Narrating a Contradictory Hadith from Reliable Narrators
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... Another question: The hadith regarding moving the finger.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We answered this in a previous session with two answers:
The first answer: - Be patient, my brother - The first answer is that the one who is contradicted here has a connection to his shaykh and takes pride in narrating from him more than any of those other narrators who contradicted him. They stated in his biography that he is: "A trustworthy and firm narrator." Perhaps he is specifically singled out regarding the narration of 'Asim ibn Kulaib. Here, this description elevates his status more than if it were said that so-and-so is trustworthy and the other reliable narrators contradicted him. So, the previous definition applies here.
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 "Al-Mukhtasar fi 'Ulum al-Hadith" by Ibn Kathir, is the hadith of Ibn 'Umar: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made obligatory the alms of fitr from every household of the Muslims."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : "Of the Muslims"; the addition: "of the Muslims." This addition was rejected by some of the strict scholars because Malik narrated it uniquely. Then the correct response came that this uniqueness is not correct, for Imam Malik was followed in this addition by many reliable narrators. So, the addition "of the Muslims" is an addition by a trustworthy narrator to a trustworthy narrator, or by trustworthy narrators to trustworthy narrators. But here, in the matter of moving, what did he add? He said: "I saw him moving it." Those others said: "He pointed." Pointing in the Arabic language is not as those others said: he did not move it. If they had said he did not move it, or did not mention pointing at all, then it would be said that this is anomalous compared to those reliable narrators. But those reliable narrators agreed with this trustworthy narrator in narrating the pointing, but... it is not explicit about moving; rather, it allows for pointing like this and pointing like this. Because if you say, "I saw a man calling out to another from a distance," you say he pointed 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: "moves it" did not contradict the reliable narrators, because we cannot say that those reliable narrators meant he pointed 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 pointing with his finger and not moving it. This narration is comprehensive and sufficient; it affirmed the pointing and denied the moving. If that were the case in the hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulaib, it would be a new example of an anomalous hadith. But this hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr in "Sunan Abu Dawud" is the anomalous one, indeed it is a denounced narration. The reason for this is that this hadith is narrated through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan al-Madani from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr from his father that he saw the Messenger (peace be upon him).
As for Ibn 'Ajlan, you know that there is discussion about him, and that the opinion settled upon by the scholars is that his hadith is good. And here comes the point that if a narrator's hadith is good, his hadith is susceptible to disturbance at the slightest opportunity. And this is what happened specifically in this hadith. The hadith in "Sunan Abu Dawud" is from the narration of a person... because the era is far from Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan in this chain. Then reliable narrators came and narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ajlan without "he does not move it," only: "I saw him pointing with it." So he did not mention: "and he does not move it." This hadith became anomalous with respect to the first narrator who you thought was an addition from... he is trustworthy; so he deviated from the group who all narrated the hadith from Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan, and so on.
I personally say: This trustworthy narrator who narrated the addition "and he does not move it" from Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan, we cannot say he deviated from the group; because when we say that, it means he made a mistake regarding Ibn 'Ajlan, and that he added to him what he did not say, as evidenced by the narration of the other reliable narrators. This is said if Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan was in trustworthiness like the narrator from him. But since he is below him, I imagine - and this means I am fully convinced by it - in such a case, 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 "he does not move it." And sometimes, because of weakness in his memory, he added this addition... from whom? From this trustworthy narrator, and those others heard the hadith from him in... This is one point.
And the other - which is more important - is that Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan was followed in the narration of the original hadith without this addition. Who is this mistake from? From Ibn 'Ajlan. For this reason, I say that when al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulaib in the addition: "I saw him moving it," he mentioned it after mentioning the hadith - or before - the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr "and he does not move it." He said, in the way of reconciling the two narrations with the word of preference: "Perhaps the intended meaning of the narration of 'Asim ibn Kulaib" that he moves it "means he points with it, according to the narration of Ibn al-Zubayr that: 'he did not move it.'" 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 contradictory 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 hadiths 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, and the authentic is preferred over the good. This is a well-known 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 differs... ... and the matter is left to its scholar.
We know what is in the hadith of Ibn 'Ajlan, so how do we try to reconcile its text with the affirmation of the trustworthy narrator?
He - al-Bayhaqi - (may Allah have mercy on him) - if he had found a way to invalidate this narration: "I saw him moving it in prostration," that would have sufficed him from the reconciliation, just as it suffices me from the reconciliation between this authentic hadith and the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr with the addition: "he does not move it," because it is an anomalous addition; if we do not say it is denounced. Ibn 'Ajlan narrated it uniquely without the other reliable narrators who followed him in narrating the original hadith from his shaykh 'Amir. And the hadith without the addition is in "Sahih al-Sunan" and through authentic routes. And perhaps - also - as is his custom - I say perhaps because I am not certain - he narrated the hadith from the narration of some reliable narrators from Ibn 'Ajlan without the addition. So this addition is anomalous. The hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulaib remains without any opponent that forces us to say that it is from the category of anomalous.
Anything else? Please.
The questioner : This narration, is there not... another rule regarding the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr and the hadith of Ibn 'Umar... and it did not mention moving in it. Added to this is the contradiction of the other narrators, not... that the ruling differs, and the narration of... is preferred.
The Shaykh : The answer has preceded. Pointing does not mean the same as moving.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So we say: He raised it. Raising does not contradict pointing first, right? And pointing - as we mentioned earlier - does not contradict moving. And it is known that we take here the additional, the additional, and there is no need to say that there is an 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 pointed with it." There is no contradiction at all between the two words.
The questioner : I say he interpreted...
The Shaykh : Yes, one is included in the other, and one is an explanation of the other.
Yes.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We answered this in a previous session with two answers:
The first answer: - Be patient, my brother - The first answer is that the one who is contradicted here has a connection to his shaykh and takes pride in narrating from him more than any of those other narrators who contradicted him. They stated in his biography that he is: "A trustworthy and firm narrator." Perhaps he is specifically singled out regarding the narration of 'Asim ibn Kulaib. Here, this description elevates his status more than if it were said that so-and-so is trustworthy and the other reliable narrators contradicted him. So, the previous definition applies here.
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 "Al-Mukhtasar fi 'Ulum al-Hadith" by Ibn Kathir, is the hadith of Ibn 'Umar: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made obligatory the alms of fitr from every household of the Muslims."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : "Of the Muslims"; the addition: "of the Muslims." This addition was rejected by some of the strict scholars because Malik narrated it uniquely. Then the correct response came that this uniqueness is not correct, for Imam Malik was followed in this addition by many reliable narrators. So, the addition "of the Muslims" is an addition by a trustworthy narrator to a trustworthy narrator, or by trustworthy narrators to trustworthy narrators. But here, in the matter of moving, what did he add? He said: "I saw him moving it." Those others said: "He pointed." Pointing in the Arabic language is not as those others said: he did not move it. If they had said he did not move it, or did not mention pointing at all, then it would be said that this is anomalous compared to those reliable narrators. But those reliable narrators agreed with this trustworthy narrator in narrating the pointing, but... it is not explicit about moving; rather, it allows for pointing like this and pointing like this. Because if you say, "I saw a man calling out to another from a distance," you say he pointed 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: "moves it" did not contradict the reliable narrators, because we cannot say that those reliable narrators meant he pointed 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 pointing with his finger and not moving it. This narration is comprehensive and sufficient; it affirmed the pointing and denied the moving. If that were the case in the hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulaib, it would be a new example of an anomalous hadith. But this hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr in "Sunan Abu Dawud" is the anomalous one, indeed it is a denounced narration. The reason for this is that this hadith is narrated through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan al-Madani from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr from his father that he saw the Messenger (peace be upon him).
As for Ibn 'Ajlan, you know that there is discussion about him, and that the opinion settled upon by the scholars is that his hadith is good. And here comes the point that if a narrator's hadith is good, his hadith is susceptible to disturbance at the slightest opportunity. And this is what happened specifically in this hadith. The hadith in "Sunan Abu Dawud" is from the narration of a person... because the era is far from Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan in this chain. Then reliable narrators came and narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ajlan without "he does not move it," only: "I saw him pointing with it." So he did not mention: "and he does not move it." This hadith became anomalous with respect to the first narrator who you thought was an addition from... he is trustworthy; so he deviated from the group who all narrated the hadith from Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan, and so on.
I personally say: This trustworthy narrator who narrated the addition "and he does not move it" from Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan, we cannot say he deviated from the group; because when we say that, it means he made a mistake regarding Ibn 'Ajlan, and that he added to him what he did not say, as evidenced by the narration of the other reliable narrators. This is said if Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan was in trustworthiness like the narrator from him. But since he is below him, I imagine - and this means I am fully convinced by it - in such a case, 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 "he does not move it." And sometimes, because of weakness in his memory, he added this addition... from whom? From this trustworthy narrator, and those others heard the hadith from him in... This is one point.
And the other - which is more important - is that Muhammad ibn 'Ajlan was followed in the narration of the original hadith without this addition. Who is this mistake from? From Ibn 'Ajlan. For this reason, I say that when al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulaib in the addition: "I saw him moving it," he mentioned it after mentioning the hadith - or before - the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr "and he does not move it." He said, in the way of reconciling the two narrations with the word of preference: "Perhaps the intended meaning of the narration of 'Asim ibn Kulaib" that he moves it "means he points with it, according to the narration of Ibn al-Zubayr that: 'he did not move it.'" 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 contradictory 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 hadiths 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, and the authentic is preferred over the good. This is a well-known 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 differs... ... and the matter is left to its scholar.
We know what is in the hadith of Ibn 'Ajlan, so how do we try to reconcile its text with the affirmation of the trustworthy narrator?
He - al-Bayhaqi - (may Allah have mercy on him) - if he had found a way to invalidate this narration: "I saw him moving it in prostration," that would have sufficed him from the reconciliation, just as it suffices me from the reconciliation between this authentic hadith and the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr with the addition: "he does not move it," because it is an anomalous addition; if we do not say it is denounced. Ibn 'Ajlan narrated it uniquely without the other reliable narrators who followed him in narrating the original hadith from his shaykh 'Amir. And the hadith without the addition is in "Sahih al-Sunan" and through authentic routes. And perhaps - also - as is his custom - I say perhaps because I am not certain - he narrated the hadith from the narration of some reliable narrators from Ibn 'Ajlan without the addition. So this addition is anomalous. The hadith of 'Asim ibn Kulaib remains without any opponent that forces us to say that it is from the category of anomalous.
Anything else? Please.
The questioner : This narration, is there not... another rule regarding the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr and the hadith of Ibn 'Umar... and it did not mention moving in it. Added to this is the contradiction of the other narrators, not... that the ruling differs, and the narration of... is preferred.
The Shaykh : The answer has preceded. Pointing does not mean the same as moving.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So we say: He raised it. Raising does not contradict pointing first, right? And pointing - as we mentioned earlier - does not contradict moving. And it is known that we take here the additional, the additional, and there is no need to say that there is an 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 pointed with it." There is no contradiction at all between the two words.
The questioner : I say he interpreted...
The Shaykh : Yes, one is included in the other, and one is an explanation of the other.
Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.