1. Layyin al-Hadīth

Al-Dāraqutanī says that he uses this term to refer to a narrator who does not become forsaken or matrūk al-hadīth (lā yakūnu sāqitan matrūk al-hadīth) but impugns him with a defect which does not besmear his probity (majrūhun bi shay’ lā yusqitu ‘an al-‘adālah).1

Ibn Abī Hātim uses it to mean that his narratives will be written and used as additional evidence (shawāhid or mutābi‘āt) (yuktabu hadīthuhū wa yunzaru fīhī i‘tibāran).2

In the opinion of Nāyif, this refers to the fact that the narrator suffers from a weak memory.3

2. Da‘īf al-Hadith4

This is an incomprehensive (mujmal) jarh and requires more qualifying attributes to see what it refers to at different instances.

At times, it refers to a person who is less in status to a person whose narratives can be adduced from (dūna man yuhtajju bi hadīthihī) for example because of his bad memory; however, he is one whose narratives can be used as additional evidence (yu‘tabaru bihī).

At times, it refers to a person who is so weak that his narratives are not worthy of being written (al-majrūh al-shadīd al-du‘f lā yakādu yuktabu hadīthuhū) and at times to a person who is so weak that his narratives should be forsaken (alladhī yablughu hadīthuhū al-tark).

Al-Sakhāwī records that in the opinion of Yahya ibn Ma‘īn this term refers to a person who is not trustworthy and whose narratives cannot be written (laysa huwa bi thiqah wa lā yuktabu hadīthuhū).5

3. Matrūk al-Hadīth6

According to ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn al-Mahdī when Shu‘bah was asked to explain who a person whose narratives were abandoned (alladhī yutraku hadīthuhū) was? His reply was: a person who is blamed of lying (man yuttahamu bi al-kadhib), who makes many mistakes (man yukthiru al-ghalat), who errs in a narrative which is agreed upon by all and still does not blame himself for this error and remains adamant on his mistake and a person who narrates from known people what these known people do not even know (rawa ‘an al-ma‘rūfīn ma lā ya‘rifuhū al-ma‘rūfūn).

In the opinion of Ahmad ibn Sālih, the narratives of a person should not be abandoned until all the authorities agree on his rejection.7

Abū Ghuddah says that at times, in the expression tarakahū fulān the word tark (abandoning of narratives) is not used as a term; it means that someone stopped writing from such and such a person. 8

Ibn Salāh says that when authorities say that someone is matrūk al-hadīth or dhāhib al-hadīth or kadhdhāb, then he is someone who is unreliable and whose narratives cannot be written (fa huwa sāqit al-hadīth lā yuktabu hadīthuhū).9

4. Munkar al-Hadīth

In the opinion of the majority, this term refers to a da‘īf narrator whose narrations contradict the narrations of thiqah narrators.10

In the opinion of Ibn Hajar, Ahmad ibn Hanbal uses this term to refer to a narrator who narrates a report which is not narrated by his contemporaries (man yughribū ‘alā aqrānihī bi al-hadīth).11

According to Ibn al-Qattān, al-Bukhārī himself specifies that when he uses this term, he refers to a person from whom narration is forbidden (lā tahillu al-riwāyah ‘anhū).12

Al-Sakhāwī13 says that, at times, this term is used to refer to a thiqah person who narrates manākīr from al-du‘afā’.

He14 also says that many a time this term is used for a narrator who has narrated just one narrative.

Al-Sakhāwī15 records the opinion of Ibn Daqīq that this attribute refers to a person who is worthy of being abandoned because of his narratives (wasfūn fī al-rajul yastahiqqu bihī al-tark bi hadīthihī).

5. Wāhī al-Hadīth

When Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qattān asked Sufyān al-Thawrī, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah, Shu‘bah ibn Hajjāj and Mālik ibn Anas about a person who is dubbed Wāhī al-Hadīth, their unanimous reply was that he is a person who is not reliable (laysa huwa thabtan) and that Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd should expose him.16

6. Mudtarib al-Hadīth

A narrator who reports a narrative in one way at one time and then he reports the same narrative at another time in a way that it is conflicting with the first is called mudtarib al-hadīth. Similarly, if two or more narrators report a narrative in a conflicting way, then they are also called mudtarib al-hadīth. This idtirāb (conflict) in matn can also be found in the isnād which means that a narrative is reported once in muttasil form and at another time in mursal form or at one time a narrator is found in a chain of narration and at another the same narrator is suppressed. At times, both types of idtirāb (ie. in the isnād and in the matn) are found at the same time in a narrative.17

7. Laysa bi al-Qawī

Al-Dhahabī18 records that if one analyzes the instances in which Abū Hātim uses this term, he is referring to a person who is not that reliable (lām yablugh darajah al-qawī al-thabt).

Al-Dhahabī goes on to record that al-Nasā’ī calls numerous narrators by this name and still brings their narratives in his book. He quotes al-Nasā’ī who says that this title is not a jarh which completely damages a narrator (laysa bi jarhin mufsidin)

He further records that at times al-Bukhārī uses it for a narrator who is da‘īf.

8. Laysa bi Shay’ / Laysa Hadīthuhū bi Shay’

According to Ibn Hajar, it is a hyperbolic phrase of disparagement for a narrator.19 Al-Shāfi‘ī uses it for a person who is a liar.20 However, according to Ibn al-Qattān al-Fāsī, at times, Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn uses it for a narrator who has reported very few narratives.21 Al-Mundhirī22 says that the person about whom these words are said shall be researched. If some others have regarded this person to be trustworthy and he is a person from whom narratives have been adduced, then the expression laysa bi shay’ would mean that his narratives have been used as an additional evidence (yuktabu li al-i‘tibār wa al-istishhād) and not primary. And if he is a person who is notorious for his du‘f and also none of the authorities has praised him, then laysa bi shay’ would mean that his narratives can neither be used as primary evidence (lā yuhtajju bihī) nor as additional evidence (lā yu‘tabaru bihī wa lā yustashadu bihī) and such a person will be appended to the matrūk category.

9. Laysa bi Thiqah

In the opinion of Ibn Hajar, as a term, this expression entails great weakness (fī al-istilāh yūjibu al-du‘f al-shadīd).23

10. Laysa bi Dhāka

According to Ibn Nāyif, this expression is used variously.24

i. For someone who is less in status than thiqah.

ii. For someone who is sadūq and whose narratives are categorized as hasan.

iii. For someone whose narratives are accepted as additional evidence and whose soundness is not apparent because he has reported few narratives.

iv. For a person who is laysa bi qawī in his narratives and whose narratives are accepted as additional evidence and not primary (yu‘tabaru bihi wa lā yuhtajju bihī).

v. For a person whose du‘f is known but he is basically truthful and his narratives are accepted as additional evidence.

11. Laysa bihī Ba’s / Lā ba’sa bihī

According to ‘Alī ibn Nāyif,25 this expression is used variously:

i. For a person whose narratives can be used as primary evidence. Thus Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn uses it to refer to someone thiqah.26

ii. For a narrator who is sadūq. He is one whose narratives are written, analyzed and if they are found error-free, then they are used as primary evidence (yuhtajju bihī).

iii. For a person about whom an authority differs from others who have regarded him to be reliable.

iv. For a person whose narratives can only be used as additional evidence.

v. Al-Dāraqutnī uses it for a person who has few narratives to his credit.

12. Sakatū ‘Anhū

Al-Sakhāwī records that al-Bukhārī uses this expression on most occasions to refer to a narrator whom authorities have abandoned (fī man tarakūhū). And that Ibn Kathīr opined this is the worst and lowest status [of a narrator] in al-Bukhārī’s view.27

13. Sadūq

Ibn Abī Hātim says that when a narrator is regarded to be sadūq or mahalluhū al-sidq or lā ba’sa bihī, then he is one whose narratives shall be written and analyzed. Ibn Salāh ratifies these remarks and says that the reason for this is that these terms do not depict the sound grasp (dabt) of a narrator. Thus his narratives shall be analyzed and judged to ascertain his grasp. Ibn Salāh goes on to say that in the opinion of ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn al-Mahdī a person who is al-sadūq and also has some du‘f, then he is called sālih al-hadīth.28

14. Yuktabu hadīthuhū wa lā yuhtajju bihī

This is a term specially used by Abū Hātim al-Rāzī. He himself has clarified it in the biographical note on Ibrāhīm ibn Muhājir al-Bajlī. When his son asked him about what he meant by lā yuhtajju bihim (while referring to Ibrāhīm and some others), he replied that these are people who do not have a sound memory and they narrate what they have not memorized and then make mistakes and you will see many discrepancies in their narratives whenever you want.29

Abū Ishāq al-Hawaynī30 is of the opinion that what Abū Hātim means is that the narrative of such a person will be written as additional evidence and will not be adduced from if it is alone.

______________

__________________________
1. Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Sakhāwī, Fath al-Mughīth. 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1403 AH), 372.

2. Abū ‘Amr ibn Salāh al-Shahrazūrī, Muqaddimah (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1977), 124.

3. ‘Alī ibn Nāyif, Al-Khulāsah fī ‘ilm al-jarh wa al-ta‘dīl (n.p.: n.d.), 312.

4. Summarized from: ‘Alī ibn Nāyif, Al-Khulāsah fī ‘ilm al-jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, 326.

5. Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Thābit al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah fī ‘ilm al-riwāyah (Madīnah: Al-Maktabah al-‘ilmiyyah, n.d.), 22.

6. Al-Sakhāwī, Fath al-Mughīth, vol. 1, 370.

7. ‘Abū Ghuddah ‘Abd al-Fattāh (ed.), ‘Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawī, Al-Raf‘ wa al-takmīl fī al-jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, 8th ed (Beirut: Dār bashā’ir al-islāmiyyah, 2004), 140-141.

8. Ibid., 153.

9. Ibn Salāh, Muqaddimah, 126.

10. Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmānī, Qawā‘īd fī ‘ulūm al-hadīth (Karachi: Idārah al-Qur’ān wa ‘ulūm al-islāmiyyah, n.d.), 258-259.

11. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī. Muqaddimah Fath al-Bārī (Beirut: Dār ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1988), 453.

12. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī al-‘Asqalānī ibn Hajar, Lisān al-mīzān, vol. 1 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-a‘lamī li al-matbū‘āt, 1986), 20.

13. Al-Sakhāwī, Fath al-Mughīth, vol. 1, 373.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Al-Hasan ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khallād Rāmahurmuzī, Al-Muhaddith al-fāsil bayn al-rāwī wa al-wa‘ī, 3rd ed. (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1404), 593-594.

17. Al-Sakhāwī, Fath al-Mughīth, vol. 1, 373.

18. Abū ‘Abdullāh Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaymaz ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Dhahabī, Al-Mūqizah fī mustalih al-hadīth, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dār al-bashā’ir al-islāmiyyah, 1405), 82-83.

19. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Fath al-Bārī, 4th ed., vol. 13 (Beirut: Dār ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1988). 343.

20. Al-Sakhāwī, Fath al-Mughīth, vol. 1, 371.

21.Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Muqaddimah fath al-Bārī (Beirut: Dār ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1988), 419.

22. Abū Muhammad ‘Abd al-Azīm ibn ‘Abd al-Qawī al-Mundhirī, Risālah fī al-jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, 1st ed. (Kuwait: Maktabah dār al-aqsā, 1406 AH), 55.

23. Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 1st ed., vol. 4 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1984), 303.

24. ‘Alī ibn Nāyif, Al-Khulāsah fī ‘ilm al-jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, 317-318.

25. Ibid., 295-297.

26. Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah, 22.

27. Al-Sakhāwī, Fath al-Mughīth,  vol. 1, 371.

28. Ibn Salāh, Muqaddimah, 122-124.

29. ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī Hātim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dīl, 1st ed., vol. 4 (Beirut: Dār al-ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1952), 132.

30.Abū Ishāq Hijāzī ibn Muhammad ibn Yūsuf ibn Sharīf al-Huwaynī, Badhl al-ihsān bi taqrīb sunan al-Nasā’ī Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān, 1st ed., vol. 1 (n.p.: Maktabah al-tarbiyah al-islāmiyyah, 1990), 23.