The upshot is that, should a narrator diverge and it is found (1) that his ḥadith (2) contains additional wording, that very fact undermines his report; this shows (3) that, in al-Shāfiʿī’s estimation, the addition of a reliable narrator is not to be accepted unconditionally. It is accepted (4) only when it comes from a ḥāfiẓ (5). For he required that the version transmitted by the dissenting narrator be shorter than the version related by the ḥuffāẓ with whom he disagreed, and he counted the narrator’s omission as evidence of authenticity, because it points to deliberate precision. Anything else he deemed injurious to the narrator’s ḥadith (6)—and that, of course, includes any addition. Had such an addition been acceptable to him across the board, it would not have damaged the ḥadith of its narrator (7). Allah knows best (8).

Preserved (maḥfūẓ) versus Aberrant (shādh)

If a narration is contradicted (9) by another that is weightier—owing to greater (10) accuracy, a larger number of transmitters, or some other (11) ground for according it precedence—the stronger version is termed “preserved,” while its opposite, the weaker one, is called “aberrant.”

An example is the report recorded by al-Tirmidhī, al-Nasāʾī, and Ibn Mājah through the chain of Ibn ʿUyaynah, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from ʿAwsajah, from Ibn