In the Muslim conception of religion, hadiths are considered as the se-cond source after the Ḳurʾān. In the minds of those who believe in the Ḳurʾān, there is no hesitation about the authenticity of this divine book since it has come to us through tawātur. As for the hadiths, since their relation to the Prophet is determined by the method of isnād, criticisms are mostly concentrated at this point. Muslim scholars resorted to the science of al-Djarḥ wa’l-taʿdīl to solve the (...) problem of the attribution of hadiths to Prophet Muhammad. There are criticisms directed towards hadiths and scholars who played significant roles in the formation of the Islamic schools of thought by non-Muslim schloars living in Islamic regions as well. George Tarabishi, a Syrian writer and translator, is a scholar who has written numerous works on Islam and the Arab civilization shaped by Islam. This study focuses on his criticisms of al-Shāfiʿī’s understanding of hadith in his work, From the Islam of the Qur’an to the Islam of Hadith. Tarabishi’s criticisms against al-Shāfiʿī in his work were identified through document analysis technique and examined through the descriptive method. (shrink)

In the course of a note on Aen. VIII. 86 sq. by Dr. J. W. Mackail , the Servian interpretation of line 96 is supported with the observation that 'note should be taken of Virgil's distinctive use of the ablative. “Placidoaequore siluas” in his language is practically equivalent to “placidas aequoreas siluas” just as “pictas abiete puppes” is to “pictas abiegnas puppes” or “uasta uoragine gurges” to “uastus uoraginosus gurges.”’.