What is the ruling on one who considers it permissible to recite qunut in the Fajr prayer and cites as evidence the hadith of Anas: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite qunut in the Fajr prayer until he departed this world”?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : We were here in the mosque, and there were ... praying ... so we do not recite qunut in the Fajr prayer. One of the brothers, ... Mustafa, mentioned these hadiths from Anas: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to recite qunut in the Fajr prayer until he departed this world”, narrated by Ahmad and al-Bazzar, and ... in al-Bazzar. And from Anas: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) recited qunut until he died, and Abu Bakr until he died, and 'Umar until he died”, narrated by al-Bazzar, and its narrators are trustworthy. And from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him): “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, 'May Allah hear the one who praises Him. Our Lord, 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 hadith was narrated by Muslim. And from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him): “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) recited qunut after the first rak'ah in prayer for a month. He said, 'May Allah hear the one who praises Him ...'”
The Shaykh : In any case, the issue is clear and well-known among the scholars. These hadiths fall into two categories regarding their authenticity. The first and second hadiths are not authentic. Anyone with knowledge of the terminology of hadith science would sense that there is some weakness in them, even if they do not know the specific nature of the weakness ... The scholars' statement that “its narrators are trustworthy” is not the same as their statement that “its narrators are reliable.” Then, this distinction, if I may use the term, if it were of equal status and meaning—meaning if their saying “its narrators are trustworthy” were like their saying “its narrators are reliable”—it would not mean that the chain of narration is authentic. Let us clarify this and what came before it. “Its narrators are trustworthy” is usually said when there is among them someone who was authenticated with a weak authentication that is not considered valid by the scholars, unlike when it is said “its narrators are reliable,” in which case the authentication is a reliability that is relied upon. This is also understood by one who has knowledge of the Arabic language and its etiquette, for the word “trustworthy” (muthiq) is a negation built for the unknown, like their saying “he was authenticated” (uthiq). So, one who says of a narrator “he was authenticated” is not saying the same as one who says “he is reliable” (thiqah). “Thiqah” carries the meaning of certainty, whereas “muthiq” and “uthiq” carry the meaning of indicating weakness in the authentication. Therefore, we find al-Hafiz al-Haythami, in particular, in his book “Majma' al-Zawa'id”, using both expressions. In most hadiths, he says “its narrators are reliable,” and sometimes he says “its narrators are trustworthy.” A student of knowledge must be alert to these differences. Then, the one who follows up, investigates, and verifies will find this truth as clear as the sun in the fourth hour of the day.
When a scholar says, "The men in its chain are trustworthy," he has actually found that so-and-so and so-and-so, each of the narrators, are trustworthy. However, when he says, "The men in the hadith are authenticated," he will inevitably find among these narrators one who was authenticated by someone like Ibn Hibban, who is known for his leniency in authentication. By using the word "authenticated" or "authenticated," he is indicating that one of the narrators was authenticated by someone whose authentication is not considered valid due to his leniency, such as Ibn Hibban. This is well known among scholars engaged in the science of hadith. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani is among the imams who explained Ibn Hibban's method of authenticating narrators, noting that some of his authentications are the weaker position because they contradict the scholars' method of authentication. He authenticates those who are unknown to others, and sometimes even those who are unknown to himself. Before I use this expression, I want to mention that in his book *Al-Thiqat* (The Trustworthy Ones), he lists trustworthy narrators. He does not say, "So-and-so is trustworthy," or "So-and-so is acceptable," or "So-and-so is trustworthy, trustworthy," or "One does not ask about such a person." These are expressions known among scholars who explicitly state authentication. But this is not at all Ibn Hibban's style. He is satisfied with mentioning the narrator's name, his kunya, his city if it is known, his year of birth and death if that is also known, and one or two of his teachers and one or two of his students. Anyone he lists in his book in this manner is considered trustworthy by him because he mentioned him in *Al-Thiqat*. 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, nor do I know his father." He says this, yet he considers him trustworthy. Why? He is undoubtedly a learned and virtuous man, but "Beware of the slip of a 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 all scholars treat witnesses. The default for a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and who preserves prayer and modesty, is that he is just, unless something is revealed about him, in which case he is judged accordingly. Ibn Hazm also followed this course with the narrators of hadith, which is giving Muslims the benefit of the doubt. However, in the science of hadith, the compilers require another condition: that the narrator be a preserver with a firm grasp, because this is explicitly stated as a condition for a sound hadith. They say, "What is a sound hadith? It is what a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him, from the like of him, to the end of the chain." They did not say, "What a just narrator narrates from the like of him, from the like of him, to the end of the chain." Rather, they said, "What a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him." So, when a narrator is not well-known to the hadith scholar, like Ibn Hibban, it is not valid to argue with his hadith. Even if we assume he is just in terms of testimony, it is not valid for him to be just in terms of hadith, because hadith requires this just person to be a preserver with a firm grasp. This is not evident unless he has a large volume of hadith and has studied it. So who is... except a person? How can he be called just? And how can he be called firm? It is impossible to say this about him, especially a narrator from whom only one person narrated, and whom Ibn Hibban himself testified to not knowing, nor knowing his origin, as well as his father. This is one of the points taken against Ibn Hibban and attributed to his leniency in authenticating narrators. Consequently, hadith scholars do not trust Ibn Hibban's authentication unless it is accompanied by another authenticator, such as Imam Ahmad, Yahya ibn Ma'in, Ibn al-Mubarak, and the like of the imams of hadith. Because some of the great later hadith scholars, like al-Haythami, Shaykh al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Hajar himself... on him... for the sake of being precise in expression, they distinguish between saying, "Ahmad narrated it, and its men are trustworthy," and saying, "Ahmad narrated it, and its men are authenticated." They also say, "Its men are trustworthy, and it includes so-and-so, and there is weakness in it, though he was authenticated." They continue... with this expression, placing it in its proper place. Ibn Hibban is the point: he is among those who are lenient in authenticating narrators, which leads to his leniency in including the hadiths of such narrators in his book titled *Al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa'*, known among later scholars as *Sahih Ibn Hibban*, because whoever he authenticated in *Al-Thiqat* is included in his book *Al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa'*, which is *Sahih Ibn Hibban*. So we return and say, "Its narrators are authenticated." One who knows this science says, "Its narrators are authenticated," knowing that there is weakness in one of the narrators, even if Ibn Hibban authenticated him, because Ibn Hibban authenticates... and as we said earlier, if he says, "Its narrators are trustworthy," the specialist in this science understands that the chain should be examined, because the statement of a hadith compiler like al-Haythami, "The men of its chain are trustworthy," is not the same as saying, "Its chain is sound," absolutely not. This is because the trustworthiness of the men in the chain is one of the conditions of soundness, as we mentioned earlier: "What a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him." So when he tells you, "Its men are trustworthy," he informs you by knowledge that its men are indeed trustworthy. But where are the other conditions derived from the agreed-upon definition among the imams of hadith? "What a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him, from the like of him, to the end of the chain, and it is not anomalous and not defective." These conditions are not given by the phrase "its men are trustworthy." Here, 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, "Its men are trustworthy"; he says, "Its men are authenticated." Even if he did say, "Its men are trustworthy," it does not mean it is sound. 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". This is known for its defect among hadith scholars, and 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 has poor memory, and his hadith is not used as evidence if he is unique in narrating it. "If he is unique" means something different from "if he contradicts," because if a trustworthy narrator is unique in a hadith and no one contradicts him, his hadith is sound. But if he is contradicted by others, it is examined. If the one who contradicted him is more trustworthy, more memorizing, or more numerous than him, his hadith is anomalous. If he is equal to him, his hadith is preserved and sound. So, Abu Ja'far al-Razi's hadith is not used as evidence if he is unique, meaning if he narrates what the trustworthy ones did not narrate, because of his poor memory. But if he contradicts, his hadith is denounced. This is one of their precise details: if a trustworthy narrator contradicts someone more trustworthy than him, his hadith is anomalous; 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, narrated by Abu Ja'far al-Razi, is denounced, not just weak, because the narrator is weak, as he contradicted someone more trustworthy than him. This hadith was narrated from Anas through a sound path other than the path of Abu Ja'far al-Razi, of course, by Ibn Hibban and Ibn Khuzaymah in their *Sahih*s, with a sound chain from Anas, who said:. This contradicts the generality of the first hadith: . It is established from Anas: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not recite the qunut except when he prayed for a group or against a group", as in the last two hadiths that Abu Salah read earlier. These are two sound hadiths regarding when he prayed against the disbelievers of Quraysh, and these two hadiths are like the sound hadith of Anas that was narrated by...
The Shaykh : In any case, the issue is clear and well-known among the scholars. These hadiths fall into two categories regarding their authenticity. The first and second hadiths are not authentic. Anyone with knowledge of the terminology of hadith science would sense that there is some weakness in them, even if they do not know the specific nature of the weakness ... The scholars' statement that “its narrators are trustworthy” is not the same as their statement that “its narrators are reliable.” Then, this distinction, if I may use the term, if it were of equal status and meaning—meaning if their saying “its narrators are trustworthy” were like their saying “its narrators are reliable”—it would not mean that the chain of narration is authentic. Let us clarify this and what came before it. “Its narrators are trustworthy” is usually said when there is among them someone who was authenticated with a weak authentication that is not considered valid by the scholars, unlike when it is said “its narrators are reliable,” in which case the authentication is a reliability that is relied upon. This is also understood by one who has knowledge of the Arabic language and its etiquette, for the word “trustworthy” (muthiq) is a negation built for the unknown, like their saying “he was authenticated” (uthiq). So, one who says of a narrator “he was authenticated” is not saying the same as one who says “he is reliable” (thiqah). “Thiqah” carries the meaning of certainty, whereas “muthiq” and “uthiq” carry the meaning of indicating weakness in the authentication. Therefore, we find al-Hafiz al-Haythami, in particular, in his book “Majma' al-Zawa'id”, using both expressions. In most hadiths, he says “its narrators are reliable,” and sometimes he says “its narrators are trustworthy.” A student of knowledge must be alert to these differences. Then, the one who follows up, investigates, and verifies will find this truth as clear as the sun in the fourth hour of the day.
When a scholar says, "The men in its chain are trustworthy," he has actually found that so-and-so and so-and-so, each of the narrators, are trustworthy. However, when he says, "The men in the hadith are authenticated," he will inevitably find among these narrators one who was authenticated by someone like Ibn Hibban, who is known for his leniency in authentication. By using the word "authenticated" or "authenticated," he is indicating that one of the narrators was authenticated by someone whose authentication is not considered valid due to his leniency, such as Ibn Hibban. This is well known among scholars engaged in the science of hadith. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani is among the imams who explained Ibn Hibban's method of authenticating narrators, noting that some of his authentications are the weaker position because they contradict the scholars' method of authentication. He authenticates those who are unknown to others, and sometimes even those who are unknown to himself. Before I use this expression, I want to mention that in his book *Al-Thiqat* (The Trustworthy Ones), he lists trustworthy narrators. He does not say, "So-and-so is trustworthy," or "So-and-so is acceptable," or "So-and-so is trustworthy, trustworthy," or "One does not ask about such a person." These are expressions known among scholars who explicitly state authentication. But this is not at all Ibn Hibban's style. He is satisfied with mentioning the narrator's name, his kunya, his city if it is known, his year of birth and death if that is also known, and one or two of his teachers and one or two of his students. Anyone he lists in his book in this manner is considered trustworthy by him because he mentioned him in *Al-Thiqat*. 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, nor do I know his father." He says this, yet he considers him trustworthy. Why? He is undoubtedly a learned and virtuous man, but "Beware of the slip of a 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 all scholars treat witnesses. The default for a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and who preserves prayer and modesty, is that he is just, unless something is revealed about him, in which case he is judged accordingly. Ibn Hazm also followed this course with the narrators of hadith, which is giving Muslims the benefit of the doubt. However, in the science of hadith, the compilers require another condition: that the narrator be a preserver with a firm grasp, because this is explicitly stated as a condition for a sound hadith. They say, "What is a sound hadith? It is what a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him, from the like of him, to the end of the chain." They did not say, "What a just narrator narrates from the like of him, from the like of him, to the end of the chain." Rather, they said, "What a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him." So, when a narrator is not well-known to the hadith scholar, like Ibn Hibban, it is not valid to argue with his hadith. Even if we assume he is just in terms of testimony, it is not valid for him to be just in terms of hadith, because hadith requires this just person to be a preserver with a firm grasp. This is not evident unless he has a large volume of hadith and has studied it. So who is... except a person? How can he be called just? And how can he be called firm? It is impossible to say this about him, especially a narrator from whom only one person narrated, and whom Ibn Hibban himself testified to not knowing, nor knowing his origin, as well as his father. This is one of the points taken against Ibn Hibban and attributed to his leniency in authenticating narrators. Consequently, hadith scholars do not trust Ibn Hibban's authentication unless it is accompanied by another authenticator, such as Imam Ahmad, Yahya ibn Ma'in, Ibn al-Mubarak, and the like of the imams of hadith. Because some of the great later hadith scholars, like al-Haythami, Shaykh al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Hajar himself... on him... for the sake of being precise in expression, they distinguish between saying, "Ahmad narrated it, and its men are trustworthy," and saying, "Ahmad narrated it, and its men are authenticated." They also say, "Its men are trustworthy, and it includes so-and-so, and there is weakness in it, though he was authenticated." They continue... with this expression, placing it in its proper place. Ibn Hibban is the point: he is among those who are lenient in authenticating narrators, which leads to his leniency in including the hadiths of such narrators in his book titled *Al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa'*, known among later scholars as *Sahih Ibn Hibban*, because whoever he authenticated in *Al-Thiqat* is included in his book *Al-Taqasim wa al-Anwa'*, which is *Sahih Ibn Hibban*. So we return and say, "Its narrators are authenticated." One who knows this science says, "Its narrators are authenticated," knowing that there is weakness in one of the narrators, even if Ibn Hibban authenticated him, because Ibn Hibban authenticates... and as we said earlier, if he says, "Its narrators are trustworthy," the specialist in this science understands that the chain should be examined, because the statement of a hadith compiler like al-Haythami, "The men of its chain are trustworthy," is not the same as saying, "Its chain is sound," absolutely not. This is because the trustworthiness of the men in the chain is one of the conditions of soundness, as we mentioned earlier: "What a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him." So when he tells you, "Its men are trustworthy," he informs you by knowledge that its men are indeed trustworthy. But where are the other conditions derived from the agreed-upon definition among the imams of hadith? "What a just, firm narrator narrates from the like of him, from the like of him, to the end of the chain, and it is not anomalous and not defective." These conditions are not given by the phrase "its men are trustworthy." Here, 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, "Its men are trustworthy"; he says, "Its men are authenticated." Even if he did say, "Its men are trustworthy," it does not mean it is sound. 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". This is known for its defect among hadith scholars, and 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 has poor memory, and his hadith is not used as evidence if he is unique in narrating it. "If he is unique" means something different from "if he contradicts," because if a trustworthy narrator is unique in a hadith and no one contradicts him, his hadith is sound. But if he is contradicted by others, it is examined. If the one who contradicted him is more trustworthy, more memorizing, or more numerous than him, his hadith is anomalous. If he is equal to him, his hadith is preserved and sound. So, Abu Ja'far al-Razi's hadith is not used as evidence if he is unique, meaning if he narrates what the trustworthy ones did not narrate, because of his poor memory. But if he contradicts, his hadith is denounced. This is one of their precise details: if a trustworthy narrator contradicts someone more trustworthy than him, his hadith is anomalous; 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, narrated by Abu Ja'far al-Razi, is denounced, not just weak, because the narrator is weak, as he contradicted someone more trustworthy than him. This hadith was narrated from Anas through a sound path other than the path of Abu Ja'far al-Razi, of course, by Ibn Hibban and Ibn Khuzaymah in their *Sahih*s, with a sound chain from Anas, who said: