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).
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).
In the opinion of Nāyif, this refers to the fact that the
narrator suffers from a weak memory.
2. Da‘īf al-Hadith
This is an incomprehensive (mujmal) jarh and requires
more qualifying attributes to see what it refers to at
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).
3. Matrūk al-Hadīth
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.
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.
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).
4. Munkar al-Hadīth
In the opinion of the majority, this term refers to a
da‘īf narrator whose narrations contradict the narrations of
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).
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).
says that, at times, this term is used to refer to a thiqah
person who narrates manākīr from al-du‘afā’.
also says that many a time this term is used for a narrator
who has narrated just one narrative.
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
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.
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.
7. Laysa bi al-Qawī
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.
Al-Shāfi‘ī uses it for a person who is a liar.
However, according to Ibn al-Qattān al-Fāsī, at times, Yahyā
ibn Ma‘īn uses it for a narrator who has reported very few
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).
10. Laysa bi Dhāka
According to Ibn Nāyif, this expression is used
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
11. Laysa bihī Ba’s / Lā ba’sa bihī
According to ‘Alī ibn Nāyif,
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Abū Ishāq al-Hawaynī
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.