Saturday, 5 September 2015

Do Not Say Only “SAHIH” Bukhari And Muslim And Validity Of Using A Da’if (Weak) Hadith


Do Not Say Only “SAHIH” Bukhari And Muslim And Validity Of Using A Da’if (Weak) Hadith

''Be Ishq e Nabi(Peace Be Upon Him) jo padhta he Bukhari, 
Aata he Bhukhar usko, 
Aati nai he Bukhari'' 

''Bukhari Pado magar Saari padho'' 

''Dekho yeh he Bukhari, 
Yeh he saari ki saari, 
Na manne walo per padegi bahoot hi Bhaari'' 

If someone says to you, "i only believe in Bukhari"... 
Say to that person: "write on a piece of paper that you only believe in Bukhari, nothing but Bukhari. Do you believe in Kalma e Tayyab (LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah 
He will say: "yes i believe in Kalma e Tayyab(LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah 
Then say to him: "prove 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah' from Sahih Bukhari... Prove 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah' from Sahi Bukhari ONLY because you said that you only believe in Sahih Bukhari.... By Allah you will not found this kalma in Sahih Bukhari... This kalma, 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah', you wont find in Sahih Muslim" 

''All the Hadiths are not in Bukhari, there are many books of Hadiths Of Prophet Muhammad[saw]'' 

PART 5: BUKHARI SHARIF & MUSLIM SHARIF                                                                  

VIDEO: Response to the one who says that i only believe in Bukhari Shariff | 3 MINS 13 SECS

URDU VIDEO: Saari Sahih Hadiths sirf Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim ya sirf Sihah Sitta ki baqi kitabo me jamah nahi hai! Sahih Hadiths bahoot si hadiths ki kitabo me jamah hai | 16 MINS 22 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 025 Sirf Sahih Bukhari wa Muslim ko manne wale fitne ka radd | 18 MINS 23 SECS

URDU VIDEO: Hadith k Sahih hone k koi pemana kitab per nahi hai (Har Sahih Hadith, Sahih Bukhari-Muslim me nahi hai) | 6 MINS 41 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 06 Sehat, strength,acceptibility or da’if of any hadith has nothing to do with any book, so STOP saying only Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim | 37 MINS 24 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 01 Saari Sahih Hadiths ka sirf Sahih Bukhari wa Sahih Muslim me na jamah hone ka saboot! Baaki Hadith books me bi Sahih Hadiths hai | 1 HOUR 45 MINS 18 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 011 Sahih Bukhari se pehle 100 kutubs(books) hadith ki likhi ja chuki thi | 4mins 20secs

URDU VIDEO: 012 Imam Bukhari k Madhhab ki tehqiq(with two examples) | 43mins 6secs

URDU VIDEO: 013 Jo sirf Sahih Bukhari ko mante he unhe khade(stand) hokar peshab karna chahiye | 5mins 21secs

URDU VIDEO: 014 Jo sirf Sahih Bukhari ko mante he vo moze per sirf ek bar masa kare | 4mins 22secs

URDU VIDEO: 021 Ye Shart Lagana K Sirf Sihah Sitta Se Dikhao To Manege Bilkul Galat Aur Jahilana He |  13mins 14secs

ENGLISH VIDEO: Imam Bukhari(rah) learnt 1 lakh Sahih Hadiths and 2 lakh Gair e Sahih Hadiths by heart | 10 MINS 39 SECS
ENGLISH VIDEO: Only Sahih Bukhari  Muslim are Authentic Source of Hadith | 6 MINS 39 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Reply to those who dont accept Al Adab Al Mufrad book of Imam Bukhari(rah) | 14 MINS 49 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Importance of Sanad (Chains of Transmission) | 37 MINS 49 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 01 Meaning of term 'Hadith' | 13 MINS 46 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 02 The word 'Sahih' or word 'Da'if' | 4 MINS 55 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 03 Collection and compilation of Hadiths and Usool e Hadith are Sunnah of Huzur(saw) | 12 MINS 48 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 04 Science of Isnad(Chain of Transmitters) is a part of Deen(Reply to those who says we dont believe in personalities) | 17 MINS 16 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 05 Founders and History of the Science of Hadith(Usool e Hadith) | 24 MINS 45 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 06 Sehat, strength,acceptibility or da’if of any hadith has nothing to do with any book, so STOP saying only Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim | 37 MINS 24 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 07 Even Da'if is a hadith! Gair e Sahih Hadith doesnt mean that its mawdu(fabricated or forged) | 15 MINS 8 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 08 Ranks in the system of Categorisation of Hadiths | 9 MINS 5 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 01 Understanding the concept of Da'if(weak) hadith through an example | 15 MINS 26 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 02 Categories of Hadith | 40 MINS 50 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 03 Reasons or causes which makes an Isnad(chain of transmitters) da'if | 43 MINS 58 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 04 Even if a Hadith is da'if, its acceptable in many circumtances and situations | 1 HOUR 13 MINS 2 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 05 A hadith of Huzur(saw) in favour of da'if(weak) hadith | 24 MINS 27 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 01 Usool e Hadith per likhi hui kuch books ke name | 11 MINS 57 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 02 Aqsam e Hadith aur Usool e Hadith k sabse bade Imam Ibn Saleh, Imam Nawawi, Ibn Kathir ne da'if hadith ko bi hadith kaha hai | 23 MINS 16 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 03 Sahih Hadith or Gair e Sahih Hadith ka matlab | 32 MINS 13 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 04 Sahih Hadith ki aqsam | 40 MINS 12 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 01 Saari Sahih Hadiths ka sirf Sahih Bukhari wa Sahih Muslim me na jamah hone ka saboot! Baaki Hadith books me bi Sahih Hadiths hai | 1 HOUR 45 MINS 18 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 02 Meaning and Introduction of Da'if Hadith | 49 MINS 4 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 03 Da'if hadith ka huqm | 36 MINS 50 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 04 Vo ahqaam jo sirf da'if hadith se sabit hai,  jo da'if hadith ko nai mante vo ye ahqaam bhi nai mane | 13 MINS 10 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 001 Usool e Hadith ki Tareekh | 1 HOUR 44 MINS 9 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 006 Hadith ki 3 qisme he aur da'if hadith bi HADITH HE (Qur'an wa Hadiths se) | 47 MINS 11 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 007 Hadith ki 3 qisme he aur da'if hadith bi HADITH HE (From Imams of Usool e Hadith) | 1 HOUR 23 MINS 4 SECS
URDU VIDEO: 008 Hadith e Sahih | 1 HOUR 3 MINS 56 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 009 Hadith e Da'if - Introduction and Kinds | 1 HOUR 33 MINS

URDU VIDEO: 030 Hadith e Da'if ka huqm | 35 MINS 30 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 003 Aj k kuch naam nihad ulema ka mangarhat Usool e Hadith k Ilm | 11 MINS 53 SECS

URDU VIDEO: 003 Imam Tirmidhi ne fuqhaa ka ikhtiyar(qubool) karna, Hadith ki maqbooliyat ka meyar bana diya | 2 MINS 39 SECS

URDU VIDEO: da'if hadith aur Imam Tirmidhi | 15 MINS 53 SECS

URDU VIDEO: Da'if hadith aur Mawdu ko ek misaal se samjhe | 6 MINS 48 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Da'if Hadith becoming a Hasan Hadith | 6 MINS 25 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Examples of Da'if Hadiths that are accepted | 10 MINS 5 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Hadith which is Strong but refused by Ijma | 44 MINS 24 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: If you dont accept a da'if hadith then you might be deprived from a virtuous act | 12 MINS 12 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: India has been one of the greatest seat of learning of science of hadith | 3 MINS 40 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Kinds of Sahih Hadith | 13 MINS 26 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Method of handling two seemingly or apparently contradictory Hadiths | 9 MINS 55 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: Weak Hadith, its kinds and conditions of acceptance (Brief Summary) | 9 MINS 57 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: What Does it Mean That Bukhari is the 'Most Authentic Book' | 16 MINS 5 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 01 Towards Understanding Hadith Part 1:  How Should Muslims Approach Hadith? | 1 HOUR 14 MINS 37 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 02 Towards Understanding Hadith 2: What Does it Mean That Bukhari is the 'Most Authentic Book' | 58 MINS 45 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 03 Towards Understanding Hadith 3:  Are All Authentic Hadiths Accepted ? | 1 HOUR 8 MINS 14 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 04 Towards Understanding Hadith 4:  Are All Weak Hadith Rejected? | 38 MINS 44 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 05 Towards Understanding Hadith 5: Who Are The Real Ahlul Hadith? | 27 MINS 42 SECS

ENGLISH VIDEO: 06 Towards Understanding Hadith 6: Who 'Rejects' Sahih Hadith? | 1 HOUR 32 MINS 56 SECS

URDU BOOK: Al Had Al Kaafi fi huqm al da’if By Ala Hadhrat (Scanned Version) | PAGES: 62

URDU BOOK: Al Had Al Kaafi fi huqm al da’if By Ala Hadhrat (Text Version) | PAGES: 67

ENGLISH BOOK: Are Weak Hadith Totally Wrong? | PAGES: 22

URDU BOOK: Zaeef wa Mauzooh ahadees ka fanni jaiza by Tufail Ahmad misbahi | PAGES: 62


The following paragraphs discredit the erroneous claim of some individuals: that only the narrations of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are authentic. This rebuttal is summarized in five points.

Firstly, in the fourth century of Islam, there existed a deviated sect which – like some individuals today- claimed that besides the ahadith of Sahihain, all other narrations are unacceptable. This false accusation was the reason for which Imam Abu Abdillah Muhammad ibn Abdillah Al-Hakim Al-Naisaburi (rahimahullah) compiled his famous work entitled: “Al-Mustadrak ‘alas Sahihain’’, in which he endeavored to compile those ahadith that fulfill the criteria of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim but were not included therein.

In his introduction, Imam Al-Hakim (rahimahullah) says:
“Neither of them (i.e. Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) or Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) have stated that there exists no other authentic narrations besides what they have chosen”.
 [Al Mustadrak, vol.1 pg.2]
When commenting on the criteria laid down by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim (rahimahumallah), the scholars generally rely upon their own scrutiny of the respective books (i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). The reason for this is that very little has being explained by the authors themselves. For example, Imam Al- Bukhari (rahimahullah) has not written an introduction to his book, wherein he would have mentioned his criterion for accepting ahadith as sahih, or as to what would be his methodology in his book. This naturally leads to difference of opinion among the scholars.
However, there can be no difference of opinion when “the man speaks for himself”, as is the case in the topic under discussion.
Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) said:
“I have memorized one hundred thousand authentic ahadith.”
[Tazkiratul Huffadh – vol.2 pg.556]
Interestingly, he only included nine thousand and eighty two of them (including repetitions) in his Al-Sahih! (Refer: Hadyus Saari, pg.653)

Imam Al-Isma’ili (rahimahullah) has quoted Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) as saying:
 ‘’I have only cited sahih (authentic) ahadith in this book (i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhari) However, the amount of sahih ahadeeth that I omitted there from is much more.’’
[Hadyus Saari pg.9]

Imam Ibrahim ibn Ma’qal Al-Nasafi (rahimahullah) reports that Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) said:
“I have only quoted authentic ahadith in my book, and I excluded many other authentic narrations for the fear of monotony.”
[ibid pg.9; Tarikh Dimashq vol.55 pg.54

Imam Abu Bakr al Hazimi (rahimahullah) states, ‘Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) never intended to encompass every authentic narration.’[Shurutul A-immah]

Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) has made a similar statement in his book Sahih Muslim, “Chapter on Tashahhud”:
 “I haven’t quoted every single authentic narration in this book.“ i.e, there are many authentic narrations that are not included therein.
Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) is also reported to have said:
 “I haven’t ever claimed that those narrations which are excluded from my Sahih are weak.My only claim is that the ahadith contained in my book are authentic.”
 [Tarikh Baghdad and Al-Imam Ibn Majah wa kitabu Al-Sunan, pg.107]

These quotations clearly explain the reality; that there exists many authentic narrations outside of the Sahihain.

The many types of Sahih Hadith
Secondly, Hafiz Ibn Salah (rahimahullah) and others have classified the Sahih ahadith in to seven categories:
1) Those ahadith that appear in both, Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (Muttafaq ‘Alaih)
2) Those ahadith that appear only in Sahih al Bukhari.
3) Those that appear only in Sahih Muslim.
4) Those that match the criteria of both, Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, but are not found therein.
5) Those that match the criteria of Sahih al Bukhari only and are not found therein.
6) Those that match the criteria of Sahih Muslim only and are not found therein.
7) Those that do not fit the description of any one of the above, but were classified authentic by some reliable Muhaddithun.

[Muqaddimah ibn Salah pg.27; Tadribur Rawi pg.73 and Sharh Nukhbah pg.64]

In light of the above, the last four types of ahadith do not appear in the Sahihain. Despite that, they are still considered as authentic.
Added to this is the fact that Imam Al-Hakim (rahimahullah) has cited ten types  of Sahih ahadith, many of which are not included in the Sahihain. [Tadribur Rawi pgs.85-86]

More Books that contain only Sahih Hadith
Thirdly, many Muhaddithun have compiled books which they ensured contained only authentic narrations.
Undoubtedly many of their narrations are not found in the Sahihain.
Some of these compilations are:
a) Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (rahimahullah)
b) Sahih ibn Khuzaimah
c) Sahih ibn Hibban
d) Al Mukhtarah of Imam Diyaudeen al Maqdisi (rahimahullah) and others.

The General Practice of the Scholars
Fourthly, the practice of all the Muhaddithun throughout time also confirms the prevalence of authentic ahadith outside of the Sahihain. In this regard, countless Muhaddithun have classified various ahadith (that do not appear in Sahihain) as Sahih.
Books such as the following clearly substantiate this:
a) Al-Targheeb wa Tarheeb of Hafidh Al-Mundhiri  (rahimahullah)
b) Riyadu Saliheen of Imam Al-Nawawi (rahimahullah)
c) Majma’uz Zawaid of ‘Allamah Al-Haithami (rahimahullah)
d) Nasbur Rayah of ‘Allamah Al-Zaila’ee (rahimahullah)
e) Fathul Bari of Hafidh Ibn Hajar Al-’Asqalani (rahimahullah)

Imam Bukhari Himself
Fifth and Lastly, there are several ahadith that are not in the sahihain which Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) was asked to comment on. Many of them have been classified as sahih by Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) himself! (Examples can be found in Al-‘Ilalul Kabeer of Imam Tirmidhi (rahimahullah)

These five points points are sufficient to prove the fallacy of the claim that: there exists no Sahih hadith outside of the Sahihain (Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).
Therefore, if any particular madhab (school of fiqh) substantiates its viewpoint with a narration outside of the Sahihain, there should be no objection as long as the narration is suited for that purpose.
One who demands otherwise is quite far off from reality, since the Imams of the four famous schools of fiqh actually lived before the existence of the Sahihain!


Hadith is the second source of Islam after the Qur’an. Whenever a Hadith is told to a Muslim, he immediately accepts it, but there are some people, who when they are told a Hadith, ask wether that Hadith is written in Bukhari or Muslim. They say, if it is written in Muslim and Bukhari then it should be accepted, but if it is not, then a doubt remains as to whether the Hadith is authentic or not.
Our claim to this is that it is not the command of Allah or our Prophet (May Allah bless Him and grant him peace) that we can only believe in those Ahadith which are written in Muslim or Bukhari and have doubts about the rest. People who fall into the category of people who use Bukhari and Muslim as their only sources of Sunnah claim:
(A) Many scholars of Islam have said that the Ahadith written in Muslim or Bukhari are authentic, but the Ahadith which are not in Muslim or Bukhari can be weak, fabricated or authentic.
(B) Muslim and Bukhari do not take narration from a weak narrator. Even if there was a weak narrator and Muslim and Bukhari took narration from the narrator, then the narrator is said to have “Crossed the Bridge” [1].
[[1]) Usually, when the scholars of Ahadith look at a Hadith they look for narrator’s authenticity (i.e. whether he was knowledgeable about Adieth or not), but if Muslim or Bukhari took narration from that narrator, then any doubt regarding the narrator authenticity is removed. It is said that that narrator has “crossed the bridge”.]
(C) The scholars of Hadith have not objected to any narration of Muslim and Bukhari.
(D) We do not need to see any other Ahadith books because Muslim and Bukhari have gathered all the authentic Ahadith in Muslim and Bukhari.
(E) No one has ever criticised Imams Muslim and Bukhari in regards to any mistake they may have made.

Whatever has been claimed above is not from the Qur’an or Sunnah. We will explain, with the help of Allah that these claims are false.
We say that an authentic Hadith is one, which meets the principals of authentication of Ahadith. It does not matter whether it is written in Muslim, Bukhari, Tirmidhi or Abu Dawud, or Muwatta of Imam Malik.

“The narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim have not been criticised by scholars of Ahadith”
Before we write about the actual narration of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari we will prove that to criticise the narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim is not forbidden.
Asqalani writes, “when you compare the narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim you will notice that Imam Muslim’s narration have been criticised a lot more by the scholars of Ahadith than the narration of Imam Bukhari. When Imam Bukhari took narration from his teachers, he was well aware of these narrations beforehand, On the other hand, when Imam Muslim took narration from his teachers, he had no previous information about them. This is another reason why Imam Bukhari is said to be better than Imam Muslim. Imam Bukhari carries less Shaadh and Muallal (types of weak Hadith) than Imam Muslim
(An-Nukhbah, chapter on Imams Bukhari and Muslim, by Hafidh Asqalani).

Imam Sakhawee writes that the status of Imam Bukhari is higher than Imam Muslim. The reason he gives this is that Imam Bukhari has taken narration from 435 narrators, among these narrators there are only 80 weak narrators. Imam Muslim has taken narration from 620 narrators. About 160 narrators are known to be weak from among these
(Fath-ul-mughees, chapter on Imams Bukhari and Muslim, by Imam Sakhawee)

Hafidhh Asqalani and Imam Ay’nee write that Imam Daar Qutni has written a book called “Istadrikaat” in which he has objected to many narrations of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari (Muqaddamah, Fath-ul-Baari by Hafidh Asqalani and Umdat-ul-qaari by Imam Ay’nee)

Hafidh Asqalani has attempted to answer the objection raised in the book. In the preface of Fath-ul-Baari, Imam Asqalani has answered some questions raised
(Muqaddamah Fath-ul-Baari, “Criticism of Imam Bukhari by Scholars of Ahadith” by Hafidh Asqalani)

Alaama Abu Fatah writes that Hafidhh Iraaqee has written in his book, “Al-Fayaah”, that he criticised only two narrations of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari. In my other book, “Sharh-ul-Kabeer”, I have gathered all the narration of Imam Bukhari and Muslim, which the scholars of Ahadith have criticised. Hafidhh Abu Ali Ghassaani has also compiled all the narration of Imam Muslim and Bukhari, which scholars of Hadith have criticised. Alaama Abu Masaud has also written a similar book
(Qawa’id Uloom Al-Hadith page 40 by Abu Fatah Al Damashqi)

It is clear that if the criticism of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari were forbidden, then the scholars of Ahadith would not have dared to criticise their narration. Even those people who have praised Imam Bukhari very highly have criticised him.
Hafidhh Asqalani writes: “Qaadhi Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi, in his commentary on Bukhari, claims that Imam Bukhari has written narration in Sahih-ul-Bukhari and that they have been narrated by at least two persons e.g. two companions heard a narration from our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and then two of the companions’ students heard it from the companions themselves, and so on. The scholars of Ahadith have proved this claim to wrong. The first narration in SaHiH-ul-Bukhari is narrated by Al-Qaama who heard it from Umar (May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace). This proves that Qaadhi Abu Baqaaree’s claim is wrong.
(An-Nukhba, p14 by Hafidh Asqalani)

There are many narrations of Imam Bukhari, which have been criticized, the detail can be found in Fath-ul-Baari and Umdat-ul-Qaari, whicj are written by Hafidh Abd-ul-Barr’s, and Ibn Jawzee’s books. Here are some examples from those books:
(1)Imams Bukhari and Muslim write that when the leader of the hypocrites, Abdullah bin Ubaydah died, his son came to see our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and asked him if he would perform his Father’s funeral prayer (Janaazah) As our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] stood up to read the Janaazah, Umar tugged his shirt and asked him: “Are you going to perform the Janazah?” Umar said that he was a hypocrite and that AllahAlmighty has forbidden him to perform a hypocrite’s Janaza. Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] then said to Umar that Allah Almighty had given him the choice of whether or not to read the Janazah of a hypocrite. According to this narration, the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said, “Allah Almighty has told me that if I ask for their forgiveness seventy times, He will not forgive them, but I will ask for their forgiveness more than seventy times. After this, our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] performed the Janaazah prayer. After the Janaazah, Allah Almighty revealed verse 80 of surat-ut-taubah. The revelation is as follows: “ Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]! If someone dies from among them (non-believer or hypocrite) do not say their Janaza or do not stand at their graves, because they have blasphemed with Allah and His Messenger.
(Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, chapters: “Janaaiz, Tafsir and Fadaa’il Umar)

Hafidhh Asqalani, Imam Anee and other scholars of Hadith write that whether our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and Umar had this discussion is doubtful. Qadhi Abu Bakr has said that it is not permissible to accept this narration, as it is not true. Hafidhh Asqalani has said this is a narration from those, narrations that have not been authenticated. Imam Al-Haramain has said that the scholars of Ahadith do not accept this narration. Imam Ghazali and Imam Daudi have said that it is clear that this Hadith is not true.

The reason that the above scholars have not accepted this Hadith is that before this event verse 80 of surat-ut-taubah was already revealed. The meaning of that verse is O Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]! If you ask for their forgiveness, or if you do not ask for their forgiveness, or if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah Almighty will not forgive them because they disbelieve in Allah Almighty and his Messenger [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. From the meaning of the above verse, we can establish three facts.

· The first fact is that whether the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] asks for their forgiveness or not, the hypocrites will not be forgiven.
· The second fact is that if the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] asked for their forgiveness more than seventy times, his prayer will still not be granted. The word “seventy” mentioned does not actually mean seventy times; rather it means “no matter how many times”.
· The third fact is that the hypocrites have disbelieved in Allah Almighty and His Messenger[May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] so they cannot be forgiven. With the above facts in mind, how can our Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] be able to say that he has been given a choice by Allah Almighty whether or not to say their Janaazah? Secondly, how did our Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] establish that Allah Almighty will not forgive them if he asks for forgiveness seventy times, but will forgive them if the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] asks for their forgiveness more than seventy times?

Allah Almighty verified Umar’s understanding by revealing verse 83 of surat-ut-taubah. The general meaning is: “if anyone dies from among the non-believers, do not read their Janaazah and do not stand at their graves.” From reading the above verse, it seems as though Umar had a better understanding of verse 80 of surat-ut-taubah than our Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. This is impossible and is not acceptable. Before this event, when the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] was living in Makkah, his uncle Abu Talib, died and The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] said that he would make du’aa for his uncle until Allah stops him. Verses of 113 and 114 of surat-ut-taubah were then revealed. These state that it is not fitting for our Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] or any other Muslim to ask for forgiveness for a non-believer. Prophet Ibrahim[May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] stopped asking for forgiveness for his Uncle when he learnt that he was a non believer
(Fath-ul-Baari, Umdat-ul-Qaari, Tasayyar-ul-Qaari, ShahH Bukhari by Hafidh Asqalani, Imam Anee and Shaikh Dhelwi).

(2) Imam Bukhari writes that Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet SAW said, that on the Day of Judgement when Allah TA’ALA throws the people into hellfire, hellfire will say give me more. Then Allah TA’ALA will create a nation and then throw them into it. Hellfire will again say I want more, and again Allah TA’ALA will create a nation and throw them into it, hellfire will again say I want more, then Allah TA’ALA will put His feet onto hellfire then it will be full.
(Bukhari Kitab-al-Tawheed Chapter Tawheed).

Hafidhh Asqalani writes that Imam Bukhari has written this hadith in Tafsir of Surah Qaaf. In this narration when hellfire asks for more Allah TA’ALA will put His feet onto it and then it will be full, and Allah TA’ALA is never cruel but in Abu Hurairah’s above narration it says that Allah TA’ALA will create a nation and fill hellfire with it. Hafidhh ibn Qayyam, Abu Hassan Qubsi and other groups of scholar of Hadith say that the narrator of this Hadith has fabricated this by saying that Allah TA’ALA will create a nation to fill hellfire. They say that Allah TA’ALA created hellfire for those people who follow satan, and that the new creation would never have sinned, so how could Allah TA’ALA put them in hellfire? Allah TA’ALA also says in the Qur’an that He never does injustice to anyone. (Surah al-Qaaf Verse 49).

The scholars also say that to fill hellfire, Allah TA’ALA would fill it with stones as this has no life, but humans have a life. Other scholars say that Allah TA’ALA is all powerful and could punish anyone without a sin as He wills, and is not answerable to anyone.
(Fathul Bari Chapter on Tawheed).

Hafidhh ibn Taymiyyah writes that an authentic narrator sometimes makes mistakes, but knowledgeable scholars of Hadith find these mistakes straight away, like Imam Bukhari writes in Kitab-al-Tawheed that Allah TA’ALA will create a new nation and fill hellfire with it. A master of Hadith will find out straight away if a narrator has made a mistake. These mistakes by narrators are also found in other Hadith books. Imam Muslim writes that when the Prophet SAW married his wife Mamunah after he had taken off the Ahram from himself, the Prophet SAW did not perform 2 rakat nafal inside the Kaba.
A person with deep knowledge of Hadith will straight away know the narrator of this Hadith has made a mistake because it is proved from another authentic Hadith:
That the Prophet SAW never performed Umrah in the month Of Rajab when the Prophet [May Allah blessHim and grant Him Peace] married his wife Mamunah, he was wearing the ahram and he did perform 2 rakat nafal inside the Kaaba.”
There is another narration of ibn Umar that the Prophet SAW performed Umrah in the month of Rajab.
(Usooleh Tafsir Chapter Ijma-al-Muhaddiseen by Hafidhh ibn Taymiyyah).

From the above statement we can see that Hafidhh ibn Taymiyyah has criticized Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslims narration's.

(3) Imam Bukhari writes, after the death of the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace], umm-ul-mu’mineen Sawda, was the first to die. [Bukhari, chapter of Zakaah by Imam Bukhari]
Hafidh Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes that this is wrong, and that umm-ul-mu’mineen Zainab died first. Imam Ibn Jawzi says this narration is not correct and it is very strange that Imam Bukhari wrote this. Imam Nawawi also says that Imam Bukhari has made mistakes.
(Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Zakaah, by Hafidhh Asqalani)

(4) Imam Bukhari states, that the Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] wife, Ummay Habeeba heard that her Father died in Syria.
[Bukhari chap Janaa’iz,]
Hafidhh Asqalani says, “All the scholars agree that Ummay Habeeba’s Father died in Madinah and that the word Syria was incorrectly used in this narration. (Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Janaa’iz)

(5) Imam Bukhari states, that in the Battle of Badr, Khabaib bin Addi killed Haris.
[Bukhar chap of Al-Maghasi, chapter 38,]
Hafidhh Asqalani says that the majority of scholars say that Khabaab never joined in the battle of Badr. (Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Maghasi, by Hafidh Asqalani]

(6) Imam Bukhari states that a man was punished by Uthman [Radi alla hu anhu] who was whipped eighty times.
[Bukhari, Fadaa’il-ul-Uthman]
Hafidh Asqalani says this is not right as the man was whipped forty times as written in other narrations.
(Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Fadaa’il-ul-Uthmaan, by Hafidh Asqalani)

(7) Imam Bukhari states that Abu Hurairah said, “I went with the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to Banoo Qainuqah’s market and he sat in Fatimah’s garden.
[Bukhari chap Maazukirah Fil Aswaaq]
Hafidhh Asqalani states that in this narration, certain words are missing because Fatimah’s house was not in Banoo Qainuqah. The proper narration is the one that Imam Muslim records, which is:
“The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] went to Banoo Qainuqah and then he returned and went to Fatimah’s house.” Faatimah’s house was in the middle of the Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] wives’ houses.
(Fath-ul-Baari, chapter “Fadaa’il Aswaq” by Hafidhh Asqalani)

(8) Imam Bukhari states after the death of Uthmaan, no one stayed alive from among the companions of Badr. When the war of Harra happened, none of the Hudaibiyah companions were left alive.
[Bukhari chapter Mughasi]
Hafidhh Asqalani says that this is false becaused after the death of Uthman (Radi allah hu anhu), from the companions of Badr, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Saad (Radi allah hu anhu) and other companions were alive after Uthmaan died. Hafidh Asqalani has also proved that the second part of this narration is incorrect.
(Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Fitan, by Hafidh Asqalani)

(9) Imam Bukhari states, that when Aadam [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] was created, he was sixty feet high.
[Bukhari chapter Anbiya]
Hafidhh Asqalani states “If this was in fact true, the houses of the previous nations (like ‘Aad and thamood) should be higher than our houses but this is not the case. This has confused me until now.” (Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Anbiyaa’, by Hafidhh Asqalani)

(10) Imam Bukhari says that Abu-Musa said that when our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was going towards Khaybar. The people who were behind him were shouting “Allah is great” in loud voices. Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] told them not to shout in loud voices but to recite it normally.
(Bukhari, Chapter on Khaibar).
Hafidh Asqalani and Hafidh Ibn Kathir say that this cannot be right as Abu-Musa Ash’aree came from Habsha to the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] after Khaybar was won along with the Muhajirs (Immigrants). In Bukhari, it also proved that Abu-Musa came to Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] after the war of Khaybar was over. This means that it would not be correct to say that this event took place on the way.
(Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Khaybar, by Hafidh Asqalani and Sirat-un-Nabi, by Hafidh ibn Kathir)

(11) Imam Bukhari says that Umar Bin Maymoon said: “I saw a monkey who had just committed adultery with another one. Other monkeys then stoned them both, so I also started to throw stones as well.”
(Bukhari, “Ayyaam-ul-Jaahiliyyah”)
Hafidh Asqlani writes: Alaama Ibn Abd-ul-Barr says: “This narration is wrong because, enforcing an Islamic law on a animal about regarding any matter would be wrong. If in any way you were to say that the words of this narration were true then it would be correct to say that the monkey was in fact, a Jinn.” Humaidee says that this account was not actually in the original Bukhari, but someone has added it later. Nusqi wrote the second version of Bukhari, and this narration was not written in it. If we were to say that Hafidh Humaydi and Ibn Abdul-Barr are right, then what about the Ulamaa’ (Scholars) who say that all the Ahadith written in Bukhari are correct.
(Fathul-ul-Baari, “Ayyaamul-Jaahiliyyah” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Imam Badr-ud-deen Anee has said it is not true that all the Hadith contained in Bukhari are authentic. The reason he gives it that Imam Bukhari has taken some narration from the people who were from misled sects.
(Umdat-ul-qaari, “Al-Munaqib”)
Hafidh Asqalani himself has criticised many of Imam Bukhari’s narrations. The preface of Fath-ul-Baari contains a list of all the scholars who have criticised Bukhari’s narration. In some places, he has tried to answer some of the objections raised. So how then can anyone claim that there is no argument concerning the narrations of both Imam Bukhari and Muslim? Our shaykh Shah Abul Husain Zaid Farooqee (may god bless him) has said that Ibn Maymoon saw the monkeys before the Islamic order for stoning an adulterer was revealed. And, even the monkeys were jinnaat, so how could they be punished?

(12) Imam Bukhari writes that Shareek narrated from Anas concerning the incident when our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was taken on the miraaj. The narration states that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was asleep in the ka’bah before the first revelation came, and in his dream, three angels came to him and talked about his excellency and went away. The same thing happened on the second night,
but on the third night our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was taken on the miraaj. (Bukhari, “Siraat-un-nabi” and “Kitaab-ut-tawheed”)
Hafidh Asqalani writes that the narration, which states that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was taken on the miraaj before the first revelation of the Qur’an, is not acceptable. The ummah is in agreement that the miraaj took place after Muhammad [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] obtained Prophethood and before the emigration to Madeenah. Imam Khatabee, Ibn Hazm, Qadi Iyad and Imam Nawawi also reject the above narration.
(Fath-ul-Baari, “At-tawheed” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh Ibn Quyaam writes that the journey to heaven took place only once, it was after the first revelation. May AllahAlmighty bless Imam Muslim as he did not write this narration.
(Zaad-ul-Maad, “Asrah” by ibn Qayyam)
Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes that the content of the above narration has been altered from the original version. This is because Shareek was unable to remember the actual words of the Hadith. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, surah Banee Israa’eel, Aayah 1)
Ibn Muhammad bin Abdul Wahaab ul Najdi writes that the miraaj occurred only once and it happened before the hijrah to Madeenah. The scholars of Ahadith have rejected Shareek’s narration. (Mukhtassar-us-Sirat-ur-rasool, chapter “Asra” by Ibn Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahaab-un-Najdi)
Hafidh Asqalani writes that the above narration is one of those narration which scholars of Ahadith have criticised. The scholars who have criticised this narration have deep knowledge of Ahadith and had studied them from ecvonceivable point.
(Muqaddamah Fath-ul-Baari, Chapter Ta’an Daar Qurtubee ‘Alal-Bukhari” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Imam Dhahabi writes that Shareek’s narration is one of those narration which no one has verified. (Mizaan-ul-I’tidaal, biography of Shareek, by Hafidh Dhahabi)

(13)Imam Muslim writes that Abu Sa’eed narrated from the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] that he ordered us to not write down any of his Ahadith, also he narrated that any one who has written his Ahadith other then Qur’an should destroy it. (Muslim, “Zuhad”)
Hafidh Asqalani writes that Imam Bukhari and other scholars have said that this narration is not authentic. This is not our Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] Hadith, but, in fact, these are the words of Abu Sa’eed himself. It is clear from many other Ahadith that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] has given us the permission to write his Hadith. (Fath-ul-Baari, “Kitaabaat-ul-’Ilm” by Hafidh Asqalani)

(14) Muslim writes that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] had many wives and that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] gave equal time to each wife, but there was one wife who did not have her fixed time. Her name was Safiyyah.
(Sahih Muslim, “Chapter Rada”)
Imam Nawawi has written that the narrators of this Hadith, Atha and Ibn Jurayj have made a mistake inthe name Safiyyah, which should have been Sawdah. Imam Muslim has written in the same chapter that our Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] wife, Sawdah, had given her turn to A’isha. (Sharh Sahih Muslim, “Ar-radah” by Imam Nawawi)
Moreover, Imam Bukhari, Imam Abu Daud, Imam Ibn Sa’ad, Imam Ibn Kathir and Hafidh Asqalani have written that the name of the wife of Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] who gave up her turn was Sawdah. (Bukhari, “Nikaah”, Abu Daud, “Nikaah”, Tabakath Ibn Sa’ad “Usd-ul-Ghaabah”, Ashaabah, “Biography of Sawdah”).

(15) Imam Bukhari has written that Abu Hurairah has said that the Muslims were victorious in the war of Khahybar and during the war there was a man who seemed to be fighting very bravely our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] said that he would go to hell. (Sahih Bukhari, “Al Khaibar”)
Hafidh Asqalani writes that it is implied, from the above narration, that Abu Hurairah was present in the war of Khaybar. I (Asqalani) feel that when writing this narration, Imam Bukhari did not give his full attention, because Abu Hurairah came to our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to become a Muslim after the war of Khaybar. Imam Bukhari has also written, in the same chapter, that Abu Hurairah came to see Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] when he was dividing the spoils of war and that the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] gave some to Abu Hurairah is well. (Fath-ul-Baari, “Khaybar” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh Ibn Kather, Hafidh Ibn Alquayaam, Imam Ibn Atheer and Hafidh Asqalani write that Abu Hurairah went to Madinah to see our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] In Madina he prayed Salaah, someone else lead the Salaah prayer, after the prayers Abu Hurairah learnt that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] has gone to war at Khaybar. Abu Hurairah also traveled to Khaybar, but when he reached Khaybar the war has ended and our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was dividing the spoils of war.
(Sirat un Nabi and Zahdual Maad chap Khaybar, Usdual Gahbah and Al Sabaah biography of Abu Hurairah by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Quayum, Ibn Atheer and Hafidh Asqalani).

(16)Imam Muslim writes that Abu Hurairah reported that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] said that AllahAlmighty created the earth on Saturday, the mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, mad things on Tuesday, light on Wednesday, animals on Thursday and on Friday, Prophet Aadam was created.(SaHiH Muslim, “Al munfiqee”)
Hafidh Ibn Kathir has said that this is an odd narration. Imam Bukhari and Imam Ibne Madani were not satisfied with this narration. The scholars of Ahadith have said that theses are not the words of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace], but are the words of Kaab who was a Jew and who embraced Islam. The narrators of this Hadith have mistaken the words of Kaab to be the words of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. Imam Bayhaqi has also rejected this Hadith. There is more concrete proof that this narration is not authentic because Allah, Almighty has said in the Qur’an that the earth and the skies were created in six days. How can our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] say anything, which goes against the Qur’an?
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, surat-ul-Baqarah, verse 29, surat-ul-a’raaf, verse 54 and Tarikh Ibn Kathir, volume 1, “World Creation” by Ibn Kathir)

(17)Imam Muslim writes that Ibn Abbas reported that when Abu Sufiyaan became a Muslim, he said to the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] that he had a most beautiful girl in the whole of Arabia. Her name is Ummay Habeebah. Abu Sufiyaan then said that he wished to her marry with the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. (Sahih Muslim, “Fadaa’il abu Sufiyaan”)
Imam Nawawi has written that the objection to this narration is that Abu Sufiyaan became a Muslim in the 8th year of Hijrah which was after the victorious war of Makkah. At this time Ummay Habeebah was already the wife of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. How, therefore, can Abu Sufiyaan ask our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to marry his daughter again? It is said that the narrator of this Hadith is weak. If Abu Sufiyaan did wish to marry this daughter to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] again, he would not need to mention that she was the most beautiful girl in whole of Arabia, and that her name was Ummay Habeebah. If he did wish to marry his daughter again, in Abu Sufiyaan’s presence, all he had to do was to make a request. I think that the first answer is more authentic.
(Sharh Muslim, “Fadaa’il Abu Sufiyaan” by Imam Nawawee)
Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes that Imam Muslim has said that Abu Sufiyaan made a request to our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to marry Ummay Habeebah when Abu Sufiyaan became a Muslim. This statement is not true. Ibn Hazm has said that this is a fabricated Hadith and it is made up by Ikraamah bin Ammaar. The other scholars of Ahadith say that we should not call this a fabricated Hadith but we should say that the narrator has made a mistake.
(Sirat-un-nabi and Tareekh Ibn Kathir, “Nikaah of Ummay Habeebah”, by Hafidh Ibn Kathir)
Hafidh Asqalani, Hafidh ibn Atheer and Hafidh Ibn Asakir write that the scholars of Ahadith have objected to this Hadith, because it has been proved that Ummay Habeebah had already, been married to our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] when Abu Sufyan became a Muslim. There is a famous narration that there was an agreement between the Muslims of Madeenah and the non-believers of Makkah, but non-believers of Makkah did not abide by the agreement and the Muslim of Madeenah announced that they would cancel the agreement. Abu Sufyan went to his daughter’s house in Madeenah. As Abu Sufyan was just about to sit on a bed which, was in the room, Ummay Habeebah asked her Father to wait. She removed the bedspread and said that it was the bedspread of the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. Abu Sufyan then said to his daughter that you changed.
(Asahbah Usd-ul-Ghaabah, Ibn Asahquir, “Biography of Ummay Habibah” by Hafidh Asqalani, Ibn Atheer and Ibn Askhir)
Hafidh Ibn Taymiyyah writes that Imam Muslim has written those types of narration to which Scholars of Ahadith have objected e.g. AllahAlmighty made the skies and earth in seven days, Abu Sufiyaan asked our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to marry his daughter after becoming Muslim, Another narration, in the book Salaah, where it can be interpreted that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] had two sons called Ibrahim, (When we know that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] had only one son called Ibrahim) At-Tawasul, Uloom Hadith and Fatwaa Ibn Taymiyyah, vol.18, “chap Maqaam Bukhari wa Muslim” by Ibn Taymiyyah)

(18)Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim have said that the war of Mustalak happened in 4 Hijree as Musaa bin Uqbah has said. Ibn Is-haaq has said that it happened in 6 hijri. Mustalak was in the war when Aisha was falsely accused of a sin she did not commit. Aisha has said that when she was falsely accused, the verse of veil was revealed. One day our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was talking to some people and he said “Some people have falsely accused my wife, but I can only see goodness in her”. From the evidence, Saad bin Maas, stood up and said “If the person who has falsely accused your wife is from our tribe, I will kill him”
(Bukhari, “Magaazee” and Muslim, “Tawbah”)
Hafidh Asqalani has written that Imam Bukhari has said that the war of Mustalaq happened in 4 hijrah. Imam Bukhari has made a mistake, because the war of Mustalaq happened in 5 hijrah. I feel that Imam Bukhari wanted to write down 5 but he wrote down 4, because Imam Bukhari also wrote a Hadith in “Jihad” which proves that the war of Mustalaq happened in 5 hijri. Secondly, the narration where Saad bin Maas has said that he would kill the slanderer is also wrong. This is because Saad bin Maas was martyred in the war of Khandaq, (which happened before the war of Mustalaq). ‘Aisha has said, “When I was falsely accused, the verse of veil was revealed and it was revealed after the war of Khandak.” s
(Fath-ul-Baari, “ “Magaazee” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes that Saad bin Maas was martyred in the war of Khandak, after which, our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] married Zainab and after that the verse of Hijaab was revealed. This all happened before the war of Mustalaq and the false accusation was leveled at ‘Ai’sha. (Sirat-un-Nabi, and “Tareekh Ibn Kathir” by Hafidh Ibn Kathir)
Imam Nawawi has said that the narration where Saad bin Maas has said that he would kill the slanderer is hard to believe, because all the Islamic historians are in agreement that Saad bin Maas was martyred before the war of Mustalaq. Qadhi Iyad has said that to include Saad Bin Maas in this Hadith is a Mistake of the narrators. The more likely person to have said those words could be Saad bin Abadah. (Sahrh Sahih Muslim, “Tawbah” by Imam Nawawi)
Imam Nawawi, Imam ibn Atheer, Imam Tabaree, Hafidh ibn Qayyam, Ibn Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhaab an-Najdi have written that when the false accusation was leveled at Aisha, Saad bin Maas was not alive.(Tareekh Tabaree, Usd-ul-Ghaabah, Zaad-ul-Ma’aad, Muktaasar Sirat-ur-Rasool, “Mustalak and Khandak” by Imam Tabaree, Imam ibn Atheer, Hafidh ibn Qayyam and ibn Shaykh an Najdi)

(19)Imam Bukhari writes that on the day of judgement, when Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] will see his Father, he will say to Allah, “You made a promise to me, that you will not make me sad on the day of judgement”. Allah will reply “I have made it forbidden for the non-believers to enter Jannah.
(Bukhari, “Tafsir”)
Hafidh Asqalani writes that Ismaa’eelee has said that this Hadith is wrong, it has no origin and it is doubtful. This is because this Hadith goes against the Qur’an. Allah tallah says in the Qur’an“when Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] found out that his Father was the enemy of Allah Ta’ala, he stopped praying for him” (soorat-ut-tawbah, verse 120) Secondly, when Allah Tahlah makes a promise, it is always fulfilled. From this narration it seems as though Allah tahlah does not fulfill his promises.
(Fath-ul-Baari, “Tafsir” by Hafidh Asqualani)

(20) Imam Bukhari writes that Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] never lied except on three occasions. On one occasion, members of his tribe asked him to accompany them to a fayre, he said to them that he was ill. Secondly, when Ibreaheem [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] broke the pagan idols and he was asked if he broke them, he said that big idol had destroyed them. The third “lie” was when Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] was travelling with his wife and they reached a place whose king was an oppressor. Someone went to the King and informed him that a person had arrived in his city accompanied by a very beautiful woman whom the king would like. The King then asked to see Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] and asked him who the woman was. Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] replied “She is my sister.” Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] returned and told his wife: “I have told the king that you are my sister. You and I are the only two Muslims in the world and when you are asked about this, you must not make me out as a liar.”

(21)(Bukhari, “Fadaa’l Ibraaheem)
Sayyed Mawdoodee writes:
“The above Hadith, which is in Bukhari and Muslim, has authentic narrators. But it is very difficult for me to believe that Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] would lie and also our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] would say that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] has lied. In this narration there must be some misunderstanding by the narrators. The first two “lies” mentioned in this narrations are not actually lies and the third “lie” is fabricated by the Jews. This has been mentioned twice in the Bible. Let us examine these lies. The first “lie”, that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] said that he was ill, is written in the Qur’an. For this to be proved a lie it must first be established that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] said that he was not ill but was healthy, by some evidence better then the Qur’an. The second lie: when Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] was asked if he broke the idols and replied: “Ask these broken idols who has broken them if they can speak”.
From the above statement it can be established that it is not a lie, but an attempt to demonstrate that these idols which the pagans worshipped as Gods, were actually rock and nothing else. If an ordinary person cannot call this a lie then how can our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] say so the third lie is one of those lies which has been made up by the Jews and it’s the aim was to disgrace Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace]. In the Bible, book of Genesis chapters 12 and 20, it is mentioned that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] went to a kingdom whose king was an oppressor. It is mentioned in this book that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace]’s wife was 60 years old, on one occasion and 90 years old on the other. Therefore, how can a king can summon some one to come to his palace and quiz him about the woman he was accompanying. It is clearly understood that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] did not lie and that Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] did not say that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] lied. Some people think that the narrators of this narration are authentic and to accept this narration for this reason would not be acceptable because I feel that we would then be accepting that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] has lied. Imam Raazi has said that when a narration is attributed to Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace], which is a lie. It is better to attribute the lie to a narrator. But I feel that it is sufficient to say that the narrators have made a mistake in understanding the narration.”
(Rasaa’il-ul-Masaa’il, chapter 1, “Tafsir Tafheem ul Qur’an, Surat-us-Saffaat, verse 23 by Sayyed Mawdoodi)

The claim that the scholars of Hadith have not objected to any narrators of Muslim and Bukhari is false. Not only did the scholars of Hadith criticise Imam Bukhari’s and Muslim’s narrators, they also criticised on Bukhari and Muslim themselves.

Hafidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes that Hafidh Saalih said: “One day, Hafidh Abu Zur’ah said to me “I have read Imam Bukhari’s Tareekh, and in it, I have found many mistakes.” I informed him “When a person of Bukhara (Bukhari’s home town) goes to Iraq and comes back with new information, Imam Bukhari always reads it. The writing style of these people was quite unusual. This meant that Imam Bukhari had difficulty in reading the narration. This is why Imam Bukhari made mistakes. Otherwise, he is the best from among all the scholars of Kharasaan”
(Tahdheeb ul Tahdheeb, By Hafidh Asqalani, biography of Imam Bukhari)

Imam Muslim writes, “In our time some, people think that they are scholars of Hadith. They have made up false conditions in order to accept Hadith. One of them says, “When you take a narration of Hadith from a narrator, you must make sure that the narrator and his narrator have met. It is not enough that they were simply alive at the same time.” This is an innovation because none of the previous great scholars of Hadith have mentioned this condition. This condition is very wrong, and I refute this condition in case people who are less knowledgeable might accept this.
(Sahih ul Muslim, Chapter Mu’an‘an)

Imam Nawawi writes that the condition which Imam Muslim has discussed above, has been introduced by Imam Bukhari and his teacher, Imam Ali bin Madeenee.
(Sharh Muslim, Chapter Mu’an’an)

Imam Bukhari writes that Malik was a companion of the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace], and Bohainah was his mother.
(Bukhaari, Chapter Salaah)

Hfidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani has said “Imam Bukhari has made two mistakes. Malik was not the companion of Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and that Bohaina was not Malik’s mother.
(Fath-ul-Baari, “Kitaab-us-Salaah”, chapter 38)

Hafidh Dhahabi and Hafidh Ibn Kathir write that when Imam Bukhari took narrations from the Syrians, he made mistakes.
(Tadhkaraat-ul-Huffaad, and Taareekh Ibn Kathir Biography of Imam Muslim)

Hafidh Iraqi writes: “Imam Ibn Abi Hatam (The famous Scholar of Al-Jarhu Ta’deel) compiled all of the mistakes that were apparent in Imam Bukhari’s “Taareekh”, into one book entitled “Khata’ ul Bukhari”(Mistakes of Bukhari).
(Preface of Ibn Al Salaah, by Hafidh Iraqi)

Imam Ibn Abi Hatam wrote: “When Imam Abu Hatam and Imam Abu Zur’ah heard that Imam Bukhari said that the Qur’an is creation, they stopped taking any narrations of Hadith from him.
(Al Jarhu Ta’deel, by Imam Ibn Hatam, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)

Hafidh Asqalani writes:
“In 250 Hijri, Bukhari went to Nashapur. The people of Nashapur rolled out a red carpet for him. Imam Zuhlee, (who was Imam Bukhari’s teacher,) also came to embrace him. Prior to Imam Bukhari’s reception, Imam Zuhlee announced that Imam Bukhari was to make a speech and that no-one should ask him: “Wether the Qur’an was a creation[2]. He feared that if Imam Bukhari’s answer contradicted Imam Zuhlee’s belief then a difficult situation could arise, could expose both scholars to which ridicule by other sects. Everything went well for the first two days but on the third day someone in the audience asked the question, “Are the words of Qur’an a creation of Allah?” Imam Bukhari replied: “Our actions are creation and the words which we recite are part of our actions.” Some of the audience perceived that Imam Bukhari had called the Qur’anic word a creation. This misunderstanding resulted in commotion, which prompted the house-owner to ask everyone to leave. When Imam Zuhlee, (who was not present at the speech,) heard of Imam Bukhari’s public statement about the Qur’anic words he announced: “The Qur’an is not a creation. Any one claiming otherwise is an innovator and everyone must avoid him at all times.” He also added, “Anyone who attends Imam Bukhari’s meetings, will be considered an innovator too.” With the exception of Ahmad Bin Salmah and Imam Muslim, Imam Bukhari was outcast by everyone. Imam Muslim played a neutral part in this debate. After this incident, Imam Muslim did not include any Hadith narrated by either Imam Bukhari or Imam Zuhlee in Sahih Muslim. I think that Imam Muslim acted justly in this matter. A few days later, Imam Zuhlee declared that it was not possible for him to live in the same city as Imam Bukhari. Imam Bukhari then left Nashapur for his hometown Bukharah. Also Imam Zuhlee, through his supporters, publicised in Bukhaara, that Imam Bukhari held controversial beliefs. After arriving in Bukhaarah, Imam Bukhari faced much hostility. His adversaries made it difficult for him to live in Bukhara. This provoked him to leave for Sammarqand. On his way he was informed that the people of Sammarqand were also split concerning his views. Imam Bukhari then prayed, “Oh Allah! if your vast earth is being reduced on me, I ask to be freed from this life.” History records that Imam Bukhari died on the 1st of Shawwaal, 256 Hijri - one month after his prayer.
(Muqaddamah Fath-ul-Baari, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)

Imam Subqi writes that at the time Imam Zuhlee heard the news that Imam Bukhari had given an answer to a question related to the Qur’an, which was vague and was open to many interpretation, he received a letter from scholars of Hadith who lived in Baghdad. The content of this letter stated that the scholars advised Imam Bukhari not to make any statements regarding the question “Is the Qur’an a creation or not?” but he ignored their advice and made the statement anyway. This statement made the people to quibble amongst themselves. (Tabakt-ush- Shaafi’ah, by Imam Subqui, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)

Hafidh Asqalani and Imam Dhahabi write that even after this dispute Imam Bukhari included 43 Ahadith narrated by Imam Zuhlee in his book, Sahih ul Bukhari. To avoid embarrassment, each Hadith was written not the narrators name disguised, e.g. narrated by Mohammad or ibn Abdullah or ibn Khalid, to attribute Imam Zuhlee to his Father’s or grandFather’s names.
(Tahadeeb ut Tahadeeb and Alaam un Nubalaa by Hafidh Asqalani and Hafidh Dhahabi, “Biography of Imam Zuhlee”)

Hafidh Asqalani writes:
“May Allah send blessing on Imam Bukhari. Imam Bukhari has collected the principle of Hadith (Usool) and taught it to people. After Imam Bukhari anything which has been written, includes quotes from his book. Imam Muslim has written books whose content has been taken from Imam Bukhari’s books. Imam Muslim has copied Imam Bukhari’s books and did not have the courtesy to acknowledge him in them. Imam Darr Qutni said that if Imam Bukhari did not exist there would not even be the name of Imam Muslim. Imam Muslim has done nothing special, what he has done that he has is taken some Ahadith from Imam Bukhari’s book and has added some more Ahadith to complete his book, Sahih Muslim.
(Muqaddamah Fath-ul-Baari, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)

If this accusation was made at any other scholar of Ahadith, every one would have called him stealer of Ahadith and all his narrations would have been rejected.
If someone wishes to explore the criticism of Imam Muslim and Bukhari, they should study “Al-JarH-ut- wat Ta’deel”. These books have been written by different scholars of Ahadith and describe, in detail, the characteristics of narrators. (e.g. Wether they were weak,
authentic, knowledgeable, good or bad natured, and which sect they belonged to)

Many Narrators of Imam Muslim and Bukhari have been criticised overwhelmingly. The claim that no one has criticised them clearly illustrates the claimant’s lack of knowledge at the subject matter.
The following are some narrators of Muslim and Bukhari who have been criticised by the scholars of Ahadith. The information below has been obtained from the books of Hafidh Asqalani and Hafidh Dhahabi.

1) Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah (Teacher and narrator of Imam Bukhari and Muslim)
Imam Ajaali has said that he used to tell such types of Hadith that when we had heard them, it would make us pray to Allah to keep our Imaan alive and take refuge in Allah. An example of the type of narrations he used to tell is: “Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] attended a festival of non-believers and respected their idols the way they respected them. This is the reason why two angels refused to pray behind our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace].” Scholars of Hadith have said that this situation would never arise with our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. This Hadith is most definitely fabricated. Uthmaan, also used to interpret the Qur’an incorrectly and disrespected it by changing its words.
When he recited the verses of the Qur’an like surah al-hadid verse 13, Allah says ‘fa-duri-ba-bay-na-hum-bisoorilla hu baab’ meaning ‘a wall will be set up between the Muslims and the hypocrites in which there is a door’.
He used to recite the verse like this, ‘fa-duri-ba-bay-na-hum-bi-sunnuh-rin-la-hu-naab’ which meant that ‘there will be placed between them a cat and it will have a tail’. Another verse which he mocked was Surah Yusuf verse 10, ‘fa-lamma-jah-haza-bi-ja-haz-za-hum-ja-ala-assiqa-yata-fi-rahli-akhi-hi’ which means, ‘when he makes ready their baggage, he put the drinking cup in the saddle bag of his brother’.
Ibn Abi Shayba used to recite that verse in the following way, ‘fa-lumma-jah-haza-hum-bi-ja-haz-zi-him-ja-ala-asifinata-fi-rahli-akhi-hi’, which means ‘and when he made ready the baggage, he put a ship in the saddle bag of his brother’.
In Surah al-Shuara verse 130, ‘fa-izaa-ba-tash-tum-ba-tash-tum-jabbaa-reen’ which means, ‘and when you lay your hands on anyone, you lay hands in unjustice’. Ibn Abi Shaybah used to recite the verse like this, ‘fa-iza-ba-tash-tum-ba-tush-tum-kabbah-zeen’, which means ‘and when you lay your hands on anyone, you lay hands on naan (Pitta Bread)’. He also recited many other verses of the Qur’an like this and the verses mentioned above are some examples of this. He was a very humorous person. That is why whenever he used to recite the Qur’an he read it humorously, which was wrong. I think that Ibn Abi Shaybah might have repented this sin before he died.
(Mizaan I’tidaal and tadhkarat-ul-huffaaz by Hafidh Dhahabi)

Hafidh Asqalani writes:
Despite the above, Imam Bukhari has taken 53 narrations and Imam Muslim has taken 135 narrations from him. As usual, some scholars of Ahadith praised him.
(Mizaan-ut-ta’deeb by Hafidh Dhahabi And Hafidh Asqalani, “Biography of Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah”)

Imam Daar al Qutini wrote a book called Kitaab-al-Tas-heef. In this book, he wrote various names of scholars who made fun of the Qur’an when reciting it. He wrote that the scholar who made the most fun of the Qur’an was Imam Ibn Abi Shaiba.
It could be that Ibn Abi Shaybah was reciting a different mode of recitiation, of which there are seven, and so this would support his reading of the Qur’an.
If we look at the different modes of recitation, we find that the general meaning does not change, but there may be slight variations like, for example, in one mode of recitation, the third aayah of surat-ul-faatiha, is ‘maaliki yaumiddeen’ - owner of the day of judgement. In another mode it is pronounced as ‘maliki yaumiddeen’ – king of the day of judgment. Both of these ways have been confirmed by Prophet Muhammad [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] and angel Gibreel [May Allah bless him and grant him peace]. If someone was to introduce another mode of recitation, other than the ones which have been confirmed, it is totally unacceptable. When we look to the alterations which Ibn Abee Shaibah made, we see that both the meaning and wording is altered. This means that the way that he used to recite the Qur’an was totally contrary to the Sharee’ah.
Also, Imam Dhahabi, said in his book, meezaan-ul-I’tidaal, and tadhkarat-ul-huffaaz, that maybe, Ibn Abi Shaybah, repented for reading the Qur’an incorrectly. From this, it is proved that if the way that Ibn Abi Shaybah recited the Qur’an was correct there was no need for him to repent from the way he used to recite the Qur’an.

2) Abu bin Abas bin Sahaal Ansari Saad
Imam Dahabi has said that Saad was not strong in knowledge of Ahadith. Yahyaa bin Mu’een has said that he was a weak narrator. Imam Ahmed has said that he used to tell Hadith which no one had any knowledge about. Naas’ee has said that he had minimum knowledge of Hadith. Dahabi has said that Imam Bukhari has said that he had minimum knowledge of Hadith, but nevertheless, Imam Bukhari has taken Hadith narration from him. The narration, which Imam Bukhari took, is that of the Excellency of Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace].
(Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani)

3) Ahmed bin Salaah Abu Ja’far Nasaa’ee(Teacher of Imam Bukhari)
Nasaa’ee has said that he is not authentic and he has not accepted his narrations. Imam Ahmed had evicted him from his meetings. Yahyaa bin Mu’een has said that he was a lair but some scholars of Hadith had praised him.( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Ahmed bin Salaah”)

4) Ayyoob bin Sulaimaan-il-Madinee (Teacher of Imam Bukhari)
Abul-Fath has said that the type of Ahadith he told were not told by anyone else. Daar Qutni has made similar remarks. Ibn Abi Burr has said that Sulaimaan was weak. But some scholars of Hadith have praised him.( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Ayyoob bin Sulaimaan)

5) Ja’far bin Sulaimaan-il-Ba’see(Narrator of Imam Muslim)
Yahyah Bin Sa’eed has said that his Hadith should not be written and that he was a weak narrator. Ibn ul Madinee has said that he used to tell the sort of narrations that no one else would relate. Ibn Maadi has said that his narration has no value. Ibn Sa’eed has said that he was authentic but weak. Once, a scholar of Ahadith asked Ja’far if he swore at Abu bakr and Umar. Ja’far replied: “I do not swear at them but I hate them.” Ahmed bin Madaam has said that once he attended a meeting of Yazeed bin Zoorah accompanied by Jafaar. Yazeed bin Zoorah said to the people “Do not let him (Ja’far) come near me because he swore at Abu Bakr and Umar.” Imam Bukhari has said that he was a weak narrator. Dowri has said that whenever Ja’far talked about Mu’awiah, he used to swear at him and whenever he used to talk about Ali, he used to cry. ( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani “Biography of Ja’far bin Sulaimaan”)

6) Harab bin Maymoon al basri (Narrator of Imam Muslim)
Imam Bukhari has said that he used to make many mistakes in Hadith but he was a truthful person. One day Harab brought a box and said that the box contained pictures of the family of Qaroon. He then showed these pictures. But what he said was a big lie. Imam Bukhari Ibn Ali and Abdullah have said that he was a weak narrator. Asqalani has said that he was a big liar but some people have still praised him.(Mizaan-ut-Ta’deeb, Dhahabi and Asqalani, “Biography of Harab bin Maymoon Al Basri”)

7) Husain Bin Ibraahim Al quramaani (Narrator of Imam Muslim and Bukhari)
Nasaa’ee has said that he was not an expert in the knowledge of Hadith. Ibn Adee has said that whenever he told Hadith he made mistakes. Imam Ahmed has rejected his narrations. Uqalee has said that his Hadith are doubtful. Ibn Madeenee has said he was a Qadiree (One from a deviant sect) but he was authentic. As always, some people have still praised him. ( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani “Biography of Husain Bin Ibrahim Al quramaani”)

8) Zakariyyah bin Yahyaa Ath-thaani(Teacher of Imam Bukhari)
Daar Qutni has said that he had no knowledge of Hadith and he used to tell the type of Hadith, which no-one would tell. Haakim had said that he was a weak narrator and used to make many mistakes in narration. Bukhari has said that the scholars of Ahadith have ignored him and did not take any Ahadith from him. Nonetheless, Imam Bukhari has taken narrations from him. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Zakariyyah Bin YaHyaa Ath-thaani”)

9) Ayyoob bin Saalih il-Kufee(Narrator of Imam Bukhari)
Abu Zoorah said that he was a weak narrator. Ibn Hiban has said that he used to make mistakes in Ahadith. Imam Bukhari has said that he was Murjee(From a misled sect). Imam Bukhari has mentioned his faults, but nonetheless, still took narrations from him. This seems very strange.( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Ayyoob bin SaaliH”)

10) Sa’eed Bin Abdur-Rahmaan Al Madaan (Narrator of Imam Muslim)
Ibn Adee has said that he used to relate the type of narrations that no one else would repeat. Abu Hataam and Ibn Jawzee have said that his narrations cannot be used as evidence. Ibn Hataam has also said that he used to tell fabricated Hadith in the name of pious people. Some scholars of Ahadith have praised him. ( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Sa’eed bin Abd-ur-Rahmaan Al Madaan)

From the above, it can be clearly seen that the above claim is completely false. The above ten narrators are not the only narrators which have been criticised, but we only mentioned some of the narrators in one specific decade. Hafidh Asqalani has made a list, in the preface of Fath-ul-Baari, of all those narrators, of Imam Bukhari, who have been criticised, by the scholars of Ahadith.

The scholars of Ahadith are in agreement that there are many authentic Ahadith that have been left out of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari. These can be found in other Ahadith books, for example, Ibn Habbaan, Ibn Khuzaimah, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Da’ood, Tirmidhee, and Nasaa’ee etc.
Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes that there are many authentic Ahadith that were left out of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari and can be found in other Hadith books like Tirmidhee, Abu Da’ood, An-Nasaa’ee.
(Ikhtaisar-ul-Uloom ul Ahadith, page 21, by Hafidh Ibn Kathir)

Hafidh Ibn Salaah writes that many authentic Ahadith were left out of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari and that Imam Hakim has collected all the authentic Ahadith, which met the Hadith principles of Muslim and Bukhari, and put them in a book called “Mustadrak ‘alas-Saahihain”. It is written in four volumes and contains enormous amounts of authentic Ahadith. Imam Bukhari, himself, said that he knew 100,000 authentic Ahadith and 200,000 which were not authentic, but in the Sahih Bukhari there are only 4,000 Ahadith without repetition.[3]
(Uloom-ul-Ahadith, page 17, “Bukhari and Muslim”, by Hafidh ibn Salaah)

Hafidh Asqalani writes that there are 9682 narrations in sahih Bukhari, but each narration has been repeated many times. The total number of individual narrations in Bukhari is 2623.
(Preface of Fath-ul-baari, by Hafidh Asqalani)

Even the name of Sahih Bukhari can tell us that there are lots of authentic Ahadith which have been left out of Sahih Bukhari. The full name of Sahih Bukhari is “Al Jamee’ ul Musnad-is-SaaHiH-il-Mukhtasari Min al murree Wa yaamayhee”. The meaning of this is “The short collection of the Sunnah of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]”.
(Tah’deeb-ut-ta’deeb by Hafidh Asqalani)

Imam Nawawee and Imam Dhahabi write that Imam Muslim compiled Sahih Muslim from the 300,000 Ahadith that he knew. The total number of Ahadith in Sahih Muslim is 12,000. If repetitions can be left out, the actual number would be 4,000.
(Sharh Sahih Muslim by Imam Nawawee and Tadhkarat-ul-Huffad by Imam Dhahabi)

From the references above we can understand that Imam Bukhari and Muslim knew a very large numbers of Ahadith by memory but in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari only approximately 10% of these Ahadith has been compiled. Hence, it can clearly be seen that there are large numbers of authentic Ahadith present, which have been left out of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari. These Ahadith can be found in other Ahadith books.

Hafidh Asqalani writes:
Imam Bukhari said “One day we were at the meeting of Is-haaq bin Rahaawiyyah and some-one from among our companions said “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of you could write a short book regarding the sunnah of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace].” This was directed at everyone, but somehow this request became embedded in my heart. It was my good fortune that Allah wanted this work to be carried out by me. I then started to collect the material for the book, which would contain only Sahih Ahadith. I have left out many authentic Ahadith because I thought that the book would become too large. This book is the concise summarisation of the 600,000 Ahadith which I knew. The book was completed in sixteen years.”
(Fath-ul-baari, “Biography of Imam Bukhari” by Hafidh Asqalani)

Imam Bukhari completed Sahih Bukhari in sixteen years. During which time, he continuously edited it. Towards the end, Imam Bukhari did not have the opportunity to make the final alterations because he passed away. Whenever we read Sahih Bukhari, we notice that it lacks fluency and it is disjointed. For example, we may find a chapter with a heading but nothing written in it and sometimes there might be a chapter written but no heading for it. The reason for this is that his students, from the materials that were left by Imam Bukhari, finally edited Sahih Bukhari. The students found that some material was written in final draft, some in rough draft form and some in brief comments on the sides of the pages. Hafidh Abu Is-haaq has said, “I copied the original copy of Sahih Bukhari, which was in the possession of Imam Bukhari’s student, Faraabri. From the material I collected, I noticed that some things were incomplete and some things were without any headings and also there were headings for chapters but nothing written in them. We had to join the material together.”

Imam Baaji said that four people copied the original Sahih Bukhari. These people were Ibrahim bin Maq`al, Muhammad bin Yousaf Faraabri, Abu Talha bin Muhammad and Hammad bin Shakir. There are differences between these four versions, i.e. you can find that Ahadith are written in one place, in one version but the same thing could be written in another place, in the other versions. The reason for this is that when these four people compiled Sahih Bukhari from the original materials they interpreted the material according to their own understanding.
(Preface of Fath-ul-Baari, page 10, by Hafidh Asqalani)

Hafidh Ibn Kathir writes: “Imam Bukhari’s student Hafidh Faraabri possessed the original copy of Sahih Bukhari and at the present time we have this version”
(Taareekh Ibn Kathir, “Biography of Imam Faraabri” by Hafidh ibn Kathir)

There were other students who heard and narrated Sahih Bukhari but those versions have not reached us. Some scholars of Ahadith have seen those versions in the old Islamic centres and have noticed that there are differences among them.

Hafidh Suyyuti writes that Imam Faraabri narrated Sahih Bukhari and that in this original copy, there are 200 more Ahadith than Humaad bin Shakir’s version and 300 more Ahadith than Ibrahim’s version. The reason why Faraabri carries more Ahadith is because he heard Sahih Bukhari from Imam Bukhari twice and others heard it only once.
(Tadreeb-ur-Raawee, by Hafidh Sayuti)

Imam Bukhari writes, “Musa bin Ismail reported that Anas bin Malik said that the Qur’an forbade us from asking questions to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] so we wanted a sensible person to come from the village who could ask things to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] and we could hear the answers”.
One day a person came from the village and asked some questions to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. The Hadith continues on the subject. (Bukhari chapter Illum).
Hafidh Asqalani writes, “This Hadith was narrated by Imam Bukhari’s teacher”.
Imam Sun Anni said, “This Hadith is not written in all the original copies of Bukhari’s. It is only written in that copy which is written by Imam Bukhari’s student, Imam Farabri. But I say that all the original copies of the Bukhari that I have seen, I have not seen this Hadith mentioned in any of them”. (Fathulbari, chapter Illum by Hafidhh Asqalani).
Imam Muslim writes, “The Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said that a person who continually speaks the truth, Allah writes his name amongst the truthful. A person who continually tells lies, Allah writes his name amongst the liars”.
(Muslim chapter Kitaab-ul-Birr).

Imam Nawawi writes,” All the copies of Bukhari and Muslim in our area mention only this”.
Qaadi Ayyad and Humaidi also write only this. But Abu Mas-ood narrates this Hadith with the extra words. Those words are, “The worst people are those who tell lies. Lies are not permissible under serious or humorous intentions. It is not permissible for a Father to make false promises with his son”.
(Sharhah Sahih Muslim chapter Kitab-ul-Birr by Imam Navavi).

Finally, we disagree with those people who claim that Imam Bukhari’s narrations are higher than the Hadith principles, and demand all references from Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. This demand is wrong because Hafidh Asqalani has written that Imam Bukhari has said “I know 100,000 authentic narrations, but in Sahih Bukhari there are only 9082”On page 107 it says a different amount
(Fath-ul-Baari, page 5)

Of course, the other 90,918 authentic narrations are recorded in the other books of the Ahadith which were written before them.

· Imam Dahabi writes – Hummaam Ibn Munabi (died: 101H) had a collection of Hadith which were narrated by Abu Huraira.
· Imam Zuhri, Imam Abdul Aziz Madani (died: 164H), Imam Hadri (died: 174H), Imam Malik (died: 179H) and Imam Abu Dawud Tayaalsi (died: 203H) wrote books of Hadith.
· Hammaad bin Salma (died: 167H) wrote a book of Hadith that had a collection of ten thousand Hadith.
· Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed (died: 143H) wrote books of Hadith that were read to people by Imam bin Zaid (died: 179H).
· Imam Abu Awana (died: 176H) wrote a book of Hadith about which Imam Ahmad said that his book is authentic.
· Imam Hasheem (died: 183H) wrote a book of Hadith that has a collection of two thousand Hadith.
· Abdullah bin Mubarak (died: 181H) wrote a book of Hadith which had a collection of twenty thousand Hadith.
· Imam Mousli (died: 186H) wrote books on different topics of Islam and one of the books were a collection of Hadith.
· Imam Abu Hanifah (died: 150H) wrote books of Hadith which were narrated by his students, Imam Muhammad Ashaibaani (died: 189H) and Imam Abu Yusuf (died: 182H).
(Tadkara-tul-Uffaad biography of the above names by Imam Dahabi)

Hafidhh Sayutti writes – ‘Abu Waleed, Suffian Thuri, Abi Salma, Abi Suffian and Ibn Uyaina wrote books of Hadith’.
(Tadreeb Al-Rawi by Hafidhh Sayutti)

The books of Hadith mentioned above are more close to the time of the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] and are more authentic because they have a shorter chain like the Hadith narrated by Abu Hanifah which is more authentic because he narrated the Hadith from the Prophet’s companion or the companion’s students.

Here is one example – Imam Abu Hanifah says, ‘I heard from Ataa bin Rubaah and he heard from Ibn Abbas who heard from the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] who said, ‘ Whoever reads the Fajr and Esha Salaah with Jamaat, Allah purifies his heart from hypocrisy’’.
(Musnad Imam Abu Hanifah, chapter Salaah)

Hafidhh Asqalani writes ‘Imam Yahya bin Maueen said ‘Abu Hanifah narrated Hadith from Ai’sha bint Ajarad and she narrated from Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]’.
(LesaanulMeezan biography of Aiyasha bint Ajarad by Hafidhh Asqalani)

So this is the proof that the previous books of Hadith carry authentic Hadith. If we find a Hadith in the above books and we do not find these in the Bukhari or Muslim Hadith that does not mean that the Hadith is weak or fabricated, it means that the Hadith never reached Bukhari or Muslim but that Hadith can still be authentic with shorter chain from the above books.

The above evidence highlights the fact that one cannot claim that Bukhari and Muslim are the only sources of Sunnah.

By mentioning the above references the writers intention is not to insult Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. We believe that Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim were great scholars of Ahadith and their books contain many more authentic narrations than any other book, We have great respect for them both. They have done a lot of hard work for the science of Ahadith and have done a great favour to the whole of the Muslim ummah. We also make Du’aa’ for them, May Allah may reward them in Paradise and fill their graves with blessings and Noor. Amin.

[1]) Usually, when the scholars of Ahadith look at a Hadith they look for narrator’s authenticity (i.e. whether he was knowledgeable about Adieth or not), but if Muslim or Bukhari took narration from that narrator, then any doubt regarding the narrator authenticity is removed. It is said that that narrator has “crossed the bridge”.
[2] Scholars of Hadith have been divided into two groups. In the first group are those who believe that the revelation is not creation, but do not comment on the words recited from the Qur’an. The second group are those who agree that the revelation is not creation but say that the recited words of the Qur’an are creation. Imam Bukhari was from among the second group while Imam Zuhlee was from among the first.
[3]Whenever scholars of Ahadith write a Hadith, they usually write the same Hadith with different chains. If a Hadith was recieved through five different chains, it is counted as five different Ahadith, but infact it is only one Hadith. Imam Muslim and Bukhari have used this same principle, so the quantity of the Ahadith “recorded” in their books is very large, when infact, the actual quantity is smaller.                  


Many great scholars of Islam have taken a great deal of time and trouble to explain the correct approach towards hadith which are attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as well as the application thereof. Extensive volumes have been written, and in all orthodox schools and seminaries of Islam, the study of ‘Usool (principles) of Hadith’ is mandatory before progressing to higher studies. The subject is so important that the earliest surviving schools (the Hanafi, from the time of the tabaeen – successors to the companions of the Prophet (SAW) and the Malikis, from the generation after that) were at great pains both to collect hadith and regulate and limit their application in the appropriate ways.

Your problem however, most likely, will begin with the above paragraph.

You, if you are a lay Muslim, probably consider the collections of ‘Sahih Bukhari’ and ‘Muslim’ to be the earliest, most authoritative or ‘canonical’ collections of hadith or alleged sayings of the Prophet. In fact, the earliest collection of hadith is by the Hanafis, and then the famous ‘Muwatta’ of Imam Malik. The very first book written after the generation of the Sahabah (companions of the Prophet) was the ‘Kitab Al Athar’ of the Hanafis, containing numerous hadith, and as with the ‘Muwatta’ of Malik, with very short chains as well as their application to jurisprudential considerations.

Hardly anyone today in the UK knows this though.

The reason is that today we have a highly heterodox approach to the hadith being expounded by two widespread and well funded groups who would like to claim the field for themselves. These people would like to take a hadith and settle a given matter by it alone. For example, there is the eponymous ‘blackmail by Bukhari’, in which an unsuspecting person will be confronted by someone, usually without any kind of Islamic schooling apart from perhaps the ability to read Arabic (often poorly), who nonetheless will try to accost them with the information that; ‘brother/sister, hadith is sahih/in Bukhari, how dare you not act on it!’

The necessity for having a grounding in fiqh and Islamic sciences and above all the Quran before one can extract rulings or even the Sunnah itself from the Hadith has been emphasised almost ad nauseum by the notable scholars of Islam past and present.

However, today the situation is acute and the lay people (Muslims and others) need a shield against the misguidance that can result from people being told to follow narrations directly or simply because they are in the canonical collections. Further, we are giving an excellent weapon to the enemies of Islam by insisting on traditions which either the scholars of fiqh (law or jurisprudence) or Aqeedah (belief or creed) rejected, despite their being classed as Sahih or in Bukhari, or at the very least did not take literally.

The individuals and organisations spreading this misguidance hide under a false banner of orthodoxy or by accusing their Sunni challengers of ‘hadith rejection’ or sectarianism. The main groups responsible are ‘Ahl al Hadith’ (‘people of hadith’) and the associated Salafi movement. It is necessary to highlight at the very outset what the approach of both Sunni Islam and these groups in fact is before going into details – this is because any attempt to rectify these ideas results in a deliberate failure of these mentioned groups to state their actual position towards hadith and the subsequent confusion of the masses and in particular converts to Islam, from whom we receive many correspondences requesting help with this issue.

In summary, the position of Sunni Muslims, as stated by both hadith masters such as Ibn Hajar, Al Nawwawi and more importantly the doctors of law and belief such as Abu Hanifa and Malik and Shafi is that the Quran is certain knowledge because it is mass transmitted (‘muttawatir’) without the possibility of error: essentially, the Quran is narrated by so many different people who did not know each other and could not have collaborated in a lie that it is habitually impossible for it to have been fabricated – and this goes for all of the different recitations too. It is logically equivalent to a conspiracy of Medieval English people fabricating the existence of London and this never was exposed. So a good definition of muttawatir is ‘mass transmitted without the possibility of error’. Besides the Quran, there are other muttawatir transmissions, a few in the hadith (such as ‘Whoever lies on behalf of me [The Prophet], let him prepare his place in Hellfire’) and also outside the hadith, such as in the books of fiqh in issues such as how to pray.

Muhaditheen such as Imam Bukhari do not concern themselves with the ‘chains of transmission’ or ‘Isnads’ of Muttawatir narrations – this is because they are certain, profuse and investigating them is of no use.

But besides the Quran and Muttawatir hadith and narrations, there are some 1,000,000 more Hadith (reported sayings or actions of the Prophet (SAW). If we exclude variant chains with the same text, we still have 300,000. If we take those graded as ‘Sahih’ by for example the Shafis, who have a more lenient and inclusive ‘Mustalah of Hadith’ (methodology of Hadith) than the Malikis or Hanafis, then we are left with, say, 20,000 narrations attributed to the Prophet (SAW) which may be ‘sahih’/authentic in chain (isnad).

Virtually none of these 20,000 or so are muttawatir and the vast majority are ‘ahad’ (narrated singly, from a single witness). Further, most are narrated by meaning as opposed to verbatim (thus they can contain grammatical errors, which the verbatim speech of the Prophet would not, due to his perfect diction in Arabic).

But the chain (‘isnad’) isn’t everything: we have to look at the content (‘matn’) as well. Once we have found the isnad to be valid, we then examine the text of the narration itself.

Scholars who study the Sunna have laid down many criteria for the study of hadith from the very inclusive (such as the Hanbali school) to the very cautious (Malikis and Hanafis), with the Shafis somewhere in between. The approach to hadith by experts of the Sunnah is often summarised in five points which are widely recognised:

1) An isnad (chain of narration) comprised of transmitters with good memory and exact recollection
2) An intelligent grasp of what they are narrating as well as unimpeachable morals – and this must be attested to.
3) These two qualities must be applied to each person in the chain – whether it is three people or seven. If anyone is lacking, the hadith becomes less than sound.

Once we have found the Isnad to be valid, we then examine the text of the narration itself:

4) It must not be aberrant (for example, by contradicting the Quran, or a Muttawatir hadith or a more reliable report etc)
5) It must not have a fault rendering it unacceptable

The different usool of hadith then go on to elucidate these matters as well as the types of chains that can be accepted, and many of the differences in practices and creed between the schools of Islam depend on which hadiths they do and do not accept.

This is already a huge problem for Ahl al Hadith – since they would like to decide the authenticity of a narration by it’s chain of transmission alone, regardless of the content of the actual narration. If, when they tell you a hadith is ‘Sahih’, you ask them ‘Sahih in chain (isnad) or content (matn) or both?’, they will react with anger and confusion, as for them, the content is not even secondary: the chain is king.

There are many different terminologies used in the grading of hadith and they vary according to which method one follows – all of the groups have different methods and variant terms (the Malikis do not accept Hadith that are Sahih but clash with the practice of the inhabitants of Medina at the time of Imam Malik, Hanafis do not take Sahih hadith if they clash with Quran or rationality, Shafi will take them if they meet his ‘five conditions’ which are similar to those of Imam Bukhari) but an important third ‘grade’ of hadith is ‘Mashoor’ or ‘famous’. This is again another narration type and has different definitions in the different groups but in short it is more likely than ahad to be true – by being closer to ‘muttawatir’ due to it’s acceptance by early generations or Companions despite not initially being mass narrated.

And now we come to the important part: Muttawatir narrations, be they Quran or hadith are regarded as ‘certain’ by the ijma/consensus of Muslims (not only scholars) and logical, habitual necessity. ‘Mashoor’ are regarded as ‘Ilm ul Tomaneenah’ (or ‘very likely’) and Ahad with an perfect chain are regarded as ‘Ilm ul Zann’ (probable, or a better translation is ‘maybe, maybe not’, or as hadith master Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani puts it in his introduction to his commentary on Sahih Al Bukhari ‘Fath Al Bari’, ’50/50′). No one in Sunni Islam says that Ahad hadith are certainly attributable to the Prophet. In fact, to assert this would be a heresy (‘Bidat’). But Ahl Al Hadith and Salafis, despite their insistence to the contrary. do not in fact follow Sunni Islam.

And this last part, namely that ahad narrations (i.e. essentially all of the contents of Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Musnad Imam Ahmad etc) are not certain is what groups such as Ahl Al Hadith and Salafis do not like: they would, to varying degrees of disagreement amongst themselves, like it if an ahad hadith (single chain narration) that was authentic in chain would be considered as ‘certain knowledge’ i.e. in the same way as the Quran or Muttawatir hadith and thus be acted on.

Some of them will say this openly, but others will deny it by arguing that they (for example Salafis) do have principles or usool of hadith, but in practice, these mean checking the chains of narrations and then comparing them to Bukhari and giving preference to Bukhari over Muslim, Muslim over Tirmidhi etc, and not whether the imams of fiqh took these into account when making rulings. Further, these people usually will not check them against Quran and insist that ahad narrations can specify or even abrogate the Quran – and most importantly that they can be taken into belief – i.e. matters which cannot certainly be proved to be part of what the Prophet passed on should be treated as so and taken into creed. There are various glosses and a lot of ‘smoke and mirrors’ with all of this, but that is what their approach amounts to.

It goes without saying, this is not the approach of Sunni Islam.

Nor even Twelver Shi’ism.

Of course, these people, claiming to be ‘Ahl al Hadith’ or the party of hadith claim that they posses the correct methodology and that it is the other groups that are heterodox. These people are very hostile to those who do not accept their version of hadith studies (or rather, lack of hadith studies), even if they are from the Salaf such as Abu Hanifa or Malik. However, because of the prestige those leaders or ‘Imams’ enjoy in Muslim communities, their periodic attacks on their scholarship are met with a harsh response. More on this later.

In fact, the dispute is an old one as many converts who were led to serious strife by the question of the correct approach to hadith have realised (for example, Lang in his masterpiece – and I do not use that term lightly – ‘Losing My Religion’). There has been a long standing conflict between the people of hadith and the people of fiqh: Abu Hanifa was accused of being both ignorant of hadith and of rejecting them – because to these people, rejecting a hadith that is ‘sahih’ in terms of it’s chain is an impossibility (though as we will see, out of necessity, they are often forced to do so, in which case they usually try to pretend that there was some problem with it’s chain, even if the chain was authenticated by Bukhari or Muslim).

It is shocking for many Muslims who have been ‘blackmailed by hadith’ to note that many muhadditheen, including some of the most well known such as Imam Bukhari and Imam Ahmad, disparaged the jurists in the strongest terms. One can see that Bukhari hardly narrates from either Imam Abu Hanifa or Malik. And how is it that the earliest book of hadith, by one of the people who set up hadith studies in the first place, Imam Malik’s ‘Muwwata’, is not considered one of the reliable books of hadith and not in the ‘six sahihs’?

The inescapable conclusion is that the imams of fiqh were useless in hadith.

Or that the muhaditheen sometimes went overboard in their zeal, as we shall come to see soon.

One of the tricks used by Salafists to avoid openly insulting the Imams Malik and Abu Hanifa in particular is to insist that the scholars of hadith, despite their limited specialisation and competence (namely in Hadith only) should nonetheless be given priority about what is and is not ‘Islam’ and to imply that people like Abu Hanifa were ‘Imams’ in name only but lacked all competence in Hadith. This is a most dangerous method: Imams of hadith sometimes disparaged doctors of creed and law by narrating that some only knew five hadith (i) and other Muhaditheen went so far as to accuse people like Abu Hanifa or Malik of apostasy (ii).

So by demanding that you follow the narrations of their select and sectarian muhaditheen alone, they are in fact opening the door to you disparaging the fuqaha and even accusing them of kufr. Of course, they do not want to come out and say this as the large number of individuals and sects from the subcontinent in the UK will react harshly, since they tend to respect Abu Hanifa.

They are in fact trying to revive an old issue, already resolved in Sunni Islam until billions petrodollars flowed into mosques and publishing houses around the world to imbibe their heresy into the beliefs of ordinary Muslims – and if it means accusing people like Malik or Abu Hanifa of multiple apostasies or endangering the faith of lay Muslims and arming Christian or atheist missionaries by reviving neglected and rejected hadith, then so be it (iii).

Further, they are forcing, again in a stealth way, people to ‘choose’ between the Salaf such as Abu Hanifa and eminent Imams of hadith such as Bukhari: apart from the fact that this is a disgraceful way to conduct Islam, this is no choice at all – Bukhari is a mighty scholar of hadith but has no madhab, no book of aqeeda in short, he is not even a jurist. Apart from the fact that Abu Hanifa and Malik, as well as Shafi are Bukharis’ seniors in even hadith as they set up the principles of this science, unlike Bukhari, they also set up the science of fiqh, creed, were eminent logicians and mutakallims. Imam Bukhari did not pretend to engage in these disputes with them, and if he did, where is his madhab and his book of fiqh? As we shall see later, he did not concern himself in his ‘Sahih’ even with how to pray the compulsory daily prayers, as he deferred to the senior Imams in this.

This trick of elevating their favourite muhadditheen or scholars above the Sahabah or Salaf is repeated by the Ahl al Hadith for latter day entities such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Nassiruddin Albani, who they again allow to second guess the Salaf on aqeeda, fiqh and hadith respectively.

In any case, the matter has been settled in the favour of the jurists (at least for Sunni Muslims) because elevating the Sahih to ‘certainty’ can cause serious problems as will become evident later.

The old dispute has been underscored such that there is no hadith without first understanding fiqh – in short, the people of creed and jurisprudence – who are polymathic, have seniority over the people of Hadith alone:

Al-Shâfi`î (himself a Muhaddith and apart from Ahmad the most partial of the schools to hadith) narrated that Mâlik ibn Anas was told: “Ibn `Uyayna narrates from al-Zuhrî things you do not have!” He replied: “Why, should I narrate every single hadîth I heard? Only if I wanted to misguide people!” (iv)

Ibrâhîm al-Nakha`î (teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa, a Salaf and muhadith himself) said: “Truly, I hear a hadîth, then I see what part of it applies. I apply it and leave the rest’ (v) (vi) Shaykh Muhammad `Awwâma commented: “Meaning, what is recognized by the authorities is retained while anything odd (gharîb), anomalous (shâdhdh), or condemned (munkar) is put aside.”

Hujjat al-Islâm al-Ghazâlî (a Shafi) in al-Mustasfâ and Imâm Ibn Qudâma (Hanbali and Muhadith) in Rawdat al-Nâzir both said that an`Âlim may be an Imâm in a particular science and an uneducated common person in another.

Thus it has been agreed that knowledge of Hadith alone does not make one omni-competent in Islamic sciences: without any insult, one can compare the superior Muhaditheen to the great historians – their exacting standards in checking and authenticating information do not however make them competent in other fields such as theology or fiqh. Another way to put it is that there is more to Islam than Hadith studies – a lot more. Nor are hadith even the most important sources in Islam – that would be the Quran and then usool of tafseer, since the Quran is the protected source text of Islam. And before even that, God commands the use of the intellect to come to the right conclusions about which religion to follow.

It is easy to understand: we would not allow, even today, the greatest historians to pronounce on physics nor vice versa, unless they were polymaths. Gibbon would never dare argue with Maxwell on Electromagnetism, no mater his pre-eminence as a historian. But sadly, this is all to common in Islam, with teh Muhaditheen often reosrting to the most base insults against the jurists. The polymaths of Islam were the fuqaha, not the muhaditheen, the earliest and greatest of whom was Abu Hanifa, as Imam Shafi conceded, ‘All Islamic jurisprudence is from him’.

Many of even the greatest muhaditheen were not qualified to give fatwas or deferred to the Imams of Creed and Fiqh. However, there were many who did offer an opinion, based only on hadith and their literal meanings, and these had a huge problem with Abu Hanifa and Malik:

Ibn `Abd al-Salâm said: “Most hadîth scholars are ignorant in fiqh.” – 90% according to Anas ibn Sîrîn – among the Salaf. So now what is left for the latter day Muhadditheen? (vii)

Imam Al-Dhahabî (again, a muhaddith himself) said: “The majority of the hadîth scholars have no understanding, no diligence in the actual knowledge of hadîth, and no fear of Allah regarding it.” (al-Sakhâwî, al-Jawâhir wa al-Durar (p. 18)) All of the authorities al-Dhahabî listed as “those who are imitated in Islâm” are Jurisprudents and not merely hadîth masters.

Al-Sakhâwî in his biography of Ibn Hajar entitled al-Jawâhir wa al-Durar fi Tarjamat Shaykh al-Islâm Ibn Hajr states that al-Fâriqî said: “One who knows chains of hadîth but not the legal rulings derived from them cannot be counted among the Scholars of the Law.”

His student Ibn Abî `As.rûn (d. 585) also followed this view in his book al-Intisâr. [Al-Sakhâwî, al-Jawâhir wa al-Durar (p. 20-23)]

When you encounter people of Ahl al Hadith and Salafis, they will fail to show you a single reference from the Salaf or the Mujtahid Imams saying that you must follow all hadith that are ‘Sahih’ without question as long as the chain is ‘sahih’. They will talk about consensus (ijma) but none will be demonstrated. In fact, it is clearly stated by the scholars that hadith is misguidance without checking them:

Ibn Abî Zayd al-Mâlikî reports Sufyân ibn `Uyayna as saying: “Hadîth is a pitfall (madilla) except for the fuqahâ’,” and Mâlik’s companion `Abd Allâh ibn Wahb said: “Hadîth is a pitfall except for the Ulema. Every memorizer of hadîth that does not have an Imâm in fiqh is misguided (dâll), and if Allâh had not rescued us with Mâlik and al-Layth [ibn Sa`d], we would have been misguided.” (viii)

Imam Ahmad’s teacher, Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan, despite his foremost status as the Master of hadîth Masters, would not make rulings from hadith but followed in this the fiqh of Abû Hanifa as he said bluntly: “We do not belie Allah. We never heard better than the juridical opinion (ra’î) of Abû Hanîfa, and we followed most of his positions.” (ix)

Here is where ‘Blackmail by Bukhari’ occurs: surely all this does not apply to Bukhari, right?

Surely Bukhari was at the same rank as the ‘Mujtahid Mutlaq’ (x) Imams who set up the madhabs? If he of all people narrates a hadith, we have to follow it, right?!


He never claimed to be Mujtahid [here is a sample ranking of Islamic scholars within traditional Sunni Islam, which of course the Ahl Al Hadith reject and make the only qualification for being an authoritative scholar knowledge of hadith alone – see (x)] Nor did he himself say that it is necessary to act on all of his hadith. Nor did he claim to be setting up his own school of aqeeda (creed) or Fiqh. He is an Imam of hadith only.

If we are to ‘follow’ Bukhari or muhaditheen to the neglect of Sunni Islam and these Imams’ own advice and assertions then we should know that ‘imam’, in English, can be translated as ‘one who guides’ or ‘one to follow’. So since people would have us follow Imam Bukhari and his ‘school’ even though he did not tell us to, then lets attempt this.

First of all, we would have to give up calling ourself ‘Salafis’ or followers of the Salaf since Imam Bukhari is from long after those generations (he was born 194 years AH and did not complete Bukhari till near his death – in fact he left it unfinished so it was interpolated by two other authors, so the final draft is from even later). We also have to admit that we have no school from neither the Sahabah or Tabaeen (this honour falls only to Abu Hanifa nee 63 AH, though his enemies amongst the muhaditheen try to make it later). The Salafis of course will try to allege that the ‘school’ is in the hadith. Lets see if this is true momentarily.

Also, we do not have any books of hadith from the Salaf or the Tabaeen accepted into the ‘six sahihs’ by the Ahl al Hadith, so we find ourselves in a similar position to the Christian scriptures, where the important narrations were not sorted out or put to paper until at least 200 years after Hijri. Of course, there was a oral tradition, but the ‘necessary’ input of authentication by Imam Bukhari and Muslim etc had to wait for nearly three centuries, and until then people were supposedly in a confused state. We then also have to pick between Bukhari and Malik: he narrated only a thin book of hadith, unlike the 4-5000 in Bukhari – his ‘Muwatta’ is a short volume, easily read in a day or two and not even composed entirely of hadith – there are many pages of judgements and he judges against some of the hadith he himself narrates.

There are two options:

Malik (and the Hanafis before him who collected hadith) are negligent and failed to pass on or even write down the essential hadith which we needed


they did indeed pass on what is needed and Bukhari and others were collecting additional material for historical purposes only.

The other option is that the Imams of fiqh were ignorant of hadith and we had to wait for Bukhari to come along. Or, Bukhari includes, for the historical record or his own reasons, hadith which they rejected as non-applicable despite their being Sahih.

But if we use Imam Bukhari or muhaditheen alone, despite the fact that he was following others in law and aqeeda and notwithstanding his personal idiosyncrasies in fiqh, and ignoring the fact that he did not even claim to set up a school of creed or jurisprudence, we should at least be able to find the details for our beliefs and practices in his or other muhaditheens’ books, right?


Where, for example, does Bukhari narrate how to pray a single rakat (cycle) of Salat (the five daily prayers) to completion? Or the numbers of the components of the five different prayers? Or the comprehensive non-conflicting accounts of their timings? (the answers are in fact spread out all over the books of fiqh and hadith and most of the relevant hadith are not ‘Sahih’).

So Imam Bukhari makes no effort to show us even how to pray a single rakat (probably as he knew this was not needed as people would not be so foolish as to take his book as a reference as opposed to a historical record or manual of hadith) and yet we are supposed to follow ‘sahih’ hadith no matter what?

Ahl al Hadith will say that omissions from his book, even on so important an issue as prayer, do not mean we leave the rest of the ‘sahih’ hadith. They will argue that leaving a Sahih hadith is ‘bid’at’ (innovation or heresy). But which Imams of creed or even fiqh said that? In fact the position is that Imams and suitably qualified people did indeed leave or not act on hadith, in either their literal meanings, or believed them to be abrogated or ‘strange’ in matn.

Hanafis such as Isa Ibn Abban rejected swathes of Ahad narrations and although the grounds for rejecting the ahad Sahih vary between Ahlus Sunnah (the Hanbalis are most reluctant to reject any), it is valid to reject an ahad in meaning or content with a reason, the problem only comes if I reject one for no reason at all. But here again Salafis will try to confuse you: they will have to admit that the Sahih can be rejected, since their own Imam of Hadith, Nassaruddin Albani rejected many, but they will assert that hadith can only be rejected on the grounds of their chain and not their apparent meanings.

This is again a lie and mere sophistry, but we will come back to this.

The unfortunate result of ‘Bukhari blackmail’ is to encourage people to question the intentions of Imam Bukhari, set up a conflict between him and the Fuqaha (to a greater extent than was the case) and to ultimately encourage people along the vile and dangerous path of hadith rejection by making them think that every narration must be taken into belief: beliefs, such as ‘does God have a son?’, can only be on certainty – you cannot be 90% sure in Islam, only 100% will do. So how can taking ‘Ilm ul Zaan’ or ahad narrations (both probabilistic knowledge only) into matters of belief be appropriate?

Sadly, confusion and posturing abound from Ahl al Hadith – apart from failing to show how to pray from Sahih hadith alone, they make bizarre claims that Imam Bukhari himself did not make: for example, not all of the hadith narrated by Imam Bukhari are of one grade – ‘Sahih’: however, they will never tell you the actual facts, leaving Christians and atheists to come up to you and tell you that the ‘hadith is in Bukhari and sahih and thus you must accept it!’ – when in fact some of Imam Bukhari’s own hadith do not meet his conditions and he merely adduces them as supporting evidence for the main hadith of the chapter:

”Auxiliary narrations served to bolster the authenticity of the Prophetic tradition, but neither Bukhari or Muslim felt the need to meet their usual rigorous standards for authenticity when dealing with them” (xi)

So the actual percentage of Sahih al Bukhari which is ‘Sahih’ according to his conditions is not all of it but only the main chapter heading hadiths only – the others may sometimes not be (some scholars give a figure of 1/3 of his hadith meet his condition, others less). There is much confusion about this and Imam Dhahabi (yes, he is a muhaddith too) expresses it thus:

”They are all Sahih, but not all of them reach the same high degree of Sahih” (xii)

The danger of harassing Muslims by insisting that hadith is ‘Sahih’ so how dare you not believe in it or follow it is manifest in the fact that it is not only hadith narrations which can be Sahih (and nor are by any means all or even most sahih hadith and narrations in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim. Again, this is a consensus of Sunnis and admitted by Imam Bukhari in the full title of his Sahih – which is called the ‘Short version of the book’) – the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident is graded as Sahih by hadith masters such as Ibn Hajar and historians such as Imam Tabari (also a hadith master and faqih, though his school is currently lost) alike – but they knew and articulated clearly that being sahih did not mean ‘true’ but merely that the chain was correct – the content and meaning could well be rejected, as it is in this case. But a person nowadays, suitably mislead by the Salafi movement could be incited, as Ibn Taymiyyah was, to mistake it’s ‘sahih’ status for it’s acceptability and thus to believe that the Prophet compromised on the issue of monotheism (xiii) – an impossibility rejected by all orthodox Muslims.

You would think the incident of the ‘Satanic verses’ or the ‘hadith of the cranes’ as it is known would be sufficient to deter the Salafis from endangering people’s Iman by threatening them with ‘Bid’at’ or heresy if they fail to accept any and all sahih narrations, but no such luck.

They will retort with the deceptive claim that none of the hadith masters rejected the sahih hadith – that is not true: they were rejected openly such as the Satanic Verses incident (except by Ibn Taymiyya, who is in fact not found amongst the lists of senior hadith masters anyway).

What these individuals are trying to fool you with is the fact that they were rejected did not make them ‘not sahih’, as that only relates to their chain but not their truthfulness (since these two concepts are identical to many Salafists and all Ahl Al Hadith, they try to equate them in your mind as well).

However, the scholars of Islam were under no such illusions, and Imam Bukhari was well aware of the criteria of fallibility as prescribed in the Quran for all works of man and muhadditheen: ‘Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.’ [4:82] – this states clearly that all works other than those of God are plagued by contradiction.

So although the issue of the Satanic verses should be enough to deter people from ‘Hadith is sahih brother, how dare you go against it!’, it will be necessary here to show that Imam Bukhari and others narrated hadith which they knew would not be acceptable in Islamic fiqh or aqeeda but that they were documenting only – their lack of endorsement or explanation of these narrations demonstrates that sufficiently

Bukhari 18. ‘What one is cautious about in bad luck in a woman’:

4805. It is related from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “There is bad luck in women, houses and horses.”

4806. It is related that Ibn ‘Umar said, “They mentioned bad luck in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “If there is bad luck in anything, it is in houses, women and horses.”

This story is found in a number of ways in various hadith collections: the first narration clearly claims that there is such a thing as bad luck and the second says ‘if’ thus leaving the question open. Obviously there is no such thing as bad luck and least of all in women – this absence of superstition in Islam is confirmed in Bukhari itself. Yet Imam Bukhari narrates the hadith here without comment or explanation and again in ‘Adab wal Mufrad’ (his text on Islamic manners). A person picking this up would be shocked and confused, especially as Imam Bukhari omitted the explanation of hadrat A’isha where she explained that Ibn Umar had missed out the phrase that The Prophet said ‘The ignorant people believe that there is bad luck…’

Imam Ahmad, who checked and approved of Imam Bukhari’s ‘Sahih’, did include that narration of A’isha (RA): so the options are that Imam Bukhari wants you to believe that women are bad luck (impossible) he narrates contradictory hadith (which is fine as long as he is not narrating them for the purpose of acting on them or believing in them) or you are not to act, believe in or even read as a layman every hadith in Bukhari (or Imam Bukhari expects you to know all of the other narrations which he neglected to include, presumably because he did not consider them authentic or was negligent, which would also be inappropriate).

Sahih Bukhari, Narrated Aisha:

”Allah’s Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.”

Obviously, no-one is saying you should believe in this, or it could lead one to think that the Prophet forgot parts of the Quran, which is clashing with Quran and aqeeda.

But Imam Bukhari does not provide any explanation – having narrated it, it is left to the Imams of Fiqh and Aqeeda to sort out, and they of course reject it. There is no question of ‘following the hadith’.

Again, from Bukhari via Abu Huraira:

‘‘The angel of death was sent to Moses and said ‘respond to your Lord’…Moses slapped him severely, knocking out one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord, and said,“You sent me to a slave who does not want to die.” Allah restored his eye and said, “Go back and tell him to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his hand…(continues)”

Now a person reading this narration without knowing that not all sahih are taken into belief etc would be most confused: it has been addressed in detail by Islamic scholars (a good treatment in Arabic is by Muhammad Al Ghazzali for those interested). It is clearly related in the Quran that the time of death of any person will not be postponed and in any case it is unacceptable for a Prophet to reject death and refuse to meet God. It would also seem strange that angels are creatures that can have their eyes knocked out by humans. Various explanations have been offered by scholars such as Qadi Iyad and hadith scholars such as Ibn Khuzayma, who said that perhaps Moses mistook the Angel of Death for an assassin. These explanations are in themselves problematic due to the text of the hadith, but the point here is that it is narrated without explanation and has no relevance to practise or doctrine – inflicting it on people as if Imam Bukhari meant for them to act on or believe it can cause serious confusion.

Narrated ‘Imran bin Husain:”The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah’s Book, so we performed it with Allah’s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it as illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested. That man was Umar.”

This will likewise, without the explanation of the scholars, which Imam Bukhari does not provide, cause confusion and make someone believe that Umar (RA) makes things up off the top of his head – the hadith requires commentary and could cause confusion without it. ‘Following the hadith of Bukhari’ does not help here either.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.251 Narrated by Abu Salama: ‘Aisha’s brother and I went to ‘Aisha and he asked her about the bath of the Prophet (saws). She brought a pot containing about a Sa’ of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at that time there was a screen between her and us.’

What is the point of telling people to accept stories such as this? Imam Bukhari is clearly documenting for the purpose of historical record a story even as strange as this (in fact it is rejected by Hanafis and omitted by Malik and Shafi). In it’s literal meaning it implies that Aisha had a bath behind a screen to demonstrate how to do ghusl – but this is impossible for our mother A’isha! Various glosses have been presented, but none are of any use and the hadith is a favourite of Shia; if she was to demonstrate the ghusl, she had no need to undertake it in front of them, it is impossible for the screen to be transparent so what is the point of this narration other than for it to be used against those who disparage our noble mother Ai’sha? Will the Ahl al hadith go around telling people this hadith is in Bukhari so we must accept it? Or one of their bizarre explanations (admitting that this happened but that she was fully clothed, which would still be unacceptable or that she merely had the bath, in which case what was the point of having them witness it). Enforcing this hadith is of no value and the Hanafis dealt with it appropriately by rejecting it despite the ‘Sahih’ status.

Bukhari 3:49 863, Narrated Al-Bara’: ”When the Prophet intended to perform ‘Umra in the month of Dhul-Qada, the people of Mecca did not let him enter Mecca till he settled the matter with them by promising to stay in it for three days only. When the document of treaty was written, the following was mentioned: ‘These are the terms on which Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle agreed (to make peace).’ They said, “We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah’s Apostle we would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah.” The Prophet said, “I am Allah’s Apostle and also Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah.” Then he said to ‘Ali, “Rub off (the words) ‘Allah’s Apostle’ “, but ‘Ali said, “No, by Allah, I will never rub off your name.” So, Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote, ‘This is what Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah has agreed upon

Taken literally, it means the Prophet could not only read but write as well – this narration is beloved of Christian missionaries, but again, it is rejected by scholars and the explanation is found later on in Bukhari – what actually happened is clarified in the following two ahadith. Ali refused to honour the Prophet’s request & the Prophet struck that part out himself. He did not write as mentioned in Bukhari, 3:863

Narrated Al-Bara bin ‘Azib: When Allah’s Apostle concluded a peace treaty with the people of Hudaibiya, Ali bin Abu Talib wrote the document and he mentioned in it, “Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle .” The pagans said, “Don’t write: ‘Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle’, for if you were an apostle we would not fight with you.” Allah’s Apostle asked Ali to rub it out, but Ali said, “I will not be the person to rub it out.” Allah’s Apostle rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the Prophet and his companions would enter Mecca and stay there for three days, and that they would enter with their weapons in cases.

However, Imam Bukhari yet again does not explain – this is because these narrations are not meant to be taken in the way the Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith tell you to. Unless they are saying that we are to work out what Imam Bukhari means without him telling us – in which case we need another Imam and so on ad infinitum.

Sahih Muslim, Kitab Ar-Radaa’ A’isha (RA) reported: Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah’s Prophet and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah’s Prophet (SAW) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah’s Messenger smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man ‘Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn ‘Umar (the words are): Allah’s Messenger laughed.

Will the unhinged members of the Salafi ranks go around demanding that Imam Muslim meant for this to be applied or that it in fact actually happened? It is clear by now that people who will insist in the Satanic Verses will not stop at this either, but Imam Muslim is surely collecting the narrations as a historian is wont to do – he cannot be asking us to believe in it. In any case, the hadith is rejected for obvious reasons.

Abu Dawood: 4723: It was narrated from Al- WalId bin Abi Thawr, from Simak, from ‘Abdulläh bin ‘Amirah, from Al-Ahnaf bin Qais, from Al-‘Abbãs bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib, who said: “I was in Al-Batba’ with a group of people, among whom was the Messenger of Allah . A cloud passed over him, and he looked at it and said: ‘What do you call this?’ They said: ‘As-Sajãb (a cloud).’ He said: ‘And Al-Muzn (rain cloud)?’ They said: And: ‘Al-Muzn.’ He said: ‘And ‘Anãn (clouds)?” They said: ‘And Al-‘Anan.” – Abu Dãwud said: I am not very certain about Al-‘Anãn – “He said: ‘How much (distance) do you think there is between heaven and earth?’ They said: ‘We do not know.’ He said: ‘Between them is (a distance of) seventy-one, or seventy-two, or seventy-three years, and between it, and the heaven above it is the same (and so on)’ – until he had counted seven heavens. ‘Then above the seventh heaven there is a sea, between whose top and bottom is a distance like that between one heaven and another. Then above that there are eight mountain goats’ The distance between their hooves and their knees is like the distance between one heaven and the next. Then on their backs is the Throne, and the distance between the bottom and the top of the Throne, is like the distance between one heaven and another. Then Allah is above that, may He be blessed and exalted.”

This is a particularity embarrassing hadith for the Salafis, especially as Ibn Taymiyyah graded it as ‘acceptable’, but the idea of God being carried on wild goats (or carried at all) is heretical – the hadith, despite being narrated in many collections and graded as Sahih by at least Ibn Khuzayma and Ibn Taymiyya, is rejected for naked anthropomorphism and for sounding eerily familiar to God riding a cherub in the Old Testament. Are we to accept this bizarre and faith busting narration merely because it is graded as ‘sahih’ by some Hadith scholars?

Sometimes the ‘explanations’, which are outright lies in the cases presented, male the problem worse: (Original Arabic here: A deliberate mistranslation where they interpolate ‘angels’ for ‘goats’ and truly awful and confusing explanation here:

Sunan Abu Dawood and Musnad of Ahmad: from Abu Huraira – ”The illegitimate child is the most evil of the three’, meaning more evil than his parents”

Once again, this is a confusing narration and there are others like it of various degrees of authenticity. Shall we follow it because some (including Salafis like Albani) say that it is ‘sahih’? Obviously not, as it clashes with the Quran and seems to promote the idea of ‘Original Sin’ – however, the explanation of Hadrat Ai’sha (namely that the hadith does not mean what Ahmad and Abu Dawood are narrating but warns the child against replicating the actions of his parents) was not included by the Muhaditheen, either for their own reasons or because it did not meet their conditions. Obviously, foisting this narration on someone and then telling them it is ‘sahih’ is going to cause major confusion – Hanafis and Malikis rejected it and muhaditheen who wanted to retain it were forced to offer their own explanations instead. But none of these explanations are in front of you when you read this narration – so what happened to following all Sahih narrations?

This narration is very useful in illustrating the Salafi mentality – after demanding that one accepts hadith, when a difficult one comes along, they resort to gymnastics and other sources to try and explain it: a funny strategy of theirs is to say that Albani did not accept so and so hadith or Ibn Baz rejected it in fiqh, as if their latter day 20th century Imams had to be awaited before clearing up important issues. And once again – they will try to give Muhaditheen exclusive rights to critique hadith for fear that the jurists would reject them – as indeed jurists were justified in doing so.

Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith Number 4322.

Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.

It is narrated by Sa’b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

Here is an interesting counter example – an effort has been made by Imam Muslim to explain the narration which could be misconstrued. He also takes care to put it after the section denouncing the killing of non-combatants. But once again, not knowing that no-one in Islamic history took this literally and that it was merely an understanding that accidental civilian deaths due to cavalry damage occurred due to mingling of civilians with combatants and were unavoidable but extremely regrettable, could lead the one who has been ‘blackmailed’ by hadith to conclude that ‘they are from them’ means it is licit to kill them as opposed to ‘they are mixed up with them’, which would have been a better translation. One can see how those of the ‘party of hadith’ predisposed to violence can easily be led astray by narrations without fiqh.

Then there is this flagrantly confusing narration in Bukhari (which is again a favourite of Shia): ”Narrated Nafi’: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi added regarding the Verse:–”So go to your tilth when or how you will” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in …”

The ‘dot dot dot’ is not mine: it is in fact in the text of Sahih Bukhari: if we are to ‘follow all sahih hadith’, what do we make of this confusing narration? How do we act on this, especially as the narration exists in a full form with the same chain, that Imam  Bukhari neglected to mention – thus the bit he missed out is: “Approach the woman in her anus” (xiv)

This narration is rejected by all Sunnis, and in any case, what is the point of narrating and incomplete and confusing passage such as this? Did Imam Bukhari mean for us to ‘follow it’ as Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith claim? Obviously not.

Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Al-Jihaad Narrated Abu Huraira: ”Allah’s Apostle said, “Once Solomon, son of David said, ‘(By Allah) Tonight I will have sexual intercourse with one hundred (or ninety-nine) women each of whom will give birth to a knight who will fight in Allah’s Cause.’ On that a (i.e. if Allah wills)but he did not say, ‘Allah willing.’ Therefore only one of those women conceived and gave birth to a half-man. By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad’s life is, if he had said, “Allah willing’, (he would have begotten sons) all of whom would have been knights striving in Allah’s Cause.”

Are we really expected to believe that Imam Bukhari expects us to believe in this shocking incident? In any case, how is it reconciled with a merciful God that Solomon, a Prophet, is punished for not saying ‘If Allah wills’ (which isn’t a sin in the first place) so severely by God? Then what chance do any of us stand? and why is God punishing the mother of the child and the child itself for something Solomon did? Does Imam Bukhari expect us to become Christians? Of course not – this narration was never meant by him to be ‘accepted’ in the manner Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith are doing.

Obviously, examples can be multiplied ad nauseum, but this should be sufficient: the next time people demand that you act on a hadith because the muhaditheen graded it as ‘sahih’, ask them about ‘acting’ on these narrations.

It can be seen that it is clear that (hopefully) the Muhaditheen were not collecting these for the purpose of acting on them or believing them but rather for the purposes of historical interest: none of them have any relevance to this life or the hereafter and if pursued lead to misguidance and confusion. But be warned – Salafis and Ahl al Hadith will nonetheless challenge you with outlandish explanations as seen for the hadith of ‘the Goats’, where they resorted to actually changing the words in translation and adding a whole sentence about angels that is not in the text.

You will also be constantly harangued with ‘show me anyone (they mean anyone they approve of) who rejected Sahih hadith’: be careful as they are playing with you – no-one rejected the hadith as not being Sahih, as in having an authentic chain. They did indeed reject them in meaning, application or truth, because contrary to what Ahl Al Hadith would like you to think, a Sahih hadith, having a perfect chain, can be rejected for it’s meaning. There is no reason to denounce it as ‘not Sahih’, as the chain never gave it certainty in the first place. These people have misguided many with this piece of sophistry and deception: it is not necessary to grade as hadith as ‘not sahih’ to reject it, in fact no-one ever did, since a hadith sahih in chain may be rejected by suitably qualified people for a valid reason.

Sahih does not mean ‘true’ or ‘definitely said by the Prophet’, so there is no need to tackle the hadith by saying ‘not sahih = not true’, since sahih did not mean true in the very first place (as explained by, as well as all other Sunni Muslims, Ibn Hajar in his introduction to his magisterial commentary on Sahih Al Bukhari).

Further, those who decide the rejection on content are not the Imams of hadith, who are experts in chains only (somewhat akin to modern day archaeologists or forensic historians), but rather the doctors of law such as Malik and Abu Hanifa, and they do indeed frequently reject Sahih narrations, some of which were shown above.

We also unfortunately need to combat here in more detail the nonsensical assertion that no hadith in Bukhari has ever been critiqued or challenged: this is utter sophistry, especially coming from Salafis whose Imam of hadith Albani actually not only questioned but despite his latter day status and numerous documented gaffes in hadith sciences, actually rejected a shocking number of hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim.

Recalling that the Imams of Sunni Muslims usually had no need to overtly reject Sahih hadith since they did not consider them to be anything other than probabilistic in the first place, their willingness to attack narrations in Bukhari would have perhaps pleased the academic in Imam Bukhari himself:

Not only do the Imams of Sunni Muslims question and indeed reject some narrations of the Sahih, so do the Mujassim Imams of the Salafis – Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Quyyum themselves – so what is the point of haranguing lay Muslims with ‘the Hadith is in Bukhari! How dare you question!’ – these arch-deacons of Salafism not only question but reject sahih from Bukhari:

Imam al-Bukhari writes:

“Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, ‘On the Day of Judgement when Allah Most High throws the people into the hell fire, it will say, “Give me more.” Then Allah Most High will create a nation and then throw them into it. The hell fire will again complain, “I want more”, and again Allah Most High will create a nation and throw them into it. The hell fire will again say, “I want more” and then Allah Most High will put His feet onto the hell fire and it will be full”

[Bukhari, Kitab at-Tawhid, chapter on ‘Tawhid’]

Doctor Maximus of Hadith, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani writes:

“Imam al-Bukhari has written this hadith in his tafsir of Sura Kahf. In this narration when the hell fire asks for more, Allah Most High puts His ‘feet’ onto it and then it will be full. Allah Most High is never cruel and yet in Abu Hurayra’s above narration it says that Allah Most High will create a nation and fill Hell with it. Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, Abu Hasan Qubsi and other groups of scholars of Hadith say that the narrator of this hadith has fabricated this by saying that Allah Most High will create a nation to fill Hell. They say that Allah Most High created Hell for those people who follow Satan, and that the new creation would never have sinned, so how could Allah Most High put them in Hell? Allah Most High also says in the Qur’an that He never does injustice to anyone (Sura al-Kahf verse 49).

[al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, chapter on ‘Tawhid’]

Hafiz ibn Taymiyya writes:

“An authentic narrator sometimes makes mistakes, but knowledgeable scholars of Hadith find these mistakes straight away. For example, Imam al-Bukhari writes in Kitab al-Tawhid that Allah Most High will create a new nation and fill the hell fire with it. A master of Hadith will find out straight away if a narrator has made a mistake. These mistakes by narrators are also found in other Hadith books. Imam Muslim writes that when the Prophet (SAW) married his wife Maymunah, after he had taken off the ihram from himself, the Prophet (SAW) did not perform two rakat nafila inside the Ka’ba. A person with deep knowledge of Hadith will straight away know the narrator of this hadith has made a mistake because it is proved from another authentic hadith that the Prophet never performed ‘umra in the month of Rajab. When the Prophet married his wife Maymunah, he was wearing the ihram and he did perform two rakat nafil inside the Ka’ba.

[Ibn Taymiyya, Usuli Tafsir, chapter ‘Ijma al-Muhaddithun’]

Ibn Taymiyya writes also about Imam Muslim:

“Imam Muslim has written those types of narrations to which scholars of Hadith have objected e.g. Allah Most High made the skies and Earth in seven days and Abu Sufiyan asking our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to marry his daughter after becoming Muslim. Another narration in the ‘Book of Salat’ indicates that our Prophet (SAW) had two sons called Ibrahim [when we know that our Prophet (SAW) had only one son called Ibrahim]

[Ibn Taymiyya, at-Tawassul, ‘Ulum al-Hadith and Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya, vol.18, chapter on ‘Maqam Bukhari wa Muslim’]

Of course, Ibn Taymiyyah is as indirect and unclear as he always is but it seems that he has criticized Imam al-Bukhari’s and Imam Muslim’s narrations as well as Ibn Quyyum –  and they are to be praised for their honesty and academic vigour in criticising a hadith that in fact supports their anthropomorphic beliefs.

Imam al-Bukhari writes:

“After the death of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), Umm al-Mu’minin Sawda (may Allah be pleased with her) was the first to die”

[Bukhari, Chapter of Zakat]

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani writes that this is wrong, and that Umm al-Mu’minin Zaynab died first. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi says this narration is not correct and it is very strange that Imam al-Bukhari wrote this. Imam an-Nawawi also says that Imam al-Bukhari has made mistakes [Fath al-Bari, ‘Zakat’]

Bukhari: ‘Umar ibn Maymun said: “I saw a monkey who had just committed adultery with another one. Other monkeys then stoned them both, so I also started to throw stones as well”

[Bukhari, “Ayyam al-Jahiliya”]

Hafiz al-‘Asqlani writes: “Allama Ibn ‘Abdi’l-Barr says: ‘This narration is wrong because enforcing an Islamic law on an animal regarding any matter would be wrong.’ Humaydi says that this account was not actually in the original Bukhari, but someone has added it later. Nusqi wrote the second version of Bukhari, and this narration was not written in it. If we were to say that Hafiz Humaydi and Ibn ‘Abdi’l-Barr are right, then what about the scholars who say that all the ahadith written in Bukhari are correct?”

”[Fath al-Bari, “Ayyam al-Jahiliya”]

Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim have said that the War of Mustalaq happened in 4 AH as Musa ibn ‘Uqba has said. Ibn Ishaq has said that it happened in 6 AH. Mustalaq was in the war when ‘A’isha was falsely accused of a sin she did not commit.’A’isha has said that when she was falsely accused, the ‘Verse of the Veil’ was revealed. One day our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was talking to some people and he said, “Some people have falsely accused my wife, but I can only see goodness in her.” From the evidence, Sa’d ibn Mas, stood up and said, “If the person who has falsely accused your wife is from our tribe, I will kill him”

[Bukhari, Magazi; Muslim, Tawba]

Hafiz al-‘Asqalani writes:

“Imam al-Bukhari has said that the war of Mustalaq happened in 4 AH. Imam al-Bukhari has made a mistake, because the War of Mustalaq happened in 5 AH.I feel that Imam al-Bukhari wanted to write down 5 but he wrote down 4, because Imam al-Bukhari also wrote a hadith in the chapter on Jihad which proves that the war of Mustalaq happened in 5 AH. Secondly, the narration where Sa’d ibn Mas has said that he would kill the slanderer is also wrong. This is because Sa’d ibn Mas was martyred in the Battle of Khandaq (which happened before the War of Mustalaq).’A’isha has said, ‘When I was falsely accused, the Verse of the Veil was revealed and it was revealed after the Battle of Khandaq’ “

[al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Magazi]

It is very interesting that the same, very understandable confusion with numbers, if it is applied to the issue of the age of Ai’sha, namely that the ages given in the Sahih collections do not add up and she was older than nine at the time of betrothal, send Salafis into a rage of ‘modernist’ and ‘hadith rejecter’ – but here is Ibn Hajar saying that Bukhari and Muslim have their dates wrong – what of it?

People have not only felt free to fault the Sahih collections on their matn (recall the anger that Salafis feel on anything but criticism of the chain of transmission, but Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Quyyam were happy to critique the content or matn in the above narrations) but also even in the chains of narrations.

Before we get into that, it is important to know why people try to blackmail Muslims into accepting muhaditheen as the main authorities in Islam – namely to facilitate their heretical views on hadith. To this end, they will often point out that narrators such as Abu Hanifa and Malik are considered weak by certain muhaditheen (they mean their favourites of course) and for this reason they do not narrate hadith from them – this is a gross deception.

But assuming it is true, why are we to accept the views of the opponents of the fuqahah, in this case the muhaditheen as being correct? One does not take the information from one side of a dispute only.

In fact, Hadith narrators such as Imam Bukhari and even earlier ones had serious problems with the Imams of fiqh, often making shocking statements about them – so when the Salafis tell you that Abu Hanifa and the Muwatta of Imam Malik are ‘weak’ in hadith, they do not tell you the following pertinent facts:

Imam al-Bukhari has stated:

“Imam Abu Hanifa was a Murji’i” (*Murjis were a sect who believed that believing in God guaranteed paradise just as not believing it guaranteed Hell and thus actions were not of any benefit apart from those. The accusation of course, is false)

[Al-Ta’rikh al-Kabir, under the ‘Biography of Numan ibn Thabit’]

Imam al-Bukhari also writes:

“When Sufyan ath-Thawri heard news about the death of Imam Abu Hanifa, he said: ‘Praise be to Allah that such a man had died as he was gradually destroying Islam. There could not be a worse person born in Islam’ “

[Ta’rikh Saghir, Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa]

Imam al-Bukhari also writes:

“On two occasions Imam Abu Hanifa was ordered to repent from making blasphemous statements”

[al-Bukhari, Kitab ad-Daufa Walmat Rukin; Ibn ‘Abdi’l-Barr, Al-Intiqa]

Imam al-Bukhari informs us that he had taken these statements from his tutor Na’im ibn Hammad [Ta’rikh as-Saghir]

Imam al-Bukhari was so convinced by his tutor, that he never mentioned or used Imam Abu Hanifa as a reference for his book Sahih al-Bukhari, and accused him of only knowing a handful of hadith (a bizarre assertion).

So Imam Bukhari is not at all saying that Abu Hanifa is ‘weak’ but rather that he is an apostate (times two).

Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Mubarak (another noted Muhaddith) said, ‘I don’t consider Imam Malik to be a scholar.’

So before the lay Muslims are led to believe that they should doubt Malik or Abu Hanifa on hadith, it should be known that Ahl Al Hadith accept these kinds of narrations from individuals such as Na’im Ibn Hammad: One often finds both praiseworthy and very scathing statements about narrators and scholars – whereas Imam Bukhari (and Salafis) are happy to take Hammad’s word on Abu Hanifa, there is this about him, amongst other alleged calumnies:

“Na’im ibn Hammad was a famous scholar from a region called Marau. He had sight in one eye only. During the later part of his life he went to live in Egypt. At first, he belonged to a sect called the Jahmites, and was an active member. He then later left this sect and wrote a book, which was the first book to use the science of Musnad. These were a compilation of narrations by the Sahahba, which were placed in an alphabetical order, according to whom they had narrated the hadith. During this particular period, the Umma used to question whether the Holy Qur’an was makhluq (created). When this question was put forward to Na’im ibn Hammad he did not give an explanation. He was then sent to prison along side Yaqub Faqia. He died in 228 AH. It was noted that no janaza [funeral prayer] was prayed over him and he was buried without a kaffan [shroud]”

[al-Baghdadi, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz; adh-Dhahabi, Tahzib al-Tahzib; al-‘Asqalani and al-Baghdadi, Biography of Na’im ibn Hammad]

So it is these kinds of tricks that are used by the Ahl Al Hadith to confuse converts and lay Muslims – if Muhaditheen are reluctant to narrate from Malik or Abu Hanifa due to doubts about them what about the doubts about less senior scholars from much after their time such as Hammad? Why are they not doubting them? The reason is obviously that they are in the ‘hadith’ gang and Abu Hanifa is persona non grata to them. So there is no need to give them final say on who Abu Hanifa or Malik are or are not.

In reality, we should not be fooled by the Salafi movement into being too partial to the ‘people of hadith’: scholars are human beings – they can get angry and they can err – this even happens to the Sahabah. In fact it is because of the power struggle between the narrators of hadith and the scholars of Islam that the former refuse to narrate from them and accuse and belittle them. It is indeed a great loss for Islam and it’s authenticity if we discard the two earliest Imams because some Muhaditheen had a problem with them. And as seen above, we cannot reconstruct Islam and fiqh and creed from the books of hadith alone. Or if we can, it is a very strange Islam, full of wild goats and inapplicable stories.

Further, it can be seen that the Muhaditheen not narrating hadith from the earliest collectors such as Malik is not due to scholarly rigour but animosity:

For example, we saw Imam Bukhari narrate a hadith from Imran Ibn Hattan above: but he was the head of the Khawarij sect and his poem exalting Ibn Moljam who assassinated Ali is famous. Yet Bukhari often narrates from him – but not from Hanafis. It may be, as some have said, that he does this from before the time he became a khawarij – but he certainly seems more accommodating of such people than might be considered proper given his harshness against Abu Hanifa, based on what a similarly unreliable person had claimed about him. Further, does not the fact that someone became a Khawarij render his earlier narrations suspect? At what stage did he become a Khawarij? And does Imam Bukhari give the same leeway to other deviant sects?

Imam Bukhari also narrates, as do other muhaditheen from Hariz Ibn Uthman who was known for cursing Ali (RA) seventy times before leaving the mosque. Ismail Ibn Ayyash narrated: “I accompanied Hariz from Egypt to Makkah. On the way he kept cursing Ali. I said to him: How can you curse someone about whom the Prophet (SAW) has said: “You are to me as Aaron to Moses?” Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Nasai and others have narrated from him.

Imam Bukhari narrated over fifty three narrations from Uthman Ibn Abi Shaybah – who many Muhaditheen were willing to give the benefit of the doubt, unlike Malik or Abu Hanifa despite his being well known for making fun of the Quran and narrating “Our Prophet attended a festival of non-believers and respected their idols the way they respected them. This is the reason why two angels refused to pray behind our Prophet”. But this situation would never arise with our Prophet. Ibn Abi Shayba also used to interpret the Qur’an incorrectly and disrespected it by changing its words (xv). Zakariyya ibn Yahya ath-Thani Daraqutni claims he had no knowledge of Hadith and he used to tell unknown narrations. Hakim had said that he was weak and made many mistakes in narration. Al-Bukhari admits the scholars of Hadith have ignored him and did not take narrations from him at all. But Imam al-Bukhari has taken narrations from him regardless (xvi).

Accepting such a person and not accepting Abu Hanifa does not do wonders for Imam Bukhari’s partiality.

The Muhaditheen that the Salafis want you to judge Malik and Abu Hanifa by are also willing to narrate from Imam Zuhri and Sufian Ibn Ouyana – who claim that some part of the Quran was lost in the battle of Yarmuk. Of course, that is their right, but it is not then a necessity for you to defer to them as to who is and is not Sahih vis-a-vis the Imams of Fiqh and aqeeda. With all of these people, you find good and bad narrations – the Muhaditheen do not deny that these people for example made fun of the Quran, but their sciences allow then to narrate from them. Likewise, the sciences of the Islamic logicians and jurists such as Malik allow him to reject such ‘Sahih’ narrations. If anything, the latter is the safer path.

Of course, our intention here is not to disparage the noble Imams of hadith, but rather to maintain the correct balance or ‘Al Qistas al Mustaqeem’ as Imam Al Ghazzali might say; the efforts of the Imams of Hadith are immense, but to put them above the fuqaha of the tabaeen and Salaf and allow them to insult them is incorrect and offensive, especially when the methodology of deviant sects today is to play into the hands of Shia, modernists and missionaries by asserting that hadith has primacy over Fiqh or that Bukhari has primacy over Malik or Shafi or worst of all, Abu Hanifa. This is manifest stupidity.

Despite these very harsh statements and apparently strange narrations and narrators by the Imams of Hadith, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafis and others have been tolerant and rightly give the Imams of Hadith their due rank and respect.

At the same time, they reserve the right, due to their seniority and superiority in knowledge, to reject hadith (sahih or not) that clash with the Quran, or the noble character of the Prophets. Malikis reject freely those hadith which clash with the practices of Medina at the time as they question how a single chain narration could go against what all of the Companions and Successors were doing. Shafis reject any that do not meet their five conditions or clash with reality. Hanafis have a big list of conditions, over a dozen, and thus reject ahad that clash with Quran, Seera, observable reality, analogy and a big list of others (xvii). It is the fact that Hanafis and Malikis are most strict when it comes to attributing statements to the Prophet and that the Muhaditheen indeed had the most antagonism with them and they have paradoxically been accused by them of hadith rejection (and much worse as the quotes Bukhari etc show).

As I hope is obvious by now, people like Isa Ibn Abban and Abu Hanifa and Malik have very good reasons for rejecting the hadith they do, quite apart from their followers being accused of hadith denial or modernism (ironically it is the Ahl Al Hadith and the Salafis who hold honours for innovation and modernism with their ‘any hadith goes as long as it’s Sahih’ policy).

The real meaning of tolerance of different opinions is to not start accusing people when they have a different methodology to oneself – after all, everyone is wiling to tolerate those who agree with them. Thus the madhabs must be free to apply their methodologies of hadith as they have from the very earliest days, indeed, from long before Bukhari, without fear of marginalisation or harassment.

The next time a man or woman with a scowl comes up to you, starts hurling hadith and insisting the hadith is ‘Sahih’ and you must follow it, tell them ‘the hadith that women are bad luck is sahih, do you accept it? Why do you look for a way out with narrations of Imam Ahmad? Do you accept that God rides seven wild goats? Why not, hadith is Sahih!’.

Or ignore them and follow the correct methodology of the Madhabs and the greatest of Imams, Abu Hanifa (RA).

A Sample Dialogue For Students Harassed At University
This is in no way to convince those who terrorise and misguide others under the banner of being the ‘party of Hadith’ (since people who believe that God rides on not one but seven wild goats are rather hard to convince), but rather to arm those Muslims and new Muslims who suffer from their onslaughts. This is not a ‘scholarly’ response but more of a rhetorical one – I have given some references as my limited knowledge allows in the main piece above and also a reading list by better qualified individuals below.
‘You are saying that Sahih hadith can be rejected!’
I’m not saying that, everyone is saying it.
Especially Sheikh Albani of the Salafi movement
Sheikh Albani only rejected hadith due to their chains, in the traditional manner
Where is your conclusive proof that rejecting hadith can only be due to their chains and further is confined to the muhaditheen only?
(*this is in fact the actual position of Ahl Al Hadith and most Wahhabis/Salafis – if they do allow someone like Malik to reject a narration they will assert it was because of the chain only and because he was a Muhaddith. If Al Ghazzali or Maturidi reject a hadith, then they get the kind of treatment that Abu Hanifa got at the hands of Hammad i.e takfir)
Then if this is true, how come we had to wait for 1100 years for Albani to come along and weed out the non-sahih narrations of Bukhari and Muslim? If it was the ‘traditional style’, are you saying all of the scholars of hadith in between him and Bukhari were incompetent?
Then what guarantee do we have then that another scholar, even better than Albani won’t come along and remove more ‘weak’ hadith from Bukhari? How can you be sure that if Albani is such a revolutionary genius (despite his obvious gaffes), another won’t come emerge (possibly from outside your sect). Will you accept him? Or will he be a ‘modernist hadith rejecter’?
Sahih means you have to accept it!
Sahih (in isnad) means it has a valid chain of transmission, that is all.
And even here there are differences between narrators, Bukharis ‘sahih’ is not the same as Tirmidhis ‘sahih’ etc.
It does not mean that the Prophet definitely says it or that it is verbatim what he said: it means that the probability is in favour of it being genuine unless there is a fault in it’s matn. Most hadith are not narrated verbatim but by meaning in any case, so it is rarely ‘what the Prophet said’.
It is logically impossible (and no Sunni ever claimed) that each and every ‘sahih’ single chain narration between all of the different transmitters until the time of Bukhari some 230 years later is verbatim and not without any error: there are whole books by scholars discussing the faults and errors of the famous narrators of hadith, furthermore the Quran demands that all books aside from it are ‘contradictory’ (‘If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.’  4:82) and this includes the hadith collections – if not where is the explicit exemption? There are numerous hadith in Bukhari where the narrator says ‘I am not sure if it was x or y’ such as Sa’id and Anas disagreeing on the number of Prophet’s wives (in a single narration). So how is it inerrant?
No one ever gave Sahih the criterion of infallibility: show us where it says this. Show us where any Sunni scholar claims that Ahad hadith is 100% certain knowledge.
And if according to Ibn Taymiyya and the Ahl Al Hadith, even the Prophets can forget and err (Allah forbid), then what about the narrators?
You are misquoting the Quran – the thing about other books having errors does not apply to hadith books: since they are the commentaries on the Quran they are protected by God
Then what about the commentaries and explanations of the Hadith books, namely the books of fiqh – are they protected too? And the commentaries on them? Ad infinitum?
Show your proof where Allah promises to safeguard any book but the Quran.
And if the commentaries on the Quran are solely in the books of hadith and not seera, science and grammar and history, why is the exegesis of the Quran still ongoing?
How come the exegetes were not all Muhaditheen? How many of the commentaries of the Quran are by Muhaditheen? Not many…
You are insulting the narrators and the Sahabah!
A cheap slur, but to be expected.
Not all of the narrators are Sahabah, many are from much later. And no one insulted the Sahabah – we do not have the hadith from them but from the last person in the chain or for example Bukhari 200 years later. And it has been clearly shown above that some narrators were highly criticised for insulting Ali, or lying about the Quran and saying it was changed: Imams such as those mentioned & Daruqutni challenged the chains of many of the above narrations.
Also, we know that there were many hypocrites in Medina, the names were known only to one sahabah (Hudhayfa Ibnitul Yamman) – can you guarantee that no hadith are narrated from these people, who even the Sahabah did not know about?
Imam Bukhari narrated the most hadith, therefore he is the most knowledgeable and most worthy to be followed
Abu Huraira narrated thousands more hadith than Abu Bakr, Umar or Ali put together, does that mean he is better than them?
Your statement is as foolish as saying ‘so-and-so is an excellent historian, therefore we should let him fly the space shuttle’.
The Imams of fiqh failed to narrate important hadith or were ignorant of them, therefore the muhadtiheen, of whom Bukhari is the greatest, had to fill this gap
First of all, this means that you are not following the Salaf or a school of thought of the Salaf but the Imams of hadith – please show us their schools of thought and madhabs, as well as books of fiqh, proving the existence of God, full commentaries on the Quran etc.
Where is the evidence that Bukhari is a greater muhaddith than Abu Hanifa or Malik or Shafi? Just because he narrated more? So Stephen King is a better writer than Melville because he has written more books?
It could also be that the Fuqahah were aware of the narrations but did not pass them on, to avoid causing confusion as many of the above narrations do indeed cause, just as Abu Bakr destroyed a collection of 400 hadith from the Sahabah and Umar prohibited narrating hadith, saying ‘leave people with the book of God’. Are they ignorant of hadith too?
Further, it is clear that Bukhari was narrating to document things, not because he wished for them to be followed or believed: if so, once again, where is his madhab and his book of Creed, how to pray, his views refuting the Shia, Mu’tazzila, Murji’ah, and atheists?
It is in his book
He did not include how to even pray one rakat of salat, as he knew this was to be left to the fuqaha. Then what of the rest of the things?
Are we to extract them from the narrations?
So we need Imam Bukahri for the hadith and then another Imam to make the rulings from them (this is exactly what the Salafi movement has done with Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen etc).
Why should I do this and follow these Imams when I can save myself the trouble and follow one of the others who are from the salaf and reliable like Malik?
Because Bukhari and our Imams such as Ibn Taymiyyah have more knowledge
So everyone was ignorant of how to pray, how to marry, have sex and circumcise themselves until Bukhari came along two hundred years later or Ibn Tamiyyah another five hundred years after him? How come the Ummah was left without the people to clear this up?
If there were others of ‘your school’, where is their madhab, school or even books? How come no-one is following them?
The majority of people follow Imam Shafi and accept the hadith unless they go against his five conditions which are similar to those of Bukhari, so you have to follow the majority
Do you mean ‘ijma’ (consensus) or ‘majority’?
If it is consensus, then there is a consensus that all of the hadith in Bukhari are ‘Sahih’ but not all of the hadith in it can be applied to possible judgements – that honour goes to ‘Muwatta’ of Imam Malik.
And anyway, there is no consensus that Bukhari is ‘the most reliable book’ – a big group of Malikis and Hanafis disagree, while asserting Imam Bukharis’ achievement is altogether Sahih in chain (but not matn).
In any case, it is not the method of traditional Islam to take an opinion poll of Shafi, Abu Hanfia, Ahmad etc and then follow the majority – that would mean we are knowledgeable enough to judge between them and obviate the need for taqleed (see (x)). Nor is this they way things are done as it would abolish all differences and the mercy of God therein. Rather, we are free to follow an Imam’s methodology in hadith, fiqh etc.
If your appeal is to consensus, then show it.
And on what basis do you then allow Ibn Tamiyyah to violate consensus on issues such as the Satanic Verses, the createdness of the universe and marriage and divorce, as well as Albani to violate it on the issue of there being weak hadith in Bukhari?
I’m a Deobandi/Brelwi: we are told to act on hadith if it is sahih, and we are Hanafis so you are wrong, it is not just Ahl Al Hadith who disagree with you
First of all, Deobandis do not follow the Hanafi mustalah of hadith but the Shafi one – as have many Hanafis for the past few hundred years – let us know from which books you have taken Usool of Hadith – they invariably will not be the Hanafi or Maliki ones. Further, the position of a madhab or school of law or belief is known from those who are in a position to narrate it, as shown by the gradings of scholars (x) and not what our favourite latter day Imams have said.
Show us the clear proof that rejecting a sahih hadith is not allowed: it is merely not allowed without a valid reason – the Imams of Fiqh and Creed furnished valid reasons and avoided problems by not narrating hadith which might cause confusion. The Muhaditheen, in their limited speciality, did not.
Without Bukhari and other books we would not know the essentials of our religion
First of all, who told you to do without Bukhari?
But which essentials of religion would you lose and where were they before Bukhari was written? If they were in other books like Bukhari, why have we lost those but yet have the books of Fiqh and Aqeeda from before him?
Neither Creed nor fiqh are contained in those books alone but are derived from the Quran and authenticated Sunnah (as opposed to Hadith alone) by the fuqaha.
Why do you need ‘Aqeedah Tahawiya’, ‘Al Fiqh Al Akbar’ or the Sanussi Creed or even the books of the Mujassims like Muhammad Abd Al Wahhab if it is all in Bukhari already?
The Imams of Creed that you mentioned merely culled it from Bukhari and other Hadith books
Then why did Imam Bukhari and Tirmidhi etc not do it themselves but followed other in Aqeeda (As’haris)? And some of the Imams named pre-date any of the Sahih collections anyway.
All of the Sahih hadith are in Bukhari and Muslim
No-one claims this within the Orthodoxy, and you are contradicted by Bukhari who called his Sahih the ‘short collection’ (xi), according to him, most of them are outside these collections.
We don’t need the others, they are not relevant or as strong as Bukhari
No one says this either but then show me how to pray a rakat of Salat from Bukhari and Muslim alone
You reject Sahih hadith based on your whims and to appease modernists
I can just as easily say that you insist on accepting all of them on your whims and to appease your sect, which is very modern, but…
So were Imam Ahmad and Malik rejecting Sahih hadith to appease modernists when they did it?
No-one said that Sahih hadith can be rejected willy – nilly for no reason but in line with the Usool of hadith set up by the legitimate schools of jurisprudence.
And if you are so keen to accept ‘Sahih’ narrations, do you accept the narrations of illegitimate children going to Hell, of grown men being breast-fed in front of the Prophet or the Satanic Verses incident?
I leave it to the scholars
You mean, you leave it to your chosen scholars, which means you think you have the ability to judge them and choose your favourites, thereby actually you are following your own judgement (which is fine I suppose but at least be honest about it).
Let’s hope the non-Muslims and Christians who seek to attack us by such narrations leave it to ‘the scholars’ too…
I don’t need Abu Hanifa and those guys: scholars of Haidth such as Zuhri provided explanations of all of those narrations you mentioned
So why did the narrators not mention them in the places when and where they narrated them?
Did they assume that everyone knows all of the possibly thousands of narrations on each topic, is Mujtahid or has the books of all Muhaditheen open in front of them when they read a single hadith like the one about illegitimate children going to Hell?
If so, why are you bringing sahih hadith as proofs if it is beyond our capability to comprehend them or reconcile them?
Then don’t read them, leave them to scholars of hadith
If I am to blindly follow anyone, why not the Fuqahah who have specialisation beyond hadith alone and are from the Salaf?
Why jump ship to the scholars of hadith?
I see your point, but Bukhari and the Muhaditheen are the best in Hadith and Malik and Shafi are the best in Fiqh, none is ‘better’ than the others, leave it at that!
So now you are saying that there is no benefit in being from the generation of the Salaf as Malik and Abu Hanifa are (despite the hadith of the Prophet praising these generations). Further, you have given up the view that Salaf are better than the later generations and made Bukhari equal in rank to Shafi or Abu Hanifa, something he himself never claimed.
Furthermore, you have made someone who set up the very branches of knowledge and initiated them equal to an expert in just one of those branches.
Most crucially, if there was no Abu Hanifa or Malik or Shafi or Ahmad to set up the sciences of hadith in the first place do you think you would even have a Bukhari to compare them to?
This is no different than asserting that the later generations were equal to the Sahabah. Absurd.
We Ahl Al Hadith go back further, to people like Imam Zuhri
So where is his madhab and books of creed, refutations of atheism etc?
They all had their madhabs, but they are lost
So it was not the best and most accepted madhabs that survived and made it to this day, we only have the degenerate ones, just as Shia brothers say?
And of course the ultimate ‘Hadou-ken’ finishing move of all Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith:
You don’t know Arabic!
(and runs away, even if you are in fact a Phd in Quranic Arabic)
(i) Ibn Khaldun mentions the accusation that Imam Abu Hanifa knew only seventeen ahadith in his famous ‘Muqaddima’, writing that this accusation is completely false as Imam Abu Hanifa’s students Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad narrated a great number of ahadith from Imam Abu Hanifa which they have written in their books (Kitab al-Athar by Imam Abu Yusuf and Kitab al-Athar by Imam Muhammad – available in English). In fact, all of the narrations of ahadith are accumulated in Jami’ al-Masaneed by Imam Abu Hanifa – who is one of the first people to dictate books on Hadith/Fiqh. Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, etc. all came a very long time after him. This is why his status is the highest of all of them as from the famous scholars of Hadith/Fiqh he is the only one who is a Tabi’i (who have seen the Companions). This privilege was awarded to Imam Abu Hanifa only and not to Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad, Imam al-Bukhari or Imam Muslim.
(ii) Narrated in ‘Sunnah of Abdullah ibn Ahmad’ (the son of Imam Ahmad)
(iii) ‘History of Baghdad’ by Khatib Baghdadi
(iv) al-Khatîb in al-Jâmi` li Akhlâq al-Râwî (2:109)
(v) Ibn Abî Khaythama by Abû Nu`aym in the Hilya (4:225)
(vi) Ibn Rajab in Sharh. `Ilal al-Tirmidhî (1:413)
(vii) Ibn `Abd al-Salâm, al-Fatâwâ al-Mawsiliyya (p. 132-134)
(viii) Ibn Abî Hâtim in the introduction of al-Jarh. wa al-Ta`dîl (p. 22-23); Ibn Abî Zayd, al-Jâmi` fî al-Sunan (p. 118-119)
(ix) Narrated by al-Dhahabî in Tadhkirat al-Huffâz. (1:307) and Ibn Hajar in Tahdhîb al-Tahdhîb (10:450)
(x) 1. ‘Mujtahid Mutlaq’ – Such as Imam Abu Hanifah (or Imam Malik etc) – the highest level and it is he who set up the Hanafi madhab (system of knowledge about religion). They articulate and prove first principles and base them on sound reasoning – so they elucidate the epistemology of that madhab. They should not follow any other scholars of their own or lower level and are not even allowed to do so since they are able to reason from said first principles. The requirement of intellect, memory and independent verification and peer review to reach this level is almost preposterously exacting by any system of knowledge; for example, knowing everything by heart which can include pieces of evidence ranging into the hundreds of thousands or even millions verbatim. Such people are thus exceedingly rare and none will be found to meet the required standard today (though many will claim it).
2. Mujtahid Muqayyad – such as Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad (Salafi brothers may disagree with me but this is due to their own antagonisms and novel methodology). Theoretically they shouldn’t leave the madhab and they can only use the already established principles of the madhab to issue fatwa (rulings) about non – existing masail (new problems that need answers, like for example nowadays, the permissibility of organ transplantation). But in practice we do see them leaving the madhab from time to time.
3. As’haab Tarjeeh – examples would be individuals such as Qadikhan, Sarakhsi. It’s those who can chose the stronger opinion if there is more than one opinion availible within the madhab, by weighing the evidence for each position and choosing. But if there is only one opinion they are not qualified to leave that opinion. As well as if there is more than one then they are not qualified to take some opinion from outside of the madhab.
4. Rawil-Madhab – it’s those who are trusted to narrate the mu’tamad (official) position of the Madhab.
(xi) Jonathan A C Brown, ‘Criticism of the proto hadith Canon’, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Journal of Islamic Studies, 15:1 (2004) Page 20, though Imam Muslim makes the same point in his introduction to Sahih Muslim.
(xii) Al-Muqiza (p. 80)
(xiv) Fatah ul Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 page 190
(xv) Imam Adh-Dhahabi, ‘Mizan al-I’tidal’ and ‘Tadhkirat al-Huffaz’
(xvi) Imam Adh-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I’tidal; al-‘Asqalani, Tahzib at-Tahzib, Biography of Zakariyya ibn Yahya ath-Thani
(xvii) Al Mutasaar of Imam



There are three different views on this matter:
 It is often said that above mazhab or opinion is of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. We can go through hundreds of Books on Usool-ul-Hadith including that of Imam Bukhari and Muslim, yet we don’t find this statement mentioned by them. (Imam Bukhari/Muslim). This is something assumed by people of innovation in our time. And with this they misguide general people.

There are a lot of Imams following this point of view. They only put one condition on it that if no Sahih Hadith on that particular subject is available then the weak Hadith will also be accepted in deriving rulings of shari’ah on that particular subject.
 The Imams who favor the above view point are as follows Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawud, Imam Tirmidhi, Imam Nasaai, Imam Ibn e Majah, Imam Ahmad bin Hambal.
The great Muhaddith, Imam Abdullah bin Ahmad Bin Hambal reports the saying of his father Imam Ahmad bin Hambal that:
“To act upon a weak Hadith is better than to follow the views of people or individual.”
This statement of Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal is mentioned by ALLAMA IBN E TAYMIYYAH, Book: Majmoo’ Al Fatawa, Volume 18, page 52

The conditions are:
a. weakness shouldn’t be severe.
b. It should fall under some principle or it should not go against the explicit teachings of Islam.

This point of view is practiced by majority of Imams of Hadith from 1400 years, some of them are:
1. Imam Abu Haneefah (80-150 Hijri)
2. The Ameer-ul-Momieen in Hadith Imam Sufyan Thori (97-161 H.)
3. Imam Sufyan bin ‘Uyinah (107-198 H.)
4. Imam Abdur Rahmaan Bin Mahdi (135-198 H.)
5. Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal he have both views (164-241 H.)
6. Imam Abu Dawud (202-275 H.)
7. Imam Tirmidhi (209-279 H.)
8. Imam Ibn e Majah (209-273 H.)
9. Imam Nasaai (215-303 H.)
10. Imam Haakim Neshapuri (321-405 H.)
11. Ibn e Abdul Bar (368-463 H.)
12. Imam Ibn e Jauzi (508-597H.)
13. Imam Nawawi (631-676 H.)
14. ALLAMA Ibn e Taymiyyah (661-728 H.)
15. Imam Ibn e Kaseer (700-774 H.)
16. Imam Zain-ud-din al ‘Iraqi (725-806 H.)
17. Hafiz Ibn e Hajr ‘Asqalani (773-852 H.)
18. Imam Sakhawi (831-902 H.)
19. Hafiz Jalal-ud-din suyuti (849-911 H.)
20. Imam Ibn e Hajar Maki (909-974 H.)
21. Imam Mulla Ali Qari (D. 1014 H.)
So whoever says that Hadith e Da’if (weak Hadith) is totally rejected is opposing the consensus of scholars from 1400 years. May ALLAH save us from people of innovation.

The Grand Teacher of Imam Bukhari, Imam Abdul Rahman Bin Mahdi said:
“Whenever we reported some Ahadith in matter of Sawaab, Punishment, Reward and Acts of virtues (Fadael e ‘Amaal) we used to become very lenient and very soft on transmitters in this case. And when there was a matter of Halaal, Haraam or Big matters (Ahkamaat) then we used to be very strict.”
Al Madkhal-Imam Haakim, 29/1
Jami Ikhlaaq Ar Rawi-Imam Khateeb Baghdadi, 91/2, #1267

Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal Said:
“We used to become strict when there was a matter of halaal, haraam and Shari’ah. And if the matter was related to virtues acts (Fadael e ‘Amaal) then we used to become very lenient and soft in case of Asaneed (Chain of narrators).”
Al Kifayah-Imam Khateb Baghdadi, 134/1

Imam Nawawi says in At Taqreeb:
 “If you see a Hadith Da’if in Asnaad, It never means that its text is Da’if. It means its Sanad is weak.”
At Taqreeb-Imam Nawawi, 47/1
Same types of statements were also mentioned by Imam Jalal-ud-din Suyuti and many other great Imams of Hadith.

Hadith number 1
Reported by Anas bin Malik RADI ALLAH TA’ALA ANHU that Prophet PEACE BE UPON HIM said:
“If anybody performs his duties (fareedah) and he teaches the people the pious acts, he will be regarded as superior to other people like my superiority to other people. If anybody received some Hadith (or news) based on virtues acts and that person accepted that narration, he would be rewarded for that even the one who reported was a liar.”
From: Ibn e Abdul Barr al Maliki Book: Jami’ Bayan Al ‘Ilm, Volume: 1, Page: 103, Hadith number: 93

Hadith number 2
Reported by Abu Hurairah RADI ALLAH TA’ALA ANHU that PROPHET PEACE BE UPON HIM said:
"I do not want to hear of anyone of you who, upon hearing a Hadith narrated from me, says while reclining on his pillow: 'Recite Qur'an (to verify this Hadith).' (Here the Prophet SAW said) Any excellent word that is said, it is I who have said it." [How can you reject what I have said?].”
From: Ibn e Majah hadith number: 21

Hadith number 3
“I know those persons who will be receiving a Hadith, Somebody transmits my Hadith to them. They would say I don’t accept it and put this Hadith (in front of me) in comparison of Quran. (Oh my Ummah!) Whatever you hear if it is a good thing (it is an act of virtue) you may consider it that I might have said it. If anything comes to you based in evil don’t accept it. I never said about evil things.”
Al Musnad-Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal, 400/14, #8801
Al Musnad-Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal, 188/16, #10269


Foreword by Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed

Praise be to Allah that is due from all grateful believers, a fullness of praise for all his favours: a praise that is abundantly sincere and blessed. May the blessings of Allah be upon our beloved Master Muhammad, the chosen one, the Apostle of mercy and the seal of all Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all); and upon his descendants who are upright and pure: a blessing lasting to the Day of Judgment, like the blessing bestowed upon the Prophet Ibrahim (alaihis salam) and his descendants. May Allah be pleased with all of the Prophetic Companions (Ashab al-Kiram). Indeed, Allah is most worthy of praise and supreme glorification!

I was forwarded this short epistle in repudiation of the claim that merely weak (da’eef) Ahādīth cannot be used for virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). It being the compilation of a noble brother and student of the deen by the name of Abu Humayd from England. His riposte was directed at an individual using the screen name – “Ahlul-Isnaad” or ibn Abi Raza, also known as Raza Hassan. A simple internet search lead to the conclusion that he seems to be closely associated with the methodology of the late and controversial Zubair Ali Za’i (d. 2013) of Pakistan when it comes to their understanding of the principles connected to Hadīth, as well as being an admirer of Nasirud-Din al-Albani (d. 1999). He is also linked with similar minded disseminators in England and Pakistan that have been the subject of a few responses from this pen.

With regard to the issue at hand, it is pertinent to follow what the majority of the Muhaddithin (Hadīth scholars) have stated using acknowledged principles, and for the benefit of the readers, the following narrations have been incorporated into this introduction to substantiate the position of the vast majority of the trustworthy Sunni Hadīth scholars of the past. The quotes serve to show the contradistinction between the majority of the profoundly learned scholars of Hadīth and those who pay lip service by claiming to follow their way in this age.

The late al-Albani (see his Tamām al-Minna, p. 35), held the minority stance of rejecting the acting upon of weak type of narrations for virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), and this trend is also seen in the actions of some of his followers, albeit in a zealous manner, in printed literature, masjids, internet sites, forums, social media or on the streets. These folk are reminded to study the following quotes to see where the truth lies and what was the real way of the majority of the Imams of the Salaf and their successors (khalaf) in this matter of acting on weak Ahādīth connected to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) and the like that have been mentioned in this work.

In this regard, the well-known Imam from the Salaf known as Abdur Rahman Ibn Mahdi (d. 198 AH), has been attributed with the following statement as reported by Imam Abu Abdullah al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) in his Mustadrak (1/490), and in his al-Madkhal ala Kitab al-Iklil (p. 4):

فَإِنِّي سَمِعْتُ أَبَا زَكَرِيَّا يَحْيَى بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ الْعَنْبَرِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْحَنْظَلِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : كَانَ أَبِي يَحْكِي عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ مَهْدِيٍّ ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا رَوَينَا عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْحَلاَلِ ، وَالْحَرَامِ ، وَالأَحْكَامِ ، شَدَّدْنَا فِي الأَسَانِيدِ ، وَانْتَقَدْنَا الرِّجَالَ ، وَإِذَا رَوَينَا فِي فَضَائِلِ الأَعْمَالِ وَالثَّوَابِ ، وَالْعِقَابِ ، وَالْمُبَاحَاتِ ، وَالدَّعَوَاتِ تَسَاهَلْنَا فِي الأَسَانِيدِ

Ibn Mahdi said:

“If reports are related to us from the Prophet
concerning what is lawful (halal) and forbidden (haram), and legal rulings (al-Ahkām), we are severe with the chains of transmission (asānid) and we disparage the narrators. But if we are told reports concerning the virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), their rewards (thawāb) and punishments [in the Hereafter], permissible things or devout invocations, we are lenient with the chains of transmission (asānid).”

There is a similar report from Ibn Mahdi in al-Khatib al-Baghdadi’s (d. 463 AH) al-Jami’ li Akhlaq al-Rāwi wa Adab al-Sāmi‘ (2/91 no. 1267). Imam Badrud-Din al-Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) has also mentioned in his Nukat ala Ibn al-Salah (2/308) that the same report from ibn Mahdi has been recorded by Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) in his al-Madkhal.

Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181 AH) has been reported to have said that one may narrate from a weak (da’eef) narrator those type of narrations connected to good conduct (adab), admonition (maw’iza) and sobriety (zuhd). See Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil of ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (2/30) under the following chapter heading for Ibn al-Mubarak’s report:

باب في الآداب والمواعظ أنها تحتمل الرواية عن الضعاف


“Chapter on (narrations regarding) good manners and admonitions: they may be carried forth as a report from weak narrators.”

Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH) has incorporated into his al-Adab al-Mufrad a number of weak Ahadīth which fall under the realm of virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). The same can be noticed from the Kitab al-Zuhd of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Kitab al-Zuhd of Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, as stated by Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda (d. 1997) in his editing of Shaykh Abdul Hayy al-Laknawi’s (d. 1304 AH) Zafar al-Amāni (p. 185). Shaykh Abdal Fattah Abu Ghudda also responded to the claims of Shaykh Jamalud-Din al-Qāsimi (d. 1914) and his own teacher, Shaykh Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawthari (d. 1951), that Imam al-Bukhari did not allow acting on weak Hadīth in an absolute manner on the same page of his editing of Zafar al-Amani.

Shaykh Abdal Fattah also quoted al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s Hadi al-Sāri while inferring Imam al-Bukhari’s methodology on incorporating less authentic Hadīth. This was mentioned with regard to a narrator who was weakened by some while praised by most scholars, and was known by the name Muhammad ibn Abdur Rahman al-Tufawi and his transmission of the narration: “Be in this world as if you are a stranger (kun fi al-dunyā ka’annaka gharīb).” See the above reference to Zafar al-Amāni for details.

Of the later Hadīth compilations containing certain weak Ahādīth connected to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), or exhorting to do good and instilling fear (al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib), were works by Imams like Ibn Shāhin (d. 385 AH) in his al-Targhib fi Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, Abul Qasim al-Asbahāni (d. 525 AH) in his Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, Abdul Azim al-Mundhiri (d. 656 AH) in his famous al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, Diya al-Maqdisi (d. 643 AH) in his Kitab Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl and other works. All of the named works are now in print.

Some scholars have also claimed that Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 261 AH) rejected the use of weak narrations in any matter based on their readings of his introduction (Muqaddima) to Sahih Muslim. This point was contended by the leading Syrian Muhaddith, Shaykh Nurud-Din Itr, in his editing of Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (d. 795 AH) Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī (1/76), where he said that Imam Muslim was in line with the majority of the scholars of Hadīth in allowing the use of weak Hadīths (using certain principles) related to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) and the like.

What indicates this further is the fact that Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) wrote one of the most famous commentaries to Sahih Muslim, and as will be seen below he too not only said it was permissible to act upon weak narrations for virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl); but he stated in some of his works that there was agreement of the Hadīth scholars and others to do so.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) was one the leading experts of Hadīth in his time. In his al-Kifāya fi 'Ilm al-Riwāya (1/133), he said:

بَابُ التَّشَدُّدِ فِي أَحَادِيثِ الْأَحْكَامِ ، وَالتَّجَوُّزِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ : قَدْ وَرَدَ عَنْ غَيْرِ وَاحِدٍ مِنَ السَّلَفِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ حَمْلُ الْأَحَادِيثِ الْمُتَعَلِّقَةِ بِالتَّحْلِيلِ وَالتَّحْرِيمِ إِلَّا عَمَّنْ كَانَ بَرِيئًا مِنَ التُّهْمَةِ ، بَعِيدًا مِنَ الظِّنَّةِ ، وَأَمَّا أَحَادِيثُ التَّرْغِيبِ وَالْمَوَاعِظِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ فَإِنَّهُ يَجُوزُ كَتْبُهَا عَنْ سَائِرِ الْمَشَايِخِ


“Chapter on strictness in legal Hadīths (Ahādīth al-Ahkām) and the permissibility in the virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). It has been quoted from many of the pious predecessors (al-Salaf) that it is not permitted to transmit ḥadīths concerning permissibility (Halal) and prohibition (Haram) except from those who are free of accusation, far from suspicion. But as for the ḥadīths of encouragement (targhīb), preaching (mawāʿiẓ) and similar things, it is permitted to record them from other Shaykhs.”

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi has also mentioned a report with his chain of transmission back to Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal in his al-Kifāya (1/134) as saying:

ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ الْقَطَّانُ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ ، لَفْظًا ، أنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَافِظُ،, قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا زَكَرِيَّا يَحْيَى بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ الْعَنْبَرِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا الْعَبَّاسِ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ السِّجْزِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ النَّوْفَلِيَّ يَعْنِي أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ حَنْبَلٍ ، يَقُولُ: «إِذَا رَوَيْنَا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ فِي الْحَلَالِ وَالْحَرَامِ وَالسُّنَنِ وَالْأَحْكَامِ تَشَدَّدْنَا فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ ، وَإِذَا رَوَيْنَا عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ وَمَا لَا يَضَعُ حُكْمًا وَلَا يَرْفَعُهُ تَسَاهَلْنَا فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ»


Ibn Hanbal said: If reports are related to us from the Prophet
concerning what is lawful (halal), forbidden (haram), the Sunnas and legal rulings, we are severe with the chains of transmission (asānid). But if reports are related to us from the Prophet concerning virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), and what does not place a judgement and not raised back, we are lenient with the chains of transmission (asānid).”

Some scholars have weakened the above narration back to ibn Hanbal due to the weakness of the sub-narrators Abul Abbas Ahmed ibn Muhammad al-Sijzi and al-Nawfali. The same narration was also recorded by Imam Abu Abdullah al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) in his al-Madkhal ala Kitab al-Iklil.

Nevertheless, al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) has mentioned the following point in his al-Qawl al-Musaddad (p. 11):

وَقد ثَبت عَن الإِمَام أَحْمد وَغَيره من الْأَئِمَّة أَنهم قَالُوا إِذا روينَا فِي الْحَلَال وَالْحرَام شددنا وَإِذا روينَا فِي الْفَضَائِل وَنَحْوهَا تساهلنا


“It has been established from Imam Ahmed (ibn Hanbal) and others from the Imams that they said: If reports are related to us [from the Prophet
] concerning what is permitted (halal) and forbidden (haram), we are strict; and if reports are related to us on the virtues (al- faḍā’il) or the like, we show our leniency.”

It may be that Ibn Hajar knew of an authentic chain of transmission going back to ibn Hanbal to establish what was attributed to him in the above quote from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and al-Hakim.

Another contemporary scholar who lived in the time of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was the Syrian Muhaddith, al-Hafiz Ibn Nasirud-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 842 AH). In his work on the prayer known as Salatul Tasbih, entitled al-Tarjih li Hadīth Salatil-Tasbih (p. 36), he has mentioned that Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Mahdi and ibn Hanbal were lenient on the transmission of weak narrations to do with instilling virtue and inspiring fear (al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib), stories (qisas), parables (amthal), admonitions (mawa’iz) and virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), and that the majority of scholars permit acting upon such narrations.

Later scholars like al-Hafiz ibn Hajar have stipulated three conditions for acting on such weak type of narrations (see later).

There are some examples where ibn Hanbal allowed the use of such narrations not connected to legal rulings. An example is mentioned in al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (p. 93) of ibn Hanbal as transmitted by his student, al-Marrudhi, as follows:

218 - وَسُئِلَ عن النَّضْر بن إِسْمَاعِيْل أَبِي المُغِيْرَة؟ فَقَاَلَ: قَدْ كتبنا عنه، لَيْسَ هو بقوي، يعتبر بحديثه، ولكن ما كَاَنَ من رقائق وكَاَنَ أكثر حديثًا من ابن السَّمَّاك

“And I asked him (Ibn Hanbal) about al-Nadr ibn Isma’il Abi al-Mughira. He said: ‘We have written [Hadīths] from him; he is not strong; his ḥadīths are considered, but only in raqā’iq. Most of his Hadīths are from ibn al-Sammak.’”

Raqā’iq or riqāq are those type of narrations that are considered to be heart softeners in terms of their meanings.

A contemporary of ibn Hanbal’s was the famous expert on Hadīth narrators known as Imam Abū Zakariyya Yahya Ibn Ma’īn (d. 233 AH). Imam Ibn Sayyid al-Nās (d. 734 AH) has claimed in the beginning of his Uyun al-Athar that Ibn Ma’īn did not permit any type of weak narration to be used in any matter. This claim does not seem to be accurately proven from Ibn Ma’īn as the following examples show.

Imam Abū Ahmed Ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH) has recorded the following in his al-Kāmil fi Du’afa al-Rijāl (10/216, Rushd edition) from Ibn Ma’īn on his standing on a weak type of narrator, and his narration being acceptable for raqā’iq type of narrations:

17241 -حَدثنا علي بن أحمد، حَدثنا ابن أبي مريم، سمعت يحيى بن مَعين يقول: أَبو معشر المدني ضعيف يكتب من حديثه الرقاق، وكان رجلاً أُميا يتقى أن يرْوَى من حديثه المسند

Ibn Ma’īn said: “Abu Ma’shar al-Madani is weak, but his ḥadīths on riqāq can be recorded. He was an illiterate man, and one should fear narrating his musnad Hadīths.”

Ibn ʿAdī has recorded the following also in his al-Kāmil fi Du’afa al-Rijāl (9/515):

15993 - حَدثنا علان، حَدثنا ابن أبي مريم، سألت يَحيى، عن موسى بن عبيدة الربذي؟ فقال: ضَعيف، إلا أنه يكتب من حديثه الرقاق

Ibn Ma’īn was asked about the narrator known as Musa ibn Ubayda al-Rabadhi and he said: “Weak (in Hadīth), except that his Hadīth on riqāq may be written down.”

The last narration was also recorded by Imam Abū Ja’far Al-Uqayli (d. 322 AH) in his Kitab al-Du’afa (4/1314).

Ibn ʿAdī has also recorded the following in his al-Kāmil fi Du’afa al-Rijāl (2/235):

2319 - حَدثنا علي بن أحمد بن سليمان، حَدثنا أحمد بن سعد بن أبي مريم، قال: سمعتُ يَحيى بن مَعين يقول: إدريس بن سنان يكتب من حديثه الرقاق

Ibn Ma’īn said about the narrator known as Idris ibn Sinan: “His Hadīth on riqāq may be written down.”

Idris ibn Sinan was declared to be overall weak by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib (no. 294)

Two more contemporaries to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi who touched on this matter were the two Huffāz of Hadīth, Abu Umar ibn Abd al Barr al-Maliki (d. 463 AH) and al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH).

Ibn Abd al-Barr said in his al-Tamhīd li-mā fī al-Muwaṭṭa’ min al-Maʿānī wa’l-Asānīd (1/127), after mentioning a narration via an unknown narrator named Abu Abdul Ghani:

وأهل العلم ما زالوا يسامحون أنفسهم في رواية الرغائب والفضائل عن كل أحد وإنما كانوا يتشددون في أحاديث الأحكام


“The People of Knowledge have always been tolerant in narrating reports on devout aspirations (al-raghā’ib) and virtues (al-faḍā’il) from everybody. They were stringent only on ḥadīths regarding legal rulings (Ahādīth al-Ahkām).”

Al-Bayhaqi reported the following from Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) in his Shu’ab al-Imān (3/428, no. 1914):

قَالَ أَحْمَدُ: " وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي دُعَاءِ الْخَتْمِ حَدِيثٌ مُنْقَطِعٌ بِإِسْنَادٍ ضَعِيفٍ وَقَدْ تَسَاهَلَ أَهْلُ الْحَدِيثِ فِي قَبُولِ مَا وَرَدَ مِنَ الدَّعَوَاتِ وَفَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ، مَتَى مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ مَنْ يُعْرَفُ بِوَضْعِ الْحَدِيثِ أَوِ الْكَذِبِ فِي الرِّوَايَةِ "


“And a broken chained (munqati) Hadīth has been reported from the Messenger of Allah
on the supplication of completing (the Qur’an), with a weak (da’eef) chain of transmission. The People of Ḥadīth (Ahlul-Hadīth) have been lenient (tasāhala) in accepting what has appeared regarding devout supplications (al-da’awāt) and the virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), as long as no one (in the isnād) was a known forger of Hadīth, or a liar in the narration.”

Imam Abu Amr ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) said in his famous Muqaddima (p. 98, Nurud-Din Itr edn) on Hadīth terminology:

اعْلَمْ أَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ الْمَوْضُوعَ شَرُّ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ، وَلَا تَحِلُّ رِوَايَتُهُ لِأَحَدٍ عَلِمَ حَالَهُ فِي أَيِّ مَعْنًى كَانَ إِلَّا مَقْرُونًا بِبَيَانِ وَضْعِهِ، بِخِلَافِ غَيْرِهِ مِنَ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ الَّتِي يُحْتَمَلُ صِدْقُهَا فِي الْبَاطِنِ، حَيْثُ جَازَ رِوَايَتُهَا فِي التَّرْغِيبِ وَالتَّرْهِيبِ، عَلَى مَا نُبَيِّنُهُ قَرِيبًا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى

The above has been presented in the English edition under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadīth” (p. 77) as follows:

“The forged Hadīth is the fabricated, made-up Hadīth. Be aware that the forged Hadīth is the worst kind of the weak Hadīth. It is not permissible under any circumstance for someone who is aware that a Hadīth is forged to relate it, unless coupled with a declaration that it is forged. This is different from the other kinds of weak Hadīth - which may possibly be fundamentally truthful - in as much as it is permissible to transmit the other kinds of weak Hadīth to instill virtue and inspire fear (al-targhib wa-l-tarhib), as we will explain shortly, God (He is exalted) willing.”

Ibn al-Salah also said in his Muqaddima (p. 103):

يَجُوزُ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَغَيْرِهِمُ التَّسَاهُلُ فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ وَرِوَايَةِ مَا سِوَى الْمَوْضُوعِ مِنْ أَنْوَاعِ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ مِنْ غَيْرِ اهْتِمَامٍ بِبَيَانِ ضَعْفِهَا فِيمَا سِوَى صِفَاتِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَأَحْكَامِ الشَّرِيعَةِ مِنَ الْحَلَالِ وَالْحَرَامِ وَغَيْرِهَا. وَذَلِكَ كَالْمَوَاعِظِ، وَالْقِصَصِ، وَفَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ، وَسَائِرِ فُنُونِ التَّرْغِيبِ وَالتَّرْهِيبِ، وَسَائِرِ مَا لَا تَعَلُّقَ لَهُ بِالْأَحْكَامِ وَالْعَقَائِدِ. وَمِمَّنْ رُوِّينَا عَنْهُ التَّنْصِيصَ عَلَى التَّسَاهُلِ فِي نَحْوِ ذَلِكَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، وَأَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا.

The above has been presented in the English edition (p. 80) as follows:

“In the opinion of the scholars of Hadīth and others, some laxity is tolerated in the provision of isnāds and in the transmission of Hadīth from the various categories of weak Hadīth - with the exception of forged Hadīth - without bothering to explain their weakness. This applies in topics other than the characteristics of God (He is exalted) and legal rulings concerning the permitted and forbidden, and so forth.

It is valid, for instance, for sermons, stories, the descriptions of the rewards associated with the performance of various religious acts, the other types of Hadīth inspiring virtue and instilling fear, and the Hadīth on other matters having no connection to legal rulings and theological issues. ʿAbd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ahmad b. Hanbal (God be pleased with them) are some of those we heard from who totally forbade laxity in Hadīth like these.”

As for the last portion from the English translation of ibn al-Salah’s above work, the translator published it as: “Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ahmad b. Hanbal (God be pleased with them) are some of those we heard from who totally forbade laxity in Hadīth like these.”

What they forbade laxity on was acting on and using narrations to do with legal rulings (Ahkam al-Shari’a) which were not proven authentic. The same would apply to theological issues connected to creedal issues (aqa’id).

A better translation would be: “Among those from whom we narrate such a requirement of laxity on such matters are Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi and Ahmed ibn Hanbal – May Allah be pleased with both of them."

Within this article, quotes have been provided earlier on from Ibn Mahdi and his student ibn Hanbal allowing laxity on acting on narrations to do with virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) if the narrations are weak overall.

The above point from Ibn al-Salah was reported similarly by Imam Jalalud-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) in his Tahdhir al-Khawass (pp. 74-75), and straight after it al-Suyuti said:

وَقد أطبق على ذَلِك عُلَمَاء الحَدِيث فجزموا بِأَنَّهُ لَا تحل رِوَايَة الْمَوْضُوع فِي أَي معنى كَانَ إلا مَقْرُونا بِبَيَان وَضعه ، بِخِلَاف الضَّعِيف فإنه تجوز رِوَايَته فِي غير الْأَحْكَام والعقائد ، وَمِمَّنْ جزم بذلك : شيخ الإسلام محيي الدّين النَّوَوِيّ فِي كِتَابيه الإرشاد والتقريب ، وقاضي الْقُضَاة بدر الدّين ابْن جمَاعَة في المنهل الروي ، وَالطِّيبِي فِي الْخُلَاصَة ، وَشَيخ الإسلام سراج الدّين البُلْقِينِيّ فِي محَاسِن الِاصْطِلَاح ، وحافظ عصره الشَّيْخ زيد الدّين أَبُو الْفضل عبد الرَّحِيم الْعِرَاقِيّ فِي ألفيته وَشَرحهَا وَعبارَة الألفية


“On this the scholars of Hadīth correspond one and all, and they firmly assert that it is impermissible to relate a fabrication in any sense of any kind except together with the elucidation of its being fabricated, contrary to the weak Hadīth, which it is permitted to relate in other than legal rulings (ahkām) and creedal issues (aqā’id).

Amongst those who have positively affirmed this is Shaykh al-Islam Muhyud-Din al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) in his two books, al-Irshād and al-Taqrīb; Qadi al-Qudāt Badrud-Din ibn Jama’ah (d. 733 AH) in al-Manhal al-Rāwi; al-Tībi (d. 743 AH) in al-Khulasa; Shaykh al-Islam Sirajud-Din al-Bulqini (d. 805 AH) in Mahāsin al-Istilah; and the Hadīth master (Hafiz) of his age, Shaykh Zaynud-Din Abul Fadl Abdur Rahim al-Iraqi (d. 806 AH) in his Alfiyya and its commentary.”

Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said in his Kitab al-Adhkar (p. 8):

قال العلماءُ من المحدّثين والفقهاء وغيرهم: يجوز ويُستحبّ العمل في الفضائل والترغيب والترهيب بالحديث الضعيف ما لم يكن موضوعاً. وأما الأحكام كالحلال والحرام والبيع والنكاح والطلاق وغير ذلك فلا يُعمل فيها إلا بالحديث الصحيح أو الحسن 


“The scholars from the Hadīth experts (muhaddithin), the jurisprudents (fuqaha) and others said: It is permitted and praiseworthy to act on (Hadīths on the) virtues (fada’il), exhortation to do good (targhib) and instilling fear (tarhib), with the weak (da’eef) Hadīth if it is not fabricated.

As for the legal rulings like the Halal (permitted) and Haram (forbidden), sale (of goods), marriage, divorce and other than that, one should not act on them except with authentic (Sahih) or good (Hasan) Hadīth.”

Imam al-Nawawi said in his al-Tarkhīs fi al-Ikram bi al-Qiyam li Dhawi al-Fadl wa al-Maziyya min Ahl al-Islam (pp. 17-18, 1st edition):

ولكن هذا الحديث من باب الفضائل ، وقد اتفق أهل الحَدِيث وَغَيرهم على الْعَمَل فِي الْفَضَائِل وَنَحْوهَا من القصص وشبهها مما ليس فيه حكم ولا شىء من العقائد وصفات ألله تعالى بالحديث الضعيف ، والله أعلم


“But this Hadīth is from the chapter on virtues, and the People of Hadīth (Ahlul-Hadīth) and others are agreed on the acting on such to do with virtues and so on, from stories which are like it, provided they are not to do with a legal ruling, and nothing from creedal beliefs and the Attributes of Allah most High, with weak Hadīth, and Allah knows best.”

Imam al-Nawawi said in his introduction to his well-known al-Arba’un al-Nawawiyya:

وقد اتفق العلماء على جواز العمل بالحديث الضعيف في فضائل الأعمال


“The scholars are agreed it is permissible to act on a weak (da’eef) Hadīth in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”

Imam al-Nawawi said in his Fatāwa (p. 75, Kitab al Jana’iz) after mentioning a Hadīth on talqin (instructing the deceased Muslim)

وهو حديث ضعيف، ولكن يُستأنس به، وقد اتفق علماء الحديث وغيرهم على المسامحة في أحاديث الفضائل والترغيب والترهيب


“It is a weak (da’eef) Hadīth, but one feels content with it. The scholars of Hadīth and others agree on indulgence towards Ahadīth on virtues (al-Fada’il), exhortation and instilling fear.”

Imam al-Nawawi has also mentioned acting on weak Ahadīth for faḍā’il al-aʿmāl in various places of his al-Majmu Sharh al-Muhadhhab (see 2/94, 3/248 and 8/261). As part of a discussion on a Hadīth found in Sunan Abi Dawud, he said in al-Majmu (3/122):

فَهُوَ حَدِيثٌ ضَعِيفٌ لَكِنَّ الضَّعِيفَ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ

“For it is a weak Hadīth, but the weak (Hadīth) is acted upon in faḍā’il al-aʿmāl (virtuous actions) by agreement of the scholars.”

Imam al-Nawawi also said in his al-Tibyān fi ādāb Hamalat al-Qur’an (p. 4):

واعلم أن العلماء من الحديث وغيرهم جوزوا العمل بالضعيف في فضائل الأعمال


“Know that the scholars of Hadīth and others permit acting on weak (Hadīth) in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”

Imam al-Nawawi has also discussed the acting upon of weak Ahadīth on virtuous actions in his Sharh on Sahih Muslim known as al-Minhāj (see 1/125, 1st edition 1929 CE/1347 AH).

Al-Hafiz Zaynud-Din al-Iraqi (d. 806 AH) said in his poem on Hadīth terminology known as the Alfiyya:

255 - وَسَهَّلُوا في غَيْرِ مَوْضُوْعٍ رَوَوْا ... مِنْ غَيْرِ تَبْيِينٍ لِضَعْفٍ، وَرَأوْا
256 - بَيَانَهُ في الحُكْمِ وَالعَقَائِدِ ... عَنِ (ابنِ مَهْدِيٍّ) وَغَيْرِ وَاحِدِ


And they eased (the criteria) in narrating other than the forged narration
Without having to indicate its weakness, but this they consider
In explaining what pertains to legal judgements and doctrinal issues
As related from Ibn Mahdi and more than one (scholar of Hadīth)

Al-Iraqi mentioned the following in his own commentary to the Alfiyya that was published under the title Sharh al-Tabsira wa al-Tadhkira (1/325):

وأمّا غيرُ الموضوعِ فجوّزوا التساهُل في إسنادِهِ وروايتِهِ من غيرِ بيانٍ لضَعْفِهِ إذا كانَ في غيرِ الأحكامِ والعقائدِ. بلْ في الترغيبِ والترهيبِ، من المواعظِ والقصصِ، وفضائلِ الأعمالِ، ونحوِها. أما إذا كانَ في الأحكامِ الشرعيةِ من الحلالِ والحرامِ وغيرِهما، أو في العقائدِ كصفاتِ اللهِ تَعَالَى، وما يجوزُ ويستحيلُ عَلَيْهِ، ونحوِ ذلكَ، فَلَمْ يَرَوا التساهلَ في ذَلِكَ. وممَّنْ نصَّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ من الأئمةِ عبدُ الرحمنِ بنُ مهديٍّ، وأحمدُ بنُ حنبلٍ، وعبدُ اللهِ بنُ المباركِ، وغيرُهُمْ. وقدْ عقدَ ابنُ عديٍّ في مقدّمةِ " الكاملِ "، والخطيبُ في " الكفايةِ " باباً لذلكَ


“As for what is besides the fabricated narration, they permitted lenience in the chain of transmission and its transmission without explaining its weakness. That is, if it is besides that related to legal rulings (ahkām) and creedal beliefs, like in exhorting to do good and instilling fear (al-Targhib wal Tarhib), from preaching, stories, and virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) and so on.

As for what is to do with Shari’a-based rulings from what is permitted (halal), forbidden (haram) and so on, or that to do with beliefs pertaining to the Attributes of Allah most High, it may be not possible to allow that, and so on. They did not see this lenience on that. As for the Imams who have a textual saying on this, they are Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak and others from them. Ibn Adi and al-Khatib (al-Baghdadi) have a chapter on this in the introduction to al-Kāmil (fi Du’afa al-Rijāl) and in al-Kifāya (fi 'Ilm al-Riwāya) respectively.”

Note, in the earlier part of this article, the points from Ibn Mahdi, Ibn Hanbal and ibn al-Mubarak have all been provided. The last quote was also mentioned with similar wording by al-Hafiz al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) in his commentary on the above-named Alfiyya under the title, Fath al-Mugith (1/349), as well as by Imam Ibn al-Wazir (d. 840 AH) in his Tanqīḥ al-anẓār fī maʿrifat ʿulūm al-āthār (pp. 185-186)

Imam Ali al-Qāri al-Hanafi (d. 1014 AH) said in his al-Asrar al-Marfu’a (no. 434) after mentioning the weakness of a narration on wiping the neck during ablution:

وَالضَّعِيفُ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ اتِّفَاقًا وَلَذَا قَالَ أَئِمَّتُنَا إِنَّ مَسْحَ الرَّقَبَةِ مُسْتَحَبٌّ أَوْ سُنَّةٌ


“And the weak Hadīth is put into practice by agreement in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). Hence our (Hanafi) Imams said that wiping the neck is desirable or a Sunna.”

Ali al-Qāri also mentioned in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (2/806, no. 1019):

لِأَنَّ غَايَتَهُ أَنَّهُ كَالضَّعِيفِ، وَهُوَ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ اتِّفَاقًا


“For its end result is like that of the weak (hadith), and it is acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement”

He also quoted his teacher (Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami) as saying, in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (3/880, no. 1144) about a broken chained (munaqti) narration which is technically weak (da’eef), the following point:

قَالَ ابْنُ حَجَرٍ: رَوَاهُ التِّرْمِذِيُّ بِسَنَدٍ مُنْقَطِعٍ وَمَعَ ذَلِكَ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ


“Ibn Hajar said: ‘Al-Tirmidhi related it with a broken chain (munqati) of transmission; with that, it may be acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).’”

He also said in Mirqāt al-Mafātih (3/895):

مَعَ أَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعُوا عَلَى جَوَازِ الْعَمَلِ بِالْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ


“With that, they agreed on the permissibility to act on a weak Hadīth in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”

He also quoted his teacher Ibn Hajar as saying in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (3/969):

لَكِنْ يَعْمَلُ بِالْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ

“But a weak Hadīth is acted on in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement of the scholars (ittifaq al-ulama).”

He also said in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (4/1603, no. 2313):

إِسْنَادُهُ ضَعِيفٌ، لَكِنْ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ

“Its chain of transmission is weak, but it is acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”

He also said in Mirqāt al-Mafātih (8/3117, no. 4976):

وَعَلَى تَقْدِيرِ ضَعْفِهِ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ إِجْمَاعًا

“And on assessment of its weakness, it is acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement (ijma).”

There are several more examples where Ali al-Qāri spoke about the permissibility to act on weak narrations in virtuous actions in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih.

Indeed, Imam ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) mentioned in his al-Fatawa al-Hadīthiyya (p. 132) while answering a question with regard to Imam al-Nawawi’s Kitab al-Adhkar, the following with regard to acting on certain types of weak narrations connected to virtuous actions:

لأن الحديث الضعيف والمرسل والمعضل والمنقطع يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال اتفاقا بل إجماعا على ما فيه


“Because the weak (da’eef) Hadīth, the mursal, mu’dal, munqati, are acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement (ittifaq), rather by consensus (ijma) upon it.”

The ruling of al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) on acting on weak Ahadīth for faḍā’il al-aʿmāl was mentioned by his student, al-Hafiz al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) in his al-Qawl al-Badi‘ fi al-Salat wa al-Salam ‘ala [al-Habibal-Shafi‘ (p. 255) as part of the following discussion:

قال شيخ الإسلام أبو زكريا النووي - رحمه الله - في الأذكار قال العلماء من المحدثين والفقهاء وغيرهم يجوز ويستحب العمل في الفضائل والترغيب والترهيب بالحديث الضعيف ما لم يكن موضوعاً وأما الأحكام كالحلال والحرام والبيع والنكاح والطلاق وغير ذلك فلا يعمل فيها إلا بالحديث الصحيح أو الحسن إلا أن يكون في احتياط في شيء من ذلك كما إذا أورد حديث ضعيف بكراهة بعض البيوع أو الأنكحة فإن المستحب أن يتنزه عنه ولكن لا يجب، انتهى.

وخالف ابن العربي المالكي في ذلك فقال إن الحديث الضعيف لا يعمل به مطلقاً وقد سمعت شيخنا مراداً يقول وكتبه لي بخطه أن شرائط العمل بالضعيف ثلاثة، الأول متفق عليه أن يكون الضعف غير شديد فيخرج من انفرد من الكذابين والمتهمين بالكذب ومن فحش غلطه، الثاني أن يكون مندرجاً تحت أصل عام فيخرج ما يخترع بحيث لا يكون له أصل أصلاً، الثالث أن لا يعتقد عند العمل به ثبوته لئلا ينسب إلى
النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ما لم يقله قال والأخيران عن ابن السلام وعن صاحبه ابن دقيق العيد والأول نقل العلائي الإتفاق عليه،

قلنا وقد نقل عن الإمام أحمد أنه يعمل بالضعيف إذا لم يوجد غيره ولم يكن ثم ما يعارضه وفي رواية عنه ضعيف الحديث أحب إلينا من رأى الرجال


“Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy upon him) said in the (Kitabal-Adhkar:

‘The scholars from the experts of Hadīth and the jurisprudents and others have said it is permitted and praiseworthy that acts on virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), exhortation to good and deterrence from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak Hadīth so long as it is not fabricated (mawdu`). As for legal rulings (ahkâm) such as what is allowed (halal), and what is forbidden (haram), trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one's practice is not based upon anything other than authentic (sahih) or good (hasan) Hadīth, except as a precaution in some issue related to one of the above, for example, if a weak (da’eef) Hadīth was mentioned about the abhorrence (karahat) of certain kinds of trades or marriages. In such circumstances what is recommended is to avoid such trades and marriages, but it is not obligatory."

Disagreeing with this, ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maliki said:

‘Absolutely no practice is based on weak Hadīth.’

I have heard my Shaykh (al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani) maintain on the following, and he put it to me in writing himself:

‘The conditions for acting on weak Hadīth are three:

The first is unanimously agreed upon: that the weakness must not be very severe (ghayr shadid). This eliminates the narrations singly recorded by liars, or those accused of lying, and those who make gross errors.

The second is that there be a general legal basis for it. This eliminates what is made up and has no legal basis to start with.

Thirdly, that one not consider, while acting on the basis of it, that it has been established as true. This is in order that no words which the Prophet did not say be ascribed to him.’

(Ibn Hajar said further):

‘The last two conditions are from Ibn Abd al-Salam and his companion Ibn Daqiq al-Eid. Abu Sa’eed al-Ala'i reported agreement over the first condition.’

I say (al-Sakhawi): It has been conveyed from Imam Ahmed (ibn Hanbal) that one may act on a weak Hadīth if there is no other Hadīth to that effect, and also if there is no Hadīth that opposes it. In one account, he is reported to have said: ‘I prefer weak Hadīth better than the opinion of men.’" End of quote.

Note that the third point that al-Sakhawi quoted from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was also elucidated by the latter in his Tabyīn al-ʿajab bi-mā warada fī faḍl Rajab (p. 3)

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani headed a section in his al-Matalib al-Aliyya (12/659) with the following title:

بَابُ الْعَمَلِ بِالْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ


“Chapter on acting on weak Hadīth with regard to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”

One may see an example of where ibn Hajar stated that a weak Hadīth on the virtue of the town of Asqalan was considered to fall under the faḍā’il al-aʿmāl genre in his al-Qawl al-Musaddad (p. 27, Hadīth no. 8).

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani narrated a Hadīth in his al-Amāli al-Mutlaqa (p. 134) and after mentioning the agreed upon weakness of a narrator by the name of Uthman Ibn Abdur Rahman Ibn Umar ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, he said:

وَقَدْ رَخَّصُوا فِي رِوَايَةِ الْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ


“And they permitted the narration of weak Hadīth on virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has also left behind a Forty Hadīth collection known as al-Arba`un fi rad’ al-mujrim ‘an sabb al-muslim (40 Hadīths on deterring the criminal to not abuse a fellow Muslim), and within it are some narrations that have been considered to be weak by later scholars.

This trend of narrating weak Hadīths on either virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), exhorting to do good and instilling fear (al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib), or heart softening narrations (raqā’iq or riqāq) can also be seen in a number of Forty Hadīth collections by other scholars.

As for what was mentioned about Abu al-`Arabi al-Maliki above, then this seems to be Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 543 AH), who wrote a commentary on Jami al-Tirmidhi with the title Aridat al-Ahwadhi Sharh Sunan at-Tirmidhi. His position on not acting upon any weak Hadīth in all circumstances was also mentioned by Imam al-Suyuti in his Tadrib al-Rawi (1/351). Despite what has been ascribed to Ibn al-‘Arabi, he too has allowed acting on some type of weak narrations.

In his Aridat al-Ahwazi (10/205) while mentioning the chain presented by al-Tirmidhi containing an unknown narrator (majhul) he said:

وإن كان مجهولا فإنه يستحب العمل به لأنه دعاء بخير

“Although its (chain has an) unknown narrator, it is preferable to act upon it because it is a supplication (du’a) for well-being.”

This example serves to show that he accepted acting on a technically weak narration, as the chain that has an unknown reporter (majhul) is considered weak in essence.

To conclude, the vast majority of scholars in Sunni Islam have allowed action upon weak narrations not connected to legal rulings or creedal matters, with certain stipulations. One must also mention that primarily one should act on the authentically narrated reports connected to any matter of the Islamic teachings, and if the need arises to act on weak narrations connected to virtuous actions then it is done so on a secondary basis. The common Muslim should look to when they may act upon such weak narrations based on the rulings of authoritative scholars of Hadith and jurisprudence (fiqh). The brother, Abu Humayd, has given some examples in what follows.

Peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad.

Abul Hasan
August 2015/Shawwal 1436 AH 

الأجوبة الصريحة لمن أنكر الأحاديث الضعيفة

Clear cut answers for those who reject weak ah̩ãdĩth
Compiled by Abu Humayd

There is a general view from the majority of the ’Ulamã' that acting upon weak ah̩ãdĩth on the topic of virtues is permitted whilst only a handful disagree with them[1][2]. However, saying that, acting upon weak narrations has been met with three conditions[3] as mentioned by the H̩ãfiz̩; Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ 
رحمه الله [d. 852 AH], although some could argue that quite a few scholars were less stringent in their conditions of accepting weak narratives on the topic of fadhã'il[4], but for brevity's sake we will stick to the conditions laid out by the H̩ãfiz̩.

There will follow a few examples (the examples will be limited to just give an insight) of some virtuous deeds that meet the conditions laid forth, these examples will be of those that are frequently regurgitated in discussions by the opponents because of their weakness. This should afford us the opportunity to also take into consideration acting upon them (those ah̩adĩth narrated via weak narrators related to the topic of fadhã'il al-a’mãl) - or whether we choose not to act on them - at the least, should not condemn those who do take the initiative in acting upon them.

This will also work to flush out those who make the claim to accept weak narrations that meets the criteria, (but) in reality will expose their lip-service as will be made clear with the examples given. To proceed, the three conditions (shurũt̩) are as follows:

1. The h̩adĩth should not be severely weak (dhu’f shadĩd), to the extent that it contains liars (kãz̩ibĩn) in the chain, or those accused of lying (muttaham bil-kaz̩ib)or even those whose mistakes are very severe (fah̩ish al-ghalat̩).

This first point excludes the following types of narrators:

A.      Those who are majhul [unknown; details of narrators that are not found and those of whom neither have appraisals or criticisms].
B.      Narrators who are generally dha'if [weak; slight weakness in memorisation (hifz) or having less precision (dhabt) in relaying the texts].
C.       It also excludes narrations where there is inqita' in the isnãd [chain] or narrations which are mursal.

2. The virtuous deeds mentioned in the h̩adĩth should generally fall under an established practice in Islãm.

This means that there needs to be some foundation [as̩l]. Few examples of actions that fit this criteria will be given as we move on.

3. The one who acts upon the weak narration [that fits the above two criteria] should not believe that such an act is thãbit [established with certainty from the Prophet 
صلى الله عليه وسلم]. Rather one should act out of ih̩tiyãt̩ [precautionary measure).

This condition is self explanatory, and should require no explanation. However, an important point that should be made is that no one should obligate such practices, nor should they look down upon others who don't act upon it. Having said that, the one who acts upon ah̩adĩth that are weak, and meet the above criteria should not be blamed either.

Relating to the third criteria, it would also be unnecessary to go over it with every example that is given because it would be repeating what would be mentioned the first time round. So essentially what should be understood in this point is many of the laity are now - in terms of virtuous deeds - aware that weak narrations can be used and acted upon, this is not hidden to those who are exposed to such polemics on-line and off, which should dismantle any claims that the laity are not informed regarding the weaknesses of certain narrations relating to virtuous deeds. Generally, many also know of the conditions relating to the acceptance of weak narrations relating to fadhã'il. In this age, knowledge is not stagnant. Rather it is available at the fingertips, at the click of buttons or even one call away. The ’Ulamã' have collectively (some more than others) been informing the masses regarding narrations, some may not have been very stringent regarding various weak narrations, possibly because they believed that such narration is actually thãbit from the Prophet 
صلى الله عليه وسلم, this proves sometimes it comes down to ijtihãd, hence being a very subjective matter and not something which they can be blamed for.

As the conditions have been relayed with brief explanations and references, examples will follow of some virtuous deeds that meet the conditions. The following examples will prove that those who propagate the acting upon weak narrations for the purpose of virtuous deeds do undertake due care and caution as a collective and not wilfully narrate on to others everything they hear. To proceed with the examples:

1. Wiping the face after du’ã

Application of the first criteria:

There are generally three oft-quoted narrations regarding wiping the face after du’ã; one in Sunan Ibn Mãjah[5] (which is weak due to S̩ãlih̩ Ibn Hassãn, though it could be argued this narration has a mutãbi’ah), another in Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ[6] which he classed as "S̩ah̩ĩh̩ Gharĩb" (despite it containing H̩ammãd Ibn ’Ĩsã, in which there is general weakness), and yet another narration in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[7] (which is slightly weak due to the chain containing Ibn Lahĩ’ah who is weak and H̩afs̩ Ibn Hishãm who is majhũl). The latter two narrations were utilised as proof by H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn H̩ajar in his Bulũgh al-Marãm[8] saying that the narration in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd is a shãhid [support] to the narration in Sunan of al-Tirmiz̩ĩ and that they strengthen each other to the level of h̩asan [acceptability].

Another acceptable narration that can be utilised as evidence is narrated in the Mus̩annaf of ’Abd al-Razzãq[9] which is a mursal s̩ah̩ĩh̩ h̩adĩth. The Imãm, ’Abd al-Razzãq 
رحمه الله [d. 211 AH] himself said he acted upon this practice (of wiping the hands over the face after supplication) which clearly proves the such narration is s̩ãlih̩ lil-ih̩tijãj [good to deduce proof from] and further strengthens H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn H̩ajar's view that it reaches the level of h̩asan due to it's combined strength.

Application of the second criteria:

Raising the hands for supplication is established via multitudes of ah̩ãdĩth without any disagreements, and since raising the hands is an established practice, then the wiping of the face after the supplication will only compliment it and not contradict it. This is because wiping the face requires the hands be raised for supplication, the latter being something that is integral with supplication. Another subtle point is that supplication is an act of ’ibãdah[10] which requires sincerity[11], and the believers shouldn't ask from Allãh except that they shed a few tears whilst supplicating. After supplication they should wipe the tears from their faces with their hands (as it a natural thing do to). This proves that wiping the face is nothing short of being complimentary to raising the hands.

2. Wiping the nape during wudhũ'

2. Wiping the nape during wudhũ'

Application of the first criteria:

There are many narrations that clearly outline the permissibility of wiping of the nape during wudhũ', different words have been used to describe wiping the nape (back part of the neck). Some words that are used to describe the nape are raqabah, ’unuq and qafã.

The first narration that is used is in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[12] (this narration contains Layth Ibn Abĩ Salĩm who has been classed as weak and there is also an unknown narrator, Mus̩arrif Ibn ’Amr), another narration that is utilised is related in Musnad al-Firdaws[13] (this is also weak due to the narrator Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Amr al-Ans̩ãrĩ regarding whom there is general weakness). A third narration (which does not suffer severe weakness) is in al-T̩abarãnĩ's Kabĩr[14] (The defect here is in the narrator, Muh̩ammad ibn H̩ujr).

There is also a supplementary evidence which is utilised, this is a strong mursal narration mentioned by Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ in al-Talkhĩs̩ al-H̩abĩr[15], the narration is as follows:

"Whoever makes masah of his nape together with his head will be saved from severe thirst / shackles on the day of Qiyãmah."

The H̩ãfiz̩ goes on to say that despite it being mursal [having a link missing of a companion] it will take the ruling of marfũ’ because it is not possible to talk about the unseen out of mere opinion[16], meaning it surely must have been substantiated to make such a statement.

In summary of all this the great Fiqh and H̩adĩth Scholar of the last century from the Indian Sub-continent, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ 
رحمه الله [d. 1304 AH] wrote a whole risãlah on this subject alone, entitled; Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, in which he proves with many narrations that wiping of the nape is established. His conclusion was that such practice is mustah̩abb, and that the one who practices it shouldn't be blamed and the one who leaves it there is nothing wrong upon him either[17].

Application of the second criteria:

In respect to this criteria it is important to take note that wiping the nape is not subtracting any practice that is already established via authentic narrations for ablution. Rather, it is an addition [albeit via weak narrations] to that which is already thãbit in Islãm i.e. wudhũ, in other words it is not a replacement nor a substitute for anything that is established.

It is authentically reported that Rasũlullãh 
صلى الله عليه وسلم said that the limbs of the body that are washed during wudhũ' on the Day of Judgement will shine; the faces, the hands and the feet[18], in this regard it is narrated that the companion Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه would extend the length of his washing of his limbs, when he would wash his arms he would wash up close to his shoulders and when washing his feet, he would wash up to the shins[19]. The Scholars have stated that this was from his personal ijtihãd as he believed the virtue was general[20], whereas the Scholars agree there exists no narrations from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he washed further than the elbows when washing the arms nor did he go above the ankles when washing the feet.

Taking the above into consideration there should exist no doubt that acting upon the weak narrations (concerning the nape) would in fact be in-line with the h̩adĩth of S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim by virtue of the fact that the limbs will shine on the Day of Judgement, while also giving consideration to the weak narrations concerning this issue. The narration in S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim shouldn't be taken mutlaqan [absolutely] to do everything, however, it does lend good support to this issue that if there is anything that should be washed (after what has been mentioned in the authentic narrations) then we should certainly be considerate of these weak narrations in light of the fadhĩlah [virtue] mentioned in S̩ah̩ĩh̩ Muslim for washing the limbs.

3. Raising the hands for supplication after the obligatory prayer

Application of the first criteria:

When the Imãm concludes prayer it is prescribed - according to the Scholarly consensus - to make z̩ikr and du’ã, however there remains a contention whether the hands are to be raised when making the supplication. To begin there are general narrations that indicate the hands are to be raised with the palms up whenever we ask from Allãh. This is related in Imãm Abũ Dãwũd's Sunan[21] as follows, the Prophet 
صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

"Whenever you ask Allah, then ask him with the palms of your hands [raised up] and not with the back of your hands".

This indicates that generally it is legislated to raise the hands for supplication in any situation, whether after the obligatory prayers or not. However, there are weak narrations [of raising the hands for supplication] that give strength after the prayers, from them; a narration in al-T̩abarãnĩ's al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr[22] that the companion, ’Abdullãh Ibn al-Zubayr 
رضي الله عنه had seen a man raising his hands [for supplication] before he had concluded the prayer, after this person finished praying he said to him that the Mesenger of Allãh صلى الله عليه وسلم raised his hands (for supplication) after concluding the prayer. The H̩ãfiz̩, Nũr al-Dĩn al-Haythamĩ رحمه الله [d. 807 AH] in his Majma’ al-Zawã'id[23] states all the narrators are reliable [thiqãt]. Another H̩ãfiz̩, Dhiyã' al-Dĩn al-Maqdisĩ رحمه الله [d. 643] in his work; al-Ah̩ãdĩth al-Mukhtãrah, authored to only include rigorously authentic narrations, also included the above h̩adĩth[24]. However, some have argued that there could be a break in the chain due to a certain narrator (Muh̩ammad Ibn Abĩ Yahyã) not meeting the named companion. The second narration that is utilised is related in Ibn Kathĩr's Tafsĩr[25] from Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه that after concluding a prayer, the Messenger of Allãh صلى الله عليه وسلم faced the qiblah and prayed for the emancipation of the Muslims from the hands of the disbelievers. (this narration contains ’Alĩ Ibn Zayd, whom according to Shaykh Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn al-Mubãrakfũrĩ رحمه الله [d. 1353] is a narrator who there is dispute over[26]).

The third narration, narrated in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[27], where the Prophet 
صلى الله عليه وسلم described the night prayer in sets of two with the tashahhud, and after which the hands are to be raised (this narration has a majhũl narrator, ’Abdullãh Ibn Nãfi’). There is also another narration, in the Mus̩annaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah[28] that can be used for support (although this narration contains a weak narrator, Ibn Abĩ Laylah). The combined strength of the above narrations without a doubt do meet the first criteria set by the H̩ãfiz̩; Ibn H̩ajar.

Application of the second criteria:

As for whether it meets the second criteria, then it is pretty much clear that Rasũlullãh 
صلى الله عليه وسلم used to compliment his obligatory prayers with z̩ikr and du’ã. A narration which mentions that the hands are to be raised when we ask from Allãh (all of which have already been posted). This proves by way of ijtihãd that the hands can be raised after the obligatory prayers. However to further consolidate this view, the weak narrations (that has reached the level of acceptability with its combined strength) may be used as evidence and can be acted upon as it doesn't contradict any established evidence. In fact, the established evidence proves the permissibility of it due to it being general. This proves once again that the ’Ulamã do undertake due caution when acting upon narrations that are not strong. The examples given (along with their acceptability, being fit to use as proof) also proves that many of those who oppose these views have clearly gone to an extreme in their rejection of weak narrations concerning virtues, which in reality is against the jumhũr [majority].

4. Worshipping in the nights preceding the ’Ĩdayn [the two ’Ĩds]

Application of the first criteria:

Regarding the above practice many have severely criticised others for practicing and even propagating such narrations that speak of the virtue of this practice, in so far as labelling these narrations as dha’ĩf jiddan [severely weak], only to mimic the words of their leader in the field of grading narrations. To start, there is a narration present in the Sunan of Ibn Mãjah[29] (this narration contains Baqiyyah Ibn al-Walĩd whom Ibn H̩ajar summed up as s̩adũq but committed tadlĩs from weak narrators, leaving aside the abundance of ta’dĩl [appraisals] for him), there is also a mutãbi’ah for this narration as narrated in al-Umm[30] by the Imãm, the Mujtahid, al-Shãfi’ĩ
رحمه الله [d. 204 AH] mawqũfan , from the companion Abũ Dardã' رضي الله عنه (and not from the companion Abũ Umãmah رضي الله عنه as related in Sunan Ibn Mãjah), regardless if it stops at a companion the narration will take the h̩ukm of a marfũ’ because it is a well known principle (that has already preceded) that none of the companions would speak about the unseen matters without prior knowledge of it from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

It is worth noting that al-Shãfi’ĩ himself said it was mustah̩abb to worship on this night after relating the above h̩adĩth[31], which clearly proves that this narration is s̩ãlih̩ lil-ih̩tijãj according to the Mujtahid Imãm.

Even if we assume these narrations are weak on their own (though there is plenty of ground to disagree) and that the words of al-Shãfi’ĩ falls on deaf ears, there is still a good shãhid [support] for this narration recorded in the Mu’jam of al-T̩abarãnĩ in al-Awsat̩[32] (according to al-Haythamĩ the narrator known as ’Umar Ibn Hãrũn al-Balkhĩ has some praises, however many have weakened him[33]). The combined strength cannot be disputed.

It is undeniable that many whom have weakened these narrations from the classical scholars didn't do severe criticism to the extent they labelled such narrations as "not applicable" mutlaqan [absolutely] (the likes of Ibn al-Jawzĩ and Ibn Taymiyyah went overboard in their criticism of these narrations, and those who followed suit from this era), rather they weakened these narrations generally like Im̃am al-Nawawĩ[34], whilst others graded the narration as h̩asan [good][35], for example Imãm Ibn Muflih̩ 
رحمه الله [d. 763 AH].

Furthermore, to prove that the ’Ulamã from the Sub-continent are not following a shãz̩ [isolated] opinion on this matter nor that they are alone in acting upon these narrations, it is mentioned in Mawsũ’at al-Fiqhiyyah[36] that there is consensus between the fuqahã' [the jurists major schools of thought, viz. H̩anafĩ, Mãlikĩ, Shãfi’ĩ and H̩anbalĩ] that it is permitted to worship on the nights of ’Ĩd due to the h̩adĩth (as mentioned above). Which now proves that such narrations are plausible to be acted upon according to the jumhũr.

Application of the second criteria:

The highest form of worship after the obligatory prayers, is according to many Scholars, the worshipping in the nights (standing in prayer). There is no disagreements that the night prayers hold many magnificent virtues, in fact the generality of standing in prayer in the nights is something already established by many narrations. The practice of standing in the nights preceding the ’Ĩds would not be a contradiction to these general narrations, rather a compliment to each other. No one is oblivious to the general virtues of the night prayers (especially those that stand during the nights of ’Ĩds), they will worship on this night knowing nights prayers themselves have merit, and will hope for more reward, as the believer should.


It suffices to say that we pay absolutely no attention to people who give mere lip-service, the ’Ulamã have always been very honest in their research of ahãdĩth and tried their utmost to give (from the corpus of ahãdĩth) gems which the Ummah at large can benefit from. Our ’Ulamã have been always at the forefront when it came to prophetic narrations and were always careful when they passed on the words of Rasũlullãh 
صلى الله عليه وسلم may Allãh have mercy upon them all. Amĩn.

وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد

[1] Shaykh al-Islãm, Imãm al-Nawawĩ 
رحمه الله [d. 676 AH] mentions this in his Majmũ' Sharh̩ al-Muhaz̩z̩ab (3/227):

وقد قدمنا اتفاق العلماء على العمل بالحديث الضعيف في فضائل الأعمال دون الحلال والحرام ، وهذا من نحو فضائل الأعمال

[2] Amongst those who were vocal against even acting upon weak narratives completely [mutlaqan] - even for virtuous actions - was Imãm Ibn al-’Arabĩ 
رحمه الله [d. 543 AH] as mentioned in Tadrĩb al-Rãwĩ (1/252):

لا يجوز العمل بالحديث الضعيف مُطلقاً لا في فضائل الأعمال ولا في غيرها

[3] This was related by the H̩ãfiz̩ al-Sakhãwĩ 
رحمه الله [d. 902 AH], who heard his teacher H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ as mentioned in his book al-Qawl al-Badĩ’ (pg. 195):

وقال الحافظ السخاوي:

سمعت شيخنا مراراً يقول: (يعني الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني) – وكتبه لي بخطه - إن شرائط العمل بالضعيف ثلاثة:

الأول: متفق عليه، أن يكون الضعف غير شديد فيخرج من انفرد من الكذابين والمتهمين بالكذب ومن فحش غلطه .

الثاني: أن يكون مندرجاً تحت أصل عام ، فيخرج ما يخترع بحيث لا يكون له أصل أصلاً .

الثالث: أن لا يعتقد عند العمل به ثبوته لئلا ينسب إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ما لم يقله.

[4] H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn al-S̩alãh̩ 
رحمه الله [d. 643 AH] in his Muqaddamah (2/310), points out a very general condition that weak hadith cannot be used for h̩ukm or it's like, ’aqã'id or Allãh's sifãt rather only for virtuous actions, according to the consensus of the Scholars:

أجمع أهل الحديث وغيرهم على العمل في الفضائل ونحوها مما ليس فيه حكم ولا شيء من العقائد وصفات الله تعالى بالحديث الضعيف في فضائل الأعمال

Similar report was narrated by the Imãm of the Ahl al-Sunnah Ah̩mad Ibn H̩anbal 
رحمه الله [d. 241 AH] as related in al-Qawl al-Musaddad (pg. 11) of Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ, that narrations relating to H̩alãl and H̃arãm he would be more critical in it's analysis, where as if it related to virtuous deeds he would be easy on it's analysis of the chain:

وقد ثبت عن الإمام أحمد وغيره من الأئمة أنهم قالوا : إذا روينا في الحلال والحرام شددنا ، وإذا روينا في الفضائل ونحوها تساهلنا

Indeed, as Ibn H̩ajar mentions others from the a'immah held the same opinion, one of them being the great traditionalist ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn Ibn Mahdĩ 
رحمه الله [d. 198 AH] as related in the Mustadrak of al-H̩ãkim (2/160 #1844):

عبد الرحمن بن مهدي ، يقول : إذا روينا ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في الحلال ، والحرام ، والأحكام ، شددنا في الأسانيد ، وانتقدنا الرجال ، وإذا روينا في فضائل الأعمال والثواب ، والعقاب ، والمباحات ، والدعوات تساهلنا في الأسانيد

[5] Sunan Ibn Mãjah (1181)

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الصَّبَّاحِ , حَدَّثَنَا عَائِذُ بْنُ حَبِيبٍ , عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ حَسَّانَ , عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ , عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ , قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " إِذَا دَعَوْتَ اللَّهَ , فَادْعُ بِبُطُونِ كَفَّيْكَ , وَلَا تَدْعُ بِظُهُورِهِمَا , فَإِذَا فَرَغْتَ , فَامْسَحْ بِهِمَا وَجْهَكَ "

[6] Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ (3386)

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُوسَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ , وَغَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ ، قَالُوا : حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ عِيسَى الْجُهَنِيُّ ، عَنْ حَنْظَلَةَ بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ الْجُمَحِيِّ ، عَنْ سَالِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، قَالَ : " كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ فِي الدُّعَاءِ لَمْ يَحُطَّهُمَا حَتَّى يَمْسَحَ بِهِمَا وَجْهَهُ "

[7] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1492)

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ ، عَنْ حَفْصِ بْنِ هَاشِمِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ ، عَنْ السَّائِبِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " كَانَ إِذَا دَعَا فَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ مَسَحَ وَجْهَهُ بِيَدَيْهِ "

[8] Bulũgh al-Marãm, Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ (pg. 264), and his words are:

وله شواهد منها حديث ابن عباس عند أبي داود ومجموعها يقتضي أنه حديث حسن

[9] Mus̩annaf of ’Abd al-Razzãq (3234/3235)

عن معمر عن الزهري قال : كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يرفع يديه عند صدره في الدعاء ثم يمسح بهما وجهه

قال عبد الرزاق : وربما رأيت معمرا يفعله وأنا أفعله

[10] Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ (3372)

حدثنا أحمد بن منيع حدثنا مروان بن معاوية عن الأعمش عن ذر عن يسيع عن النعمان بن بشير عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال الدعاء هو العبادة

[11] Tafsĩr Ibn Kathĩr (7/85)

قال : ( ألا لله الدين الخالص ) أي : لا يقبل من العمل إلا ما أخلص فيه العامل لله ، وحده لا شريك له

[12] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (113)

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى ، وَمُسَدَّدٌ ، قَالَا : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ ، عَنْ لَيْثٍ ، عَنْ طَلْحَةَ بْنِ مُصَرِّفٍ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ ، قَالَ : " رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَمْسَحُ رَأْسَهُ مَرَّةً وَاحِدَةً حَتَّى بَلَغَ الْقَذَالَ وَهُوَ أَوَّلُ الْقَفَا "

[13] Mentioned in Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ (pg. 11):

روى الديلمى فى مسند الفردوس من حديث ابن عمر رضى الله تعالى عنهما مسح الرقبة امان من الغل يوم القيامة

[14] al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr (10/59 #118)

حدثنا بشر بن موسى ، ثنا محمد بن حجر بن عبد الجبار بن وائل الحضرمي حدثني عمي سعيد بن عبد الجبار ، عن أبيه ، عن أمه أم يحيى ، عن وائل بن حجر قال : " حضرت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقد أتي بإناء فيه ماء ، فأكفأ على يمينه ثلاثا ، ثم غمس يمينه في الإناء فأفاض بها على اليسرى ثلاثا ، ثم غمس اليمنى في الماء فحفن حفنة من ماء فتمضمض بها واستنشق ، واستنثر ثلاثا ، ثم أدخل كفيه في الإناء فحمل بهما ماء فغسل ، وجهه ثلاثا ، وخلل لحيته ، ومسح باطن أذنيه ، ثم أدخل خنصره في داخل أذنه ، ليبلغ الماء ، ثم مسح رقبته

[15] al-Talkhĩs̩ al-H̩abĩr, Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ (1/163-164)

عن عبد الرحمن بن مهدي ، عن المسعودي ، عن القاسم بن عبد الرحمن ، عن موسى بن طلحة قال : { من مسح قفاه مع رأسه وقي الغل يوم القيامة }.

[16] Ibid.

قلت : فيحتمل أن يقال : هذا وإن كان موقوفا فله حكم الرفع ، لأن هذا لا يقال من قبل الرأي ، فهو على هذا مرسل

[17] Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ (pg. --):

والحقُّ في هذا البابِ ما اختارَهُ أولو الألباب من أَنَّهُ مستحبٌّ، مَن فعلَهُ أحسنَ، ومَن لم يفعلْهُ لا بأس عليه.والأحاديثُ الواردةُ فيه وإن كانت ضعيفةً ،لكنها تكفي لإثبات الفضيلةِ

[18] S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim 368:

وحَدَّثَنِي هَارُونُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الأَيْلِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ وَهْبٍ ، أَخْبَرَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَارِثِ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي هِلَالٍ ، عَنْ نُعَيْمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، " أَنَّهُ رَأَى أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ يَتَوَضَّأُ ، فَغَسَلَ وَجْهَهُ وَيَدَيْهِ حَتَّى كَادَ يَبْلُغُ الْمَنْكِبَيْنِ ، ثُمَّ غَسَلَ رِجْلَيْهِ حَتَّى رَفَعَ إِلَى السَّاقَيْنِ ، ثُمَّ قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : إِنَّ أُمَّتِي يَأْتُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ غُرًّا مُحَجَّلِينَ مِنْ أَثَرِ الْوُضُوءِ ، فَمَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ مِنْكُمْ أَنْ يُطِيلَ غُرَّتَهُ ، فَلْيَفْعَلْ "

[19] Ibid.

[20] This was mentioned by H̩ãfiz̩, Ibn Daqĩq al-’Ĩd 
رحمه الله [d. 702 AH] in his Ih̩kãm al-Ih̩kãm Sharh̩ ’Umdat al-Ah̩kãm (1/96) under the narration of Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه:

وفي الرجلين : بغسل بعض الساقين وليس في الحديث تقييد ولا تحديد لمقدار ما يغسل من العضدين والساقين . وقد استعمل أبو هريرة الحديث على إطلاقه وظاهره في طلب إطالة الغرة فغسل إلى قريب من المنكبين .

ولم ينقل ذلك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا كثر استعماله في الصحابة والتابعين رضي الله عنهم فلذلك لم يقل به كثير من الفقهاء

[21] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1273)

حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ الْبَهْرَانِيُّ ، قَالَ : قَرَأْتُهُ فِي أَصْلِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ يَعْنِي ابْنَ عَيَّاشٍ ، حَدَّثَنِي ضَمْضَمٌ ، عَنْ شُرَيْحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو ظَبْيَةَ ، أَنَّ أَبَا بَحْرِيَّةَ السَّكُونِيّ حَدَّثَهُ ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ السَّكُونِيِّ ثُم الْعَوْفِيّ ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " إِذَا سَأَلْتُمُ اللَّهَ فَاسْأَلُوهُ بِبُطُونِ أَكُفِّكُمْ وَلَا تَسْأَلُوهُ بِظُهُورِهَا " . قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد : وقَالَ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ : لَهُ عِنْدَنَا صُحْبَةٌ ، يَعْنِي مَالِكَ بْنَ يَسَارٍ .

[22] al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr (21092)

حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْعَطَّارُ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ الْجَحْدَرِيُّ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي يَحْيَى ، قَالَ : رَأَيْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ ، وَرَأَى رَجُلًا رَافِعًا يَدَيْهِ يَدْعُو قَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْرَغَ مِنْ صَلاتِهِ ، فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنْهَا ، قَالَ : " إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ ، حَتَّى يَفْرَغَ مِنْ صَلاتِهِ "

[23] Majma’ al-Zawã'id, H̩ãfiz̩ Nũr al-Dĩn al-Haythamĩ (10/22 #17345):

رواه الطبراني ، وترجم له فقال : محمد بن أبي يحيى الأسلمي ، عن عبد الله بن الزبير ، ورجاله ثقات

[24] Full name of the work; al-Ah̩ãdĩth al-Jiyãd al-Mukhtãrah min mã laysa fĩ S̩ah̩ĩh̩ayn, H̩ãfiz̩ Dhiyã' al-Dĩn al-Maqdisĩ (3165)

وَبِهِ أبنا وَبِهِ أبنا سُلَيْمَانُ الطَّبَرَانِيُّ ، ثنا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْعَطَّارُ ، ثنا أَبُو كَامِلٍ الْجَحْدَرِيُّ ، ثنا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي يَحْيَى ، قَالَ : رَأَيْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ ، وَرَأَى رَجُلا رَافِعًا يَدَيْهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْرُغَ مِنْ صَلاتِهِ ، فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنْهَا ، قَالَ : إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ مِنْ صَلاتِهِ

[25] Tafsĩr Ibn Kathĩr (2/392)

وقال ابن أبي حاتم : حدثنا أبي ، حدثنا أبو معمر المقري حدثنا عبد الوارث ، حدثنا علي بن زيد ، عن سعيد بن المسيب ، عن أبي هريرة : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم رفع يده بعدما سلم ، وهو مستقبل القبلة فقال : " اللهم خلص الوليد بن الوليد ، وعياش بن أبي ربيعة ، وسلمة بن هشام ، وضعفة المسلمين الذين لا يستطيعون حيلة ولا يهتدون سبيلا من أيدي الكفار "

[26] Tuh̩fat al-Awh̩az̩ĩ, Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn al-Mubãrakfũrĩ (1/172):

قلت : وفي سند هذا الحديث علي بن زيد بن جدعان وهو متكلم فيه .

[27] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1105)

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْمُثَنَّى ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاذُ بْنُ مُعَاذٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ ، حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ رَبِّهِ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ أَبِي أَنَسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نَافِعٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ ، عَنِ الْمُطَّلِبِ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " الصَّلَاةُ مَثْنَى مَثْنَى أَنْ تَشَهَّدَ فِي كُلِّ رَكْعَتَيْنِ ، وَأَنْ تَبَاءَسَ وَتَمَسْكَنَ وَتُقْنِعَ بِيَدَيْكَ ، وَتَقُولَ : اللَّهُمَّ اللَّهُمَّ ، فَمَنْ لَمْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَهِيَ خِدَاجٌ "

[28] Mus̩annaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah (2370)

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، قَالَ : نا وَكِيعٌ ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى ، عَنِ الْحَكَمِ ، وَعِيسَى ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى ، عَنِ الْبَرَاءِ بْنِ عَازِبٍ ، " أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا افْتَتَحَ الصَّلَاةَ رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ ثُمَّ لَا يَرْفَعُهُمَا حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ "

[29] Sunan Ibn Mãjah

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أَحْمَدَ الْمَرَّارُ بْنُ حَمُّويَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُصَفَّى ، حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ ، عَنْ ثَوْرِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ ، عَنْ أَبِي أُمَامَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : " مَنْ قَامَ لَيْلَتَيِ الْعِيدَيْنِ مُحْتَسِبًا لِلَّهِ ، لَمْ يَمُتْ قَلْبُهُ يَوْمَ تَمُوتُ الْقُلُوبُ "
[30] Kitãb al-Umm, al-Shãfi’ĩ (1/265)

العبادة ليلة العيدين أخبرنا الربيع قال أخبرنا الشافعي قال أخبرنا إبراهيم بن محمد قال أخبرنا ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن أبي الدرداء قال : " من قام ليلة العيد محتسبا لم يمت قلبه حين تموت القلوب

[31] Ibid.

( قال الشافعي ) : وأنا أستحب كل ما حكيت في هذه الليالي من غير أن يكون فرضا .

[32] al-Mu’jam al-Awsat̩, al-T̩abarãnĩ (164)

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ خَالِدِ بْنِ حَيَّانَ ، قَالَ : نا حَامِدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى الْبَلْخِيُّ ، قَالَ : نا جَرِيرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ وَهُوَ عُمَرُ بْنُ هَارُونَ الْبَلْخِيُّ ، عَنْ ثَوْرِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ ، عَنْ عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " مَنْ صَلَّى لَيْلَةَ الْفِطْرِ وَالأَضْحَى ، لَمْ يَمُتْ قَلْبُهُ يَوْمَ تَمُوتُ الْقُلُوبُ " . لَمْ يَرْوِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ ثَوْرٍ ، إِلا عُمَرُ بْنُ هَارُونَ ، تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ : جَرِيرٌ

[33] Majma' al-Zawã'id, al-Haythamĩ (2/199):

عن عبادة بن الصامت أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال "" من أحيا ليلة الفطر وليلة الأضحى لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلوب " رواه الطبراني في الكبير والأوسط وفيه عمر بن هارون البلخي والغالب عليه الضعف ، وأثنى عليه ابن مهدي وغيره ، ولكن ضعفه جماعة كثيرة والله أعلم

[34] al-Majmũ’ Sharh̩ al-Muhaz̩z̩ab, Im̃am al-Nawawĩ (5/51):

رواه عن أبي الدرداء موقوفا ، وروي من رواية أبي أمامة موقوفا عليه ومرفوعا كما سبق ، وأسانيد الجميع ضعيفة

[35] al-Mubda’ fĩ Sharh̩ al-Muqni’, Ibn Muflih̩ (2/27):

لقوله عليه السلام ( من قام ليلتي العيدين محتسبا لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلوب ) رواه ابن ماجه من حديث أبي أمامة ، وفيه بقية ، روايته عن أهل بلده جيدة ; وهو حديث حسن .

[36] Mawsũ’at al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaytiyyah (36/115)

اتفق الفقهاء على أنّه يندب قيام ليلتي العيدين لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « من قام ليلتي العيدين محتسباً لله لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلوب »




Recent Posts Widget