What is the ruling on one who considers it permissible to recite the qunut in the Fajr prayer and cites as evidence the hadith of Anas?

The questioner : Regarding the commentary, we were here in the mosque, and the brothers who pray there had the custom of the imams reciting the qunut. We do not recite the qunut in the Fajr prayer. So one of the brothers, and he is present among us, the brother "Mustafa," mentioned these hadiths from Anas: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to recite the qunut in the Fajr prayer until he departed this world." It was narrated by Ahmad and al-Bazzar, and its narrators are reliable.

The Shaykh : Al-Bazzar.

The questioner : Al-Bazzar. And from Anas: "That the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) recited the qunut until he died, and Abu Bakr until he died, and 'Umar until he died." It was narrated by al-Bazzar, and its narrators are reliable. And from Abu Hurayrah: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say, when he finished the recitation in the Fajr prayer and said the takbir and raised his head: 'Allah hears the one who praises Him. Our Lord, and to You belongs all praise.' He would say while standing: 'O Allah, save al-Walid ibn al-Walid, Salim ibn Hisham, and 'Abbas ibn Abi Rabi'ah.'" This is a hadith narrated by Muslim. And from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him): "That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) recited the qunut after the first rak'ah in the prayer for a month, when he said: 'Allah hears the one who praises Him,' he would say in..."

The Shaykh : In any case, my brother, the issue is clear and known among the scholars. These hadiths fall into two categories regarding their authenticity. The first and second hadiths are not authentic. One who has knowledge of the terminology of hadith science would feel that there is some weakness in them, even if he did not know the specific weakness and its cause. The scholars' statement: "And its narrators are reliable" is not the same as their statement: "Its narrators are trustworthy." Then this difference—if the expression is correct—even if it were equal in status and meaning—that is, if their saying "its narrators are reliable" were like their saying "its narrators are trustworthy"—it does not mean that the chain of narration is authentic. We will clarify this and what came before it. "Its narrators are reliable" is usually said when there is among them someone who was certified with a weak certification that is not considered valid by the scholars. This is unlike when it is said: "Its narrators are trustworthy"; this certification is a trustworthiness that is relied upon. This is also understood by one who has knowledge of the Arabic language and its literature, for the word "reliable" (muthaq) is a passive participle, like their saying "he was certified" (uthiq). So one who says of a narrator: "He was certified" is different from their saying: "He is trustworthy" (thiqah). "Trustworthy" carries the meaning of certainty, whereas "reliable" and "was certified" carry the meaning of indicating a weakness in the certification. Therefore, we find al-Hafiz al-Haythami, in particular, in his book *Majma' al-Zawa'id*, uses both expressions. In most hadiths he says: "Its narrators are trustworthy." Sometimes he says: "Its narrators are reliable."
The Shaykh: It is obligatory for the student of knowledge to pay attention to these differences. Then, one who follows up, researches, and verifies will find this reality as clear as the sun at midday. When it is said "its narrators are trustworthy," he will find that so-and-so and so-and-so actually certified each of the narrators. But when it is said of a hadith: "Its narrators are reliable," he will inevitably find among these narrators a narrator who was certified by someone like Ibn Hibban, who is known for his leniency in certification. So he is indicating with the word "was certified" or "reliable" that one of the narrators was certified by someone whose certification is not considered valid due to his leniency in certification, like Ibn Hibban. This is known among the scholars engaged in hadith science. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani is among these imams who clarified the method of Ibn Hibban's certification of narrators and that this certification from him is the weaker position because it contradicts the method of the scholars in certification. He certifies those who are unknown to others, and sometimes he certifies those who are unknown to himself; where he says: So-and-so ibn so-and-so. Before I use this expression, I want to remind you that his book *Al-Thiqat* lists the trustworthy narrators in this book; he does not say: So-and-so is trustworthy, so-and-so is acceptable, so-and-so is trustworthy and trustworthy, so-and-so is not asked about his like. These are expressions known among the scholars who explicitly certify. As for Ibn Hibban, this is not his style at all. He is content to mention the name of the narrator, his kunyah, and his city if it is known, and his year of birth and death if that is also known, and he mentions one or two of his teachers and one or two narrators from him. So everyone he lists in his book in this manner is considered trustworthy by him; because he mentioned him in the book *Al-Thiqat*. So sometimes what does he say? So-and-so ibn so-and-so narrated from so-and-so and so-and-so, I do not know him and I do not know his father. He says this, and yet he is considered trustworthy by him; why? He is undoubtedly a learned and virtuous man, but "beware of the slip of the scholar, for it is the slip of the world." Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) treated the narrators of hadith in the same way that all scholars treat witnesses. The default for the Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and preserves the prayer is to be covered, and the default is justice unless something is revealed from him; in that case, he is judged by what is required of him.
The Shaykh: So, likewise, Ibn Hazm followed this course with the narrators of hadith; and that is to assume the best of Muslims. But here, regarding hadith science, another condition is required by the memorizers; and that is that he be a memorizer who is precise. Because this is explicitly stated as a condition in their definition of the authentic hadith. And that is from their saying: What did he narrate? What is the authentic hadith? "What was narrated by a just and precise person." They did not say: What was narrated by a just person from his like from his like to its end, but rather they said: "What was narrated by a just and precise person from his like." So when the narrator is not known to the hadith scholar like Ibn Hibban, in that case it is not valid to cite his hadith as evidence; because if we assume he is just regarding testimony, it is not valid for him to be just regarding hadith; because hadith requires that this just person be precise and a memorizer. And this is not clarified unless he has a lot of hadith and has studied hadith. So how can one who is not narrated from by anyone be called just? Then how can it be said he is precise? It is impossible to say this, especially regarding the narrator from whom only one person narrated and Ibn Hibban himself testified that he does not know him and does not know his origin, as well as his father. This is what was taken against Ibn Hibban and attributed to him as leniency in certifying narrators. And based on that, the scholars of hadith do not trust the certification of Ibn Hibban unless it is accompanied by another certifier like Imam Ahmad, Yahya ibn Ma'in, Ibn al-Mubarak, and the like of the imams of hadith. So, for the knowledge of some of the great hadith scholars of the later era, like al-Haythami, the Shaykh al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Ibn Hajar himself, al-Zayla'i, and others, in order to be precise in expression, they distinguish between their saying: "It was narrated by Ahmad and its narrators are trustworthy," and their saying: "It was narrated by Ahmad and its narrators are reliable." They also say: "Its narrators are trustworthy, and in it is so-and-so, and in it is weakness, and he was certified." They continue to consider this expression valid, placing it in its proper place.
Ibn Hibban, the witness, is one of those who are lenient in certifying the reliability of narrators. This leniency leads him to include in his book, which he titled *Al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa'* and which is known to later scholars as *Sahih Ibn Hiban*, the hadiths of narrators like these. This is because he would certify them in his book *Al-Thiqat* and then cite their narrations in *Al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa'*, which is *Sahih Ibn Hiban*. So we return to saying: "Its narrators are certified as reliable." One who knows this science understands that when it is said, "Its narrators are certified as reliable," it indicates weakness in one of the narrators, even if Ibn Hiban certified him, because Ibn Hiban certifies unknown narrators. As we mentioned earlier, if one says, "Its narrators are trustworthy," one who specializes in this science understands that the chain of narration should be examined. This is because the statement of a hadith master, such as al-Haythami, that "the men of its chain are trustworthy" is not at all the same as saying, "And its chain is authentic." This is because the trustworthiness of the men in the chain is one of the conditions of authenticity, as we mentioned earlier: "What is narrated by a just, precise man from a like man, from a like man, to its end, without being anomalous or defective." The phrase "the men are trustworthy" does not provide the other conditions derived from the agreed-upon definition among the masters of hadith: "What is narrated by a just, precise man from a like man, from a like man, to its end, without being anomalous or defective." So, in the first two hadiths, there is an indication, as we said, that there is something in the hadith. Because he does not first say, "The men are trustworthy"; he says, "The men are certified as reliable." And even if he did say, "The men are trustworthy," it would not mean that it is authentic.
Finally: The first hadith, which is the statement of Anas: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to recite the qunut in the Fajr prayer until he departed this world," is known to the scholars of hadith to have a defect. It is from the narration of Abu Ja'far al-Razi, who is more famous by his kunya than his name. His name is Isa ibn Mahan, and he is known as Abu Ja'far al-Razi. He is poor in memory, and his hadith is not relied upon when he narrates it uniquely. The meaning of "when he narrates it uniquely" is different from "when he contradicts others." If a trustworthy narrator narrates a hadith uniquely and no one contradicts him, his hadith is authentic. But if he is contradicted by others, it is examined. If the one who contradicted him is more trustworthy, more precise in memory, or more numerous than him, his hadith is anomalous. If the one who contradicted him is equal to him, his hadith is preserved and authentic. So, Abu Ja'far al-Razi's hadith is not relied upon when he narrates it uniquely; that is, when he narrates what the trustworthy narrators did not narrate. It is not a proof due to his poor memory. But if he contradicts others, his hadith is denounced. This is one of their precise details: if a trustworthy narrator contradicts one who is more trustworthy than him, his hadith is anomalous; and if a weak narrator contradicts a trustworthy one, his hadith is denounced. Both the anomalous and the denounced are categories of weak hadith.
This hadith of Anas, which was narrated by Abu Ja'far al-Razi, is denounced, and not merely weak because the narrator is weak; because he contradicted one who is more trustworthy than him. This hadith was narrated from Anas through a sound path other than the path of Abu Ja'far al-Razi, namely by Ibn Hibban, also, and Ibn Khuzaymah in their *Sahih*s, with a sound chain from Anas. He said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not recite the qunut except when he supplicated for a group or against a group." This contradicts the generality of the first hadith: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to recite the qunut in the Fajr prayer until he departed this world." It is established from Anas: "He did not recite the qunut except when he supplicated for a group or against a group," as in the last two hadiths that Abu Salah read earlier. These are two authentic hadiths, when he supplicated against the disbelievers of Quraysh. And these two hadiths are like the authentic hadith of Anas that was narrated by...