A ḥadīth narrated through different but closely comparable routes that cannot be reconciled is called al-muḍṭarib. If one of the two reports can be given preference, the ruling goes to the preferred one and the report is not called muḍṭarib (from iḍṭirāb: disturbance, agitation).1 Likewise, it is not called muḍṭarib if the two reports can be reconciled.
Iḍṭirāb renders the ḥadīth weak, since it implies an absence of ḍabṭ.2
Iḍṭirāb most often occurs in the isnād and may occur in the matn; however, a muḥaddith rarely rules a ḥadīth muḍṭarib because of disagreement in the matn alone, without disagreement in the isnād.3
According to Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, al-Nawawī, Ibn Ḥajar and others, in contrast to al-Zarkashī. ↩
See: Muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, pp. 73 to 74; Tadrīb al-Rāwī, 1/262; Nukat al-Zarkashī, p. 224; Nukat Ibn Ḥajar, p. 319; Fatḥ al-Mughīth, 2/70; Fatḥ al-Bāqī, 1/272. Al-Ḥāfiẓ, however, says in al-Nukat (p. 346): "Disagreement in the isnād, when it is between equally trustworthy narrators and no preference can be given, does not in reality affect acceptance of the ḥadīth nor the ruling of its soundness, since the report is, after all, from a trustworthy narrator. It does, however, affect the aṣaḥḥiyya (relative degree of soundness) when the question is contested. A ḥadīth over which there has been no disagreement at all is sounder than a ḥadīth over which there has been disagreement in some respect." End of quotation. ʿAllāmah al-Zarkashī transmits in his Nukat (pp. 224 to 225) from ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥazm that he said: "When the wordings differ through the routes of trustworthy narrators, all of them are to be taken so far as that is possible; and if that is not possible, the additional wording is to be taken in its ruling. How many a report of severe iḍṭirāb have the scholars acted upon! A group of the imāms of ḥadīth fell into this either by mistake, which is to be avoided, or by way of scholarly discussion, not by way of rejecting the Sunnah." End of quotation. An example of iḍṭirāb in the sanad: what is narrated from Abū Bakr (raḍ. ʿanhu), that he said: "O Messenger of Allāh, I see that you have grown grey." He said: "Hūd and its sisters have turned me grey." This is a muḍṭarib ḥadīth, for it has been narrated only by way of Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, and he has been differed with over it in some ten ways: some narrated it from him as mursal, some as connected; some placed it in the musnad of Abū Bakr, some in the musnad of Saʿd, some narrated it from the musnad of ʿĀʾishah, and so forth. Its narrators are trustworthy, none of them can be preferred over another, and reconciliation is impossible. Al-Biqāʿī said this in al-Nukat al-Wafiyya, 1/532. See also: ʿIlal al-Dāraquṭnī, 1/193 to 211; Tadrīb al-Rāwī, 1/265 to 266. What was quoted above from al-Ḥāfiẓ applies here: it affects the aṣaḥḥiyya, not soundness and acceptance. Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāma drew attention to this, on this very example, in his notes on Tadrīb al-Rāwī (3/396), where he said: "When all the narrators are trustworthy, it is most objectionable to discard their routes without taking the trouble to reconcile them." End of quotation. See also the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd on cleansing with two stones, in al-Bukhārī, 1/27 (no. 156), and al-Tirmidhī, 1/10 to 11 (no. 14). I say: it is thus known that rejecting a ḥadīth on the ground of iḍṭirāb alone, without some other defect, is not possible. ↩
Sharḥ al-Nukhba, pp. 64 to 65. As for examples of iḍṭirāb in the matn, they are all but non-existent, as ʿAllāmah al-Sakhāwī said in Sharḥ al-Taqrīb (p. 159), and al-Ḥāfiẓ alluded to the same. See also: Tadrīb al-Rāwī, 1/266 to 267. It may indeed be said that iḍṭirāb in the substance of a ḥadīth may have no example, but that it may occur in some of the wordings of a ḥadīth, in which case none of them can be adduced as proof, on account of the iḍṭirāb. See: al-Nukat al-Wafiyya, 1/399 to 401. ↩
Al-gharīb falls into two categories: al-fard al-muṭlaq (absolute solitary) and al-fard al-nisbī (relative solitary).
Al-mudraj is the mixing of what belongs to one speaker with what belongs to another without indication. It falls into mudraj al-matn (more common) and mudraj al-sanad.
When the disagreement is the addition of a narrator within the chain, and the one who did not include the addition is more proficient, the report is al-mazīd fī muttaṣil al-asānīd.
Al-mawḍūʿ is that which has been concocted and fabricated. It is known by four indications, and may not be narrated to one who knows its condition without disclosure.
