because it is the stronger report.

• When the variation does not affect the substance of the meaning, there is no inconsistency; it merely concerns a peripheral matter.

For example, the narrators differed over the price of Jabir’s camel (may Allah be pleased with him)1 and they likewise differed in the ḥadith of Fadala ibn ʿUbayd on the price of the necklace that contained gold and beads—was it bought for twelve dinars, for more than that, or for less?2

We say that this discrepancy is harmless, for it does not relate to the core meaning, which is the sale of gold for gold. All agree that it was a necklace made of gold and beads and that it was sold for dinars; the only disagreement is over how many dinars. On that figure the narrators differed, yet such a difference does not matter.

The same holds for the hadith of Jabir: the narrators concur that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) bought the camel and that Jabir stipulated he could ride it to Medina, but they disagreed on the purchase price. We therefore say this variation is inconsequential, because it does not impinge upon the essential point for which the hadith was cited.

A hadith that is classed as muḍṭarib (internally inconsistent) is deemed weak, for the narrators’ discord in this way shows that they did not preserve it accurately. It is well known that any hadith not carefully preserved falls into the category of weak reports.

Regarding his phrase, “muḍṭarib ʿinda uhayl al-fan (inconsistent according to the people of the discipline),” someone might ask: Why did he use the diminutive form of the word “ahl,” and is it appropriate to put the scholars in diminutive form?