And an example in which the side that outweighs the other does so by greater probity or stronger retention is well-known. We therefore say: the first version is the weightier, while the second is anomalous—the weaker report. The narration that stands opposite the anomalous one is termed the “preserved” (maḥfūẓ) report.

One illustration is the ḥadīth describing the Prophet’s ablution ﷺ: after performing wuḍū’, he took water for his head that was not the remainder from his hands,1 meaning that when he wished to wipe his head he fetched fresh water and wiped with water other than the excess on his hands. This wording is found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Ibn Mājah, however, transmits: “he wiped his ears with water other than the remainder of his head,”2 so the two reports differ: in Muslim’s version he took new water to wipe the head, different from the water of the hands; in the second he took new water to wipe the ears, different from the water with which he had wiped the head. Ibn Ḥajar, in Bulūgh al-Marām, states that the first is the preserved report,3 meaning that Muslim’s version is preserved whereas Ibn Mājah’s is anomalous.

One must not declare a conflict merely because the thought of disagreement occurs; rather, careful reflection, examination, and attempts at reconciliation are required. For if you judge that a contradiction exists and then label the second narration anomalous, that means it is rejected, since a sound, acceptable ḥadīth must be free of both hidden defects and anomaly. Should it prove anomalous, we must discard it. Hence it is impermissible to reject a variant narration simply because a discrepancy first comes to mind; scrutiny is essential, for what initially appears contradictory may, upon closer study, prove otherwise. Consider, for example, the supplication: “O Allah, Lord of this perfect call and of the established prayer, grant Muhammad the means and virtue, and raise him to the praiseworthy station You have promised him,”4 “Indeed, You do not break …"