The addition of the word “kareem” in the du‘aa’ of Laylat al-Qadr is not proven

Praise
be to Allah

Shaykh al-Albaani
(may Allah have mercy on him) was a scholar and critic of hadith who
examined the reports and tried his best in doing so, but he was vulnerable
to forgetfulness and error, like other scholars, and that does not detract
from his standing in the slightest; rather he will be rewarded for that, by
Allah’s leave, receiving a single reward. That is by the grace and kindness
of Allah, may He be exalted, to the scholars and fuqaha’; He grants them a
single reward for their mistakes, and grants them a double reward for what
they get right. What matters is that researchers and seekers of knowledge
follow the correct methodology in research and do not follow blindly; the
status of a scholar does not prevent them from reviewing the evidence and
conducting their own research, for academic research should be objective and
neutral, and should only be based on real research and examination, and it
should not be restricted to some particular names of great scholars, no
matter how well versed and prominent they may be.

Therefore we may
say that Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) failed to point out
the erroneous addition of the word “kareem” in the hadith about the du‘aa’
of Laylat al-Qadr, as the hadith was narrated via many chains of narration,
and it was narrated by the authors of Jaami‘s, Sunans and
Musnads, and not one of them mentioned this extra word “kareem”; rather
all of them narrated the well-known version of the du‘aa’: “Allahumma
innaka ‘Awfuwwun, tubhibb al-‘afwa, fa‘fu ‘anni (O Allah, You are
forgiving, You love forgiveness, so forgive me).”

But this mistake
occurred in al-Albaani’s book Saheeh at-Tirmidhi (no. 3513) only.

With regard to
his book Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah – concerning which
researchers are agreed that the research that was put into it was more
precise and deeper than that of his other books, Saheeh as-Sunan and
Da‘eef as-Sunan – the shaykh pointed out this erroneous addition and
said:

In Sunan at-Tirmidhi
after the word “ ‘Afuw” there appears this additional word “Kareem”, for
which there is no basis in the earlier sources or any other sources that
were narrated from the earlier sources. What appears to be the case is that
it is something that was inserted by one of the scribes or modern typists.
It does not appear in the Indian edition of Sunan at-Tirmidhi on
which al-Mubaarakfoori’s commentary, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (4/264), was
based, or in other editions.

What supports
that is the fact that in some of his reports, an-Nasaa’i narrated it via the
same isnaad as at-Tirmidhi, as both of them narrated it from their shaykh,
Qutaybah ibn Sa‘eed, without this addition.

This addition
also appears in an essay by our brother ‘Ali al-Halabi, entitled
Muhadhdhab ‘Amal al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah li Ibn as-Sunni (no. 202), but it
is not narrated by as-Sunni, because he narrated from his shaykh, an-Nasaa’i
– as stated above – from Qutaybah, but he attributed it to at-Tirmidhi and
others. What would have been more appropriate is to put this word between
brackets, as is the practice nowadays, to highlight the fact that it was
only mentioned by at-Tirmidhi. To be accurate, however, this word should not
be mentioned at all except to point out that it has no basis.

End quote from
Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (13/140).

Hence some
researchers regard al-Albaani’s comment here, in Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth
as-Saheehah – as constituting a clear retraction of his having regarded
this addition as sound in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi.

Whatever the
case, whether you call it retraction or a conclusion that is separate from
the first conclusion, what matters is that he stated the correct view and
corrected the mistake.

What is most
likely to be the case is that this extra word, with which people are
familiar, was taken from some editions of the books of hadith, not from the
reports of the hadith itself, meaning that the scholars who narrated the
hadith with this extra word “kareem” only did so because they found some
manuscripts that contained the extra word “kareem”, as the commentators said
concerning the Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edition of Musnad al-Imam
Ahmad (42/236): In “Q” it says “ ‘Afuwwun kareem.” End quote. “Q”
is a symbol referring to a particular manuscript to which they referred. See
their Introduction (1/104). Similarly, with regard to the al-Maknaz edition
(11/6118, no. 26021), the commentators said: In “Q” it says “ ‘Afuwwun
kareem.”

Hence many
scholars transmitted the hadith with this additional word in their books,
such as: Ibn al-Atheer in Jaami‘ al-Usool (4/324); al-‘Imraani in
al-Bayaan fi’l-Madhhab ash-Shaafa‘i (3/568); al-Khaazin in Lubaab at-Ta’weel
fi Ma‘aani at-Tanzeel (4/452); Ibn al-Qayyim in Badaa’i‘ al-Fawaa’id
(2/143); al-Khateeb ash-Sharbeeni in al-Iqnaa‘ fi Hall Alfaaz Abi Shujaa‘
(1/274); al-Ameer as-San‘aani in at-Tahbeer li Eedaah Ma‘aani at-Tayseer
(4/268); at-Tahtaawi in Haashiyat ‘ala Maraaqi al-Falaah Sharh Noor al-Eedaah
(p. 401).

All of them
narrated the hadith with the additional word “kareem” and without mentioning
any isnaad. Some of them attributed it to Sunan at-Tirmidhi. This is
assuming that the manuscripts were copied accurately.

But today we
have no doubt that this additional word is not part of the original text of
the hadith, because dozens of books of hadith mentioned the text of this
hadith without this additional word. We referred to editions that were
checked against many manuscripts of Sunan at-Tirmidhi, and we did not
find any reference to this additional word, such as the edition annotated by
Bashaar ‘Awaad (5/490), and another edition annotated by Shu‘ayb al-Arna’oot
(6/119).

See also the
answer to question no. 140759.

And Allah knows
best.