What is the response to those who say that the addition of moving the finger in prayer is of the type of anomalous narration?

The questioner : This question leads us to another question, which is the hadith regarding moving the finger.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The one who uniquely narrated it was Zayyad ibn Qudamah.

The Shaykh : We answered this in a previous session.

The questioner : He was contradicted.

The Shaykh : Yes, we answered this in a previous session with two answers:
The first answer: - Be patient, my brother - The first answer: The one who was contradicted here has a connection to his shaykh and relies on his narration from him more than any of those narrators who contradicted him, where they said in his biography: "Trustworthy and firm", and perhaps they specifically mentioned this in the narration of 'Asim ibn Kulayb. Here, this description elevates his status more than if it were said that so-and-so is trustworthy and the other trustworthy narrators contradicted him. Here, the previous definition applies.
The second answer: The contradiction here is not a fundamental contradiction, such that he brought something that those others did not bring, unlike the previous example. Perhaps you remember with me that among the examples of an anomalous hadith mentioned in some books of terminology, such as *Ikhtisar 'Ulum al-Hadith* by Ibn Kathir, he brought the hadith of Ibn 'Umar: from every Muslim, what is it? from the Muslims, an addition of "from the Muslims." This addition was rejected by some of the early scholars because Malik uniquely narrated it. Then the correct response came that this uniqueness is not correct, rather Imam Malik was supported in this addition by many trustworthy narrators. So the addition of: is an addition by a trustworthy narrator over a trustworthy narrator, or by trustworthy narrators over trustworthy narrators. But here, in the example of moving, what did he add? He said: , those others said: . The gesture in the Arabic language is not like if those others had said: he did not move it. If they had said he did not move it, or did not mention the gesture at all, then it would be said that this is anomalous compared to those trustworthy narrators. But those trustworthy narrators agreed with this trustworthy narrator in narrating the gesture, but the gesture is not explicit in moving; rather, it allows for the gesture being like this and the gesture being like this. Because if you say, "I saw a man calling another from afar," you say he gestured with his hand or his palm. This does not contradict that he moved his palm or moved his fingers. So, this trustworthy narrator who mentioned the word: did not contradict the trustworthy narrators, because we cannot say that those trustworthy narrators meant he gestured without moving. If that were the case, we would say: it is an anomalous hadith.
In *Sunan Abu Dawud*, there is a hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr narrating the sitting of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the tashahhud, and that when he sat, he saw him gesturing with his finger and not moving it. Do you see this narration is comprehensive and sufficient? It affirmed the gesture and denied the moving. If that were the case in the hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulayb, it would be another new example of an anomalous hadith.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : But, but, but this hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr in *Sunan Abu Dawud* is the anomalous one, rather it is the denounced one. The reason for this is that this hadith is narrated through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr from his father that he saw the Messenger (peace be upon him). Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan, you know, there is discussion about him, and what settled in the opinion of the scholars is that his hadith is good. So here, the one whose hadith is good, his hadith is exposed to disturbance at the slightest opportunity. And this is what happened specifically with this hadith. The hadith in *Sunan Abu Dawud* is from the narration of a person, perhaps his name is Ziyad ibn Sa'd - because the time is far - from Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan with this wording. Then trustworthy narrators came and narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan without , only: , so he did not mention: . This became an anomalous hadith for the first narrator, whom I thought was Ziyad ibn Sa'd, and he is trustworthy, so he was anomalous compared to the group who all narrated the hadith from Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan, and so on.
I personally say: This trustworthy narrator who narrated the addition of from Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan, we cannot say he was anomalous compared to the group, because when we say that, it means he made a mistake regarding Ibn 'Ujlan, and that he added to him what he did not say, as evidenced by the narration of the other trustworthy narrators. This is said if Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan was in trustworthiness like the narrator from him. But since he is below him, I imagine, and this means I am fully convinced by this image, that we do not accuse the trustworthy narrator of adding to a narrator like this. Rather, we accuse the narrator himself that he sometimes narrated the narration correctly, without what? The addition of , and sometimes, because of weakness in his memory, he added this addition. Who picked it up from him? This trustworthy narrator. And those others heard the hadith from him on the straight path. This is one point.
And the other, which is more important, is that Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan was supported in the narration of the original hadith without this addition. So, from whom is the mistake? From Ibn 'Ujlan. For this reason, I say, when al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the hadith of 'Asim, what is it? 'Asim ibn Kulayb, in the addition of: , he mentioned it after mentioning the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr, or before the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr . He said, in the way of reconciling the two narrations with the word of preference: He said: "Perhaps the intention of the narration of 'Asim ibn Kulayb is that he moves it, meaning he gestures with it, by the narration of Ibn al-Zubayr that he:

used not to move it

كان لا يحرِّكها

". So I saw that this reconciliation is a jurisprudential reconciliation more than it is a hadith reconciliation, because this reconciliation is only resorted to if the two differing narrations are strong, as Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book *Sharh al-Nukhba*: If two hadiths from the category of acceptable contradictory ones come, they are reconciled by one of the ways of reconciliation. If reconciliation is not possible, the abrogating and the abrogated are considered. If there is no room for establishing an abrogating and abrogated, then preference is made. It is said, for example, this is authentic and this is good, so the authentic is preferred over the good. This is a famous or widespread authentic hadith, this is a singular authentic hadith, and so on. And if preference is not possible and the strength of the two hadiths is equal, they are suspended, and the matter is left to its scholar.
We know what is in the hadith of Ibn 'Ujlan, so how do we try to reconcile his denial with the affirmation of the trustworthy narrator?
He, meaning al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), if he had found a way to attribute a defect to this narration: "I saw him moving it" by anomaly, that would have sufficed him from reconciliation, just as it suffices me from reconciling this authentic hadith with the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr with the addition of: , because it is an anomalous addition, if not a denounced one. Ibn 'Ujlan uniquely narrated it without the other trustworthy narrators who supported him in narrating the original hadith from his shaykh 'Amir. And the hadith without the addition is in the authentic Sunan and through authentic routes. And perhaps, as is his habit, I say perhaps because I am not certain, he narrated the hadith from the narration of some trustworthy narrators from Ibn 'Ujlan without the addition. So this addition is anomalous. The hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulayb remains without any opponent that forces us to say that it is of the category of anomalous.
Other than that?

The questioner : In a note, Shaykh, with which we conclude.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : Does this narration not look at other circumstances? Meaning, the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr and the hadith of Ibn 'Umar exist in Muslim, and moving is not mentioned in it. Is it not added to this the contradiction of Zayyad ibn Qudamah? Does it not strengthen that the memory here differs, and the narration of Sufyan is preferred?

The Shaykh : The answer has preceded. The gesture does not mean the denial of moving.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr with moving, so this is decisive. Of course, he raised it, there is no possibility of moving in it.

The Shaykh : We will say: He raised it. Raising does not contradict, first, the gesture, right? And the gesture, as we mentioned earlier, does not contradict moving. And it is known that we take here the one who added, the one who added, and there is no need for us to say that there is anomaly. For example, let us leave the hadith "he moves it," there is no anomaly between the narration of the one who narrated: "he raised it," and the one who narrated: "he gestured with it." There is no contradiction at all between the two words.

The questioner : It becomes an explanation.

The Shaykh : Yes, one is included in the other, and one is an explanation of the other.