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍiallāhu ʿanh) said: “The Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) used to perform four Rak’āh before Friday (prayer), and he did not separate any of them.”[27] The chain of this Ḥadīth is filled with Ḍaʿīf narrators. In Misbah az-Zujajah, Imām al-Būsīrī (Allāh have mercy on him) comments: “The chain of this Ḥadīth is Musalsal with Ḍu’afa. As for the narrator ‘Atiyyah: they have agreed upon his weakness, Hajjāj is a Mudallis, Mubasshir is a Kazzāb (liar), Baqiyyah ibn Walīd makes Tadlīs at-Taswiyah…”[28]

Imām Abū Hātim ar-Rāzī [d. 327 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him):

“From the (narrators of Ḥadīth) are the truthful and pious and the negligent who has doubts and errors. As for the latter, Aḥādīth pertaining to exhortations, warnings, asceticism, and mannerism will be written, but they will not be taken as evidence for matters pertaining to Ḥalāl and Ḥarām.”

Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr [d. 463] (Allāh have mercy on him) in the Muqaddimah of his at-Tamhīd: “A weak Ḥadīth is not rejected, even if it cannot be used as evidence (in establishing laws); for sometimes, a Ḥadīth with a weak chain (sanad) can have the correct meaning (ma’na).”

Also, in Jāmi’ Bayān al-‘Ilm, he narrated the Ḥadīth of Anas (raḍiallāhu ʿanh) via Abū Ma’mar ‘Abbād ibn ‘Abd as-Ṣamad: “Whosoever fulfills the obligatory actions and teaches people goodness…” and commented: “He (Abū Ma’mar) is a Matrūk al-Ḥadīth, and the people of knowledge are lenient in Faḍā’il (virtues), so they narrate from everyone. However, they are stringent in al-Aḥkām (laws).”

He has also stated: “Faḍā’il is narrated from every narrator, and evidence from the chain is scrutinized in Aḥkām, and in Ḥalāl and Ḥarām.”

He has also stated: “The scholars in the past have been lenient in narrating the Aḥādīth of Faḍā’il from every narrator, and they have not scrutinized (their chains) like their scrutinization of the Aḥādīth of Aḥkām.”

Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ [d. 643 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) in his famous book ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth:

“According to the people of Ḥadīth and others, it is permissible to be lenient in the chains (of Ḥadīth) and in narrating all the types of weak narrations, except fabrications, without announcing their weakness. This does not apply to (the Aḥādīth of) the Ṣifāt of Allāh Ta‘ālā, and the Aḥkām of the Sharī‘ah such as Ḥalāl and Ḥarām. Rather, it applies to (the Aḥādīth of) Mawā‘iḏ (advice), Qiṣaṣ(stories), Faḍā’il ‘-A’māl (virtues of actions), and all the categories of exhortations and warnings, and all that which does not relate with laws and Aqā‘id (beliefs).[29]

Imām ad-Dimashqī [d. 841 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) in his commentary on his poem ‘Uqūd ad-Durar: “The narration of ḌaʿīfḤadīth — excluding Mawḍū’ (fabrications) — is permissible in Faḍā’il ‘-A’māl (virtues of actions), Raqā’iq (heart softeners), and its likes. Likewise, acting upon such narrations is permissible according to the vast majority of scholars.”

Imām Zayn ad-Dīn al-‘Irāqī [d.807 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) in his commentary on the Alfiyyah:

“As for (weak) Aḥādīth that are not fabricated, (the scholars) have permitted leniency in its chain and narration, without mentioning its weakness, when it is not in the category of Aḥkām and Aqā‘id. Narrating them is permissible in exhortations and warnings from Mawā‘iḏ (advice), Qiṣaṣ (stories), Faḍā’il al-‘A’māl (virtues of actions) and its likes.”

Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqālanī [d. 852 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): His statement on the narrator of the eight Ḥadīth of his treatise Al-Qawl al-Musaddad. In his at-Taqrīb, he called the narrator, Abū ‘Iqāl: “Matrūk”. Despite that, he remarked regarding the Ḥadīth:

“This Ḥadīth is on Faḍā’il al-A’māl and encouraging Jihād in the path of Allāh and not about something that the Sharī‘ah or (sound) intellect would deem impossible. Thus, issuing a ruling of its invalidity merely due it being from the narration of Abū ‘Iqāl is not valid, and the methodology of Imām Aḥmad is known in being lax when narrating the Aḥādīth of Faḍā’il, not the Aḥādīth of Aḥkām.”

Imām Nawawī [d. 676 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) in the Muqaddimah of his book al-Aẓkār:

“The scholars from the Muhaddithun and Fuqaha have said: ‘It is permissible and even desirable to act upon weak narrations in Faḍā’il, encouragements, and warnings, if the Ḥadīth is not Mawḍū’. As for Aḥkām, such as Ḥalāl, Ḥarām, the modalities of trade, marriage, divorce, etc., only authentic (Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan) narrations will be acted upon. However, if it pertains to precaution, such as if a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth has been narrated regarding the detestability of certain transactions or marriages, then it would be preferable to abstain from it, although it is not necessary.’”

Thus, when a Ḥadīth mentions the virtues of certain recommended deeds and [speaks about] their reward; or on the repugnance of other deeds and their penalties; the amount of reward or punishment; and its various types when narrated in a Ḥadīth we do not know to be forged; sharing that narration with others and practicing upon it is permissible. This implies that a person will hope for that reward or fear the [mentioned] punishment.

The Stance of the Four Maḏhahib

Ḥanafiyyah

The Ḥanafi scholars are unanimous that the opinion of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (Allāh have mercy on him) is that a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth is preferable to him than analogy and opinion. The Maḏhab is based upon this, such as when he gave preference to the Ḥadīth of Qahqahah (laughing out loud) over analogy and opinion, despite its weakness. Likewise, he gave preference to the Aḥādīth of making Wuḍu with Nabiẓ whilst on a journey, not cutting the hand of a thief when he steals anything lower than ten Dirhams, and the condition of being in a city for Jumu‘ah Salah.[30]Despite the weakness of the Aḥādīth pertaining to these chapters, they are given preference over Ra’y and Qiyās.

Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah related the statement of Imām ibn Hazam (Allāh have mercy on them) who said in his book al-Iḥkām fī Usūl al-Aḥkām 7/54: “ImāmAbū Ḥanīfah said: ‘A Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth from the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) is preferable than Qiyās, and [using] Qiyās in its presence is not permitted.’” Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattāḥ commented: “The Ḥanafī scholars have differed even with regards to when a statement of a Ṣaḥābī and Qiyās contradict, which should be given preference? Imām Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī (Allāh have mercy on him) says: ‘The statements of the Ṣaḥābah will be given preference over Qiyās.’”[31]

Imām Al-Kamāl ibn al-Humām (Allāh have mercy on him) says in Fatḥ al-Qadīr1/349: “If a Ḥadīth is not Ṣaḥīḥ, then a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth is not [the same as] a Mawḍu’ Ḥadīth; it can be acted upon in Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl.”

‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Ābidīn (Allāh have mercy on him) comments in his al-Ḥāshiyah 1/128on the statement of Imām Ibn al-Humām:

“His statement ‘…in Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl’ means in order to attain the virtues prescribed for actions. Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haitami (Allāh have mercy on him) says in Sharḥ al-Arba‘īn: ‘Because if the [Ḥadīth] is truly Ṣaḥīḥ, then one will attain the benefit mentioned for that action and if not, there is neither harm of making something [Ḥarām] Ḥalāl or something [Ḥalāl] Ḥarām, and nor has anyone’s right been violated.’”[32]

Mālikiyyah

Imām as-Sāwī (Allāh have mercy on him) has said in his Ḥāshiyah on ash-Sharh as-Saghīr 4/771: “Authenticity [of Aḥādīth, excluding Fabrications] is not looked at except in the chapters of Aḥkām (laws). As for Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, Adab, etc., then one can use [supporting evidence] from Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth and reports from the Salaf.”[33]

The opinion of Imām Mālik (Allāh have mercy on him) is known by him giving preference to Mursal, Munqaṭi’, Balāghat, and statements of Ṣaḥābah over Qiyās, in the absence of Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan narrations. His compilation, al-Muwatta is the biggest proof for that, as it contains many Mursal and Munqaṭi’ narrations. Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (Allāh have mercy on him) says: “The opinion of Imām Mālik and a group of Mālikī scholars is that the Mursal narration of a reliable narrator is authoritative, and must be acted upon, as it is necessary to act upon a Musnad (authentically connected) Ḥadīth.”[34]

Shawafi’

Imāman-Nawawī (Allāh have mercy on him) said in the Muqaddimah of al-Majmu’1/97: “The ‘Ulama have said: Aḥādīth are three categories: Ṣaḥīḥ, Ḥasan, and Ḍaʿīf. In Aḥkām, it is only permitted to take evidence from Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan Aḥādīth. As for Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth, it is not permitted to use them as evidence in Aḥkām and ʿAqā’id, but it is permitted to narrate and act upon them in other than Aḥkām, such as in Qiṣaṣ, Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, and at-Tarġībwat-Tarhīb.”[35]Imām an-Nawawī (Allāh have mercy on him) has also stated that there is a consensus among the scholars upon the permissibility of acting upon Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth in the categories of Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, and not in Ḥalāl and Ḥarām.

The statement of ‘Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haitami ash-Shafi‘ī (Allāh have mercy on him) has been mentioned under the Ḥanafiyyah section. He also says: “It has been established that a Ḍaʿīf, Mursal, Munqati, Mu’ḍal [all are different types of weak Aḥādīth], and Mawqūf, will be acted upon in Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, unanimously [ijma‘an].”

Imām as-Sakhawī [d. 902 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him) has said in Fatḥ al-Mughith 1/287: “[The scholars] have dealt with leniency in the category of [Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth] by not mentioning their weakness in the chapters of at-Tarġīb wa at-Tarhīb, Mawa’iḏ, Qiṣaṣ, Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, etc.”[36]

Ḥanābilah

Imām Ibn Mufliḥ (Allāh have mercy on him) says in al-Adab 2/303:

“Chapter on Acting in Accordance to a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth, Narrating it, and Leniency in the Aḥādīth of Faḍā’il, excluding the Aḥādīth of Aḥkām and Ḥalāl and Ḥarām: It is necessary to indicate to the practice of acting upon Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth as more than one scholar who has written on ‘Ulum al-Ḥadīth has stated with conviction that one may act upon Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth in those matters that do not pertain to Ḥalāl and Ḥarām, such as Faḍā’il. Something that corresponds to this [opinion] has been related from Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him).”

Two opinions have been narrated from Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him) himself. The first is that he permits acting upon Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth in their respective categories and he is reported to have said: “Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth are more beloved to me than the opinion of men, because one only turns to Qiyās in the absence of textual evidence.”[37] The second is that he does not use Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth, even in the categories of Faḍā’il, Adab, etc. This is why for example Ṣalāḥ at-Tasbiḥ is not Mustaḥab according to him, due to the weakness of its Ḥadīth.[38]

Objection:

With regards to the first opinion, Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) has claimed that Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him) would not use Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth, and by saying “Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth are more beloved to me”, he was actually referring to Ḥasanli Ġairihi Aḥādīth. The reasoning for this was, as he claims, that early scholars only had two categories of Aḥādīth, and Ḥasan li Ġairihi Aḥādīth were included in the highest level of Ḍaʿīf, thus, Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him) called them “Ḍaʿīf” Aḥādīth. Furthermore, he claims that the term Ḥasan was coined for the first time by Imām at-Tirmiḍī, and even claims that there is a consensus in this matter.

Answer:

However, this is incorrect. Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ġuddah (Allāh have mercy on him)[39]explains that many scholars before Imām at-Tirmiḍī had used the term Ḥasan, including his teachers, and the teachers of his teachers. So, the statement of Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him) will be taken at face value. If we were to agree that “Ḍaʿīf” in the statement of Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him) means Ḥasan, then what benefit is there in his claim that “Ḍaʿīf [or Ḥasan in this case] Aḥādīth are more beloved to me than Qiyās”? There is no question regarding the superiority of Ḥasan over Qiyās, so why would Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him) even make this statement? The reason is simple; he is referring to Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth and saying that when comparing weak narrations that do not have support and do not rise to the level of Ḥasan, with Qiyās, and that he gives preference to a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth over Qiyās.

On the other hand, we find that Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) has stated in Majmu’ al-Fatāwa 20/261: “This is why the scholars would be lenient in the chains of those Aḥādīth that related to at-Tarġīb wa at-Tarhīb, and would not be lenient in the chains of the Aḥādīth of Aḥkām…”

Imām Ibn al-Qayyim (Allāh have mercy on him) has said:

“The fourth source is taking Mursal and Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth when no other Aḥādīth are found in the chapter, and this has been given preference [by Imām Aḥmad] over Qiyās. Furthermore, if there is no statement of a Ṣaḥābī or a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth in a particular matter, then according to Imām Aḥmad (Allāh have mercy on him), the fifth source is to use Qiyās.”[40]

Conditions of Acting Upon Ḍa’īf Ḥadīth

Regarding the conditions of practising upon Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth, Imām as-Sakhawī (Allāh have mercy on him) has said:

“I have heard our Shaykh (Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (Allāh have mercy on him)) say the following, and he put it to me in writing himself: ‘The conditions for practising upon weak Ḥadīth are three:

That the weakness must not be very strong [ġayr shadīd]. This excludes those Aḥādīth that are singly recorded by liars or those accused of lying, and those who make gross mistakes.
That there be a general legal basis for it. This excludes what is invented and has no legal basis to start with.
That one does not think, whilst practicing upon it, that it has been established as true [‘an la ya’taqida thubutahu]. This is in order that no words which the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) did not (verifiably) say be attributed to him.’

The last two conditions are from Ibn ‘Abd as-Salām and his companion Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id; and Abu Sa‘id al-ʿAlā’ī (specialist in forgeries) reported unanimity over the first one.”

However, Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) has said that the claim of unanimity over this first condition is questionable, as I will elaborate more on soon.

I [Imām as-Sakhāwi] say: “It has been reported from Imām Aḥmad that one may practice upon weak Ḥadīth if there is no other Ḥadīth to that effect and also if there is no Ḥadīth that contradicts it. In one narration he is reported to say: “I like weak Ḥadīth better than men’s opinions.”[41]

Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) mentions eight conditions that have been stipulated by different scholars for acting upon weak narrations, and he discusses the validity of each one in detail. The eight conditions mentioned are:

It is permissible to use a weak narration only in the categories of Faḍā’il al-A’māl (virtues of actions), Tarġīb (encouragements), Tarhīb (warnings), and not in the categories of Ḥalāl and Ḥarām.

At-Tarġīb wa at-Tarhīb refers to those Ḥadīth in which the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) has made a statement that incites a person to perform a good deed or intimidates a person away from doing an evil deed. Imāmal-Munẓiri’s work “At-Tarġīb wa at-Tarhīb” is filled with Ḥadīth of this nature.

The term Faḍā’il al-A’māl can have two interpretations. It can either means “virtues of actions” or “virtuous actions”. If the meaning of the phrase is, “virtues of actions,” it is then in reference to deeds that are already established in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. In other words, with respect to an established deed, there is a weak Ḥadīth that claims specific merits for that act. Imām al-Lakhnawī (Allāh have mercy on him) states that the phrase Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl refers to Ḥadīth that simply state the virtuousness of actions that have been affirmed in the authentic sources, and that most of the commentaries on the Forty Ḥadīth of Imām an-Nawawī (Allāh have mercy on him) understand the phrase in this manner. One of the reasons that he comes to this conclusion is that the earlier scholars stated that weak Ḥadīth cannot be used to establish legal rulings (aḥkām).[42] If the meaning “virtuous actions” is taken, then that would mean not only is the Ḥadīth establishing the merit of a deed, but it is also establishing an act of worship which has no basis other than the weak Ḥadīth.

This first condition has been stated by all the early and later day scholars that are of the opinion that Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth may be used with specific conditions.

The weak narration must not be a Mawḍū’ (fabricated) narration.

This condition, of course, is agreed upon by all scholars. Fabricated reports are to be never taken as evidence. Imām Ibn as-Ṣalāḥ (Allāh have mercy on him) mentioned it explicitly in his book, and all the scholars after him followed suit.

The weak narration must not be severely weak.

Many Ahl al-‘Ilm stipulated this condition, and as mentioned previously, Imām al-ʿAlā’ī (Allāh have mercy on him) mentioned that there is consensus upon this condition. However, after mentioning this condition, Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) brings the examples of forty scholars who — despite stipulating this condition — practiced upon severely weak narrations. Some of those scholars are as follows:

Imām al-Mu‘afa ibn ‘Imran al-Mawsili (Allāh have mercy on him):In his book “az-Zuhd”, he narrates from ar-Rabī’ ibn Badr, al-Muthanna ibn as-Sabah, Hisham ibn Ziyād, and al-Ḥasan ibn Dinār, all of whom are considered Matrūk.

Imām Ḥambal ibn Isḥāq ash-Shaybānī (Allāh have mercy on him): He is the uncle of Imām Aḥmad [d. 273 AH]. He has compiled Juz fil Fitan which contains weak narrators, and Juz of Hambal ibn Isḥāq which contains 86 reports that are Marfū’ and Mawqūf. The researcher has stated that 21 of the reports are weak and six of them are severely weak or even Matrūk.

Imām Abū ‘Abdillah Ibn Mājah (Allāh have mercy on him): Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (Allāh have mercy on him) has said regarding him in his Tahzīb at-Tahzīb: “His Sunan book is comprehensive and good. However, it contains strange and severely weak narrations along with many Munkar”

Imām Abū Bakr ibn Abī ad-Dunyā [d. 281 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): Many of his treatises on Ḥadīth have been published. They contain many weak narrations which are Marfu’ and not Marfu’. As an example, Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) says he analyzed the book “ar-Riqqah wal Bukā’” and found very few Marfū’ narrations; only 35 out of 428 reports to be exact. The fourth Marfū’ report is from Ayyūb ibn Khut and Abū Dāwūd al-A’ma, and both are Talif (severely weak) narrators! In his other book al-‘Iyal — which contains many Marfū’ narrations, — he narrates Ḥadīth #51 from Kharījah ibn Mus‘ab and Ḥadīth #108 from Yazīd ibn Iyāḍ ibn Ju’dubah, and both of them are Matrūk (denounced) and Talif (severely weak)!”

Imām Ḥāfiẓ Abū Bakr al-Kharā’iṭī [d. 327 AH] (Allāh have mercy on him): He has authored Makārim al-Akhlāq wa Ma‘aliha”and “Musawi al-Akhlāq wa Maḍmumiha”. In the first book, he narrated from Aḥmad ibn ‘Aqabah an-Naysaburi, Ġulām Khalīl, and Ismā‘īl ibn Yaḥya at-Tamīmī. In his second book, he narrated from Muḥammad ibn Yūnus al-Kudaymi, Mahz ibn Harūn al-Haydarī, and Fa’id ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-‘Attar. All of them are Matrūk.

At the end, Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) says that he mentioned the long list of scholars for two main reasons: 1) to pose the question of whether claiming that there is consensus on not using narration that are severely weak is correct in the first place, and 2) he is not encouraging the usage of severely weak narration. However, since such prominent scholars have used them, he does not fully reject it either, except for those narrations that clearly make no sense and are very strange.

The Ḥadīth is taken as subservient to a confirmed aṣl (foundation). Therefore, it may not be used to establish something that has no basis in the confirmed sources.

The one acting upon the narration must not believe that it is an established practice. The reward that is stated in the Ḥadīth should not be expected by the one who performs the deed but, instead, the deed should be done more out of safety and a hope for some type of reward from Allāh, nonetheless.

Until this condition, whatever has been mentioned by Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) — excluding condition number three— has also been mentioned by Imām as-Sakhāwī (Allāh have mercy on him) above. From here onwards, Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) discusses some other conditions that scholars have stipulated. It seems that these conditions are either not agreed upon by majority of scholars, or that they are assumed to be included under the three conditions mentioned by Imām as-Sakhāwī (Allāh have mercy on him).

The doer of the act that is based on a weak Ḥadīth should not make the act public so that no one else may act upon that Ḥadīth and think something is sanctioned whilst it is not sanctioned, or so that no ignorant people may see the person doing the act and think that the act is an authentic Sunnah.

He must not believe it to be an established Sunnah.

Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) objects to this condition and questions its source. Instead, he says that a person can hope for reward when practising upon a Mustaḥab act of Ṣalāh, or when avoiding a Makrūh. In both cases, the evidence may be weak, but one can still hope for its reward.

The weak narration must not contradict a Ṣaḥīḥ

Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) adds to this condition and says that this is only when the evidence cannot be reconciled, and all other aspects of giving preference have been taken into consideration. Thus, a narration that is stronger in its authenticity does not obtain automatic preference.

Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) has stated that the one who gathered the three main conditions of acting upon a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth is Imāmaz-Zarkashī (Allāh have mercy on him). He has stated the permissibility of acting upon weak Aḥādīth with three conditions:

The Ḥadīth must not be related to Aḥkām or ʿAqā’id. Imām an-Nawawī has mentioned this is his ar-Rawdah, al-Adkhār, and other books;
That there be a general legal basis for it. Shaykh Taqī ad-Dīn ibn Daqīq al-‘Id has mentioned this in his Sharḥ al-Ilmām; and
That one does not think, whilst practicing upon it, that it has been established as true.[43]

Establishing Istiḥbāb or Karāhah Through a Ḍa’īf Ḥadīth

From the statements of the scholars that he mentioned, Shaykh ʿAwwāmah (Allāh preserve him) states that the ruling of acting upon weak narrations can be looked at from two different angles. The first is by looking at the statements of the early scholars, and the second is by looking at their practice. When looking at their statements, it becomes evident that their statements fall into one of three categories:

Scholars who explicitly mentioned the permissibility and Istiḥbāb of acting upon weak narrations in their restricted categories.
Scholars who did not explicitly state anything, neither approval nor disapproval.
Scholars whose statements allude to the preference of such narrations, although they have not explicitly stated anything.

When looking at the usage of such narrations by scholars, it becomes clear that many scholars — including the leading Imāms of the Maḏhāhib — were of the opinion of the permissibility of using weak narrations. We see this in the differences that they had in the secondary matters of ‘Masnūn’ and ‘Makrūh’. In extracting these rulings, it is evident that at times they used rigorously authentic narrations, whilst at other times, they used weak narrations. Wherever the evidence was authentic and decisive, they extracted Farḍ, Wājib, and Ḥarām rulings, and wherever the evidence was weaker, they extracted rulings such as Makrūh and Mustaḥab.[44]

Conclusion

The scholars agree that to establish Islamic beliefs and laws, authentic sources must be utilized. When it comes to the Aḥādīth of the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam), the categories of Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḥasan are considered acceptable and authoritative. With regards to Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth, scholars have differed and we find three opinions. The majority of scholars are of the opinion that it is permissible to narrate a Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth and practise upon it in its specific categories of Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl and at-Tarġīb wat Tarhīb provided that three conditions are met:

(1) the Ḥadīth must have a general legal basis,

(2) it must not be denounced or fabricated, and

(3) one must not think, whilst practicing upon it, that it has been established as true.

Even in the category of Aḥkām, many scholars have given preference to [mildly] weak Aḥādīth over Qiyās. Thus, the opinion of those who say that Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth have no authority and cannot be practised upon does not seem plausible. They have equated between a Mawḍu’ and Ḍaʿīf Ḥadīth; something that was not the practise of our pious predecessors. Finally, if Aḥādīth were of only two levels of authenticity, —Ṣaḥīḥ (including Ḥasan) and Mawḍu’, — then what is the objective of scholars having divided Aḥādīth into so many different levels of weaknesses, as opposed to them simply rejecting them? Their objective was to sift through fabricated narrations to keep the noble Sunnah pure, and to utilize Ḍaʿīf Aḥādīth in their respective categories, with their respective conditions.

And Allāh knows best.

[1]Maḥmūd at-Taḥḥān, Taysīr Muṣṭalaḥ(Maktabah al-Ma‘ārif), 63.

[2]Dr. Jamaal Zarabazo, Fatwā: Making Use of Weak Ḥadīth 7-8.

[3] Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār al-Yusr and Dār al-Minhāj) 32.

[4]Dr. Khalīl b. Ibrāhim Mullā Khatir, Khuturatu Musawāh al-Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf bil Mawḍū’ (Dār al-Qiblah andMu’assasah ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān) 38-40.

[5]Ibid, 40-43.

[6]Maulana Muḥammad Ilyās, Al-Juz al-Laṭīf fil Istidlāl bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf (ZamZam Publishers and Dārul ‘Ulūm Zakariyyā) 86.

[7]Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār al-Yusr + Dār al-Minhāj) 237.

[8] Imām Irāqī, Sharh Alfiyyah (al-Maghrib print) 1 / 291.

[9] Imām as-Suyūṭī, Alfiyyatu al-Ḥadīth(Al-Qahirah) 96-97.

[10] Imām as-Sakhāwī, al-Qawl al-Badī’ fis Ṣalāti ‘alā al-Ḥabīb ash-Shafī’472; Dr. Khalīl b. Ibrāhim Mullā Khatir, Khuturatu53.

[11] Imām Ibn AbīḤātim, al-Jarh wat Ta’dīl(Da’irah al-Ma’arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah) 2/30.

[12] Imām al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Jāmi’li Akhlāq ar-Rāwīwa Adab as-Sāmi’1280.

[13] Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah, As-Sunnatun Nabawiyyah wa Bayānu Madluliha ash-Shar‘i (Dār as-Salām).

[14] Imām al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm ar-Riwāyah (Maktabah al-Ilmiyyah Madinah) 133.

[15] Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ al-Yafi’i, Ḥukm al-Amal bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār an-Nūr al-Mubīn) 16.

[16] Imām Muḥammad al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥal-Bukhārī(Maktabah Faisal) 1 / 53.

[17]Maulana Muḥammad Ilyās, Al-Juz al-Laṭīf fil Istidlāl bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf(ZamZam Publishersand Dārul ‘Ulūm Zakariyyā)28.

[18] Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī, Risālahila Ahl al-Makkah(Maktabah Beirut) 25.

[19] Imām Abū Dāwūd as-Sijistānī, Sunan AbīDāwūd, Ḥadīth: 248<https://sunnah.com/abudawud:248>accessed 21 December 2021.

[20]Ibid, Ḥadīth: 3815.

[21] Imām Abū ‘Īsa at-Tirmiḍī, Jāmi’ at-Tirmiḍī, Ḥadīth: 188.

[22] Imām Abū ‘Īsa at-Tirmiḍī, Jāmi’ at-Tirmiḍī,Ḥadīth: 199

[23] Imām Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Ḥadīth: 309.

[24]Maulana Muḥammad Ilyās, Al-Juz al-Laṭīf fil Istidlāl bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf (ZamZam PublishersandDārul ‘Ulūm Zakariyyā) 38.

[25] Imām Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Ḥadīth: 1109.

[26]Imām al-Būṣīrī, Miṣbāḥ az-Zujāj fī Zawā’id Ibn Mājah(Dār al-Arabiyyah, Beirut)3/168.

[27]Imām Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Ḥadīth: 1129.

[28]Imām al-Būṣīrī, Miṣbāḥ az-Zujāj fī Zawā’id Ibn Mājah (Dār al-Arabiyyah, Beirut) 1/136.

[29]Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ 92.

[30]Maulana Muḥammad Ilyās, Al-Juz al-Laṭīf fil Istidlāl bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf (ZamZam Publishers and Dārul ‘Ulūm Zakariyyā)44; Dr. Abdul Karīm al-Khudhair, al-Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf wa Ḥukm al-Iḥtijāj bihi251.

[31] Shaykh Ẓafar Aḥmad at-Thānwī, Qawā’id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth(Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah) 96.

[32] Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ al-Yafi’i, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīthaḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār an-Nūr) 19.

[33] Ibid.

[34]Dr. Abdul Karīm al-Khudhair, al-Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf wa Ḥukm al-Iḥtijāj bihi252-253.

[35]Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ al-Yafi’i, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīthaḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār an-Nūr) 20.

[36]Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ al-Yafi’i, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīthaḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār an-Nūr) 11-13.

[37]Maulana Muḥammad Ilyās, Al-Juz al-Latif fil Istidlal bil Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf48.

[38]Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ al-Yafi’i, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīthaḍ-Ḍaʿīf (Dār an-Nūr) 22.

[39] ShaykhẒafar Aḥmad at-Thānwī, Qawā’id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth 101-107.

[40] Imām Ibn al-Qayyim, I’lam Al-Muwaqqi’in ‘an Rabb al-‘Ālamīn(Dārul Ḥadīth Cairo) 1 / 31-32.

[41] Imām as-Sakhāwi, al-Qawl al-Badī’ fī as-Salāḥ ‘alā al-Habīb ash-Shafī’472-473.

[42]Dr. Jamāl Zarabazo, Fatwā: Making Use of Weak Ḥadīth14.

[43]Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, Ḥukm al-‘Amal bil Ḥadīth adh-Dhaʿīf (Dār al-Yusr and Dār al-Minhāj)p. 76.

[44]Ibid, 68-72.

Follow Us