✍ Compiled by: Abu Hamzah Salafi
The objective of this research article is to academically refute a false claim made by a Barelvi author, who attempts to discredit Imām ʿUmar ibn Shāhīn al-Wāʿiẓ رحمه الله (famously known as Abū Ḥafṣ Ibn Shāhīn) using a critical remark from Imām al-Dāraquṭnī رحمه الله.
The Barelvi author suggests that Ibn Shāhīn’s statement of being "Muḥammadī in Madhhab" (i.e., following the Prophet ﷺ directly) is somehow indicative of scholarly or juristic deficiency, and he presents a critical comment from Dāraquṭnī as evidence.
In this article, we will:
① Present explicit endorsements of Imām Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله from twelve prominent hadith scholars.
② Analyze Dāraquṭnī’s criticism and explain its background.
③ Mention the criticisms levied against Dāraquṭnī by Ḥanafī scholars and others.
④ Clarify from the perspective of principles of al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (criticism and accreditation) how biased or harsh criticism is rejected.
This article—with references—establishes that Imām Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله was trustworthy (thiqqah), reliable (ma’mūn), and a noteworthy ḥadīth scholar, and that no valid form of discrediting criticism exists against him. The claim made by the Barelvi author is nothing but an example of academic dishonesty and misrepresentation.
Arabic:
وسمعت مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ عُمَرَ الدَّاوُدِيَّ يَقُولُ: كَانَ ابْنُ شَاهِينَ شَيْخًا ثِقَةً، يُشْبِهُ الشُّيُوخَ، إِلَّا إِنَّهُ كَانَ لَحَّانًا، وَكَانَ أَيْضًا لَا يَعْرِفُ مِنَ الْفِقْهِ قَلِيلًا وَلَا كَثِيرًا، وَكَانَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ لَهُ مَذَاهِبُ الْفُقَهَاءِ كَالشَّافِعِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ، يَقُولُ: أَنَا مُحَمَّدِيُّ الْمَذْهَبِ.
Translation:
Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Dāwūdī said: Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله was a dignified, trustworthy scholar resembling the great elders. However, he would sometimes make grammatical/language errors and was not deeply involved in the details of fiqh. When the madhāhib of jurists (such as Shāfiʿī and others) were mentioned before him, he would say: "I am Muḥammadī in Madhhab"—i.e., I follow the Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ directly.
Reference: Tārīkh Baghdād by al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī.
① Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Dāwūdī (quoted by al-Khaṭīb):
كَانَ ابْنُ شَاهِينَ شَيْخًا ثِقَةً
“Ibn Shāhīn was a dignified, trustworthy scholar.”
Tārīkh Baghdād
② Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Fawāris:
كَانَ ابْنُ شَاهِين ثِقَةً مَأْمُونًا
“He was trustworthy, reliable; he compiled works like no other.”
Tārīkh Baghdād
③ Ibn Mākūlā:
يُعْرَفُ بابْنِ شَاهِين الثِّقَةِ المَأْمُون
“Known as trustworthy and reliable; he wrote and heard extensively across Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Basra, and Persia.”
al-Ikmāl fī Rafʿ al-Irtiyāb
④ Aḥmad ibn Abī Jaʿfar al-Qaṭīʿī:
وكان صاحب حديث ثقة مأمونًا
“A ḥadīth scholar, trustworthy and reliable.”
Tārīkh Baghdād
⑤ ʿUbaydullāh al-Āzharī:
كَانَ ثِقَةً
“He was trustworthy; he possessed 700–800 ḥadīth volumes from al-Baghawī.”
Tārīkh Baghdād
⑥ Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī:
الواعظُ المفسِّرُ الحافظُ…
“He was a preacher, exegete, ḥadīth memorizer, author, and an ocean of knowledge.”
Shadharāt al-Dhahab
⑦ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī:
الشيخُ الصدوقُ الحافظُ العالمُ…
“A truthful Shaykh, ḥadīth memorizer, scholar, and Shaykh of Iraq. He authored a major tafsīr.”
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ
⑧ Ibn al-Jawzī:
وكان ثقةً أمينًا
“He was trustworthy and reliable.”
al-Muntaẓam
⑨ Ibn al-Athīr:
وكان أبو حفص ثقةً مكثِرًا
“Abū Ḥafṣ (Ibn Shāhīn) was trustworthy and prolific in narration.”
al-Lubāb fī Tahdhīb al-Ansāb
⑩ al-Samʿānī:
كَانَ ثِقَةً صَدُوقًا مكثِرًا
“He was trustworthy, very truthful, and narrated abundantly.”
al-Ansāb
⑪ al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (in his own biography):
وكان ثقةً أمينًا
“He was trustworthy and reliable.”
Tārīkh Baghdād
⑫ Abū Bakr al-Barqānī:
جَميعُ ما خرّجتُه وصنّفتُه…
Ibn Shāhīn said: “Everything I extracted and compiled from my narrations aligns with my original sources”—i.e., he was confident in his narrations. Barqānī said: “That’s why I did not narrate much from him—this was my personal approach.”
Tārīkh Baghdād
Arabic Quote (via al-Khaṭīb):
وقال لي الدارقطني يومًا: ما أعمى قلب ابن شاهين! حملَ إليّ كتابَه… وجعله عن أبي الجارود، عن زياد بن المنذر، وإنما هو عن أبي الجارود.
Translation:
Dāraquṭnī once said: “How blind is Ibn Shāhīn’s heart! He brought me his tafsīr and wrote a chain as ‘from Abū al-Jārūd, from Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir’, whereas it should be just ‘from Abū al-Jārūd’.”
Clarification:
This is a minor chain transcription error, not a matter of trustworthiness.
In his own book Tārīkh Asmāʾ al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Kadhdhābīn, Ibn Shāhīn correctly identifies the narrator as:
زيادُ بنُ المنذر، أبو الجارود: كذّاب
“Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir, Abū al-Jārūd: A liar.”
Tārīkh al-Ḍuʿafāʾ
Moreover, Dāraquṭnī himself stated elsewhere:
أبو حفص عمر بن أحمد بن شاهين يلِجُ على الخطأ وهو ثقة
“Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar ibn Aḥmad ibn Shāhīn errs at times, but he is trustworthy.”
Suʾālāt Ḥamzah al-Sahmī li al-Dāraquṭnī
① ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī (d. 1304H):
الجرح غير إذا صدر من تعصب… فهو مردود
“Any criticism based on bias or enmity is rejected.”
al-Rafʿ wa al-Takmīl
② Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī (d. 855H):
ثم هو يضعّف حديث أبي حنيفة…
“Dāraquṭnī weakens Abū Ḥanīfah’s narrations but narrates weak, strange, and even fabricated ḥadīths in his own works.”
Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd
③ al-Ṣaymarī al-Ḥanafī (d. 436H):
فانصرفَ، ولم يعد إلى مجلس الدارقطني…
“I left Dāraquṭnī’s gathering and never returned.”
Tārīkh Baghdād; Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfah
④ Zāhid al-Kawtharī:
مسكين أعمى بين عميان…
“He was a blind man among the blind—he was deviant in matters of creed.”
Maqālāt al-Kawtharī
⑤ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī again:
كالدارقطني… ممن تشهد القرائن…
“Like Dāraquṭnī—whose circumstantial evidence shows excessiveness in criticism—such criticism is invalid and reflects poorly on the critic.”
al-Taʿlīq al-Mumajjad
✔ Imām Ibn Shāhīn’s statement “Muḥammadī in Madhhab” signifies his adherence to the Sunnah, not a flaw.
✔ Twelve prominent scholars explicitly affirmed his trustworthiness, knowledge, and status.
✔ Dāraquṭnī’s objection was a minor transcription issue, not a valid discrediting, and he himself said: “He is trustworthy.”
✔ Even Ḥanafī scholars criticized Dāraquṭnī’s bias and dismissed some of his harsh criticisms as excessive.
Hence, the Barelvi author's reliance on Dāraquṭnī’s comment to declare Ibn Shāhīn discredited is void of academic merit.
❖ Introduction
The objective of this research article is to academically refute a false claim made by a Barelvi author, who attempts to discredit Imām ʿUmar ibn Shāhīn al-Wāʿiẓ رحمه الله (famously known as Abū Ḥafṣ Ibn Shāhīn) using a critical remark from Imām al-Dāraquṭnī رحمه الله.
The Barelvi author suggests that Ibn Shāhīn’s statement of being "Muḥammadī in Madhhab" (i.e., following the Prophet ﷺ directly) is somehow indicative of scholarly or juristic deficiency, and he presents a critical comment from Dāraquṭnī as evidence.
In this article, we will:
① Present explicit endorsements of Imām Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله from twelve prominent hadith scholars.
② Analyze Dāraquṭnī’s criticism and explain its background.
③ Mention the criticisms levied against Dāraquṭnī by Ḥanafī scholars and others.
④ Clarify from the perspective of principles of al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (criticism and accreditation) how biased or harsh criticism is rejected.
This article—with references—establishes that Imām Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله was trustworthy (thiqqah), reliable (ma’mūn), and a noteworthy ḥadīth scholar, and that no valid form of discrediting criticism exists against him. The claim made by the Barelvi author is nothing but an example of academic dishonesty and misrepresentation.
❖ The Original Statement Cited by the Barelvi Author
Arabic:
وسمعت مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ عُمَرَ الدَّاوُدِيَّ يَقُولُ: كَانَ ابْنُ شَاهِينَ شَيْخًا ثِقَةً، يُشْبِهُ الشُّيُوخَ، إِلَّا إِنَّهُ كَانَ لَحَّانًا، وَكَانَ أَيْضًا لَا يَعْرِفُ مِنَ الْفِقْهِ قَلِيلًا وَلَا كَثِيرًا، وَكَانَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ لَهُ مَذَاهِبُ الْفُقَهَاءِ كَالشَّافِعِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ، يَقُولُ: أَنَا مُحَمَّدِيُّ الْمَذْهَبِ.
Translation:
Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Dāwūdī said: Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله was a dignified, trustworthy scholar resembling the great elders. However, he would sometimes make grammatical/language errors and was not deeply involved in the details of fiqh. When the madhāhib of jurists (such as Shāfiʿī and others) were mentioned before him, he would say: "I am Muḥammadī in Madhhab"—i.e., I follow the Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ directly.
Reference: Tārīkh Baghdād by al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī.
❖ Explicit Endorsements of Imam Ibn Shahīn رحمه الله by Leading Hadith Scholars
① Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Dāwūdī (quoted by al-Khaṭīb):
كَانَ ابْنُ شَاهِينَ شَيْخًا ثِقَةً
“Ibn Shāhīn was a dignified, trustworthy scholar.”
Tārīkh Baghdād② Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Fawāris:
كَانَ ابْنُ شَاهِين ثِقَةً مَأْمُونًا
“He was trustworthy, reliable; he compiled works like no other.”
Tārīkh Baghdād③ Ibn Mākūlā:
يُعْرَفُ بابْنِ شَاهِين الثِّقَةِ المَأْمُون
“Known as trustworthy and reliable; he wrote and heard extensively across Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Basra, and Persia.”
al-Ikmāl fī Rafʿ al-Irtiyāb④ Aḥmad ibn Abī Jaʿfar al-Qaṭīʿī:
وكان صاحب حديث ثقة مأمونًا
“A ḥadīth scholar, trustworthy and reliable.”
Tārīkh Baghdād⑤ ʿUbaydullāh al-Āzharī:
كَانَ ثِقَةً
“He was trustworthy; he possessed 700–800 ḥadīth volumes from al-Baghawī.”
Tārīkh Baghdād⑥ Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī:
الواعظُ المفسِّرُ الحافظُ…
“He was a preacher, exegete, ḥadīth memorizer, author, and an ocean of knowledge.”
Shadharāt al-Dhahab⑦ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī:
الشيخُ الصدوقُ الحافظُ العالمُ…
“A truthful Shaykh, ḥadīth memorizer, scholar, and Shaykh of Iraq. He authored a major tafsīr.”
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ⑧ Ibn al-Jawzī:
وكان ثقةً أمينًا
“He was trustworthy and reliable.”
al-Muntaẓam⑨ Ibn al-Athīr:
وكان أبو حفص ثقةً مكثِرًا
“Abū Ḥafṣ (Ibn Shāhīn) was trustworthy and prolific in narration.”
al-Lubāb fī Tahdhīb al-Ansāb⑩ al-Samʿānī:
كَانَ ثِقَةً صَدُوقًا مكثِرًا
“He was trustworthy, very truthful, and narrated abundantly.”
al-Ansāb⑪ al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (in his own biography):
وكان ثقةً أمينًا
“He was trustworthy and reliable.”
Tārīkh Baghdād⑫ Abū Bakr al-Barqānī:
جَميعُ ما خرّجتُه وصنّفتُه…
Ibn Shāhīn said: “Everything I extracted and compiled from my narrations aligns with my original sources”—i.e., he was confident in his narrations. Barqānī said: “That’s why I did not narrate much from him—this was my personal approach.”
Tārīkh Baghdād❖ Analysis of Dāraquṭnī’s Criticism and Its Context
Arabic Quote (via al-Khaṭīb):
وقال لي الدارقطني يومًا: ما أعمى قلب ابن شاهين! حملَ إليّ كتابَه… وجعله عن أبي الجارود، عن زياد بن المنذر، وإنما هو عن أبي الجارود.
Translation:
Dāraquṭnī once said: “How blind is Ibn Shāhīn’s heart! He brought me his tafsīr and wrote a chain as ‘from Abū al-Jārūd, from Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir’, whereas it should be just ‘from Abū al-Jārūd’.”
Clarification:This is a minor chain transcription error, not a matter of trustworthiness.
In his own book Tārīkh Asmāʾ al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Kadhdhābīn, Ibn Shāhīn correctly identifies the narrator as:
زيادُ بنُ المنذر، أبو الجارود: كذّاب
“Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir, Abū al-Jārūd: A liar.”
Tārīkh al-ḌuʿafāʾMoreover, Dāraquṭnī himself stated elsewhere:
أبو حفص عمر بن أحمد بن شاهين يلِجُ على الخطأ وهو ثقة
“Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar ibn Aḥmad ibn Shāhīn errs at times, but he is trustworthy.”
Suʾālāt Ḥamzah al-Sahmī li al-Dāraquṭnī❖ Criticisms on Dāraquṭnī by Ḥanafī Scholars & Others
① ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī (d. 1304H):
الجرح غير إذا صدر من تعصب… فهو مردود
“Any criticism based on bias or enmity is rejected.”
al-Rafʿ wa al-Takmīl② Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī (d. 855H):
ثم هو يضعّف حديث أبي حنيفة…
“Dāraquṭnī weakens Abū Ḥanīfah’s narrations but narrates weak, strange, and even fabricated ḥadīths in his own works.”
Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd③ al-Ṣaymarī al-Ḥanafī (d. 436H):
فانصرفَ، ولم يعد إلى مجلس الدارقطني…
“I left Dāraquṭnī’s gathering and never returned.”
Tārīkh Baghdād; Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfah④ Zāhid al-Kawtharī:
مسكين أعمى بين عميان…
“He was a blind man among the blind—he was deviant in matters of creed.”
Maqālāt al-Kawtharī⑤ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī again:
كالدارقطني… ممن تشهد القرائن…
“Like Dāraquṭnī—whose circumstantial evidence shows excessiveness in criticism—such criticism is invalid and reflects poorly on the critic.”
al-Taʿlīq al-Mumajjad❖ Conclusion
✔ Imām Ibn Shāhīn’s statement “Muḥammadī in Madhhab” signifies his adherence to the Sunnah, not a flaw.
✔ Twelve prominent scholars explicitly affirmed his trustworthiness, knowledge, and status.
✔ Dāraquṭnī’s objection was a minor transcription issue, not a valid discrediting, and he himself said: “He is trustworthy.”
✔ Even Ḥanafī scholars criticized Dāraquṭnī’s bias and dismissed some of his harsh criticisms as excessive.
Hence, the Barelvi author's reliance on Dāraquṭnī’s comment to declare Ibn Shāhīn discredited is void of academic merit.
