What is the authenticity of the narration: (he points with it and does not move it)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, the phrase "and does not move it" regarding the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is not authentic.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, this addition is a strange matter.
The questioner : Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut says it is not authentic.
The Shaykh : This narration is reported in Sunan Abu Dawud. By the grace of Allah, I am among the most knowledgeable people regarding Sunan Abu Dawud in this time, if I do not say I am the most knowledgeable, because I have been occupied with it for approximately years. Abu Dawud narrates this hadith through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan. Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan narrates from a man from the lineage of al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awwam named 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah, with a report that he "saw the Messenger (peace be upon him) when he sat for the tashahhud raise his finger, and I saw that he did not move it."
First: It appears to anyone with practice in the science of hadith and the biographies of its narrators that Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan is criticized regarding his memory. However, the criticism is mild, such that his hadith does not descend to the level of weakness, but it does not rise to the level of authenticity either; it is hasan (good). Every hasan hadith is susceptible to fluctuation for the slightest reason, because it is hasan, not sahih (authentic), meaning there is something in his memory. What I observed and clarified in the Sahih of Abu Dawud is as follows:
First: Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan was contradicted by a group of trustworthy narrators in the narration of a hadith in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere. They all say: "The Messenger (peace be upon him) pointed," and they do not say: "I saw that he did not move it." Thus, the narration "he did not move it" reported in Sunan Abu Dawud becomes shadhdh (anomalous) or munkar (denounced), because a trustworthy narrator, let alone one below the level of trustworthiness, if he contradicts the trustworthy narrators, his hadith becomes shadhdh or munkar. This is the first point.
Second: Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan did not remain consistent in narrating the explicit negation. The hadith came through the routes of a group of trustworthy narrators from him, in which he agrees with the other trustworthy narrators who followed him in narrating a hadith containing the negation of movement. A hadith like this can never be hasan, let alone sahih, because if Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan were trustworthy and the trustworthy narrators contradicted him and did not mention the addition, this phrase would be shadhdh. How much more so since he is not trustworthy, but rather below the level of trustworthiness? How much more so since he did not remain consistent with this addition? The evidence is that he was inconsistent. One of the trustworthy narrators narrated from him with the addition "he did not move it," while the other trustworthy narrators narrated the hadith from him by limiting it to the pointing, without explicitly negating the movement. There is no such instance other than this hadith at all.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, it supports that. Therefore, the hadith is weak and cannot be cited as evidence at all.
He points with it and does not move it
يشير بها ولا يحركهاThe Shaykh : No, the phrase "and does not move it" regarding the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is not authentic.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, this addition is a strange matter.
The questioner : Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut says it is not authentic.
The Shaykh : This narration is reported in Sunan Abu Dawud. By the grace of Allah, I am among the most knowledgeable people regarding Sunan Abu Dawud in this time, if I do not say I am the most knowledgeable, because I have been occupied with it for approximately years. Abu Dawud narrates this hadith through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan. Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan narrates from a man from the lineage of al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awwam named 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah, with a report that he "saw the Messenger (peace be upon him) when he sat for the tashahhud raise his finger, and I saw that he did not move it."
First: It appears to anyone with practice in the science of hadith and the biographies of its narrators that Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan is criticized regarding his memory. However, the criticism is mild, such that his hadith does not descend to the level of weakness, but it does not rise to the level of authenticity either; it is hasan (good). Every hasan hadith is susceptible to fluctuation for the slightest reason, because it is hasan, not sahih (authentic), meaning there is something in his memory. What I observed and clarified in the Sahih of Abu Dawud is as follows:
First: Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan was contradicted by a group of trustworthy narrators in the narration of a hadith in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere. They all say: "The Messenger (peace be upon him) pointed," and they do not say: "I saw that he did not move it." Thus, the narration "he did not move it" reported in Sunan Abu Dawud becomes shadhdh (anomalous) or munkar (denounced), because a trustworthy narrator, let alone one below the level of trustworthiness, if he contradicts the trustworthy narrators, his hadith becomes shadhdh or munkar. This is the first point.
Second: Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan did not remain consistent in narrating the explicit negation. The hadith came through the routes of a group of trustworthy narrators from him, in which he agrees with the other trustworthy narrators who followed him in narrating a hadith containing the negation of movement. A hadith like this can never be hasan, let alone sahih, because if Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan were trustworthy and the trustworthy narrators contradicted him and did not mention the addition
does not move it
لا يحركهاThe questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, it supports that. Therefore, the hadith is weak and cannot be cited as evidence at all.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.