The Shaykh’s continuation of his discussion on preferring the mursal and musnad narrations of Ibn 'Abbas, and what the scholars have mentioned regarding that.

The Shaykh : Ibn Khuzaymah and his student Ibn Hibban, but I followed that by stating that the Imam, the critic, the Hafiz Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa'i preferred the mursal transmission. 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 transmitted it as mursal, 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 Tabi'i 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 he is narrating. This hadith is generally called a mursal hadith, and it is sometimes referred to as munqati' (disconnected), though the first term is more precise. Some narrators said, "From 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas," so it is connected. Some other narrators said, "From 'Ikrimah, that an Arab man," and these narrators did not mention Ibn 'Abbas between 'Ikrimah and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Do you see which of these two narrations is stronger: the connected narration or the mursal narration? The Imam al-Nasa'i preferred the mursal narration. This preference by the Hafiz al-Nasa'i is actually the stronger position from two aspects. The first aspect is based on what is known of the precision of the Imam al-Nasa'i’s critique of chains, which is contrasted with what is known of the leniency of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban in authenticating. When the authentication of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban is contrasted with a criticism or notification by an Imam like 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 prefers the mursal hadith, that is the correct one. This is from the perspective of comparison and evaluation between the Imams of critics. But add to this, from what remains in my mind from studying the chain of the hadith, that the scientific study supports what the Imam al-Nasa'i preferred, namely that this hadith is mursal. If that is the case, is there a conflict and contradiction between the authentication of this hadith by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban and the criticism of it by al-Nasa'i due to its being mursal? The answer is yes, because it is known among scholars of hadith terminology that a mursal hadith is a category of weak hadith. So if it is said that a certain hadith is mursal, that is equivalent to them saying it is a weak hadith. And there is no doubt that in that case, it is a weak hadith... The statement of those who say it is an authentic hadith—this is the meaning of the statement of the Hafiz Ibn Hajar, commenting on what he quoted regarding the authentication by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban of a hadith, by saying, "And al-Nasa'i preferred its being mursal." This means that the stronger position is that the hadith is weak and its defect is its being mursal. Here is a hadith issue, and it has a subtlety, and many of those engaged in the science of hadith today do not notice it due to its subtlety. It is this: if this hadith was narrated by some narrators in a connected form, i.e., from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, and by others from 'Ikrimah without mentioning Ibn 'Abbas, here is a rule mentioned on this occasion: the one who mentioned Ibn 'Abbas has brought an addition to the chain compared to the one who did not mention Ibn 'Abbas, i.e., the one who transmitted it as mursal. And it is known among scholars of hadith that the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable. So why was this addition rejected here in this hadith? The Hafiz explicitly stated, quoting from al-Nasa'i, that the stronger position is that it is mursal. Why was the statement of the one who said, "From 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas," not accepted, and this is an addition? The answer is that the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable, but not absolutely. Here is the point of subtlety: the addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted when the one who brought the addition is either equal to 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 the rule "the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable" does not apply. Rather, what applies here is that this addition is shadhdh (anomalous), because a shadhdh hadith is when a trustworthy narrator narrates something that contradicts other trustworthy narrators, or at least contradicts one who is more trustworthy than him. In that case, the addition is not accepted. The addition by a trustworthy narrator is only accepted if the one who added is equal to the one who did not add, or more memorizing than him. But if the one who added is less precise and memorizing than the one who did not add, or fewer in number than those who did not bring the addition, then the addition is judged to be shadhdh, and it is not said that the addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable. And for this reason, we find that many hadiths, when these hadiths are studied with regard to... the men of their chain, all are trustworthy, and it is connected. If this specific chain is studied, it is said to be a valid chain. But if 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: sometimes the hadith comes from the route of a trustworthy among the most trustworthy, with a valid chain to him, and this trustworthy narrator narrates it with a valid chain to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is said of this chain that its chain is valid. But the trustworthy narrator around whom the routes of the hadith revolved, the narrators differed regarding him. The first chain came from him with a valid chain, as we said. Then other chains came, and if you look at the other chains, they reveal that there is a defect in the first chain. This can be illustrated in many ways. Let us say, for example, the Imam al-Zuhri, who is too famous to need mention, 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 valid. But the researcher did not expand his study of this hadith with this chain, and if he does, he finds other trustworthy narrators who participated with the first trustworthy narrator in narrating the hadith from al-Zuhri, but they contradicted him in the chain. They said, for example, "From al-Zuhri from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said," and they did not mention Abu Hurayrah. So is it said here, or do we continue to say that the hadith has a valid chain, considering 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 by mentioning Abu Hurayrah has contradicted the trustworthy narrators who all narrated it from al-Zuhri from Sa'id as mursal? It is said, yes, the narration of the trustworthy narrators here is the stronger one, so the hadith is defective due to its being mursal. This is the reality of the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas. 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 as mursal. For that reason, the Imam al-Nasa'i preferred its being mursal. And after knowing that this hadith is weak due to the defect of being mursal, the difference between the indication of the first valid hadith and the indication of the other weak hadith becomes apparent to us. The first indicates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted the testimony of 'Abdullah, who is known to him for his integrity and truthfulness and the like. Whereas the first hadith accepted the testimony of the Arab man whose chain we do not know... at the time of the testimony. So there is great questioning in this. If the hadith were valid, it would give us a ruling in addition to the first hadith. Therefore, we do not base a ruling on it, but we limit ourselves to deriving the previous ruling from the earlier hadith from the narration of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).