Is there a difference between the hadiths of pointing and the hadiths of moving the finger in the tashahhud?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The way to reconcile them is that he does this at times and that at other times.
The Shaykh : The word "pointing" from the Arabic perspective does not contradict moving the finger; his expression may have been general.
The questioner:...
The Shaykh : It may have been so, and this is the difference between the general and the specific, which is found in the Qur'an, meaning...
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : This is a second point of discussion, so... Thus, there is no contradiction between the two expressions. If the text explicitly stated that he pointed without moving it, or if even one hadith came with a text stating that he pointed without moving it, then your question would arise.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : But since the hadiths that mention pointing do not negate what came in the first hadith, the hadith of Wail, the pointing is a general expression. It could be like this, or like this, or like this; all of this is called pointing. However, I do not know for certain whether he moved it or not in conveying the meaning witnessed from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) by that Yemeni Arab, Wail ibn Hujr. But there is no authentic hadith that states he did not move it. This is explicit in the reconciliation. I say: If there were no hadith stating that he pointed, and there was a hadith stating he did not move it, alongside a hadith where you saw him moving it, then we would not suspend the hadith of moving due to the hadith negating moving. Rather, we would weigh the hadith of moving against the hadith of not moving. If the hadith of not moving was narrated by a group of Companions, then we would say with certainty: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not always move it. So we move it sometimes in accordance with this hadith, and we do not move it sometimes in accordance with those hadiths. But if one hadith affirms it and another negates it, we do not say: We do it sometimes and leave it sometimes, because it is possible that the one who negated it did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) moving it. This is different from the case where a group of Companions agreed on negating the moving, in which case we would not consider it possible that they did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). We do not exclude the moving because that is the affirmed one. We move it, but we do not move it sometimes. From this, the scholars say: The affirming is preferred over the negating. The affirming is preferred over the negating in a specific detail. For example, did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) pray inside the Ka'bah or not? He entered Mecca only once during the Farewell Pilgrimage (peace and blessings be upon him); he did not perform Hajj except once. One Companion says: He entered the inside of the Ka'bah and prayed. Another says: No, he did not pray inside the Ka'bah; he prayed outside it. We must take the report of the one who affirmed. But if it is a repeated act of worship and a group of Companions say: He did not move it. Then we must give weight to this negation and be certain of this negation because it is from a group. So what is the value or fruit of this negation? It means that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do that constantly.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : On the condition of your statement...
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : ... One says he moved it and the other says he did not move it, we prefer... But if the one who said he did not move it was with a large group, we cannot say that the group did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It means they saw the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) not moving it. So we reconcile the affirming and the negating... We say the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not always do it this way... There are many hadiths from a large group of Companions that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to... When one of them mentions the qunut... Because if he used to make qunut constantly, they would have narrated that he made qunut like this. We say if there is a large group negating that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) moved it, and in an expression that allows for moving, then we say: Certainly the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes did not move it, and sometimes he moved it. So we act upon both the negating narrations and the affirming narration.
The Shaykh : The word "pointing" from the Arabic perspective does not contradict moving the finger; his expression may have been general.
The questioner:...
The Shaykh : It may have been so, and this is the difference between the general and the specific, which is found in the Qur'an, meaning...
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : This is a second point of discussion, so... Thus, there is no contradiction between the two expressions. If the text explicitly stated that he pointed without moving it, or if even one hadith came with a text stating that he pointed without moving it, then your question would arise.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : But since the hadiths that mention pointing do not negate what came in the first hadith, the hadith of Wail, the pointing is a general expression. It could be like this, or like this, or like this; all of this is called pointing. However, I do not know for certain whether he moved it or not in conveying the meaning witnessed from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) by that Yemeni Arab, Wail ibn Hujr. But there is no authentic hadith that states he did not move it. This is explicit in the reconciliation. I say: If there were no hadith stating that he pointed, and there was a hadith stating he did not move it, alongside a hadith where you saw him moving it, then we would not suspend the hadith of moving due to the hadith negating moving. Rather, we would weigh the hadith of moving against the hadith of not moving. If the hadith of not moving was narrated by a group of Companions, then we would say with certainty: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not always move it. So we move it sometimes in accordance with this hadith, and we do not move it sometimes in accordance with those hadiths. But if one hadith affirms it and another negates it, we do not say: We do it sometimes and leave it sometimes, because it is possible that the one who negated it did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) moving it. This is different from the case where a group of Companions agreed on negating the moving, in which case we would not consider it possible that they did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). We do not exclude the moving because that is the affirmed one. We move it, but we do not move it sometimes. From this, the scholars say: The affirming is preferred over the negating. The affirming is preferred over the negating in a specific detail. For example, did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) pray inside the Ka'bah or not? He entered Mecca only once during the Farewell Pilgrimage (peace and blessings be upon him); he did not perform Hajj except once. One Companion says: He entered the inside of the Ka'bah and prayed. Another says: No, he did not pray inside the Ka'bah; he prayed outside it. We must take the report of the one who affirmed. But if it is a repeated act of worship and a group of Companions say: He did not move it. Then we must give weight to this negation and be certain of this negation because it is from a group. So what is the value or fruit of this negation? It means that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do that constantly.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : On the condition of your statement...
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : ... One says he moved it and the other says he did not move it, we prefer... But if the one who said he did not move it was with a large group, we cannot say that the group did not see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It means they saw the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) not moving it. So we reconcile the affirming and the negating... We say the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not always do it this way... There are many hadiths from a large group of Companions that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to... When one of them mentions the qunut... Because if he used to make qunut constantly, they would have narrated that he made qunut like this. We say if there is a large group negating that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) moved it, and in an expression that allows for moving, then we say: Certainly the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes did not move it, and sometimes he moved it. So we act upon both the negating narrations and the affirming narration.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.