the science of evaluating hadith narrators (auth al-awni english tr zaman) v01

8/10/2019 The Science of Evaluating Hadith Narrators (Auth Al-Awni English Tr Zaman) v01

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-science-of-evaluating-hadith-narrators-auth-al-awni-english-tr-zaman 1/31

ا

حا او

Khulāṣat al-ta’ṣīl li ᶜilmi l-jar ḥi wa l-taᶜdīl

ا فر ا

By

Al-Sharīf Ḥātim al-ᶜAwnī

Preface

ا

ماو ةاو و ا

أو آ و. او ا و

All praise is for God, Alone. God bless and

grant peace to the one after whom there isno prophet, to his family, to hisCompanions, and to those who follow him

and who stay within the limits he has

shown.

: أ او حا ة تا

ا تاروا ىإ أ

إ ت . )و ا داز( ا اام:

ئ ا؛ ن ن واء إ

.ا ا ا

These are some brief lectures on thediscipline of narrator-evaluation (al-jar ḥ wal-taᶜdīl) which I gave in a teaching sessionin a certain masjid in the sacred domain ofMecca (God increase its dignity and

respect). Then I turned to writing it downand completing it because of the importantissues discussed in it so that it would

become a brief academic treatise in thisfield.

أر ا ا إ ا و

ا أر وا أى.

Since many students need this kind of brief

summary I thought that there would bemore hope of good and more benefit in

publishing it.

و و و و ة قاروأ و

ما :ئا ا و .

ودل.

These are just a very few pages that are notsufficient in themselves but they have beenwritten as the saying goes: “The best speechis brief and beneficial.”



او ا تا قاروا يردو

اح وا و رأ( :ا اح

.ا ا ا ر )او

.را ل ئو ا ا ا

Along with the principles and issues of ths

discipline I have learned through practice,my source for these few pages are classicaland modern texts on the discipline of

narrator evaluation, and at the top of them is Ḍawābiṭ al-jar ḥ wa l-taᶜdīl by Dr. ᶜAbd al-

ᶜAziz ᶜAbd al-Laṭīf.

أوزا نأو ترا نأ

ات؛ إ اات.

We ask God that He benefit people by these pages and put them in the scale of deeds as

a good deed: certainly He is Hearing and Heresponds to those who plead with Him.

Definition of the discipline

ا

-:او حا

The definition of the discipline of positive

and negative evaluation of narrators

- وأ نا ا : حا

او ا ا تا او

.

The Arabic word for the discipline ofevaluating the reliability of narrators of

hadith is al-jar ḥ wa ‘l -taᶜdīl .Literally, jar ḥ is to split or cut a body. In the

conceptual domain it is used to refer to theeffect of a quality that damages a person’scharacter or religion.

-.اور در يواا و :او

Technically it refers to describing a narratorin a manner that demands that his narration

be rejected.- او او ا : ا و

د ل ا ءا تا

ا و اي.

Taᶜdīl literally means to straightensomething. In the conceptual domain it

refers to praising something in a mannerthat indicates that he is upright in hisreligion and character.

-.اور ل يواا و :او

Technically it refers to describing narratorin a manner that demands that his narration

be accepted.

- ا اا : يا او حا

.

ذ او د وأ اور ا ةاوا

In its theory, then, the discipline of

evaluating the reliability of narratorsconsists of the rules on which we can base

our knowledge of narrators whosenarrations should be accepted or rejected,and our knowledge of their ranks in thisrespect.

- إال راو : ا او حا و

و.ا ال

In its practical application, the discipline ofevaluating the reliability of narratorsdetermines the appropriate place for each



narrator with respect to accepting or

rejecting their narration.

Uprightness (al-ᶜ adl)

اا ما

- اا ( اق( :

ز اى واوءة.

In general “being upright” (al-ᶜadālah inArabic), is an internal quality that incites a

person to live a life of God-fearing and

respectability.

The definition explained

-:ا ح

كو ا ا واى: :ا

واوءة ( اص( : .

او ا أ ت و اا ا أ ت

.او ا ف

By “internal quality” I mean a practice that

has become a habit. To be “God-fearing” isto do all that God loves and avoid all thatHe dislikes. “Respectability,” in the specialsense in which I am using it here, is to dothose things that are appropriate to people

of sound reason and that are the signs ofaccomplished and good people, as is thecustom of the people of an area or a periodof time.

و اا ا اد ي؛ ن

لا اا

ن نأ ا م ا

ا ا وذ زو و أ

و ة دا (( :ذ ن و

ة(( ك نأ ىرأ ن :و

ا ن : و ا لا

. : وأ ا كو تا

I don’t think there is any harm in defining

uprightness is that internal quality becausewe are defining uprightness and not the

upright person. So, a person havinguprightness as an attribute need not beeternally protected from wrong, since a

person who has a quality as an attribute or ahabit will sometimes do something that goes

against that attribute and habit. So theArabic saying goes: “Even the best purebredhorse will misstep, even the best sword will

bounce.”So I do not see a difference between defining the upright person as onewho has the attribute of uprightness, ordefining him as the person who mostly doesgood and avoids evil, or defining him as the

person whose good prevails over his evil.

او ةا تو )او( تا نإ

و ئا دا ن

ر و أ ةءواو ىا

Internal qualities and habits differ both in

strength and in the depth of theiracquisition. So not everyone who has the

quality of being generous person is agenerous as Ḥātim al-Ṭā’ī. Not everyonewho has the quality of being God-fearing or

respectable is as God-fearing and



وا اد أ ا و . ا ان

و نا.نو أ نأو

respectable as Abū Bakr and ᶜUmar (God be

pleased with both of them). This is indeedthe demand of the creed of the ahl al-

sunnah that faith increases and decreases

and the faithful differ in the degrees of theirfaith.

ا ا جا ا ةءوا أ

ناو و ى ن ا

.اا أ )ا(

The condition of respectability is to excludethe child and the insane person who are not

responsible, so they can neither be calledGod-fearing nor iniquitous — so the criteriaof uprightness is not relevant to them.

نإو ل أ ا جاو

ا ذو ؛ أ

. )ا ( ا وأ ا أ )(

This condition also helps screen out peopleabout whom one expects that they are not

upright though one cannot establish forcertain that they are iniquitous. This is

because such a person will usually do things

that it is customary for iniquitous people

and people weak in their reason to do.ا نأ و أ ن

ار .اوأ ا أ ت ةءوا

ا ا ر ار و ر عرا

زار أر وأ إ

او ةا ذ نأ

أ ةءوا أ ذ ن ؛أ

.ف وز اق واء

This makes it clear that something may be permissible in itself, but it be contrary to

respectability because it is a distinguishingfeature of iniquitous people and those ofunsound reason. So, imagine seeing a

person yelling in the street and jumpingaround with a banner of an exercise club, or

a store manager entering his workplacewearing just a loincloth covering him fromhis knees to his navel. Although these

people have not done anything actually

forbidden I would expect that these are notrespectable people. This is because in thecustom of our day and our area onlyiniquitous people and those of little

understanding do this kind of thing.

( ةءوأ ةءوا مراو ىا أ ام(

رم وءة و ر ؛ا أ

. ةءو

So the condition of being respectability is

broader than that of being God-fearing, andthe condition of avoiding things contrary torespectability is broader than avoiding actsof disobedience that make one iniquitous.So anything that makes one iniquitous

damages respectability and everything that

damages respectability does not necessarilymake one iniquitous.

أن ااط :ذ وا إ ةءوا

ا وا ل ا ادح

ا دون اغ : . وأ

أو ذب ا ن أو ارب ائ وات وا

This makes it clear that the condition of

respectability is actually just to ensure the person is sound in his religion and hisreason through avoiding things that are

certain to or likely to damage either of thetwo. So not having reached puberty or

having lost one sense as in the case of an



ااو با ا ا دا و

.و روا إ

At the same time, actual uprightness does not

refer to knowledge of secrets of the heart and ofintentions. These are things only the Knower ofwhat is in hearts knows, be He praised.

The types of narrators with respect to uprightness (each type)

. )( اا ةاوا ما*

ا ا( واة وم( :-1

وال.

1. A narrator we know to be actually upright(and, of course, his being apparently upright isalso confirmed by this). This is the uprightnarrator.

و ار-2 : )ا نود( ةا ا

ا ةاوا لا و )ا ح(

ا ا ةا ترا و

.ا ةاور ا و رو

2. A narrator we know to be apparently upright,

not actually. Later scholars call such a narratormastūr al -ḥāl (a narrator whose condition ishidden). When it is impossible to know of their

actual condition, their narration is acceptable,especially a Follower, more especially an ElderFollower, and the later scholars who narrate

books.

3- )او ةا( ا

وأ آ يأ وأ ا وأ بدا وأ ا (

: )راا ذ وأ ةرإ وأ ةد

ل ا و لا ل

3. A narrator whose person we know (his parentage, or his position in belles-lettres or as

a poet or some other field of knowledge, or as acommander of an army or as a ruler or by some

other historical attribute) but we neither knowhim to be actually upright or apparentlyupright. Such a narrator is known as majhūl al -

ḥāl (a narrator whose condition is unknown).We must suspend judgment on the reports of

such a narrator.

و ق ة وأ و

ن ن رة أو : )و دإ(

إو ذ = ا ت

ة ا و ار

We will not make a general judgment of severe

weakness or mild weakness about his hadiths.Rather, we will study the chain of narration andthe text of his hadith. If his hadith is unfamiliar(munkar), or if there are signs of it beingfabricated, we will issue judgment accordingly.

Otherwise, one will not judge his hadith to beseverely weak and, in this situation, his hadith

will remain worthy of consideration (iᶜtibār).

4-)او ةا

( ا و

و .ا ل :أ)يا يواا و

4. A narrator we do not know to be upright,neither apparently nor actually, and we also donot know who he is. We say that such anarrator is unknown in his person (majhūl al -

ᶜ ayn).1 He is liked an unspecified narrator(mubham): an unnamed narrator in the chain of

1 two paragraphs ago.ālḥ-ūl al majh Note the contrast with



و و . ) لا أ ن

.

narration. His narration is like the narration of

the previous kind or a bit less acceptable.

5-و .او ا و :اا م ف

لوا ا و

.دود ع

ا.ب او باا

5. A narrator whom we know not to be upright.This would be an iniquitous person or a

disbeliever. The ummah is agreed that thereport of a disbeliever is to be rejected. Thereport of an iniquitous person who does not

have an excuse of misinterpretation isconsidered severely weak and it is not worthyof any consideration, as is the hadith of a liar or

the person accused of lying.

How to determine the category of a narrator

-

ا ما ا ةاوا قإ

:

1al-ᶜ Adl:TheUprightNarrator

)ال( :-1

ة وا أئ ا-.أ

a. …by his being famous and well known as

upright: such as the authors of the six books.

اح وا-.ب ل

b. …by the explicit statement of someonewhose positive and negative evaluations ofnarrators are acceptable.

ج

-

وا اوي

(

ا . ) ل إ يو اورو

c. …through an implicit positive evaluation

such as when a hadith expert judges a hadith henarrates as sound or tolerably sound, or such aswhen a narrator known for narrating only from

upright narrators narrates hadith from him.

د دادودو م اا ا ا

ح ذ ااوي.

When there is no explicit negative evaluation of

the narrator, this kind of implicit positiveevaluation gains in strength.

اذإ جا :ا ا و

ا ذ ا إ ا نأ ا

. روا ذ ااوي

Another sort of implicit positive evaluation iswhere a scholar issues judgment using the

report of a narrator as evidence, when it lookslikely that in this judgment the scholar hasissued his judgment based on the demands of

that report.



2al-Mastūr:OfHiddenCondition

وا و ل وا إذا-2 )ار( :

ن ائ واظ.

We can identify a narrator as one whosecondition is hidden (mastūr ) when two upright

people narrate a hadith from him. When the person narrating from him is a leading hadith

expert or hadith collector, a single person

reporting from a narrator is sufficient toclassify him as mastūr.

3Majhūlal -ḥal:Ofunknowncondition

3- وأ ( او وا راو )ل ال( :

أ ل يواا ن ن ل

. )و

One can identify a narrator as of unknowncondition when a single narrator reports ahadith from him, whether the reporting narratoris upright or not. Of course, if the reportingnarrator is himself not upright, this will further

weaken both the narrator and his hadith.

4Majhūlal -ᶜ ayn:Unknowninhisperson

4- ا قر إو : )ا ل(

. او يواا

A narrator unknown in his person is like theone of unknown condition. The only difference

is that his case we do not know who he is,while in the previous we know who he is butdon’t know of his reliability.

5al-F āsiq,al -kāfir:theiniquitous,theunbeliever

5-: )او ا(

We judge a narrator to be iniquitous or to be anunbeliever:

ابة-أ :او

او ل و ا و اد.

اان اون ا رل

((

:

ئا

ا ا :رأ و ا ا

a. …by his being famous or well known assuch. Such as Muhammad ibn Saᶜīd al-Maṣlūbwas known as a zindīq,2 and such as al-Kalbī,Bishr al-Muraysi and Ḥaf ṣ al-Fard. Nasā’ī says: There are four people who are wellknown for fabricating hadiths and attributingthem to the Prophet ṣallallāhu ᶜ alayh wa

sallam: Ibn Abī Yaḥyā in Medina, al-Wāqidi inBaghdad, Muqātil ibn Sulaymān in Khurasanand Muḥammad ibn Saᶜīd in Syria.

2 is a person who repeatedly repents from his unbelief to the point that we can no longer tell whetherīqzind A

we should give any weight at all to his repentance.



و وااي اد و ن ان

م(( .

اح.-ب ل

b. …by explicit statement of someone whoseword is acceptable in negative evaluations of

narrators.

ا ( ا اي - د

ا كو يواا ذ إ ا

آ ا ك نأ ا

إ أ روا ذ ااوي( .

c. …by implicit negative evaluation such aswhen a hadith is evaluated as weak where thereis no reason for it be evaluated as weak except

the presence of that narrator in the chain ofnarration. Or, when a scholar does not act onthe demands of a hadith and it seem likely that

there is no reason for the scholar not acting onthe hadith other than the presence of that

narrator in its chain of narration.

ه

-

ا ا تاو تا او

تء يا ا ن

د أو ا.ارة أو اي و ذ ا

d. …by his narrating unfamiliar (munkar) and

fabricated hadiths with clean chains ofnarration that lead to his being caught as the

person responsible for these unfamiliar hadiths

or for fabricating that chain of narration or thattext.

Control (al-ḍ abṭ )

ا ما

-

اوا لا أ ةدا لا ا. ن نأ ا اا ط

So far we were speaking of the uprightness that

is required in bearing witness. For reportinghadith, along with being upright religiously, thenarrator must have control of his material.

أو- ( يواا يوا :ا

. )

Control of material is the ability to convey thetext received to others in the very manner inwhich the text was received, whether the exactwords of the texts are preserved or just the

meaning is.

- يو ن :ا

. ) وأ (

The narrator who has control of his material is

the one who reports the hadith as he received itfrom his teacher, whether he preserves just themeaning of the hadith or both its meaning and

word.

Two types of control

-:ا



1- يوا را ةرا ك ر

ار ااوي دون اع إ اب ط

. ىور اذإ ا إ م

1. Control by memorization is the ability of a

narrator to recall the report from memorywithout referring to books exactly as he heardit, with the condition that when he is narrating

only the sense of a report he should be able to preserve that sense.

ا رأ إ ج اواو

(

اوو او أو ا :و :

. ) كاردا دو ا و ك ي

اوا ا دا ن ا

او ا رذاو د

.و ا

In summary, narrating the sense of a reportrequires three things: the acquired knowledge

of fiqh and its principles and of language agood understanding, and an innate goodunderstanding and fine sense for meaning. In

addition, there are hadiths in which narrating just the sense is not enough: such as prayers

and forms of remembering God in which thewords are important and also wisdom sayingsof the Prophet in which a lot is stated in a fewwords.

2- يوا ن نأ و

: ب

ا أو ا أواان وأن ث

اذإ( ا ا إ ار(

. ٍ وأ ا

2. Control by writing is that the narrator have awritten, proofread copy of the report that he has

protected from being changed, destroyed or lostand that the narrator whose control of hismaterial is by writing narrate the hadith onlyfrom this written text or from a written copythat is in accord with that text (unless, of

course, he has control of his material both bywriting and by memory).

How the early scholars would judge control

- ذ اء ا اوة:

و او م ل

ا ا م اردإو

وت ذ ااوي.

The early hadith experts would determine the

control of narrators through a very difficult process that required a vast memory, a deepunderstanding and a great knowledge of all thevarious disciplines of hadith. This process isthe process of comparative study of the

narrations of that narrator.

: ر وإ يواا ذ

اد ا د واد ا رك :

.اور أ

Very briefly, the hadith expert would divide putseparate the narrations of the narrator that only

he has narrated from the group group which

others have also narrated.

-ر د ذ ن را

. و د

--If most of his narrations are such that only hehas narrated them, this would be evidence of

his being weak. At times this can even be theevidence for him having fabricated thesehadiths.



ن ار ل اة -

يواا ة ا ةر مو ةر إ

أ دا ا نإ

ا ؛ا عأ د د

.ا

--If most of his narrations are not such that only

he has narrated them, but they are still many,we will examine them for being unusual alongwith keeping an eye on the cohort ( ṭ abaqah)3of

the narrator. The cohort is important becauseone will accept unusual hadiths among the

Followers to a degree that one will not acceptfrom their students. And when we come to thestudents of these students of the Followers, an

unusual hadith will very rarely be consideredacceptable (Dhahabī, Mūqiḍ ah).

-ا إ دو وأ را ن

.اور أ كر و يواا ا

و تا ا ا

. ا

)ود

(

--If unusual hadiths are very few or not at all,

we will study those of his hadiths that othershave also narrated to see if he reports thesehadiths mostly as other reliable narrators reportthem or not. We will study how much hisnarration disagrees with the reports of reliable

narrators both in number and in the amount ofdisagreement.

ن ذ أ ا ة

: أى إ ر( إن وت(

د ؟ اد

د ؟

If our study shows us that he does have somedegree of control over the reports he conveys,we will return to the hadiths which he alone hisreported (if there are such hadiths) and we will

look at them: is his control strong enough thatwe ought to consider there reports? Can the

strength of his control carry the weight of his being alone in reporting these hadiths?

: ن نتا

أ ر ذ ء ن ن ة

وا ا ئ أ ل ب(

)راا.

If, among these hadiths that he has reported

alone there are hadiths that his level of controlcannot support, we will study these hadithsagain. If these hadiths are unknown to thedegree of being outlandish, we might reject all

his hadiths. So, Dara Quṭanī has said:Sometime a single hadith will be the fall of ahundred thousand!

و ذ أ إ ا ا ( رك-

إ ر ن ااوي(

ااء رك أ ن ا ااوي

را أ و .أ ن

. )أ (

اوا أ إذا- يواا ن اذإ او

--This does not mean that we will look at thehadiths that others have also reported only afterwe are finished looking at those that he alone

has reported. Rather, sometimes it will be moreappropriate to start with the hadiths that he has

reported along with others, as often making adecision looking at these reports, though

difficult in itself, can be easier than deciding onthe basis of hadiths that he alone has reported.--All this is where a narrator reports manyhadiths. When he narrators only a few hadiths,

3 “Cohort” refers to a group of contemporaries in time.



ن نا وأ اا إ

ن و ن .

ا ن و دا ا

كر ا يواا ذ ن ن

ن نإو ذ ل ا

ر كر ر وا ر

ا و ؛ د او إ

أئ اد ا ا ةو؛ظ

or where he has only one or two hadiths to his

names, the decision about his hadith can either be very difficult or it can be very easy!If all the hadiths of a narrator who reports only

a few hadith are such that others have alsoreported them, the decision is easy by

comparing his hadiths to the hadiths of others.If all his hadiths are such that only he hasreported them, or if there are some such

hadiths, or if he has a single hadith which hereports and nobody else does, leadings criticsand expert hadith scholars have a very difficulttime judging him.

نأ إ اور ر تا او نإو

أ ر يا

او

.أ ر ا و

. وأ

ل يواا ن ا( ا ر

ا م ود رة ) او

ذ لا و دا ا ذ ي ة

. )أ ( د يواا

The reason for this is that even if those of hisreports which others also have narrated accord

with the reports of reliable narrators, because

he has such few hadiths that others have alsonarrated, they are not sufficient to come to afirm judgment about his control or lack of it. Soone must now also look at the hadiths which he

alone has narrated. And to judge a narrator’scontrol looking at the very few hadiths(sometimes even the single hadith) the he andhe alone has narrated is exceedingly difficult.

This is especially the case where the hadith isnothing obviously unusual about the hadith healone reports, and where the narrator is of acohort in which such unusual hadiths can be

tolerated (such as when he is among theFollowers or their students).

- او إ يا يواا نأ و

ذ ؛ ا دوتار

: أ ذ ل ي

--It would be wrong to think that it isimpossible to judge a narrator who has onlyone hadith since such judgment is not possible

or since Ibn ᶜAdī has made statements fromwhich one can come to this conclusion.

- أ ل .و ذ -

( او حا 4/5)-

ىور إ و ر

((

:اي

أن ا ا ف ي . )) او

ر( دواد يا تاؤ185)

● It would be wrong to think this since criticshave indeed issued such judgments. So, IbnAbi Ḥātim has said about Saᶜīd ibn Muḥammad

al-Zuhri: “He is not well known but he ismustaqīm al -ḥadīth and he has but a singlehadith” (al-Jar ḥ wa al-taᶜdīl pg. 58, v. 4), while

others have declared this hadith to be unusual(munkar) (Su’ālāt al -ājuri li abī dāwūd ,#1085).



ود رات أى ي ل إن-.

.أ ذ

● One should not be misled by Ibn ᶜAdī’sstatement because in other places he has madeit clear that such judgment is sometimes

possible.

-ا ذ نإ ا و

(11 سا ذ

: ب

ا ئا ثا تأ د و

. )ا

● Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī has explicitly statedthat this is possible in a section in his chapter

on “Those qualities of a muhaddith whosehadiths may be related that everyone can

recognize and those qualities that only thek nowledgeable can recognize” ( Kifāyah 117).

How later scholars can judge control

-: ا او ا

ا( اا ئا ل

ئأ مأ ن ذو

.

)ا او او

اح وا ءت ن ةاوا ن اذإ

إ ذو وأ وور

ل ا و ؛ وا ءت أم

ا ةاوا و او حا ئأ

.او اا :

--Later scholars and modern researchers can judge the control of a narrator by the samemeans as the ones through which we judge his

uprightness (by his being famous and wellknown as a narrator of control, by explicit

statement of someone whose judgment ofcontrol is acceptable, and through implicitevaluation of his control). This is because

leading experts of narrator evaluation issue judgment on whether reports of a narrator can

be relied on in religious argument, so the judgments of the leaders of narrator evaluationcover both aspects of narrators: theiruprightness and their control.

أ ا ا ر ان-

اد اواة ا( أي

دون أن ا إم م(

وأ إ

: )ا و (

Later scholars cannot rely on the method ofcomparative study to reach independent

judgment on an unknown or little knownnarrator (i.e. judgment on a narrator that a

previous leading scholar has not judged) that

the early scholars employed, except in twosituations:

لا يواا ا نأ :وا ا

ارة أو وا ان

The first situation is where we find that thenarrator has reported a hadith that is obvious in

its being unusual (munkar) and clearly false.

ةرا را ي يواا

وذ ط ا أو ة ا أو ام ب.

ياو لا ذ يا دا ن نأ

On this basis I would judge the narrator to beweak or exceedingly weak or accused of lyingaccording to how unusual the hadith is. This is,of course, provided that the chain of narration

in which that unknown narrator is and in whichwe find this unusual material is a clean chain of



و( .لا ذ إ ةاوا ل= ةرا

ناا ا ر اا

ذ ا او نا او

.

)ان

narration and in which all the narrators are

acceptable other than that one unknownnarrator. (This is the way Dhahabi has issuedindependent judgment about narrators being

weak in his Mizān, and Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar hasdone so in Lisān al - Mizān, and I myself have

done in Dhayl al-lisān.

ل ا ن ا و :ا ا

إ ذ و .أو وا أ و يواا

و ذ أو أ إذا ن يواا

ءا ا

د روى؛ أ أد وأ ا؛

ا ا ا

. ت اذإ ل نأ ا راو

ؤ ئا و نإ ن ا

ئا و وأ ىور وأ ا يواا

ا لتأ نأ

ا ن نأ نود( ا

.

) ا ا إ يواا ج

The second situation is where we decide that

the reports of a narrator are acceptable. This isa more difficult and harder decision. This only

becomes possible if the narrator has very fewhadiths, and hadith experts explicitly state this,or I find other evidence for having very fewhadiths, indeed sometimes experts specify thenumber of hadiths he has. Then I identify all

his hadiths and I do a comprehensive search for

all his hadiths. After all this, it is possible for alater scholar who has deep understanding and along experience to judge a narrator asacceptable when he signs evidence for this.

This is especially the case when there are signsthat support this study, such as the narrator

being among the Followers, or such as himhaving had many people narrate from him, orsuch as there being signs that early scholars

used to accept his hadiths such as his hadith being in one of the famous books of hadith(without the author of the book stating that the

hadith is sound: since if he states his hadith to be sound this would be implicit positive

evaluation and one would not usually need to perform a comparative study of all hisnarrations).

وأ ح دو م ر أ اواة اون:

-راو ة - نأ

ذإ ؛ل - ا- نأ

)( ا ت

.

) أ ئ أ او برو

(

As for narrators with many hadiths, if we wereto find a narrator on whose reliability experts

have issued neither a positive judgment nor anegative one, because of his many hadithswhich would be widespread, a positive

judgment would not be possible. This is because there is a strong possibility that the

later hadith expert would certainly have missedsome of his hadiths which would have led to

the rejection of all his hadiths (for, “Sometimea single hadith will be the fall of a hundred

thousand!”).



- ا ا نأ ذ و

ا إ ةئا

.ا

--This does not mean that if later scholars study

the hadiths of such a narrator by comparativeexamination there would be no benefit to itexcept in these two situations. Such a study is

useful even in situations other than these two.

و فا ا يا يوا

ا وأ نأ ءا ت ةد

-واء أ ال أو اد

ا ن .ا لاا ا

.ا إ إ ل

A study by comparative examination of anarrator in whose positive and negativeevaluation experts differ widely — whether hehas many hadiths or few, whether the result of

study is accepting his hadiths or rejectingthem — can be very useful in deciding betweenthese different evaluations. Such comparativestudy, then, would be useful to help us weighdifferent evaluations, it would not be a means

to independent evaluation.

Control is what differentiates narratorsا ةاوا ا )( ا*

اح وا أ اح اا ( اول

) ا ة إ ةاو

اواة.

Usually difference in control is the source forthe differences in evaluations of narrators. Asfor criticism of uprightness (other than in the

case of the iniquitous person who does not havean excusable interpretation to justify him) itleads only to the judging the narratorexceedingly weak: the degree that leads to thehadiths of narrator not being worthy of

consideration (iᶜtibār).

The leading experts of narrator-evaluationاو حا ئأ

Qualities the evaluator must have

وط ال وارح: *

إ ج ةاوا ما(( :ا ا ل

ةو او ىا ةءاو م عرو

.

))رو و

Al-Dhahabi states: “Evaluating narratorsrequires complete caution, being free ofinclinations and prejudices, and a complete

knowledge of hadiths, hidden defects in hadiths

and narrators of hadiths” (al- Mūqiẓ ah).

How can we know who has these qualities

ف وت اوط:-

ا ذ :ل ا-1

1. From the books that have been written aboutthis.



-.أ : )او حا ذ(a. Dhahabi’s al- Mutakillimūn fi l -rijāl

وي.-ب ( b. Sakhawi’sان ال( : al- Mutakallimūn fi l -rijāl

ان-ج (ا م : ) أ ا را ةاو

. ا اف

c. Hishām ibn ᶜAbd al-ᶜAzīz al-Khallāf’s al- Muzakkūn li-ruwāt al -akhbār ᶜ ind ibn abi

ḥātim.”

2-و ا و ل

.او او

2. From biographical entries about him that

describe his memory, his being a leading critic.

Specific and unspecific critical notice

إو او حا

-و يواا اذإط

ن اح أو ا؟

If there is no difference of opinion in the

positive and negative evaluation of a narrator,must one specify the reason for positive ornegative evaluation?

او حا نأ ا-ا -ن

وأ ) ( أ ءا

و . ) (رد نأ إ ط

اح وا واي و أن

.او حا ب ر ن

The correct position is that in this situation both positive and negative evaluation will beaccepted in all cases: whether the evaluation is

specific (i.e. the reason for the evaluation isstated), or unspecific (i.e. the reason for theevaluation is not stated). The only condition foraccepting such evaluation is that it be issued bysomeone whose word is acceptable in negative

and positive evaluation of narrators — and a

condition for this is that the person evaluatingthe narrator should know the things that justify positive or negative evaluation.

Conflicting evaluations

.او حا ضر

أ اا- :او حا ضر

:ا

When there are different evaluations of anarrator I do the following:

Step1:Verification

ا أن ارض اواة :

.و

The first step: Verify that the difference is

actual and not imagine.



c. Has the narrator made a mistake?

أن ن ال ارض أ- ج

.

ارة ذ ااوي

c. That the person who is narrating the

conflicting statement have made a mistake incopying the statement about that narrator.

ذ ةاوا ءأ

ما ذ ل ا

و .ا ةرا ا

ارة ا ا اح

ا آ وا إ او

ا ا و . لوا

ر ل ف ل ما ةر

.ذ و ..ا

This would be, for example, where thenarrators’ names are similar and the personcopying the name puts the statement of the

expert of narrator-evaluation in the notice onsomeone other than the person for whom the

statement has been made. This could be wherea copyist’s eye slips from the notice on the

person who the evaluation actually is to anothernotice so that he mistakenly copies what has

been said about the second narrator to the

notice on the first. Another such situation

would be where the person copying theevaluation of the expert copy only part of theevaluation so that this partial report ends upmeaning the opposite of what the full report

would have meant.

.او أ ذ و

And there are actual examples for all of this.

d. Has the evaluator made a mistake?

أن ن ام ارح أو ال أ-د

أو ق وأ وار

.ذ يواا

d. That the expert evaluator himself had made a

mistake and made a single narrator out of what

were actually two narrators, or made twonarrators of a single one. As a result hisdecision about the narrator would be wrong.

e. Is the criticism acceptable?

— ه ا وأ حا ن نأ

ح ب اذون و ل .ا وأ حا

.او ا ح

و أو إد ا أو

ارة اي ح

e. That the position or negative evaluation bespecific but the specified cause for theevaluation not be acceptable. Examples of this

might be where an expert issue negativeevaluation because the narrator rode a mule, orwhere he issues positive evaluation because of

a nice appearance or good-looking beard. Or,where the evaluator criticizes a narrator for

narrating a hadith that he thinks is wrong — while the hadith is actually correct. Or, wherehe criticizes a narrator because of a hadith inthe chain of narration of which this narrator

figures, but the mistake is not his but that ofanother narrator in that chain of narration.



2 Is it easily resolvable?

أن : را لاا ا ن

.

Make sure that it not be possible resolve the

conflict between the statements in astraightforward way.

وا ا ج إ ظ اح-

. ئا ماا ئاو او او

--This kind of harmonization requires a deepknowledge of the words that are used in

positive and negative evaluation and of the

different ranks of the evaluations that suchwords yield and of the ways is which experts

use them.

ا(( :ل ا ائ

ة ن او حا

و ذ ل .ا ةرا

.

))ا ءاو را

Al-Muᶜallimī states: “Often the words used toexpress positive or negative evaluations ofnarrators are used to mean things that differfrom the meanings assigned to them in booksof Mu ṣṭ alaḥ al-ḥadīth. One can only know this

through immersing oneself in this material formany years and through a comprehensiveknowledge of it” (Preface of his edition of al-

Fawā’id al -majmūᶜ ah.)

- يا )( و أ اظ:

)ا ا( ا ن

The word ḍ aᶜīf is an example of this as it can be

used for some whose hadith is tolerably sound,as I have shown in al-Mursal al-khafiyy.

Things to keep in mind while harmonizing

-: ا ا ا ا را و

1Thecontextofevaluation

1- ذإ ةرا تذ يا ما ق ةا

: ا وأ حا ن

Keep in view the context in which the

statement occurs since often the evaluation ofthe narrator is relative:

-.ار : نود

● Such as when a narrator is weak with respectto hadiths of one city and not another: such asMaᶜmar ibn Rāshid.

-إ ث اذإ و

:إ نود

. جو ش

● Such as where a narrator is weak in one areand not in another such as Ismāᶜīl ibn ᶜAyyāshand Faraj ibn Fuḍālah.

-ا :إ نود إ أ ىور اذإ و

ا

● Such as when a narrator is weak when the people of one area narrates from him and notwhen others narrate from him: such as Zuhayribn Muḥammad al-Tamīmī.



through detailed comprehensive examination of

his judgments.”

ا ذ و:ا ت

Among well-known terms that are peculiar tospecific evaluators:

اري

: ا

Bukhari’s: sakatū ᶜ anhu (“they are silent about

him”) and fīhi naẓ ar (there is some questionabout him”).

س ء. : او

Ibn Maᶜīn’s: laysa bihi ba’s (“there is nothingwrong with him”) and laysa bi- sha’y (“he isnothing”).

. ي : أو

Abū Ḥātim’s: laysa bi l-qawī (“he is notstrong”), lā yuḥtajju bihi (“his hadith cannotserve as evidence”) and yuktabu hadīthuhu

(“his hadith can be recorded”).

ا وا. : أ

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’s: kadhā wa kadhā (“thisand that”).

4Non-technical,lexicalormetaphoricalusage

4- او و ا ا ةا

ذإ ب وأ يا ا م

زي.

Keeping in mind the lexical meanings of aword and the breadth of such meaning and the

possibility that a single word might refer todifferent levels of reliability since sometimes aword can be used in its non-technical lexical

sense, or it can be used in a metaphorical way.

ا أ ن وأ و أ با م:

. ا ان

Such as using kadhdāb (“liar”) to mean akhṭa’a(“he made a mistake”). Or munkar (“unusual”)or shayṭān (“a devil”) to mean that he has asastonishing memory and unusually strongcontrol of his material.

و دل ا إ ا اي اان

ذ اظ وا ل:

))و ذ ارات ا ل ااح

أو أو ا أوااو

. )) نأ زا

Dhahabī has pointed to this lexical usage in his preface to the Mizān. Right after he mentionssome words of evaluation and the degree of

positive or negative evaluation they point to hesays: “…and other such words whose lexicalmeaning suggests that that the narrator should

be completely discarded, or that he is weak, orthat one should suspend judgment about him,

or that it is correct to use his reports asevidence though he is a bit weak.”

ظا ءإ نأ

ا.ا د

So one must not exaggerate the importance oftechnical usage to the point that we not allow

for the possibility that an evaluator is using theword in one of its lexical meanings.



5Prejudice

ئ ج ا وأ حا نأ ا :

وا ا ءاا أو ف

إذ

.

اعرا ئأ ا نإو او حا ئأ نأ

. ا أ إ ؛ إ سا أو ااو

: عا إ إ

قوا د ا (( ار ير

وا إ أو .ذ و ))

ا يا وأ

Make sure that the positive or negativeevaluation is just and is not the result of hatred

that has gone beyond the bounds or excessivelove. This is because even though the experts of

evaluation were leaders in their carefulness, in

being impartial, and were the most just of people, they were not infallible. You can seetheir justice to the doctrinally eccentric whenyou hear them say things like: “This man isreliable, a predestinarian (qadari),” “This manis reliable, a shiᶜite (rāfiḍī),” “A person who is

blameworthy in his religious proclivity andtruthful in his hadith narrated to me…”Similarly you can see them exposing their own

fathers, sons and friends as being weak: theylove them but they will not be partial to them!

- ح ن اذإ ا ذ ل و

ن اذإو و تاو ا

.و او ضا

--We can be sure that this has happened with

the judgment of an evaluator when he issuesnegative evaluation about someone whose

reliability is well-known and established, orwhen he positively evaluates someone whose

being weak is well known and established.

ة- م اان ى و وى( و أن ة )

ا حو م أ ا

يا ا وأ ا حا ىأ

.وأو أ ا ن

--Remember that the rule “The criticalcomments of contemporaries should be ignoredand should not be narrated” is particular to

people of the type we have described. As forwhen a contemporary negatively evaluates

another contemporary narrator whose

uprightness and control has not beenestablished, this type of criticism is established

most firmly since a contemporary knows hiscontemporary much better than others can

know him.

و ا وع ا م اف إذا

أ و . فا وأ ةوا

ا ن ذإ إ إو إ

ا ذ ف وأ ا ذ ل ف

. )ا ز(

--Sometimes when there is a mutual enmity or

difference in religious affiliation between theevaluator and the narrator, it becomes mostlikely that there has been injustice. Again, thisis not always the case: one only turns to thiskind of explanation when most evaluations

contradict the evaluation of this evaluator or,

when the evaluator is known for his severitywith his opponents (such as Jūzajāni’s severeopposition to Shi’ites.)

Step2:Preferringoneevaluationtoanother

:ا :ا ةا



Negative evaluation: summary or specific

م اح إذا رح )أ إذا رح د-

؛ إ ت ارح

)

. ل ئا درا ل

When the reasons for the negative evaluation

are specified (and are valid: since if they arenot valid the evaluation will simply be rejected,

as we have already stated) the negativeevaluation will be given preference to the

positive one, except in a few situations where

the error of the expert issuing the negativeevaluation is clear through a series of

indications that show his error.

- ا ن حا ن اذإ أ

ا؛ إذا ر رف ب اح

وا وا أ ح إ رح ودام

ن ارح زدةأ م ا؛

و ا حرا ل ((

ذ ن حرا ل و . ن

ا و او حا ب و( )

ا نأ و)) )او(-

ا(134ةدز إ )

.ا

--As for when the negative evaluation is

summary and not specified, in principle itshould be preferred to positive evaluation. Thisis because when a person who knows the

reasons for which negative evaluations areissued evaluates a person negatively, usually

and in principle he would have issued thisevaluation because of his knowledge of such areason. When this is the case, we must prefer

his evaluation over any positive evaluationsince the critic has additional knowledge. At

the same time, “when we accept the criticism ofthe negative evaluator we will not accuse theexpert who has issued positive evaluation ofimbalance, and this latter evaluator’suprightness will not be impugned. And whenwe do not accept the criticism of the expertwho issues negative evaluation, this means that

we are calling his accusation false, and this willdamage his uprightness [and our evaluation ofhis knowledge of the reasons for negativeevaluations of narrators] since this judgmentweighs against our trusting him [and againstour judging him knowledgeable in this field]”(al- Kifāya, except for the text between square

brackets which I have added to clarify theargument].

Indications for preferring positive evaluation

م ا اح ا إذا أن

.ا حا ا ة ل ئا

:ئاا و

But one may prefer positive evaluation tounspecific negative evaluation when there isstrong indication that the positive evaluation is

weightier than the unspecific negativeevaluation. Among these indications are:

1 Number

1-.ا د ة

The positive evaluations being far greater in

number than the negative evaluations.



2 Greater Knowledge

ال وزدة ارح.-2

The expert who evaluates positively being of

much greater stature and his knowledge beingmuch more than that of the expert issuing

negative evaluation.

3 Balance

إف ال ارح.-3

اء : و أ ؤء

The expert issuing positive evaluation being

more balanced in his judgments while thenegative evaluation be coming from an expert

who is excessively severe in his judgments.Here are examples, of each type in each of thecohorts of experts:

ان

←→ ادون

Severe←→ Balanced

اري

←→

Shu cbah←→ Thawri

ا ي

←→ ان

Qaṭṭān ←→ Ibn Mahdī

أ

←→ ا

Ibn Maᶜīn ←→ Aḥmad

رز أ

←→ أ

Abū Ḥātim ←→ Abū Zurᶜah

اري

←→ ئا

Nasa’ī ←→ Bukhāri

ا ي

←→

)أ

(ا ن

Ibn Ḥibbān* ←→ Ibn ᶜAdī

(*) Sometimes

:ا ئاا ا ل :((

د و ئا نأ ا

ةر دو ةر ن إ

ا ئا ت و ا و . لاأ

أ أ ءا إ

=

ا ام(( .

NOTE: Al-Muᶜallimī states: “The well-knownassessments of the leading experts as being

severe in their evaluations or being lax are notabsolute: some will be lax in some placeswhich being severe on other occasionsaccording to varying circumstances. Knowingthis and the other characteristics of these

leading experts that have an effect on their judgments is only obtained by a profound and

complete study of their judgments along withdeep thinking” (in his Preface to al- Fawā’id al -majmūᶜ ah).

و راإ ما و :و

و إار و و ف اد

On this basis, then, when we say that an expertis severe this does not mean that we will give

no weight to his calling someone weak or



را فوا ةئ إو .

ائ ا ارض.

reliable. When we say he is balanced this will

not be a blanket endorsement for all his judgments. Rather, our knowledge of severityor balance will figure as one element among

many in deciding which judgment to preferwhen the judgments are in conflict.

4 Contemporaneity

رح.-4 لا ن نأ

That the expert issuing positive judgment is acontemporary of the narrator he judges. Such

contemporaneity has no effect on negativeevaluation.

5 Living in the same city

5- و لا ن نأ

.ارح

That the expert issuing positive judgment lives

in the city of the narrator he judges. Living inthe same city has no effect on negativeevaluation.

6 Strength of expression

9-وأ أو: :( وو ا ةر ة

اق ل وق د أو: اس أو:

رة اح (:ب اء(

:

أو

:

أو أو ء

:

. )ء أو

The language of the positive evaluation being

strong and clear (such as ḥāfiẓ , or min awthaql-nās, or ṣadūq lā yuraddu ḥadīthuhu, or

maḥalluhu l- ṣidqu yuḥawwalu min kitāb l -ḍ uᶜafā) while the negative evaluation beinglight in contrast (such as yukhṭi’u, or yukhṭi’ukathīran, or fīh ḍ uᶜ f, or fīh līn, or layyin).

Step 3: Suspending judgment

م ود و ؤ :ا :ا ةا

.ا اا ا لاا

When there is no reason to prefer one judgmentto another and when all the judgments are of

equal weight and after we are unable to reach aresult after taking the steps outlined above, wewill suspend judgment.

Conflicting judgments from a single evaluator

-:او حا لاأ ضر

او حا ن اذإ أ درة أ إم.

:ا تاا او مإ رد

Note that the preceding discussion is relevantwhere the conflict in evaluation comes fromtwo different experts of narrator-evaluation.When we find conflicting judgments from a

single narrator-evaluator, we take the followingsteps:



Step 1: Verification

. ) ( ا ا :وأ

Make sure that the two judgments can be

established as properly transmitted (as I haveexplained above).

Step 2: Preferring the later statement

تأ ما دا فا اذإ :

ا دون :ا دا

اخ.

If there is clear statement that the judgment ofthe expert changed over time, we will take thelast judgment, as a case of preferring theabrogating judgment to the abrogated.

Step 3: Harmonization

ا ا زا ا

:

أ ا او مإ ةرد لاا ن ؛را

اأ ن و اأ باا

ر أ ا ا را

.او ا ر أ ا ا

و ذ أن ا ارة ود

واو زا أ دا

د إذا اال ار درة

ائ؛ ن اف اد ائ اد أى

.اا ما دا فا و أو

We will look for a way to harmonize the two

judgments. In this case, where the judgmentsare conflict is in the judgments of a single

expert, it is permissible to go a little distance inachieving harmony since in principle the

judgments of an expert should all be correct. So

when in appearance there is a conflict in his judgments, in actuality there ought not to be aconflict. This does not mean there will be nolimits in our attempt to harmonize, rather, the

point is that in this kind of harmonization we

will accept more than we would in the case ofconflict in judgments of two or more different

experts, since difference in the opinion of many people is much more common than a single

expert person having different opinions.

Step 4: Preferring one evaluation to the other

: ة و ل ت :ا :ارGiving precedence to one evaluation overothers. To do this one would look at a number

of reasons for preferring one evaluation:

1Number

1- أ ما ذ ا د ة

ااوي.

How great is the number of people reporting

both opinions from this single expert?



2Reliabilityofthetransmitter

2- أو ما ذ ة وأ

.أو او

Preferring the report of the most reliable of his pupils, and the one who best knows his

statements and judgments.

3Latertransmitters

3- . أ آ

Preferring the statements of the pupils who arethe last to study with him.

4Accordwithotherevaluators

ا ائ إذا ا-4

.او ا اأ

Preferring the statement that accords with the

judgment of other experts: especially whenthese other experts are from his cohort inknowledge and time.

5Suspendingjudgment

. ا :ا :

Suspending judgment when the aboveconsiderations do not allow us to reach a

judgment.

Levels of the words of evaluation

او حا ظأ ا

Levels of acceptance

ا ال

1Evaluationssuggestinganarratorofsound( ṣaḥīḥ )hadith

1-ا ا

- ؤا :ا لد

ل ا)ةر( سا وأ

.و ..

Words that suggest an exaggeration in positiveevaluation, such as: amīr al -mu’minīn fi l -

ḥadīth (“commander of the believers withrespect to hadith”) , la yus’al ᶜ an mithlihi (“onedoes not ask about someone as reliable as he

is”) , awthaqu l-nās (“the most reliable of people,”) , thiqah thiqah (“reliable,” twice),and the like.

)ط أن- ن

. )اا ح ةا ا ضر

Thiqah (“reliable”) , thabt (“firm”) , ma’mūn(“trustworthy”) , ḥujjah (“his word isincontrovertible evidence”) , ḥāfiẓ (“greatmemorizer”) , ḍābiṭ (“he has good control”) ,



mutqin (“perfect”), (with the condition in thecase of the last three, that there not be anyopposing negative evaluation of uprightness).

2Evaluationsthatsuggestanarratoroftolerablysound( ḥasan )hadiths

2-ا ا

- و س قو.ا

ṣadūq (“truthful”) , lā ba’sa bihi (“nothingwrong with him”) , jayyidu l-ḥadīth (“his hadithis good”)

-.ا ء نإ قو س أ رأ بر

ṣāliḥ (“good enough”) , muqārib (“closeenough”) , ‘arjū ‘annahu lā ba’sa bihi (“Iexpect there is nothing wrong with thim”) ,

ṣadūq ‘in shā ‘allāh (“good enough, Godwilling”).

اق.-

ṣuwayliḥ (“close to being good enough”) , shaykh (“a teacher”) , maḥalluhu l- ṣidqu (“he

should be consider truthful”)

Ambiguous Evaluations

ذ ال واأظ

Words that can be used both to recommendacceptance and to recommend rejection

- سا ا سا ىور اوور

. ا

rawū ᶜ anhu (“they have narrated from him”) ,rawā l -nāsu ᶜ anhu (“people have narrated fromhim”) , iḥtamalahu l-nās (“people havetolerated him”) , yuktab ḥadīthuhu (“his hadithis narrated”) , yujmaᶜ ḥadīthuhu (“his hadith iscollected”) , yuᶜ tabaru bihi (“his hadith isconsidered”) , yun ẓaru fī ḥadīthihi (“his hadithshould be looked at”) , ukhtulifa fīh (“there isdispute about him”)

Levels of rejection

ا اد

1.Slightweakness

ا

( ا ا اأ

)Levels of slight weakness (where the hadiths ofthis sort of narrator may be considered in

comparative evaluation)

ا ا وا ف-

و أد ل ل.

Layyin al-ḥadīth (“weak in hadith”), fīh naẓ ar(“there is some doubt about him”), fīh ḍ uᶜ f (“heis a bit weak”), kadhā wa kadhā “like this, likethat,” tuᶜ raf wa tunkar (“known andunknown”), fīh adnā maqāl (“there is a slight



criticism about him”), fīh maqāl (“there is somecriticism of him”).

- ة كا ي

.

Laysa bi l-qawī (“he is not strong”), laysa bi

dhāka (“he is not so [strong]”), laysa bi ḥujjah (“his hadith cannot count as evidence”), laysabi l-ᶜ umdah (“he is not reliable”), laysa bi l-

mar ḍī (“he is not one to be pleased with”)

ء ا ب ا دود-

.ا

Ḍaᶜīf (“weak”), sayyi’ l -ḥif ẓ (“has badmemory”), muḍ tarab l-ḥadīth (“his hadithvacillates”), mardūd al -ḥadīth (“his hadith is to be rejected”)

2Severeweakness

)أ ا( ا ا ا

Levels of severe weakness (where the hadithsof this sort of narrator will not even beconsidered in comparative evaluation)

- مرا ح ا اذ كو

Matrūk (“discarded”), dhāhib l -ḥadīth (“hishadiths are gone”), muṭṭ araḥ (“he has beenthrown away”), irmi bihi (“throw him away”),lā yuᶜ tabar bi-ḥadīthi (“his hadith should not beconsidered”)

ا حو

ا ا ة او

. يو ء

Lā yutābaᶜ ᶜalā ḥadīthihi (“his hadith is notsupported [by other narrators narrations]”) ,muṭṭ araḥ l-ḥadīth (“his hadith is discarded”) ,

sāqiṭ (“fallen”) , hālik (“irredeemable”) , ḍ aᶜīf

jiddan (“very weak”) , tālf (“a ruin”) , wāhin bi-marrah (“absolutely feeble”) , munkar l-ḥadīth(“his hadith is not familiar”) , sakatū ᶜ anhu(“they are silent about him”) , laysa bi- shay’

(“he is nothing”) , lā yusāwi shay’an(“worthless”) , fāsiq (“iniquitous”) , lā yuktabḥadīthuhu (“his hadith is not to be narrated”)

- ا ق ب

Muttaham bi l-kadhib (“accused of lying”) ,muttahim bi l-waḍᶜ (“accused of fabrication”) , yasriq l-ḥadīth (“steals hadiths”) , majmaᶜ ᶜalātarkihi (“agreed upon passing him over”) ,khabīth (“evil”)

اب دل وع.-

Kadhdhāb (“liar”) , dajjāl (“an antichrist”) ,waḍḍāᶜ (“a fabricator”)

أب اس دل ا ر أرن اب.-

Akdhab l-nās (“the greatest of liars”), dajjāl al -

dajājilah (“the antichrist of antichrists”), ruknmin arkān al -kadhib (“a pillar of falsehood”)

Afterword

ا



وأ حا )ا ( قاروا

. و ة إو ا

In general, these few pages need explanation

and should be accompanied by examples. Theyare but an aid to memory for those who know,they will help but they do not suffice.

آ و ا لر ماو ةاو او

.أ او

.او و و

All praise is God’s, and peace and blessings beon His Messenger, on his family and his

Companions and those who love them. OnlyGod knows best.

و

اا فر

)و ا داز(

23/3/1421

Written byAl-Sharīf Ḥātim ibn ᶜᾹrif al-ᶜAwnī In Mecca (God increase its nobility and itsrespect)On the 23rd day in the third month of the year

1421 (25 June, 2000)

the science of evaluating hadith narrators (auth al-awni english tr zaman) v01

Documents