The author—may Allah have mercy on him—said:
28. “Identical in wording and identical in script is the ‘agreed,’
Its opposite, as we have already noted, is the ‘divergent.’

This constitutes the twenty-eighth category in the poem’s taxonomy of ḥadith sciences: al-muttafiq and al-muftariq.

In truth they form a single category, despite the author’s phrasing, which might suggest two. The category concerns transmitters: whenever we come across two—or more—narrators whose names are written and pronounced exactly alike, yet they are distinct individuals.

Mastery of this field is needed to avoid confusion. Take the name “ʿAbbās,” for example. One ʿAbbās may be an acceptable narrator while another ʿAbbās is not. Such a pairing is called al-muttafiq wa’l-muftariq.

Imagine a ḥāfiẓ stating, “ʿAbbās—one of my teachers—narrated to me,” and that ʿAbbās is trustworthy. Later he says, “ʿAbbās—also one of my teachers—narrated to me,” but this second ʿAbbās is unreliable. If a report then reaches us with the simple chain “ʿAbbās narrated to us,” we cannot be sure which ʿAbbās is meant, and the report’s authenticity becomes doubtful. The specialists call this situation al-muttafiq wa’l-muftariq.

• The rationale behind the term is plain: agreement in spelling and pronunciation, divergence in the referent.

• Knowing this is essential. Should the identically named narrators differ in reliability, the ḥadith must be held in abeyance until clarification. If both are trustworthy and each actually met the narrator, no harm is done and the report remains sound.

Thus, al-muttafiq wa’l-muftariq pertains to transmitters, not to the matn (text) of the ḥadith. Once it is clear we are dealing with narrators, we ask: are all those with the identical name reliable? If all are upright it causes no problem. But if one is reliable and another weak, judgment is suspended; the ḥadith is neither confirmed as sound nor declared weak until the agreement and divergence are resolved.