Have you come across the words of some of the scholars of knowledge regarding the one who is judged to have erred when narrations differ by addition or omission?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : All right, here, O Shaykh, may Allah reward you, regarding the disagreement among narrators, where some add and some bring the incomplete narration. If the incomplete narration is the weaker one, is it correct to say that the narrator of the incomplete one is anomalous or has erred? Or is it said that he is anomalous or has erred only if it is the weaker one? Because, in truth, I have not come across, O Shaykh, in al-Daraqutni's book of 'Ilal or other books of 'Ilal, the attribution of error to the narrator of the incomplete narration, except in one place I saw by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar. I do not remember if he narrated it in al-Takhlees or elsewhere, where he judged the narrator of the mawquf report to have erred, because the group narrated it as marfu'. That is the only place I remember. So, have you come across, O Shaykh, in the words of the scholars, such a judgment on the narrator of the incomplete narration?
The Shaykh : I have not come across it, but I believe that, as a principle and a rule, it is not unlikely that one who shortens the narration of a hadith from the trustworthy others and contradicts them is attributed to error, even if only occasionally. I want this qualification to mean that the example you mentioned is not applicable. What you mentioned means that so-and-so stopped the hadith at the level of the previous subject; he stopped it, but that is not an error, rather it is due to circumstances that surrounded him.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But what if the anomaly or contradiction is from the trustworthy narrator, where he narrated the hadith inverted, or narrated the hadith in a way that is incomplete and corrupts the meaning? Is it not incumbent upon us to say that he erred?
The questioner : It is not permissible for me except to attribute error to him.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : Yes, this is what is intended by your saying "occasionally."
The Shaykh : Yes, that is it. So it is necessary to note that it is possible to attribute error to a trustworthy person occasionally because of his contradiction of one who is more trustworthy than him. Perhaps you remember the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or said "a hundred years." The point is the qualification "of those who are on its surface today."
The questioner : Is it Ibn 'Umar, O Shaykh, or did you say 'Umar?
The Shaykh : Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Umar. The point is the qualification "of those who are on its surface today." I found authentic narrations without this qualification, and that caused difficulty for some people. They said, "It is easy; we are in the fifteenth century." There is no doubt that those who narrated this hadith without this qualification are trustworthy, and they erred.
The questioner : They erred, yes, even though they shortened it, and they were in error if the shortening results in something regarding the meaning.
The Shaykh : Corrupting the meaning, yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you, what Allah willed, praise be to Allah. May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : I have not come across it, but I believe that, as a principle and a rule, it is not unlikely that one who shortens the narration of a hadith from the trustworthy others and contradicts them is attributed to error, even if only occasionally. I want this qualification to mean that the example you mentioned is not applicable. What you mentioned means that so-and-so stopped the hadith at the level of the previous subject; he stopped it, but that is not an error, rather it is due to circumstances that surrounded him.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But what if the anomaly or contradiction is from the trustworthy narrator, where he narrated the hadith inverted, or narrated the hadith in a way that is incomplete and corrupts the meaning? Is it not incumbent upon us to say that he erred?
The questioner : It is not permissible for me except to attribute error to him.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : Yes, this is what is intended by your saying "occasionally."
The Shaykh : Yes, that is it. So it is necessary to note that it is possible to attribute error to a trustworthy person occasionally because of his contradiction of one who is more trustworthy than him. Perhaps you remember the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
He delivered a sermon to them one night after the 'Isha' prayer and said to them, "Do you see this night of yours? Indeed, no one who is on the surface of the earth today will remain after a hundred years."
خطبهم ليلة بعد صلاة العشاء وقال لهم أرأيتكم ليلتكم هذه إنه لا يبقى على وجه الأرض ممن هو على ظهرها اليوم أحد بعد مائة سنةThe questioner : Is it Ibn 'Umar, O Shaykh, or did you say 'Umar?
The Shaykh : Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Umar. The point is the qualification "of those who are on its surface today." I found authentic narrations without this qualification, and that caused difficulty for some people. They said, "It is easy; we are in the fifteenth century." There is no doubt that those who narrated this hadith without this qualification are trustworthy, and they erred.
The questioner : They erred, yes, even though they shortened it, and they were in error if the shortening results in something regarding the meaning.
The Shaykh : Corrupting the meaning, yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you, what Allah willed, praise be to Allah. May Allah preserve you.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.