The definition of shādh is that which is narrated only by one rāwī, and this causes inqidāh (doubt) in the mind of the narrator. This is also the definition of munkar.[1]
The causes of inqidāh are:
- The memory of the mutafarrid[2] is weak.
- The narration opposes that which has been narrated by one who is awthaq (more trustworthy).[3]
- There is a requirement for the text of the ḥadīth to be famous.[4]
- The shaykh which narrates the ḥadīth is famous for gathering and narrating aḥādīth, however the person narrating from the shaykh, even if he is thiqah themself, is the only one who narrates from him, and he is not known to be from amongst his more well-known students.[5]
- Other reasons from the causes of delusion.[6]
Other opinions on the definition of shādh
Imām Shāfi’ī maintains that shādh is that which is narrated by a thiqah narrator, contradicting what is narrated by others. Thus, it is not to relate something which others have not narrated.
Imām al-Khalīlī opines, and this is also the view of some muḥaddithīn, that shādh is that which has only one isnād, such that only one person narrates it. Regardless of whether a thiqah narrator relates this ḥadīth or not. As for those narrations related by a non-thiqah narrator, they are classified as matrūk. As for the narrations from a thiqah narrator, we stop and wait for other evidence to conclude whether or not this ḥadīth is accepted. No rulings are derived from this ḥadīth, as it has only been narrated by one person.
As for Imām Ḥākim, he maintains that shādh is that which a thiqah narrator relates exclusively and this narration does not have roots in ḥadīth al-mutābi’.[7]
All three definitions in reality are verily similar except that the definition presented by Imām Shāfi’ī is specific, and the definitions of Imām al-Khalīlī and al-Ḥākim are generic, and their views are given preference as can be seen from the works of the muḥaddithīn.
As for the Aḥnāf, a shādh narration is that which contradicts the Qur’ān, established Sunnah, ijmā’ of the ummah and those aḥādīth which are not acted upon due to necessity.[8] Thus this definition is more generic than that of Imām Shāfi’ī.
Summary of definitions of Shādh according to different scholars:
| Imām Shāfi’ī | Narrated exclusively by a thiqah narrator and there is contradiction to others |
| Al-Khalīlī | Narrated exclusively by a thiqah narrator (not necessary for there to be a contradiction) |
| Al-Ḥākim | Narrated exclusively by a thiqah narrator and dissimilar to mutābi’ narrations |
| Imām Abū Ḥanīfah | That which contradicts the Qur’ān, established Sunnah, ijmā’ of the ummah and those aḥādīth which are not acted upon due to necessity |
Shādh and munkar are the same
Shādh and munkar are the same, as mentioned by Ibn Ṣalāh in his Muqaddimah. Ṣāliḥ Jazrah mentions that a munkar ḥadīth is that which is not known. Shu’bah mentions that a shādh ḥadīth does not come except that it is related by a shādh narrator. Examples such as these from the muḥaddithīn indicate that both shādh and munkar are synonymous such that there is no requirement for shādh narrations to be related by a thiqah narrator, nor is there a requirement for munkar narrations to be related by a ḍaīf narrator.[9]
[1] According to Ibn Ṣalāh shādh and munkar are both the same. Ibn Ḥājar mentions in Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikar that shādh is the narration which opposes a thiqah narration, even if the narrator themself if thiqah. Whereas munkar is where there are two narrations for one ḥadīth, one having a strong narrator and the other having a weak narrator. The latter ḥadīth will be munkar according to Ibn Ḥājar.
[2] The only narrator to relate this hadith
[3] This is the definition of shādh according to Imām Shāfi’ī.
[4] Such as the ḥadīth narrated by Al-Hākim in his mustadrak on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās سَبْعَ أَرَضِينَ فِي كُلِّ أَرْضٍ نَبِيٌّ كَنَبِيِّكُمْ ، وَآدَمُ كآدمَ ، وَنُوحٌ كَنُوحٍ، وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ كَإِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَعِيسَى كَعِيسَى . Al-Hākim mentions that this ḥadīth has a ṣaḥīḥ isnād. Bayhaqī affirms that this ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ but mentions that it is shādh.
[5] For example that which is narrated by Manṣūr bin Zādān, who is thiqah, from Zuhri from Abū Salamah from ‘Ā`isha that the Prophet ﷺ would kiss her when he would leave for ṣalāh and would not do wuḍū`. Abū Ḥātim mentions in his ‘Ilal: “this ḥadīth is munkar, there is no foundation for it being from Zuhri, and I do not know of Manṣūr bin Zādān hearing from Zuhri, not narrating from him.”
[6] Such as the ḥadīth narrated by Abū Dāwūd and Tirmidhi on the authority of Qutaybah bin Saīd from Layth Ibn Sa’d from Yazīd bin Abū Habīb from Abū Ṭufayl from Muadh bin Jabal regarding the Prophet ﷺ combining two ṣalāh. Al-Hākim mentions in his Ma’rifat al-Ulūm al-ḥadīth: “This ḥadīth is narrated by narrators who are thiqah, however the isnād and matn is shādh, we cannot find the hidden defect … however the leaders of ḥadīth are surprised at this ḥadīth from Qutaybah in terms of its sanad and matn. Thereafter it has not reached us that anyone of these scholars have found an illah, … after pondering I came to the conclusion that this ḥadīth is mawḍū’, although Qutaybah bin Saīd is thiqah ma’mūn.”
[7] I.e. the text of the ḥadīth is not found in corroborating narrations
[8] Such as the ḥadīth of Busrah regarding wuḍū` being nullified by mere touching of the private part.
[9] The author of Mulakhkhaṣ, ‘Abd al-Aẓīm al-Balyāwī, mentions that the definition adopted by Ibn Ḥājar, namely that shādh is the narration of an accepted narrator in contradiction to one who is awthaq, and munkar is the narration of a ḍaīf narrator in contradiction to a thiqah narrator, are definitions which he has not found mentioned previously by those before him. However it is possible that this was the case in the majority of the different narrations, and thus Ibn Ḥājar established a generic principle which is problematic. Note: Ibn Ḥājar has the same definition of munkar as mentioned in the Muqaddimah of Imām Muslim.
