Regarding acting upon some weak narrations in the context of virtues and etiquettes, I say:

Firstly: The basis for performing or refraining from a certain practice is not solely dependent on the authenticity of the ḥadīth. A ḥadīth might be authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) but not acted upon due to reasons such as abrogation, contradiction by a more authentic narration, or lack of widespread acceptance among scholars who require such acceptance for issues that have a necessitated predominance. There are numerous examples of this in jurisprudential books of secondary issues.

The key to action is understanding the ḥadīth (fiqh al-ḥadīth), and the chain of narration (᾽isnād) is part of this understanding (fiqh). We should not prioritize the part over the whole and thus fall into the error of overemphasizing the ᾽isnād (chain of narration), the topic on which I have wrote.

Secondly: It is essential to differentiate between weak (ḍa῾īf) and fabricated (mawḍū῾) ḥadīths, even though both are studied in the context of abandoned (matrūk) narrations.

A weak ḥadīth is one that does not meet the theoretical criteria for authenticity, either in the ᾽isnād or the matn (text). Weakness can stem from the ᾽isnād or the matn, with each element having varying degrees of weakness. Weakness in the ᾽isnād is generally more manageable compared to weakness in the matn, as the ᾽isnād is a means while the matn is the goal. Examining the means is not the same of examining the goal. Therefore, weakness in the ᾽isnād can be classified into four types:

• Minor weakness, such as when the narrator is soft (layyin).
• Moderate weakness, where the narrator makes frequent mistakes or serious errors.
• Severe weakness, where the narrator is thoroughly unreliable or inconsistent.
• Fabricated or denied, where the narrator is a known liar or is infamous for fabricating ḥadīths.

Treating all these four types with the same level of acceptance or rejection is risky and undermines the methods of reasoning in the various schools of jurisprudence. The tools of a jurist are broader and more comprehensive than those of a ḥadīth specialist. The difference between them is like that between an interpreter (mufassir) and a reciter (qāri᾽/mujawwid) of the Qur᾽ān: the former uses language, principles, and related sciences, while the latter relies on transmission and memorization.

All scholars agree on not acting upon fabricated ḥadīths. Beyond that, there is a difference of opinion regarding the first three categories.

To quote some scholars:

• Imam Al-Nawawī said in “Al-᾽Adhkār“: “Scholars of Ḥadīth and Fiqh and others have stated that it is permissible and recommended to act upon weak ḥadīths in the context of virtuous deeds, encouragement, and discouragement, as long as the ḥadīth is not fabricated. However, in matters of legal rulings such as what is lawful and unlawful, buying and selling, marriage and divorce, and so on, one should not act upon anything but authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) or good (ḥasan) ḥadīths, except if it is in matters of caution. For example, if there is a weak ḥadīth discourages certain tyeps of transaction and marriage. It is recommended to avoid such actions but not obligatory.”
• Abū Zakariyā al-῾Anbarī, the teacher of Al-Ḥākim and Ibn Mandah and one of the best ḥāfiẓs (ḥadīth scholars) of his time, said: “If a report does not prohibit something lawful, permit something unlawful, or impose a ruling, and it pertains to encouragement or discouragement or leniency, it is acceptable to overlook its weakness and be lenient with its narrators.”
• Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, a well-known scholar, said about the narrators of ᾽isnād: “Among them are the trustworthy (ṣadūq) and pious (wari῾) but forgetful (mughaffal) ones, whose narratives are mostly full of confusion (wahm), mistakes (khaṭa᾽), forgetfulness (sahw) and misunderstanding (ghalaṭ). Such narrations can be used for encouragement and discouragement, asceticism, and etiquettes, but not for matters of lawful and unlawful.”
• Al-Ḥākim narrated with his ᾽isnād from the Imam of ᾽Ahl al-Sunnah, ᾽Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: “When we narrate from the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) about lawful and unlawful matters, we are strict. But when we narrate from the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) about virtuous deeds and what does not establish or nullify a ruling, we are lenient with the ᾽isnād.”
• Al-Imam ῾Alam al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī said regarding narrating weak ḥadīths: “This leniency and strictness – leniency in narrating weak ḥadīths in virtues and asceticism versus strictness in legal rulings – is reported from Ibn Mahdī, ῾Abd al-Raḥmān, and several other scholars such as ᾽Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn Ma῾īn, Ibn al-Mubārak, and the two Sufyāns. Abū ᾽Ahmad ibn ῾Adī in the introduction of his book Al-Kāmil and Al-Khaṭīb in the introduction of his book Al-Kifāyah recorded a chapter on this.”
• Ibn Taymiyyah said in “Al-᾽Iqtiḍā᾽“: “If a ḥadīth is not known to be false, its narration in the context of virtues is reasonable.”

Thirdly: If we consider the practical actions of the esteemed scholars, we find that they often included weak narrations in their works. They could have differentiated between authentic and weak ḥadīths, as Shaykh Al-᾽Albānī did in his series, but many prominent ḥadīth scholars did not segregate them. Among these scholars are:

• Imam ᾽Aḥmad in his “Musnad“
• The authors of the six major ḥadīth collections
• Al-Bukhārī in his “Al-᾽Adab Al-Mufrad“

And other authors of ḥadīth dictionaries.

Therefore, would it be reasonable for anyone to claim that Al-Bukhārī, who was well-versed in ḥadīth, did not know the authenticity of his narrations included in Al-᾽Adab al-Mufrad and At-Tārīkh al-Kabīr? If so, we would throw doubt on his Ṣaḥīḥ book then!

Fourthly: The scholars’ consideration of weak ḥadīths is not limited to virtues alone; they even prioritize weak ḥadīths over personal opinions in legal rulings.

Shaykh Ṭāhir al-Sam῾ūnī al-Jazā᾽irī said: “A third opinion has been transmitted regarding the ruling on weak ḥadīths, which is that they are also applied in legal rulings if no other ḥadīth exists on the matter. This opinion has been attributed to ᾽Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and is widely known about him. Some theologians (mutakallimūn) were greatly astonished by this opinion, arguing that religious rulings should be based on solid foundations. Others admired this opinion, considering it a sign of strict adherence and distance from innovation, while a third group remained silent on the matter.”

Fifthly: Here are some practical examples:

1. What al-Tirmidhī narrated with his ᾽isnād from Hind ibn Abī Hālah about the description of the Prophet (PBUH), which is a long but weak ḥadīth containing an unnamed narrator. This ḥadīth is a primary source in books on the Prophet’s characteristics.
2. The narration that the Prophet (PBUH) explained the verse “That is nearer that ye may not do injustice” [Qur᾽ān 4:3] as meaning to avoid being unjust and biased. Ibn al-Qayyim transmitted this narration and acknowledged its weakness, saying, “Even though it is strange (gharīb), it is suitable as supportive evidence.”
3. Many jurists recommend covering the head when entering the restroom, based on a weak narration from al-Bayhaqī in which the Prophet (PBUH) is said to have covered his head when entering the restroom and when approaching his family. Al-Nawawī said: “Imam al-Ḥaramayn, al-Ghazālī, al-Baghawī, and others stated that it is recommended not to enter the restroom with an uncovered head.”

These are just a few examples. Were these scholars unaware of the weakness of these ḥadīths?

Sixthly: Several established major jurisprudential rules are based on weak narrations:

• The rule of “No harm and no reciprocating harm”: The narration “No harm and no reciprocating harm” is effective due to its numerous chains of transmission (ṭuruq), despite some criticisms of its authenticity.
• The rule of “Muslims are bound by their conditions”: The narration “Muslims are bound by their conditions” is effective by jurists even though its ᾽isnād is criticized.
• The rule of “Profit goes with liability”: The narration “Profit goes with liability” is said to have no authentic basis.
• The ḥadīth “Ward off the fixed penalties [if there is any doubt]”: Its narrations are weak.
• The ḥadīth “Every loan that brings a benefit is usury”: This ḥadīth has no authentic narration.
• The rule of “Reduce and expedite” allowed by Ẓufar ibn al-Hudhayl, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and others: The narration “Reduce and expedite” is criticized for its ᾽isnād.

Despite this, jurists apply all these rules, and they have become major rules.

The practice of reciting the ᾽Adhān and ᾽Iqāmah in the newborn’s ears has been observed, and people have found blessings and good omens in it, just as they do with all good deeds, including its effect in repelling Satan and his whispers.

Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr