Source: Fatāwā ʿUlamāʾ-e-Ḥadīth, Volume 09
In Aḥkām wa Masāʾil, Volume 1, Page 97, you have quoted the narration: “Lā yamass al-Qurʾān illā ṭāhir” (“No one should touch the Qur’an except one who is pure”). In its chain of narrators is Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd, regarding whom Imām al-Dhahabī states:
"Ibn Maʿīn said: He is unknown, and this ḥadīth is not authentic. On another occasion, he said: He is nothing. Another time he said: A weak Shāmī (Syrian). ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd said: Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī reports from Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah and is weak."
The narration in question is reported from Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah. (Refer: Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl)
So, is it permissible to deduce rulings from this narration?
You have referenced Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl under the entry of Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī, citing criticisms from Ibn Maʿīn and ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd. However, within the same Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, there are other scholarly statements regarding Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī that are favorable:
① Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said:
“I hope it is authentic,” and included it in his Musnad from al-Ḥakam ibn Mūsā.
② Ibn ʿAdī states:
“Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah reports numerous ḥadīths from Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī al-Dimashqī. I hope he is not as Ibn Maʿīn claimed. His aḥādīth are good and consistent.”
Moreover, Ibn ʿAdī adds that although someone claimed this narrator is unknown, this is incorrect. Al-Ḥakam ibn Mūsā reliably preserved the correct chain, which includes Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī, and not Sulaymān ibn Arqam, who is a very weak narrator.
So it is evident that al-Dhahabī misunderstood Ibn ʿAdī’s statement in two ways:
③ Ibn Ḥibbān:
“Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī is thiqa (trustworthy).”
④ Al-Dāraqutnī:
“There is no harm in him.”
Thus, four prominent scholars—Imām Aḥmad, Ibn ʿAdī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Dāraqutnī—have authenticated or endorsed Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī. Therefore, referencing Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl alone for a critical view without acknowledging these validations presents an incomplete picture.
Shaykh al-Albānī writes in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl (Vol. 1, pg. 158–161):
“This narration (‘None should touch the Qur’an except a ṭāhir’) is reported by al-Athram and al-Dāraqutnī with a connected chain. Imām Aḥmad used it as evidence. Mālik also transmitted it in his Muwaṭṭaʾ as a mursal report.”
Although there was confusion between Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd and Sulaymān ibn Arqam, and initially some scholars criticized the narration assuming it was the latter (a very weak narrator), later verification confirmed that the narration indeed comes through Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī, who is trustworthy.
Shaykh al-Albānī explicitly states that he revised his earlier opinion and affirmed the narration's strength after verifying the correct isnād.
The ḥadīth “لَا يَمَسُّ الْقُرْآنَ إِلَّا طَاهِرٌ” reported from ‘Amr ibn Ḥazm via Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī is ḥasan (good) and ṣaḥīḥ (authentic).
Thus, your claim — “Can this narration be used for deduction?” — holds no weight or validity, as the narration can indeed be used as valid evidence in rulings.
And Allah knows best.
In Aḥkām wa Masāʾil, Volume 1, Page 97, you have quoted the narration: “Lā yamass al-Qurʾān illā ṭāhir” (“No one should touch the Qur’an except one who is pure”). In its chain of narrators is Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd, regarding whom Imām al-Dhahabī states:
"Ibn Maʿīn said: He is unknown, and this ḥadīth is not authentic. On another occasion, he said: He is nothing. Another time he said: A weak Shāmī (Syrian). ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd said: Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī reports from Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah and is weak."
The narration in question is reported from Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah. (Refer: Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl)
So, is it permissible to deduce rulings from this narration?
You have referenced Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl under the entry of Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī, citing criticisms from Ibn Maʿīn and ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd. However, within the same Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, there are other scholarly statements regarding Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī that are favorable:
✔ Notable Endorsements of Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī:
① Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said:
“I hope it is authentic,” and included it in his Musnad from al-Ḥakam ibn Mūsā.
② Ibn ʿAdī states:
“Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah reports numerous ḥadīths from Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī al-Dimashqī. I hope he is not as Ibn Maʿīn claimed. His aḥādīth are good and consistent.”
Moreover, Ibn ʿAdī adds that although someone claimed this narrator is unknown, this is incorrect. Al-Ḥakam ibn Mūsā reliably preserved the correct chain, which includes Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī, and not Sulaymān ibn Arqam, who is a very weak narrator.
So it is evident that al-Dhahabī misunderstood Ibn ʿAdī’s statement in two ways:
- First, he mistakenly attributed the phrase “his aḥādīth are good and consistent” to Ibn ʿAdī, when it is actually from ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī.
- Second, he incorrectly interpreted the word “unknown” as referring to Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd, whereas it refers to other narrators from whom reports also exist.
③ Ibn Ḥibbān:
“Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī is thiqa (trustworthy).”
④ Al-Dāraqutnī:
“There is no harm in him.”
Thus, four prominent scholars—Imām Aḥmad, Ibn ʿAdī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Dāraqutnī—have authenticated or endorsed Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī. Therefore, referencing Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl alone for a critical view without acknowledging these validations presents an incomplete picture.
❖ Position of Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله)
Shaykh al-Albānī writes in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl (Vol. 1, pg. 158–161):
“This narration (‘None should touch the Qur’an except a ṭāhir’) is reported by al-Athram and al-Dāraqutnī with a connected chain. Imām Aḥmad used it as evidence. Mālik also transmitted it in his Muwaṭṭaʾ as a mursal report.”
Although there was confusion between Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd and Sulaymān ibn Arqam, and initially some scholars criticized the narration assuming it was the latter (a very weak narrator), later verification confirmed that the narration indeed comes through Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī, who is trustworthy.
Shaykh al-Albānī explicitly states that he revised his earlier opinion and affirmed the narration's strength after verifying the correct isnād.
The ḥadīth “لَا يَمَسُّ الْقُرْآنَ إِلَّا طَاهِرٌ” reported from ‘Amr ibn Ḥazm via Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī is ḥasan (good) and ṣaḥīḥ (authentic).
Thus, your claim — “Can this narration be used for deduction?” — holds no weight or validity, as the narration can indeed be used as valid evidence in rulings.
And Allah knows best.
