What is an ʾāḥād ḥadīth, and how does it differ from a mutawātir ḥadīth?

In Ḥadīth terminology, ḥadīths (Prophetic traditions) are classified into two categories based on the number of narrators at each ṭabaqah (a generation of narrators from the same era, whose lifespans overlapped or who studied under the same teachers) in a given isnād (chain of narration). A mutawātir (mass-narrated) ḥadīth is a tradition narrated by a large number of narrators at every layer of the chain of narration, through multiple chains, in such a way that it is impossible for them to have conspired to fabricate it. According to scholars of Ḥadīth, one of the conditions for a narration to be considered mutawātir is that it must be transmitted by a large number of narrators, although the precise minimum number varies among scholars; some suggest that at least ten narrators are required at each layer of the chain of narration. In contrast, the ʾāḥād (mono-narrated) ḥadīth, also known as khabar al-wāḥid (solitary report), refers to a ḥadīth that does not meet the conditions necessary to be classified as mutawātir. Linguistically, a mono-narrated ḥadīth indicates a narration transmitted by only one narrator, but in Ḥadīth terminology it denotes any narration whose chain of narrators is insufficient to guarantee the impossibility of fabrication, even if more than one narrator is involved. For example, a ḥadīth narrated from the Prophet (PBUH) by one Companion to ten Successors and then disseminated among people is considered mono-narrated. Similarly, a ḥadīth transmitted by two Companions to a hundred Successors, or by three or four Companions to hundreds of Successors, is also classified as mono-narrated. For instance, the ḥadīth stating that “a Muslim is he from whose hand and tongue the Muslims are safe,”¹ transmitted by three Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) to a large number of Successors, is nonetheless graded as a mono-narrated ḥadīth.

It is important to note that the distinction between mono-narrated ḥadīths and mass-narrated ḥadīths is purely terminological—a classification developed by the mutaʾakhirūn (later Ḥadīth scholars). They categorized ḥadīths into mass-narrated reports, which are definitive with respect to both transmission and meaning and provide positive knowledge, and solitary reports, which are probable regarding transmission and meaning and do not provide positive knowledge. They accepted mass-narrated ḥadīths in matters of ʿaqīdah (creed/beliefs), while they accepted mono-narrated ḥadīths only in matters of aḥkām (legal rulings). However, this classification is not consistent with the approach of the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors), who accepted both types in matters of ʿaqīdah and aḥkām. A mono-narrated ḥadīth must be accepted and acted upon in both matters of beliefs and legal rulings, provided its authenticity is well-established, regardless of whether it was transmitted by one, two, three, four, or ten Companions. Again, the division of ḥadīths into mono-narrated and mass-narrated is primarily a technical distinction for students of Ḥadīth science and is chiefly useful in weighing evidence when the two types cannot be reconciled. Scholars unanimously agree that it is obligatory to act upon every ḥadīth authentically reported from the Prophet (PBUH), whether mono-narrated or mass-narrated. Ultimately, what matters is the authenticity and reliability of the narration, not the number of narrators: A ḥadīth may be authentic when reported by a single trustworthy narrator, yet unauthentic when reported by multiple unknown or unreliable narrators. Therefore, it is incumbent to act upon every ḥadīth meeting the conditions of authenticity, whether it comes through one ṭarīq (route of transmission) or through a hundred ṭuruq.² Mono-narrated ḥadīths serve as rational proofs in the acceptance of rulings; that is, they are accepted because they can be justified through reason. If a single trustworthy and truthful person reports something he has personally witnessed, his account can generate positive knowledge. Conversely, if multiple unknown individuals report a matter, their accounts may fail to provide positive knowledge. The essential point is that the credibility of the report, not the number of its transmitters, is what truly determines its reliability.

Mono-narrated ḥadīths can impart positive knowledge. Therefore, they are authoritative and binding, making it obligatory to act upon them. As a general rule, a mono-narrated ḥadīth may establish a sharʿī (Islamic legal) ruling provided its narrator is reliable and its contents do not contradict reason. Indeed, all four imāms of jurisprudence regarded mono-narrated ḥadīths as authoritative in principle, rejecting them only if there is evidence of weakness in their attribution to the Prophet (PBUH) or if they conflict with other evidence deemed more authoritative. Imāms abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfiʿī, and ibn Ḥanbal accepted solitary reports when they meet the following conditions:

•The narrator is competent; reports from a child or a person of unsound mind are unacceptable.

•The narrator is a Muslim at the time of reporting, though not necessarily at the time of receiving the information.

•The narrator’s uprightness is established by positive proof.

•The narrator possesses a retentive memory, ensuring the report can be trusted.

•The narrator is not implicated in any form of distortion in the matn (text) or isnād (chain of transmitters) of any ḥadīth.

•The narrator has met and heard the ḥadīth directly from his immediate source.

•The ḥadīth’s contents are not anomalous; they do not contradict the Qurʾān or the principles of the Sharīʿah.

•The ḥadīth is free of subtle defects.

Abū Ḥanīfah laid down certain additional conditions. The following verse is of paramount importance in this regard: {It is not necessary for the believers to march forth all at once. Only a party from each group should march forth, leaving the rest to gain religious knowledge then enlighten their people when they return to them, so that they ˹too˺ may beware ˹of evil˺} (Qurʾān 9:122). This verse urges believers to acquire a deeper understanding of religion. The Arabic term ṭāʾifah—translated into English as “a party”—is used to denote one or more individuals. Thus, even a single person may be referred to as a ṭāʾifah. Accordingly, if the report of a single individual concerning religious matters is accepted, this serves as evidence that such a report is authoritative. Clearly, the pursuit of religious knowledge encompasses both ʿaqīdah (beliefs) and sharʿī (Islamic legal) rulings, and in fact, learning about matters of ʿaqīdah is more important than learning about sharʿī rulings. The verse further states that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for all believers to set out for jihād (fighting in the cause of Allah) together. Rather, a party only should participate in the expeditions sent by the Prophet (PBUH), while another party remains with him to gain understanding of the religion and instruct the fighters upon their return. The expression “a party from each group” indicates a number below the level of tawātur (mass transmission). Nevertheless, the reports of this smaller number impart positive knowledge and are authoritative. Moreover, the Prophet (PBUH) would dispatch his envoys individually with letters to various tribes and towns to invite them to Islam and teach them the religion. Those who received these letters did not reject them on the basis that they were conveyed by a single individual, even though such reports would be considered solitary in this sense. Likewise, Allāh sent a Messenger to every nation. The Prophet (PBUH) also said: “May Allah brighten [the face of] the one who hears a ḥadīth from us and memorizes it with the intention of conveying it [to others], for perhaps a carrier of knowledge may transmit it to someone more knowledgeable than himself.”³ This ḥadīth demonstrates the authoritativeness of solitary (mono-narrated) reports. Accordingly, as long as a solitary report meets the previously stated conditions, it cannot be rejected solely because it was transmitted by a single narrator. In other words, a ḥadīth may be heard and conveyed by one individual to another—an individual-to-individual report—and yet remain authoritative, providing positive knowledge that is binding. For instance, it was narrated that Jābir said: “The Messenger of Allāh said on the Day of al-ʾAḥzāb (the Battle of the Confederates, also known as the Battle of the Trench): ‘Who will bring us news of the people (the Confederates: the coalition of Quraysh and their allies who besieged al-Madīnah during the Battle of the Trench in 627 C.E.)?’ Az-Zubayr said: ‘I will.’”⁴ In this case, the Prophet (PBUH) relied on the report of a single person—a solitary report transmitted by az-Zubayr. Similarly, it was narrated from ʿAmrū ibn Sulaym az-Zuraqī, from his mother, that she said: “While we were in Miná, I saw ʿAlī ibn abī Ṭālib [may Allāh be pleased with him] on a camel, saying: ‘The Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) says: These are days of eating and drinking, so no one should fast.’ He then followed the people [in order to convey this message].”⁵ The people complied with the command of ʿAlī ibn abī Ṭālib [may Allāh be pleased with him], which serves as evidence that solitary reports convey certain knowledge and are therefore authoritative. Consequently, Muslims are obligated to act upon them. Moreover, every Muslim accepts the report of the muʾaḏḏin (the one who proclaims the call to prayer) and acts upon it—despite it being a solitary report—in the most significant ritual of the religion, namely prayer. Indeed, the evidences in this regard are innumerable. The Prophet (PBUH), as mentioned earlier, would send individual Companions to various tribes to carry out his commands, to lead people on his behalf, or to collect zakāt (the obligatory charity), and so forth.

The Muslim nation is unanimous that accepting solitary reports and acting upon them is obligatory. The following ḥadīth is highly significant in this regard. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar narrated: “While the people were performing the morning prayer at Qubāʾ (near al-Madīnah), someone came to them and said: ‘The Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) received revelation during the night, and he has been commanded to face toward the Kaʿbah, so face it.’ At that time their faces were toward the Levant (toward Jerusalem), so they turned around toward the qiblah (the Kaʿbah in Makkah).”⁶ Hence, the Companions acted upon the command reported by a single narrator in the midst of their prayer. As a rule, whenever a person who fulfills the aforementioned requirements of moral integrity, trustworthiness, and accuracy reports a narration, it imparts certain knowledge, and acting upon it becomes obligatory. Anas ibn Mālik [may Allāh be pleased with him] narrated: “I was serving abū ʿUbaydah, abū Ṭalḥah, and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb a fermented drink made from zahw (red or yellow dates that have not yet become fully ripe) and [ripe] dates, when someone came to them and said: ‘Indeed, wine has been prohibited.’ Thereupon abū Ṭalḥah said, ‘Stand up, O Anas, and pour it out.’ So I poured it out.”⁷ Hence, the report of a single trustworthy individual—a solitary report—that wine has been prohibited was sufficient for certain knowledge to be imparted and for the Companions to act upon this new ruling. Ash-Shāfiʿī stated that khabar al-wāḥid (a solitary report) from the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) is sufficient to abstain from something; a fatwá may be issued on its basis, and it is accepted by everyone.⁸ There is consensus among all the Tābiʿūn (Successors) regarding the obligation to act upon solitary reports; none of them disputed this consensus or objected to it.⁹ Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for the second category of akhbār (reports), it comprises those narrated by a single trustworthy narrator or the like (i.e., a small number of narrators), which are not mutawātir, neither in their wording nor in their meaning. Yet the ummah (Muslim nation) received them with acceptance, acted upon them, and affirmed them. This category of reports conveys positive knowledge according to the majority of the scholars of the ummah of Muḥammad (PBUH), among both the early and later scholars. As for the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors), there was no disagreement among them on this [matter].”¹⁰ Therefore, questioning the authoritativeness of solitary reports arose only among the people of bidʿah (innovation in religious matters with no basis in the Sunnah of the Muslim community).¹¹ Ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah (The People of the Sunnah and the Community) do not distinguish between mass-narrated ḥadīths and mono-narrated ḥadīths (or solitary reports). They accept both as ḥujjah (incontestable, binding evidence) in matters of belief and rulings alike. Ibn Ḥazm [may Allāh have mercy on him] stated: “All the people of Islam were unanimous in accepting the solitary report of a trustworthy person from the Prophet (PBUH).”¹² As-Samʿānī [may Allāh have mercy on him] said: “If a report is authentically transmitted from the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH), narrated by trustworthy individuals and imāms, and transmitted by their successors from those before them all the way back to the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH), and the ummah (Muslim nation) receives it with acceptance, then it conveys knowledge according to the majority of the ummah, and there was no disagreement among the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors) concerning it. As for those who claim that the route of tawātur (mass transmission) is necessary, such people merely seek to reject [solitary] akhbār (reports).”¹³ As previously stated, the rejection of the authoritativeness of solitary reports did not arise except among the people of bidʿah (innovators in religious matters), and their aim in this is to reject the Sunnah.

Someone might ask: Why do the people of bidʿah (religious innovation) seek to abandon the Sunnah? The answer is quite simple: if the Sunnah is abandoned, the people of bidʿah find room to question the texts of the Sharīʿah and interpret them according to their whims. By contrast, accepting every authentic report from the Prophet (PBUH) eradicates all foundations of bidʿah and puts an end to all forms of tampering with the religion of Allāh. In other words, the Sunnah suppresses bidʿah. The people of bidʿah fail to realize that rejecting solitary reports is itself an additional bidʿah, for questioning the authoritativeness of solitary reports is an innovated, heretical view that has no basis in the Sharīʿah. The Prophet (PBUH) said: “Whoever introduces into this matter of ours (Islam) something that is not part of it, it will be rejected.”¹⁴ Hence, rejecting the authoritativeness of solitary reports is a bidʿah, and the Prophet (PBUH) stated: “Every bidʿah is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.”¹⁵ Someone might argue that solitary reports impart only ẓanniyy (uncertain) knowledge and, therefore, cannot be relied upon in matters of ʿaqīdah (Islamic creed/beliefs). It is important to understand that there are two kinds of aẓ-ẓann (uncertainty): aẓ-ẓann al-marjūḥ and aẓ-ẓann ar-rājiḥ. Aẓ-ẓann al-marjūḥ (weak presumption) is rationally negligible and does not convey positive knowledge. Hence, it is not binding and cannot be relied upon, neither in matters of rulings nor in matters of ʿaqīdah. However, well-established solitary reports do not belong to aẓ-ẓann al-marjūḥ, but rather to aẓ-ẓann ar-rājiḥ (strong presumption or likely/preponderant probability), which is tantamount to yaqīn (certainty). This is why the word aẓ-ẓann is used in the Qurʾān to denote certainty. The Almighty says: {I was certain [in the Arabic verse: ẓanantu] that I would face my reckoning} (Qurʾān 69:20). He also says: {and they were certain [in the Arabic verse: ẓannū] that there was no refuge from Allāh except in Him} (Qurʾān 9:118). Hence, the view that solitary reports should be accepted and relied upon in matters of aḥkām (rulings), but not in matters of ʿaqīdah (Islamic creed/beliefs), is an invalid innovated view. From where did its proponents derive this division? Where is the considerable evidence for not accepting or relying upon solitary reports regarding matters of ʿaqīdah? Was this position established by a Qurʾānic verse or an authentic Prophetic tradition? Is it established that this was the view or practice of the Companions [may Allāh be pleased with them]? Did any of the Companions reject Prophetic traditions concerning matters of ʿaqīdah merely because they were reported to him by a single person? Did any of the imāms of the Successors or the Successors of the Successors act in this manner? None of the Companions, Successors, or imāms of guidance rejected a solitary report relating to matters of ʿaqīdah. On the contrary, they accepted solitary reports with approval and regarded them as conveying certainty, provided their authenticity was established. Examples include Prophetic traditions concerning seeing Allāh and His addressing of every individual on the Day of Resurrection, as well as His nightly descent to the lowest heaven in a manner befitting His majesty during the last third of the night. The Prophet (PBUH) said: “Convey from me, even if it be a [single] verse of the Qurʾān.”¹⁶ Who will convey the verse? It will be conveyed by a single person, and this alone suffices to impart positive knowledge and establish ḥujjah (binding evidence) upon those to whom this single person conveys it. Claiming that solitary reports do not impart positive knowledge and are not authoritative would render the Prophet (PBUH)’s command to convey his teachings meaningless. If only mass-narrated reports possessed ḥujjiyyah (authoritativeness), while solitary reports did not, the Prophet (PBUH) would not have instructed people to convey his teachings. Yet the Prophet (PBUH) sent ʿAlī, Muʿāḏ, and abū Mūsá [may Allāh be pleased with them] individually to Yemen at different times to convey his teachings and to instruct people in the religion, which comprises both ʿaqīdah (Islamic creed/beliefs) and legal rulings. This constitutes conclusive evidence that ʿaqīdah may be established by solitary reports and that ḥujjah (binding evidence) may be established upon people through them; otherwise, the Prophet (PBUH) would have sent multiple Companions together—rather than a single one—on such missions so that their reports might reach the level of tawātur (mass transmission). For this reason, the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors) were unanimously agreed upon accepting solitary reports in matters of ʿaqīdah, affirming the attributes of Allāh, and all matters of the Unseen.

Furthermore, how can one accept the ḥujjiyyah (authoritativeness) of solitary reports in matters of legal rulings while rejecting that same ḥujjiyyah in matters of ʿaqīdah (Islamic creed and beliefs)? Such a position would be strange, given that the very same transmitters conveyed both. Ibn al-Qayyim [may Allāh have mercy on him] stated: “There is no objection to establishing al-asmāʾ wa-aṣ-ṣifāt (the Names and Attributes of Allāh) on the basis of solitary reports, just as there is no objection to establishing al-aḥkām aṭ-ṭalabiyyah (legal rulings involving commands and prohibitions) on their basis, for what difference exists between the realm of aṭ-ṭalab (the law consisting of command and prohibition) and the realm of khabar (informative statements from Allāh and His Messenger (PBUH) concerning monotheism and the Divine Attributes) such that these reports would function as ḥujjah (binding, authoritative evidence) in one realm but not in the other? This distinction is invalid according to the consensus of the ummah (Muslim nation), which has never ceased to rely upon these [solitary] reports in matters of al-khabariyyāt (informative statements from Allāh and His Messenger (PBUH) concerning monotheism and the Divine Attributes), just as it has relied upon them as ḥujjah in matters of aṭ-ṭalabiyyāt al-ʿamaliyyah (practical legal rulings consisting of commands and prohibitions), particularly since practical rulings themselves entail the assertion that Allāh has legislated a given matter, made it obligatory, and approved it as part of the religion, for His Law and His religion arise from His Names and Attributes. The Companions, the Successors, the Successors of the Successors, and the people of Ḥadīth and Sunnah consistently employed these solitary reports as ḥujjah in matters of [Divine] Attributes, [Divine] Names, predestination, and rulings. Not a single one of them was ever reported to have declared it permissible to use them as ḥujjah in legal rulings while rejecting their ḥujjiyyah in akhbār (informative statements) about Allāh and His Names and Attributes. Hence, where, then, are the predecessors of those who differentiate between these two realms?”¹⁷ As Ibn al-Qayyim commented, there are no predecessors for those who claim that solitary reports convey only uncertain knowledge, except for the Jahmiyyah (the theological school of thought founded by Jahm ibn Ṣafwān  in early Islam, known primarily for its radical negation of Allah’s divine attributes, claiming they are ascribed to people and cannot be ascribed to Allah), the Muʿaṭṭilah (those who deny wholly or in part the Names and/or Attributes of Allāh), the Rāfiḍah (Shīʿī Muslims who reject the caliphates of the first two rightly guided caliphs, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar), and the Qadariyyah (also known as the Muʿtazilah: adherents of the doctrine of free will who deny the existence of fate and assert that Allāh does not possess foreknowledge of events).¹⁸ In fact, abandoning acting on solitary reports is tantamount to accusing the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors) of error for believing in them and taking them as authoritative in religion. It is to call into question the consensus of the ummah (Muslim nation) and to depart from the path of the believers. Indeed, this alone constitutes a fitnah (source of misguidance) in religion! Allāh says: {And whoever defies the Messenger after guidance has become clear to them and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will let them pursue what they have chosen, then burn them in Hell—what an evil end!} (Qurʾān 4:115).

To conclude, there are countless definitive proofs from the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, as well as the consensus of the Companions and the early generations of the ummah (Muslim nation), which decisively establish that it is obligatory to accept and act upon solitary reports in all realms of the Sharīʿah, encompassing both matters of ʿaqīdah (Islamic creed and beliefs) and matters of practical legal rulings. As for distinguishing between these realms, it is a bidʿah (innovation in religion) introduced by the people of whims and desires among the mubtadiʿah (innovators in religion), aiming to reject the evidence that refutes their bidaʿ (innovations in religion). Not a single one of the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors) of the ummah was reported to have declared it permissible to use solitary reports as ḥujjah (binding, authoritative evidence) in matters of rulings while denying their authoritativeness in akhbār (informative statements) about Allāh and His Names and Attributes. Moreover, none of the reliable people of knowledge held a differing opinion on this issue. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (may Allāh have mercy on him) stated: “All of them—ahl al-Ḥadīth (the people of Prophetic traditions), ahl al-ʾathar (the people of transmitted reports, which include reports from the Prophet (PBUH), from the Companions, and occasionally from the Successors), and ahl al-fiqh (the people of jurisprudence)—accept the report transmitted by a single reliable narrator in matters of beliefs; they show enmity and loyalty for its sake, and they make it Sharīʿah and religion in their creed, and all the people of the Sunnah are upon this.”¹⁹ Ibn al-Qayyim [may Allāh have mercy on him] said: “As for the eighth maqām (position): there is definite and positive consensus on the acceptance of these ḥadīths (solitary reports) and on establishing the attributes of the Lord, the Exalted, through them. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of manqūl (revelation) would not doubt this. It is the Companions, who narrated these ḥadīths, and they received them with acceptance from one another, and not a single one of them contradicted anyone who narrated them. Then all the Successors, from the first to the last of them, received them from the Companions. Those of the Successors who heard them received them with acceptance and belief in them (the Companions). And those of them (the Successors) who did not hear them from them (the Companions) received them from [other] Successors in the same manner, and likewise did the Successors of the Successors with the [earlier] Successors.”²⁰ In fact, the statement that beliefs cannot be established with solitary reports is itself a belief, and its validity requires evidence. Its proponents must provide conclusive mutawātir (mass-narrated, multiple-chained) evidence to substantiate it; without this, their position is inconsistent. On this basis, rejecting solitary reports in matters of beliefs constitutes an innovation in religion that contradicts the consensus of Ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah (the People of the Prophet’s Way and the Community): it goes against the consensus of the Companions, which is indisputably established, as well as the consensus of the Successors and the consensus of the imāms (leading scholars) of Islam.²¹