Is it possible to cite a narrator in one part of his narration and be mistaken in another part of his narration?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Also, my Shaykh, from the issues of 'illah (defects), this is an issue I researched in al-Daraqutni's book on 'illah. Sometimes there is a discrepancy in a hadith. Suppose a trustworthy narrator narrated it from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, marfu' (traced to the Prophet) (peace and blessings be upon him), with a certain text. Then another trustworthy narrator narrated it from Abu Hurayrah, also from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but added something to it, contradicting the one who narrated it before.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, he added to the text.
The questioner : That is, he added to the text. Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : And suppose the first narrators in the first narration are more numerous than this contradicting one. Considering the application of the rules, this addition contradicts the narration of the more trustworthy ones. But if we see, my Shaykh, that a third person came and narrated the same hadith from the same source, but attributed it to the musnad of Ibn 'Umar rather than the musnad of Abu Hurayrah. I see that Imam al-Daraqutni looks at this narrator who deviated in one part and agreed with the trustworthy ones in another part, and counts him as strengthening the narration from the musnad of Abu Hurayrah, and rejects, in all cases, the one who narrated it from the musnad of Ibn 'Umar. Even if this man contradicted in some parts, he was cited in other parts. Is this usage correct?
The Shaykh : I mean, may Allah bless you, that he considers the hadith of Ibn 'Umar as a corroborating narration (shahid) for the trustworthy one, due to the addition of the trustworthy one who contradicted the trustworthy ones.
The questioner : No, that is not what I mean, may Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Then.
The questioner : But I mean the trustworthy one who narrated it from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah also agreed with the trustworthy ones in attributing it to the musnad of Abu Hurayrah.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And he contradicted them in an addition to the text.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So in the textual aspect, he deviated.
The Shaykh : He deviated.
The questioner : But another trustworthy one came and narrated it, attributing it to the musnad of Ibn 'Umar.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : So Imam al-Daraqutni says, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and counts this one who deviated in the addition to the text among those who narrated it from Abu Hurayrah as more trustworthy than so-and-so who attributed it to the musnad of Ibn 'Umar. I understood from that that a narrator may be mistaken in one part of his narration and be cited for others in another part of his narration. Is my question clear?
The Shaykh : It is not clear to me.
The questioner : I refer to the example.
The Shaykh : Does anything become clear to you?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : It is, my Shaykh, the point you are making has no problem.
The Shaykh : No, it's fine, but let's understand it.
Another questioner : He says, my Shaykh, that there is a group of narrators who narrated a hadith from Ibn 'Umar.
The Shaykh : No, from Abu Hurayrah here.
Another questioner : From Abu Hurayrah.
The Shaykh : Okay.
Another questioner : So another narrator came and narrated the same hadith from Abu Hurayrah, but he contradicted them in the text and agreed with them in the chain. This is where the problem lies for him: he agreed with them in the chain by attributing it to Abu Hurayrah, and contradicted them in the text by adding to it. Now another narrator came and contradicted them in the chain by attributing it to Ibn 'Umar, from Ibn 'Umar. So what does he say? He now counts that narrator who added to the text among the factors strengthening the case against the mistake of the one who mentioned Ibn 'Umar. And at the same time, he was mistaken in the addition to the text, so he was cited for the establishment of the chain or for the agreement in the isnad, and he contradicted in the textual addition.
The Shaykh : I would have liked Abu al-Hasan to say that this is his intention.
The questioner : That this is it.
The Shaykh : That this is his intention.
The questioner : I will bring the example.
The Shaykh : Look, Abu al-Hasan.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : As I understood now from our brother, if we elevate the narration of the single trustworthy one who contradicted the trustworthy ones in the text and agreed with them in the isnad of the hadith to Abu Hurayrah, if we elevate this trustworthy one and consider him as nothing.
The questioner : As void.
The Shaykh : As void. Well, what is al-Daraqutni's position regarding the other trustworthy one who narrated the hadith, instead of attributing it to Abu Hurayrah, attributed it to Ibn 'Umar?
The questioner : He prioritizes the narration of the group.
The Shaykh : He prioritizes the narration of the group.
The questioner : It is, it is.
The Shaykh : Well, so what did he do here?
The questioner : I mean, if he is void, then prioritizing the narration of the group is better. So his presence, if it benefits, is fine, and if not, it does no harm.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : Well, can I read you the example from al-Fath?
The Shaykh : It is clear.
The questioner : What Allah willed.
The Shaykh : Please, the example.
The questioner : If Allah wills, or I will leave it because it will take time, and praise be to Allah, the matter regarding Abu Ayyub has become clear to me from the answer.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : May Allah bless you and preserve you from all evil.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, he added to the text.
The questioner : That is, he added to the text. Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : And suppose the first narrators in the first narration are more numerous than this contradicting one. Considering the application of the rules, this addition contradicts the narration of the more trustworthy ones. But if we see, my Shaykh, that a third person came and narrated the same hadith from the same source, but attributed it to the musnad of Ibn 'Umar rather than the musnad of Abu Hurayrah. I see that Imam al-Daraqutni looks at this narrator who deviated in one part and agreed with the trustworthy ones in another part, and counts him as strengthening the narration from the musnad of Abu Hurayrah, and rejects, in all cases, the one who narrated it from the musnad of Ibn 'Umar. Even if this man contradicted in some parts, he was cited in other parts. Is this usage correct?
The Shaykh : I mean, may Allah bless you, that he considers the hadith of Ibn 'Umar as a corroborating narration (shahid) for the trustworthy one, due to the addition of the trustworthy one who contradicted the trustworthy ones.
The questioner : No, that is not what I mean, may Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Then.
The questioner : But I mean the trustworthy one who narrated it from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah also agreed with the trustworthy ones in attributing it to the musnad of Abu Hurayrah.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And he contradicted them in an addition to the text.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So in the textual aspect, he deviated.
The Shaykh : He deviated.
The questioner : But another trustworthy one came and narrated it, attributing it to the musnad of Ibn 'Umar.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : So Imam al-Daraqutni says, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and counts this one who deviated in the addition to the text among those who narrated it from Abu Hurayrah as more trustworthy than so-and-so who attributed it to the musnad of Ibn 'Umar. I understood from that that a narrator may be mistaken in one part of his narration and be cited for others in another part of his narration. Is my question clear?
The Shaykh : It is not clear to me.
The questioner : I refer to the example.
The Shaykh : Does anything become clear to you?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : It is, my Shaykh, the point you are making has no problem.
The Shaykh : No, it's fine, but let's understand it.
Another questioner : He says, my Shaykh, that there is a group of narrators who narrated a hadith from Ibn 'Umar.
The Shaykh : No, from Abu Hurayrah here.
Another questioner : From Abu Hurayrah.
The Shaykh : Okay.
Another questioner : So another narrator came and narrated the same hadith from Abu Hurayrah, but he contradicted them in the text and agreed with them in the chain. This is where the problem lies for him: he agreed with them in the chain by attributing it to Abu Hurayrah, and contradicted them in the text by adding to it. Now another narrator came and contradicted them in the chain by attributing it to Ibn 'Umar, from Ibn 'Umar. So what does he say? He now counts that narrator who added to the text among the factors strengthening the case against the mistake of the one who mentioned Ibn 'Umar. And at the same time, he was mistaken in the addition to the text, so he was cited for the establishment of the chain or for the agreement in the isnad, and he contradicted in the textual addition.
The Shaykh : I would have liked Abu al-Hasan to say that this is his intention.
The questioner : That this is it.
The Shaykh : That this is his intention.
The questioner : I will bring the example.
The Shaykh : Look, Abu al-Hasan.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : As I understood now from our brother, if we elevate the narration of the single trustworthy one who contradicted the trustworthy ones in the text and agreed with them in the isnad of the hadith to Abu Hurayrah, if we elevate this trustworthy one and consider him as nothing.
The questioner : As void.
The Shaykh : As void. Well, what is al-Daraqutni's position regarding the other trustworthy one who narrated the hadith, instead of attributing it to Abu Hurayrah, attributed it to Ibn 'Umar?
The questioner : He prioritizes the narration of the group.
The Shaykh : He prioritizes the narration of the group.
The questioner : It is, it is.
The Shaykh : Well, so what did he do here?
The questioner : I mean, if he is void, then prioritizing the narration of the group is better. So his presence, if it benefits, is fine, and if not, it does no harm.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : Well, can I read you the example from al-Fath?
The Shaykh : It is clear.
The questioner : What Allah willed.
The Shaykh : Please, the example.
The questioner : If Allah wills, or I will leave it because it will take time, and praise be to Allah, the matter regarding Abu Ayyub has become clear to me from the answer.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : May Allah bless you and preserve you from all evil.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.