Follow Us

Imām Bukhārī’s Methodology in his Ṣaḥīḥ and his Usage of Sīghat al-Jahl

Imām Bukhārī’s Methodology in his Ṣaḥīḥ and his Usage of Sīghat al-Jahl

29 min readMay 10, 2022
PDF 📄
image_printDownload PDF Version

بسم الله وحده والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده

Ālimah Siddiqa al-Fārsiyyah
Student, Takhassus Fi 'l-Hadith
Checked and Approved:
Mufti Ismail Moosa
www.ulumalhadith.com

Introduction

Imām Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī’s ṣaḥīḥ compilation, his magnum opus, is widely famed for being “The most authentic book after the Book of Allāh Taʿālā” and is one of the most important and reliable of all ḥadīth collections. Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh), as a ḥāfiẓ of ḥadīth, sifted through thousands of aḥādīth and selected 7,275 for his compilation. His compilation includes not only authentic narrations comprising of full chains reaching the Prophet (ﷺ), but also includes a number of muʿallaq (suspended) and corroborative aḥādīth, totalling to approximately 1,725. Thus, we can infer that Imām Bukhārī’s objective was both to compile authentic narrations, as well as demonstrate how doctrinal and legal inferences may be drawn from them. For centuries, his ṣaḥīḥ compilation has been a central focus of study, scrutiny, and commentary. Researchers observed a pattern of practices that Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) seems to have adhered to and his chapter-headings are said to constitute his fiqh as they serve as a key to the aḥādīth of each chapter. His entire compilation is divided into one hundred kutub (books), which are further subdivided into 3,450 abwāb (chapters).[1]This article will discuss some of the main practices of Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) in his Ṣaḥīḥ relating to isnād (chains) and fiqh, and specifically analyse his usage of the ṣīghat al-jahl (uncertain term) when narrating reports, as well as some examples.

Practices Relating to the Isnād

The tarājim al-abwāb (chapter-headings) of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī contain various themes. In some cases, they are in full conformity with the Qurʾānic verses and aḥādīth listed under them, while in other cases, they are of lesser significance than the aḥādīth that follow. In the case of the latter, they serve as additional explanation and interpretation for them. Nevertheless, in every chapter, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) kept a certain objective in mind. Below are some of his main practices:

  1. He does not usually repeat a ḥadīth with the same chain. Rather, when repeating the ḥadīth he narrates it with a new chain according to the requirement of every chapter. He has, however, related more than twenty aḥādīth comprising of both the same chain and text. For example:
  • Ḥadīth of ʿAbdūllah ibn Mughaffal(raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) regarding the ‘bag of fat’ narrated in the Chapters of Khumus and Dhabāʾiḥ.
  • Ḥadīth of Sahl (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) regarding the sacrifice of a large animal, narrated in the chapter of Ḥajj.
  • Ḥadīth of Anas (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) regarding Umm Ḥārithah, narrated in the Chapter of Maghāzī and Riqāq.
  • Ḥadīth of Anas (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) regarding the story of the two companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) who departed from him on a dark night and were led by two lights which resembled lamps, narrated in the Chapter of Ṣalāh and ʿAlāmāt of Nubuwwah.
  • Ḥadīth of Anas (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) regarding al-Istisqāʾ, narrated in the chapter of Istisqāʾ and in the Manāqib of ʿAbbās.[2]

The objectives of Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) in repeating aḥādīth

There were many reasons why Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) repeated the matn (text), sanad (chain), or both of a ḥadīth. Some of his main objectives for doing this are as follows:

First objective

To remove doubts that may arise regarding the narrators, as some narrators narrated a ḥadīth in full, whilst others have narrated the same ḥadīth concisely. Thus, Imām Bukhārī narrates the ḥadīth at one instance with its full chain and at another concisely in order to remove the doubt that some narrators may be dropping or hiding the names of some of their teachers.

Second objective

To indicate to the various wordings used by the narrators. If a ḥadīth contains a word which the narrators have interpreted differently, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) brings another version of that same ḥadīth as long as it fulfills his criteria, so as to include that additional interpretation for the ḥadīth.

Third objective

To give preference to one chain over the other. For example, if one ḥadīth has been narrated musnadan (with a connected chain) to the Prophet (ﷺ) and another mursalan (with a chain connected to a Companion or Successor), if Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) prefers the musnad (connected chain) over the other mursal chain, then he may also narrate the mursal chain to show that this chain has no negative effect albeit he has given preference to the musnad ḥadīth.

 Fourth objective

To repel any doubt regarding the presence of a ziyādah (addition) in the isnād. For instance, in the case of a narrator hearing a ḥadīth via a shaykh, but then also meeting a person who has heard the same ḥadīth from the same shaykh, and the narrator then choosing to narrate it via both routes. In this situation, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) will relate the ḥadīth with both chains in order to remove the possible doubt that there is an incorrect addition in the chain.

Fifth objective

To clearly show samāʿ (that a narrator has heard the ḥadīth), due to his condition of thubūt al-liqāʾ (proof of the meeting of narrators). He does this by relating a muʿanʿan ḥadīth, and then relating the ḥadīth via another chain which shows clear samāʿ.

Sixth objective

To make the ḥadīth appear less rare by bringing more than one chain for it.

Seventh objective

To employ the various analyses of one ḥadīth. Thus, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) relates the same ḥadīth under different chapters with different chains to make use of its different interpretations.

 Continuing with his habits relating to isnād:

  1. He narrates less from his teachers that were mutakallam fīh (their status was differed upon). When he does narrate from such teachers, he follows the narrations with supporting evidence to strengthen their narrations.
  1. He does ikhtiṣār (summarises ḥadīth). He had many reasons for doing this, but it was primarily to restrict the content of a mawqūf ḥadīth to the marfūʿ For example, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) relates the following ḥadīth narrated by ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh): “The Muslims did not free slaves as sāʾibah (without retaining walāʾ), but the people of the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance used to do so.”[3] This is the marfūʿ portion of the complete ḥadīth which is as follows:

“A man came to ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) and said, ‘I freed a slave as a sāʾibah and he has passed away leaving wealth behind, but no heirs.’ ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) replied, ‘Indeed, the Adherents of Islam do not free slaves as sāʾibah. Therefore, you are his custodian, and his inheritance is yours.’”

  1. He does iqtiṭāʿ (shortens ḥadīth). This is in the instance when one ḥadīth has many sentences that are not linked to one another. Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh)’s habit is that he breaks up a lengthy ḥadīth that has many short parts into various parts, and then narrates them under various chapters to avoid prolixity, although he does occasionally narrate such aḥādīth in full too. ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī (raḥimahullāh) authored a book titled, Jawāb al-Mutaʿannit, an outstanding work, in which he responded to those who objected upon Imām Bukhārī repeating, summarising, and shortening ḥadīth.
  1. When he narrates a ḥadīth from more than one shaykh of his, he narrates the wording of the most recent teacher.
  1. When he brings taḥwīl (transition in the chain of ḥadīth), he brings the text of the second ḥadīth.
  1. He mentions mutābaʿāt (corroborators) frequently.
  1. He gives preference to as-sanad al-ʿālī (shorter chains). The shortest links in his Ṣaḥīḥ are the thulāthiyyāt (3-link chains), which equal to 20 aḥādīth in his Ṣaḥīḥ. Most of them are from Makkī ibn Ibrāhīm, some are from Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Makhlad, while others are from Khallād ibn Yaḥyā. The longest chain in his Ṣaḥīḥ is a tusāʿī (9-link chain), of which there is one, in the subchapter of Yaʾjūj and Maʾjūj, in the Chapter of Fitan.
  1. He frequently narrates via chains which are classified as “aṣaḥ al-asānīd” (the most authentic of the chains). Examples include the following:
  • Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar (raḥimahumallāh)
  • Zuhrī, from Sālim, from his father(raḥimahumallāh)
  • Nakhaʿī, from ʿAlqamah, from Ibn Masʿūd(raḥimahumallāh)
  • Zuhrī, from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusain, from his father(raḥimahumallāh)
  • ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah(raḥimahumallāh)

 

  1. He does not differentiate between the terms ḥaddathanā, akhbaranā, samiʿtu, and anbaʾanā[4]. He has even mentioned this under the chapter of ʿIlm: Bāb Qawl al-Muḥaddith Ḥaddathanā aw Akhbaranā aw Anbaʾanā.
  1. Wherever he mentions a rare narrator, he sheds more light on their identity by mentioning the narrator’s lineage and country. Imām Ibn Ḥajar indicates to this in his Fatḥ al-Bārī.
  1. At one place in his Ṣaḥīḥ, he has brought a waw before the term ḥaddathanā, whereas in comparison, Imām Muslim has done this many times. Some scholars have stated that the waw is a ḥarf ʿatf (particle of conjunction) to the ḥadīth that precedes it. Others have suggested that it is a conjunction for the narrations of one shaykh, such that if an author has heard one hundred narrations from the same shaykh, and he wants to narrate one of them besides the first one, he should narrate them as wa-ḥaddathanā to indicate that it was not the first ḥadīth that he heard from the shaykh. Lastly, ʿAllāmah ʿAynī (raḥimahullāh) has said that this waw is for iftitāḥ (inception), which can come in the usage of waw taḥwīl (conversion) wherein one switches from one chain to another. Taḥwīl is normally indicated by a ḥā.
  1. He brings muʿallaq (suspended) narrations in which the author omits the beginning of a ḥadīth’s chain and narrates it directly from someone higher up in the chain such as a Successor, Companion, or the Prophet (ﷺ) himself. There are many reasons why Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) does this, such as for istishhād (corroboration) or bayān al-ikhtilāf (mentioning difference of opinion), among other reasons.
  1. He commences the chapter with a verse of the Qurʾān. For example, such as in the chapter of Buyūʿ, he brought the verse: {However, if you conduct an immediate transaction among yourselves…}[5] and the verse: {But Allāh has permitted trade and has forbidden interest.}[6]
  1. He commences with the chapter headings, followed by a verse of the Qurʾān, followed by a muttaṣil marfūʿ ḥadīth, and then finally followed by a report of a Companion (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh), or a verdict of a Successor (raḥimahullāh). At other times, he commences with the chapter heading, followed by a verse of the Qurʾān, followed by a muʿallaq ḥadīth or athar (report of a Companion or Successor). Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) only follows the second method either when he does not have a musnad ḥadīth which fits his criteria, or because he has mentioned the relevant ḥadīth musnadan (with a connected chain to the Prophet (ﷺ) in an earlier instance.
  1. On rare occasions, he commences with the chapter headings, and follows it by a verse of the Qurʾān only.
  1. Usually, he commences with the chapter heading, and only includes a musnad ḥadīth.
  1. Very rarely, he commences with the chapter headings, and only follows it by a report of a Companion or Successor. There are three possible reasons for this. First, he may not have found evidence that fits his criteria. Second, he may have mentioned the evidence for the chapter elsewhere but intends to test the reader. Finally, it could be that he left the evidence of that chapter with the intention to include it later but passed away before he was able to do so.
  1. He brings the chapter heading but does not mention anything under it. Some scholars mention that this may be because the contents of that chapter have recently preceded, or will come up soon, so Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh)avoided mentioning anything under the chapter heading as a way of sharpening the mind of the reader.
  1. Sometimes, he brings a chapter without a heading. Some commentators explain that this can be regarded as a sub-chapter of the previous chapter, which has been brought separately to answer an objection, provide further clarity on a ḥadīth of the preceding chapter, or to guide the student to extract rulings that correspond to the previous subchapters.
  1. He brings a chapter in which the word al-Bāb is substituting the statement of the muḥaddith: ‘wa bi hādha ‘l-isnād’ (also with this chain). An example for this is Bāb Dhikr al-Malāʾikah. He brings close to thirty aḥadīth in this chapter until the final ḥadīth of Shuʿayb, from Abū ‘z-Zinād, from Aʿraj, from Abū Hurairah (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh). Then, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) brought: Bāb Idhā Qāla Aḥadukum Āmīn (Chapter: If anyone says Āmīn) and followed it with the ḥadīth regarding the angels not entering a house in which there is a picture. Then he brought aḥādīth which did not have the mention of saying ‘āmīn’ until much later. As such, the word ‘Bāb’ in Bāb Idhā Qāla Aḥadukum Āmīn is in place of a muḥaddith’s statement: ‘wa bi hādha ‘l-isnād’ (also with this chain).
  1. He brings a chapter in which the word al-Bāb is substituting the statement of the author: ‘tanbīh’ (attention), ‘fāʾidah’ (benefit), or ‘qif’ (stop).
  1. He does not repeat the chapter-headings except if the heading is indicating to two separate matters. For example, he brought the chapter-heading, “Bāb Adāʾ al-Khumus mina ‘l-Īmān,” under Kitāb al-Īmān, and Kitāb Farḍ al-Khumus.
  1. He repeats the chapter-heading if it contains a word in which there is a difference regarding its interpretation. For example, the chapter-heading, “Bāb lā Hāmah,” is repeated in two places in the chapter of Aṭ-Ṭibb, due to a difference of opinion regarding the word Hāmah.
  1. In a chapter that contains more than one ḥadīth, he uses the wording of one ḥadīth to phrase the chapter-heading, and then brings the other ḥadīth with different wording.
  1. Sometimes, he phrases the chapter-heading with the words of a ḥadīth that do not correspond to his conditions, or with words that indicate to such a ḥadīth, and then he brings the ḥadīth that does fulfill his criteria to support his chapter-heading. For example, he brings the chapter, “Bābu ‘l-Umarāʾ min Quraish,”and he indicates to a ḥadīth that is not on his condition. He then brings the ḥadīth, “Lā yazālu wālin min Quraish” which fulfills his criteria in support of his chapter-heading.
  1. Very frequently, he brings the chapter-heading as a question. This is often when he does not incline to either opinion that exists within a matter.
  1. Wherever he does not incline to an opinion, he brings a neutral and ambiguous chapter-heading.
  1. When there is an outward contradiction between two aḥādīth, he resolves the contradiction by the manner in which he phrases the chapter-heading. For instance, in order to reconcile between the ḥadīth, “There is no marriage without a walī (guardian(,” and the ḥadīth, “A woman without a husband has more right to her person than her guardian,” Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) brings the chapter-headings: “Bāb lā Nikāha illā bi-Walī (Chapter: Nikah is Not Valid Without a Guardian),”and “Bāb lā Yunkahu ‘l-Abū wa Ghairuhu ‘l-Bikrah wa ‘th-Thayyibah illā bi Riḍāhā (Chapter: The Father or the Guardian Cannot Give a Virgin or Matron in Marriage Without her Consent).
  1. Sometimes, he extracts a ruling in the chapter-heading from various aḥādīth that he brings in the chapter. For example, for the chapter: “Bāb Hal ʿalā man lam Yashhad al-Jumuʿah Ghuslun min an-Nisāʾ wa ‘ṣ-Ṣibyān wa Ghairihim (Chapter: Is the Ritual Bath Necessary for Those Who do not Present Themselves for the Jumuʿah Prayer from the Women and Children),” he brings many aḥādīth. At the end of the chapter, he brings the ḥadīth, “Do not prevent the female-slaves of Allāh from going to the mosques of Allāh,”[7] despite this ḥadīth not possessing any outward relevance to the chapter-heading. However, when this ḥadīth is coupled with the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) before it, “Allow women to go to the mosques at night,”[8] we understand that since the Prophet (ﷺ) instructed that women be permitted to go to the mosque in the night, it would mean that they were not permitted during the day, thus, attending Jumuʿah prayer and its ritual bath would have not been necessary upon them.[9]

Habits Relating to the Fiqh

As for his habits relating to fiqh, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) has adhered to extracting juridical points alongside narrating authentic narrations which are fully connected and go back to the Prophet (ﷺ). Through his unrivaled comprehension and profound knowledge, he has extracted many interpretations and verdicts from the aḥādīth. Hence, one sees that he extracted many verdicts from one ḥadīth and separated them under different chapters. Likewise, he has brought the relevant verses of the Qurʾān for support under different chapters, as well as the mawqūfāt (statements) of the Companions and Successors, either to indicate which opinion he prefers, to mention the difference of opinion, or to clarify a vague matter.

Moreover, he sometimes does not bring a musnad ḥadīth in the chapter and suffices by only mentioning a muʿallaq narration. In many chapters, he narrates abundant aḥādīth whilst in some others, he brings either only one ḥadīth, one verse of the Qurʾān, or nothing additional at all. Consequently, the chapter-headings of Imām Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ contains many nuances and subtleties. As a result, this unique methodology has stunned those who have concentrated and carefully observed the chapter headings, so much so that this became a subject of its own, known as “Fiqh al-Bukhārī fī Tarājimihi” (Imām Bukhārī’s Jurisprudence in his Chapter Headings).[10]

Usage of Ṣīghat Al-Jahl and Ṣīghat Al-Jazm

ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is the first person who made a distinction between ṣīghat al-jazm (emphatic term) and ṣīghat at-tamrīḍ (uncertain term), although he is not the first to coin them. When we look for ṣīghat al-jazm and ṣīghat at-tamrīḍ in the books before ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, we do not find scholars making a distinction between them. Furthermore, when we look at the practice of Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) himself, and even those before him, we find that they have not specified ṣīghat at-tamrīḍ for weak narrations, rather, they would use it even for authentic narrations, which would also be used as evidence. Similarly, scholars have not specified certain terms as ṣīghat al-jazm to indicate that a narration is authentic unconditionally. Rather, both terms were used interchangeably in most cases. In the following passages, we will take a closer look at Imām Bukhārī’s usage of ṣīghat al-jazm and ṣīghat at-tamrīḍ.

Ṣīghat al-Jazm

It has become prevalent among scholars that when Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) narrates a report, specifically those in his tarājim al-Abwāb, with a ṣīghat al-jazm (emphatic word), it means that the report contains a fully connected authentic chain. This became a predominant view, and many scholars accepted it. For instance, regarding one of the taʿlīqāt of Imām Bukhārī, ʿAllāmah Ibn al-Mulaqqin (raḥimahullāh) says: “This taʿlīq is sound because it [li annahu] has been quoted with a ṣīghat al-jazm.”[11] The word ‘li annahu’ in his statement has come for taʿlīl (stating the reason), and so ʿAllāmah Ibn al-Mulaqqin is saying that because the report has come with a ṣīghat al-jazm, therefore it is sound. Moreover, ʿAllāmah Shams ad-Dīn as-Safīrī (raḥimahullāh) said:

“The methodology of Imām Bukhārī is that when a taʿlīq is authentic according to him, he brings it with a ṣīghat al-jazm, and quotes using the word qāla. [In contrast to this], if the taʿlīq is weak, Imām Bukhārī brings it with a ṣīgha at-tamrīḍ such as qīla or ruwiya. Many scholars have explicitly stated that if a ḥadīth is weak, Imām Bukhārī will not say qāla, as it is one of the emphatic words, rather, he will say ḥukiya, qīla, yuqālu, which are words of uncertainty.”[12]

However, the correct conclusion is that whichever taʿliqāt of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī contain ṣīghat al-jazm, they are only authentic from Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) himself, until the person whose name Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) mentions. However, from there until the Prophet (ﷺ), it has the possibility of not being authentic and the chain will still have to be investigated. Imām Ibn Ḥajar (raḥimahullāh) says, “One must not be deceived by the statement of the one who says that it (the taʿlīq) is authentic because Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) mentioned it with an emphatic [word], and thus it is authentic in his view because the emphatic word establishes the soundness of it.”[13] Likewise, in another place he has said, “It has become known from this that his usage of an emphatic word in the taʿlīq does not indicate to the authenticity of the isnād, except solely to the person who he mentions it to. As for those beyond that, then no [it does not establish their soundness].”[14]In conclusion, Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah (hafiẓahullāh) says, “What has become widespread in the speech of people that the taʿliqāt which Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) has narrated with the words of jazm are all ṣaḥīḥ, is not correct.” As mentioned, it is only ṣaḥīḥ until the narrator that Imām Bukhārī mentions, but beyond that the chain requires investigation.

Ṣīghat al-Jahl

Similar to ṣīghat al-jazm, it became common among the early scholars that when Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) uses a word of at-Tamrīḍ (uncertainty) or, more accurately, al-Jahl (a word of ambiguity), then it unconditionally means that the report is inauthentic. However, as previously indicated, ʿAllāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (raḥimahullāh) is the first person who created a distinction between these terms and their usage. However, we find no scholars of the past adhering to this, neither in theory, nor in practice. In fact, scholars would use both terms interchangeably, and would even use words of jahl prior to mentioning authentic narrations. Some examples follow below.

 Examples of Ṣīghat al-Jahl Being Used for Authentic Reports

Imām Shāfiʿī’s Usage

Imām Shāfiʿī (raḥimahullāh) uses ṣīghat al-jahl to refer to an authentic narration that comes in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. In his Kitāb al-Umm[15], he brings the chapter of Tashahhud and says:

فلما روي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يعلمهم التشهد في الصلاة وروي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم علمهم كيف يصلون عليه في الصلاة لم يجز والله تعالى أعلم أن نقول: التشهد واجب والصلاة على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم غير واجبة والخبر فيهما عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم زيادة فرض القرآن.

“…It has been related that the Prophet (ﷺ) taught the Companions how they should send salutations upon him in ṣalah…”

This ḥadīth comes in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and in two places of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, proving that simply because Imām Shāfiʿī (raḥimahullāh) used ṣīghat al-jahl prior to relating the ḥadīth, does not mean that the ḥadīth is inauthentic. Furthermore, it demonstrates how scholars would not create a distinction between the two terms.

Imām Aḥmad’s Usage

Imām Aḥmad (raḥimahullāh)has alsoused ṣīghat al-jahl when referring to an authentic ḥadīth. For instance, he brought the following ḥadīth in the musnad of the Kufan narrators, under the ḥadīth of Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا شعبة عن عمرو بن مرة قال سمعت بن أبي ليلى قال ثنا البراء بن عازب: أن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقنت في صلاة الصبح والمغرب قال أبو عبد الرحمن قال أبي ليس يروى عن النبي ﷺ أنه قنت في المغرب إلا في هذا الحديث وعن علي قوله. [تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط]: إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين.[16]

“…Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān said that my father said, ‘It is not related from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he recited qunūt in the Maghrib prayer except in this ḥadīth…”

Imām Aḥmad (raḥimahullāh) is relating from the Prophet (ﷺ) using ṣīghat al-jahl even though the ḥadīth is authentic, and Imām Muslim (raḥimahullāh) has included it in his Ṣaḥīḥ via Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar from Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā. Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūt (raḥimahullāh) has stated in the footnote, “The chain of this narration is authentic according to the criteria of shaykhayn.” In fact, Imām Aḥmad (raḥimahullāh) related a mutawātir (multiply transmitted) narration in his Uṣūl as-Sunnah and used the term ṣīghat al-jahl. He said, “Belief in seeing [Allāh Taʿālā] on the Day of Judgement, as it has been transmitted [ruwiya ʿan] the Prophet (ﷺ) is from the authentic narrations [aḥadīth ṣiḥāḥ].”[17]

Imām Nasāʾī’s Usage

Imām Nasāʾī (raḥimahullāh) brings the following ḥadīth in his Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā:

أخبرنا أحمد بن يحيى قال حدثنا أبو نعيم قال حدثنا يوسف بن صهيب قال حدثني عبد الله بن بريدة: أن امرأة خذفت امرأة فأسقطت المخذوفة فرفع ذلك إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فجعل عقل ولدها خمسمائة من الغر ونهى يومئذ عن الخذف قال أبو عبد الرحمن هذا وهم وينبغي أن يكون أراد مائة من الغر وقد روي النهي عن الخذف عن عبد الله بن بريدة عن عبد الله بن مغفل.[18]

“…The prohibition of throwing pebbles has been related from ʿAbdullāh ibn Buraydah from ʿAbdullah ibn Mughaffal.”

In the above ḥadīth, we find that Imām Nasāʾī (raḥimahullāh) is using a ṣīghat al-jahl to narrate this authentic ḥadīth. This ḥadīth has also been narrated by Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) in his Ṣaḥīḥ from Yūsuf ibn Rāshid, from Yazīd, from the same narrators in the rest of the chain.

Examples like these are many. However, the above three examples from three ḥadīth scholars should suffice in demonstrating how scholars used ṣīghat al-jahl for authentic narrations too,and did not restrict it to weak narrations. Below, we look at an example of Imām Bukhārī’s own usage. 

Imām Bukhārī’s Usage

Imām Mughultāʾī (raḥimahullāh) gives an example of when Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) has used ṣīghat al-jahl when relating an authentic ḥadīth. In the chapter of Dhikr al-ʿIshāʾi wa ‘l-ʿAtamah wa man Raʾāhu Wāsiʿan, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) narrated the following:

باب ذكر العشاء والعتمة ومن رآه واسعا قال أبو هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أثقل الصلاة على المنافقين العشاء والفجر وقال لو يعلمون ما في العتمة والفجر قال أبو عبد الله والاختيار أن يقول العشاء لقوله تعالى ومن بعد صلاة العشاء ويُذكر عن أبي موسى قال كنا نتناوب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عند صلاة العشاء فأعتم بها وقال ابن عباس وعائشة أعتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالعشاء وقال بعضهم عن عائشة أعتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالعتمة وقال جابر كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلي العشاء وقال أبو برزة كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يؤخر العشاء وقال أنس أخر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم العشاء الآخرة وقال ابن عمر وأبو أيوب وابن عباس رضي الله عنهم صلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المغرب.

In the above example, before relating the ḥadīth of Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh), Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh)used the word ‘yudhkar’ (is mentioned), which is in the passive voice, and is an ambiguous word, i.e.,ṣīghat al-jahl, since the one who has mentioned it is unknown. However, the ḥadīth is authentic. We know this because in another place in his Ṣaḥīḥ, he has a fully connected chain going to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) via Muḥammad ibn al-ʿAlā, from Abū Usāmah, from Buraydah, from Abū Burdah, from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh). Imām Ibn Ḥajar(raḥimahullāh) attempted to offer a reason why Imām Bukhārī used ṣīghat al-jahl and said, “He brought this taʿlīq here with ṣīghat at-tamrīḍ (al-jahl), because he did riwāyah bi ‘l-maʿnā (transmit the meaning of the ḥadīth).”[19] However, this is not accurate as there are many places in which Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) did riwāyah bi ‘l-maʿnā but did not use ṣīghat al-jahl. In some cases, he did riwāyah bi ‘l-maʿnā and used emphatic words. An example for this is the following:

باب لا تقضي الحائض الصلاة. وقال جابر وأبو سعيد عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تدع الصلاة.[20]

“Chapter: There is no Ṣalāh to be Offered by a Menstruating Woman. Jābir and Abū Saʿīd (raḍī Allāhu ʿanhum) have saidfromthe Prophet (ﷺ) that she will [have to] leave prayer.”

In the above example, we find that Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) is making riwāyah bi ‘l-maʿnā by using the ṣīghat al-jazm (qāla). From this we understand that Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh)did not make a distinction between these terms and did not have an official method concerning their usage. Rather, he would use them casually and in various circumstances.

Conclusion

Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) compiled his Ṣaḥīḥ compilation originally owing to a remark of one of his teacher’s, Isḥāq ibn Rāhuyah (raḥimahullāh), who once expressed at one point his wish that someone should compile a book containing only authentic aḥādīth. Thus, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh)compiled his Ṣaḥīḥ containing not only musnad narrations, but also a number of muʿallaqand corroborative narrations. Imām Bukhārī’s objective, alongside compiling authentic narrations, was to demonstrate how doctrinal and legal inferences could be drawn from the narrations. Since he has not penned the principles and habits he adhered to during his compilation, many scholars have made effort to extract these habits by analysing the practical methodology of the imām and the detectable patterns in his book. Several habits of Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) have been mentioned in the article, and examples were given where elucidation was required.

Lastly, Imām Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh), like many scholars of the past, did not have an official usage for emphatic and ambiguous words. He did not specify emphatic words to be used only when narrating authentic and fully connected reports, and likewise, he did not specify ambiguous words with weak reports. He used all these words interchangeably when relating his taʿlīqāt.

 

Bibilography

—Muḥammad Zubayr Siddiqi, Ḥadīth Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features (The Islamic Texts Society).

—ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Hāshimī, ʿĀdāt al-Imām al-Bukhārī fī Ṣaḥīḥihi,(Dar al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2011).

—Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

—Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Kitābal-Badr al-Munīr, (Dār al-Ḥijrah, 2004).

—Shams ad-Dīn as-Safīrī, Al-Majālis al-Waʿẓiyyah fī Sharḥ Aḥadīth Khayr al-Bashariyyah (DKI, 2004).

—Ibn Ḥajaral-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī, (Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Print, 2001).

—Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfiʿī, Kitāb al-Umm, (Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1990).

—Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad Aḥmad, (Muʾassasat ar-Risālah, 2001).

—Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Uṣūl as-Sunnah,(Dār al-Manār as-Saʿūdiyyah, 1990).

—Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb an-Nasāʾī, Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā, (Maktabah Matbūʿāt al-Islamiyyah, 1986).

—Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Taghlīq at-Taʿlīqp.297, (Dār al-Islāmī).

[1] Muḥammad Zubayr Siddiqi, Ḥadīth Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features p.56. (The Islamic Texts Society).

[2] ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Hāshimī, ʿĀdāt al-Imām al-Bukhārī fī Ṣaḥīḥihi, pp. 57-58. (Dar al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2011).

[3]Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (6753).

[4] When a student received a ḥadīth through samāʿ (listening to the teacher), he can convey the ḥadīth to others by using the terms samiʿtu (I heard), ḥaddathanā (he related to us), or akhbaranā (he informed us). When one of the students reads to the teacher, and the teacher listens, the student reading the ḥadīth will use the term akhbaranā whilst the other students who are listening will use the term anbaʾanā.

[5] Qurʾān 2:282

[6] Qurʾān 2:275

[7]Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (900).

[8]Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (899).

[9] ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Hāshimī, ʿĀdāt al-Imām al-Bukhārī fī Ṣaḥīḥihi, pp. 64-86.

[10] ibid. pp. 71-72.

[11]Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Kitābal-Badr al-Munīr, 1:687. (Dar al-Hijrah, 2004).

[12]Shams ad-Dīn as-Safīrī, al-Majālis al-Waʿẓiyyah fī Sharh Aḥadīth Khayr al-Bashariyyah1:230. (DKI, 2004).

[13] Ibn Ḥajaral-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 3:366 (Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Print, 2001).

[14]ibid 1:459.

[15]Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfiʿī, Kitāb al-Umm, 1:141 (Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1990).

[16] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad Aḥmad18493.(Muʾassasat ar-Risālah, 2001).

[17] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Uṣūl an-Sunnah, p. 23. (Dār al-Manār as-Saʿūdiyyah, 1990).

[18]Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb an-Nasāʾī, Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā 8:48 (Maktabatal-Matbūʿāt al-Islamiyyah, 1986).

[19]Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Taghlīq at-Taʿlīqp.297, (Dār al-Islāmī).

[20]Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Hayḍ, ch. 20.

Menu