This article systematically presents the statements of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl by the majority of Hadith scholars regarding Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī al-Madanī (Abū Muḥammad), so that it becomes clear that, according to the critics of Hadith, this narrator possesses weakness / leniency, and especially in the case of tafarrud (solitary narration), relying upon him as proof was not considered appropriate.
The purpose is to bring together before the reader the original Arabic statements, their English translations, references, and brief scholarly analysis, so that it becomes evident that the correct position of Kathīr bin Zayd’s narration is generally in corroborations (mutābaʿāt) and supporting evidences (shawāhid), not as an independent foundation for establishing fundamental or creedal claims.
Introduction to the Narrator and the Subject of Discussion
Name and Lineage: Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī, al-Madanī
Kunyah: Abū Muḥammad
Fame / Description (as reported): كثير بن زيد الأسلمي، أبو محمد، المدني، السهمي
General Ruling (reported summary): Weak — lā yuḥtajj bihi
(Meaning: he is not relied upon as an independent proof)
📌 In this article, terms such as “ḍaʿīf” (weak), “fīhi layn” (there is leniency in him), “laysa bil-qawī” (not strong), “yuktabu ḥadīthuh” (his ḥadīth is written), and “lā yuḥtajj bihi” (he is not used as proof) are understood according to the technical usage of the Hadith scholars. Along with each statement, its translation and intended meaning are clarified.
Statements and Evidence of the Majority of Hadith Scholars
① Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله
Ruling: “His ḥadīth is written, but he is not strong”
Arabic Text:
نا عبد الرحمن قال سئل أبى عن كثير بن زيد فقال صالح (ليس بالقوى) يكتب حديثه
Translation:
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: My father (Abū Ḥātim) was asked about Kathīr bin Zayd, and he said: “He is ṣāliḥ (fair), but not strong; his ḥadīth is written.”
📚 [al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl]
Brief Explanation:
The phrase “laysa bil-qawī” clearly negates strength in precision, while “yuktabu ḥadīthuh” usually indicates that his narration may be considered for corroboration, not that independent proof is established through him.
② Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī رحمه الله
Ruling: “Truthful, but there is leniency in him”
Arabic Text:
عبد الرحمن قال سئل أبو زرعة عن كثير بن زيد فقال هو صدوق فيه لين
Translation:
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: Abū Zurʿah was asked about Kathīr bin Zayd, and he said: “He is truthful (ṣadūq), but there is leniency in him.”
📚 [al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl]
Brief Explanation:
“Ṣadūq” indicates he is not accused of lying, but “fīhi layn” shows deficiency in precision. Therefore, his solitary narrations are not used to establish principles or beliefs, and are generally considered among supporting evidences.
③ Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله
Severe Criticism: “Frequent mistakes… I do not like using him as proof when he narrates alone”
Arabic Text:
894 – كثير بن زيد يروي عَن عبد اللَّهِ بْنِ كَعْبِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ وَهُوَ الَّذِي يُقَال لَهُ كثير بن النَّضر روى عَنهُ عبيد الله بن عبد الْمجِيد كَانَ كثير الْخَطَأ على قلَّة رِوَايَته لَا يُعجبنِي الِاحْتِجَاج بِهِ إِذَا انْفَرد
Translation:
(Ibn Ḥibbān writes that) Kathīr bin Zayd… narrates from so-and-so… and so-and-so (a student) narrated from him. Despite narrating little, he made many mistakes. I do not like using him as proof when he is alone in narration.
📚 [al-Majrūḥīn min al-Muḥaddithīn]
Brief Explanation:
This explicitly clarifies the issue of tafarrud: Ibn Ḥibbān considered his weakness such that his solitary narrations are not suitable for proof.
④ ʿAlī bin al-Madīnī رحمه الله
Ruling: “Ṣāliḥ (fair), but not strong”
Arabic Text:
وسألت عليا عن كثير بن زيد فقال هو صالح وليس بالقوي
Translation:
I asked ʿAlī bin al-Madīnī about Kathīr bin Zayd, and he said: “He is ṣāliḥ (fair), but not strong.”
📚 [Suʾālāt Muḥammad bin ʿUthmān bin Abī Shaybah li-ʿAlī bin al-Madīnī]
Brief Explanation:
This balanced criticism shows that he is not rejected outright, yet does not meet the standard of strong precision, requiring graded acceptance.
⑤ Imām al-Nasāʾī رحمه الله
Explicit Ruling: “Weak”
Arabic Text:
كثير بن زيد ضعيف
Translation:
Kathīr bin Zayd is weak.
📚 [al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkīn]
Brief Explanation:
The term “ḍaʿīf” is a clear declaration of weakness, generally meaning his narration cannot be taken as independent proof without corroboration.
⑥ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qaṭṭān رحمه الله
Ruling: Weak
Reported Statement:
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qaṭṭān declared Kathīr bin Zayd to be weak.
Reference:
(The exact book/page is not specified in the transmitted material.)
Brief Explanation:
Although details are not cited, this attribution aligns with the broader scholarly trend indicating leniency/weakness in this narrator.
⑦ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī رحمه الله
Ruling: “Acceptable, but with leniency”
Arabic Text:
عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ تَمِيمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ،——» .
كُثَيْرُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ صُوَيْلِحُ فِيهِ لِينٌ
Translation:
(Within a chain of narration) Kathīr bin Zayd… (then al-Dhahabī says:) Kathīr bin Zayd is “ṣuwailiḥ” (somewhat acceptable), but there is leniency in him.
📚 [Muʿjam Shuyūkh al-Dhahabī]
Brief Explanation:
“Ṣuwailiḥ” indicates he is not completely rejected, yet “fīhi layn” lowers his narration below the level of full reliability.
⑧ Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī رحمه الله
Ruling: “Some declared him reliable, but weakness exists”
Arabic Text:
وَفِيهِ كَثِيرُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ الْأَسْلَمِيُّ، وَقَدْ وَثَّقَهُ جَمَاعَةٌ، وَفِيهِ ضَعْفٌ،
Translation:
In this chain is Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī; some have declared him trustworthy, but there is weakness in him.
📚 [Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid wa Manbaʿ al-Fawāʾid]
Brief Explanation:
This establishes balance: despite some authentication, weakness is explicitly acknowledged, indicating cautious treatment rather than absolute reliance.
⑨ Yaʿqūb bin Shaybah رحمه الله
Ruling: “Not discarded, but inclined toward weakness”
Arabic Text:
قرأت على الفتح نصر الله بن محمد (الفقيه، صدوق) عن أبي الحسين المبارك بن عبد الجبار بن احمد(ثقة ثبت) أنبأنا أبو بكر عبد الباقي بن عبد الكريم (صدوق حسن الحديث)أنبأنا أبو الحسين بن حمة (ثقة)أنبأنا محمد بن أحمد بن يعقوب بن شيبة (ثقة) حدثنا جدي يعقوب قال وكثير بن زيد ليس بالساقط وإلى الضعف ما هو
Translation:
(After a long chain) Yaʿqūb bin Shaybah said: Kathīr bin Zayd is not discarded, but he inclines toward weakness.
📚 [Tārīkh Dimashq]
Brief Explanation:
This clarifies his rank: neither completely abandoned nor accepted as strong proof—rather suited for corroborations.
⑩ Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās رحمه الله
Ruling on a Specific Ḥadīth: “Munkar and disconnected”
Arabic Text:
كَثِيرِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ عَنِ الْمُطَّلِبِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ —–قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُنْكَرٌ مُنْقَطِعٌ
Translation:
Kathīr bin Zayd narrates from al-Muṭṭalib bin ʿAbd Allāh… Abū Jaʿfar (al-Naḥḥās) said: “This ḥadīth is rejected (munkar) and disconnected (munqaṭiʿ).”
📚 [al-Nāsikh wa al-Mansūkh]
Brief Explanation:
Here it is not merely a general authentication/weakening of the narrator, but a ruling on a specific narration: that it is munkar (unknown/objectionable) and munqaṭiʿ (not connected) — i.e. a problem appeared in this chain from both angles, connection and precision.
⑪ Ibn al-Qayyim رحمه الله
Ruling: “This Kathīr is weak”
Arabic Text:
كثير هذا فإنه ضعيف
Translation:
This Kathīr (bin Zayd) is weak.
📚 [ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd with marginal notes of Ibn al-Qayyim]
Brief Explanation:
A brief yet clear declaration that independent reliance upon him is not sound.
⑫ al-Mundhirī رحمه الله
Explicit Statement: “He is not used as proof”
Arabic Text:
• في إسناده: كثير بن زيد الأسلمي مولاهم المدني، أبو محمد: ولا يحتج به
Translation:
In its chain is Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī, their client (mawlā), al-Madanī, Abū Muḥammad: and he is not used as proof.
📚 [ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd ʿalā Sunan Abī Dāwūd]
Brief Explanation:
This is among the most explicit statements of criticism, especially relevant in cases of solitary narration.
⑬ ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī رحمه الله
Ruling: “Ṣāliḥ, ṣadūq… his ḥadīth is written, but not strong”
Arabic Text:
كثير بن زيد هُوَ أَبُو مُحَمَّد مولى الأسلميين، روى عَنهُ جمَاعَة جلة مِنْهُم: وَكِيع، وَحَمَّاد بن زيد وَغَيرهمَا، وَهُوَ صَالح صَدُوق يكْتب حَدِيثه وَلَيْسَ بِالْقَوِيّ.
Translation:
Kathīr bin Zayd is Abū Muḥammad, the client (mawlā) of the Aslamīs; a group of eminent people narrated from him, among them Wakīʿ, Ḥammād bin Zayd and others. He is ṣāliḥ, ṣadūq; his ḥadīth is written, but he is not strong.
📚 [al-Aḥkām al-Sharʿiyyah al-Kubrā]
Brief Explanation:
This text states two things at once:
The narrator is not completely abandoned (since he was called ṣadūq/ṣāliḥ),
but “laysa bil-qawī” keeps him below the level of an independent proof.
This style of “taʿdīl combined with jarḥ” also practically points towards corroborations.
⑭ Ibn al-Jawzī رحمه الله
Mentioned among the weak, with multiple opinions cited
Arabic Text:
2786 – كثير بن زيد أَبُو مُحَمَّد الْمدنِي مولى الأسلميين وَيُقَال لَهُ ابْن صَافِيَة وَهِي أمه قَالَ يحيى لَيْسَ بِذَاكَ الْقوي وَقَالَ مرّة ثِقَة وَقَالَ مرّة لَيْسَ بِشَيْء وَقَالَ النَّسَائِيّ ضَعِيف وَقَالَ أَبُو زرْعَة لين
Translation:
Kathīr bin Zayd Abū Muḥammad al-Madanī, the client (mawlā) of the Aslamīs… he is also called Ibn Ṣāfiyah (Ṣāfiyah is his mother). Yaḥyā said: “He is not very strong,” once he said: “thiqah (trustworthy),” and once he said: “laysa bi-shayʾ (he is nothing).” Al-Nasāʾī said: “Weak.” Abū Zurʿah said: “Layyin (lenient).”
📚 [al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkīn]
Brief Explanation:
The collected opinions collectively indicate insufficient strength, justifying his inclusion among the weak.
⑮ Ibn Ḥazm رحمه الله
Very Severe Criticism: “It is not lawful to use his narration as proof”
Arabic Text:
كَثِيرِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ عَنْ الْمُطَّلِبِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ——قَالَ عَلِيٌّ: وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ بَاطِلٌ:——- وَكَثِيرُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ مِثْلُهُ، فَسَقَطَ كُلُّ مَا فِي هَذَا الْخَبَرِ جُمْلَةً.
Translation:
Kathīr bin Zayd from al-Muṭṭalib bin ʿAbd Allāh… ʿAlī (i.e. Ibn Ḥazm, in this context) said: All of this is false… and Kathīr bin Zayd is likewise; so everything in this report has fallen entirely.
فَهَذَا لَا يَصِحُّ لِأَنَّهُ عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ وَهُوَ مُطَّرَحٌ بِاتِّفَاقٍ، وَلَا يَحِلُّ الِاحْتِجَاجُ بِمَا رَوَى.
Translation:
This is not authentic, because it is from Kathīr bin Zayd, and he is discarded (muṭṭaraḥ) by agreement; and it is not lawful to use what he narrated as proof.
📚 [al-Muḥallā bi al-Āthār]
Brief Explanation:
Ibn Ḥazm’s style of criticism is known to be severe, and here he used words such as “by agreement” and “it is not lawful to use as proof.” However, from other imams (as al-Haythamī indicated) some authentication is also reported; therefore, academically it is necessary to read Ibn Ḥazm’s sweeping statement together with the overall statements of the critics. Even so, his statement at least supports that taking Kathīr bin Zayd as an independent proof is seriously questionable.
⑯ Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn رحمه الله
Ruling: “Not very strong”
Arabic Text:
–نا عبد الرحمن أنا أبو بكر بن أبي خيثمة فيما كتب إلي قال سئل يحيى بن معين عن كثير بن زيد فقال ليس بذاك القوى،
Translation:
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: Abū Bakr bin Abī Khaythamah wrote to me… Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn was asked about Kathīr bin Zayd, and he said: “He is not very strong.”
📚 [al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl]
Brief Explanation:
Imam Ibn Maʿīn’s “laysa bi-dhāka al-qawī” also supports the same trend, that the narrator is not at a strong level. Although this criticism is not of the level of “matrūk” (abandoned), it prevents making him an independent proof.
Overall Summary of the Scholarly Statements
The following points become clear from the above statements:
✔ ① Many scholars explicitly declared Kathīr bin Zayd weak (e.g. al-Nasāʾī, al-Mundhirī with the words “wa lā yuḥtajju bihi,” Ibn al-Qayyim, and others).
✔ ② Those who called him ṣadūq / ṣāliḥ still restricted this with “fīhi layn / laysa bil-qawī”; i.e. acceptance is conditional.
✔ ③ Ibn Ḥibbān specifically disliked using him as proof in cases of tafarrud, which practically keeps him within the circle of supporting evidences/corroborations.
✔ ④ In some texts, rulings such as munkar or disconnected were also given on specific narrations, which at least shows that there is strong room for criticism in some narrations coming through this narrator.
Caution: Some Statements of Taʿdīl and Their Place
At the end of the transmitted material this point is also mentioned:
With some scholars (e.g. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله) statements are found about Kathīr bin Zayd that mention truthfulness along with mistakes,
and from Ibn ʿAdī and Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal رحمهما الله too, something of the nature of “no harm in him” has been reported,
but according to the transmitted note, these statements do not outweigh the criticisms of the majority.
(Reference: this overall note is in the transmitted text, but details of the original source/pages are not given here.)
Scholarly Explanation:
The principle here is that when on one side there is the criticism of the majority (especially words such as “lā yuḥtajju bihi / ḍaʿīf / fīhi layn / laysa bil-qawī”) and on the other side a limited or qualified taʿdīl, then among the people of Hadith such a narrator’s narration is generally:
not made a proof when he is alone,
and considered among corroborations and supporting evidences,
then, according to the indicators, the ḥadīth’s grade may go to ḥasan li-ghayrihi or towards weakness.
Therefore, the correct methodology is not to treat Kathīr bin Zayd’s narrations uniformly everywhere, but to determine the grade according to the chain/corroboration/supporting evidence.
Final Conclusion
In light of the transmitted statements about Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī (Abū Muḥammad al-Madanī), it becomes clear that:
🧾 (a) The majority of scholars affirm that Kathīr bin Zayd possesses leniency/weakness.
🧾 (b) According to many explicit statements, his narration is not used as an independent proof, especially in solitary cases.
🧾 (c) The most appropriate and safe position for his narrations is within corroborations and supporting evidences, and where there is no strong corroboration/indicator, the narration remains weak.
Thus, the intended objective of this article—demonstrating the cautious scholarly approach toward Kathīr bin Zayd based on the majority’s criticism—becomes clear with evidence.
Scans of Important References
