A Note on the Addition in Ibn al-Zubayr’s Hadith: “He Did Not Move It,” and That It Is Anomalous.

The Shaykh : Another point: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Ibn al-Zubayr’s hadith came through two routes in Sahih Muslim:
The first route: Uthman ibn Hakim from Amir ibn Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr from his father.
The other route: from Ibn Ajlan from Amir ibn Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr.
In the hadith—as is well known—there is the pointing with the finger, and this hadith does not explicitly deny the moving that came in Wail’s hadith, nor does it affirm it; rather, it says: “He pointed.” As we have explained in some past and recent sessions, his pointing (peace and blessings be upon him) in the narration of this Companion, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, does not deny the moving. We are not discussing that now; rather, I wanted to clarify that Imam Abu Dawud al-Sijistani narrated the hadith—Abu Dawud’s hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr—through the second route, the route of Ibn Ajlan, with the wording: “He pointed with his finger and did not move it.” This is an explicit text if it is established that pointing does not mean moving; because Abu Dawud (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated in his narration that Ibn al-Zubayr saw the Messenger pointing and not moving.
Now, here is a purely hadith-based research, an application of what you may read in the science of terminology regarding what is called an anomalous hadith or a denounced hadith. We find here two narrations from Amir ibn Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr: the first narration is that of Uthman ibn Hakim, and the other is that of Ibn Ajlan. These two narrations in Sahih Muslim agree on not mentioning: “and he did not move it,” on not mentioning the addition of “and he did not move it.” This addition which Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan from Amir from Ibn Ajlan from Amir—what is the ruling on this addition? We say: First, Ibn Ajlan’s hadith is susceptible to the slightest reason for being weakened; why? Because there was some weakness in his memorization. Therefore, the scholars who strengthen his hadith do not elevate it to the rank of an authentic hadith, but rather they rule it as good only. Ruling a man’s hadith as good is concomitant with ruling the narrator as having some weakness. Since that is the case, we find here a contradiction in two places: first, that Abu Dawud contradicted Muslim in this addition from Ibn Ajlan; for when Muslim mentioned Ibn Ajlan’s narration, he did not add: “and he did not move it.” So now, comparison is required between Muslim’s narration and Abu Dawud’s narration. We all know—Allah willing—that Imam Muslim surpasses Imam Abu Dawud in that his book was restricted to authentic hadiths, whereas Abu Dawud did not do that. Therefore, al-Suyuti says in his poem in Alfiyyat al-Hadith:
“Abu Dawud narrates the strongest he found, *** then the weak if he found another.”
So Abu Dawud is not like Muslim, let alone like al-Bukhari in restricting his book to established hadiths; it is not so. This is well known, to the extent that this Imam, al-Suyuti, included it in his poem and said—as you just heard:
“Abu Dawud narrates the strongest he found, *** then the weak if he found another.”
As for the two Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim, they do not narrate in their Sahihs except what is authentic with them from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), with the exception of al-Bukhari when he narrates in a suspended form, and in that there is what is authentic and what is not, and that has another place for its explanation.
So, the first thing we should be aware of is the difference between Muslim, who did not narrate this addition, and Abu Dawud, who did narrate it. Here, one should takeThe student : special note; why did Imam Muslim not narrate this addition while Abu Dawud narrated it in the Sunan?
The explanation will come later, and I have pointed to some of it. Ibn Ajlan is intermediate in narration, his hadith is only good. As for Uthman ibn Hakim, he is trustworthy. And if someone like Ibn Ajlan contradicted that trustworthy narrator, his hadith is anomalous; because he contradicted one who is more trustworthy than him. And this contradiction is considered, in light of Abu Dawud’s narration, a contradiction of Uthman ibn Hakim’s narration, and not in light of Ibn Ajlan’s narration in Sahih Muslim; because Muslim did not narrate this addition. This is a second point.
And a third point: those who narrated the hadith through the route of Ibn Ajlan from Amir ibn Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr from his father, all of them narrated the hadith from Ibn Ajlan as all who narrated it from Uthman ibn Hakim did, without the addition: “and he did not move it,” except this one unique narration in Abu Dawud’s Sunan. So if we now leave aside the comparison we just conducted between Uthman ibn Hakim’s narration and Ibn Ajlan’s narration in Abu Dawud’s Sunan with the addition: “and he did not move it,” and we say that this addition contradicts Uthman ibn Hakim’s narration; if we leave aside this comparison which indicates the anomaly of Abu Dawud’s narration from Ibn Ajlan with the addition: “and he did not move it,” let us now leave this comparison, which is sufficient to prove the weakness and anomaly of the addition: “and he did not move it.”
And we turn to the routes that came from Ibn Ajlan, and we find in them the following: all the routes that came from Ibn Ajlan did not mention this addition except one route; so at that point, this addition becomes anomalous in another respect, which is the narration of the group of this hadith from Ibn Ajlan without the addition, and only one person narrated it in Abu Dawud’s Sunan. And that one person—who is trustworthy—contradicted the trustworthy ones in narrating the hadith from Ibn Ajlan without this addition. So the addition is anomalous in the first comparison due to Ibn Ajlan’s contradiction of Uthman ibn Hakim, and the addition is anomalous in the second comparison in that one trustworthy person uniquely narrated it from Ibn Ajlan, contradicting the trustworthy ones who narrated the hadith from Ibn Ajlan without this addition. So this addition is anomalous in its best state, if it is not said to be denounced; because the one upon whom the disagreement revolves is Ibn Ajlan, and he is not agreed upon as trustworthy, but rather he is below trustworthy; he is of good hadith as I mentioned earlier.
In the first comparison, we attribute the error to Ibn 'Ujlan with certainty; because he contradicted one who is more trustworthy than him, namely 'Uthman ibn Hakim. In the other comparison, we say: it is possible that the error is from Ibn 'Ujlan, as the first comparison indicated, and it is possible that the error is from that trustworthy narrator who narrated this addition from Ibn 'Ujlan, and who contradicted the trustworthy narrators who narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan without the addition. This can be said in the second comparison: it is possible that Ibn 'Ujlan was the one who erred, and it is possible that the error is from the isolated narrator who added this narration to Ibn 'Ujlan's narration. What is the stronger position? We say: Allah knows best; because it is probable that Ibn 'Ujlan, due to some weakness in his memory, was in most of his states narrating the hadith on the straight path and in a correct manner without this addition, so the narrators received the hadith from him without it, and he was correct and they were correct. And it is possible that he sometimes narrated it with the addition, due to his weakness, so a trustworthy person picked up this narration from him. In that case, under this probability, the error could be from Ibn 'Ujlan, as the attribution of the error to him in the first comparison between the narration of 'Uthman ibn Hakim and the narration of Ibn 'Ujlan indicated. However, the soul remains hesitant in being certain that the error in the second comparison is from Ibn 'Ujlan; because the trustworthy narrators contradicted the trustworthy narrator who narrated this addition from Ibn 'Ujlan. But in the end, this addition is not permissible to authenticate, and consequently, it is not permissible to grade the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr with it, claiming that this chain is established and is a good chain. And I say: Yes; every hadith narrated by Ibn 'Ujlan, the principle is that it is graded as good; except if the error of Ibn 'Ujlan is established in a specific hadith; in that case, his hadith is judged according to what is required. This is the case with every narrator who has some weakness, like Ibn Ishaq for example; his hadith is graded as good like the hadith of Ibn 'Ujlan, except if his contradiction of one who is more trustworthy than him is established.
And based on this, if we look—and here is the precision now—at the tracing of hadiths, the tracing that many young Muslims today have devoted themselves to when they awakened to the importance of the science of hadith, and the critique and vindication of narrators, and the authentication and weakening of hadiths; merely because they conduct an objective critique, like this hadith of Ibn 'Ujlan, they look at those above him and those below him; and they say: "This is a good chain" without carefully examining whether he contradicted one who is more trustworthy than him first? And whether the narrations from him agreed on this wording or this addition second? And from here it becomes clear that it is not permissible for a student of knowledge to rush to judge a chain as good merely because the men mentioned in this chain require the judgment of their chains as good. He should compare his specific research on this chain with the other hadiths, as he may find out what was hidden from him.
And with this amount, it is sufficient in explaining this aspect of the hadith of pointing between the two prostrations in the prayer, whether affirming or denying it.