األحاديث التي أعلها ابن ع مار الشهيد ف ي كتابه علل األحاديث ف ي صحيح مسلم (دراسة تحليلية نقدية)

This thesis presents a detailed study and analysis of the book ʿIlal al-Aḥādīth fī Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by the eminent scholar Abū al-Faḍl Ibn ʿAmmār al-Shahīd (d. 317 AH), one of the earliest works written to critique Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. The author examined thirty-six narrations and judged them to contain hidden defects (ʿilal). The researcher conducted an inductive analysis of these narrations according to the methodology of the hadith scholars, relying on their sources, evaluating the statements of both early and later critics, and comparing their views in order to reach a scholarly conclusion regarding the degree to which each defect affects the authenticity of the narration. The study was organized methodologically, beginning with an introduction to both Imām Muslim and Ibn ʿAmmār and their scholarly status, followed by an examination of the This thesis presents a detailed study and analysis of the book ʿIlal al-Aḥādīth fī Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by the eminent scholar Abū al-Faḍl Ibn ʿAmmār al-Shahīd (d. 317 AH), one of the earliest works written to critique Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. The author examined thirty-six narrations and judged them to contain hidden defects (ʿilal). The researcher conducted an inductive analysis of these narrations according to the methodology of the hadith scholars, relying on their sources, evaluating the statements of both early and later critics, and comparing their views in order to reach a scholarly conclusion regarding the degree to which each defect affects the authenticity of the narration. The study was organized methodologically, beginning with an introduction to both Imām Muslim and Ibn ʿAmmār and their scholarly status, followed by an examination of the criticized narrations in terms of their chains of transmission and textual content, based on the established principles used by hadith scholars to uncover hidden defects. The findings reveal that Ibn ʿAmmār adhered to a sound and rigorous critical method, beginning with identifying the defect and then supporting his judgment with evidence and reasoning. It also became clear that most of the criticized narrations were judged defective only in specific chains or in partial wordings—not in their core formulations—and that the majority are authentically established through other reliable routes. This reflects the depth of Imām Muslim's methodology in selecting and arranging the narrations in his Ṣaḥīḥ. Hadith scholars differed regarding the presence of defects in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, with some affirming and others denying it. The researcher argues that Imām Muslim intentionally incorporated these narrations in a refined scholarly style and with precise arrangement to reveal or highlight the defects, or to use them as supporting evidence (istishhād) or as secondary chains that strengthen the main narration. Therefore, the existence of these defects does not weaken the authenticity of the book nor diminish its scholarly value. The investigation demonstrates that most of the criticized narrations have solid authentic foundations, apart from minor variations in wording. Analysis of the chains and texts shows that Imām Muslim employed a meticulous method in arranging his Ṣaḥīḥ: he tended to place narrations with potential defects later in the sequence and varied his arrangement of texts depending on the nature of each narration. This helps the reader identify the points of weakness or disagreement. In his introduction, Muslim notes his careful attention to arrangement, and he sometimes signals the presence of defects—either explicitly or subtly. Among his methods in dealing with defective narrations were placing them outside their usual thematic context, omitting them, or altering their order. Most defective narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim appear in follow-up chains (mutābaʿāt) and supporting narrations (shawāhid), not in the foundational chains, and are authentic through other routes. Their texts are generally sound or fully connected through alternative chains. Understanding the purpose of these defects is essential. Criticism found in scholars' works regarding narrations in the two Ṣaḥīḥs appears in the context of defending and strengthening them, not undermining them. Scientific criticism does not invalidate the authority of the Sunnah nor diminish the status of the two Ṣaḥīḥs. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ stated that everything Muslim deemed authentic is definitively authentic, and that theoretical knowledge also confirms its authenticity because the Muslim community has universally accepted what the two Ṣaḥīḥs contain. Thus, the critical efforts of hadith scholars are counted in favor of the two Ṣaḥīḥs, demonstrating the tremendous scrutiny and care they received .The study concludes that although Ibn ʿAmmār's criticisms are precise, many of them are not impactful upon deeper examination, and that Imām Muslim's methodology in arranging and presenting narrations requires careful understanding to appreciate how he dealt with defects. Hadith criticism strengthens the authority of the Sunnah rather than diminishing it, and the efforts of early critics were aimed at verification and preservation, not at casting doubt. The two Ṣaḥīḥs continue to maintain their firm scholarly and hadith-based status within the Muslim community.