Editing Biographical evaluation (section)

== Overview ==
{{quote box |align=right |width=29% |quote=The grounds upon which a narrator is subject to criticism are numerous some relating to moral uprightness and others to precision.}}

===Narrator criteria===
A hadith is subject to criticism on the basis of two matters. The first relates to the continuity of the hadith's [[Science of hadith#The sanad and the matn|chain of narration]]; if there is [[Hadith terminology#Categories of discontinuity|discontinuity]] between two or more narrators, that hadith is criticized on this basis as discussed in depth in the [[hadith terminology]] article. The second relates to criticism of a narrator, or more, in the chain of narration of a particular hadith.<ref>''Nuzhah al-Nathar'', by Ibn Ḥajr, published as ''an-Nukat'', p. 108, ''Dar Ibn al-Jawzi'', Dammam, Saudi Arabia, sixth edition, 2001.</ref>

Hadith narrators are evaluated in light of two qualities in determining the overall grading of a hadith. These qualities are derived from the definition of a hadith that is [[Hadith terminology#Sahih|''sahih'']] constituting two of its five conditions. The first, uprightness (''al-ʻadālah''), is defined as the ability an individual possesses to adhere to moralistic decorum (''al-taqwā'') and maintaining proper social graces (''al-murūʼah''). The second, precision (''al-ḍabṭ''), is of two types, the first is pertaining to memorization and the second to writing. Precision in memorization (''ḍabṭ al-ṣadr'') refers to the ability to retain the specified information, recalling and conveying it at will. Precision in writing (''ḍabṭ al-kitāb'') is the preservation of the written information from the time it was heard until its transmission.<ref>''Nuzhah al-Nathar'', p. 83.</ref>

===Grounds for criticism===
The grounds upon which a narrator is subject to criticism are numerous some relating to moral uprightness and others to precision. [[Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani|Ibn Ḥajr]] identified and enumerated ten qualities in which a narrator could be criticized. Five relate to trustworthiness and the other five to precision; however, he presented these ten qualities in order according to severity:
# A narrator intentionally lying, claiming a statement to be a Prophetic hadith when it is not. The inclusion of a narrator of a hadith as such renders that hadith [[Hadith terminology#Maw.E1.B8.8D.C5.AB.CA.BB|fabricated (''Mawḍūʻ'')]].
# An accusation of fabricating a hadith. This would be due a narration that clearly contradicts established religious principles originating from the direction (as it pertains to that hadith's chain of narration) of that individual. Or, that a narrator is known to lie in his ordinary speech but not while narrating hadith.
# Plenitude of mistakes in a narrator's hadith.
# Lack of attention to accuracy.
# The commission of wrongdoing by statement or action as long as it does not constitute apostasy.
# Misconception due to narrating on the basis of misunderstanding.
# Contradiction of that narrator's hadith of another established narrator.
# Unspecification of that narrator's standing in their narrating capabilities.
# [[Bid‘ah|Heresy]], being the belief in an innovated matter that contradicts the established religious practice originating with the Prophet due to a misconception, not obstinateness.
# Poor memory, differing from number three above in that the mistakes of that narrator outnumber instances in which they are correct.<ref>''Nuzhah al-Nathar'', pgs. 116–17.</ref>

===Methods of evaluation===
Hadith scholars of the past employed various methods by which to evaluate the narrating abilities of a narrator. From these means are the following:
# Observing that narrator's religiosity and asking others about it.
# Requesting the narrator in question to narrate from a particular living scholar and then returning to that scholar and comparing his narrations with those of the narrator under examination.
# If the narrator narrates from a deceased scholar, inquiring when he, the narrator in question, was born, when he met that scholar and where and then comparing the dates provided in his response to the recognized dates of that scholars death and travels. So, perhaps, the dates provided by the narrator may contradict the established dates, for example, claiming that he heard from a particular scholar after the recognized death of that scholar.
# Comparing the narrations of the narrator with those of narrators of established reliability, comparing them seeking any distinctions that might be unique to that narrator, in particular, while contradicting the others.
# Examination of the narrations either written or memorized by that narrator after the passage of time observing any discrepancies with their initial narrations.<ref>''Ilm al-rijāl wa Ihimmiyyatuh'', pp. 22–4.</ref>
# Deliberately altering the wording of a hadith or more for the purpose of examining the ability of the narrator being examined to detect those alterations. This is considered an acceptable practice as long as those alterations are brought to light following the examination process.<ref>''Nuzhah al-Nathar'', [ 127.</ref>