Nuzhat al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikar - Tahqiq al-Qasim - Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani - (125)

Nuzhat al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikar - Tahqiq al-QasimIbn Hajar Al-Asqalani

for an addition may either (1) involve no contradiction between it and the narration (2) of the one who did not include it; such an addition (3) is accepted outright, because it carries the ruling of an independent ḥadith (4) that a reliable narrator (5) transmits alone, with no one else relating it from his teacher.

Alternatively, (6) the addition may be contradictory, such that accepting it would necessitate rejecting the other report; in that case (7) preference is weighed between it and its opposing narration (8): (9) the stronger one is accepted and the weaker (10) set aside.

A number of scholars have become well known (11) for declaring that an addition is accepted in every circumstance, without distinction, (12) yet this cannot stand according to the methodology of the ḥadith critics, who stipulate that a ṣaḥīḥ report must not be shādh (anomalous) and who define shudhūdh as a trustworthy narrator contradicting someone who is even more trustworthy than he is.

What amazes one is that some of them have overlooked this point, even while acknowledging the requirement

(1) MSS B and D read “yakun,” while in MSS A and H the word appears without diacritical dots. (2) The word “riwayati” (transmission) is absent from MS A. (3) MS T inserts “la” (not), a scribal error. (4) MS T omits the word “alladhi” (which). (5) MS D has “yatafarrod,” whereas MS H reads “tafarrod.” (6) MSS J, D, and H read “yakun”; MS T shows the form written with ya and ta (i.e., “takun”); in MSS A and M the word is undotted. (7) MS D reads “taqaʿ” (it occurs); MS W records the same word written with ya and ta. (8) MS B reads “muʿaradatiha” (its opposition). (9) MS Y adds “wa yuqbalu” (and it is accepted). (10) MS J has “al-marjuʿ,” a corrupted reading. (11) MS T reads “ʿinda” (according to). (12) Al-Khatib attributes this view to the majority of jurists and hadith scholars; see al-Kifaya fi ʿIlm al-Riwaya, p. 424. Compare Ibn Hajar, al-Nukat, 2:678.

لِأَنَّ الزِّيَادَةَ إِمَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ (١) لَا تَنَافِيَ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ رِوَايَةِ (٢) مَنْ لَمْ يَذْكُرْهَا؛ فَهَذِهِ (٣) تُقْبَلُ مُطْلَقاً؛ لِأَنَّهَا فِي حُكْمِ الحَدِيثِ المُسْتَقِلِّ الَّذِي (٤) يَنْفَرِدُ (٥) بِهِ الثِّقَةُ وَلَا يَرْوِيهِ عَنْ شَيْخِهِ غَيْرُهُ. وَإِمَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ (٦) مُنَافِيَةً بِحَيْثُ يَلْزَمُ مِنْ قَبُولِهَا رَدُّ الرِّوَايَةِ الأُخْرَى؛ فَهَذِهِ الَّتِي يَقَعُ (٧) التَّرْجِيحُ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ مُعَارِضِهَا (٨)، فَيُقْبَلُ (٩) الرَّاجِحُ وَيُرَدُّ المَرْجُوحُ (١٠). وَاشْتَهَرَ عَنْ (١١) جَمْعٍ مِنَ العُلَمَاءِ القَوْلُ بِقَبُولِ الزِّيَادَةِ مُطْلَقاً مِنْ غَيْرِ تَفْصِيلٍ (١٢)، وَلَا يَتَأَتَّى ذَلِكَ عَلَى طَرِيقِ المُحَدِّثِينَ الَّذِينَ يَشْتَرِطُونَ فِي الصَّحِيحِ أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ شَاذّاً، ثُمَّ يُفَسِّرُونَ الشُّذُوذَ بِمُخَالَفَةِ الثِّقَةِ مَنْ هُوَ أَوْثَقُ مِنْهُ. وَالعَجَبُ مِمَّنْ أَغْفَلَ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُمْ، مَعَ اعْتِرَافِهِ بِاشْتَرِاطِ

(١) في ب، د: «يكون»، ولم ينقط في أ، ح. (٢) «رِوَايَةِ» ليست في أ. (٣) في ط زيادة: «لا»، وهو وهم. (٤) «الَّذِي» سقطت من ط. (٥) في د: «يتفرّد»، وفي هـ: «تفرد». (٦) في ج، د، ح: «يكون»، وفي ط: بالياء والتاء، ولم ينقط في أ، م. (٧) في د: «تقع»، وفي و: بالياء والتاء. (٨) في ب: «معارضتها». (٩) في ي: «ويقبل». (١٠) في ج: «المرجوع»، وهو تصحيف. (١١) في ط: «عند». (١٢) وقد نسبه الخطيب إلى الجمهور من الفقهاء وأصحاب الحديث. الكفاية في علم الرواية (ص ٤٢٤)، وانظر: النكت لابن حجر (٢/ ٦٧٨).