The ruling on the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr regarding pointing in the tashahhud, which includes (he pointed with his finger and did not move it), and the clarification that it is anomalous?

The Shaykh : I only intended to clarify that Imam Abu Dawud al-Sijistani narrated the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr through the second route, the route of Ibn 'Ujlan, with the wording "he pointed with his finger and did not move it". This is an explicit text. If it were established that pointing does not imply moving, that would be because Abu Dawud (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated in his narration that Ibn al-Zubayr saw the Messenger of Allah pointing and not moving it. Now, here is a purely hadith-based discussion applying what you may read in the science of terminology, known as the anomalous hadith or the denounced hadith. We find here two narrations from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr: the first is the narration of Uthman ibn Hakim, and the other is the narration of Ibn 'Ujlan. These two narrations are in Sahih Muslim, and they agree on not mentioning "and did not move it", that is, on not including the addition of "and did not move it". This is the addition that Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan from Ibn 'Ujlan from 'Amir. What is the ruling on this addition? We say first: Ibn 'Ujlan's hadith is susceptible to the slightest reason for being weakened. Why? Because there was some weakness in his memory. Therefore, the scholars who grade his hadith do not elevate it to the level of an authentic hadith; rather, they only rule it as good. Ruling a man's hadith as good is concomitant with ruling his narration as having some weakness. Since that is the case, we find a contradiction in two places. First, Abu Dawud contradicted Muslim regarding this addition from Ibn 'Ujlan. When Muslim mentioned the narration of Ibn 'Ujlan, he did not add "and did not move it." Now, a comparison must be made between Muslim's narration and Abu Dawud's narration. We all know, if Allah wills, that Imam Muslim surpasses Imam Abu Dawud in that his book is dedicated to authentic hadiths, whereas Abu Dawud did not do so. Therefore, al-Suyuti says in his poem in the Alfiyyah of Hadith: "Abu Dawud narrates the strongest he found, *** then the weak if the rest is lacking". So Abu Dawud is not like Muslim, let alone like al-Bukhari, in that he dedicated his book to what is established in hadith; that is not the case. This is well known, even to the point that this Imam, al-Suyuti, included it in his poem, as you just heard: "Abu Dawud narrates the strongest he *** found, then the weak if the rest is lacking". 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 in what he narrates as suspended; in that, there is what is authentic and what is not, and that has another place for its explanation. So the first thing one should be aware of is the difference between Muslim, who did not narrate this addition, and Abu Dawud, who did. Here, the student should pay special attention. Why did Imam Muslim not narrate this addition, while Abu Dawud narrated it in the Sunan? The explanation will come later, and I have hinted at some of it. Ibn 'Ujlan is intermediate in narration; his hadith is only good. As for Uthman ibn Hakim, he is trustworthy. If someone like Ibn 'Ujlan contradicts that trustworthy man, his hadith is anomalous because he contradicted someone more trustworthy than him. This contradiction is considered, based on Abu Dawud's narration, as contradicting the narration of Uthman ibn Hakim, and not based on Ibn 'Ujlan'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 'Ujlan from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr from his father, all of them narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan as all who narrated it from Uthman ibn Hakim did, without the addition "and did not move it," except this one unique narration in Abu Dawud's Sunan. So if we now leave aside the comparison we just made between the narration of Uthman ibn Hakim and the narration of Ibn 'Ujlan in Abu Dawud's Sunan with the addition "and did not move it," and we say that this addition contradicts the narration of Uthman ibn Hakim, if we leave aside this comparison which indicates the anomaly of Abu Dawud's narration from Ibn 'Ujlan with the addition "and did not move it", let us now set aside this comparison, which is sufficient to prove the weakness and anomaly of the addition "and did not move it," and turn to the routes that came from Ibn 'Ujlan. We find in them the following: all the routes that came from Ibn 'Ujlan did not mention this addition, except one route. In that case, this addition becomes anomalous in another respect, which is the narration of the group of this hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan without the addition, while only one person narrated it in Abu Dawud's Sunan. So this one person, who is trustworthy, contradicted the trustworthy ones in narrating the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan without this addition. Thus, the addition is anomalous in the first comparison due to Ibn 'Ujlan's contradiction of Uthman ibn Hakim, and it is anomalous in the second comparison in that one trustworthy person uniquely narrated it from Ibn 'Ujlan, contradicting the trustworthy ones who narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan without this addition. So this addition is anomalous in its best state, if it is not said to be denounced, because the one around whom the disagreement revolves is Ibn 'Ujlan, who is not agreed upon as trustworthy, but is below trustworthy; his hadith is good, as I mentioned earlier. In the first comparison, we attribute the error definitely to Ibn 'Ujlan because he contradicted someone more trustworthy than him, who is Uthman ibn Hakim. In the other comparison, we say it is possible that the error is from Ibn 'Ujlan, as required by the first comparison, and it is possible that the error is from that trustworthy narrator who narrated this addition from Ibn 'Ujlan and contradicted the trustworthy ones who narrated the hadith from Ibn 'Ujlan without the addition. This can be said in the second comparison: it is possible that Ibn 'Ujlan is the one who erred, and it is possible that the error is from the individual who added this narration to Ibn 'Ujlan's narration. What is the stronger position? We say: Allah knows best, because it is possible that Ibn 'Ujlan, due to the weakness in his memory, was in most cases narrating the hadith on the straight path and in a correct manner without this addition, so the narrators received it from him without it, and he was correct and they were correct. And it is possible that he sometimes narrated it with it, due to his weakness, and a trustworthy person picked up this narration from him. In that case, under this possibility, the error could be from Ibn 'Ujlan, as required by attributing the error to him in the first comparison between the narration of Uthman ibn Hakim and the narration of Ibn 'Ujlan. But people remain hesitant in being certain that the error in the second comparison is from Ibn 'Ujlan, because the trustworthy ones contradicted the trustworthy person who narrated this addition from Ibn 'Ujlan. But the end of the matter is that this addition is not permissible to authenticate, and consequently, it is not permissible to reject the hadith of Wail ibn Hujr on the basis of it, claiming that this chain is established and is a good chain. And I say: yes, the default for any hadith narrated by Ibn 'Ujlan is to be called good, unless it is established that Ibn 'Ujlan erred in a specific hadith, in which case his hadith is ruled upon according to what is required. This is the case with every narrator who has some weakness, like Ibn Ishaq, for example; his hadith, like Ibn 'Ujlan's, is good unless it is established that he contradicted someone more trustworthy than him. And on this basis, if we look, and here is the precision in tracing hadiths—the tracing that many young Muslims today have devoted themselves to when they awakened to the importance of hadith science, the critique and vindication of narrators, and authenticating and weakening—merely because they conduct a localized critique, like this hadith of Ibn 'Ujlan, they look at those above him and those below him and say, "This is a good chain," without carefully examining whether he contradicted someone more trustworthy than him or not, and whether the narrations from him agree with this wording or this addition. And from here it becomes clear that a student of knowledge should not rush to rule a chain as good merely because the men mentioned in this chain require the ruling of goodness for their chains. He should compare his specific research on this chain with other hadiths; perhaps he will find out what was hidden from him. And this is sufficient in clarifying this aspect of the hadith of pointing between the two prostrations in prayer, whether affirming or denying it.