Clear-Cut Answers for those who Reject Weak Ah̩ãdĩth (for faḍā’il al-aʿmāl)
16 Nov, 2020
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):
Ibn Mahdi said:
“If reports are related to us from the Prophet ﷺ 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:
“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:
“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:
Ibn Hanbal said: If reports are related to us from the Prophet ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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):
“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 ﷺ] 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:
“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:
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):
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):
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:
“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):
“And a broken chained (munqati) Hadīth has been reported from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ 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:
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):
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:
“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):
“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):
“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:
“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)
“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):
“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):
“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:
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):
“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:
“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):
“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:
“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):
“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):
“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):
“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):
“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:
“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-Habib] al-Shafi‘ (p. 255) as part of the following discussion:
النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ما لم يقله قال والأخيران عن ابن السلام وعن صاحبه ابن دقيق العيد والأول نقل العلائي الإتفاق عليه،
“Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy upon him) said in the (Kitab) al-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:
“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:
“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:
“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.
August 2015/Shawwal 1436 AH
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. However, saying that, acting upon weak narrations has been met with three conditions 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, 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:
- Those who are majhul [unknown; details of narrators that are not found and those of whom neither have appraisals or criticisms].
- Narrators who are generally dha’if [weak; slight weakness in memorisation (hifz) or having less precision (dhabt) in relaying the texts].
- It also excludes narrations where there is inqita’ in the isnãd [chain] or narrations which are mursal.
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
There are generally three oft-quoted narrations regarding wiping the face after du’ã; one in Sunan Ibn Mãjah (which is weak due to S̩ãlih̩ Ibn Hassãn, though it could be argued this narration has a mutãbi’ah), another in Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ 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 (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 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 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 which requires sincerity, 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’
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 (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 (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 (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, 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, 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.
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, 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. The Scholars have stated that this was from his personal ijtihãd as he believed the virtue was general, 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
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 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 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 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. 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 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).
The third narration, narrated in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd, 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 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]
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 (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 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, 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 (according to al-Haythamĩ the narrator known as ’Umar Ibn Hãrũn al-Balkhĩ has some praises, however many have weakened him). 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, whilst others graded the narration as h̩asan [good], 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 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.
 Shaykh al-Islãm, Imãm al-Nawawĩ رحمه الله [d. 676 AH] mentions this in his Majmũ’ Sharh̩ al-Muhaz̩z̩ab (3/227):
 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):
 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):
 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:
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:
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):
 Sunan Ibn Mãjah (1181)
 Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ (3386)
 Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1492)
 Bulũgh al-Marãm, Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ (pg. 264), and his words are:
 Mus̩annaf of ’Abd al-Razzãq (3234/3235)
 Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ (3372)
 Tafsĩr Ibn Kathĩr (7/85)
 Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (113)
 Mentioned in Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ (pg. 11):
 al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr (10/59 #118)
 al-Talkhĩs̩ al-H̩abĩr, Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ (1/163-164)
 Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ (pg. –):
 S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim 368:
 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:
 Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1273)
 al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr (21092)
 Majma’ al-Zawã’id, H̩ãfiz̩ Nũr al-Dĩn al-Haythamĩ (10/22 #17345):
 Full name of the work; al-Ah̩ãdĩth al-Jiyãd al-Mukhtãrah min mã laysa fĩ S̩ah̩ĩh̩ayn, H̩ãfiz̩ Dhiyã’ al-Dĩn al-Maqdisĩ (3165)
 Tafsĩr Ibn Kathĩr (2/392)
 Tuh̩fat al-Awh̩az̩ĩ, Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn al-Mubãrakfũrĩ (1/172):
 Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1105)
 Mus̩annaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah (2370)
 Sunan Ibn Mãjah
 Kitãb al-Umm, al-Shãfi’ĩ (1/265)
 al-Mu’jam al-Awsat̩, al-T̩abarãnĩ (164)
 Majma’ al-Zawã’id, al-Haythamĩ (2/199):
 al-Majmũ’ Sharh̩ al-Muhaz̩z̩ab, Im̃am al-Nawawĩ (5/51):
 al-Mubda’ fĩ Sharh̩ al-Muqni’, Ibn Muflih̩ (2/27):
 Mawsũ’at al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaytiyyah (36/115)