Authenticity of the Hadeeth on the Sunnah of Praying Two Rak'ah after returning from the 'Eed prayer
(Note: Please note that this is concerning the previous article published: A forgotten sunnah of 'Eed-
Praying Two Rak'ah after returning from the 'Eed prayer. It has come to attention that the hadeeth is weak, and as such cannot be used as evidence. Please find in this article a response to the authenticity by Sheikh Harith Al-Shiraida.)
This Ḥadīth was narrated by Ibn Mājah in his Sunan #1293, Aḥmed in his Musnad #11226 – who did not specify that this was done in the home, only that it was after the ʽĪd prayer - by Ibn Khuzaymah in his Ṣaḥīḥ #1469, Al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak #1103, and by Abū Yaʽlā in his Musnad #1347. Although this Ḥadīth was classed as Ṣaḥīḥ by Al-Ḥākim and Ḥasan by Shaykh Al-Albānī (رحمة الله عليه) in Al-Irwā’ – and he attributed this to being the classification of Ibn Ḥajar (رحمة الله عليه) in Bulūgh Al-Marām, and of Al-Būṣīrī in Az-Zawā’id – it was actually classed as Dhaʽīf by Shaykh Shuʽayb Al-Arna’ūṭ in his Taḥqīq of Sunan Ibn Mājah and Musnad Aḥmed. And Allāh knows best, but it seems like the latter opinion is closer to the truth.
This Ḥadīth only comes by way of ʽAbd-ul-Lāh Ibn Muḥammad Ibn ʽAqīl from ʽAṭā’ Ibn Yasār from Abū Saʽīd Al-Khudrī (رضي الله عنه). And although Ibn Ḥajar (رحمة الله عليه) classed ʽAbd-ul-Lāh Ibn Muḥammad as Maqbūl (acceptable), it seems he is closer to being Dha'īf. And this is why those who edited Taqrīb At-Tahṫhīb classed him as such and said, “He can be considered (in Shawāhid) and the only ones who had a Ḥasan opinion concerning him were At-Tirmiṭhī and his Shaykh Al-Bukhārī.”
And while a couple of others did seem to accept him as well such as Isḥāq Ibn Rāhwayh, and Ibn ʽAbd Al-Barr, the majority of the scholars weakened him and many also said that his Aḥādīth cannot be used as evidence:
Abū Ḥātim Ar-Rāzī (رحمة الله عليه) said of him: “His Aḥādīth are to be written but not used as evidence.”
Abū Dāwūd (رحمة الله عليه) said: “He is Dha'īf.”
Aḥmed Ibn Hambal (رحمة الله عليه) said of him: “His Aḥādīth are to be used as evidence.” And another time he said: “He is Munkar Al-Ḥadīth.”
An-Nasā’ī (رحمة الله عليه) said: “Dha'īf.”
Al-Khaṭīb Al-Baghdādī (رحمة الله عليه) said of him: “His memory is atrocious.”
Ad-Dāraquṭnī (رحمة الله عليه) said of him: “He is not strong.” And another time he said: “He is Dha'īf.”
Sufyān Ibn ʽUyaynah (رحمة الله عليه) said: “Four from Quraysh are to be withheld from writing their Aḥādīth,” and he mentioned him.
ʽAlī Ibn Al-Madīnī (رحمة الله عليه): “He is Dha'īf”
Mālik Ibn Anas (رحمة الله عليه): Weakened him and did not narrate from him
Ibn Khuzaymah (رحمة الله عليه) said: “I do not rely on him as evidence because of his horrible memory” – although he included this Ḥadīth in his Ṣaḥīḥ and titled the chapter showing its preference.
Yaḥyā Ibn Maʽīn (رحمة الله عليه) said: “He is not to be used as evidence, and he is weak with regards to all his affairs.”
< > < >
In any case, it seems like this Ḥadīth on its own does not stand to scrutiny by way of Isnād alone, so how about when this Ḥadīth of his seems to go against the Ḥadīth of ʽAbd-ul-Lāh Ibn ʽAmr Ibn Al-ʽĀṣ (رضي الله عنها) and the Ḥadīth of ʽAbd-ul-Lāh Ibn ʽAbbās (رضي الله عنه) who said that he did not pray either before it nor after it – the latter coming by way of Ṣaḥīḥ Asānīd and is found in Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. And although some scholars tried to reconcile between the narrations, the weakness of this Ḥadīth seems to negate the need for such reconciliation.