Ḥadīth: “Whoever performed Ḥajj but did not visit my grave has been disloyal to me” — Its Authenticity
Source: Fatāwā Amun Pūrī by Shaykh Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amun Pūrī
The Question
What is the authenticity of the ḥadīth:
“Whoever performed Ḥajj and did not visit my (grave) has been disloyal to me”?
The Answer
All narrations reported with this wording or similar meaning are weak and unreliable. Below is the verdict of the scholars:
Opinions of the Scholars
❀ Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (728H) said:
“All narrations mentioned regarding the visitation of the Prophet’s ﷺ grave are weak, rather fabricated.”
(al-Radd ʿalā al-Bakrī: p. 253)
❀ ʿAllāmah Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī (744H) stated:
“The objector (al-Subkī) mentioned numerous narrations—claiming they are more than ten—in support of this issue. Not a single one of them is authentic. All are weak and feeble. In fact, some are so extremely weak that the great imams and preservers of ḥadīth have judged them to be fabricated. Ibn Taymiyyah also pointed to this.”
(al-Ṣārim al-Munkī fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Subkī: p. 21)
❀ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (852H) said:
“All chains of this narration are weak.”
(al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr: 2/267)
Additional Notes
❀ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī (748H) wrote:
“The narrations on this topic are weak, but they strengthen each other, since none of their narrators have been accused of lying.”
(Tārīkh al-Islām: 11/213)
❀ Ḥāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī (902H) wrote:
“Al-Dhahabī said likewise: All of its chains are weak, yet they strengthen one another, for none of them contain a narrator accused of lying.”
(al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasanah: 1/647)
Scholarly Analysis
Even according to al-Dhahabī and al-Sakhāwī, all of the chains are weak—none of them is ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ. Their view that multiple weak reports may mutually support each other is based on later scholars’ leniency and is not the principle of the early imams of ḥadīth.
① In fact, several chains contain narrators who are liars (kadhdhāb) or accused of lying (muttaham bi al-kadhib). Al-Dhahabī himself labeled narrators of some chains of this very ḥadīth as kadhdhāb and matrūk.
② The idea that “weak + weak = reliable” was not accepted by the early scholars; it was a later development among some of the later scholars, and even they disagreed in applying it. This very ḥadīth is a prime example: while some of those who accepted this rule deemed it usable, others still judged it weak or even fabricated.
Conclusion
The narration “Whoever performed Ḥajj but did not visit my grave has been disloyal to me” is weak, unreliable, and in some chains even fabricated. It cannot be used as a proof in Sharīʿah.
