regarding the addition: (and he does not move it) in the hadith of the tashahhud?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... and he does not move it.
The Shaykh : Do you mean you are asking about the hadith?
The questioner : ... This hadith is in "Muslim".
The Shaykh : It is not in "Sahih Muslim" at all: It is in "Sunan Abu Dawud," and this addition is denounced and not authentic.
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. If this is sufficient for you, then that is fine; otherwise, I will explain it to you.
The questioner : Explain it to me.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Explain it to me.
The Shaykh : I will explain, okay.
The hadith in "Sahih Muslim" is narrated by 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr from his father, 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, that he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pointing with his finger. 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who narrated this hadith from his father in "Sahih Muslim," was narrated from by a group of trustworthy scholars, among them a man named Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani.
The questioner : Al-Madani?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Al-Madani?
The Shaykh : Al-Madani, yes.
This Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani is trustworthy, but less so than the other trustworthy scholars who supported his narration of the hadith, as we mentioned in "Sahih Muslim." Then the hadith came in "Sunan Abu Dawud" and others through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani, from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah from his father, with the addition:. The rank of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan's hadith among the scholars is the rank of a good (hasan) hadith; meaning, no hadith narrated by this Ibn 'Ujlan is judged to be weak, nor is it judged to be authentic (sahih), but rather good (hasan). Why? Because the scholars of hadith noticed a weakness in his memory, but this weakness was not severe enough to make his hadith weak, nor was he free from weakness to make his hadith authentic. Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan had many narrators from him. If Ibn 'Ujlan had been a fully trustworthy scholar (thiqah) at one hundred percent, and his hadith was originally authentic, the majority of these narrators narrated the hadith from Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan without the addition: . One of them narrated from Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan: . This means that this addition is anomalous (shadh) from two aspects. The aspect that is established in reality requires balancing or weighing between them. You see, when it is said that this addition is anomalous, it means it is an error. So, who is the error attributed to? Either the error is attributed to Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan, or to one of the narrators who narrated the hadith from him. But this narrator from him is a trustworthy scholar, more trustworthy than Ibn 'Ujlan.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, in that case, we do not attribute the error to the trustworthy narrator, but we attribute the error to Ibn 'Ujlan, because he is not a fully trustworthy scholar, but rather his hadith is good (hasan), as we mentioned. So, if there were no narrators who narrated the hadith with Ibn 'Ujlan, as we mentioned in "Sahih Muslim," and Ibn 'Ujlan had narrated the hadith uniquely from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah from 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr that he saw the Messenger pointing with his finger, but Ibn 'Ujlan added it once and did not add it other times, then we attribute the error to him with certainty, which is better than attributing the error to the trustworthy scholar who narrated it from him.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is the nature of one who is not strong in memory. But what about the fact that the trustworthy scholars who participated with Ibn 'Ujlan in supporting his narration of the hadith from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah from his father, all of these did not mention this addition? So it is established that this addition is anomalous (shadh).
This type—may Allah bless you—is among the subtleties of the science of hadith; because the majority of those engaged in the science of hadith, specifically... in hadith today, they look at the chain (sanad) of Abu Dawud from Ibn 'Ujlan. Ibn 'Ujlan has a good (hasan) hadith; so the hadith is good (hasan). But they do not look at the other narrations and sift the issue thoroughly so that it results in an example of an anomalous (shadh) hadith. This is one of the examples of an anomalous (shadh) hadith.
The Shaykh : Do you mean you are asking about the hadith?
The questioner : ... This hadith is in "Muslim".
The Shaykh : It is not in "Sahih Muslim" at all:
and he does not move it
ولا يُحرِّكهاThe questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. If this is sufficient for you, then that is fine; otherwise, I will explain it to you.
The questioner : Explain it to me.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Explain it to me.
The Shaykh : I will explain, okay.
The hadith in "Sahih Muslim" is narrated by 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr from his father, 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, that he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pointing with his finger. 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who narrated this hadith from his father in "Sahih Muslim," was narrated from by a group of trustworthy scholars, among them a man named Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani.
The questioner : Al-Madani?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Al-Madani?
The Shaykh : Al-Madani, yes.
This Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani is trustworthy, but less so than the other trustworthy scholars who supported his narration of the hadith, as we mentioned in "Sahih Muslim." Then the hadith came in "Sunan Abu Dawud" and others through the route of Muhammad ibn 'Ujlan al-Madani, from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah from his father, with the addition:
and he does not move it
ولا يحرِّكهاand he does not move it
ولا يحرِّكهاand he does not move it
ولا يحرِّكهاThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, in that case, we do not attribute the error to the trustworthy narrator, but we attribute the error to Ibn 'Ujlan, because he is not a fully trustworthy scholar, but rather his hadith is good (hasan), as we mentioned. So, if there were no narrators who narrated the hadith with Ibn 'Ujlan, as we mentioned in "Sahih Muslim," and Ibn 'Ujlan had narrated the hadith uniquely from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah from 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr that he saw the Messenger pointing with his finger, but Ibn 'Ujlan added it once and did not add it other times, then we attribute the error to him with certainty, which is better than attributing the error to the trustworthy scholar who narrated it from him.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is the nature of one who is not strong in memory. But what about the fact that the trustworthy scholars who participated with Ibn 'Ujlan in supporting his narration of the hadith from 'Amir ibn 'Abd Allah from his father, all of these did not mention this addition? So it is established that this addition is anomalous (shadh).
This type—may Allah bless you—is among the subtleties of the science of hadith; because the majority of those engaged in the science of hadith, specifically... in hadith today, they look at the chain (sanad) of Abu Dawud from Ibn 'Ujlan. Ibn 'Ujlan has a good (hasan) hadith; so the hadith is good (hasan). But they do not look at the other narrations and sift the issue thoroughly so that it results in an example of an anomalous (shadh) hadith. This is one of the examples of an anomalous (shadh) hadith.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.