of organizing the material by ṭabaqāt—generations—becomes apparent only in the earliest Islamic centuries. For that reason we scarcely feel the presence of a distinct “generation” in the Siyar as the narrative advances chronologically. I cited examples from the book itself to reinforce and substantiate these views.

While examining the work’s methodology, I also had to consider the nature of the biographical notices it contains and the criteria al-Dhahabī employed in including one entry and omitting another. I explained that he recorded only the aʿlām (illustrious figures) and left out those who were merely well-known or altogether obscure. He strove to achieve a balance among these notables in terms of category, period, and region, and he endeavored to craft a biography that was at once comprehensive and concise, unaffected by the sheer volume of information at his disposal.

Since al-Dhahabī was a consummate biographical artist, distinguished in the way he fashioned and presented his entries, I sought to discern the particular method he adopted in the Siyar in this respect.

I then analyzed his critical approach and found him attentive to every branch of criticism, never limiting himself to a single field. He evaluated the individuals he profiled, clarified their conditions, issued historical judgments and assessments, critiqued the sources from which he quoted, pointed out the errors of their authors, excelled in grading hadiths—both chains of transmission and texts—and applied the same scrutiny to historical reports.

Next I tried to determine the extent of his bias or fairness in criticism. After examining a range of his writings, it became clear that, to a large degree, he succeeded in being just. I emphasized the need to distinguish between partisanship and firm belief that one defends with every legitimate means.

As for the importance of the Siyar, I sought to gauge it by studying its relationship to the History of Islam, for it had become common among researchers that the Siyar