Completing the previous answer, and a note on how a hadith scholar may transmit a hadith with one chain of narration, then transmit it with a second chain, saying: “He mentioned it similarly,”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
But before this study, I want to draw the attention of the students of knowledge among you—and may Allah will that you are all among them—to a matter of precision that recurs in cases like ours, and perhaps what we are discussing now is of this type:
Often, Imam Muslim and other authors of the Sunnah books transmit a hadith in full with its first chain of narration, then follow it with a second chain, saying: “He mentioned it similarly,” or “He mentioned it in similar terms,” or he says neither of these. The beginning researcher finds a hadith attributed to “Sahih Muslim” in a wording that was not transmitted with its first chain of narration. He searches “Sahih Muslim” from beginning to middle to end, going east and west, but he remains in the same place and does not find this wording at all, and he will never find it; because the reality is that Muslim did not transmit this wording that a hadith scholar attributed to him, but he referred to it by transmitting it with a chain and directing to the wording he did not transmit by saying: “in similar terms” or “similarly.”
And an example comes to my mind now, though the answer to this does not come to my mind now, and half of knowledge is not knowing, but this exists frequently; in “Sunan Abu Dawud” there is the hadith of Wa’il ibn Hujr, which begins by saying that he came to Madinah and said: “I will surely look at the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).” Abu Dawud transmitted it with its first chain of narration in this wording, and at the end it says that he saw the Messenger (peace be upon him) shave with his thumb and middle finger and point with his index finger. Then he transmitted the hadith by another route, indeed by other routes, and all these routes he transmitted return to Asim ibn Kulayb, perhaps from Zayd from Asim ibn Kulayb from his father from Wa’il ibn Hujr. All these routes converge on Zayd. The first route does not contain: “So I saw him moving it and supplicating with it,” but the route that follows it, whose wording was not transmitted in “Sunan al-Darimi,” in “Sahih Ibn Hibban,” in “al-Mustadrak” by al-Hakim, in “al-Muntakha” by Ibn al-Jarud, and in many other books from the same route that Abu Dawud transmitted second, all say from Wa’il with the same chain: “So I saw him moving it and supplicating with it.”
So in “The Description of the Prophet’s Prayer,” I attributed this hadith to Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i, and an objection came from some of the doctors of the present age that so-and-so made a mistake, and the world collapsed if he made a mistake, assuming that! The important thing is that the hadith is valid. He made a mistake because he said: “Abu Dawud narrated it,” and the correct thing to say is: “Al-Nasa’i narrated it,” because Abu Dawud did not narrate it. He is a man from the general public; he returned to Abu Dawud and did not find this wording, so in this regard he was correct. But the scholars of knowledge understand from his transmission of the second route from Zayd, which was narrated in other compilations with the wording: “I saw him moving it and supplicating with it,” that the researcher then knows that Abu Dawud narrated this hadith, but for brevity he did not transmit its wording; rather, he transmitted it with the first wording. So one who has no knowledge says: “He did not return to Abu Dawud!” But the reality is that Abu Dawud narrated it.
What I fear most is that the person who asked this question may have been affected by something like this. He returned to “Sahih Muslim” and did not find this exact wording itself, but I say to him now: perform this experiment. Return to the hadith of 'Amr ibn 'Ubaydah; if Muslim transmitted a route for it other than the well-known wording in “Sahih Muslim” and did not transmit its wording, then that is it. And if you do not find that he transmitted anything but the long hadith with this other wording and a single chain of narration, then come to me and we will discuss it with you, if Allah wills.
Often, Imam Muslim and other authors of the Sunnah books transmit a hadith in full with its first chain of narration, then follow it with a second chain, saying: “He mentioned it similarly,” or “He mentioned it in similar terms,” or he says neither of these. The beginning researcher finds a hadith attributed to “Sahih Muslim” in a wording that was not transmitted with its first chain of narration. He searches “Sahih Muslim” from beginning to middle to end, going east and west, but he remains in the same place and does not find this wording at all, and he will never find it; because the reality is that Muslim did not transmit this wording that a hadith scholar attributed to him, but he referred to it by transmitting it with a chain and directing to the wording he did not transmit by saying: “in similar terms” or “similarly.”
And an example comes to my mind now, though the answer to this does not come to my mind now, and half of knowledge is not knowing, but this exists frequently; in “Sunan Abu Dawud” there is the hadith of Wa’il ibn Hujr, which begins by saying that he came to Madinah and said: “I will surely look at the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).” Abu Dawud transmitted it with its first chain of narration in this wording, and at the end it says that he saw the Messenger (peace be upon him) shave with his thumb and middle finger and point with his index finger. Then he transmitted the hadith by another route, indeed by other routes, and all these routes he transmitted return to Asim ibn Kulayb, perhaps from Zayd from Asim ibn Kulayb from his father from Wa’il ibn Hujr. All these routes converge on Zayd. The first route does not contain: “So I saw him moving it and supplicating with it,” but the route that follows it, whose wording was not transmitted in “Sunan al-Darimi,” in “Sahih Ibn Hibban,” in “al-Mustadrak” by al-Hakim, in “al-Muntakha” by Ibn al-Jarud, and in many other books from the same route that Abu Dawud transmitted second, all say from Wa’il with the same chain: “So I saw him moving it and supplicating with it.”
So in “The Description of the Prophet’s Prayer,” I attributed this hadith to Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i, and an objection came from some of the doctors of the present age that so-and-so made a mistake, and the world collapsed if he made a mistake, assuming that! The important thing is that the hadith is valid. He made a mistake because he said: “Abu Dawud narrated it,” and the correct thing to say is: “Al-Nasa’i narrated it,” because Abu Dawud did not narrate it. He is a man from the general public; he returned to Abu Dawud and did not find this wording, so in this regard he was correct. But the scholars of knowledge understand from his transmission of the second route from Zayd, which was narrated in other compilations with the wording: “I saw him moving it and supplicating with it,” that the researcher then knows that Abu Dawud narrated this hadith, but for brevity he did not transmit its wording; rather, he transmitted it with the first wording. So one who has no knowledge says: “He did not return to Abu Dawud!” But the reality is that Abu Dawud narrated it.
What I fear most is that the person who asked this question may have been affected by something like this. He returned to “Sahih Muslim” and did not find this exact wording itself, but I say to him now: perform this experiment. Return to the hadith of 'Amr ibn 'Ubaydah; if Muslim transmitted a route for it other than the well-known wording in “Sahih Muslim” and did not transmit its wording, then that is it. And if you do not find that he transmitted anything but the long hadith with this other wording and a single chain of narration, then come to me and we will discuss it with you, if Allah wills.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.
