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 "with something, such as numerous chains of narration, strengthening it." Ibn Hajar's definitions indicate that there are five conditions to be met for a particular "hadith" to be considered "ṣaḥīḥ": A number of books were authored in which the author stipulated the inclusion of "ṣaḥīḥ hadith" alone. According to Ahl al-Sunna, this was only achieved by the first two books in the following list: "Ḥasan" ( meaning "good") is used to describe "hadith" whose authenticity is not as well-established as that of "ṣaḥīḥ hadith", but sufficient for use as supporting evidence. Ibn Hajar defines a "hadith" that is "ḥasan lithatihi"""ḥasan"