Discussion on preferring the connected report of Ibn 'Abbas over the disconnected one, what the scholars mentioned regarding this, and discussion on the issue of the addition by a trustworthy narrator.

The Shaykh : Ibn Khuzaymah and his student Ibn Hibban, but he followed this by stating that the Imam, the critic, the Hafiz Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa'i preferred its disconnection. The meaning of this statement is that the hadith was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas through the route of 'Ikrimah from him. Some narrators narrated it in this connected form from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas that an Arab man... to the end of it. Other narrators disconnected it, meaning they did not mention Ibn 'Abbas in its chain, but rather said: from 'Ikrimah that an Arab man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). 'Ikrimah was a Successor who did not live to see the era of Prophethood and the Message, so when he says: an Arab man came to the Messenger, there is a gap and a break between him and this hadith which he is narrating. This hadith is generally called a disconnected hadith (mursal), and it is sometimes described as a broken hadith (munqati'), and the first description is more precise.
Some narrators said: from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, so it is connected. And some narrators said: from 'Ikrimah that an Arab man... these narrators did not mention Ibn 'Abbas between 'Ikrimah and the Prophet (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him).
Which of these two narrations is the stronger position; the connected narration or the disconnected narration?
Imam al-Nasa'i preferred the disconnected narration, and this preference by al-Hafiz al-Nasa'i is actually the stronger position from two aspects. The first aspect is what is known of the precision of Imam al-Nasa'i's criticism of chains, which is contrasted with what is known of the leniency of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban in authenticating. If the authentication of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban is contrasted with a criticism or notification of a defect like that of Imam al-Nasa'i, without us knowing the actual reality, there is no doubt that the soul is more at ease with what al-Nasa'i held than with what Ibn Khuzaymah or Ibn Hibban held; because Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban are lenient in authentication, whereas al-Nasa'i is an Imam of critics; so if he preferred the disconnected hadith, that is the correct one; this is from the perspective of comparison and evaluation between the Imams of critics. But also added to this, in what remains in my mind from the study of the hadith's chain, is that the scientific study supports what Imam al-Nasa'i preferred, which is that this hadith is disconnected.
And since the matter is so, is there a conflict and contradiction between the authentication of this hadith by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban, and the notification of its defect by al-Nasa'i due to disconnection?
The answer: Yes; because it is known among the scholars of hadith terminology that the disconnected hadith is a category of weak hadith. So if it is said that such-and-such a hadith is disconnected, that is equivalent to them saying it is a weak hadith. And there is no doubt that a weak hadith differs from the statement of one who said: it is an authentic hadith. This is the meaning of the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, commenting on what he quoted regarding the authentication of the hadith by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban, by saying: and al-Nasa'i preferred its disconnection; meaning that the stronger position is that the hadith is weak, and its defect is disconnection.
And here is a hadith issue with a degree of precision, and many of those engaged in the science of hadith today do not pay attention to it due to its precision. It is that if this hadith was narrated by some narrators in a connected form; that is: from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, and by others from 'Ikrimah without mentioning Ibn 'Abbas; then here is a rule mentioned on this occasion: the one who mentioned Ibn 'Abbas has brought an addition in the chain over the one who did not mention Ibn 'Abbas, over the one who disconnected it. And it is known among the scholars of hadith that the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable. So why was this addition rejected here in this hadith, and al-Hafiz explicitly stated, quoting from al-Nasa'i, that the stronger position is disconnection? Why was the statement of the one who said: from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, and this addition, not accepted?
The answer: That the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable is not absolute, and here is the point of precision. The addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted when the one who brought the addition is either like the one who did not bring it, or better than him. But if the one who brought the addition is a single person, and those who did not bring the addition are a group; then here this rule: "the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable" does not apply here. Rather, what applies here is that this addition is anomalous (shadhdh); because the anomalous hadith is when a trustworthy narrator narrates what contradicts others among the trustworthy, or at least contradicts one who is more trustworthy than him. At that time, the addition is not accepted. The addition by a trustworthy narrator is only accepted if the one who added is like the one who did not add, or more memorizing than him. But if the one who added is less than the one who did not add in precision and memorization, or fewer in number than those who did not bring the addition; at that time, the addition is judged to be anomalous, and it is not said: the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable. For this reason, we find that many hadiths, when these hadiths are studied with regard to a route whose men are all trustworthy and it is connected; when this specific chain is studied, it is said: it is an authentic chain. But when this chain is looked at from its other routes, it is revealed to us that in the first route there is a trustworthy narrator who contradicted a group of trustworthy narrators; this contradiction at that time makes us change our previous view.
I repeat the statement: the hadith sometimes comes from the route of a trustworthy among the trustworthy with an authentic chain to him, and this trustworthy narrator narrates it - also - with an authentic chain to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is said of this chain: its chain is authentic. But the trustworthy narrator around whom the routes of the hadith revolved, the narrators differed regarding him; so the first chain came from him with an authentic chain as we said, then other chains came, and if these other chains clarify that there is a defect in the first chain. This can be illustrated in many ways, so let us say - for example - Imam al-Zuhri, who is too famous to be mentioned; he narrates a lot from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, and he narrates from Abu Hurayrah. A trustworthy narrator comes and narrates from al-Zuhri from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from Abu Hurayrah. What is this chain? It is authentic. But when the researcher expands the study of this hadith with this chain, and he finds other trustworthy narrators who participated with the first trustworthy narrator in narrating the hadith from al-Zuhri, but contradicted him in the chain; so they said - for example - from al-Zuhri from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said... they did not mention Abu Hurayrah. Is it said here, or do we continue to say that the hadith's chain is authentic on the basis that the first trustworthy narrator narrated it from al-Zuhri, from Sa'id, from Abu Hurayrah, and the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable? Or do we say: No, this trustworthy narrator who added to the chain and mentioned Abu Hurayrah in it has contradicted the trustworthy narrators who all narrated it from al-Zuhri from Sa'id in a disconnected form? It is said: Yes, the narration of the trustworthy narrators here is the stronger position, so the hadith is defective due to disconnection.
This is the reality of the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas. So the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas revolves around 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas. A trustworthy narrator narrated it, and the others came and narrated it from 'Ikrimah in a disconnected form. For that reason, Imam al-Nasa'i preferred its disconnection. And after knowing that this hadith is weak due to the defect of disconnection, at that time the difference appears to us between the indication of the first authentic hadith and the indication of the other weak hadith; for the first indicates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted the testimony of 'Abdullah, who was known to him for justice, truthfulness, precision, and the like; whereas the first hadith accepted the testimony of the Arab man whose Islam was not known except at the hour of the testimony. So there is a great question here; if the hadith were authentic, it would give us a ruling in addition to the first hadith. Therefore, we do not build a ruling upon it, but we limit ourselves to deriving the previous ruling from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), which is earlier in narration.