It is wide spread that one may refer to da'if ahadith on topics that are neither about halal and haram nor fiqh nor 'aqidah ... (basically anything related to rulings).

For example when it comes to good deeds or behaviour etc. we may use or rely on da'if hadith...

It also seems that historians were usually not taking the isnad of a hadith too seriously.
I'm not sure about how traditions that have been narrated from the sahabah that would in first place be considered as athar are qualified.

This leads to the assumption/question do scholars make differences in their analysis and criticism and examination and qualification of ahadith based on categories dependent on for example the content?

If so how this difference look like?

And what is the reason/evidence for doing so?


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .