European Proceedings of

Social and Behavioural Sciences

EpSBS
www.europeanproceedings.com e-ISSN: 2357-1330

DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73

ICH 2019
International Conference on Humanities

ANALYSIS ON AL-NAWAWI’S CRITICISM ON AL-DARAQUTNI’S

METHODOLOGY IN ‘ILAL AL-HADITH

Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob (a)*, Roshimah binti Shamsudin (b)

*Corresponding author

(a) School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, [email protected]

(b) School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, [email protected]

Abstract

Al-Daraqutni was no stranger to the fraternity of past hadith scholars. Some scholars criticized his
commentaries on several hadiths from the al-Sahihayn, particularly pertaining to al-Daraqutni’s mastery of
the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith. Al-Nawawi, one of the critics, considered al-Daraqutni’s methodology in
hadith criticism to be corrupted and weak. This research, which is wholly qualitative, involving data
collection through library research, analyzes those criticisms and concludes on the question whether they
coincide with al-Nawawi’s own views. The research findings show that al-Daraqutni’s methods was neither
corrupted nor weak as alleged but had firm footing in the methodologies previously practiced by hadith
scholars in ancient times. The study finds among others that the methodology of al-Daraqutni in assessing
narrations of hadith which has auxillary part added by a thrustworthy narrator (ziyadah al-thiqah) as well
as sole narration by one narrator (al-tafarrud) were based on correct indicators (qarinah). Therefore, he
does not accept nor reject such narration completely. The method of al-Nawawi on the other hand sees that
ziyadah al-thiqah and al-tafarrud narrations from trustworthy narrators are acceptable.

2357-1330 © 2020 Published by European Publisher.

Keywords: Analysis, criticism, al-Nawawi, al-Daraqutni, ‘ilal al-hadith.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0
Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

1. Introduction

Al-Daraqutni was one of the renowned scholars who made an imprint in the Islamic world circa the
th
4 century. His mastery in various fields of knowledge was recognized by scholars. Al-Dhahabi (d. 784 H)
in Siyar described him as a sea of knowledge and one of revered Imam in the world (1984). Al-Azhari (d.
370 H) also stated that when al-Daraqutni conveys knowledge in any field, it is probable that he knows
everything (Al-Dhahabi, 1984). However, al-Daraqutni’s mastery in the discipline of hadith was, to the
agreement of many scholars, regarded to be the most prominent. According to ‘Abd al-Ghani (d. 409 H),
the finest commentators of the hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh) were among the following three: ‘Ali bin Al-
Madini in his time, Musa bin Harun in his time and al-Daraqutni in his time (Al-Baghdadi, 2001). In
addition, Abu ‘Abd Rahman al-Sulami (d. 412 H) also said: “I bear witness in the name of Allah that no
one compares to our teacher al-Daraqutni on the surface of the earth in the knowledge of the Prophet’s
hadiths, the athar of the companion, the tabi’in and atba’ al-tabi’in (Al-Dhahabi, 1984). The testimony of
these two scholars indirectly revealed al-Daraqutni’s high stature in the field of hadith.
Al-Daraqutni was also known as a prolific scholar in the production of academic works. According
to ‘Abd Allah al-Ruhayli, the works written by al-Daraqutni across multi-disciplines of knowledge resulted
in an impressive number of books, amounting to sixty-one writings (Al-Ruhayli, 2000). One of his famous
works is al-Ilzamat wa al-Tatabbu‘. In essence, al-Daraqutni wrote it in order to comment on the status of
several hadiths found in the al-Sahihayn. However, in light of the al-Sahihayn’s status as an authoritative
scripture second only to the al-Quran, some scholars retaliated against al-Daraqutni’s commentaries, one
of whom was al-Nawawi (d. 676 H).

1.1. Introduction to the Discipline of Sciences of ‘Ilal al-Hadith

A discussion on the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith would be incomplete without the definition of the
word illah itself. According to Ibn Manzur (n.d.) (d. 711 H), the word ‘illah literally means al-marad, which
means disease. From the point of terminology, ‘illah according to Ibn al-Salah (2002) and al-Nawawi
(1985) means a phrase that appears to be authentic yet contains hidden defects affecting that authenticity.
Accordingly, the defective hadith or al-mu’allal hadith would mean a hadith containing defects effecting
its authenticity yet seemingly having a perfectly authentic appearance (Ibn al-Salah, 2002).
Scholars often paid attention to discussions on the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith. Abdul Rahman bin
Mahdi (d. 198 H), for instance, viewed that knowing the ‘illah of a hadith was more interesting than
composing twenty hadiths from other narrators (Ibn Abi Hatim, 2006). However, most hadith scholars
admitted that the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith was not easy to master. This was because the defects or ‘illah
in a hadith were sometimes hidden, resulting it being categorized as authentic. Therefore, scholars who
were experts in this field certainly had keen eyes and broad knowledge on the intricacies of the narrations
and narrators of hadiths. In furtherance to the above, according to Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 H) this discipline
can only be mastered by scholars from among those who memorized the al-Quran who also had deep
understanding (2002). Concurring with that view, Ibn Hajar (d. 852 H) believed that this discipline of
knowledge is so hidden and so detailed that only those endowed by Allah with extensive and in-depth
knowledge of maratib al-ruwah were able to conquer it (Ibn Hajar, 1994). Thus, ‘Iwad Allah states that

780
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

only a few scholars have had this expertise and most of them were from the mutaqaddimin era such as ‘Ali
bin al-Madini (m. 231 H), Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 H), al-Bukhari (d. 254 H), Ya‘qub bin Syaybah (d.
262 H), Abu Hatim (d. 277 H) and Abu Zur‘ah (d. 263 H) while scholars from the muta’akhkhirin phase
the likes of al-Daraqutni (d. 385 H), Ibn ‘Adi (d. 365 H), al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852 H)
(2017). According to the researcher’s survey, the main issues involved in the debate or discussions of this
discipline revolves around al-tafarrud, al-mukhalafah, ziyadah al-thiqah, tadlis etc.

1.2. Biodata of al-Daraqutni and his Scholastic Repertoire

The full name of al-Daraqutni is Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali bin ‘Umar bin Ahmad bin Mahdi bin Mas‘ud
bin al-Nu‘man bin Dinar bin ‘Abd Allah al-Daraqutni (Ibn Khallikan, n.d.) al-Baghdadi (Al-Subki, n.d.).
He was born in the month of Zulkaedah in 309 H in an area named Dar al-Qutn in the city of Baghdad (Al-
Zirikli, 2002). Therefore he is better known as laqab al-Daraqutni (Ibn Kathir, 1998).
Al-Daraqutni’s leadership in the jurisprudence of hadith reached its pinnacle when he mastered the
discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith. This was mentioned by many later scholars such as al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d.
463 H) who said: “… ends at him the knowledge of athar and understanding of ‘ilal al-hadith, names of
the narrators, and their conditions…” (Al-Khatib, 2001, pp. 487-488). Al-Dhahabi (d.748) also celebrated
him with similar praise, “… ends at him al-hifz and the knowledge of ‘ilal al-hadith and the narrators” (Al-
Dhahabi, 1984, p. 450). The same was the case with Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) in al-Bidayah, attributing al-
Daraqutni as an Imam in his time mastering the names of the narrators, sina’ah al-ta’lil, al-jarh wa al-ta’dil
(1998).
Al-Daraqutni’s expertise in this discipline is more pronounced with the writing of his book entitled
al-‘Ilal al-Waridah fi al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyyah. This work is generally an explanation of al-mu‘al hadith
proposed to him by his disciple named al-Barqani (d. 425 H). There are over four thousand hadiths
recounted by al-Barqani in this work, all of which were answered by al-Daraqutni by providing various
chain of narrators and explaining the existence of ‘illah that could be present in those hadiths. Al-
Daraqutni’s prominence in this field became outstanding when al-Barqani stated that the latter answered
and explained the matters in question by way of imla’ based on memory (Al-Baghdadi, 2001). Al-Dhahabi
in Siyar expressed admiration for al-Daraqutni’s exceptional ability. To al-Dhahabi, if it were true that the
book of al-‘Ilal was conveyed by way of imla’ by al-Daraqutni based on his memorisation as told by al-
Barqani, then it was astounding and proved al-Daraqutni to be the best memoriser in this world (1984).
There are other works where discussions by al-Daraqutni demonstrated his mastery in the discipline of ‘ilal
al-hadith, two being al-Sunan and al-Ilzamat wa al-Tatatabbu‘.

2. Problem Statement

Although al-Daraqutni is a distinguished figure in the field of hadith, he is not absolved from
criticism by other scholars, one of whom is a great figure in the Islamic world, al-Nawawi. Al-Nawawi’s
disapproval involved al-Daraqutni’s commentaries and reviews on the status of a number of hadiths
compiled in the al-Sahihayn. The former was seen as defending the status quo of the concerned group of
hadiths and thereby responding to the commentaries and reviews of al-Daraqutni. What is more interesting

781
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

to the researcher is that al-Nawawi did not only respond to the above but also was seen to dispute al-
Daraqutni’s method in producing commentaries on the group of hadiths. One such case could be found in
his commentary contained in Syarh Sahih al-Bukhari as follows:
“Al-Daraqutni had criticised hadiths al-Bukhari and Muslim and he had criticized part of the hadiths.
Those criticism are corrupted (fasid), built on rules of some of the muhadithin, very weak and contrary to
the methods of the majority of ahl al-fiqh and al-usul and others. As such you must not be misled by it”
(Al-Nawawi, 2008, p. 245).
In other instances, al-Nawawi was again seen arguing against al-Daraqutni’s methods. This can be
found in his review on a hadith compiled by Muslim narrated by Ibn Wahab from Makhramah bin Bukayr
from his father from Abi Burdah bin Abi Musa RA whereby Ibn ‘Umar RA asks him:
Meaning: Did you hear your father (Abu Musa RA) reciting a hadith from the Prophet (pbuh) on a
Friday (prayer)? Abu Burdah said: I said: yes I heard my father say: I heard the messenger of Allah (pbuh)
(that time) is one of the times when the imam is sitting on the pulpit until he performs the prayer” (Muslim,
2006, p. 811).
According to al-Daraqutni, this hadith was not narrated in the mawsul way but instead from
Makhramah bin Bukayr and from Abi Burdah only. Whereas other group of narrators recount the hadith
from Abi Burdah by mawquf (Al-Daraqutni, 1985). According to al-Nawawi, al-Daraqutni’s criticism was
built on ma‘ruf for him and for most ahl al-hadith; that is, in the event of conflict between mawquf and
marfu‘, mursal and mawsul narrations, they would exercise tarjih to give weight on mawquf and mursal.
Al-Nawawi further added that this method was weak and unacceptable (mamnu‘ah). The proper methods
are the ones practiced by the al-usuliyyun, al-fuqaha’, al-Bukhari, Muslim and muhaqqiq ahl al-hadith that
is by engaging tarjih on marfu‘ and mawsul because it is included in the discussion of ziyadah al-thiqah
(2001).
The above two excerpts are examples of al-Nawawi’s criticism on al-Daraqutni’s methods. Given
the esteemed position of al-Nawawi in the Islamic world, the researcher humbly submits that his criticisms
needs to be heeded meticulously in order to determine whether the allegations are founded.

3. Research Questions

Based on the research issues mentioned above, a number of research questions have been raised as
follows:
3.1. What topic of ‘ilal al-hadith is the subject of al-Nawawi’s dispute over al-Daraqutni’s method?
3.2. How does their respective methods fare in the topic?
3.3. Was al-Daraqutni’s practice in that topic weak and corrupted (fasid)?

4. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is as follows:

4.1. To identify the topic in ‘ilal al-hadith that is the subject of al-Nawawi’s dispute over al-
Daraqutni’s method.
4.2. To study the ruling of al-Daraqutni and al-Nawawi of the issues.

782
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

4.3. To analyse the ruling practised by al-Daraqutni in the issues.

5. Research Methods

This research is a fully qualitative study and involves data collection sourced from library research.
Accordingly, the primary works of al-Daraqutni and al-Nawawi shall be the main source of reference for
the researcher i.e al-Ilzamat wa al-Tatabbu‘, Syarh Sahih al-Bukhari, Syarh Sahih Muslim and Irsyad
Tullab al-Haqa’iq ila Ma‘rifah Sunan Khayr al-Khala’iq Sallallah ‘Alayh wa Sallam. In addition, the
researchers have also referred to several other sources such as Al-Imam al-Nawawi wa Atharuh fi al-Hadith
wa ‘Ulumih, Al-Sina‘ah al-Hadithiyyah fi Syarh al-Nawawi ‘ala Sahih Muslim, Manhaj al-Imam al-
Daraqutni fi Kitabih al-Sunan wa Atharihi fi Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha’ dan Manhaj al-Imam al-Daraqutni fi Naqd
al-Hadith fi Kitab al-‘Ilal. The data collected will be analysed based on inductive and deductive methods.
According to De. Groot (1969), inductive method refers to rules of analyzing data through facts finding
from something specific into general. In the context of this research, the researcher shall study the types of
criticism levelled by al-Nawawi against the methodology engaged by al-Daraqutni contained in two major
works i.e al-Ilzamat wa al-Tatabbu‘ and Syarh Sahih Muslim. Thereafter, the criticism will be analyzed
based on common theory formulated by hadith scholars. Deductive method on the other hand, according to
De. Groot (1969), refers to data analysis based on facts finding from something general into specific. From
this perspective, the researcher shall scrutinize each theory made guidelines by hadith scholars; in particular
in matters revolving around the criticism made by al-Nawawi against the method employed by al-Daraqutni
further analyse the said methodologies specifically in order to respond to the question of whether or not the
criticism compromised al-Daraqutni’s standing in the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith.

6. Findings

6.1. The topic in ‘ilal al-hadith that is the subject of al-Nawawi’s dispute over al-Daraqutni’s
methods

The findings of this study illustrate the topics in the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith disputed by al-
Nawawi on the methods implemented by al-Daraqutni is about the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah. Al-
Nawawi’s criticism, according to al-Wadi‘i (Al-Daraqutni, 1985), ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (1988) and Ibrahim
(2008), largely revolves around ziyadah al-thiqah that is in the preferential (tarjih) hadith between marfu‘
and mursal or mawsul and mawquf (2008). To illustrate, the researcher provides a hadith narrated by
Muslim through the narration of Ibn Wahab from Makhramah bin Bukayr from his father from Abi Burdah
bin Abi Musa RA from Ibn ‘Umar RA (Muslim, 2006). Apart from the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah, al-
Nawawi also disputes al-Daraqutni’s methods in the al-tafarrud narration from a reliable narrator. This is
evidenced by his commentary on a hadith reported by Muslim from the narrator’s chain of Ibn Abjar from
Wasil from Abi Wa’il from ‘Ammar from the Prophet (pbuh):

Meaning: the length of a man’s prayer and the brevity of his sermons infer his shallow
understanding. Hence, extend your prayers and shorten your sermon because part of bayan (beautiful
phrases) becomes a spell to the listeners (Muslim, 2006, p. 813).

783
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

According to al-Daraqutni (1985), this hadith was narrated by way of al-tafarrud by Ibn Abjar from
Wasil. The former further explained that this narration conflicted with that of al-A‘mash and he was more
ahfaz with the hadith by Abi Wa’il than Wasil. This review was objected by al-Nawawi who viewed that
the above hadith review by al-Daraqutni exemplified rejected criticism because Ibn Abjar was a reliable
narrator, thereby it was compulsory to accept his narrations. These two types of narrations namely ziyadah
al-thiqah and al-tafarrud from reliable narrator are the main issues in the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith. Hence
al-Nawawi’s criticism of al-Daraqutni’s method on both indirectly affected his eminence in ‘ilal al-hadith
discipline.

6.2. The ruling of al-Daraqutni and al-Nawawi in ziyadah al-thiqah and al-tafarrud.

It is found that the methods used by al-Nawawi and al-Daraqutni on the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah
and al-tafarrud from reliable narrators were different. In the context of ziyadah al-thiqah, al-Nawawi
opined that this type of hadith was admissible in total. Accordingly in the event of conflict between marfu‘
and mursal and mawquf and mawsul narrations, the correct stance is to give weight on marfu‘ and mursal
even though the narrators of the conflicting hadiths are of the same number or more, or more ahfaz than the
other. This assessment according to al-Nawawi was the practise of the muhaqqiqun from amongst the ahl
al-hadith and the fuqaha and ashab al-usul and endorsed by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (Al-Nawawi, 2001). In
the context of al-tafarrud narration by reliable narrators, the ruling espoused by al-Nawawi was to accept
the hadith due to the attribute of the narrator which was reliable (thiqah). This ruling is found in his work
entitled al-Irsyad. He further explained that if al-tafarrud came from a narrator who was just (‘adil), a
memoriser (hafiz) and his memory is believed to be of excellent state (dabit), then his narration would be
classified as authentic (sahih). Furthermore, if the al-tafarrud came from a narrator who was not dabit, his
hadith became hasan. However, if al-tafarrud came from a narrator who was far from dabit, and ‘adil, his
narration became syadh, munkar and rejected (Al-Nawawi, 2009). As for al-Daraqutni’s ruling on the two
situations above, the question on accepting or rejecting depended on the strength of the evidence (qarinah)
inherent in the hadiths. In other words, these two types of narrations were not outrightly accepted nor
rejected. This was acknowledged by some researchers the likes of Kilani (2010) and Judah (2011). Since
the ruling of both al-Nawawi and al-Daraqutni were different on the two issues mentioned above, therefore
it was fitting for al-Nawawi to disagree with the assessment of al-Daraqutni.

6.3. The methodology practised specifically by al-Daraqutni.

Nonetheless, what remains to be answered is whether the methodology practised by al-Daraqutni is

as weak and corrupted as al-Nawawi alleges. Through this research, it is found that al-Daraqutni’s method
is no stranger to the scholars at large particularly from amongst the mutaqaddimin. In the matters of ziyadah
al-thiqah, for example, the ruling of al-Daraqutni was in line with the ruling of ahl al-hadith mutaqaddimin.
This observation coincided with the reality as pictured by al-‘Alla’i (d.761 H) where he said the Imams of
mutaqaddimin such as Yahya bin Sa‘id al-Qattan, ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi, ‘Ali bin al-Madini, Ahmad
bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma‘in, al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur‘ah, Muslim, al-Nasa’i, al-Tirmidhi, al-
Daraqutni and al-Khalili evaluated the element of al-ziyadah based on the stronger preference (tarjih) of
each hadith. He further remarked that these group of scholars do not evaluate the element of al-ziyadah in

784
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

a mass manner for all hadiths. Their method was the truth (Kamil, 1986). In line with the views above, Ibn
Hajar (d. 852 H) also stated that the mutaqaddimin hadith scholars such as ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi,
Yahya al-Qattan, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma‘in, ‘Ali bin al-Madini, al-Bukhari, Abu Zur‘ah, Abu
Hatim, al-Nasa’i, al-Daraqutni and others assessed the element of ziyadah al-thiqah based on qarinah. In
addition, none of them accepted this element as absolute (Ibn Hajar, 2000).
As for the issue of al-tafarrud narration from reliable narrators; as well as the ruling formulated by
al-Daraqutni, both elements were no stranger in the discourse of criticism in sciences of hadith among the
hadith jurists. In fact they were in line with the methods and policies already employed by the mutaqaddimin
hadith scholars. The same observation is demonstrated by contemporary research similar to al-Durays
(2005), al-Lahim (2012) and al-Malyabari (2001).

7. Conclusion

Al-Nawawi’s disputations on the methods implemented by al-Daraqutni in the discipline of ‘ilal al-
hadith pertained to the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah and al-tafarrud narration from reliable narrators. Al-
Nawawi opined that these issues are admissible in total. Besides, al-Daraqutni’s ruling on these issues
whether to accept or to reject depends on the strength of the evidence. Based on the discussions above, it is
found that the methods of al-Daraqutni on the two issues that come under the fire of criticism of al-Nawawi
are already the methods in practice by the mutaqaddimin hadith scholars. On al-Nawawi’s criticism that al-
Daraqutni’s methods were weak and corrupted, the researcher is of the opinion that those assessments were
inaccurate and they do not compromise al-Daraqutni’s reputation, particularly in the discipline of ‘ilal al-
hadith. This finding also reinforced the methods practiced by him since those were also the practice of the
hadith scholars in the past ahl al-hadith mutaqaddimin.

References
‘Abd al-‘Aziz, A. Q. H. (1988). Al-imam al-Nawawi wa atharuh fi al-hadith wa ‘ulumih [Al-imam al-
Nawawi and his influence on hadith and its sciences]. [Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University
of Umm al-Qura. Saudi Arabia].
‘Iwad Allah, T. (2017). Syarh al-alfiyah al-hadithiyyah [A Commentary on ‘al-alfiyah al-hadithiyyah’]. c.
1. Cairo: Dar Ibn ‘Affan.
Al-Baghdadi, A. B. (2001). Tarikh madinah al-salam wa akhbar muhaddithiha wa dhikr quttaniha al-
‘ulama’ min ghayr ahliha wa waridiha [The history of Baghdad]. In B. A. Ma‘ruf (Ed.), c. 1. Beirut:
Dar al-Gharb al-Islami.
Al-Daraqutni, A. H. (1985). Al-ilzamat wa al-tatabbu‘ [The book of suggested additions and revisions].
(M. H. al-Wadi‘i, Ed.). c. 2. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Al-Dhahabi, A. M. (1984). Siyar ‘a‘lam al-nubala’ [Biographies of the noble]. In S. al-Arna’ut & A. al-
Buti (Eds.), c. 2. Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah.
Al-Durays, K. M. (2005), Al-hadith al-hasan li dhatihi wa li ghayrihi dirasah istiqra’iyyah naqdiyyah [Al-
hadith al-hasan li dhatihi wa li ghayrihi: a critical inductive study]. Riyadh: Dar Adwa’ al-Salaf.
Al-Lahim, I. A. (2012). Muqaranah al-marwiyyat [Comparison of narrations]. c. 1. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-
Rayyan.
Al-Malyabari, H. (2001). Al-Muwazanah bayna al-mutaqaddimin wa al-muta’akhkhirin fi tashih al-ahadith
wa ta’liliha [Comparison between the mutaqaddimin and the muta’akhkhirin in the acceptance and
rejection of hadith]. c. 2. Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm.

785
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.02.73
Corresponding Author: Mohd Aizul bin Yaakob
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330

Al-Nawawi, M. A. Z. (1985). Al-taqrib wa al-taysir li ma‘rifah sunan al-basyir al-nadhir [The approach
to fascilitate comprehension of hadiths of the Prophet pbuh]. (M. U. al-Khasyt, Ed.). c. 1. Beirut:
Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi.
Al-Nawawi, M. A. Z. (2001). Sahih muslim bi syarh al-nawawi [A commentary on sahih Muslim by al-
Nawawi]. (I. al-Sababiti et.al., Ed.). c. 4. Cairo: Dar al-Hadith.
Al-Nawawi, M. A. Z. (2008). Al-talkhis syarh al-jami‘ al-sahih li al-bukhari [A Summary of the
commentaries on al-jami‘ al-sahih by al-Bukhari]. (N. M. al-Faryabi, Ed.). c. 1. Riyadh: Dar al-
Taybah.
Al-Nawawi, M. A. Z. (2009). Irsyad tullab al-haqa’iq ila ma‘rifah sunan khayr al-khala’iq sallallah ‘alayh
wa sallam [Students' guide to the authenticity of the hadith of the Prophet pbuh]. In N. D. ‘Itr (Ed.).
c. 7. Damascus: Dar al-Yamamah.
Al-Ruhayli, A. D. (2000). Al-imam al-Daraqutni wa atharuhu al-‘ilmiyyah [Al-imam al-Daraqutni and his
influence on knowledge]. c. 1. (n.p.).
Al-Subki, T. D. (n.d.). Tabaqat al-syafi‘iyyah al-kubra [The major biographical dictionary of the scholar
of Syafi’i]. (M. M. al-Tanahi & A. F. M. al-Hulu, Ed.). Aleppo: Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah.
Al-Zirikli, K. D. (2002). Al-a‘lam qamus tarajim li asyhar al-rijal wa al-nisa’ min al-‘arab wa al-
mu‘tarabin wa musytariqin [The biographies of famous men and women among arabs and
westerners]. c. 15. Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li al-Malayin.
De. Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology foundation of inference and research in the behavioral sciences.
Mounton & Co.
Ibn Abi Hatim, A. M. (2006). Kitab al-‘ilal [The book of ‘al-‘ilal’]. (S. A. al-Humayyid, et.al., Ed.). c. 1.
Riyadh: Maktabah al-Malik al-Fahd.
Ibn al-Salah, A. A. U. (2002). Ma‘rifah anwa‘ ‘ilm al-hadith [Knowledge of the sciences of hadith]. (M.
Y. Fahl & A. L. al-Hamim, Ed.). c. 1. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Ibn Hajar, A. A. (1994). Al-nukat ‘ala kitab ibn al-Salah [A commentary on the book of ibn al-Salah]. (R.
H. ‘Umayr, Ed.). c. 3. Riyadh: Dar al-Rayah.
Ibn Hajar, A. A. (2000). Syarh al-nukbah nuzhah al-nazar fi tawdih nukhbah al-fikar fi mustalah ahl al-
athar [A commentary on the book of ‘al-nukhbah nuzhah al-nazar fi tawdih nukhbah al-fikar fi
mustalah ahl al-athar’]. In N. D. ‘Itr (Ed.), c. 3. Damascus: Matba‘ah al-Sibah.
Ibn Kathir, I. U. (1998). Al-Bidayah wa al-nihayah [The beginning and the end]. (A. A. M. al-Turki, Ed.).
c. 1. Giza: Dar al-Hajr.
Ibn Khallikan, S. A. M. (n.d.). Wafayat al-a‘yan wa anba’ abna’ al-zaman [Deaths of eminent men and
history of the sons of the epoch]. In I. ‘Abbas (ed.). Dar al-Sadir.
Ibn Manzur, M. M. (n.d.). Lisan al-‘arab [Tongue of arabs]. In A. A. A. al-Kabir (Ed.). Dar al-Ma‘arif.
Ibrahim, H. A. A. (2008). Al-sina‘ah al-hadithiyyah fi syarh al-Nawawi ‘ala sahih Muslim [The astuteness
of al-Nawawi in the commentaries of sahih Muslim]. c. 1. Cairo: Maktabah Zahra’ al-Syarq.
Judah, Y. D. (2011). Manhaj al-imam al-Daraqutni fi naqd al-hadith fi kitab al-‘ilal [The methodology of
al-Daraqutni in criticizing hadith in his book ‘al-‘Ilal’] . c. 1. Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyyah.
Kamil, S. R. (1986). Tahqiq kitab nazm al-fara’id lima tadammahu hadith dhi al-yadayn min al-fawa’id li
khalil bin Kaykaladi al-‘Alla’i [Verification on the book ‘nazm al-fara’id lima tadammahu hadith
dhi al-yadayn min al-fawa’id’ by Khalil bin Kaykaladi al-‘Alla’i]. Masters Dissertation. Baghdad:
Matba‘ah al-Ummah.
Kilani, M. K. (2010). Manhaj al-imam al-Daraqutni fi kitabih al-sunan wa atharihi fi ikhtilaf al-fuqaha’
[The methodology of al-imam al-Daraqutni in his book ‘al-sunan’ and its impact on the differences
of view of fuqaha’]. c. 1. Cairo: Dar al-Muhaddithin.
Muslim, M. H. Q. N. (2006). Sahih Muslim [Muslim’s compilation of authentic hadith]. Dar Taybah.

786