Weak narrations: When The Gazelle Spoke to the Prophet (ﷺ)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

On the authority of Anas ibn Mālik, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) passed by a group of people who had hunted a female gazelle and tied her to the pole of a tent.

She said: “O Messenger of Allāh, I have given birth to two young fawns; seek permission for me to nurse them, and then I will return.”

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: “Release her until she comes to her two fawns, nurses them, and returns to you.”

They said: “And who will guarantee that for us, O Messenger of Allāh?” He said: “I [will].”

So they released her, and she went and nursed [them], then returned to them, and they bound her tightly. He said: “Will you sell her?” They said: “O Messenger of Allāh, she is yours.” So they let her go and set her free, and she left.

(Collected by al-Tabarānī in al-Awsat 5547 via:

Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Abī Shaybah > Ibrāhīm ibn Muhammad ibn Maymūn > ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Hilāl al-Juʿfī > Sālih al-Marrī > Thābit al-Bunānī > Anas)

Al-Haythamī said: “In (the chain) is Sālih al-Marrī and he is weak”. (Majma’ #14101)

Sālih al-Marrī: Ibn Maʿīn said: “Weak”; and [also] said, “He is nothing.” Ibn al-Madīnī, al-Fallās, and al-Nasāʾī declared him weak, and [al-Nasāʾī] said on one occasion: “Abandoned.” Al-Bukhārī said: “His hadīths are rejected [munkar].” Al-Jawzajānī said: “He was a judge, feeble in hadīth.”

‘Abdul-Karīm ibn Hilāl: Al-Dhahabī said: “I don’t know who he is.” Al-‘Azdī said: “Weak”.

The Ruling on Sending Ones Children to Non-Islamic/Foreign Schools – Bakr Abū Zayd, Permanent Committee, Ibn al-‘Uthaymīn, Al-Albānī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Shaykh Bakr Abū Zayd said: “It is not lawful for a Muslim who believes in Allāh and the Last Day to cast his children into destruction in the embrace of foreign schools while they possess no capacity to benefit or harm themselves, and while they know nothing of Islām — little or much — and so they receive disbelief, atheism, evil, and corruption.

And sufficient [is the consideration of] the effect of that upon the natural dispositions (fitrah) of the young and naive. The Prophet (ﷺ) informed [us] that: “There is no child except that he is born upon the fitrah (natural disposition), and then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian.” Every child is born upon the fitrah of Islām — were he left to his own state and inclination, he would choose nothing other than Islām, were it not for the causes that befall this fitrah that necessitate its corruption and alteration. The most significant of these are false teachings and corrupt, wicked upbringing, to which the Prophet (ﷺ) alluded in his statement: “And then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian” — meaning: they employ with the child such causes and means as make him purely a Christian, or a Jew, or a Magian.

Among these [causes] is: the handing over of young, naive children to disbelieving or irreligious schools under the pretext of learning, such that they are raised in their laps and receive their education and beliefs from them. The heart of a young child is receptive to whatever of good or evil is cast into it — indeed, it is like an engraving upon stone. So they hand them over to these schools clean, and then receive them back polluted — each to the degree of what he has drunk and absorbed from them. A child may enter as a Muslim and emerge from it as a disbeliever — we seek refuge in Allāh from that.

So woe — all woe — upon whoever causes the misguidance and straying of his son. Whoever enrolls his child (whilst) being pleased and of his own choice/willingly in a school knowing that it seeks through its curricula and activities to remove the children of Muslims from their religion and cast doubt upon their ʿaqīdah, is an apostate from Islām — as a group of scholars have explicitly stated.” (al-Madāris al-ʿĀlamiyyah pg. 76-77)

Q8: “What is the ruling on a man taking his son or daughter and enrolling him in a French or English school that contradicts the teachings of the religion, while claiming to be a Muslim and claiming that he is choosing a good future for them?”

A8: “It is obligatory upon a parent to raise his children — male and female — with an Islamic upbringing, for they are a trust (amānah) in his hands, and he is responsible for them on the Day of Resurrection. It is not permissible for him to enroll them in the schools of the disbelievers, out of fear of fitnah (fitnah — trial [and corruption]) and the corruption of [their] ʿaqīdah (creed) and character. And the future is in the hands of Allāh, The Most-High. Allāh, Perfect and Most-High, says: {And whoever fears Allāh — He will make for him a way out of every difficulty} [al-Talāq: 4].” (The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Iftāʾ, Kitāb Lajnah al-Dā’immah 12/141)

The Question: “In recent times, negligence regarding [enrolling children in] foreign schools in our country (i.e. Saudi Arabia) has spread, to the point that it is mentioned that [such schools] exceed one hundred in number — thirty in Riyādh, fourteen schools in the Eastern [Province], twenty-three schools in Jeddah, one school in al-Qasīm, and so on, distributed across the regions. So what is the ruling on enrolling our children in these schools? And what is the ruling on renting [out] residences for these purposes? Inform us — may Allāh reward you with good.”

The Answer: “I see that one should first look into their curricula: what are these curricula, and what is to be feared from them in the future? For it may be that in the first year their curricula are sound (100%), but in the second year they change, and [by then] the person has fallen into their snare and their trap and [finds it] impossible to withdraw from them.

Secondly: I see that we should not enroll our sons in these schools absolutely, because no matter what they are, our schools are better than them — and all praise is due to Allāh — and in the schools affiliated with the Ministry of Education there is what suffices and satisfies.

My view, then, is that it is not permissible for any one of us to enroll his sons or daughters — if schools [of this type] are opened for girls — in these schools, and boycotting them is obligatory. This is my view regarding these schools. As for the [broader] situation of these schools, that matter is not [in the hands of] myself nor of you, but rather [rests with] other authorities.” (Liqā al-Shahrī 18/69 – Shaykh ibn al-‘Uthaymīn)

Shaykh Al-Albānī said: “…it is not permissible for a Muslim to hand over the flesh of his liver (i.e., his beloved child) to a disbelieving educator who does not believe in Allāh and His Messenger. This is on account of what is known both by religious law and by experience: that one who lacks something cannot give it. So whoever disbelieves in Allāh and His Messenger, it is impossible that a child raised under the hands of these disbelievers would emerge as anything other than a disbeliever like them. For this reason, he (ﷺ) said: “Every child is born upon the fitrah (natural disposition), and then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian.”

What immediately comes to mind from this hadīth is one thing, and what is indicated by the meaning and import of the hadīth is another. What the hadīth explicitly indicates is that if a child’s father is a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian, they make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian.

However, the hadīth carries another implication when combined with the statement of our Lord, The Most-High and Perfect: {Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones} [al-Tahrīm: 6] …to the end of the verse.

When we combine this noble verse with that authentic hadīth, we derive from this authentic hadīth a jurisprudential conclusion: that a Muslim father may make his Muslim child a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian — and it is valid to say: he makes him impure  — even if this comes about unintentionally. For Magianism is without doubt impure (najisah), like all the other religions that exist and are known today, except for Islām, as the Lord of all creation said: {And whoever seeks a religion other than Islām, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers} [Āl ʿImrān: 85].

So then: we are able to understand from this hadīth that the Christianisation of a child does not necessarily require his father to be a Christian; rather, the father may be a Muslim — but one of those Muslims who are said of, or described as, “geographical Muslims” or Muslims [only] in the chattering of souls — because the true Muslim cares first and foremost about raising his child in response to the statement — or rather the command — of his Lord: {Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire} [al-Tahrīm: 6].

And secondly: out of consideration for his child’s future welfare, and for the welfare of his future children as well. For if a disbelieving Christian takes charge of raising a child, his destiny will undoubtedly be one of two things: either he will become a Christian, or he will become an atheist. He will be neither a Muslim nor a Christian — and we do not wish to prefer Christianity over Magianism, for all disbelief is one creed — but without doubt, atheism is worse than the other religions for all the deviance they contain, such as communism and the like.

Based on this, it becomes clear beyond any concealment/ambiguity that since a father is responsible for raising his child, it is not permissible for any of these fathers who truly believes in Allāh and His Messenger to entrust the upbringing of his child — or children — to [a disbeliever], especially when they are in the tenderness of their youth; because a child at this age is readily and easily susceptible to being shaped from good to evil, or from evil to good. Therefore, it is not permissible for a Muslim to entrust the upbringing of his child to a disbeliever who does not believe in Allāh or in the Last Day.

And how, I wonder, could the soul of a Muslim father — if he is a true believer — find contentment upon hearing the like of Allāh’s statement: {Fight those who do not believe in Allāh or in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not adopt the religion of truth from among the People of the Book — [fight them] until they pay the jizyah willingly while they are subdued} [al-Tawbah: 29].

I say: how, I wonder, could the soul of a Muslim father who hears this verse — commanding the Muslims to fight these Christians — permit himself to hand over the flesh of his liver to his manifest enemy to raise and to teach him? What will he teach him?

The excuse of these [parents] may perhaps be that the child is learning a foreign language — English, for example, or French. I have said: we do not deny that Islām does not prohibit a Muslim from learning the language of another nation, especially if that nation is an enemy of the Muslim community.

Islām does not prohibit the learning of other languages; rather, it commands it and makes it a collective obligation upon the community — if some fulfill it, the obligation is lifted from the rest. We do not say this in response to the well-known hadīth: “Whoever learns the language of a people is safe from their scheming,” because this hadīth has no basis [in authenticity]. Rather, we rely in this matter upon two things:

The first: what is established from the legal religious principles: that everything whose learning benefits the [Muslim] community is a collective obligation.

The second: what is established in the Sunnah that the Prophet (ﷺ) commanded Zayd ibn Thābit to learn the Syriac language, and he learned it in half a month.

So we do not deny the Muslim the right to learn this language, but — firstly — not at the expense of the Arabic language, and secondly — and this is more important — not at the cost of Islamic upbringing. Therefore, those who enroll their children in all these foreign schools, whether English or French, are [in the position of those] about whom it was said of old: “Like one who builds a palace and demolishes a city.”

And surely, this father who enrolls his child in foreign schools will be falling short — not only regarding what we have mentioned from the verse and the hadīth — but also regarding the methodology that Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, has imposed upon parents in raising children, [as expressed] in the like of his — upon him be ṣalāh and salām — statement: “Command your children to pray when they are seven years old, and discipline them for [neglecting] it when they are ten, and separate them in their beds.”

For surely, this child — when he reaches the age of seven while being taught there things that contradict Islām — will not respond to his father’s wish to command him to pray at the age of seven; let alone the father being able to discipline his son who does not comply with his command to pray when he reaches the age of ten.

Therefore: every Muslim should anticipate (an) evil (outcome) if he resolves to enroll his child in a Christian school, for his consequence before Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, will be to be [counted among] fuel for the Fire.” (Abridged, Jāmi al-Turāth 8/106-114)

The Wing of a Mosquito: The World’s Insignificance: Hadīth Commentary by Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

لَوْ كَانَتِ الدُّنْيَا تَعْدِلُ عِنْدَ اللهِ جَنَاحَ بَعُوضَةٍ : مَا سَقَى كَافِرًا مِنْهَا شَرْيَةَ مَاءٍ

“If the world were equal in worth to Allāh (to) the wing of a mosquito, He would not give a disbeliever a sip of water from it.” This was narrated from the hadīth of Sahl ibn Sa’d, Abū Hurayrah, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās, and a group of the Companions, and (also from) al-Hasan and ‘Amr ibn Murrah, as mursal (i.e., a hadīth in which a Successor narrates directly from the Prophet (ﷺ) without mentioning the Companion intermediary in the chain). (al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī #686)

Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī said: “This hadīth is explicit (in showing) that the world is insignificant, and that it is the enjoyment of deception, as Allāh described it, and that none is deceived by it and distracted by it except one who is ignorant of the matter of his Hereafter. Since that is the case, attention must be directed to the matters of the Hereafter and not to the matters of the world.

The world is insignificant before Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic. For this reason, both the righteous and the wicked eat from it, and those who are enemies of Allāh, of Islām, and of the Muslims accumulate wealth (from it); because the giving of wealth does not indicate the righteousness of a servant, nor his corruption. For wealth is a transient provision which both the righteous and the wicked eat from.

In the hadīth is a warning against inclining and leaning toward the world, becoming preoccupied with its crumbling debris (i.e. it’s worthless remains), and squandering the matter of the Hereafter.

And in it is an encouragement to prefer the Hereafter over the world, and that whatever comes to the Muslim from (the goods of) the world, he uses it as an aid in performing acts of obedience, abandoning disobedience, fulfilling (his) needs, and spending in the ways of good. For this reason, the Prophetic (ﷺ) expression came: “If the world were equal in worth to Allāh (to) the wing of a mosquito, He would not give a disbeliever a sip of water from it.”

And in the hadīth is evidence of Allāh’s hatred toward the people of disbelief, and Allāh, The Mighty and Majestic, hates the people of disobedience in general, and especially the people of disbelief that removes (one) from the religion, in all its types and forms – because they are His enemies and the enemies of His messengers and their followers.” (Ta’liqāt ‘Alā Silsilah al-Ahādīth al-Sahīhah 2/252)

The Obligation of ‘Umrah – Tafsīr al-Wāhidī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The linguist and Qur’ān expert, Abū al-Hasan ‘Alī al-Wāhīdī said:

The statement of Allāh, The Most High:

وَأَتِمُوا الْحَجَّ وَالْعُمْرَةَ لِلَّهِ

{And complete the Hajj and the ʿUmrah for Allāh} – the verse.

Regarding the obligation of ʿUmrah, there are two views:

1) The first, is that it is obligatory (wājibah), which is the position of ʿAlī, and Ibn ʿAbbās, and the view of al-Shāfiʿī in his latter (opinion). [T.N: Among those who held it obligatory [are] Ibn ʿUmar, Jābir, Zayd, ʿAtāʾ, Ibn al-Musayyib, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, ʿAlī ibn al-Husayn, the two Sufyāns, and Qatādah; and it is the established position of the Hanbalīs]

Ibn ʿAbbās said: By Allāh, ʿUmrah is indeed the companion of Hajj in the Book of Allāh; {And complete the Hajj and the ʿUmrah}.

Masrūq said: ʿUmrah holds the same rank in relation to Hajj as zakāh holds in relation to prayer, then he recited this verse.

Whoever holds ʿUmrah to be obligatory interprets “completing” (al-itmām) in the sense of initiating; meaning: establish them both and perform them along with all the acts they contain, as in the statement of Allāh, The-Most High:

وَإِذِ ابْتَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَهُنَّ

{And when Ibrāhīm was tested by his Lord with [certain] words, and he fulfilled them} [al-Baqarah: 124]

meaning: he performed them and carried them out.

And [similarly] His statement:

ثُمَّ أَتِتُوا الصِّيَامَ إِلَى الَّيْلِ

{Then complete the fast until nightfall} [al-Baqarah: 187];

meaning: then begin (the fast) and complete it, for He mentioned completion immediately following (the permission for) eating and drinking. 

2) The second view: that ʿUmrah is a Sunnah and not obligatory, which is the position of the scholars of Irāq.

They interpreted the verse to mean: complete them both when you have entered into them, just as one who performs a voluntary Hajj is required to continue it once he has begun.

The first view is more appropriate, as it combines both aspects of “completing” (al-itmām); its meaning being: begin the ʿUmrah, and when you have entered into it, complete it. Indeed, one may say to someone who has not yet embarked upon a matter: “Complete this matter.” [From the words of al-Tha’labī who adds: “and also because those who hold it obligatory are more numerous, and the narrations pairing the obligation of Hajj and ʿUmrah together are more apparent and well-known.”]

(Tafsīr al-Basīt 4/7-10)

Al-Irjā is the Religion of the Kings & on the Irjā of Abū Hanīfah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū ‘Abdullāh Āl-Hamdān mentions: “Al-Nasr ibn Shumayl (d. 204 AH) said: “I entered upon al-Maʾmūn and he said to me: ‘How are you this morning, O Nadr?’ I said: ‘In goodness.’ He said: ‘Do you know what al-Irjāʾ is?’ I said: ‘It is a religion that suits kings — through it they obtain (something of) their worldly life while it diminishes their religion.’ He said to me: ‘You have spoken the truth.'” End [of quote]. (Tārīkh Dimashq, 33/301)

The ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Maʾmūn said: “…al-Irjāʾ is the religion of kings.” (Narrated by al-Lālikāʾī, no. 2818)

The (various deviant sects of) desires were mentioned in the presence of Raqabah ibn Masmalah (d. 219 AH) and he said: “…As for the Murjiʾah: they follow the religion of kings.” (al-Ibānah al-Sughrā, no. 216)

The reason al-Irjāʾ is the ‘religion of kings’ is that the Murjiʾah make light of the abandonment of obligatory duties and grant concessions in commission of forbidden acts, since actions are excluded from īmān in their view.

For [according to them] the believer of complete īmān is one who affirms [the truth] in his heart and utters [it] with his tongue — even if he abandons obligatory duties and commits forbidden acts. They even claimed that his īmān is like the īmān of the nearest angels — and this is something that accords with the desires of the soul.

There is also another matter no less significant than the first reason: the well-known characteristic of the imāms of the Murjiʾah of following (personal) opinion (raʾī) and abandoning the Sunan.

As Imām Mālik said regarding the imām of the people of opinion (i.e. Abū Hanīfah): “He led the people astray in two ways:

1) Through al-Irjāʾ.

2) Through nullification of the Sunan by way of [personal] opinion.

He is in our view the most calamitous person born in Islām; a great multitude have been led astray by him, and they continue in misguidance through what he introduced until the Day of Judgement.” End [of quote].

This is what drove them toward legal stratagems (hiyal) in issuing rulings, in conformity with the desires of worldly people and those of luxury.

Imām Ahmad said: “These legal stratagems that Abū Hanīfah and his companions devised — they turned to the Sunan and contrived to nullify them; they took what they were told was forbidden and contrived [a way] around it until they declared it permissible.” (Ibtāl al-Hiyal by Ibn Battah, p. 62)

Al-Karjī al-Qassāb said in Nukat al-Qurʾān (1/623): “The legal stratagems that are censured and counted against Abū Hanīfah by way of criticism are those by which he declared the forbidden permissible, or the permissible forbidden.” End [of quote].

For this reason Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī said: “The Murjiʾah have left the religion thinner than a Sāburī garment.” (al-Īmān by Ahmad, no. 199)

The Sāburī garment is the thin garment that does not conceal what lies beneath it of the ʿawrah.” (al-Jāmi Fī Kutub al-Īmān 1/179-180)

The Irjā of Abū Hanīfah



… Ibrāhīm ibn Shammās al-Samarqandī narrated: ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak narrated to us from Abū Hanīfah at al-thagr (frontier/border region). Then a man with the kunyah Abū Khidāsh stood up and said:

“O Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān don’t narrate to us from Abū Hanīfah, for he was a Murji’. ” Ibn al-Mubārak did not reject that from him.

Afterwards, when a hadīth came from Abū Hanīfah and his opinion, Ibn al-Mubārak would strike it out from his books and abandon narrating from him. This was the last of what he read to the people at al-thagr, then he left and passed away.

He said: I was on the ship with him when he returned from al-thagr and he was narrating to us. He came across something from Abū Hanīfah’s hadīth and said to us: “Strike out the hadīth of Abū Hanīfah, for I have abandoned his hadīth and opinion.” He said: Ibn al-Mubārak died on his return from that expedition. (al-Sunnah of Ibn Ahmad 1/213)

al-Muqri’ narrated to us: “Abū Hanīfah narrated to us and he was a Murji’ī,” he would extend his voice high (when saying this)… (Ibn ‘Adī 7/2475)

Al-Muqri’ narrated to us saying: “By Allāh, Abū Hanīfah was a Murji’ī and he called me to Irjā’ but I refused him.“ (al-Sunnah of Ibn Ahmad 1/223)

Abū Ishāq al-Fazārī said: “Abū Hanīfah was a Murjiʾī who would see (permissible) the sword.”

… Abū Ishāq al-Fazārī said: “Abū Hanīfah used to say: ‘The (īmān) faith of Iblīs and the faith (īmān) of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq (رضي الله عنه), are the same – Abū Bakr said: ‘O Lord’ and Iblīs said: ‘O Lord.’” (al-Sunnah of Ibn Ahmad 1/207)

Al-Fazārī who said: Abū Hanīfah said: “The faith of Ādam and the faith of Iblīs are the same. Iblīs said: ‘My Lord, because You have led me astray’ (Qur’ān 15:39) and said: ‘My Lord, then give me respite until the Day that they are resurrected‘ (Qur’ān 15:36) and Ādam said: ‘Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves (Qur’ān 7:23).’” (Ma’rifah wa al-Tārīkh 2/788)

ʿAlī ibn Al-Hasan ibn Shaqīq narrated to us saying: Ibn Al-Mubārak was asked: “Who are the congregation (jamāʿah)?” He said: “Muhammad ibn Thābit, Al-Husayn ibn Wāqid, and Abū Hamzah Al-Sukkarī.”

Abū Zurʿah said: Ahmad ibn Shabūyah told us: “There is nothing of irjāʾ or opinion of Abū Hanīfah among them.“ (Abū Zurʿah Al-Dimishqī in al-Tārīkh 1/208)

‘Abdullāh (ibn Ahmad) said: Abū Mu’ammar narrated to me from Ishāq ibn ‘Īsā al-Tabbā’, he said: I asked Hammād ibn Zayd about Abū Hanīfah, and he said: “That one is known for disputation in Irjā‘.” (al-Sunnah 1/202)

Muhammad ibn Mu’ādh narrated to me, he said: I heard Sa’īd ibn Muslim say: I said to Abū Yūsuf [the Imām and student of Abū Hanīfah]: “Was Abū Hanīfah a Jahmī?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Was he a Murji’?” He said: “Yes.”… (Ma’rifah wa al-Tārīkh 2/782)

Sufyān narrated to us saying: “The companions of Abū Hanīfah asked Abū Hanīfah to repent two or three times.” Sufyān was severe in his words regarding al-irjā’ and refuting them. (Ilal of Ahmad 3/239)

Abū Zur’ah said: “Abū Hanīfah was a Jahmī, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan was a Jahmī, and Abū Yūsuf was a Jahmī, clearly manifesting al-Jahmiyyah.” (Questiones of al-Bardhā’ī pg. 570)

And Abū Zur’ah said (p. 718): “…And he (i.e. Abū Hanīfah) says: The Qur’ān is created, and he rejects [the narrations] the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) and he ridicules the āthār (narrations), and he calls to innovations (bid’ah) and misguidances. Then he concerns himself with his hadīth – none does this except a foolish ignorant person, or something similar to what he said. And he began to get angry about Ibrāhīm. And he mentioned ahādīth from the narrations of Abū Hanīfah that have no basis…“

Abū Zur’ah said: “So he (i.e. Abū Hanīfah) and Abū Sinān made īmān (to be merely) the pillars of īmān [i.e. beliefs]. And he mentioned ahādīth in which he (Abū Hanīfah) made errors and he criticised them from his narrations. Then he said to me: Whoever says that the Qur’ān is created, then he is a disbeliever (kāfir)…”

Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: “Abū Hanīfah was a Murji and he called others towards that, and he was nothing in hadīth. As for his companion Abu Yusuf, there is nothing wrong with him in hadīth.” (Al-Sunnah 1/226)

Al-Bukhārī said: “He (Abū Hanīfah) was a Murji, and we remained silent about his opinion and his narrations.” (al-Tārīkh 8/81)

Muhammad ibn Sa’īd narrated to us from his father, he said:
I was with Amīr al-Mu’minīn – Mūsā – in Jurjān, and with us was Abū Yūsuf (the student of Abū Hanīfah). So I asked him about Abū Hanīfah, and he said: “What do you want with him when he died as a Jahmī?” (al-Tārīkh 13/381)

Ibn Hibban said: “Nu’mān ibn Thābit Sahīb al-Ra’ī… hadīth was not his craft… he narrated 130 ahādīth and erred in 120 of them…from another perspective, it is not permissible to use him as evidence because he was a caller to al-Irjāʾ, and the caller to innovations (bid’ah) – it is not permissible to use him as evidence according to all our scholars – I do not know of any disagreement among them regarding it. Moreover, the leaders (aʾimmah) of the Muslims and the people of piety (ahl al-waraʿ) in the religion in all the regions and all the lands criticized him and openly impugned him…” (al-Majrūhīn 3/61)

Weak hadīth: “Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hellfire”

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Imām al-Hākim narrated: ‘Alī ibn Hamshādh al-‘Adl > Hārūn ibn al-‘Abbās al-Hāshimī > Jundal ibn Wāliq > ‘Amr ibn Aws al-Ansārī > Sa’īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah > Qatādah > Sa’īd ibn al-Musayyib > Ibn ‘Abbās, who said:

أَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى عِيسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ : يَا عِيسَى، آمِنْ بِمُحَمَّدٍ، وَمُرْ مَنْ أَدْرَكَهُ مِنْ أُمَّتِكَ أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهِ ، فَلَوْلَا مُحَمَّدٌ مَا خَلَقْتُ آدَمَ ، وَلَوْلَا مُحَمَّدٌ مَا خَلَقْتُ الْجَنَّةَ وَالنَّارَ، وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْتُ الْعَرْشِ عَلَى الْمَاءِ، فَاضْطَرَبَ ، فَكَتَبْتُ عَلَيْهِ : لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللهِ فَسَكَنَ

Allāh revealed to ‘Īsā (Jesus), peace be upon him: “O ‘Īsā, believe in Muhammad, and command whoever of your community reaches him to believe in him. For were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Ādam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hellfire. And indeed I created the Throne upon the water, and it trembled, so I inscribed upon it: ‘There is none worthy of worship but Allāh, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh’, and it became still.” (#4273)

Al-Dhahabī said in his comments regarding this narration: “I think it is fabricated, attributed to Sa’id (Ibn Abī ‘Arūbah).” (al-Mustadrak 5/334)

In al-Mīzān (3/255) he said regarding ‘Amr ibn Aws: “His condition is unknown (majhūl). He brought a rejected report (munkar), recorded by al-Hākim in his “Mustadrak,” and I think it is fabricated…”

In Lisān al-Mīzān of Ibn Hajr he concurred with Al-Dhahabīs statement. (6/189)

Muhammad al-Tamīmī said: “These fabricated hadīths and their like cannot be relied upon in establishing a matter of Islamic law such as this.

Add to that their contradiction of (Islamic) law (al-shar’), for what the legal texts indicate is that Allāh, The Mighty and Majestic, created jinn and mankind only for a purpose which He mentioned in the Noble Qur’ān, where He, the Mighty and Majestic, said:

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالأِنْسَ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُونِ

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me (alone)”.” (Huqūq al-Nabī 2/715)

As for the inscription on the Throne and their like, Ibn al-Jawzī included some of them in his Kitāb al-Mawdū’āt, such as:

…Abū Bakr ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Affān al-Sūfī > Muhammad ibn Mujīb al-Sā’igh > Ja’far ibn Muhammad > from his father > his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: “On the night I was taken on the night journey, I saw inscribed upon the Throne: ‘There is no none worthy of worship but Allāh, Muhammad (is) the Messenger of Allāh, Abū Bakr al-Siddīq, ‘Umar al-Fārūq, ‘Uthmān Dhū al-Nūrayn (was) killed wrongfully.”

Ibn al-Jawzī said: “This hadīth is not authentic from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), and Abū Bakr al-Sūfī and Muhammad ibn Mujīb are both liars — as stated by Yahyā ibn Ma’īn.” (2/91)

Prayer of the Woman is Better in her Home – Hadīth Authenticity and Explanation

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The ahādīth and their authenticity

Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar:

Ibn ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

لَا تَمْنَعُوا نِسَاءَكُمُ الْمَسَاجِدَ وَبُيُوتُهُنَّ خَيْرٌ لَهُنَّ

“Do not prevent your women from [going to] the mosques, though their homes are better for them.”

(Abū Dāwūd 567 and others.

Al-Hākim authenticated it saying: ‘This is a Sahīh hadīth according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, for both of them cited al-ʿAwwām ibn Hawshab as evidence, and Habīb’s hearing from Ibn ʿUmar has been established — though neither of them recorded the addition “their homes are better for them.”‘ He then cited a corroborating witness from the hadīth of Umm Salamah, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. (al-Mustadrak 1/327)

Al-Nawawī and al-ʿIrāqī said: ‘its isnād is Sahīh.’

Al-Arnāʾūt said in the verification of Sunan Abī Dāwūd: ‘its isnād is Sahīh, for Habīb ibn Abī Thābit did hear [directly] from Ibn ʿUmar — Yahyā ibn Maʿīn explicitly stated this in his Tārīkh in the narration of al-Dūrī (p. 373) — [and] al-Bajalī said in his Thiqāt: ‘he heard from Ibn ʿUmar a number of things, and from Ibn ʿAbbās.’ Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd authenticated it in al-Iqtirāh (p. 430).’

Yāsir al-Fathī said: “A number of imāms established his (i.e. Habībs) hearing from Ibn ʿUmar without any qualification, such as: Yahyā ibn Maʿīn, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Yaʿqūb ibn Sufyān al-Fasawī, and al-Hākim [Tārīkh al-Dūrī (3/131, no. 541), al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (2/313), Kunā Muslim (3677), Suʾālāt al-Ājurrī (5, f. 48), al-Maʿrifah wa-l-Tārīkh (2/204)].” (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/404)

Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking – Sahīh Abī Dāwūd 3/103, saying: ‘This is an isnād whose narrators are all trustworthy and reliable narrators of the two Shaykhs (i.e. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim), and [scholars] have established Habīb ibn Abī Thābit’s direct hearing from Ibn ʿUmar; however, more than one [scholar] has described him as [practising] tadlīs, as has already preceded…however, the hadīth is Sahīh, for it has been soundly established from Ibn ʿUmar through multiple chains, some of which have preceded before this [hadīth] and some of which will follow after it — without the words “their homes are better for them.” This additional wording has corroborating witnesses, among them what will follow in the next chapter [Hadīth below].’

Hadīth of Ibn Mas’ūd:

‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

صَلَاةُ الْمَرْأَةِ فِي بَيْتِهَا أَفْضَلُ مِنْ صَلَاتِهَا فِي حُجْرَتِهَا، وَصَلَاتُهَا فِي مَخْدَعِهَا أَفْضَلُ مِنْ صَلَاتِهَا فِي بَيْتِهَا

“A woman’s prayer in her house is superior to her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her inner chamber is superior to her prayer in her house.”

(Abū Dāwūd 570 and others.

Ibn Rajab said in al-Fath (5/318): “Al-Tirmidhī authenticated it, and all of its narrators are trustworthy and reliable.”

al-Hākim authenticated it upon the standard of Muslim and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. (al-Mustadrak 1/328)

Ibn Hazm cited it as evidence in al-Muhallāh (4/201).

al-Nawawī said in al-Khulāsah (2/677): ‘its isnād is Sahīh according to the standard of Muslim’.

Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (6/406): its isnād is jayyid.

Muqbil al-Wādiʿī said in al-Sahīh al-Musnad mimmā laysa fī al-Sahīhayn (1163): ‘Sahīh according to the standard of Muslim’.

al-Arnāʾūt said in the verification of Sunan Abī Dāwūd (1/426): ‘its isnād is Hasan on account of ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim — who is Abū ʿUthmān al-Basrī — while the rest of its narrators are thiqāt (trustworthy and reliable).’

Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking of Abū Dawūd – 3/108, saying: ‘Its isnād is Sahīh according to the standard of Muslim…the hadīth has corroborating witnesses: from the hadīth of Umm Humayd the wife of Abū Humayd al-Sāʿidī, which has two chains from her — one of which was recorded by Ahmad (6/371), Ibn Khuzaymah, and Ibn Hibbān in their two Sahīhs; and from the hadīth of Umm Salamah, which likewise has two chains — one of which is in al-Musnad (6/301), al-Mustadrak (1/209), and Ibn Khuzaymah’s Sahīh.’

Yāsir al-Fathī declared the Hadīth Sahīh saying: “If it is said: ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim al-Kilābī narrated it alone from Hammām, and he is sadūq (truthful) but not a sufficiently precise preserver to be relied upon for his memorisation, nor one who is given precedence over others in cases of disagreement — in fact others are given precedence over him regarding [narrations from] Hammām; and he has a munkar hadīth that has preceded under no. 412, in which ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim contradicted the precise companions of Hammām, and al-Tirmidhī criticised his hadīth and assigned to him the fault of error therein. Al-Tirmidhī also considered some of his ahādīth gharīb (unique) in chains where there is no one to bear the blame other than [ʿAmr] ibn ʿĀsim.

The response is: No one contradicted him in this particular hadīth from Hammām; rather, he received a partial corroboration, in that the corroboration of Saʿīd ibn Bashīr and Abū Hātim al-Hannāt — with the addition of Muwarriq in the isnād — gives the heart confidence in the report’s soundness from Hammām. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim both recorded [narrations] from ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim from Hammām, either where he was corroborated or where [only] the underlying basis was corroborated…

When the authentication of al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Hibbān, al-Hākim, and others is added to all of this, it further strengthens the hadīth — and Allāh knows best.

Al-Dāraqutnī said in al-ʿIlal (5/314, no. 905): “Its being marfūʿ (attributed to the Prophet) is Sahīh from the hadīth of Qatādah.”…

In sum: if we set aside the [corroborating] gharāʾib (unique reports) and manākīr (objectionable reports), the hadīth of Ibn Masʿūd is a Sahīh hadith, which is further supported and strengthened by these corroborating witnesses [see below] — and Allāh knows best.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Tamhīd (24/281): “The established narrations have come conveying that prayer in their homes is more superior for women.” (Abridged, Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/430-437)

Hadīth of Umm Salamah:

Version 1 – collected by Ibn Khuzaymah 1683 and others:

Umm Salamah the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ), from the Prophet (ﷺ), who said:

خير مساجد النساء قعر بيوتهن

“The best mosques for women are the innermost corners of their homes.”

Yāsir al-Fathī said: ‘I say: Its isnād is weak — al-Sāʾib the freed slave of Umm Salamah is unknown (majhūl); only Darrāj Abū al-Samh narrated from him, and he narrates extremely rarely — I could find only two ahādīth for him, both narrated from him by Darrāj. Ibn Hibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, as is his habit in deeming unknown Tābiʿīs trustworthy, and named him al-Sāʾib ibn ʿAbdillāh.’ (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/434)

Al-Albānī declared the hadīth Hasan [li-ghayrihī] – Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah 2/813.

Version 2 – collected by al-Tabarānī in al-Awsat 9101:

From Umm Salamah the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ), who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

صلاة المرأة في بيتها خير من صلاتها في حجرتها، وصلاتها في حجرتها خير من صلاتها في دارها، وصلاتها في دارها خير من صلاتها خارج

“A woman’s prayer in her house is better than her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her courtyard is better than her prayer in her outer dwelling, and her prayer in her outer dwelling is better than her prayer outside of it.“

Al-Haythamī said: ‘Its narrators are narrators of the Sahīh, with the exception of Zayd ibn al-Muhājir, for Ibn Abī Hātim did not mention any narrator from him other than his son Muhammad ibn Zayd.’ (al-Majma’ 4/368)

Al-Mundhirī mentioned this hadīth in al-Targhīb wa-l-Tarhīb (1/226) and said: “Al-Tabarānī narrated it in al-Awsat with a jayyid (good) isnād.”

Yāsir al-Fathī said regarding the narrators: ‘Muhammad ibn Fulayh is sadūq (truthful) but prone to errors; Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir al-Hizāmī is sadūq; and the shaykh of al-Tabarānī, Musʿadah ibn Saʿd ibn Musʿadah al-ʿAttār Abū al-Qāsim al-Makkī, had Abū ʿAwānah, al-ʿUqaylī, al-Tabarānī, and others narrate from him, and he narrated from Saʿīd ibn Mansūr and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir al-Hizāmī extensively, and I have found no criticism of him nor any declaration of trustworthiness…Accordingly, this is a Madīnan gharīb isnād, and Zayd ibn al-Muhājir ibn Qunfudh is among those counted as unknown.’ (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/434)

Hadīth of Umm Humayd al-Sāʿidiyyah:

Umm Humayd the wife of Abū Humayd al-Sāʿidī: that she came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said:

يا رسول الله ﷺ إني أحب الصلاة معك، فقال: قد علمت أنك تحبين الصلاة معي، وصلاتك في بيتك خير لك من صلاتك في حجرتك، وصلاتك في حجرتك خير من صلاتك في دارك، وصلاتك في دارك خير لك من صلاتك في مسجد قومك، وصلاتك في مسجد قومك خير لك من صلاتك في مسجدي. فأمرت فبني لها مسجد في أقصى شيء من بيتها وأظلمه، فكانت تصلي فيه حتى لقيت الله

“O Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), I love to pray with you.” He said: “I know that you love to pray with me; but your prayer in your house is better for you than your prayer in your courtyard, and your prayer in your courtyard is better than your prayer in your outer dwelling, and your prayer in your outer dwelling is better for you than your prayer in the mosque of your people, and your prayer in the mosque of your people is better for you than your prayer in my mosque.” She then had [something] arranged, and a mosque was built for her in the most secluded and darkest part of her home, and she would pray in it until she met Allāh.” (Ibn Khuzaymah 1689 and others)

Ibn Muflih said in al-Ādāb al-Sharʿiyyah (3/414): “In its isnād is ʿAbdullāh ibn Suwayd al-Ansārī, who is unknown (majhūl)… though the condition of earlier [narrators] is generally good; the rest of its narrators are trustworthy — and Allāh knows best.”

And he said in al-Furūʿ (1/532): “I found no criticism of its narrators, and the most that can be said is that Dāwūd narrated it alone from ʿAbdullāh, and the condition of earlier [narrators] is overall good.”

Yāsir al-Fathī said: ‘ʿAbdullāh ibn Suwayd al-Ansārī is mentioned by Ibn Hibbān in al-Thiqāt, though he is unknown; the rest of its narrators are trustworthy, as Ibn Muflih said.’ (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/435)

Ibn Hajr declared its isnād as hasan in al-Fath (2/349).

Al-Albānī declared the hadīth Hasan [li-ghayrihī] in his checking of Ibn Khuzaymah 2/815.

Hadīth of Āishah:

Āʾishah, from the Prophet (ﷺ), who said:

لأن تصلي المرأة في بيتها خير لها من أن تصلي في حجرتها، ولأن تصلي في حجرتها خير لها من أن تصلي في الدار، ولأن تصلي في الدار خير لها من أن تصلي في المسجد

“A woman’s praying in her house is better for her than praying in her courtyard, and her praying in her courtyard is better for her than praying in her outer dwelling, and her praying in her outer dwelling is better for her than praying in the mosque.” (Tārīkh al-Kabīr of al-Bukhārī 8/265 and others)

Al-ʿIrāqī said in al-Mughnī ʿan Haml al-Asfār (1/412, no. 1571): “Its isnād is hasan.”

Declared weak by Yāsir al-Fathī in Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/436 due to weak and unknown narrators in the chains.

Statements of some of the scholars on this issue

Shaykh ul-Islām ibn Taymiyyah said: “Only a small number of women used to attend the Jumuʿah and the congregational prayer, because the Prophet (ﷺ) said: ‘Do not prevent the female servants of Allāh from the mosques of Allāh, though their homes are better for them‘ — agreed upon. And he (ﷺ) said: ‘The prayer of one of you in her inner chamber is superior to her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her courtyard is superior to her prayer in her outer dwelling, and her prayer in her outer dwelling is superior to her prayer in the mosque of her people, and her prayer in the mosque of her people is superior to her prayer with me‘ — or he said: ‘behind me‘ — narrated by Abū Dāwūd.

He informed the believing women that their prayer in their homes is superior for them to attending Jumuʿah and the congregational prayer — except for Īd, for he commanded them to go out for it.”

And he also said: “All of this is on account of the concealment and covering that [praying at home] entails. It is known that dwellings are of the same category as garments — both were [originally] created for protection and the warding off of harm.”

And he also said: “He made clear that the more concealing a place is for her, the superior her prayer therein — for the inner chamber is more concealing than the room in which [people] sit, and the room is more concealing than the courtyard which is closer to the door and the street.” (Jumhurat al-Ahādīth allatī Sharahahā Ibn Taymiyyah 2/142-144)

Al-‘Aynī said: “The reason her prayer in her inner chamber is superior to her prayer in her house and to her prayer in her courtyard is that it is more concealing for her and more protective from the gaze of people — for the foundation of their affair is concealment as much as possible.” (Sharh Abī Dāwūd 2/56)

Imām ibn Kathīr said: “As for women, their prayer in their homes is superior for them, as narrated…[he then mentions the narration above – of Ibn Mas’ūd, Umm Salamah, Umm Humayd].” (Tafsīr ibn Kathīr 5/551)

Shaykh Abū Muhammad ‘Adhīm al-Ābādī said: “(their homes are better for them)” — meaning: their prayer in their homes is better for them than their prayer in the mosques, were they to know that; however, they do not know [this], and so they ask to go out to the mosques and believe that their reward in the mosques is greater. The reason why their prayer in the home is superior is [the fact of] being safe from fitnah (i.e. temptation/trial); and this is further emphasised following the emergence of what women have introduced of tabarruj (ostentatious display) and adornment. It is on account of this that Āʾishah said what she said.” (‘Awn al-Ma’būd 2/14 – see also Nayl al-Awtār of al-Shawkānī 3/157 )

Shaykh, Imām al-Shinqītī said: “The fifth issue: Know that women’s prayer in their homes is superior for them to prayer in the mosques, even if the mosque in question were the mosque of the Prophet (ﷺ). By this you will understand that his statement (ﷺ) — “A prayer in this mosque of mine is better than a thousand prayers elsewhere, except the Masjid al-Harām” — is specific to men. As for women, their prayer in their homes is better for them than prayer in congregation in the mosque.” (Adwā al-Bayān 5/547)

He also said: “From the textual evidences we have mentioned, you will know that women’s prayer in their homes is superior for them to their prayer in congregation in the mosque of the Prophet (ﷺ) and in other mosques, by virtue of its being established from the Prophet (ﷺ).” (Adwā al-Bayān 6/266)

Shaykh, Imām Ibn Bāz said: “I advise all women: their homes are better for them, and prayer in their homes is superior — whether in Makkah, in Madīnah, or in any place, their homes are superior and further removed from fitnah. If they do pray in the mosque, let them be careful to cover themselves properly, keep away from men, and avoid mixing with them.

There is no doubt that their prayer in the mosque may sometimes be called for in order to hear hadīth and exhortations; so if a woman comes for this reason, or because she may become lazy at home and not perform the night prayer of Ramadān, and so attends in order to maintain her motivation — all of this is acceptable. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allāh from the mosques of Allāh,” and he (ﷺ) said: “their homes are better for them.”

If she is able to pray at home as she ought, that is superior for her. But if her going out to the mosque serves a benefit — such as hearing knowledge and gaining understanding of the religion, or for the sake of motivation because she may otherwise grow lazy with regard to the night prayer of Ramadān — then this situation is acceptable.” (Fatāwā Nūr Alā Darb 7/270)

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Muhsin al-‘Abbād said: “Question: Which is superior for a woman who has come for Hajj — to pray in the hotel where she is staying, or in the Masjid al-Harām or the Masjid al-Nabawī?

Answer: The Messenger (ﷺ) informed us that women’s prayer in their homes — whether those homes are owned or rented — is better for them. However, if a woman requests to go to the mosque, she is not to be prevented, on account of his (ﷺ) words: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allāh from the mosques of Allāh.” (Sharh Sunan Abī Dāwūd 38/450)

The Ruling on Attending Jumu’ah if Eid Falls on the Same Day – Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-‘Uthaymīn

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Imām Abū Dawūd said: Chapter: When Friday Coincides with (the Day of) ‘Īd

Isrāʾīl (narrated): ʿUthmān ibn al-Mughīrah narrated to us from Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah al-Shāmī, who said: I witnessed Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān while he was asking Zayd ibn Arqam, (saying):

شهدت مع رسول الله ﷺ عيدين اجتمعا في يوم؟ قال : نعم ، قال : فكيف صنع؟ قال: صلى العيد، ثم رخص في الجمعة، فقال: «من شاء أن يصلّي ، فليصل

“Did you witness with the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) two ‘Īds that coincided on (the same) day?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “So how did he act?” He said: “He prayed the ‘Īd(prayer), then granted a concession (rukhsah) regarding the Jumuʿah (Friday prayer), and said: ‘Whoever wishes to pray, let him pray.'”

Hadīth verification:

Collected by Abū Dawūd 1070, declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking. Declared Hasan by Al-Nawawī in al-Khulāsah. Declared Sahīh li-ghayrihī by Al-Arnāūt in his checking of Abū Dawūd. Authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah as related by Ibn Hajr in Bulūgh al-Marām. Authenticated by al-Hākim and al-Dhahabī

In the version of Ahmad and Ibn Khuzaymah:

من شاء أن يجمع، فليُجمع،

“Whoever wishes to attend the Jumuʿah (Friday prayer), let him attend it.” (Declared Sahīh li-ghayrihī by Al-Arnāūt in his checking of al-Musnad 32/68)

Al-Athram said: Abū ʿAbdullāh — meaning Ahmad ibn Hanbal — was asked about two ‘Īds coinciding on a single day, and he cited this hadīth. (al-Badr al-Munīr, 5/99)

Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī said: “In this chapter there are several hadīths from the Prophet (ﷺ) with a sound (jayyid) chain of transmission.” (al-Istidhkār 2/386)

Shaykh Abdullāh al-Fawzān said in Minhatul ‘Allām 4/49-50: “The narrators of this hadīth are all trustworthy and reliable (thiqāt), except for Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah, who is unknown in status (majhūl) — no one narrated from him other than ʿUthmān ibn al-Mughīrah, and he has nothing (to his name) other than this hadīth… however, this does not prevent the authentication of his hadīth when it is sound (mustaqīm) and in conformity with the narrations of the trustworthy narrators (thiqāt), as is the case here.

The hadīth has corroborating witnesses (shawāhid)…

قَدِ اجْتَمَعَ فِي يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا عِيدَانِ، فَمَنْ شَاءَ أَجْزَاهُ مِنَ الْجُمُعَةِ وَإِنَّا مُجَمِّعُونَ

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ)said: “Two ‘Īds have fallen on the same day. So whoever wishes, it (the ‘Īd prayer) will suffice for his Friday prayer. And as for us, then we will pray the Friday prayer.” (Abū Dawūd 1073).”

Its chain contains weakness. It was also narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq (3/304) and others via the route of al-Thawrī and others, from Ibn Rafīʿ, from Dhakwān, as a mursal (narration). Both Ahmad and al-Dāraqutnī authenticated its irsāl (mursal status).”

Shaykh al-Arnāūt said: “And another (corroborating witness) from the hadīth of Wahb ibn Kaysān [Abū Dawūd 1071], who said:

اجتمع عيدان على عهد ابن الزبير، فأخَّر الخروج حتى تعالى النهار، ثم خرج فخطب، فأطال الخطبة، ثم نزل فصلَّى، ولم يصلّ للناس يومئذ الجمعة، فذكر ذلك لابن عباس، فقال:أصاب السنَّة

“Two ‘Īds coincided during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr. He delayed going out until the day had risen high, then he came out and delivered the khutbah (sermon) at length, then descended and prayed — and he did not pray the Jumuʿah for the people that day.” This was mentioned to Ibn ʿAbbās, and he said: “He followed the Sunnah.” And it’s chain is Sahīh. [T.N – Then he brings further corroborating narrations].” (Takhrīj al-Musnad 32/69-70)

In a variant:

Wahb ibn Kaysān, who said:

اجْتَمَعَ عِيدَانِ فِي عَهْدِ ابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، فَأَخَرَ الْخُرُوجَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ فَخَطَبَ فَأَطَالَ الْخُطْبَةَ، ثُمَّ صَلَّى، وَلَمْ يَخْرُجُ إِلَى الْجُمُعَةِ، فَعَابَ ذَلِكَ أُنَاسٌ عَلَيْهِ، فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَقَالَ: أَصَابَ السُّنَّةَ. فَبَلَغَ ابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، فَقَالَ : شَهِدْتُ الْعِيدَ مَعَ عُمَرَ فَصَنَعَ كَمَا صَنَعْتَ

Two Īds coincided during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr. He delayed going out, then came out and delivered the khutbah (sermon) at length, then prayed — and he did not go out for the Jumuʿah. Some people criticised him for that. This reached Ibn ʿAbbās, and he said: “He followed the Sunnah.” This reached Ibn al-Zubayr, and he said: “I witnessed the Īd with ʿUmar, and he did just as I did.” (Musannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 5963, declared hasan by the verifier, Dr. Saʿd al-Shithrī and by Zakariyyā Ghulām in Mā Sahhah min Āthār al-Sahābah)

In a variant:

اجْتَمَعَ عِيدَانِ فِي يَوْمٍ، فَخَرَجَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ فَصَلَّى الْعِيدَ بَعْدَ مَا ارْتَفَعَ النَّهَارُ، ثُمَّ دَخَلَ، فَلَمْ يَخْرُجْ حَتَّى صَلَّى الْعَصْرَ، قَالَ هِشَامٌ: فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِنَافِعٍ، أَوْ ذُكِرَ لَهُ، فَقَالَ: ذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لَابْنِ عُمَرَ فَلَمْ يُنْكِرُهُ

Wahb ibn Kaysān, who said: Two Īds coincided on (the same) day, and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Zubayr came out and prayed the Īd after the day had risen high, then entered (his home) and did not come out again until he prayed ʿAsr. Hishām said: “I mentioned that to Nāfiʿ — or it was mentioned to him — and he said: ‘That was mentioned to Ibn ʿUmar and he did not disapprove of it.'” (Musannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 5968, declared Sahīh by the verifier Dr. Saʿd al-Shithrī)

Shaykh ul-Islām ibn Taymiyyah was asked about two men who disputed regarding the ‘Īd (prayer) when it coincides with the Jumuʿah: one of them said “the ‘Īd (prayer) must be prayed and the Jumuʿah is not to be prayed,” whilst the other said “it (the Jumuʿah) is to be prayed.” So what is the correct position regarding that?

He answered:

“All praise is due to Allāh. When the Jumuʿah and ‘Īd coincide on a single day, the scholars have three positions regarding that:

The first: that the Jumuʿah is obligatory upon one who attended the ‘Īd, just as all other Jumuʿahs are obligatory, based on the general evidences indicating the obligation of the Jumuʿah.

The second: that it drops from the people of the open land, such as the people of al-ʿAwālī and the outlying areas — because ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān granted them a concession in leaving the Jumuʿah when he had prayed the ‘Īd with them.

The third position — and it is the correct one — is that the Jumuʿah drops from whoever attended the ‘Īd ; however, it is upon the Imām to establish the Jumuʿah so that whoever wishes to attend it may attend it, as well as those who did not attend the ‘Īd. And this is what has been transmitted from the Prophet (ﷺ) and his Companions, such as ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn al-Zubayr, and others. And no disagreement is known from the Companions regarding this.

The proponents of the first two positions had not received the Sunnah established in this matter from the Prophet (ﷺ) — that when two ‘Īds coincided on his day, he prayed the ‘Īd (prayer) then granted a concession regarding the Jumuʿah (prayer). And in one wording, he said:

أيها الناس، إنكم قد أصبتم خيراً. فمن شاء أن يشهد الجمعة فليشهد، فإنا مجمعون

“O people, you have (already) received goodness. So whoever wishes to attend the Jumuʿah, let him attend — for we (shall) hold the Jumuʿah.”

Furthermore, when one has attended the ‘Īd, the purpose of (communal) gathering has been fulfilled. Then one prays the Dhuhr (prayer) if one does not attend the Jumuʿah (prayer), so the Dhuhr is prayed in its time; and the ‘Id (prayer) fulfils the purpose of the Jumuʿah. And making the Jumuʿah obligatory upon the people (in such a case) constitutes a burden upon them and a spoiling of the purpose of their ‘Īd and what has been prescribed for them therein of joy and ease. For when they are detained from that, the ‘Īd returns (as though) voided in its purpose.

Also, the day of Jumuʿah is an ‘Īd, and the day of Fitr and (the day of) al-Nahr (sacrifice) are an ‘Īd — and it is the way of the Lawgiver that when two acts of worship of the same kind come together, one enters into the other; just as the wudūʾ (minor ritual purification) enters into the ghusl (major ritual purification), and one of the two ghusls enters into the other. And Allāh knows best.” (Majmū al-Fatāwā 24/114)

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn was asked: Is it correct that when the day of Īd coincides with (the day of) Jumuʿah, the Īd prayer suffices in place of the Jumuʿah prayer?

He answered — may Allāh the Most High have mercy upon him: “Yes, it suffices in place of the Jumuʿah prayer for one who prayed the Īd with the Imām. As for the Imām himself, it is obligatory upon him to establish the Jumuʿah prayer. And whoever attended the Īd prayer has a choice: if he wishes he may attend the Jumuʿah, and if he wishes he may pray Dhuhr. As for one who did not attend the Īd, it is obligatory upon him to attend the Jumuʿah prayer.

It is thus clear that the Jumuʿah prayer does not drop from the Imām — he must establish the Jumuʿah prayer. However, a distinction is drawn regarding the followers (al-maʾmūmūn): it is said that whoever attended the Īd prayer with the Imām may attend the Jumuʿah with him — and that is better  — and he may also pray Dhuhr in his home; however, the Dhuhr prayer is not to be established in the mosques. As for one who did not attend the Īd prayer with the Imām, it is obligatory upon him to attend the Jumuʿah prayer.” (Fatāwā Nūr Alā Darb 5/584)

The Excellence & Etiquette of Fasting: Two Joys, a Shield, and a Boundless Reward – Hadīth Commentary by al-Mubārakfūrī and Al-Ithyūbī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū Hurayrah narrated from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ):

كُلُّ عَمَلِ ابْنِ آدَمَ يُضَاعَفُ الْحَسَنَةُ بِعَشْرِ أَمْثَالِهَا إِلَى سَبْعِمِائَةِ ضِعْفٍ، قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: إِلَّا الصَّوْمَ فَإِنَّهُ لِي وَأَنَا أَجْزِي بِهِ ، يَدَعُ شَهْوَتَهُ وَطَعَامَهُ مِنْ أَجْلِي لِلصَّائِمِ فَرْحَتَانِ : فَرْحَةٌ عِنْدَ فِطْرِهِ، وَفَرْحَةٌ عِنْدَ لِقَاءِ رَبِّهِ ، وَلَخُلُوفُ فَمِ الصَّائِمِ أَطْيَبُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ مِنْ رِيحِ الْمِسْكِ، وَالصِّيَامُ جُنَّةٌ ، وَإِذَا كَانَ يَوْمُ صَوْمٍ أَحَدِكُمْ فَلَا يَرْفُثْ وَلَا يَصْخَبُ ، فَإِنْ سَابَّهُ أَحَدٌ أَوْ قَاتَلَهُ فَلْيَقُلْ : إِنِّي امْرُؤٌ صَائِمٌ

“Every deed of the son of Ādam is multiplied — a good deed (rewarded) tenfold up to seven hundred times. Allāh The Most-High said: ‘Except fasting, for it is Mine and I (Myself) give recompense for it. He forsakes his desire and his food for My sake.’ For the one who fasts there are two joys: a joy at his breaking of the fast, and a joy at meeting his Lord. And the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk. And fasting is a shield. And when any one of you has a day of fasting, let him not engage in obscene speech nor shout; and if anyone insults him or tries to fight him, let him say: I am a man who is fasting.'” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1904 and Sahīh Muslim 1151)

Imām al-Mubārakfūrī said: (Every deed of the son of Ādam) – al-Qārī said: meaning: every righteous deed of the son of Ādam — (is multiplied) meaning: its reward, as a favour from Him, The Most-High.

(Tenfold) — based on His saying The Most-High:

مَن جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ عَشْرُ أَمْثَالِهَا

“Whoever comes with a good deed, for him is (a reward of) ten times the like thereof” (al-Anʿām: 160) — and this is the minimum of the multiplication, for otherwise it may be increased further.

(Up to seven hundred times) – meaning: the like (of it), rather up to many multiples, as (comes) in the revealed (Book):

مَن ذَا الَّذِي يُقْرِضُ اللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا فَيُضَاعِفَهُ لَهُ أَضْعَافًا

“Who is it that will lend to Allāh a goodly loan so that He may multiply it for him many times over?” (al-Baqarah: 245) — and as occurs in (another) narration with the additional words: “up to whatever Allāh The Most-High wills.”

(Except fasting) – The meaning (being): the good deeds are multiplied in reward from tenfold up to seven hundred times, except fasting — for it is not multiplied up to this extent; rather, its reward is beyond measure and cannot be enumerated except by Allāh The Most-High.

(For it is Mine and I (Myself) give recompense for it) – meaning: fasting is a secret between Me and My servant; he performs it sincerely for My sake, seeking My Face, and the servants cannot perceive it, for fasting has no outward form in existence, unlike other acts of worship. And I (am) the One who knows its recompense; I take it upon Myself of giving its recompense and do not delegate it to another. And in this is an indication of the magnification of the gift and the greatness of the recompense, and that the multiplication of the reward of fasting is without number or reckoning.

(He forsakes his desire) – meaning: he abandons what his soul desires from among the things forbidden during fasting. And this is the rationale for its being singled out with a great recompense.

(And his food) – (this is) specification after generalisation; or alternatively, desire is a metonymy for sexual intercourse, and food is an expression for the rest of the things that break the fast.

And in (another) narration food is placed before desire. And (in the narration of) Ibn Khuzaymah [1897, Sahīh]: “He forsakes food and drink for My sake, and he forsakes his pleasure for My sake, and he forsakes his wife for My sake” — and this is explicit in indicating that what is meant by “desire” is the desire for sexual intercourse. And even more explicit is what is found in the narration of al-Hāfidh Samawayh: “He forsakes his desire for food, drink, and sexual intercourse.”

(For My sake) — meaning: for the sake of complying with My command and intending My pleasure and My reward.

(For the one who fasts there are two joys) — meaning: two great instances of joy: one in this world and the other in the next.

(A joy at his breaking of the fast) — meaning: at his breaking the fast — either by (the sense of) fulfilling the obligation commanded of him, or by finding the success granted to him in completing the fast, or by the soundness of the fast and its safety from corruptors, obscene speech, and idle talk, or by what he hopes for in terms of attaining the reward, or by eating and drinking after hunger and thirst.

Al-Qurtubī said: Its meaning is: he rejoices at the departure of his hunger and thirst, now that breaking the fast has been made lawful to him — and this joy is natural and is what first comes to mind. And it was said: his joy at breaking the fast is due to the fact that it marks the completion of his fast and the conclusion of his act of worship, an easing from his Lord, and an aid toward his future fasting.

Al-Hāfidh said: And there is nothing preventing a broader understanding than what was mentioned, for the joy of each person is according to his (spiritual) station, as people differ in their ranks in this regard. Some have a permissible joy — which is the natural (joy) — and some have a praiseworthy joy — which is the one whose cause is one of the things mentioned.

(And a joy at meeting his Lord) — meaning: by receiving the recompense, or by attaining the meeting (with Allāh). And it was said: it is the delight (arising from) the acceptance of his fast and the consequent abundant recompense accorded to him.

(And the breath-change, al-khulūf, of the fasting person’s mouth) — And they are agreed that what is meant is the change in the smell of the fasting person’s mouth due to fasting, as stated in “al-Fath.”

Al-Bājī said: al-khulūf: the change in the smell of the fasting person’s mouth, and it arises from the emptiness of the stomach due to leaving food, and it does not go away with the tooth-stick (siwāk), for it is the smell of the breath coming from the stomach — and what the siwāk removes is only the change caused by food residue in the teeth.

And al-Burqī said: It is the change of the taste and smell of the mouth due to the delay of food.

(Is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk) — meaning: the possessor of the breath-change is more pleasing to Allāh, more acceptable, more esteemed, and nearer to Him The Most-High, than the possessor of musk is on account of its smell to you; and He The Most-High turns more toward him on account of it than you turn toward the possessor of musk on account of it. And in a wording of Muslim and al-Nasāʾī: “More pleasing to Allāh on the Day of Resurrection.“

And there arose a disagreement between Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām as to whether the pleasantness of the breath-change applies in this world and the next, or in the next life only.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām held that it is in the next life, as with the blood of the martyr, and cited as evidence this narration of Muslim and al-Nasāʾī. And Abū al-Shaykh narrated — via a chain containing weakness — from Anas in a raised report: “The fasting ones will emerge from their graves, recognised by the smell of their mouths, and their mouths are more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk.”

And Ibn al-Salāh held that it is in this world and the next together, citing as evidence the narration: “And the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth, at the time it changes from (the absence of) food, is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk.” Al-Walī al-ʿIrāqī said: This narration is apparently indicating that its pleasantness applies in that very state, and interpreting it to mean that it is merely a cause for pleasantness in a future state is an interpretation contrary to the apparent meaning. And supporting this is what al-Ḥasan ibn Sufyān narrated in his “Musnad” and al-Bayhaqī in “al-Shuʿab” from a hadīth of Jābir — within a raised hadīth on the merits of this ummah in Ramadān — “As for the second: the breath-change of their mouths at the time of the evening is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk.“

(And fasting is a shield, junnah) – Al-Mundhirī said: It is what protects you, meaning: it shelters and protects you from what you fear. And the meaning of the hadīth is: fasting shelters its possessor and protects him from falling into sins.

I say: Al-Tirmidhī and Saʿīd ibn Mansūr added: “A shield from the Fire.” And al-Nasāʾī, from the hadīth of ʿUthmān ibn Abī al-ʿĀs: “A shield from the Fire like the shield of one of you from battle.” And Ahmad, from the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah: “A shield and a fortified fortress from the Fire.” And Ahmad, al-Nasāʾī, and al-Bayhaqī, from the hadīth of Abū ʿUbaydah ibn al-Jarrāh: “Fasting is a shield as long as it is not torn” — to which al-Dārimī added: “by backbiting.” Al-Hāfidh said, after mentioning these narrations: It has become clear through them what this protection pertains to — namely, (protection) from the Fire. And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr stated this decisively.

And ʿIyād said in “al-Ikmāl”: its meaning is a cover from sins, or from the Fire, or from all of that.

(And when) meaning: now that you know the merits and comprehensive benefits of fasting.

(Any one of you has a day of fasting. Let him not engage in obscene speech, rafath) – And al-rafath, is used variously to mean: sexual intercourse and its preliminaries; or obscene speech; or a man’s address to a woman concerning matters related to sexual intercourse. And many scholars said: what is meant by it in this hadīth is obscene, vile, and reprehensible speech. And it was said: it is possible that the prohibition encompasses something broader than that.

(Nor shout) – meaning: let him not yell nor quarrel. 

And in a narration of the Two Shaykhs: “nor act ignorantly” in place of (nor shout) — meaning: let him not perform any act from among the acts of the people of ignorance, such as shouting, foolishness, mockery, and the like.

And in the narration of Saʿīd ibn Mansūr: “nor dispute.” And all of this is forbidden in absolute terms, but it is particularly emphasized in fasting.

(And if anyone insults him) — and in a narration of the Two Shaykhs: “curses him” — meaning: quarrels with him verbally.

(Or tries to fight him) – meaning: if anyone readies himself to fight or insult him, let him say: “I am fasting” — for if he says this, it is possible that the person will desist. And if (the person) persists, (the fasting one) repels him with the gentlest means progressively, as with an aggressor. This is regarding one who intends to actually fight him. 

And if what is meant by (tries to fight him) is “curses him,” then the meaning of the hadīth is: that he should not treat him in kind, but should confine himself to saying: “I am fasting.””

(Abridged, Mir’āt al-Mafātīh Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh 8/139-149)

Imām Al-Ithyūbī said:

“The Second Issue: Regarding its benefits:

  • The clarification of the excellence of fasting.
  • The establishment of the attribute of speech for Allāh The Most-High — that He speaks when He wills, and speaks to whom He wills with what He wills — and that His speech is not restricted to the Noble Qurʾān. And this is what is called the Hadīth Qudsī, which is the speech of Allāh The Most-High in reality. And the difference between it and the Qurʾān is that the Qurʾān is an act of worship to recite, unlike this.
  • That acts of worship differ in terms of reward.
  • That the extent of the reward of fasting is known by none except Allāh The Most-High.
  • That the fasting person has joy in this world and the next.
  • That the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is greater than the blood of the martyr — for the blood of the martyr’s smell is likened to the scent of musk, while the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is described as more pleasing (than musk itself). However, it does not necessarily follow from this that fasting is superior to martyrdom, for reasons that are not hidden.

The Fifth Issue:

Al-Hāfidh Walī al-Dīn, may Allāh The Most-High have mercy on him, said:

There is disagreement regarding the meaning of this breath-change being more pleasing than the scent of musk — after agreement that He, Glorified and Most High, is exalted above finding pleasant smells pleasing and foul smells disgusting, for that is a characteristic of (living) creatures which have natures that incline toward something and find it pleasing, and recoil from something and find it repugnant — holding the following opinions:

The first: Al-Māzarī said: It is a metaphor and a figurative expression…

The second: That its meaning is that Allāh The Most-High will reward him in the next life, such that his breath becomes more pleasing than the scent of musk…

The third: That the meaning is that the possessor of the breath-change will obtain a reward greater than the scent of musk (is great) to us…

The fourth: That the meaning is that (Allāh) reckons the smell of the breath-change and stores it for (the fasting person) as it is…

The fifth: That the meaning is that the breath-change carries more reward than musk — given that (the use of) musk is recommended for Fridays, the two ʿĪds, gatherings of hadīth and remembrance, and other gatherings of goodness. This was said by al-Dāwūdī, Ibn al-ʿArabī, the author of “al-Mufhim,” and some of the Shāfiʿīs. Al-Nawawī said: This is the most correct opinion.

The sixth: The author of “al-Mufhim” said: It is possible that this is with respect to the angels — that they find the smell of the breath-change more pleasant than the scent of musk. End of the words of Walī al-Dīn.

The compiler  (i.e. Imām Al-Ithyūbī) — may Allāh The Most-High pardon him — said: All of these opinions are void, with no trace of knowledge supporting them — rather, they are built upon the whims of corrupt desires and the imagined, stale (notion of) likening (Allāh to creation). And none of them has any basis from the Salaf; rather, they all came from the later Ashāʿirah and those who followed their path.

For when Allāh, Glorified be He, revealed to His Messenger (ﷺ): “The breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk” — He did not command him to clarify that it is among the ambiguous (mutashābih) texts, nor that its apparent meaning is not intended, nor that its interpretation is such-and-such. Yet He the Most High is the One who said to him: “And We have sent down to you the Remembrance that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them” (al-Nahl: 44). And the Prophet (ﷺ), when he conveyed this report, did not address the supposed problem nor answer it. Nor did the noble Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them — who were the most knowledgeable of people in the Arabic language and in the objectives of Islamic law after their Prophet (ﷺ) — when they heard the hadīth, find any problem in it, nor did they ask about its interpretation. And likewise the Tābiʿūn who followed them in goodness, may Allāh the Most High have mercy on them, followed their approach. Does what was sufficient for them not suffice us?

So, O people of reason — O fair-minded ones whose minds have not been coloured by the fantasies of the philosophers and the illusions of the theologians (mutakallimīn): it is the duty of every Muslim, when he hears any of the texts, to receive it with acceptance, and not to take it in every direction that his soul imagines — for these texts came only from the All-Knowing, All-Wise, who knows best what it is permissible to attribute to Him. And the Prophet (ﷺ) says nothing but the truth, as Allāh the Most High said: “Nor does he speak from (his own) desire. It is not but a revelation revealed” (al-Najm: 3–4).

And in summary: what is established as being attributed to Allāh the Most High — whether in His Mighty Book or in an authentic hadīth of His Messenger — must be accepted and understood according to its apparent meaning in the sense that Allāh The Most-High intended, without likening (Him to creation), without drawing equivalences, without (distorting) interpretation (taʾwīl), and without negation (taʿtīl).”

(Abridged, Sharh Sunan al-Nasā’ī 21/68-75)

Fasting Ramadān with Īmān and Ihtisāb: Hadīth Commentary – al-Mubārakfūrī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū Hurayrah narrated from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) that he said:

مَنْ صَامَ رَمَضَانَ إِيمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ ، وَمَنْ قَامَ رَمَضَانَ إِيمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ ، وَمَنْ قَامَ لَيْلَةَ الْقَدْرِ إِيمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ

“Whoever fasts Ramadān with faith (īmān) and seeking (divine) reward (ihtisāb), his previous sins will be forgiven. And whoever stands (in prayer throughout) Ramadān with faith and seeking reward, his previous sins will be forgiven. And whoever stands (in worship) on the Night of Decree (Laylat al-Qadr) with faith and seeking reward, his previous sins will be forgiven.” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1901)

Imām al-Mubārakfūrī said: (whoever fasts Ramadān) — meaning: during it, by fasting all of it when capable of doing so, or (fasting) part of it when incapable, with the intention to fast (the entirety) were it not for the incapacity.

(with faith) — (meaning) affirming that it is an obligation incumbent upon him as a right, and that it is one of the pillars of Islām, and (believing in) what Allāh has promised of reward and recompense for it. Al-Suyūtī said this.

It is said: it is in the accusative as a cause-indicating object, meaning: for the sake of faith in Allāh and His Messenger, and faith in what has come regarding the virtue of Ramadān and the command to fast it — i.e., the motivating factor and the impetus for doing so is faith in Allāh, or (faith in) what has been reported regarding its virtue and the obligation of fasting it.

It is also said: it is in the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier, with the verbal noun carrying the meaning of the active participle i.e., while being a believer — meaning one who affirms it as truth and an act of obedience, or one who affirms what has been reported regarding its virtue.

It is also said: it is in the accusative as a specification, or as a verbal noun — i.e., a fast of faith, or the fast of a believer.

(and seeking (divine) reward) — means: seeking reward from Him, The Most-High, in the Hereafter; or (it means) sincerity (ikhlās), i.e., the motivating factor for the fast is what has been mentioned (of faith and seeking reward), not fear of people, nor shame before them, nor the intention of (gaining) reputation and showing off (riyāʾ) before them.

Al-Khattābī said: (ihtisāb – seeking reward) means: with intention (niyyah) and resolve, which is that he fasts it with a desire for its reward, his soul being content with that, neither disliking it, nor finding its fasting burdensome, nor finding its days long; rather, he considers the length of its days an opportunity (to earn more reward) due to the greatness of the reward.

Al-Baghawī said: His statement: “ihtisāb” means: seeking the Face of Allāh, The Most-High, and His reward. It is said: “fulān (so-and-so yahtasibu l-akhbāra wa-yatahassabuhā)” — meaning he seeks them out. End (of his words).

(his previous sins will be forgiven) — “his sins” is a generic noun in the construct state, so it encompasses all sins; however, according to the majority (of scholars) it is restricted to minor sins.

[T.N: al-San’ānī said: “this is apparently (indicative of) the forgiveness of both major sins and minor sins, and Ibn al-Mundhir emphatically affirmed this.” (al-Tahbīr 6/38-39)]

Al-Nasāʾī added in al-Sunan al-Kubrā [#2523] , via the route of Qutaybah from Sufyān: “and what follows (of sins).” A group (of narrators) followed Qutaybah in this addition [T.N: The hadīth verifier Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūt commented on this hadīth saying in summary: A small number of narrators followed Qutaybah in transmitting this addition, all of them tracing it back to Ibn ʿUyaynah. However, a considerably larger and more reliable group of narrators — transmitting from the same Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah from al-Zuhrī — narrated the hadīth without this addition. On this basis, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr judged the addition to be munkar (rejected), and the verifier considers the narration without it to be the correct/preserved one]

This addition has been questioned on the grounds that forgiveness presupposes a preceding sin, and the sins that come later have not yet occurred — so how can they be forgiven? The response (given) is that it means their sins will occur (already) forgiven.

(and whoever stands (in prayer throughout) Ramadān) – meaning (during) its nights, or the majority of them, or part of each night through the Tarāwīh prayer and other (acts of worship) such as Qurʾān recitation (tilāwah), remembrance of Allāh (dhikr), circumambulation (tawāf), and the like.

Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) said: (it) means: stood (in prayer) during its nights, and what is intended by qiyām al-layl (night-standing in prayer) is whatever constitutes a general standing (in prayer).

Al-Kirmānī went further, saying: they (the scholars) are agreed that what is intended is: qiyām Ramadān (is realized through) the Tarāwīh prayer.

(and whoever stands (in worship) on Laylat al-Qadr) — meaning whoever enlivens it (with worship), whether he knows it (to be Laylat al-Qadr) or not.

It is said: what suffices for this is whatever is called qiyām (standing in worship), to the extent that whoever performs the ʿIshāʾ prayer in congregation has (achieved a form of) qiyām. However, the apparent meaning of the hadīth, by (conventional) usage, as al-Kirmānī said, is that one cannot be said to have “stood the night” unless he stood for all of it or most of it.

(his previous sins will be forgiven) — that acts of expiation, if they encounter sins erase them when they are minor sins, and lighten them when they are major sins; and (if no sins are encountered, then) they serve as a means of elevation in degrees in the Gardens (of Paradise).”

(Abridged Mir’āt al-Mafātih Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh 8/137-139)