الموازنة بين كتابي تحرير تقريب التهذيب وكشف الإيهام لما تضمنه تحرير التقريب من الأوهام : دراسة تحليلية مقارنة

Abstract

The aim of this study is to shed a light on, and compare between two books, the first one is “ Tahrir Tagrib al-Tahzib” which was written on a verification and critique on Al-hafidh’s judgments on Tagrib and “Kashf Al-Eham Li_Ma Tadamanhu Tahir Al_Tagrib min Al-awham”, was written in defense of prophet’s tradition and in support of Allah’s cause then of al Hafith. I have applied the analytic and comparative descriptive and inductive methods. The study is divided into four chapters, each of which includes a number of sections, that are each divided into a number of topics. The first chapter is the essentials of the study. In the second chapter I investigated the study’s theoretical framework as regards AL-Hafith’s life, his position among other scholars, his book “ Al-Tagrib and the method he adopted therein; as well as the lives of the two other authors, their book and the method they adopted therein; in addition to the life of Mahir Al-Fahl and his book “Al-Kashf” and the method he adopted therein. The third and fourth chapters dealt with the applied framework in the form of comparing the two writers’ critique and verification of Al-Hafith’s judgments on different tradition’s narrators; besides the comment of the author of “AL-Kashf” on their comments. I have held a comparative analytical comparison with a view to arriving at the soundest and weightiest of the imams judgments concerning each of the narrator’s whose AL-Hafih’s judgments of were commented on; I have endeavored to arrive at final judgment. My approach is to identify the disputed points, AL-Hafith’s method in his “ AL-Tagrib” then looking up the narrator’s reports as mentioned in the books of Elal, Sualat and Jarh-wa-ta’adil (defects, Queries and personality’s Critique) and other musnads and majmmou’s in order to define where the narrator’s fault, error or illusion is. The conclusion gives the findings and recommendations, the most important of which is that Ibn Hajar Al-asghalani was his era’s hafith (Conner), and was a unique and miraculous scholar’s, who by excelled his contemporizes successors; and that his judgments concerning tradition narrater’s are extremely accurate and discrete; and that his book “AL-Tagrib” is one of the most important and useful concise compilation in the science of narrator’s critique (Al-Jarh Wa Al-ta’adil), and that the two authors have rashly sought to criticize and contradict his judgments in a wide range of cases without bothering to look up those issues in the specialist works, adding to that their negligence of AL-Hafith’s method in “AL-Tagrib”. They may possibly have found out points where AL-Hafith did not adhere to his own method and conditions. I ended my study with the necessary scientific indexes.