As for the vocabulary of disparagement, it too is set out in ranks.
• If the critics say, “layyin al-ḥadīth” (soft in ḥadīth), his reports are to be written down and then examined for corroboration. Al-Dāraqutnī explained: “When I say layyin, I do not count him as discarded; rather, he has a blemish that does not remove him from the circle of uprightness.”
• The phrase “laysa bi-qawī” (he is not strong) likewise means that his ḥadīth is written down, but it stands a notch below layyin.
• If they say “ḍaʿīf al-ḥadīth” (weak in ḥadīth), this is weaker than “not strong,” yet he is still not thrown aside altogether; he may be used only for supporting evidence.
• If they say “matrūk al-ḥadīth” (abandoned in ḥadīth), “dhāhib al-ḥadīth” (his ḥadīth is worthless), or “kadhdhāb” (liar), then he is dropped entirely and his narrations are not recorded.

Other expressions the critics employ include: “So-and-so reported from the people,” “wasat” (average), “muqārib al-ḥadīth” (close to acceptable in ḥadīth), “muḍṭarib al-ḥadīth” (his ḥadīth is inconsistent), “lā yuḥtajju bihi” (no legal proof is drawn from him), “majhūl” (unknown), “lā shayʾ” (of no weight), “laysa bi-dhāk,” “laysa bi-dhāk al-qawī” (not that strong), “fīhi— or fī ḥadīthihi—ḍaʿf” (there is weakness in him or in his ḥadīth), and “mā aʿlamu bihi baʾsan” (I know of no fault in him). Their precise implications are to be inferred from what has already been set out. Allah knows best.