بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

08 Safar, 1444 AH (Friday, 25 August , 2023)

الثالثة: ‌أول ‌من ‌صنف ‌الصحيح: البخاري أبو عبد الله محمد بن إسماعيل الجعفي مولاهم

“The third: The first to write a Ṣaḥīḥ was al-Bukhārī Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl al-Juʾfī.” (Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – 17)

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is referring to official writing and he does not intend personal notes. We explained in detail in the other lessons that there were many Companions who wrote Aḥādīth from the very beginning. Just within the Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sittah there are enough examples of Ṣaḥābah who jotted down Aḥādīth from the Prophet ﷺ. Of course, whatever they wrote will be considered as Ṣaḥīḥ. Their personal compilations would be considered as Ṣaḥīḥ for the Ṣaḥābi that wrote and for every person in that time. However, since these were personal compilations, they will not be considered.

Thereafter, we elaborated on all the different books that scholars wrote between the year one hundred after Hijrah and the year two hundred after Hijrah.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is claiming that Imām Bukhārī was the very first person to write a book that comprises of only Ṣaḥīḥ narrations. Whilst this statement might hold true against almost each and every book that was written prior to this, there is that one book that some of the most leading scholars of the Ummah considered as Ṣaḥīḥ, and it was written before Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. That is the Muwaṭṭa of Imām Mālik!

Imām Mālik wrote his Muwaṭṭa with the sole objective of only gathering Ṣaḥīḥ narrations. Many scholars testified and bore testimony on the authenticity of every narration within the Muwaṭṭa.

In general, Imām Mālik was very specific and very selective on who he narrated from. The great Muḥaddith, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said:

‌كان ‌مالك ‌لا ‌يبلغ الحديث إلا صحيحاً. ولا يحدث إلا من ثقة. (ترتيب المدارك -( 1 / 150)

“Mālik would not omit the chain except for authentic narrations. And he would only quote from those who were really reliable.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 150)

His practice in general was that he was very cautious on whom he narrated from, and he would only quote from those who he was convinced that they were reliable. This was for whenever he quoted Aḥādīth. And for the Muwaṭṭā in particular, he took even more measures, extra precautions and had much higher standards to ensure that every single narration within this book must be authentic. This naturally led to the Muwaṭṭa being a very authentic book.

A senior Muḥaddith like ‘Abdur Raḥmān ibn Mahdī considered the Muwaṭṭa to be the most authentic book after the Qur ān. Qāḍi ‘Iyāḍh relates that this great scholar said:

ما كتاب بعد كتاب الله أنفع للناس من الموطأ. وقال لا أعلم من علم الإسلام بعد القرآن أصح من موطأ مالك. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 101)

“There is no book after the Book of Allāh that is more beneficial for the people than the Muwaṭṭa.” He also said, “After the Qurān, I do not know of any other Islāmic knowledge which is more authentic than the Muwaṭṭa of Mālik.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 101)

Qāḍi ‘Iyāḍh also quoted with his chain to Nu‘aym who said:

سمعت ابن مهدي، يقول: ما أقدم على مالك في صحة الحديث أحدا. (حلية الأولياء وطبقات الأصفياء – 6 / 322)

“I heard Ibn Mahdī saying, ‘I do not give preference in Ḥadīth to anyone over Mālik.” (Ḥilyah al-Awliyā – 6 / 322)

Few lines ahead, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ quoted and misinterpreted the statement of Imām Shāfi’ī. We will discuss more about this statement when we reach there. For now, I can just assure you that Imām Shāfi’ī was absolutely convinced that everything within the Muwaṭṭa is definitely authentic. In Manāqib ash-Shāfi’ī, Imām Bayhaqī quoted with his chain that goes via Abū Ṭāhir who quotes Imām ash-Shāfi’ī as saying:

ما أعلم شيئا بعد كتاب الله أصح من موطأ مالك. (مناقب الشافعي للبيهقي – 1 / 507)

“I do not know of any book after the Book of Allāh that is more precise than the Muwaṭṭa of Mālik.” (Manāqib ash-Shāfiʾī lil-Bayhaqī – 1 / 507)

Imām ash-Shāfi’ī said:

وإذا جاء الأثر من كتاب مالك فهو الثريا. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 101)

“If a narration reaches you from the Book of Mālik then it is like the Thurayyā star (of the finest).” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 101)

These two statements are specifically concerning the Muwaṭṭa. In general, as well, Imām Shāfi’ī would have greatest regard for the narrations of Imām Mālik. Ḥarmalah ibn Yaḥyā said:

لم يكن الشافعي يقدِّم على «مالك» في الحديث أحداً. (مناقب الشافعي للبيهقي – 1 / 507)

“Imām ash-Shāfiʾī would not give preference to anyone’s over the narrations of Mālik.” (Manāqib ash-Shāfiʾī lil Bahyaqī – 1 / 507)

Over the next centuries, scholars continued to express how authentic the Muwaṭṭā was. ‘Allāmah Abū Zur‘ah (200 AH – 264 AH), the same person who Imām Muslim consulted for his Ṣaḥīḥ, said:

لو ‌حلف ‌رجل ‌بالطلاق على أحاديث مالك التي بالموطأ أنها صحاح كلها لم يحنث، ولو حلف على حديث غيره كان حانثاً. (ترتيب المدارك – 1 / 103)

“If a person takes an oath of divorcing (his wife) and suspends it on the narrations of the Muwaṭṭa being authentic, his oath will not break. But if he takes a similar oath on the narrations of any other person, his oath will be nullified.” (Tartīb al-Madārik, 1 / 103)

‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abdil Barr described the Muwaṭṭa saying:

الذي لا مثل له ولا ‌كتاب ‌فوقه ‌بعد ‌كتاب ‌الله تعالى عز وجل. (التقصي لما في الموطأ من حديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم – 1 / 6)

“There is no comparison for it, and no book after the Qur ‘ān that is higher in status than it.” (At-Taqaṣṣī, 1 / 103)

A scholar who was in the earlier part of the century in which ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ was born, ‘Allāmah Ibn al-‘Arabī said:

إعلموا – أنار الله أفئدتكم – أن كتاب الجعفي هو الأصل الثاني في هذا الباب والموطأ هو الأول. (عارضة الأحوذي – ص: 5)

“Take note – may Allāh enlighten your hearts – that the Book of Juʾfī is the second origin in this chapter and the Muwaṭṭa is the first.” (ʿĀriḍah al-Aḥwadhī – 5)

‘Allāmah as-Suyūṭī wrote in Tanwīr al-Ḥawālik:

فالصواب إطلاق أن الموطأ صحيح لا يستثنى منه شيء (تنوير الحوالك – ص: 7)

“The correct view is that in general, everything in the Muwaṭṭa is authentic. Nothing is excluded.” (Tanwīr al-Ḥawālik, page 7)

To quote from a more recent scholar via who most of our Asānīd go through, Shah Walliyullāh, mentioned:

لقد انشرح صدري وحصل لي اليقين بأن الموطأ أصح كتاب يوجد على وجه الأرض بعد كتاب الله (تسهيل دراية الموطّأ في كتاب المسوّي شرح الموطّأ – 29)

“Indeed my chest was expanded, and I gained certainty that the Muwaṭṭa is indeed the most authentic book found on the face of the earth after the Book of Allāh.” (Tashīl Dirāyah al-Muwaṭṭa – 29)

If that is the case and everything in the Muwaṭṭa is authentic, then it goes without saying that the Muwaṭṭa will be the absolute first book that was written on authentic narrations, because of course, Imām Mālik was before Imām Bukhārī. Imām Mālik passed away 15 years before Imām Bukhārī was even born. Imām Mālik passed away in 179 AH and Imām al-Bukhāri was only born in 194 AH. How can it then be said that Imām Bukhārī was the first to write a book that only has Ṣaḥīḥ narrations?

However, in this sentence, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh is claiming that the first to document Ṣaḥīḥ narrations was Imām al-Bukhāri:

الثالثة: أول من صنف الصحيح البخاري أبو عبد الله محمد بن إسماعيل الجعفي مولاهم. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 17)

“The third: The first to write a  Ṣaḥīḥ is al-Bukhārī Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl al-Juʾfī.” (Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – 17)

With this assertion, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh is contradicting all the earlier (and later scholars) who spoke about the authenticity of the Muwaṭṭa. It cannot be that the Muwaṭṭa is authentic, but Imām Bukhārī is the first to document Ṣaḥīḥ narrations. That contradicts clear logic!

Influence of the Claim of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ

Since ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned this in the Muqaddimah, this became the popular view thereafter. Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wrote this book and then many scholars focused their attention to this book. There were Mukhtaṣarāt (condensations) and then there were written commentaries on those Mukhtaṣarāt. This book of Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh was put in poetic form, and then there were commentaries on those.

There were also works like Nuzhah an-Naẓar that were based on Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, and then there were commentaries for those books too. Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned about the influence that the book of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh had. He wrote:

فلهذا عكف الناس عليه وساروا بسيره، فلا يحصى كم ناظم [له] ومختصر، ومستدرك [عليه] ومقتصر، ومعارض له ومنتصر! (نزهة النظر – ص: 40)

“This is why people devoted themselves to his book and they followed its paths, the number of poets, authors who summarised, people who made amendments (to his book), scholars who make it concise, objectors and defender cannot be enumerated.” (Nuzhah an-Naẓar- 40)

After ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, everyone has been reading and learning this view. This lead to this view of ‘Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri being the most authentic book’ becoming very popular.

Then, in various universities, many Dārul ‘Ulūms and Islāmic seminaries, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is taught as the primary book of Ḥadīth, and (a very small portion of the Muwaṭṭa) is taught as one extra book just on the side (known as a ‘Khāriji book’). This psychologically led everyone to believe that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the supreme book, and the Muwaṭṭā is inferior to it.

Ultimately, today, after another 800 years, one might think that it is all cast in stone that Imām Bukhārī was the first to dedicate a book on Ṣaḥīḥ narrations.

If one were to now ask any scholar who claims that Ṣahīh al-Bukhari is ‘Aṣaḥ al-Kitāb ba’d kitābillāh’ for his reference or proof, he will probably quote to you from Muqaddimah Ibn as-Ṣalah, or mention it from a book that came thereafter and is directly or indirectly linked to Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. But his reference and source will be from a book that is 400 years after Imām al-Bukhari. If he documents his research and referances the claim to Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, then even if he presents one hundred references after ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, it will all hold no weight, because the very foundation and basis of this is weak. Everyone just accepted this because ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ said it.

Thus, we need to look at the background of this statement of his.

SOURCE OF ‘ALLĀMAH ĪBN AṢ-ṢALĀH’S STATEMENT

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh actually got this idea that Imām Bukhārī was the first to write from Imām Ḥākim. Imām Ḥākim was the first scholar to make this broad claim. He wrote:

وأول من صنف الصحيحة أبو عبد الله محمد بن إسماعيل الجعفي البخاري. (المدخل إلى كتاب الإكليل – ص: 63)

“The first to compile authentic narrations was Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl al-Juʾfī al-Bukhārī.” (Al-Madkhal ilā Kitāb al-Iklīl – 63)

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah mentioned:

مصدر ابن الصلاح في القول بأولية الشيخين في إفراد الصحيح بمؤلف: هو الحاكم أبو عبد الله في ))المدخل إلى الكليل(( (تعليقه على تدريب الراوي – 2 / 264)

“The source of Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ in the claim that the two Shaykhs (Bukhārī and Muslim) were the first to document authentic narrations is Ḥākim, Abū ‘Abdillāh in al-Madkhal ilal Iklīl.” (Footnotes of Tadrīb ar-Rāwī, 2 / 264)

Looking at this statement of Imām Ḥākim, he only mentioned the word “Ṣaḥīḥ” (he did not qualify it) and ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh followed him. They are just mentioning that the first to write on Ṣaḥīḥ was Imām al-Bukhāri, Mutlaqan!

By leaving it like this many unwarranted objections were raised, since we cannot deny that these earlier Imāms did indeed claim that the Muwaṭṭa is Ṣaḥīḥ, and everyone knows that Imām Mālik passed away 15 years before Imām Bukhārī was born. The reality and fact that we cannot run away from or ignore is that many scholars claimed that the Muwaṭṭa is an authentic book, and the reality and fact is that Imām Mālik passed away before Imām Bukhārī was even born.

Besides Imām Ḥākim, there were two other scholars who were in the same time as him, and it is alleged that they both also stated that Imām al-Bukhāri was the first to gather authentic narrations. These two scholars were:

1) Ibn as-Sakan

2) Maslamah ibn Qāsim

Both of them passed away in the same year, 353 AH. Allāmah as-Sakhāwī wrote in Fatḥ al-Mughīth:

كما صرح به أبو علي بن السكن ومسلمة بن قاسم وغيرهما (فتح المغيث – 1 / 46)

“Like how Abū ʿAlī ibn as-Sakan and Maslamah ibn Qāsim and others clearly mentioned.” (Fatḥ al-Mugīth – 1 / 46)

‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwī does not provide his source for their statements, nor does he present their exact words. Since ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwī was only born in 831 AH, there is a gap of a minimum of 500 years between him and the scholars whose view he is quoting.

Nevertheless, assuming that they did indeed mention the same thing like Imām Ḥakim, it would mean that hardly a hundred years after Imām Bukhārī passed away, scholars were already giving him the credit of being the first to document authentic narrations.

However, by the year 631 AH – this is the year when ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh commenced teaching/writing his Muqaddimah – there were still only four known scholars who mentioned that Imām Bukhārī was the first to document Ṣaḥīḥ narrations. We have the clear words of two scholars, and we have ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwī attributing it to two others. Over a period of 400 years, there are only four known scholars!

In contrast, definitely, since it is proven that there were many scholars who claimed that the Muwatta is authentic, the claims of Imām Ḥākim, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh and the other two scholars are certainly inaccurate. It naturally followed that scholars would object on this claim; they would not accept that Imām Bukhārī is the first to document authentic narrations.

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION

When Imām Nawawi saw how vague this statement is and how it is inviting so many objections, he qualified it. He did not just say that the: “first person to write Ṣahīḥ”, he added an additional clause. He added the Qayd (restriction) of “al-Mujarrad”. He now claimed that the first person to write a book on ‘only’ authentic narrations is Imām Bukhārī.

Imām Nawawi was condensing and summarizing the text of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh, yet he made sure to add this important word when condensing the text. He is adding and increasing, when condensing and summarizing! Condensing but adding is an oxymoron. When condensing a book, a person would delete and omit words. He would not add words. But Imām Nawawī felt that adding this one word is so essential and crucial, so he actually put an extra word in a book that he is summarizing.

On page 59 of his al-Irshād, which is the Aṣal of his Taqrīb, he phrased it as: “aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mujarrad”. He wrote:

أول المصنف في الصحيح المجرد صحيح البخاري. (إرشاد طلاب الحقائق إلى معرفة سنن خير الخلائق صلى الله عليه وسلم – ص: 59)

“The first compilation of a Ṣaḥīh al-Mujarrad (only authentic narrations) is Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.” (Irshād Ṭullāb al-Ḥaqāiq, page 59)

The key word in this statement is the word ‘Mujarrad’. He is qualifying the statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ.

For context, Imām Nawawī passed away in 676 AH. This is 497 years after Imām Mālik!

In Tadrīb ar-Rāwi, ‘Allāmah aṣ-Ṣuyūṭi commented:

قول المصنف: “المجرد” زيادة على ابن الصلاح، احترز بها عما اعترض عليه به، من أن مالكا أول من صنف الصحيح (تدريب الراوي – 1 / 95)

“The words of the author: ‘al-mujarrad’ is an extension of Ibn Ṣalāḥ, through it he attempted to protect (himself) against the objections which could be raised against him; that Mālik was this first to compile a Ṣaḥīḥ.” (Tadrīb ar-Rāwī – 1 / 95)

In another book of his, ‘Allāmah aṣ-Ṣuyūṭi said:

أطلق جماعة على الموطأ اسم الصحيح، واعترضوا على ابن الصلاح في قوله: “أول من صنف في الصحيح المجرد”فزاد “المجرد” ، احترازا عن الموطأ فإن مالكا لم يجرد فيه الصحيح: بل أدخل فيه المرسل والمنقطع والبلاغات (تزيين الممالك – ص: 96)

“A group of scholars use the word ‘Ṣaḥīḥ’ for the Muwaṭṭa, and they objected to the statement of Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh: The first to compile a aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mujarrad – the word ‘Mujarrad’ was extended to maintain caution from the Muwaṭṭa, because Mālik did not abstract only Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, but he also brought forth Mursal, Munqaṭiʾ narrations as well as Balāghāt.” (Tazyīn al-Mamālik – 96)

Imām Nawawī assumed that if he adds this one word, the meaning could probably now change, and it might not contradict the clear statements of the earlier scholars who all claimed that the Muwaṭṭa is the most authentic. The meaning could now be:

Imām Mālik was indeed the first to gather Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, but with that, he added a lot of other quotations and statements in his book. So those who mentioned that his book is Ṣaḥīḥ, they are not wrong, because the narrations that are in his book are Ṣaḥīḥ. However, there are statements of others besides the Prophet ﷺ in this book.

Imām Bukhārī only cited Aḥādīth in his book. He did not add the statements of Ṣaḥābah and Ṭābi’īn in the main text of his book. Therefore, Imām Ḥākim and ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh are also correct. When they mentioned about the first person who gathered Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, they were referring to the first person to only quote Ṣaḥīḥ narrations.

Imām Nawawī assumed that if he adds this one word, then the statement would be correct. It combines both views. Shaykh Muḥammah ibn ‘Alawī al-Mālikī said:

النووي يرى أن الموطأ صحيح وأنه أول ما صنف في الصحيح ، لذلك قيد أولية البخاري بقوله: الصحيح المجرد! فيستفاد من كلامه أن أول من جمع من الصحيح مجردا عن الكلام والفروع والأثار هو البخاري، وأول من جمع الصحيح غير مجرد عن ذلك هو مالك فكأنه جمع بين القولين. (فضل الموطأ وعناية الأمة الإسلامية به – ص: 153)

“The view of Nawawī is that the Muwaṭṭa is authentic, and that Mālik was the first to compile a Ṣaḥīḥ, this is why he specified the preference of al-Bukhārī with the words ‘aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mujarrad’.

The benefit that is derived from his statement is that the first to compile a Ṣaḥīḥ void of any (other) speech, derived rulings and Āthār is al-Bukhārī, and the first to compile a Ṣaḥīḥ which is not free from these is Mālik. It is as though he has harmonised between the two views.” (Faḍl al-Muwaṭṭa – 153)

However, even with this additional word, it is still not entirely correct. To prove this, we need to look at the principles and criteria.

Principles and Rules on Which The Narrations are Being Judged

The documentation of principles of Aḥādīth only started in the fourth century. Then, it was only in the seventh century that ‘Allāmah Ibn as-Salah wrote his Muqaddimah, which become one of the leading books on Uṣūl.

It is important to note that in order to evaluate a report to determine the authenticity, the earlier scholars had their own methods and they employed their unique principles.

The books on the Uṣūl (principles) of Ḥadīth – and more specifically, the book of Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – were written centuries later and the principles that the authors of these books of Uṣūl cite are actually derived from the methodology of the earlier scholars. Hence, when going through the earlier books, we need to look at the author’s principles, and also the principles of the other scholars of his era.

We cannot evaluate and judge the books of earlier scholars based on principles that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh wrote hundreds of years after those scholars passed away! ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh only started to (conduct lessons and) write his Muqaddimah around the year 631 AH, whereas, Imām Mālik passed away in 179 AH. And he also started with the Muwaṭṭa decades before that. Imām Mālik cannot be judged by principles that were documented so long after their demise. A person cannot be bound by a constitution that is not even in existence.

In light of this point, there are some narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī as well that do not conform with the principles of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh. That means that Imām Bukhārī authenticated narrations that a rigid follower of the principles of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ would have to weaken.

Therefore, based on his own principles and the principles of the scholars of Madīnah, Imām Mālik was very convinced and satisfied that all the narrations of the Muwaṭṭa are authentic. Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Alawī al-Mālikī wrote:

إن هذه القواعد والمصطلحات التي قدروا بها الموطأ ووزنواه بها ، إنما اتفقوا عليها بعد الموطأ ، وهو سابق على وضعها المعروف الذي راعاه أهل المصنفات الصحيحة وعلى رأسهم البخاري ، فلا ينبغي أن تخضع الموطأ وهو كتاب متقدم لقواعد جديدة جاءت بعده ومتأخرة عنه (فضل الموطأ – ص: 163)

“These rules and terminologies they have evaluated and measured the Muwaṭṭa with were agreed upon after the Muwaṭṭa, and it is a precedent for its famous style that was observed by those who documented authentic works later, the leader of them being al-Bukhārī, so it is not befitting to lower the status of the Muwaṭṭa whilst it is the preceding book, because of new rules which came after it.” (Faḍl al-Muwaṭṭa – 163)

HISTORY OF THE CLAIM THAT ṢAḤĪH AL-BUKHĀRI IS THE MOST AUTHENTIC

It was around the year 631 AH – 632 AH that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh wrote this statement; claiming that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri was the first book on Ṣaḥīḥ narrations. That is the one claim; that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the first book. Taking it a step further, he thereafter wrote in the text ahead:

وكتاباهما أصح الكتب بعد كتاب الله العزيز. (معرفة علوم الحديث – ص: 18)

“And their two books are the most authentic after the honourable Book of Allāh.” (Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – 18)

We spoke above about the influence of Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ. It was from this book that everyone got the notion that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is ‘Aṣaḥ al-Kitāb Ba’d Kitābillāh’.

CONTRAST VIEW TO THE ABOVE

However, there was that one scholar who did raise an objection against ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh (and indirectly against all these scholars).

And that is none other than: ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī. Allāmah Mughulṭāī was the great Ḥanafī scholar who was born in 689 AH and passed away in 762 AH.

Since he was born only around 55 years after ‘Allāmāh Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, by then this view did not as yet get much prominence, since Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ was not yet a well circulated and widely accepted book.

He commented on what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ said:

غير جيد ، وإن كان قد قاله قبلَه غيرُهُ ، لأن مالكا رحمه الله بلا خلاف بين المحدثين صنف الصحيح قبله (إصلاح كتاب الصلاح – ص: 76)

“It is not very good, even if others before him may have said it, because Mālik – may – Allāh have mercy in him – documented the Ṣaḥīḥ before him, without any difference of opinions between the Muḥaddithūn…” (Iṣlāḥ Kitāb Ibn Ṣalāh – 76)

Then he responds to a possible objection that could be raised:

وليس لقائل أن يقول: لعله أراد الصحيح المجرد، فلا يرد كتاب مالك؛ لأن فيه البلاغَ والموقوفَ والمنقطعَ والفقهَ وغيرَ ذلك، لوجود مثل ذلك في كتاب البخاري (إصلاح كتاب ابن الصلاح – ص: 76)

“One cannot raise the objection that perhaps he referred to Ṣaḥīḥ al-mujarrad, so he is not referring to the book of Mālik, because it consists of Balāghāt, Mawqūf, and Munqaṭiʾ narrations, fiqh rulings etc, because the same exists in al-Bukhārī.” (Iṣlāḥ Kitāb Ibn Ṣalāh – 76)

This last sentence of his is a Daf’ Suwāl Muqaddar (response to an expected objection). He intends saying that before a person jumps to respond by saying that Imām Mālik quoted some statements that are not of the Prophet ﷺ, or that he cited narrations with missing links, or that he freely mentioned legal rulings and due to all of that the Muwaṭṭa became inferior to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, know well that Imām Bukhārī also cited these types of narrations. Imām Bukhārī did the same as Imām Mālik, so the objections levied against Imām Mālik fall squarely on Imām Bukhārī. Hence, that argument is invalid. It is as if he saying: Do not even try to put forward such a weak response or present such an invalid claim!

Despite ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī very clearly mentioning this, ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqi presented this exact argument that ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī already responded to!

‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqi responded to ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāi by claiming that the reason why Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī gets preference over the Muwaṭṭa is because Imām Mālik added Mursal, Munqati’ and Balāghāt. He wrote:

اعترض عليه ، بأن مالكا صنف الصحيح قبله. والجواب أن مالكا رحمه الله لم يفرد الصحيح ، بل أدخل فيه المرسل والمنقطع والبلاغات ، ومن بلاغاته أحاديث لا تعرف كما ذكره ابن عبد البر فلم يفرد الصحيح إذا والله أعلم. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 127)

“They raised the objection against him, because Mālik compiled a Ṣaḥīḥ before him. And the response is that Imām Mālik did not only mention Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, rather he also included Mursal, Munqaṭiʾ and Balāghāt. Amongst his Balāghāt are such narrations that are not known, like how Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr mentioned, thus he did not only mention Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, and Allah knows best.” (At-Taqyīd wal-Īḍāḥ – 1 / 127)

Surprisingly, ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwi also presented the same argument in Fatḥ al-Mughīth (The reason for saying surprisingly is that the link between ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwi and ‘Allāmah al-Irāqī is Ḥāfiḍh Ibn Ḥajar. ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwī generally always follows Ḥāfiḍh Ibn Ḥajar and he is the absolute most loyal student of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar. He always tried to defend his teacher and had absolute regard for his views. Yet on this issue, ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwi did not follow Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar, despite it being so clear that Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar is correct):

وموطأ مالك وإن كان سابقا فمصنفه لم يتقيد بما اجتمع فيه الشروط السابقة ، لإدخاله فيه المرسل والمنقطع ونحوهما على سبيل الاحتجاج بخلاف ما يقع في البخاري من ذلك (فتح المغيث – 1 / 46)

“The Muwaṭṭa of Mālik, albeit being the antecedent, the author did not comply with previous conditions, due to including mursal, munqaṭʾ and the likes as to provide evidence, as opposed to the marrations placed in al-Bukhārī.” (Fatḥ al-Mughīth – 1 / 46)

However, ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī clearly responded to this.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO IBN ḤAJAR

Ḥāfīdh Ibn Ḥajar who is known to be the greatest defender of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, objected on this response of his teacher, ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī. Despite always looking for the smallest reasons to defend Imām Bukhārī, on this he admitted that the point raised by ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī is correct. He claimed that his respected teacher, ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī did not notice that ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī already responded to this objection.

Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar wrote:

اعترض عليه الشيخ علاء الدين مغلطاي فيما قرأت بخطه بأن مالكا أول من صنف الصحيح، وتلاه أحمد بن حنبل، وتلاه الدارمي قال: “وليس لقائل أن يقول: لعله أراد الصحيح المجرد، فلا يرد كتاب مالك؛ لأن فيه البلاغ والموقوف والمنقطع والفقه وغير ذلك، لوجود مثل ذلك في كتاب البخاري”. انتهى.

وقد أجاب شيخنا – رضي الله عنه – عما يتعلق بالموطأ بما نصه: “أن مالكا لم يفرد الصحيح وإنما أدخل في كتابه المرسل والمنقطع…” إلى آخر كلامه.

وكأن شيخنا لم يستوف النظر في كلام مغلطاي. وإلا فظاهر مقبول بالنسبة إلى ما ذكره في البخاري من الأحاديث المعلقة، وبعضها ليس على شرطه، بل وفي بعضها ما لا يصح كما سيأتي التنبيه عليه عند ذكر تقسيم التعليق، فقد مزج الصحيح بما ليس منه كما فعل ذلك.

وكأن مغلطاي خشي أن يجاب عن اعتراضه بما أجاب به شيخنا من التفرقة، فبادر إلى الجواب عنه (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 128)

“Shaykh ʿAlāuddīn Mughulṭāī raised the objection – as I read in his own handwriting – that Mālik was the first to compile a Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Aḥmad bin Hambal followed suit and then ad-Dāramī followed thereafter. He said, ‘One cannot object saying that he refers to a ṣaḥīḥ mujarrad and thus does not refer to the book of Mālik, because it consists of Balāghāt, Mawqūf and Munqaṭiʾ narrations as well as Fiqh, etc, because the same is found in the Book of al-Bukhārī.’

Our Shaykh – may Allāh be pleased with him – responded regarding the statement made about the Muwaṭṭa that Mālik did not solely mention ṣaḥīḥ narrations, but he included marāsil and Munqaṭiʾ narrations etc…

It is as though our Shaykh did not consider the statement of Mughulṭāī, if he did, it seems to be acceptable in connection to what was mentioned regarding the Muʿallaq narrations of al-Bukhārī, some of it does not meet all his conditions, in fact, some are such that are not even authentic, the note regarding this will be mentioned at the reference of Taʾlīq, he has indeed mixed ṣaḥīḥ narrations with others just as Mālik done.

As though Mughulṭāī feared that the answer to his objection will be the same as the response of our Shaykh, thus he hastened to present a (prior) response.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 128)

Ḥāfidh Ibn Ḥajar admits that the same objection that is being raised against Imām Mālik could be raised against Imām Bukhārī (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with them all). We will, in shā Allāh, explain the next lesson that Imām Bukhārī also added narrations with missing links; and some with no chains at all. Hence, this argument of ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī is correct, and the words that ‘Allāmah al-Irāqi wrote do not respond to this argument.

Since the reality is that there are narrations with missing links and even with no chains altogether in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, if one were to use this as a reason to prefer Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī over the Muwaṭṭa, then, in all honesty and with the same benchmark, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim ought to get preference over Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, since such narrations are kal ‘Adam in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

For Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, when Imām Bukhārī left out any links, then scholars claimed that we can trust him. Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar agrees that we can also trust Imām Mālik, but he confines the benefit of trust to only those who follow Imām Mālik’s views. He wrote:

الذي في الموطأ من ذلك هو مسموع لمالك كذلك في الغالب، وهو حجة عنده وعند من تبعه. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 129)

“The narrations that appear in the Muwaṭṭa from amongst those are narrations Malik often heard in that way (without chains). They are considered to be a proof according to him and those who follow his views.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 129)

Firstly, this is unfair on Imām Mālik. Imām Bukhārī came much later and was undoubtedly junior to Imām Mālik, yet they claim that for Imām Bukhārī, everyone can trust him. But for the Muwaṭṭā, only the Mālikīs can trust him. That does not make any sense, especially when we know that Imām Mālik was just as particular in quoting only authentic narrations.

Nevertheless, in the first part of this sentence, Ḥafiḍh Ibn Ḥajar claims that Imām Mālik heard the narrations with no chain (implying that Imām Mālik did not even know the narrators of the chain, leave alone determining whether they are strong or not). Ḥafiḍh Ibn Ḥajar said:

الذي في الموطأ من ذلك هو مسموع لمالك كذلك في الغالب (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 129)

“The narrations that appear in the Muwaṭṭa from amongst those are narrations Malik often heard in that way (without chains). (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 129)

This statement of Ibn Ḥajar is baseless and without any substance or proof and hence, it is incorrect.

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah wrote:

قلت: في هذه الدعوى من الحافظ على الإمام مالك نظر طويل (تعليقة التدريب – 1 / 285)

“I reckon, in this claim of Ḥāfiḍ against Imām Mālik, there is a lot of reservations.” (Footnotes of Tadrīb, 1 / 285)

Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fullānī responded to the claim of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar saying:

وما ذكره من أن مالكاً سمعها كذلك غير مسلم، لأنه يذكر بلاغاً فى رواية يحيى مثلاً أو مرسلاً فيرويه غيره عن مالك موصولاً مسنداً. (الرسالة المستطرفة – ص: 5)

“And regarding what he mentioned; that ‘Mālik heard the narrations without any chain’ is not acceptable, because it is sometimes mentioned without a chain from Yaḥyā or mursalan, but other transmitters narrate it from Mālik with the entire chain.” (Ar-Risālah al-Mustaṭrifah – 5)

The chain for every Munqaṭiʾ narration in the Muwaṭṭa has been found. The same is not the case for Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. For Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, it is just an assumption and Ḥusn aḍ-Ḍann that he knew about the narrators and they are reliable. For the Muwaṭṭa, it is proven that they were reliable. Yet, Imām Mālik is being discredited, whereas Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is obtaining the privilege.

Likewise, Ibn Ḥajar claimed:

والذي في البخاري من ذلك قد حذف في البخاري أسانيدها عمداً ، ليخرجها عن موضوع الكتاب، وإنما يسوقها في تراجم الأبواب تنبيها واستشهادا استئناسا وتفسيرا لبعض الآيات. وكأنه أراد أن يكون كتابه جامعا لأبواب الفقه وغير ذلك من المعاني التي قصد جمعها فيه (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 129)

“Regarding the ones that are in al-Bukhārī, sometimes the chain was intentionally not mentioned, in order to remove them from the main text of the book, he cites in the Tarājim al-Abwāb as a notification, for support, to gain familiarity and an explanation to certain verses. It is as though he intended for his book to be a compilation of all the chapters of Fiqh and other topics which he intended to compile the meanings of.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 129)

However, we can claim that Imām Mālik also brought all these just to strengthen the point that he made with the stronger narrations.

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah uses that very incident that we mentioned of ‘Abdul ‘Azīz ibn ‘Abdillah al-Mājishūn to prove that the narrations of Muwaṭṭa can also be divided into Usūl and Mutāba’āt. Look at the words of Imām Mālik when he saw the book of Abdul ‘Azīz ibn Abdillāh al-Mājishūn :

قال غيره: أول من عمل الموطأ عبد العزيز بن الماجشون (ت 164 ه) عمله كلاماً بغير حديث فلما رآه مالك قال ما أحسن ما عمل ولو كنت أنا لبدأت بالآثار، ثم شددت ذلك بالكلام ثم عزم على تصنيف الموطأ. (ترتيب المدارك – 1 / 103)

Others say, “The first to compile a Muwaṭṭa was ʿAbdul ʿAzīz al-Mājishūn (passed away in the year 164 AH), he compiled it as his own statements, not as narrations from the Prophet ﷺ. When Mālik saw this, he said, ‘What a beautiful act he has done! If it was me, I would have began with Āthār, then I will strengthen it with Kalām’, thus he resolved to compile the Muwaṭṭa.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 103)

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah writes:

فوضح من هذا أن المرفوع في الموطأ هو الأصل عنده ، ومذاهب السلف تبع ، وهي بمنزلة ما في تراجم البخاري: للاستشهاد بها والائتناس (تعليقاته على التدريب – 1 / 280)

“It is quite clear from this that the Marfūʾ narrations of the Muwaṭṭa are the primary according to him, and the ways of predecessors are secondary, and it hold the same weight as the chapter headings of al-Bukhārī: being placed as support and to gain acquaintance.” (Taʾlīqāt ʿAlā at-Tadrīb- 1 / 280)

In fact, when one compares Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī with the Muwaṭṭa, it is clear that Imām al-Bukhāri was actually following the methodology of Imām Mālik when quoting these narrations with missing links, and he simply followed his same pattern. Amongst the specialities of the Muwaṭṭa, Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah wrote that it was the first book to be written in this style and sequence and it became a model for those who came thereafter. He wrote in his introduction to at-Ta’līq al-Mumajjad:

ومزيته ثالثا: أنه من مؤلفات منتصف القرن الثاني من الهجرة، فهو سابق غير مسبوق بمثله،

إذ هو أول كتاب في بابه، وللسابق فضل ومزية، إذ هو الإمام الذي سن التأليف الحديثي على أبواب الفقه، واقتدى به المؤتمون من ورائه مثل عبد الله بن المبارك، والبخاري، ومسلم، وسعيد بن منصور، وأبي داود، والترمذي، والنسائي، وابن ماجه وسواهم.

فهو بسبق حائز تفضيلا * مستوجب ثناءنا الجميلا

(تقدمة التعليق الممجد على موطأ محمد – 1 / 22)

“The third advantage is that it is of the writings of the middle of the second century after the Hijrah. He is thus unprecedented with such a work.

As it is the first book in its field, the pioneer has virtue and merit, for he is the Imām who enacted Ḥadīth compositions under jurispudic chapters. His method was then adhered to by personalities such as ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak, Bukhārī, Muslim, Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr, Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī, Nasāʾī, Ibn Mājah and others.

Superior is he for his preceding

Of beautiful tribute deserving.” (Taqdimah at-Taʾlīq al-Mumajjad – 1 / 22)

Therefore, we cannot ‘bless’ Imām Bukhārī with good thoughts, but ‘deprive’ Imām Mālik from the same, especially when Imām Mālik has more reasons on why you should accept the narrations, even though the chains are missing (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with them all).

Hence, Ṣāliḥ al-Fullānī said:

فلو أمعن الحافظ النظر في الموطأ كما أمعن النظر في البخاري لعلم أنه لا فرق بينهما (الرسالة المستطرفة – ص: 5)

“If Ḥāfiḍ had to deeply inspect the Muwaṭṭa, just as he did for al-Bukhārī, he would come to the conclusion that there is no difference between the two.” (Ar-Risālah al-Mustaṭrafah- 5)

Conclusion

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah says about the Muwaṭṭa:

فالصواب أن إعتراض مغلطاي بالموطأ صحيح سليم ودفاع الحافظ عن أولية البخاري دفاع من يحمل لواء الدفاع عن البخاري دائما. (تعليقة تدريب الراوي – 2 / 280)

“The correct view is that the objections of Mughulṭāī are accurate and sound. The attempt al-Ḥāfiḍ for the preference of al-Bukhārī, is the defence of one who always carries the banner of defence for al-Bukhārī.”

In short, the I’tirāḍ (objection) of ‘Allāmah al-Mughulṭāī over the statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the first book to be written on Ṣaḥīḥ is all in place. The answers that ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar tried to give are merely answers of one who just defends Imām Bukhārī .

If not more authentic, then at least the Muwaṭṭa should be on par with Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. And if it is on par and was written first, then this statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn Ṣalāḥ will not be precise.

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك ، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت ، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك