Imām Nasāʾī and his As-Sunan Aṣ-Ṣughrā

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

There are two segments to this article. First, I discuss the biography of Imām Nasāʾī, his teachers, students, contributions, and the likes. Second, I discuss the methodology of Imām Nasāʾī in his As-Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā: Al-Mujtabā.

We proceed with the help of Allāh ﷻ.

Imām Nasāʾī: Name and Lineage

Imām Nasāʾī was a great memoriser and critic of ḥadīth. His full name was Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb ibn ʿAlī ibn Sinān ibn Baḥr ibn Dinār al-Khurasānī, an-Nasāʾī. This has been mentioned by Imāms al-Mizzī, Dhahabī, Subkī, Ibn Ḥajar, Ibn al-ʿAdīm, Ibn ad-Dimyatī, Ibn Khallikān, as-Suyūṭī, as-Sakhāwī, and others.

There is a slight difference of opinion regarding his father’s name. Imām Ibn Khallikān [d. 681 AH] in his Wafayāt al-Aʿyān[3] and Imām Ibn Kathīr in his Al-Bidāyah wa an-Nihāyah[4] have mentioned it as, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī, adding another ʿAlī between Aḥmad and Shuʿayb. Shaykh Ḥasan ʿAbd al-Munāʿim Shalbī mentions:

This addition on behalf of Ibn Khallikān is incorrect, and whoever followed him on this is also incorrect. Imāms Dawlābī, Ṭaḥāwī, and Ṭabarānī, who are the students of Imām Nasāʾī have mentioned in numerous places in their books that his lineage is: Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb ibn ʿAlī.[5]

Furthermore, whilst quoting from Imām Nasāʾī at one place, aḍ-Ḍiyā’ al-Maqdisī in his Al-Mukhtārah, cited the name of Imām Nasāʾī as: Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Shuʿayb an-Nasāʾī. However, this is incorrect, and the error seems to have occurred from the transcriber. This view is strengthed as aḍ-Ḍiyā’ al-Maqdisī who brought other narrations from him in numerous places from three of his teachers: Abū al-Fatḥ ʿAbdullāh, Abū ‘l-Maḥāsin ʿAbd ar-Razzāq, and Abū ‘l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad, who all narrate from ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ḥamd, from Aḥmad ibn Ḥusain ad-Dīnawrī, from Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn as-Sunnī, from Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb ibn ʿAlī an-Nasāʾī.

This lineage is also mentioned by Abū Mūsā ʿAbd al-Karīm, Ibn Ḥayūyah, Ibn al-Aḥmar, Ḥamzah ibn Muḥammad al-Kinānī, al-Ḥasan ibn Rashīq, al-Ḥasan ibn Khaḍir, Muḥammad ibn Saʿd al-Bāwardī, Dulābī, Ṭaḥāwī, Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusain ibn ʿAlī, Ṭabarānī, Ibn an-Nuhās, al-ʿUqailī, Abū ʿAwānah, and Ibn ʿAdī, amongst other narrators.

Imām Qazwīnī, in his At-Tadwīn, mentioned his lineage as: Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Shuʿayb. This has not been mentioned by anyone other than him.[6] It seems that he may have confused it with one of his contemporaries named Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān an-Nasāʾī, who studied under similar teachers to Imām Nasāʾī, the author of As-Sunan.

There is also a difference of opinion regarding the names, Sinān ibn Baḥr, which has been included in the lineage by Ibn as-Sunnī, Ibn Ḥayūyah, Ibn al-Aḥmar, and Ḥamzah ibn Muḥammad al-Kinānī. Others have dropped ‘Ibn Sinān’ or ‘Ibn ʿAlī’ or the full ‘Ibn ʿAlī ibn Sinān’ from the lineage.[7]

He was known as Nasāʾī because he was from the city of Nasā (with a fatḥah on the nūn and sīn) in Khorasan; falling northeast of Iran, the south of Turkmenistan. The well-known relative nouns (ism an-nisbah) to this place are an-Nasāʾī and an-Nasawī. An-Nasāʾī also very closely resembles an-Nishā’ī, which is the nisbah of Muḥammad ibn Ḥarb, one of the teachers of the two shaykhs, as mentioned by Imām Sakhāwī.[8] Imām Samʿānī mentions in his Al-Ansāb, ‘I heard that this city was named with this in the beginning days of Islam. The reason behind it was that when the Muslim warriors intended to conquer it, all of its men were absent, so the women fought in the battle.’[9]

Birth and Early Life

He was born in Nasā in 215 AH, as mentioned by Imām Ibn al-Athīr [d. 606 AH], Imām Suyūṭī [d. 911 AH], and Imām Ibn al-ʿImād [d. 1089 AH]. Others, such as Maslamah and Ibn ʿAṭiyyah mention his year of birth as 214 AH. Ibn Khallikān mentions both years in his Wafayātu ‘l-Aʿyān. Imām Sakhāwī says, ‘I saw in the Tajrīd of our Shaykh for Imām Sadafī’s Wāfī bi ‘l-Wafayāt that he mentioned the year of Imām Nasāʾī’s birth as 225 AH, which is a definite error from the transcriber or someone else.’[10] In the year 230 AH, at the young age of fifteen, he started his journey of seeking knowledge when he travelled to Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd, and studied with him for fourteen months.

Pursuit of Knowledge

He was recognised as the leading narrator of his day. ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm, ʿAlī ibn ʿUmar, and other major traditionists regraded him thus. His scrupulousness is evident as, in connection with the aḥādīth related by Ḥārith, he never used the term ḥaddathanā (he narrated to us) or akhbaranā (he related to us) as he did in the case of those narrators which had reached him via other scholars. Although the materials he acquired from Ḥārith were read by the latter in a public class, Imām Nasāʾī was prohibited from attending, and was thus obliged to hear them by concealing himself at the gate of the lecture hall.[11]

Imām Nasāʾī travelled far and wide in pursuit of knowledge. In Khorasan, he heard ḥadīth from Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd, ʿAlī ibn Khashram, and ʿAlī ibn Ḥujr. In Nishapur, he heard from Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Rahūyah, Al-Ḥusain ibn Manṣūr as-Sulamī, Muḥammad ibn Rāfīʿ, and their likes. In Baṣrah, he heard from ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAdhīm al-ʿAnbarī, Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā, Muḥammad ibn Bashshār Bundār, and ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī al-Fallās, amongst others. In Egypt, he heard from Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm ibn Wahb, ʿĪsā ibn Hammād Zughbah, and others. In Kufah, he heard from Abū Kurayb Muḥammad ibn al-Alā’, Hannād ibn as-Sariy, and others. He likewise travelled to Kufa, Baghdad, Hijaz, Damascus, and Aleppo. Imām Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned the sequence in which he travelled in Al-Muntaẓim as: Nishapur, Baghdad, Merv, Iraq, Syria, and then Egypt.[12]

In 302 AH, he went to Damascus and found people holding erroneous views against ʿAlī, so he decided to compile a book on the merits of ʿAlī, desiring to read it from the pulpit of the mosque. But the congregation, instead of bestowing him with a patient hearing, maltreated him, kicked him, and drove him out from the Masjid.[13]

Teachers and Students

Imām Nasāʾī started his journey of travelling in pursuit of knowledge from a very young age. He travelled to many places and obtained ḥadīth from a great number of shaykhs. As Imām Ibn Ḥajar says, ‘He heard from such a great number of people, that it cannot be enumerated.’ It is thus difficult to declare a fixed number concerning the number of his teachers.

However, Imām Nasāʾī authored a book with the names of his teachers to honour them and keep their names alive. His mashyikhah includes 186 names but he included the names of four scholars who were not his teachers. The number of scholars he narrated from in Al-Mujtabā are 335, and the number of scholars he narrated from in As-Sunan al-Kubrā are 403, of which one is unnamed. The most comprehensive list of his teachers has been compiled by Hāfiẓ Ibn ʿAsākir in Al-Muʿjam al-Mushtamal, wherein he mentions 444 scholars. Nonetheless, some of the prominent ones are:[14]

Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd al-Bughlānī [d. 240 AH]
Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ar-Rāzī [d. 277]
Abū Zurʿah ʿUbaydullāh ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm ar-Rāzī [d. 264 AH]
Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh adh-Dhuhalī [d. 258 AH]
Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Makhlad al-Marwazī [d. 238 AH]
Abū Dāwūd Sulayman ibn al-Ashʿath as-Sijistānī [d. 275 AH] (the author of the Sunan)
Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī [d. 256 AH] (the author of the Ṣaḥīḥ).

He also studied under some of the same teachers of Imām Bukhārī and Imām Muslim, such as Muḥammad ibn Bashshār Bundār, Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā, ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī al-Fallās, and Abū Kuraib.[15]

As for his students, his main students include:

Abū ʿAwānah Yaʿqūb al-Isfirāyīnī [d. 316 AH]
Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī [d. 321 AH] (the author of Sharḥ Maʿāni al-Āthar)
Abū Saʿīd Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ziyād [d. 340 AH] (the author of al-Muʿjam)
Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr al-ʿUqailī [d. 322 AH] (the author of aḍ-Ḍuʿafa)
Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān as-Sadafī [d. 347 AH] (the author of Tārīkh Miṣr)
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusain an-Naysapūrī [d. 349 AH] (the teacher of Imām al-Ḥakim)
Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī [d. 354 AH] (the author of as-Ṣaḥīḥ)
Abū al-Qāsim Sulayman ibn Aḥmad at-Ṭabrānī [d. 360 AH] (the author of al-Maʿajim)
Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn as-Sunnī [d. 364 AH] (a narrator of Al-Mujtabā)
ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Abī ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān an-Nasāʿī [d. 344 AH] (his son)
Muḥammad ibn Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Aḥmar [d. 358 AH] (a narrator of as-Sunan al-Kubrā).[16]

Academic Contributions

Several books have been authored by Imām Nasāʾī. His published books include:

Khaṣā’iṣ ʿAlī Radhiya Allāhu ʿanh
Fadhā’il Saḥābah Radhiya Allāhu ʿanhum
Dhikr al-Mudallisīn
Kitāb aḍ-Ḍuʿafā wa-l-Matrukīn (narrated from him by Ḥamzah al-Kinānī)
Musnad Manṣūr ibn Dhāzān
Mashikhah an-Nasāʿī
Al-Ighrāb: Ma Aghraba Shuʿbatu ʿalā Sufyān wa Sufyān ʿan Shuʿbah (narrated from him by Ibn Ḥayuyah)
Aṭ-Ṭabaqāt (included in Rasā’il fī ʿUlum al-ḥadīth)
ʿAmal al-Yawm wa ’l-Laylah
Manāsik Ḥajj (ʿAllāmah al-Jazarī makes a reference to this book and says, ‘He [Imām Nasāʿī] has a book of manāsik which he wrote upon the madhab of Imām Shāfiʿī.’)
As-Sunan al-Kubrā (Imām Bayhaqī also compiled a sunan with this title, and both are published. Imām Nasāʾī’s As-Sunan al-Kubrā was first published by Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah in 1411 AH with the research of Dr. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Bundari and Sayyid Kasravi Ḥasan, containing 11,770 ḥādīths. Then, it was printed by Muʾassasah ar-Risālah Beirut, Lebanon in 1421 AH under the guidance of Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaūt by Muʾassasah ar-Risālah, with the research of Ḥasan ʿAbd al-Munaʿim Shalbī and Dr. ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muhsin at-Turkī. This copy contains 11,949 ḥādīths, and is in twelve volumes.)
As-Sunan aṣ-Ṣughra, the Mujtabā[17] (this book of his is the most well-known, and is taught as a part of the Niẓāmī syllabus in many Dār al-ʿUlūms.)

amongst others.

His unpublished books include:

Kitāb at-Tamyīz
Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa ’t-Taʿdīl
Musnad ʿAlī
Kitāb al-Kunā (narrated from him by his son ʿAbd al-Karīm)
Musnad Mālik ibn Anas
Maʿrifatu al-Ikhwah wa al-Akhawāt
Shuyukh az-Zuhrī
Muʿjam of his Shuyūkh

amongst others.

The Scholars’ Praise for Imām Nasāʾī

Imām Dārquṭnī said regarding him, ‘Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān [an-Nasāʾī] was placed at the top of all the scholars of [ḥadīth] in his era.’ He gave him preference over Ibn Khuzaimah and further said, ‘I do not give preference to anyone over him. There is no one like him in scrupulousness. He did not narrate from Ibn Lahīʿah despite him having a shorter chain from Qutaybah.’

Abū Bakr al-Ḥaddād narrated frequently, except, he only narrated from Imām Nasāʾī and would say, ‘I am pleased with him as an authority between Allāh and I.’

Abū ʿAlī an-Naysapūrī said, ‘He [an-Nasāʾī] was from amongst the leaders of the Muslims.’

Abū ’l- Ḥusain Muḥammad ibn al-Muẓaffar al-Ḥāfiẓ said:

I heard our teachers in Egypt recognising him with excellence and holding leadership [in this field]. They would mention his efforts in worshipping night and day, regularly performing ḥajj, carrying out juridical deduction [ijtihād], and establishing the noble Sunnah whilst refraining from the gatherings of the sultans. This remained his habit until he was martyred.

Ibn Yūnus aṣ-Ṣadafī al-Miṣrī said, ‘He came to Egypt and ḥadīth was written from him. He was a leader in ḥadīth; reliable, and precise [in memory].’

Maslamah ibn al-Qāsim al-Andalūsī said, ‘He was reliable, well-versed in ḥadīth.’

Imām Dhahabī said, ‘He is the imām, the ḥāfiẓ, Shaykh al-Islām, the critic of ḥadīth and its narrators. He was from the oceans of knowledge, the possessor of intelligence and expertise, and authored well. He sought knowledge from Khorasan, Hijaz, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc., and settled in Egypt. The ḥuffāẓ would travel to him, and no one matched him in this regard [ḥadīth]. There was no one more precise [ahfaẓ] than Imām Nasāʾī at the onset of the third century. He possessed more expertise and was more well-versed regarding the defects of ḥadīth and its narrators than Imām Muslim, Abū Dāwūd [as-Sijistānī], and Abū ʿIsā [at-Tirmidhī], and he was treading on the path Imām Bukhārī and Abū Zurʿah.’

Imām at-Tāj as-Subkī said, ‘He is one of the imāms of the world in ḥadīth, his name and book are well known. I asked my teacher, Imām Dhahabī, “Who is more precise, Muslim, the author of the Ṣaḥīḥ, or Nasāʾī, the author of the Sunan?” He replied, ‘Nasāʾī.’ So I mentioned this to my father and he agreed.’[18]

His Demise

Imām Nasāʾī was the last of the six scholars of the Kutub as-Sittah to pass away, as he passed away in 303 AH. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī and others said that he passed away in 302 AH. Imām Khazrajī is of the opinion that he passed away in 304 AH. However, the most preferred opinion is that he passed away in 303 AH. This has been related by Ibn Yūnus, Ṭaḥāwī, Muḥammad ibn Saʿdūn al-ʿAbdarī, and others.

Further, Abū Saʿīd ibn Yūnus said, ‘He passed away in Palestine on yawm al-ithnayn (Monday), 13^th of Ṣafar, 303 AH.’ Imām Abū Ja’far aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī concurred with this opinion, and Imām Dhahabī and Subkī gave it preference. On the other hand, Imām Dārquṭnī is of the opinion that Imām Nasāʾī was driven out of Egypt to Makkah, where he passed away whilst he was ill, as a martyr, and he is buried in between Ṣafā and Marwaا. Imām Ibn al-Jawzī and Imām Ibn al-Athīr have preferred this opinion. Imām Dhahabī prefers the former opinion and says, ‘This is more correct, as Ibn Yūnus [who narrated that report] is a precise narrator. He has taken from Imām Nasāʾī so he would be the most aware regarding him.’[19]

His Sunan aṣ- Ṣughrā: Al-Mujtabā

Imām Nasāʾī first compiled his Sunan al-Kubrā, a large, unrivalled compilation of ḥadīth wherein he elaborated on the sources and chains of the aḥādīth. It is also known with the titles As-Sunan, Muṣannaf an-Nasāʾī, and Diwān an-Nasāʾī. It is reported by some scholars, such as Imām Ibn al-Athīr [d. 606 AH], that when he completed writing it, he presented it as a gift to the leader of Ramlah. The leader asked whether all the aḥādīth in the compilation were authentic, to which Imām Nasāʾī confessed that whilst it contained mostly authentic aḥādīth, he also included a fair share of weak and dubious ones. Thereupon, the leader requested him to compile a book which only contains authentic aḥādīth, so Imām Nasāʾī produced a synopsis of the Sunan al-Kubrā called Al-Mujtabā, or as-Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā. Thus, his as–Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā, which he claimed only contains authentic aḥādīth, has been accepted as one of the six canonical collections. Moreover, when scholars generalise and say, ‘as-Sunan of Imām Nasāʾī’, in majority of the cases, they are referring to to as-Sunan as-Ṣughrā rather than Sunan al-Kubrā.

The number of aḥādīth in Al-Mujtabā are 5761. The main narrators are:

ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn an-Nasāʾī (the son of Imām Nasāʾī)
Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn as-Sunnī
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Khiḍr al-Usyūṭī
Ḥasan ibn Rashīq al-ʿAskarī
Abū ’l-Qāsim Ḥamzah ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Kinānī
Abū ’l-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdillāh ibn Zakariyyā ibn Ḥayūyah
Muḥammad ibn Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Aḥmar
Muḥammad ibn Qāsim al-Andalūsī
ʿAlī ibn Abi Jaʿfar aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī
Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Muhandis.[20]

Commentaries of Al-Mujtabā

It appears that Al-Mujtabā still requires a proper critical edition, but one of the best prints of the book is by Mu’assasat al-Risālah; the edition of Shaykh Yāsir Ḥasan. Al-Mujtabā has been translated to Urdu, Persian, English, and other languages, along with some brief commentaries and footnotes. Amongst its commentaries and footnotes are:

Zahr ar-Rubā ʿalā ’l-Mujtabā of Imām Jalāl ad-Dīn as-Suyūṭī [d. 911 AH]
The Ḥāshiyah of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥasan as-Sindī [d. 1138 AH]
ʿArfu Zahr ar- Rubā of ʿAlī ibn Sulayman ad-Dimantī al-Bujumʿawī [d. 1306 AH] (printed by Maktabah Wahbiyyah, Cairo in 1290 AH)
Al-Fayḍ as-Sama’ī ʿalā Sunan an-Nasāʾī – the compilation of the benefits of Shaykh Gangohī [d. 1323 AH] along with the annotations of Shaykh Muḥammad Zakariyya Kāndhlawī [d.1402 AH] (printed by Maktabha Khalīliyyah Saharanpur, India)
Rawḍ ar-Rubā Sharḥ Al-Mujtabā of Shaykh Waḥīd az-Zamān Lucknowī
Shurūqu Anwār al-Minan al-Kubrā al-Ilāhiyyah bi Kashfi Asrār as-Sunan as-Ṣughrā ’n-Nasāʾīyyah of Shaykh Muḥammad Mukhtār ash-Shanqīṭī [d. 1405 AH] (in four volumes)
At-Taʿliqāt as-Salafiyyah ʿalā Sunan an-Nasāʾī of ʿAllamah Abū ’ṭ-Ṭayyib, Muḥammad ʿAtāʾ Allāh Ḥanīf al-Faujyanī [d. 1409 AH] (the author gathered four important footnotes of the book in one, making it an invaluable compilation)
Dhakhīrah al-ʿUqbā fī Sharḥ Al-Mujtabā of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ādam al-Ityūbī (This is the most extensive commentary and it is in 42 volumes. The author is the teacher at Dār al-Ḥadīth al-Khairiyyah).

Other books include:

Aṭrāf Sunan an-Nasāʾī of Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir ibn ʿAlī (well-known as Ibn al-Qisrānī) [d. 507 AH]
Taqrīb an-Nāʿī bi Ikhtiṣār Sunan an-Nasāʾī of Shaykh Muṣṭafā Dīb al-Baghā
Bughyah ar-Rāghib al-Mutamannī fī Khatm an-Nasāʾī Riwāyah Ibn as-Sunnī of Imām as-Sakhāwī [d. 902 AH] (It is the best book which compiles the biography of Imām an-Nasāʾī and his methodology, as well as extracting textual and chain-related nuances contained in the Sunan)
Al-Qawl al-Muʿtabar fī Khatm an-Nasāʾī Riwāyah Ibn al-Aḥmar of Imām as-Sakhāwī
Isʿād ar-Rāʾī bi Afrād wa Zawāʾid an-Nasāʾī ʿala ’l-Kutub al-Khamsah of Sayyid Kisravi Ḥasan (It is in 2 volumes. The author gathered in it the extra narrations which come in Sunan al-Kubrā and as-Ṣughrā besides the five canonical books, the number of which reached 3227 narrations)
Ar-Rijāl al-Ladhīna Takallama fīhim an-Nasāʾī bi Jarḥin aw Taʿdīlin of Dr. Qāsim ʿAlī Saʿd (printed in five volumes)
Al-Aḥādīth al-latī Aʿallāhā an-Nasāʾī bi ’l-Ikhtilāfi ʿalā ’r-Ruwāti fī Kitābihi ’l-Mujtabā: Jamʿan wa Takhrījan wa Dirāsatan of Dr. ʿUmar Iman Abū Bakr (printed in two volumes)
Al-Imām an-Nasāʾī wa Kitābuhu ’l-Mujtabā of Dr. ʿUmar Iman Abū Bakr
Al-Mustakhraj min Musannafāt an-Nasāʾī fi ’l-Jarḥ wa ’t-Taʿdīl of Shaykh Abū Muhammad ash-Shiblī
Ar-Ruwāt al-Ladhīna Tarjama lahum an-Nasāʾī fi Kitābihi (aḍ-Ḍuʿāfa wa ’l-Matrūkīn) wa Akhraja lahum fī Sunanihi: Jamʿ wa Dirāsah of Dr. ʿAwwad al-Khalaf.[21]

Al-Mujtabā: Who Truly Compiled it?

There are two opinions concerning who extracted the authentic aḥādīth from As-Sunan al-Kubrā and compiled it into Al-Mujtabā. The first is that Al-Mujtabā was compiled by Ibn as-Sunnī, one of the closest students of Imām Nasāʾī. This is the opinion of Imām Dhahabī. He quotes the statement of Imām Ibn al-Athīr from his Jāmiʿ at-Taḥsīl and then comments, ‘I say: This [statement] is incorrect, rather, Ibn as-Sunnī is the one who has extracted the Al-Mujtabā [from as-Sunan al-Kubrā].’[22] Likewise, in his al-Qawl al-Muʿtabar, Imām Sakhāwi [d. 906 AH] has mentioned the incident about ‘a leader inquiring from Imām Nasāʾī about his as-Sunan al-Kubrā’, and then refuted it by saying, ‘This incident seems incorrect and doubtful, for it was Ibn as-Sunnī who extracted and compiled the aḥādīth of Al-Mujtabā. Perhaps, it was by the command of Imām Nasāʾī himself.’[23]

The second opinion is that Al-Mujtabā is a compilation of Imām Nasāʾī himself and Ibn as-Sunnī is merely one of its narrators. Imām Ibn Kathīr holds this opinion and says in Al-Bidāyah wa ’n-Nihāyah, ‘He [Imām Nasāʾī] compiled the As-Sunan al-Kabīr and selected from it a much smaller quantity [in Al-Mujtabā], and I had the opportunity to hear both of their narrations.’[24] The incident regarding the leader of ar-Ramlah mentioned by Imām Ibn al-Athīr also supports this view.

As-Sunan al-Kubrā includes 83 books of ḥadīth, from which 33 have not been included in Al-Mujtabā, but not all of their aḥādīth and additional notes have been included. Even though Al-Mujtabā is derived from as-Sunan al-Kubrā, Imām Nasāʾī took the liberty of adding additional narrations to Al-Mujtabā that were not in the original text. He did not stipulate that he will rigidly only cite what was in As-Sunan al-Kubrā. Rather, there are some narrations in Al-Mujtabā that are not found in as-Sunan al-Kubrā. Moreover, there are some chapters in Al-Mujtabā, such as Kitāb al-Miyāh, Kitāb al-Haiḍ wa ’l-Mustahāḍah, Kitāb al-Ghusl wa ’t-Tayammum, etc., that are not in as-Sunan al-Kubrā. However, the majority of the aḥādīth of these chapters can be found under other chapters of as-Sunan al-Kubrā.[25]

Methodology of Imām Nasāʾī for the Chapter Headings[26]

Imām Nasāʾī closely followed Imām Bukhārī, his teacher, in composing his chapter headings. In doing so, he adopted various methods.

Organisation of the chapter headings

The following illustrate the manner in which Imām Nasāʾī organised chapter headings:

He sometimes commences the chapter (kitāb) and subchapter (bāb) with a verse of the Qur’ān. For example, he says in the beginning of the Chapter of Ṭahārah, ‘Interpreting the saying of Allāh ﷻ: {O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and [wash] your feet to the ankles.}[27]
The number of verses he used in the beginning of some chapters totals twenty verses.
One of the distinguishing features of Imām Nasāʾī’s chapter headings (tarājim al-abwāb) is that he brings a statement that indicates to the juridical ruling extracted from the ḥadīth, which leaves no difficulty for the reader in understanding the link between the ḥadīth and the chapter.
He abridges and generalises the chapter heading when he has included many narrations in the chapter so that it is inclusive of all of them, albeit concisely.
He sometimes poses the chapter heading as a question. He does this either due to there being a difference of opinion in the matter and everyone has taken the ḥadīth as their own evidence, or to encourage the reader to ponder upon the matter which is to be extracted from that ḥadīth.
He sometimes brings a chapter for one particular matter, and then another chapter contradictory to it. For instance, in Kitāb al-Iftitāḥ, he brings the subchapter, The Chapter on Reciting Bismillāhi ’r-Raḥmāni ’r-Raḥīm, and then one subchapter later, he brings, The Chapter on Omitting the Recitation of Bismillāhi ’r-Raḥmāni ’r-Raḥīm — this is his way of upholding the difference of opinion on the matter and presenting the evidence of each group.

Forming chapter headings without omitting the texts (mutūn) of narrations

One of the special features of Imām Nasāʾī is his consistency in deriving juridical rulings from the narrations, whilst not refusing to repeat the texts of the narrations. Thus, in order to extract multiple rulings from one ḥadīth, he brings several chapters and repeats the narration in every chapter, linking the chapter heading to the ruling being extracted from the ḥadīth. For instance, take the following ḥadīth:

ʿUbaid ibn Fayruz said, I said to Al-Baraʾ ibn ʿĀzib, ‘Tell me of the sacrificial animals that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ disliked or forbade.’ He said, ‘The Messenger of Allāh gestured like this with his hand, and my hands are shorter than the hand of the Messenger of Allāh, and he said, “There are four that will not do as sacrifices: The animal that clearly has one bad eye [ʿawrāʾ]; the sick animals that is obviously sick; the lame animal [ʿarjāʾ] with an obvious limp; and the animal that is so emaciated that it is as if there is no marrow in its bones.” He [al-Barāʾ] said, ‘And I dislike that the animal should have some fault in its horns or ears.’ He [ʿUbaid] said, ‘What you dislike, forget about it, and do not make it forbidden to anyone.’[28]

In the Chapter of Sacrifices (Kitāb aḍ-Ḍaḥāyā), he brings the above ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib thrice, under three separate chapter headings:

Chapter: Animals that are not Allowed for Sacrifice: The Animal with One Bad Eye [Bāb al-ʿAwrāʾ];
Chapter: Lame animals [Bāb al-ʿArjāʾ]; and
Chapter: Emaciated Animals [Bāb al-ʿAjfāʾ].

Another example is the following ḥadīth that he brings in the next four abwāb:

It was narrated that ʿAlī said, ‘The Messenger of Allāh commanded us to examine the eyes and ears (of animals) and not to sacrifice an animal with a bad eye, nor an animal with its ears slit from the front, nor an animal with its ears slit form the back, nor an animal with a round hole in its ear.’[29]

He brings the above ḥadīth in four separate abwāb with different chapter headings:

Chapter: An Animal with its Ears Slit from the Front;
Chapter: An Animal with its Ears Slit from the Back;
Chapter: An Animal with a Round Hole in its Ear; and
Chapter: An Animals with its Ears Slit Lengthwise.

Accuracy in deriving rulings

Imām Nasāʾī was very accurate in extracting rulings from the narrations. For example, in Kitāb aṭ-Ṭalāq, he titled the bāb with the heading, ‘Chapter: Divorce with a Clear Gesture,’ and brought the ḥadīth of Anas:

It was narrated that Anas said, ‘The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had a Persian neighbour who was good at making soup. He came to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ one day when ʿĀ’isha was with him, and gestured to him with his hand to come. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ gestured toward ʿĀʾishah, meaning, “What about her?”, and the man gestured to him like so, meaning, “No” two or three times.’[30]

Again, In Kitāb aṭ-Ṭalāq, he titled the bāb with the heading, ‘Chapter: Speaking When One Means What the Words Appear to Mean’ and brought the ḥadīth of ʿUmar:

It was narrated that ʿUmar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb said that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said, ‘Indeed, actions are but by intentions, and each man will have but that which he intended. Whoever emigrated for the sake of Allāh and His Messenger, his emigration was for the sake of Allāh and His Messenger, and whoever emigrated for the sake of some worldly gain or to marry some woman, his emigration was for that for which he emigrated.’[31]

Then, he brings, ‘Chapter: Saying Something, and Intending Something Other Than the Apparent Meaning, Carries No Weight’ and mentions the ḥadīth of Abū Hurairah: ‘Abū Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said, “Look at how Allāh diverts the insults and curses of Quraish from me. They insult ‘mudhammam’ and curse ‘mudhammam’ (the condemned one) but I am Muḥammad (the praised one).”’[32]

The Status of Al-Mujtabā

Imām ʿAlī an-Naysapūrī, Ḥamzah ibn Muḥammad al-Kinānī; student of Imām Nasāʾī, Abū Aḥmad ibn ʿAdi, Abū al-Ḥasan ad-Dār Quṭnī, Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī, Ibn as-Sakan, Abū Ṭāhir as-Silafī, Ibn Mandah, ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd, Abū Yaʿlā al-Khalīlī, al-Ḥākim an-Naysapurī, Abū ’l-Ḥasan al-Muʿārifī, Dhahabī, Sakhāwī, and al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdadī have declared the Sunan of Imām Ibn Nasāʾī as a Ṣaḥīḥ compilation.[33] Some of the Makkan teachers of Ibn al-Aḥmar said, ‘It [Sunan an-Nasāʾī] is the most reputable of the muṣannaf compilations, no other book like it has been produced.’[34]

Muḥammad ibn Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Aḥmar reported from Imām Nasāʾī that he said, ‘All the narrations of Kitāb as-Sunan are authentic, save some which contain hidden defects. As for the Al-Mujtabā, all of its narrations are authentic.’[35] However, the attribution of this statement to Imām Nasāʾī seems incorrect and inauthentic narrations can be found in the Al-Mujtabā too, as some critics such as Imām Dhahabī indicated. Imām Sakhāwī says,

The book of Imām Nasāʾī contains the least amount of weak aḥādīth after the Ṣaḥīḥayn. Therefore, Ibn Rushaid said, ‘It is the latest book compiled regarding Sunan, and the best in terms of arrangement; it combines between the methodologies of Imām Bukhārī and Imām Muslim, whilst delving into the discussion of ʿilal (hidden defects).’[36]

The Opinions on the Status of the Al-Mujtabā in General

Al-Mujtabā is from amongst the Ṣiḥāḥ

This opinion is held by Imām Ibn al-Athir, who said:

Some people asked Abū ʿAbd ar-Rahman regarding whether all of the aḥādīth in Sunan [al-Kubrā] are authentic, to which he replied in the negative. They then requested, ‘Then please write for us only the authentic narrations.’ [Ibn al-Athīr says] Thus, he compiled the Al-Mujtabā min as-Sunan and omitted all the narrations from the Sunan [al-Kubrā] which he felt were criticized for containing hidden defects.[37]

However, ʿAllāmah Dhahabī said after mentioning this incident, ‘This incident is not sound.’ Similarly, ʿAbd aṣ-Ṣamad Sharaf ad-Dīn said, ‘This is how Ibn al-Athīr has described this incident in front of an unknown caliph, and in front of the huffāẓ of ḥadīth. However, this has been transmitted without any sound chain.’[38]

Further, Muḥammad ibn Muʿawiyah ibn Aḥmar, one of the narrators of Imām Nasāʾī said, ‘The book of Imām Nasāʾī [Sunan al-Kubrā], all of its narrations are authentic [ṣaḥīḥ], while some of it are defective [maʿlul], but he has not clarified their defects. As for the narrations that he extracted from it in Al-Mujtabā, all of it are ṣaḥīḥ.’[39]There are doubts regarding the accuracy of this report.

Dr. ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr said, “Even if the report is sound, it is evident that he said this whilst approximating, as he had not heard the Al-Mujtabā from Imām Nasāʾī. Perhaps when it reached him that Imām Nasāʾī had extracted the Al-Mujtabā from the Al-Kubrā, he assumed that he had confined it only to the ṣaḥīḥ narrations. Furthermore, I highly doubt regarding the authenticity of this statement due to the clear contradiction between the statements, ‘all of its narrations are authentic’ and ‘while some of it are defective’, especially since he further says, ‘but he has not clarified their defects.’”

Imām Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb applied the title ṣaḥīḥ without any qualification to the book of Imām Tirmidhī and the book of Imām Nasāʾī. The expert, Abū Ṭahir as-Silafī brought up the Five Books and said, ‘The scholars of the East and West agree upon the soundness of them.’ Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ comments, ‘This is an instance of careless speech, for the authors of these books have clearly designated some of the ḥadīth they contain as being “weak” (ḍaʿif), “unfamiliar” and other similar terms descriptive of weak ḥadīth.’

Moreover, Imām Nawawī said, ‘As for the categorization of the narrations of Al-Misbāḥ to ‘ṣiḥāḥ’ and ‘ḥassān’, and intending by the word ‘ḥassān’ those narrations that are in the four Sunan books, then this is not correct as they contain aḥādīth that are ṣaḥīḥ (authentic), ḥasan (fair), ḍaʿīf (weak) and munkar (unfamiliar).’ If Imām Nawawī dislikes that Imām Baghawī has named the narrations of the Sunan ‘ḥassān,’ then he would disapprove of it to a higher degree for the books to be labelled as ṣaḥīḥ.’

In addition, Imām Ibn Kathīr said, whilst refuting the claim of those who labelled the Al-Mujtabā with the title of ‘ṣaḥīḥ’, ‘This is doubtful, as it contains narrators that are majhūlu ’l-ḥāl, and majhūlu ’l-ʿayn, and other narrators that are criticized. It also contains ḍaʿīf (weak), muʿallal (defective) and munkar (unfamiliar) narrations.’ Imām Ibn Nuqaṭa said, ‘Those who narrated authentic narrations, and clearly distinguished the established narrations from the defective ones, and errors from corrections, are four: Bukhārī, Muslim, and Abū Dāwūd and Nasāʾī.’

Furthermore, many scholars have applied the title ‘ṣaḥīḥ’ on the Al-Mujtabā such as. Abū ʿAlī an-Nishābūrī, Ibn as-Sakan, Ibn ʿAdī, Abū Bakr ibn al-Khaṭīb, Imām Dhahabi, ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd, and Abū Yaʿla al-Khalīlī.[40]

Imām Ibn Ḥajar interprets these statements well. He said, ‘The book of Imām Tirmidhī contains all three categories [of ḥadīth], however, the maqbūl category is more than the mardūd. Thus, the book is labelled according to the principle of the overwhelming majority [aghlabiyyah].’[41] Consequently, even if scholars did label the Al-Mujtabā with the title of ‘ṣaḥīḥ’, this is not evidence that all the narrations contained therein are sound.

Regarding the claim that the Al-Mujtabā is authentic, scholars have mentioned that it either means that the majority of its aḥādīth are authentic, and only some are slightly weak, or that the narrations that have been deemed weak only contain very slight weakness, and it is free from kathīr al-ghalaṭ, matrūk, muttaham bi ’l-kazib, and waḍḍaʿ narrators. Thus, on that basis, it is deemed a ‘ṣaḥīḥ compilation.’ The claim that it is authentic without any further elaboration is not far from laxity, as Imām al-ʿIrāqi [d. 806 AH] says, ‘An-Nasāʾī narrates [aḥādīth] which scholars have not agreed to denounce, and whoever has claimed that it [Al-Mujtabā] is ṣaḥīḥ [bi ’l-iṭlāq] is clearly lenient.’[42]

Another view is that Imām Nasāʾī’s conditions are similar to those of Imām Abū Dāwūd, such that he accepts every narrator about whom there is no consensus [ijmaʿ] on leaving him. Regarding his Sunan, Imām Abū Dāwūd mentioned in his Risālah ilā Ahl Makkah:

In this Sunan of mine, I have not included a ḥadīth from a matrūk al-ḥadīth (a narrator discarded due to unreliability). I have disclosed wherever there was too much weakness regarding any ḥadīth in my collection. But if I happen to leave a ḥadīth without any comment, it should be considered as sound, albeit some of them are more authentic than others.[43]

Ibn Manda [d. 395 AH] wrote, and many others have followed him, ‘I heard Muḥammad ibn Saʿd al-Bāwardī in Egypt saying, “The practice of Imām Nasāʾī is that he narrates ḥadīth from every narrator about whom there is no consensus [ijmaʿ] on leaving him.”’[44] ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar explains that the ijmaʿ mentioned here is not generic, rather it specifically refers to the ijmaʿ of two separate categories of muhaddithīn [traditionists], meaning if critics from the strict level of muhaddithīn and critics from the moderate level of muhaddithīn agree on leaving a particular narrator, Imām Nasāʾī will not narrate from such a narrator, otherwise, he will narrate. He is reported to have said, ‘I do not leave a man until everyone [al-jamīʿ] agrees on leaving him. For instance, if Ibn al-Mahdī authenticates a narrator, and Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān weakens him, the narrator will not be left out due to the known strictness of Yaḥyā and his likes in criticism.’[45]

Dr. Fārūq Hamādah said that regarding the conditions of the sunans of Imām Nasāʾī, there are two opinions. The first is that Imām Nasāʾī’s conditions are even more stringent than the conditions of two shaykhs. The second opinion, which he says is the correct one, is that Imām Nasāʾī’s conditions in both As-Sunan al-Kubrā and in Al-Mujtabā are like the conditions of Imām Abū Dāwūd, which is that he takes only from those narrators upon whom scholars (strict and moderate) have not agreed on denouncing.[46]

Imām Nasāʾī narrates from all those narrators who were not unanimously rejected

Imām Ibn Saʿd al-Bāwardī said, ‘It was from the methodology of Imām Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān an-Nasāʾī that he would include the ḥadīth of all those narrators who were not unanimously rejected.’ Ibn Manda himself added, ‘Abū Dāwūd as-Sijistanī as well adopts the same course.’ However, if taken apparently, this is undoubtedly a very lax principle, as this would necessitate the inclusion of the narrations of many weak narrators, and it is very evident that this was not their intention. This is due to the following reasons:

This is practically inapplicable to the Sunan of Imām Nasāʾī. Imām Ibn Ḥajar explains:

The ‘unanimity’ that Imām Nasāʾī was referring to is a specific one, and he does not leave the narration of someone who was been weakened by one of the strict critics [mutashaddid]. Hence why we see many narrators from whom Imām Abū Dāwūd and Imām Tirmidhī have narrated from, but Imām Nasāʾī has not, going as far as not narrating from some of the narrators of Bukhārī and Muslim.[47]

Imām Nasāʾī considers a transmitter narrating from from weak narrators a promoting feature for him above others. This is indicated by his statement:

“The custodians of Allāh ﷻ for the knowledge of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ are three: Shuʿba ibn al-Hajjāj, Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān, and Mālik ibn Anas. [He then said] As for [Sufyān] ath-Thawrī, he is an imām, but he would narrate from weak narrators. [Lastly, he said], after the Successors, no one is more noble than Imām Mālik, then Shuʿbah, then Yaḥya al-Qaṭṭān. No one is more protective of the narrations of the Prophet ﷺ than these three, and no one narrate lesser from weak narrators than them.

Imām Nasāʾī is considered to be from amongst the strict critics of ḥadīth in authenticating narrations. Many scholars hold this opinion. Furthermore, we often find scholars, in the profiles of narrators [tarājim al-Ruwāt], taking support from the fact that Imām Nasāʾī, the strict critic, has narrated from someone by saying, ‘Imām Nasāʾī has related from him.’ For instance, Imām al-Khaṭīb says, ‘Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Busrī: his condition is not as described by al-Bāghandi from as-Sukrī, rather he was from the people of honesty, Imām Nasāʾī has narrated from him, and that is sufficient for you.’
ʿUmar Iman Abū Bakr said he analysed the criticised narrators of the four sunan books from the At-Taqrīb of ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar and found that Imām Nasāʾī was the least in terms of narrating from weak narrators.

Thus, the conclusion is that what is meant by the statement, ‘Imām Nasāʾī would include the ḥadīth of all those narrators who were not unanimously rejected’, is not what comes to mind immediately; that he narrates from many weak narrators. Rather, it refers to the unanimity of scholars who are both strict and moderate. As such, when a strict critic weakens a narrator, but a moderate one authenticates him, he narrates from him as there is no unanimity on rejecting him.

Majority of the narrations of Al-Mujtabā are ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan, but it also includes a small portion of ḍaʿīf, munkar, and muʿallal narrations

Majority of the weak narrations of Imām Nasāʾī are from reliable narrators from whom Imām Nasāʾī has narrated in order to clarify their defects. He did this by first narrating the sound routes of their narrations, and then following this up with the defective routes in order to clarify their defects. This is a feature that distinguishes his book from the rest of the six canonical books. It is rare that Imām Nasāʾī narrates a weak narration to depend on it. Moreover, majority of the weak narrators are majhūl; who are neither authenticated nor criticised and thus superior to those regarding whom there is clear criticism.[48]

The Status of Al-Mujtabā Amongst the Kutub as-Sittah[49]

There is no doubt that from amongst the Kutub as-Sittah, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim are given the highest rank. In fact, they are given the highest rank even compared to all the books of ḥadīth, according to many scholars, perhaps with minor differences. Likewise, it is also undisputable that Sunan Ibn Mājah is inferior to the rest of the sunans due to its weak, severely weak, and even some fabricated narrations.

As for Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, it is inferior to the rank of Sunan Abī Dāwūd and Sunan an-Nasāʾī, as we can infer from the statements of some scholars. Thus, a difference of opinion remains regarding the rank of Sunan an-Nasāʾī and Sunan Abī Dāwūd. Although a group of scholars are of the opinion that they are both on the same rank, others feel that the Sunan of Imām Nasāʾī is superior for the following reasons:

Al-Mujtabā and Sunan Abī Dāwūd

Shaykh ʿAṭāʾ Allāh says that although Sunan an-Nasāʾī and Sunan Abī Dāwūd are similar in rank in terms of their aḥādīth, the Sunan of Imām Nasāʾī takes preference due to the following reasons:

Some scholars have mentioned that Imām Nasāʾī is more learned than Imām Abū Dāwūd, Imām Tirmidhī, and even Imām Muslim, in regards to ḥadīth and its ʿilal (hidden defects). As stated by Imām Dhahabī, ‘An-Nasāʾī has more expertise with ḥadīth, its hidden defects and transmitters than Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, and Abū ʿĪsa [at-Tirmidhi] and he treads the path of Bukhārī and Abū Zurʿah.’ Although this is not evidence, it is nonetheless a contributing factor to its rank over the Sunan of Imām Abū Dāwūd, as Imām Sakhawī said, ‘Most of the time, the preference of knowledge becomes evident in the excellence of its author.’

The conditions of Imām Nasāʾī are stricter than the conditions of Imām Abū Dāwūd . Imām Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī [d. 795 AH] said, ‘Abū Dāwūd is more stringent than Imām Tirmidhī. As for Imām Nasāʾī, he is even more stringent than Imām Abū Dāwūd; he would not take ḥadīth from those narrators who had excessive doubts, or who made many mistakes.

It has been established that Imām Nasāʾī does not narrate ḥadīth from a group of weak narrators, such as ʿAbdullāh Ibn Lahīʿah, but we find Imām Abū Dāwūd narrating from them. Rather, even Imām Muslim narrates from him and his likes in his corroborating chains [shawāhid].

Imām Nasāʾī and Imām Abū Dāwūd have narrated from 58 of the same weak narrators, and they both have individually narrated from other additional weak narrators. Thus, Imām Nasāʾī narrates from 136 weak narrators in both his Sunan al-Kubrā and Al-Mujtabā. As for Imām Abū Dāwūd, he narrates from a total of 332 weak narrators. This is according to the grading of Imām Ibn Ḥajar in his At-Taqrīb.[50]

The Conditions of Imām Nasāʾī in his Sunan[51]

Imām Nasāʾī, like many traditionists, has not clearly outlined his conditions or the methodology he followed in his Sunan. One reason is because the traditionists generally disliked speaking about the distinctive features of their books, out of fear of ostentation and pleasing their egos. Thus, it is difficult to state with certainty the conditions which he employs in his compilation. What is indicative of this is that we see those who discuss and try to determine the conditions of the traditionists in their books, differing in ascertaining those conditions. In fact, they differ even in the rank of the books due to their difference of deducing their conditions. Consequently, it will be difficult to determine the conditions of Imām Nasāʾī with certitude as an expansive study is required of every ḥadīth he included in the book, and the narrators whom he obtained ḥadīth from.

Nonetheless, there no doubt that Imām Nasāʾī took much precaution and diligence in compiling his book. Ibn Ṭāhir narrates with his chain from Aḥmad ibn Maḥbūb ar-Ramlī who said, ‘I heard Imām Nasāʾī saying, “Upon intending to compile the Sunan, I made istikharah to Allāh in transmitting from the shaykhs that I had doubt about, and felt assurance in leaving them, which caused me to narrate some ḥādīths with longer chains that I had with shorter links.”’ Further, ʿAllāmah Ibn Ḥajar said, ‘He [Imām Nasāʾī] had short links from Qutaybah from Ibn Lahīʿah; however, he did not narrate from him, neither in the Sunan nor in other than it.’ It is due to such scrupulousness of his that Imām Dhahabī said, ‘Imām Nasāʾī’s teachers are unblemished [naẓif ’sh-shuyūkh].’

From the above, we can conclude that the first condition of Imām Nasāʾī is not narrating from weak narrators such as Ibn Lahīʿah and those lower than him in weakness. The weak narrations that are included in his compilation are due to other reasons.

Although Imām Nasāʾī has not mentioned the conditions by which he accepts ḥadīth anywhere explicitly in his book, there are, however, certain conditions that other scholars have attributed to him through conjecture. From the dialogue between Imām Nasāʾī and the leader of ar-Ramlah, we understand that Imām Nasāʾī did intend to compile only sound narrations in Al-Mujtabā, whilst he concurrently confessed the existence of some weak and defective ḥādīths in as-Sunan al-Kubrā.[52] Saʿd ibn ʿAlī az-Zanjānī said, ‘Indeed Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān has a condition for the narrators of ḥadīth which is more stringent than the conditions for the narrators of Bukhārī and Muslim.’[53] Further, Imām Dhahabī comments, ‘I say, Saʿd ibn ʿAlī has spoken the truth, for he [an-Nasāʾī] has weakened many narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥayn.’[54] Imām Dhahabī also says:

There was no one more precise [aḥfaẓ] than Imām Nasāʾī at the onset of the third century. He possessed more expertise, and was more well-versed regarding the defects of ḥadīth and its narrators than Imām Muslim, Abū Dāwūd [as-Sijistānī], Abū ʿĪsā [at-Tirmidhī], and he was treading on the path Imām Bukhārī and Abū Zur‘ah.[55]

The Terminologies Used by Imām Nasāʾī in his Book[56]

The terminologies used by Imām Nasāʾī are of two types:

Terminologies used for the narrators; and
Terminologies used for the text of the narrations in order to explain its authenticity (ṣiḥḥah) or explain a defect of vagueness it contains.

Terminologies used for the narrators

The number of narrators that are criticised reach more than 50. However, this figure is much less compared to the narrators that have much authenticated, and does not equal to even a quarter of all of its narrators. This is because Imām Nasāʾī’s primary objective is to narrate from reliable narrators, and he authenticates them in their appropriate circumstances either by eliminating a doubt from them, or giving them preference over other narrators.

As for weak narrators, he used various terminologies in accordance to the type of weakness they possessed. However, he predominantly has used the words, ‘laysa bi ’l-qawī fi ’l-ḥadīth’ in his book, as he has done for thirteen narrators. Considering that he often ranks a narator lower than they may be, this method of grading narrators indicates that weak narrators according to him are not severely weak. In accordance to how often or rare they are used, other words he uses include:

Ghair ṣadūq
Ḍaʿ īf
Munkar
Matrūk
Laysa bī dhālika ’l-mashhūr
Lā yuḥtajju bī hadīthihi
Layyinu ’l-ḥadīth
Laysa bi thiqah
Lā aʿrifuhu / lā adrī man huwa.

Terminologies used for the text of the narration

Some terminologies that he used have the same meaning according to the former and latter-day scholars, words such as ‘hādha ḥadīthun ṣaḥīḥun’ and ‘hādha laysā bi ṣaḥīḥ’. Words such as ‘hādha ghairu thābit’ or ‘rawāhu ʿanhu X fa asnadahu’ meaning: he has attributed the report to the Prophet ﷺ with an unbroken chain, or to a Companion with an unbroken chain, and the term ‘ḍaʿīf’ has been used repeatedly in the book. He also used the term ‘mudhtarab’ once for the ḥadīth of some reliable narrators regarding whom scholars differed.

On the other hand, there are words that Imām Nasāʾī used but there are differences of opinion amongst the former and latter-day scholars regarding their definitions and usage. Considering their vague meanings but frequent usage by Imām Nasāʾī, the following are the definitions of some of them:

Al-Khaṭaʾ wa ’ṣ-Ṣawāb: Aṣ-Ṣawāb means ‘correct’ and ‘a sound judgement’, whereas al-khaṭa’ is the opposite of that. Imām Nasāʾī uses these terms often in his book to give preference between contradictory narrations. Thus, in many cases, he brings two versions of the same ḥadīth and applies the term al-khaṭa’ to one of them and aṣ-ṣawāb on the other. Thus, when a narrator has memorised a ḥadīth well, and narrated it soundly, his narration will be labelled with the term aṣ-ṣawab with the condition that there is an opposing narrator who has a doubt in the chain or text of the narration. In the instances where Imām Nasāʾī doubts which of the opposing narrations is more correct, or which one seems to be more incorrect, he brings words that are allusive to these doubts such as, ‘hādha awlā bi ’ṣ-ṣāwābi min kadhā’ or ‘ashbahu bi ’ṣ-ṣawābi’ and ‘wa lā aḥsibu hādha illā khaṭaʾ, amongst other words. In the custom of the latter-day scholars, the terms that he uses to declare a ḥadīth as ‘al-khaṭa’ would be replaced with the term ‘shādh’.
Al-Mursal: This term in its technical sense refers to when a Successor attributes a narration to the Prophet ﷺ. Imām Nasāʾī uses this term in this manner frequently. However, he does not use this term solely in its technical meaning, rather, he also generalises it for narrations that have missing links (munqaṭiʿ), irrespective of where the missing link is in the chain.

Al-Munkar: This term appears rarely in his book; a total of four times according to the research of Dr. ʿUmar Īmān Abū Bakr. According to Imām Nasāʾī, this term is used in one of the following three meanings:

What a weak narrator narrates in contradiction to what a reliable narrator narrates. This is also the technical definition of al-munkar according to the latter-day scholars.
What a weak narrator is alone in narrating, even if his weakness is not severe.
It is used synonymously with the terms ‘al-ghalaṭ’ and ‘al-khaṭa’.

Narrating from Majhūl (Unknown) Narrators

Jahālah refers to the lack of information regarding a narrator, and his status in ḥadīth. Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī said:

Majhūl according to the people of ḥadīth is every narrator who has not become well-known for seeking knowledge, and neither do scholars know him, or his ḥadīth, except through the chain of one narrator. The least thing that can uplift his unknown status is if two narrators who are known for adhering to knowledge narrate from him. However, this in itself does not qualify as an authentication for him [i.e. he will not automatically be considered reliable]. There are two types of jahālah: 1) majhūl al-ʿAyn and 2) majhūl al-ḥāl.

Imām Nasāʾī has narrated from such narrators from whom only one narrator has narrated. This falls into the category of majhūl according to the scholars of ḥadīth. Hence, Imām Ibn Kathīr says that the claim of scholars like Imām al-Khaṭīb that the Sunan of Imām Nasāʾī is a ṣaḥīḥ, or that his conditions are more stringent than those of Imām Muslim, seems doubtful, as Imām Nasāʾī included aḥādīth from both majhūl al-ḥāl and majhūl al-ʿayn narrators.

For some narrators, Imām Nasāʾī declared their jahālah himself, and has remained silent from some. Dr. Qāsim ʿAlī Saʿd lists the names of 53 such narrators.[57]

According to the majority of scholars, for a narrator’s unknown status to be uplifted, at least two narrators must narrate form him. Scholars have followed the opinion of Imām Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ad-Dhuhalī in this regard. Imām Nasāʾī, like Imām Ibn Ḥibbān and Imām Ibn Khuzaymah, seems to be of the opinion that the jahālah al-ʿayn of a narrator can be uplifted if only one narrate narrates from him.[58]

In declaring the unknown status of narrators, Imām Nasāʾī uses words such as:

Majhūlun
Majhūlun lā naʿrifuh/aʿrifuh
Laysa bī al-mashhūr
Lā adrī man huwa
Huwa majhūl
Laysa bī maʿrūf
Lā ʿIlma lī
Katabtu ʿanhu wa lam aqif ʿalaih
Lā aʿlamu aḥadan rawā ʿanhu ghaira fulān.[59]

Dr. Qāsim ʿAlī Saʿd has divided all the words that Imām Nasāʾī uses for criticising narrators into six different categories. He has mentioned 10 different terms for the first level, which contains the lightest criticism such as the words, ‘lasya bi ’l-qawī’ and ‘layyinun’. In the second level, he mentioned only one term, which is, ‘laysa bi ’l-qawī rawā ghaira ḥadīth munkar wa kāna qad ikhtalaṭa’. In the third level, he mentioned seven terms such as, ‘ḍaʿif’ and ‘muḍtarib al-ḥadīth’. In the fourth level, he mentioned three terms such as, ‘munkar al-ḥadīth’ and ‘lā yuʿjibunī ḥadīthuh’. In the fifth level, he mentioned thirteen terms such as, ‘laysa bi thiqah’, ‘matrūk’ and ‘laysa bi Shayy.’ In the sixth and final level, he mentioned four terms such as, ‘kadhdhāb’ and ‘kadhdhāb khabīth’. Imām Nasāʾī narrated from the first three categories, but not the last three.[60]

There are some other narrators regarding whom Imām Nasāʾī has made conflicting statements, such as Wāṣil ibn ʿAbd ar-Rahmān Abū Ḥurra al-Baṣrī. Concerning him, Imām Nasāʾī in one instance says, ‘ḍa’if’ (He is weak) whilst in another instance, he says, ‘laysa bihi baʾsun’ (There is no problem with him).[61] Dr. Qāsim ʿAli Saʿd lists 42 such narrators in his book.

Conclusion

Imām Nasāʾī was an imām, a ḥāfiẓ, Shaykh al-Islām, and a great critic of ḥadīth and its narrators. He was from the oceans of knowledge, the possessor of intelligence and expertise, and he authored many books. He sought knowledge from Khorasan, Hijaz, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and he settled in Egypt for a major part of his life. Towards the end of his life, he authored a book on the merits of ʿAlī, due to which he was driven out of Egypt, and later passed away in Ramlah, Palestine, in 303 AH. His Al-Mujtabā is recognised as a compilation that holds a high status after the Ṣaḥīḥayn, and although he had similar conditions to Imām Abū Dāwūd, his Al-Mujtabā holds a rank above Sunan Abī Dāwūd due to it containing a greater number of authentic narrations and avoiding many weak narrators. May Allāh ﷻ accept his efforts and reward him immensely.

May Allāh ﷻ be pleased with them all.

Bibliography

—Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-Mīzān, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-A’lami, 1971).

—Iyād ʿAtāʾ Allāh, Rubā‘iyyāt al-Imām Nasāʾī fi Sunan al-Kubrā, (Gaza: Jāmiʿah al-Azhar, 2011).

—Al-ʿIrāqī, At-Tabṣirah wa ’t-Tadhkirah fī ʿUlum al-Ḥadīth, (Maktabah Dār al-Minhāj, 2007).

—Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Mandah, Shurūṭ al-Aʾimmah, (Riyadh: Dār al-Muslim, 1995).

—Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, An-Nukat ʿala Kitāb Ibn aṣ-Ṣalah, (Madinah: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah, 1984).

—Sakhāwī, Fatḥ al-Mughīth, (Egypt: Maktabat as-Sunnah, 2003).

—Dhahabī, Tadhkirah al-Huffāẓ, (Beirut: DKI, 1998).

—-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām an-Nubalā’, (Muʾassasat ar-Risālah, 1985).

—Sakhāwī, Al-Qawl al-Muʿtabar fī Khatm an-Nasāʾī Riwāyata Ibn al-Aḥmar, (Maktabah al-Islāmī + Dār Ibn Hazam, 1999).

—Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāyah wa ’n-Nihāyah, (Beirut: Maktabah al-Maʿārif, 1990).

—Muḥammad Javed, As-Sunan al-Kubrā ki Tartīb wa Tadwīn mei Imām Nasāʾī ka Manhaj wa Uslūb, (Maʿarif-e-Islāmī (aiou), research paper).

—Khalīl ar-Raḥmān, Sharh Sunan an-Nasāʾī, (Zamzam, 2008).

—Muḥammad Zubair Ṣiddīqī, Ḥadīth Literature: Its Origin, Development and Special Features, (The Islamic Texts Society, 2012).

—Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, Jāmiʿ al-Usūl fī Ahādīth ar-Rasūl, (M. al-Hilwāni, M. al-Milāh, M. Dār al-Bayān, 1969).

—An-Nasāʾī, Kitāb As-Sunan, (Dār at-Taʾsīl, 2012).

—Ibn al-Khallikān, Wafayāt al-Aʿyān wa Anbāʾu Abnā’ az-Zamān, (Beirut: Dār Sādir, 1978).

—An-Nasāʾī, Kitāb as-Sunan al-Kubrā, (Mu’assasah ar-Risālah, 2001).

—Doctor ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasāʾī wa Kitābuhu Al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabat Maʿārif 2003)

—Muḥammad Muḥammadī an-Nūristanī, Al-Madkhal ilā Sunan al-Imām Nasāʾī, (Matabat as-Shuʾūn al-Faniyyah, 2008)

—Qāsim ʿAli Saʿd, Manhaj al-Imām Abī ʿAbd ar-Raḥman an-Nasāʾī fī ’l-Jarḥ wa ’t-Taʿdīl, (Dubai: Dār al-Buḥuth, 2002).

[1] Qur’ān: 41:42.

[2] Qur’ān 15:9.

[3] Ibn al-Khallikān, Wafayāt al-Aʿyān wa Anbā’u Abnā’ az-Zamān, (Beirut: Dār Sādir, 1978), 1:77.

[4] Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāyah wa an-Nihāyah, (Beirut: Maktabah al-Maʿārif,1990), 11:123.

[5] An-Nasā’ī, Kitāb as-Sunan al-Kubrā, (Mu’assasah ar-Risālah, 2001), 1:12.

[6] An-Nasā’ī, Kitāb as-Sunan, (Dār at-Ta’sīl, 2012), 1:47-49.

[7] ibid, 1:49-50.

[8] ibid, 1:52.

[9] An-Nasā’ī, Kitāb as-Sunan al-Kubrā, (Mu’assasah ar-Risālah, 2001), 1:13.

[10] An-Nasā’ī, Kitāb as-Sunan, (Dār at-Ta’sīl, 2012), 1:53.

[11] Muḥammad Zubair Siddiqi, Ḥadīth Literature: Its Origin, Development and Special Features, (The Islamic Texts Society, 2012) p.67; Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, Jāmi’ al-Usūl fī Ahādīth ar-Rasūl, (M. al-Hilwāni, M. al-Milāh, M. Dār al-Bayān, 1969) p.197.

[12] An-Nasā’ī, Kitāb As-Sunan, (Dār at-Ta’sīl, 2012) 1:55.

[13] ibid.

[14] Iyād ‘Atā’ Allāh, Rubāʿiyyāt al-Imām Nasā’ī fi Sunan al-Kubrā, (Gaza: Jāmi’ah al-Azhar, 2011) p.14.

[15] An-Nasā’ī, Kitāb As-Sunan, (Dār at-Ta’sīl, 2012) 1:55.

[16] ibid.

[17] Khalīl ar-Rahmān, Sharh Sunan an-Nasā’ī, (Zamzam, 2008) 1:26.

[18] As-Sakhāwi, al-Qawl al-Muʿtabar fī Khatmi an-Nasā’ī Riwāyata Ibn al-Aḥmar, (Beirut: Maktabah al-Islāmī + Dār Ibn Hazam, 1999) 70-77.

[19] Adh-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām an-Nubalā’, (Mu’assasat ar-Risālah, 1985) 14:133.

[20] ibid, 1:27.

[21]Muḥammad Muḥammadī an-Nūristanī, Al-Madkhal ilā Sunan al-Imām Nasā’ī, (Matabah al-Shuʿun al-Faniyyah, 2008) 103-108.

[22] Adh-Dhahabī, Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā, (Mu’assasah ar-Risālah, 1985) 14:131.

[23] As-Sakhāwi, al-Qawl al-Mu’tabar fī Khatm an-Nasā’ī Riwāyata Ibn al-Aḥmar, (Maktabah al-Islami + Dar Ibn Hazam, 1999) p.54.

[24] Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāyah wa an-Nihāyah, (Beirut: Maktabah al-Ma‘ārif, 1990) 11:123.

[25] This comparison has been done using the DKI Beirut print of as-Sunan al-Kubrā which comes in 6 volumes with the research of Dr. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Bundārī and Sayyid Kasravi Ḥasan, and the Maktabah al-Matbu‘āt al-Islamiyyah Aleppo print of al-Mujtabā that comes in 8 volumes with the research of Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattah Abū Ghuddah r.

[26]Muḥammad Muḥammadī an-Nūristanī, Al-Madkhal ilā Sunan al-Imām Nasā’ī, (Matabah al-Shu‘un al-Faniyya, 2008) 111-113.

[27] Qurʾān 5:6.

[28] An-Nasā’ī, Sunan an-Nasā’ī al-Mujtabā (4370).

[29] An-Nasā’ī, Sunan an-Nasā’ī al-Mujtabā, (4372).

[30] An-Nasā’ī, Sunan an-Nasā’ī al-Mujtabā, (3436).

[31] An-Nasā’ī, Sunan an-Nasā’ī al-Mujtabā, (3437).

[32] An-Nasā’ī, Sunan an-Nasā’ī al-Mujtabā, (3438).

[33] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, An-Nukat ʿalā Kitāb Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh, (Madinah: al-Jāmi‘ah al-Islāmiyyah, 1984) 1:75.

[34] As-Sakhāwī, Fatḥ al-Mughīth, 1/115, (Egypt: Maktabah as-Sunnah, 2003) 1:115.

[35] Muḥammad Javed, As-Sunan al-Kubrā ki Tartīb wa Tadwīn mei Imām an-Nasā’ī ka Manhaj wa Uslūb, p.96 (Ma‘arif-e-Islami (aiou), research paper).

[36] As-Sakhāwī, Fatḥ al-Mughīth, (Egypt: Maktabah as-Sunnah,2003) 1:114.

[37] Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, Jāmi’ al-Usūl fī Ahādīth ar-Rasūl, (M. al-Hilwāni, M. al-Milāh, M. Dār al-Bayān, 1969) p.197.

[38] ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasā’ī wa Kitābuhu al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabah Ma‘ārif 2003) p.93.

[39] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, An-Nukat ʿalā Kitāb Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh, (Madinah: al-Jāmi‘ah al-Islāmiyyah, 1984) 1:484.

[40] ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasā’ī wa Kitābuhu al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabah Ma‘ārif 2003) p.91.

[41] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, An-Nukat ʿalā Kitāb Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh, (Madinah: al-Jāmi‘ah al-Islāmiyyah, 1984) p.489.

[42] Al-ʿIrāqī, At-Tabṣirah wa-t-Tadhkirah fī ʿUlum al-Ḥadīth, (Maktabah Dar al-Minhaj, 2007) p.100.

[43] Abū Dāwūd as-Sijistani, Risālah Abi DāwūdIlā Ahl Makkah, (Beirut: Dar al-Arabiyyah) p.27.

[44] Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Mandah, Shurut al-A’immah, (Riyadh: Dar al-Muslim, 1995) p.73.

[45] Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, An-Nukat ʿala Kitāb Ibn aṣ-Ṣalah, (Madinah: al-Jami‘ah al-Islamiyyah, 1984) 1:75.

[46] Muḥammad Javed, As-Sunan al-Kubrā ki Tartib wa Tadwin mei Imām Nasā’ī ka Manhaj wa Uslub, p.99 (Ma‘arif-e-Islami (aiou), research paper).

[47] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, An-Nukat ʿalā Kitāb Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh, (Madinah: al-Jāmi‘ah al-Islāmiyyah, 1984) 482-483.

[48] ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasā’ī wa Kitābuhu al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabah Ma‘ārif 2003) p.101.

[49] ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasā’ī wa Kitābuhu al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabah Ma‘ārif 2003) 101-105.

[50] Iyād ʿAtā’ Allāh, Rubā‘iyyāt al-Imām Nasā’ī fi Sunan al-Kubrā, (Gaza: Jami’ah al-Azhar, 2011) p.30.

[51] ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasā’ī wa Kitābuhu al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabah Ma‘ārif 2003) 88-89.

[52] Muḥammad Javed, As-Sunan al-Kubrā ki Tartib wa Tadwin mei Imām Nasā’ī ka Manhaj wa Uslub, p.97 (Ma‘arif-e-Islami (aiou), research paper).

[53] Adh-Dhahabī, Tadhkirah al-Huffāẓ, (Beirut: DKI, 1998) 2:195. Ibn Ḥajar, an-Nukat. p.76.

[54] Adh-Dhahabī, Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā, (Mu’assasah ar-Risalah, 1985) 14:131.

[55] ibid, 14:133.

[56] ʿUmar Imān Abū Bakr, Al-Imām Nasā’ī wa Kitābuhu al-Mujtabā, (Riyādh: Maktabah Ma‘ārif 2003) 107-144.

[57] Qāsim ʿAlī Saʿd, Manhaj al-Imām Abī ʿAbd ar-Raḥman an-Nasā’ī fī al-Jarḥ wa-t-Taʿdil, (Dubai: Dar al-Buhuth, 2002) 2297-2305.

[58] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-Mīzān, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-A’lami, 1971) 1:14.

[59] Muḥammad Javed, As-Sunan al-Kubrā ki Tartib wa Tadwin mei Imām Nasā’ī ka Manhaj wa Uslub, p.100 (Ma‘arif-e-Islami (aiou), research paper).

[60] Qāsim ʿAlī Saʿd, Manhaj al-Imām Abī ʿAbd ar-Raḥman an-Nasā’ī fī al-Jarḥ wa-t-Taʿdil, (Dubai: Dar al-Buhuth, 2002) 1827-1832.

[61] Qāsim ʿAlī Saʿd, Manhaj al-Imām Abī ʿAbd ar-Raḥman an-Nasā’ī fī al-Jarḥ wa-t-Taʿdil, (Dubai: Dar al-Buhuth, 2002) 2307 – 2319.

Follow Us