Then Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah cited an example of a mursal report whose weakness is overcome because the community has consistently acted upon it. It is the ḥadith related by al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah, who said:

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ wrote to the Magians of Hajar, inviting them to Islam. Whoever accepted it, his acceptance was received; and whoever refused, the jizya was imposed upon him, on the condition that none of their slaughtered animals be eaten and none of their women be taken in marriage.”

It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ibn Abī Shaybah, al-Ṭaḥāwī in al-Mushkil (2/415–416), and al-Bayhaqī (9/192 and 284–285). Al-Bayhaqī said, “This is a mursal report, and the consensus of the Muslims corroborates it.”

Ibn Taymiyyah stated (32/188–189):

“This mursal has been acted upon by the great majority of scholars, and a mursal, according to one of the two well-known opinions, is binding proof—the position of Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, and Aḥmad in one of the two narrations from him. According to the other narration, it is proof when it is supported by the verdict of the majority of scholars, the apparent wording of the Qur’an, or when it is transmitted through another chain (1). This is also the view of al-Shāfiʿī; consequently, a mursal of this sort is authoritative by unanimous agreement of the scholars.”

I say: The mursal of Qatādah—the very report whose authenticity we are now establishing—fulfils all these conditions and more, as has already been explained; therefore it should be