بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

28 Shawwal, 1444 AH (Friday, 19 May, 2023)

بنقل العدل الضابط عن العدل الضابط إلى منتهاه ولا يكون شاذا ولا معللا

through the transmission of one upright and accurate person

Two Types of Ḍabṭ

In the definition, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh simply mentioned about the condition of Ḍābīṭ.

He explains later that there are two types of Ḍabṭ. On page 104 he said:

حافظا إن حدث من حفظه، ضابطا لكتابه إن حدث من كتابه (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 104)

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī explained a little about the two types in more detail at this point in Fatḥ al-Mughīth he wrote:

إذ الضبط ضبطان: ضبط صدر، وضبط كتاب.

فالأول: هو الذي يُثبِت ما سمعه بحيث يتمكن من استحضاره متى شاء.

والثاني: هو صونه له عن تطرق الخلل إليه، من حين سمع فيه إلى أن يؤدي (فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث – 1 / 24)

We will go into the details and explain much more about the two types of Ḍabṭ when we reach that chapter, in shā Allāh.

For now, we can simply understand this condition as: the narrator should be able to preserve the narration. As for the methods of how to preserve it and the applicable laws and clauses, those will be discussed later, in shā Allāh.

Another point that you could probably note at this point is that not all scholars agreed with the second type of Ḍabṭ. ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī said:

وإن منع بعضهم الرواية من الكتاب. (فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث – 1 / 24)

We will go into detail explaining the clear statement of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik:

«كان أبو حنيفة يقول لا تحدث إلا بما تعرف ‌وتحفظ». (الكفاية في علم الرواية – ص: 231)

‘Abdur Raḥmān ibn Abī Ḥātim:

أشهب [بن عبد العزيز – 6] قال سئل مالك أيؤخذ ممن لا يحفظ ‌ويأتي ‌بكتب فيقول قد سمعتها وهو ثقة؟ فقال لا يؤخذ عنه أخاف أن يزاد في كتبه بالليل. (الجرح والتعديل لابن أبي حاتم – 2 / 27)

That again will be discussed under the chapter of Ḍabṭ

Comment on the Alfiyyah

On another note, we just mentioned that there are two conditions. However, when putting this into poetic form, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī specified this in his Alfiyyah. He phrased it saying:

فالأول ‌المتصل ‌الإسناد … بنقل عدل ضابط الفؤاد. (ألفية العراقي التبصرة والتذكرة – ص: 93)

Due to that, ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī objected:

لكن يخل التقييد به بضابط الكتاب (النكت الوفية – 1 / 80)

Objection on ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ

‘Allāmah Baqā’ī also raised another objection, and that is: ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ should have specified Ḍabṭ with the word Tām (complete).

‘Allāmah Baqā’ī claimed that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ ought to have clearly said that a person must have a complete (very excellent) way of preserving the narration. By simply saying that a person should preserve the narration, there is no distinction between a person who slightly preserves the narration (likes with an average to slightly good memory or a person who is not very careful with his books) and a person who actually fully preserves the narration. If a person does not have a very good memory, the narrator’s Ahādīth will be graded as Ḥasan, and they will not be Ṣaḥīḥ. ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī said:

وفي الحد نقص آخر، وهو أنه يدخل فيه الحسن لذاته من جهة عدم تقييد الضبط بالتمام (النكت الوفية – 1 / 80)

In Nuzhat an-Naẓar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar qualified Ḍabt with the word Tām. In his definition of Ṣaḥīḥ he wrote:

بنقل عدل تام الضبط. (نزهة النظر في توضيح نخبة الفكر – ص: 25)

He then explained:

وقيد بـ «‌التام» إشارة إلى الرتبة العليا في ذلك. (نزهة النظر في توضيح نخبة الفكر – ص: 26)

Proposed Solution

‘Allāmah Baqā’ī then provided a solution that will solve his objection on ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī and it would solve his objection on ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. He wrote:

فلو قال: فأول الأنواع ما قد اتصل … إسناده بنقل عدل قد كمل

في ضبطه عن مثله قد نقلا … ولم يكن شاذا ولا معللا

لشمل ضبط الحفظ والكتاب، ومنع من دخول الحسن بتقييد الضبط بالكمال. (النكت الوفية – 1 / 80)

Counter Objection

Although ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī suggested that the word Ḍabṭ should be qualified with the word Tām and his teacher, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, actually did specify it, not all scholars agreed with it and felt that it was necessary.

For example, the teacher of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī mentioned:

وكذلك الضبط وإلاتقان درجاته متفاوتة فلا يشترط أعلا وجوه الضبط كمالك وشعبة بل المراد بالضبط أن لا يكون مغفلا كثير الغلط (التقييد والإيضاح – ص: 48)

“Similarly for precision and expertise, this has stages. It is not required for its highest aspect of precision to be like Mālik and Shuʿbah, rather the meaning of precision is that he is not heedless and constantly erring.” (At-Taqyīd wal-Īḍāḥ, page: 48)

Then the student of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar also objected.

‘Allāmah Qāsim (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) objected on the fact that Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar qualified it with this word Tām. He wrote:

الله أعلم بمعنى تمام الضبط (القول المبتكر – 49)

“Allāh knows best what is the actual meaning if Tām aḍ-Ḍabṭ.” (Al-Qawl al-Mubtakar, page: 49)

The reason is simple: there are billions of people in the world, how would we know whose memory reached the highest stages, for it to be considered as ‘complete’. Thereafter, even if we could measure who has the best memory, would every narrator really need to reach that level? Thus, if a person has 90% of a ‘complete memory’, does that make him defective?

‘Allāmah al-Laqqāni, who generally used to respond to the objections of ‘Allāmah Qāsim, in this case, also deemed this objection as valid.

ولا شك في صحة توقفه في ذلك……..فجعل محترزه كثير الخطأ ، فلا شك في اختلاف مراتب الكثرة (قضاء الوطر – 665)

“There is no doubt in the authenticity of his ability in this… Out of precaution he is considered as one who constantly errs, there is no doubt in differences of ranks of Kathrah.” (Qaḍā al-Waṭr, page: 665)

If anything, Ḍabṭ could have been qualified with the word Jayyid. But then in that case, we can say that the Alif Lām on the word aḍ-Ḍābiṭ is for ‘Ahd, and hence the reader or listener will understand that it refers to a good memory, even if the word good is not mentioned.

Summary

Although ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ simply mentioned Ḍābiṭ, it:

1) refers to an good retention,

2) includes Ḍabṭ al-Kitāb

Thus far, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned two descriptions on the narrator: 1) ‘Adl 2) Ḍābiṭ. ‘Allāmah Zarkashī says:

والحاصل: أنه لا بد في مسمى الصحيح من اجتماع الأمرين (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 100)

Both of these conditions are essential. ‘Allāmah Zarkashī explained the ruling if one condition is not found:

وهما عدالة الراوي وضبطه فإن انتفيا فهو الضعيف المردود ، وإن وجد أحدهما فقط ، فإن كان الضبط دون العدالة فهو ضعيف أيضا ، لأن العدالة هي الركن الأكبر في الرواية ، لكنه أقوى مما انتفى منه الأمران ، وربما صلح للاستشهاد. (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 99)

Using One Word That Combines Both Words

Objection

The word Thiqah incorporates ‘Adālah and Ḍabṭ. Why would ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mention both words separately, when he could have simply used one word that would incorporate both. ‘Allāmah Zarkashī raised this objection saying:

اشتماله على الإسهاب، ولو قال بنقل الثقة عن الثقة لاستغنى عما ذكر لأن ذلك معنى الثقة (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 100)

His own Imām, Imām Shāfi’ī used the word Thiqah, rather than mentioning ‘Adl and Ḍābiṭ separately. It is quoted from him in Kitāb al-Umm:

إذا حدث ‌الثقة ‌عن ‌الثقة حتى ينتهي إلى رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – فهو ثابت عن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم. (كتاب الأم للإمام الشافعي – 7 / 201)

Answer

‘Allāmah Ṭahir Jazā’irī responded:

وأجيب عن ذلك بأن ‌الثقة قد ‌يطلق على من كان ‌مقبولا وإن لم يكن تام الضبط. (توجيه النظر إلى أصول الأثر – 1 / 181)

Since he is presenting a definition, he wanted to make sure that the conditions are properly understood.

It is understandable that a definition should be concise and comprehensive, but in trying to achieve that, we should not become oblivious of the essential conditions which should be fulfilled.

Combination of Both Descriptions into One

There are earlier scholars who simply mentioned ‘Adālah. Although ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned both these descriptions separately, other scholars only mentioned the condition of ‘Adālah.

For example, ‘Allāmah al-Khaṭṭābī said:

فالصحيح عندهم ما اتصل سنده وعدلت ‌نقلته. (معالم السنن – 1 / 6)

 ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī objected on ‘Allāmah al-Khaṭṭābi for only mentioning ‘Adālah and not mentioning Ḍabṭ. In his own commentary of the Alfiyyah, he wrote:

فلم يشترط الخطابي في الحد ضبط الراوي ……ولا شك أن ضبط الراوي لا بد من اشتراطه (شرح التبصرة والتذكرة – 1 / 103)

In support of ‘Allāmah al-Khaṭṭābī and in response to the objection of ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar claimed that Ḍabṭ could be included in ‘Adālah. ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī mentioned that this is how Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar presented an excuse for ‘Allāmah al-Khaṭṭābī:

وانتصر شيخا للخطابي حيث كاد أن يجعل الضبط من أوصافها (فتح المغيث – 1 / 25)

The reason is that if a person is pious and trustworthy, then he will ensure to only narrate if he remembered properly. If he did not remember, he will know well that if he quotes, he will be lying. In this manner, the interpretation is given that although earlier scholars only mentioned ‘Adl, they intended both conditions. This is a response that ‘Allāmah Sakhawī quoted from Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar.

However, ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī proves that ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī did not intend Ḍabṭ in the word of ‘Adl, because he emphatically mentioned it later.

However, besides ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābi, there were other earlier scholars who also sufficed by simply mentioned the word ‘Adl’. The answer of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar could pertain to the other scholars who only used the word ‘Adl. For example, Imām Ḥākim sufficed by mentioning ‘Adl. He wrote:

القسم الثاني من الصحيح المتفق عليها الحديث الصحيح بنقل ‌العدل عن ‌العدل. (المدخل إلى كتاب الإكليل – ص: 36)

Nevertheless, ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī concluded:

وعلى كل حال: فاشتراطه في الصحيح لا بد منه (فتح المغيث – 1 / 25)

This trustworthy person with good retentive skills should narrate from:

عن العدل الضابط

from another upright and accurate person

Objection

Why make the definition so lengthy by mentioning the same words again? Wa ‘t-ta’ārīf tuṣānu ‘an al-iṭnāb. ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh could have phrased it by saying ‘an mithlihi, like how Abūl ‘Abbās al-Ishbīlī phrased it in the Gharāmiyyah:

وهو: ما اتصل إسناده بنقل ‌العدل الضابط، عن مثله إلى منتهاه. (الغرامية في مصطلح الحديث – ص: 27)

In Al-Manhal ar-Rawī and other books too, they mentioned by simply saying ‘an mithlihī’. Remember we said that a narration should be māni’.

Answer

He intended to emphasize the point that every single narrator of the chain has to fulfil each one of these two essential qualities.

Earlier scholars also emphasized the condition repeating it, rather than by simply referring to it. For example, Imām Muslim titles his Ṣaḥīḥ as:

المسند الصحيح المختصر من السنن بنقل العدل عن العدل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Likewise, Imām Ḥākim also elaborated and clarifies what he intends by Ṣaḥīḥ:

القسم الثاني من الصحيح المتفق عليها الحديث الصحيح بنقل ‌العدل عن ‌العدل. (المدخل إلى كتاب الإكليل – ص: 36)

‘Allāmah Khātīb described the Kitāb of Ibn Khuzaymah saying:

وكتاب محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة النيسابوري الذي شرط فيه على نفسه إخراج ما اتصل سنده ‌بنقل ‌العدل ‌عن ‌العدل ‌إلى ‌النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. (الجامع لأخلاق الراوي وآداب السامع للخطيب البغدادي – 2 / 185)

The point is that there were many experts and authorities who felt it to be essential to emphatically mention the quality of the narrator in the next link, rather than just indicating toward it for brevity.

In the same manner, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wanted to emphasise that each narrator should be ‘Ādil as well, and he should also have Ḍabṭ. Thus, he repeated both words.

إلى منتهاه

to its point of termination.

By using the word Muntahā and not saying Ilan Nabiyy (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), we learn that ‘Allāmah Ibn as-Salāh does not constrict and restrict the grading of Ṣaḥīḥ to only that which is attributed to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī explained:

يعنى وهكذا إلى ‌منتهاه ، سواء انتهى إلى النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم -، أو إلى الصحابي، أو إلى من دونه حتى يشمل الموقوف ونحوه. (فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث – 1 / 25)

That is one of the reason why we dropped off the word Musnad from the beginning.

Until this point, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned what are the essential requirements for a narration to be graded as: Ṣaḥīḥ. He mentioned what should be there.

He now mentions the conditions of what should NOT be there.

He mentioned what must be present. Now he moves on to mention what must not be present. This is what ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī meant when he wrote:

وهما ‌سلبيان بمعنى اشتراط نفيهما. (فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث – 1 / 25)

 ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentions the condition of ‘Adam shudhudh.

ولا يكون شاذا

The same objection applies here again: What is the meaning of shādh? ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is mentioning a terminology that has not been defined.

For now, we can suffice by determining what the author intended when he used the word Shādh by quickly peep in the chapter of Shādh that comes ahead.

For this terminology and for the next, we will explain the linguistic and technical means when we reach the dedicated chapters, because the discussion on both of those are rather lengthy.

From page 76 on the copy of Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn ʿIṭr, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ discusses about Shudhūdh in detail. We too, will in shā Allāh, go into more details when we reach that chapter. For now, just to understand what he intends when he uses the word Shādh, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ concluded that chapter by saying:

فخرج من ذلك أن الشاذ المردود قسمان: أحدهما: الحديث الفرد المخالف، والثاني: الفرد الذي ليس في راويه من الثقة والضبط ما يقع جابرا لما يوجبه التفرد والشذوذ من النكارة والضعف، والله أعلم. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 79)

His conclusion is that Shādh is divided into two types:

1) Where a Thiqah person differs from someone who is Awthaq.

To explain more clearly, ‘Allāmah Zarkashī said:

والشاذ أن يروي الثقة حديثا مخالفا لرواية من هو أحفظ منه [وأضبط]. (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 103)

Hence it means a person who is thiqah but he is differing with someone who is awthaq than him.

2) A narrator who is not so strong narrates something independently

This second definition will already be cancelled with the words: al-‘Adl aḍ-Ḍabiṭ, and hence that meaning is not applicable here. Thus, Shādh, in this instance, refers to: One reliable narrator contradicting a more reliable. Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar wrote in his Nukat:

الأول: مراده بالشاذ هنا ما يخالف الراوي فيه من هو أحفظ منه أو أكثر ، كما فسره الشافعي. لا مطلق تفرد الثقة كما فسره به الخليلي. فافهم ذلك (النكت على كتاب ابن الصلاح لابن حجر – 1 / 65)

Questions/Objections on the First Definition

First Question/Objection

1) When discussing the previous condition of Ḍābiṭ, we learned that the manner to evaluate a person’s memory is by studying and confirming that he does not oppose more reliable narrators.

Now when explaining Shādh, we are saying that it refers to not opposing reliable narrators.

It thus, both seems to be the same. Why then add a word and extend the length of the definition?

‘Allāmah Zarkashī mentioned this objection:

(فإن قيل) هلا اكتفى بقوله: “الضابط” عن قوله: “ولا يكون شاذا” ، لأن الضبط عبارة عن موافقة الثقات فيما يروونه فإن خالفهم لم يكن ضابطا وهذا معنى الشاذ. (النكت على مقدمة ابن الصلاح للزركشي – 1 / 103)

Response

‘Allāmah Zarkashī explained that in that instance it refers to a narrator generally opposing more reliable narrators in most of his reports. Whereas, in this case, it refers to a narrator contradicting a more reliable narrator in that one specific narration:

فالجواب عن ذلك: أن مخالفة الثقات على قسمين: غالبة ونادرة. فمتى خالف الثقات فيما رواه غالبا لم يكن حافظا ، ومتى خالفهم نادرا ولو في حديث واحد كانت مخالفته شذوذا ، فاحتاج المصنف أن يذكر في حد الصحيح السلامة من الشذوذ وكون الراوي ضابطا. (النكت على مقدمة ابن الصلاح للزركشي – 1 / 103)

Thus, when inspecting the narrations to confirm whether the narrator is Ḍabiṭ, it is found that he contradicts in most of his reports, the narrator loses his credibility.

However, in the instance of determining Shudhūdh, if a narrator differs with other colleagues of his who are more reliable or greater in number, it does not impact this narrators reliability.

Objection Two

Taking a cursory glance through Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, one will find numerous narrations where one Thiqah rāwī differs with another. It is inevitable that one of the two would have to be Awthaq (more reliable) than the other. That would essentially mean that there will be one Thiqah rāwī contradicting someone who is Awthaq. Indeed, that is Shādh! Hence the one narration will have to be rejected, since it definitely falls short in fulfilling this integral condition of Ṣaḥīḥ. However, Imām Bukhārī and Imām Muslim accepted and narrated both of the contradictory narrations.

For example, the famous incident about Jābir raḍī Allāhu ʿanhu when he was returning from the battle after his father passed away. His camel was going slow, then Nabī ﷺ approached him. From this point, there are so many different variations of the narration. From the price that the Prophet ﷺ offered to purchase that slow camel from him, to whether Nabī ﷺ offered to buy it with the condition that he can ride it back until Madīnah or not, there are difference in the way the narrators quoted. For example, in one place Imām Bukhārī quoted:

فاشتراه مني بأوقية، (صحيح البخاري – 3 / 62)

Then Imām al-Bukhārī himself quoted:

قد أخذته بأربعة دنانير (صحيح البخاري – 3 / 100)

Imām Bukhārī himself narrated both the contradictory narrations in his Ṣaḥīḥ. But the incident was only one! Hence, someone is making a mistake. But all the narrators are reliable. That means that there is a thiqah narrator who is contradicting someone who is awthaq. One narration is definitely Shādh, and it does not fulfil this condition that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned.

In fact, Imām al-Bukhārī himself later quoted and highlighted all the ‘Shudhūdh’ of this narration. He wrote:

قال شعبة، عن مغيرة، عن عامر، عن ‌جابر: أفقرني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ظهره إلى المدينة وقال إسحاق، عن جرير، عن مغيرة: فبعته على أن لي فقار ظهره حتى أبلغ المدينة وقال عطاء وغيره: لك ظهره إلى المدينة وقال محمد بن المنكدر، عن ‌جابر: شرط ظهره إلى المدينة وقال زيد بن أسلم، عن ‌جابر: ولك ظهره حتى ترجع. وقال أبو الزبير، عن ‌جابر: أفقرناك ظهره إلى المدينة وقال الأعمش، عن سالم، عن ‌جابر: تبلغ عليه إلى أهلك. وقال عبيد الله وابن إسحاق، عن وهب، عن ‌جابر: اشتراه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بوقية وتابعه زيد بن أسلم، عن ‌جابر وقال ابن جريج، عن عطاء وغيره، عن ‌جابر: أخذته بأربعة دنانير. وهذا يكون وقية على حساب الدينار بعشرة دراهم، ولم يبين الثمن مغيرة، عن الشعبي، عن ‌جابر وابن المنكدر وأبو الزبير عن ‌جابر، وقال الأعمش، عن سالم، عن ‌جابر: وقية ذهب. وقال أبو إسحاق، عن سالم، عن ‌جابر: بمائتي درهم. وقال داود بن قيس، عن عبيد الله بن مقسم، عن ‌جابر: اشتراه بطريق تبوك، أحسبه قال: بأربع أواق وقال أبو نضرة، عن ‌جابر: اشتراه بعشرين دينارا. وقول الشعبي بوقية أكثر الاشتراط، أكثر وأصح عندي. قاله أبو عبد الله. (صحيح البخاري – 3 / 190)

Thus, ‘Allāmah Suyūti quoted Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar:

فمنها: أنهما أخرجا قصة “جمل جابر”  من طرق، وفيها اختلاف كثير في مقدار الثمن، واشتراط ركوبه، وقد رجح البخاري الطرق التي فيها الاشتراط على غيرها، مع تخريجه للأمرين، ورجح أيضا كون الثمن أوقية مع تخريجه ما يخالف ذلك.  (البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1/ 324)

Would we say that Imām al-Bukhārī narrated Shādh narrations? Would that then mean that there are narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that do not fulfill the condition of Ṣaḥīḥ?

Another Example

The next example Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned is:

ومنها: أن مسلما أخرج حديث مالك عن الزهري عن عروة عن عائشة (رضي الله تعالى عنها)) في الاضطجاع قبل ركعتي الفجر، وقد خالفه عامة أصحاب الزهري كمعمر، ويونس، وعمرو ابن الحارث، والأوزاعي، وابن أبي ذئب، وشعيب، (وغيرهم) ، عن (الزهري) ، فذكروا الاضطجاع بعد ركعتي الفجر قبل صلاة الصبح، ورجح جمع من الحفاظ روايتهم على رواية مالك، ومع ذلك فلم يتأخر أصحاب الصحيح عن إخراج حديث مالك في كتبهم (البحر الذي زخر في شرح ألفية الأثر – 1/ 325)

Within Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, there are contradictory narrations via the same narrator on the time that the Nabī (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) laid down before the Fajr prayer. Imām Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī is the main narrator, but his students quote it differently from him regarding whether this lying down was before the Sunnah of Fajr or whether it was after the Sunnah prayer. Imām Muslim narrates from Mālik who narrates from Zuhrī who narrates from ʿUrwah who narrates from ʿĀ’ishah, that it was done before the Sunnah of Fajr. The chain and wording is as follows:

حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى. قال: قرأت على مالك عن ابن شهاب، عن عروة، عن عائشة؛ أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كان يصلي بالليل إحدى عشرة ركعة. يوتر منها بواحدة. فإذا فرغ منها ‌اضطجع على شقه الأيمن. حتى يأتيه المؤذن فيصلي ركعتين خفيفتين. (أخرجه مسلم في صحيحه – 1 / 508)

However, from all the students of Imām Zuhrī, it was only Imām Mālik who quoted that he slept before the Sunnah prayers. All the other students; whether it was Maʿmar, Yūnus, ʿAmr ibn Ḥārith, Awzāʿī, Shuʿayb – all of these students said that Iḍtijā’ was the Sunnah of Fajr. Hence, either the narration of Imām Mālik will have to be Shādh, or the narration of the other students. But Imām Muslim quoted the narration of Imām Mālik and he also quoted the contradictory report:

وحدثني حرملة بن يحيى. حدثنا ابن وهب. أخبرني عمرو بن الحارث عن ابن شهاب، عن عروة بن الزبير، عن عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم؛ قالت:

كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلي فيما بين أن يفرغ من صلاة العشاء (وهي التي يدعو الناس العتمة) إلى الفجر، إحدى عشرة ركعة. يسلم بين كل ركعتين. ويوتر بواحدة. فإذا سكت المؤذن من صلاة الفجر، وتبين له الفجر، وجاءه المؤذن قام فركع ركعتين خفيفتين. ثم اضطجع على شقه الأيمن. حتى يأتيه المؤذن للإقامة. (أخرجه مسلم في صحيحه – 1 / 508)

It is very apparent how both of these narrations contradict each other, yet, Imām Muslim narrated both.

Third Example

Another famous example is regarding the person who spends on charity, such that the person spends until his left hand does not what his right hand has spent. However, Imām Muslim also narrates the wording as until his right-hand does not know what his left hand has spent. All the narration go via Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd al-Qaṭṭān. The means that the narration of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is Shādh.

حدثني زهير بن حرب ومحمد بن المثنى. جميعا عن يحيى القطان. قال زهير: حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن عبيد الله. أخبرني خبيب بن عبد الرحمن عن حفص بن عاصم عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال:

“سبعة يظلهم الله في ضله يوم لا ظل إلا ظله: …….ورجل تصدق بصدقة فأخفاها حتى ‌لا ‌تعلم ‌يمينه ما تنفق شماله. ورجل ذكر الله خاليا، ففاضت عيناه”. (صحيح مسلم – 2 / 715)

However, both Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim transmitted from other students of Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd al-Qaṭṭān

حدثنا ‌مسدد: حدثنا ‌يحيى، عن ‌عبيد الله قال: حدثني ‌خبيب بن عبد الرحمن، عن ‌حفص بن عاصم، عن ‌أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «سبعة يظلهم الله تعالى في ظله يوم لا ظل إلا ظله: ….فأخفاها حتى ‌لا ‌تعلم ‌شماله ما تنفق يمينه، (أخرجه البخاري في صحيحه – 2 / 111)

660 – حدثنا ‌محمد بن بشار قال: حدثنا ‌يحيى، عن ‌عبيد الله قال: حدثني ‌خبيب بن عبد الرحمن، عن ‌حفص بن عاصم، عن ‌أبي هريرة، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «سبعة يظلهم الله في ظله يوم لا ظل إلا ظله…. ورجل تصدق، أخفى حتى ‌لا ‌تعلم ‌شماله ما تنفق يمينه، (أخرجه البخاري في صحيحه – 1 / 133)

Answer

The simple answer for now is to understand that the authors of Ṣaḥīḥayn were well aware of the Shudhūdh, and they even outlined it, as in the first example. The reason why they still then quoted these narrations was that they intend to highlight or indicate to the Shudhūdh.

Alternatively, they brought these types of narrations just for support, and not as the main narration within the Kitāb.

Hence, many times these kind of narrations are narrated after the correct narrations.

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك ، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت ، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك