Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis Ae ISSN: 1411-6855 .
2548-4737 .
Vol.
No.
2 (Juli 2.
, hlm.
545-568, doi: 10.
14421/qh.
https://ejournal.
uin-suka.
id/ushuluddin/qurdis/index Article History: Submitted: 23-01-2025 Revised: 27-02-2025 Accepted: 28-06-2025 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique of al-HAkimAos Hadith Authentication in al-Mustadrak Konsep Munkar dalam Kritik al-Dhahab terhadap Otentikasi Hadis al-HAkim dalam al-Mustadrak Sanaa Fadel Abbasa.
Maessa Ali Rawabdehb * *Corresponding Author: misar1973@bau.
Al-Balqa Applied University.
Al-Karak University College.
Jordan Al-Balqa Applied University.
Princess Alia University College.
Jordan Abstract The exclusion of certain hadiths by the compilers of al-ShaykhAn (Sahh al-BukhAr and Sahh Musli.
, despite their acceptance of the same transmitters in other narrations, indicates the presence of particular flaws within those reports.
This selective process has generated substantial discussion in the field of hadith criticism, especially around the notion of Auauthentication according to their Ay Scholarly debates have long centered on how such conditions were defined, interpreted, and applied by later critics.
This study explores the methodological divergence between al-HAkim alNsAbr .
405/1.
and al-Dhahab .
748/1.
concerning the use of BukhAr and MuslimAos criteria as benchmarks for authenticity.
Specifically, it examines hadiths that al-HAkim classified as Auauthentic according to the conditions of al-ShaykhAn or one of them,Ay but which al-Dhahab subsequently rejected as munkar.
Through an inductive-critical approach, the analysis engages six representative cases drawn from al-Mustadrak and Talkhs al-Mustadrak, allowing for a close reading of how both scholars articulated and operationalized their respective standards.
The findings suggest that al-HAkimAos approach to authentication was often generous, at times overlooking structural and contextual defects, whereas al-DhahabAos assessments reflected a stricter evaluative framework.
His judgments of munkarfrequently rested on the identification of weak transmitters, disrupted isnAd structures, or questionable transmission contexts.
Beyond highlighting their methodological contrast, this study raises broader questions about the coherence and applicability of Auconditions of the ShaykhAnAy as a category of hadith validation.
Rather than closing the debate, the cases underscore the interpretive tensions within classical hadith criticism and invite further inquiry into how later scholars negotiated between textual authority and critical scrutiny.
Keywords: Hadith Criticism.
Al-HAkim al-NsAbr.
Al-Dhahab.
Conditions of al-ShaykhAn.
Munkar Abstract Pengecualian sejumlah hadis oleh para penyusun al-ShaykhAn (Sahh al-BukhAr dan Sahh Musli.
, meskipun mereka menerima periwayatan dari perawi yang sama dalam riwayat lain, menunjukkan adanya cacat tertentu pada hadis-hadis tersebut.
Proses selektif ini telah memunculkan perdebatan luas dalam kajian kritik hadis, khususnya terkait konsep Auotentik menurut syarat al-ShaykhAn.
Ay Perdebatan ilmiah berfokus pada bagaimana syarat tersebut didefinisikan, ditafsirkan, dan diterapkan oleh para pengkritik hadis generasi setelahnya.
Studi ini meneliti perbedaan metodologis antara al-HAkim alNsAbr .
405/1.
dan al-Dhahab .
748/1.
dalam menggunakan kriteria al-BukhAr dan Muslim sebagai tolok ukur keotentikan.
Secara khusus, penelitian ini mengkaji hadis-hadis yang oleh al-HAkim dinilai Auotentik menurut syarat al-ShaykhAn atau salah satunya,Ay tetapi kemudian ditolak oleh al-Dhahab sebagai munkar.
Melalui pendekatan induktif-kritis, penelitian ini menganalisis enam A 2025.
The Author Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives BY-NC-ND: This work is licensed under a Jurnal Studi Ilmu-ilmu AlQurAoan dan Hadis Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.
0 International License .
ttps://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/) which permits non-comercial use, reproduction, and distribution of the work whitout further permission provided the original work is attributed as spesified on Jurnal Studi Ilmu-ilmu Al-QurAoan dan Hadis and Open Access pages.
Abbas.
Rawabdeh kasus representatif yang diambil dari al-Mustadrak dan Talkhs al-Mustadrak, sehingga memungkinkan pembacaan mendalam atas bagaimana kedua ulama merumuskan dan menerapkan standar mereka masing-masing.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pendekatan al-HAkim dalam menilai otentisitas cenderung longgar, kadang mengabaikan cacat struktural maupun kontekstual.
Sebaliknya, penilaian al-Dhahab mencerminkan kerangka evaluasi yang lebih ketat, dengan penolakan munkar yang sering didasarkan pada keberadaan perawi lemah, mata rantai periwayatan yang terputus, atau konteks transmisi yang bermasalah.
Lebih dari sekadar menyoroti perbedaan metodologis, penelitian ini mengajukan pertanyaan lebih luas mengenai konsistensi dan keberterapan Ausyarat al-ShaykhAnAy sebagai kategori validasi hadis.
Alih-alih menutup perdebatan, temuan ini justru menegaskan adanya ketegangan interpretatif dalam kritik hadis klasik serta membuka ruang untuk penelitian lebih lanjut tentang bagaimana para ulama kemudian menegosiasikan otoritas teks dengan ketelitian kritik.
Kata Kunci: Kritik Hadis.
Al-HAkim al-NsAbr.
Al-Dhahab.
Syarat al-ShaykhAn.
Munkar Introduction The issue of authentication according to the conditions of al-ShaykhAn .
lBukhAr and Musli.
remains one of the most debated methodological questions in hadith studies.
The concept took shape in the post-canonical era, when scholars attempted to reconstruct the implicit criteria employed by the compilers of the two most authoritative collections.
Since neither al-BukhAr nor Muslim explicitly articulated their selection principles, later critics were left to infer them, producing diverse interpretations and often conflicting judgments.
As Brown .
argues, the canonization of these collections fundamentally reshaped hadith scholarship by encouraging attempts to reverse-engineer their implicit standards.
1 Other scholars, such as Duderija .
, have traced the gradual systematization of what were once intuitive practices into more formalized methodological principles.
2 Lucas .
similarly highlights how earlier figures, including Ibn SaAod.
Ibn MaAon, and Ahmad Hanbal, established evaluative precedents that later informed discussions about the reliability of transmission.
3 Davidson .
adds that the post-canonical transmission process itself generated fresh interpretive challenges,4 while regional approaches, such as those in al-Andalus, show how different intellectual contexts Jonathan A.
Brown.
The Canonization of Al-BukhAr and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunn Hadth Canon.
Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Adis.
DuderijaAy Evolution in the Canonical Sunni Hadth Body of Literature and the Concept of an Authentic Hadth During the Formative Period of Islamic Thought as Based on Recent Western Scholarship.
Ay Arab Law Quarterly 23, no.
: 389Ae415.
Scott C.
Lucas.
Constructive Critics.
Hadth Literature, and the Articulation of Sunn Islam: The Legacy of the Generation of Ibn SaAod.
Ibn MaAoin, and Ibn Hanbal (Leiden: Brill, 2.
https://lib.
be/catalog/ rug01:001281739 Garrett Davidson.
Carrying on the Tradition: An Intellectual and Social History of Post-Canonical Hadith Transmission.
Chicago: The University of Chicago, .
Scott .
Lucas.
Carrying on the Tradition: A Social and Intellectual History of Hadith Transmission across a Thousand Years .
y Garrett A.
Davidso.
American Journal of Islam and Society, 38.
, .
: 164Ae170.
https://doi.
org/10.
35632/ajis.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
shaped the way authenticity was defined and applied.
The complexity of this issue is evident in the sharp disagreements between Ab AoAbd AllAh al-HAkim al-NsAbr .
405/1.
and Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab .
748/1.
Al-HAkim frequently classified reports as Auauthentic according to the conditions of al-ShaykhAn,Ay yet al-Dhahab often rejected those same reports as munkar in his abridgement of al-Mustadrak.
The research problem therefore centers on assessing the reliability of al-HAkimAos application of these supposed conditions and examining the scientific basis for al-DhahabAos counter-judgments.
More specific questions include: What precisely were al-HAkimAos criteria for determining compliance with the conditions of al-ShaykhAn? How consistently did he apply them in practice? On what methodological foundations did al-Dhahab rest his judgments of rejection? And to what extent did al-HAkimAos approach align with earlier critics who had laid the groundwork for Sunni hadith evaluation? Contemporary scholarship has revisited these tensions with renewed interest.
Hamza al-MalibAr has demonstrated that early critics prioritized subtle defects (Aoila.
and contextual evidence, whereas later critics often relied on apparent chains and general rules.
6 Hatim al-AoAwn has further argued that much confusion in understanding classical judgments arises from a failure to distinguish systematically between early and later methodologies.
7 Recent contributions also include Ahmad SanoberAos analysis of the evolution of hadith criticism,8 alongside focused studies on al-HAkimAos approach in al-Mustadrak9 10 and al-DhahabAos critical revisions.
Contemporary frameworks tend to emphasize the integration of principles, practice, and epistemological assumptions, while highlighting the need to move beyond superficial chains-of-transmission judgments toward more substantive analysis of narrator reliability and methodological rigor.
Muhammad Akmaluddin.
AuDevelopments of Hadth RiwAya in Al-Andalus .
nd - 3rd Centuries of Hijriyy.
Ay Ulumuna 21, no.
: 228Ae52.
https://doi.
org/10.
20414/ujis.
Hamza Al-Malibari.
The Balance between Early and Later Scholars in Authenticating and Analyzing Hadiths (Beirut: DAr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 2.
, 89.
Hatim Al-Awni.
Al-Manhaj al-Muqtarah li Fahm al-Mustalah (Riyadh: DAr al-Hijrah, 2.
, 127.
Ahmad Sanober.
Hadith Criticism in the Levant in the Twentieth Century (Damascus: DAr al-Bashair, 2.
Yasser Al-Shamali,AyAuthentication According to the Conditions of Al-SyaikhAn,Ay Journal of Sharia and Islamic Studies 15, no.
: 127-165.
Anas Jad.
Au The Leniency of Al-Hakim: An Applied Study on Hadiths Corrected by Al-Hakim in AlMustadrak and Judged as Fabricated by Al-Dhahabi Au Journal of Eastern Scientific Research 10, no.
11 Yasser Al-Shamali.
AuAl-DhahabiAos Methodology in Summarizing Al-Mustadrak,Ay Journa of Sharia and Law 26, no.
: 85-122.
12 Hartati.
Khoirul Anam.
Indal Abror, and Ahmad AoUbaydi Hasbillah.
AuBeyond al-Jaru wa at-TaAodl: A Critical Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh Despite this growing body of research, notable gaps remain.
Few studies have undertaken a systematic comparison of al-HAkim and al-Dhahab in cases of direct The precise meaning and application of al-DhahabAos designation of munkar remains underexplored, as does the tension between al-HAkimAos theoretical commitment to the conditions of al-ShaykhAn and his practical departures from Addressing these gaps, the present study aims to provide a methodological analysis of disagreement cases between the two scholars, to clarify al-DhahabAos use of munkar as a technical category, and to propose an applied framework for similar comparative studies.
The research employs a mixed approach: inductive collection of relevant reports, critical analysis of isnAd structures, and comparative evaluation of early and later criteria.
The study is organized into four main sections: theoretical framework, detailed analysis of six representative case studies, comparative discussion of methodological differences, and concluding reflections with implications for contemporary hadith criticism.
The Debate on Authentication According to the Conditions of alShaykhAn The concept of Auauthentication according to the conditions of Al-SyaikhAnAy stands as one of the most controversial concepts in hadith science, as Al-Bukhari and Muslim did not establish explicit written conditions, but rather followed a precise practical methodology.
This methodological approach reflected the sophisticated understanding of hadith criticism that characterized the early canonical period, where scholars relied on a comprehensive evaluation of transmission contexts rather than the mechanical application of predetermined rules13.
This concept emerged with the subsequent generation of hadith scholars who attempted to derive the criteria of Al-SyaikhAn.
However, early scholars focused more on practical application than abstract theorization, making the precise definition of this concept complex.
The challenge of systematizing the implicit methodology of al-BukhAr and Muslim reflects the broader tension between contextual judgment and rule-based criticism that characterized the evolution of hadith scholarship.
Al-Hakim clarifies his understanding in the introduction to Al-Mustadrak, stating : AuI seek AllahAos assistance in collecting hadiths from trustworthy narrators Study of the Narrators Accused of Lying in Sunan Ibn MAjah,Ay Jerusalem: Journal of QurAoanic and Hadith Studies 26, no.
: 78.
13 Al-Awni.
Al-Manhaj al-Muqtarah, 127.
14 Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Hakim al-Nisaburi.
Al-Mustadrak Aoala al-Sahihayn, ed.
The Scientific Team of Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
whose chains resemble what Al-SyaikhAn relied upon.
Ay This expression Auresemble their chainsAy .
ushbihu asAndahumA) reveals ambiguity in precisely determining the criteria.
The use of the term AuresembleAy .
rather than Auidentical toAy .
suggests that al-HAkim recognized the difficulty of precisely replicating the methodology of Al-SyaikhAn.
Scholars are divided into two opinions regarding Al-HAkimAos intention.
The first view, held by scholars such as Ibn Al-SalAh15.
Al-Nawaw16, and Ibn Hajar17, considers the intended meaning to be the same narrators from whom Al-SyaikhAn This interpretation emphasizes biographical continuity, arguing that authentication should be based on using narrators who were already validated by the canonical collectorsAo acceptance of their narrations.
The second view, supported by scholars like Al-AoIrAq 18and Al-SanAoAn19, holds that the intended meaning refers to narrators who match them in level and rank.
This approach focuses on qualitative equivalence rather than biographical identity, suggesting that narrators of similar reliability standards could fulfill the conditions even if not directly used by AlSyaikhAn.
However.
Al-HAkimAos practical application demonstrates clear leniency .
asAhu.
, which refers to a more permissive approach in accepting narrators and applying critical standards compared to the stringent methodology of Al-BukhAr and Muslim.
This leniency manifests in accepting narrators who did not meet the precise criteria of Al-SyaikhAn, being more flexible in transmission requirements, and applying less rigorous textual criticism.
This methodological leniency may reflect the transitional nature of Al-HAkimAos period, when systematic criticism was still developing and scholars were more inclined toward inclusivity in hadith collection.
Al-HAkimAos approach was influenced by his eraAos methodology, which inclined toward expansion in hadith collection, seeking to preserve authentic materials that might the Office for Sunnah Studies (Syria: DAr al-Minhaj al-Qawim, 1439 AH), 1:164.
15 Uthman ibn Abdul Rahman.
Ibn Al-Salah .
643 AH).
Siyanat Sahih Muslim min Al-Ikhlal wal-Ghalat wa Himayatuh min Al-Isqat wal-Saqt, ed.
Muwafaq Abdul Qadir, 2nd edition (Beirut: DAr Al-Gharb AlIslami, 1408 AH), 99.
16 Yahya ibn Sharaf Al-Nawawi.
Irshad Tullab Al-HaqaAoiq ila MaAorifat Sunan Khayr Al-KhalaAoiq , ed.
Abdul Bari Al-Salafi, 1st edition .
8 AH), 1:124.
17 Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani .
852 AH).
Al-Nukat Aoala Ibn Al-Salah, ed.
RabiAo Al-Madkhali, 1st edition (Medina: Markaz al-Buhth bi-l-JAmiAoah al-IslAmiyyah, 1404 AH), 1:314.
18 Zayn al-Din Abd al-Rahim al-Iraqi .
806 AH).
Al-Taqyid wa al-Idah Sharh Muqaddimat Ibn al-Salah, ed.
Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Uthman, 1st edition (Medina: al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, 1389 AH), 30.
19 Muhammad ibn IsmaAoil Al-SanAoani .
1182 AH).
Tawdih Al-Afkar li MaAoani Tanqih Al-Anzar, ed.
Salah Owaidah, 1st edition (Beirut: DAr Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, 1417 AH), 1:69.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh have been overlooked by the canonical compilers20.
This leniency led to widespread criticism, with Ibn Taymiyyah commenting:
AuAl-HAkimAos authentication alone cannot be relied upon.
Al-HAkim authenticates hadiths that hadith experts know to be fabricated and falseAy21.
Ibn TaymiyyahAos critique represents the scholarly consensus that emerged regarding the methodological inadequacy of al-HAkimAos approach.
This criticism underscores the fundamental tension between preserving potentially authentic materials and maintaining the exacting standards that distinguished the canonical collections from later compilations.
This methodological debate surrounding al-HAkimAos work illustrates the broader epistemological challenges in hadith scholarship: the difficulty of codifying implicit expertise, the tension between inclusivity and precision, and the evolution of critical standards across different scholarly generations.
These issues would continue to influence subsequent developments in hadith methodology, particularly in the work of al-Dhahabi and later critics.
Al-DhahabAos Concept of Munkar and Its Criteria of Application It is widely recognized that Al-Dhahabi occupies a distinguished position among hadith scholars for his precision in applying critical standards.
This precision becomes particularly evident when examining his summarization of Al-Mustadrak, where he employed various critical terminologies, with AumunkarAy being the most From a linguistic perspective, the term munkar derives from Aunakara,Ay which essentially means the opposite of recognition22.
The terminological evolution of this concept is quite fascinating - it began with early scholars applying it to hadiths that contradicted reliable narrators, then gradually developed into the more precise definition used by later scholars: a narration transmitted by a weak narrator that contradicts a trustworthy one.
When we examine how the concept of munkar evolved during the crucial 3rd to 5th centuries AH, we discover remarkable diversity among early scholars that reveals much about their critical thinking.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal .
241 AH/855 CE),
for instance, took a remarkably comprehensive approach.
Rather than focusing solely on narrator reliability, he considered whether the content aligned with established 20 Anas Jad.
AuThe Leniency of Al-Hakim: An Applied Study on Hadiths Corrected by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak and Judged as Fabricated by Al-Dhahabi,Ay 1398-1420.
21 Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyyah.
MajmuAo al-Fatawa, comp.
Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad (Medina: MajmaAo al-Malik Fahd li-TibAAoat al-Mushaf al-Sharf, 1425 AH), 1:255.
22 Ahmad ibn Faris.
MuAojam Maqayis al-Lughah, ed.
Abd al-Salam Harun (Beirut: DAr al-Fikr, 1979 CE), entry Aunakara.
Ay Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
Islamic principles23.
This holistic methodology shows his deep understanding of both textual and contextual elements.
Yahya ibn MaAoin .
233 AH/848 CE) developed what we might call a more systematic framework.
His focus centered on identifying explicit contradictions between different narrations, and he consistently emphasized the importance of finding corroborating evidence24.
This methodical approach contributed significantly to standardizing critical terminology during this formative period.
The Razi scholars - Abu Hatim .
277 AH/890 CE) and Abu ZarAoa .
264 AH/878 CE) - brought yet another dimension to the discussion.
They created sophisticated gradations in their application of munkar, distinguishing between narrators who consistently produced unreliable reports .
hom they labeled Aumunkar al-hadithA.
and those whose problematic transmissions were isolated incidents requiring individual evaluation25.
This nuanced approach demonstrates how hadith criticism was maturing during this era.
Perhaps most intriguingly.
Al-Bukhari .
256 AH/870 CE) developed what can only be described as an advanced methodology.
He would reject unique transmissions from trustworthy but lesser-known narrators when they lacked support from more established authorities.
His considerations extended beyond simple reliability to include factors like the narratorAos area of expertise and the specific circumstances surrounding transmission26.
Meanwhile.
Muslim .
261 AH/875 CE)
emphasized the importance of combining comprehensive chain analysis with careful textual evaluation, as evidenced in his work AuAl-TamyizAy27.
What emerges from studying these approaches is a clear picture of how different generations of scholars tackled the same fundamental challenge.
The early scholars .
operated with considerable contextual flexibility.
They took into account factors that might seem peripheral to modern readers - things like a narratorAos particular area of specialization, regional transmission patterns, and whether 23 Ahmad ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani.
Nuzhah al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbah al-Fikr, ed.
Abdullah al-Rahili ((Riyadh:
Safir Press, 1422 AH)), 89.
for further reading on this topic, see Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi.
AuAl-Shadh wa al-Munkar wa Ziyadat al-Thiqah - Muwazanah bayna al-Mutaqaddimin wa al-MutaAoakhkhirinAy (Beirut:
DAr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1426 AH), 59.
24 Yahya ibn MaAoin.
Tarikh Ibn MaAoin (Riwayat al-Dawr.
, ed.
Ahmad Muhammad Nur Saif (Mecca: Markaz al-Bahth al-Ilmi wa Ihya al-Turath al-Islami, 1399 AH), 3:127.
25 Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim.
Al-Jarh wa al-TaAodil (Beirut: DAr Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1371 AH), 1:37.
Abu ZarAoa al-Razi.
SuAoalat Abu Dawud li Abi ZarAoa fi al-Jarh wa al-TaAodil, ed.
SaAod ibn Abdullah al-Hamid (Medina: al-JamiAoa al-Islamiyya, 1404 AH), 201.
26 Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari.
Al-Tarikh Al-Kabir (Hyderabad: DaAoirat al-MaAoarif al-Uthmaniyya, 1377 AH), 1:234.
27 Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi.
Al-Tamyiz, ed.
Muhammad Mustafa al-AAozami ((Riyadh: Maktabat al-Kawthar, 1410 AH)), 156.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh the content maintained thematic consistency with established Islamic teachings.
Later scholars .
utaAoakhkhiru.
, however, moved toward more systematized Ibn al-Salah .
643 AH/1245 CE) provided what became the standard definition: Auwhat a weak narrator transmits in contradiction to a trustworthy one.
Ay Al-Nawawi .
676 AH/1277 CE) built upon this by emphasizing that explicit contradiction was necessary, while Ibn Hajar .
852 AH/1449 CE) refined the definition further to Auwhat a weak narrator contradicts a trustworthy one inAy28.
Al-DhahabiAos genius lies in how he managed to bridge these two approaches.
Rather than simply adopting either the flexibility of the early scholars or the rigid systematization of later ones, he created something new.
His methodology displays three distinctive characteristics that set him apart: he conducted comprehensive evaluations that considered both obvious and hidden transmission defects.
he made contextual judgments that weighed all available evidence rather than isolated factors.
and he applied his criteria selectively based on his deep understanding of individual narrator profiles.
We can see this methodology at work in his practical applications.
In one case, he ruled on hadith .
with the simple statement: AuMunkar, and Humran are weak,Ay directly connecting the narratorAos condition to his evaluation.
In another instance, his ruling AuMunkar, and the correct version is disconnected .
Ay demonstrates the contextual flexibility he inherited from early scholars29.
Ultimately.
Al-DhahabiAos approach represents something quite remarkable - a reconciliatory methodology that successfully bridges different scholarly traditions.
By combining the contextual awareness of early critics with the systematic precision of later scholars, he created a more nuanced application of critical terminology that continues to influence hadith criticism today.
Case Studies Analysis Hadith about the Title of Prophet/Messenger Al-Hakim said: AuIt was narrated to me by Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Al-Abbas.
narrated to us by Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul Aziz Al-Baghawi.
to us by Khalaf ibn Hisham.
and narrated to me by Ali ibn Hamza.
narrated to me by Hussain ibn Ali Al-JuAofi.
from Humran ibn AAoyan.
from Abu Al-Aswad Al-Dili.
28 Uthman ibn Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Salah.
MaAorifat AnwaAo Ulum al-Hadith, ed.
Nur al-Din Itr (Damascus:
DAr al-Fikr, 1406 AH), 80.
Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi.
Al-Taqrib wa al-Taysir li MaAorifat Sunan al-Bashir al-Nadhir, ed.
Muhammad Uthman al-Khusht (Beirut: DAr al-Kitab al-Arabi, 1405 AH), 45.
Ahmad ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani.
Nuzhah al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbah al-Fikr, ed.
Abdullah al-Rahili (Riyadh: Safir Press, 1422 AH), 89.
29 Al-Dhahabi.
Talkhis al-Mustadrak.
3:129, 133.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
from Abu Dharr .
ay Allah be pleased with hi.
, who said: An Arab came to the Messenger of Allah .
eace and blessings be upon hi.
and said: AoO Nab of Allah.
Ao The Messenger of Allah .
eace and blessings be upon hi.
replied: AoI am not Nab of Allah, but I am Nab of Allah.
The methodological divergence between Al-Hakim and Al-Dhahabi becomes particularly evident when examining their treatment of a hadith narrated through Humran ibn AAoyan.
Al-Hakim follows his characteristic pattern of focusing on apparent chain reliability, stating: AuThis hadith is authentic according to the conditions of Al-Shaykhayn, but they did not record it.
It has a clarifying witness with a chain that is not among the conditions of this book.
Ay31.
In contrast.
Al-DhahabiAos response demonstrates his more stringent approach: AuRather, it is rejected .
it is not authenticAy32.
This disagreement centers on their evaluation of Humran ibn AAoyan Al-Kufi, whose presence in the transmission chain reveals fundamental differences in their critical methodologies.
The scholarly assessment of Humran ibn AAoyan explains Al-DhahabiAos decisive rejection of this transmission.
Several early critics questioned HumranAos reliability: Ibn MaAoin described him simply as AuweakAy33, while Ibn Hibban noted.
AuHe was a ShiaAy34.
Abu Dawud characterized him as Aua RafidiAy.
xtremist Shi.
Ay Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: AuHe and his brother were ShiaAy35.
Al-DhahabiAos evaluation places Humran as Aua TabiAoi with Rafidi tendenciesAy36, using terminology that indicates not merely sectarian affiliation but a degree of extremism that could compromise transmission reliability.
What makes Al-DhahabiAos rejection particularly significant is his distinction between different levels of sectarian deviation.
His use of the term AuRafidiAy rather than simply AuShiaAy suggests a more severe assessment that goes beyond doctrinal disagreement to question fundamental trustworthiness in transmission.
This aligns with Ibn TaymiyyahAos critique of this hadith, where he noted: AuWhat has been narrated from the Prophet that he said: AoI am the Prophet of Allah, and I am not 30 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 4:83.
31 Ibid.
32 Al-Dhahabi.
Talkhis Al-Mustadrak, 3:129.
33 Yahya ibn MaAoin.
Tarikh Ibn MaAoin, ed.
Ahmad Nour Saif (Damascus: DAr Al-MaAomoon for Heritage, 1400 AH), 94.
34 Muhammad ibn Hibban al-Busti.
Al-Thiqat (Hyderabad: al-MawsAoah al-AoUthmAniyyah, 1393 AH), 7:94.
35 Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal.
Al-AoIlal wa MaAorifat al-Rijal, ed.
Wassi Allah Abbas (Riyadh: DAr AlKhani, 1422 AH), 1:551.
36 Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Dhahabi.
Al-Mughni fi al-DuAoafaAo, ed.
Nur al-Din Itr (Qatar:
IDArat IhyaAo al-Turath al-Islami, 1.
, 191.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh NabAo of AllahAoAiI have never found any reliable chain for it.
I have never seen it in any hadith books or well-known works of prophetic biography.
A narration like this cannot be relied uponAy37.
To understand Al-DhahabiAos position more deeply, we must refer to his methodological criteria regarding dealing with innovators .
ubtadiAoa.
Al-Dhahabi believes that accepting the narration of an innovator depends on several factors:
the type of innovation, its impact on the narration, and the narratorAos truthfulness and trustworthiness in transmission.
Al-Dhahabi tends to be strict in accepting the narration of an innovator if his innovation is severe and affects the credibility of his narrations38.
In the case of Humran ibn AAoyan.
Al-DhahabiAos rejection was not based merely on sectarian affiliation, but on his assessment that the degree of doctrinal deviation (AuRafidiAy rather than merely AuShiaA.
could affect the accuracy and integrity of transmission, making the narration unreliable according to his strict methodological standards.
Al-HakimAos authentication, despite these criticisms, reflects his different methodological priorities.
Rather than focusing primarily on individual narrator weaknesses, he appears to have weighted the presence of supporting chains and corroborative evidence more heavily.
The hadith appears in various forms through different transmitters, including versions recorded by Ibn AoAdi through Hamzah Al-Zayyat39 .
and Ibn Mandah through Abu Khalid Al-AoAqili40, suggesting wider circulation that Al-Hakim may have considered supportive evidence for authenticity.
This analysis shows that the disagreement between Al-Hakim and Al-Dhahabi is not merely sectarian bias, but reflects a fundamental difference in methodological standards: Al-Dhahabi applies strict criteria that prioritize doctrinal soundness as a guarantee of transmission integrity, while Al-Hakim gives greater weight to corroborative evidence and supporting witnesses in evaluating hadith authenticity.
The disagreement ultimately reflects the scholarly richness of hadith criticism rather than methodological flaws, demonstrating Al-DhahabiAos commitment to stringent authentication standards while showing Al-HakimAos broader evaluative approach in supplementing existing collections.
37 Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyyah.
Al-Nubuwwat, ed.
Abdul Aziz Al-Tuwayan (Riyadh: AdwaAo AlSalaf, 1420 AH), 2:882.
38 Al-Dhahabi.
Mizan al-IAotidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, 1:3-5.
39 Ahmad ibn AoAdi al-Jurjani.
Al-Kamil fi al-DuAoafaAo, ed.
Adel Abdul Mawjoud and Ali Muawwad (Beirut: AlKutub Al-Ilmiyya, 1418 AH), 3:367.
40 Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Mandah.
Majalis min Amali Abi Abdullah ibn Mandah, ed.
Marzuq Ali Ibrahim (Riyadh: DAr al-Watan, 1412 AH), 120.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
Hadith about Ysuf Aos Actions Al-Hakim said: AuIt was narrated to us by Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Saffar.
narrated to us by Ahmad ibn Mihran Al-Asbahani.
narrated to us by AoUbaydullah ibn Musa.
narrated to us by Israel, from Khusayf, from AoIkrimah, from Ibn Abbas .
ay Allah be pleased with them bot.
, who said: AoYusuf made three missteps: when he was inclined toward her, so he was imprisoned.
Al-Hakim admits: AuThis hadith is authentic based on the conditions of alshyaikhAn, but they did not record it.
Ay42 Al-Dhahabi remarks: AuThis is a rejected .
Ay43.
Al-Suyuti recorded it in Al-Durr Al-Manthur and said: Ibn Mardawayh narrated it from Ibn Abbas44.
Al-Hakim authenticated a hadith from Khusayf about Yusuf Aos missteps as meeting the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, while Al-Dhahabi rejected it as AumunkarAy.
This disagreement reveals fundamental methodological differences requiring examination of both scholarsAo criteria and their Al-DhahabiAos rejection centers on Khusayf ibn Abdul Rahman Al-Jazari, whose weakness is documented by multiple authorities.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal called him Aunot reliable, not strong in hadith, with severely inconsistent reportsAy45.
Ibn Abi Hatim noted his poor memory and mistakes46, while Ibn Hajar concluded he was Auhonest but of poor memory, affected by irjaAo in later yearsAy47.
Ibn AoAdi reveals:
AuHe narrates a lot, but his reports contain falsehoods when transmitted by weak narratorsAy48.
This scholarly consensus provides the foundation for Al-DhahabiAos technical rejection.
The case demonstrates Al-DhahabiAos consistent application of his Mizan alIAotidal principles, which target narrators whoAos Audegree is low due to memory or breachesAy - precisely describing Khusayf Aos documented problems.
His use of AumunkarAy reflects systematic methodology in identifying compromised transmissions, showing precision rather than arbitrary judgment.
Supporters of Al-Hakim argue for his methodological legitimacy.
Ibn 41 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 4:321.
42 Ibid.
43 Al-Dhahabi.
Talkhis Al-Mustadrak, 3:4929.
44 Al-Suyuti.
Al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir bil-MaAothur , 4:543.
45 Ibn Hanbal.
Al-Ilal, 3:214.
46 Ibn Abi Hatim.
Al-Jarh wa al-TaAodil, 3:404.
47 Ibn Hajar.
Taqrib al-Tahdhib, 1:224.
48 Ibn Adi.
Al-Kamil, 3:552.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh al-Salah defended that AuAl-Hakim carefully gathered authentic ahadith, either meeting Bukhari and MuslimAos level or deemed authentic though not reaching their standardAy49.
Critics counter with Ibn al-MulaqqinAos observation that Authis is munkar because it contains Khusayf, weakened by Ahmad and others, and neither al-Bukhari nor Muslim recorded from himAy50.
The debate reveals core differences: Al-Hakim focuses on technical chain structure and contextual evaluation, while Al-Dhahabi emphasizes cumulative weakness evidence and stricter standards for unique narrations.
Al-HakimAos approach considers his MustadrakAos supplementary function and graduated reliability standards, while Al-Dhahabi applies rigorous consistency with documented narrator problems.
The Khusayf case confirms that both scholars maintained methodological integrity within their respective frameworks.
Al-DhahabiAos rejection aligns with the broader scholarly consensus on Khusayf Aos unreliability and follows his stated principles Al-HakimAos authentication reflects a different but systematically defensible approach, prioritizing supplementary coverage over absolute technical Their disagreement demonstrates the sophisticated diversity of hadith scholarship rather than methodological flaws.
Hadith about al-DajjAl and the Ummah Al-Hakim said: AuIt was narrated to us by Abu Bakr ibn Ishaq.
informed us by Muhammad ibn Shadhan Al-Jawhari.
narrated to us by Zakariya ibn AoAdi.
to us by AoIsa ibn Yunus.
from Safwan ibn AoAmr.
from AoAbdul Rahman ibn Jubair ibn Nufayr.
from his father .
ay Allah be pleased with hi.
, who said: When the grief of the companions of the Messenger of Allah .
eace and blessings be upon hi.
over those who were killed at MuAotah intensified, the Messenger of Allah .
eace and blessings be upon hi.
said: AoThe Dajjal will reach a people like you or even better than you---three times---and Allah will never disgrace a nation of which I am the first and AoIsa ibn Maryam is the last.
Al-Hakim states: AuThis hadith is authentic according to the conditions of al-shyaikhAn, but they did not record itAy52.
Al-Dhahabi says: AuThis is mursal 49 Ibn al-Salah.
AoUlum al-Hadith, ed.
Nur al-Din AoItr (Damascus: DAr al-Fikr, 1.
, 89.
50 Ibn al-Mulaqqin.
Mukhtasar Talkhis al-Dhahabi, 2:816.
51 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 5:33.
52 Ibid.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
, and it is a rejected .
reportAy53.
The crux of Al-DhahabiAos objection lies in what he saw as a fundamental flaw in the chain involving Abdul Rahman ibn Jubair ibn Nufayr.
Though Ibn Hajar described him as Aua mukhadram from the second generation whose father was a companionAy54.
Abu Hatim praised him as Aureliable and among the prominent early followers in SyriaAy55, there remained a critical gap.
Abdul Rahman, despite living during the ProphetAos era, never actually met himAicreating what hadith scholars call an irsal or disconnection that cannot simply be overlooked.
What we see here is Al-Dhahabi applying his well-established principles with characteristic precision.
Throughout his work in Mizan al-IAotidal, he consistently emphasized that structural problems in transmission chains cannot be ignored, regardless of how trustworthy individual narrators might be.
As Al-Dhahabi explained it: AuThis hadith suffers from irsal.
AoIsa ibn Yunus received it from Safwan, making it a rejected report.
Jubair ibn Nufayr al-Hadrami may have lived during the ProphetAos time, but his narration from the Prophet remains disconnectedAy56.
Those who might defend Al-HakimAos position could reasonably argue that when dealing with highly reliable narrators and seemingly authentic content, some methodological flexibility makes sense.
After all, this particular hadith appears in works by Ibn Abi Shaybah57.
NuAoaym ibn Hammad58, and Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi59, suggesting it had wider acceptance among scholars.
Modern defenders of AlHakim often point out that his Mustadrak was designed to supplement Al-Sahihan collections with authentic material they had missed, which might justify somewhat different evaluation criteria.
However, critics find strong support for Al-DhahabiAos technical approach.
Al-Shawkani clearly identified the structural issue: AuIt qualifies as mursal because Abdul Rahman was a follower, not a companionAy60, while al-Munawi acknowledged:
53 Al-Dhahabi.
Talkhis Al-Mustadrak, 3:133.
54 Ibn Hajar.
Taqrib al-Tahdhib, 1:138.
55 Ibn Abi Hatim.
Al-Jarh wa al-TaAodil, 2:512.
56 Zain al-Din Muhammad al-Munawi.
Fayd al-Qadir Sharh al-JamiAo al-Saghir (Egypt: Al-Maktabah alTijariyah al-Kubra, 1356 AH), 5:449.
57 Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah.
Al-Musannaf, ed.
Saad Al-Shathri (Riyadh: DAr Kunuz Ishbiliya, 1436 AH), 11:25.
58 NuAoaym ibn Hammad.
Kitab al-Fitan, ed.
Samir Amin Al-Zuhairi (Cairo: Maktabat Al-Tawhid, 1412 AH), 2:571.
59 Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Hakim Al-Tirmidhi.
Nawadir al-Usul fi Ahadith al-Rasul, ed.
Abdul Rahman Amira (Beirut: DAr Al-Jil, 1.
, 1:620 60 Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Shawkani.
Nayl al-Awtar Sharh Muntaqa al-Akhbar, ed.
Issam Al-Din Al-Sabbati (Egypt: DAr Al-Hadith, 1413 AH), 9:229.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh AuTherefore, this hadith is indeed mursalAy61.
This scholarly consensus regarding the technical defect validates Al-DhahabiAos methodology, which treats unbroken transmission chains as non-negotiable requirements for authentication, regardless of how appealing the content might be or how trustworthy individual links appear.
The disagreement reveals something important about these two scholarsAo different priorities.
Al-Hakim seems willing to weigh narrator reliability and content plausibility more heavily than absolute chain continuity, while Al-Dhahabi insists on strict technical requirements for unbroken transmission.
Al-HakimAos authentication suggests confidence in the hadithAos essential accuracy despite the structural gap, whereas Al-DhahabiAos rejection reflects an unwavering commitment to formal chain integrity as the bedrock of hadith authenticity.
Looking at the Jubair case, we can see both scholars operating consistently within their established methodological frameworks.
Al-DhahabiAos rejection demonstrates his systematic application of technical chain requirements that align with classical hadith principles, while Al-HakimAos authentication reflects his supplementary approach that considers factors beyond strict structural compliance.
Hadith about the Ummah and SharAoah Al-Hakim said: AuIt was narrated to us by Abu Al-Abbas Muhammad ibn YaAoqub.
informed by Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Hakim.
informed by Ibn Wahb.
narrated to me by Yahya ibn Ayyub.
from Zaban ibn FaAoid.
from Sahl ibn MuAoadh ibn Anas.
from his father .
ay Allah be pleased with hi.
, that the Messenger of Allah .
eace and blessings be upon hi.
said: AoThe Ummah will remain upon the Shariah as long as three things do not appear among them.
AuA Al-HAkim narrated this hadith in al-Mustadrak and authenticated it, stating:
AuThis hadith is authentic according to the conditions Al-ShaykhAn, though they did not record itAy 63.
While al-Dhahab responded in al-Talkhs: AuIt is rejected .
, and Zaban was not relied upon by Al-ShaykhAnAy64.
This contradiction reveals a fundamental methodological difference between the two scholars in applying authentication criteria, where al-HAkim claimed to apply the conditions of AlShaykhAn without actual verification, while al-Dhahab indicated that al-BukhAr and MuslimAos exclusion of Zaban ibn FAAoid demonstrates his failure to meet their 61 Al-Munawi.
Fayd al-Qadir, 5:449.
62 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 9:933.
63 Ibid.
64 Al-Dhahabi.
Talkhis Al-Mustadrak, 1:101.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
The imams of jarh WA-taAodl unanimously agreed on Zaban ibn FAAoidAos Ahmad ibn Hanbal stated: AuHis hadiths are rejected .
,Ay 65 and Ibn HibbAn described him: AuHe narrates uniquely from Sahl ibn MuAoAdh hadiths that appear fabricated.
he cannot be relied uponAy66.
This precisely identifies the defectAos location, as the hadith under study passes through Sahl ibn MuAoAdh.
Al-Haytham indicated multiple defects, saying: AuIt contains Ibn LahAoah and Zaban, both weak,Ay67 constituting practical consensus on rejecting the hadith.
Al-DhahabAos commentary represents a distinguished model of critical methodology, where he not only mentioned the narratorAos weakness but pointed to a fundamental methodological principle based on practical induction.
Al-ShaykhAn Ao methodology rather than the theoretical application of abstract rules.
His use of AumunkarAy has precise terminological significance, referring to hadiths narrated by weak narrators contradicting reliable ones or uniquely transmitted without corroboration, exactly applying to ZabanAos situation in this hadith.
Al-HAkimAos position can be understood within his broader project of collecting hadiths he considered meeting Al-ShaykhAnAos conditions, but this methodology suffers from the difficulty of applying another scholarAos criteria without complete familiarity with his methodological subtleties.
In contrast, al-DhahabAos methodology represents critical development through studying imamsAo practical methodology via inductive analysis of their selections, making it more precise and less susceptible to methodological error.
This case confirms that inductive authentication requires a deep study of the methodology being induced from, and that jarh WA-taAodl consensus on a narratorAos weakness constitutes strong evidence difficult to overcome.
Contemporary scholarly consensus on this hadithAos weakness validates al-DhahabAos methodology and highlights the importance of balancing preservation and criticism in hadith heritage.
Hadith about Six Cursed People Al-Hakim said: AuIt was narrated to us by Abdullah ibn JaAofar Al-Farisi.
narrated to us by YaAoqub ibn Sufyan.
narrated to us by Ishaq ibn Muhammad AlFarwi.
narrated to us by Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Al-Mawal.
from AoUbaydullah ibn Mawhab.
from Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn AoAmr ibn Hazm.
from AoAmrah.
AoAisha .
ay Allah be pleased with he.
, who said: The Messenger of Allah .
eace 65 Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Al-Musnad, ed.
ShuAoayb al-ArnaAout (Beirut: MuAoassasat al-Risalah, 1421 AH), 24:391.
66 Muhammad ibn Hibban.
Al-Majruhun, ed.
Mahmud Zayed (Aleppo: DAr al-WaAoi, 1396 AH), 1:313.
67 Noor Adeen Ali Al-Haythai.
MajmaAo al-ZawaAoed wa manbaAo al- FawaAoed, vol.
1, p.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh and blessings be upon hi.
said: AoThere are six people I have cursed, and Allah has cursed them, and every prophet whose supplication is answered has cursed them:
The denier of AllahAos decree .
aDA.
, .
AoA Al-HAkim authenticated this hadith, stating: AuThis hadith is authentic according to al-BukhArAos conditions, though he did not record it,Ay69 while al-Dhahab responded with a detailed refutation: AuIshAq, though one of al-BukhArAos teachers, narrates severe munkar reports.
Al-NasAAo says he is not trustworthy.
Ab DAwd calls him weak, al-DAraqutn abandoned him, while Ab HAtim considers him truthful.
AoUbaydullAh is not relied upon by hadith scholars, and this entire hadith is munkarAy70.
This commentary reveals al-DhahabAos meticulous methodology in dismantling the chain narrators by narrator, indicating how conflicting critical opinions about a single narrator affect the final judgment of the hadith.
The sources transmitted this hadith through completely contradictory paths.
Al-Tirmidh71 .
Al-TabarAn72.
Ibn Batta73, and al-HAkim74 narrated it as connected .
, while Al-FAkih75.
Al-TahAw76.
Ibn Batta77 , and al-HAkim78 Narrated it as disconnected .
through AoUbaydullAh ibn AoAbd al-RahmAn ibn Mawhab from AoAl ibn al-Husayn from his father from his grandfather AoAl ibn Ab TAlib.
This contradiction in connection and disconnection, sometimes from the same sources, indicates fundamental disorder in transmission, weakening confidence in the narration altogether.
Al-Tirmidh indicated this problem, stating: AuThis is how AoAbd al-RahmAn ibn Ab Al-MawAl narrated this hadith from AoUbaydullAh ibn AoAbd al-RahmAn ibn Mawhab from AoAmra from AoAAoisha from the Prophet.
However.
SufyAn al-Thawr.
Hafs ibn GhiyAth, and others narrated it from AoUbaydullAh ibn AoAbd Al-RahmAn ibn 68 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 1:263.
69 Ibid.
70 Al-Dhahabi.
Talkhis Al-Mustadrak, 4:256.
71 Muhammad ibn Isa Al-Tirmidhi.
Sunan al-Tirmidhi, ed.
Ahmad Shakir (Beirut: DAr IhyaAo al- Turath al-Arabi, 1.
, 4:457.
72 Al-Tabarani.
Al-MuAojam al-Kabir, 3:136.
73 Ibn Battah.
Al-Ibana an Shariat al-Firqa al-Najiya, 4:112.
74 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 1:263.
75 Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Abbas Al-Fakihi.
Akhbar Makkah fi Qadeem al-Dahr wa Hadithih (Beirut: DAr Khidr, 1414 AH), 2:2.
76 Al-Tahawi.
Mushkil al-Athar, 4:366.
77 Ibn Battah.
Al-Ibana, 4:113.
78 Al-Hakim.
Al-Mustadrak, 1:263.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
Mawhab from AoAl ibn al-Husayn as mursal, and this is more authentic.
Ay 79 Ibn Ab HAtim reported that Ab ZurAoa said: AuIbn Ab Al-MawAlAos narration is false.
The correct version is AoUbaydullAh ibn AoAbd Al-RahmAn ibn MawhabAos narration from AoAl ibn al-Husayn as mursalAy80.
These texts confirm that the chain disorder is not merely ordinary variation but a confirmed error from one of the narrators.
Added to the disorder problem is the weakness of AoUbaydullAh ibn AoAbd AlRahmAn ibn Mawhab, who represents the convergence point of all paths.
Ibn Hajar stated he is Aunot strong,Ay81 judgment means his unique narrations cannot be used as evidence, especially with an existing disorder.
Scientific methodology requires that a disordered hadith from a weak narrator cannot have one of its versions preferred over another.
rather, all should be judged weak.
This case highlights the importance of Al-DhahabAos analytical precision compared to al-HAkimAos lenience in authentication, where the latter sufficed with apparent chain examination without delving into narrator conditions and hadith path variations.
It also confirms the necessity of studying all hadith paths before judgment, as transmission disorder is strong evidence of imprecise preservation, and the practical consensus of specialized critics like Ab ZurAoa and Al-Tirmidh on weakening the connected narration represents precise scientific methodology in distinguishing between authentic and defective reports.
Methodological Divergences between al-HAkim and al-Dhahab in Hadith Authentication The study of applied cases reveals fundamental differences between the methodologies of Al-Hakim and Al-Dhahabi in evaluating hadiths.
This methodological divergence reflects broader scholarly tensions documented by contemporary researchers in specialized studies on hadith methodologies and critical development across centuries, including AkmaluddinAos analysis of regional hadith variations in Al-Andalus82.
BrownAos examination of canonization processes83.
DavidsonAos study of post-canonical transmission practices84.
DuderijaAos work on hadith 79 Al-Tirmidhi.
Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 4:475.
80 Ibn Abi Hatim.
Al-Jarh wa al-TaAodil, 5:7.
81 Ibn Hajar.
Taqrib al-Tahdhib, 1:226.
82 Akmaluddin.
AuDevelopments of Hadth RiwAya in Al-Andalus: 228Ae52.
83 Brown.
The Canonization of Al-BukhAr and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunn Hadth Canon.
84 Davidson.
Carrying on the Tradition.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh authentication evolution85, and MotzkiAos investigations into early hadith materials86.
Al-HakimAos fundamental problem in extracting hadiths that he claimed met the conditions of Al-Shaykhayn lies in his reliance on Ausuperficial criteria,Ay which manifests in several interconnected methodological aspects.
His contentment with apparent examination of chains without delving into hidden defects that early critics considered paramount represents the first aspect of this superficial approach.
The second aspect involves his mechanical application of the concept of Auconditions of Al-ShaykhaynAy instead of understanding the implicit methodology followed by AlShaykhayn.
As Brown confirms in his study on the canonization of Al-Shaykhayn87, attempting to apply the criteria of Al-Shaykhayn without understanding their historical and methodological context leads to erroneous results.
The third aspect is Al-HakimAos neglect of the specific contextual indicators and circumstances of each hadith, which was a fundamental principle among early critics, as Al-Malibari This superficial approach contradicts the sophisticated methodology of early critics who relied on Aucomprehensive contextual judgmentAy rather than the mechanical application of rules88.
Al-HakimAos leniency appeared in his acceptance of narrators from whom Al-Shaykhayn did not transmit or who were disputed among critics.
This included his acceptance of Humran ibn AAoyan and Khusayf ibn Abd al-Rahman despite their being weakened, his acceptance of chains containing hidden disconnections, such as the Dajjal hadith89, and his leniency with strange or problematic texts90.
The question of Aufluctuating criteriaAy in Al-Bukhari and Muslim requires a deep understanding of the nature of critical methodology in the third century AH.
What appears as AufluctuationAy in the criteria is the application of the Auspecialized critical contextAy principle adopted by early critics.
A skilled critic may select the most authentic narrations from a weak narratorAos reports, and this is only acceptable from leading authorities like Al-Bukhari and Muslim and those equal to them in criticism and understanding, because they are most knowledgeable about their hadiths and their proper contexts in the Sunan.
Each hadith has its specific indicators as stated by the verifying imams.
When preferring 85 Duderija.
AuEvolution in the Canonical Sunni Hadth Body of Literature and the Concept of an Authentic Hadth During the Formative Period of Islamic Thought as Based on Recent Western ScholarshipAy: 389Ae415.
86 Motzki.
Harald .
Hadith: Origins and Developments.
The Formation of the Classical Islamic World 28.
London: Routledge, 2004(.
432 pages.
87 Brown.
The Canonization of Al-BukhAr and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunn Hadth Canon.
88 Al-Malibari.
The Balance between Early and Later Scholars in Authenticating and Analyzing Hadiths, 156.
89 Ibn Abi Hatim.
Al-Jarh wa al-TaAodil, 2:512.
90 Al-Mizzi.
Tahdhib al-Kamal, 7:306.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
one hadith over another or accepting a narratorAos report in one context while rejecting it from the same narrator in another context, there are indicators and data upon which the preference and acceptance of the narration are based in one case over the Al-Bukhari, for instance, might accept a narrator in one context and reject him in another based on hidden indicators invisible to superficial observers.
This is what Al-DAraqutni confirmed in his criticisms, which Ibn Hajar defended in AuTaghliq Al-TaAoliqAy by explaining these hidden contexts92.
Al-Hakim, however, attempted to imitate this flexibility without possessing the same critical depth, resulting in what appears as AuleniencyAy but is actually Auincomplete applicationAy of advanced methodology.
The difference between Auconscious methodological flexibilityAy and Auunjustified leniencyAy lies in possessing the necessary critical mechanisms to distinguish different contexts.
In contrast.
Al-Dhahab .
748 AH) adhered to the judgments of early critics and criteria of sound connection, adopting a precise methodology based on verifying the soundness of chains both apparently and inherently, studying narratorsAo conditions according to statements of earlier critics, considering contextual indicators, and judging according to the totality of evidence rather than merely apparent chains93.
The applied study demonstrates the superiority of Al-DhahabAos methodology, as all hadiths he judged as munkar .
contained decisive defects, and he adhered to the judgments of early critics while Al-Hakim contradicted them in numerous This confirms the validity of early criticsAo methodology, the importance of considering hidden defects, and the danger of leniency in authentication criteria.
Conclusion This study demonstrates that al-DhahabAos classification of certain hadiths as munkar, despite al-HAkimAos claims that they meet the conditions of al-ShaykhAn, reflects superior methodological rigor and accuracy.
The analysis reveals that alHAkimAos authentication approach, while well-intentioned, suffered from insufficient attention to hidden defects and contextual factors that experienced hadith critics like al-Dhahab consistently identified.
91 Al-Muhammadi.
AuAl-Shadh wa al-Munkar wa Ziyadat al-Thiqah - Muwazanah bayna al-Mutaqaddimin wa al-MutaAoakhkhirin, 29.
92 Ibn Hajar al-AoAsqalAn.
Taghlq al-TaAolq AoalA Sahh al-BukhAr.
Edited by SaAod AoAbd al-RahmAn MsA alQazaq.
) Beirut: DAr AoAmmAr, 1405 AH(.
93 Al-Malibari.
The Balance between Early and Later Scholars in Authenticating and Analyzing Hadiths , 156.
94 Ibn Hanbal.
Al-Ilal, 1:551.
Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 Abbas.
Rawabdeh The findings confirm that the deliberate omission of specific hadiths by the authors of Sahh al-BukhAr and Sahh Muslim, particularly when the narrator is someone they cited elsewhere, indicates doubt about authenticity and uncertainty in accepting it.
Consequently, claiming that a certain hadith is authentic because it meets the conditions of al-ShaykhAn constitutes a serious issue requiring careful examination and review, both in theoretical foundation and practical application.
Moreover, al-DhahabAos precise judgments in these cases highlight his expertise in hadith criticism and analytical skills in evaluating authenticity.
While this study provides important insights into methodological divergences between al-HAkim and al-Dhahab, its scope remains limited to a small set of representative cases from al-Mustadrak and Talkhs al-Mustadrak.
Broader comparative analyses across larger hadith corpora may reveal additional nuances in their critical approaches.
Future research should therefore expand beyond individual case studies to examine how concepts such as munkar.
Aoillah khafiyyah .
idden defect.
, and Auconditions of al-ShaykhAnAy were applied across different regions, periods, and scholarly networks.
Such investigations would not only refine our understanding of classical hadith criticism but also contribute to developing frameworks for applying these methodological principles in contemporary scholarship.
Author Contributions Maessa Ali Rawabdeh conceptualized the study, developed the research objectives, drafted the introduction, reviewed the literature, and designed the She also managed the selection and classification of hadiths.
Sanaa Fadel Abbas contributed to the theoretical framework, historical background, and analysis of the judgments of Imam Al-Dhahabi, and he co-drafted the discussion and conclusion.
Both authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available Jurnal Studi Ilmu-Ilmu al-QurAoan dan Hadis 26, no.
2 (Juli 2.
hlm: 545-568 The Concept of Munkar in al-DhahabAos Critique.
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Funding The researchers did not receive financial support for the research.
References