Ṣalāḥ al-Ṣafadī said: “What impresses me about him in his writings is that he never moves past a ḥadith he has cited without clarifying whatever weakness may lie in its text, obscurity in its isnād, or criticism leveled at its transmitters. I have seen no one else pay such careful attention to this benefit in what he reports.” (1)

Imam al-Dhahabī also took the two eminent ḥadith masters, Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī and al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, to task, censuring them for including fabricated reports in their books and remaining silent about them. (2)

Thereafter we find al-Dhahabī extending this hadith-critical approach to historical, literary, and similar narratives. As a result, his book amassed a vast trove of critical observations that any reader—or even casual peruser—will notice, especially in its early volumes.

We likewise observe that al-Dhahabī did not confine himself to a single critical method; rather, he employed every means that could lead him to the truth. He scrutinized both chain and content, and he exercised his own judgment in rejecting many reports.

A. Critiquing the isnād. This critique customarily consists of weakening a chain because one or more of its transmitters are problematic, or of strengthening it in keeping with the criteria of the hadith scholars. He then issues his verdict accordingly, employing the technical expressions that denote the soundness or reinforcement of an isnād, such as his saying (3): “Its isnād is sound,” “Its isnād is good,” “Its transmitters are trustworthy,” or “It has a defect that does not affect it.” He likewise uses the phrases that indicate the weakness of a chain, such as: “Its isnād is not strong,” “There is softness in its isnād,” “It contains a break in the chain,” “Its isnād is weak,” or “Its isnād…"