such reports, adding, “They are good for corroboration and comparative analysis, though unfit for independent reliance.” Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal said, “I may record a man’s ḥadith only so that I can use it for comparison.” An example is ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Lahīʿah, the judge of Egypt: he was among the most prolific narrators and a virtuous man, but after his books were destroyed by fire mistakes crept into his later transmissions. Consequently his narrations are treated merely as supporting evidence and testimony. He is frequently mentioned alongside al-Layth ibn Saʿd, and al-Layth is an authoritative, firmly established imam.

Explanation

The author—may Allah have mercy on him—reports that Imām Aḥmad said, “I may write down a man’s ḥadith only to consider it.” The phrase “to consider it” does not mean “to cite it as proof”; rather, it means that I look for corroborating reports (shawāhid) and parallel chains (mutābaʿāt) for it. Hence Ibn Ḥajar says in al-Nukhbah, “Tracking down additional lines of transmission for this purpose is called iʿtibār (comparative analysis).” The shāhid is the iʿtibār: here we have both a shāhid and a mutābiʿ. A shāhid is a separate, independent ḥadith with a different chain that lends support to the ḥadith for which we seek confirmation, while the mutābaʿāt occur within the chain itself, meaning that the narrator finds someone who follows him in