I also read in the handwriting of Abū Jaʿfar: “I heard Abū al-Maʿālī say: ‘I have studied fifty thousand in fifty thousand, after which I left the Muslims to their Islam in those matters and to their outward disciplines (1). I then boarded the fathomless sea and plunged into that which the Muslims had forbidden—all of it in search of the Truth. In former days I used to flee from taqlīd (blind adherence), but now I have returned to the word of truth: hold fast to the religion of the old women. If the Truth does not overtake me with His subtle grace, I shall die upon the religion of the old women, and the close of my life at the moment of departure will be sealed with the word of sincerity: There is no god but Allah. So woe to Ibn al-Juwaynī.’ (2)
I say: This Imām—despite his extraordinary acumen, his leadership in both the ancillary rulings and the principles of the school, and the strength of his debate—did not know ḥadīth as it deserves to be known, neither in its text nor in its chain of transmission (3).
In al-Burhān he cited the ḥadīth of Muʿādh on analogical reasoning, declaring: “It is recorded in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections, unanimously agreed upon as authentic.”
(1) The manuscript reads: “al-zahir” (the explicit wording).
(2) The report is recorded in al-Muntazam, 9/19, and in al-Subki’s Tabaqat al-Shafiʿiyyah, 5/585. Imam al-Haramayn’s statement stands as compelling evidence of the futility of importing Greek logic into matters that require certain knowledge and of adopting it as a primary tool of proof. The sound method is the one followed by the Companions, their successors who excelled in piety, and all scholars who have trodden their path.
(3) Al-Ansab, 3/386, notes that he rarely transmitted hadiths and largely neglected them; the same wording appears in Muʿjam al-Buldan, 2/193. There is no harm in Imam al-Dhahabi—may God have mercy on him—pointing out Imam al-Haramayn’s weakness in hadith scholarship and his limited familiarity with it, and scholars should accept his assessment, benefit from it, and regard it as sincere advice deserving praise and prayer. Imam al-Bayhaqi reviewed portions of al-Muhit that his teacher, Imam al-Haramayn’s father Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni, had dictated; noticing hadith inaccuracies, he composed a lengthy, rigorous critique that attests to his critical prowess and keen insight in the science of hadith. When the critique reached Abu Muhammad, he welcomed it, thanked al-Bayhaqi abundantly, prayed for him, and discontinued work on the book.
Al-Subki, in the biography of Abu al-Maʿali (Tabaqat al-Shafiʿiyyah, 5/187), levels several objections to al-Dhahabi’s remarks on Imam al-Haramayn, couching them in a harsh style that reveals prejudice and rancor, departs from fairness, and betrays ignorance of—or disregard for—the decisive verdict on the disputed issues.