Is Ibn Hazm's "Al-Muhalla" filled with weak hadiths concerning the fundamentals of rulings, and is it advisable for a beginner student of knowledge who is not proficient in hadith studies to read "Al-Muhalla" and Ibn Qudamah's "Al-Mughni"?

Ibn Hazm's book "Al-Muhalla" is an important book in Islam, characterized by its extensive collection of narrations from the Companions and the Tabi'in with chains of transmission, and its meticulous attention to Hadith, distinguishing the authentic from the weak, even though the Imams criticized him on certain issues.

"Al-Muhalla" contains weak Ahadith, but Ibn Hazm does not use them as proof while believing in their weakness. Rather, he uses what he deems authentic as proof, or he cites what his opponents used as proof from weak Ahadith in order to refute them.

"Al-Muhalla" and Ibn Qudamah's "Al-Mughni" are among the most significant books of comparative Fiqh, and major scholars have praised them.

A beginner student of knowledge should not start with these two books, but rather begin with abridged texts, then gradually progress to the comprehensive ones.

One must beware of the harshness of expression and the unrestrained criticism of great Imams that occurred from Ibn Hazm, and not adopt what he uniquely held apart from the majority of scholars on issues due to his rigidity on the literal meanings of texts and his rejection of Qiyas (analogical reasoning).