Criticism of Hadith hadith criticism that has been implemented by the "muhaddithin" [orthodox ahadith evaluators] for the past thousand years, ... is far more scientific and exact than modern orientalist approaches." Traditional Islamic scholars who have endevored to refute the Western criticism of hadith include Mustafa al-Siba'i and Muhammad Mustafa Al-A'zami. Some Western academics have also been critical of this "revisionist" approach as a whole, for instance Harald Motzki, (who according to Jonathan Brown demonstrates "convincingly" that studies of early hadith and law by Joseph Schacht and the late G. H. A. Juynboll "used only a small and selective body of sources", "based
Hadith terminology in and of itself"with the same definition a "ṣaḥīḥ hadith" except that the competence of one of its narrators is less than complete; while a "hadith" that is "ḥasan ligharihi" ("ḥasan due to external factors") is determined to be "ḥasan" due to corroborating factors such as numerous chains of narration. He states that it is then comparable to a "ṣaḥīḥ hadith" in its religious authority. A "ḥasan hadith" may rise to the level of being "ṣaḥīḥ" if it is supported by numerous "isnād" (chains of narration); in this case that "hadith" would be "ḥasan lithatihi" (""ḥasan" in and of itself")