Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah (Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām), vol. 2, p. 293
Is declaring a narration ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, or ḍaʿīf an ijtihādī matter?
Yūsuf Ludhyānwī, in his book Ikhtilāf Ummat aur Ṣirāṭ-e-Mustaqīm, quoted Ibn Taymiyyah to support the point that differences among the Imāms and Muḥaddithīn are in fact ijtihādī differences. That is, one scholar may grade a ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ, another ḍaʿīf, a third ḥasan, and so forth.
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
The matter of authenticity or weakness of narrations falls into two categories:
Ḥāfiẓ Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله (d. 277 AH) said:
“The agreement of the people of ḥadīth on something is binding proof.”
Kitāb al-Marāsīl, p. 192, no. 703 — narration from Muḥammad ibn Muslim al-Zuhrī
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله (d. 728 AH) said:
“If the scholars of fiqh agree on a ruling, it is certainly the truth; and if the scholars of ḥadīth agree on the authenticity of a ḥadīth, then it is certainly truthful.”
Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 1/9–10
Conclusion:
For narrations on which there is consensus, their authenticity or weakness is not an ijtihādī issue — rather, it is a matter of following the consensus (ijmāʿ).
When there is disagreement over the grading of a narration, following the research of the majority of the Muḥaddithīn becomes an ijtihādī matter.
Key point:
Whichever principle is adopted must be applied consistently — otherwise, contradiction between statement and action arises, which is a sign of hypocrisy.
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAlī al-Subkī رحمه الله (d. 771 AH) said:
“If the number of critics (al-jārḥ) is greater, then the criticism is given precedence by consensus.”
Qāʿidah fī al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl, p. 50
Conclusion:
A narrator whom the majority of the Muḥaddithīn have declared weak (majrūḥ) is to be considered weak according to later scholars as well.
Disagreement over whether a narration is ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf is indeed ijtihādī, but this does not mean that a school or group may simply label its preferred narrations as authentic and others’ narrations as weak without proper evidence.
Correct approach:
The stronger and more reliable position is that which aligns with the verdict of the majority of the leading Muḥaddithīn.
Some followers of Ikhtilāf Ummat aur Ṣirāṭ-e-Mustaqīm even reject aḥādīth from the Ṣaḥīḥayn that have been accepted by consensus (talaqqī bi’l-qubūl). Such individuals give priority to the statements and actions of their own elders over authenticated, consensus-approved ḥadīth — a practice contrary to scholarly integrity.
Example: Irshād al-Qārī, p. 412
Summary:
✔ If there is ijmāʿ on a narration’s grading, it is not ijtihādī — it is binding.
✔ If there is disagreement, preferring the majority view of the Muḥaddithīn is an ijtihādī process.
✔ Personal or sectarian bias must not influence grading.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
❖ Question
Is declaring a narration ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, or ḍaʿīf an ijtihādī matter?
Yūsuf Ludhyānwī, in his book Ikhtilāf Ummat aur Ṣirāṭ-e-Mustaqīm, quoted Ibn Taymiyyah to support the point that differences among the Imāms and Muḥaddithīn are in fact ijtihādī differences. That is, one scholar may grade a ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ, another ḍaʿīf, a third ḥasan, and so forth.
❖ Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
The matter of authenticity or weakness of narrations falls into two categories:
① Narrations Whose Authenticity or Weakness Is a Matter of Consensus
Ḥāfiẓ Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله (d. 277 AH) said:
“The agreement of the people of ḥadīth on something is binding proof.”
Kitāb al-Marāsīl, p. 192, no. 703 — narration from Muḥammad ibn Muslim al-ZuhrīShaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله (d. 728 AH) said:
“If the scholars of fiqh agree on a ruling, it is certainly the truth; and if the scholars of ḥadīth agree on the authenticity of a ḥadīth, then it is certainly truthful.”
Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 1/9–10Conclusion:
For narrations on which there is consensus, their authenticity or weakness is not an ijtihādī issue — rather, it is a matter of following the consensus (ijmāʿ).
② Narrations with Differences in Grading
When there is disagreement over the grading of a narration, following the research of the majority of the Muḥaddithīn becomes an ijtihādī matter.
Key point:
Whichever principle is adopted must be applied consistently — otherwise, contradiction between statement and action arises, which is a sign of hypocrisy.
Important Note 1
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAlī al-Subkī رحمه الله (d. 771 AH) said:
“If the number of critics (al-jārḥ) is greater, then the criticism is given precedence by consensus.”
Qāʿidah fī al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl, p. 50Conclusion:
A narrator whom the majority of the Muḥaddithīn have declared weak (majrūḥ) is to be considered weak according to later scholars as well.
Reality of Ijtihādī Disagreement
Disagreement over whether a narration is ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf is indeed ijtihādī, but this does not mean that a school or group may simply label its preferred narrations as authentic and others’ narrations as weak without proper evidence.
Correct approach:
The stronger and more reliable position is that which aligns with the verdict of the majority of the leading Muḥaddithīn.
Important Note 2
Some followers of Ikhtilāf Ummat aur Ṣirāṭ-e-Mustaqīm even reject aḥādīth from the Ṣaḥīḥayn that have been accepted by consensus (talaqqī bi’l-qubūl). Such individuals give priority to the statements and actions of their own elders over authenticated, consensus-approved ḥadīth — a practice contrary to scholarly integrity.
Example: Irshād al-Qārī, p. 412Summary:
✔ If there is ijmāʿ on a narration’s grading, it is not ijtihādī — it is binding.
✔ If there is disagreement, preferring the majority view of the Muḥaddithīn is an ijtihādī process.
✔ Personal or sectarian bias must not influence grading.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
