Introduction

The science of ḥadīth criticism constitutes one of the most sophisticated epistemological frameworks in Islamic intellectual history. Muslim scholars developed systematic criteria to authenticate reports transmitted from the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, establishing methodological foundations that would govern legal, theological, and ethical discourse. Beyond the canonical Ṣaḥīḥ collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, subsequent scholars produced works containing explicit methodological statements regarding their authentication standards. These declarations illuminate the theoretical principles and practical approaches that governed textual evaluation across different scholarly contexts.

This chronological study examines the methodological testimonies of seventeen prominent ḥadīth scholars spanning over six centuries: Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275 AH), al-Nasāʾī (d. 303 AH), Ibn al-Jārūd (d. 307 AH), al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH), Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311 AH), al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321 AH), Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH), al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405 AH), Ibn Ḥazm al-Ẓāhirī (d. 456 AH), al-Bayhaqī (d. 458 AH), ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī (d. 581 AH), Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī (d. 620 AH), Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī (d. 643 AH), ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm al-Mundhirī (d. 656 AH), Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH), Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH), and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH).

Through analysis of these primary testimonies, this investigation reveals the terminological precision underlying classical ḥadīth scholarship—distinguishing between ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, and ṣāliḥ—whilst documenting both methodological evolution and persistent scholarly concerns across temporal boundaries. The study elucidates how authentication practices adapted to different compilation purposes, from comprehensive legal compendia to specialised devotional collections.

The contemporary relevance of this historical analysis extends beyond antiquarian interest. Current scholarly discourse continues to engage questions of authenticity in classical ḥadīth literature, particularly regarding traditions transmitted outside al-Bukhārī and Muslim’s collections. Comprehending how classical scholars articulated their methodological standards provides essential interpretive frameworks for evaluating both their explicit judgements and implicit authentication signals, thereby informing modern approaches to classical Islamic textual scholarship.

Abu Dawud al- Sijistānī (d. 275 AH):

Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān ibn al-Ash’ath ī al-Sijistānī (d. 275 AH) said in his Risālat Abī Dāwūd ilā Ahl Makka wa-ghayrihim fī waṣf Sunanihī – [The Epistle of Abū Dāwūd to the People of Makka and Others Concerning the Description of His Sunan, p. 27]:

وَمَا كَانَ فِي كتابي من حَدِيث فِيهِ وَهن شَدِيد فقد بَينته وَمِنْه مَالا يَصح سَنَده

“Whatever was in my book from narrations containing severe weakness, I have clarified it. And from it is that which has an unsound chain of transmission.

الْمَسْكُوت عَنهُ صَالح

That which is left unmentioned is sound [ṣāliḥ].

مَا لم أذكر فِيهِ شَيْئا فَهُوَ صَالح وَبَعضهَا أصح من بعض

Whatever I have not mentioned anything about is sound [ṣāliḥ], and some of them are more authentic [aṣaḥḥ] than others.

وَهَذَا لَو وَضعه غَيْرِي لَقلت أَنا فِيهِ أَكثر

And this—if someone other than me had compiled it, I would have said there is more in it.”

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH) said in his Tadrīb al-Rāwī fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawawī (1/181-187):

[فُرُوعٌ مظنة الأحاديث الحسنة سنن الترمذي وأبي داود]

[Branches regarding the sources of good (Hasan) hadiths: Sunan al-Tirmidhī and Abū Dāwūd]

[فُرُوعٌ]

[Branches]

(أَحَدُهَا) فِي مَظِنَّةِ الْحَسَنِ، كَمَا ذَكَرَ فِي الصَّحِيحِ مَظَانَّهُ، وَذَكَرَ فِي كُلِّ نَوْعٍ مَظَانَّهُ مِنَ الْكُتُبِ الْمُصَنَّفَةِ فِيهِ إِلَّا يَسِيرًا نَبَّهَ عَلَيْهِ.

(One of them) concerns the sources of the good [ḥasan], just as he mentioned the sources of the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ], and he mentioned for each type its sources from the books compiled about it, except for a little which he drew attention to.

(كِتَابُ) أَبِي عِيسَى (التِّرْمِذِيِّ أَصْلٌ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ الْحَسَنِ وَهُوَ الَّذِي شَهَرَهُ) وَأَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذِكْرِهِ.

(The book) of Abū ʿĪsā (al-Tirmidhī is a foundation in knowledge of the good [ḥasan] and he is the one who made it famous) and increased in mentioning it.

قَالَ ابْنُ الصَّلَاحِ: وَيُوجَدُ فِي مُتَفَرِّقَاتٍ مِنْ كَلَامِ بَعْضِ مَشَايِخِهِ، وَالطَّبَقَةِ الَّتِي قَبْلَهُ كَأَحْمَدَ وَالْبُخَارِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِمَا.

Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said: And it is found in scattered parts of the speech of some of his teachers, and the generation that came before him such as Aḥmad and al-Bukhārī and others.

قَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: وَكَذَا مَشَايِخُ الطَّبَقَةِ الَّتِي قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ كَالشَّافِعِيِّ، قَالَ فِي اخْتِلَافِ الْحَدِيثِ – عِنْدَ ذِكْرِ حَدِيثِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ: «لَقَدِ ارْتَقَيْتُ عَلَى ظَهْرِ بَيْتٍ لَنَا.» الْحَدِيثَ -: حَدِيثُ ابْنِ عُمَرَ مُسْنَدٌ حَسَنُ الْإِسْنَادِ.

Al-ʿIrāqī said: And likewise, the teachers of the generation before that, such as al-Shāfiʿī, who said in Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadīth – when mentioning the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar: ‘I indeed climbed upon the roof of our house.’ the hadith -: the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar is musnad with a good chain [ḥasan al-isnād].

وَقَالَ فِيهِ أَيْضًا، وَسَمِعْتُ مَنْ يَرْوِي بِإِسْنَادٍ حَسَنٍ «أَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرَةَ ذَكَرَ لِلنَّبِيِّ ﷺ أَنَّهُ رَكَعَ دُونَ الصَّفِّ»، الْحَدِيثَ.

And he also said in it, and I heard someone narrating with a good chain [isnād ḥasan]: ‘that Abū Bakra mentioned to the Prophet ﷺ that he bowed behind the row,’ the hadith.

وَكَذَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ شَيْبَةَ فِي مُسْنَدِهِ، وَأَبُو عَلِيٍّ الطُّوسِيُّ أَكْثَرَا مِنْ ذَلِكَ إِلَّا أَنَّهُمَا أَلَّفَا بَعْدَ التِّرْمِذِيِّ.

And likewise, Yaʿqūb ibn Shayba in his Musnad, and Abū ʿAlī al-Ṭūsī used this extensively, except that they both composed their works after al-Tirmidhī.

(وَتَخْتَلِفُ النُّسَخُ مِنْهُ) أَيْ مِنْ كُتُبِ التِّرْمِذِيِّ (فِي قَوْلِهِ حَسَنٌ أَوْ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ وَنَحْوُهُ فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ تَعْتَنِيَ بِمُقَابَلَةِ أَصْلِكَ بِأُصُولٍ مُعْتَمَدَةٍ، وَتَعْتَمِدَ مَا اتَّفَقَتْ عَلَيْهِ. وَمِنْ مَظَانِّهِ) أَيْضًا (سُنَنُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ فَقَدْ جَاءَ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ يَذْكُرُ فِيهِ الصَّحِيحَ وَمَا يُشْبِهُهُ وَيُقَارِبُهُ، وَمَا كَانَ فِيهِ وَهَنٌ شَدِيدٌ بَيَّنَهُ، وَمَا لَمْ يَذْكُرْ فِيهِ شَيْئًا فَهُوَ صَالِحٌ)، قَالَ: وَبَعْضُهَا أَصَحُّ مِنْ بَعْضٍ.

(And the manuscripts vary regarding it) meaning from the books of al-Tirmidhī (in his saying ‘good [ḥasan]’ or ‘good authentic [ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ]’ and the like, so you should take care to compare your copy with reliable sources, and rely upon what they agree upon. And among its sources) also (are the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd, for it has been reported from him that he mentions in it the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] and what resembles it and approaches it, and whatever had severe weakness [wahn shadīd] in it he explained, and whatever he did not mention anything about is sound [ṣāliḥ]), he said: and some of them are more authentic than others.

(فَعَلَى هَذَا مَا وَجَدْنَا فِي كِتَابِهِ مُطْلَقًا) وَلَمْ يَكُنْ فِي أَحَدِ الصَّحِيحَيْنِ، (وَلَمْ يُصَحِّحْهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الْمُعْتَمَدِينَ) الَّذِينَ يُمَيِّزُونَ بَيْنَ الصَّحِيحِ وَالْحَسَنِ (وَلَا ضَعَّفَهُ فَهُوَ حَسَنٌ عِنْدَ أَبِي دَاوُدَ)

(So according to this, whatever we find in his book without qualification) and it was not in either of the two authentic collections [ṣaḥīḥayn – Bukahri & Muslim], (and none of the relied-upon authorities) who distinguish between the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] and the good [ḥasan] (authenticated it nor weakened it, then it is good [ḥasan] according to Abū Dāwūd)

لِأَنَّ الصَّالِحَ لِلِاحْتِجَاجِ لَا يَخْرُجُ عَنْهُمَا، وَلَا يَرْتَقِي إِلَى الصِّحَّةِ إِلَّا بِنَصٍّ، فَالْأَحْوَطُ الِاقْتِصَارُ عَلَى الْحَسَنِ، وَأَحْوَطُ مِنْهُ التَّعْبِيرُ عَنْهُ بِصَالِحٍ. وَبِهَذَا التَّقْرِيرِ يَنْدَفِعُ اعْتِرَاضُ ابْنِ رَشِيدٍ بِأَنَّ مَا سَكَتَ عَلَيْهِ قَدْ يَكُونُ عِنْدَهُ صَحِيحًا وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ كَذَلِكَ عِنْدَ غَيْرِهِ.

because what is suitable for citing as evidence [ṣāliḥ lil-iḥtijāj] does not go beyond these two, and it does not rise to the level of authenticity [ṣiḥḥa] except by explicit statement, so the most cautious approach is to limit it to good [ḥasan], and more cautious than that is to express it as sound [ṣāliḥ]. And by this explanation the objection of Ibn Rashīd is repelled, that what he was silent about might be authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] in his view even if it is not so according to others.

وَزَادَ ابْنُ الصَّلَاحِ أَنَّهُ قَدْ لَا يَكُونُ حَسَنًا عِنْدَ غَيْرِهِ، وَلَا مُنْدَرِجًا فِي حَدِّ الْحَسَنِ، إِذْ حَكَى ابْنُ مَنْدَهْ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ سَعْدٍ الْبَاوَرْدِيَّ يَقُولُ: كَانَ مِنْ مَذْهَبِ النَّسَائِيِّ أَنْ يُخْرِجَ عَنْ كُلِّ مَنْ لَمْ يُجْتَمَعْ عَلَى تَرْكِهِ، قَالَ ابْنُ مَنْدَهْ: وَكَذَلِكَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ يَأْخُذُ مَأْخَذَهُ، وَيُخْرِجُ الْإِسْنَادَ الضَّعِيفَ إِذَا لَمْ يَجِدْ فِي الْبَابِ غَيْرَهُ؛ لِأَنَّهُ أَقْوَى عِنْدَهُ مِنْ رَأْيِ الرِّجَالِ.

And Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ added that it might not be good [ḥasan] according to others, nor falling within the definition of good [ḥasan], since Ibn Mandah related that he heard Muḥammad ibn Saʿd al-Bāwardī saying: It was part of al-Nasāʾī’s methodology to narrate from everyone about whom there was no consensus to abandon him. Ibn Mandah said: And likewise, Abū Dāwūd follows his approach, and includes weak chains [isnād ḍaʿīf] when he finds nothing else in the chapter; because it is stronger in his view than the opinions of men.

وَهَذَا أَيْضًا رَأْيُ الْإِمَامِ أَحْمَدَ، فَإِنَّهُ قَالَ: إِنَّ ضَعِيفَ الْحَدِيثِ أَحَبُّ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ رَأْيِ الرِّجَالِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَعْدِلُ إِلَى الْقِيَاسِ إِلَّا بَعْدَ عَدَمِ النَّصِّ، وَسَيَأْتِي فِي هَذَا الْبَحْثِ مَزِيدُ كَلَامٍ، حَيْثُ ذَكَرَ الْمُصَنِّفُ الْعَمَلَ بِالضَّعِيفِ، فَعَلَى مَا نُقِلَ عَنْ أَبِي دَاوُدَ يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يُرِيدَ بِقَوْلِهِ «صَالِحٌ» الصَّالِحَ لِلِاعْتِبَارِ دُونَ الِاحْتِجَاجِ، فَيَشْمَلَ الضَّعِيفَ أَيْضًا، لَكِنْ ذَكَرَ ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ أَنَّهُ رُوِيَ عَنْهُ: وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ حَسَنٌ. فَإِنْ صَحَّ ذَلِكَ فَلَا إِشْكَالَ.

And this is also the opinion of Imam Aḥmad, for he said: Weak hadith [ḍaʿīf al-ḥadīth] is more beloved to him than the opinions of men; because he does not turn to analogy [qiyās] except after the absence of textual evidence [naṣṣ], and there will come more discussion in this research, where the author mentioned acting upon the weak [ḍaʿīf]. So according to what is transmitted from Abū Dāwūd, it is possible that by his saying ‘sound [ṣāliḥ]’ he means suitable for consideration [iʿtibār] rather than for citing as evidence [iḥtijāj], so it would include the weak [ḍaʿīf] as well. However, Ibn Kathīr mentioned that it was narrated from him: ‘and whatever he was silent about is good [ḥasan].’ So if that is authentic, then there is no problem.

[تَنْبِيهٌ]

[Notice]

اعْتَرَضَ ابْنُ سَيِّدِ النَّاسِ مَا ذُكِرَ فِي شَأْنِ سُنَنِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ فَقَالَ: لَمْ يَرْسُمْ أَبُو دَاوُدَ شَيْئًا بِالْحُسْنِ، وَعَمَلُهُ فِي ذَلِكَ شَبِيهٌ بِعَمَلِ مُسْلِمٍ الَّذِي لَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُحْمَلَ كَلَامُهُ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ، أَنَّهُ اجْتَنَبَ الضَّعِيفَ الْوَاهِيَ، وَأَتَى بِالْقِسْمَيْنِ الْأَوَّلِ وَالثَّانِي، وَحَدِيثُ مَنْ مَثَّلَ بِهِ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ مِنَ الْقِسْمَيْنِ الْأَوَّلِ وَالثَّانِي مَوْجُودٌ فِي كِتَابِهِ دُونَ الْقِسْمِ الثَّالِثِ

Ibn Sayyid al-Nās objected to what was mentioned regarding the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd and said: Abū Dāwūd did not designate anything as good [ḥasan], and his approach in this is similar to the approach of Muslim, whose words should not be applied to others, that he avoided the weak and feeble [ḍaʿīf wāhī], and brought the first and second categories, and the hadith of those he gave as examples from the narrators of the first and second categories are found in his book, not the third category.

قَالَ: فَهَلَّا أُلْزِمَ مُسْلِمٌ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا أُلْزِمَ بِهِ أَبُو دَاوُدَ فَمَعْنَى كَلَامِهِمَا وَاحِدٌ، قَالَ: وَقَوْلُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ وَمَا يُشْبِهُهُ، يَعْنِي فِي الصِّحَّةِ، وَيُقَارِبُهُ، يَعْنِي فِيهَا أَيْضًا، هُوَ نَحْوُ قَوْلِ مُسْلِمٍ: لَيْسَ كُلُّ الصَّحِيحِ يَجِدُهُ عِنْدَ مَالِكٍ وَشُعْبَةَ وَسُفْيَانَ، فَاحْتَاجَ أَنْ يَنْزِلَ إِلَى مِثْلِ حَدِيثِ لَيْثِ بْنِ أَبِي سُلَيْمٍ، وَعَطَاءِ بْنِ السَّائِبِ وَيَزِيدَ بْنِ زِيَادٍ، لِمَا يَشْمَلُ الْكُلَّ مِنِ اسْمِ الْعَدَالَةِ وَالصِّدْقِ، وَإِنْ تَفَاوَتُوا فِي الْحِفْظِ وَالْإِتْقَانِ، وَلَا فَرْقَ بَيْنَ الطَّرِيقَيْنِ، غَيْرَ أَنَّ مُسْلِمًا شَرَطَ الصَّحِيحَ، فَتَحَرَّجَ مِنْ حَدِيثِ الطَّبَقَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ، وَأَبَا دَاوُدَ لَمْ يَشْتَرِطْهُ فَذَكَرَ مَا يَشْتَدُّ وَهَنُهُ عِنْدَهُ، وَالْتَزَمَ الْبَيَانَ عَنْهُ.

He said: Why is Muslim not held to the same standard that Abū Dāwūd is held to, when the meaning of both their statements is the same? He said: And Abū Dāwūd’s statement ‘and what resembles it,’ meaning in authenticity [ṣiḥḥa], ‘and approaches it,’ meaning in it as well, is similar to Muslim’s statement: ‘Not all that is authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] can be found with Mālik and Shuʿba and Sufyān, so he needed to descend to the likes of the hadith of Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, and ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib and Yazīd ibn Ziyād, because of what encompasses all of them in terms of integrity [ʿadāla] and truthfulness [ṣidq], even though they varied in memorisation [ḥifẓ] and precision [itqān], and there is no difference between the two approaches, except that Muslim stipulated authenticity [ṣaḥīḥ], so he was cautious about the hadith of the third category, whilst Abū Dāwūd did not stipulate it, so he mentioned what had severe weakness [wahn] in his view, and committed to explaining it.

قَالَ: وَفِي قَوْلِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ: إِنَّ بَعْضَهَا أَصَحُّ مِنْ بَعْضٍ. مَا يُشِيرُ إِلَى الْقَدْرِ الْمُشْتَرَكِ بَيْنَهُمَا فِي الصِّحَّةِ وَإِنْ تَفَاوَتَتْ، لِمَا يَقْتَضِيهِ صِيغَةُ أَفْعَلَ فِي الْأَكْثَرِ، وَأَجَابَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ بِأَنَّ مُسْلِمًا الْتَزَمَ الصَّحِيحَ، بَلِ الْمُجْمَعَ عَلَيْهِ فِي كِتَابِهِ، فَلَيْسَ لَنَا أَنْ نَحْكُمَ عَلَى حَدِيثٍ خَرَّجَهُ بِأَنَّهُ حَسَنٌ عِنْدَهُ، لِمَا عُرِفَ مِنْ قُصُورِ الْحَسَنِ عَنِ الصَّحِيحِ، وَأَبُو دَاوُدَ قَالَ: مَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ صَالِحٌ، وَالصَّالِحُ يَشْمَلُ الصَّحِيحَ وَالْحَسَنَ، فَلَا يَرْتَقِي إِلَى الْأَوَّلِ إِلَّا بِيَقِينٍ.

He said: And in Abū Dāwūd’s statement: ‘some of them are more authentic than others,’ there is what points to the shared amount between them in authenticity [ṣiḥḥa] even though they vary, according to what the comparative form [ṣīghat afʿal] requires in most cases. And al-ʿIrāqī answered that Muslim committed to the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ], indeed to what there is consensus upon in his book, so it is not for us to judge a hadith he included as being good [ḥasan] in his view, because of what is known of the deficiency of the good [ḥasan] compared to the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ], whilst Abū Dāwūd said: ‘what he was silent about is sound [ṣāliḥ], and the sound [ṣāliḥ] includes the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] and the good [ḥasan], so it does not rise to the first except with certainty.

وَثَمَّ أَجْوِبَةٌ أُخْرَى: مِنْهَا: أَنَّ الْعَمَلَيْنِ إِنَّمَا تَشَابَهَا فِي أَنَّ كُلًّا مِنْهُمَا أَتَى بِثَلَاثَةِ أَقْسَامٍ، لَكِنَّهَا فِي سُنَنِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ رَاجِعَةٌ إِلَى مُتُونِ الْحَدِيثِ، وَفِي مُسْلِمٍ إِلَى رِجَالِهِ، وَلَيْسَ بَيْنَ ضَعْفِ الرَّجُلِ وَصِحَّةِ حَدِيثِهِ مُنَافَاةٌ، وَمِنْهَا: أَنَّ أَبَا دَاوُدَ قَالَ: مَا كَانَ فِيهِ وَهَنٌ شَدِيدٌ بَيَّنْتُهُ، فَفُهِمَ أَنَّ ثَمَّ شَيْئًا فِيهِ وَهَنٌ غَيْرُ شَدِيدٍ لَمْ يَلْتَزِمْ بَيَانَهُ.

And there are other answers: Among them: that the two approaches only resembled each other in that each brought three categories, but in the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd they relate to the texts [mutūn] of the hadith, whilst in Muslim they relate to its narrators [rijāl], and there is no contradiction between a man’s weakness [ḍaʿf] and the authenticity [ṣiḥḥa] of his hadith. And among them: that Abū Dāwūd said: ‘whatever had severe weakness [wahn shadīd] in it I explained,’ so it is understood that there was something with non-severe weakness [wahn ghayr shadīd] which he did not commit to explaining.

وَمِنْهَا: أَنَّ مُسْلِمًا إِنَّمَا يَرْوِي عَنِ الطَّبَقَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ فِي الْمُتَابَعَاتِ لِيَنْجَبِرَ الْقُصُورُ الَّذِي فِي رِوَايَةِ مَنْ هُوَ فِي الطَّبَقَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ؛ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُ يُقِلُّ مِنْ حَدِيثِهِمْ جِدًّا، وَأَبُو دَاوُدَ بِخِلَافِ ذَلِكَ.

And among them: that Muslim only narrates from the third category in corroborative transmissions [mutābaʿāt] so that the deficiency in the transmission of those in the second category might be remedied; then he uses very little of their hadith, whilst Abū Dāwūd is the opposite of that.

[فَوَائِدُ]

[Benefits]

الْأُولَى: مِنْ مَظَانِّ الْحَسَنِ أَيْضًا سُنَنُ الدَّارَقُطْنِيِّ فَإِنَّهُ نَصَّ عَلَى كَثِيرٍ مِنْهُ قَالَهُ فِي الْمَنْهَلِ الرَّوِيِّ.

The first: Among the sources of the good [ḥasan] also are the Sunan of al-Dāraquṭnī, for he explicitly stated many of them, as stated in al-Manhal al-Rawī (by Badr al-Dīn ibn Jamāʿa, d. 733 AH).

الثَّانِيَةُ: عِدَّةُ أَحَادِيثِ كِتَابِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ أَرْبَعَةُ آلَافٍ وَثَمَانِمِائَةِ حَدِيثٍ، وَهُوَ رِوَايَاتٌ، أَتَمُّهَا رِوَايَةُ أَبِي بَكْرِ بْنِ دَاسَةَ، وَالْمُتَّصِلَةُ الْآنَ بِالسَّمَاعِ رِوَايَةُ أَبِي عَلِيٍّ اللُّؤْلُؤِيِّ.

The second: The number of hadiths in the book of Abū Dāwūd is four thousand eight hundred hadiths, and these are transmissions [riwāyāt], the most complete of which is the transmission of Abū Bakr ibn Dāsa, and the one currently connected by audition [samāʿ] is the transmission of Abū ʿAlī al-Luʾluʾī.

الثَّالِثَةُ: قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرِ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: أَوَّلُ مَا أُرْشِدُ إِلَيْهِ مَا اتَّفَقَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى اعْتِمَادِهِ، وَذَلِكَ الْكُتُبُ الْخَمْسَةُ وَالْمُوَطَّأُ الَّذِي تَقَدَّمَهَا وَضْعًا وَلَمْ يَتَأَخَّرْ عَنْهَا رُتْبَةً.

The third: Abū Jaʿfar ibn al-Zubayr said: The first thing I direct to is what the Muslims agreed upon relying on, and that is the five books and the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which preceded them in composition and did not fall behind them in rank.

وَقَدِ اخْتَلَفَتْ مَقَاصِدُهُمْ فِيهَا، وَلِلصَّحِيحَيْنِ فِيهَا شُفُوفٌ، وَلِلْبُخَارِيِّ لِمَنْ أَرَادَ التَّفَقُّهَ مَقَاصِدُ جَلِيلَةٌ، وَلِأَبِي دَاوُدَ فِي حَصْرِ أَحَادِيثِ الْأَحْكَامِ وَاسْتِيعَابِهَا مَا لَيْسَ لِغَيْرِهِ، وَلِلتِّرْمِذِيِّ فِي فُنُونِ الصِّنَاعَةِ الْحَدِيثِيَّةِ مَا لَمْ يُشَارِكْهُ غَيْرُهُ، وَقَدْ سَلَكَ النَّسَائِيُّ أَغْمَضَ تِلْكَ الْمَسَالِكِ وَأَجَلَّهَا.

And their purposes in them differed, and the two authentic collections [ṣaḥīḥayn] have advantages in them, and al-Bukhārī has noble purposes for one who wants to study jurisprudence, and Abū Dāwūd has in restricting and comprehensively covering the hadiths of legal rulings [aḥādīth al-aḥkām] what no other has, and al-Tirmidhī has in the arts of hadith science [funūn al-ṣināʿah al-ḥadīthiyyah] what no other shared with him, and al-Nasāʾī followed the most subtle and noblest of those paths.

وَأَمَّا مُسْنَدُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، وَأَبِي دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِمَا مِنَ الْمَسَانِيدِ، فَلَا تَلْتَحِقُ بِالْأُصُولِ الْخَمْسَةِ، وَمَا أَشْبَهَهَا فِي الِاحْتِجَاجِ بِهَا، وَالرُّكُونِ إِلَى مَا فِيهَا.

As for the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī and others among the musnads, they do not reach the level of the five foundations, and what resembles them in citing them as evidence and relying upon what is in them.

وَقَالَ الذَّهَبِيُّ: انْحَطَّتْ رُتْبَةُ جَامِعِ التِّرْمِذِيِّ عَنْ سُنَنِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ وَالنَّسَائِيِّ لِإِخْرَاجِهِ حَدِيثَ الْمَصْلُوبِ وَالْكَلْبِيِّ وَأَمْثَالِهِمَا.

And al-Dhahabī said: The rank of Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī fell below the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasāʾī because of his including the hadith of al-Maṣlūb and al-Kalbī and their likes.”

See later for what Abd al-ʿAẓīm al-Mundhirī (d. 656 AH) said in his al-Targhīb wa’l-Tarhīb.

Dr. Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr (d. 2020 CE) said in his Manhaj al-Naqd fī ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (pp. 276-277):

وكتابه «السنن» صنفه وانتقاه من خمسمائة ألف حديث، عني فيه بأحاديث الأحكام وجمعها عناية كبيرة، ولخص طريقته فيه بقوله: (٣): «وما كان في كتابي من حديث فيه وهن شديد فقد بينته، وفيه مالا يصح سنده، وما لم أذكر فيه شيئا فهو صالح، وبعضها أصح من بعض».

“His book ‘al-Sunan’ he compiled and selected from five hundred thousand hadiths. He took great care in it with hadiths of rulings and gathered them with great attention. He summarised his methodology in it by saying (³): ‘Whatever hadith in my book contains severe weakness [wahn shadīd], I have clarified it, and in it are those whose chains of transmission [sanad] are not authentic [lā yaṣiḥḥ], and whatever I have not mentioned anything about is sound [ṣāliḥ], and some of them are more authentic [aṣaḥḥ] than others.’

وقد اختلفت الآراء في قول أبي داود «ما لم أذكر فيه شيئا فهو صالح» هل يستفاد منه أن ما سكت عليه في كتابه فهو صحيح أو أنه حسن؟ . وقد اختار ابن الصلاح والنووي وغيرهما أن يحكم عليه بأنه حسن، ما لم ينص على صحته أحمد ممن يميز بين الصحيح والحسن.

Opinions have differed regarding Abū Dāwūd’s statement ‘whatever I have not mentioned anything about is sound [ṣāliḥ]’ – whether it is to be understood from this that what he was silent about in his book is authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] or that it is good quality [ḥasan]? Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and al-Nawawī and others have chosen that it should be ruled as good quality [ḥasan], unless someone who distinguishes between authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] and good [ḥasan] explicitly states its authenticity.

وقد تأملنا سنن أبي داود فوجدنا الأحاديث التي يسكت عليها متنوعة جدا؛ فمنها الصحيح المخرج في الصحيحين، ومنها صحيح لم يخرجاه، ومنها الحسن، ومنها أحاديث ضعيفة أيضا لكنها صالحة للاعتبار، ليست شديدة الضعف، فتبين بذلك أن مراد أبي داود من قوله «صالح» المعنى الأعم الذي يشمل الصحيح والحسن، ويشمل ما يعتبر به ويتقوى لكونه يسير الضعف. وهذا النوع يعمل به لدى كثير من العلماء، مثل أبي داود وأحمد والنسائي، وإنه عندهم أقوى من رأي الرجال

We have examined the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd and found that the hadiths about which he remains silent are very diverse; amongst them are authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] ones extracted in the two authentic collections [ṣaḥīḥayn], and amongst them are authentic ones which they [al-Bukhārī and Muslim] did not extract, and amongst them are good [ḥasan] ones, and amongst them are also weak [ḍaʿīfa] hadiths but they are suitable for consideration [ṣāliḥa li’l-iʿtibār], not severely weak [shadīdat al-ḍaʿf]. This makes clear that Abū Dāwūd’s intention from his saying ‘sound [ṣāliḥ]’ is the more general meaning which includes the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] and the good  [ḥasan], and includes what is considered and strengthened by virtue of its slight weakness [yasīr al-ḍaʿf]. This type is acted upon by many scholars, such as Abū Dāwūd, Aḥmad and al-Nasāʾī, and it is stronger according to them than the opinion of men.”

Footnote:

(³) فى رسالته إلى أهل مكة: ٦.

(³) In his epistle to the people of Makkah: 6.

Al-Nasa’i (d. 303 AH)

In the Fihrisa of Ibn Khayr al-Ishbīlī (d. 575 AH) he mentioned the following report on p. 155:

وحدّثني به أبو محمد بن عتّاب إجازة عن أبي عمر بن عبد البر بالسّند المتقدّم.وحدثني به أيضا أبو بكر محمد بن أحمد بن طاهر، عن أبي عليّ الغسّاني بالسّند المتقدّم أيضا. قال أبو محمد بن يربوع، ، ومن خطه نقلته: قال لي أبو علي الغسّاني،: كتاب الإيمان والصّلح ليسا من المصنّف إنما هما من كتاب «المجتبى» له – بالباء – في السّنن المسندة لأبي عبد الرحمن النّسائي، اختصره من كتابه الكبير المصنّف، وذلك أنّ بعض الأمراء سأله عن كتابه في السّنن: أكلّه صحيح؟ فقال: لا، قال: فاكتب لنا الصّحيح منه مجرّدا؛ فصنع المجتبى، فهو: المجتبى من السنن، ترك كلّ حديث أورده في «السّنن» مما تكلّم في إسناده بالتّعليل

“And it was narrated to me by Abū Muḥammad ibn ʿAttāb through authorisation [ijāza] from Abū ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Barr with the aforementioned chain of transmission [sanad]. And it was also narrated to me by Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ṭāhir from Abū ʿAlī al-Ghassānī with the aforementioned chain of transmission as well. Abū Muḥammad ibn Yarbūʿ said, and I copied it from his handwriting: Abū ʿAlī al-Ghassānī said to me: The Book of Faith [Īmān] and the Book of Reconciliation [Ṣulḥ] are not from the compiler; rather they are from the book al-Mujtabā for him – with the letter bāʾ – in al-Sunan with chains of transmission [musnada] by Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Nasāʾī. He abridged it from his large compiled book. This was because one of the commanders asked him about his book on al-Sunan: ‘Is all of it authentic [ṣaḥīḥ]?’ He said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘Then write for us the authentic parts from it in an isolated manner.’ So, he compiled al-Mujtabā, which is: al-Mujtabā from al-Sunan. He omitted every hadith he had included in al-Sunan regarding whose chain of transmission [isnād] there was discussion by way of finding fault [taʿlīl].”

‘Alā’ al-Dīn Mughlāṭāy ibn Qilīj al-Ḥanafī (d. 762 AH) said in his Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmā’ al-Rijāl (1/131):

وقال ابن القطان: هو أعلم أهل الحديث، وسمَّى الدارقطني وغيره كتابه «المجتبى» صحيحًا

“And Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said: He is the most knowledgeable of the people of ḥadīth, and al-Dāraquṭnī and others called his book al-Mujtabā – authentic [ṣaḥīḥan].”

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH) said in his al-Nukat ʿalā Kitāb Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (1/484):

وقال محمد بن معاوية الأحمر٢ الراوي عن النسائي ما معناه قال النسائي: «كتاب السنن كله صحيح وبعضه معلول» إلا أنه لم يبين علته والمنتخب منه المسمى بالمجتبى صحيح/ (؟٦٨/أ) كله.وقال أبو الحسن المعافري٣: «إذا نظرت إلى ما يخرجه أهل الحديث فما خرجه النسائي أقرب إلى الصحة مما خرجه غيره»

“And Muḥammad ibn Muʿāwiya al-Aḥmar, the narrator from al-Nasā’ī, said, the meaning of which is that al-Nasā’ī said: «The book al-Sunan is all authentic but some of it is defective» except that he did not clarify its defect. And the selection from it called al-Mujtabā is authentic in its entirety. And Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʿāfirī said: «When you look at what the people of ḥadīth include, what al-Nasā’ī included is closer to authenticity than what others included».”

قال ابن عراق في تنزيه الشريعة 327/1:”ورأيت بخط الحافظ ابن حجر على هامش مختصر الموضوعات لابن درباس مانصه حديث أبى أمامة هذا أخرجه النسائى ولم يعلله وذلك يقتضى صحته“.

Ibn ‘Irāq said in Tanzīh al-Sharī’a (1/290): “I saw in the handwriting of the Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar on the margin of Mukhtaṣar al-Mawḍū’āt by Ibn Dirbās, the text of which is: this ḥadīth of Abū Umāmah—al-Nasā’ī transmitted it and did not find fault with it [‘allalahu], and that necessitates its authenticity [ṣiḥḥatahu].”

Ibn al-Jārūd (d. 307 AH):

Al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) said in his Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (14/239):

ابْنُ الجَارُوْدِ أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدُ اللهِ بنُ عَلِيٍّ **صَاحِبُ كِتَاب (المُنْتَقَى فِي السُّنَن) مُجَلَّد وَاحِد فِي الأَحْكَام، لاَ ينزلُ فِيْهِ عَنْ رُتْبَة الحَسَن أَبَدًا، إِلاَّ فِي النَّادر فِي أَحَادِيْث يَخْتلفُ فِيْهَا اجْتِهَادُ النُّقَّاد

“Ibn al-Jārūd Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAlī, author of the book (al-Muntaqā fī al-Sunan), one volume on rulings, which never descends below the rank of good quality [ḥasan] ever, except in rare instances regarding hadiths over which the independent judgement [ijtihād] of the critics differs.”

Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī said in his Itḥāf al-Mahara bi-l-Fawā’id al-Mubtakara min Aṭrāf al-‘Ashara (1/159):

وَلابْنِ الْجَارُودِ – وَقَدْ سَمَّاهُ ابْنُ عَبْدِ الْبَرِّ وَغَيْرُهُ:»صَحِيحًا «: جا، وَهُوَ فِي التَّحْقِيقِ مُسْتَخْرَجٌ عَلَى صَحِيحِ ابْنِ خُزَيْمَةَ بِاخْتِصَارٍ.

“And for Ibn al-Jārūd—whom Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and others have called ‘authentic [ṣaḥīḥ]’: [jā], and it is in verification an extraction [mustakhraj] upon the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] of Ibn Khuzayma with abridgement [ikhtisār].”

Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH)

Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) said in his Tahdhīb al-Āthār  (Musnad Umar, 2/616):

ذِكْرُ مَا صَحَّ عِنْدَنَا سَنَدُهُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ حُرَيْثٍ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ

“Mention of what has authentic [ṣaḥḥ] chains of transmission [sanad] according to us from the hadith of ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth, from ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, from the Prophet ﷺ.”

There are other examples like that in the above work where he clarified what he thought was authentic.

Al-Ṭabarī said in his Tahdhīb al-Āthār (Musnad ‘Alī, pp. 271-272):

الْقَوْلُ فِي الْبَيَانِ عَنْ وَجْهِ اخْتِلَافِ نَقَلَةِ هَذِهِ الْأَخْبَارِ فِي الَّذِي بَعَثَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ بِمِنًى لِلنِّدَاءِ بِمَا ذُكِرَ فِيهَا إِنْ قَالَ لَنَا قَائِلٌ: مَا أَنْتَ قَائِلٌ فِي هَذِهِ الْأَخْبَارِ الَّتِي رَوَيْتَهَا لَنَا؟ فَإِنْ قُلْتَ: إِنَّهَا صِحَاحٌ، قُلْنَا لَكَ: فَمَا وَجْهُ اخْتِلَافِ رُوَاتِهَا فِي الْمُنَادِي الَّذِي نَادَى

The Statement on the Explanation of the Aspect of the Disagreement of the Transmitters of These Reports Regarding the One Whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ Sent at Minā to Call Out What Was Mentioned in Them.

If someone says to us: What do you say regarding these reports that you have narrated to us? If you say: They are authentic [ṣiḥāḥ], we say to you: What is the aspect of the disagreement of their narrators concerning the caller who called out

بِالنَّهْيِ عَنْ صَوْمِ أَيَّامِ التَّشْرِيقِ، عَنْ أَمْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ إِيَّاهُ بِذَلِكَ؟ وَإِنْ قُلْتَ: إِنَّهَا غَيْرُ صِحَاحٍ، قِيلَ: فَمَا وَجْهُ ذِكْرِكَ لَهَا، وَقَدْ شَرَطْتَ لَنَا فِي أَوَّلِ كِتَابِكَ هَذَا أَنَّكَ لَا تَرْسُمُ لَنَا فِيهِ إِلَّا مَا كَانَ عِنْدَكَ صَحِيحًا؟

the prohibition against fasting the days of Tashrīq, upon the command of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ for him to do so? And if you say: They are not authentic, it is said: What is the aspect of your mentioning them, when you have stipulated to us at the beginning of this book of yours that you would not inscribe for us in it except what was authentic according to you?

قِيلَ: أَمَّا الْأَخْبَارُ الَّتِي ذَكَرْنَاهَا، فَإِنَّ مِنْهَا عِنْدَنَا صِحَاحًا، وَمِنْهَا غَيْرُ صِحَاحٍ، وَلَمْ نَذْكُرْ مَا كَانَ مِنْهَا عِنْدَنَا غَيْرَ صَحِيحٍ اسْتِشْهَادًا بِهِ عَلَى دِينٍ، وَلَا عَلَى الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي شَرَطْنَا فِي أَوَّلِ كِتَابِنَا هَذَا أَنَّا لَا نَذْكُرُهُ إِذْ كَانَ الَّذِي شَرَطْنَا فِي أَوَّلِ كِتَابِنَا هَذَا تَرْكَ ذِكْرِهِ فِيهِ، وَهُوَ مَا لَا نَرَاهُ فِي الدِّينِ حُجَّةً، إِلَّا الْحِكَايَةَ عَمَّنِ احْتَجَّ بِهِ فِي تَوْهِينِ خَبَرٍ، أَوْ تَأْيِيدِ مَقَالَةٍ هُوَ بِهَا قَائِلٌ، عِنْدَ ذِكْرِنَا مَقَالَتَهُ، وَمَا اعْتَلَّ بِهِ لَهَا.

It is said: As for the reports that we have mentioned, amongst them are those that are authentic according to us, and amongst them are those that are not authentic. We did not mention what was amongst them that was not authentic according to us as evidence for religion, nor in the manner which we stipulated at the beginning of this book of ours that we would not mention—since what we stipulated at the beginning of this book of ours was the abandonment of mentioning in it what we do not consider as proof in religion—except for the narration from one who argued with it in weakening a report, or supporting a position he maintains, when we mention his position and what he argued for it.

وَإِنَّمَا أَحْضَرْنَا ذِكْرَ مَا لَمْ نَرَ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأَخْبَارِ صَحِيحًا فِي هَذَا الْمَوْضِعِ، لِاعْتِلَالِ مَنِ اعْتَلَّ بِهِ فِي تَوْهِينِ خَبَرِ يُوسُفَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ الثَّقَفِيِّ، الَّذِي رَوَاهُ يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ حِكَايَةً عَنْهُ، لَا احْتِجَاجًا بِهِ مِنَّا.

We only brought forward the mention of what we did not consider authentic amongst these reports in this place, for the objection of one who objected with it in weakening the report of Yūsuf ibn Mas’ūd al-Thaqafī, which Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd narrated as a report from him, not as an argument from us.

عَلَى أَنَّ ذَلِكَ كُلَّهُ – لَوْ كَانَ صَحِيحًا – لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي اخْتِلَافِ الرُّوَاةِ فِي اسْمِ الَّذِي سَمِعُوهُ يُنَادِي بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا يَوْمَئِذٍ مَا يُوَهِّنُ الْخَبَرَ، وَلَا يُزِيلُهُ عَنْ أَنْ يَكُونَ حُجَّةً عَلَى مَنْ دَانَ بِتَصْحِيحِ الْقَوْلِ بِخَبَرِ الْوَاحِدِ الْعَدْلِ، وَذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ جَائِزٌ أنْ يَكُونَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ وَجَّهَ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمَ كُلَّ رَجُلٍ مِمَّنْ ذُكِرَ أَنَّهُ سُمِعَ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمَ يُنَادِي بِمَا كَانَ يُنَادِي بِهِ فِي نَاحِيَةٍ مِنْ نَوَاحِي مِنًى، فَسَمِعَ أَهْلُ كُلِّ نَاحِيَةٍ مِنْهَا مَنْ وُجِّهَ إِلَيْهَا، فَأَخْبَرُوا بِاسْمِ مَنْ سَمِعُوهُ يُنَادِي بِذَلِكَ.

Moreover, all of that—even if it were authentic—there would not be in the disagreement of the narrators concerning the name of the one whom they heard calling out what we mentioned on that day anything that weakens the report, nor removes it from being a proof for one who follows the validation of the statement based on the report of the single just narrator [khabar al-wāḥid al-‘adl]. That is because it is possible that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent on that day each man amongst those who were mentioned as being heard calling out on that day what he was calling out, to a quarter amongst the quarters of Minā, so the people of each quarter amongst them heard the one who was sent to it, and they reported by the name of the one whom they heard calling out that.

وَذَلِكَ، إِذَا كَانَ كَذَلِكَ، لَمْ يَكُنِ اخْتِلَافًا، بَلْ يَكُونُ تَأْيِيدًا وَتَوْكِيدًا، وَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ حَمْلُ مَا حَمَلَتْهُ الثِّقَاتُ مِنَ الْآثَارِ عَلَى الْفَاسِدِ مِنَ الْوجُوهِ، وَلَهَا فِي الصِّحَّةِ مَخْرَجٌ.

And that, when it is so, would not be disagreement, but rather would be support and confirmation. It is not permissible to carry what the trustworthy ones have transmitted from the traditions [āthār] upon the corrupted aspects, when they have an outlet in soundness.

وَقَدْ مَضَى قَبْلُ ذِكْرُ الْأَخْبَارِ الْوَارِدَةِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ بِالنَّهْيِ عَنْ صَوْمِ الْأَيَّامِ الْمَنْهِيِّ عَنْ صَوْمِهَا، وَذِكْرُ أَخْبَارِ الْمُخْتَلِفِينَ مِنَ السَّلَفِ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَذِكْرُ الْقَوْلِ الَّذِي نَرَاهُ فِيهِ صَوَابًا، بِعِلَلِهِ وَشَوَاهِدِهِ، فَكَرِهْنَا إِعَادَتَهُ؟

The mention of the reports transmitted from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ regarding the prohibition against fasting the days that are forbidden to fast has already passed, as well as the mention of the reports of those amongst the predecessors [salaf] who disagreed regarding that, and the mention of the statement which we consider correct in it, with its reasons [‘ilal] and evidences [shawāhid], so we disliked repeating it.

Abū Bakr Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311 AH)

Abū Bakr Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311 AH) said in his Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (p. 24):

قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: لَمْ أُخَرِّجْ فِي هَذَا الْكِتَابِ مِنَ الْمُقَطَّعَاتِ؛ لِأَنَّ هَذَا مِنَ الْجِنْسِ الَّذِي نَقُولُ: إِنَّ عِلْمَ هَذَا لَا يُدْرَكُ إِلَّا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ الْمُصْطَفَى ﷺ لَسْتُ أَحْتَجُّ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ صِفَاتِ خَالِقِي  إِلَّا بِمَا هُوَ مَسْطُورٌ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَوْ مَنْقُولٌ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ بِالْأَسَانِيدِ الصَّحِيحَةِ الثَّابِتَةِ

“Abū Bakr said: I have not included in this book any of the disconnected narrations [muqaṭṭaʿāt], because this is from the type regarding which we say: knowledge of this can only be attained through the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His chosen Prophet ﷺ. I do not use as evidence regarding anything from the attributes of my Creator except what is recorded in the Book or transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ through authentic and established chains of transmission [asānīd ṣaḥīḥa thābita].”

In the opening lines of Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzayma (p. 1) it mentioned:

أَخْبَرَنَا إِمَامُ الْأَئِمَّةِ فَقِيهُ الْآفَاقِ أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ خُزَيْمَةَ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ الْحَافِظُ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ، قَالَ:

“Our Imam, the Imam of Imams, the jurist of the horizons, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Khuzayma al-Naysābūrī the Ḥāfiẓ, may Allah have mercy upon him, informed us. He said:

كِتَابُ الْوُضُوءِ مُخْتَصَرُ الْمُخْتَصَرِ مِنَ الْمُسْنَدِ الصَّحِيحِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، بِنَقْلِ الْعَدْلِ، عِنِ الْعَدْلِ مَوْصُولًا إِلَيْهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنْ غَيْرِ قَطْعٍ فِي أَثْنَاءِ الْإِسْنَادِ وَلَا جَرْحٍ فِي نَاقِلِي الْأَخْبَارِ الَّتِي نَذْكُرُهَا بِمَشِيئَةِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى.

The Book of Ablution [Kitāb al-Wuḍūʾ]: an abridgement of the abridgement from the authentic musnad concerning the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, through the transmission of the trustworthy from the trustworthy, connected to him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, without any break in the midst of the chain [isnād] and without any criticism [jarḥ] of the transmitters of the reports which we shall mention, by the will of Allah the Exalted.”

Also from 3/331:

 المُخْتَصَرِ مِنَ مِنَ المُخْتَصَرِ مِنَ المُسْنَدِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ عَلَى الشَّرْطِ الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَا بِنَقْلِ الْعَدْلِ عَنِ الْعَدْلِ مَوْصُولًا إِلَيْهِ ﷺ، مِنْ غَيْرِ قَطْعٍ فِي الْإِسْنَادِ، وَلَا جَرْحٍ فِي نَاقِلِي الْأَخْبَارِ إِلَّا مَا نَذْكُرُ أَنَّ فِي الْقَلْبِ مِنْ بَعْضِ الْأَخْبَارِ شَيْءٌ، إِمَّا لِشَكٍّ فِي سَمَاعِ رَاوٍ مِنْ فَوْقِهِ خَبَرًا أَوْ رَاوٍ لَا نَعْرِفُهُ بِعَدَالَةٍ، وَلَا جَرْحٍ فَنُبَيِّن أَنَّ فِي الْقَلْبِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الْخَبَرِ، فَإِنَّا لَا نَسْتَحِلُّ التَّمْوِيهَ عَلَى طَلَبَةِ الْعِلْمِ بِذِكْرِ خَبَرٍ غَيْرِ صحِيحٍ لَا نُبَيِّن عِلَّتَهُ فَيَغْتَرَّ بِهِ بَعْضُ مَنْ يَسْمَعُهُ، فَاللَّهُ المُوَفِّقُ لِلصَّوَابِ

“The abridged from the abridged from the musnad concerning the Prophet ﷺ according to the condition which we mentioned, through the transmission of the trustworthy from the trustworthy, connected to him ﷺ, without any break in the chain [isnād], and without any criticism [jarḥ] of the transmitters of the reports, except for what we mention that there is something in the heart concerning some of the reports, either due to doubt in a narrator’s hearing of a report from the one above him, or a narrator whom we do not know through integrity [ʿadāla] nor through criticism [jarḥ], so we clarify that there is something in the heart concerning that report. For indeed we do not consider it lawful to deceive the seekers of knowledge by mentioning an inauthentic report without clarifying its defect [ʿilla], lest some of those who hear it be misled by it. And Allah is the one who grants success to what is correct.”

Despite Ibn Khuzayma’s explicit commitment to authenticating his material, subsequent scholars identified weak narrations and narrators within his Ṣaḥīḥ. Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī (d. 795 AH), in his biographical entry for Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Ḥanbalī (d. 744 AH), references the following work in his Dhayl Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah (2/438):

جُزْءٌ «مُنْتَقَى مِنْ مُخْتَصَرِ المُخْتَصَرِ لاِبْنِ خُزَيْمَةَ» وَمُنَاقَشَتِهِ عَلَى أَحَادِيْثٍ أَخْرَجَهَا فِيْهِ، فِيْهَا مَقَالٌ، مُجَلَّدٌ

“A volume titled ‘Selections from the Abridged Abridgement of Ibn Khuzayma’ and his discussion of hadiths which he included in it that are problematic [fīhā maqāl], one volume.”

Contemporary editors of Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzayma have similarly identified what they regard as weak narrations within the collection.

Abū Jaʿfar al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH)

Abū Jaʿfar al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) said in his Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār (1/6):

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: وَإِنِّي نَظَرْتُ فِي الْآثَارِ الْمَرْوِيَّةِ عَنْهُ ﷺ بِالْأَسَانِيدِ الْمَقْبُولَةِ الَّتِي نَقَلَهَا ذَوُو التَّثَبُّتِ فِيهَا وَالْأَمَانَةِ عَلَيْهَا، وَحُسْنِ الْأَدَاءِ لَهَا، فَوَجَدْتُ فِيهَا أَشْيَاءَ مِمَّا يَسْقُطُ مَعْرِفَتُهَا، وَالْعِلْمُ بِمَا فِيهَا عَنْ أَكْثَرِ النَّاسِ فَمَالَ قَلْبِي إلَى تَأَمُّلِهَا وَتِبْيَانِ مَا قَدَرْتُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ مُشْكِلِهَا وَمِنِ اسْتِخْرَاجِ الْأَحْكَامِ الَّتِي فِيهَا وَمِنْ نَفْيِ الْإِحَالِاتِ عَنْهَا، وَأَنْ أَجْعَلَ ذَلِكَ أَبْوَابًا أَذْكُرُ فِي كُلِّ بَابٍ مِنْهَا مَا يَهَبُ اللهُ عز وجل لِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ مِنْهَا حَتَّى آتِيَ فِيمَا قَدَرْتُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْهَا كَذَلِكَ مُلْتَمِسًا ثَوَابَ اللهِ عز وجل عَلَيْهِ وَاللهَ أَسْأَلُهُ التَّوْفِيقَ لِذَلِكَ وَالْمَعُونَةَ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّهُ جَوَّادٌ كَرِيمٌ وَهُوَ حَسْبِي وَنِعْمَ الْوَكِيلُ

“Abū Jaʿfar said: I examined the narrations transmitted from him ﷺ through acceptable chains of transmission [asānīd maqbūla] which were conveyed by those who possessed verification regarding them, trustworthiness concerning them, and excellence in transmitting them. I found in them matters whose knowledge and understanding of what they contain escapes most people. My heart inclined towards contemplating them and clarifying what I was able to understand of their difficult aspects, extracting the rulings contained within them, and removing impossibilities from them. I decided to arrange this into chapters, mentioning in each chapter what Allah the Mighty and Majestic grants me of that understanding from them, until I complete what I was able to accomplish of them in this manner, seeking Allah’s the Mighty and Majestic reward for it. I ask Allah for success in this and assistance with it, for He is generous and noble, and He is sufficient for me and excellent is the Trustee.”

Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH)

In the Ṣaḥīḥ of Ibn Ḥibbān (1/62):

وإني لما رأيت الأخبار طرقها كثرت ومعرفة الناس بالصحيح منها قلت لاشتغالهم بكتبة الموضوعات وحفظ الخطأ والمقلوبات حتى صار الخبر الصحيح مهجورا لا يكتب والمنكر المقلوب عزيزا يستغرب وأن من جمع السنن من الأئمة الماضين المرضيين وتكلم عليها من أهل الفقه في الدين أمعنوا في ذكر الطرق للأخبار وأكثروا من تكرار المعاد للآثار قصدا منهم لتحصيل الألفاظ على من رام حفظها من الحفاظ فكان ذلك سبب اعتماد المتعلم على ما في الكتاب وترك المقتبس التحصيل للخطاب

“And when I saw that the reports and their chains had multiplied and people’s knowledge of what is authentic among them had diminished due to their preoccupation with writing fabricated [mawḍūʿāt] reports and memorising errors and inverted [maqlūbāt] reports, until the authentic report became neglected and unwritten whilst the objectionable inverted [munkar maqlūb] became precious and sought after, and that those who collected the sunan from the past accepted Imams and spoke about them from among the people of jurisprudence in religion went to great lengths in mentioning the chains for the reports and increased in repeating the recurring  traditions, intending thereby to facilitate the acquisition of the wordings for whoever sought to memorise them from among the memorisers [ḥuffāẓ], but this became the cause of the student’s reliance upon what is in the book and the seeker’s abandonment of acquiring the discourse [khiṭāb].

فتدبرت الصحاح لأسهل حفظها على المتعلمين وأمعنت الفكر فيها لئلا يصعب وعيها على المقتبسين فرأيتها تنقسم خمسة أقسام متساوية متفقة التقسيم غير متنافي

So, I contemplated the authentic [ṣiḥāḥ] reports to make their memorisation easier for the students and I deeply considered them so that their comprehension would not be difficult for the seekers, and I saw that they are divided into five equal divisions, unified in division and not contradictory.”

Later scholars have demonstrated the presence of weak narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān. Ibn Ḥibbān himself acknowledged this possibility in his conclusion, stating on 7/785 of his Ṣaḥīḥ:

وقد احتججنا في كتابنا هذا بجماعة قد قدح فيهم بعض أئمتنا، فمن أحب الوقوف على تفصيل أسماءهم فلينظر في «الكتاب المختصر من تاريخ الثقات» يجد فيه الأصول التي بنينا ذلك الكتاب عليها، حتى لا يعرج على قدح قادح في محدث على الإطلاق، من غير كشف عن حقيقته.

“And we have cited as evidence [iḥtajajnā] in this book of ours a group whom some of our Imams have criticised [qadaḥa fīhim], so whoever wishes to know the detailed explanation of their names, let him look in ‘The Abridged Book from the History of the Trustworthy’ [al-Kitāb al-Mukhtaṣar min Tārīkh al-Thiqāt], he will find in it the principles upon which we built that book, so that one does not rely upon the criticism of a critic against a hadith scholar in an absolute manner, without uncovering its reality.”

Contemporary editors of Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān have similarly identified what they regard as weak narrations within the collection.

Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405 AH)

In the introduction to his al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (p. 1) he said:

أَنْبَأَنَا الْحَاكِمُ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَافِظُ إِمْلَاءً فِي يَوْمِ الْإِثْنَيْنِ السَّابِعِ مِنَ الْمُحَرَّمِ سَنَةَ ثَلَاثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ وَثَلَاثِمِائَةٍ:

“Al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allah Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ informed us by dictation on Monday the seventh of Muḥarram in the year three hundred and seventy-three:

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْقَهَّارِ، الصَّمَدِ الْجَبَّارِ، الْعَالِمِ بِالْأَسْرَارِ، الَّذِي اصْطَفَى سَيِّدَ الْبَشَرِ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بِنُبُوَّتِهِ وَرِسَالَتِهِ، وَحَذَّرَ جَمِيعَ خَلْقِهِ مُخَالَفَتَهُ، فَقَالَ عَزَّ مِنْ قَائِلٍ: ﴿فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا﴾ [النساء: ٦٥] الْآيَةَ، وَصَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ أَجْمَعِينَ.

Praise belongs to Allah, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Eternal, the Compeller, the Knower of secrets, who chose the master of mankind Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allah through His prophethood and message, and warned all His creation against opposing him, for He said, mighty is the Speaker: “But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge concerning what is in dispute between them and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission” [al-Nisāʾ: 65], the verse. And Allah’s blessings be upon him and all his family.

أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ أَنْعَمَ عَلَى هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ بِاصْطِفَائِهِ بِصُحْبَةِ نَبِيِّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى آلِهِ أَخْيَارِ خَلْقِهِ فِي عَصْرِهِ، وَهُمُ الصَّحَابَةُ النُّجَبَاءُ، الْبَرَرَةُ الْأَتْقِيَاءُ، لَزِمُوهُ فِي الشِّدَّةِ وَالرَّخَاءِ، حَتَّى حَفِظُوا عَنْهُ مَا شَرَّعَ لِأُمَّتِهِ بِأَمْرِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ، ثُمَّ نَقَلُوهُ إِلَى أَتْبَاعِهِمْ، ثُمَّ كَذَلِكَ عَصْرًا بَعْدَ عَصْرٍ إِلَى عَصْرِنَا هَذَا، وَهُوَ هَذِهِ الْأَسَانِيدُ الْمَنْقُولَةُ إِلَيْنَا بِنَقْلِ الْعَدْلِ عَنِ الْعَدْلِ، وَهِيَ كَرَامَةٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ لِهَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ خَصَّهُمْ بِهَا دُونَ سَائِرِ الْأُمَمِ،

Now then, indeed Allah – exalted is His remembrance – has favoured this ummah by His choosing for the companionship of His Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family, the best of His creation in his era, and they are the noble Companions [al-ṣaḥāba al-nujabāʾ], the righteous and pious who adhered to him in hardship and ease, until they preserved from him what he legislated for his ummah by the command of Allah – exalted is His remembrance – then they transmitted it to their followers, then likewise generation after generation until this era of ours, and these are the chains [asānīd] transmitted to us through the transmission of the trustworthy from the trustworthy, and it is an honour from Allah for this ummah with which He distinguished them above all other nations.

ثُمَّ قَيَّضَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ عَصْرٍ جَمَاعَةً مِنْ عُلَمَاءِ الدِّينِ، وَأَئِمَّةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، يُزَكُّونَ رُوَاةَ الْأَخْبَارِ وَنَقَلَةَ الْآثَارِ لِيَذُبُّوا بِهِ الْكَذِبَ عَنْ وَحْيِ الْمَلِكِ الْجَبَّارِ، فَمِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ الْأَئِمَّةِ: أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ الْجُعْفِيُّ، وَأَبُو الْحُسَيْنِ مُسْلِمُ بْنُ الْحَجَّاجِ الْقُشَيْرِيُّ رضي الله عنهما،

Then Allah appointed for every era a group from among the scholars of religion and the Imams of the Muslims, who authenticate the narrators of reports and transmitters of traditions in order to defend against falsehood from the revelation of the Sovereign Compeller. Among these Imams are: Abū ʿAbd Allah Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Juʿfī (al-Bukhari) and Abū al-Hussain Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī, may Allah be pleased with both of them.

صَنَّفَا فِي صَحِيحِ الْأَخْبَارِ كِتَابَيْنِ مُهَذَّبَيْنِ انْتَشَرَ ذِكْرُهُمَا فِي الْأَقْطَارِ، وَلَمْ يَحْكُمَا وَلَا وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمَا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَصِحَّ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ غَيْرُ مَا أَخْرَجَهُ،

They compiled two refined books on authentic reports whose fame spread throughout the regions, and neither of them ruled that nothing from hadith was authentic except what he included.

وَقَدْ نَبَغَ فِي عَصْرِنَا هَذَا جَمَاعَةٌ مِنَ الْمُبْتَدِعَةِ يَشْمَتُونَ بِرُوَاةِ الْآثَارِ، بِأَنَّ جَمِيعَ مَا يَصِحُّ عِنْدَكُمْ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ لَا يَبْلُغُ عَشْرَةَ آلَافِ حَدِيثٍ، وَهَذِهِ الْأَسَانِيدُ الْمَجْمُوعَةُ الْمُشْتَمِلَةُ عَلَى أَلْفِ جُزْءٍ أَوْ أَقَلَّ أَوْ أَكْثَرَ مِنْهُ كُلُّهَا سَقِيمَةٌ غَيْرُ صَحِيحَةٍ،

And there has emerged in this era of ours a group from among the innovators [mubtadiʿa] who gloat over the narrators of traditions, saying that all that is authentic according to you from hadith does not reach ten thousand hadiths, and these collected chains comprising a thousand parts or less or more than that are all defective and inauthentic.

وَقَدْ سَأَلَنِي جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ أَعْيَانِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِهَذِهِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا أَنْ أَجْمَعَ كِتَابًا يَشْتَمِلُ عَلَى الْأَحَادِيثِ الْمَرْوِيَّةِ بِأَسَانِيدَ يَحْتَجُّ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، وَمُسْلِمُ بْنُ الْحَجَّاجِ بِمِثْلِهَا، إِذْ لَا سَبِيلَ إِلَى إِخْرَاجِ مَا لَا عِلَّةَ لَهُ، فَإِنَّهُمَا رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ لَمْ يَدَّعِيَا ذَلِكَ لِأَنْفُسِهِمَا،

And a group from among the notables of the people of knowledge in this city and elsewhere have asked me to compile a book containing hadiths narrated with chains that Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl and Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj would cite as evidence with the like of them, since there is no way to produce what has no defect [ʿillah], for both of them – may Allah have mercy on them – did not claim that for themselves.

وَقَدْ خَرَّجَ جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ عُلَمَاءِ عَصْرِهِمَا وَمَنْ بَعْدَهُمَا عَلَيْهِمَا أَحَادِيثَ قَدْ أَخْرَجَاهَا، وَهِيَ مَعْلُولَةٌ، وَقَدْ جَهِدْتُ فِي الذَّبِّ عَنْهُمَا فِي «الْمَدْخَلِ إِلَى الصَّحِيحِ» بِمَا رَضِيَهُ أَهْلُ الصَّنْعَةِ،

And a group from among the scholars of their era and those who came after them have criticised them regarding hadiths which they included that are defective [maʿlūla], and I have striven in defending them in ‘The Introduction to the Authentic’ [al-Madkhal ilā al-Ṣaḥīḥ] with what pleased the people of the craft [ahl al-ṣanʿah].

وَأَنَا أَسْتَعِينُ اللَّهَ عَلَى إِخْرَاجِ أَحَادِيثَ رُوَاتُهَا ثِقَاتٌ، قَدِ احْتَجَّ بِمِثْلِهَا الشَّيْخَانِ رضي الله عنهما أَوْ أَحَدُهُمَا، وَهَذَا شَرْطُ الصَّحِيحِ عِنْدَ كَافَّةِ فُقَهَاءِ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ أَنَّ الزِّيَادَةَ فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ وَالْمُتُونِ مِنَ الثِّقَاتِ مَقْبُولَةٌ، وَاللَّهُ الْمُعِينُ عَلَى مَا قَصَدْتُهُ، وَهُوَ حَسْبِي وَنِعْمَ الْوَكِيلُ.

And I seek Allah’s assistance in producing hadiths whose narrators are trustworthy [thiqāt], which the two shaykhs – may Allah be pleased with both of them – or one of them would cite as evidence with the like of them, and this is the condition of authenticity according to all the jurists of the people of Islam: that additions in the chains and texts from the trustworthy are accepted. And Allah is the helper in what I have intended, and He is my sufficiency and excellent is the trustee.”

Some verdicts on al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn:

Al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) said in his Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (17/175-176):

وَسَمِعْتُ المُظَفَّر بن حَمْزَةَ بِجُرْجَانَ، سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سَعْد المَالِيْنِيّ يَقُوْلُ: طَالعتُ كِتَاب (الْمُسْتَدْرك عَلَى الشَّيخين)، الَّذِي صَنَّفَه الحَاكِمُ مِنْ أَوله إِلَى آخِره، فَلَمْ أَرَ فِيْهِ حَدِيْثًا عَلَى شَرْطِهِمَا.

“And I heard al-Muẓaffar ibn Ḥamzah in Jurjān, I heard Abū Saʿd al-Mālīnī saying: I examined the book ‘The Supplement to the Two Shaykhs’ [al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Shaykhayn] which al-Ḥākim compiled from its beginning to its end, and I did not see in it a single hadith according to their conditions.

قُلْتُ: هَذِهِ مُكَابرَةٌ وَغُلُوّ، وَلَيْسَتْ رتبةُ أَبِي سَعْدٍ أَنْ يَحكُم بِهَذَا، بَلْ فِي (المُستدرك) شَيْءٌ كَثِيْرٌ عَلَى شَرْطِهِمَا، وَشَيءٌ كَثِيْرٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ أَحَدِهِمَا، وَلَعَلَّ مَجْمُوع ذَلِكَ ثُلثُ الكِتَابِ بَلْ أَقلُّ،

I said: This is stubbornness and exaggeration, and it is not Abū Saʿd’s rank to judge this. Rather, in the Mustadrak there is much that is according to both their conditions, and much that is according to the condition of one of them, and perhaps the total of that is a third of the book or even less.

فَإِنَّ فِي كَثِيْر مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَحَادِيْثَ فِي الظَّاهِر عَلَى شَرْطِ أَحَدِهِمَا أَوْ كليهُمَا، وَفِي البَاطن لَهَا عللٌ خَفِيَّة مُؤَثِّرَة، وَقطعَةٌ مِنَ الكِتَاب إِسْنَادُهَا صَالِحٌ وَحسنٌ وَجيّدٌ، وَذَلِكَ نَحْو رُبُعِه،

For indeed much of that contains hadiths that are apparently [ẓāhir] according to the condition of one of them or both of them, but inwardly have hidden defects [ʿilal khafiyya] that are influential. And a portion of the book has chains that are sound [ṣāliḥ] and good [ḥasan] and excellent [jayyid], and that is about a quarter of it.

وَبَاقِي الكِتَاب مَنَاكِير وَعجَائِبُ، وَفِي غُضُون ذَلِكَ أَحَادِيْثُ نَحْو المائَة يَشْهَد القَلْبُ بِبُطْلاَنهَا، كُنْتُ قَدْ أَفردت مِنْهَا جُزْءًا، وَحَدِيْثُ الطَّير بِالنِّسبَة إِلَيْهَا سمَاءٌ،

And the rest of the book consists of objectionable reports [manākīr] and oddities [ʿajāʾib], and within that are about a hundred hadiths which the heart testifies to their falseness [buṭlān]. I had singled out a volume from them, and the hadith of the bird [ḥadīth al-ṭayr] is like the sky in comparison to them.

وَبِكُلِّ حَالٍ فَهُوَ كِتَابٌ مُفِيْدٌ قَدِ اختصرتُهُ، وَيعوزُ عَمَلًا وَتحريرًا

In any case, it is a beneficial book which I have abridged, and it needs work and editing [taḥrīr].”

The work that al-Dhahabī is referring to is his Talkhīṣ al-Mustadrak, as evidenced by the Fayḍ Allāh Effendi (no. 511) manuscript collection stored in the Süleymaniye library in Istanbul, which contains this manuscript in the actual handwriting of al-Dhahabī, and was dated as 721 AH at the end of the manuscript; hence this manuscript was compiled by al-Dhahabī some 27 years before his death in 748 AH, as stated in Muʿjam al-Tārīkh al-Turāth al-Islāmī fī Maktabāt al-ʿĀlam: al-Makhṭūṭāt wa’l-Maṭbūʿāt (p. 2550).

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said in his Lisān al-Mīzān (7/256):

والحاكم أجل قدرا وأعظم خطرا وأكبر ذكرا من أن يذكر في الضعفاء لكن قيل في الاعتذار عنه: أنه عند تصنيفه للمستدرك كان في أواخر عمره.

“And al-Ḥākim is too noble in rank, too great in importance, and too renowned in mention to be listed among the weak [narrators], but it was said in excuse for him: that when he compiled the Mustadrak he was in the final years of his life.”

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH) said in his al-Baḥr alladhī Zakhar fī Sharḥ Alfiyyat al-Athar (2/823-826):

وقد [لخص] الذهبي كتاب المستدرك فعلق أحاديثه، وتعقب كثيرًا منها بالضعف والنكارة والوضع وجمع جزءًا في الأحاديث التي فيه وهي موضوعة فذكر نحو مائة حديث،

“And al-Dhahabī [summarised] the book al-Mustadrak and commented upon its hadiths, and followed up many of them with [criticism of] weakness [ḍaʿf], objectionableness [nakāra] and fabrication [waḍʿ], and he compiled a volume on the hadiths that are in it which are fabricated [mawḍūʿa], so he mentioned about a hundred hadiths.

وأملى الحافظ أبو الفضل العراقي عليه مستخرجًا وصل فيه إلى أبواب الصلاة، حرر فيه الكلام على أحاديثه تحريرًا بالغًا، ورأيت في فهرست مؤلفات الحافظ ابن حجر أنه شرع في تعليق على المستدرك ولم نقف على شيء منه، وقد شرعت في تعليق سميته توضيح المدرك في تصحيح المستدرك فأقول واللَّه المستعان:

And al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Faḍl al-ʿIrāqī (d. 806 AH) dictated upon it an extracted work [mustakhraj] in which he reached the chapters on prayer, and he precisely edited the discussion of its hadiths with thorough editing [taḥrīr]. And I saw in the catalogue of the works of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar that he began a commentary on the Mustadrak but we have not come across anything of it. And I have begun a commentary which I named ‘Clarification of What is Perceived in the Authentication of the Mustadrak’ [Tawḍīḥ al-Mudrak fī Taṣḥīḥ al-Mustadrak], so I say, and Allah is the one whose help is sought:

“إن الحاكم مظلوم في كثير مما نسب إليه من التساهل، وقد ذكر الحافظ ابن حجر في نكته في قسم الحسن أنه اعتبر كثيرًا من أحاديث الصحيحين فوجدها لا يتم [الحكم] عليها بالصحة إلا بإدخالها في قسم الصحيح لغيره،

‘Indeed al-Ḥākim is wronged in much of what has been attributed to him regarding leniency [tasāhul], and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned in his notes [nukat] in the section on the good [ḥasan] that he examined many hadiths of the two authentic collections [ṣaḥīḥayn] and found that [the judgement] of authenticity cannot be completed upon them except by including them in the category of authentic for other reasons [ṣaḥīḥ li-ghayrih].

من ذلك: حديث أبي بن العباس بن سهل بن سعد، عن أبيه، عن جده في ذكر خيل النبي ﷺ، فإنَّ أبيًا قد ضعفوه لسوء حفظه، ولكن تابعه أخوه عبد المهيمن، [وعبد المهيمن] ضعيف أيضًا فاعتضد،

Among that: the hadith of Abī ibn al-ʿAbbās ibn Sahl ibn Saʿd, from his father, from his grandfather regarding the mention of the Prophet’s ﷺ horses, for indeed his father they weakened due to his poor memorisation, but his brother ʿAbd al-Muhaymin corroborated him, [and ʿAbd al-Muhaymin] is weak also, so it was strengthened.

وانضاف إلى ذلك أنه ليس من أحاديث الأحكام فلهذه الصورة المجموعة حكم البخاري بصحته قال: «وفي صحيح البخاري من ذلك أمثلة كثيرة، وفي كتاب مسلم منها أضعاف ما في البخاري» هذا كلام [ابن حجر]

And it was added to that that it is not from the hadiths of legal rulings [aḥādīth al-aḥkām], so due to this combined situation al-Bukhārī ruled it authentic. He said: ‘And in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī there are many examples of that, and in the book of Muslim there are multiples of what is in al-Bukhārī.’ This is the statement of [Ibn Ḥajar].

وإذا اعتبرت الأحاديث التي صححها الحاكم وتعقبوه بضعف [رواة] في [سندها]، وجدتها على هذه الشريطة، لراويها متابع، والحديث ليس من أحاديث الأحكام، فصح بهذا الاعتبار أنه صحيح على شرط البخاري ومسلم، لوجود الشرط الذي اعتمداه في التصحيح في كثير من الأحاديث فيه،

And if you examine the hadiths which al-Ḥākim authenticated and they followed up upon with weakness of [narrators] in [its chain], you will find them according to this condition: its narrator has a corroborator [mutābiʿ], and the hadith is not from the hadiths of legal rulings. So, it is correct by this consideration that it is authentic according to the condition of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, due to the existence of the condition which they relied upon in authentication in many of the hadiths within it.

مع استحضار ما تقدم من أن الحاكم لم يشترط عين رواية الشيخين بل مثلهم، ولهذا لما وصل إلى باب الدعاء والذكر قال: «سوف أجري في الدعوات على مذهب ابن مهدي فإنه قال: إذا روينا في الحلال والحرام تشددنا في الرجال، وإذا روينا في الفضائل والمباحات تساهلنا في الأسانيد»

Whilst bearing in mind what preceded, that al-Ḥākim did not stipulate the exact narration of the two Shaykhs but rather their like, and for this reason when he reached the chapter of supplication [duʿāʾ] and remembrance [dhikr] he said: ‘I shall proceed in the supplications according to the methodology of Ibn Mahdī, for he said: When we narrate regarding the lawful and unlawful [ḥalāl wa-ḥarām] we are strict regarding the men [narrators], and when we narrate regarding virtues [faḍāʾil] and permissible matters [mubāḥāt] we are lenient regarding the chains [asānīd].’”

Contemporary editors of al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn have similarly identified what they regard as rejected types of narrations within the collection.

Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri (d. 456 AH)

Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH) said in his al-Muḥallā bi’l-Āthār, (p. 1):

(أَمَّا بَعْدُ) وَفَّقَنَا اللَّهُ وَإِيَّاكُمْ لِطَاعَتِهِ، فَإِنَّكُمْ رَغِبْتُمْ أَنْ نَعْمَلَ لِلْمَسَائِلِ الْمُخْتَصَرَةِ الَّتِي جَمَعْنَاهَا فِي كِتَابِنَا الْمَوْسُومِ «بِالْمُحَلَّى» شَرْحًا مُخْتَصَرًا أَيْضًا، نَقْتَصِرُ فِيهِ عَلَى قَوَاعِدِ الْبَرَاهِينِ بِغَيْرِ إكْثَارٍ، لِيَكُونَ مَأْخَذُهُ سَهْلًا عَلَى الطَّالِبِ وَالْمُبْتَدِئِ، وَدَرَجًا لَهُ إلَى التَّبَحُّرِ فِي الْحِجَاجِ وَمَعْرِفَةِ الِاخْتِلَافِ وَتَصْحِيحِ الدَّلَائِلِ الْمُؤَدِّيَةِ إلَى مَعْرِفَةِ الْحَقِّ مِمَّا تَنَازَعَ النَّاسُ فِيهِ وَالْإِشْرَافِ عَلَى أَحْكَامِ الْقُرْآنِ وَالْوُقُوفِ عَلَى جَمْهَرَةِ السُّنَنِ الثَّابِتَةِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ وَتَمْيِيزِهَا مِمَّا لَمْ يَصِحَّ، وَالْوُقُوفِ عَلَى الثِّقَاتِ مِنْ رُوَاةِ الْأَخْبَارِ وَتَمْيِيزِهِمْ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمْ وَالتَّنْبِيهِ عَلَى فَسَادِ الْقِيَاسِ وَتَنَاقُضِهِ وَتَنَاقُضِ الْقَائِلِينَ بِهِ، فَاسْتَخَرْتُ اللَّهَ  عَلَى عَمَلِ ذَلِكَ، وَاسْتَعَنْته تَعَالَى عَلَى الْهِدَايَةِ إلَى نَصْرِ الْحَقِّ، وَسَأَلْته التَّأْيِيدَ عَلَى بَيَانِ ذَلِكَ وَتَقْرِيبِهِ، وَأَنْ يَجْعَلَهُ لِوَجْهِهِ خَالِصًا وَفِيهِ مَحْضًا آمِينَ آمِينَ رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ.

“To proceed: May Allah grant us and you success in obeying Him. You have desired that we create for the abbreviated issues which we have compiled in our book entitled al-Muḥallā a brief commentary as well, in which we confine ourselves to the foundations of proofs without excessive elaboration, so that it may be easy for the student and beginner to grasp, and a stepping stone for him to delve deeply into argumentation and knowledge of disagreement, and the verification of evidences leading to knowledge of the truth regarding matters people have disputed, and mastery of the rulings of the Qur’ān, and knowledge of the body of  traditions [sunan] from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and distinguishing them from what has not been authenticated, and knowledge of the reliable [thiqāt] from amongst the narrators [ruwāt] of reports and distinguishing them from others, and alerting to the corruption of analogical reasoning [qiyās] and its contradictions and the contradictions of those who advocate it. I have sought Allah’s guidance regarding undertaking this work, and I have sought His assistance, the Exalted, for guidance to support the truth, and I have asked Him for assistance in clarifying and facilitating that, and that He make it purely for His sake and purely in Him. Āmīn, āmīn, Lord of the Worlds.

وَلْيَعْلَمْ مَنْ قَرَأَ كِتَابَنَا هَذَا أَنَّنَا لَمْ نَحْتَجَّ إلَّا بِخَبَرٍ صَحِيحٍ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ الثِّقَاتِ مُسْنَدٍ وَلَا خَالَفْنَا إلَّا خَبَرًا ضَعِيفًا فَبَيَّنَّا ضَعْفَهُ، أَوْ مَنْسُوخًا فَأَوْضَحْنَا نَسْخَهُ. وَمَا تَوْفِيقُنَا إلَّا بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى.

And let whoever reads this book of ours know that we have not used as evidence except authentic reports [khabar ṣaḥīḥ] from the narration of reliable transmitters [thiqāt] with chains of transmission, and we have not opposed except weak [ḍaʿīf] reports, so we have clarified their weakness, or abrogated ones, so we have explained their abrogation. And our success is only through Allah the Exalted.”

Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH

Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) mentioned the status of the narrations mentioned in his Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwa (1/47) as follows:

وعادتي– في كتبي المصنّفة في الأصول والفروع– الاقتصار من الأخبار على ما يصح منها دون ما لا يصح، أو التمييز بين ما يصح منها وما لا يصح، ليكون الناظر فيها من أهل السنة على بصيرة مما يقع الاعتماد عليه، لا يجد من زاغ قلبه من أهل البدع عن قبول الأخبار مغمزا فيما اعتمد عليه أهل السنة من الآثار.ومن أنعم النظر في اجتهاد أهل الحفظ في معرفة أحوال الرواة، وما يقبل من الأخبار، وما يردّ- علم أنهم لم يألوا جهدا في ذَلِكَ، حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ الابن يقدح في أبيه إذا عثر منه على ما يوجب ردّ خبره، والأب في ولده، والأخ في أخيه، لا تأخذه فِي اللهِ لَوْمَةَ لَائِمٍ، ولا تمنعه في ذلك شجنة رحم ولا صلة مال. والحكايات عنهم في ذلك كثيرة، وهي في كتبي المصنّفة في ذلك مكتوبة.

“And my custom—in my books compiled on the fundamentals and branches—is to limit [myself] from the reports to what is authentic amongst them without what is not authentic, or to distinguish between what is authentic amongst them and what is not authentic, so that the one who looks into them from the people of the Sunna [Ahl al-Sunna] may be upon insight regarding what can be relied upon, [and] so that one whose heart has deviated from the people of innovation [Ahl al-Bidaʿ] away from accepting reports may not find fault in what the people of the Sunna [Ahl al-Sunna] have relied upon from the traditions. And whoever carefully examines the effort of the people of memorisation in knowing the conditions of the narrators, and what is accepted from the reports and what is rejected—knows that they spared no effort in that, to the extent that if it was the son who criticises his father when he finds from him what necessitates rejecting his report, and the father regarding his son, and the brother regarding his brother, no blame of a blamer takes him in [the cause of] Allah, nor does any bond of kinship or connection of wealth prevent him in that. And the accounts about them in that are many, and they are written in my books compiled on that.”

Also, he mentioned the status of the narrations in his Shuʿab al-Īmān [The Branches of Faith, 1/28] as follows:

أما بعد! فإن الله-جلّ ثناؤه وتقدّست أسماؤه-بفضله ولطفه وفّقني لتصنيف كتب مشتملة على أخبار مستعملة في أصول الدين وفروعه، (والحمد لله على ذلك كثيرا. ثم إني أحببت تصنيف كتاب جامع لأصل الإيمان وفروعه) وما جاء من الأخبار في بيانه وحسن القيام به لما في ذلك من الترغيب والترهيب، فوجدت الحاكم أبا عبد الله الحسين بن الحسن الحليمي- رحمنا الله وإياه-أورد في «كتاب المنهاج المصنف في بيان شعب لإيمان» المشار إليها في حديث رسول الله ﷺ من حقيقة كل واحدة من شعبه، وبيان ما يحتاج إليه مستعمله من فروضه وسننه وأدبه وما جاء في معناه من الأخبار والآثار–ما فيه كفاية، فاقتديت به في تقسيم الأحاديث على الأبواب، وحكيت من كلامه عليها ما يتبيّن به المقصود من كل باب؛ إلاّ أنه-رضي الله عنا وعنه-اقتصر في ذلك على ذكر المتون، وحذف الأسانيد تحرّيا للاختصار؛ وأنا–على رسم أهل الحديث–أحب إيراد ما أحتاج إليه من المسانيد والحكايات بأسانيدها، والاقتصار على ما لا يغلب على القلب كونه كذبا. ففي الحديث الثابت عن سيدنا المصطفى ﷺ أنه قال:«من حدّث بحديث وهو يرى أنّه كذب فهو أحد الكاذبين».

“As for what follows! Indeed Allah—exalted is His praise and sanctified are His names—through His favour and kindness enabled me to compile books containing reports that are used in the fundamentals of religion and its branches, and praise be to Allah for that abundantly. Then I desired to compile a comprehensive book on the foundation of faith and its branches, and what has come from the reports in explaining it and performing it well, because of what that contains of encouragement and warning. I found that al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allah al-Hussain ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ḥalīmī—may Allah have mercy on us and him—mentioned in Kitāb al-Minhāj al-Muṣannaf fī Bayān Shuʿab al-Īmān [The Book of the Compiled Method in Explaining the Branches of Faith] that which is pointed to in the ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ  regarding the reality of each one of its branches, and the explanation of what its practitioner needs of its obligations and its recommended acts and its proper conduct, and what has come in its meaning from the reports and traditions—what suffices. So, I followed his example in dividing the aḥādīth into chapters, and I quoted from his words about them what makes clear the purpose of each chapter. However, he—may Allah be pleased with us and him—limited himself in that to mentioning the texts and omitted the chains of transmission, seeking brevity. But I—according to the practice of the people of ḥadīth—prefer to mention what I need of the chains of transmission and accounts with their chains of transmission, and to limit myself to what does not predominate in the heart as being falsehood. For in the established ḥadīth from our master the Chosen One ﷺ, he said ‘Whoever narrates a ḥadīth whilst thinking that it is a lie, then he is one of the liars.”’

Al-Suyūṭī said in his Tadrīb al-Rāwī (1/331):

أَوْ فِي مُؤَلَّفٍ مُعْتَبَرٍ كَتَصَانِيفِ الْبَيْهَقِيِّ، فَقَدِ الْتَزَمَ أَنْ لَا يُخَرِّجَ فِيهَا حَدِيثًا يَعْلَمُهُ مَوْضُوعًا.

“Or in a reliable work such as the compilations of al-Bayhaqī, for he committed himself not to include in them any ḥadīth which he knew to be fabricated.”

Al-Suyūṭī also said in his La’ālī al-Maṣnūʿa (1/221):

وَعرفت جلالة البَيْهَقيّ فِي كَونه لَا يَخْرُج فِي كتبه شَيْئا مِنَ الْمَوْضُوع كَمَا الْتَزمهُ واللَّه أَعْلَم.

“And you have come to know the eminence of al-Bayhaqī in that he does not include in his books anything from the fabricated [material] as he committed himself [to this], and Allah knows best.”

Note:  ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī (d. 1304 AH) said in his al-Ajwiba al-Fāḍila (pp. 78-80):

وأما تصانيف البيهقي: فهي أيضًا مشتملة على الأحاديث الضعيفة، وكذا تصانيف الخطيب فإنه قد تجاوز عن حد التحامل واحتج بالأحاديث الموضوعة صرح به العيني في البناية في بحث البسملة.

“As for the compilations of al-Bayhaqī: they also contain weak ḥadīths [aḥādīth ḍa’īfa], and likewise the compilations of al-Khaṭīb, for he has exceeded the limit of severity and argued with fabricated ḥadīths [aḥādīth mawḍū’a]. Al-‘Aynī stated this explicitly in al-Bināya in the discussion of the Basmala.

وأما تصانيف الحاكم: فقال الزيلعي في تخريج أحاديث الهداية: «قال ابن دحية في كتابه:»العلم«؛ المشهور: يجب على أهل الحديث أن يتحفظوا من قول الحاكم، فإنه كثير الغلط ظاهر السقط، وقد غفل عن ذلك كثير من جاء بعده وقلده في ذلك». ا. هـ.

As for the compilations of al-Ḥākim: al-Zayla’ī said in Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Hidāya: ‘Ibn Diḥya said in his book al-‘Ilm: The well-known [position] is: it is obligatory upon the people of ḥadīth that they be cautious of the statement of al-Ḥākim, for he makes many errors and has apparent lapses, and many of those who came after him were heedless of that and imitated him in that. End quote.

وقال العيني في «البناية»: «قد عرف تساهله وتصحيحه للأحاديث الضعيفة، بل الموضوعة». ا. هـ.

And al-‘Aynī said in al-Bināya: ‘His laxity and his authentication of weak ḥadīths, nay fabricated ones, has become known.’ End quote.”

ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī (d. 581 AH)

ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī (d. 581 AH) said in al-Aḥkām al-Wusṭa (1/66):

وإذا ذكرت الحديث لمسلم أو لسواه، ثم أقول: زاد البخاري كذا وكذا، أو زاد فلان كذا وكذا، أو قال كذا وكذا ولم أذكر الصاحب ولا النبي ﷺ، فإنه عن ذلك الصاحب عن النبي ﷺ، وإن كانت الزيادة عن صاحب آخر، ذكرت الصاحب وذكرت النبي ﷺ، وربما ذكرت الزيادة، وقلت: خرجها من حديث فلان، ولم أذكر النبي ، ولكنها عن النبي ﷺ، وإن كان حديثًا كاملًا ذكرت الصاحب، وذكرت النبي ، وإن كانت الزيادة أو الحديث الكامل بإسناد معتل ذكرت علته، ونبهت عليها، بحسب ما اتفق من التطويل أو الاختصار، وإن لم تكن فيه علة كان سكوتي عنه دليلًا على صحته.

When I mention the hadith for Muslim or for another, then I say: al-Bukhārī added such and such, or so-and-so added such and such, or he said such and such and I do not mention the Companion nor the Prophet ﷺ, then it is from that Companion from the Prophet ﷺ. If the addition is from another Companion, I mention the Companion and mention the Prophet ﷺ. Sometimes I mention the addition and say: he narrated it from the hadith of so-and-so, and I do not mention the Prophet ﷺ, but it is from the Prophet ﷺ. If it is a complete hadith, I mention the Companion and mention the Prophet. If the addition or the complete hadith has a defective chain of transmission, I mention its defect and alert to it, according to what happens to occur of lengthening or shortening. If there is no defect in it, then my silence regarding it is evidence of its authenticity [ṣiḥḥa].

Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Kattānī (d. 1345 AH) mentioned in his al-Risāla al-Mustaṭrafa li-Bayān Mashhūr Kutub al-Sunna al-Musharrafa (pp. 179-180):

وجلالة عبد الحق لا تخفى فقد اعتمده ألفاظ في التعديل والتجريح ومدحوه بذلك كالحافظ ابن حجر وغيره، وأما الفقهاء: كابن عرفة وخليل وابن مرزوق وابن هلال وغيرهم فاعتمدوه من غير نزاع بينهم بل اعتمدوا سكوته عن الحديث لأنه لا يسكت إلا على الصحيح والحسن كعادة ابن حجر في فتح الباري فإنه لا يسكت إلا على ذلك كما نص عليه في مقدمته ولعبد الحق أيضا الأحكام الوسطى في مجلدين، قال في شفاء السقام وهي المشهورة اليوم بالكبرى ذكر في خطبتها: أن سكوته عن الحديث دليل على صحته في ما نعلم والأحكام الصغرى في لوازم الشرع وأحكامه وحلاله وحرامه في ضروب من الترغيب والترهيب وذكر الثواب والعقاب أخرجها من كتب الأئمة وهداة الأمة الموطأ والستة وفيها أحاديث من كتب أخرى، ذكر في خطبتها: أنه تخيرها صحيحة الإسناد معروفة عند النقاد قد نقلها الأثبات وتناولها الثقات في مجلد وعليها شرح لشارح العمدة والشفاء والبردة ومختصر ابن الحاجب الفرعي ومحلات من مختصر الشيخ خليل لأبي عبد الله محمد بن أحمد بن محمد بن محمد بن أبي بكر بن مرزوق التلمساني عرف: بالخطيب المتوفى: بمصر سنة إحدى وثمانين وسبعمائة ودفن بين ابن القاسم وأشهب، قاله الذهبي نقلا عن ابن الأبار: ولعبد الحق في الجمع بين الصحيحين مصنف، وله مصنف كبير جمع فيه بين الكتب الستة وله كتاب المعتل من الحديث وكتاب في الرقائق ومصنفات أخرى اهـ.

“The eminence of ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq is not hidden for authorities in authentication [ta’dīl] and disparagement [tajrīḥ] have relied upon him and praised him for that like the Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar and others. As for the jurists [fuqahā’]: like Ibn ‘Arafah and Khalīl and Ibn Marzūq and Ibn Hilāl and others they relied upon him without dispute amongst them. Rather they relied upon his silence about ḥadīth because he only remains silent upon the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] and good [ḥasan] like the custom of Ibn Ḥajar in Fatḥ al-Bārī for he only remains silent upon that as he stated explicitly in his introduction. ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq also has al-Aḥkām al-Wusṭā in two volumes. He said in Shifā’ al-Siqām—which is the one famous today as al-Kubrā—he mentioned in its preface: that his silence about ḥadīth is evidence of its authenticity as far as we know. And al-Aḥkām al-Ṣughrā concerning the requirements of the law [shar’] and its rulings and its lawful and unlawful matters in various forms of encouragement [targhīb] and warning [tarhīb] and mention of reward [thawāb] and punishment [‘iqāb]. He extracted them from the books of the Imams and guides of the community: al-Muwaṭṭa’ and the Six and in them are ḥadīths from other books. He mentioned in its preface: that he selected them as authentic in chain [ṣaḥīḥat al-isnād] well-known amongst the critics [nuqqād] transmitted by the reliable ones [athbāt] and taken up by the trustworthy ones [thiqāt] in one volume. Upon it is a commentary by the commentator of al-‘Umdah and al-Shifā’ and al-Burdah and Mukhtaṣar Ibn al-Ḥājib al-Far’ī and passages from Mukhtaṣar al-Shaykh Khalīl by Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Marzūq al-Tilimsānī known as al-Khaṭīb who died in Egypt in the year seven hundred and eighty-one and was buried between Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab as al-Dhahabī said transmitting from Ibn al-Abbār. ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq has a compilation on combining the two authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] collections and he has a large compilation in which he combined the Six Books and he has a book on the defective from ḥadīth and a book on devotional matters [raqā’iq] and other compilations. End quote.”

Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī (d. 620 AH)

Muwaffaq al-Dīn Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī al-Ḥanbalī (d. 620 AH) said in his ʿUmdat al-Fiqh (p. 1):

فهذا كتاب في الفقه اختصرته حسب الإمكان، واقتصرت فيه على قول واحد، ليكون عمدة لقارئه، فلا يلتبس الصواب عليه باختلاف الوجوه والروايات . سألني بعض إخواني تلخيصه ليقرب على المتعلمين، ويسهل حفظه على الطالبين، فأجبته إلى ذلك، معتمدًا على الله سبحانه في إخلاص القصد لوجهه الكريم، والمعونة على الوصول إلى رضوانه العظيم وهو حسبنا ونعم الوكيل . وأودعته أحاديث صحيحة تبركا بها، واعتمادًا عليها، وجعلتها من الصحاح الأستغني عن نسبتها إليها

“This is a book on jurisprudence which I have abridged as much as possible, and I have confined myself in it to one opinion, so that it may be a pillar for its reader, and the correct position may not be confused for him due to differences of views and narrations. Some of my brothers asked me to summarise it so that it might be brought closer to the students and its memorisation made easier for the seekers, so I responded to that request, relying upon Allah the Glorified in making my intention sincere for His noble countenance, and seeking assistance in attaining His great pleasure, and He is sufficient for us and excellent is the Trustee. I have deposited in it authentic [ṣaḥīḥa] hadiths seeking blessing through them and relying upon them, and I have made them from the authentic collections [ṣiḥāḥ] such that I dispense with attributing them to their sources.”

Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī (d. 643 AH)

Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Maqdisī (d. 643 AH) mentioned in the introduction of his al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtāra (1/69-70):

هذه أحاديث اخترتها مما ليس في البخاري ومسلم، إلا أنني ربما ذكرت بعض ما أورده البخاري تعليقاً، وربما ذكرنا أحاديث بأسانيد جياد لها علة، فنذكر بيان علتها حتى يعرف ذلك

“These are hadiths I have selected from what is not in al-Bukhārī and Muslim, except that I may have mentioned some of what al-Bukhārī included as a suspended narration [taʿlīqan], and we may have mentioned hadiths with good chains of transmission [asānīd jiyād] that have a defect [ʿilla], so we mention the clarification of their defect so that this may be known.”

The scholarly verdicts on his al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtāra:

1. Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) said in his Tārīkh al-Islam (14/474):

ذكر تصانيف الضياء: كتاب الأحكام يعوز قليلًا في ثلاث مجلدات، فضائل الأعمال في مجلد، الأحاديث المختارة خرج منها تسعين جزءًا، وهي الأحاديث التي تصلح أن يحتج بها سوى ما في الصحيحين، خرجها من مسموعاته. كتاب فضائل الشام ثلاثة أجزاء، كتاب فضائل القرآن جزء، كتاب الجنة، كتاب النار، كتاب مناقب أصحاب الحديث، كتاب النهي عن سب الأصحاب، كتاب سير المقادسة كالحافظ عبد الغني، والشيخ الموفق، والشيخ أبي عمر، وغيرهم في عدة أجزاء. وله تصانيف كثيرة في أجزاء عديدة لا يحضرني ذكرها. وله مجاميع ومنتخبات كثيرة. وله كتاب الموافقات في نيف وخمسين جزءًا.

“Mention of Ḍiyā’s works: Kitāb al-Aḥkām [The Book of Legal Judgements], which is somewhat deficient, in three volumes; Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl [Virtues of Good Deeds] in one volume; al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtāra [the Selected Aḥādīth] from which he extracted ninety parts, and these are the aḥādīth which are suitable to be used as evidence apart from what is in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, which he extracted from his auditions. Kitāb Faḍā’il al-Shām [The Book of the Virtues of Syria] in three parts, Kitāb Faḍā’il al-Qur’ān [The Book of the Virtues of the Qur’ān] in one part, Kitāb al-Janna [The Book of Paradise], Kitāb al-Nār [The Book of Hell], Kitāb Manāqib Aṣḥāb al-Ḥadīth [The Book of the Virtues of the Companions of Ḥadīth], Kitāb al-Nahy ʿan Sabb al-Aṣḥāb [The Book of the Prohibition Against Reviling the Companions], Kitāb Siyar al-Maqādisa [The Book of the Lives of the Maqdisīs] such as the Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī, and Shaykh al-Muwaffaq, and Shaykh Abū ʿUmar, and others in several parts. He has many works in numerous parts which I cannot recall mentioning. He has many collections and selections. And he has Kitāb al-Muwāfaqāt [The Book of Concordances] in over fifty parts.”

• Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) said in his Majmu al-Fatawa (22/426):

وَقَدْ اتَّفَقَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ فِي الصَّحِيحِ عَلَى خِلَافِهِ وَمَنْ لَهُ أَدْنَى خِبْرَةٍ فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَأَهْلِهِ لَا يُعَارَضُ بِتَوْثِيقِ الْحَاكِمِ مَا قَدْ ثَبَتَ فِي الصَّحِيحِ خِلَافُهُ؛ فَإِنَّ أَهْلَ الْعِلْمِ مُتَّفِقُونَ عَلَى أَنَّ الْحَاكِمَ فِيهِ مِنْ التَّسَاهُلِ وَالتَّسَامُحِ فِي (بَابِ التَّصْحِيحِ حَتَّى إنَّ تَصْحِيحَهُ دُونَ تَصْحِيحِ التِّرْمِذِيِّ وَالدَّارَقُطْنِي وَأَمْثَالِهِمَا بِلَا نِزَاعٍ فَكَيْفَ بِتَصْحِيحِ الْبُخَارِيِّ وَمُسْلِمٍ. بَلْ تَصْحِيحُهُ دُونَ تَصْحِيحِ أَبِي بَكْرِ ابْنِ خُزَيْمَة وَأَبِي حَاتِمِ بْنِ حِبَّانَ البستي وَأَمْثَالِهِمَا بَلْ تَصْحِيحُ الْحَافِظِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَاحِدِ المقدسي فِي مُخْتَارِهِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ تَصْحِيحِ الْحَاكِمِ فَكِتَابُهُ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ كِتَابِ الْحَاكِمِ بِلَا رَيْبٍ عِنْدَ مَنْ يَعْرِفُ الْحَدِيثَ وَتَحْسِينُ التِّرْمِذِيِّ أَحْيَانًا يَكُونُ مِثْلَ تَصْحِيحِهِ أَوْ أَرْجَحَ وَكَثِيرًا مَا يُصَحِّحُ الْحَاكِمُ أَحَادِيثَ يَجْزِمُ بِأَنَّهَا مَوْضُوعَةٌ لَا أَصْلَ لَهَا فَهَذَا هَذَا

“The people of knowledge in the Ṣaḥīḥ have agreed on the contrary of this, and one who has the slightest experience in ḥadīth and its people does not oppose with al-Ḥākim’s authentication what has been established in the Ṣaḥīḥ to the contrary; for the people of knowledge are agreed that al-Ḥākim has laxity and leniency in the chapter of authentication to such an extent that his authentication is below the authentication of al-Tirmidhī and al-Dāraquṭnī and their likes without dispute—so how about the authentication of al-Bukhārī and Muslim? Rather, his authentication is below the authentication of Abū Bakr Ibn Khuzayma and Abū Ḥātim Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī and their likes. Rather, the authentication of al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAbd Allah Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Maqdisī in his Mukhtār [Selected Work] is better than al-Ḥākim’s authentication, so his book in this chapter is better than al-Ḥākim’s book without doubt for one who knows ḥadīth. Al-Tirmidhī’s grading as ḥasan [good] sometimes is like his authentication or more sound. Al-Ḥākim often authenticates aḥādīth which one can decisively say are fabricated and have no basis. So, this is that.”

• Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 AH) mentioned in al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya (17/285):

الْحَافِظُ ضِيَاءُ الدِّينِ الْمَقْدِسِيُّ، صَاحِبُ» الْأَحْكَامِ “، مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَاحِدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الْمَقْدِسِيُّ، سَمِعَ الْحَدِيثَ الْكَثِيرَ، وَكَتَبَ كَثِيرًا، وَرَحَلَ وَطَافَ وَجَمَعَ وَصَنَّفَ وَأَلَّفَ كُتُبًا مُفِيدَةً حَسَنَةً كَثِيرَةَ الْفَوَائِدِ، مِنْ ذَلِكَ كِتَابُ «الْأَحْكَامِ» وَلَمْ يُتِمَّهُ، وَكِتَابُ «الْمُخْتَارَةِ» وَفِيهِ عُلُومٌ حَسَنَةٌ حَدِيثِيَّةٌ، وَهِيَ أَجْوَدُ مِنْ «مُسْتَدْرَكِ الْحَاكِمِ» لَوْ كَمَلَ، وَلَهُ «فَضَائِلُ الْأَعْمَالِ»، وَغَيْرُ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْكُتُبِ الْحَسَنَةِ الدَّالَّةِ عَلَى حِفْظِهِ وَاطِّلَاعِهِ وَتَضَلُّعِهِ مِنْ عِلْمِ الْحَدِيثِ مَتْنًا وَإِسْنَادًا.

“The memoriser [Ḥāfiẓ] Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī, author of al-Aḥkām, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Maqdisī. He heard many aḥādīth and wrote extensively, travelled and journeyed, collected and classified and authored beneficial, excellent books with many benefits. From these is the book al-Aḥkām which he did not complete, and the book al-Mukhtāra [the Selected] which contains excellent ḥadīth sciences, and it is better than Mustadrak al-Ḥākim if it had been completed. He has Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl [Virtues of Good Deeds] and other excellent books that demonstrate his memorisation, his extensive knowledge, and his deep expertise in the science of ḥadīth, both in text and chains of transmission.”

d) Burhān al-Dīn Abū Isḥāq al-Abnāsī (d. 802 AH) said in his al-Shadhā al-Fayyāḥ min ʿUlūm Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (1/81):

ممن صحح من المعاصرين له أيضا الحافظ ضياء الدين محمد بن عبد الواحد المقدسي فجمع كتابا سماه المختارة التزم فيه الصحة فصحح فيه أحاديث لم سيبق إلى تصحيحها وتوفي في السنة التي مات فيها المصنف سنة ثلاث وأربعين وستمائة.قال الحافظ ابن كثير: «وهذا الكتاب إعني المختارة لم يتم وكان بعض الحفاظ من مشايخنا يرجحه على مستدرك الحاكم».

“Amongst those who authenticated from his contemporaries was also the Ḥāfiẓ Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Maqdisī, who compiled a book which he named al-Mukhtāra [the Selected], in which he committed himself to authenticity, so he authenticated in it aḥādīth to whose authentication no one had preceded him. He died in the year in which the author [also] died, the year six hundred and forty-three. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said: “And this book—I mean al-Mukhtāra—was not completed, and some of the memorisers from our Shaykhs would prefer it over Mustadrak al-Ḥākim [the Supplement of al-Ḥākim].”

e) Abū al-Faḍl Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī (d. 806 AH) said in his al-Taqyīd wa-l-Īḍāḥ Sharḥ Muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (1/24):

وممن صحح أيضا من المعاصرين له الحافظ ضياء الدين محمد بن عبد الواحد المقدسى جمع كتابا سماه المختارة التزم فيه الصحة وذكر فيه أحاديث لم يسبق إلى تصحيحها فيما أعلم وتوفي الضياء المقدسى في السنة التي مات فيها ابن الصلاح سنة ثلاث وأربعين وستمائة

“And amongst those who authenticated also from his contemporaries was al-Ḥāfiẓ Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Maqdisī who compiled a book which he named al-Mukhtāra [the Selected], in which he committed himself to authenticity and mentioned in it aḥādīth to whose authentication no one had preceded, as far as I know. Al-Ḍiyā’ al-Maqdisī died in the year in which Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ died, the year six hundred and forty-three.”

• Burhanud-Din Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (d. 884 AH) said in his al-Maqsad al-Arshad (2/451):

وَله تصانيف كَثِيرَة مِنْهَا الْأَحَادِيث المختارة وَهِي الْأَحَادِيث الَّتِي تصلح أَن يحْتَج بهَا سوى مَا فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ خرجها من مسموعاته قَالَ بَعضهم هُوَ خير من صَحِيح الْحَاكِم

“And he has many works, amongst them al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtāra [the Selected Aḥādīth] and these are the aḥādīth which are suitable to be used as evidence apart from what is in the two Ṣaḥīḥs; he extracted them from his auditions. Some said it is better than Ṣaḥīḥ al-Ḥākim.”

• Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Kattānī (d. 1345 AH) mentioned in his al-Risāla al-Mustaṭrafa li-Bayān Mashhūr Kutub al-Sunna al-Musharrafa (1/24):

وكتاب الأحاديث الجياد المختارة مما ليس في الصحيحين أو أحدهما لضياء الدين أبي عبد الله محمد بن عبد الواحد أحمد عبد الرحمن السعدي المقدسي ثم الدمشقي الصالحي الحنبلي الحافظ الثقة الجبل الزاهد الورع المتوفى: سنة ثلاث وأربعين وستمائة وهو مرتب على المسانيد على حروف المعجم لا على الأبواب في ستة وثمانين جزءا ولم يكمل التزم فيه الصحة وذكر فيه أحاديث لم يسبق إلى تصحيحها وقد سلم له فيه إلا أحاديث يسيره جدا تعقبت عليه وذكر ابن تيمية والزركشي وغيرهما: أن تصحيحه أعلا مزية من تصحيح الحاكم وفي اللئالي ذكر الزركشي في تخريج الرافعي: أن تصحيحه أعلا مزية من تصحيح الحاكم وأنه قريب من تصحيح الترمذي وابن حبان اهـ، وذكر ابن عبد الهادي في الصارم المنكي نحوه وزاد: فإن الغلط فيه قليل ليس هو مثل صحيح الحاكم فإن فيه أحاديث كثيرة يظهر أنها كذب موضوعة فلهذا انحطت درجته عن درجة غيره اهـ.

“And the book of Excellent Selected Aḥādīth [al-Aḥādīth al-Jiyād al-Mukhtāra] from what is not in the two Ṣaḥīḥs or one of them by Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allah Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī al-Maqdisī then al-Dimashqī al-Ṣāliḥī al-Ḥanbalī, the memoriser [Ḥāfiẓ], the trustworthy, the mountain, the ascetic, the scrupulous, who died in the year six hundred and forty-three. It is arranged according to the chains of transmission [masānīd] according to the letters of the alphabet, not according to chapters, in eighty-six parts, and was not completed. He committed himself in it to authenticity and mentioned in it aḥādīth to whose authentication no one had preceded. It has been accepted from him in it except for very few aḥādīth which were criticised. Ibn Taymiyya and al-Zarkashī and others mentioned that his authentication has a higher merit than al-Ḥākim’s authentication. In al-La’ālī [the Pearls], al-Zarkashī mentioned in the Takhrīj al-Rāfiʿī [Authentication of al-Rāfiʿī] that his authentication has a higher merit than al-Ḥākim’s authentication and that it is close to the authentication of al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Ḥibbān. Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī mentioned in al-Ṣārim al-Munkī [the Vengeful Sword] something similar and added: for the error in it is little—it is not like Ṣaḥīḥ al-Ḥākim, for in it are many aḥādīth which appear to be lies and fabrications, so for this reason its rank fell below the rank of others. End of quote”

Abd al-ʿAẓīm al-Mundhirī (d. 656 AH)

Abd al-ʿAẓīm al-Mundhirī (d. 656 AH) said in his al-Targhīb wa’l-Tarhīb (1/36-37):

وأما دقائق العلل فلا مطمع في شيء منها لغير الجهابذة من النقاد أئمة هذا الشأن، وقد أضربت عن ذكر من تقدّم من العلماء رضي الله عنهم أساغوا التساهل في أنواع من الترغيب والترهيب، حتى إن كثيرًا ذكروا الموضوع ولم يبينوا حاله، وقد أشبعنا الكلام على حال كثير من الأحاديث الواردة في هذا الكتاب وفي غيره من كتبنا، فإذا كان إسناد الحديث صحيحا أو حسنا أو ما قاربهما صدّرته بلفظة: عن، وكذلك إن كان مرسلا أو منقطعا أو معضلا

“As for the subtleties of hidden defects [ʿilal], there is no hope in attaining anything of them except for the eminent ones amongst the critics who are Imāms of this discipline. I have refrained from mentioning those earlier scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, who permitted leniency in types of encouragement [targhīb] and warning [tarhīb], to the extent that many of them mentioned fabricated [ḥadīths] without clarifying their status. We have discussed extensively the status of many ḥadīths mentioned in this book and in others of our books. When the chain of transmission [isnād] of a ḥadīth is authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] or good [ḥasan] or close to these two categories, I preface it with the word ‘from’ [ʿan]. Likewise, if it is mursal (loose chained) or disconnected [munqaṭiʿ] or problematic [muʿḍal]

أو في إسناده راوٍ مبهم أو ضعيف وثق أوثقه ضعف وبقية رواة الإسناد ثقات أوفيهم كلام لا يضرّ، أو حسّنه بعض من خرّجه، أصدّره أيضا بلفظه: عن، ثم أشير إلى إرساله وانقطاعه أو عضله أو ذلك الراوى المختلف فيه، فأقول رواه فلان في رواية فلان أو من طريق فلان أو في إِسناده فلان أو نحو هذه العبارة ولا أذكر ما قيل فيه من جرح وتعديل خوفا من تكرار ما قيل فيه كلما ذكر وأفردت لهؤلاء، المختلف فيهم بابا في آخر الكتاب، أذكرهم فيه مرتبا على حروف المعجم، وأذكر ما قيل في كل منهم من جرح وتعديل على سبيل الاختصار، وقد لا أذكر ذلك الراوىَ المختلف فيه، فأقول إذا كان رواة إسناد الحديث ثقات وفيهم من اختلف فيه: إسناده حسن أو مستقيم أو لا بأس به ونحو ذلك حسبما يقتضيه حال الإسناد والمتن وكثرة الشواهد، وإذا كان في الإسناد من قيل فيه كذاب أو وضاع أو متهم أو مجمع على تركه أو ضعفه أو ذاهب الحديث أو هالك أو ساقط أو ليس بشئ أو ضعيف جدّا أو ضعيف فقط أو لم أر فيه توثيقا بحيث لا يتطرق إليه احتمال التحسين صدّرته بلفظة: روى، ولا أذكر ذلك الراوى ولا ما قيل فيه ألبتة فيكون للإسناد الضعيف دلالتان: تصديره بلفظة: روى، وإهمال الكلام عليه في آخره، وقد استوعبت جميع ما كان من هذا النوع في كتاب.

Or if there is in its chain of transmission a narrator who is unknown [mubham] or weak [ḍaʿīf] who has been authenticated or whose weakness has been authenticated, whilst the rest of the narrators in the chain are trustworthy [thiqāt], or there is discussion about them that does not harm [the ḥadīth], or some of those who have transmitted it have considered it good [ḥasan], I also preface it with the word ‘from’ [ʿan].

Then I point to its being mursal (loose chained) or disconnected [munqaṭiʿ] or problematic [muʿḍal], or to that narrator who is disputed. So, I say: ‘So-and-so narrated it in the narration of so-and-so’ or ‘through the route of so-and-so’ or ‘in its chain is so-and-so’ or similar expressions. I do not mention what has been said about him regarding criticism [jarḥ] and authentication [taʿdīl] for fear of repeating what has been said about him whenever he is mentioned. I have devoted a separate chapter at the end of the book for those who are disputed, mentioning them arranged according to the letters of the alphabet, and I mention what has been said about each of them regarding criticism and authentication in a summarised manner.

Sometimes I do not mention that disputed narrator, so I say when the narrators of the ḥadīth’s chain are trustworthy and amongst them is one who is disputed: ‘Its chain is good [ḥasan]’ or ‘sound [mustaqīm]’ or ‘there is nothing wrong with it’ and similar expressions, according to what is required by the condition of the chain and text [matn] and the abundance of supporting evidence [shawāhid]. When there is in the chain someone who has been called a liar [kadhdhāb] or fabricator [waḍḍāʿ] or accused [muttaham] or unanimously agreed upon to be abandoned or weak, or one whose ḥadīth has gone [dhāhib al-ḥadīth] or is ruined [hālik] or fallen [sāqiṭ] or is nothing [laysa bi-shayʾ] or very weak [ḍaʿīf jiddan] or merely weak [ḍaʿīf] or I have not seen any authentication of him such that the possibility of considering it good [taḥsīn] cannot reach it, I preface it with the word “narrated” [rawā]. I do not mention that narrator or what has been said about him at all. So, the weak chain has two indicators: prefacing it with the word “narrated” [rawā], and neglecting to comment on it at its end. I have comprehensively covered all that was of this type in the book.

بيان رواة الحديث الذى نقل المؤلف عنهم

Statement of the ḥadīth narrators whom the author transmitted from:

موطأ مالك (١). وكتاب مسند الامام أحمد (٢). وكتاب صحيح البخاري (٣). وكتاب صحيح مسلم (٤). وكتاب سنن أبى داود. وكتاب المراسيل له (٥). وكتاب جامع أبى عيسى الترمذي (٦). وكتاب سنن النسائي الكبرى وكتاب اليوم والليلة له (٧). وكتاب سنن ابن ماجه (٨). وكتاب المعجم الكبير، وكتاب المعجم الأوسط، وكتاب المعجم الصغير، الثلاثة للطبراني (٩). وكتاب مسند أبى يعلى الموصلى (١٠). وكتاب مسند أبى بكر البزار (١١). وكتاب صحيح ابن حبان (١٢). وكتاب المستدرك على الصحيحين للحاكم أبى عبد الله النيسابوري (١٣) رضي الله عنهم أجمعين ولم أترك شيئا من هذا النوع في الأصول السبعة، وصحيح ابن حبان ومستدرك الحاكم إلا ما غلب علىّ فيه ذهول حال الإملاء أو نسيان أو أكون قد ذكرت فيه ما يغنى عنه، وقد يكون للحديث دلالتان فأكثر فأذكره في باب ثم لا أعيده فيتوهم الناظر أنى تركته، وقد يرد الحديث عن جماعة من الصحابة بلفظ واحد وبألفاظ متقاربة فأكتفى بواحد منها عن سائرها، وكذلك لا أترك شيئا من هذا النوع من المسانيد والمعاجيم إلا ما غلب علىّ فيه ذهول أو نسيان أو يكون ما ذكرت أصلح إسنادا مما تركت أو يكون ظاهر النكارة جدّا. وقد أجمع على وضعه أو بطلانه. وأضفت إلى ذلك

The Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik (1). The book Musnad of Imām Aḥmad (2). The book Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (3). The book Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (4). The book Sunan Abī Dāwūd and his book al-Marāsīl (5). The book Jāmiʿ of Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī (6). The book Sunan al-Nasāʾī al-Kubrā and his book al-Yawm wa’l-Layla (7). The book Sunan Ibn Mājah (8). The book al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, the book al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ, and the book al-Muʿjam al-Ṣaghīr, the three by al-Ṭabarānī (9). The book Musnad Abī Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī (10). The book Musnad Abī Bakr al-Bazzār (11). The book Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān (12). The book al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn by al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Naysābūrī (13), may Allah be pleased with them all. I have not left anything of this type in the seven foundational works [al-uṣūl al-sabʿa], Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān and Mustadrak al-Ḥākim, except what overcame me due to absent-mindedness during dictation or forgetfulness, or where I had mentioned something that suffices for it. A ḥadīth may have two or more implications, so I mention it in one chapter and then do not repeat it, leading the reader to think that I have omitted it. A ḥadīth may be reported from a group of Companions with one wording or with similar wordings, so I suffice with one of them instead of all the others. Likewise, I do not leave anything of this type from the musnads and dictionaries except what overcame me due to absent-mindedness or forgetfulness, or where what I mentioned has a sounder chain than what I left, or where it is clearly very objectionable and there is consensus on its fabrication or invalidity. I have added to that

جملا من الأحاديث معزوّة إلى أصولها كصحيح ابن خزيمة (١٤). وكتب ابن أبى الدنيا (١٥). وشعب الإيمان للبيهقى. وكتاب الزهد الكبير له (١٦). وكتاب الترغيب والترهيب لأبى القاسم الأصبهاني (١٧).

A collection of ḥadīths attributed to their sources such as Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzayma (14), the books of Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (15), Shuʿab al-Īmān by al-Bayhaqī and his book al-Zuhd al-Kabīr (16), and the book al-Targhīb wa’l-Tarhīb by Abū al-Qāsim al-Iṣbahānī (17).

وغير ذلك كما ستقف عليه إن شاء الله تعالى، واستوعبت جميع ما في كتاب أبى القاسم الأصبهاني مما لم يكن في الكتب المذكورة وهو قليل، وأضربت عن ذكر ما قيل فيه من الأحاديث المتحققة الوضع، وإذا كان الحديث في الأصول السبعة لم أعزه إلى غيرها من المسانيد والمعاجيم إلا نادرًا بفائدة طلبا للاختصار، وقد أعزوه إلى صحيح ابن حبان ومسند الحاكم إن لم يكن متنه في الصحيحين، وأنبه على كثير مما حضرني حال الإملاء مما تساهل أبو داود رحمه الله تعالى في السكوت عن تضعيفه أو الترمذي في تحسينه أو ابن حبان والحاكم في تصحيحه، لاانتقادًا عليهم رضى الله عنهم بل مقياسا لمتبصر في نظائرها من هذا الكتاب، وكل حديث عزوته إلى أبى داود وسكت عنه فهو كما ذكر أبو داود (١) ولا ينزل عن درجة الحسن، وقد يكون على شرط الصحيحين أو أحدهما. وأنا أستمدّ العون على ما ذكرت من القوىّ المتين، وأمدّ أكف الضراعة إلى من يجيب دعوة المضطرّين، أن ينفع به كاتبه وقارئه ومستمعه وجميع المسلمين وأن يرزقنى فيه من الإخلاص، ما يكون كفيلا لى في الآخرة بالخلاص. ومن التوفيق ما يدلنى على أرشد طريق، وأرجو منه الإعانة على حزن الامر وسهله، وأتوكل عليه، وأعتصم بحبله، وهو حسبى ونعم الوكيل

And other [sources] as you will come to know, Allah willing. I have comprehensively covered all that is in the book of Abū al-Qāsim al-Iṣbahānī that was not in the mentioned books, and that is little. I have refrained from mentioning what has been said about the definitely fabricated ḥadīths. When the ḥadīth is in the seven foundational works, I do not attribute it to others from the musnads and dictionaries except rarely for a benefit, seeking brevity. I may attribute it to Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān and Musnad al-Ḥākim if its text is not in the two Ṣaḥīḥs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim]. I draw attention to much of what occurred to me during dictation regarding what Abū Dāwūd, may Allah have mercy on him, was lenient in by remaining silent about weakening, or al-Tirmidhī in considering good [taḥsīn], or Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim in authenticating [taṣḥīḥ]—not as criticism of them, may Allah be pleased with them, but as a standard for one who reflects on their like in this book.

Every ḥadīth I have attributed to Abū Dāwūd and remained silent about is as Abū Dāwūd mentioned, and it does not fall below the level of good [ḥasan], and it may be according to the conditions of the two Ṣaḥīḥs or one of them. I seek help for what I have mentioned from the Strong, the Firm, and I extend hands of supplication to Him who answers the call of the distressed, that He may benefit through it its writer, its reader, its listener, and all Muslims, and that He may grant me in it such sincerity [ikhlāṣ] as will be a guarantor for me in the Hereafter for salvation. And [I seek] such divine guidance [tawfīq] as will guide me to the most rightly-guided path. I hope from Him assistance in the difficult and easy aspects of the matter. I place my trust in Him and hold fast to His rope, and He is sufficient for me and the best Disposer of affairs.”

Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH)

Muḥyī al-Dīn Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH) saidin his Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn (1/28):

فَرَأَيتُ أَنْ أَجْمَعَ مُخْتَصَرًا منَ الأحاديثِ الصَّحيحَةِ، مشْتَمِلًا عَلَى مَا يكُونُ طريقًا لِصَاحبهِ إِلى الآخِرَةِ، ومُحَصِّلًا لآدَابِهِ البَاطِنَةِ وَالظَّاهِرَةِ، جَامِعًا للترغيب والترهيب وسائر أنواع آداب السالكين: من أحاديث الزهد، ورياضات النُّفُوسِ، وتَهْذِيبِ الأَخْلاقِ، وطَهَارَاتِ القُلوبِ وَعِلاجِهَا، وصِيانَةِ الجَوَارحِ وَإِزَالَةِ اعْوِجَاجِهَا، وغَيرِ ذلِكَ مِنْ مَقَاصِدِ الْعارفِينَ.وَألتَزِمُ فيهِ أَنْ لا أَذْكُرَ إلاّ حَدِيثًا صَحِيحًا مِنَ الْوَاضِحَاتِ، مُضَافًا إِلى الْكُتُبِ الصَّحِيحَةِ الْمَشْهُوراتِ، وأُصَدِّر الأَبْوَابَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ الْعَزِيزِ بِآياتٍ كَرِيماتٍ، وَأَوشِّحَ مَا يَحْتَاجُ إِلى ضَبْطٍ أَوْ شَرْحِ مَعْنىً خَفِيٍّ بِنَفَائِسَ مِنَ التَّنْبِيهاتِ. وإِذا قُلْتُ في آخِرِ حَدِيث: مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيهِ، فمعناه: رواه البخاريُّ ومسلمٌ.

“I decided to compile an abridgement from the authentic hadiths [aḥādīth ṣaḥīḥa], containing what would be a path for its possessor to the Hereafter, and achieving his inner and outer manners, encompassing encouragement and warning and various types of manners for the wayfarers: from hadiths of asceticism [zuhd], spiritual exercises of the souls, refinement of character, purifications of the hearts and their treatment, protection of the limbs and removal of their crookedness, and other things from the objectives of the gnostics. I commit in it to mentioning only authentic hadiths [ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ] from the clear ones, attributed to the authentic [ṣaḥīḥa] and well-known books, and I shall begin the chapters from the Noble Qur’ān with noble verses, and I shall adorn what needs verification or explanation of a hidden meaning with precious alerts. When I say at the end of a hadith: “Agreed upon [muttafaq ʿalayh],” its meaning is: narrated by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.”

Al-Nawawī also mentioned the following in his Kitāb al-Adhkār (1/29):

وأما الأجزاء والمسانيد، فلستُ أنقل منها شيئًا إلا في نادر من المواطن، ولا أذكرُ من الأصول المشهورة أيضًا من الضعيف إلا النادر مع بيان ضعفه، وإنما أذكر فيه الصحيح غالبًا، فلهذا أرجو أن يكون هذا الكتابُ أصلًا معتمدًا.

“As for the parts [ajzāʾ] and the musnad collections [masānīd], I do not transmit from them anything except in rare instances from amongst the places, and I do not mention from the well-known sources either anything from the weak [ḍaʿīf] except the rare instances with clarification of its weakness, and I only mention in it the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] predominantly. For this reason, I hope that this book will be a reliable foundational source [aṣlan muʿtamadan].”

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) said in his Fatḥ al-Bārī (1/4):

افتتحت شرح الْكتاب مستعينا بالفتاح الْوَهَّاب فأسوق إِن شَاءَ الله الْبَاب وَحَدِيثه أَولا ثمَّ أذكر وَجه الْمُنَاسبَة بَينهمَا أَن كَانَت خُفْيَة ثمَّ أستخرج ثَانِيًا مَا يتَعَلَّق بِهِ غَرَض صَحِيح فِي ذَلِك الحَدِيث من الْفَوَائِد المتنية والاسنادية من تتمات وزيادات وكشف غامض وتصريح مُدَلّس بِسَمَاع ومتابعة سامع من شيخ اخْتَلَط قبل ذَلِك منتزعا كل ذَلِك من أُمَّهَات المسانيد والجوامع والمستخرجات والأجزاء والفوائد بِشَرْط الصِّحَّة أَو الْحسن فِيمَا أوردهُ من ذَلِك

“I have begun the commentary of the book seeking assistance from the Opener, the Bestower. I shall present, Allah willing, the chapter and its hadith first, then I shall mention the aspect of appropriateness between them if it was hidden, then I shall extract secondly what relates to it of sound purpose in that hadith from the textual and chain-related [isnādiyya] benefits, consisting of completions and additions, uncovering of obscure matters, clarification of a concealer [mudallis] through hearing, and following of one who heard from a teacher who became confused before that, extracting all of that from the principal collections of musnad works, comprehensive collections [jawāmiʿ], extracted works [mustakhrajāt], parts [ajzāʾ] and benefits [fawāʾid], with the condition of authenticity [ṣiḥḥa] or good  [ḥasan] in what I cite from that.”

This means that when al-Ḥāfiẓ ibn Hajar includes a ḥadīth in Fatḥ al-Bārī  and remains silent about it, not following it with [a statement of] weakness, his condition in that is authenticity [ṣiḥḥa] or it is a good [ḥasan] narration.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī set out the following methodology for accepting narrations in his Hidāyat al-Ruwā ilā Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Maṣābīḥ wa-l-Mishkāt (1/58):

ثُمَّ وَقَفْتُ عَلَى “شَرْح المِشْكَاةِ” لِلإمَامِ شَرَفِ الدِّينِ الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الله بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الطِّيْبيِّ، فَوَجَدْتُهُ حَذَفَ العَزْوَ أَصْلًا! وَكِتَابُهُ أَحْسَنُ مَا وُضِعَ عَلَى “المَصَابِيحِ”؛ لِذَكَائِهِ وَتَبَحُّرِهِ فِي العُلُومِ، وَتَأَخُّرِهِ؛ فَحَدَانِي ذلِكَ إِلَى أَنْ أُلَخِّصَ في هذَا الكِتَابِ عَزْوَ الأَحَادِيثِ إِلَى مُخَرِّجِيهَا بأَلْخَصِ عِبَارَةٍ؛ لِيَنْتَفِعَ بِذلِكَ مِنْ تَسْمُو هِمَّتُهُ مِمَّنْ يَشْتَغِلُ فِي شَرْحِ “المِشْكَاةِ” إِلَى الاطِّلَاعِ عَلَى مَعْرِفَةِ تِلْكِ الأَحَادِيثِ، وَلَا سِيَّمَا الفَصْلُ الثَّانِي مِنَ “المَصَابِيحِ” الَّذِي اصْطَلَحَ عَلَى تَسْمِيَتِهِ (الحِسَانَ)؛ وَقَدْ نوقِشَ في هذِهِ التَّسْمِيَةِ، وَأُجِيبُ عَنْهُ بأَنَّهُ لَا مُشَاحَّةَ فِي الاصْطِلَاحِ!، وَقَد الْتَزَمَ في خُطْبَةِ كِتَابِهِ بِأَنَّهُ مَهْمَا أَوْرَدَ فِيهِ مِنْ ضَعِيفٍ، أَوْ غَرِيبٍ: يُشِيرُ إِلَيْهِ، وَأَنَّهُ أَعْرَضَ عَمَّا كَانَ مُنْكَرًا، أَوْ مَوْضُوعًا.

“Then I came across Sharḥ al-Mishkāt by Imām Sharaf al-Dīn al-Hussain ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Ṭībī and I found that he had omitted attribution entirely! His book is the best that has been written on al-Maṣābīḥ due to his intelligence his vast learning in the sciences and his lateness [in time]; this led me to summarise in this book the attribution of ḥadīths to their transmitters in the most concise expression so that those whose aspirations are lofty amongst those who engage in commenting on al-Mishkāh might benefit from gaining knowledge of those ḥadīths especially the second chapter of al-Maṣābīḥ which he has conventionally termed ‘the good ones [al-ḥisān].’ This designation has been discussed and it is answered that there is no quarrelling over terminology! He committed himself in the preface of his book that whatever he includes in it that is weak [ḍa’īf] or strange [gharīb]: he would point it out and that he turned away from what was objectionable [munkar] or fabricated [mawḍū’].

قُلْتُ: وَقَدْ وَجَدْتُ فِي أَثْنَاءِ كَلَامِهِ مَا يَقْتَضِي مُشَاحَحَتَهُ فِيمَا تَكَلَّمَ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ ذلِكَ الفَصْلِ الثَّانِي مِنَ الإعْرَاضِ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا يَكُونَ مَنْكَرًا، وَوَجَدْتُهُ يَنْقُلُ تَصْحِيحَ التِّرْمِذِيِّ أَحْيَانًا! وَأَحْيَانًا لَا يَنْقَلُ ذلِكَ مَعَ نَصِّ التِّرْمِذِيِّ عَلَى ذلِكَ!!، وَوَجَدْتُ فِي أَثْنَاء الفَصْلِ الأَوَّلِ- وَهُوَ الَّذِي سَمَّاهُ (الصِّحَاحَ) – وَذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ يَقْتَصِرُ فِيهِ عَلَى مَا يُخَرِّجُهُ الشَّيْخَانِ، أَوْ أَحَدُهُمَا عِدَّةَ رِوَايَاتٍ لَيْسَتْ فِيهِمَا، وَلَا فِي أَحَدِهِمَا!

I say: I found in the course of his speech what necessitates quarrelling with him regarding what he spoke about concerning that second chapter’s turning away from some of what would be objectionable [munkar] and I found that he sometimes transmits al-Tirmidhī’s authentication [taṣḥīḥ]! And sometimes he does not transmit that despite al-Tirmidhī’s explicit statement of it!! I found in the course of the first chapter—which he called ‘the authentic ones [al-ṣiḥāḥ]’—where he mentioned that he limits himself to what the two Shaykhs [Bukhari & Muslim] transmit or one of them several transmissions that are not in them and not in one of them!

لَكِنَّ العُذْرَ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ يَذْكُرُ أَصْلَ الحَدِيثِ مِنْهُمَا، أَوْ مِنْ أَحَدِهِمَا، ثُمَّ يُتْبِعُ ذلِكَ باخْتِلَافٍ فِي لَفْظٍ- وَلَوْ بِزِيَادَةٍ فِي نَفْسِ ذلِكَ الخَبَرِ- يَكُونُ بَعْضُ مَنْ خَرَّجَ “السُّنَنَ” أَوْرَدَهَا، فَيُشِيرُ هُوَ إِلَيْهَا لِكَمَال الفَائِدَةِ.

But the excuse for him is that he mentions the original ḥadīth from them or from one of them then follows that with a difference in wording—even if by an addition in that very report—which some of those who transmitted al-Sunan have included so he points to them for the completion of benefit.

[مَنْهَجُ الحُكْمِ عَلَى الأَحَادِيثِ]: فَالْتَزَمْتُ فِي هذَا “التَّخْرِيجِ” أَنْ أُبَيِّنَ حَالَ كُلِّ حَدِيثٍ مِنَ الفَصْلِ الثَّانِي؛ مِن كَوْنِهِ صَحِيحًا، أَوْ ضَعِيفًا، أَوْ مُنْكَرًا، أَوْ مَوْضُوعًا، وَمَا سَكَتُّ عَنْ بَيَانِهِ فَهُوَ حَسَنٌ.

[The Methodology of Judging Ḥadīths]: I committed myself in this extraction [takhrīj] to clarify the condition of every ḥadīth from the second chapter regarding whether it is authentic [ṣaḥīḥ] or weak [ḍa’īf] or objectionable [munkar] or fabricated [mawḍū’] and whatever I remain silent about explaining is good [ḥasan].”

Al-Suyūṭī‘ (d. 911 AH)

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s (d. 911 AH) methodology in collating the narrations in his Jam’ al-Jawāmi’ also known as al-Jāmi’ al-Kabīr (1/43-44):

الأول: أسوق فيه لفظ المصطفى بنصه، وَأُطَوِّقُ كل خاتم منه بفصه، وأتبع متن الحديث بذكر من خَرَّجه من الأئمة أصحاب الكتب المعتبرة، ومن رواه من الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم من واحد إلى عشرة، أو أكثر من عشرة، سالكًا طريقة يعرف منها صحة الحديث، وحسنه، وضعفه، مُرَتَّبًا ترتيب اللغة على حروف المعجم، مراعيًا أول الكلمة فما بعده. ورمزت للبخارى: (خ)، ولمسلم: (م)، ولابن حبان: (حب)، وللحاكم فى المستدرك: (ك)، والضياء المقدسى فى المختارة: (ض) . وجميع ما فى هذه الخمسة صحيح، فالعزو إليها مُعْلِمٌ بالصحة، سوى ما فى المستدرك من المتعقب، فأنبه عليه . وكذا ما فى موطأ مالك، وصحيح ابن خزيمة، وأبى عوانة، وابن السكن، والمنتقى لابن الجارود، والمستخرجات، فالعزو إليها مُعْلِم بالصحة أيضًا.

“The first: I present in it the expression of the Chosen One ﷺ in its exact text, and I adorn each seal from it with its proper stone, and I follow the text [matn] of the ḥadīth by mentioning who transmitted it from amongst the Imams, authors of the reliable books, and who narrated it from amongst the Companions may Allah be pleased with them, from one to ten, or more than ten, following a method by which the authenticity [ṣiḥḥa], goodness [ḥusn], and weakness [ḍa’f] of the ḥadīth may be known, arranged according to linguistic ordering upon the letters of the alphabet, observing the first letter of the word and what follows it. I have symbolised for al-Bukhārī: (خ), for Muslim: (م), for Ibn Ḥibbān: (حب), for al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak: (ك), and al-Ḍiyā’ al-Maqdisī in al-Mukhtārah: (ض). Everything in these five is authentic [ṣaḥīḥ], so attribution to them indicates authenticity, except what is in al-Mustadrak that has been criticised, which I point out. Likewise, what is in Mālik’s Muwaṭṭa’, Ibn Khuzayma’s Ṣaḥīḥ, Abū ‘Awāna, Ibn al-Sakan, al-Muntaqā by Ibn al-Jārūd, and the extractions [mustakhrajāt], so attribution to them also indicates authenticity.

ورمزت لأبى داود: (د)، فما سكت عليه فهو صالح، وما بَيَّنَ ضعفه نقلته عنه. وللترمذى: (ت)، وأنقل كلامه على الحديث . وللنسائى: (ن)، ولابن ماجه: (هـ)، ولأبى داود الطيالسى: (ط)، ولأحمد: (حم)، ولزيادات ابنه عبد الله: (عم)، ولعبد الرزاق: (عب)، ولسعيد بن منصور: (ص)، ولابن أبى شيبة: (ش)، ولأبى يعلى: (ع)، وللطبرانى فى الكبير: (طب)، وفى الأوسط: (طس)، وفى الصغير: (طص)، وللدارقطنى: (قط)، فإن كان فى السنن أطلقت، وإلا بَيَّنْتُه. ولأبى نعيم فى الحلية: (حل)، وللبيهقى: (ق) . فإن كان فى السنن أطلقت، وإلا بَيَّنْتُه. وله فى شعب الإيمان: (هب) . وهذه فيها الصحيح، والحسن، والضعيف فأُبَيِّنَه غالبًا، وكل ما كان فى مسند

أحمد فهو مقبول، فإن الضعيف الذى فيه يقرب من الحَسَن. وللعقيلى فى الضعفاء: (عق)، ولابن عدى فى الكامل: (عد)، وللخطيب: (خط)، فإن كان فى تاريخه أطلقت، وإلا بينته. ولابن عساكر فى تاريخه: (كر)، وكل ما عُزِىَ لهؤلاء الأربعة، أو للحكيم الترمذى فى نوادر الأصول، أو الحاكم فى تاريخه، أو الديلمى فى مسند الفردوس، فهو ضعيف فليستغن بالعزو إليها، أو إلى بعضها عن بيان ضعفه . وإذا أطلقتُ العزو إلى ابن جرير فهو فى تهذيب الآثار، فإن كان فى تفسيره، أو تاريخه بَيَّنْتُه.

I have symbolised for Abū Dāwūd: (د), so what he remained silent upon is sound [ṣāliḥ], and what he clarified as weak I transmit from him. For al-Tirmidhī: (ت), and I transmit his words upon the ḥadīth. For al-Nasā’ī: (ن), for Ibn Mājah: (هـ), for Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī: (ط), for Aḥmad: (حم), for the additions of his son ‘Abd Allāh: (عم), for ‘Abd al-Razzāq: (عب), for Sa’īd ibn Manṣūr: (ص), for Ibn Abī Shayba: (ش), for Abū Ya’lā: (ع), for al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr: (طب), in al-Awsaṭ: (طس), and in al-Ṣaghīr: (طص), for al-Dāraquṭnī: (قط)—if it was in al-Sunan I state it absolutely, otherwise I clarify it. For Abū Nu’aym in al-Ḥilya: (حل), and for al-Bayhaqī: (ق)—if it was in al-Sunan I state it absolutely, otherwise I clarify it. For him in Shu’ab al-Īmān: (هب).

These contain the authentic [ṣaḥīḥ], good [ḥasan], and weak [ḍa’īf], so I clarify it generally, and everything that was in the Musnad of Aḥmad is acceptable [maqbūl], for the weak [ḍa’īf] that is in it approaches the good [ḥasan]. For al-‘Uqaylī in al-Ḍu’afā’: (عق), for Ibn ‘Adī in al-Kāmil: (عد), for al-Khaṭīb: (خط)—if it was in his history (Tārīkh Baghdad), I state it absolutely, otherwise I clarify it. For Ibn ‘Asākir in his history (Tārīkh Dimashq)): (كر), and everything attributed to these four, or to al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī in Nawādir al-Uṣūl, or al-Ḥākim in his history (Tārīkh), or al-Daylamī in Musnad al-Firdaws, is weak [ḍa’īf], so let the attribution to them, or to some of them, suffice from clarifying its weakness. When I state attribution to Ibn Jarīr absolutely, it is in Tahdhīb al-Āthār; if it was in his exegesis [tafsīr] or his history (Tārīkh) I clarify it.”

Compiled by:  Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed

8-9-25/16^th of Rabi al-Awwal 1447 AH

www.darultahqiq.com

Updates on Telegram: https://t.me/Darul_Tahqiq

Availabe to download as a PDF file – HERE