The silence of al-Dhahabi regarding what al-Hakim mentions in al-Mustadrak on the condition of al-Bukhari or on the condition of Muslim, with a sound chain on the condition of both, and al-Hakim summarizes it in his summary
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... al-Dhahabi regarding what al-Hakim mentions in al-Mustadrak on the condition of al-Bukhari, on the condition of Muslim, with a sound chain on the condition of both, and al-Hakim summarizes it in his summary. Does the action of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi in his summary imply that he is approving and agreeing with al-Hakim in what he said about its authenticity, or at least from one of them? Or is it said that he intended only the summary and did not concern himself with verification?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : First, in my opinion, it does not apply to him. The reality is that the printed copy of al-Mustadrak has two apparent features... in the summary of the printed text below the text of al-Mustadrak. The first apparent feature is that he appends the hadith when he follows it with his statement, "I say: this requires research and discussion." The second apparent feature is that he places the summary of al-Hakim's ruling at the top. Regarding the printed version, if it is on the condition [of both], he places a "kha" and a "mim." And if it is on the condition of one of them, he places a "kha" or a "mim." In such two apparent features, here we can say he agreed or disagreed. We can say he agreed or disagreed. There is something else, which is blank space where he did not say... "addition," "I say," or agreement with "kha" or "kha" or "mim." Here we cannot attribute anything to al-Dhahabi; rather, we say the reality is that al-Dhahabi remained silent about it. But the silence of al-Dhahabi, we do not consider it agreement, as we said in one of the two previous apparent features. If he said "kha" and "mim," this is agreement. If he said "kha" or he said "mim," this is agreement. If he said, as a critic, "I say in it such and such" or with a pin, then there is no doubt that this is disagreement. As for what he remained silent about, there is no agreement and no objection. Why? It may be the case, and this is what I believe, that what happened to al-Dhahabi is what happened to the original author, which is al-Hakim: he blackened and did not whiten. And so al-Dhahabi, as I think, would pass by quickly, relying on his memory and recollection, and would critique. Therefore, we take and perceive some of his errors that we encounter in what he mentions in al-Mizan and in his other books, which differ from his critique mentioned in the summary. This is what I believe. And in conclusion, I say, and we seek assistance with the knowledge you have, that the book al-Mustadrak is in need of a new edition and collation with reliable handwritten copies so that we can know the truth of what al-Hakim said first, and then the truth of what al-Dhahabi said second. And we had heard years ago that one of the doctors had obtained a copy from Yemen from the Sana'a Library of al-Mustadrak, and that he was in the process of verifying it, and perhaps he will publish it. Do you have anything about this?The Shaykh : So, he writes "kham" [indicating agreement]. And if it is according to the condition of one of them, he writes "kha" or "mim." In the case of these two apparent [agreements] here, we can say he agreed or disagreed; we can say he agreed or disagreed. There is something else, which is "biyad" [indicating disagreement], which he did not say... By way of correction, I said: there is no agreement with "kham," "kha," or "mim" here. We cannot attribute anything to al-Dhahabi; rather, we say that the reality is that al-Dhahabi remained silent. But al-Dhahabi's silence is not considered agreement, just as we said regarding one of the two previous apparent [cases]: if he said "kham," that is agreement; if he said "kha" or "mim," that is agreement. If he said, as a critic, "there is such-and-such in it" or used the pin [symbol], there is no doubt that this is disagreement. As for what he remained silent about, there is neither agreement nor objection. Why? It may be the case—and this is what I believe—that al-Dhahabi did not do what the compiler of the original work, al-Hakim, did, which was to write in black ink and then erase it. And al-Dhahabi, as I think, would pass through quickly, relying on his memory and recollection, and would critique. Therefore, we take and perceive some of the errors we encounter in what he mentions in al-Mizan and his other books, which differ from his critique mentioned in al-Talkhis. This is what I believe. In conclusion, I say, and we seek assistance from the knowledge you have, that the book al-Mustadrak is in need of a new edition and a collation with reliable handwritten manuscripts, so that we can know the truth of what al-Hakim said first, and then the truth of what al-Dhahabi said second. We had heard years ago that one of the doctors had obtained a copy of al-Mustadrak from Yemen, from the Sana'a Library, and that he was in the process of editing it, and perhaps he will publish it. Do you have anything regarding this?
The questioner : The one who was in Makkah!
The Shaykh : No, the one who was a teacher at the Islamic University in Syria.Al-Halabi : Do you have any knowledge about him?
The questioner : By Allah, my Shaykh, he told meThe Shaykh : Sa'd, and he was his student, that he had finished verifying the entire book years ago, but of course, verifying the text and not the tracing of hadiths.
The Shaykh : And this is what we are content with.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And as far as I know and have been informed, he relied on one copy, meaning.
The questioner : Three copies, yes.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed. We ask Allah to guide him.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : First, in my opinion, it does not apply to him. The reality is that the printed copy of al-Mustadrak has two apparent features... in the summary of the printed text below the text of al-Mustadrak. The first apparent feature is that he appends the hadith when he follows it with his statement, "I say: this requires research and discussion." The second apparent feature is that he places the summary of al-Hakim's ruling at the top. Regarding the printed version, if it is on the condition [of both], he places a "kha" and a "mim." And if it is on the condition of one of them, he places a "kha" or a "mim." In such two apparent features, here we can say he agreed or disagreed. We can say he agreed or disagreed. There is something else, which is blank space where he did not say... "addition," "I say," or agreement with "kha" or "kha" or "mim." Here we cannot attribute anything to al-Dhahabi; rather, we say the reality is that al-Dhahabi remained silent about it. But the silence of al-Dhahabi, we do not consider it agreement, as we said in one of the two previous apparent features. If he said "kha" and "mim," this is agreement. If he said "kha" or he said "mim," this is agreement. If he said, as a critic, "I say in it such and such" or with a pin, then there is no doubt that this is disagreement. As for what he remained silent about, there is no agreement and no objection. Why? It may be the case, and this is what I believe, that what happened to al-Dhahabi is what happened to the original author, which is al-Hakim: he blackened and did not whiten. And so al-Dhahabi, as I think, would pass by quickly, relying on his memory and recollection, and would critique. Therefore, we take and perceive some of his errors that we encounter in what he mentions in al-Mizan and in his other books, which differ from his critique mentioned in the summary. This is what I believe. And in conclusion, I say, and we seek assistance with the knowledge you have, that the book al-Mustadrak is in need of a new edition and collation with reliable handwritten copies so that we can know the truth of what al-Hakim said first, and then the truth of what al-Dhahabi said second. And we had heard years ago that one of the doctors had obtained a copy from Yemen from the Sana'a Library of al-Mustadrak, and that he was in the process of verifying it, and perhaps he will publish it. Do you have anything about this?The Shaykh : So, he writes "kham" [indicating agreement]. And if it is according to the condition of one of them, he writes "kha" or "mim." In the case of these two apparent [agreements] here, we can say he agreed or disagreed; we can say he agreed or disagreed. There is something else, which is "biyad" [indicating disagreement], which he did not say... By way of correction, I said: there is no agreement with "kham," "kha," or "mim" here. We cannot attribute anything to al-Dhahabi; rather, we say that the reality is that al-Dhahabi remained silent. But al-Dhahabi's silence is not considered agreement, just as we said regarding one of the two previous apparent [cases]: if he said "kham," that is agreement; if he said "kha" or "mim," that is agreement. If he said, as a critic, "there is such-and-such in it" or used the pin [symbol], there is no doubt that this is disagreement. As for what he remained silent about, there is neither agreement nor objection. Why? It may be the case—and this is what I believe—that al-Dhahabi did not do what the compiler of the original work, al-Hakim, did, which was to write in black ink and then erase it. And al-Dhahabi, as I think, would pass through quickly, relying on his memory and recollection, and would critique. Therefore, we take and perceive some of the errors we encounter in what he mentions in al-Mizan and his other books, which differ from his critique mentioned in al-Talkhis. This is what I believe. In conclusion, I say, and we seek assistance from the knowledge you have, that the book al-Mustadrak is in need of a new edition and a collation with reliable handwritten manuscripts, so that we can know the truth of what al-Hakim said first, and then the truth of what al-Dhahabi said second. We had heard years ago that one of the doctors had obtained a copy of al-Mustadrak from Yemen, from the Sana'a Library, and that he was in the process of editing it, and perhaps he will publish it. Do you have anything regarding this?
The questioner : The one who was in Makkah!
The Shaykh : No, the one who was a teacher at the Islamic University in Syria.Al-Halabi : Do you have any knowledge about him?
The questioner : By Allah, my Shaykh, he told meThe Shaykh : Sa'd, and he was his student, that he had finished verifying the entire book years ago, but of course, verifying the text and not the tracing of hadiths.
The Shaykh : And this is what we are content with.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And as far as I know and have been informed, he relied on one copy, meaning.
The questioner : Three copies, yes.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed. We ask Allah to guide him.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.