one of them is more reliable than the other, yet the less reliable narrator inverts the chain, turning the pupil into the teacher and the teacher into the pupil. We therefore judge that this ḥadīth is maqlūb (reversed), because its chain has been turned upside-down.

A further example: the same man may have reported the ḥadīth in his youth, when his memory was sound, in one manner, and then, after old age and forgetfulness overtook him, in another manner. In that case we rule the later version maqlūb. At times we learn of the inversion through a separate route that shows us—by the chronology of the narrators—that the one portrayed as the disciple was actually the teacher, for he preceded the other in age and era.

Every maqlūb report is deemed weak, because it betrays the narrator’s lack of precision.

The second category is what the author meant by his words, “and inverting the chain for a given text is another kind.” That is when the chain of one text is assigned to a different text.

Take, for instance, a man who relates one ḥadīth through Zayd, from ʿAmr, from Khālid, and a second ḥadīth through Bakr, from Saʿd, from Ḥātim. He then gives the second chain to the first text and the first chain to the second text. This is called “inverting the chain of the text,” and it is usually done on purpose as a test, to examine the competence of a ḥadīth scholar.

Such was the device employed by the scholars of Baghdad with al-Bukhārī, may Allah have mercy on him. When they heard he was coming to them, scholars from Iraq and its environs gathered and said, “We want to test this man.” They selected one hundred ḥadīths, attached to each one a chain that did not belong to it, and shuffled the chains to put al-Bukhārī to the test. They said, “Each of you will take ten ḥadīths and ask him about them,” and they chose ten strong, reliable memorisers. When al-Bukhārī arrived and the people assembled, they began to recite all the chains one after another until they had finished; and every time they presented a chain