Is it a condition for a narration to be classified as *munkar* that the point of divergence be the same?

The questioner : I saw in the book *Al-Irwaa'* a hadith that came through the route of two Companions. In one of the two routes, there is a weak man who contradicted an authentic hadith; his narration contradicted an authentic hadith, and you ruled it as *munkar*. So, is it not a condition for *munkar* that the point of divergence be the same? Or can one rule it as *munkar* even if the point of divergence differs?

The Shaykh : I did not understand. You are saying another hadith.

The questioner : I mean another hadith. That is, a hadith that came through the route of a Companion, and there is a weak man in its chain, and the text of this hadith contradicts the text of another authentic hadith that came through the route of another Companion. So you ruled this weak narration as *munkar*. You did not settle for saying that its chain is weak. What appeared to me previously was that the ruling of *munkar* or *shudhdh* applies only when the point of divergence is the same. As for when the point of divergence differs, I thought one would say its chain is weak, and we have the authentic one which we accept and reject this one. But I saw you describing it as *munkar*. So, is the ruling of *munkar* applied when the point of divergence is the same, and also when the point of divergence differs?

The Shaykh : Do you have an example in mind?

The questioner : Well, this is in *Al-Irwaa'*, in the fourth volume.

The Shaykh : No, no, an example in the text.

The questioner : No, I only wrote the location in *Al-Irwaa'*.

The Shaykh : Because I am afraid I may not have grasped your words, but I am circling around what I may have understood. For example, during my *takhrij* of a hadith, if a narrator narrated a text and no one else joined him in it, I call the hadith a *munkar* hadith.

The questioner : Meaning the narrator is weak.

The Shaykh : Yes. So if this is the answer to what I said, then this is the answer. But I am afraid I did not understand this, and that is why...

The questioner : If the hadith is, for example, an authentic hadith from Jabir, and the hadith came from Abu Musa contradicting this authentic hadith, and there is a weak man in Abu Musa's narration, and there is a weak man in the chain of Abu Musa's hadith, is the narrator of Abu Musa's hadith ruled as *munkar* because its text contradicts the text of Jabir's hadith?

The Shaykh : First, Abu Musa's hadith is the one with the weak man; it is the one with a weak man in its chain.

The questioner : And its text contradicts Jabir's authentic hadith, for example. So is Abu Musa's hadith ruled as *munkar*, or is it sufficient to classify it as weak?

The Shaykh : Aren't you saying there is an addition?

The questioner : No, it is another hadith, but its text, in terms of the combined meaning, contradicts it in the legal ruling?

The Shaykh : How, my brother? Another hadith means another chain.

The questioner : Another chain.

The Shaykh : And not another text.

The questioner : And its text establishes a ruling, while Jabir's hadith negates it, for example. If you wish, I will bring *Al-Irwaa'* and read the example.

The Shaykh : Yes, that would be clearer.

The questioner : In the fourth volume of *Al-Irwaa'*, there is the hadith of Abu Dharr from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who said: It is *munkar* with this addition. Ahmad narrated it through Ibn Lahi'ah from Ibn Ghaylan from Sulayman ibn Abi Uthman from 'Uday ibn Hazm al-Himshi from Abu Dharr with it. I said, you said, I said, and this is a weak chain. Ibn Lahi'ah is weak, and the hadith is not from the narration of either of the two 'Abdullahs from him. And Sulayman ibn Abi Uthman is unknown; perhaps he does not belong to the group. So he said in *Majma' al-Zawa'id*: "In it is Sulayman ibn Abi Uthman, and Abu Hatim said he is unknown, and his omission from Ibn Lahi'ah is not good." And I only said that the hadith is *munkar* because many hadiths with its meaning have come, in which delaying the pre-dawn meal is not mentioned. The most authentic of them is the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd, elevated to the Prophet, with the wording: and so on. So the point is that Abu Dharr's hadith...The Shaykh : The answer is now written before you.

The questioner : But my question, which I asked, is whether it is ruled as *munkar* with a difference in the point of divergence.

The Shaykh : Look at what is said here.

The questioner : It is *munkar* with this addition.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : Meaning the addition in it is *munkar*.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : It is ruled as *munkar* with a difference in the point of divergence.

The Shaykh : What is the *munkar* hadith, may Allah reward you?

The questioner : The *munkar* hadith is the narration of the weak man.

The Shaykh : That in which he contradicted the trustworthy one.

The questioner : In my understanding, with the same point of divergence, if it is from one Companion or the point of divergence is one man who is weak, and he added the addition, and the trustworthy ones do not narrate it, and he is less trustworthy than them, it is called *munkar*.

The Shaykh : Well, and with contradiction, with a difference in the point of divergence, what is said?

The questioner : I used to think it was only that.

The Shaykh : Oh, professor, you and I, we are all by our own desires. People say, meaning, I might be wrong, you might be wrong. The important thing is... it is not important that we intend... we all seek the truth wherever it is. So now you say that you used to think so and so, it is not important. But I believe, just now, when I gave the cautious answer and attributed to myself that I perhaps did not understand you, the truth is I gave you the answer now and clarified it completely—and peace be upon you—that when I said that cautious answer, I said that when I extract the hadith and find a weak man in its chain, I describe the hadith as a *munkar* hadith because the weak man narrated it alone. Now, may Allah reward you, if the weak man narrated an addition alone that contradicts all the routes, which is closer to being called *munkar*?

The questioner : The second one.

The Shaykh : The second one. So I gave you the answer a fortiori.

The questioner : May Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : And you. Perhaps it is clear, if Allah wills.

The questioner : You clarified your words to me, you clarified your words to me.

The Shaykh : Later, and the issue certainly is not that I am giving my opinion selfishly.The questioner : No, if Allah wills, I will say it in my heart.

The Shaykh : I mean, I want to say, do not be a buyer who is also a seller.The questioner : If Allah wills, if I have something, I will sell it, but...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, may Allah reward you.

The questioner : But it became clear to me now, may Allah preserve you, that the ruling of *munkar* does not require the same point of divergence.

The Shaykh : I think the opposite, if the point of divergence differs.

The questioner : Mere contradiction, that the weak man contradicts the trustworthy one or the acceptable one generally, then it is *munkar*. And there is something even stronger than that in the case of sole narration.

The Shaykh : This is it, and I remind you, perhaps you know from the madhhab of Imam Ahmad that he says about a hadith that a weak man narrated alone that it is *munkar*.

The questioner : Weak.

The Shaykh : Yes, a weak man narrated it alone, he says in it: a *munkar* hadith. And I remember an example of that, the famous hadith: Do you remember this hadith?

The questioner : Yes, wudu before eating.

The Shaykh : Imam Ahmad says about the hadith "From the blessing of food is wudu before it and after it" that it is a *munkar* hadith, narrated alone by Qays ibn al-Rabi'. Yes!