Explaining examples of anomalous hadiths.

The Shaykh : I will give an example of how one can determine whether a report is repeated or not. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed Hajj only once. So, if there are reports containing disordered invocations and dhikr, stating that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said this and said that, with differences in the same location, it means the second correct report is anomalous. For example, and this is clearer: the prayer for the solar eclipse. The sun eclipsed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only once, and he prayed only once. But among the wonders of what happened is that the narrators differed, and with authentic chains, not weak ones. All the reports agreed that the prayer was two rak'ahs, like the Fajr prayer. But some said "like the Fajr prayer" without detailing the known Fajr prayer, while some said there was one bowing in each rak'ah, some said three bowings in one rak'ah, some said four, and some said five. It is one prayer. Here, the researcher focuses specifically on determining whether the correct version is one bowing like the Fajr prayer, or two, or three, or four, or five. At that point, if one is free from sectarian bias: a Hanafi might say "like the Fajr prayer," a Shafi'i might say "no, two bowings," and a hadith scholar who does not investigate might say "this is authentic, this is more authentic, five bowings is the most reported, and the addition of a trustworthy narrator is acceptable." So, the one who is not biased toward these or those will find that all the reports are anomalous except the one that says there are two bowings in each rak'ah. This is a clearer example than the example of invocations in Hajj, because Hajj was not repeated except once. But this is a concrete, very clear issue: how does disagreement occur? It occurred! Either it is a mistake from the first narrator, the Companion, or from those below him, the Tabi'un or the Tabi'un of the Tabi'un, and so on. This type of detail in the sciences of hadith is unknown to the general public, let alone the general scholars, let alone the general people. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married Maimunah, one of the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Of course, he married her only once. There are two reports: one says he married her while he was in a state of ihram, and one says he married her while he was not in a state of ihram. It is not possible to say both are correct. With this thorough and precise research, and even though the report that he married her while in a state of ihram is in Sahih al-Bukhari, the report is weaker, and the report outside the two Sahihs is stronger. Why? Because its chain is authentic, and that one’s chain is authentic, but the chain of this one goes back to the person involved herself, Maimunah, who said about herself: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) married me while we were not in a state of ihram." The narrator who reported that they were in a state of ihram is Ibn Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), the son of Abd al-Muttalib, but he was young. He might not have been paying attention to what the difference between ihram and non-ihram means. It is possible that this is the case if there is no other type of mistake. So, the meticulous scholars, from Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ibn Abd al-Barr the Andalusian, and others, preferred the report that he married her while they were not in a state of ihram. This type of preference is what you should study: is this report or ? And this, of course, if Allah wills, will be in the near future—bismillah—and hurry, my brothers, so we can give the doctor a break, because in truth we are eating his mind; we want his rest. Bismillah...