al-ṭāhirah.” This method, which he follows in most parts of his book, demonstrates a precision, a distinctive procedure, and a critical mind of the highest order.

Later we find that al-Dhahabī, when he weakens many ḥadiths and reports on the basis of flaws in their isnād, does not stop at isnād-criticism alone. Rather, he strives to reinforce that judgement of weakness with whatever historical evidence he can muster. For example, in his entry on the Mother of the Believers ʿĀʾishah (Allah be pleased with her) (1) he cites the chain: “Abū al-Ḥasan al-Madāʾinī—from Yazīd ibn ʿIyāḍ—from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah—from his father—who said: ʿUyaynah ibn Ḥiṣn came in to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ while ʿĀʾishah was present—this was before the veil was ordained—and he said, ‘Who is this fair-skinned one (al-ḥumayrāʾ), O Messenger of Allah?...’ ” Al-Dhahabī comments: “This is a mursal report; Yazīd is rejected, and ʿUyaynah did not embrace Islam until after the veil was revealed.” He then proceeds at length to critique the report, though a fraction of what he wrote would have sufficed to dismiss it.

b) Critiquing the text (matn). This means scrutinizing the content of a narration, analysing it, comparing it with better-established events and setting it against them, studying its language, and employing every available tool to substantiate the critic’s claim.

Imām al-Dhahabī devoted great care to this form of criticism in the present work. Thanks to his firm analysis and balanced scholarly style—which bespeak abundant knowledge, noble intention, exceptional ability, and vast erudition—he rejected and invalidated hundreds of reports.

Among such instances is his commentary on the report that claims al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib embraced Islam before Badr, that he sought permission to come to Madinah, and that