Investigating the Narrators from the Senior Tabi’in Class Who Narrated from a Single Sahabi and Were Classified as “Maqbūl” By Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib Al-Tahdhib”

Investigating the Narrators from the Senior Tabi’in Class Who Narrated from a Single Sahabi and Were Classified as “Maqbūl” By Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib Al-Tahdhib“

Dr. Fouad Bounama, Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim Al-Halwani

Department of Al-Hadith & its Sciences, Al-Madinah International University/ Faculty of Islamic Sciences

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90200003

Received: 24 June 2025; Accepted: 28 June 2025; Published: 26 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The research aims to identify narrators from the senior successors of the companions (Qibar At-tabi’in) who narrated from a single companion (Sahabi) and were classified as “acceptable (Maqbūl)” by Ibn Hajar in his work “Taqrib al-Tahdhib,” which represents the sixth rank in his categorization of narrators’ integrity. A key issue addressed is the lack of comprehensive analysis regarding these narrators, which is essential for understanding Ibn Hajar’s evaluation methodology. The research raises important questions about how the limited number of a narrator’s teachers influences their classification in the science of criticism and validation (jarh wa ta’dil) and whether this rank affects the acceptance of their narrations. The significance of the study lies in providing a detailed understanding of hadith narrators among senior successors of the companions who did not achieve authentication, enhancing the comprehension of prophetic traditions. An inductive approach is employed to gather information on this category of narrators from “Taqrib al-Tahdhib,” tracking their narrations and applying descriptive analytical methodologies to study and analyze their classifications. Expected outcomes include a comprehensive listing of these narrators, insights into their role in hadith transmission, and a deeper understanding of Ibn Hajar’s methodology in assessing them. This research ultimately contributes to a more profound and accurate understanding of the transmission of prophetic traditions among senior successors of the companions, helping to clarify their significance in the broader context of hadith literature.

Keywords: Hadith narrators, senior tabi’in, jarh wa ta’dil, maqbūl, narrations

INTRODUCTION

Research background

The classification of narrators in the science of Hadith has always been a critical component in ensuring the authenticity of transmitted reports. Among the different ranks established by scholars, the category of Maqbūl (acceptable) holds particular significance, especially in the methodology of Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani (d. 852 AH). In his seminal work, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar defined a maqbūl narrator as one who has transmitted only a few narrations, against whom no sufficient cause for rejection has been established, and whose reports are accepted when corroborated by others (Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani, 1995 [26], vol. 1, p. 4).

Previous scholarly efforts have primarily focused on narrators with extensive transmission records or those included in the most authoritative Hadith collections. However, little attention has been directed toward narrators from the senior successors (Kibar al-Tabi’in) who narrated exclusively from a single companion (Sahabi) and were classified as maqbūl by Ibn Hajar. These narrators represent an important yet understudied link in the chain of prophetic transmission. Understanding their status provides valuable insights into the criteria of jarh wa taʿdil (criticism and validation) applied by Ibn Hajar and helps illuminate broader trends in Hadith authentication processes (Ibn al-Salah, 1986 [22], vol. 1, p. 23; Al-Dhahabi, 1995 [3], vol. 1, p. 52).

Given the scarcity of Hadiths transmitted by many of these narrators and the occasional divergence among scholars regarding their reliability, it becomes crucial to revisit their classification critically. This study aims to fill that scholarly gap by providing a detailed examination of these narrators, tracing their narrations, and analyzing the implications of their categorization as maqbūl.

Research problem

Despite the critical role of the maqbūl classification in hadith studies, there remains a notable gap concerning senior Tabi’in who narrated from only one Sahabi and were assessed as acceptable by Ibn Hajar. The limited scope of their narrations, often deriving from a single companion, raises important methodological questions regarding the strength and authenticity of their reports. It also prompts inquiry into how the number of teachers and the breadth of transmission affect a narrator’s evaluation in jarh wa taʿdil.

Additionally, the existing literature does not sufficiently address whether the classification as maqbūl inherently implies weakness or provisional acceptance depending on external corroborations. While Ibn Hajar’s criteria suggest conditional acceptance based on corroboration (Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani, 1995, vol. 1, p. 4), inconsistencies in application and variances in scholarly opinions (Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, 2000 [23], vol. 1, p. 35) suggest the need for further analysis.

Thus, the core research problem revolves around evaluating the integrity and narrative contribution of these senior Tabi’in narrators:

• Does narrating from a single Sahabi significantly impact their classification?
• How reliable are their transmitted narrations within the broader hadith corpus?
• What methodological implications does Ibn Hajar’s classification of these narrators have for modern hadith studies?

Addressing these questions will contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of hadith transmission and narrator evaluation during the formative centuries of Islamic scholarship.

Research terms

 “At-Tabi’i”, “At-Tabi’oun”, and “At-Tabi’een”

In linguistics, “At-Tabi’i” (the name of the doer) is a noun derived from the verb “tabi’a,” which means “to follow.” Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi defined “At-Tabi’i” as the follower, and from it comes “al-ittiba’,” which means following. For example, you would say, “I followed his knowledge,” meaning you followed his teachings (al-Farāhīdī, 2003 [5]: 1/179).

Al-Murtada al-Zubaydi said: “ittba’ahu,” which means he followed in his footsteps (al-Zubaydī, n.d. [15]: 20/380). So, “At-Tabi’i” or “At-Tabi'” is the one who comes after something or someone and follows in their footsteps, and its plural is “At-Tabi’oun” or “At-Tabi’een.”

In terminology, Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi said: “At-Tabi’i is one who accompanied a companion of the Prophet (PBUH)” (al-Khaṭīb, n.d. [6]: 22).

Al-ʻIrāqī mentioned that: “At-Tabi’ is the one who met the Companions; as for al-Khaṭīb, he has accompanied” (al-ʻIrāqī, 2002 [16]: 167).

Al-Sakhāwī explained that: “At-Tabi’, also known as At-Tabi’i, is the one who met one companion of the Prophet—peace be upon him—or more, regardless of whether the vision was from the companion himself, as the follower was blind, or vice versa, or they were all like that because it is true that they met, whether he was distinguished or not, whether he heard from him or not” (al-Sakhāwī, 2005 [11]: 4/146).

Therefore, “At-Tabi’i” refers to someone who met a companion of the Prophet (PBUH), whether he heard him or not.

At-Tabi’een classes According to Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH)

Scholars have disagreed on defining the layers of At-tabi’een. Imam Muslim placed them into three layers, while Ibn Sa’d categorized them into four (al-Suyūṭī, 1995 [12]: 1/701). Al-Ḥākim stated that there are fifteen layers (al-Ḥākim, 1977 [17]: 1/42). Ibn Ḥibban considered them a single layer since they all met the Companions (Ibn Ḥibbān, 1973 [29]: 4/3). Ibn Ḥajar classified them into five layers in his division of the narrators, starting with the second layer: the layer of the senior Tabi’een, such as Ibn al-Musayyib; the third layer: the middle layer of At-tabi’een, such as Al-Ḥasan and Ibn Sīrīn; the fourth layer: the layer following them, with most of their narrations coming from the senior Tabi’een like Al-Zuhrī and Qatādah; and the fifth layer: the lower layer among them, those who saw one or two Companions, with some of them not proven to have heard from the Companions, like Al-A’mash. This classification ends with the sixth: those who lived alongside the fifth but had no confirmed encounters with any of the Companions, like Ibn Jurayj. The year of death of those known is mentioned; if they belong to the second layer, they are from before the first century, and if they are from the third to the end of the sixth, they are between one hundred and two hundred years after the Hijrah, with a clearer explanation given for those rare cases (Ibn Ḥajar, 1986: 75).

Ibn Ḥajar’s division can be traced back in meaning to three sections: the first section is for the senior Tabi’een, who are the narrators of the second layer; the second section is for the middle Tabi’een, who are the narrators of the third and fourth layers; and the third section is for the junior Tabi’een, who are the narrators of the fifth and sixth layers.

Ranks of Criticism and Praise According to Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH)

Ibn Hajar, in his book “Taqrib al-Tahdhib,” categorized narrators in terms of criticism and praise into twelve ranks:

1. Rank of the Companions: This is the highest rank.
2. Second Rank: Those who are highly praised, either by using a superlative form (e.g., “the most trustworthy of people”) or by repeating the description either verbally (e.g., “trustworthy trustworthy”) or in meaning (e.g., “trustworthy and a memorizer”).
3. Third Rank: Those who are characterized by a single attribute, such as “trustworthy.”
4. Fourth Rank: Those who fall slightly short of the third rank, such as “truthful.”
5. Fifth Rank: Those who are slightly below the fourth rank, such as “truthful but has a poor memory,” which also includes those accused of a type of innovation.
6. Sixth Rank: Those who have only a little narration, and there is no established reason to abandon their narration. They are referred to as “acceptable” when corroborated; otherwise, they are considered “weak.”
7. Seventh Rank: Those narrated by more than one person but not confirmed; they are referred to as “hidden” or of “unknown status.”
8. Eighth Rank: Those for whom there is no confirmed praise and who are labeled as weak, even if not explicitly explained. They are referred to as “weak.”
9. Ninth Rank: Those from whom only one person narrated and who are not confirmed; they are referred to as “unknown.”
10. Tenth Rank: Those who are completely unverified and are weakened by an objection; they are referred to as “abandoned,” “abandoned narration,” “weak narration,” or “dropped.”
11. Eleventh Rank: Those accused of lying.
12. Twelfth Rank: Those who are explicitly labeled as liars or forgers (Ibn Ḥajar, 1986 [26]: 75).

Definition of the “Maqbūl” Hadith: Linguistic, Technical, and Ibn Ḥajar’s Perspective

Linguistic and General Technical Meaning of the Term “Maqbūl”

In the Arabic language, the term maqbūl denotes something that is approved, accepted, and satisfactory. It stands in contrast to mardūd (rejected) (Ibn Manzur, 1993 [20], vol. 5, p. 121). In the science of Hadith terminology (ʿilm muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth), the term generally refers to hadiths that meet the essential conditions for acceptance by hadith scholars, distinguishing them from weak, fabricated, or unreliable narrations (Ibn al-Salah, 1986 [22], vol. 1, p. 23; Al-Nawawi, 2003 [8], vol. 1, p. 15).

When the text of a hadith (matn) or its chain of transmission (isnād) is described as maqbūl, it implies that it has attained a sufficient degree of authenticity to be considered for legal, ethical, or doctrinal inference. The use of maqbūl extends to both the text of the hadith and its transmitters, illustrating the intrinsic link between evaluating the transmitted content and assessing its narrators (Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, 1989 [6], vol. 1, p. 45). This initial classification between “accepted” and “rejected” hadith reflects the early scholars’ significant attention to establishing a basic level of credibility before conducting more detailed evaluations.

Ibn Ḥajar’s Definition and Specific Standards for the Term “Maqbūl”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Shihāb al-Dīn Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH/1449 CE) occupies a distinguished position in hadith scholarship. His work Taqrib al-Tahdhib remains one of the most authoritative references in the field of narrator evaluation (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl). Within this work, Ibn Ḥajar used the term maqbūl with a specific technical meaning unique to his classification system (Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani, 1995, vol. 1, p. 4).

He defined a “maqbūl” narrator as follows: “One who has few narrations and against whom no sufficient cause for rejection has been established; indicated by the term ‘maqbūl’ if corroborated by others; otherwise, [he is] weak in narration” (Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani, 1995, vol. 1, p. 4).

From this definition, three essential conditions emerge:

• The narrator must have transmitted only a few narrations.
• No proven discrediting criticism (jarḥ) must exist against him.
• His hadiths are accepted only if corroborated by others; otherwise, they are classified as layyin al-ḥadīth(soft or weak in narration).

Ibn Ḥajar placed maqbūl narrators in the sixth of twelve ranks he outlined for narrator evaluation, positioning them below ranks such as “trustworthy” (thiqa) and “truthful” (ṣadūq) (Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani, 1995, vol. 1, p. 4). This reflects his critical and meticulous approach, requiring not merely the absence of serious flaws but also positive corroboration to confirm acceptance.

Comparative Analysis of the Term “Maqbūl” among Different Hadith Scholars

The term maqbūl had been used by hadith scholars prior to Ibn Ḥajar, although often with broader and less technically defined implications. Earlier scholars frequently applied maqbūl to signify a general level of trustworthiness sufficient for consideration without strict classification into a detailed hierarchical system (Al-Dhahabi, 1995, vol. 1, p. 52; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, 2000, vol. 1, p. 35).

Thus, for many early scholars, a maqbūl narrator could be someone whom later scholars, like Ibn Ḥajar, might classify more precisely as “trustworthy,” “truthful,” or simply “acceptable.” For instance, Al-Dhahabi, in Mizan al-Iʿtidal, included maqbūl among positive epithets for narrators, indicating a broader use of the term (Al-Dhahabi, 1995, vol. 1, p. 52).

By contrast, Ibn Ḥajar introduced a more specialized and restrictive meaning of maqbūl, limiting it to narrators who needed corroboration for their narrations to be accepted. This shift represents the increasing methodological rigor and refinement within hadith criticism, with Ibn Ḥajar playing a key role in systematizing and clarifying the field.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept of “maqbūl” (acceptable) as employed by Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb has been the subject of extensive scholarly investigation. A series of recent studies have critically examined Ibn Ḥajar’s methodology in applying this term, seeking to clarify its technical meaning, assess its consistency, and evaluate the narrators designated with it.

Mahboob Ahmad bin Muhammad Ali (1424 AH/2003 CE) conducted an in-depth analysis of 146 narrators described as “maqbūl.” His study revealed that the term was not applied uniformly, with narrators varying across ranks of trustworthiness, acceptability, and weakness. Approximately 70% of the narrators had transmitted only one or two hadiths, and many lacked substantive praise or criticism from earlier scholars. The study concluded that Ibn Ḥajar’s use of “maqbūl” in Taqrīb represents a distinct technical usage, necessitating individualized assessment based on contextual indicators.

Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Saʿīd Al-Shahrānī (1426 AH/2005 CE) examined another segment of narrators labeled “maqbūl,” reaffirming that Ibn Ḥajar’s usage of the term in Taqrīb diverged from traditional hadith terminology. His study emphasized Ibn Ḥajar’s criteria of limited narration, absence of clear criticism, and corroborative transmission, while also highlighting instances where these conditions were not consistently maintained. Al-Shahrānī noted that generational factors and the number of reliable transmitters played roles in Ibn Ḥajar’s evaluative process.

Similarly, Hassan bin Ali bin Mufrih Al-Shawkani Asiri (1423 AH/2002 CE) addressed the classification of a further group of narrators designated “maqbūl,” confirming that Ibn Ḥajar’s term carried a specific terminological nuance and required critical reassessment of each narrator’s standing.

Beyond these studies, Kamal Hamida (2019) explored the historical development of the concept of an “accepted narrator,” demonstrating that earlier scholars used the term broadly for reliable narrators, whereas Ibn Ḥajar introduced a more restrictive definition in Taqrīb. Hamida emphasized the importance of understanding the historical evolution of terminologies in hadith sciences.

Muhammad Arghab Arshad Al-Jaitan (2010) critically examined narrators designated as “maqbūl” within the Four Sunan collections. His findings indicated that most of these narrators were unknown (majhūl), suggesting that the label “maqbūl” often implied a weak status unless supported by strong corroborations. This research called for a more cautious approach to evaluating narrators described under this term.

Helimy Aris and Nazri Muslim further analyzed the application of “maqbūl” to narrators from the later generations (10th–12th tabaqahs), assessing the extent to which Ibn Ḥajar adhered to his stated criteria. Their study employed qualitative methods focusing on narrators within the six canonical collections and supplementary works.

Lastly, a specialized study examined the teachers of al-Bukhārī and Muslim classified as “maqbūl” by Ibn Ḥajar. It found that although some narrators received this designation, their narrations included in the Ṣaḥīḥayn were typically corroborated through other evidence, affirming the rigorous authentication processes employed by both compilers.

Collectively, these studies demonstrate that Ibn Ḥajar’s use of “maqbūl” in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb constitutes a specialized classification reflecting his personal methodology. Factors such as the scarcity of narration, generational proximity to the early Islamic centuries, and the presence of corroborative evidence significantly influenced his evaluations. Nonetheless, occasional inconsistencies necessitate individualized scrutiny of narrators classified under this term. The findings underscore the dynamic and evolving nature of hadith terminology and highlight the need for careful contextual interpretation in modern hadith studies.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study employs a qualitative, inductive-analytical approach to investigate the application and implications of the maqbūl classification. The methodology consists of several carefully designed stages to ensure rigor and reliability:

• Sampling Strategy: The study uses purposive sampling, focusing on narrators from the senior successors (Kibār al-Tabiʿīn) who narrated from only one Sahabi and were classified as maqbūl by Ibn Hajar in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb [26]. This group was selected because they represent a critical but underexplored subset of narrators whose limited transmission lines pose unique challenges in hadith evaluation. Inclusion criteria included narrators explicitly labeled maqbūl by Ibn Hajar, belonging to the senior tabiʿīn generation, and having narration chains restricted to a single Sahabi. Narrators falling outside these criteria were excluded to maintain focus.
• Data Collection and Triangulation: The study identified relevant narrators using Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb as the primary source [26]. To enhance the robustness of findings, source triangulation was applied by cross-referencing with additional classical biographical works, including Tahdhīb al-Kamāl by Al-Mizzī [7], Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl by Al-Dhahabī [3], and Al-Thiqāt by Ibn Ḥibbān [29]. This triangulation ensured that evaluations were not based solely on Ibn Hajar’s judgments but incorporated a broader scholarly perspective.
• Analytical Framework: The research followed a multi-layered process: (1) Criteria Analysis: examined Ibn Hajar’s stated conditions for maqbūl status (limited narration, absence of disqualifying flaws, corroboration) [26]; (2) Comparative Evaluation: compared these narrators’ biographical details and evaluations with judgments from other prominent scholars [3], [7], [29]; (3) Quantitative Review: conducted statistical analyses on the number of narrations, corroborating sources, and the proportion of narrators on the margins of majhūl (unknown) status; (4) Critical Synthesis: integrated findings with modern hadith scholarship to contextualize the results.

By combining purposive sampling, source triangulation, and comparative analysis, the study ensured methodological rigor and validity, enhancing the reliability of its conclusions.

• Data Collection: Narrators labeled maqbūl in the later generations (10th–12th ṭabaqāt) are identified from Ibn Ḥajar’s Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, with particular attention to those appearing in the canonical Kutub al-Sittah and their supplements.
• Comparative Evaluation: The biographical and evaluative data of these narrators are cross-referenced with the judgments of earlier and contemporary hadith scholars to determine the degree of alignment or divergence in their classification.
• Statistical Review: Quantitative analysis is conducted on the number of narrations, frequency of corroboration, and the proportion of narrators bordering on majhūl status.
• Critical Synthesis: Findings are integrated with previous academic research to contextualize Ibn Ḥajar’s methodology within the historical development of hadith sciences and to evaluate its impact on the process of hadith authentication.

Through this multi-layered approach, the research aims to offer a comprehensive and critical understanding of the maqbūl classification, its methodological foundations, and its broader implications for the field of hadith studies.

RESULTS

Classifications of Narrators from Senior Tabi’in with the Rank “Acceptable”, Based on the Number of Companions They Narrated From

The table (1) below presents the narrators from the Senior Tabi’in (Kibar al-Tabi’in), classified by the number of companions whom scholars of hadith mentioned they narrated from. This analysis focuses on narrators considered “Acceptable” (Maqbul) based on their criticism and validation rank (Al-Jarh wa-Al-Ta’dil). The categorization is as follows:

• Narrators from One Companion: 34 narrators
• Narrators from Two Companions: 13 narrators
• Narrators from Three or More Companions: 17 narrators

In total, there are 64 Senior Tabi’in narrators ranked as “Acceptable.”

Chart (1) shows the proportion of narrators in each category of Senior Tabi’in, classified as “Acceptable” (Maqbul). Slightly over half of the total narrators (53%) narrated from only one Companion. while the narrators narrated from two Companions represents the lowest percentage (17%). Finally, the narrators narrated from three or more Companions represent (30%).

Classifications of Narrators who narrated from one Companion based on their narrations

By examining the biographies of the initial group of senior Tabi’in narrators classified as “acceptable” by Ibn Hajar in his work “Taqrib al-Tahdhib,” specifically those who narrated from a single Companion, we can categorize these narrators into two distinct groups.

The first group consists of narrators who narrated only from one Companion, and scholars did not cite any other Companions among their teachers. The second group includes narrators who narrated from a single Companion, and scholars listed one or more other Companions as teachers; however, no narrations from these additional teachers are present in the Sunnah books.

The table (2) below presents the number of narrators in these two categories. The first group, which comprises narrators who narrated only from a single Companion with no other teachers noted for them, contains 29 individuals. The second group features narrators who narrated from one Companion and were acknowledged by one or more other Companions as teachers, yet no narrations from these teachers appear in the Sunnah books, totaling 5 narrators.

Chart (2) shows in the percentage of narrators in each group. The first group has the highest percentage, at 85% of all narrators. This group includes narrators who transmitted hadith from only one Companion, with no other teachers noted for them. The second group makes up 15%, also narrating from one Companion but having other teachers mentioned, although no narrations from them were transmitted. most narrators in this dataset only narrated from a single Companion, indicating that the majority had one direct source among the Companions.

Classifications of Narrators Based on the Hadith Sources That Included Their Narrations

The table (3) illustrates the narrators classified as “acceptable” among the senior Tabi’in narrators who have narrations from a single companion, based on the sources from which their narrations were transmitted.

First Category: This group includes narrators with narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, totaling (04) narrators.

Second Category: This group consists of narrators who have narrations in one of the four Sunan books, amounting to (24) narrators.

Third Category: This group includes narrators who do not have narrations outside the two Sahihs and the four Sunans but do possess narrations in other Sunan books, totaling (05) narrators.

The chart (3) illustrates the percentage of narrators in each section based on the sources from which their narrations are recorded. The largest percentage, at 70.0%, consists of narrators who have narrations in one of the four Sunnah books. In contrast, those narrators with narrations in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim account for the smallest percentage, which is 12.0%. Additionally, narrators who do not have narrations in the two Sahihs and the four Sunans but possess narrations in other Sunnah books represent 18.0% of the total.

Classifications of Narrators Based on Hadith Marfu’ (Attributed to the Prophet PBUH) Narrated

The table (4) below presents four categories of narrators from the senior Tabi’in, classified as “acceptable,” who have narrated from only one companion, based on the number of their reported Hadith Marfu’.

1. The first category includes narrators with no Hadith Marfu’, totaling 8 narrators.
2. The second category consists of narrators who each narrated only one Hadith Marfu’, totaling 20 narrators.
3. The third category features narrators who each narrated two Hadith Marfu’, totaling 4 narrators.
4. The fourth category includes narrators who each narrated three Hadith Marfu’, totaling 2 narrators.

The chart (4) below illustrates the classification of narrators based on the number of Hadith Marfū‘—narrations directly attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ—they transmitted. The chart presents four distinct categories, each reflecting the extent of transmission among this group of narrators. The data show the largest group, comprising 20 narrators (58.8%), transmitted only one Hadith Marfū‘. The second-largest group consists of 8 narrators (23.5%) who did not transmit any Hadith Marfū‘. Although absent in terms of direct prophetic attribution, these narrators are likely contributors to other forms of hadith, such as mawqūf or maqṭū‘, which are attributed to Companions or Tabi’in. A smaller segment of the sample includes 4 narrators (11.8%) who transmitted two Hadith Marfū‘, while the least represented group, comprising 2 narrators (5.9%), transmitted three Hadith Marfū‘.

Classifications of Narrators Based on Aathaar (Narrations Attributed to Companions or Tabi’in)

The table (5) below presents a classification of narrators from among the senior Tābiʿīn who are deemed “acceptable” (maqbūl), and who narrated from only one Companion. These narrators are categorized based on the number of transmitted reports attributed either to Companions or to other Tābiʿīn (i.e., Āthār).

1. The first category comprises narrators for whom no Āthār have been recorded, totaling 19 narrators.
2. The second category includes those who each transmitted one Athar, encompassing 8 narrators.
3. The third category consists of narrators who each reported two Āthār, with a total of 5 narrators.
4. The fourth category includes narrators who each transmitted three Āthār, accounting for 2 narrators.

The chart (5) below depicts the classification of narrators based on the number of Āthār—reports attributed to Companions or Tābiʿīn—that they transmitted. The chart identifies four distinct categories of narrators according to their level of transmission.

The data show the largest group, comprising 19 narrators (55.9%), did not transmit any Āthār. Despite the absence of such reports, these individuals are recognized as transmitters of Marfūʿ hadiths—narrations directly attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The second-largest group consists of 8 narrators (23.5%), each of whom transmitted one Athar. A smaller group of 5 narrators (14.7%) is documented to have transmitted two Āthār, while the least represented category includes 2 narrators (5.9%) who transmitted three Āthār.

Classifications of Narrators Based on the Number of Narrators Who Narrated from Them

Table (6) presents a classification of senior Tābiʿīn—specifically those from the second generation who narrated from only one Companion and were assessed as “acceptable” (maqbūl) in terms of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl—based on the number of narrators who transmitted hadith from them. The categorization is structured into three tiers. The first category, representing the majority of cases, includes 18 narrators who were reported by only one narrator. The second category consists of 9 narrators, each of whom was narrated from by two narrators. The third category comprises 7 narrators who were reported by three or more narrators.

The chart (6) below illustrates the distribution of narrators based on the number of narrators who narrated from them. It categorizes individuals into three distinct groups:

1. Those narrated by one narrator: This category constitutes the largest portion, accounting for 53% of the total. This indicates the majority of narrators were only referenced or narrated by a single individual.
2. Those narrated by two narrators: This group represents 26% of the total, showing a moderate level of transmission where two individuals narrated from these sources.
3. Those narrated by three or more narrators: The smallest category, comprising 21%, reflects a higher degree of narration and dissemination, with three or more individuals narrating from these sources.

The chart effectively highlights the varying levels of transmission among narrators, emphasizing that most narratives stem from singular sources, while fewer are disseminated through multiple narrators. Such data may be significant in analyzing patterns of reliability or influence in narration studies.

Classifications of Narrators Based on Agreement on Their Names

The table (7) below categorizes the same group of senior Tābiʿīn narrators based on the degree of consistency regarding their names and kunyah (nickname or honorific). This classification is critical for issues related to narrator identification, especially in biographical and isnād analysis. The first category, which includes the majority of narrators (24 individuals), pertains to those whose names and kunyah are consistently reported across the sources, indicating strong agreement and minimal confusion in identity. In contrast, the second category includes 10 narrators whose names or kunyah exhibit variations across sources, potentially leading to ambiguity or duplication in narrator listings. Such discrepancies, even when minor, can have significant implications in ʿilm al-rijāl (the science of narrator evaluation), particularly when verifying the authenticity of transmission chains.

The chart (7) below illustrates a notable variation in the percentage of narrators among the senior Tabi’in classified as “acceptable,” based on differences in their names or Kunyah (nicknames). The first section includes narrators whose names or nicknames remained consistent across various sources, representing the highest percentage at 71% of the total narrators. In contrast, the second section consists of narrators whose names or nicknames varied, accounting for 29%.

Classifications of Narrators Based on Criticism & Validation Rank (Al-Jarh Wa-Al-Ta’dil) by Other Scholars

Table (8) offers a more nuanced classification of the same group of maqbūl narrators based on the diversity of scholarly opinions concerning their reliability, as reflected in the field of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl. The evaluative framework hinges on the assessments provided by Ibn Ḥibbān and other hadith critics.

• The first category includes 11 narrators (32%) who were considered reliable (thiqah) solely by Ibn Ḥibbān, suggesting a limited consensus on their credibility.
• The second category comprises 4 narrators (12%) who were deemed reliable by both Ibn Ḥibbān and other scholars, representing the strongest endorsement within this classification.
• The third category includes 8 narrators (24%) who were not deemed thiqah by any known critic, raising questions about the acceptance of their narrations.
• The fourth category, again consisting of 11 narrators (32%), features individuals whom Ibn Ḥibbān regarded as thiqah, while other scholars labeled them as majhūl (unknown), indicating a contested status in the tradition.

This classification underscores the complexity and variation in scholarly judgments and highlights the need for careful scrutiny of biographical sources when evaluating the reliability of narrators.

The chart below illustrates how narrators are classified based on scholarly agreement about their reliability (‘Thiqah’). There are four distinct categories shown. The first category consists of 32% of narrators who are considered reliable only by Ibn Hibban’s assessment. The second category includes 12% of narrators deemed reliable by both Ibn Hibban and other scholars. The third category represents 24% of narrators who were not deemed reliable by any scholars. Finally, the fourth category consists of the remaining 32% of narrators who are considered reliable based on validation from scholars other than Ibn Hibban.

DISCUSSION

These findings offer critical insights into the mechanics of early Hadith transmission and Ibn Hajar’s evaluative rigor. The prominence of narrators with single-companion transmission patterns raises important questions about the weight assigned to isnād breadth in classical and contemporary Hadith criticism. In modern jarh wa taʿdil methodology, the reliance on corroboration for ‘Maqbūl’ narrators illustrates a methodological safeguard that balances between outright acceptance and rejection. This nuanced approach continues to influence contemporary Hadith authentication, especially when dealing with narrators on the fringes of full reliability. Furthermore, the findings suggest a re-examination of whether such narrators should occupy a central or peripheral role in current Hadith validation frameworks, particularly as digital databases now enable more dynamic isnād tracking and corroborative analysis.

This study investigate senior Tabi’in narrators classified as “Maqbūl” by Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib al-Tahdhib,” who narrated from only a single Sahabi, analyzing various aspects of their narration profiles based on the provided data. The results offer valuable insights into this specific group of narrators and contribute to a deeper understanding of Ibn Hajar’s evaluation methodology within the science of jarh wa ta’dil.

1. The initial classification of narrators from the Senior Tabi’in, categorized as “Acceptable” (Maqbūl) based on the number of companions they narrated from, revealed that slightly over half of the narrators (34) or 51% narrated from only one Companion out of a total of 64 narrators. This phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that these narrators from the Senior Tabi’in were not particularly focused on expanding their collection of hadith by transmitting from multiple Companions. Instead, their narrations often stemmed from specific events they attended, during which a Companion present would narrate something related to that incident. Consequently, they would hear it from that individual and later transmit it. Their contribution to the collection and dissemination of Prophetic Hadith was limited, further supported by an in-depth analysis revealing that the vast majority (85%) of these 34 narrators were noted by scholars as having narrated solely from a single Companion, with no references to other Companion teachers. Only a smaller group (15%) had mentions of other Companion teachers, but there were no recorded narrations from them in the Sunnah books. This presents challenges for scholars engaged in hadith criticism and authentication, as they must study the sheikhs from whom these narrators transmitted.
2. Analyzing the sources of the narrations from the Senior Tabi’in, classified as “acceptable” and transmitted by only one Companion, reveals that a significant majority (70%) are recorded in the Four Sunan books. In contrast, a smaller fraction (12%) appears in either Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. Additionally, a noteworthy 18% of the narrators have their narrations found in other Sunnah literature beyond the two Sahih collections and the Four Sunan. This distribution indicates that, while their narrations are included in important hadith compilations, they are more prominently represented in the broader Sunan literature rather than in the most rigorously authenticated collections (the Sahihayn). This aligns with their classification as “Maqbūl,” suggesting a degree of acceptance that is lower than that of “Thiqah” (reliable) narrators, whose narrations are more frequently found in the Sahihayn. Additionally, the lack of Marfuʿ narrations from 23.5% of these individuals suggests that their contributions were primarily limited to legal or historical discussions (Athar) rather than to direct prophetic traditions.
3. Additionally, the study shows that most of these narrators transmitted only one or two hadiths classified as marfūʿ (attributed directly to the Prophet ﷺ). This reinforces their marginal, yet still significant, contribution to the hadith corpus. A similar pattern appears in their transmission of āthār (narrations attributed to Companions or Tābiʿīn), with over half having no recorded āthār. This highlights their limited yet focused role in preserving prophetic traditions, a factor that may have influenced their middling rank in Ibn Hajar’s hierarchy.
4. Additionally, the analysis of the number of narrators who narrated from these senior Tabi’in reveals a pattern of restricted transmission—most were narrated from by only one or two individuals. This limits the number of transmission paths available for corroboration, which is essential for authenticating hadith for the narrations of these “Maqbūl” narrators and could be a factor contributing to their classification. This finding aligns with their overall modest narrative output and may have influenced their lower-tier placement in hadith collections.
5. Additionally, the consistency in the names and kunyahs was high, with 71% showing no differences across sources. This consistency is important for narrator identification and reduces ambiguity in biographical assessments. However, 29% of these narrators show variations in their names or kunyahs across different biographical sources. These inconsistencies make it difficult to accurately identify narrators, especially when similar names or overlapping titles could cause confusion or incorrect attribution in isnād analysis.
6. The classification derived from the critique and validation by other scholars presents a multifaceted picture. While Ibn Hajar categorized them as “Maqbūl,” the perspectives of other scholars were diverse. A notable segment (32%) was regarded as “Thiqah” solely by Ibn Hibban, and another 32% was considered “Thiqah” by Ibn Hibban but “Majhul” (unknown) by others. A mere 12% was recognized as “Thiqah” by both Ibn Hibban and other scholars, whereas 24% were not acknowledged as “Thiqah” by any scholar. This divergence in scholarly opinions underscores the intricate nature of jarh wa ta’dil and implies that Ibn Hajar’s “Maqbūl” classification for this group likely reflects this diversity of evaluations, positioning them in a rank that acknowledges their narrations but with a degree of caution compared to those with a more robust consensus on their reliability. The limited number of teachers, the distribution across hadith sources, and the quantity of Marfu’ and āthār narrations likely all contribute to their classification within the sixth rank by Ibn Hajar.
7. Overall, the findings present a comprehensive profile of senior Tabi’in narrators who transmitted from a single Sahabi and were classified as “Maqbūl.” The data show this group has a limited number of direct teachers from the Sahaba, a higher occurrence of their narrations in the broader Sunan collections compared to the Sahihayn, a relatively small number of reported Marfu’ hadiths, and varied levels of agreement on their reliability among other scholars. These aspects collectively likely influenced Ibn Hajar’s classification of them as “Maqbūl.”

CONCLUSION

This study not only clarifies the profiles of senior Tabi’in narrators categorized as ‘Maqbūl’ but also contributes a critical layer to understanding Ibn Hajar’s methodology. Future research should extend this analysis by:

1. Conducting thematic content studies on the actual narratives transmitted by this group to evaluate their legal, theological, and historical significance.
2. Applying comparative analyses between Ibn Hajar’s classifications and those of earlier scholars like Al-Dhahabi or Ibn Hibban to trace methodological evolution.
3. Investigating the impact of ‘Maqbūl’ narrators within modern computational isnād verification models, leveraging AI-assisted hadith databases.

Such studies would deepen our understanding of the dynamics of early Islamic knowledge transmission and refine contemporary Hadith authentication processes.

This study effectively identified and analyzed 34 senior Tabi’in narrators who transmitted from a single Sahabi and were classified as “Maqbūl” by Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib al-Tahdhib.” The research provides a comprehensive listing and detailed insights into the narration profiles of these individuals based on the number of companions they narrated from, the sources of their narrations, the quantity of Marfu’ and Aathaar reports they transmitted, the number of narrators who narrated from them, the agreement on their names, and the criticism and validation by other scholars.

The findings indicate that while this group of narrators is represented in significant hadith collections, particularly the Four Sunan, they generally transmitted a limited number of Marfu’ hadiths and had a relatively narrow circle of transmission. The differing opinions of other scholars regarding their reliability, as revealed by the analysis of jarh wa ta’dil assessments, highlight the complexities involved in evaluating narrators and likely contributed to their classification as “Maqbūl” by Ibn Hajar.

This research contributes to a more profound understanding of a specific category of hadith narrators among the senior Tabi’in and sheds light on potential factors influencing their classification within Ibn Hajar’s framework. It highlights that the “Maqbūl” rank for this group is associated with a combination of factors, including the extent of their direct transmission from the Sahaba, the dissemination of their narrations, and the consensus (or lack thereof) among other scholars regarding their reliability.

Future research could delve deeper into the content of the narrations transmitted by this group to understand the nature of the reports they conveyed and further analyze the correlation between the various factors examined in this study and their classification rank.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported by an internal grant from the Research and Innovation Division of Al-Madinah International University, Malaysia. I am sincerely grateful for their financial and institutional support, which played a crucial role in the successful completion of this study.

I would also like to express my deep appreciation to the Department of Hadith, Faculty of Islamic Sciences, for providing a supportive academic environment and for their encouragement throughout the research process.

Finally, I am thankful to my colleagues, students, and family for their continuous support, motivation, and valuable feedback during the development of this work.

REFERENCES

1. Abū Dāwūd, S. I. A., (2009). As-Sunan. Lubnān: Dār al-Risālah al-ʻĀlamīyah.
2. Al-Bukhārī, M. I., (1989). Al-Ṣaḥīḥ (2nd ed.). Bayrūt: Dār Ṭawq al-Najāh.
3. Al-Dhahabi, (1995). Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl fī Naqd al-Rijāl. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
4. Al-Dhahabī, S. A., (1967). Dīwān al-Ḍuʻafāʼ wa-al-Matrūkīn. Makkah: Maktabat al-Nahḍah al-Ḥadīthah.
5. Al-Farāhīdī, A. K. I. A., (2003). Kitāb al-ʿAyn. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
6. Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, (n.d.). Al-Kifāyah fī ʿIlm al-Riwāyah. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
7. Al-Mizzī, Y. I. A. A., (1980). Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʼ ar-Rijāl (1st ed.). Bayrūt: Muʼassasat ar-Risālah.
8. Al-Nawawī, (2003). Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
9. Al-Nisāʼī, A. I. S., (1986). Al-Mujtabā mina as-Sunan (2nd ed.). Ḥalab: Maktab al-Maṭbūʻāt al-Islāmīyah.
10. Al-Nisāʼī, A. I. S., (2001). As-Sunan al-Kubrā (1st ed.). Bayrūt: Muʼassasat al-Risālah.
11. Al-Sakhāwī, S. A., (2005). Fatḥ al-Mughīth. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
12. Al-Shaybānī, A. I. M. I. H., (2001). Al-Musnad (1st ed.). Bayrūt: Muʼassasat ar-Risālah.
13. Al-Suyūṭī, J. A., (1995). Tadrīb al-Rāwī fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawawī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
14. Al-Tirmidhī, M. I., (1975). As-Sunan (2nd ed.). Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah.
15. Al-Zubaydī, A. M., (n.d.). Tāj al-ʿArūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs. Kuwait: Maṭbaʿat al-Ḥukūmah.
16. Al-ʻIrāqī, Z. A., (2002). Al-Taqyīd wa al-Īḍāḥ. Riyadh: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī.
17. Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, (1977). Maʿrifat ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
18. Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻA. I. M., (1952). Al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʻdīl (1st ed.). Bayrūt: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Turāth al-ʻArabī.
19. Ibn Kathīr, I. I. ʻU., (2013). Ikhtiṣār ʻUlūm al-Ḥadīth (1st ed.). Al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Maymān.
20. Ibn Manẓūr, (1993). Lisān al-ʿArab. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir.
21. Ibn Mājah, M. I. Y. A. Q., (2009). As-Sunan (1st ed.). Bayrūt: Dār al-Risālah al-ʻĀlamīyah.
22. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, (1986). Muqaddimah fī ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr.
23. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, (2000). Al-Tamhīd limā fī al-Muwaṭṭaʾ min al-Maʿānī wa al-Asānīd. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī.
24. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, (1986). Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
25. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, (1986). Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
26. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, (1995). Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. Damascus: Dār al-Risālah al-ʿĀlamiyyah.
27. Ibn Ḥajar, A. I. ʻA., (1971). Lisān al-Mīzān (2nd ed.). Bayrūt: Muʼassasat al-Aʻlamī lil-Maṭbūʻāt.
28. Ibn Ḥajar, A. I. ʻA., (2008). Nuzhat al-Naẓar (2nd ed.). Al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah: Jāmiʻat Ṭaybah.
29. Ibn Ḥibbān, M. I. Ḥ., (1973). Al-Thiqāt (1st ed.). Ḥaydar Ābād al-Dakhn: Dāʼirat al-Maʻārif al-ʻUthmānīyah.