Validity Of Weak Hadith 

by GF Haddad

Three Chapters:

1. Ḥadīth masters - On The Use of ḥadīth ḍa`īf
- - List of ḥadīth masters - who accepted ḥadīth ḍa`īf
2. Use of Weak Ḥadīths in Morals
3. Upgrading very weak ḥadīths & other questions

1. Ḥadīth Masters on ḥadīth ḍa`īf

a) From the Epilogue of hafiz al-Sakhawi's
"al-Qawl al-badiʿ fi al-salat ʿala al-habib al-shafiʿ"
[The Admirable Doctrine Concerning the Invocation upon the Beloved Intercessor]

Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (raḍia-LLahu ʿanhu) said in the 'Adhkar':
"The ulama among the experts in ḥadīth and the experts in law and others have said: it is permissible and (also) recommended that the religious practice (al-ʿamal) concerning good deeds and good character (al-fadā'il), encouragement to good and discouragement from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak ḥadīth (bi al-ḥadīth al- daʿīf) as long as it is not forged (mawduʿ).

As for legal rulings (ahkām) such as what is permitted and what is forbidden, or the modalities of trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one's practice is not based upon anything other than sound (sahih) or fair (hasan) ḥadīth, except as a precaution in some matter related to one of the above, for example, if a weak ḥadīth was cited about the reprehensibility (karahat) of certain kinds of sales or marriages. In such cases what is recommended (al-mustahabb) is to avoid such sales and marriages, but it is not obligatory (la yajib)."

Disagreeing with this Abu al-ʿArabi al-Maliki said:
"Absolutely no practice is based on weak ḥadīth." [Also, Ibn Taymiyya was of the opinion that no ruling of mustahabb can ever be based on a weak ḥadīth.]

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

"The conditions for religious practice based on weak ḥadīth are three:

This is unanimously agreed upon (muttafaqun ʿalayh):
1 - That the weakness must not be very strong (ghayr shadid). This excludes those ahadith singly recorded by liars or those accused of lying, and those who make gross mistakes.
2 - That there be a general legal basis for it. This excludes what is invented and has no legal basis to start with.
3 - That one not think, while practicing on the basis of it, that it has been established as true (an la yaʿtaqida thubutahu). This is in order that no words which the Prophet ﷺ did not (verifiably) say be attributed to him."

He continued:

"The last two conditions are from Ibn ʿAbd al- Salam and his companion Ibn Daqiq al-ʿId; Abu Saʿeed al-ʿAla'i (specialist in forgeries) reported unanimity over the first one."

I say: It has been reported from Imam Ahmad that one may practice on the basis of the weak ḥadīth if there is no other ḥadīth to that effect and also if there is no ḥadīth that contradicts it. In one narration he is reported to say: "I like weak ḥadīth better than men's opinions."

Ibn Hazm has similarly mentioned that all Hanafi scholars unanimously agree that the school of Abu Hanifah (raḍia-LLahu ʿanhu) holds that weak ḥadīth is preferable to opinion (ra'y) and analogy (qiyās). Ahmad was asked about someone finding himself in a country with, on the one hand, a memorizer of ḥadīth (sāhib hadīth) who does not know the sound from the unsound, and, on the other, an authority in opinion (sāhib ra'y): who should he consult? He replied: "Let him consult the memorizer of ḥadīth sāhib hadīth and not the authority in opinion (sāhib ra'y)."

[Note: Some question the authenticity of the above opinion of Imam Ahmad in the light of Ibn Taymiyya's assertion:

"The one who relates from Ahmad that he used to rely [in shariʿa] upon the weak ḥadīth, which is not sahih or hasan, has erred." Qaʿida jalila p. 82.

But this does not contradict the opinions of Imam Ahmad quoted by Sakhawi above. Even so, and even in case the above opinions were not recognized by Ibn Taymiyya as genuinely representative of Imam Ahmad's position, it is clear that Sakhawi did not question their authenticity. The truth of the matter is that Ibn Taymiyya in the "Qaʿida" gives two mutually contradictory views concerning Imam Ahmad's position:
see [2] ]

Abu ʿAbd Allah Ibn Mandah reported from Abu Dawud, the author of the 'Sunan' and a student of Imam Ahmad, that Abu Dawud used to cite the chain of transmission of a weak ḥadīth if he did not find other than it under that particular heading (bāb), and that he considered it stronger evidence than authorized opinion (ra'y al-rijāl).

What emerges from this is that there are three diverging views:
- No practice is based on weak ḥadīth whatsoever (mutlaqan);
- Practice is categorically (mutlaqan) based upon it if no other evidence is found under the same heading;
- The majority of the scholars (al-jumhur) hold that it can be used as basis for practicing good deeds and achieving good character (yuʿmalu bihi fi al-fadā'il) but not for legal rulings (dūna al-ahkām). And God is the Granter of success.

b) Translated from Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim in "Usul al-wusul"
(Cairo: Azhar, 1984):

If not proven to be forged, in which case there is absolutely no truth in it, the ḥadīth [is] daʿīf (weak), although the pillars of veracity in it are not complete, nevertheless retains a part of truth.

Imam Nawawi said:
"The ulama among the muhaddithun..." [as quoted by Sakhawi above].

I say: This is the principle adopted by the ḥadīth master (hafiz) Ibn al-Salah, as well as what we know of the imams of ḥadīth science among the early generations (salaf) such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn ʿUyaynah, Ibn al- Mubarak, Ibn Mahdi, and Ibn Maʿīn... Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi devoted a chapter to that topic in his 'Kifayah'.

End of translated excerpts.

There is also a detailed discussion on the topic in Nuh Keller's translation 'Reliance of the Traveller' p. 954-957.

I recapitulate the list of ḥadīth masters who accept the use of hadīth daʿīf at the very least for religious practice related to ethics (fada'il al-aʿmal) and in some cases even for legal rulings (Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and the entire Hanafi school), according to the above three sources (Sakhawi, Ibrahim, Keller):

1- Nawawi
2- Ibn al-Salah
3- Sufyan al-Thawri
4- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
5- Ibn ʿUyaynah
6- Ibn al-Mubarak
7- Ibn Mahdi
8- Ibn Maʿīn (forgery specialist)
9- al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in 'al-Kifayah', chapter entitled:
"strictness with regard to aḥadīth pertaining to rulings
 and leniency with regard to those pertaining to virtuous actions"
10- Bukhari as proven by his use of them in 'al-Adab al- mufrad'
11- Ali al-Qari (forgery specialist)
12- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
13- Ibn Abd al-Barr in 'al-Isaba'.
14- Ibn al-Qayyim in 'Iʿlam al-muwaqqiʿīn'.
15- Sakhawi
16- Abu Saʿīd al-ʿAla'i (forgery specialist).
17- Abu Dawud.
18- Hanafi school.

GF Haddad ©
[10 Apr 1996]

2. The Use of Weak Ḥadīths

by GF Haddad[12]

It is the Consensus of the Ulema that weak ḥadīths can be narrated and put into practice in Islam according to according to al-Bayhaqī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Nawawī, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Qārī, and ʿAlawī ibn ʿAbbās al-Mālikī in his manual al-Manhal al-Laṭīf fī Maʿrifat al-Ḥadīth, provided certain conditions are met.[4]

Ibn al-Ṣalah, al-Nawawī and al-`Irāqī's sole conditions werre that

(1) the ḥadīth be related to good deeds (faḍā'il al-aʿmāl)
without bearing on legal rulings and doctrine and

(2) the ḥadīth not be forged.

After them, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿīd, al-Zarkashī, and Ibn Ḥajar added three furhter conditions: that the ḥadīth not be very weak;[5] that it be subsumed under a principle already established in the Law; and that one not positively believe that the Prophet ﷺ said or did it.[6]

Ibn al-Mubārak said: "One may narrate from [a weak narrator] to a certain extent or those ḥadīths pertaining to good conduct (adab), admonition (mawʿiẓa), and simple living (zuhd)."[1]

This conditional rule for narrating - and practicing - weak ḥadīths is in conformity with the unanimous view of the Salaf who permitted their use in faḍā'il al-aʿmāl as opposed to ʿaqīda or the rulings pertaining to ḥalāl and ḥarām. This is stated or practiced by Sufyān al-Thawrī, Ibn ʿUyayna, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, Aḥmad, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Bukhārī in al-Adab al-Mufrad, al-Tirmidhī, and many others.[2]

Ibn al-Ṣalah said in his ʿUlūm al-Hadīth:

"Know that the forgery is the very worst of the weak ḥadīths and that it is not licit for anyone who knows a ḥadīth is forged to narrate it in any sense whatsoever except by showing, at the time, that it is forged, contrary to other types of weak ḥadīths, which are possibly true in an unapparent way. It is permitted to narrate the latter in [matters of] encouragement [to good deeds] and deterrence [from evil ones.]…

Among the experts of ḥadīth and others than them, it is allowed to lower the standards in the transmission chains and to narrate all kinds of weak ḥadīth other than the forgeries without attention to showing that they are weak except with regard to the Divine Attributes and the rulings of the Law in the licit and the illicit and other [rulings] besides these two. This is the case, for example, in exhortations and [didactic] storytelling, meritorious deeds, all the varieties of encouragement and deterrence, and all that is unconnected with legal rulings and doctrinal beliefs. Among those from whom we narrate such a stipulation are ʿAbd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī and Ahmad ibn Hanbal - Allah be well-pleased with both of them!"

This [above-cited] rule was mentioned by Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and others in Maʿrifat ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth and its commentaries.[3]


The dissents reported from Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Ibn Ḥazm, and Ibn al-ʿArabī al-Mālikī and al-Shawkānī are inaccurate. The correct position of Imām Muslim in the introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ is that he forbade the use of forgers and other abandoned narrators, not of truthful weak ones, in conformity with the position of Aḥmad and the rest of the Salaf.[7]

Muslim also says: "The sound reports from the trustworthy (thiqāt) narrators and those whose reliability is convincing are more than that we should be forced to transmit reports from those who are not trustworthy and whose reliability is not convincing."

The difference is clear between saying we are not forced to use weak narrators and saying that one cannot transmit anything from them. A proof of this is his use of the weak narration from ʿA'isha: "Treat people according to their ranks" and the fact that his strictness in narrators drops a notch or two in the ḥadīths of raqā'iq or faḍā'il al-aʿmāl in the Ṣaḥīḥ, as in the case of Shaddād ibn Saʿīd Abū Ṭalhā al-Rāsibī or al-Walīd ibn Abī Walīd, as does al-Bukhārī's in his also.[8],,pAl-Bukhārī uses an even lesser criterion for narrations pertaining to Faḍā`il in his Adab al-Mufrad.

The claim about Ibn Ma`īn began with Ibn Sayyid al-Nās in his introduction to `Uyūn al-Athar and was imitated by others since, although it is contradicted by the early sources we cited.

The similar claim that Ibn al-ʿArabī was opposed to the use of weak ḥadīths in absolute terms is put to rest by his own statement about a certain weak ḥadīth: "Its chain is unknown, but it is preferable to put it into practice…"[9]

As for Ibn Ḥazm's statement against the use of weak narrations in absolute terms:[10] he elsewhere states preferring the use of weak ḥadīth over the use of juridical opinion (ra'ī), as does Ibn al-ʿArabī himself.[11] Finally, al-Shawkānī in Nayl al-Awṭār recommends putting into practice the ḥadīth on the preferable timings of cupping despite its severe weakness.
And Allah knows best.


[1] Narrated by Ibn Abī Ḥātim in Muqaddimat al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl (2:30) and cited by Ibn Rajab in Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī (1:73).

[2] Cf. al-Khaṭīb, al-Kifāya (p. 162-163=133-134), Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Muqaddimat al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl (2:30-38), Ibn Rajab, Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī (1:73), Ibn Ḥajar, end of al-Nukat ʿalā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (2:887-888), al-Suyūṭī, Tadrīb al-Rāwī, al-Lacknawī, al-Ajwiba al-Fāḍila, etc.

[3] Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (p. 93=1984 ed. p. 103).

[4] Al-Bayhaqī, Dalā'il al-Nubuwwa (1:33-34); Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd (1:127); al-Nawawī, al-Majmūʿ (5:63), Irshād Ṭullāb al-Ḥaqā'iq (p. 107-108), Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (introduction), and al-Adhkār (introduction p. 5) cf. Ibn ʿAllān, al-Futūḥāt al-Rabbāniyya (1:84); Ibn Taymiyya, Sharḥ al-ʿUmda (1:171), Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (18:26, 18:65-66), and Miswaddat āl Taymiyya (p. 233, 246, 461); al-Qārī, Sharḥ al-Shifā' (2:91) and Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ (2:381); ʿItr, Manhaj al-Naqd (p. 291-296) and Us.ūl al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl (p. 140-143).

[5] Even so, al-Sakhāwī said in al-Qawl al-Badīʿ (p. 432) of a certain ḥadīth: "In sum, it is a very weak ḥadīth (ḍaʿīf jiddan) that is written in meritorious deeds (yuktabu fī faḍā'il al-aʿmāl), but as for its being forged, no, it is not [forged] ."

[6] Cf. l-Sakhāwī, al-Qawl al-Badīʿ and al-Suyūṭī, Tadrīb (p. 196).

[7] Cf. al-Nawawī, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (introduction), Ibn al-Qayyim, Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn (1:31), al-Sakhāwī, al-Qawl al-Badīʿ (p. 474), and ʿItr, notes on Ibn Rajab's Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī (1:75-76).

[8] The claim of a handful of authors such as al-Qāsimī in Qawāʿid al-Taḥdīth (p. 94) or ʿAjāj al-Khaṭīb in Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth (p. 231) that Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn Maʿīn were opposed to the use of weak ḥadīths in absolute terms, stems from good faith in Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, al-ʿIrāqī, al-Sakhāwī, and al-Suyūṭī's claims to that effect.

[9] Ibn al-ʿArabī, ʿāriḍat al-Aḥwadhī (10:205) cf. Fatḥ al-Bārī (10:606) as cited by Muḥammad ʿAwwāma in his marginalia on al-Qawl al-Badīʿ (p. 472).

[10] Ibn Ḥazm, al-Fiṣal fīl-Milal wal-Niḥal (2:83=2:69).

[11] Cf. Ibn Ḥazm, al-Iḥkām (6:225-226) and Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Maḥṣūl (p. 98) and Marāqī al-Zulaf as cited in Ibn ʿArrāq, Tanzīh al-Sharīʿa (2:209-210).

[12] This chapter has been printed 2005 in Sunnah Notes, vol1., p.100,
see: Texts, Books, Videos By Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad
The chapter has been updated to the text in Sunnah Notes as correct as possible, but without a review of the footnotes.

Also see below, the video on the science of ḥadīth or ḥadīth nomenclature, ”Bayquniyya Poem on Ḥadīth Terminology.”


3. Upgrading Very Weak Ḥadīths

How would we respond to what a Salafi said below, concerning Imam al-Suyuti?
QUOTE: Suyuti has a principle in which he differs with just about every other muhaddith. He believes that an isnaad containing a very weak narrator or narrator accused of fabrication can be strengthened by other asaaneed containing similar narrators to the level of hasan li ghayrihi. The other muhadditheen, of course, just throw such asaaneed in the bin. It is for this reason that you will see, quite often, al-Suyuti declaring a hadeeth hasan, or even saheeh, which others have declared da'eef jiddan or mawdu'. We can see this happening on numerous occasions if we compare Da'eef al-Jaami' with the 'asl, al-Jaami' al-Sagheer. Suyuti says in his alfiyya:

fa in ataa min turuqin ukhraa yanmee
ilaa al-saheeh ay: lighayrihi kamaa
yarqaa ilaa al-husni alladhi qad wusimaa
du'fan li soo' al-hifdhi aw irsaalin aw
tadleesin aw jahaalatin idhaa ra'aw
majee'ahu min jihatin ukhraa wa maa

[and now the point :)]
kaana li fisqin aw yuraa muttahamaa [ay: bil kadhib]
yarqaa 'an al-inkaari bi al-ta'addudi
bal rubbamaa yaseeru kalladhee budee [ay: al-hasan
(li ghayrihi)]

Ahmad Shaakir in his notes makes the point: that
this is incorrect and that an isnaad containing such narrators cannot be used to strengthen other asaaneed containing similar narrators. Then he says, from this we can understand how al-Suyuti, in many of his works, has made the error of giving the ruling of hasan to numerous very weak ahaadeeth. E/O QUOTE

Allaah knows best

Wa alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh:

We would respond to that claim:

Read the passage of the Alfiyya again. The Seal of the Ḥadīth Masters, Imam al-Suyuti nowhere says that a very weak isnād can "strengthen" another very weak isnād. He himself explicitly stated in Tadrib al-Rawi that a very weak isnād cannot be strengthened by another like it. The point here is not "strengthening" of an isnād by another but the upgrading (yarqa) of the ḥadīth based on the collective weight of a multitude (taʿaddud), which al-Suyuti is neither the first nor the last muhaddith to mention. Contrary to assumption born from a hasty misreading, this upgrading is not incompatible with the non-fortifiability of the very weak isnād.

This ruling is originally an elaboration on Ibn al-Salah's statement in his ʿUlum al-Ḥadīth that the daʿif is two types, one type that can be strengthened and another type that cannot be strengthened such as the report of a narrator who is accused of lying.

Al-Suyuti's point is that the weak or very weak ḥadīth due to bad memory or broken chain or camouflage or unidentifiable narrators can upgrade (yarqa) with a single other confirmatory chain, while the very weak ḥadīth which contains a fasiq or someone accused of lying can upgrade from the rank of munkar, not with a single other chain but a multitude of like chains.

Al-Suyuti states the same in the chapter on the hasan in his Tadrib al-Rawi where he quotes Shaykh al-Islam (=Ibn Hajar) as stating explicitly that if the paths are many then the level of the ḥadīth improves from munkar and might even reach the rank of hasan li-ghayrihi. Al-Sakhawi also states the same in Fath al-Mughith in the chapter on the hasan: "bi-kathrati turuqihi al-qasirati ʿan darajat al-iʿtibar bi-haythu la yujbaru baʿduha bi-baʿd, yartaqi ʿan martabat al-mardud al-munkar." Note the compatibility of LA YUJBARU [the chains cannot strengthen one another] with YARTAQI [the ḥadīth can be upgraded], which Shakir and his reader missed completely.

Al-Sakhawi then cites the ḥadīth "Whoever preserves 40 ḥadīths for my Umma..." as an example of a ḥadīth whose collected very weak paths dictate that it upgrades from the rank of munkar and becomes slightly weak instead, and such might even become hasan li-ghayrihi. Al-Ibyari said the same in his hashiya on al-Qastallani's Muqaddima of his Sharh al-Bukhari. Al-Munawi states the same also in his Sharh al-Shama'il concerning the many ḥadīths on the merits of wearing a turban. Another example of a very weak munkar ḥadīth that became hasan if not sahih or even mutawatir because of the sheer number of its paths is "The pursuit of knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim" as per Hafiz al-Mizzi who said he found 50 different chains for it, disagreeing with his teacher al-Nawawi who had agreed with Ibn al-Salah that such was "a famous inauthentic ḥadīth."

All the above shows the strangeness of the claim that "Suyuti has a principle in which he differs with just about every other muhaddith" when in fact it is explicitly mentioned from the time of Ibn Hajar down to ours.

Also extremely strange is the claim that "isnād[s] containing a very weak narrator.... [are thrown] in the bin." No, they are not. Many of the ḥadīths in the Nine Books, other collections, and the Fiqh books of all the Schools without exception have just such types of isnād, not to mention the books of targhib and tarhib such as al-Zuhd by Ibn al-Mubarak and Imam Ahmad, al-Targhib wal-Tarhib of al-Mundhiri and others, Fada'il al-Aʿmal of Hafiz al-Maqdisi and others, and countless monographs including Arbaʿin books by the early and late scholars!

•  The misunderstanding of Shaykh Ahmad Shakir and al-Albani on this issue stems from their confusing the fasiq, the liar in other than ḥadīth, and/or the one accused of lying with the forger and the one who lies against the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. This basic error in turn leads them to blur the difference between the "very weak" and the "forged" ḥadīth. All the above are inveterate aberrations of salafis without exception to my knowledge, as brilliantly illustrated by the above "Salafi": "muttaham [ay: bil kadhib] = a narrator accused of fabrication" - while most of them also blur the line between "weak" and "forged" at the drop of a hat.

It is the FORGED ḥadīth only that is "thrown in the bin," NOT the very weak one; if we were to throw the very weak one in the bin then we would be calling it forged, not very weak; and we would not need to make any difference either between daʿif jiddan, munkar, mardud, matruk, and shadhdh on the one hand and, on the other, the forged such as mawduʿ, batil, la asla lahu, kadhib mukhtalaq and so forth.

So it is the forged which never improves whether it is related through 1 or 10 or 100 different paths, each of them containing a forger. You are obligated to make a difference when the case is otherwise and this conditional improvability is what al-Suyuti and others are correctly referring to.

It is also ironic that Shaykh Ahmad Shakir faults the principle cited by al-Suyuti as being the cause, "in many of his works, [for] the error of giving the ruling of hasan to numerous very weak ahaadeeth" when it is Shakir himself who radically departed from the established principles of authentication in his edition of Imam Ahmad's Musnad and went and graded the hasan as sahih and the daʿif as hasan ! I have heard our teacher Nur al-Din ʿItr state this many times and all you need to do is compare the Shakir edition to the Arna'ut edition to realize it. Albani has committed the same mistake on an even larger scale as shown by the works of the scholars of ḥadīth critiquing him for that very point.


Another Salafi also said: He then mentions that Suyuti also considered this chain weak but another chain has Salih al-Murri. Albani responds, "Salih is ibn Bashir al-Zahid and was munkar al-ḥadīth by Bukhari and Fallaas." was Salih or ibn Bashir al-Zahid considered munkar by al-Bukhari or was he considered reliable by other Imams, or is al-Albani mistaken by the whole matter.

Reply: Munkar but from the viewpoint of memory; he was an upright qadi.


[1]Which collection is the Ḥadīth al-Sharif about attributing to the Prophet sallallahualayhiwasalam falsely, taken from and what have the 'Ulama said about it? [2]also is it mutawattir?

This ḥadīth is mutawatir and is related in the Nine Books and elsewhere.

[3a]is the Ḥadīth about sura al-Ikhlas al-Sharif being a third of the Qur'an mutawattir, and which collection is it from? [b]and what have the Ulama said about it?

Narrated from Abu Saʿid, Abu al-Darda', and Abu Hurayra by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Malik in the Muwatta', Abu Dawud, and al-Nasa'i.

[4]Can i act on a Ḥadīth related by Ibn al-Sunni, whose authenticity i am unaware of? ( i think, i have come across Imam al-Nawawi (r.a.) using him as a reference in Kitab al-Adhkar)

Kitab al-Adhkar is entirely reliable in good deeds.

[A]the Ḥadīth in question mentions that recitation of Sura al-Ikhlas al-Sharif 200 times will remove 50 years of the individuals sins.

This is in al-Darimi's Sunan while al-Tirmidhi narrates it with the addition *except a debt* and it is eminently reliable.

[B]Another Ḥadīth from Ibn al-Sunni mentions 100 times recitation of Sura al-Ikhlas al-Sharif after Fajer before talking to anybody for the forgiveness of sins.

This is in al-Daylami with a terminally flimsy chain.

[5a]Sidi could you check how authentic are the Ahadith in [A] and [B]?what have the Ulama said about them? [b]and could they be acted upon if they are weak without the permission of a shaykh (what if one does not have a shaykh in this case?) and be recited 300 times (by joining the 2 narrations) in the day and the same in the evening?

Permission is not sought for something we are required to do, namely recite the Qur'an. The second ḥadīth is inauthentic and neither ḥadīth is in al-Nawawi's Adhkar and Allah knows best.

[6]Also could you confirm the authenticity of a Ḥadīth(or if it is made up?)a layman related, that a person who prays or listens into someones conversations (such as a neighbours for example) is considered an illegitimate person by this is meant apparently that the concerned persons father earned his income through a haram means,(is this true?) which collection is this from and what have the Ulama said about it?

I don't know of any such ruling nor ḥadīth, wAllahu aʿlam.

GF Haddad

link-in Bayquniyya Poem on Ḥadīth Terminology by Sh GF Haddad, 2 parts

next page





latest update: 2021-07-17


* living Islam – Islamic Tradition *