“I say: He mentioned four hadiths in this chapter and made no comment on them, yet none of them may be cited as evidence...”

He then declared the two connected-chain reports defective because of ‘Umar and Muslim, and the two mursal reports defective because of their being mursal. This criticism runs contrary to established principles, for his statement, “none of them may be cited as evidence,” would apply to every hadith that is strong by virtue of its combined routes, while its individual routes are only mildly weak—as is the case here—apart from the route of ‘Umar ibn Qays. Thus, declaring it weak in these circumstances contradicts the unanimous practice of the scholars in strengthening hadiths through corroborating routes and supporting reports. This is exceedingly clear to anyone who has caught even the scent of this noble science—especially according to the principles of the Hanafis, who hold that a mursal hadith may be used as evidence without qualification, whether or not it is reported with a connected chain through another route. This is contrary to al-Shafi‘i’s school, which accepts a mursal hadith as evidence when it is reported with a connected chain through another route, as it is here. Thus, the hadith is authentic according to both schools—were it not for partisanship and a love of criticism!

This hadith has preceded in this “Silsilah” (2477). *

3047—(“Suppose your father owed a debt: would you pay it?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “Then perform Hajj on behalf of your father.”)

Ibn Hibban recorded it (6/121/3971—al-Ihsan) through Hakim ibn Sayf; al-Tahawi in al-Mushkil (3/221); and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (12/15/12332) through two other routes. All three narrated from ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Amr, from al-A‘mash, from Muslim al-Butayn, from Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn ‘Abbas:

A man came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and said, “My father died without having performed Hajj. Should I perform Hajj on his behalf?” He said …

Then he mentioned it.