—indeed, one who is thoroughly trustworthy.

If a person reports a ḥadīth in one form and another reports it in a form that contradicts the first, and the second narrator is superior in integrity or precision, then the first report is deemed irregular.

This is a most useful rule. Should someone come across a ḥadīth, examine its chain, and find it uninterrupted with reliable transmitters—yet, on inspecting the text, discover that it conflicts with what has already been established—he should judge that report unsound, and he bears no blame for doing so.

If he objects, “How can I rule it weak when the chain is continuous and its narrators are upright and trustworthy?” we answer: “Because it contains a flaw that renders it weak, namely irregularity.”

The author’s phrase “or it is criticized (yuʿall)” means that the report is challenged on account of a defect that prevents its acceptance; whenever such a defect is present, the ḥadīth is not authentic.

Linguistically, a ʿillah (defect) is a condition that causes the body to depart from its natural balance. Hence it is said, “So-and-so has a ʿillah,” meaning he is ill; sickness is a defect that deprives the body of health.

In ḥadīth terminology the meaning is analogous: it is a characteristic that causes the ḥadīth to depart from acceptability.

However, there is an additional stipulation beyond what the author has cited: the ḥadīth must not be affected by a disqualifying defect, for a report may harbor a flaw that does not actually impair it. This, God willing, will be discussed later.

Accordingly, an authentic ḥadīth must meet several conditions; we have so far mentioned three of them, namely: