Discussion on the authenticity of the narration regarding moving the finger in the tashahhud

The questioner : The hadith that came is that the narration is "he pointed with his finger." He pointed.

The Shaykh : Raise your voice.

The Shaykh : The hadith came through several routes or from several narrators as "he pointed with his finger," and there is no mention of moving it in them except from one narrator. So, I have a doubt in my mind that it is anomalous, even if the narrator is trustworthy. This is the first point.

The Shaykh : Okay, before... first, second, and third, what is there?

The questioner : How, Shaykh?
The student : How much research do you have?

The Shaykh : I mean, you are saying first.

The questioner : I don't have any, but Allah willing, you will benefit us, Allah willing. We want the truth.

The Shaykh : I mean, is there a second and third, or how many?

The questioner : This is the first, because if we went to the second and third, it might be possible.
The student : It is possible, our Shaykh, that the answer to the first suffices for mentioning the second.

The Shaykh : That is my intention, I mean.
The student : And therefore, answer him, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I am saying, may Allah bless you, does this singular narrator who narrated the moving contradict in a way that reconciliation is impossible between what the others narrated of pointing and what he narrated of moving, or is it possible?
The student : It is not possible.

The Shaykh : It is not possible, why?
The student : Because the opposite came in some narrations.

The Shaykh: And that is...
The student : He does not move it.

The Shaykh : This narration is authentic.
The student : I mean, Allah willing, I have one that is good.

The Shaykh : Allah willing, you have one that is not good. Who narrated it?
The student : First, Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan narrated it.

The Shaykh : Okay, Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan, are the routes to him agreed upon in denying the moving?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : So why did you not treat this here the way you treated that singular hadith?
The student : Because it has a supporting chain.

The Shaykh : Where is the supporting chain?
The student : In the trustworthy narrators of Ibn Hibban.

The Shaykh : And what is it?
The student : From Kathir from Zayd from Muslim ibn Abi Maryam from Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar: "That he used to place his right hand on his right knee, and his left hand on his left knee, and point with his finger and not move it ."

The Shaykh : What is the chain of narration for this?
The student : It is good.
Another student: A moment, Shaykh, let him finish the narration. Complete the hadith, my brother.
The student : "And he says: It is the devil's goad. And he says: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to do it."
Another student: Repeat the sentence, it is okay. Let our Shaykh repeat the hadith a little. I saw "I saw the Messenger of Allah" and the rest is okay. A little, a little, and raise your voice.
The student : From Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar: "That his right hand and his left hand were on his left knee, and he pointed with his finger and did not move it, and he said: It is the devil's goad. And he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to do it."

The Shaykh : What is your observation?
The student : Yes, I truly.
Another student: How can it be the devil's goad.
The student : Therefore, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Before anything else, the narration is authentic.
The student : The chain has weakness; there is a narrator about whom it was said.

The Shaykh : This supports the weakness and inconsistency in the narration.
The student : No, our Shaykh, he says, let us suppose Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan is weak and this is weak, and if they are strengthened, then "and he does not move it" is established. But I truly have something that occurred to me, and may Allah reward him for his fairness in the end, he said, I mean, perhaps your saying is close. I said, it occurs to me that "la" is an extra word, because his saying "it is the devil's goad" and his saying "I saw the Messenger of Allah do it," this "la" is not said in negation but in affirmation. And this supports the reports narrated from some of the Salaf: "It is frightening to the devil," for it is more severe for the devil than iron maces. All this is in the wording of moving, not in the wording of not moving. Even our research on the ordering of "Thiqat Ibn Hibban," our Shaykh, the manuscript copy, on the basis that we would see something, but, glory be to Allah, I do not have the manuscript. So perhaps you are reviewing it, I mean, our Shaykh. Of course, it passed through you in "Taysir Intifa' al-Khalan," so you must have a statement in it, I mean.

The Shaykh : Yes, but let us leave it for now. Do you see this narration as established?
The student : The chain is good.

The Shaykh: Yes.
The student : This chain is good and not weak, I mean, Kathir ibn Zayd is a lot.

The Shaykh : Following Ibn 'Umar.
The student : Yes, following Ibn 'Umar, yes.

The Shaykh : The chain is good.
The student : And also the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan, its chain is good, as I recall now, that Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan is not weak but truthful.

The Shaykh : Okay, regarding the narration of Ibn 'Ujlan, do you remember what the anomalous hadith is?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : What is it.
The student : The definition of the anomalous hadith.

The Shaykh : Ah, what is the anomalous hadith?
The student : They define it as the contradiction of a trustworthy narrator to one who is stronger than him.

The Shaykh : Okay, did you not see that a group of trustworthy narrators narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan, contenting themselves with mentioning only the pointing without the phrase "he does not move it"? And among them is Imam Muslim in his Sahih, who narrated this hadith from Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and through the route of Ibn 'Ujlan, without this addition, indicating that it is an addition that does not deserve to be mentioned in the Sahih. Even though Ibn 'Ujlan, as I think you remember, is one of those from whom Imam Muslim narrated in conjunction or as a supporting chain, so he is not relied upon for evidence. But here he narrated for him a supporting chain and narrated it through some of the trustworthy narrators from Ibn 'Ujlan from Ibn Jurayj from Abdullah ibn 'Amir from Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, without the phrase "he does not move it." This is one. Then Ibn 'Ujlan himself was supported by a group of trustworthy narrators from Ibn Jurayj also, without the addition "he does not move it." So this addition becomes denounced from two sides, if we assume that Ibn 'Ujlan was singular in narrating the hadith from his sheikh. But the trustworthy narrators all narrated it from him without the addition. If we assume he was singular, but the reality is that Ibn 'Ujlan was supported by one trustworthy narrator or more, now I am doubtful. So they participated with him in narrating the original hadith without the addition: "he does not move it." No researcher of hadith doubts that this addition here is anomalous, if we do not say it is denounced. Why? Because of the disagreement of the narrators from Ibn 'Ujlan, and most of them do not mention it. And because Ibn 'Ujlan himself contradicted one who is trustworthy. His hadith, as you said, is originally good, not authentic. So if he contradicted one trustworthy narrator, and his hadith is originally authentic, his addition remains anomalous. What about anomaly with anomaly? How can it be said that this hadith is good? If you know this, the hadith of Ibn 'Umar that you mentioned is stripped of the witness that you used to support the hadith of Ibn 'Ujlan. And the hadith of Ibn 'Ujlan becomes anomalous, meaning denounced, meaning weak, not to be relied upon, so it does not exist. This is the first. Second: regarding Kathir ibn Zayd, is he the Medinan?
The student : By Allah, what I remember now, I mean, of course from a while ago, but you, Shaykh, may Allah preserve you, he is truthful. He is truthful but makes mistakes according to Ibn Hajar. And you have "truthful if he does not contradict" or "good hadith if he does not contradict."

The Shaykh : Very beautiful, may Allah teach you the argument. The hadith of Ibn 'Umar, do you not remember that it came in Sahih Muslim? Say yes.
The student : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, is the addition in it?
The student : Answer, Shaykh. You told me to say yes.

The Shaykh : It is present in Sahih Muslim and the addition is not in it. So from your mouth I add to you. It is possible that this contradiction made it anomalous, so we attached it to the hadith of Ibn 'Umar. Finally, we say, let us assume that this hadith and that one are authentic. If a negator and an affirmator contradict, what is preferred in your view?
The student : The affirmator.

The Shaykh : So why did you reverse it?
The student : There is no contradiction here.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student : Because moving and not moving is not a contradiction.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, I mean, does the one who says "he moved" and the one who says "he did not move" have no contradiction?
The student : There is no contradiction unless it happened at the same time.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : There is no contradiction except in one time. If it is in one time, there is a contradiction, otherwise there is not.

The Shaykh : I mean, do you want to say, for example, that the Messenger used to move and sometimes he did not move?
The student : That is it.

The Shaykh : You do not do this, do you?
The student : You said first, if it is authentic, then I answered you.

The Shaykh : You do not do this, I mean, you are saying the opposite of what you do.
The student : You, Shaykh, to your question, I answered you.

The Shaykh : The intended meaning is opposition and fighting. The intended meaning is that we reach the truth. What truth are you giving us? Let us return to the question. If a negator and an affirmator contradict, what is preferred?
The student : The affirmator.

The Shaykh : The affirmator. Okay, now what do you say?
The student : After this research in this way up to here, we establish.

The Shaykh: All right.
The student : We establish what? Be explicit.

The Shaykh : It is not a landmine, it is explicit and acceptable from him.
The student : Shaykh, the acceptance of the authenticity of the addition of Ibn Qudama.
Another student: Did you see, I told you to let him be explicit.

The Shaykh : No, he intended the meaning, it is clear.
The student : My intention, Shaykh, is that even if these narrations did not come, I said from the beginning, I mean, I say, the contradiction of the addition of Ibn Qudama is anomalous in itself.

The Shaykh : This is anomalous?
The student : It is anomalous in itself because it contradicts those who said that it is not moved.

The Shaykh : Who said this? Or, in the phraseology of our Salafi methodology, who among your predecessors held this view? No one. That is enough for you.
The student : No one said that it is not moved.

The Shaykh : No one.
The student : That is reasonable, Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.