a number of points that later scholars (1) criticised him over (2). Among these is his statement: “Ṣughdiyy ibn Sinān, one of the weak narrators.” The name, when vocalised correctly (3), begins with a ḍamma on the un-dotted ṣād; it may also appear with an un-dotted sīn instead, the ghayn— a dotted letter— is read in the state of sukūn, followed by an un-dotted dāl, and finally a yāʾ as in a nisbah. It is, in fact, a proper name (4) that happens to have the form of a nisbah, and he is not unique in this regard (5). In Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl (6) he is listed as “Ṣughdiyy al-Kūfī”; Ibn Maʿīn declared him reliable, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim distinguished between him and the narrator mentioned immediately before him, rating the latter as weak (7).
In al-ʿUqaylī’s Taʾrīkh (8) we read: “Ṣughdiyy ibn ʿAbd Allāh, who transmits from (9)…"
(1) The word “taʿaqqabu” does not appear in manuscript A; the space is left blank.
(2) The work’s full title is Tabaqat al-Asma al-Mufrada min al-Sahaba wa-l-Tabiʿin wa-Ashab al-Hadith, and it is in print. Ibn al-Salah states in Maʿrifat Anwaʿ ʿUlum al-Hadith (p. 325): “The book by Ahmad b. Harun al-Bardiji al-Baradhʿi entitled al-Asma al-Mufrada is the most famous work on the subject, yet many hadith critics—including Abu ʿAbd Allah b. Bakir—have raised objections and corrections to numerous entries in it.”
(3) The phrase “wa huwa” is missing from manuscript K.
(4) Manuscript D reads “ismu ʿalam” as a genitival construct; the adopted wording follows J, H, and L.
(5) The word “huwa” is absent from manuscript H.
(6) Vol. 4, p. 454.
(7) Ibn Maʿin, Tarikh, transmission of al-Duri, 4/250.
(8) In manuscript M the preposition “fi” appears without the preceding conjunction waw.
(9) Manuscript B reads “ʿanhu.”