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

ِ َ‫ص َةَُالت‬ َ‫أص ْي ِل‬ ََ َ‫ُخال‬ ‫حَ َوالتَ ْع ِديْ َِل‬ َِ ‫الج ْر‬ َِ ‫لِ ِعل‬ َ َ‫ْم‬

Khulāṣat al-ta’ṣīl li ᶜilmi l-jarḥi wa l-taᶜdīl

َ ‫تأليف‬ ‫الشريفَحاتمَبنَعارفَالعوني‬ By Al-Sharīf Ḥātim al-ᶜAwnī

Preface

َ ‫المقدمة‬ All praise is for God, Alone. God bless and grant peace to the one after whom there is no prophet, to his family, to his Companions, and to those who follow him and who stay within the limits he has shown. These are some brief lectures on the discipline of narrator-evaluation (al-jarḥ wa l-taᶜdīl) which I gave in a teaching session in a certain masjid in the sacred domain of Mecca (God increase its dignity and respect). Then I turned to writing it down and completing it because of the important issues discussed in it so that it would become a brief academic treatise in this field. Since many students need this kind of brief summary I thought that there would be more hope of good and more benefit in publishing it. These are just a very few pages that are not sufficient in themselves but they have been written as the saying goes: “The best speech is brief and beneficial.”

َ،‫َوالصالةَوالسالمَعلىَمنَالَنبيَبعده‬،‫الحمدَهللَوحده‬ َ .‫ومنَاتبعَه ْديَهَواتقىَح ّده‬ َ‫وعلىَآلهَوأصحابه‬ َ َ،‫َفهذهَمحاضراتَمختصرةَفيَعلمَالجرحَوالتعديل‬:‫أماَبعد‬ َ‫ألقيتَفيَإحدىَالدوراتَالعلميةَفيَمسجدَمنَمساجد‬

َ‫َثمَإنيَعدت‬.َ)ً‫َمكةَ(زادهاَاهللَتشريفاًَوتعظيما‬:‫البلدَالحرام‬ َ‫َواستيفاءَألهمَمسائلَالعلم؛َلتكونَكالمتون‬ ً‫إليهاَتحريرا‬ ً َ .‫العلميةَمنَهذاَالوجه‬

َ‫َرأيت‬،‫ولحاجةَكثيرَمنَطلبةَالعلمَإلىَمثلَهذاَالمختصر‬ َ .‫َوالنفعَفيَنشرهاَأجدى‬،‫الخيرَفيَطبعهاَأرجى‬ َ‫َوالَتكفيَوحدهاَوال‬،‫َتيسرَوتعين‬،ً‫وهيَأوراقَمختصرةَجدا‬ َ‫َخيرَالكالمَماَقل‬:‫َولكنهاَخرجتَعلىَالمثلَالسائر‬.‫تغني‬ َ .‫ودل‬

Along with the principles and issues of ths discipline I have learned through practice, my source for these few pages are classical and modern texts on the discipline of narrator evaluation, and at the top of them is Ḍawābiṭ al-jarḥ wa l-taᶜdīl by Dr. ᶜAbd alᶜAziz ᶜAbd al-Laṭīf. 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 He responds to those who plead with Him.

َ‫ومصادريَفيَهذهَاألوراقَهيَالمصنفاتَالقديمةَوالحديثة‬ َ‫َ(ضوابطَالجرح‬:‫َوعلىَرأسها‬،‫فيَعلمَالجرحَوالتعديل‬

َ‫َمعَماَعرفتهَعن‬.‫والتعديل)َللدكتورَعبدَالعزيزَالعبدَاللطيف‬

َ .‫قواعدَهذاَالعلمَومسائلهَمنَخاللَالممارسة‬ َ‫َوأنَيجعلهاَفيَموازين‬،‫وأسألهَتعالىَأنَينفعَبهذهَالورقات‬ َ .‫الحسنات؛َإنهَسميعَمجيبَالدعوات‬

Definition of the discipline

َ ‫التعريفَبالعلم‬ The definition of the discipline of positive and negative evaluation of narrators The Arabic word for the discipline of evaluating the reliability of narrators of hadith is al-jarḥ wa ‘l-taᶜdīl. Literally, jarḥ is to split or cut a body. In the conceptual domain it is used to refer to the effect of a quality that damages a person’s character or religion. Technically it refers to describing a narrator in a manner that demands that his narration be rejected. Taᶜdīl literally means to straighten something. In the conceptual domain it refers to praising something in a manner that indicates that he is upright in his religion and character. Technically it refers to describing narrator in a manner that demands that his narration be accepted. In its theory, then, the discipline of evaluating the reliability of narrators consists of the rules on which we can base our knowledge of narrators whose narrations should be accepted or rejected, and our knowledge of their ranks in this respect. In its practical application, the discipline of evaluating the reliability of narrators determines the appropriate place for each

َ :‫َتعريفَالجرحَوالتعديل‬َ،‫َهوَالتأثيرَفيَالبدنَبشقَأوَقطع‬:‫تعريفَالجرحَلغة‬-

َ‫واستعيرَفيَالمعنوياتَبمعنىَالتأثيرَفيَالخلُقَوالدينَبوصف‬ ُ َ .‫يناقضهما‬

َ .‫َوصفَالراويَبماَيقتضيَردَروايته‬:ً‫واصطالحا‬َ‫َواستعيرَفي‬،‫َهوَالتقويمَوالتسوية‬:‫وتعريفَالتعديلَلغة‬َ‫المعنوياتَبمعنىَالثناءَعلىَالشخصَبماَيدلَعلىَدينه‬

َ .‫القويمَوخلقةَالسوي‬ َ .‫َوصفَالراويَبماَيقتضيَقبولَروايته‬:ً‫واصطالحا‬َ‫َالقواعدَالتيَتنبنيَعليها‬:‫فعلمَالجرحَوالتعديلَالنظريَهو‬َ .‫معرفةَالرواةَالذينَتقبلَرواياتهمَأوَتردَومراتبهمَفيَذلك‬

َ‫َإنزالَكلَرا ٍوَمنزلته‬:‫وعلمَالجرحَوالتعديلَالتطبيقيَهو‬َ .‫التيَيستحقهاَمنَالقبولَوعدمه‬

narrator with respect to accepting or rejecting their narration.

Uprightness (al-ᶜadl)

َ ‫الكالمَعنَالعدالة‬ In general “being upright” (al-ᶜadālah in Arabic), is an internal quality that incites a person to live a life of God-fearing and respectability.

َ‫َملكةَتحملَصاحبهاَعلى‬:َ)‫َتعريفَالعدالةَ(علىَاإلطالق‬َ .‫مالزمةَالتقوىَوالمروءة‬

The definition explained

َ َ:‫شرحَالتعريف‬By “internal quality” I mean a practice that has become a habit. To be “God-fearing” is to do all that God loves and avoid all that He dislikes. “Respectability,” in the special sense in which I am using it here, is to do those things that are appropriate to people of sound reason and that are the signs of accomplished and good people, as is the custom of the people of an area or a period of time. I don’t think there is any harm in defining uprightness is that internal quality because we are defining uprightness and not the upright person. So, a person having uprightness as an attribute need not be eternally protected from wrong, since a person who has a quality as an attribute or a habit will sometimes do something that goes against that attribute and habit. So the Arabic saying goes: “Even the best purebred horse will misstep, even the best sword will bounce.”So I do not see a difference between defining the upright person as one who has the attribute of uprightness, or defining him as the person who mostly does good and avoids evil, or defining him as the person whose good prevails over his evil. Internal qualities and habits differ both in strength and in the depth of their acquisition. So not everyone who has the quality of being generous person is a generous as Ḥātim al-Ṭā’ī. Not everyone who has the quality of being God-fearing or respectable is as God-fearing and

َ‫َهيَفعلَماَيحبهَاهللَتعالىَوتركَما‬:‫َوالتقوى‬،‫َالسجية‬:‫الملكة‬ َ‫َهيَفعلَماَهوَمن‬:َ)‫َوالمروءةَهناَ(بمعنهاَالخاص‬.‫يكرهه‬

َ‫صفاتَأهلَالقلَالراجحَومنَسماتَأهلَالفضلَوالخيل‬ َ .‫بحسبَعرفَالبلدَوالزمن‬

َ‫وتعريفَالعدالةَبتلكَالملكةَليسَعليهَانتقادَفيَنظري؛َألن‬ َ‫َفمنَكانتَله‬،‫تعريفَالعدالةَبذلكَليسَهوَتعريفَالعدل‬ َ‫َفقد‬،ً‫تلكَالملكةَالَيلزمَمنَاتصافهَبهاَأنَيكونَمعصوما‬ َ‫َوقدَيتجاوزَذوَالسجية‬،ً‫يخالفَصاحبَالملكةَملكتهَأحيانا‬

َ‫َولكل‬،‫َ((لكلَجوادَكبوة‬:‫َوكماَقيلَفيَبيانَذلك‬،‫سجيته‬ ٍ َ‫َفإنَالَأرىَأنَهناكَفرقاًَبينَتعريف‬:‫سيفَنبوة)) وعليه‬

َ‫َمنَكانَالغالبَعليه‬:‫العدلَبصاحبَتلكَالملكةَوتعريفهَبأنه‬

َ .‫َمنَغلبَخيرهَشره‬:‫َأوَبأنه‬،‫فعلَالطاعاتَوتركَالمعاصي‬ َ‫فليس‬،‫ثمَإنَالملكاتَ(والسجايا)َتتفاوتَفيَالقوةَوالتمكن‬ َ َ‫َوالَكلَمن‬،‫كانَالجودَسجيتهَبلغَمبلغَحاتمَالطائي‬ َ َ‫كلَمن‬ َ

َ‫كانتَالتقوىَوالمروءةَملكةًَلهَبلغَمبلغَأبيَبكرَوعمرَرضي‬

respectable as Abū Bakr and ᶜUmar (God be pleased with both of them). This is indeed the demand of the creed of the ahl alsunnah that faith increases and decreases and the faithful differ in the degrees of their faith. The condition of respectability is to exclude the child and the insane person who are not responsible, so they can neither be called God-fearing nor iniquitous—so the criteria of uprightness is not relevant to them.

َ‫َوهذاَهوَمقتضىَاعتقادَأهلَالسنةَ َوالجماعةَبأن‬.‫اهللَعنهما‬

This condition also helps screen out people about whom one expects that they are not upright though one cannot establish for certain 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. This makes it clear that something may be permissible in itself, but it be contrary to respectability because it is a distinguishing feature of iniquitous people and those of unsound reason. So, imagine seeing a person yelling in the street and jumping around with a banner of an exercise club, or a store manager entering his workplace wearing just a loincloth covering him from his knees to his navel. Although these people have not done anything actually forbidden I would expect that these are not respectable people. This is because in the custom of our day and our area only iniquitous people and those of little understanding do this kind of thing. So the condition of being respectability is broader than that of being God-fearing, and the condition of avoiding things contrary to respectability is broader than avoiding acts of disobedience that make one iniquitous. So anything that makes one iniquitous damages respectability and everything that damages respectability does not necessarily make one iniquitous. This makes it clear that the condition of respectability is actually just to ensure the person is sound in his religion and his reason through avoiding things that are certain to or likely to damage either of the two. So not having reached puberty or having lost one sense as in the case of an

َ‫َوإنَلمَيثبت‬،‫وإلخراجَمنَيغلبَعلىَالظنَأنهَليسَبعدل‬

َ .‫اإليمانَيزيدَوينقصَوأنَأصحابهَفيهَمتفاوتون‬ َ‫َإلخراجَالصغيرَغيرَالمكلف‬،‫أماَالمروءةَفاشتراطهاَمهم‬

َ‫َاللذينَالَيوصفانَبالتقوىَوالَبنقيضها‬،‫والمجنونَكذلك‬ َ .‫َفهماَليساَمنَأهلَالعدالة‬،َ)‫(الفسق‬

َ‫عليهَيقيناًَأنهَفاسق؛َوذلكَإلتيانهَبماَالغالبَعلىَمنَيأتيه‬ َ .َ)‫(عرفاً)َبأنهَمنَأهلَالفسقَأوَالسفهَ(نقصَالعقل‬ َ‫َلكنهَمماَيخرم‬،ً‫وعليهَيتبينَأنَاألمرَقدَيكونَفيَأصلهَمباحا‬ َ‫َفلوَرايتَفي‬.‫َألنهَمنَسماتَأهلَالفسقَأوالسفه‬،‫المروءة‬

َ،‫الشارعَرجالًَيصيحَويقفزَرافعاًَشعاراًَألحدَاألنديةَالرياضية‬ َ‫أوَرأيتَمسئوالًَيدخلَمحلَعملهَبإزا ٍرَفقطَالَيسترَإالَما‬ َ‫بينَالسرةَوالركبةَفإنهَسيغلبَعلىَظنيَأنَفاعلَذلكَليس‬

َ‫َمعَأنهَلمَيفعل محرماًَأصلياً؛َألنَذلكَهو‬،‫منَأهلَالمروءة‬ َ .‫عرفَبلدناَوزمنناَفيَالفساقَوالسفهاء‬

َ‫َوخوارمَالمروءةَأعم‬،‫فالمروءةَ(بمعناهاَالعام)َأعمَمنَالتقوى‬ ٍ ٍ َ‫َوليسَكلَخارم‬،‫َخارمَللمروءة‬ ‫منَأساببَالفسق؛َفكلَمفسق‬ َ .ً‫للمروءةَمفسقا‬

َ‫َأنَاشتراطَالمروءةَإنماَهوَفيَالحقيقة‬:‫ويظهرَمنَكلَذلك‬ َ‫َمنَخاللَالتنزهَعنَقوادح‬،‫للتثبيتَمنَسالمةَالعقلَوالدين‬

َ،‫َكصغرَالسنَبماَدونَالبلوغ‬:‫َفاليقينية‬.‫يقينيةَأوَظنيةَفيهما‬

َ‫َأوَارتكابَالكبائرَوالموبقاتَوهوا‬،‫أوَذهابَالعقلَكالجنون‬

insane person, or indulging in major sins (which is iniquity), are certain source of damage to religion and reason. Doing something permissible that is a distinguishing feature of iniquitous people or people of little reason is a likely source since one expects that someone doing something like this is indeed one of these people. When this is clear, it should also be clear that if someone does something that is a likely sign of iniquity and weakness of reason but I am sure that he is of sound religion and reason, I will act on my certain knowledge and ignore my guesses, I will act on actual truth and not on signs of what might be, so I will not judge the person not to be upright because of what he has done.

َ‫َفكفعلَمباحَلكنهَمنَسماتَأهلَالفسق‬:‫َوأماَالظنية‬.‫لفسق‬ ٍ

َ .‫َفيغلبَعلىَالظنَأنَفاعلهَمنهم‬،‫أوَالسفه‬

َ‫َتبينَأنَمنَأتىَقادحاًَظنياًَمماَيقدحَفي‬،‫فإذاَعلمتَذلك‬ َ‫المروءةَغالباًَلكنيَأعلمَيقيناًَأنهَسالمَالعقلَوالدينَفإني‬ َ‫َوحقيقةَاألمرَعلىَالعالمات‬،‫أقدمَحينهاَاليقينَعلىَالظن‬

َ .‫َفالَأخرجهَبذلكَعنَأهلَالعدالة‬،‫والسمات‬

The upright person The upright person is the one who has an internal quality that makes him adopt fear of God and respectability. This is a person who is Muslim, sane, of mature age, who is free of anything that would make him iniquitous or that would damage his respectability. Iniquity means weakness in religion and in fear of God which one can know from his indulging in major sins or his taking minor sins lightly or his being involved in numerous minor sins, doing all of this with full knowledge and without any excuse of a misinterpretation, before he is known to repent and resume the life of uprightness. Things that damage respectability here refer to those things that have become a sign of iniquitous people and people of little reason in the custom of a certain time and a certain area.

َ‫َمنَكانتَلهَملكةَتحملهَعلىَمالزمة‬:‫*تعريفَالعدل‬ َ‫َالمسلمَالعاقلَالبالغَالسالمَمن‬:‫َوهو‬،‫التقوىَوالمروءة‬ َ .‫أسبابَالفسقَوخوارمَالمروءة‬ َ‫َرقةَالدينَوضعفَالخوفَمنَاهلل‬:‫والفسقَنعنيَبهَهنا‬ َ‫َأو‬،‫َالذيَيظهرَمنَخاللَارتكابَالكبائر‬،‫تعالى‬

َ‫َمنَغيرَجهل‬،‫االستخفافَواالنهماكَفيَجملةَمنَالصغائر‬ َ .‫َقبلَأنَتعقبهاَتوبةَتعلمَوتتضح‬،‫أوَتأول‬ َ‫َهيَ(هنا)َماَيكونَبحسبَالعرفَ(البلدي‬:‫وخوارمَالمروءة‬ َ .‫والزمني)َعالمةَمنَعالماتَأهلَالفسقَأوَالسفه‬

Why is uprightness a condition? Of all nations, the Arabs of the period of ignorance before Islam were the farthest from lying out of pride and a sense of their own nobility. Still, consider that when the Byantine Emperor Heraclitus asked Abu Sufyān ibn Ḥarb (God be pleased with him) about the Prophet ṣallāllāhu ᶜalayhi wa sallam he had some of Abu Sufyān’s companions stand behind him as witnesses to confirm or deny what he would say. Abu Sufyān was still on his

ًَ‫وهؤالءَالعربَفيَالجاهليةَكانواَمنَأتركَاألممَللكذبَأنف َة‬ َ،‫وتكرماً؛َمعَذلكَفهذاَأبوَسفيانَبنَحربَرضيَاهللَعنه‬ ًَ‫َوجعلَرفاقا‬،‫لماَسألهَهرقلَعنَالنبيَصلىَاهللَعليهَوسلم‬ َ‫َليصدقوه‬،‫ألبيَسفيانَخلفَظهرهَشهوداًَعلىَماَيجيبَبه‬ َ‫أوَيكذبوهَفيماَيقولَوأبوَسفيانَحينهاَعلىَدينَقومهَ(لم‬

ancient religion and had not accepted Islam. So, as reported in the sound collections of hadith, Abu Sufyān said: “By God! If I was not ashamed of them finding me lying I would have lied!” This is evidence that when people avoid lying but do so not out of piety, there is no assurance that they will continue to avoid lying when their interests work against their telling the truth and when they are certain that their lie will not be exposed. Since this is why we demand uprightness in the narrator, we will make an exception for those iniquitous people who perform iniquity out of misinterpretation: such as the innovator whose innovation is not such that it leads him out of the pale of Islam, and whose innovation is out of a misinterpretation and not out of stubbornness. An example is the person who drinks fermented fruit drink because he actually believes in the position of the Kufans about such drink. We will treat this action and this belief of their harshly and we will warn people about them and about being deceived by them because it is dangerous and is obviously against clear texts of the sharīᶜah. Nevertheless, it is possible that one of them is drinking this but not because the restraining effect of religion has become weak in him: the restraint that will stop a person from intentional lying. Rather, this person fell into iniquity out of ignorance and misinterpretation (and these two go hand in hand) even though the forbidding of religion has great weight in his eyes and he has awareness of God in his heart that is strong enough to stop his from intentional lying,

َ‫َ((فواهلل‬:َ)‫يسلمَبعد)َفيقولَأبوَسفيانَ(كماَفيَالصحيح‬ َ‫َفهذاَدليل‬.َ))‫لوالَالحياءَمن أنَيأثرواَعليَكذباًَلكذبت‬ َ‫علىَأنَتركَالكذبَلغيدَالديانةَالَيؤمنَدوامهَعندَتعارض‬ َ‫َوعندَاالطمئنانَمنَعدمَحصول‬،‫الصدقَمعَالمصلحة‬ َ .‫الضيحةَبالكذب‬ َ‫ولماَكانَكذلكَهوَسببَاشتراطَالعدالةَاستثنيناَمن‬ َ)‫َكالمبتدعَ(غيرَالمكفرَببدعته‬:‫الفساقَفساقَالتأويل‬ َ‫َوكمنَيشربَالنبيذَعلىَمذهب‬.َ)‫المأولَ(غيرَالمعاند‬

َ‫وإنَكناَنغلظَعليهمَهذاَاالعتقادَاو‬-َ‫الكوفيين؛َألنَهؤالء‬ َ،‫َلخطورتهَومخالفتهَالصريحةَللنصوصَالشرعية‬،‫الفعل‬

َ‫قدَالَيكونَوقوعهم‬-َ‫ونحذرَالناسَمنهمَومنَاالغترارَبهم‬ َ‫َذلك‬،‫فيماَوقعواَفيهَبسببَضعفَالواَزعَالدينيَفيَقلوبهم‬ َ‫َبلَوقعوا‬.‫الضعفَالذيَالَيمنعَصاحبهَمنَتعمدَالكذب‬

َ،َ)‫فيَذلكَالسقَجهالًَأوَتأوالًَ(وأحدهماَمصاحبَلآلخر‬ َ‫معَتعظيمهمَلحرماتَالدينَوقوةَمراقبةَاهللَتعالىَفي‬ َ .‫َمماَيطمأنَمعهَإلىَأنهمَلنَيتعمدواَالكذب‬،‫قلوبهم‬

The two types of uprightness

َ :‫َقسماَالعدالة‬Islam and our not knowing of any iniquity in a narrator is enough to establish apparent uprightness. A little knowledge or surface knowledge of a narrator is enough to establish this. Islam and knowing that a narrator is free of iniquity establishes actual uprightness. This kind of judgment requires long acquaintance or deep knowledge of a narrator.

َ.‫َاإلسالمَوعدمَالعلمَبالمفسق‬:‫تعريفَالعدالةَالظاهرة‬-

َ .‫وتعرفَمنَخاللَالخبرةَالقصيرةَأوَالسطحية‬

َ.‫َاإلسالمَوالعلمَبعدمَالمفسق‬:‫تعريفَالعدالةَالباطنة‬َ .‫وتعرفَمنَخاللَالخبرةَالطويلةَأوَالقوية‬

At the same time, actual uprightness does not َ‫َفهذه‬،‫وليسَالمقصودَبالعدالةَالباطنةَخفاياَالقلوبَوالنوايا‬ refer to knowledge of secrets of the heart and of intentions. These are things only the Knower of َ .‫الَيعلمهاَإالَعالمَماَفيَالصدورَسبحانهَوتعالى‬ what is in hearts knows, be He praised.

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

َ .‫*اقسامَالرواةَمنَجهةَتحققَالعدالةَ(بقسميها)َفيهم‬ 1. A narrator we know to be actually upright (and, of course, his being apparently upright is also confirmed by this). This is the upright narrator.

َ:َ)‫منَعرفتَعدالتهَالباطنةَ(والظاهرةَباللزوم‬-1 َ .‫وهوالعدل‬

2. A narrator we know to be apparently upright, not actually. Later scholars call such a narrator mastūr al-ḥāl (a narrator whose condition is hidden). When it is impossible to know of their actual condition, their narration is acceptable, especially a Follower, more especially an Elder Follower, and the later scholars who narrate books.

َ‫َوهوَالمستور‬:َ)‫منَعرفتَعدالتهَالظاهرةَ(دونَالباطنة‬-2

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 a commander of an army or as a ruler or by some other historical attribute) but we neither know him to be actually upright or apparently upright. Such a narrator is known as majhūl alḥāl (a narrator whose condition is unknown). We must suspend judgment on the reports of such a narrator. We will not make a general judgment of severe weakness or mild weakness about his hadiths. Rather, we will study the chain of narration and the text of his hadith. If his hadith is unfamiliar (munkar), or if there are signs of it being fabricated, we will issue judgment accordingly. Otherwise, one will not judge his hadith to be severely weak and, in this situation, his hadith will remain worthy of consideration (iᶜtibār). 4. A narrator we do not know to be upright, neither apparently nor actually, and we also do not know who he is. We say that such a narrator is unknown in his person (majhūl alᶜayn).1 He is liked an unspecified narrator (mubham): an unnamed narrator in the chain of

َ‫منَجهلتَعدالتهَ(الظاهرةَوالباطنة)َلكنَعرفتَعينه‬-3

َ‫(باصطالحَالمتأخرين)َوحكمهَالقبولَفيَالرواةَالذين‬

َ‫َوخاصةَطبقةَالتابعين‬،‫تعذرتَالخبرةَالباطنةَبأخوالهم‬ َ .‫وكبارهمَباألخصَوطبقةَالمتأخرينَمنَرواةَالنسخ‬

َ‫(فيَالنسبَأوَاألدبَأوَالشعرَأوَأيَعلمَآخرَأوَفي‬

َ:َ)‫قيادةَجيشَأوَإمارةَأوَغيرَذلكَمماَيذكرَفيَالتواريخ‬ َ ،‫فهوَمجهولَالحالَوحكمهَالتوقفَعنَقبولَحديثه‬ ٍ َ‫َولكن‬،‫والَيحكمَلحديثهَبخفةَضعفَأوَبدةَضعفَبإطالق‬ َ‫َأو‬،‫َفإنَكانَفيهَنكارة‬:َ)‫ينظرَفيَحديثهَ(إسنادهَومتنه‬

َ‫َوإالَفال‬،‫عالماتَالوضعَ=َحكمَعليهَبماَيقتضيهَذلك‬ َ ‫َويبقىَحينهاَفيَحيزَاالعتبار‬،‫يحمَعليهَبدةَالضعف‬ َ‫َوجهلتَعينه‬،)‫منَجهلتَعدالتهَ(الظاهرةَوالباطنة‬-4 َ‫َوهوَكالمبهمَ)وهوَالراويَالذي‬.‫َفهوَمجهولَالعين‬:ً‫أيضا‬

Note the contrast with majhūl al-ḥāl two paragraphs ago. 1

narration. His narration is like the narration of the previous kind or a bit less acceptable. 5. A narrator whom we know not to be upright. This would be an iniquitous person or a disbeliever. The ummah is agreed that the report of a disbeliever is to be rejected. The report of an iniquitous person who does not have an excuse of misinterpretation is considered severely weak and it is not worthy of any consideration, as is the hadith of a liar or the person accused of lying.

How to determine the category of a narrator

َ‫َوقدَيكونَأبعدَعنَالقبولَمن‬،‫َوحمهَحكمَسابه‬.َ)‫لمَيسم‬ َ .‫سابقه‬ َ‫َوهو‬.‫َبلَوالكافر‬،‫َوهوَالفاسق‬:‫منَعرفَبعدمَالعدالة‬-5 َ‫َوحديثَالفاسقَغيرَالمتأولَشديد‬.‫مردودَباإلجماع‬

َ .‫َكحديثَالكذابَوالمتهمَبالكذب‬،‫الضعفَالَيعتبرَبه‬

ٍ َ :‫كيفيةَإلحاقَالرواةَبواحدَمنَهذهَاألقسامَالخمسة‬ ََ-

1 al-ᶜAdl: The Upright Narrator

َ :َ)‫(العدل‬-1 a. …by his being famous and well known as upright: such as the authors of the six books. b. …by the explicit statement of someone whose positive and negative evaluations of narrators are acceptable. c. …through an implicit positive evaluation such as when a hadith expert judges a hadith he narrates as sound or tolerably sound, or such as when a narrator known for narrating only from upright narrators narrates hadith from him. When there is no explicit negative evaluation of the narrator, this kind of implicit positive evaluation gains in strength. Another sort of implicit positive evaluation is where a scholar issues judgment using the report of a narrator as evidence, when it looks likely that in this judgment the scholar has issued his judgment based on the demands of that report.

َ .‫َمثلَأئمةَالسنة‬،‫بالشهرةَواالستفاضة‬-‫أ‬

ٍ َ .‫بالتنصيصَمنَمقبولَقولهَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ -َ‫ب‬

َ،‫بالتعديلَالضمنيَ(كالتصحيحَوالتحسينَللراوي‬-َ‫ج‬ َ .َ)‫وروايةَمنَالَيرويَإالَعنَمقبولَعنه‬ َ‫وتزدادَداللة التعديلَالضمنيَعلىَالعدالةَعندَعدمَوجود‬ َ .‫جرحَصريحَفيَذلكَالراوي‬ َ‫َإذاَغلبَعلى‬،‫َاالحتجاجَبخبره‬:‫ومنَالتعديلَالضمني‬

َ‫الظنَأنَالعالمَإنماَاعتمدَفيَحكمهَبمقتضىَذلكَالخبر‬ َ .‫علىَروايةَذلكَالراوي‬

2 al-Mastūr: Of Hidden Condition We can identify a narrator as one whose condition 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 to classify him as mastūr.

3 Majhūl al-ḥal: Of unknown condition One can identify a narrator as of unknown condition when a single narrator reports a hadith from him, whether the reporting narrator is upright or not. Of course, if the reporting narrator is himself not upright, this will further weaken both the narrator and his hadith.

4 Majhūl al-ᶜayn: Unknown in his person A narrator unknown in his person is like the one 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 but don’t know of his reliability.

َ‫َويكتفىَبعدلَواحدَإذا‬،‫َبروايةَعدلينَعنه‬:َ)‫(المستور‬ َ -2 َ .‫كانَمنَاألئمةَوالحفاظ‬ َ

َ‫َبروايةَرا ٍوَواحدَ(عدالًَكاَأوَليس‬:َ)‫(مجهولَالحال‬-3 َ‫َفإنَكانَالراويَعنهَليسَبعدلَفهوَأضعفَلحاله‬،‫بعدل‬ َ .َ)‫ولحديثه‬

َ‫َوإنماَفارقَبينهماَالعلمَبعين‬،‫َكسابقه‬:َ)‫(مجهولَالعين‬-4 َ .‫الراويَوالجهلَبها‬

5 al-Fāsiq, al-kāfir: the iniquitous, the unbeliever

:َ)‫(الفاسقَوالكافر‬-5 We judge a narrator to be iniquitous or to be an unbeliever: a. …by his being famous or well known as such. Such as Muhammad ibn Saᶜīd al-Maṣlūb was known as a zindīq,2 and such as al-Kalbī, Bishr al-Muraysi and Ḥafṣ al-Fard. Nasā’ī says: There are four people who are well known for fabricating hadiths and attributing them to the Prophet ṣallallāhu ᶜalayh wa sallam: Ibn Abī Yaḥyā in Medina, al-Wāqidi in Baghdad, Muqātil ibn Sulaymān in Khurasan and Muḥammad ibn Saᶜīd in Syria.

َ َ‫َكمحمدَبنَسعيدَالمصلوب‬:‫باشهرةَواالستفاضة‬-‫أ‬ َ‫َيقول‬.‫َوحفصَالفرد‬،‫َوبشرَالمرسي‬،‫َوالكلبي‬،‫بالزندقة‬

َ‫َ((الكذابونَالمعروفونَبوضعَالحديثَعلىَرسول‬:‫النسائي‬

َ ،‫َابنَابيَيحيَبالمدينة‬:‫اهللَصلىَاهللَعليهَوسلمَأربعة‬

A zindīq is a person who repeatedly repents from his unbelief to the point that we can no longer tell whether 2 we should give any weight at all to his repentance.

َ‫َومحمدَبن‬،‫َومقاتلَبنَسليمانَبخراسان‬،‫والواقديَببغداد‬ َ .َ))‫سعيدَبالشام‬

b. …by explicit statement of someone whose word is acceptable in negative evaluations of narrators. c. …by implicit negative evaluation such as when a hadith is evaluated as weak where there is no reason for it be evaluated as weak except the presence of that narrator in the chain of narration. Or, when a scholar does not act on the demands of a hadith and it seem likely that there is no reason for the scholar not acting on the hadith other than the presence of that narrator in its chain of narration. d. …by his narrating unfamiliar (munkar) and fabricated hadiths with clean chains of narration that lead to his being caught as the person responsible for these unfamiliar hadiths or for fabricating that chain of narration or that text.

ٍ َ .‫بالتنصيصَمنَمقبولَقولهَفيَالجرح‬ -َ‫ب‬ َ‫َبالتضعيفَالضمنيَ(كتضعيفَالحديثَالذيَليسَفيه‬-َ‫د‬ َ‫َوكتركَالعملَبمقتضى‬،‫ماَيقتضيَالتضعيفَإالَذلكَالراوي‬

َ‫حديثهَمعَغلبةَالظنَأنَتركَالعملَبهَلمَيكنَلسببَآخر‬ َ .َ)‫إالَأنهَمنَروايةَذلكَالراوي‬ َ‫بروايتهَللمنكراتَوالموضوعاتَباألسانيدَالنظيفةَالتي‬-‫ه‬ َ‫تكونَسببَافتضاحهَبأنهَهوَالذيَجاءتَمنَقبلهَتلك‬

َ .‫النكارةَأوَهوَالذيَوضعَذلكَاإلسنادَأوَالمتن‬

Control (al-ḍabṭ)

َ ‫الكالمَعنَالضبط‬ So far we were speaking of the uprightness that is required in bearing witness. For reporting hadith, along with being upright religiously, the narrator must have control of his material. Control of material is the ability to convey the text received to others in the very manner in which the text was received, whether the exact words of the texts are preserved or just the meaning is. The narrator who has control of his material is the one who reports the hadith as he received it from his teacher, whether he preserves just the meaning of the hadith or both its meaning and word.

َ‫َأماَالعدلَفيَالرواية‬،‫َهذاَهوَالعدلَفيَالشهادة‬َ .ً‫فيشترطَفيهَمعَالعدالةَالدينيةَأنَيكونَضابطا‬ َ‫َنقلَالمرويَكماَتلقاهَالراويَ(لفظاًَأو‬:‫َتعريفَالضبط‬َ .َ)‫معنى‬ َ‫َهوَمنَكانَنقلهَللمرويَمطابقاًَلماَتلقاه‬:‫َتعريفَالضابط‬َ .َ)‫عنَشيخهَ(لفظاًَأوَمعنى‬

Two types of control

َ :‫َقسماَالضبط‬-

1. Control by memorization is the ability of a narrator to recall the report from memory without referring to books exactly as he heard it, with the condition that when he is narrating only the sense of a report he should be able to preserve that sense. In summary, narrating the sense of a report requires three things: the acquired knowledge of fiqh and its principles and of language a good understanding, and an innate good understanding 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 the words are important and also wisdom sayings of the Prophet in which a lot is stated in a few words. 2. Control by writing is that the narrator have a written, proofread copy of the report that he has protected from being changed, destroyed or lost and that the narrator whose control of his material is by writing narrate the hadith only from this written text or from a written copy that is in accord with that text (unless, of course, he has control of his material both by writing and by memory).

َ‫ضبطَصدرَكَهوَالقدرةَعلىَاستحضارَالمرويَمن‬-1 َ‫َمعَشرط‬،‫الصدرَكماَتلقاهَالراويَدونَالرجوعَإلىَالكتاب‬

َ .‫عدمَإحالةَالمعنىَفيماَإذاَماَروىَبالمعنى‬

َ‫َاثنينَمنها‬،‫(والروايةَبالمعنىَتحتاجَإلىَثالثةَأمورَمجملة‬ ٍ َ‫َوواحد‬،‫َوالعلمَباللغة‬،‫َالعلمَبالفقهَوأصوله‬:‫َوهما‬:‫مكتسبة‬ َ‫َمع‬.َ)‫منهاَفطريَكَوهوَحسنَالفهمَودقةَاإلدراكَللمعاني‬ َ‫العلمَبأنَمنَاألحاديثَالنبويةَماالَتصحَفيهاَالرواية‬

َ‫كجوامع‬ َ ‫َو‬،‫َكاألدعيةَواألذكارَالتيَيتعبدَبألفاظها‬،َ ‫بالمعنى‬ َ .‫كلمهَصلىَاهللَعليهَوسلم‬ َ،ً‫َوهوَأنَيكونَالمرويَمكتوباًَمصححا‬:‫ضبطَكتاب‬-2 َ‫َوأنَالَيحدث‬،‫محفوظاًَمنَالتغييرَأوَالتلفَأوالفقدان‬

َ‫ضبطَالصدر)َإالَمن‬ َ َ‫صاحبَهذاَالضبطَ(إذاَلمَيكنَلديه‬ ٍ َ .‫َمطابقةََله‬ ٍ ‫كتابهَهذاَأوَمنَنسخة‬

How the early scholars would judge control The early hadith experts would determine the control of narrators through a very difficult process that required a vast memory, a deep understanding and a great knowledge of all the various disciplines of hadith. This process is the process of comparative study of the narrations of that narrator. Very briefly, the hadith expert would divide put separate the narrations of the narrator that only he has narrated from the group group which others have also narrated. --If most of his narrations are such that only he has narrated them, this would be evidence of his being weak. At times this can even be the evidence for him having fabricated these hadiths.

َ‫َيتمَذلك‬:‫ََكيفيةَمعرفةَالعلماءَالمتقدمينَلضبطَالروة‬ًَ‫منهمَمنخاللَعمليةَشاقةَتستلزمَحفظاًَواسعاًَوفهماًَثاقبا‬ َ‫َهذهَالعمليةَهي‬،‫وإدراكاًَكبيراًَلعلومَالحديثَبجميعَفونها‬ َ .‫عمليةَسبرَمروياتَذلكَالراوي‬

َ‫َتقسيمَحديثَذلكَالراويَإلى‬:‫وهيَباختصارَبالغ‬

َ‫َواألحاديثَالتيَشورك‬،‫َاألحاديثَالتيَتفردَبها‬:‫قسمين‬

َ .‫فيَأصلَروايتها‬ َ‫بما‬ َ ‫َبلَر‬،‫فإنَغلبتَعليهَالمفاريدَكانَذلكَدليلَضعفه‬-

َ .‫كانتَدليلَوضعهَللحديث‬

--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 along with keeping an eye on the cohort (ṭabaqah)3of the narrator. The cohort is important because one will accept unusual hadiths among the Followers to a degree that one will not accept from their students. And when we come to the students of these students of the Followers, an unusual hadith will very rarely be considered acceptable (Dhahabī, Mūqiḍah).

َ،‫فإنَلمَتغلبَعليهَالمفاريدَلكنهاَلمَتزلَفيَحيزَالكثرة‬-

--If unusual hadiths are very few or not at all, we will study those of his hadiths that others have also narrated to see if he reports these hadiths mostly as other reliable narrators report them or not. We will study how much his narration disagrees with the reports of reliable narrators both in number and in the amount of disagreement.

َ‫َنظرَإلىَالقسم‬،‫فإنَكانتَالمفاريدَقليلةَأوَالَوجودَلها‬-

If our study shows us that he does have some degree of control over the reports he conveys, we will return to the hadiths which he alone his reported (if there are such hadiths) and we will look at them: is his control strong enough that we ought to consider there reports? Can the strength of his control carry the weight of his being alone in reporting these hadiths? If, among these hadiths that he has reported alone there are hadiths that his level of control cannot support, we will study these hadiths again. If these hadiths are unknown to the degree of being outlandish, we might reject all his hadiths. So, Dara Quṭanī has said: Sometime a single hadith will be the fall of a hundred thousand! --This does not mean that we will look at the hadiths that others have also reported only after we are finished looking at those that he alone has reported. Rather, sometimes it will be more appropriate to start with the hadiths that he has reported along with others, as often making a decision looking at these reports, though difficult in itself, can be easier than deciding on the basis of hadiths that he alone has reported. --All this is where a narrator reports many hadiths. When he narrators only a few hadiths,

َ‫َعدناَمرة‬،‫فإنَظهرَلناَبعدَذلكَأنهَضابطَفيَالجملة‬

َ‫َمعَمراعاةَطبقةَالراويَحيث‬،‫نظرَإليهاَنكارةَوعدمَنكارة‬

َ‫َثم‬،‫إنَالتابعينَيقبلَالتفردَمنهمَماالَيقبلَمثلهَمنَأتباعهم‬ َ‫الَيكادَيقبلَتفردَأتباعَالتابعين؛َعلىَماَنصَعليهَالذهبي‬

َ .‫فيَالموقظة‬

َ.‫َوهوَماَشوركَفيَأصلَروايته‬،‫الثانيَمنَحديثَالراوي‬ َ‫َوماَهيَنسبةَمخالفته‬،‫هلَالغالبَعليهَموافقةَالثقات‬

َ .‫(فحشاًَوعدداً)َبالنسبةَلموافقتهَلهم‬

َ‫َهلَفي‬:‫َفنظرناَفيها‬،َ)‫أخرىَإلىَمفاريدهَ(إنَوجدت‬

َ‫ضبطهَماَيقعَجابراًَلماَتفردَبه؟َهلَيحتملَضبطهَالتفرد‬ َ ‫بماَتفردَبه؟‬ َ‫ هلَفيهاَمنكرات‬:‫َنظرنا‬،‫فإنَكانَفيهاَماالَيحتملهَضبطه‬ َ‫َفإنَكانَفيهاَشيءَمنَذلكَربماَأسقطناَحديثه‬،‫شديدة‬ ٍ َ‫َكماَقال‬،‫(فربَحديثَواحدَاسقطَمائةَألفَحديث‬

َ .َ)‫الدارقطني‬

َ‫والَيعنيَذلكَأنهَالَينظرَإلىَهذاَالقسمَ(قسمَماَشورك‬َ‫َبلَربماَكان‬،‫فيهَالراوي)َإالَبعدَقسمَماَتفرَبهَمنَحديثه‬

َ‫َألنَالحكمَعلىَالراوي‬،‫االبتداءَبقسمَماَشوركَفيهَأصح‬ َ‫َوهوَأقلَعمقاًَمنَسبرَالمفاريد‬.‫منَخاللهَقدَيكونَأسهل‬

َ .َ)ً‫(معَعمقهَأيضا‬ َ‫َأماَإذا‬،‫َمنَالرواية‬ َ ً‫وهذاَكلهَفيماَإذاَكانَالراويَمكثرا‬“Cohort” refers to a group of contemporaries in time. 3

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 also reported them, the decision is easy by comparing his hadiths to the hadiths of others. If all his hadiths are such that only he has reported them, or if there are some such hadiths, or if he has a single hadith which he reports and nobody else does, leadings critics and expert hadith scholars have a very difficult time judging him. The reason for this is that even if those of his reports which others also have narrated accord with the reports of reliable narrators, because he has such few hadiths that others have also narrated, they are not sufficient to come to a firm judgment about his control or lack of it. So one must now also look at the hadiths which he alone has narrated. And to judge a narrator’s control looking at the very few hadiths (sometimes even the single hadith) the he and he alone has narrated is exceedingly difficult. This is especially the case where the hadith is nothing obviously unusual about the hadith he alone reports, and where the narrator is of a cohort in which such unusual hadiths can be tolerated (such as when he is among the Followers or their students). --It would be wrong to think that it is impossible to judge a narrator who has only one hadith since such judgment is not possible or since Ibn ᶜAdī has made statements from which one can come to this conclusion. ● It would be wrong to think this since critics have indeed issued such judgments. So, Ibn Abi Ḥātim has said about Saᶜīd ibn Muḥammad al-Zuhri: “He is not well known but he is mustaqīm al-ḥadīth and he has but a single hadith” (al-Jarḥ 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).

َ‫َبلَليسَلهَإالَحديثَالواحدَأوَالحديثان‬،ً‫ال‬ َ ‫كانَمق‬

َ‫َفإنَلحكمَعليهَبالضبطَوعدمهَقدَيكونَفيَغاية‬.‫نحوها‬

َ ‫َوقدَيكونَفيَغايةَالصعوبةَعليهم‬،‫السهولةَعلىَالنقاد‬ َ‫فإنَكانَجميعَحديثَذلكَالراويَالمقلَمماَشوركَفي‬ َ‫نقلهَسهلَالحكمَعليهَمنَخاللَذلكَوإنَكانَجميع‬

َ‫َبلَربما‬،‫َاوَفيهاَمفاريدَمعَماَشوركَفيهَمنها‬،‫حديثهَمفاريد‬

َ‫لمَيكنَلهَإالَحديثَواحدَتفردَبه؛َوفيَهذهَالحالة‬

َ َ‫يصعبَالحكمَعليهَجداًَعلىَأئمةَالنقاد وجهابذةَالحفاظ؛‬ َ‫َإالَأنَقلة‬،‫ألنهَوإنَوافقَالثقاتَفيماَشاركهمَفيَروايته‬

َ‫حديثهَالذيَشاركهمَفيهَأصالًَالَتكفيَللحكمَعليهَبالضط‬ َ‫َوالحكم‬.ً‫َوالَبدَحينهاَمنَالنظرَفيَمفاريدهَأيضا‬.‫أوَبعدمه‬

ًَ‫علىَالراويَمنَخاللَمفاريدهَالقليلةَ(التيَقدَتكونَحديثا‬ َ‫َخاصةَعندَعدمَوجودَنكارة‬،‫واحداً)َفيَغايةَالصعوبة‬ َ‫َوعندَاحتمالَطبقةَذلك‬،‫ظاهرةَيَذلكَالحديثَالفرد‬ َ .َ)‫الراويَللتفردَ(كالتابعينَثمَأتباعهم‬

َ‫ومنَظنَأنَالراويَالذيَليسَلهَإالَحديثَواحدَال‬-

َ‫َولوجودَعبارات‬،‫يمكنَالحكمَعليه؛َلستحالةَذلكَفيَظنه‬ َ :‫البنَعديَتدلَعلىَذلكَفيَفهمهَفقدَأخطأَظنه‬

َ‫كما‬-َ‫َيقولَأبوَحاتم‬.‫َبدليلَوقوعه‬،‫َفالَذلكَبمستحيل‬َ‫عنَسعيدَبنَمحمد‬-َ)55/4(َ‫فيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬

ًَ‫َإنماَروىَحديثا‬،‫َوحديثهَمستقيم‬،‫َ((ليسَبمشهور‬:‫الزهري‬ َ‫َكماَفَي‬،‫َمعَأنَالحديثَقدَاستنكرهَغيره‬.َ))ً‫واحدا‬ َ )1855َ‫سؤاالتَاآلجريَألبيَداودَ(رقم‬

● One should not be misled by Ibn ᶜAdī’s statement because in other places he has made it clear that such judgment is sometimes possible. ● Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī has explicitly stated that this is possible in a section in his chapter on “Those qualities of a muhaddith whose hadiths may be related that everyone can recognize and those qualities that only the knowledgeable can recognize” (Kifāyah 117).

َ‫َولوجودَعباراتَأخرىَالبنَعديَتدلَعلىَإمكان‬-َ. َ .ً‫ذلكَأحيانا‬ َ‫َوقدَنصَالخطيبَعلىَإمكانَذلكَفيَالكفاية‬ٍ َ‫َذكرَماَيعرفهَعامةَالناسَمن‬:‫تحتَفصلَتابعَلباب‬ 111( َ‫صفاتَالمحدثَالجائزَالحديثَوماَينفردَبمعرفتهَأهل‬

َ .َ)‫العلم‬

How later scholars can judge control

َ :‫ََكيفيةَمعرفةَالمتأخرينَوالباحثينَالمعاصرينَللضبط‬--Later scholars and modern researchers can judge the control of a narrator by the same means as the ones through which we judge his uprightness (by his being famous and well known as a narrator of control, by explicit statement of someone whose judgment of control is acceptable, and through implicit evaluation 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 evaluation cover both aspects of narrators: their uprightness and their control. Later scholars cannot rely on the method of comparative study to reach independent judgment on an unknown or little known narrator (i.e. judgment on a narrator that a previous leading scholar has not judged) that the early scholars employed, except in two situations:

The first situation is where we find that the narrator has reported a hadith that is obvious in its being unusual (munkar) and clearly false. On this basis I would judge the narrator to be weak or exceedingly weak or accused of lying according to how unusual the hadith is. This is, of course, provided that the chain of narration in which that unknown narrator is and in which we find this unusual material is a clean chain of

َ،‫منَخاللَطرائقَمعرفةَالعدالةَنفسهاَ(االستفاضة‬

َ‫َوذلكَألنَأحكامَأئمة‬.َ)‫َوالتوثيقَالضمني‬،‫والتنصيص‬ َ‫الجرحَوالتعديلَجاءتَلبيانَماَإذاَكانَالرواةَمحتجاًَبما‬ َ‫َوذلكَالَيحصلَإالَبالحكمَعليهم‬،‫رووهَأوَغيرَمحتجَبه‬ َ‫منَخاللَعدالتهمَوضبطهمَجميعاً؛َولهذاَجاءتَأحكام‬ َ‫أئمةَالجرحَوالتعديلَمتناولةًَالرواةَمنَهاتينَالجهتين‬

َ .‫َوالضبط‬،‫َالعدالة‬:ً‫جميعا‬

َ‫َأماَطريقةَالسبرَالتيَسارَعليهاَالمتقدمونَفالَيمكن‬-

َ‫للمتأخرينَاالعتمادَعليهاَلمعرفةَضبطَالرواةَاستقالالًَ(أي‬ َ،َ)‫دونَأنَيكونواَمسبوقينَبنحوَحكمهمَمنَإمامَمتقدم‬ ًَ‫إالَفيَحالتينَخاصتينَبمنَلمَنجدَفيهَجرحاًَأوَتعديال‬ َ :َ)‫(كالمجهولينَوشبهَالمجهولين‬ َ‫َأنَنجدَلهذاَالراويَالمجهولَحديثَاً ظاهر‬:‫الحالةَاألولى‬

َ ،‫النكارةَأوَواضحَالبطالن‬

َ‫فأحكمَعلىَالراويَبالذيَيليقَبمقدارَتلكَالنكارةَمن‬ َ‫َوذلكَبشرط‬.‫الضعفَأوَشدةَالضعفَأوَاالتهامَبالكذب‬

َ‫َوالذيَفيهَتلك‬،‫أنَيكونَاإلسنادَالذيَفيهَذلكَالمجهول‬

narration and in which all the narrators are acceptable other than that one unknown narrator. (This is the way Dhahabi has issued independent judgment about narrators being weak in his Mizān, and Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar has done so in Lisān al-Mizān, and I myself have done in Dhayl al-lisān.

َ‫َ(وهذه‬.‫َإالَمنَذلكَالمجهول‬،ً‫النكارةَ=مقبولَالرواةَنظيفا‬ َ‫الطريقةَسارَعليهاَالذهبيَفيَالميزانَفيمنَاستقل‬ َ‫َوالعبدَالفقيرَفيَذيل‬،‫َوالحافظَفيَاللسان‬،‫بتضعيفهم‬ َ .َ)‫اللسان‬ َ

The second situation is where we decide that َ‫َوهيَالتيَتكونَنتيجتهاَالحكمَبقبولَحديث‬:‫الحالةَالثانية‬ the reports of a narrator are acceptable. This is a more difficult and harder decision. This only َ‫َوالَيمكنَذلكَإال‬.‫َوهيَأشقَمنَاألولىَوأصعب‬،‫الراوي‬ becomes possible if the narrator has very few hadiths, and hadith experts explicitly state this, َ‫َأوَأجد‬،‫َوينصَعلىَذلك‬،ً‫فيَحالةَماَإذاَكانَالراويَمقال‬ or I find other evidence for having very few َ‫َبلَقدَينصَالعلماءَعلى‬،‫ماَيشهدَإلقاللهَمنَالحديث‬ hadiths, indeed sometimes experts specify the number of hadiths he has. Then I identify all his hadiths and I do a comprehensive search for َ‫َوأستقصيَفيَالبحث؛‬،‫عددَماَروى؛َثمَأقفَعلىَأحاديثه‬ all his hadiths. After all this, it is possible for a َ‫فيمكنَحينهاَللعالمَالمتأخرَصاحبَالفهمَالدقيق‬ later scholar who has deep understanding and a long experience to judge a narrator as َ.‫والممارسةَالطويلةَأنَيحكمَبالقبولَإذاَظهرتَلهَعالماته‬ acceptable when he signs evidence for this. This is especially the case when there are signs َ‫َمنَمثلَكون‬،‫خاصةَإنَوجدَقرائنَتؤيدَنتيجةَسبرهَهذا‬ that support this study, such as the narrator َ‫َأوَوجدَقرائنَتشهد‬،‫َأوَروىَعنهَجمع‬،‫الراويَمنَالتابعين‬ being among the Followers, or such as him having had many people narrate from him, or َ‫ مثلَأنَيوجدَحديثهَفيَبعضَأمهات‬،‫لقبولَالمتقدمينَله‬ such as there being signs that early scholars used to accept his hadiths such as his hadith َ‫َال‬،‫َألنَالتصحيحَتوثيقَضمني‬،‫السنةَ(دونَأنَيصححَله‬ being in one of the famous books of hadith (without the author of the book stating that the َ .َ)‫يحتاجَمعهَالراويَإلىَهذاَالسبرَغالبا‬ ً 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 his narrations). As for narrators with many hadiths, if we were َ‫َفلوَقدرناَعدمَوجودَجرحَأوَتعديل‬:‫أماَالرواةَالمكثرون‬ to find a narrator on whose reliability experts have issued neither a positive judgment nor a َ‫أنَيحكم‬-َ‫معَكثرةَحدثهمَوانتشاره‬-َ‫َفالَيمكن‬،‫فيهم‬ negative one, because of his many hadiths which would be widespread, a positive َ‫أنَيكونَفيما‬-ًَ‫احتماالًَقويا‬-َ‫عليهمَبالقبول؛َإذَيحتمل‬ judgment would not be possible. This is َ‫سيفوتَالمتأخرَ(حتماً)َمنَحديثهمَماَيسقطَبهَحديثهم‬ because there is a strong possibility that the later hadith expert would certainly have missed ٍ َ .َ)‫(وربَحديثَواحدَأسقطَمائةَألفَحديث‬ some of his hadiths which would have led to the rejection of all his hadiths (for, “Sometime َ a single hadith will be the fall of a hundred thousand!”).

--This does not mean that if later scholars study َ‫والَيعنيَذلكَأنَسبرَالمتأخرينَمنَالمتأهلينَلذلك‬the hadiths of such a narrator by comparative examination there would be no benefit to it َ‫َبلَهوَمفيدَحتىَفي‬،‫عديمَالفائدةَإالَفيَهاتينَالحالتين‬ except in these two situations. Such a study is useful even in situations other than these two. َ .‫غيرَهاتينَالحالتين‬ A study by comparative examination of a narrator in whose positive and negative evaluation experts differ widely—whether he has many hadiths or few, whether the result of study is accepting his hadiths or rejecting them—can be very useful in deciding between these different evaluations. Such comparative study, then, would be useful to help us weigh different evaluations, it would not be a means to independent evaluation.

َ‫َيمكن‬،ً‫فالراويَالذيَاشتدَفيهَاالختالفَجرحاًَوتعديال‬ َ،ً‫االستفادةَمنَسبرَحديثهَتَسواءَأكانَمكثراًَأوَمقال‬ َ‫في‬-َ‫وسواءَأكانتَنتيجةَسبرَحديثهَالقبولَأوَالرد‬

َ‫َفيكونَالسبرَحينها‬.‫الترجيحَبينَتلكَاألقوالَالمختلفة‬

َ .‫َالَإلىَحكمَاستقاللي‬،‫للوصولَإلىَمرجحَفقط‬

Control is what differentiates narrators Usually difference in control is the source for َ‫*الضبطَهوَ(غالباً)َسببَتباينَمراتبَالرواةَفيَمراتب‬ the differences in evaluations of narrators. As for criticism of uprightness (other than in the َ‫َأماَالقدحَفيَالعدالةَ(غيرَفسقَالمتأول‬،‫الجرحَوالتعديل‬ case of the iniquitous person who does not have an excusable interpretation to justify him) it َ‫َهيَمرتبةَشدةَالضعفَممن‬،ً‫فيه) فهوَمرتبةَواحدةَإجماال‬ leads only to the judging the narrator exceedingly weak: the degree that leads to the َ .‫الَيعتبرَبحديثهمَمنَالرواة‬ hadiths of narrator not being worthy of consideration (iᶜtibār).

The leading experts of narrator-evaluation

َ ‫أئمةَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ Qualities the evaluator must have

َ َ:‫*شروطَالمعدلَوالجارح‬ Al-Dhahabi states: “Evaluating narrators requires complete caution, being free of inclinations and prejudices, and a complete knowledge of hadiths, hidden defects in hadiths and narrators of hadiths” (al-Mūqiẓah).

َ‫َ((الكالمَفيَالرواةَيحتاجَإلى‬:‫يقولَالذهبيَفيَالموقظة‬

َ‫َوخبرةَكاملةَبالحديث‬،‫َوبراءةَمنَالهوىَوالميل‬،‫ورعَتام‬ َ .َ))‫وعللهَورجاله‬

How can we know who has these qualities

َ :‫ََكيفَنعرفَمنَوجدتَفيهَهذهَالشروط‬1. From the books that have been written about this.

َ :‫منَخاللَالكتبَالمصنفةَفيَذلك‬-1

a. Dhahabi’s al-Mutakillimūn fi l-rijāl b. Sakhawi’s al-Mutakallimūn fi l-rijāl c. Hishām ibn ᶜAbd al-ᶜAzīz al-Khallāf’s alMuzakkūn li-ruwāt al-akhbār ᶜind ibn abi ḥātim.” 2. From biographical entries about him that describe his memory, his being a leading critic.

َ .‫َللذهبي‬:َ)‫(ذكرَمنَيعتمدَقولهَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬-‫أ‬ َ .‫َللسخاوي‬:َ)‫(المتكلمونَفيَالرجال‬-َ‫ب‬ َ‫َلهشامَابن‬:َ)‫(المزكونَلرواةَاألخبارَعندَابنَأبيَحاتم‬-َ‫ج‬ َ .‫عبدَالعزيزَالحالف‬

َ‫منَخاللَترجمتهَوماَتتضمنهَالترجمةَمنَوصف‬-2 َ .‫بالحفظَواإلمامةَوالنقد‬

Specific and unspecific critical notice

َ ‫تفسيرَالجرحَوالتعديلَوإبهامها‬ If there is no difference of opinion in the positive and negative evaluation of a narrator, must one specify the reason for positive or negative evaluation? The correct position is that in this situation both positive and negative evaluation will be accepted in all cases: whether the evaluation is specific (i.e. the reason for the evaluation is stated), or unspecific (i.e. the reason for the evaluation is not stated). The only condition for accepting such evaluation is that it be issued by someone whose word is acceptable in negative and positive evaluation of narrators—and a condition for this is that the person evaluating the narrator should know the things that justify positive or negative evaluation.

َ‫ هلَيشترط‬،ً‫َإذاَلمَيكنَالراويَمختلفاًَفيهَجرحاًَوتعديال‬َ ‫بيانَسببَالجرحَأوَالتعديل؟‬

َ‫يقبالن‬-َ‫فيَهذهَالحالة‬-َ‫الصحيحَأنَالجرحَوالتعديل‬

َ‫َسواءَأكاناَمبهمينَ(غيرَمبينَسببهما)َأوَمفسرين‬،ً‫مطلقا‬

َ‫َوليسَلقبولهماَشرطَإالَأنَيكوناَصادرين‬.َ)‫(مبيناًَسببهما‬ َ‫َوالذيَمنَشروطهَأن‬،‫ممنَيقبلَقولهَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬

َ .‫يكونَعارفاًَبأسبابَالجرحَوالتعديل‬

Conflicting evaluations

َ .‫تعارضَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ When there are different evaluations of a narrator I do the following:

َ‫َأسيرَعلىَالخطوات‬:‫َعندَتعارضَالجرحَوالتعديل‬-

Step 1: Verification The first step: Verify that the difference is actual and not imagine.

َ‫َليس‬،‫َالتثبتَمنَأنَالتعارضَحقيقي‬:‫الخطوةَاألولى‬

َ :‫التالية‬

َ .ً‫وهميا‬

To verify this we take the following steps:

َ :‫ويتمَذلكَمنَخاللَالنقاطَالتالية‬ َ

1 Is the conflict real? 1. Make sure that the conflict is actual (whether the evaluations are positive or negative). Sometimes one of the two statements is simply not established: so there is no conflict at all. Among the reasons for a negative or positive evaluation of a narrator not being established are:

a. Is the critic reliable? a. That it be from someone whose decisions are not acceptable in the evaluations of narrators, such as Abu l-fatḥ al-Azdī.

b. Is the chain of narration is sound? b. That the chain of narration tracing the conflicting judgment to the expert not be established: Abu l-ᶜUbayd al-Ᾱjurī states: I said to Abū Dāwūd: Someone told me that Shaybān alUbbulī said that he had heard Shuᶜbah say: “Accept hadiths from Abū Umayyah ibn Yaᶜlā as he is noble and does not lie; accept hadiths from Ḥasan ibn Dīnār, as he is truthful (ṣadūq).” Abū Dāwūd said that the person narrating this had lied. Then Abū ᶜUbayd said: “Khalīl’s boy reported this.” Abū Dāwūd said: “The person who reported this lied.” (Su’ālāt #956) Ḥamzah al-Sahmī states: I asked Abū Bakr in ᶜAbdān whether one could accept Ibn ᶜUqdah’s statements when he reports something from other scholars of narrator evaluation. He said: “His reports of others’ evaluations are not acceptable.” (Su’ālāt ḥamzah al-sahmi #166) This is why al-Mizzī has checked the chains of narration of the statements of narratorevaluation that he has recorded in his book Tahdhīb al-kamāl checking it, as he explicitly states in his preface.

َ،َ)ً‫َالتثبتَمنَصحةَالقولَالمعارضَ(جرحاًَأوَتعديال‬:ً‫أوال‬ َ .ً‫َفالَيكونَهناكَتعارضَأصال‬،‫فقدَالَيثبتَذلكَالقول‬ َ :‫ومنَأسبابَعدمَثبوتَالقولَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ َ

َ ‫أنَيكونَصادراًَممنَالَيقبلَقولهَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬-‫أ‬ َ )‫(كاألَزديَأبيَالفتح‬

َ‫أنَيكونَإسنادَذلكَالقولَالمعارضَالَيثبتَإلى‬-َ‫ب‬ َ .‫ذلكَاإلمام‬ َ :َ)659َ‫قالَأبوَعبيدَأآلجريَفيَسؤاالتهَ(رقم‬

َ‫َحكىَرجلَعنَشيبانَاألبليَأنهَسمع‬:‫((قلتَألبيَداود‬

َ‫َاكتبواَعنَالحسنَبنَدينارَفإنهَصدوق؛‬:‫شعبةَيقول‬

َ:‫َثمَقالَأبوَعبيد‬.َ))‫فكذبَ(أبوَداود)َالذيَحكىَهذا‬ َ‫َكذب‬:‫َفقالَأبوَداود‬،‫((غالمَخليلَحكىَهذاَعنَشيبان‬

َ .َ))‫الذيَحكىَهذا‬

َ :َ)199َ‫وقالَحمزةَالسهميَفيَسؤاالتهَ(رقم‬ َ‫َإذاَحكىَحكاية‬،‫((سألتَأباَبكرَابنَعبدانَعنَابنَعقدة‬

َ‫َهلَيقبلَقوله؟‬:‫عنَغيرهَمنَالشيوخَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ َ .َ))‫َالَيقبل‬:‫قال‬

َ‫ولذلكَبنىَالمزىَكتابهَ(تهذيبَالكمال)َعلىَالتثبتَمن‬ َ‫َكماَفي‬،‫أسانيدَأقوالَالجرحَوالتعديلَالتيَينقلهاَفيه‬

َ .‫مقدمته‬

c. Has the narrator made a mistake? c. That the person who is narrating the conflicting statement have made a mistake in copying the statement about that narrator. This would be, for example, where the narrators’ names are similar and the person copying the name puts the statement of the expert of narrator-evaluation in the notice on someone other than the person for whom the statement has been made. This could be where a copyist’s eye slips from the notice on the person who the evaluation actually is to another notice 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 the evaluation of the expert copy only part of the evaluation so that this partial report ends up meaning the opposite of what the full report would have meant. And there are actual examples for all of this.

d. Has the evaluator made a mistake? d. That the expert evaluator himself had made a mistake and made a single narrator out of what were actually two narrators, or made two narrators of a single one. As a result his decision about the narrator would be wrong.

e. Is the criticism acceptable? e. That the position or negative evaluation be specific but the specified cause for the evaluation not be acceptable. Examples of this might be where an expert issue negative evaluation because the narrator rode a mule, or where 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, where he criticizes a narrator because of a hadith in the chain of narration of which this narrator figures, but the mistake is not his but that of another narrator in that chain of narration.

َ‫أنَيكونَمنَنقلَالقولَالمعارضَقدَأخطأَفيَننقله‬-َ‫ج‬ َ .‫لتلكَالعبارةَفيَحقَذلكَالراوي‬ َ‫َفيضعَذلك‬،‫فيَمثل مالوَكانتَأسماءَالرواةَمتشابهة‬ ٍ َ‫الناقلَقولَذلكَاإلمامَفيَترجمةَلغيرَمنَقيلتَفيهَتلك‬ َ‫َوفيَمثلَمالوَانتقلَبصرَناقلَتلك‬.‫العبارةَعلىَالحقيقة‬

َ‫العبارةَمنَالترجمةَالتيَينقلَماَقيلَفيهاَمنَالجرح‬ َ‫َفيذكرَماَقيلَفيَالثانيَفي‬،‫والتعديلَإلىَترجمةَلرا ٍوَآخر‬ َ‫َوفيَمثلَلوَاقتصرَالناقلَعلىَبعض‬.‫ترجمةَاألولَخطأ‬

َ‫َفتدلَعلىَخالفَماَتدلَعليهَعبارته‬،‫عبارةَاإلمام‬ َ .‫َوغيرَذلك‬..‫الكاملة‬ َ .‫ولجميعَذلكَأمثلةَواقعية‬

َ‫أنَيكونَاإلمامَالجارحَأوَالمعدلَنفسهَقدَأخطأ‬-َ‫د‬ َ‫َأوَفرقَوأحداًَفاختلَحكمهَعلى‬،‫فجمعَراويينَمتفرقين‬ َ .‫الراويَبسببَذلك‬

َ‫ه—أنَيكونَالجرحَأوَالتعديلَمفسراًَبماَالَيصحَمعه‬ َ‫َومنَعدل‬،‫َكمنَجرحَبركوبَالبرذون‬.‫الجرحَأوَالتعديل‬ َ‫َوكمنَجرحَبحديثَظنهَخطأ‬.‫بحسنَالهيئةَواللحية‬ َ

َ‫َأوَبحديثَفيَإسنادهَمنَهوَسببَالخطأَأو‬،‫وهوصحيح‬

َ ‫النكارةَغيرَالذيَجرح‬

2 Is it easily resolvable? Make sure that it not be possible resolve the conflict between the statements in a straightforward way. --This kind of harmonization requires a deep knowledge of the words that are used in positive and negative evaluation and of the different ranks of the evaluations that such words yield and of the ways is which experts use them. Al-Muᶜallimī states: “Often the words used to express positive or negative evaluations of narrators are used to mean things that differ from the meanings assigned to them in books of Muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth. One can only know this through immersing oneself in this material for many years and through a comprehensive knowledge of it” (Preface of his edition of alFawā’id al-majmūᶜah.) The word ḍaᶜīf 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. َ

َ‫َأنَيكونَالجمعَبينَاألقوالَالمتعارضةَممكناًَبغير‬:ً‫ثانيا‬ ٍ َ .‫تعسف‬ َ‫وهذاَالجمعَيحتاجَإلىَعلمَعميقَبألفاظَالجرح‬َ .‫والتعديلَومراتبهاَوطرائقَاستخدامَاألئمةَلها‬

َ‫َ((صيغ‬:‫يقولَالمعلميَفيَمقدمةَتحقيقهَللفوائدَالمجموعة‬ ٍ َ‫َماَتطلقَعلىَمعانَمغايرةَلمعانيها‬ ً‫الجرحَوالتعديلَكثيرا‬ َ‫َومعرفةَذلكَتتوقفَعلىَطول‬.‫المقررةَفيَكتبَالمصطلح‬

َ .َ))‫الممارسةَواستقصاءَالنظر‬ َ‫َالذيَقدَيطلق‬،َ)‫َلفظَ(ضعيف‬:‫ومنَأمثلةَهذهَاأللفاظ‬)‫َكماَبينتهَفيَ(المرسلَالخفي‬،‫علىَمنَكانَحسنَالحديث‬

Things to keep in mind while harmonizing

َ :‫َمايلي‬،‫ومنَاألمورَالتيَيجبَمراعاتهاَعندَهذاَالجمع‬1 The context of evaluation

Keep in view the context in which the statement occurs since often the evaluation of the narrator is relative: ● Such as when a narrator is weak with respect to hadiths of one city and not another: such as Maᶜmar ibn Rāshid. ● Such as where a narrator is weak in one are and not in another such as Ismāᶜīl ibn ᶜAyyāsh and Faraj ibn Fuḍālah. ● Such as when a narrator is weak when the people of one area narrates from him and not when others narrate from him: such as Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad al-Tamīmī.

َ‫َإذَقد‬،‫مراعاةَسياقَالكالمَالذيَذكرتَفيهَتلكَالعبارة‬-1 َ :ً‫يكونَالجرحَأوَالتعديلَنسبيا‬ َ .‫َكمعمرَبنَراشد‬:‫ََكمنَضعفَفيَبلدَدونَبلد‬َ‫َكإسماعيل‬:‫َومنَضعفَإذاَحدثَعنَإقليمَدونَإقليم‬َ .‫بنَعياشَوفرجَبنَفضالة‬ َ‫َكزهيرَابن‬:‫َومنَضعفَإذاَروىَعنهَأهلَإقليمَدونَإقليم‬َ ‫محمدَالتميمي‬

● Such as where a narrator is weak when he related from certain specific narrators: such as in the hadiths that Sufyān ibn Husayn and Jaᶜfar ibn Burqān narrate from Zuhrī. ● Such as where a narrator-evaluator issues negative judgment right after narrating a hadith in which he has made a mistake or where he issues positive judgment right after narrating a hadith in which his report accords with the reports of reliable narrators. ● Such as where an evaluator who held to an exceedingly harsh position on reports narrated by the doctrinally eccentric judges a narrator unreliable only because of his doctrinal eccentricity. ● Such as when a narrator is judged weak at a certain time and not at other times: such as the narrator overtaken by confusion (as in senility). ● Such as a narrator who is weak when he narrates from memory and is reliable when he narrate from his book. ● Such as when an evaluator judges a narrator weak compare to someone who is more reliable than him, or when he judges him strong compared to someone who is weaker than him.

2 Peculiarities in the vocabulary of early scholars Keep in view the fact that the earlier scholars (and not the later ones) use the same words for different meanings and to refer to different levels of reliability. This is what Dhahabī is speaking of where he says: “After this, we need to specify the meanings of the words used for positive and those used for negative evaluation, and words that can be used in both ways” (alMūqiḍah).

3 Peculiar vocabulary of specific evaluators Keep in view the terminology specific to some experts: Dhahabī continues: “Even more important is that we know the habits of the expert, his terminology and how he expresses the meaning he intends in numerous statements of his,

َ‫َكسفيانَبنَحسين‬:‫َمنَضعفَأوَوثقَفيَشيوخَمعينين‬َ .‫وجعفَبنَبرقانَفيَالزهري‬ َ‫َأوَوثقَعقبَحديث‬،‫َمنَضعفَعقبَحديثَأخطأَفيه‬َ .‫وافقَالثقاتَفيه‬

َ‫َمنَضعفَلبدعتهَ(الَألمرَآخر)َممنَكانَمذهبه‬َ .‫التشديدَفيَحكمَروايةَالمبتدع‬ َ .‫َمنَضعفَفيَوقتَدونَوقتَكالمختلط‬َ‫َووثقَإذاَحدثَمن‬،‫منَضعفَإذاَحدثَمنَحفظه‬ َ َ-

َ .‫كتابه‬

َ‫َأوَوثقَعندما‬،‫َمنَضعفَعندماَقرنَبمنَهوَأوثقَمنه‬َ .‫قرنَبمنَهوَأضعفَمنه‬

َ‫مراعاةَشمولَعباراتَالجرحَوالتعديلَعندَاألئمة‬-2 ٍ َ‫َوإلى‬.‫َخالفاًَللمتأخرين‬،‫المتقدمينَلمعانَومراتبَمتعددة‬ َ‫َوفيَذلكَيقول‬،‫ذلكَأشارَالمعلميَفيَعبارتهَالشابقة‬

َ‫َ((ثمَنحنَنفتقرَإلىَتحريرَعباَرات‬:‫الذهبيَفيَالموقظة‬ َ .َ))‫َوماَبينَذلكَمنَالعباراتَالمتجاذبة‬،‫الجرحَوالتعديل‬

َ .‫مراعاةَاالصطالحاتَالخاصةَلبعضَاألئمة‬-3 َ‫َ((ثمَأهمَمن‬:‫يقولَالذهبيَعقبَعبارتهَالسابقةَمباشرة‬

َ‫َأنَتعلمَباالستقراءَالتامَعرفَذلكَاإلمامَالجهبذ‬:‫ذلك‬

َ .َ))‫واصطالحهَومقاصدهَبعباراتهَالكثيرة‬

through detailed comprehensive examination of his judgments.” Among well-known terms that are peculiar to specific evaluators: Bukhari’s: sakatū ᶜanhu (“they are silent about him”) and fīhi naẓar (there is some question about him”). Ibn Maᶜīn’s: laysa bihi ba’s (“there is nothing wrong with him”) and laysa bi-sha’y (“he is nothing”). Abū Ḥātim’s: laysa bi l-qawī (“he is not strong”), lā yuḥtajju bihi (“his hadith cannot serve as evidence”) and yuktabu hadīthuhu (“his hadith can be recorded”). Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’s: kadhā wa kadhā (“this and that”).

4 Non-technical, lexical or metaphorical usage Keeping in mind the lexical meanings of a word and the breadth of such meaning and the possibility that a single word might refer to different levels of reliability since sometimes a word can be used in its non-technical lexical sense, or it can be used in a metaphorical way. 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 as astonishing memory and unusually strong control of his material. Dhahabī has pointed to this lexical usage in his preface to the Mizān. Right after he mentions some words of evaluation and the degree of positive or negative evaluation they point to he says: “…and other such words whose lexical meaning suggests that that the narrator should be completely discarded, or that he is weak, or that one should suspend judgment about him, or that it is correct to use his reports as evidence though he is a bit weak.” So one must not exaggerate the importance of technical usage to the point that we not allow for the possibility that an evaluator is using the word in one of its lexical meanings.

َ :‫ومماَذكرَمنَهذهَاالصطالحاتَالخاصة‬ َ ‫َفيهَنظر‬،‫َسكتواَعنه‬:‫عندَالباخاري‬ َ .‫َليسَبشيء‬،‫َليسَبهَبأس‬:‫وابنَمعين‬ َ .‫َيكتبَحديثه‬،‫َالَيحتجَبه‬،‫َليسَبالقوي‬:‫وأبيَحاتم‬ َ .‫َكذاَوكذا‬:‫أحمدَبنَحنبل‬

َ‫مراعاةَالداللةَاللغويةَوسمعتهاَواحتمالهاَألكثرَمن‬-4

َ‫َأوَبأسلوب‬،‫َإذَقدَتستخدمَاللفظةَبمعناهاَاللغوي‬،‫مرتبة‬

َ .‫عربيَمجازي‬ َ‫َومنكرَأوَشيطانَبمعنىَأنه‬،‫َكذابَفيَأخطأ‬:‫مثلَاستخدام‬ َ .‫عجيبَالحفظَشديدَاإلتقان‬ َ،‫وقدَدلَالذهبيَإلىَهذهَالداللةَاللغويَفيَمقدمةَالميزان‬ َ:‫َقال‬،‫عندماَقاتلَعقبَذكرهَلبعضَاأللفاظَومراتبها‬

َ‫((ونحوَذلكَمنَالعباراتَالتيَتدلَبوضعهاَعلىَاطراح‬

َ‫َأو‬،‫َأوَعلىَالتوقفَفيه‬،‫َأوَعلىَضعفه‬،‫الرا َوي باألصالة‬ َ .َ))‫علىَجوازَأنَيحتجَبهَمعَلي ٍنَماَفيه‬ َ‫فيجبَأنَالَنبالغَفيَإعطاءَبعضَاأللفاظَمعاني‬

َ .‫َنضيقَفيهاَداللتهاَاللغوية‬،‫اصطالحية‬

5 Prejudice Make sure that the positive or negative evaluation is just and is not the result of hatred that has gone beyond the bounds or excessive love. 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 see their justice to the doctrinally eccentric when you hear them say things like: “This man is reliable, a predestinarian (qadari),” “This man is reliable, a shiᶜite (rāfiḍī),” “A person who is blameworthy in his religious proclivity and truthful in his hadith narrated to me…” Similarly you can see them exposing their own fathers, sons and friends as being weak: they love them but they will not be partial to them! --We can be sure that this has happened with the judgment of an evaluator when he issues negative evaluation about someone whose reliability is well-known and established, or when he positively evaluates someone whose being weak is well known and established. --Remember that the rule “The critical comments of contemporaries should be ignored and should not be narrated” is particular to people of the type we have described. As for when a contemporary negatively evaluates another contemporary narrator whose uprightness and control has not been established, this type of criticism is established most firmly since a contemporary knows his contemporary much better than others can know him. --Sometimes when there is a mutual enmity or difference in religious affiliation between the evaluator and the narrator, it becomes most likely that there has been injustice. Again, this is not always the case: one only turns to this kind of explanation when most evaluations contradict the evaluation of this evaluator or, when the evaluator is known for his severity with his opponents (such as Jūzajāni’s severe opposition to Shi’ites.)

َ‫َالتثبيتَمنَأنَالجرحَأوَالتعديلَخرجَمنَقائله‬:ً‫ثالثا‬ َ‫َوأنهَلمَيكنَبسببَاعتداءَفيَالبغضَاوَغلوَفي‬،‫بإنصاف‬ َ‫َإذَأنَأئمةَالجرحَوالتعديلَوإنَكانواَأئمةَالورع‬.‫المحبة‬

َ.‫والنزاهةَوأعظمَالناسَإنصافاً؛َإالَأنهمَليسواَمعصومين‬

َ‫َثقة‬:‫َبمثلَقولهم‬،ً‫فالنظرَإلىَإنصافهمَألهلَالبدعَمثال‬ َ‫َ((حدثنيَالمتهمَفيَدينهَالصدوقَفي‬،‫َثقةَرافضي‬،‫قدري‬

َ‫َوانظرَإلىَتضعيفَبعضهمَألبيهَأو‬.‫َونحوَذلك‬،َ))‫حديثه‬

َ ‫ابنهَأوَصديقهَالذيَيحبهَلكنَالَيحابيه‬ َ‫ونقطعَبحصولَذلكَمنَالناقدَإذاَماَكانَجرحَفيمن‬-

َ‫َوإذاَماَكانَتعديلهَفيمن‬،‫استفاضتَثقتهَواشتهرتَوثبتت‬

َ .‫استفاضَتضعيفهَواشتهرَوثبت‬ َ‫وتذكرَأنَقاعدةَ(كالمَاألقرانَيطوىَوالَيروى)َمقيدة‬-

َ‫َأماَكالمَوجرحَالقرينَلقرينه‬،‫فيمنَحالهَالتيَسبقَشرحها‬

َ،ً‫الذيَلمَتثبتَعدالتهَأوَضبطهَفهذاَمن أقوىَالجرحَثبوتا‬ َ .‫ألنَالقرينَبقرينهَأكثرَمعرفةَمنَغيرهَوأولى‬

َ‫َإذا‬،‫وقدَيغلبَعلىَالظنَوقوعَالناقدَفيَعدمَاالنصاف‬ ًَ‫َوهذهَأيضا‬.‫َأوَاختالفَمذهب‬،‫الحتَبينهماَعداوة‬ َ‫َوإنماَيلجأَإليهاَإذَماَكانَاألكثرَعلى‬،‫ليستَعلىَإطالقها‬ َ‫َأوَعرفَمنَذلكَالناقدَشدته‬،‫خالفَقولَذلكَالناقد‬ َ .َ)‫علىَمخالفيهَ(كالجوزجانيَفيَكالمهَعنَالشيعه‬

Step 2: Preferring one evaluation to another

َ :‫َالترجيح‬:‫الخطوةَالثانية‬

Negative evaluation: summary or specific When the reasons for the negative evaluation are specified (and are valid: since if they are not valid the evaluation will simply be rejected, as we have already stated) the negative evaluation will be given preference to the positive one, except in a few situations where the error of the expert issuing the negative evaluation is clear through a series of indications that show his error. --As for when the negative evaluation is summary and not specified, in principle it should be preferred to positive evaluation. This is because when a person who knows the reasons for which negative evaluations are issued evaluates a person negatively, usually and in principle he would have issued this evaluation because of his knowledge of such a reason. When this is the case, we must prefer his evaluation over any positive evaluation since the critic has additional knowledge. At the same time, “when we accept the criticism of the negative evaluator we will not accuse the expert who has issued positive evaluation of imbalance, and this latter evaluator’s uprightness will not be impugned. And when we do not accept the criticism of the expert who issues negative evaluation, this means that we are calling his accusation false, and this will damage his uprightness [and our evaluation of his knowledge of the reasons for negative evaluations of narrators] since this judgment weighs against our trusting him [and against our judging him knowledgeable in this field]” (al-Kifāya, except for the text between square brackets which I have added to clarify the argument]. Indications for preferring positive evaluation But one may prefer positive evaluation to unspecific negative evaluation when there is strong indication that the positive evaluation is weightier than the unspecific negative evaluation. Among these indications are: 1 Number The positive evaluations being far greater in number than the negative evaluations.

َ‫دمَالجرحَإذاَفسرَبجارحَ(أماَإذاَفسرَبغيرَجارحَفيرد‬ َ ‫يق‬َ،‫كماَسبق)َ؛َإالَفيَحاالتَقليلةَيظهرَفيهاَخطأَالجارح‬ َ .‫منَخاللَتواردَقرائنَمتتابعةَتدلَعلىَخطئه‬

َ‫َفإنَاألصلَتقديمه‬،‫أماَإذاَكانَالجرحَمبهماًَغيرَمفسر‬َ‫علىَالتعديل؛َألنهَإذاَصدرَمنَعارفَبأسبابَالجرح‬

َ‫َومادام‬،‫َفالغالبَواألصلَأنهَلمَيجرحَإالَبجارح‬،‫والعديل‬ َ‫أنهَكذلكَلزمَتقديمهَعلىَالتعديل؛َألنَمعَالجارحَزيادة‬

َ‫َولمَيخرجه‬،‫َ((فمنَعملَبقولَالجارحَلمَيتهمَالمزكي‬،‫علم‬

َ‫َومتىَلمَنعملَبقولَالجارحَكانَذلك‬.ً‫بذلكَعنَكونَعدال‬ َ،َ)‫تكذيباًَلهَونقضاًَلعدالتهَ(ولعلمهَبأسبابَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ َ‫من‬-َ))‫وقدَعلمَأنَحالهَفيَاألمانه (والعلم)َمخالفةَلذلك‬

َ‫َإالَماَبينَقوسينَفمنيَزيادة‬،َ)134(َ‫الكفايةَللخطيب‬ َ .‫فيَالحجة‬

َ‫لكنَيمكنَأنَنقدمَالتعديلَعلىَالجرحَالمبهمَإذاَالحت‬ َ .‫قرائنَتدلَعلىَقوةَالتعديلَعلىَالجرحَالمبهم‬

َ :‫ومنَهذهَالقرائن‬ َ .‫كثرةَعددَالمعدلين‬-1

2 Greater Knowledge The expert who evaluates positively being of much greater stature and his knowledge being much more than that of the expert issuing negative evaluation. 3 Balance The expert issuing positive evaluation being more balanced in his judgments while the negative evaluation be coming from an expert who is excessively severe in his judgments. Here are examples, of each type in each of the cohorts of experts:

َ .‫جاللةَالمعدلَوزيادةَعلمهَعلىَعلمَالجارح‬-2 َ

َ .‫إنصافَالمعدلَفيَمقابلَتشديدَالجارح‬-3 َ :‫ومنَأمثلةَهؤالءَالعلماءَفيَكلَطبعةَمنَطبقاتهم‬

Balanced

←→

Severe

‫المتشددون‬

←→

َ ‫المنصفون‬

Thawri

←→

Shuᶜbah

‫شعبة‬

←→

َ ‫الثوري‬

Ibn Mahdī

←→

Qaṭṭān

‫القطان‬

←→

َ ‫ابنَمهدي‬

Aḥmad

←→

Ibn Maᶜīn

‫ابنَمعين‬

←→

Abū Zurᶜah

←→

Abū Ḥātim

‫أبوَحاتم‬

َ ‫أحمد‬

←→

َ ‫أبوَزرعه‬

Bukhāri

←→

Nasa’ī

‫النسائي‬

←→

َ ‫البخاري‬

Ibn ᶜAdī

←→

Ibn Ḥibbān* (*) Sometimes

NOTE: Al-Muᶜallimī states: “The well-known assessments of the leading experts as being severe in their evaluations or being lax are not absolute: some will be lax in some places which being severe on other occasions according to varying circumstances. Knowing this 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 with deep thinking” (in his Preface to al-Fawā’id al-majmūᶜah). On this basis, then, when we say that an expert is severe this does not mean that we will give no weight to his calling someone weak or

)ً‫ابنَحبانَ(أحيانا‬

←→

َ ‫ابنَعدي‬ َ

َ‫ ((ما‬:‫َيقولَالمعلميَفيَمقدمةَالفوائدَالمجموعة‬:‫تنبيه‬ َ‫اشتهرَمنَأنَفالناًَمنَاألئمةَمسهلَوفالناًَمتشددَليس‬ َ‫َبحسب‬،‫َفإنَمنهمَمنَيسهلَتارةَويشددَتارة‬،‫علىَإطالقه‬ َ‫َومعرفةَهذاَوغيرهَمنَصفاتَاألئمةَالتيَلها‬.‫أحوالَمختلفة‬

َ،‫أثرَفيَأحكامهمَ=َالَتحصلَإالَباسقراءَبالغَألحكامهم‬ َ .َ))‫معَالتدبرَالتام‬

َ‫َوال‬،‫َفالَيعنيَوصفَاإلمامَبالتشديدَإهدارَتضعيفه‬:‫وعليه‬ َ‫َوالَوصفهَباإلنصافَاعتماد‬،‫وصفهَبالتساهلَإهدارَتوثيقه‬

reliable. When we say he is balanced this will not be a blanket endorsement for all his judgments. Rather, our knowledge of severity or balance will figure as one element among many in deciding which judgment to prefer when the judgments are in conflict. 4 Contemporaneity That the expert issuing positive judgment is a contemporary of the narrator he judges. Such contemporaneity has no effect on negative evaluation.

َ‫َوإنماَفائدةَهذهَاألوصافَاعتبارهاَقرينةَمن‬.ً‫حكمهَمطلقا‬ َ .‫قرائنَالترجيحَعندَالتعارض‬

َ .‫َخالفاًَللجارح‬،‫أنَيكونَالمعدلَمعاصراًَللمتكلمَفيه‬-4

5 Living in the same city That the expert issuing positive judgment lives in the city of the narrator he judges. Living in the same city has no effect on negative evaluation. 6 Strength of expression The language of the positive evaluation being strong and clear (such as ḥāfiẓ, or min awthaq l-nās, or ṣadūq lā yuraddu ḥadīthuhu, or maḥalluhu l-ṣidqu yuḥawwalu min kitāb lḍuᶜafā) while the negative evaluation being light in contrast (such as yukhṭi’u, or yukhṭi’u kathīran, or fīh ḍuᶜf, or fīh līn, or layyin).

َ‫َوليسَكذلك‬،‫أنَيكونَالمعدلَبلدياًَللمتكلمَفيه‬-5 َ .‫الجارح‬

َ‫َمنَأوثق‬:‫َأو‬،‫َحافظ‬:‫قوةَعبارةَالتعديلَووضوحهاَ(مثل‬-9 َ‫َمحلهَالصدقَيحول‬:‫َأو‬،‫َصدوقَالَيردَحديثه‬:‫َأو‬،‫الناس‬ َ:‫َفيَمقابلَلينهَعبارةَالجرحَ(مثل‬،َ)‫منَكتابَالضعفاء‬

َ:‫َأو‬،‫َفيهَلين‬:‫َأو‬،‫َأوَفيهَضعف‬،ً‫َيخطىءَكثيرا‬:‫َأو‬،‫يخطىء‬ َ .َ)‫لين‬

Step 3: Suspending judgment When there is no reason to prefer one judgment to another and when all the judgments are of equal weight and after we are unable to reach a result after taking the steps outlined above, we will suspend judgment.

َ‫َعنَعدمَوجودَمرجحَوعندَتكافؤ‬:‫َالتوقف‬:‫الخطوةَالثالثة‬

َ .‫َبعدَالعجزَعنَجميعَالمراحلَالسابقة‬،‫األقوال‬

Conflicting judgments from a single evaluator Note that the preceding discussion is relevant َ‫ ماَسبقَكلهَفيَتعارضَأقوالَفيَالجرحَوالتعديل‬:‫َتنبيه‬where the conflict in evaluation comes from two different experts of narrator-evaluation. َ‫َأماَإذاَكانَالجرحَوالتعديل‬.‫صادرةَمنَأكثرَمنَإمام‬ When we find conflicting judgments from a single narrator-evaluator, we take the following َ :‫َفأسيرَعلىَالخطواتَالتالية‬،‫صادرينَمنَإمامَواحد‬ steps:

Step 1: Verification Make sure that the two judgments can be established as properly transmitted (as I have explained above).

َ .َ)‫َالتثبتَمنَصحةَالنقلَ(علىَماسبقَشرحه‬:ً‫أوال‬ َ

Step 2: Preferring the later statement If there is clear statement that the judgment of the expert changed over time, we will take the last judgment, as a case of preferring the abrogating judgment to the abrogated.

َ‫َإذاَنصَعلىَاختالفَاجتهادَاإلمامَأخذتَبآخر‬:ً‫ثانيا‬ َ‫َمنَاألخذَبالناسخَدون‬:‫َكماَتفعلَفيَالنسخ‬،‫االجتهادين‬

َ .‫المنسوخ‬

Step 3: Harmonization We will look for a way to harmonize the two judgments. In this case, where the judgments are conflict is in the judgments of a single expert, it is permissible to go a little distance in achieving 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 a conflict. This does not mean there will be no limits 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 of conflict 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.

َ‫َمعَجوازَالتوسعَفيَالجمعَفيَهذه‬،‫َطلبَالجمع‬:ً‫ثالثا‬ َ‫َاألصلَفيهَأنه‬،‫الصور؛َلكونَاألقوالَصادرةَمنَإمامَواحد‬ َ‫َوعليهَفتكونَأقواله‬،،‫علىَالصوابَفيَجميعَأقواله‬

َ‫َاألصلَفيهاَأنهاَغيرَمتعارضةَفي‬،‫المتعارضةَفيَالظاهر‬ َ.‫َاألصلَفيهاَأنهاَغيرَمتعارضهَفيَالباطنَوالحقيقة‬،‫الظاهر‬

َ،‫والَيعنيَذلكَأنَالجمعَفيَهذهَالصورةَيصحَبالَحدود‬ َ‫لكنَالمقصودَأنناَنقبلَفيهَمنَالتجوزَوالتأويلَماالَنقبله‬ َ‫فيماَإذاَماَكانتَاألقوالَالمتعارضهَصادرةَعنَعددَمن‬

َ‫األئمة؛َألنَاختالفَاالجتهادَبينَاألئمةَالمتعددينَأقوى‬ َ .‫حصوالًَوأكثرَوقوعاًَمنَاختالفَاجتهادَاإلمامَالواحد‬

Step 4: Preferring one evaluation to the other Giving precedence to one evaluation over others. To do this one would look at a number of reasons for preferring one evaluation: 1 Number How great is the number of people reporting both opinions from this single expert?

ٍ َ :‫َمنها‬،‫َويتمَمنَخاللَمرجحاتَكثيرة‬:‫َالترجيح‬: ً‫رابعا‬

َ‫كثرةَعددَالناقلينَعنَذلكَاإلمامَأحدَقوليهَفي‬-1 َ .‫الراوي‬

2 Reliability of the transmitter Preferring the report of the most reliable of his pupils, and the one who best knows his statements and judgments.

َ‫ترجيحَماَنقلهَأوَثقَتالمذةَذلكَاإلمامَعنهَوأعرفهمَبه‬-2 َ .‫وبأقوالهَوأحكامه‬

3 Later transmitters Preferring the statements of the pupils who are the last to study with him. 4 Accord with other evaluators Preferring the statement that accords with the judgment of other experts: especially when these other experts are from his cohort in knowledge and time.

َ .‫ترجيحَماَنقلهَآخرَتالمذتهَأخذاًَعنه‬-3

َ‫َخاصةَإذاَكانوا‬،‫ترجيحَماَيوافقَمنَقوليهَبقيةَاألئمة‬-4 َ .‫منَأقرانهَفيَالعلمَوالطبقة‬

5 Suspending judgment Suspending judgment when the above considerations do not allow us to reach a judgment.

َ .‫َعندَالعجزَعماَسبق‬:‫َالتوقف‬:ً‫خامسا‬

Levels of the words of evaluation

َ ‫مراتبَألفاظَالجرحَوالتعديل‬ Levels of acceptance

َ ‫مراتبَالقبول‬ 1 Evaluations suggesting a narrator of sound (ṣaḥīḥ) hadith

َ ‫مراتبَالتصحيح‬-1 Words that suggest an exaggeration in positive evaluation, such as: amīr al-mu’minīn fi lḥadīth (“commander of the believers with respect to hadith”), la yus’al ᶜan mithlihi (“one does not ask about someone as reliable as he is”), awthaqu l-nās (“the most reliable of people,”), thiqah thiqah (“reliable,” twice), and the like. Thiqah (“reliable”), thabt (“firm”), ma’mūn (“trustworthy”), ḥujjah (“his word is incontrovertible evidence”), ḥāfiẓ (“great memorizer”), ḍābiṭ (“he has good control”),

َ‫َكأميرَالمؤمنينَفي‬:‫ماَدلَعلىَمبالغةَفيَالتوثيق‬-

َ)‫َثقةَثقةَ(مكررة‬،‫َأوَثقَالناس‬،‫َالَيسألَعنَمثله‬،‫الحديث‬ َ .‫َونحوها‬..

َ‫َمتقنَ(بشرطَأن‬،‫َضابط‬،‫َحافظ‬،‫َحجة‬،‫َمأمون‬،‫َثبت‬،‫ثقة‬َ .َ)‫الَيعارضَالثالثةَاألخيرةَجرحَفيَالعدالة‬

mutqin (“perfect”), (with the condition in the case of the last three, that there not be any opposing negative evaluation of uprightness). 2 Evaluations that suggest a narrator of tolerably sound (ḥasan) hadiths

َ ‫مراتبَالتحسين‬-2 ṣadūq (“truthful”), lā ba’sa bihi (“nothing wrong with him”), jayyidu l-ḥadīth (“his hadith is good”) ṣāliḥ (“good enough”), muqārib (“close enough”), ‘arjū ‘annahu lā ba’sa bihi (“I expect there is nothing wrong with thim”), ṣadūq ‘in shā ‘allāh (“good enough, God willing”). ṣuwayliḥ (“close to being good enough”), shaykh (“a teacher”), maḥalluhu l-ṣidqu (“he should be consider truthful”)

َ .‫َجيدَالحديث‬،‫َوسط‬،‫َالَبأسَبه‬،‫صدوق‬َ .‫َصدوقَإنَشاءَاهلل‬،‫َأرجوَأنهَالَبأسَبه‬،‫َمقارب‬،‫صالح‬-

َ .‫َمحلهَالصدق‬،‫َشيخ‬،‫صويلح‬-

Ambiguous Evaluations Words that can be used both to recommend acceptance and to recommend rejection rawū ᶜanhu (“they have narrated from him”), rawā l-nāsu ᶜanhu (“people have narrated from him”), iḥtamalahu l-nās (“people have tolerated him”), yuktab ḥadīthuhu (“his hadith is narrated”), yujmaᶜ ḥadīthuhu (“his hadith is collected”), yuᶜtabaru bihi (“his hadith is considered”), yunẓaru fī ḥadīthihi (“his hadith should be looked at”), ukhtulifa fīh (“there is dispute about him”)

َ ‫ألفاظَمتجاذبةَبينَالقبولَوالرد‬ َ،‫َيكتبَحديثه‬،‫َاحتملهَالناس‬،‫َروىَالناسَعنه‬،‫روواَعنه‬َ .‫َاختلفَفيه‬،‫َينظرَفيَحديثه‬،‫َيعتبرَبه‬،‫يجمعَحديثه‬

Levels of rejection

َ ‫مراتبَالرد‬ 1. Slight weakness Levels of slight weakness (where the hadiths of this sort of narrator may be considered in comparative evaluation) Layyin al-ḥadīth (“weak in hadith”), fīh naẓar (“there is some doubt about him”), fīh ḍuᶜf (“he is a bit weak”), kadhā wa kadhā “like this, like that,” tuᶜraf wa tunkar (“known and unknown”), fīh adnā maqāl (“there is a slight

َ )‫مراتبَالضعفَالخفيفَ(التيَيعتبرَبحديثَأصحابها‬ َ‫َتعرف‬،‫َكذاَوكذا‬،‫َفيهَنظرَفيهَضعف‬،‫لينَالحديث‬َ .‫َفيهَمقال‬،‫َفيهَأدنىَمقال‬،‫وتنكر‬

criticism about him”), fīh maqāl (“there is some criticism of him”). 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”), laysa bi l-ᶜumdah (“he is not reliable”), laysa bi lmarḍī (“he is not one to be pleased with”) Ḍaᶜīf (“weak”), sayyi’ l-ḥifẓ (“has bad memory”), muḍtarab l-ḥadīth (“his hadith vacillates”), mardūd al-ḥadīth (“his hadith is to be rejected”) 2 Severe weakness Levels of severe weakness (where the hadiths of this sort of narrator will not even be considered in comparative evaluation) Matrūk (“discarded”), dhāhib l-ḥadīth (“his hadiths are gone”), muṭṭaraḥ (“he has been thrown away”), irmi bihi (“throw him away”), lā yuᶜtabar bi-ḥadīthi (“his hadith should not be considered”) Lā yutābaᶜ ᶜalā ḥadīthihi (“his hadith is not supported [by other narrators narrations]”), muṭṭaraḥ l-ḥadīth (“his hadith is discarded”), sāqiṭ (“fallen”), hālik (“irredeemable”), ḍaᶜīf jiddan (“very weak”), tālf (“a ruin”), wāhin bimarrah (“absolutely feeble”), munkar l-ḥadīth (“his hadith is not familiar”), sakatū ᶜanhu (“they are silent about him”), laysa bi-shay’ (“he is nothing”), lā yusāwi shay’an (“worthless”), fāsiq (“iniquitous”), lā yuktab ḥadīthuhu (“his hadith is not to be narrated”) Muttaham bi l-kadhib (“accused of lying”), muttahim bi l-waḍᶜ (“accused of fabrication”), yasriq l-ḥadīth (“steals hadiths”), majmaᶜ ᶜalā tarkihi (“agreed upon passing him over”), khabīth (“evil”) Kadhdhāb (“liar”), dajjāl (“an antichrist”), waḍḍāᶜ (“a fabricator”) Akdhab l-nās (“the greatest of liars”), dajjāl aldajājilah (“the antichrist of antichrists”), rukn min arkān al-kadhib (“a pillar of falsehood”)

َ‫َليس‬،‫َليسَبعمدة‬،‫َليسَبحجة‬،‫َليسَبذاك‬،‫ليسَبالقوي‬َ .‫بالمرضي‬ َ‫َمردود‬،‫َمضطربَالحديث‬،‫َسيءَالحظ‬،‫ضعيف‬َ .‫الحديث‬

َ )‫مراتبَالضعفَالشديدَ(التيَالَيعبرَبحديثَأصحابها‬ َ ،‫َالَيعتبرَبحديثه‬،‫َارمَبه‬،‫َذاهبَالحديثَمطرح‬،‫متروك‬-

َ،‫َهالك‬،‫َساقط‬،‫َمطروحَالحديث‬،‫الَيتابعَعلىَحديثه‬ َ،‫َسكتواَعنه‬،‫َمنكرَالحديث‬،‫َواهٍَبمرة‬،‫َتالف‬،ً‫ضعيفَجدا‬ َ .‫َالَيكتبَحديثه‬،‫َفاسق‬،ً‫َالَيساويَشيئا‬،‫ليسَبشيء‬

َ‫َمجمع‬،‫َيسرقَالحديث‬،‫َمتهمَبالوضع‬،‫متهمَبالكذب‬-

َ ‫َخبيث‬،‫علىَتركه‬

َ .‫َوضاع‬،‫َدجال‬،‫كذاب‬َ .‫َركنَمنَأركانَالكذب‬،‫َدجالَالدجالة‬،‫أكذبَالناس‬-

Afterword

َ ‫الخاتمة‬

In general, these few pages need explanation and should be accompanied by examples. They are but an aid to memory for those who know, they will help but they do not suffice. All praise is God’s, and peace and blessings be on His Messenger, on his family and his Companions and those who love them. Only God knows best. Written by Al-Sharīf Ḥātim ibn ᶜᾹrif al-ᶜAwnī In Mecca (God increase its nobility and its respect) On the 23rd day in the third month of the year 1421 (25 June, 2000)

َ‫هذهَاألوراقَغيرَمستغنيةَ(فيَالغالب)َعنَالشرحَأو‬ َ .‫َتعينَوالَتغني‬،‫َوإنماَهيَتذكرةَلمنَفهم‬،‫التمثيل‬ َ‫والحمدَهللَوالصالةَوالسالمَعلىَرسولَاهللَوعلىَآله‬ َ .‫َواهللَأعلم‬.‫وصحبهَومنَوااله‬ ‫وكتب‬ ‫الشريفَحاتمَبنَعارفَالعوني‬ َ )ً‫بمكةَ(زادهاَاهللَتشريفاًَوتعظيما‬ َ ‫َه‬1421/3/23َ‫في‬