Firstly, I am surprised by those who weaken a Ḥadīth mentioned by Imam Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ and explained by Imam An-Nawawi in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. This Ḥadīth was narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayrah who said that the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) said: “None of you should drink while standing; whoever forgets, let him vomit.” The mentioned scholar, as reported by some, weakened this Ḥadīth, saying: “The Ḥadīth ‘None of you should drink while standing; whoever forgets, let him vomit’ narrated by Muslim is weak due to ʽUmar bin Hamzah, whose Ḥadīths are rejected, and he is weak according to Ibn Maʽīn and An-Nasāʼiy.” However, despite that scholar rejected this Ḥadīth, it should be noted that Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is one of the most authentic and reliable books after the Quran. Nevertheless, I cannot pass judgment on him in terms of his knowledge, and I will not rely on written statements in some websites unless there is a detailed study that investigates the chains of transmission, narrators, and opinions of the scholars of different schools of thought.
Secondly, I do not claim to be an expert in the field of praise and criticism (al-jarḥ wa at-taʽdīl) and the science of the chains of transmission (al-isnād). I have not made sufficient progress in these fields to be able to pass judgment on the narrations. In most cases, I follow the opinions of the reliable Imams in their authentication or weakening of the narrations. However, I am familiar with some narrations that I have studied in-depth and reached a conclusion regarding their acceptance or rejection, which are published in my doctoral thesis and scientific research. Therefore, I am not in a position of discussing the chain of narration of this Ḥadīth.
Thirdly, weakening a Ḥadīth or a narration does not necessarily mean abandoning it and not acting upon it, just as the authenticity of a narration does not necessarily mean acting upon it. A weak Ḥadīth may fall under a general, recommended principle, making it valid to act upon it. Similarly, an authentic Ḥadīth may not be acted upon due to being contradicted by another stronger narration or due to being abrogated. This is well-known in the books of jurisprudence and Sunnah. For example, the previously mentioned Ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, although authentic, is abrogated by the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) drank later while standing, or it is indecisively abhorred. Imam An-Nawawiy, may Allāh have mercy on him, said: “There is no ambiguity or weakness in these Ḥadīths, all praise is to Allāh, as they are all authentic. The correct opinion is that the prohibition falls under the ruling of indecisive abhorrence. As for the Prophet (peace be upon him) drinking while standing, it is to explain the permissibility.”
Fourthly, scholars differ regarding the ruling on using weak Ḥadiths as evidence and acting upon them, and here are the different opinions:
The first opinion is that it is not permissible to act upon weak Ḥadīths at all, and this was the view of Abū Bakr ibn al-ʽArabiy, as reported by Ibn Sayyid an-Nās from Yaḥyā ibn Maʽīn. This is also the view of Ibn Ḥazm al-ʼAndalusiy, Ash-Shahāb al-Khafājiy, Jalāl ad-Dīn ad-Dāwaniy, and others.
The second opinion is that it is permissible to act upon weak Ḥadīths without any conditions, and this was attributed to ʽAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak, ʽAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn Mahdiy, Abū Dawūd al-Sijistāniy, and Imam ʼAḥmad ibn Ḥanbal – may Allah be pleased with them – who considered weak Ḥadīths to be stronger than the opinions of scholars. This applies to slightly weak Ḥadīths that are not severely weak or fabricated. They held this view because weak Ḥadīths are subject to accuracy when nothing contradicts them, and this strengthens the accuracy of their narration, making it permissible to act upon them.
The third opinion is that it is permissible to act upon weak Ḥadīths in practical virtues, sermons, stories, and similar matters that do not relate to beliefs or rulings, with various conditions mentioned by scholars. This is the view of the majority and the reliable opinion of the Imams of Ḥadīth verification. Imam An-Nawawiy reported the consensus on this view, and he was the first to popularize this issue in this way. This is also the view of Sheikh Mullā ʽAliy al-Qāriy, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haythamiy, As-Suyūṭiy, and Ibn ʽArrāq – may Allāh have mercy on them. Therefore, we see that the second and third opinions permit the narration of weak Ḥadīths and acting upon them. Imam An-Nawawiy said that it is permissible to narrate weak Ḥadīths for the purpose of virtues, sermons, stories, and other matters that do not relate to beliefs or rulings, and this is the consensus of scholars. Therefore, describing a Ḥadīth as weak does not necessarily mean that it should be abandoned. If the had been the case, we would have abandoned the books of great Imams and accused them regarding their narrations, including Imam Al-Bukhāriy himself, who narrated weak Ḥadīths in his book Al-ʼAdab al-Mufrad, as well as Imam ʼAḥmad in his Musnad, Abū Dawūd, and others who narrated many weak Ḥadīths in their books.
Moreover, I would like to add that without weak narrations, we would not have understood some of the authentic narrations. Sometimes a Ḥadīth may be reported incompletely in an authentic narration, but a weak narration may clarify the confusion. Without weak narrations, we would not have understood the intended meaning of the authentic narrations, just as in the case of a rare reading of a word of the Quran that complements an authentic reading.
Fifthly, if we carefully examine what the questioner conveyed from the mentioned sheikh, we will find that most of the weak narrations are narrated from the Companions, the Followers, the reliable Imams, or historical reports mentioned by historians in their books such as Ibn al-ʼAthīr, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn ʽAsākir, Al-Khaṭīb, and others. These are narrations that are difficult to judge in terms of their chain of narration because tracing them is very difficult. Moreover, they are reports that do not establish rulings but are generally admonitions or stories. Here is an important example: The first person to write about the biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār, and those who came after him reported from him, such as Al-Wāqidiy, Ibn Hishām, Saiyf ibn ʽUmar, and others. His biography of the Prophet is well-known, printed, and relied upon by people. Despite this, people have differed about him, some making him the commander of the faithful in Ḥadīth and saying that he was one of the most knowledgeable people, while others downgraded him, rejected his narrations, and accused him of being a Qadariy, Shīʽiy, fabricator, and liar. Ibn Ḥajar placed him in the fourth category of fabricators. Even Imam Mālik said about him: “He is one of the liars.” (There was a fierce dispute between the two Imams, each of them attacking the other, and this is well-known). ʽAli ibn al-Madaniy considered him reliable, while Imam ʼAḥmad rejected him. The case of Ibn Isḥāq is also the case of others. So, tell me, for Allāh’s sake, shall we deny the events of the Prophet’s biography just because people differed about who wrote the biography although other historians depended on his biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?
Sixthly, Alḥamdulillaāh, I can trace many of the mentioned, weak, narrations, but I will choose one, which is the story of our master ʽUmar with the man who came to complain to him about his wife. The mentioned sheikh commented on it by saying: “As-Samarqandiy mentioned it without a chain of narration.”
I say firstly: This is a report on the authority of ʽUmar and not a prophetic Ḥadīth, so even if it is authentic, it does not establish obligations or prohibitions, because it is from his personal reasoning – may Allāh be pleased with him. Also, ʽUmar’s actions in this story did not contradict the apparent meaning of the Quran and the Prophet’s traditions regarding using gentleness and seeking excuses for people, especially for women. Thus, this narration is strengthened for this reason.
The story is mentioned in multiple narrations, some of which mention the man’s name as Jurayr bin ʽAbdullāh al-Bajaliy, while others mention him as an unknown person.
Secondly, the sheikh mentioned a statement on the authority of As-Samarqandiy, and he meant our Ḥanafiy master, Abā al-Layth, Imam Naṣr ibn Muḥammad as-Samarqandiy, which is mentioned in his book “Tanbīh al-Ghafilīn” in the chapter of the right of women over their husbands. However, the narration was also mentioned by Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamiy in his book “Az-Zawājir ‘An Iqtirāf al-Kabāʼir” in the second volume, page 50, and it is an old print. It was also reported by Al-Bujayramiy, a scholar of the Shāfiʽiy school, in his commentary on “Sharḥ al-Minhāj” in the third volume, pages 441-442, and it was also mentioned by many others. The absence of a chain of narration does not necessarily mean weakness, otherwise, all of the hanging narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāriy would be considered weak.
Thirdly, there are other reports that support this story, such as the one narrated by ʽAbd ar-Razzāq in his book “Al-Muṣannaf”, Ibn Abi Shaybah in his book “Al-Muṣannaf”, Al-Buṣīriy in his book “Itḥāf al-Khiyarah”, Aṭ-Ṭabarāniy in his book “Al-Kabīr”, and others. They said that Jurayr ibn ʽAbdullāh came to ʽUmar to complain his struggle with women, and ʽUmar said: “We are also experiencing the same struggle. When I want to relieve myself, I am told that I am going to the young girls of such and such a tribe to look at them.” At that moment, ʽAbdullāh ibn Masʽūd said to him: “Have you not heard that ʼIbrahīm complained to Allāh about Sārah’s attitude, and he was told that she was created from his rib, so accept her as she is as long as you do not see a sham in her religion.” ʽUmar then responded: “Allāh has indeed filled you with much knowledge.” This is a story about ʽUmar, who was accused of falsehood by his wives despite his firm religion and piety.
Seventhly, I am truly surprised by those who spend their time following these narrations, only to then warn us about their weakness, as if the one who narrates them has committed a grave sin in religion and undermined Islam, even though they are, in essence, moral lessons. What is the problem with narrating the story of “wāmuʽtiṣimāh (Oh my grief, Muʽtaṣim!)”? This is a historical event that occurred in the third century after the Hijra, especially since Al-Muʽtaṣim did indeed invade the Romans and defeat them. Why do some reject the occurrence of the story despite its frequent mention in historical books and biographies? Nevertheless, I ask, where are the connected chains of narration for other events, such as major historical sites like ʽAiyn Jalūt, Ḥiṭṭīn, Malazgirt, Sagrajas, All-Ark, and others? Are they not reported history that we can accept as long as it does not contradict the fundamentals of the religion?
Eighthly: I want to conclude this article by saying that there is a religious trend these days that is focused on destruction rather than construction, under the pretext of caution and scrutiny. The truth is, I am not comfortable with this theoretical superficial trend that sanctifies the issue of chain of narration and neglects the content of narration, correcting what is not in need of correction, and undermining this religion by casting doubt on the Prophet as in the story of Al-Gharānīq and the story of Zaynab bint Jaḥsh, and others, which attacks revelation and the status of prophethood while rejecting many narrations by claiming weakness or lack of support. Shouldn’t they mention what they believe to be true as a teaching for people? Look at those who read these stories and tales and see the sheikh judging them as weak, despite their widespread prevalence and popularity, which could lead to doubts in other matters. We must direct our efforts towards construction, not destruction, but some people only distinguish themselves by criticism and insinuation so that they find a place among the people of knowledge.
A poet said:
(Nor is your saying: Who is this? a fault in him
Arabs know who you are denying and so do the non-Arabs)
Ninthly, for the sake of fairness, there are some narrations that undermine the Companions, such as the story of ʽUmar burring his alive daughter, which must be shown to be invalid because it is an institution against the noble ʽUmar – may Allāh be pleased with him – and similar stories that undermined the Companions or the reliable Imams.
After all, Allāh knows best.
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr