atabek the donkey and mudraj

in taqrib al-nawawi [#20]

mudraj [addendum in the text/chain] has categories:

the first: mudraj [addendum] in the hadith of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, such that a narrator mentions after [his narration,] something which is his own speech or the speech of others [not the text of the hadith] - and then it is narrated thereafter together [without distinguishing] and it appears as if it is [portion] of the hadith.

the second: the narrator has two different texts, with two different chains and he narrates them both, with one of the chains.

the third: that he hears a hadith from a group, [narrators among who have] varying/different texts and chains and he narrates from all of them without making any distinction.

all of this is Haram - khatib [al-baghdadi] has written a book* on this which deals with this issue adequately.​

*al-faSl li'l waSl al-mudraj fi'n naql.

suyuti in his tadrib al-rawi says: (p.137)

ibn al-sam'ani said: "whoever knowingly and deliberately [ta'ammada] adds into the [text/sanad of the] hadith has lost his status as a trustworthy narrator [saqiT al-adalah]; and he is a tamperer and is among the liars." as for me [suyuti] i consider the inadvertent addendum [idraj] for the explanation of arcane words/idioms [gharib] is not impermissible. it is therefore zuhri did so, and so also did many other scholars.​

 

shaykh abdullah sirajuddin in his sharh al-bayquniyyah says: [in blue is translation; the rest is restated drawing from his sharh]

mudraj: addition of the narrator, whether the SaHabi or others, who [add] to the text [matn] of the hadith or its chain of authority [sanad] - one who narrates from them supposes that it is a portion of the hadith; because it is [said] in such a manner that there is no clear separation between the hadith [and additional wording/comment] - and it is not the part of the hadith. [matn or sanad]

there are two types of mudraj:

1) mudraj in matn - addition in the text
2) mudraj in sanad - addition in the chain of narrators​

---
mudraj fi'l matn: can be of three types:

1a) addition in the beginning of the text
1b) addition in the middle of the text
1c) addition in the end of the text - and this is the most common form of idraj [appending] to the text of hadith.​

we will not go to the details and examples at this time.

====
how can idraj or mudraj be known?

- it is known by other narrations which do not have this addition
- acknowledgement by the narrator himself - or by the knowledgeable imams of hadith
- or that it is implausible that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam might have said it. [for example in a hadith of abu hurayrah, the text says: 'i wish i were a slave' and mentions being good to his mother. both are obviously impossible - RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam would never wish to be a slave [mamluk] nor was his mother alive at that time so he could be dutiful to her.]

-----
the ruling on idraj [or adding into text of the hadith]:

1. if it is done for explanation, as zuhri and others have done it is excusable.

2. if it is done accidentally or lapse in memory [sahw] - so long as it was not intentionally added, there is no blame on the one who made such a mistake; however, if such mistakes are often, he will criticised for inaccuracy [and lack of rigor].

3. as for idraj - addition in the text - purposely or intentionally, it is Haram - forbidden and impermissible; regardless of the kind of mudraj [all categories and sub-categories] because it is deception and concealing the truth [talbis, tadlis].

ibn al-sam'ani said: "whoever knowingly and deliberately [ta'ammada] adds into the [text/sanad of the] hadith has lost his status as a trustworthy narrator [saqiT al-adalah]; and he is a tamperer and is among the liars.

 

first atabek in his usual disrespectful and insulting manner called the wordings of the saHiH hadith as "silly lies" and "idiotic insult to God".

it is not just about the wording - but the very idea was attacked by attabeck. the wording itself (albeit in other words) is overwhelmingly supported by numerous qur'anic verses and hadith. the end result is that attabeck the donkey is calling such information as "idiotic insult to God" or "silly lies" and "fabrications".

----
thereafter, in his attempt to squirm out of this, attabek tries to offer an explanation:

other than dropping a few names to make his nonsensical post respectable, there is nothing new here. same old donkey braying.

----
according to atabek the donkey, this part of "so angry that he was never angry before" is mudraj. i mean, those idiots who think atabek is some super hadith scholar may nod smugly, but any serious student of hadith will know that it is nonsense.

these heretix pick up a few terms here and there and then use them in front of juhala like themselves, who wouldn't know how to tell a carrot from a radish - and a tomato from an egg.

----
apparently, atabek thinks that throwing a couple of hard-sounding hadith terms will make me cower in fear and thus leave him alone. not so fast donkey-boy. so me says, let us call his bluff.

-----
now, atabek has another line of defence - "the hanafi muSTalah" and thus faulting muhaddithin. in another thread his super-duper book is mentioned. we tried to get hold of the book, so i can look into it, but we haven't been successful until now. i have read reviews, analyses etc., by some folk on the net, and it appears that it is pretty shoddy - but i will reserve my opinion about that book until i see it.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

-----
so what is mudraj?