In the Science of Taḥqīq (Critical Editing)... The “Dot” Plays Tricks on the Editors!

The science of taḥqīq (critical editing) is a rugged and difficult field; because the editor deals with old manuscripts and different handwritings—some from the authors themselves, but most from copyists. Many of these copyists practiced the craft professionally without having any connection to the Islamic sciences, so their works abound with misreadings and distortions.

At times the manuscripts themselves are carefully written, but the editor errs in reading them, especially in words that are similar in form. The most common error occurs in the issue of dots on the letters, leading the editor to illusions because of a mistaken reading of the word!

Let us take an example of how a “dot” played tricks on the editors, leading them into error in their annotations!

Imām Aḥmad narrated in his Musnad [al-Risālah edition] (31/427) in the Musnad of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ (ḥadīth no. 19075):

He said: ḥaddathanā Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, ʿan Thawr, qāl: ḥaddathanī Rāshid ibn Saʿd, ʿan ʿAbd Allāh ibn Luḥayy (2), ʿan ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ, that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “The greatest of days with Allāh is the Day of Naḥr, then the Day of Qar.” Five or six camels were brought near the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ for slaughter, and they began to press toward him to see which of them he would begin with. When their sides fell (after slaughter), he uttered a word quietly which I did not understand. I asked one of those near me, “What did he say?” They said: “He said: Whoever wishes, may cut a portion (of the meat).”

The editor of the Musnad, Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, along with his team, wrote in footnote (2) at the word “Luḥayy”:

“In the manuscripts, except the margin of (Ẓ13): Nujayy, which is a corruption. What we adopted is from the margin of (Ẓ13), and from Aṭrāf al-Musnad 4/119.”

The editors of the Musnad (ʿĀlam al-Kutub edition) did the same. They affirmed Luḥayy in the text and wrote in footnote (1):

“It was corrupted in al-Maimaniyyah, (Ṣ), and (M) to Nujayy. The correct is Luḥayy, as it appears in (Q), Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd waʾl-Sunan 3/fol. 85, and see: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 15/485 (3512).”

This ḥadīth was narrated by al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl in the biography of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ, through the route of Musnad Aḥmad (15/445):

Abūʾl-Faraj ibn Qudāmah, Abūʾl-Ḥasan ibn al-Bukhārī, Abūʾl-Ghanāʾim ibn ʿAllān, and Aḥmad ibn Shaybān narrated to us; they said: ḥaddathanā Ḥanbal, qāl: ḥaddathanā ibn al-Ḥuṣayn, qāl: ḥaddathanā ibn al-Mudhhib, qāl: ḥaddathanā al-Qaṭīʿī, qāl: ḥaddathanā ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad, qāl: ḥaddathanī abī, qāl: ḥaddathanā Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, ʿan Thawr ibn Yazīd, qāl: ḥaddathanī Rāshid ibn Saʿd, ʿan ʿAbd Allāh ibn Luḥayy (3), ʿan ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ … and he mentioned it.

The editor of Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, Dr. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, wrote in footnote (3):

“In the printed Musnad, it is Nujayy, which is a misreading.”

I say: Thus Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ ruled that what was in the manuscripts was wrong, adopting instead what was in the margin of a single copy! Similarly, the Musnad editors (ʿĀlam al-Kutub edition) judged what was in the manuscripts as corrupted!

But should an editor abandon all the manuscripts and rely on the margin of one copy? Or on some other books that affirmed the correct form without paying attention to what is in Aḥmad’s Musnad—even if it was a mistake from the narrator?

And what Bashshār Maʿrūf said—that the printed Musnad contains an error—he said without proper investigation!

Yes, in the manuscript of al-Mizzī’s Tahdhīb al-Kamāl it appears like Luḥayy, because the dots are not clear; and since the correct name is ibn Luḥayy, he assumed that what is in the Musnad is wrong. But this is not the case!

What is in Musnad Aḥmad: Nujayy (with nūn, diminutive) is correct. This is how it appears in all the manuscripts, and Shaykh Shuʿayb only relied on the margin of one copy!

Here, we are speaking about what is in the Musnad’s copy, not the actual correction of the name. Otherwise, the correct form of the name is indeed Luḥayy with lām and ḥāʾ.

The one who said Nujayy with nūn and jīm was Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān.

Imām Aḥmad pointed this out, as recorded in Suʾālāt al-Athram (65):

Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Aḥmad) mentioned Abū ʿĀmir al-Hawzanī ʿAbd Allāh ibn Luḥayy, and said: Some of them said: Nujayy. I asked him: “Did Yaḥyā say Nujayy?” He replied: “Yes, Yaḥyā said Nujayy.”

I say: Here, Aḥmad pointed out that some said Nujayy, and the one who said that was Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān, as he clarified. For this reason, Aḥmad narrated in his Musnad from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān exactly as he heard it from him: Nujayy. All the manuscripts agreed on this reading.

Thus, Shaykh Shuʿayb and his team, as well as Dr. Bashshār, should have clarified this and explained that what is correct in the Musnad is Nujayy (as transmitted), while the correct name in reality is Luḥayy.

The two editors of Suʾālāt al-Athram also fell into distortion and error in their annotation of this passage, because they did not examine the matter properly!

Dr. ʿĀmir Ṣabrī, in his edition (p. 44), wrote:

“Abū ʿAbd Allāh mentioned Abū ʿĀmir al-Hawzī ʿAbd Allāh ibn Luḥayy, and said: Some of them said: Nujayy. I said to him: ‘Yaḥyā (4) said: Luḥayy.’ He said: ‘Yes, Yaḥyā said: Luḥayy.’”

And he noted in footnote (4): “Yaḥyā is Ibn Maʿīn.”

I say: Dr. ʿĀmir erred in reading the text! The correct reading is: “I said to him: Did Yaḥyā say: Nujayy? He said: Yes, Yaḥyā said: Nujayy.”

Since the doctor did not know that Aḥmad narrated the ḥadīth from Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān and mentioned Nujayy therein, he thought that Yaḥyā said Luḥayy!

Then he further erred in asserting that this Yaḥyā was Ibn Maʿīn! In reality, it was Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān—because Aḥmad was referring to the narration he heard from al-Qaṭṭān in this manner!

Moreover, he also erred in writing al-Hawzī—whereas it should be al-Hawzanī with an added nūn.

Similarly, the other editor of Suʾālāt al-Athram, Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Azharī, also made the same mistake in his edition (p. 83, no. 65):

“Abū ʿAbd Allāh mentioned Abū ʿĀmir al-Hawzanī ʿAbd Allāh ibn Luḥayy, and said: Some of them said: Nujayy. I said to him: Yaḥyā (4). He said: Luḥayy. He said: Yes, Yaḥyā said: Luḥayy.”

He noted in footnote (4): “Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn – may Allāh have mercy on him.”

I say: This editor erred, just as Dr. ʿĀmir Ṣabrī did before him, in reading the text. Because he did not understand what Aḥmad meant, he also erred in identifying the Yaḥyā as Ibn Maʿīn—just like Dr. Ṣabrī did! This is a mistake!

The correct view is that what Aḥmad narrated in his Musnad from Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān was Nujayy, though Yaḥyā erred in this, and the correct name is Luḥayy.

The editors should have investigated this matter carefully, instead of rushing to attribute error and confusion in this way!

Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik