Explanation of the weakness of the addition "You do not break Your promise" in the supplication recited after the mu'adhdhin finishes.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Students of knowledge in general, and students of the terminology of hadith in particular, let us give an example to understand this statement. It is said in a certain hadith narrated by so-and-so and so-and-so, "Its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari." That is, this hadith in its entirety is not in Sahih al-Bukhari; rather, its original, meaning a portion of it, and especially the majority of its beginning, is in Sahih al-Bukhari. As for it in its entirety, it is with the one to whom the hadith is attributed in its complete form, but its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari. Let us give a clarifying example that alerts many people who do not care about performing the prescribed adhkar and invocations that came from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). They do not care to recite them as they came, without addition or omission. It is well known of these people that when they are reminded that there is an addition in the narration, the dhikr, or the supplication that is not established, they say to you, "My brother, what is wrong with an addition? An addition of good is good." An example of this is something many people fall into. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said, and the hadith is in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sahih al-Bukhari 614 This is how the hadith is in Sahih al-Bukhari. And this is how the hadith is in other than one book of the books of Imam al-Bukhari, for example, the book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad* (The Creation of the Actions of Servants) by Imam al-Bukhari. This hadith came in *Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra* and through the route of Imam al-Bukhari with an addition at the end of the supplication, which is: Muwatta Malik 20:132 So you hear people today adhering to this addition to the extent that hardly anyone stops at his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: Sunan an-Nasa'i 680Sahih (Darussalam) They do not stop here, but they add "You do not break Your promise." If we want to say in tracing this hadith: "Imam al-Bayhaqi narrated it in his Sunan, and its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari," this is its example. That is, the addition Muwatta Malik 20:132 does not exist in Sahih al-Bukhari. And based on that, infer and understand this phrase that the questioner quoted from al-Hafiz al-Iraqi.
The questioner : Meaning the addition is anomalous...
The Shaykh : The addition is anomalous, and we have evidence for that which we discussed in detail, I think, in *Irwa' al-Ghalil*. But what comes to my mind as I answer this question is that the hadith, as you heard just now, was narrated by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, and he also narrated it in the book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. Why did I mention the book *Af'al al-'Ibad*, which is not part of the Sahih, and in which he narrates what is authentic and what is not authentic, like his other books in which he did not commit to authenticity, such as his famous book *Al-Adab al-Mufrad* by Imam al-Bukhari, in which he narrates what is authentic and what is not authentic? Why did I mention it in conjunction with my statement "al-Bukhari narrated it in his Sahih and also in the book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*"? To draw attention to the fact that in both books, the hadith did not come with this addition that al-Bayhaqi narrated in his Sunan through the route of al-Bukhari himself, or perhaps I am now correcting myself, through the route of al-Bukhari's sheikh. Al-Bukhari's narration of this hadith in his two books is without the addition. That is one of the evidences that this addition is not established. It is narrated in *Sunan al-Bayhaqi*, but it is anomalous because al-Bukhari in his two books, and because Imam Ahmad also narrated this hadith without the addition, and many narrators or imams extracted the hadith as it came in Sahih al-Bukhari and in *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. So the hadith is valid without the addition. If the one who mentions the hadith with the addition and attributes it to al-Bayhaqi, he may say "Its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari," meaning that this hadith exists in Sahih al-Bukhari, but not in this completeness. This is what a person says when the men do not help him to detail the speech. But the truth, and the truth must be said, is that such a statement is not narrated and does not satisfy. It is not enough to say "Its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari," which indicates the speaker's intention. Therefore, clarification drives away the Shaytan. Instead of saying "Its original is in al-Bukhari," he says "It is in Sahih al-Bukhari without this addition." This is clearer and further from confusion and from misunderstanding the words of this Imam who says "So-and-so narrated it, and its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari." The better option is to be explicit rather than to hint. And on this occasion, I point to an example similar to this, and students of knowledge should know it and understand it.
Whoever after listening to the Adhan says, 'Allahumma Rabba hadhihi-dda` watit-tammah, was-salatil qa'imah, ati Muhammadan al-wasilata wal-fadilah, wa b`ath-hu maqaman mahmudan-il-ladhi wa`adtahu' [O Allah! Lord of this perfect call (perfect by not ascribing partners to You) and of the regular prayer which is going to be established, give Muhammad the right of intercession and illustriousness, and resurrect him to the best and the highest place in Paradise that You promised him (of)], then my intercession for him will be allowed on the Day of Resurrection
من قال حين يسمع النداء اللهم رب هذه الدعوة التامة والصلاة القائمة آت محمدا الوسيلة والفضيلة وابعثه مقاما محمودا الذي وعدته حلت له شفاعتي يوم القيامةYou do not break Your promise
إنك لا تخلف الميعادand resurrect him to the praised position that you have promised
وابعثه المقام المحمود الذي وعدتهYou do not break Your promise
إنك لا تخلف الميعادThe questioner : Meaning the addition is anomalous...
The Shaykh : The addition is anomalous, and we have evidence for that which we discussed in detail, I think, in *Irwa' al-Ghalil*. But what comes to my mind as I answer this question is that the hadith, as you heard just now, was narrated by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, and he also narrated it in the book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. Why did I mention the book *Af'al al-'Ibad*, which is not part of the Sahih, and in which he narrates what is authentic and what is not authentic, like his other books in which he did not commit to authenticity, such as his famous book *Al-Adab al-Mufrad* by Imam al-Bukhari, in which he narrates what is authentic and what is not authentic? Why did I mention it in conjunction with my statement "al-Bukhari narrated it in his Sahih and also in the book *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*"? To draw attention to the fact that in both books, the hadith did not come with this addition that al-Bayhaqi narrated in his Sunan through the route of al-Bukhari himself, or perhaps I am now correcting myself, through the route of al-Bukhari's sheikh. Al-Bukhari's narration of this hadith in his two books is without the addition. That is one of the evidences that this addition is not established. It is narrated in *Sunan al-Bayhaqi*, but it is anomalous because al-Bukhari in his two books, and because Imam Ahmad also narrated this hadith without the addition, and many narrators or imams extracted the hadith as it came in Sahih al-Bukhari and in *Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad*. So the hadith is valid without the addition. If the one who mentions the hadith with the addition and attributes it to al-Bayhaqi, he may say "Its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari," meaning that this hadith exists in Sahih al-Bukhari, but not in this completeness. This is what a person says when the men do not help him to detail the speech. But the truth, and the truth must be said, is that such a statement is not narrated and does not satisfy. It is not enough to say "Its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari," which indicates the speaker's intention. Therefore, clarification drives away the Shaytan. Instead of saying "Its original is in al-Bukhari," he says "It is in Sahih al-Bukhari without this addition." This is clearer and further from confusion and from misunderstanding the words of this Imam who says "So-and-so narrated it, and its original is in Sahih al-Bukhari." The better option is to be explicit rather than to hint. And on this occasion, I point to an example similar to this, and students of knowledge should know it and understand it.