What is the stronger position regarding the issue of shadhdh (anomalous narration) and the addition by a trustworthy narrator?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O our Shaykh (may Allah preserve him), regarding the issue of shadhdh (anomalous narration) and the addition by a trustworthy narrator, much has been said by many students of knowledge. Some say that an addition is not judged as shadhdh (anomalous) unless it is impossible to reconcile it with the original text, absolutely, whether in terms of the general and specific, or the unrestricted and restricted. Others say that if a narrator merely adds something that one who is more numerous or more memorizing than him did not report, this constitutes a contradiction and conflict that results in the ruling of shadhdh (anomalous). What is the stronger position in this issue?
The Shaykh : Yes, what we have understood is that the stronger position among the scholars of knowledge, and the one we follow, is that the addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted if there is no one who is stronger in memorization or more numerous than him. You will find this addition is accepted with this condition, not absolutely, as is the view of some jurists of principles. And what you mentioned regarding the necessity of reconciliation: this is if reconciliation is feasible and possible, such that it does not require disparaging the memorization of the narrators who differ from that trustworthy narrator. In that case, one proceeds to that reconciliation, and there is no harm in it. It may be useful for me to mention an example from what was criticized regarding what was mentioned earlier. There is a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud and others, narrated by Faleh ibn Sulayman. Although he is one of the narrators of al-Bukhari, they spoke about him regarding his memorization. This is among the things they narrated: Abu Humayd al-Sa'idi was in a gathering with about ten of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said to them, "Shall I show you the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?" They said, "You are not the most knowledgeable of us about his prayer." He said to them, "Yes, I am." They said to him, "Then show it." He began to describe and convey to them the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When he mentioned that he (peace and blessings be upon him) bowed, the hadith came in two narrations. Here is the point: there is no doubt among critics about the correctness of half of the narration; the doubt is only in the second half. It states that when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) bowed, he placed his hands firmly on his knees and straightened his back, such that if a cup of water were placed on it, it would remain stable. He rejects this addition and attributes it to the singularity of Faleh, criticizing it due to the singularity of Faleh. But I say, from the jurisprudential aspect before the hadith aspect, that this addition does not contradict the added-to text, but rather clarifies the meaning for some non-Arabs, or even if they were Arabs, that this addition does not add to the meaning of the added-to text. His saying that he (peace and blessings be upon him) placed his hands firmly on his knees and straightened his back, of course, we say, "even if a cup of water were placed on it, it would remain stable," because this—yes, it is in two narrations, may Allah reward you—if water were poured without a cup, and also in the cup, yes, and this is closer to the meaning, because water has a flowing force. So such an addition is not rejected from Faleh because it does not contradict the added-to text, due to this clear reason. Yes, yes. But the most amazing thing is that the hadith came in Sahih al-Bukhari with the wording "he pressed his back" (hasara hasara). The meaning of "he pressed his back" (with the haa, sad, and ra) is that he straightened it. So, as we say in Syria, "All roads lead to the mill," whether with this wording or that wording, the meaning is agreed upon and correct. So what about this criticism? I say this criticism arose for two reasons. First, ignorance of the science of hadith and its principles and rules. And I say, with my long experience, it is not sufficient for a student of knowledge to be strong in the science of hadith; rather, he should also be a jurist in the science of hadith itself. It should not be as is reported from some that he said, "You are the pharmacists and we are the doctors." It is not necessary for this pharmacist to be the doctor himself. I mean, the pharmacists here are the people of hadith, and the jurists are the doctors. The reality is that it is obligatory for one who engages in the science of hadith to be a jurist, because jurisprudence helps him to understand what kind of addition this is: is it an addition that contradicts the added-to text, or does it not contradict it? Therefore, I say, and I repeat what I said at the beginning of my answer: the addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted if there is no one who is more trustworthy, more memorizing, or more numerous than him, or if the addition does not contradict the added-to text. And this is the example before you.
The questioner : So, to clarify this point?
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : The intention is that if the addition does not contradict the added-to text, meaning if the addition clarifies the added-to text or explains it without adding to the meaning, or if the addition can be reconciled with the added-to text, as for example, Malik added in a narration of the hadith "from the Muslims," then this is an addition that does not contradict in a way that results in the removal of the original text.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : But it is restricted.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : So, is such an addition, and there are scholars who have supporting narrations for Malik and defended him in this addition, but is such an addition in the hadith "from the Muslims"?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, the matter returns to the addition not adding to the meaning... May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : Yes, what we have understood is that the stronger position among the scholars of knowledge, and the one we follow, is that the addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted if there is no one who is stronger in memorization or more numerous than him. You will find this addition is accepted with this condition, not absolutely, as is the view of some jurists of principles. And what you mentioned regarding the necessity of reconciliation: this is if reconciliation is feasible and possible, such that it does not require disparaging the memorization of the narrators who differ from that trustworthy narrator. In that case, one proceeds to that reconciliation, and there is no harm in it. It may be useful for me to mention an example from what was criticized regarding what was mentioned earlier. There is a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud and others, narrated by Faleh ibn Sulayman. Although he is one of the narrators of al-Bukhari, they spoke about him regarding his memorization. This is among the things they narrated: Abu Humayd al-Sa'idi was in a gathering with about ten of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said to them, "Shall I show you the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?" They said, "You are not the most knowledgeable of us about his prayer." He said to them, "Yes, I am." They said to him, "Then show it." He began to describe and convey to them the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When he mentioned that he (peace and blessings be upon him) bowed, the hadith came in two narrations. Here is the point: there is no doubt among critics about the correctness of half of the narration; the doubt is only in the second half. It states that when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) bowed, he placed his hands firmly on his knees and straightened his back, such that if a cup of water were placed on it, it would remain stable. He rejects this addition and attributes it to the singularity of Faleh, criticizing it due to the singularity of Faleh. But I say, from the jurisprudential aspect before the hadith aspect, that this addition does not contradict the added-to text, but rather clarifies the meaning for some non-Arabs, or even if they were Arabs, that this addition does not add to the meaning of the added-to text. His saying that he (peace and blessings be upon him) placed his hands firmly on his knees and straightened his back, of course, we say, "even if a cup of water were placed on it, it would remain stable," because this—yes, it is in two narrations, may Allah reward you—if water were poured without a cup, and also in the cup, yes, and this is closer to the meaning, because water has a flowing force. So such an addition is not rejected from Faleh because it does not contradict the added-to text, due to this clear reason. Yes, yes. But the most amazing thing is that the hadith came in Sahih al-Bukhari with the wording "he pressed his back" (hasara hasara). The meaning of "he pressed his back" (with the haa, sad, and ra) is that he straightened it. So, as we say in Syria, "All roads lead to the mill," whether with this wording or that wording, the meaning is agreed upon and correct. So what about this criticism? I say this criticism arose for two reasons. First, ignorance of the science of hadith and its principles and rules. And I say, with my long experience, it is not sufficient for a student of knowledge to be strong in the science of hadith; rather, he should also be a jurist in the science of hadith itself. It should not be as is reported from some that he said, "You are the pharmacists and we are the doctors." It is not necessary for this pharmacist to be the doctor himself. I mean, the pharmacists here are the people of hadith, and the jurists are the doctors. The reality is that it is obligatory for one who engages in the science of hadith to be a jurist, because jurisprudence helps him to understand what kind of addition this is: is it an addition that contradicts the added-to text, or does it not contradict it? Therefore, I say, and I repeat what I said at the beginning of my answer: the addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted if there is no one who is more trustworthy, more memorizing, or more numerous than him, or if the addition does not contradict the added-to text. And this is the example before you.
The questioner : So, to clarify this point?
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : The intention is that if the addition does not contradict the added-to text, meaning if the addition clarifies the added-to text or explains it without adding to the meaning, or if the addition can be reconciled with the added-to text, as for example, Malik added in a narration of the hadith "from the Muslims," then this is an addition that does not contradict in a way that results in the removal of the original text.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : But it is restricted.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : So, is such an addition, and there are scholars who have supporting narrations for Malik and defended him in this addition, but is such an addition in the hadith "from the Muslims"?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, the matter returns to the addition not adding to the meaning... May Allah reward you with good.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.