This is because, when an act is known to be prescribed on the basis of evidence from the Sharia, and a hadith concerning its merit is transmitted that is not known to be a lie, the reward mentioned may indeed be real. None of the imams said that something may be declared obligatory or recommended on the basis of a weak hadith. Whoever says this has contradicted the consensus.

Likewise, nothing may be declared forbidden without evidence from the Sharia. However, when something is known to be forbidden, and a hadith threatening its perpetrator with punishment is transmitted that is not known to be a lie, it may be narrated. Thus, reports not known to be lies may be narrated to encourage good and warn against evil—but only concerning matters that Allah is known to have encouraged or warned against on the basis of evidence other than this hadith whose status is unknown.

The same applies to reports from the Israelite tradition. Those not known to be lies may be narrated to encourage good and warn against evil concerning matters that Allah Most High is known to have commanded or forbidden in our Sharia. As for establishing a rule of our Sharia solely on the basis of unverified reports from the Israelite tradition, no scholar advocates this. Neither Ahmad ibn Hanbal nor other imams like him relied on such hadiths in matters of the Sharia.

Anyone who reports that Ahmad used weak hadiths that were neither authentic nor sound as evidence has misrepresented him. Rather, in the terminology of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the scholars before him, hadiths were divided into two categories: authentic and weak. They further divided weak reports into those that were abandoned and could not be used as evidence, and those that were weak yet sound. Similarly, weakness caused by illness may take the form of a potentially fatal illness, which precludes unrestricted gifts from one’s estate, or mild weakness, which does not prevent this.