Question:

You said that the hadith “Three things should not be delayed” is weak. But some websites say it is authentic because it appears in Tirmidhi. They say that although many scholars say the narrator Sa‘īd ibn ‘Abdullah is unknown, since Al-Ijli declared him trustworthy, it should be accepted as sahih(genuine). Is this correct?

Answer:

There is a hadith in Tirmidhi which says three things should not be delayed—they should be done immediately. We have said many times that this hadith is incorrect. But now some websites claim it should not be considered weak. Why? Because a narrator named Sa‘īd ibn ‘Abdullah appears in it. Many say he is majhūl (unknown), but al-Ijli said he is trustworthy. They argue that if a great scholar says someone is trustworthy, we must accept it. Just because someone is unknown to one scholar doesn’t mean he is unknown to the world. Maybe Bukhari didn’t know him, but Tirmidhi did.

They argue that no one can know everything, and therefore this hadith should be considered authentic. They ask your opinion. Regarding this, there are two issues. First, there is a problem with the narrators. Second—and more serious—the content itself is dangerous and fabricated in meaning. In Tirmidhi, this hadith appears as number 171 and is marked as not weak. The exact same hadith appears again as number 1075—word for word, no difference at all. In 171, Tirmidhi gave no comment. In 1075, he gave a critique.

At the end of 1075, Tirmidhi says: “I do not consider this chain to be connected (muttaṣil). There is a break in the chain.” This is a very important point.

When scholars investigated this break, they found that the narrator is ‘Umar, the son of Ali (RA). He narrates it as having heard it from his father. But scholars like ‘Abdul-Haqq al-Ishbili say that ‘Umar ibn Ali never heard anything from his father because he was a small child. Ali (RA) died when ‘Umar was still a child—too young to hear hadith. He was Ali’s youngest son. Thus, the narrator was not of an age capable of hearing hadith when his father died. This is exactly what Tirmidhi meant when he said the chain is broken.

Now Abu Hatim, who lived in the same era as Tirmidhi and was a major hadith scholar, says: “‘Umar ibn Ali heard from his father.” If Abu Hatim says that, he must present evidence. Saying “he may have heard” is speculation—but Abu Hatim doesn’t say “may have”; he states it definitively. If ‘Umar actually heard from Ali, then there must be at least one hadith where ‘Umar explicitly says, “I heard my father say…” But no matter how much you search, you will not find a single hadith where ‘Umar says he heard directly from Ali (RA).

There are hadiths narrated through his father, but none where he says he heard from him directly. Without evidence, Abu Hatim’s claim cannot be accepted. If someone brings evidence, then we can reconsider and possibly accept Tirmidhi’s hadith. But as of now, no such evidence exists. Some try to argue using a statement of al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar, who says that Caliph ‘Umar named this child. This is used to suggest that ‘Umar ibn Ali was old enough at Ali’s death. But Zubayr ibn Bakkar bases this on a narration from ‘Isa ibn ‘Abdullah, who is known to narrate fabricated reports according to Ibn Hibban. Thus, Zubayr ibn Bakkar’s statement relies on a liar’s report and cannot stand.

Therefore, this chain is disconnected. ‘Umar ibn Ali was a minor—likely under seven years old—when Ali died. He could not have directly heard the hadith. Tirmidhi, who recorded the hadith himself, judged it correctly as disconnected. That settles the chain issue.

Now look at the content of the hadith. The three things it mentions contradict many authentic hadiths. If you accept this hadith as sahih, you must reject numerous sahih hadiths.
The three things are:
1.When prayer time enters, pray immediately.
2.When a funeral is ready, bury immediately.
3.When a suitable match is found for an unmarried woman, marry her immediately.

Ibn Hajar points out that the funeral part contradicts sahih hadiths. The Prophetﷺ ﷺ forbade praying and burying during three specific times (reported in Muslim). This hadith says to bury immediately, regardless of time. That contradicts Muslim. If a funeral arrives at noon or sunset, should it be buried immediately? No—it must wait. Therefore, the claim “never delay burial” is false.
Ibn Hajar explains this in Talkhīs al-Habīr.

Likewise, the prayer issue is incorrect. Only Fajr and Maghrib are to be prayed immediately. Other prayers—especially Dhuhr in summer—were instructed to be delayed until the heat subsides. This is narrated in multiple hadiths in Bukhari (533, 534, 535, 536, 538, 3259) and elsewhere.

The Prophetﷺ ﷺ said: “When the heat becomes intense, delay the prayer, for intense heat is from the breath of Hell.” This is metaphorical language, not literal—but the instruction to delay is clear. So if you accept this hadith that says “pray immediately when the time enters,” then you must contradict all these sahih hadiths. That is not acceptable.

If something is explained by showing a basis from revelation (wahy), it is not considered misguidance. Just because it is not misguided, we will not say that the doctrine of that madhhab (school of thought) is free from misguidance. Since they hold the view that “what the Imam says is sufficient,” when they try to respond to us, in the name of research they take certain hadiths and present them. While doing so, they say, “You are not misleading; you have only reached a wrong conclusion. You are not presenting a misguided doctrine; you are only stating something based on a hadith. You are not speaking outside revelation.” In that matter, they say it is not misguided.

Without understanding this difference, what are they doing? They are simply spreading it; nothing else.