What is the meaning of the statement of Imam Ahmad, Ibn Mahdi, and Ibn al-Mubarak?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is the meaning of the statement of Imam Ahmad, Ibn Mahdi, and Ibn al-Mubarak: "When we narrate regarding what is lawful and what is forbidden, we are strict, and when we narrate regarding virtues and the like, we are lenient"?
The Shaykh : My understanding of this is that their narrations were by chains of narration, as is well known, and chains of narration are composed of men. So, if the hadith relates to rulings, they were strict regarding the narrators of these chains, and if it was regarding virtues, they were lenient in that. The intention is not what comes to the minds of later scholars, that it is permissible for a hadith scholar, especially the Imam of the Sunnah, Ahmad, to say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said such and such," when the hadith is not authentic according to him, and then he acts upon it. Rather, he transmits the hadith with a chain that indicates its weakness. As for if the chain is omitted, it is necessary to state the summary of this chain, which is the weakness of the hadith. The leniency at that point brings in the rule of action: "It is acted upon with the weak hadith in the virtues of deeds". This is another aspect, and it has extreme precision. It is that the weak hadith which the hadith scholar transmitted in the past, like Ahmad, with its chain, the chain indicates its weakness. And if the chain is abbreviated, it is necessary to present the summary, which is that the chain is weak. This is related to transmission. As for action, that is something else, and we have elaborated on the statement more than once. Acting upon the weak hadith, if the intention is to establish a legal ruling, and its minimum is recommendation, with a weak hadith, this is not permissible by the consensus of the scholars of the Muslims, as Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted in his book *Majmu' al-Fatawa*. And if the intention is that acting upon the weak hadith is permissible in the virtues of deeds, that the virtues of deeds were not established in this hadith, but the lawfulness of the deed was established by an authentic hadith, but in this prescribed deed, other than the weak hadith, there came a weak hadith containing an explicit mention of a virtue for that prescribed deed, then it is said here: There is no harm in acting upon the weak hadith in the virtues of deeds, meaning there is no harm in transmitting it, on the condition of stating its weakness.
The Shaykh : My understanding of this is that their narrations were by chains of narration, as is well known, and chains of narration are composed of men. So, if the hadith relates to rulings, they were strict regarding the narrators of these chains, and if it was regarding virtues, they were lenient in that. The intention is not what comes to the minds of later scholars, that it is permissible for a hadith scholar, especially the Imam of the Sunnah, Ahmad, to say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said such and such," when the hadith is not authentic according to him, and then he acts upon it. Rather, he transmits the hadith with a chain that indicates its weakness. As for if the chain is omitted, it is necessary to state the summary of this chain, which is the weakness of the hadith. The leniency at that point brings in the rule of action: "It is acted upon with the weak hadith in the virtues of deeds". This is another aspect, and it has extreme precision. It is that the weak hadith which the hadith scholar transmitted in the past, like Ahmad, with its chain, the chain indicates its weakness. And if the chain is abbreviated, it is necessary to present the summary, which is that the chain is weak. This is related to transmission. As for action, that is something else, and we have elaborated on the statement more than once. Acting upon the weak hadith, if the intention is to establish a legal ruling, and its minimum is recommendation, with a weak hadith, this is not permissible by the consensus of the scholars of the Muslims, as Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted in his book *Majmu' al-Fatawa*. And if the intention is that acting upon the weak hadith is permissible in the virtues of deeds, that the virtues of deeds were not established in this hadith, but the lawfulness of the deed was established by an authentic hadith, but in this prescribed deed, other than the weak hadith, there came a weak hadith containing an explicit mention of a virtue for that prescribed deed, then it is said here: There is no harm in acting upon the weak hadith in the virtues of deeds, meaning there is no harm in transmitting it, on the condition of stating its weakness.