CC BY
12
A STUDY OF AL-HAFIZ AL-IRAQI APPROACH IN CRITICIZING NARRATORS IN HIS BOOK, TARH AL-TATHRJB
ASST. LEC. TARIQ DAHAM WAHIB AL-MAMOURI, PROF. DR. QASSEM MOHAMMED AHMED
Iraq, Al-Iraqia University, College of Islamic Sciences [email protected]
Abstract: This research aims at explaining Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi approach (Died in 806 AH) in criticizing the narrators in his book Tarh al-TathrTb, by knowing his evaluation on them, and comparing his sayings with the sayings of other scholars and showing the extent of his agreement and disagreement with them, and whether he is right or not. Results showed that Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi is one of the moderate scholars of (al-Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil. Findings also showed that he used general expression in criticizing the narrators and did not indicate the level of the narrators in the criticism. Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi was not right in judging some of the narrators to be weak only, and they are very weak or abandoned. He also was not wrong in judging the narrator Abu Bakr Al-Nahshali with weakness, but rather he is trustworthy. Keywords: Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi, criticizing narrators, Tarh al-TathrTb.
INTRODUCTION
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, who has preserved our religion and placed trustworthy guardians over it. These guardians refute the misinterpretations of the ignorant, the fabrications of the false claimants, and the distortions of the extremists. They have preserved for us the Sunnah (Prophet's tradition). They criticized and praised. They authenticated (sahih), and weakened (da'if). Among these trustworthy scholars is the great Hafiz Zainuddin Al-Iraqi (Died in 806 AH). He has fabulous experience and has spoken extensively on the subject of narrators' criticism and praise in his book "Tarh al-Tathrib" and other works. To understand the Hafiz Al-Iraqi approach in this field and determine his stance on narrators' criticism, we must compare his views on narrators with those of other scholars, and draw conclusions for each narrator from these comparisons. As my doctoral thesis is entitled "Criticism of Hadith by Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi and his son Abu
Zur'ah in their book Tarh al-Tathrib: A Study of Applied Examples," I have decided to focus on Al-Iraqi approach in criticizing narrators in this book, to clarify his approach and identify the narrators he criticized, as well as to explain his terminology in this regard. Research significance
The importance of this research lies in highlighting the approach of Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in criticizing narrators in Tarh al-TathrTb. Furthermore, the research significance lies in clarifying Hafiz Al-Iraqi position among scholars of narrator criticism between strictness, moderateness, or softness, and whether his evaluation about criticizing narrators accurately reflect their true status and classification among hadith scholars.
Research problem
This researcher tries to answer the question of which narrators were criticized by Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in his book, Tarh al-TathrTb, and whether his judgments on them were accurate or not. Additionally, the research aims to determine the level of agreement or disagreement among hadith scholars regarding the judgments on these narrators.
Research objectives
1. Defining the status of Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in the field of hadith criticism and praising,
2. Identifying the narrators that Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi criticized in his book,
3. Knowing the terminology he used in criticizing narrators,
4. Determining which narrators were not criticized by him,
5. Explaining any errors he may have made in his judgments.
The research is limited to the narrators criticized by Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in Tarh al-TathrTb, and does not cover those he praised or modified. The methodology involves citing the full name of the
narrator and their sources, quoting Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi's opinions on them, presenting the opinions of other scholars, and discussing the consensus or disagreement among them. The conclusion will highlight Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi's agreement or disagreement with other scholars regarding the judgments on these narrators.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher followed the following steps in doing the research:
1. Mentioning the full name of the narrator;
2. Mentioning the saying of Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi about the narrator;
3. Mention the sayings of the scholars about the narrator, and if the narrator was among those with whom the sayings of the scholars differed, then their sayings were divided into critics and praisers ones, and their sayings were arranged according to their deaths;
4. I discuss some of the sayings after transferring them and clarifying the most correct ones;
5. Mentioning, after that, the result of judging the narrator after quoting and discussing the sayings;
6. In the result, I show the agreement or disagreement of Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in judging the narrator according to the results I reached.
Research plan
The research begins with an introduction which showed the importance of the research, its problem, its objectives and its limits. This is followed by two sections. The first section introduces the Iraqi Hafiz and his book Tarh al-Tathrib. The second section contains ten narrators, and they are the narrators who were criticized by Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in His book Tarh al-Tathrib, and a conclusion which displays the most important findings and recommendations. Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi and his book Tarh al-Tathrib
Al-hafiz Al-Iraqi, full name is Abdul Rahim bin Al-Hussein bin Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr ibn Ibrahim, was a Kurdish scholar of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence. He is of al-Razanani origin (Al-Hashimi, 1998), the Maharani of Egyptian origin, the Shafi'i school of thought, Abu al-Fadl Zain al-Din al-Iraqi (Ibin Hajar, 1969). Abu Al-Fadl Zainuddin Al-Iraqi was born in 725 AH in the village of Al-Maharani on the Nile River between Egypt and Cairo (Al-Hashimi, 1998; Ibin Hajar Al-Asqalani, 1969).
Al-hafiz Al-Iraqi grew up in a religious and scholarly family. His father accompanied Sheikh Taqi Al-Din Al-Qunawi al Shafi'i (Ibn Hajar, 1972). God blessed him with a good, worshiping wife, and she bore him Abdul Rahim (Al-hafiz al Iraqi) after his sheikh Al-Qenawy gave him good tidings of him, and recommended to name him after his supreme grandfather, Abd Al-Rahim. His father repeatedly brought the child to his sheikh Al-Qenawy who treated him with honor. When he was young at twelve years old, he accompanied Judge Taqi al-Din al-Akhna'i al-Maliki (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, 1972), and others (Al-Sakhawi, 2012). Al-Iraqi memorized the Quran at the age of eight and later excelled in the study of fiqh and usul al-fiqh. He also studied hadith, following the advice of his teacher Az-Zahid Ibn Jama'ah, after he saw him preoccupying himself with the science of the Qur'an readings, he said to him: "It is a science of much fatigue and little benefit, and you have a bright mind, so spend your energy on the science of hadith" (Ibn Hajar, 1972) . So the student heard the advice of his sheikh. His sheikhs
His most prominent sheikhs are Ali bin Othman bin Ibrahim, Alaeddin Ibn al-Turkmani (Died in 750 AH) (Al-Dhahabi, 1998; Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, 1972); Ahmad bin Yusuf bin Muhammad al-Halabi, known as Ibn al-Sameen (Died in 756 AH) (Ibn Qadi Shahba1407 AH), Khalil bin Kikeldi, Abu Saeed Salah al-Din al-Ala'i (Died in 761 AH) (Al-Sakhawi, 2012; Al-Dhahabi, 1998; Ibn Qadi Shahba,1407 AH). Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Saad Allah, Izz al-Din Ibn Jama'a (Died in 767 AH) (Ibn Qadi Shahba,1407 AH), and Abd al-Rahim bin al-Hasan bin Ali, Jamal al-Din al-Asnawi (Died in 772 AH) (Al-Shawkani, 2012).
His students
His most prominent students are Ali bin Abi Bakr bin Suleiman, Abu al-Hasan Nur al-Din al-Haythami (Died in 807 AH) (Al-Hashimi, 1998; Al-Shawkani, 2012), Ahmed bin Abdul Rahim bin Al-Hussein, Abu Zaraa Wali Al-Din Al-Iraqi (Died in 826 AH), Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Ali al-Makki, Taqi al-Din al-Fasi (Died in 832 AH) (Al-Hashimi, 1998; Al-Shawkani, 2012), Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad, Ibn Al-Jazari (Died in 833 AH) (Ibn al-Imad al-Akri, 1986) and Ahmed bin Abi Bakr bin Ismail Al-Qahri, Al-Busiri (840 AH) (Al-Sakhawi (2012). His prominent work
His most prominent printed works are Al-Mughni on carrying luggage in Travels, Takhrij Hadiths of Minhaj Al-Baydawi, Restriction and Clarification of What Was Released and Closed from Ibn Al-Salah's Book, Alfiya Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyyah, Insight and Remembrance in the Sciences of Hadith, Alfiyat Al-Hadith, Fath Al-Mughith Bi Sharh Alfiya Al-Hadith, Complementing Ibn Sayed's Explanation People on Al-Tirmidhi, rounding up the isnads and arranging the backings). His death
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi died on the eighth of Sha'ban in the year (806 AH) after leaving the
bath, and he was 81 years old at that time (Al-Hashimi, 1998).
Introduction to Tarh al-Tathrib
The meaning and reason for writing Tarh al-Tathrib
Tarh is an Arabic word which means is rejection of the thing and throwing it (Ibn Faris (1979), and al-Tathrib stands for blaming and taking someone on the guilt (Ibn Faris (1979). So the meaning that al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi wanted from title his book Tarh al-Tathrib is demanding not to blame him for explaining this book. Furthermore, he mentioned in the introduction when he was asked to explain his book of Taqreeb al-Asanid, so he said: Let the reviewer make an excuse for it and let him seize its benefits as an excuse
As for the reason for writing Tarh al-TathrTb, it was a response to the of his companions' request. He mentioned in the introduction: "When I completed my book entitled, Taqreeb al-Asanid wa Tartib al-Masnad which was memorized by my son Abu Zur'ah, its author. He asked a group of students to carry it on my behalf, a group of our companions asked me to write an explanation for that book which would make it easier to what is difficult for the subject of the book; they required me to make the explanation between brevity and verbosity (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). The explanation of two Hafizs' portion of the book
Ibn Fahd said: "He explained a good piece of the original in a volume, and then his son, our sheikh, the Hafiz Abu Zur'ah, completed it after him" (Al-Hashimi, 1998, p. 150). Al-Sakhawi (2012) said, "He explained a piece close to a nice volume" (p. 173). These two quotations show that al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi did not complete the explanation of the book, rather he explained a piece of it close to a volume. This piece was included by the book reviewer, Muhammad Sayyid bin Abd al-Fattah Darwish, in what he depended on the written copies, and among them is what al-Hafiz Wali al-Din al-Iraqi declared with that. The explanation of the father stretched from the beginning of the book to the chapter of forgetfulness in prayer from the book of prayer from the. Moreover, his son Wali al-Din al-Iraqi has added some explanations to the volume basically he explained two chapters from the book of prayer namely: from the chapter on prayer times to the chapter on Tameen, which are: (prayer times, the call to prayer, the conditions of prayer, and raising the hands). And from the chapter of the imam to the chapter of sitting in the mosque, namely: the imam, and the latecomer makes up what he missed. The remaining of the book from the chapter on forgetfulness in prayer until the end of the book is explained by Ibn al-Hafiz Wali al-Din al-Iraqi.
The Iraqi two Hafizs' approach in Tarh al-Tathrib
Tarh al-TathrTb is one of the medium books which explanins hadith. The two Hafiz had explained many scientific issues. The book contains many issue of the scientific of hadith including, ilm al-rijal, science of narrators, extracting hadiths, the terminology of hadith, different types of hadiths and their complexities, abrogated and abrogating hadiths, strange hadiths, the defects behind hadiths, and the criticism of the chain of transmission and the content.
In terms of the jurisprudential side, Tarh al-Tathrib clarified the jurisprudential statements derived from these hadiths, and the differences of scholars in that, and mentioned their doctrines in them, and pointing out the issues of disagreement.
Tarh al-Tathrib is one of the books of comparative jurisprudence that the two scholars took care of with the jurisprudence of the four schools. It also it also included others sciences, such as theology, the linguistics, and the fundamentals of jurisprudence.
They made their explanation of the book in the form of benefits. The first benefit is always in extracting hadiths, collecting its paths, showing its degree of soundness and weakness, its different expressions, clarifying its vocabulary and meanings, and then inducing jurisprudence statements from it. These benefits may increase or decrease depending to the issues that the hadith has. 2. Narrators who were criticized by Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in Tarh al-Tathrib
1. Bahr bin Knaiz Al-Bahili Abu Al-Fadl Al-Basri, known as Al-Saqqa
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said Al-Saqqa is very week (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Scholars' evaluation
Yahya bin Mu'in said that Al-Saqqa is nothing, all people are dearer to me than him, and he said in another place: His hadith will not be accepted (Al-Razi, 1952). Al-Bukhari affirmed that Al-Saqqa' narrations do not have the strong (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Abu Hatim Al-Razi said: Al-Saqqa is weak (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Dawud Al-Sijistani mentioned that Al-Saqqa' is matruk al-hadTth i.e., abandoned (Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, 1326 AH). Al-Nasa'i said: Al-Saqqa' is not trustworthy and his hadith is not written down, and he said in another place: The hadith is abandoned (Al-Jurjani (1997). Ibn Hibban said: Al-Saqqa was one of those whose mistakes were huge, and his delusion increased until he deserved abandoned (Al-Busti, 1396 AH). Al-Daraqutni said that Al-Saqqa' is abandoned (bin Yusuf, 1980). Ibn Hajar said that Al-Saqqa is weak (Maarouf & Al-Arnaout, 1997).
Result: Bahr bin Kinez was considered weak by every scholar who mentioned him and no one trusted him, so he is one of the narrators who are agreed upon as weak. Some of scholars severely criticized him, so he is very weak, as Hafiz Zainuddin Al-Iraqi said, and God knows best.
2. Haram bin Othman bin Amr bin Yahya, Al-Ansari Al-Madani
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said: Haram bin Othman is abandoned (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH).( Scholars' evaluation
Malik bin Anas and Yahya bin Mu'in said: Haram bin Othman is not trustworthy, and Yahya also said: Narrating Haram's hadith is forbidden (Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Ahmed bin Hanbal said: Haram bin Othman's hadith is not narrated (Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Al-Fallas said Haram bin Othman's hadeeth is abandoned (Al-Jurjani, 1997). Al-Bukhari reported that hadeeth of Haram is rejected (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Abu Zur'ah al-Razi said that hadith of Haram is weak (Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Abu Hatim Al-Razi mentioned that Haram is rejected, his hadith is abandoned (Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). An-Nasa'i said that Haram is not trustworthy (Al-Jurjani, 1997). Ibn Hibban said confirmed that Haram's hadith is denied in what he narrates, he changed the chains of transmission and raises the mursals (Al-Busti, 1396 AH). Ibn Adiyy said that generally Haram's hadith is munkar i.e., rejected (Al-Jurjani, 1997). Ibn Hajar said that Haram is very weak (Ibn Hajar, 1326 AH). Result: Bahr bin Kinez was considered weak by every scholar who evaluated him and no one trusted him, so he is one of the narrators who are agreed upon as weak, and some of them severely criticized him, so he is very weak, as Hafiz Zainuddin Al-Iraqi said, and God knows best.
3. Khathim bin Marwan
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi evaluated his as weak (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Scholars' evaluation
Al-Bukhari said Kulthum bin Jabr heard from him: (Animals are saddled only for prayer in the three mosques: the sacred mosque, the Aqsa mosque, and this mosque of mine) (Al-Tabrani, 1424 AH). He is not followed in the Al-Khaif Mosque, and it is not known that Khathim heard from Abu Huraira (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Ibn Al-Jaroud mentioned Khathim among the weak (Ibn Hajar, 2002). Al-Aqili said that Khathim's hadith had not been narrated by other narrators (Ibn Hajar, 2002). He was mentioned by Ibn Hibbaan as trustworthy" (Al-Tamimi, 1975). Al-Azdi said that Khathim is week (Ibn Hajar, 2002).
Discussion: Khathim bin Marwan was deemed weak by the majority of scholars. However, Ibn Hibban authenticated him, and this is an indulgence on his part, may God have mercy on him. He did not narrate except on hadith which Ibn Hajar on the authority of Al-Aqili that his hadith had not been narrated by other narrator, and he is not known except by him. Result: Khathim bin Marwan is weak, as Hafiz Zain Al-Din Al-Iraqi said, and God knows best.
4. Suleiman bin Amr bin Abdullah bin Wahb, Abu Dawood Al-Nakhai, Al-Kufi
Al-Hafiz Zainal-Din said Abu Dawood Al-Nakhai is agreed on his weakness (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH).
Scholars' evaluation
Yahya bin Maeen reported that Abu Dawood Al-Nakhai is nothing, he lies, he fabricates hadith. And in another place he was the most lying of people. And in another place Yahya mentioned that Al-Nakhai is known to fabricate hadith (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Ibn al-Madini said that Al-Nakhai was one of the quacks (Ibn Hajar, 2002). Ishaq bin Rahawayh said I had not seen a lie in this world more than him (Ibn Hajar, 2002). Ahmed bin Hanbal said that Al-Nakhai is a liar (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Al-Bukhari said that Al-Nakhai is known for lying (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Abu Zaraa Al-Razi said that Al-Nakhai is a liar and he harshly mentioned negative things about him (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Ibn Abi Hatim Al-Razi said that I heard my father saying there were two weak sheikhs of Al-Nakhai Al-Nakhai who fabricated hadiths. One of them is Suleiman bin Amr Al-Nakhai, whose hadith is abandoned, he was a liar, and people refused to accept his hadith (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Al-Nisa'i said that the hadith of Al-Nakhai is abandoned (Al-Jurjani, 1997). Ibn Hibban said that Al-Nakhai was apparently a righteous man. However, he used to fabricate the hadith, and he was fatalistic. His hadith is not permissible to be written except on the test side, nor will it mentioned other than criticism (Al-Busti, 1396 AH). Ibn Uday said that Suleiman bin Amr, unanimously agreed that Al-Nakhai fabricates the hadith (Al-Jurjani, 1997).
Al-Hakim said that he did not doubt of his fabricating of the hadith, despite his austerity and his frequent worship (Ibn Hajar, 2002 ). Ibn Abd al-Barr said we considered him a liar who fabricated hadiths. Yahya, Ahmad, Qutaybah, Sharik, and Ishaq considered him a liar, and the rest of the people of knowledge followed them and they abandoned his hadiths (Ibn Hajar, 2002). Ibn Hajar said the talk about Al-Nakhai is unlimited, as he lied and attributed it to the rejection from the predecessors and the later ones who conveyed their words in the criticism, or composed more than thirty criticism on him (Ibn Hajar, 2002). Result: Scholars unanimously agreed to deny Suleiman bin Amr Al-Nakhai and accuse him of fabrication. He is unanimously agreed upon his lies, and not only unanimously agreed upon his weakness, and the weakness in the saying of Al-Hafiz Zain Al-Din Al-Iraqi can be interpreted as lying, because he meant that he is one of those whose hadiths are not accepted, and there was no statement of his rank in weakness, and God knows best.
5. Sadaqah bin Musa al-Duqiqi, Abu al-Mughira, al-Sulami al-Basri
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi evaluated him as weak (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Scholars' evaluation
Praisers' sayings: Muslim bin Ibrahim evaluated Abu al-Mughira al-Sulami as truthful (bin Yusuf, 980). Al-Bazzar said that there is nothing wrong with Abu al-Mughira al-Sulami from the people of Basra, whose hadeeth has been accepted (Al-Bazzar, 2009). Ibn Hajar said Abu al-Mughira is trustworthy with delusions (Ibn Hajar, 1986). Critics' sayings:
Yahya bin Maeen said that Abu al-Mughira al-Sulami's hadith is nothing, and he in another place considered him as weak (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Hatim Al-Razi evaluated Abu al-Mughira al-Sulami as soft in hadith (layyin al-hadTth), he forged his hadith and could not be used as evidence; he is not strong (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Dawud, Al-Nasa'i, and Al-Dulabi said he is weak (bin Yusuf, 1980). Al-Tirmidhi assessed Abu al-Mughira al-Sulami's hadith as they do not have that strength (Al-Tirmidhi 1975). Furthermore, Al-Bazzar said that Abu al-Mughira is not hafiz according to them (Ibn Hajar, 1326 AH). Al-Saji reported that the hadith of Abu al-Mughira is weak (Ibn Hajar, 1326 AH). Ibn Hibban said that he was a righteous sheikh, except that if he narrated he forged the news until his
hadith went out of taking it as evidence (Al-Busti, 1396 AH). Al-Daraqutni said that Abu al-Mughira's hadith is abandoned (Al-Barqani, 1404Ah). Abu Ahmad al-Hakim said that he is not strong according to them (Ibn Hajar, 1326 AH). Al-Dhahabi said that he is weak (Al-Dhahabi, 1413 AH).
Discussion: Sadaqa ibn Musa had been weakened by the majority of scholars, and only Ibrahim ibn Musa trusted him: He said about him: Sadaqa al-Duqiqi narrated to us and he was truthful. This phrase can be implied to his sincerity in himself, not in his hadith, as Ibn Hibban said about him that he was a righteous sheikh. As for Al-Bazzar's saying: There is no harm in it. He differed in what he said about him, so one time he said about him: He is not hafiz according to them, and another time he said that there is nothing wrong with him. And his saying: He is not a hafiz, and he is the most correct and the one presented from his two sayings, because he is closer to his case, so he agreed with him with the saying of the rest of the scholars. As for Ibn Hajar's saying: He is trustworthy who has delusions.
Perhaps Ibn Hajar relied on the sayings of Ibrahim bin Musa and al-Bazzar, which is contrary to the sayings of the previous imams, so Dr. Bashar Awwad and Sheikh Shuaib al-Arnaout criticized the Hafiz Ibn Hajar, and they said: "Rather he is weak". He was weakened by, Yahya bin Mu'in, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, and Abu Bishr al-Dulabi. Similarly, Abu Hatim said his hadith is soft, his hadith is written down, and it is not used as evidence, it is not strong. Ibn Hibban said that he was a righteous sheikh, except that if he narrated, he fabricated he news until he went beyond the limit of evidence, Al-Daraqutni said that his hadith is abandoned; no hafiz trusted him, so where did the trustworthy come from? (Maarouf & Al-Arnaout, 1997).
Result: Sadaqah ibn Musa al-Duqiqi is weak, as al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said about him, and the weakness goes to its commitment of hadith's principle of narration. No one spoke about it in terms of justice, but rather they mentioned what indicates its righteousness, and God knows best. 6. Abdullah bin Qataf, Abu Bakr al-Nahshali al-Kufi
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said that he is weak (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Scholars' evaluation
Praisers' saying: Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi said that Abdullah bin Qataf is one of the trustworthy sheikhs of Kufa (bin Yusuf, 1980). Yahya bin Maeen and Ahmed bin Hanbal said that he is a trustworthy Kofi (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Al-Ijli said that Abdullah bin Qataf is trustworthy (Al-Tamimi, 1975). Abu Hatim Al-Razi said that he is a righteous sheikh, he writes his hadiths, and he is better than Abu Bakr Al-Hudhali (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Dawud Al-Sijistani said that he is trustworthy, Kufi, Murji' (bin Yusuf, 1980). Al-Dhahabi said that he is trustworthy, and in another place he said that he is sound hadith and trustworthy in another: It is Saduq that Ibn Hibban spoke about, and in another hi is trustworthy, in which imam Muslim and others invoked by him (Al-Dhahabi, 1413 AH). Ibn Hajar said that he is trustworthy (Ibn Hajar, 1986).
Critics' sayings: Ibn Saad said that Abdullah bin Qataf was a hermit worshiper, and he had hadiths, but some critics considered him weak (Ibn Saad. (1986). Ibn Hibban said that he was a righteous and virtuous sheath who was overcome by austerity until he became concerned and did not know and made mistakes and did not understand, therefore, his hadiths become invalid (Al-Busti, 1396 AH).
Discussion: Abu Bakr Al-Nahshali was trusted by the majority of scholars, and no one weakened him except what Ibn Sa'd transmitted regarding the weakness, although he said about him that some critics consider him weak, but he did not mention who was this who weakened him. Furthermore, for Ibn Hibban's words about Abu Bakr Al-Nahshali, was strict, may God have mercy on him, and he contradicted the sayings of those who preceded him from the imams. Al-Dhahabi said in response to Ibn Hibban's saying: Let go of rhetoric, for the man is an argument that the imam of art trusted him, and imam Muslim took his hadith as an evidence (Al-Dhahabi, 2003). As for the evaluation of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar that he is trustworthy thrown by Irja'. Perhaps he said about him as well because Ibn Hibban criticized him, and the saying of those who trusted him among the imams has passed, so Ibn Hajar was criticized by Dr. Bashar Awwad and Sheikh Shuaib Al-Arnaout, and they said: Rather: He is trustworthy. Al-Daraqutni, and Abu Hatim said that he is a righteous sheikh who writes his
hadiths, and he is better than Abu Bakr Al-Hudhali to me. Ibn Hibban weakened it alone, and Al-Dhahabi said he is trusty and his hadith is sound (Maarouf & Al-Arnaout, 1997). Result: Abu Bakr al-Nahshali is a rustworthy and not as al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said about him that he is weak, and God knows best.
7. Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Dahhak al-Salami al-Ardi, Abu al-Harith al-Homsi
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi evaluated him as one of the weak (Al-Razi,1952 ). Scholars' evaluation
Al-Bukhari said that Abu al-Harith al-Homsi has wonders (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Ibn Abi Hatim said on the authority of his father that he had left his hadith and the narration on his authority, and said: He used to lie (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Dawud said that he fabricates the hadith, and in another place he is not trustworthy (Ibn Hajar, 1326 AH). Al-Nasai said that he has wonders, and in another place he is not trustworthy and abandoned (Al-Nasa'I, 1396 Ah). Al-Aqili, Al-Daraqutni, and Al-Bayhaqi said that he is abandoned (bin Yusuf, 1980). Ibn Hibban said that he steals the hadith and narrates it, he answers about what he is asked, and narrates what he reads to him. It is not permissible to take his hadith as evidence or to narrate on him except in terms of criticism. Al-Hakim and Abu Naim said that he narrated fabricated hadiths (Al-Nasa'I, 1396 Ah). Ibn Hajar said that Abu Hatim is abandoned and lair (Ibn Hajar, 1986).
Result: Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Dahhak had been abandoned by all the scholars, including those who accused him of lying, fabricating, and stealing hadith, and no one trusted him. He is abandoned and accused of lying, and he is not just one of the weak, as al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said about him, and God knows best.
8. Ali bin Yazid bin Abi Hilal Al-Alhani, Abu Abdul-Malik, Al-Dimashqi
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said that Abu Abdul-Malik, Al-Dimashqi is (da'Tf jiddan) very weak (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi, 1442 AH). Scholars' evaluation
Yahya bin Mo'in said he is weak (bin Yusuf, 1980). Harb bin Ismail said: I said to Ahmed bin Hanbal: Ali bin Yazid? He said: He is a Damascene. As if he weakened him (Al-Razi, 1952). Al-Bukhari said that his hadith is rejected (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Yaqoub bin Shaybah said that Abu Abdul-Malik, Al-Dimashqi's hadith is weak and has many fabrications (bin Yusuf, 1980). Abu Zaraa Al-Razi said that he is not strong (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Hatim said that his hadith is weak, his hadith is rejected (). Al-Tirmidhi said: He is weak in the hadeeth (Al-Razi, 1952). An-Nasa'i said that he is not trustworthy. And he said in another place: the his hadith is abandoned (Al-Tirmidhi, 1975). Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Daraqutni, and Abu Bakr Al-Barqani said that he is abandoned (bin Yusuf, 1980). Al-Dhahabi said that he was weakened by a group and he was not abandoned (bin Yusuf, 1980). Ibn Hajar said he is weak (Ibn Hajar, 1986).
Result: Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Dahhak has been weakened by all the scholars, including those who accused him of lying, fabricating, and stealing hadith, and no one trusted him. He is abandoned and accused of lying, and he is not just one of the weak, as al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said about him, and God knows best.
9. Fudayl bin Suleiman al-Numeiri, Abu Suleiman al-Basri
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said that Abu Suleiman al-Basri even if al-Bukhari narrated on him, and Ibn Hibban declared him trustworthy, the majority considered him weak (Al-Iraqi & Al-Iraqi,1442 AH).
Scholars' evaluation
Praisers' saying: Al-Saji said that Abu Suleiman al-Basri was truthful and he had some defects (Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, 1326 AH). He was mentioned by Ibn Hibbaan in trustworthy ( Al-Tamimi, 1975). Ibn Hajar said that hee is truthful and has many mistakes (Ibn Hajar, 1986).
Critics' sayings: Abu Dawud said that Abd al-Rahman - meaning Ibn Mahdi - did not narrate from him (Ibn Hajar, 1986). Yahya bin Maeen said that he is not trustworthy (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Zaraa Al-Razi said that his hadith is soft, Ali bin Al-Madini narrated on his authority, and he was one of the extremists (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Hatim Al-Razi said that he writes hadith which is not strong (Al-Razi, 1952). An-Nasa'i said that he is not strong (Al-Nasa'I, 1396 Ah).
Discussion: Fudayl bin Suleiman is not very weak, but rather he is one of those whose hadiths are accepted in follow-ups and witnesses, so Al-Bukhari did not come out for him except in follow-ups. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in the introduction to Fath al-Bari: "Groups narrated on his authority, and he has nothing in Bukhari except for hadiths that he extracted their chains " (Ibn Hajar, 1379 AH, p. 435).
Then he listed these hadiths. As for what al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said about him: He is truthful and has a lot of errors, he may have relied on Ibn Hibban's authentication of him, and he disagreed with that of the majority of scholars. Therefore, Dr. Bashar Awwad and Sheikh Shuaib Al-Arnaout criticized Ibn Hajar with this, and they said: "Rather he is weak and is valid in the follow-up and evidence. Ibn Mu'in, Abu Zur'ah, Abu Hatim, Al-Ajri, Al-Nasa'i, Salih Jazra, and Ibn Qani' considered him weak, and only Ibn Hibban mentioned him in "trustworthy." Al-Bukhari extracted out a number of hadiths for him from what was followed on him, so it became clear that he chose from his authentic hadiths (Maarouf & Al-Arnaout, 1997). Al-Bukhari's dependent in extracting his hadith in his Sahih may be the narration of his sheikh, Ali bin Al-Madini, on his authority, and Ali bin Al-Medini, as described by Abu Zara'a Al-Razi: He was one of the extremists. It means in the narration on the authority of the weak.
Result: Fudayl bin Suleiman has been agreed upon by the majority of scholars as weak, as al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said, but it is a slight weakness. However, he is one of those who are considered in the follow-ups and witnesses, so Al-Bukhari included him in his Sahih in the follow-ups, and God knows best.
10. Hisham bin Ziyad bin Abi Yazid al-Qurashi, Abu al-Muqdam, Mawla Uthman
Al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said that Abu al-Muqdam is weak (Al-Razi, 1952). Scholars' evaluation
Ibn Al-Mubarak abandoned Abu al-Muqdam's hadith, and said in another place: Throw it away (Al-Bakjari, 2001). Ibn Maeen said that he is not trustworthy. And he said in another place he said that he is weak (bin Yusuf, 1980). Ahmed bin Hanbal and Abu Zaraa Al-Razi said that his hadith is weak (Al-Razi, 1952). Al-Bukhari said scholars talk about it, and in another place said that he is weak (Al-Bukhari, 2019). Abu Hatim Al-Razi said that he is not strong; his hadith is weak. He was a neighbor of Abi Al-Walid Al-Tayalisi, but he did not narrate from him, and he did not narrate on his authority (Al-Razi, 1952). Abu Dawud said: He is not trustworthy (bin Yusuf, 1980). Al-Tirmidhi said: Abu al-Muqdam is weak (Al-Tirmidhi, 1975). Al-Nisa'i said that his hadith is abandoned. Elsewhere he said he is weak. And in another place, he is not trustworthy (bin Yusuf, 1980). Ibn Hibban said: He narrates the fabricated ones from trustworthy ones, so it is not permissible to take his hadith as evidence (Al-Busti, 1396 AH). Ibn Uday said: The weakness is clear on his narrations (Al-Jurjani, 1997). Al-Dhahabi said scholars weakened him (Al-Dhahabi, 1413 AH). Ibn Hajar said he is abandoned (Maarouf & Al-Arnaout, 1997).
Result: Hisham bin Ziyad had been considered by the majority of the scholars as weak, and no one trusted him, and some of them abandoned his hadith and accused him of fabrication, so he is very weak to the point of abandonment. Yet, he is not weak only as al-Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi said about him, what is meant by weakness here is the general judgment, not the detailed one, and God knows best.
CONCLUSION
At the conclusion of this research, we can summarize our findings as follows:
1. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi is one of the moderate scholars of (al-Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil) criticism and praise who used words in al-Jarh wa'l-Ta'dil that do not contain strictness or sharpness.
2. The number of narrators whom Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi criticized in his book Tarh al-Tathrib is ten.
3. The expressions used by Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi in criticizing the narrators did not indicate the level of the narrators in the criticism, but rather they are general expressions that indicate their weakness only.
4. Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi was not right in judging some of the narrators to be weak only, and they are very weak or abandoned.
5. Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi was not wrong in judging the narrator Abu Bakr Al-Nahshali with weakness, but rather he is trustworthy.
REFERENCES
[1] Al-Bakjari, (2001). Ed. Completing the Refinement of Perfection in the Names of Men, (1st Edition). Al-Farouk Al-Haditha for Printing and Publishing
[2] Al-Barqani (1404Ah). Ed, Al-Barqani's Questions for Al-Daraqutni, Al-Karji's narration from him, (1st edition). Lahore: Khana Jamili Books.
[3] Al-Bazzar, A. O. (2009). Ed. Al-Bahr Al-Zakhar, (1st edition). Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah: Library of aleulum walhukm
[4] Al-Bukhari, M. (2019). (Ed), The great history. Hyderabad: The Ottoman Encyclopedia
[5] Al-Busti, M. H. (1396 AH). (ed), The criticized among the modernists, the weak and the abandoned, (1st edition). Aleppo: Dar Al- waey
[6] Al-Dhahabi, (1998). Tadhkirat Al-Hafiz, (1st edition). Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah.
[7] Al-Dhahabi, S. (2003). History of Islam and the deaths of celebrities and notables (1 st edition). Dar AlGharb Al-Islami.
[8] Al-Dhahabi, S. (1413 AH). Ed, Alkashf in knowing who has a narration in the six books, (1st edition). Jeddah, Dar al-Qibla for Islamic Culture.
[9] Al-Hashimi, T. A. F. (1998). lahazi alalhaz bidhayl tabaqat alhafaziti (1st edition). Beirut, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah
[10] Al-Iraqi, Z. & Al-Iraqi, W. (1442 AH). Tarh al-TathrTb, (2nd edition). In Muhammad Sayed Abd al-Fattah, (ed). Dar Ibn al-Jawzi.
[11] Al-Jurjani (1997). (Ed). Al-Kamil fi Dufa'a Al-Rijal (1 st edition). Beirut, Scientific Books.
[12] Al-Nasa'i (1396 Ah). Ed. The weak and abandoned, (1st Edition). Aleppo: Dar Alwaey
[13] Al-Razi, A. (1952). Al Jarh wa Ta'deel. Hyderabad: Ottoman Encyclopedia Council
[ 14] Al-Sakhawi (2012). The brilliant light of the people of the ninth century. Beirut, Publications of the Life Library House.
[15] Al-Shawkani, (2012). The rising full moon with virtues after the seventh century. Beirut: House of Knowledge.
[16] Al-Tabrani, S. A. (1424 AH). Al-Mujam Al-Awsat. Cairo: Dar Al-Haramain.
[17] Al-Tamimi, A. (1975). Ed. Trustworthy (1st edition). Dar Al-Fikr
[18] Al-Tirmidhi (1975). (Ed), Jami' Al-Tirmidhit (2ed edition). Egypt: Mustafa Al-Babi Al-Halabi Library
[19] bin Yusuf, Y. A. (1980). Tahdheeb al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal, (1st edition). Beirut: Al-Risala Foundation.
[20] Ibin Hajar Al-Asqalani, A. M. A. (1969). (Ed), The news of immersion in the sons of Al-Omar. Egypt: Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs - Committee for the Revival of Islamic Heritage.
[21] Ibn al-Imad al-Akri, (1986). Gold Fragments in the news of those who had gone, (1st edition). In, Mahmoud al-Arnaout,(ed). Damascus: Dar Ibn Katheer.
[22] Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (1326 AH). Tahdheeb Al-Tahdheeb, (1st edition) India: the Department of Systematic Knowledge Press.
[23] Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (1379 AH). Fath Al-Bari in Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari. Beirut: Dar Al-Maarifa.
[24] Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (1986). Taqreeb Al-Tahdheeb, (1st edition).Syria: Dar Al-Rashid
[25] Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (2002). Ed, Lisan of Al-Mizant. Dar Al-Bashaer Al-Islamiyyah
[26] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani A. M. A. (1972). The pearls hidden in the notables of the eighth century. India, Ottoman Encyclopaedia in Hyderabad, Deccan.
[27] Ibn Qadi Shahba, T. A. (1407 AH). Tabaqat al-Shafi'i, (1st edition). In Al-Hafiz Abdul-Aleem Khan (ed). Beirut: the world of books
[28] Ibn Saad. (1986). Ed. Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, (1st edition. Beirut: Dar Sader
[29] Maarouf, B. W. & Al-Arnaout, S. (1997). Taqreeb Al-Tahdheeb, (1st edition), Beirut: Al-Risala Foundation
