November 2024 update: While I will keep this site up (for now) future updates will be posted on my YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/gF4CyWEi7f4?si=74oiudrDfBZAGgbG
————————————————————————————————————–
Twitter: IslamicVirtues
Email: contact@islamicvirtues.com
© IslamicVirtues.com
All rights reserved. Articles on this blog may not be reproduced, displayed, or distributed without reference to their original source (preferably a hyperlink to the relevant article on this blog). No part of any article may be modified in a manner to imply views contrary to what the article originally intends without the express prior permission of the copyright holder.
Islamic Virtues 
This post is spreading misconceptions and fallacies about Islam.
Since I am unable to email them, I am writing my answer to the weak hadith mentioned as sahih in this post:
https://islamicvirtues.com/2013/12/02/benefits-of-drinking-the-blessed-urine-of-our-holy-prophet-s/?fbclid=IwY2xjawK7l01leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFjWUgwZkZGTmIwdk9KTFlaAR56elUveeu7LUm0Yz_SEWA6-7EZPmufRxsV0Bxjti-_4we-bbvje2QtIfQPbw_aem_pnTFIq-Rn4q43krkrSCxjw
When we attempt to understand a hadith, we ought to do it in the light of the Quran, Sunnah, other ahadith, and common sense. To attribute a statement to the Prophet, alaihissalaam, it is not enough that it is found in a book of hadith. Ahadith were collected by humans, and even if they did as best as they could to collect them properly, there is every likelihood that mistakes could have crept into them.
The fact that the prophet allowed urine to be drunk is something one cannot normally justify. I would, therefore, say that the hadith has either mentioned urine by mistake or there is something missing in the context that we don’t know. However, our religion teaches cleanliness, and there is no reason that the apparent meanings of this hadith should be accepted.
It is weak because of the narrator, Abu Malik al-Nakha’i. As he quoted Hafiz, Haithmi declared that he is weak. Furthermore, Imam Nasai said he is “Matrook,” i.e., rejected, someone whose narrations can never be accepted. (al-Du’afa wal-Matrookin No. 383)
And as Hafiz Ibn Hajr says, Nasai declares a person “Matrook” only when all scholars agree on rejecting his narrations.
And al-Darqutni never explicitly authenticated the narrator or narration. All he did was to refrain from commenting. This cannot stand the fact that the narrator is declared ‘rejected’ by al-Nasai. And many others graded him as unreliable, like al-Haitmi, Abu Hatim, Ibn ‘Adi, Yahya bin Ma’in, Ibn Hibban, etc. So with all this criticism, Darqutni’s silence means nothing, and whoever accepted the narration because of this was mistaken.