Al-hakim Al-mustadrak Vol. 4 P. 398 -

However, examining the specific narrations on p. 398 (depending on the edition, e.g., Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah or Hyderabad) shows al-Ḥākim declaring a ḥadīth as ṣaḥīḥ despite the presence of a narrator known for tashayyuʿ (Shīʿī leaning) or minor memory lapses. For instance, one might find a tradition about ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib where the chain includes a transmitter whom al-Bukhārī avoided due to his partisanship. Al-Ḥākim, by contrast, often accepted such figures provided they were not accused of outright fabrication ( kaḏhdhāb ). This reveals his broader approach: he prioritized the absence of known forgery over the stringent checks of al-Bukhārī, who required that narrators be beyond reproach in both religion and retention. The enduring value of the Mustadrak lies not only in al-Ḥākim’s judgments but also in the marginal annotations by his student, the great historian and critic Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348). On p. 398 of most reliable editions, al-Dhahabī’s comments are laconic but devastating: lā (“no”), qultu: bal munkar (“I say: rather, it is rejected”), or fīhi ḍaʿf (“there is weakness in it”). These marginalia, now integrated into the printed text, serve as a necessary corrective.

Where al-Ḥākim sees a sound chain, al-Dhahabī frequently identifies a ʿillah (hidden flaw)—such as a missing link ( inqiṭāʿ ), a weak narrator unknown to the two Shaykhs, or a text ( matn ) that contradicts more reliable reports. For example, a tradition on p. 398 might ascribe an exclusive virtue to a Companion that is not corroborated by other mutawātir or well-known āḥād traditions. Al-Dhahabī would flag this as shādhdh (anomalous) or munkar (rejected). Thus, p. 398 exemplifies the dialectical nature of ḥadīth criticism: al-Ḥākim’s tawthīq (declaration of reliability) is not final but an invitation to further scrutiny. For modern researchers, a citation to Mustadrak vol. 4, p. 398 carries several implications. First, it cannot be cited as definitive proof of a ḥadīth’s authenticity without also consulting al-Dhahabī’s Talkhīṣ (summary) and later critics like Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī or al-Suyūṭī. Second, this page likely contains traditions about the virtues of the Prophet’s family, which have theological implications for Sunnī-Shīʿī discourse. Al-Ḥākim’s relatively inclusive criteria made him a valuable source for later Shīʿī-leaning or Sufi-oriented scholars seeking isnād support for virtues of ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn. al-hakim al-mustadrak vol. 4 p. 398

Moreover, the page illustrates a broader epistemological point: no single ḥadīth scholar is infallible. Al-Ḥākim’s Mustadrak is not a “sixth authentic book” ( al-ṣaḥīḥ al-sādis ), despite some later claims. Rather, it is a repository of ṣaḥīḥ potentials, many of which fail rigorous reexamination. Volume 4, p. 398 serves as a microcosm of this tension—a page where aspiration meets critique, where a master’s judgment is perpetually held in the balance by his student’s sharper scalpel. In sum, Al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn , vol. 4, p. 398, is more than a random leaf of medieval parchment. It is a testament to the living, contested nature of ḥadīth criticism. Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī’s ambitious attempt to complete the work of al-Bukhārī and Muslim opened a crucial window onto thousands of traditions that hover on the margins of authenticity. Yet his leniency necessitated the corrective lens of al-Dhahabī, whose annotations on pages like 398 remind us that in Islamic orthodoxy, the collective verdict of the ummah’s critics outweighs the generous opinion of even the most learned individual. Thus, any scholarly reference to this page must be accompanied by methodological awareness: it is not a final word, but a beginning of inquiry. Note: The exact content of vol. 4, p. 398 varies slightly between printings (e.g., Hyderabad 1334–1342 AH, Beirut Dār al-Maʿrifah). A precise study would require identifying the edition and the specific ḥadīth numbers, but the above essay addresses the structural and methodological significance common to that page across major editions. However, examining the specific narrations on p