Is the Hijama on an Empty Stomach Hadith Authentic? Chain Analysis and Scholarly Verdicts
The hadith “Cupping on an empty stomach is best — in it is healing and blessing, and it increases the mind and memory” is cited in discussions of Prophetic medicine. A closer examination of its chains of transmission reveals serious problems acknowledged by the majority of hadith scholars, with only al-Albani grading it hasan. This note presents all fifteen narrations and their scholarly rulings, the key narrator problems, and the correct methodological conclusion.
The Methodological Standard
Before examining the chains, the foundational principle must be stated: a hadith cannot be assessed from a single narration or a single scholar’s grading. The chains must be collected, compared, and examined together. When the majority of verifying imams reject a narration and only one scholar grades it acceptable, that scholarly disagreement itself is a signal requiring scrutiny.
The Fifteen Narrations and Their Rulings
All fifteen narrations are attributed to Abdullah ibn Umar as narrator from the Prophet ﷺ.
Narration One
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Al-Ilal by Ibn Abi Hatim (3/421) Ruling — Abu Hatim al-Razi: “This hadith is nothing. It is not the hadith of the people of truth.”
Narration Two
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Al-Majruhin by Ibn Hibban (2/355) Ruling — Ibn Hibban: “It contains al-Muthanna ibn Amr narrating from Abu Sinan what is not from the hadith of trustworthy people. It is not permissible to use it as evidence.”
Narration Three
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Al-Majruhin by Ibn Hibban (2/74) Ruling — Ibn Hibban: “It contains Uthman ibn Matar narrating fabricated hadiths from reliable sources. It is not permissible to use him as evidence.”
Narration Four
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Al-Kamil fi al-Du’afa by Ibn Adi (3/141) Ruling — Ibn Adi: “Perhaps the affliction is from Uthman ibn Matar.”
Narration Five
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Tadhkirat al-Huffaz by Ibn al-Qaysarani (p. 413) Ruling — Ibn al-Qaysarani: Mawdu’ (fabricated).
Narration Six
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Dhakhirat al-Huffaz by Ibn al-Qaysarani (3/1252) Ruling — Ibn al-Qaysarani: “It includes Uthman ibn Matar. Perhaps the affliction is from him.”
Narration Seven
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Ma’rifat al-Tadhkira by Ibn al-Qaysarani (p. 263) Ruling — Ibn al-Qaysarani: “It includes Uthman ibn Matar al-Shaybani. He is a liar.”
Narration Eight
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib by al-Mundhiri (4/244) Ruling — al-Mundhiri: Narrated through multiple chains including Sa’id ibn Maymun (unreviewed), al-Hasan ibn Abi Ja’far (discussed below), Muhammad ibn Jahada, and Abdullah ibn Salih (discussed below).
The narration through Abdullah ibn Salih warrants separate attention. Ibn Hibban recorded the following:
Narration Nine
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Mizan al-I’tidal by al-Dhahabi (3/435) Ruling — al-Dhahabi: “It contains al-Muthanna ibn Amr. Ibn Hibban said: It is not permissible to use him as evidence.”
Narration Ten
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Mizan al-I’tidal by al-Dhahabi (3/54) Ruling — al-Dhahabi: “It contains Uthman ibn Matar, who was weakened by more than one person.”
Narration Eleven
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Sahih Ibn Majah by al-Albani (no. 2825) Ruling — al-Albani: Hasan.
Narration Twelve
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Referenced in al-Albani’s works
Narration Thirteen
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Al-Silsilah al-Sahihah by al-Albani (no. 766) Ruling — al-Albani: Hasan li ghayrihi (acceptable by virtue of corroborating chains).
Narration Fourteen
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Sahih al-Targhib by al-Albani (no. 3466) Ruling — al-Albani: Hasan li ghayrihi.
Narration Fifteen
Narrator: Abdullah ibn Umar | Collection: Sahih al-Jami’ by al-Albani (no. 3169) Ruling — al-Albani: Hasan.
The Narrator Problems
Two narrators appear repeatedly across the rejected chains and account for the majority of the scholarly verdicts of weakness and rejection.
Uthman ibn Matar al-Shaybani
Uthman ibn Matar appears in narrations Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, and Ten. The scholarly verdicts on him are severe and consistent:
Ibn Hibban: “Narrating fabricated hadiths from reliable sources. It is not permissible to use him as evidence.” Ibn al-Qaysarani: “He is a liar.” Al-Dhahabi: “Weakened by more than one person.” Ibn Adi: “Perhaps the affliction is from Uthman ibn Matar.”
Al-Muthanna ibn Amr
Al-Muthanna ibn Amr appears in narrations Two and Nine:
Ibn Hibban: “It is not permissible to use him as evidence.” Al-Dhahabi: confirmed Ibn Hibban’s verdict.
Abdullah ibn Salih
As recorded by Ibn Hibban in Al-Majruhin, Abdullah ibn Salih’s narrations were contaminated by a vindictive neighbour who fabricated hadiths in his handwriting and inserted them into his books. Ahmad ibn Hanbal prohibited narrating his hadiths for this reason.
The Scholarly Verdict
Al-Albani alone graded this hadith hasan. Every other verifying imam who examined it rejected it.
The scholars who weakened or rejected it include: Ibn Hibban, Ibn Adi, Ibn al-Jawzi (who mentioned it in Al-Ilal al-Mutanahiyyah), al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, al-Shawkani, al-Sakhawi, Ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi, Ibn Abi Hatim (who said “this hadith is nothing”), al-Hakim (who mentioned it in Al-Mustadrak and criticised it), and al-Suyuti. The hadith was further examined in the research of Sheikh Abu Umar al-Utaybi (The Fabricated Hadiths That Contradict the Oneness of Worship — Collection and Study).
It must be noted that even al-Albani did not declare the hadith sahih. His highest grading was hasan — acceptable — not authentic. The difference is significant: a hasan li ghayrihi grading means the hadith reaches acceptability only when its multiple chains are taken together to compensate for individual weaknesses. This is precisely the point of dispute: the chains that al-Albani used to elevate the hadith pass through narrators that the majority of other scholars declared liars or unusable.