«فَهُوَ الشَّاذُّ عَلَى رَأْيِ بَعْضِ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ»
Some hadith scholars use the term shādhdh in this sense.
Terminological care is required. Some critics extend shādhdh to a report revealing unusual mistakes or unreliable retention. In the influential comparative definition treated earlier, however, a less well-preserved report contradicts a stronger one; the opposition to the maḥfūẓ is central.
When encountering the label “shādhdh,” the reader must therefore identify the critic’s usage and the actual defect established in the report. Different technical usages of the same word must not erase the distinct reasons for criticism.