بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Part 1: the opinions of Yahyā ibn Ma’īn, Bukhārī, Muslim, Ibn al-‘Arabī’, Al-Albānī on acting upon weak hadīth
https://fawaaids.com/2025/05/11/can-we-act-upon-weak-hadith/
Ibn Taymiyyahs and Ahmad Shākirs position on acting upon weak hadith
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said: “It is not permissible to rely in the Sharī’ah on weak hadīth that are neither authentic (sahīh) nor good (hasan)” (Qā’idah Jalīlah fī at-Tawassul wa al-Wasīlah p. 84)
Shaykh Ahmad Shākir said: “What I hold is…that there is no difference between rulings (ahkām) and virtues of actions (fadā’il al-a’māl) and such, in not taking to the weak narration. Rather, there is no proof/evidence for anyone except with what is authentic from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) from authentic (Sahīh) or good (Hasan) hadīth.” (al-Bā’ith al-Hathīth p. 76)
Clarifying what the Imāms meant by allowing acting upon weak hadīth
Shaykh al-Islām ibn Taymiyyah said: “This is the meaning of (Imām) Ahmad’s use of weak hadīth as evidence, and his saying: “Sometimes we take the weak hadīth” and other such statements of his – he means by it the hasan (hadīth).” (Sharh al-‘Umdah 1/143)
Shaykh al-Islām also said: “The weak [hadith] according to them [is of] two types: weak that is not used as evidence, which is the weak according to al-Tirmidhī’s terminology, and the second: weak that is used as evidence, which is the hasan in al-Tirmidhī’s terminology.” (Mabtū’ Ma’a al-Majmū’ 20)
He also said: “The first person known to have divided hadīth into Sahīh, hasan, and da’īf was Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī.” (al-Majmū al-Fatāwā 18/23)
Imām ibn al-Qayyim said: “So the weak hadīth according to him [i.e. Imām Ahmad] is a counterpart to the authentic, and a division among the divisions of the hasan, and he did not used to divide hadīth into Sahīh, hasan, and da’īf, but rather (only) into authentic (Sahīh) and (Da’īf) weak.” (I’lām Muwaqi’īn 1/31-32)
Ibn ‘Allān: “Then what is transmitted from Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal regarding acting upon weak hadīth absolutely when nothing else is found, and that it is better than opinion (raʾī) – the weak in it is interpreted as the opposite of authentic (Sahīh) according to his custom and the custom of the predecessors, since reports according to them [were either] authentic (Sahīh) or weak (Daʿīf), because it [the latter] is weak from the rank of Sahīh, so it includes Hasan [the good hadīth].
As for the weak according to the famous/well-known terminology – meaning what does not gather the conditions of acceptance [and is rejected] – this is not what is intended. Ibn al-ʿArabī transmitted this from his teacher, and it is good – by it what was mentioned of criticism regarding this imām is repelled.
Al-Zarkashī said: “Close to this is the statement of Ibn Hazm: ‘The Hanafīs are agreed that the school of Abū Hanīfah [holds that] weak hadīth according to him takes precedence over opinion.’ The apparent [meaning] is that their intention by ‘weak’ is what preceded.”” (al-Futuhāt al-Rabbāniyyah 1/86)
Shaykh Ahmad Shākir said: “As for what Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ‘Abd ar-Rahmān ibn Mahdī, and ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak said: “When we narrate concerning al-halāl wa al-harām (the lawful and unlawful), we are strict, and when we narrate concerning al-fadā’il (virtues) and similar matters, we are lenient” – what they mean by this – in what I consider most likely, and Allāh knows best – is that the leniency is only (a reference to) taking the hadīth (which is) hasan – that has not reached the level of sihhah (Sahīh – highest level of authenticity).
For indeed the terminology in the distinction between al-Sahīh and al-Hasan (the authentic and the good) was not established and clear in their era. Rather, most of the early scholars would not describe the hadīth except as having authenticity (i.e. Sahīh) or weakness (i.e. Da’īf) only.” (al-Bā’ith al-Hathīth pg. 138)
fawaaids.com 