What is the ruling on sitting in the hibt position?

The Shaykh : As for the second question, what is it?

The questioner : Sitting in the hibt position...

The Shaykh : Yes, sitting in the hibt position is prohibited, and this is established from the Messenger (peace be upon him). Here, I must mention one thing or more than one thing. I hope our brothers will remember a scientific fact that exists among all scholars: it should not occur to us that a scholar in this world has mastered every science that a scholar is required to know. What has become prevalent in the modern era is that the necessity of specialization has become apparent to people of expertise, because specialization benefits the specialist in a certain science in ways that the generalist who combines all sciences does not. Therefore, one who combines all sciences does not master a single one of them unless he has been granted exceptional memory and intelligence, and this is very rare to find among scholars. For this reason, among the scholars there were exegetes, hadith scholars, jurists, grammarians, and so on. We must take into account the subject of specialization. If, for example, one scholar is a specialist in inheritance law, and another is a jurist but not a specialist in inheritance law, then trust in the specialist in this science should be placed in him more than in the jurist who is not a specialist in inheritance law. And so it is in all sciences. When you—or someone else—say, "Some scholars have weakened such-and-such a hadith" or "authenticated such-and-such a hadith," you must keep in mind: is this one who weakened it or authenticated it a specialist in the science of authentication and weakening, or is he a distinguished scholar?
By Allah, if he is a specialist in this science, he has his weight, and it is not permissible to criticize him merely by criticizing a scholar who holds a different view, and the reverse is exactly the same. This is the first point that must be pointed out. The second point is that one result of not specializing in a certain science is that one does not pay attention to some details and nuances that one must know in order for his ruling on hadiths to be as close to the truth as possible. To clarify this, you all know that hadith, according to the scholars, is divided in a general way into three categories: authentic (sahih), good (hasan), and weak (da'if). You also know that each of these categories has many subcategories, and I am not going into this detail now. Rather, I am taking from it the middle rank, the good hadith: authentic, good, weak. Every good hadith on earth is free from one of two things: either it is good in itself, or it is good due to other supporting chains. If it is good in itself, it must be the case that there is a remark about one of its narrators.
And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. It must be the case that there is a remark about one of its narrators. So, the non-specialist comes to the chain of a certain hadith—yes, what Allah willed, and upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings and His forgiveness. Where from? Where from? Where are you speaking from? Give me good news first of all. There is no god but Allah.
Where did we get to in the hadith?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, we were talking about the good hadith, and that the good hadith is either good in itself or good due to other supporting chains. The good in itself must have a narrator about whom there is a remark. So, one who has no specialization in hadith and no practice in it finds some weakness in the narrator of the good hadith and proceeds to say, "This is a weak hadith," while it has... and it has a chain. When he rules it weak, but it is a chain on the edge of a crumbling cliff. Why? Because it is possible that another person, who is new to this art or science, will come and say, "No, this hadith is authentic," and he will also rely, just as he relied on the statement of some of the critical scholars regarding this narrator whom he relied on the statement of the one who weakened him, on the statement of the one who authenticated him. So, the other person relies on the statement of the one who authenticated him and says, "This hadith is authentic." Thus, they fall into conflict and contradiction in their rulings. A third person comes who has some additional knowledge in this science. What does he do? He compares the statements of the critical imams and those who spoke about this narrator. He finds that what each of them relied on contains both weakening and authentication. But he catches a glimpse in the statements of other imams that the weakening came from his poor memory, and not an accusation of his truthfulness. Then he compares the statements of those who authenticated him and finds them to be absolute statements. So, he applies here what is similar to the process of authentication between legal texts: a general text is specified by a specific text, and an absolute text is restricted by a restricting text, and so on. He comes out with a result closer to the truth than the result of each of the two people who contradicted each other in their rulings; one weakened it and the other authenticated it. He comes out with a middle result, which is that the hadith is good. Because of these paradoxes that the researcher finds in the biographies of the narrators, and which result in differences in issuing a ruling on the hadith between authentic, good, and weak, this is as you see in the narrator about whom there is disagreement. The critical imam, Ibn al-Dhahabi al-Dimashqi (may Allah have mercy on him), says in his treatise "Al-Muqni'a" when he speaks about the good hadith: "It is one of the most detailed types of hadith sciences." The reason for this has aspects; this is one aspect of what I mentioned, because when the researcher stands upon a chain and finds in it a man about whom there is disagreement, he must weigh the statements of those who disagreed about this narrator, as I explained to you just now. But the most detailed and most amazing thing is that this weigher who wants to weigh the different statements about the same narrator may differ in his own ijtihad. Sometimes he weakens this narrator and consequently weakens his hadith, and sometimes he grades it as good, because he sees different statements, so his ijtihad differs. Therefore, ruling on a hadith as good is one of the most detailed sciences of hadith, as attested by one of the most famous critics in the science of hadith, namely Imam al-Dhahabi. This is if the research is about the good hadith in itself.
As for if the research is about the good hadith due to other supporting chains, it is more complex and more complex. Therefore, the hadith may not have an authentic or good chain, but the researcher who is well-established in this science and who has been given opportunities not given to others—even if they are specialists—to look at a large section of manuscripts, in addition to printed books, this person’s circle of knowledge and his familiarity with the individual paths will undoubtedly be broader than that of someone who shares this specialization in the science, and even more so than someone who has no specialization in this science. He comes out with a contradictory result. This one says, "This hadith is good," because he is saturated with those paths, and it has become established in his mind that they give the hadith strength that takes it out of the rank of weakness to the rank of goodness, and perhaps even to the rank of authentic due to other supporting chains; while all the individual paths are weak. Meanwhile, the critic and the one who weakens it may have stopped at the path of Abu Dawud, for example, in the hadith of sitting in the hibt position, and says, "This hadith is weak." For this reason, it was pointed out in the science of terminology what follows. It was mentioned in "Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith" by Ibn al-Salah that he—or in his commentary, I am hesitating now, in his commentary for al-Hafiz al-Iraqi—if a student of knowledge finds a hadith with a weak chain, it is not permissible for him to say, "This is a weak hadith," but rather he should say, "Its chain is weak," because of the possibility that...
Note that the scholars of hadith, when they directed this warning and this advice, said: Do not say of a hadith whose chain is weak, "This is a weak hadith," but rather say, "Its chain is weak," for fear that this hadith may have another chain that strengthens the first, or that the other chain is itself established. For this reason, they say, to complete the advice, "except"—they make an exception from this—except for one who is a memorizer and it is predominant in his opinion that this hadith has no chain other than this isolated one; then he may say:
"This is a weak hadith." As for the general students—indeed, the general scholars—who do not have the predominant opinion in themselves that they have encompassed most of the paths of the hadith; these people are not permitted to say of a hadith whose chain is weak, "This is a weak hadith," but rather they should say, "Its chain is weak."
For this reason, when I began about forty years ago to apply the principle I had highlighted in some of my books, "Bringing the Sunnah closer to the Ummah," and when I started with "Sunan Abu Dawud" as my first project, I considered dividing "Sunan Abu Dawud" into authentic and weak hadiths, as you have seen in the summary of that in the four Sunan books that were recently printed. I thought about it, and any work a person wants to undertake requires that he think about it and establish a methodology for it with insight. I know that in "Sunan Abu Dawud" there are hadiths with weak chains of narration. What should I do with these hadiths whose chains are weak? Should I immediately place them in the second book, "Weak Hadiths of Sunan Abu Dawud"? There is a possibility in that of falling into the error that the scholars of hadith warned about, as I mentioned earlier. I might include a hadith in "Weak Hadiths of Sunan Abu Dawud" and be excused, because the chain in it indicates that the hadith is weak. However, it is possible that it has corroborating narrations, or that it has other routes through which the hadith is strengthened. So I hesitated between two methods of classification: either to limit myself to mentioning the weak hadiths based solely on my assessment of Abu Dawud's chain, or to devote my effort to tracing this hadith in all the books of the Sunnah, including the manuscripts that were within my reach at the time in the al-Zahiriyyah Library. This takes a great deal of time and effort, and a great deal indeed. So I saw—and religion is sincere advice—to follow the other method and to disregard the first one, because the first method, while easy, is devoid of sincere advice. I proceeded on the basis that I would not include a hadith in "Weak Hadiths of Sunan Abu Dawud" until I had devoted my effort to finding nothing that strengthens it. If I found something that strengthens it, I mentioned it in "Sahih Abu Dawud." I adopted a terminology borrowed from al-Tirmidhi's terminology. If the hadith in "Sunan Abu Dawud" is authentic, I say: "Its chain is authentic." If it is good, I say: "Its chain is good." If it is weak but has corroborating narrations, I say: "The hadith is good"—pardon me—I say: "The hadith is good." If its chain is authentic, I say: "Its chain is authentic." If its chain is good, I say: "Its chain is good." If its chain is weak but it has corroborating narrations that strengthen it, I say: "The hadith is authentic," and I do not mention the chain. I specified this in the introduction. I may also say: "The hadith is authentic" while its chain is weak. Whoever looks into this will find that this has happened often and very often, because I followed this pattern and this methodology in my book "Sahih al-Jami'"—"al-Jami' al-Saghir." I authenticate a hadith that al-Munawi weakened, because his weakening was based on the same chain to which al-Suyuti, who traced it, attributed it. But I followed this same methodology in "Sahih al-Jami'" as well, so I authenticated many hadiths with weak chains, numbering in the hundreds, saving them from being classified as weak and including them in "Sahih al-Jami'."
As for the one who does not have comprehensive knowledge—and I have been asked this many times—how do you authenticate a hadith that contains, for example, Shahr ibn Hawshab, when you say that he is a weak narrator? How can you do that when it contains 'Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jad'an, who is also weak? And so on. The answer—and peace be upon you and Allah's mercy—the answer is that authentication or grading as good is of the second type, which is for the sake of other evidence. These matters must be observed so that confusion is removed from some people who encounter such apparent contradictions. I do not want—and Allah is my witness—I do not want you to judge from this speech that so-and-so was right and so-and-so was wrong; the opposite might be the case. But do not let your minds be confused. Keep these scientific facts in mind, and say: It is possible that the one who graded it as good did so because of the precision we mentioned regarding the narrator. It is also possible that the one who graded it as good did so because he found a corroborating narration, a supporting chain, or something similar. As for the definitive investigation, that requires people of knowledge. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: .
Other than that? You have taken the answer to your question.

The questioner : Shaykh ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner: A hadith mentioning the "habwah"; what is the ruling in it?

The Shaykh : It is not permissible.

The questioner : It is not permissible.