http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm

For many blog readers who don’t speak Arabic, you’ll be asking Multaqa what? Multaqa ahl-hadith means the ‘Meeting place of the Ahl-Hadith’. This website is one of the most popular discussion forums on the internet, but until now it was only in Arabic. To give you an idea of its popularity, consider these stats:

• Created in 2001.
• 18,000 members (despite moderated membership)
• 80,000 topics and 500,000 posts!
• 700 people online on average, up to a max. of 2100.
• 2600 manuscripts online.
• Over 10,000 books online.
• Many students of knowledge online, incl. from US such as Waleed Idrees.
• Yasir Q.’s testimonial “It is – from my limited knowledge of Arabic sites – the single most beneficial site I have come across, and Allah knows best…
• A wide spectrum of visitors from the non ahl-hadith to the ahl-hadith discussing in a strictly academic format.

So… now the English version has JUST been kicked off. Amazingly, the brother who runs (Sh. Haitham Hamdan, an instructor at AIU) it is a friend and a teacher, and so this is something brand-new that he sent us. The link to the English site is here. Sign up to be part of something that could be really big inshallah.

I personally have to say that this webforum is the main reason that I am grateful for the internet. Never have I had a question except that I have been able to find the answer here. There are great scholars and students of knowledge who take part in this forum. Many of them are bearer’s of PhD’s or Huffadh of the Qur’an who know all the Qira’at such as Shaykh Walid Idris who is actually an Imam of a Masjid in America. Now, it goes without saying, that 80,000 topics in the Arabic is a very difficult act to replicate, but here is the comment left by Shaykh Haitham Hamdan, an admin of Multaqa Ahl al-Hadith, on Br. Amad’s post:

Jazakallahu khairan Abu Abdallah for spreadig the news.

The success of such forums is only attained by the participation of students of knowledge. We hope for the Multaqa to play a role in spreading knowledge in the west.

I ask Allah SWT to grand all of us ikhlas, hidayah and tawfeeq.

Haitham Hamdan

Aameen.

Enjoy the read:

http://shaukani.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/in-response-to-marwan/

As I want to keep this discussion brief, I will not mention the verses or the many authentic hadīths reported in the Sahīh and elsewhere which support this belief. However, I would like to share some quotes from al-Hāfiz ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bārī as an introduction concerning this matter.

Al-Hāfiz states in al-Fath (8/773):

`Iyād states, “The Vision (Ru’yah) of Allāh, Glorified and Exalted is He, is rationally plausible (jā’izah `aqlan) and the famous authentic reports have established that the Believers will be granted it in the Hereafter.”

Elsewhere, he states (8/384):

The prophetic reports establishing al-Ru’yah for the Believers in the Hereafter and that they shall be honored with in Paradise are of the level of tawātur. There is nothing impossible in that, therefore, it is obligatory to believe in it, and with Allāh is the success.

And he states (13/530):

Al-Dāraqutnī has compiled the routes of the hadīths concerning the Ru’yahof Allāh, the Most High, in the Hereafter and they were more than twenty. Ibn al-Qayyim compiled them in Hādī al-Arwāh and they reached thirty, and most of them were good (jiyād). Al-Dāraqutnī relates from Yahyā b. Ma`īn that he said, “I have with me seventeen hadīths concerning al-Ru’yah that are authentic (sihāh).”

In Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā’, al-Dhahabī also states:

As for seeing Allāh with the naked eye (`ayānan), it is a certain matter the texts concerning which are mutawātir. Al-Dāraqutnī, al-Bayhaqī, and others have gathered the hadīths concerning it.

And he also states (10/455):

Ahmad b. Hanbal said: a man from the People of Hadīth (Ashāb al-Hadīth) informed me that Yahyā b. Sālih said, “If only Ashāb al-Hadīth would abandon ten hadīths” referring to these one concerning al-Ru’yah. Ahmad commented, “It is as if he is inclined to the view of Jahm.”

I (al-Dhahabī) say: the Mu`tazilah say, “If only the traditionists (muhaddithīn) would give up one thousand hadīths, the Names, al-Ru’yah, and the Descent (al-Nuzūl), they would be in the right.”

The Qadarīyyah say, “If only they would give up seventy hadīths affirming predestination (al-Qadar).”

The Rāfidah say, “If only the majority would abandon a thousand of the hadīths, they claim to be authentic, they would be in the right.”

And many of the followers of opinion reject hadīths taken by the Hāfiz, the Muftī, the Mujtahid Abū Hurayrah directly from the mouth of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and they claim that he was not a jurist (faqīh), and yet they bring us hadīths which are worthless (sāqitah) or for which no chain of narration (isnād) is known to begin with, relying on them as proof.

We say: all of them have an appointed standing before Allāh, the Most High.

O Glorified is Allāh (Yā Subhānallāh)! The hadīths concerning seeing Allāh in the Hereafter are mutawātirah and the Qur’ān confirms them, so what has become of fairness (insāf)?

Having seen the statements of some of the great Huffāz concerning this matter, this brings us to the words of a great Imām who has rebutted the arguments of those who reject al-Ru’yah. In the process, he has provided a sufficient response to the stray narration that is used as a justification for this view, may Allāh reward him greatly on behalf of Islām and the Muslims.

Imām `Uthmān b. Sa`īd al-Dārimī states in al-Radd `Alā al-Jahmīyyah:

Some say, we do not accept these narrations (concerning Allāh being seen on the Day of Judgment) nor do we admit them as proofs.

I say: Of course not. Nor do you accept the Book of Allāh. If you do not accept them, then is it (because) you doubt that they are related from the Salaf and conclusively documented having been passed down by the great nobles and jurists in each generation?

They say, “Yes.”

We say: it is sufficient for us that you acknowledge that they are a proof for us against you because of our claim that they are famous reports circulated amongst the scholars and jurists. Therefore, produce the likes of it from them as a proof for this claim of yours which is belied by the reports, all of them! However, you are unable to produce any report or narration, while you know, if Allāh wills, that the Sunnahs, rulings, and verdicts of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and of His Companions are not established except by these narrations (Āthār) and chains of narration (Asānīd) in all their diversity. They (the hadīths) are the means to that and the path which the Muslims follow. They are their reference point in their religion after the Book of Allāh, Mighty and Majestic. They draw knowledge from them, they pass judgment by them, they maintain uprightness through them, they rely on them, and they adorn themselves with them. Each of them leaves them as an inheritance to his successor. The witness amongst them conveys it to the absent. They accept them as proof and they seek reward in conveying them to those who have not heard them. They call them Sunan, Āthār, understanding (Fiqh), and knowledge. They travel to the eastern and western ends of the Earth seeking them. It is by them that they know what Allāh has deemed lawful (Halāl) and what He has deemed unlawful (Harām). It is with them that they distinguish the truth from the falsehood and the Sunnahs from the innovations. They use them as evidence for explanation (Tafsīr) of the Qur’ān, its meanings, and its ordinances, and through them they know the misguidance of those who stray from Guidance.

Therefore, anyone who turns away from them is only turning away from the footsteps (Āthār) of the Salaf and their guidance and only desires to oppose them, to take his religion as his lusts, and to interpret Allāh’s Book with his opinion in opposition to what Allāh meant by it.

Therefore, if you are from the believers and upon the way of their forebears, then seek knowledge in their Āthār and seek guidance in their path. Be content with these Āthār as a reference point (Imām) as the people were content with it as a reference point (Imām) for themselves, for by my life, you are not more knowledgeable of Allāh’s Book than them nor are you even like them. Furthermore, it is not possible to follow their example except by following these Āthār as you see. Thus, whoever does not accept them desires to follow other than the path of the Believers. And Allāh, the Most High says:

“… and (whoever) follows other than the Path of the Believers, We shall set him in the direction he has taken, and We shall burn him in the Hellfire, and what an evil destination.” [Al-Nisā’:115]

Some of them have said, “No, we base our view on the rational (ma`qūl).”

We say: it is here that you have strayed from the right path and fallen into misguidance from which you have no escape, for reason (ma`qūl) is not a monolithic entity with uniformly defined limits for all people such that it would be sufficient. If such were the case, it would be a relief for the people and we would also base our view upon it and go no further. In that case, Allāh would not have said:

“Each sect rejoices in what it has.” [Al-Mu’minūn:53]

Thus, we find that according to each group, the “rational” (ma`qūl) is that which they are upon while that which opposes them they regard to be “irrational” (majhūl). Consequently, O assembly of Jahmīs, we find your factions to be in dispute as to what is “rational”. Each faction amongst you claims that reason is with it and that is calling to it, while that which opposes it is irrational. Thus, having seen that “reason” is disputed amongst us and you and all the People of Desires, we have not been able to find a precise definition for it in all things. Consequently, we hold that the most guided way is to refer all manners of reasoning to the order of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and to that which was considered rational by his Companions and was well-known amongst them, because it was in their midst that the revelation would descend. Hence, they are more knowledgeable of its meanings than you or us. Furthermore, they were in agreement about the fundamentals of the religion (Usūl al-Dīn). They did not divide into factions concerning them, innovations did not appear amongst them nor desires which lead one astray from the path.

Hence, in our view, the rational is that which corresponds with their guidance and the irrational is that which opposed them. Furthermore, there is no way to know their guidance and their way except by these Āthār, and you have detached yourself from them and claim to select only some of them, so how can you be guided.

Some of them have used as evidence the statement of Mujāhid:

“Faces on that day shall be bright, looking (nādhirah) at their Lord” [Al-Qiyāmah:22-23]

He said, “They await the reward of their Lord.”

We say: yes, they await the reward of their Lord, and there is no reward greater than looking at His Face, Most Blessed and High is He.

If you insist on remaining attached to this hadīth of Mujāhid and to rely on it to the exclusion of all other narrations (Āthār), then this is a sign of your straying (shudhūdh) from the truth and your following falsehood, for if this claim of yours were established from Mujāhid in the manner that you understand it, it would be a rejected opinion because of these authentic narrations concerning it from Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), His Companions, and the assembly (Jamā`ah) of the Followers (Tābi`īn). Have you not claimed that you do not accept these narrations (Āthār) nor rely on them as proof. Therefore, how can you use the narration from Mujāhid as proof when you find a way to hang on to it due to your falsehood without clarification. What is more, you abandon the narrations (Āthār) from Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), his Companions, and the Followers when they contradict your view (madhhab). However, if you acknowledge the acceptance of the narration of Mujāhid, then you have passed judgment on yourself that you must accept the narrations (Āthār) from Allāh’s Messenger, his Companions, and the Followers after them, because you did not hear this from Mujāhid. Rather, you narrate it from him a chain of narration (isnād), while you narrate chains (asānīd) similar to it or better than it from the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), the Companions, and the Followers which contradict it in your view. Therefore, how could you impose on yourselves to follow the unclear (mushtabih) narration of Mujāhid alone, while you left the authentic (sahīh), explicit (mansūs) narrations from Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), His Companions, and the peers of Mujāhid from the Followers, except due to doubt and deviation (shudhūdh) from the truth.

Indeed, the one who desires deviation (shudhūdh) from the truth follows the strange (shādh) opinions of the scholars and hangs on to their slips. However, the one who seeks the truth for himself follows the well known (mashhūr) opinions of their assembly (jamā`ah) and he follows their understanding. So, these are two signs as to whether a man is a follower or an innovator.

It is authentically related from al-Shāfi’ī, may Allāh Most High have mercy on him, that he said, “I wish that the creation could have learned this knowledge without a single word of it being attributed to me.”

And he, may Allāh have mercy on him, said, “I have never disputed anyone in order to overcome him, and whenever I dispute anyone, I love that the truth should become manifest at his hands.”

And he said, “I have never spoken to anyone except that I loved that he should be granted success (tawfīq) and uprightness (sadād), that he should be aided, and that he should be in the care and protection of Allāh.”

This is a brief introduction of the book entitled Muwatta’ al-Imam Maalik; we ask Allaah to benefit us thereby.

Firstly:

Al-Muwatta’ is one of the great books of Islam which includes a number of marfoo’ ahaadeeth and mawqoof reports from the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and those who came after them. It also includes many rulings and fatwas of the author.

The Muwatta’ is so called because its author made it easy (watta’a) for the people in the sense that he made it easily accessible to them.

It was narrated that Maalik said: I showed this book of mine to seventy of the fuqaha’ of Madeenah, and all of them agreed with me (waata’ani) on it, so I called it al-Muwatta’.

Secondly:

The reason why it was compiled: Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) stated in al-Istidhkaar (1/168) that Abu Ja’far al-Mansoor said to Imam Maalik: “O Maalik, make a book for the people that I can make them follow, for there is no one today who is more knowledgeable than you.” Imam Maalik responded to his request, but he refused to force all the people to adhere to it.

Thirdly:

Imam Maalik read the Muwatta’ to people for forty years, adding to it, taking away from it and improving it. So his students heard it from him or read it to him during that time. So the reports in al-Muwatta’ are many and varied because of what the Imam did of editing his book. Some of his students narrated from him before it was edited, some during the process, and some at the end of his life. Some of them transmitted it in full whilst others narrated part of it. So a number of transmissions of the Muwatta’ became well known, the most important of which are:

The transmission of Yahya ibn Yahya al-Masmoodi al-Laythi (234 AH). This is the most famous transmission from Imam Maalik, and most of the scholars based their commentaries on it.

The transmission of Abu Mus’ab al-Zuhri, which is distinguished by the additions contained therein. It is the last version transmitted from Maalik and it is still in circulation among the scholars.

The transmission of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Maslamah al-Qa’nabi (221 AH). This is the largest version of the Muwatta’, and ‘Abd-Allaah is one of the soundest of people with regard to the Muwatta’, according to Ibn Ma’een, al-Nasaa’i and Ibn al-Madeeni.

The transmission of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybaani.

The transmission of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Salamah al-Fahri al-Masri.

And there are many others. Shaykh Muhammad Fu’aad ‘Abd al-Baaqi (may Allaah have mercy on him) spoke about the narrators of the Muwatta’ and discussed fourteen versions of it, in his introduction to the edition of the Muwatta’ that he edited (pp. 6-16).

These versions differ in the order of the books and chapters, and in the number of marfoo’, mursal, and mawqoof ahaadeeth. The wording of the ahaadeeth also differs greatly.

Fourthly:

The number of ahaadeeth in the Muwatta’ differs from one version to another, and according to the system of numbering [?]. That is because some scholars counted every report from the Sahaabah or Taabi’een as a separate hadeeth, whilst others did not count them in their numbering. Hence it is sufficient for us to mention the numbers that are mentioned in some of the edited versions of the Muwatta’, which are:

The version transmitted by Yahya al-Laythi (which is the most famous version, and this is what is usually meant by al-Muwatta’): It was numbered by Shaykh Khaleel Sheeha, and the number of ahaadeeth that he counted was 1942, including both marfoo’ and mawqoof reports.

The version transmitted by Abu Mus’ab al-Zuhri was numbered in the edition published by the Mu’sasat al-Risaalah. The number of hadeeth in this edition is 3069, which includes everything, even the words of Imam Maalik, hence the number is greater.

Fifthly:

The conditions he followed in his book are among the most reliable and strongest of conditions. He followed a method of erring on the side of caution and choosing only sound reports.

Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: There is nothing on earth after the Book of Allaah that is more correct that the Muwatta’ of Maalik ibn Anas.

It was narrated that al-Rabee’ said: I heard al-Shaafa’i say: If Maalik was uncertain about a hadeeth he would reject it altogether.

Sufyaan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: May Allaah have mercy on Maalik, how strict he was in his evaluation of men (narrators of hadeeth).

Al-Istidhkaar (1/166); al-Tamheed (1/68)

Hence you will find that many of the isnaads of Maalik are of the highest standard of saheeh. Because of this, the two Shaykhs al-Bukhaari and Muslim narrated most of his ahaadeeth in their books.

Note: Imam al-Shaafa’i made the comment quoted above before al-Bukhaari and Muslim wrote their books, as was noted by al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) in his summary of ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (pp. 24-25).

Sixthly:

In compiling his book, Maalik followed the method of compilation that was current during his time, so he mixed the hadeeths with the words of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een and fiqhi opinions. The reports of the Sahaabah number 613 and the reports of the Taabi’een number 285. In one chapter the marfoo’ ahaadeeth appear first, and are followed by the reports of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, and sometimes he mentions the actions of the people of Madeenah, so his book is a book of fiqh and hadeeth at the same time, it is not just a book of reports only. Hence you will find that some chapters have no reports, rather they contain the views of the fuqaha’ and the actions and ijtihaad of the people of Madeenah. An example of that is the chapter on produce on which no zakaah is due, and the chapter on the fast of one who kills another by mistake, and so on.

We also find that it is limited to sections on fiqh, etiquette and the actions of day and night. There is nothing in his book about Tawheed, zuhd (asceticism), the Resurrection, stories and tafseer.

See: al-Fikr al-Manhaji ‘inda al-Muhadditheen by Dr Humaam Sa’eed, p. 111-118; Manaahij al-Muhadditheen by Dr Yaasir al-Shimaali , p. 285ff; Muqaddimah Tahqeeq al-Muwatta’, ed. Fu’aad ‘Abd al-Baaqi.

And Allaah knows best.

Taken from Islam-QA.com.

This is coming from the brother at Ahl al-Hadith Blog (shaukani.wordpress.com) and I felt it was timely as many brothers are caught up in their own little worlds not realizing some of the greater issues facing Islam and the Muslims:

Dawah Rule 480: Debates About the Scholars are Shady

Question: I know that al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak contains a lot of weak hadîth, though he claims that all the hadîth in it are authentic according to the conditions of either al-Bukhârî or Muslim. We often read in books that al-Dhahabî has concurred with al-Hâkim’s assessment. When this is the case, does that mean we can accept with confidence that the hadîth is authentic?

Answered by Sheikh al-Sharîf Hâtim al-`Awnî

What al-Dhahabî does in his Talkhîs with respect to al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak is simply to abridge it. He does the same for a number of other books. Generally, an abridged work does not include anything extraneous to what is found in the original. Quite the contrary, there is material from the original that is omitted.

However, al-Dhahabî does not leave his abridged works without volunteering some comments of his own for the benefit of the readers. He does not add these comments according to any organized scheme or methodology, but offers them whenever he feels like doing so.

Bear in mind that al-Dhahabî never says anywhere that when he relates al-Hâkim’s verdict on a hadîth without making a comment of his own that he is agreeing with al-Hâkim’s assessment – or even that he does not object to it – and that such an assessment can be attributed to him as well.

It is clear from looking al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs that he is merely mentioning after every hadîth al-Hâkim’s ruling on its authenticity. If he wants to add any comments of his own, he clearly states that he is doing so by starting with the words “I say…”

Therefore, all the verdicts on the hadîth that are found in the Talkhîs without being preceded by the words “I say…” are merely the rulings given by al-Hâkim himself.

The assumption that al-Dhahabî’s silence is some sort of tacit agreement is a very weak assumption to make, because it is contrary to the normal conventions employed when making an abridgement of another’s work. Generally, all that is done is to relate what is in the original.

We know for a number of reasons that al-Dhahabî does not give his personal assessment in every hadîth where he disagrees with al-Hâkim.

First of all, al-Dhahabî in his encyclopedic Târikh al-Islam “The History of Islam” says the following in his biographical entry on al-Hâkim, wherein he speaks about his Mustadrak:

“The Mustadrak contains a good number of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of both (al-Bukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either one of them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises half the book. There is roughly another quarter of the hadîth that have authentic chains of transmission, but that have something else about them or that have some defect. As for the rest, and that is about a fourth, they are rejected and spurious narrations that are unauthentic. Some of those are fabrications. I came to know of them when I prepared an abridgement of the Mustadrak and pointed them out.”

This statement from al-Dhahabî makes it clear that he does not point out all of the spurious narrations that he mentions in his Talkhîs. He only takes care to comment on some of them, particularly those that are fabrications.

Does he not say that about one quarter of the book is made up of “rejected and spurious narrations”? In his Talkhîs, he only comments on about one-eight of the hadîth that are found in the Mustadrak. There is a total of 9045 hadîth in al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak. Al-Dhahabî, in his Talkhîs, comments on only 1182 hadîth, while a quarter of the hadîth in the Mustadrak would amount to 2261 hadîth. (These figures are taken from the editorial introduction of Ibn al-Mulaqqin’s Mukhtasar Istidrâk al-Dhahabî, 8-9)

On this basis, it is clear that al-Dhahabî was aware of double the number of spurious hadîth than those that he comments on. He is, however, silent about them. In light of this fact, can we construe his silence to indicate his agreement with al-Hâkim that those hadîth are authentic? Moreover, we know that another quarter of the Mustadrak, in al-Dhahabî’s opinion, are hadîth that are apparently authentic but contain some hidden defects that compromise their authenticity. How, then, can we possibly construe his silence to indicate his agreement with al-Hâkim?

What also shows us that al-Dhahabî’s silence is not his agreement with al-Hâkim is that al-Dhahabî, in his other writings, criticizes a number of hadîth that he remains silent about in his Talkhîs. Among these are the following:

1. In Mîzân al-I`tidâl (1/136, #547), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and declares it to be false. Then he says: “Al-Hâkim says it has an authentic chain of transmission. I say quite the contrary. He says that its narrators are all Madinites. I say otherwise. He says they are all reliable, whereas I say that I suspect the narrator Ahmad.”

2. In Mîzân al-I`tidâl (3/179, #6042), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and says: “Al-Hâkim authenticates it, though, as you can see, it is a rejected hadîth.”

3. In al-`Ulû lil-`Alî al-`Azim (1/593, #146), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and says: “The narrators Sharîk and `Atâ’ have weakness about them that does not bring their hadîth to being rejected. Yet this (text) is something seriously problematic that leaves the listener confused. I wrote it down merely as a digression because of its strangeness. It is something of the nature of ‘hear it and keep silent’.”

After all of this, if someone insists on construing al-Dhahabî’s silence on al-Hâkim’s verdict as indicating his agreement with it, then I must ask him: What is the value of this agreement? Al-Dhâhabî clearly states that his Talkhîs “…is in considerable need of work and editing.” [Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ (17/176)] This “considerable need” is so great that he has not followed up on a quarter of what he feels needs it. Insisting upon such an opinion is an insult to al-Dhahabî; it is not a compliment.

Admittedly, there have been many prominent scholars who have assumed that al-Dhahabî’s silence in his Talkhîs indicates his tacit approval of al-Hâkim’s ruling, scholars of the caliber of al-Suyûtî [al-Nukat al-Badî`ât (197)], al-Manâwî [Fayd al-Qadîr], and al-Husaynî [al-Bayân wa al-Ta`rîf]. Many contemporary scholars follow this view as well. However, the evidence clearly shows us that al-Dhahabî’s silence in his Talkhîs is not his tacit approval.

And Allah knows best.

———————————————

al-Dhahabî & the Mustadrak of al-Hâkim
by Dr. Bashshâr `Awwâd Ma`rûf

[From the introduction to his critical edition of al-Tirmidhî’s al-Jâmi` al-Kabîr published by Dâr al-Jayl, Beirut]

The book al-Mustadrak `alâ al-Sahîhayn by `Abd Allah al-Hâkim al-Naysâbûrî (d. 403 AH) is an encyclopedic work, well known among scholars. Its author claims that he has found authentic hadîth left out by the two authorities – al-Bukhârî and Muslim – though it actually contains some objectionable material. Al-Dhahabî writes in his biographical encyclopedia entitled Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ “Biographies of Outstanding Personalities”:

“The Mustadrak contains a lot of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of both (al-Bukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either one of them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises a third of the book or less. A lot of the book is comprised of hadîth that appear on the surface to be on the conditions of one or both of them, but that have hidden within them subtle but substantial defects. A portion of the book contains chains of transmission that are good and acceptable. This is about a fourth of the book. The rest of the book is comprised of rejected and extremely strange hadîth. At the same time, there are about one hundred hadîth that the heart declares to be false…”

Al-Dhahabî, when he first embarked upon the study of hadîth, prepared abridgements of a number of books, one of which was the Mustadrak. It has become the habit of scholars today working in the field of hadîth, when compiling them and determining their authenticity, to say things like: “It is authenticated by al-Hâkim and al-Dhahabî concurs.” In doing so, they are referring to al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs, his abridgement of the Mustadrak that is often published along with it in its margins.

We see this as a serious misunderstanding that must be pointed out. We do not know from where this idea came or how it got started. When al-Dhahabî abridged the book, it was not his intention to discuss the authenticity or the inauthenticity of its hadîth. He merely speaks about some of most serious errors made by al-Hâkim’s in his book, mentioning them along with his abridgement, as is his habit when he abridges any book.

There are three reasons that we know this:

First, al-Dhahabî says in Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ (17/176): “It is a useful book. I had made an abridgement of it that is in considerable need of work and editing.”

This statement is one of the clearest proofs that he merely abridged the Mustadrak and did not critically review al-Hâkim’s rulings. Otherwise, what does he mean when he says it “…is in considerable need of work and editing”?

Secondly, we find that in his other books, al-Dhahabî, clearly states his disagreement with rulings that al-Hâkim’s gives in the Mustadrak in places where al-Dhahabî, in his Talkhîs, either reiterates al-Hâkim’s ruling or remains silent.

For example, when speaking about Mu`âwiyah b. Sâlih in Mîzân al-I`tidal (4/135), he writes: “He is among those narrators whom Muslim accepts but not al-Bukhârî. You can see al-Hâkim relating this narrator’s hadîth in his Mustadrak and say: ‘This is according to the conditions of al-Bukhârî.’ He repeatedly makes this mistake.”

However, when the same statement comes up in his Talkhîs, he says nothing about it. Whoever compares the rulings found in the Talkhîs with those that al-Dhahabî makes in his other writings will find that there is considerable disagreement.

Thirdly, when al-Dhahabî writes in his Talkhîs “according to the conditions of al-Bukhârî and Muslim” or writes “authentic”, he is merely giving al-Hâkim’s ruling as found in the Mustadrak. He is not expressing his own viewpoint. Therefore, we cannot attribute these opinions to al-Dhahabî himself.