. IÚ IÛJ ':?Ü?I Iljj ,H c.,tÝ (cont.)

The correct view is that the chain, as correctly reported from Malik, was: al-Zuhri from Ali ibn al-Husain from the Prophet (peace be upon him), in mursal form. This was the conclusion of al-Daaraqutni, al-Baihaqi, al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi and al-Bukhari. Ibn Muhammad's Conclusion After studying all of the above chains, as well as few not mentioned here, ibn Muhammad makes the following conclusion, In sum, the hadith is not authentic. It is confirmed from the research just presented that the correct version is that which Malik recorded in al-Muwatta from al-Zuhri from Ali ibn al­ Husain in mursal form. All other narrations are weaker than this. I do not say that to say that it is correct to use mursal hadith as evidence. Indeed, mursal hadith are a type of weak hadith. This hadith has some supporting chains, as have been presented, by which some people strengthen the hadith. However, all of them are weak and their chains are very weak and cannot be used as support, no matter how many and numerous they are. It is not allowed to use the hadith of 1 Quoted in ibn Muhammad, p. 105. Hadith #12: "Part of the Perfection of a Person's Islam ... " rejected narrators or narrators implicated of lying as supporting evidence, as is well-known in the sciences of hadith. Furthermore, those who use such narrations as supporting evidence do not discuss their defects in order to know the reality of such reports nor do they make a judgment about them that makes clear their condition. Instead, they find it sufficient to refer to them quickly. In that way, they are mixing truth with falsehood. 1 Ibn Muhammad then gives the impression that two other modem-day scholars have come to the same conclusion. They are Abu Ishaaq al-Huwaini and Abdullah al-Judai. This Author's Conclusion Malik's narration of this hadith in al-Muwatta is in mursal form. Mursal hadith are weak hadith. However, they are considered the strongest type of weak hadith. Since only the name of the Companion is missing, they could easily be moved up to the level of hasan if one can find supporting evidence for that narration. Al-Tirmidhi' s narration of this hadith goes through Qurrah ibn Abdul Rahmaan. In general, he is not a completely rejected narrator. His hadith could be used as supporting evidence. His hadith are to be found in Sunan Abu Dawood, Sunan ibn Maajah, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan al-Nasaai. In fact, his hadith are even found in Sahih Muslim, but only in conjunction with other narrators. But there is a deeper problem here. Qurrah's narration of this hadith supposedly goes through al-Zuhri. Qurrah's way of narrating this hadith through al-Zuhri contradicts that which all of the other leading students of al­ Zuhri have narrated. There is no strong evidence to suggest that al-Zuhri narrated this hadith in two fashions, once in mursal form from Ali ibn al­ Husain and the other in connected form from Abu Salamah. The narration from Qurrah and the other rejected narrators are not sufficient to establish that fact. What this means is that the narration from Qurrah is shaadh. That is, it is contradicted by stronger authorities and narrations. It must be considered a mistaken narration. Hence, it cannot be used as supporting evidence. This must be why, Allah knows best, scholars such as al-Daaraqutni, al-Bukhari and others concluded that the only correct narration of this hadith is the mursal narration of Malik from al-Zuhri. Those who say that this hadith is sahih or sahih lighairihi cannot adequately support their conclusions. Almost all of the narrations that al­ Hilaali, for example, referred to are very weak narrations that cannot be used as supporting evidence. In reality, there are only two narrations of worth for this 1 Ibn Muhammad, p. 109. Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi hadith. One is the mursal form from al-Zuhri and the other goes through Qurrah. They are both weak in themselves. If they are both weak in themselves, but they support each other, the most one could say is that they are hasan lighairihi. One could not, though, justifiably call the hadith sahih or sahih lighairihi. Those who say that the hadith is hasan lighairihi have more to stand on. This would definitely be the accepted conclusion except for the fact that Qurrah claimed the narration to be from al-Zuhri. It seems, Allah knows best, as some of the greatest scholars have concluded (such as Imam Ahmad, Yahya ibn Maeen, al-Bukhari and al-Daaraqutni1), that his narration is not correct. Hence, it cannot be used to raise this hadith. The conclusion is that the hadith is mursal, which is the strongest form of weak hadith. It is a borderline case due to the narration of Qurrah, but the principles of the sciences ofhadith force the conclusion that the hadith is weak. Allah knows best. General Statements About the Hadith In general, if a hadith is weak, it cannot by itself be used as evidence in the shareeah nor should it be acted upon.