Salih Kesgin
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun-Türkiye
skesgin@omu.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-0449
Esra Nur Sezgül
Samsun University, Samsun-Türkiye
esranur.sezgul@samsun.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5135-9203
Ilahiyat Studies p-ISSN: 1309-1786 / e-ISSN: 1309-1719
Volume 13 Number 2 Summer/Fall 2022 DOI: 10.12730/is.1195888
Article Type: Research Article
Received: October 28, 2022 | Accepted: February 7, 2023 | Published: March 31, 2023.
To cite this article: Kesgin, Salih and Esra Nur Sezgül. “Revisiting Shams al-Dīn Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s Position in the Literature of Aḥādīth al-aḥkām: al-Muḥarrar.” Ilahiyat Studies 13, no. 2 (2022): 319-347. https://doi.org/10.12730/is.1195888
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International.
Abstract
This study examines Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s work al-Muḥarrar in the context of its place in the literature of aḥādīth al-aḥkām/ḥadīths of legal status. The first part of the study provides information about the life of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, a member of the famous Qudāmah family, followed by his scholarly personality and works. The second part presents an in-depth, critical analysis and comprehensive evaluations of al-Muḥarrar. In this context, an underresearched issue is that the work is an abbreviated version of Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd’s al-Ilmām. The relative merit of this claim is examined and the probability that al-Muḥarrar is an independent work is evaluated. In this evaluation, the contents of both works are juxtaposed in a table revealing fundamental differences between them. Other significant contributions of this paper are that it reveals the key aspects of the work and illustrates how it contributes to the ḥadīth literature by showing specific samples from the work. The paper concludes that in such a seminal work that includes aḥādīth al-aḥkām, it seems to be crystally clear that the author used his ḥadīth narration method in the book and that the same order of the fiqh books of the era was followed to maximize the impact of the work.
Key Words: Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, al-Ilmām, al-aḥkām, legal ḥadīth
Ḥadīth and fiqh/tafaqquh are perfect when they are together, but they are incomplete when they are separated from each other.[1]
While one of the main purposes of the science of ḥadīth is to determine the authenticity of the ḥadīth narrations attributed to the Prophet, another purpose is to reveal the context, purpose, and judgment used to determine the soundness of ḥadīths. There is an existential relationship between the concepts of “ḥadīth” and “aḥkām” with the concept of ḥadīth conveying the words, actions, approvals, and personal characteristics of the Prophet. The notion of aḥkām, in contrast, has a usage that expresses solutions to problems encountered in all areas of life based on the information transmitted from the Prophet. Therefore, it is not possible to even conceive of a set of decrees that are not based on the ḥadīths/Sunnah of the Prophet.
Given this concept, in attempting to examine the literature of aḥādīth al-aḥkām/ḥadīths of legal status from a historical and chronological standpoint, we discovered Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth which was written with comprehensive content and in a different manner from the aḥādīth al-aḥkām literature of its own era in the eighth century. However, academic studies on al-Muḥarrar[2] emphasize that al-Muḥarrar is the abbreviated version of Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd’s al-Ilmām fī aḥādīth al-aḥkām. Contrary to what is expressed in some studies,[3] we argue that the work in question is not the abbreviated version of a particular book. Rather, it can be considered an independent work when its content and the introduction are examined. To advance this hypothesis, we first examine the scholarly personality of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, and then investigate the structural characteristics of al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth.
His complete name is Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Maqdisī al-Ḥanbalī, also known as Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī. He belonged to the famous Qudāmah family, known for their knowledge and zuhd.[4] Although there is some disagreement about his date of birth, the commonly accepted view is that he was born in the Ṣāliḥiyyah district of Damascus in 705/1305-1306.[5] He was married to ʿĀʾishah bint Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, one of Ibn Ḥajar’s (d. 852/1449) female teachers and left his son ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad (d. 803/1400-1401) as his successor.[6]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī received his Islamic law (fiqh) education from Muḥammad ibn Muslim (d. 726/1325-1326) and Ismāʿīl ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥarrānī (d. 729/1328-1329), two great Ḥanbalī scholars of the period. He received his knowledge of Qurʾānic recitation (qirāʾah) from Ibn Bashān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 743/1342) and his knowledge of Arabic grammar (naḥw) from Abū l-ʿAbbas al-Andarshī (d. 750/1349).[7] He learned theology from sheikh al-Islām Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328), and ḥadīth transmitters (rijāl) and flaw (ʿilal) sciences from muḥaddith Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī (d. 742/1341-2). He said to his teacher, “al-Mizzī is my sheikh from whom I benefit greatly in this science.”[8] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī was also a disciple of al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348). Given this situation, al-Dhahabī stated: “Every time we got together, I took advantage of him.” His statement has been interpreted as meaning that al-Dhahabī’s gain is greater.[9]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī was also interested in the ḥadīth transmitters (rijāl) and flaws (ʿilal) sciences, as well as areas such as ḥadīth, reciting the Qurʾān (qirāʾah), Islamic law (fiqh), Qurʾānic commentary (tafsīr), and history, and he achieved a position in these areas that the great teachers could not reach.[10] He became more prominent as a competent scholar of ḥadīth (ḥāfiẓ) in terms of dominating the ḥadīth transmitters (rijāl) names, the chains of narration (ṭarīq) of the ḥadīths and ḥadīth transmitter criticism (known as al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl, ‘impugning and approving’) and being able to see the flaws (ʿilals) of the ḥadīths. He taught in important madrasahs of his era, such as Ḍiyāʾiyyah, Sabābiyyah, and Ṣadriyyah,[11] and died in 744/1343 due to tuberculosis when he was only thirty-nine years old. He was buried in the foothills of Qasioun Mountain.[12]
Ibn Kathīr also said that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī achieved a position that the great scholars could not reach, that he was a man who adhered to the Qurʾān and the Sunnah with a good understanding and explanation.[13] His disciple al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1362) said that if he had met Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, he would have consulted him on literary and Arabic issues. However, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī was forgotten because he died at a young age, although al-Ṣafadī stated that if he had lived longer, he would have reached a surprising point in science. Al-Mizzī, who was his teacher, indicated the depth of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s knowledge by stating that he benefited from him in every encounter.[14] Ibn al-Wardī (d. 749/1348) praised Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, saying that in science he is like a sea filled with water.[15]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī was a prolific scholar who reached the pinnacle of the science of ḥadīth, Islamic law (fiqh), theology (kalām), Qurʾānic recitation (qirāʾah), Arabic grammar (naḥw) and many other areas.[16] Unfortunately, only a few of his works have survived, although he wrote so many works in his short life. Some of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s printed works are as follows:
1. Tanqīḥ al-taḥqīq fī aḥādīth al-taʿlīq[17]
2. Risālah laṭīfah fī aḥādīth mutafarriqah al-ḍaʿīfah[18]
3. Qawāʿid uṣūl al-fiqh[19]
4. al-Ṣārim al-munkī fī l-radd ʿalá l-Subkī[20]
5. al-ʿUqūd al-durriyyah min manāqib Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah[21]
6. Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth[22]
7. Faḍāʾil al-Shām[23]
8. al-Radd ʿalá Abī Bakr al-Khaṭīb fī masʾalat al-jahr bi-l-basmalah[24]
9. al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth.[25]
Some of the other works of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī mentioned in the sources are as follows:
Aḥādīth al-jamʿ bayna l-ṣalātayn fī l-ḥaḍar, Aḥādīth ḥayāt al-anbiyāʾ fī qubūrihim, al-Aḥkām al-kubrá, al-Iʿlām fī dhikr mashāyikh al-aʾimmah al-aʿlām, al-Tafsīr al-musnad, al-Radd ʿalá Ibn Diḥyah, al-Radd ʿalá Ibn Ṭāhir, al-Radd ʿalá Kiyā al-Harrāsī, Sharḥ Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik, Sharḥ Kitāb al-ʿilal ʿalá tartīb kutub al-fiqh, al-ʿUmdah fī l-ḥuffāẓ, Faḍāʾil al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī.[26]
To understand a work, it is necessary to comprehend the world in which it was written. Al-Muḥarrar was written in the Mamluk period. During the lifetime of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī (1305-1343), Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn (d. 741/1341) was the ruler of the Mamluks for the longest time and in three different periods (693-694/1293-1294, 698-709/1299-1309, 709-741/1310-1341).[27] Thanks to the peaceful environment created by the Mamluks, many scholars preferred to live within the borders of the Mamluks, especially in cities such as Cairo and Damascus.[28] This caused the cities in question, in which Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī grew up, to become science centers. From this perspective, it is not surprising that developments in the science of ḥadīth increased in this period. Examining the background of this situation, we come across a society that has just got rid of the crisis. This crisis is nothing but the Mongolian crisis – a catastrophe by which scientific activities were all affected.[29] This crises lead to an increase in societies’ commitment to religion. Thus, in the eyes of the Muslim people, the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are two main sources that must be connected more closely, as evidenced by the increasing number of studies in the science of ḥadīth as equally high as in the increase of this commitment.[30] Also, the ḥadīth studies in this period increased especially in the commentary (sharḥ) and super-commentary (ḥāshiyah) categories.[31] In accordance with the prevalence of this genre, there is a process in which the earlier studies were based on.[32] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s work al-Muḥarrar was claimed to be a product of this movement and evaluated as an abbreviated study based on Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd’s al-Ilmām.[33] At the same time, we can argue that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī could not avoid the popular literary genre of the period by writing such a work as a result of the determination that legal studies were common in the Mamluk period.[34]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, in his book al-Muḥarrar narrated ḥadīths from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’s al-Musnad, al-Bukhārī and Muslim’s al-Ṣaḥīḥs; the Sunans of Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Mājah, and al-Nasāʾī; al-Tirmidhī’s al-Jamiʿ; Ibn Khuzaymah’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ. In addition to this, he stated that he also benefited from books such as Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Anwāʿ wa-l-taqāsīm, al-Ḥākim’s al-Mustadrak, and al-Bayhaqī’s al-Sunan al-kubrá.[35] The degree of authenticity of the ḥadīths has become one of the key issues identified in the work. In this work, in which ‘impugning and approving’ (al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl) expressions are also included, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī states that he followed the order used by the scholars of Islamic jurisprudence (fuqahāʾ) to facilitate the identification of themes.[36]
al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth has seven editions with manuscript copies in India, Medinah, and Riyadh.[37] Since Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not give a specific name to his book, stating in the introduction of his work that his work has “an abbreviated structure,”[38] the name of the work is mentioned in various ways in different sources such as al-Muḥarrar fī l-aḥkām in Ibn Rajab’s (d. 795/1393) al-Dhayl alá Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah,[39] al-Muḥarrar fī l-aḥkām as a useful abbreviation (mukhtaṣar) in the work of Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī’s (d. 842/1438) al-Radd al-wāfir,[40] al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth as the summary of al-Ilmām in Ibn Ḥajar’s (d. 852/1449) al-Durar al-kāminah,[41] and al-Muḥarrar fī ikhtiṣār al-Ilmām in al-Suyūṭī’s (d. 911/1505) Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ.[42] It is mentioned as al-Muḥarrar fī sharḥ al-Ilmām min aḥādīth al-kalām in Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn of Ismāʿīl Pasha al-Baghdādī (d. 1920).[43]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī included thirty one books (kitāb) in his work. When the chapter (bāb) titles of these books are examined, it is easy to see that they do not reflect the views of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, but only point to the subject.
As Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī stated, considering the number of chapters (bāb) of every book, one can notice that the work deals with the related subjects concisely. Here, it is noteworthy to mention that book titles such as Comprehensive Book (al-Jāmiʿ), and Medicine (al-Ṭibb) which are not directly related to judgment (aḥkām), have found a place in the work. When the narrations are examined, it becomes clear that they should not be considered separately from the period in which the author lived. Although the work is devoted to ḥadīths of legal status (aḥādīth al-aḥkām), it is a fruit of the social-political environment of the period in which the book was written.
Regarding the events in 617 A.H., Ibn al-Athīr said, “Islam and Muslims have been affected by calamities that the ummah has not suffered before. One is the emergence of Tatars while the other is that of the Franks.”[44] He shed light on the confusion of the time. In 700 A.H., the Tatars wanted to seize Damascus and enter Egypt, and they caused the people there to leave their country. Ibn Taymiyyah, who was also the teacher of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, continued to teach in mosques and advised people not to escape. People fleeing from persecution came to Damascus, and it is recorded that the price of many things rose in Damascus during this period. When the situation in Damascus worsened, the Tatars started to return because of the weakness of the soldiers and the scarcity of their numbers.[45] In 705 A.H., when Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī was born, the Tatars ambushed Aleppo soldiers and killed most of them, and it is recorded that Aleppo was mourned for this reason.[46]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī lived in a very active and lively environment in terms of politics. This activity may have made him feel the need to produce a work on ḥadīths of legal status (aḥādīth al-aḥkām) with the aim of speaking and addressing the times. Having considered this context, the existence of books on fighting for the cause of Allah (jihād), belief (īmān), judgments (qaḍāʾ) and witnesses (shahādah) in the work becomes more meaningful.
As stated previously, the death of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī from tuberculosis shows that he witnessed the pandemic of his time. Since there is no information on the course of the pandemic and the writing date of al-Muḥarrar is unknown, it is difficult to make a definite statement about the reason why the medical book was included in a work containing ḥadīths of legal status (aḥādīth al-aḥkām). However, when we look at the content of the ḥadīths in the book, there is no chapter on the transmission of tuberculosis/fever, etc. in the book, but the benefits of honey and black cumin, the evil eye, the prayers to be read on the aching area.[47] This suggests that the medical book was not written in parallel with the pandemic of the period.
According to the author Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, who himself used the sources from which the ḥadīths in al-Muḥarrar were transmitted, the ḥadīths in the work were selected from the books of famous reliable scholars on ḥadīth (muḥaddiths). In this context, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’s (d. 241/855) al-Musnad, al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Muslim’s (d. 261/875) al-Ṣaḥīḥs, Abū Dāwūd (d. 275/889) and Ibn Mājah’s (d. 273/887) al-Sunans, Abū ʿĪsá al-Tirmidhī’s (d. 279/892) al-Jāmiʿ, al-Nasāʾī’s (d. 303/915) al-Sunan, Abū Bakr ibn Khuzaymah’s (d. 311/924) al-Ṣaḥị̄ḥ, Abū Ḥātim Ibn Ḥibbān’s (d. 354/965) Kitāb al-anwāʿ wa-l-taqāsīm, al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Naysābūrī’s (d. 405/1014) al-Mustadrak and al-Bayhaqī’s (d. 458/1066) al-Sunan al-kubrá were used as sources.[48] Moreover, the author benefited from al-Shāfiʿī’s (d. 204/820) al-Umm,[49] al-Dāraquṭnī’s (d. 385/995) al-Sunan,[50] al-Ṭaḥāwī’s Sharḥ Maʿānī l-āthār,[51] al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s (d. 463/1071) Tārīkh Baghdād,[52] Ibn Ḥazm’s (d. 456/1064) al-Muḥallá,[53] Ibn ʿAdī’s (d. 365/976) al-Kāmil fī l-ḍuʿafāʾ.[54]
When the abovementioned sources of the work are examined, one important point draws our attention. It is claimed that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s al-Muḥarrar, the main focus of this paper, is an abbreviated version of Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd’s (d. 702/1302) al-Ilmām bi-aḥādīth al-aḥkām. Scholars who lived in the periods after al-Muḥarrar mentioned this work as a summary or abbreviation while Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not make any reference to al-Ilmām while describing his own sources. This situation suggests that the quality of al-Muḥarrar should be re-evaluated. In this context, critical questions arise about what features a work should have qualify it as an abbreviation (mukhtaṣar) and what constitutes a concise work.
The word ikhtiṣār literally means the abbreviation of the road, that is, the shortening of the road, the distance being close.[55] Additionally, the word ikhtiṣār has a technical meaning. According to Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī, to say “I have summarized a book” means to reduce its words and make them sententious. This usage is an example of the meaning in its technical term. According to experts in Islamic jurisprudence (fuqahāʾ), it is the transformation of many into few and the expression of much with few words. As maintained by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Abū Sulaymān, the traditional meaning of ikhtiṣār is the summary of a book or an item from the book. However, it does not always mean this. Writing a book on an important subject by avoiding detailed information without relying on a specific book is also considered an ikhtiṣār. Just as al-Qudūrī’s (d. 428/1037) Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī is an example of this. This example shows that the word ikhtiṣār in the title of a book does not always indicate that it is the summary of another work. In fact, the ḥadīth works that give brief information about a subject were called ikhtiṣār.[56]
When the forms of ikhtiṣār are analyzed, some sentences, names, book titles, and repetitions are not cited. The reasons for the ikhtiṣār can be expressed as follows: removing the unnecessary parts for the students, expressing the closed points clearly and concisely, making it easier to memorize, understanding and remembering the issues of that science, eliminating the repetitions or reducing the volume of the book etc.[57] However, mukhtaṣar works are also expected to be based on the specific book and stick to the arrangement of the original book, generally in the introductions of the concise book (mukhtaṣar) the method to be followed is explained. The introductions may also contain additional information, and sometimes criticism directed at the abridged work.[58]
Given the assertions that al-Muḥarrar is the abridged (mukhtaṣar) of a certain book, it is thought-provoking that the source of this opinion cannot be identified. As previously stated, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī used the expression that his work is a concise book (mukhtaṣar).[59] Based on this, it is presumably determined that al-Muḥarrar is an abbreviation (mukhtaṣar) of a work. In fact, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd also stated in his Muqaddimah that “his work was an abbreviation (mukhtaṣar) in the science of ḥadīth.”[60] However, in this study, we believe that this work of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī should be evaluated as an independent work in terms of the method it follows and the number of books and ḥadīths it contains.[61]
ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbd al-Ḥasan al-Turkī, who investigates al-Muḥarrar, has made this point clear. Al-Turkī states that “the work is an abbreviation (mukhtaṣar) and the meaning and purpose of the term abbreviation (mukhtaṣar) is that the work is not long.”[62] He claims that he did not abridge a work of an imām before him. Ibn Ḥajar states in al-Durar that the work is the abbreviated version of al-Ilmām, but he believes that this is an opinion because, according to al-Turkī, the actual work should be broader and more comprehensive than the abbreviated work. In this context, al-Turkī accepts that most of the ḥadīths found in al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth are also included in al-Ilmām and demonstrates the reasons why the work is considered a mukhtaṣar of al-Ilmām: [63]
· Very few of the ḥadīths contained in al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth are not included in al-Ilmām.
· Although some ḥadīths in al-Ilmām are conveyed in concise form, full texts are given in al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth.
· Some of the ḥadīths were quoted by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī in his work in the same chapters (bābs) as al-Ilmām.
· Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī explained the authenticity of the ḥadīth and gave the views of the scholars in al-Ilmām.
· In his preface (muqaddimah), Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not explain that he had written the book from al-Ilmām.
Following this explanation, al-Turkī states that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī originally took al-Ilmām and shaped al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth in the center of this work, claiming that the work was not an abbreviation, but that al-Ilmām was the inspirer in the classification of the book.[64]
As we have noted the general characteristics of the abbreviated works, we believe that it may be suitable for al-Muḥarrar to define mukhtaṣar, as “dealing with an important issue without going into details and without being specific to a particular book.” After considering the issues mentioned among the reasons for ikhtiṣār, it would be inconsistent to say that “al-Muḥarrar was written because al-Ilmām was so long” considering the volume of the work. At the same time, al-Muḥarrar does not have exactly the same order as al-Ilmām, as will be seen later, and the fact that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not refer to al-Ilmām either in his introduction or in his work indicates that al-Muḥarrar is a work that does not have abbreviation features in the context of a particular source.
However, it can be seen that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī wrote a supercommentary (ḥāshiyah) to al-Ilmām. This situation can be evaluated as follows: Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī saw al-Ilmām and laid the groundwork for al-Muḥarrar to be assessed as al-Ilmām’s abbreviation (mukhtaṣar).
To concretize our evaluation, first, we will focus on which topics/books are abbreviated and whether the number of books in both works is the same. In this context, considering the number of books in al-Ilmām, the number of books and chapters in al-Muḥarrar can be expressed in the following table according to their order in the work.[65]
|
Ordinal Number |
al-Ilmām |
al-Muḥarrar |
al-Ilmām |
al-Muḥarrar |
|
|
Book Name |
Number of Chapters (Bābs) / Number of Ḥadīths |
||||
|
1 |
* Purification
|
13/127 |
15/152 |
||
|
2 |
Prayers |
* Prayers |
18/347 |
19/354 |
|
|
3 |
Obligatory Charity Tax |
Funerals |
6/44 |
7/62 |
|
|
4 |
Fasting |
* Obligatory Charity Tax |
7 /51 |
8/46 |
|
|
5 |
Pilgrimage
|
* Fasting |
12/154 |
6/50 |
|
|
6 |
Fighting
for the Cause of Allah |
* Pilgrimage
|
2 /38 |
9/91 |
|
|
7 |
Sales
and Trade |
Hunting |
8/75 |
-/12 |
|
|
8 |
Mortgaging |
Food |
27/115 |
-/10 |
|
|
9 |
Laws
of Inheritance |
Vows |
-/8 |
-/10 |
|
|
10 |
Wedlock,
Marriage |
* Fighting
for the Cause of Allah and Military Expeditions |
4/43 |
2/57 |
|
|
11 |
Bridal
Gift |
* Sales
and Trade |
16/99 |
8/66 |
|
|
12 |
Injurious
Actions |
Legal
Disability |
9/74 |
3/23 |
|
|
13 |
Military
Expeditions |
Usurpation
and Pre-emption |
5/76 |
7/41 |
|
|
14 |
Comprehensive
Book |
* Laws
of Inheritance |
2/41 |
-/4 |
|
|
15 |
- |
Emancipation
|
- |
3/16 |
|
|
16 |
- |
* Wedlock,
Marriage |
- |
2/33 |
|
|
17 |
- |
*
Bridal Gift |
- |
4/36 |
|
|
18 |
- |
Divorce
|
- |
1/13 |
|
|
19 |
- |
Divorce
|
- |
-/4 |
|
|
20 |
- |
Faith |
- |
-/5 |
|
|
21 |
- |
Invoking
Curses |
- |
2/7 |
|
|
22 |
- |
Period
of Waiting |
- |
-/8 |
|
|
23 |
- |
Suckling |
- |
-/8 |
|
|
24 |
- |
Cost
of Living |
- |
-/5 |
|
|
25 |
- |
Crimes |
- |
-/11 |
|
|
26 |
- |
Blood
Money |
- |
4/23 |
|
|
27 |
- |
Limits
and Punishments Set by Allah |
- |
5/34 |
|
|
28 |
- |
Judgments
|
- |
2/21 |
|
|
29 |
- |
Testimony
|
- |
-/8 |
|
|
30 |
- |
* Comprehensive
Book |
- |
-/87 |
|
|
31 |
- |
Medicine |
- |
-/20 |
|
|
Total |
14 |
31 |
129/1291 |
107/1324 |
|
Looking at al-Ilmām based on the table, a work consisting of 14 books, 129 bābs, and 11 chapters in total, it is seen that the number of books in the volume is less than al-Muḥarrar, which consists of 31 books and 107 bābs. Although al-Muḥarrar has a common structure with al-Ilmām in 11 books, books on mortgaging (al-rahn), laws of inheritance (al-farāʾiḍ) and injurious actions (al-jirāḥ) are not included in al-Muḥarrar. Furthermore, the number of ḥadīths of al-Muḥarrar, which is 1324, is more than that of al-Ilmām.
Although it is stated that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s work is an abridged (mukhtaṣar) work with some additional notes and interpretations,[66] it can be said on the basis of this general comparison that al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth is an independent work in terms of both additional books and the number of ḥadīths it contains compared to al-Ilmām or an abridged (mukhtaṣar) work with richer content than the original.
In this context, based on the example given in the introduction (muqaddimah), it is possible to comparatively reveal that al-Muḥarrar has a rich and different structure from the other samples of aḥādīth al-aḥkām/ḥadīths of legal status literature. This situation can be seen by comparing three examples of aḥādīth al-aḥkām literature by quoting in full ablution (ghusl): al-Muntaqá, Bulūgh al-marām, and al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth.
|
Abū
l-Walīd al-Bājī’s |
Abū Dāwūd’s narration from ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr:
“Rasūl Allāh slept when he was ritually impure (junub) and did not touch the water.” [67]
(No explanation is given in the work after the Hạdīth narration.) |
|
Ibn Ḥajar
al-ʿAsqalānī’s |
The same ḥadīth is from ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr was quoted as:
“Rasūl Allāh slept without touching the water while he was ritually impure (junub)”
After the narration of the ḥadīth, it was stated that this narration was afflicted (maʿlūl).[68] |
|
Ibn
ʿAbd al-Hādī’s |
Abū Isḥāq
al-Sabīʿī (d. 127/745) à al-Aswad (d. 75/694) à ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr à Muḥammad (pbuh): “Rasūl Allāh slept without touching the water while he was junub” This ḥadīth narrated by Aḥmad ibn
Ḥanbal, Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Mājah, al-Nasāʾī, and
al-Tirmidhī. “They are of the opinion that this
statement/judgment is Abū Isḥāq’s mistake (ghalaṭ).” Yazīd ibn Hārūn
(d. 206/821) has said: “This ḥadīth is delusion (wahm).” While Aḥmad said that it
was not sound (ṣaḥīḥ), al-Bayhaqī and others accepted the ḥadīth as sound (ṣaḥīḥ). Aḥmad narrated ḥadīth by Shuraykà Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān à Kurayb ibn Muslim à ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr : “The Prophet would be ritually impure (junub), and then he would sleep, and then he would wake up, and then he would sleep, and he wouldn’t touch the water.” Its chain of transmitters (isnād) is not strong (qawī). [69] |
These quotations show that al-Muḥarrar has rich content and explanations compared to other examples of literature. At this stage, another question comes to minds: what does Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī mean in his introduction (muqaddimah), when he says his work is an abbreviation (mukhtaṣar)? We believe that the answer to this question will become clearer in the following pages where the method of the work is discussed in detail.
In this section, the method followed by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī in the transmission of narrations will be discussed in terms of chains of narration (isnād) and text (matn).
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī mostly narrates the ḥadīth text by citing only the first narrator one of the Companions. His subsequent evaluations focused on the chain of transmitters (isnād).
In al-Muḥarrar, the narration of the chain of transmitters (isnāds) takes place in two ways. The most common type of narration is the transmission of isnāds only with the first narrator, the Companion, such as Abū Hurayrah (d. 58/678) and Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī (d. 74/693-4).[70] The second type of narration is the transmission of the ḥadīth with the Followers (tābiʿūn) and other narrators. When an explanation about the narrator is requested, the isnāds in which the Followers and other narrators are mentioned are generally expressed.
For example, in a narration transmitted by al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742) from Abū Salamah (d. 94/712-3) from Abū Hurayrah, it is stated by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī that Abū Hurayrah added a statement (idrāj) to the ḥadīth text because he was the owner of a garden.[71]
In another example, after the ḥadīth narrated by Simāk ibn Ḥarb (d. 123/741) à ʿIkrimah (d. 105/723) à Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/687-8) it is stated that Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal warned about Simāk because there is no one else who narrated this ḥadīth but him. After this statement, it is also expressed that Muslim found Simāk reliable (thiqah), and al-Bukhārī found ʿIkrimah reliable (thiqah).[72]
After the narration of the ḥadīth text, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī first expresses the source of the ḥadīth (takhrīj). For example, he states that a ḥadīth text narrated by Hishām ibn Ḥassān (d. 146/764) à Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn (d. 110/729) à Abū Hurayrah à The Prophet (pbuh) is narrated by Muslim[73] but also notes that another narration reported from Anas ibn Mālik (d. 93/711-2) is a ḥadīth that both al-Bukhārī and Muslim agreed upon (muttafaq ʿalayh)[74] and states that only al-Bukhārī conveys the chains of narration (isnād) from Ibn ʿAbbās à The Prophet (pbuh).[75]
The source of the ḥadīth (takhrīj) is mostly stated after the transmission of the ḥadīth text. However, in some narrations, the transmission of the ḥadīth begins with the person from whom it was transmitted. For example, in the following narration Muslim à al-Nasāʾī à Ibn Ḥibbān à ʿAlī ibn Mushir (d. 189/805) à Aʿmash (d. 148/765) àAbū Razīn and Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān (d. 101/719-20) à Abū Hurayrah from The Prophet (pbuh), the source of the ḥadīth he narrated from was stated at the beginning. Likewise, al-Tirmidhī à Sawwār ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAnbarī (d. 285/898) à al-Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān (d. 187/803) à Ayyūb (d. 131/749) à Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn à Abū Hurayrah à The Prophet (pbuh) and in some hạdīths where Abū Dāwūd is also taken as a reference, the source of the ḥadīth (takhrīj) is mentioned at the beginning of the isnād.[76]
One of the evaluations on the chain of transmitters (isnāds) is about the authenticity of the ḥadīth, which is one of the important features of the work. An example is the evaluation of the ḥadīth narrated by the following chain of transmitters (isnād), Abū Dāwūd à Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal à ʿAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826-7) à Maʿmar (d. 153/770) à Ayyūb à Nāfiʿ (d. 117/735) à Ibn ʿUmar (d. 73/693) from the Prophet. It is explained that the chain of transmitters (isnād) of the ḥadīth he narrated from the Prophet is authentic (saḥīḥ) and all of his narrators are trustworthy/reliable (thiqah) imāms.[77] Al-Tirmidhī calls the ḥadīth narrated by Anas ibn Mālik from the Prophet authentic (saḥīḥ). Al-Nasāʾī, in contrast, states that this ḥadīth is imperfect and conforms to the conditions of al-Ḥākim, al-Bukhārī, and Muslim. Abū Dāwūd comments that “this ḥadīth is unacceptable (munkar), and there is a delusion in the text.”[78] For another ḥadīth transmitted by al-Ḥasan (d 110/728) à Samurah ibn Jundab (d. 60/680) à The Prophet (pbuh), it is explained that according to al-Tirmidhī this ḥadīth is fair (ḥasan); however, some others narrated the same ḥadīth with the isnād by Qatādah (d. 117/735) à al-Ḥasan à The Prophet (pbuh), and it is said that this isnād is loose (mursal).[79]
Throughout the work, following the chain of transmitters (isnād), evaluations of the authenticity of the ḥadīth are included. However, it should be noted that some of the narrations were conveyed without giving place to the assessment of authenticity.[80] This type of narration, on the other hand, takes place very rarely in work.
The focus of the work seems to be on the chain of transmitters (isnād). In this context, explanations appear about some of the narrators (rāwī). For example, the ḥadīth narrated by Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān à Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī à Anas ibn Mālik à The Prophet (pbuh), Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr states that this ḥadīth is quoted only from Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān but he is not reliable because he made many mistakes due to the weakness of his memory. However, Ibn Maʿīn (d. 233/848) and others saw Jaʿfar as reliable (thiqah). Ibn ʿAdī says it is reported that Jaʿfar’s ḥadīth must be accepted.[81]
In the ḥadīth narrated by Fitr à Abū Farwah à ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylá (d. 83/702), the narrators who are not well known in the isnād are also explained. Here, the name of Abū Farwah is identified as Muslim ibn Sālim al-Juhanī.[82]
Assessments of narrators occupy a wide place in the work. The ḥadīth of Thawbān (d. 54/674) can be given as an example. According to al-Ḥākim, this ḥadīth complies with Muslim’s conditions. Narrators of this ḥadīth are cited as Thawr ibn Yazīd (d. 153/770) à Rāshid ibn Saʿd (d. 113/731-32) à Thawbān à The Prophet (pbuh). Imām Aḥmad said, “It was not possible for Rāshid to hear the ḥadīth from Thawbān because he had died before.” Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī gives the following statements: “Rāshid, along with Muʿāwiyah, witnessed Ṣiffīn. Thawbān died in 54 AH and Rāshid died in 108 AH. Ibn Maʿīn, Abū Ḥātim (d. 277/890), al-ʿIjlī (d. 261/875) and al-Nasāʾī found him reliable (thiqah). But Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064) found him weak by opposing them.”[83] Although it is possible to expand these examples, in line with the capacity of our work we prefer to be satisfied with this exemplification.[84]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī included, stopped (mawqūf) narrations as well as elevated (marfūʿ) narrations in his work. As examples, we can point to the ḥadīth “The Prophet (pbuh) performs an ablution one by one.”[85] which is narrated by Ibn ʿAbbās and the ḥadīth “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used to comb his beard by his fingers.”[86] which is narrated by ʿĀmir ibn Shaqīq ibn Jamrah (d. 121/738-39) à Abū Wāʾil (d. 82/701) à ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān (d. 35/656).
However, in his explanations, the author draws attention to the phenomenon of elevation (rafʿ). To illustrate, the narration transmitted by Sinān ibn Rabīʿah à Shahr ibn Ḥawshab (d. 100/718) à Abū Umāmah (d. 86/705) was narrated from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) as elevated (marfūʿ) by Abū Umāmah. The narration is, in fact, Abū Umāmah’s stopped (mawqūf) according to Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī.[87]
In another ḥadīth narrated by Shurayḥ ibn Hāniʾ (d. 80/699) “I went to ʿĀʾishah to ask about the wipe (masḥ) for the feet.” it is stated by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī that Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463/1071) said: “The narrators differed in the attribution of this ḥadīth. Some said that this ḥadīth was ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s stopped (mawqūf).” [88]
To abbreviate the chain of transmission (isnād), sometimes the Companion was referred to with phrases such as ‘from him’ (wa ʿanhu), ‘also from him’ (wa-lahū ayḍan) and ‘in his narration’ (wa-fī riwāyah lahū) based on the previous narration.[89] Additionally, these expressions were used in the appearence of a ḥadīth (takhrīj) in various books.[90]
Some ḥadīths were narrated only by the Companion and were left without any explanation after the text of the ḥadīth.[91] At the same time, some ḥadīths with the same sources were transmitted one after another in the work and their sources were expressed at the end. For example, in the first fifty-four ḥadīths reported in Kitāb al-Jāmiʿ, explanations of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī were not included in the book but after the fifty-fourth ḥadīth of the book, there is an explanation that “al-Bukhārī narrated these ḥadīths.” Then, the ḥadīths whose source was Muslim were transmitted one after another, and it was finally stated by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī that “Muslim narrated these ḥadīths.”[92]
Al-Muḥarrar appears as a work written by focusing on the chain of transmitters (isnād) and leaving explanations for the text in the background.
This situation is also related to Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s historical conditions, which shape his mind in the Ḥanbalī tradition. Given that the Ḥanbalīs care about adhering to the appearance of the texts,[93] it becomes clear why al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth does not prefer to provide explanations on the meaning (fiqh) of the ḥadīth.
Accordingly, the theme of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s work is to convey the full text of the ḥadīth, but sometimes the concise version of the long ḥadīth is conveyed. [94] However, this is rare. One of the main features of the work is that the ḥadīth is not divided and mentioned in different chapters (bābs). It is not possible to find a narration with the expression “the same with the ... (mithluhū)” anywhere in the book.
Looking at the explanations of the text, we can determine that the meaning of some words mentioned in the ḥadīth text is explained in the work. For example, in the narration from Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān (d. 36/656) that “If the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) woke up at night, he would clean his mouth with tooth-stick (miswāk)”, it is explained that the verb (يشوص) means to rub and wash.[95] On ḥadīth narrated from ʿĀʾishah, “Ten things are from nature: …reducing water,” it is stated as transmitted from Wakīʿ that “reducing water” means purification (istinjāʾ).[96] In the following ḥadīth narrated by Thawbān, “The Prophet sent a squadron (sariyyah) and cold hit them. When they came to the Prophet, he ordered them to wipe their turbans (al-ʿaṣāʾib). After this matn, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī explains that the words (al-ʿaṣāʾib) are ʿimāmah/turban.[97]
The author points out the different wordings of the ḥadīths in his work. For example, on tooth-stick (siwāk) the following is narrated by Abū Mūsá (d. 42/662):
I came to the Prophet and saw him carrying a siwāk in his hand and cleansing his teeth, saying, ‘U’ U’, as if he was retching while the siwāk was in his mouth.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī states that this is the narration of al-Bukhārī, and the narration in Muslim is quoted as follows:[98]
I came to the Prophet once and noticed the tip of tooth-stick (miswāk) on his tongue.
As another example, narrated in al-Muḥarrar from Abū Hurayrah, the Prophet said:
When anyone amongst you wakes up from sleep, he must not put his hand in the utensil until he has washed it three times, for he does not know where his hand was during the night.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī states that this is the narration of Muslim, and he adds al-Bukhārī’s version:[99]
Whoever wakes up from his sleep should wash his hands before putting them in the water for ablution, because nobody knows where his hands were during sleep.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī expresses the additions in the ḥadīth text. For example, he states that in his narration Abū Dāwūd made an addition (ziyādah) by this sentence: “if you perform ablution, rinse your mouth/do maḍmaḍah.” [100]
We can point to another example from al-Muḥarrar narrated by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644):
There is no Muslim who performs ablution and does it well, then says, Ashhadu an lā ilāha illallāh, wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhū wa-rasūluhū (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I bear witness that Muḥammad is His slave and Messenger), (except that) eight gates of Paradise will be opened for him, and he will enter through whichever one he wants.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī states that al-Tirmidhī’s version of this ḥadīth has the following additions: “O Allah! Make me among the repentant and make me among those who purify themselves.” [101]
Our last example is a ḥadīth that is narrated by Hishām ibn ʿUrwah (d. 146/763) à his father (d. 94/713) à ʿĀʾishah in al-Muḥallá as follows:
Fāṭimah bint Abī Ḥubaysh came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said, “O Messenger, I am a woman with menstruation. I can never be cleaned. Shall I pray?” He said, “No, it is a vein, not menstruation. Abandon the prayer while you are menstruating. Wash your blood when you’re done. Then establish prayer.”
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī states that al-Bukhārī narrated this ḥadīth with this addition: “Then take ablution for every prayer until this situation comes.” and Muslim left Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s (d. 179/795) ḥadīth because there was one letter more in his ḥadīth.[102]
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī was a distinguished scholar in that he assigned sections to aḥādīth al-aḥkām/ḥadīths of legal status, such as medicine/ṭibb and science/ʿilm in his book. In this way, the breadth of the scope of the concept of legal status (aḥkām) in the mind of a scholar is revealed and this situation becomes more meaningful when the period in which the scholar lived is considered.
Our research has revealed that it is necessary to re-examine and reconsider classical works. In this context, although it is impossible for our time to share a definitive statement, having considered the diversity of the books al-Muḥarrar contains and the methodology it follows in the explanation of the sanad and matn of the hadith narration, we reach the conclusion that it has the characteristics of a concise and independent work without being tied to a specific book.
However, the author’s description of his work as an abbreviated work opened the door for the assessments that al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth was a mukhtaṣar/abridgement of a specific book. In addition, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, makes the nameless statement in his introduction that he chooses the ḥadīth from the books of ‘some famous imams’. Based on this, it has been inferred that Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd was among these people, which Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not decisively say.[103] Another factor that contributes to interpretations of the work’s structure is the fact that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not name his work. In this context, some authors have evaluated the work in question as a mukhtaṣar/abridgement and some have stated that the work has the character of commentary. Some have also used general expressions such as “al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth fī l-aḥkām” or “a useful abridgement/mukhtaṣar.” [104] The alliance point here is that the work was referred to as al-Muḥarrar, which raises the possibility that the name al-Muḥarrar was given by the author.
Given this context, we can focus on two possibilities about the nature of the work. The first possibility is that this work was written as the abridged version/ikhtiṣār of al-Ilmām, but beyond the specialized work, a more comprehensive and qualified work was produced. Another possibility is that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī did not shorten al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth from al-Ilmām, which is supported by the comparison of the contents of the works. Considering the second possibility, it is important to understand the notion of “abridgement/mukhtaṣar” in the introduction of the work. The characteristics of al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth can be briefly expressed as follows: the vast majority of the chain of transmitters (isnād) includes a Companion; the inclusion (takhrīj), authenticity (ṣiḥḥah), evaluations of the narrators (rāwī) of ḥadīth and the meanings of the strange (gharīb) words are expressed concisely; sometimes in the isnād, the Companion and the source of the ḥadīth are abbreviated, such as “it was transmitted from him again.”
The work, revealing the authenticity of the ḥadīth and specifying its sources, shows the trend of that period. The explanations in the work are significant in terms of the source and authenticity of the ḥadīths. Unlike other books containing aḥādīth al-aḥkām/ḥadīths of legal status, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth also includes the flaw (ʿilal) of ḥadīths. Additionally, it points to the importance of relying on solid sources when living in a complex period. Thus, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī emphasized that the ḥadīths he received in his work were solid and that their sources were not unknown.
As the work focuses on the chain of transmitters (isnād), there was no further statement on the legal dimensions of ḥadīth narrations. Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s fiqh is understood by and from the narrations in the work. However it should also be admitted that sometimes the relevance of the ḥadīths to the books in which the narrations are listed under their title is questionable. For example, we could not understand the relationship between the letter sent by The Prophet (pbuh) to Heraclius and the book of purification (ṭahārah) which the narration is listed.
As a result, in the context of the aḥādīth al-aḥkām/ḥadīths of legal status literature, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s al-Muḥarrar is a valuable work that has a great contribution to the field, in terms of both being concise and revealing the authenticity of the ḥadīth with its sources.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
FUNDING
The author received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Al-Baghdatli Ismāʿīl Pasha. Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn. 2 vols. Istanbul: Muʾassasat al-Tārīkh al-ʿArabī, 1951.
al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh. Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ. 4 vol., Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1374 AH.
Efendioğlu, Mehmet. “Muhtasar.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXXI, 60-61.
Emiroğlu, Nagihan. “Memlüklerde Hadis ve Ulema.” İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi-Journal of Islamic Review 10, no. 1 (2020): 365-387.
Erdoğan, Tunahan. “Hadis Usûlü Literatüründe Yerleşik Bir Kabulün Tenkidi: Bir İhtisār Örneği Olarak İbn Hacer’in Nuhbetü’l-Fiker’i.” TARR 1, no. 1 (2016): 49-59.
Gökçe, Ferhat. “Memlüklüler Dönemi Hadis Literatürü Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler.” İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi-Journal of Islamic Review 11, no. 2 (2021): 439-475.
Hoover, Jon, “Ḥanbalī Theology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, ed. Sabine Schmidtke, 625-646. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016.
al-Huḍayr, ʿAbd al-Karīm. Sharḥ al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth (not printed but possible to reach this sharḥ via: https://shamela.ws/index.php/book/6366).
al-Hadbā, Ādil ibn Muḥammad and ʿAllūsh, Muḥammad ibn Muṣṭafá. introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth. by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, 3rd ed. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm 2008.
Hurvitz, Nimrod. The Formation of Hanbalism: Piety into Power. London: Routledge, 2002.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī. al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth. 3rd ed. Ed. Ādil al-Hadbā and Muhammad ʿAllūsh Saudi Arabia: Wizārat al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah wa-l-Awqāf wa-l-Daʿwah wa-l-Irshād, 2008.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī. al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth. 3rd ed. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2008.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī. al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth. Edited by ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥasan al-Turkī. n.p: n.p., n.d.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī. al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth. Edited by Māhir Yāsīn al-Faḥl. n.p. n.d.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth. 4 vols, edited by Akram Būshī et al., 2nd ed. Beirūt: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1996.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Tanqīḥ al-taḥqīq fī aḥādīth al-taʿlīq. Edited by Āmir Ḥasan Ṣabrī. Abu Dhabi: Maktabat al-ʿAyn al-Jāmiʿah, 1409/1989.
Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Shaybānī. al-Kāmil fī l-tārīkh. 11 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1987.
Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd. al-Ilmām bi-aḥādīth al-aḥkām. Edited by Muḥammad al-Khallūf ʿAbd Allāh. n.p. Dār al-Nawādir, n.d.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Kanānī. al-Durar al-kāminah fī aʿyān al-miʾah al-thāminah. 4 vols. Haydarabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1993.
Ibn Kathīr, Abū l-Fiḍāʾ ʿImād al-Dīn İsmāʿīl ibn Shihāb al-Dīn ʿUmar. al-Bidāyah wa-l-nihāyah. 15 vols. Beirut: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1990.
Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad ibn Mukarram ibn ʿAlī. Lisān al-ʿArab. 15 vols. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, n.d.
Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn, Muḥammad ibn Abū Bakr al-Dimashqī. al-Radd al-wāfir. 2nd ed. n.p. al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, 1991.
Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad. al-Dhayl ʿalá Ṭabakāt al-Ḥanābilah. 5 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-ʿUbaykān, 2005.
Kalaç, Rıdvan. “Kudāme Ailesi ve Hadis.” PhD Diss, Van: Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, 2019.
Kholis, Nur. “Studi Komparasi Antara Bab Nawāqid al-Wudu Di Kitāb al-Muhạrrar fī l-Hạdīth Dengan Bab Nawāqid al-Wududi Kitāb bulūghul marām min adillat al-aḥkām”. Al-MAJAALIS: Journal Dirāsat Islāmiyah 6/1 (2018): 37-83.
Koca, Ferhat. “Şemseddin İbn Abdülhâdî.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XIX, 273-274.
Masʿūdī, Ismāʿīl . “Manhaj al-Imām ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī fī kitābihī ‘al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth’.” Master’s thesis, Jazāir: Jāmiʿat al-Shahīd Ḥamma Lakhḍar- al-Wādī, 2019.
Özel, Ahmet. “İbn Dakīku’l‘Îd.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XIX, 407-409.
Al-Rāmhurmuzī, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Khallād. al-Muḥaddith al-fāṣil bayna l-rāwī wa-l-wāʿī. Beirut: n.p., 1391 AH.
Maḥmūd, Sayyid ʿAjamī Muḥammad. Manhaj al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī fī l-ḥukm ʿalá l-aḥādīth wa-l-asānīd min khilāl kitābihī al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth. Fayyūm: Jāmiʿat al-Fayyūm, 2016.
al-Ṣafadī, Khalīl ibn Aybak. al-Wāfī bi-l-wafayāt. Edited by H. Ritter et al., Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1381/1962.
al Sarhan, Saud. “The Responsa of Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal and the Formation of Ḥanbalism.” Islamic Law and Society. 22/1-2 (2015), 1-44.
al-Suyūṭī, Abū Bakr ibn Muḥammad al-Khudayrī. Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ. Beirūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1983.
al-Turkī, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥasan, introduction in to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, (n.p.: n.d.), 7-11.
al-ʿUmarī, ʿAlī ibn Saʿīd ibn Muḥammad. “al-Ikhtiṣār fī l-tafsīr: Dirāsah Naẓariyyah.” Master’s thesis, Riyadh: Jāmiʿat al-Malik al-Suʿūd, 1436 AH.
Yiğit, İsmail. “Memlükler”. In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Ankara: TDV Yayınları, 2004, XXIX, 90-97.
[1] Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khallād al-Rāmhurmuzī, al-Muḥaddith al-fāṣil bayna l-rāwī wa-l-wāʿī (Beirut: n.p., 1391 AH), 161.
[2] Among academic studies such as MA and PhD theses, articles, and translations written on Ibn ʿAbd al Hādī and al-Muḥarrar, the following works can be listed:
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Khālid al-Ramḥ, “Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī wa-juhūduhū fī khidmātihī l-sunnah al-nabawiyyah” (master’s thesis, Kuwait: Jāmiʿat al-Kuwayt Kulliyyat al-Dirāsāt al-ʿUlyā, 1998).
Sayyid ʿAjamī Muḥammad Maḥmūd, “Manhaj al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī fī l-ḥukm ʿalá l-aḥādīth wa-l-asānīd min khilāl kitābihī al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth” (master’s thesis, Fayyūm: Jāmiʿat al-Fayyūm, 2016).
Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Qarnī, al-Sharḥ al-muyassar li-kitāb al-Muḥarrar li-l-Imām Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Maqdisī (Riyadh: al-Nāshir al-Mutamayyiz li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2016).
Nur Kholis bin Kurdian, “Studi Komparasi Antara Bāb Nawāqiḍ al-Wuḍūʾ di Kitab al-Muhạrrar fī al-Ḥadīth Dengan Bab Nawāqiḍ al-Wuḍūʾ di Kitab Bulūghul Marām min Adillat al-Aḥkām,” Al-Majaalis: Jurnal Dirasat Islamiyah 6/1 (2018), 37-83.
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khuḍayr, Sharḥ al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth (not printed but possible to access this sharḥ via: https://shamela.ws/index.php/book/6366).
Ismāʿīl Masʿūdī, “Manhaj al-Imām Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī fī kitābihī l-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth” (master’s thesis, al-Wādī: Jāmiʿat al-Shahīd Ḥammah Lakhḍar Maʿhad al-ʿUlūm al-Islāmiyyah, 2019).
Rıdvan Kalaç, “Kudâme Ailesi ve Hadis” (PhD Diss., Van: Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, 2019).
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ahkâm Hadisleri, trans. Hanifi Akın (Istanbul: Çelik Yayınevi, 2019).
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd Āl Musāʿid, Ahādīth kitāb al-buyūʿ min kitāb al-Muḥarrar fī l-hadīth li-l-Imām Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī: Dirāsah fiqhiyyah (Mecca: Dār Ṭayyibah al-Khaḍrāʾ, 2020).
Zehra Akbulut, “Tabakâtu Ulemâi’l-Hadis İsimli Eseri Çerçevesinde İbn Abdulhâdî’nin Ricâl Tenkidi ve Literatüründeki Yeri” (master’s thesis, Eskişehir: Eskişehir Osmangazi University, 2021).
Havva Akyurt, “İbn Abdilhâdî’nin Hayatı ve Hadis Literatürüne Katkısı” (master’s thesis, Konya: Necmettin Erbakan University, 2022).
[3] For this claim see: Akyurt, “İbn Abdilhâdî’nin Hayatı ve Hadis Literatürüne Katkısı,” 44-46.
[4] For detailed information see Rıdvan Kalaç, “Kudâme Ailesi ve Hadis” (PhD diss., Van: Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, 2019).
[5] ʿĀdil ibn Muḥammad al-Hadbā and Muḥammad ibn Muṣṭafá ʿAllūsh, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth, by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, 3rd ed. (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2008), 12; Ferhat Koca, “Şemseddin İbn Abdülhâdî,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XIX, 273; Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth, 2nd ed. Akram Būshī (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1996), I, 22.
[6] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth, I, 31.
[7] Khalīl ibn Aybak al-Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi-l-wafayāt, ed. H. Ritter et al. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1381/1962), II, 159.
[8] Al-Hadbā and ʿAllūsh, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth, 12-13.
[9] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth, I, 27.
[10] Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ (Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1374 AH), IX, 1508.
[11] Abū l-Fiḍāʾ ʿImād al-Dīn Ismāʿīl ibn Shihāb al-Dīn ʿUmar Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāyah wa-l-nihāyah (Beirut: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1990), XIV, 210; Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth, I, 29.
[12] Al-Hadbā and ʿAllūsh, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth, 15.
[13] Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāyah, XIV, 210.
[14] Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Kanānī Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Durar al-kāminah fī aʿyān al-miʾah al-thāminah (Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1993), III, 332; Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth, I, 24.
[15] Al-Hadbā and ʿAllūsh, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth, 15.
[16] Abū Bakr ibn Muḥammad al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1983), 525.
[17] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Tanqīḥ al-taḥqīq fī aḥādīth al-taʿlīq, ed. Āmir Ḥasan Ṣabrī (Abu Dhabi: Maktabat al-ʿAyn al-Jāmiʿah, 1409/1989).
[18] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Risālah laṭīfah fī aḥādīth mutafarriqah al-ḍaʿīfah, ed. Muḥammad ʿĪd al-ʿAbbāsī (Damascus: n.p., 1400/1980); id., Risālah laṭīfah fī aḥādīth mutafarriqah al-ḍaʿīfah, ed. Muḥammad ʿĪd al-ʿAbbāsī (Beirut: n.p., 1404/1983). Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Risālah laṭīfah fī aḥādīth mutafarriqah al-ḍaʿīfah, ed. Muḥammad ʿĪd al-ʿAbbāsī (Riyadh: n.p., 1408/1987).
[19] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Qawāʿid uṣūl al-fiqh, ed. Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī (Damascus: n.p., n.d.). (In a journal with two treatises on fiqh and tafsīr).
[20] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Ṣārim al-munkī fī l-radd ʿalá l-Subkī (Cairo: n.p., 1318/1900). Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Ṣārim al-munkī fī l-radd ʿalá l-Subkī (Riyadh: n.p., 1983). Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Ṣārim al-munkī fī l-radd ʿalá l-Subkī (Beirut: n.p., 1985).
[21] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-ʿUqūd al-durriyyah min manāqib Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah, ed. M. Ḥāmid al-Fiqī (Cairo: n.p., 1356/1938). Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-ʿUqūd al-durriyyah min manāqib Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah, ed. M. Hāmid al-Fiqī (Beirut: n.p., 1406/1986). Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-ʿUqūd al-durriyyah min manāqib Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah, ed. Ḥusayn Ismāʿīl al-Jamāl (Riyadh: n.p., 1414/1994).
[22] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-ḥadīth, ed. Akram al-Būshī - Ibrāhīm al-Zaybaq (Beirut: n.p., 1409/1989).
[23] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Faḍāʾil al-Shām, ed. Marwān al-ʿAṭiyyah, MMLAUR., XLIX (1416/1995).
[24] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Radd ʿalá Abī Bakr al-Khaṭīb fī masʾalat al-jahr bi-l-basmalah (MS Damascus: Dār al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyyah, no. 55).
[25] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, ed. Yūsuf ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Marʿashlī, Muḥammad Salīm Ibrāhim Samārah and Jamāl Ḥamdī al-Dhahabī (Beirut:Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1405/1985).
[26] al-Hadbā and ʿAllūsh, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth, 15; Koca, “İbn Abdülhâdî,” 273-4.
[27] İsmail Yiğit, “Memlükler,” in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXIX, 93.
[28] Ferhat Gökçe, “Memlüklüler Dönemi Hadis Literatürü Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler,” İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi 11, no. 2 (2021), 454.
[29] See Yiğit, “Memlükler,” 90-97.
[30] Nagihan Emiroğlu, “Memlüklerde Hadis ve Ulema,” İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi 10, no. 1 (2020), 370.
[32] Ibid., 444.
[33] See Koca, “İbn Abdülhâdî,” 274; Akyurt, “İbn Abdilhâdî’nin Hayatı ve Hadis Literatürüne Katkısı,” 44.
[34] Gökçe, “Memlüklüler Dönemi Hadis Literatürü Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler,” 459.
[35] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, ed. Māhir Yāsīn al-Faḥl (Riyadh: Madār al-Qabs li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2017), 50.
[36] Ibid., 31.
[37] These are: Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth fī bayān al-aḥkām al-sharʿiyyah (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1986).
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 2 vols, ed. Yūsuf ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Marʿashlī (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 2000) (This edition consists of thirty books and contains 1304 ḥadīths, which, compared to the original edition, it seems that twenty ḥadīths are not included in the work. Furthermore, The Book of Ḥijr is not included in the work. Considering the edition that we are studying, which is two volumes, it seems that the factor that makes the work voluminous is the editor’s (muḥaqqiq) role. In our comparisons, there was no difference between the editions of the transmission of ḥadīths, other than what was mentioned decisively above);
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth (Saudi Arabia: Wizārat al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah wa-l-Awqāf wa-l-Daʿwah wa-l-Irshād, 2001) (In our study, this edition was based on),
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 3 vols (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2004).
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth (Riyadh: Dār Aṭlas al-Khaḍrāʾ, 2008).
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, edition ʿĀdil al-Hadbā and Muḥammad ibn Muṣṭafá ʿAllūsh (Saudi Arabia: Dār al-ʿAṭāʾ, 2001) (In this edition, The Book of Ḥijr is not included. When we compare, after The Book of Ṭalāq, instead of the book of Rijʿah, Īlāʾ, and Ẓihār the book of Faith appears. It contains the same number of 1324 ḥadīths as the edition based on the work. In this edition, it is stated that a full edition of the work was made for the first time. Both editions were printed in the same year and in the same country, but the publishing houses appear to be different and contain different books from the edition we used);
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, edition by Māhir Yāsīn al-Faḥl (Riyadh: li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2017).
[38] See Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 31.
[39] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, al-Dhayl ʿalá Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah (Mecca: Maktabat al-ʿUbaykān, 2005), V, 118.
[40] Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī, al-Radd al-wāfir, 2nd ed. (n.p.: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1991), 63.
[41] Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-kāminah, III, 332.
[42] Abū Bakr ibn Muḥammad al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1983), 525.
[43] Ismāʿīl Pasha al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Tārīkh al-ʿArabī, 1951), II, 151.
[44] ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Athīr al-Shaybānī, al-Kāmil fī l-tārīkh (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1987), X, 399.
[46] Ibid, 35.
[47] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 441-442.
[48] Ibid., 31.
[49] Ibid., 156.
[50] Ibid., 157.
[51] Ibid., 160.
[52] Ibid., 161.
[53] Ibid., 177.
[54] Ibid., 178.
[55] Muḥammad ibn Mukarram Ibn Manẓūr al-Anṣārī, Lisān al-ʿArab (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, n.d.), IX, 341-342.
[56] Mehmet Efendioğlu, “Muhtasar,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), XXI, 60.
[57] See ʿAlī ibn Saʿīd ibn Muḥammad al-ʿUmarī, “al-Ikhtiṣār fī l-tafsīr: Dirāsah naẓariyyah” (master’s thesis, Riyadh: Jāmiʿat al-Malik al-Suʿūd, 1436 AH), 43-46, 54-59.
[58] Tunahan Erdoğan, “Hadis Usûlü Literatüründe Yerleşik Bir Kabulün Tenkidi: Bir İhtisār Örneği Olarak İbn Hacer’in Nuhbetü’l-Fiker’i,” Turkish Academic Research Review 1, no. 1 (2016), 53-55.
[58] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 31.
[59] Ibid., 31.
[60] Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, al-Ilmām bi-aḥādīth al-aḥkām, ed. Muḥammad Khallūf al-ʿAbd Allāh (Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, n.d.), 5.
[61] Additionally Rıdvan Kalaç points out this issue in his Phd dissertation called “Qudāmah Family and Ḥadīth.” See Kalaç, Kudâme Ailesi ve Hadis, 144.
[62] ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥasan al-Turkī, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī (n.p.: n.d.), 7.
[63] Al-Hadbā and ʿAllūsh, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥạdīth, 7-9.
[65] “*” indicates the joint books of al-Ilmām and al-Muḥarrar. There is also a different determination of the total number of hadīths in al-Ilmām and al-Muḥarrar, probably due to the difference in printing. See Akyurt, “İbn Abdilhâdî’nin Hayatı ve Hadis Literatürüne Katkısı,” 46.
[66] Al-Turkī, introduction to al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 8.
[67] Ibid., 10.
[68] Ibid., 10.
[69] Ibid., 10-11.
[70] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 33.
[72] Ibid., 36.
[73] Ibid., 37.
[74] Ibid., 39.
[75] Ibid., 40.
[76] Ibid., 37-38.
[77] Ibid., 44.
[78] Ibid., 65-66.
[79] Ibid., 72.
[80] Ibid., 41, 47, 48.
[81] Ibid., 43.
[82] Ibid., 45.
[83] Ibid., 56.
[84] Ibid., 59, 64, 70.
[85] Ibid., 48.
[86] Ibid., 48.
[87] Ibid., 49.
[88] Ibid., 55.
[89] Ibid., 47.
[90] Ibid., 85-86.
[91] Ibid., 441.
[92] Ibid., 438.
[94] Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, al-Muḥarrar fī l-ḥadīth, 40.
[95] Ibid., 42.
[96] Ibid., 42.
[97] Ibid., 55-56.
[98] Ibid., 42.
[99] Ibid., 47.
[100] Ibid., 48.
[101] Ibid., 53.
[102] Ibid., 58-59.
[103] See Masʿūdī, “Manhaj al-Imām ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī,” 32.
[104] Ibid., 30, 32.