بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

14 Safar, 1444 AH (Friday, 1 September , 2023)

Last week we quoted the objections that ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī raised against ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī. ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī said:

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)

“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)

However, before he could even raise the objection, ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī already responded:

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)

Hāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar had to side with ‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī on this.

Fortunately, we have both books at our disposal. Hence, we can peruse through both books and check for ourselves whether this claim is correct; that in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī you also get these types of narrations. The reality is that indeed, just as there are narrations with missing links in the Muwaṭṭā, there are also narrations with missing links Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

Imām Bukhārī also quoted narrations like these (where he omits the chain entirely, where he quotes the words of others besides the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), or mentions narrations with missing links, or passes his own objections etc). This is very clear for any person who reads Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. 

And, there is proof that all of these are quoted in a stronger way in the Muwaṭṭa and almost all have been found to be authentic, whereas this is not the case with Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. 

Let us dissect and inspect this answer of ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqi .

MARĀSĪL

The first objection raised by ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī is that there are Mursal narrations in the Muwaṭṭā.

There is no problem at all with this, since Imām Mālik is of the view that Marāsīl are authentic. The great Māliki commentator, ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abdil Barr wrote:

وأصل مذهب مالك رحمه الله والذي عليه جماعة أصحابنا المالكيين: أن مرسل الثقة تجب به الحجة ويلزم به العمل ، كما يجب بالمسند سواء. (مقدمة التمهيد – المطبوع في خمس رسائل – ص: 40)

“The basis of the Maḍab of Mālik and the opinion of the majority of out Mālikī scholars, may Allāh have mercy on them, is that the Mursal narration of a reliable transmitted are accepted as evidence and practicing upon it is necessary, just like the necessity of Musnad narrations.” (Muqaddimah at-Tamhīd – 40)

Imām Malik follows the view of all the scholars of Madīnah.  They all accept Mursal narrations.

Actually, the majority of earlier scholars accepted Mursal. ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Bar quotes the statement of Imām aṭ-Ṭabarī  where he said:

وزعم الطبري أن التابعين بأسرهم أجمعوا على قبول المرسل ولم يأت عنهم إنكاره ولا عن أحد أئمة بعدهم إلى رأس المائتين. (مقدمة التمهيد – المطبوع في خمس رسائل – ص: 47)

“Ṭabarī claimed that all the Tābiʿūn agree upon the acceptance of Mursal narrations, none of them denied it, nor did anyone deny it from the any of the leaders up until the beginning of the second century.” (Muqaddimah at-Tamhīd – 47)

Imām Nawawī mentioned in his commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:

وذهب مالك وأبو حنيفة وأحمد وأكثر الفقهاء إلى جواز الإحتجاج بالمرسل. (المنهاج  – ص: 132)

“The opinion of Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah and majority of the Jurists lean towards the acceptance of Mursal narrations as evidence.” (Al-Minhāj – 132)

Majority of the Fuqahā were of the view that Mursal narrations can be accepted.

Therefore, when judging and grading the Muwaṭṭā, we have to grade it according to the standards of the author, Imām Mālik. If we do not apply the standards of the authors, then even Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim will lose credibility. Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ḥasanī explains:

إن البخاري اشترط اللقاء ولم يشترطه مسلم الذي يرى أن عدم النص على اللقاء لا يوجب رد الحديث ، فما قال أحد بأن صحيح مسلم  ليس بصحيح – لرأيه هذا بل تقبلوه قبولا حسنا – مراعاة لشرطة الأصلي وهو التزام الصحة. وكذلك يرى مالك أن الانقطاع ليس قادحا في السند فينبغي أن يتقبل رأيه هذا أيضا مراعاة لما هو معروف من التزامه الصحة (فضل الموطأ – ص: 162 – 163)

“Bukhārī placed the condition of liqā’, whereas Muslim did not place such a condition, his opinion is that if the narrators did not meet then this does not necessitate discarding the ḥadīth. No one ever claimed that Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is not authentic – due to this opinion of his – rather they gladly accepted it, taking into consideration his original condition, which is compliance of authenticity. Similarly, the opinion of Mālik is that Inqiṭāʾ does not cause a rejection in the chain, so it befitting to accept this opinion too, taking into consideration the fact that he is well known to comply with requirements of authenticity.” (Faḍl al-Muwaṭṭa: 162 – 163)

The teacher of Imām Mālik, Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd  did not find any problem with the Marāsīl of the Muwaṭṭa. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ relates:

وقال يحيى بن سعيد القطان، وذكرت من مرسلات السفيانيين والشعبي والأعمش وغيرهم. فقال: في بعضها شبه الريح وشبه لا شيء. قيل له فمرسلات مالك؟ قال هي أحب إلي. ليس في القوم اصح حديثاً منه. وقدمه في أصحاب الزهري. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 65)

“Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān said. when the Mursalāt of the two Sufyāns’, Shaʾbī, Aʾmash and others were mentioned to him: ‘Some of them are like a gust of wind and others are like nothing.’ Then the Mursalāt of Mālik was mentioned to which he said, ‘It is more preferable to me, none from the people narrate more accurately than he does.” He also preferred him from the companions of az-Zuhrī.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 65)

Even Shāfi’īs do not completely reject Mursal. They accept it when certain conditions are found. And those conditions are fulfilled for every Mursal narration in the Muwaṭṭa!

Firstly, take into consideration the following claim of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar :

.فكتابه صحيح عنده وعند من تبعه ممن يحتج بالمرسل والموقوف. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 129)

“His Book is authentic according to him and according to those who follow him by deriving evidence through Mursal and Mawqūf narrations.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 129)

With this sentence, he does not realize that he also falls among them since he also accepts Mursal! Because, there is support for each and every Mursal narration in the Muwaṭṭa.

‘Allāmah Suyūṭī , who is a Shāfi’ī scholar, admitted:

ما من مرسل في الموطأ إلا وله عاضد أو عواضد فالصواب إطلاق أن الموطأ صحيح لا يستثنى منه شيء. (تنوير الحوالك – ص: 7)

“There is no Mursal narration found in the Muwaṭṭa except that support, and in fact numerous support, is found for it, thus the correct view is that the Muwaṭṭa is Ṣaḥīḥ, without any reservations.” (Tamwīr al-Ḥawālik -7)

Likewise, Shaykh Ṣālīh al-Fullānī said:

وما ذكر من كون مراسيل الموطأ حجة عند مالك ومن تبعه دون غيرهم: مردود بأنها حجة عند الشافعي وأهل الحديث، لاعتضادها كلها بمسند ذكره ابن عبد البر والسيوطي وغيرهما. (الرسالة المستطرفة – ص  5)

“And the objection that is raised regarding the Marāsīl of the Muwaṭṭa being considered as a Ḥujjah only according to Mālik and those who follow him and not anyone else is baseless due to the fact that it is considered to be a Ḥujjah according to Imām ash-Shāfiʿī and other Muḥaddithūn, due to the fact that supporting chains are found for each such narration, which is mentioned by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, as-Suyūṭī and others.” (Ar-Risālah al-Mustaṭrafah- 5)

For every Mursal narration in the Muwaṭṭa, there is one or more collaborating chain of transmission/ other Asānīd to support it.

That means that even the Shāfi’īs will have to accept that the Marāsīl of Muwaṭṭa are all authentic. Therefore, this argument falls away, and ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī  and ‘Allāmah as-Sakhāwī  cannot use this to consider the Muwaṭṭa as weaker, since they too, have to accept the authenticity of the Marāsīl of the Muwaṭṭa.

This also explains why Imām ash-Shāfi’ī did not focus on the Marāsīl when claiming that the Muwaṭṭa is the most authentic book. He obviously came across the Marāsīl whilst he was reading the book, yet he still claimed that it was the most authentic book after the Qurān!

In short, this ‘defect’; that ‘Allāmah al-Irāqī raises will be null and void.

MUNQAṬI’

Thereafter, ‘Allāmah al-Irāqī mentions that there are also Munqaṭi’ narrations in the Muwaṭṭa; narrations with missing links in the chains of transmission.

‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī claimed that there are also Munqaṭi’ narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. In order to determine which of the two books is more authentic, we will have compare the Munqaṭi’ narrations of the Muwaṭṭa with the Munqaṭi’ narrations of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

MUNQATI’ NARRATIONS IN KHAYR AL-QURŪN

But before even doing that, know that according to many earlier Ḥanafīs, if any Imām in Khayr al-Qurūn drops off links, the narration is still accepted. ‘Abū Bakar al-Jaṣṣās quotes the student of Imām Muḥammad, ‘Allāmah ‘Īsā ibn Abān as saying:

وأما عيسى بن أبان فإنه قال : من أرسل من أهل زماننا حديثا عن النبي عليه السلام فإن كان من أئمة الدين – وقد نقله عن أهل العلم – فإن مرسله مقبول ، كما يقبل مسنده (الفصول في الأصول – 3 / 146)

ʿĪsā ibn Abān stated, “If anyone in our era narrates a Ḥadīth from the Prophet ﷺ Mursalan, and if he is from the leaders of the Dīn, and he quotes it from scholars, then his Mursal narration is accepted, just as his Musnad transmission is.” (Al-Fuṣūl fī al-Uṣūl – 3 / 146)

(In this statement, Mursal is used in the meaning of Munqaṭi’.)

There is no doubt that Imām Mālik is an Imām.

Therefore, as Ḥanafīs, we do not even need to discuss further. Even if there are narrations with missing links, they are fine. A Ḥanafi would have no option but to agree that the Muwaṭṭa is more authentic.

However, just to verify that those narrations with missing links are indeed stronger than the narrations with missing links in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, we will analyse this further.

MU’ALLAQ NARRATIONS OF ṢAḤĪḤ AL-BUKHĀRĪ

Ḥāfid Ibn Ḥajar said:

.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. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 128)

“It seems to be acceptable in connection to what was mentioned regarding the Muʿallaq narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Some of it do 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.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 128)

Therefore, we can compare the narrations with missing links in the Muwaṭṭa with the Ta’līqāt of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri.

There are 1341 Mu’allaq narrations (narrations with no Sanad) mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri. Ibn Ḥajar said:

فجملة ما في الكتاب من التعاليق: ألف وثلاثمائة وأحد وأربعون (نكت العسقلاني / الإفصاح – 1 / 171) 

“The total number of Taʾlīqāt in his Book is one thousand three hundred and forty one.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 171)

Indeed, this is a huge amount!

QUESTION: If the chains are not mentioned, then what are the rulings of these Mu’allaq narrations?

ANSWER: There are two ways in which Imām al-Bukhārī quoted the narrations when he did not use the chains:

1)       He used decisive words (Ṣiyagh al-Jazm)

2)       He uses doubtful words (Ṣiyagh at-Tamrīḍ)

Many people assume that all the Mu’allaqāt are authentic, especially when Imām al-Bukhārī uses the Ṣīgha al-Jazm (words of conviction). This again is all because ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh mentioned in his Muqaddimah:

السادسة: ما أسنده البخاري ومسلم – رحمهما الله – في كتابيهما بالإسناد المتصل فذلك الذي حكما بصحته بلا إشكال. وأما [المعلق وهو] الذي حذف من مبتدأ إسناده واحد أو أكثر، وأغلب ما وقع ذلك في كتاب البخاري، وهو في كتاب مسلم قليل جدا، ففي بعضه نظر.

وينبغي أن نقول: ما كان من ذلك ونحوه بلفظ فيه جزم، وحكم به على من علقه عنه، فقد حكم بصحته عنه (معرفة علوم الحديث المعروف بمقدمة ابن الصلاح  – ص: 24)

“The sixth: the Musnad narrations of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, may Allāh have mercy on them both, in their books, mentioned with Muttaṣil chains; then that is (as if) they graded the narration as authentic, without any objections.

Regarding the Muʿallaq narrations, that is when one or more narrators are left out in the beginning of the chain, and this happens frequently in the Book of al-Bukhārī and very rarely in the Book of Muslim, some of these narrations need to be inspected.

It is befitting for us to say: if any statements are used with words of conviction, and he issued the verdict to who he is suspending the narration from (from one who he narrated from Taʾlīqan), then it will be considered as authentic.” (Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – 24)

However, Ibn Ḥajar, a master of Ṣaḥīh al-Bukhāri and a faithful follower of Imām al-Bukhāri admitted that many of the Ta’līqāt do not fulfil the conditions of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. He wrote:

أقول: بل الذي يتقاعد عن شرط البخاري كثير ليس بالقليل ، إلا أن يريد بالقلة قلة نسبية إلى باقي ما في الكتاب فيتجه، بل جزم أبو الحسن ابن القطان بأن التعاليق التي لم يوصل البخاري إسنادها ليست على شرطه، وإن كان ذلك لا يقبل من ابن القطان على ما سنوضحه.

وأما قول ابن الصلاح – في التعليق الممرض -: “ليس في شيء منه حكم بالصحة على من علقه عنه” فغير مسلم لأن جميعه صحيح عنده، وإنما يعدل عن الجزم لعلة تزحزحه عن شرطه.

وهذا بشرط أن يسوقه مساق الاحتجاج به، فأما ما أورده من ذلك على سبيل التعليل له والرد أو صرح بضعفه، فلا. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 234)

“I would say, “Those that do not fulfill the requirements of al-Bukhārī are many, and not just a few, unless he means that it is relatively fewer than the rest of the Book, then that could be considered. Rather Abū al-Ḥasan ibn al-Qaṭṭān asserted that the chains of those Taʾlīqāt that do not reach al-Bukhārī are not according to his conditions, and they are not acceptable according to Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, as will be explained in detail.

As for the statement of Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh – regarding the Taʾlīq al-Mumarraḍ -: ‘None of them have the ruling of Ṣiḥḥah up to whom he suspended it from (he made Taʾlīq upon)’, then this is not acceptable, because it is all considered as authentic according to him. He only did not mention it with conviction because of it falling short of fulfilling his stringent conditions.

And this is on the condition he cites it as evidence. If it is only mentioned to explain the hidden defect, to refute or to clarify any weakness, then no.”  (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 234)

Bear in mind that Ibn Ḥajar dedicated lots of time to studying the Ta’līqāt of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. He even wrote Taghlīq at-Ta’līq. So his statement holds more weight compared to that of Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh.

‘Allāmah Mughluṭāy cited an example to show that even though Imām al-Bukhārī  used a Ṣīghat al-Jazm, the narration is still not authentic according to him. He wrote:

فهذا كما ترى ذكر شيء مجزوما به وهو غير صحيح عنده. (إصلاح كتاب الصلاح – ص: 85)

“So this, as you can see, is something mentioned with conviction but it is not authentic according to him.” (Iṣlāḥ Kitāb aṣ-Ṣalāḥ – 85)

Numerous other examples can be given in lessons dedicated to studying the Ta’līqāt of Ṣahīḥ al-Bukhāri. If we go through each and every Mu’āllaq narration and we analyse all 1341, you will see so many more examples of narrations that do not fulfill his conditions. Since it is not possible to go through every narration, we will just suffice with the statement of Ḥāfid Ibn Ḥajar, who:

1)       Went through every narration

2)       Was biased towards Imām al-Bukhārī

Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar then mentions the ruling in his Nukat:

فأما الأول فهو صحيح إلى من علّقه عنه ويبقى النظر فيما أبرز من رجاله. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 238)

“As for the first, it is considered to be authentic until the one it reaches. But the requirement remains to inspect the names that he explicitly revealed.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 238)

He is basically saying that we can trust that all those names that Imām al-Bukhārī omitted in the chain, they are all trustworthy and reliable narrators. Hence, we can trust that the chain is authentic until the narrator’s name that he mentions.

Now we only need to inspect the chain from the narrators whose names are clearly mentioned. We can trust Imām al-Bukhārī on the missing links, and we only need to scrutinize the names that are revealed in the book.

Hāfīdh Ibn Ḥajar is admitting that we will need to inspect the names that are disclosed and listed.

فالحكم بصحته يتوقف على اتصال الإسناد بينه وبين الصحابي. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 238)

“The ruling of its authenticity is dependent on the Ittiṣāl of the chain between him and the Ṣaḥābī.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 238)

‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar  then brought examples for it.

In Huda as-Sārī as well he spoke of this:

والثاني وهو ما لا يوجد فيه إلا معلقا فإنه على صورتين إما أن يورده بصيغة الجزم وإما أن يورده بصيغة التمريض فالصيغة الأولى يستفاد منها الصحة إلى من علق عنه لكن يبقى النظر فيمن أبرز من رجال ذلك الحديث فمنه ما يلتحق بشرطه ومنه ما لا يلتحق أما ما يلتحق  (هدى الساري – ص: 14)

“The second is: If it is only found Muʿallaqan; then it can be of two possible forms: (1) either he mentions it with decisive words or (2) he mentions it with doubtful words. Thus the first type can be considered as authentic depending on who he mentions until, but we will still need to inspect those narrators that are mentioned in that narration as they may be some that adhere to his conditions and some that do not.” (Hudā as-Sārī – 14)

He further enforces this:

فعرف من هذا أن مجرد جزمه بالتعليق لا يدل على صحة الإسناد الا إلى من علق عنه وأما ما فوقه فلا يدل وقد حققت ذلك فيما كتبته على بن الصلاح وذكرت له أمثلة وشواهد ليس هذا موضع بسطها (فتح الباري – 1 / 386)

“Hence it is known from this that him merely mentioning a Taʾlīq with conviction does not prove it’s authenticity of the chain, except until the narrator mentioned. As for those above him, then it does not indicate toward it, this is further clarified by what I wrote (in my commentary of the book of) Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, at that place I mentioned the examples and shawāhid, this is not the place to mention it,” (Fatḥ al-Bārī – 1 / 386)

When Imām Bukhārī brings something with the words of Jazm then all that it proves is that from Imām Bukhārī till the person whose name he takes, the Sanad will be authentic. However, the remaining portion of the Sanad which Imām Bukhārī mentions will still have to be investigated. This is because with research certain narrations were found that:

1. Did not fulfill the conditions of Imām Bukhārī .
2. At times are even weak.

Let us cite one example of a narration that Imām al-Bukhāri mentioned with Jazm, yet, we will have to grade it as weak. We quote from the master himself; Ibn Ḥajar:

ومثال التعليق الجازم ، الذي يضعف بسبب الانقطاع:

قوله في كتاب الزكاة: وقال طاوس: قال معاذ لأهل اليمن: “ائتوني بعرض ثياب خميص أو لبيس في الصدقة مكان الشعير والذرة أهون عليكم وخير لأصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم.

والإسناد صحيح الى طاوس، قد رويناه في كتاب الخراج ليحيى بن آدم عن سفيان بن عيينة عن عمرو بن دينار وابراهيم بن ميسرة عن طاوس، لكنه منقطع؛ لان طاوسا لم يسمع من معاذ والله تعالى اعلم. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 241)

“Examples of at-Taʾlīq al-Jāzim, which is considered weak due to Inqiṭāʾ:

His statement in the Chapter of Zakāh: Ṭāwus said: Muaḍ (may Allāh be pleased with him) said to the people of Yemen, “Bring to me your used garments in charity in place of barley and millet, it will be easy for you and better for the companions of Muḥammad ﷺ.

The chain is authentic until Ṭāwūs, we have mentioned it in the Chapter of Ikhrāj to Yaḥyā bin Ādam from Sufyān bin ʿUyayanah from ʿAmr bin Dīnār and Ibrāhīm bin Maysarah from Ṭāwūs; but the chain is Munqaṭiʾ, because Ṭāwūs did not hear from Muʿāḍ (may Allāh be pleased with him), and Allāh knows best.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 241)

Here, Imām Bukhārī is mentioning a Ta’līq with Jazm wording, but still it is weak. The Sanad from Imām Bukhārī until Ṭāwūs is (assumed to be) authentic, but not from Ṭāwūs until Mu’ādh; Ṭāwūs did not hear from Mu’āḍh, which means that Ṭāwūs also narrated it as Mu’allaq.

In Fatḥ al-Bārī, Ibn Ḥajar says:

فلا يغتر بقول من قال ذكره البخاري بالتعليق الجازم فهو صحيح عنده لان ذلك لا يفيد الا الصحة الى من علّق عنه. (فتح الباري – 3 / 312)

“One should not be deceived by the statement of those who claim that since Bukhārī brought it with a decisive taʾlīq, it is authentic according to him, because that does not show authenticity except until the narrator mentioned.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī – 3 / 312)

This proves that there are narrations that Imām al-Bukhārī quoted Mu’allaqan with a Ṣīghah Jazm that are not authentic. Ḥāfīdh Ibn Ḥajar is admitting to this. He also says:

هذا من المواضع التي ينبه عليها من يغتر بتعميم قوله إن تعليق الجازم صحيح. (فتح الباري –13 / 159)

“These are from the places that should be noted by those who are deceived by the generalization of his statement that the decisive taʾlīqāt are authentic.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī – 13 / 159)

Hence, Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah then says:

فما شاع على الألسن أن المعلقات المجزوم بها صحيحة غير صحيح.

“The statement that have spread that the decisive muʾallaqāt are authentic, is not correct.”

Now, looking at this whole explanation of Ḥāfid Ibn Ḥajar: We accept that we need to inspect the names that Imām al-Bukhārī listed, since it is proven that the narrators are not of the highest caliber, and Imām al-Bukhārī was also lenient. 

But the more important thing is that on what basis is Ibn Ḥajar claiming that the chain is authentic until the name? It is because he is trusting Imām al-Bukhārī!

Conclusion and Getting to the Point

That leads to the point of this long explanation: what am I trying to get at my mentioning all this: if you can trust Imām al-Bukhāri when he leaves out names in the chains, then why can we not trust Imām Mālik when he does the same?

Imām Mālik has more reasons for us to trust him:

1)       He was earlier than Imām al-Bukhārī .

2)       There is no doubt the he was greater than Imām al-Bukhārī .

3)       He was much stricter than Imām al-Bukhārī .

4)       He hardly narrated from anyone weak.

Hence, if you have Imām al-Bukhāri, who is from the third century, and you have Imām Mālik (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on them both) who is from the second century leaving out links, whose narration would be more deserving to be accepted?

Of course, it will be Imām Mālik’s. He probably left out a Tābi’ī, or he omitted the name of a very senior scholar of Madīna, whereas Imām al-Bukhāri is leaving out someone who came much further from the golden era of Prophethood.

Secondly, Imām Mālik could be omitting just one or two links, whereas (since the chains became longer), Imām al-Bukhāri could be leaving out the names of three or even four narrators.

Remember how strict Imām Mālik was. He was very specific about who he took knowledge from. We cited that quotation of Ismā’īl Ibn Abī Uwais, where he said:

سمعت خالي مالك بن أنس يقول ان هذا العلم دين فانظروا عمن تأخذون دينكم لقد أدركت سبعين ممن يقول: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عند هذه الأساطين ، وأشار الى مسجد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم،  فما أخذت عنهم شيئا ، وان أحدهم لو اؤتمن على بيت مال لكان أمينا إلا أنهم لم يكونوا من أهل هذا الشأن وقدم علينا ابن شهاب فكنا نزدحم على بابه (الإنتقاء في فضائل الثلاثة الأئمة الفقهاء – ص: 46)

“I heard my uncle Mālik bin Anas saying, ‘Indeed this knowledge is the religion, so be wary of who you attain it from. I have met seventy of those who quote the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ by these pillars – and he indicated to the Masjid of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ – but I have not taken any knowledge from them. If one of them had to be appointed in charge of the Bayt al-Māl (public treasury), he would most definitely be trustworthy, but they are not from the people of this matter (science). Ibn Shihāb came to us and we would crowd at his door.” (Al-Intiqā – 46)

Ibn ‘Abdil Bar mentioned a beautiful statement in his introduction of at-Tamhīd. He said:

لعلم الإسناد طرق يصعب سلوكها على من لم يصل بعنايته اليها ، ويقطع كثيرا من أيامه فيها ، ومن اقتصر على حديث مالك رحمه الله، فقد كفى تعب التفتيش والبحث ، ووضع يده من ذلك على عروة وثقى لا تنفصم ، لأن مالكا قد انتقد وانتقى وخلص ، ولم يرو إلا عن ثقة حجة ….(مقدمة التمهيد – المطبوع في خمس رسائل – ص: 143)

“The knowledge of Isnād has different methods that are challenging to attain if it’s not approached with special attention, and if he does not dedicate a large portion of his time towards it. But whoever confines himself to the narrations of Mālik, may Allāh shower His mercy on him, then he has sufficed himself from the strenuous task of inspecting and researching, and he has grasped an unbreakable handle, because verily Mālik has analysed, carefully selected and thus concluded. And he specifically only narrated from reliable narrators that were considered to be a Ḥujjah.” (Muqaddimah at-Tamhīd – 143)

With this kind of caution, if a person was weak, it is definite that Imām Mālik would not narrate from him, but secretly drop off or even conceal his name. If he did so by mistake in his Muwaṭṭa, he would have corrected it over the dozens of revisions. If he missed it, the audience were competent enough to notice it, and they would have corrected it.

Those are with regards to the Mu’allaqāt. The conclusion from this brief explanation – for which there are many more examples – is that just as there are missing links in narrations of the Muwaṭṭa, there are also missing links in narrations of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. For now, we are ignoring the fact that Imām al-Bukhāri mentions these types of narration in the chapter headings, and Imām Mālik  narrates them as the main text of the Kitāb. We are just focusing on the fact that both Imām al-Bukhāri and Imām Mālik (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on them both) narrate with missing links.

قال أبو يوسف: وقد تحققت من الاستقصاء وذكر الأسامي اسما فاسما لأن جملة الأمر أن مالك بن أنس لم يضع في الموطأ إسنادا وأظهر اسما يحدث عنه إلا وهو ثقة خلا عبد الكريم بن أمية فإنه ضعيف وكان له رأي سوء، وقد كتبت ما انتهى إلينا من مناقبهم وشمائلهم في الجزء الرابع. (المعرفة والتاريخ – 1/ 425)

Ṣiyagh at-Tamrīḍ

When the Mu’āllaq narrations are transmitted with Ṣiyagh at-Tamrīḍh, then there is even more trust and Ḥusn adh-Ḍhann for Imām al-Bukhārī. If Imām al-Bukhāri used doubtful words, then there are much more chances for the narration to be weak. Yet, Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned:

وأما ما لم يكن في لفظه جزم وحكم، مثل: روي عن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – كذا وكذا، أو روي عن فلان كذا، أو في الباب عن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – كذا وكذا، فهذا وما أشبهه من الألفاظ ليس في شيء منه حكم منه بصحة ذلك عمن ذكره عنه؛ لأن مثل هذه العبارات تستعمل في الحديث الضعيف أيضا. ومع ذلك فإيراده له في أثناء الصحيح مشعر بصحة أصله إشعارا يؤنس به ويركن إليه، والله أعلم. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح المعروف بمعرفة علوم الحديث ص: 25)

“As for statements made without certainty and decisiveness, for example, he narrated such and such from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, or he narrated such from so-and-so, or, in this chapter such narrations are found from the Prophet ﷺ, then the ruling of such statements and it’s like, it does not include the ruling of authenticity from who he narrates, because such statements are also used in weak narrations. Nonetheless, since Imām al-Bukhārī cited it in his Ṣaḥīḥ, that subtely indicates to its authenticity; such an indication that we are really comfortable and inclined towards, and Allāḥ knows best.” (Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh – 25)

If you are having so much trust on Imām al-Bukhārī , you need to have more trust on a scholar who Imām al-Bukhāri held in esteem and had great regard for. Imām al-Bukhārī even regarded specific narrations of Imām Mālik’s  to be from ‘the golden chain’. It is also quoted from him:

قال البخاري: مالك أثبت الناس في الزهري. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 65)

Imām al-Bukhārī said, “Mālik is the most established student of az-Zuhrī.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 65)

NARRATIONS WHERE IMĀM AL-BUKHĀRĪ USES THE WORD قال

Furthermore, there are places where Imām al-Bukhārī uses the word قال and quotes from his Shuyūkh. He does not say: Ḥaddathanā or Qāla Lanā, he simply says Qāla. No one can accept that those quotations are authentic. There is no proof whether Imām al-Bukhārī heard those narrations directly from his teacher, or whether he heard them from an intermediary.

Ibn Ḥajar explains the status of such narrations by saying:

والذي تبين لي بالاستقراء من صنيعه أنه لا يعبر في ‘الصحيح’ بذلك إلا في الأحاديث الموقوفة أو المستشهد بها ، ليخرج ذلك – حيث يحتاج إليه – عن أصل مساق الكتاب. و من تأمل ذلك في كتابه وجده كذلك (نكت العسقلاني – 2 / 217)

“What has become clear to me through thouroughly researching his methodology is that it cannot be expressed as ‘authentic’ except for the mawqūf narrations or narrations which have support, so that, where necessary, this is excluded from the original context of the book. Whosoever reflects on this, will find it to be such.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 2 / 217)

In Fatḥ al-Bāri, he further explains:

قوله وقال لنا محمد بن يوسف هو الفريابي قيل: عبر بهذه الصيغة لأنه مما أخذه من شيخه في المذاكرة فلم يقل فيه حدثنا وقيل إن ذلك مما تحمله بالإجازة أو المناولة أو العرض وقيل هو متصل من حيث اللفظ ، منقطع من حيث المعنى ، والذي ظهر لي بالاستقراء خلاف ذلك وهو أنه متصل لكنه لا يعبر بهذه الصيغة إلا إذا كان المتن موقوفا أو كان فيه راو ليس على شرطه والذي هنا من قبيل الأول وقد وصله الإسماعيلي (فتح الباري – 2/ 188)

“Regarding his statement: ‘Muḥammad bin Yusūf al-Firyābī said to us’, it has been claimed, ‘He used this expression, because it is from what he gained from his teacher in a muḍākarah (general conversation); hence, he did not say ‘Ḥaddathanā’ for it. It is mentioned that this holds the possibility of Ijāzah, Munāwalah or ʿArd (different ways of acquiring a narration).’ It is also mentioned that it is Muttaṣil, taking the words into consideration and munqaṭiʾ because of the meaning. What became clear to me through independent research contradicts this, and that it that it is muttaṣil but he does not use these words except if the text is Mawqūf or it consists of such a narrator that does not follow all the conditions. Whatever forms part of the first type, Ismāʿīlī brought uninterrupted chains for them.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī – 2 / 188)

Later on in Fatḥ al-Bārī he writes:

قوله وقال لنا أحمد بن حنبل هذا فيما قيل أخذه المصنف عن الإمام أحمد في المذاكرة أو الإجازة والذي ظهر لي بالاستقراء أنه إنما استعمل هذه الصيغة في الموقوفات وربما استعملها فيما فيه قصور ما عن شرطه والذي هنا من الشق الأول (فتح الباري – 9 / 154)

“Concerning his statement: ‘Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said to us’ this statement is use for instances where the author gained it from Imām Aḥmad in a Muḍākarah or through Ijāzah. What became evident to me through research is that this form is used in mawqūfāt and is sometimes used when there is a deficiency in the conditions, and what is mentioned here falls under the first category.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī – 9 / 154)

This is the ruling, and Imām al-Bukhārī quotes very frequently like this in his Ṣaḥīḥ. If you want to make Husn aḍ-Ḍhan (maintaining a good thought) and claim that Imām al-Bukhāri heard it directly from the person who he is quoting from or via reliable people, then the same Ḥusn aḍ-Ḍhan has to be made for Imām Mālik. Hence, the argument falls away.

Earlier we mentioned four reasons why Imām Mālik  is deserving of Ḥusn aḍh-Ḍhan. We said:

1)       He was earlier,

2)       He was greater,

3)       He was stricter,

4)  He hardly narrated from anyone weak.

To add a fifth reason, which is the strongest: Imām Mālik  does not even need us to make Ḥusn aḍh-Ḍhan. All the missing links of the Muwaṭṭa have been found, whereas this is not the case with Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. If you looking at the narration individually in the Muwaṭṭa, you will say that there is a missing link. But when you focus on the narration as a whole, the Matn (text) will have to be graded as authentic, since the chains are found in other books.

 ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abdil Bar wrote:

ووصلت كل مقطوع جاء متصلا من غير رواية مالك ، وكل مرسل جاء مسندا من غير طريقه رحمة الله عليه ، فيما بلغني علمه وصح بروايتي جمعه (مقدمة التمهيد – المطبوع في خمس رسائل – ص: 55)

“I gathered all the maqṭūʾ narrations that are also found muttaṣilan by others besides Mālik, every Mursal narration is found with its full chain from a Ṭarīq other than that of Imām Mālik’s (may Allāh have mercy on him), these are what I came to know of and found to be correct.” (Muqaddimah at-Tamhīd – 55)

 ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Bar gathered the unbroken chains for all the narrations that are transmitted with missing links in the Muwaṭṭa. Likewise, al-Ḥāfiḍḥ Abūl Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Muḍhaffar al-Bazzār (d. 379 AH) wrote an entire treatise on this. ‘Allāmah aḍ-Ḍhahabī mentions about this in Siyar ‘Alām an-Nubalā:

وعمل محمد بن المظفر الحافظ ما وصله مالك خارج موطئه (سير أعلام النبلاء – 8 / 86)

“Al-Ḥāfiḍh Muḥammad bin al-Muḍhaffar wrote regarding the supporting narrations outside of the Muwaṭṭa.” (Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā – 8 / 86)

This one reason has to be enough to show that the Munqaṭi’ narrations of the Muwaṭṭa supersede and are stronger than the Munqaṭi narrations of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī! The missing links for the chains of Muwaṭṭa have been found, and there are narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī which has missing links, and we do not have any idea on who the missing narrators are.

Hence, this answer of ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī’s  also falls away and it is not valid.

Even when looking at the excuses of dropping the links, Ibn Ḥajar claims that Imām al-Bukhāri  had a valid reason to drop off narrators. The same can be said about Imām Mālik. He too left out the Asānīd intentionally in the same manner as Imām al-Bukhārī did. There are proofs for this. In Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥibbān quotes under the commentary of Ḥadīth number 5185:

رفع عنه هذا الخبر عن مالك أربعة أنفس : الماجشون وأبو عاصم ويحيى بن أبي قتيلة وأشهب بن عبد العزيز وأرسله عن مالك سائر أصحابه وهذه كانت عادة لمالك يرفع في الأحايين الأخبار ويوقفها مرارا ويرسلها مرة ويسندها أخرى على حسب نشاطه فالحكم أبدا لمن رفع عنه وأسند بعد أن يكون ثقة حافظا متقنا على السبيل الذي وصفناه في أول الكتاب  (صحيح ابن حبان – 11 / 590)

“Four individuals narrated this from Mālik Marfūʿan: Al-Mājishūn, Abū ʿĀṣim, Yaḥyā bin Abī Qutaylah and Ashhab bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. The remaining students of Mālik narrates it Mursalan from him. This was the habit of Mālik, sometimes he would narrate Aḥādīth in a Marfūʾ form and other times in a Mawqūf form and sometimes Mursalan and at other times with the entire chain, depending on his mood. So the ruling will remain the same for the one who does such, if he is a reliable narrator, a Ḥāfidh and an expert according to the conditions mentioned in the beginning of the book.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān – 11 / 590)

There are four people who narrated this from Imām Mālik in a Marfū’ form. As for other students, they narrated it as Mursal or by leaving out the Sanad. This was the general practice of Imām Mālik . If he was in the mood, he would narrate it with the whole Sanad. If he was not, he would narrate it as Munqaṭi’ or Mu’allaq. Therefore, what ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar  said for Imām Bukhārī  applies for Imām Mālik  as well.

BALĀGHĀT

The third argument that ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqi  brought is regarding the Balāghāt. Balāghāt are narrations where Imām Mālik simply says “Balaghanī” without mentioning who his teachers were. 

Again, Ḥanafīs would have no problem with this if it is done in Khayr al-Qurūn.

But to explore it further:

Firstly, we can compare these too with the Mu’allaq narrations of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri and those narrations where he merely said قال. ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned that there are sixty-one narrations like this; where Imām Mālik the words بلغني. There are 1341 Mu’allaq narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, and many more where he simply transmitted with saying: قال. What a small percentage of narrations in the Muwaṭṭa compared to the huge amount in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri! There is no comparison.

Those are sufficient to respond to this. The Muwaṭṭa already overpowers Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī on this point.

Nevertheless, there are even stronger reasons:

We said that ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Bar mentioned that there are sixty-one narrations like this; where Imām Mālik the words بلغني.

‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Bar  then brought Asānīd for fifty-seven narrations in his Tamhīd. However, he could not find any supporting chain for the remaining four. We will discuss about those four when we reach them, in shā Allāh. But, there are a maximum of four narrations that we are unaware of the Sanad. Four narrations compared to the Mu’allaqāt of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is like a drop in the ocean.

Even if we are unaware of these four narrations, we trust the person who is quoting them. If your Ustādh or a Shaykh who you hold in high esteem quotes to you something from someone who passed away 100 years ago, will you doubt him? Why can you then not trust the strict scholar, Imām Mālik, when he used the words Balaghani?

Now can you understand why Seventy Fuqahā trusted Imām Mālik when he showed them his books. Imām ash-Shāfi’ī and other Muḥaddithīn did not find a problem with these four narrations.  Hence, it is like taking a drop of muddy water and throwing it in the ocean (I am not even saying urine, I am saying muddy water). It has no impact at all.

Imāms of the Four Madhāhib and the Muwaṭṭa

Even though all these Shāfi’ī ‘Ulamā are raising these objections against Imām Mālik, they fail to realize that their Imām was very well aware of all these narrations when he praised the Muwaṭṭa.

Likewise, for the Ḥanbalīs, their Imām too, was well aware of these, but he still read the Kitāb over and over and over. ‘Allāmah al-Khalīlī says:

وقال أحمد بن حنبل كنت سمعت الموطأ من بضعة عشر نفسا من حفاظ أصحاب مالك فأعدته على الشافعي لأني وجدته أقومهم به (الإرشاد في معرفة علماء الحديث – 1 / 231)

Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal said, ‘I heard the Muwaṭṭa from approximately ten narrators from the students of Mālik that were Ḥuffāḍ, but I revised it with ash-Shāfiʿī because I found him to be the most steadfast of them all.” (Al-Irshād – 1 / 231)

Never forget how strict Imām Aḥmad was.

If you are a Ḥanafī, you need to appreciate why Imām Muḥammad would take out more than three years of his life to go and study the Muwaṭṭa.

قال الشافعي: قال محمد بن الحسن: أقمت عند مالك ثلاث سنين وكسرا، وسمعت من لفظه أكثر من سبع مئة حديث،(سير أعلام النبلاء – 8 / 75)

“Ash-Shāfi’ī said: Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥasan said: “I lived with Mālik for three years and a while more, and I heard him utter more than seven hundred Aḥādīth.” (Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā – 8 / 75)

On a side note, look at how the Muwaṭṭa brought together the different Madhāhib!

WEAK NARRATIONS IN ṢAḤĪḤ AL-BUKHĀRĪ

There are 110 Aḥādīth in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhari that some scholars like Imām ad-Dārquṭnī  have weakened.

‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar tried to explain how some are not weak, but he had to agree that there are a few that actually are not the strongest of narrations. For one narration he said:

قال الدارقطني: وهذا قد اختلف فيه على نافع وعلى أصحابه اختلف فيه على عبيد الله وعلى يحيى بن سعيد وعلى أيوب وعلى إسماعيل بن أمية وعلى موسى بن عقبة وعلى غيرهم وقيل فيه عن نافع عن بن عمر ولا يصح والاختلاف فيه كثير قلت هو كما قال وعلته ظاهرة والجواب عنه فيه تكلف وتعسف (هدي الساري – ص: 374)

“Dārquṭnī said, “In this regard there is a difference of opinion about Nāfiʾ and his companions, they differed regarding ʿUbaydullāh, Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd, Ayyūb, Ismāʿīl bin Umayyah, Mūsā bin ʿUqbah and others. It was also mentioned regarding the narrations from Nāfiʾ from Ibn ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with them), and it is not correct. The difference of opinions in this regard are many.”

I say, “It is as he said, the defect is clear and replying on behalf of it is pushing it and extremism.” (Hudā as-Sārī – 374)

He said:

هذا عندي من المواضع العقيمة عن الجواب السديد، ولا بد للجواد من كبوة. والله المستعان (هدى الساري – ص: 374)

“According to me this is from the difficult areas to present an accurate response, and every racing horse has to tumble (every human has to err).” (Hudā as-Sārī – 374)

‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar could not find any response. Every fast riding horse will have to trip. In our context, one may have the best of cars, but some issue may arise in regards to it. There will be one or two rare occasions where the driver will lose the race. It is the same for Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

الكمال لله وحده

Perfection belongs to Allāh alone.

Scholars generally provide the excuse that Imām al-Bukhārī narrated something Mutāba’atan (to strengthen the point that was already established with a stronger narration). Those narrations do not fulfill his conditions, and others would even grade them as weak.

When mentioning this, Shaykh ‘Awwāmah made sure to clarify:

ولا يتقول علي بهذه الكلمات أني أقول بضعف بعض أحاديثهما ، ولو كان ما فيهما من متابعات وشواهد (تعليقاته على التدريب – 1 /  280)

“None should misquote (and claim) that I am saying that some of their narrations are weak, even though they do have mutābaʿāt and Shawāhid.” (Taʾlīqāt ʿAlā at-Tadrīb – 1 / 280)

This is a discussion for academic purposes and it is confined to a classroom or to circles of scholars who will not undermine the greatness of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri.

NARRATORS OF ṢAḤĪḤ AL-BUKHĀRĪ COMPARED TO THE NARRATORS OF MUWAṬṬA

Looking at the narrators, first let us look at the comparison between Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri with another book: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Let us inspect the reasons and responses to prove that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī takes precedence over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

We will then use those same arguments for the comparison between Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the Muwaṭṭa.

When stating the reason why Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī takes precedence over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ibn Ḥajar mentioned in Nuzha an-Naḍar:

وأما رجحانه من حيث العدالة والضبط؛ فلأن الرجال الذين تكلم فيهم من رجال مسلم أكثر عددا من الرجال الذين تكلم فيهم من رجال البخاري، مع أن البخاري لم يكثر من إخراج حديثهم، بل غالبهم من شيوخه الذين أخذ عنهم ومارس حديثهم، بخلاف مسلم في الأمرين. (نزهة النظر – ص: 63)

“As for his preference in terms of credibility and accuracy (of the narrator); the narrators who have been criticised from the rijāl (narrators) of Muslim are more in number than the rijāl of Bukhārī, even though Bukhārī did not transmit from them often, but majority of them are his own shuyūkh whom he took from and was familiar with their narrations, as opposed to Muslim regarding both matters.” (Nuzha an-Naḍar- 63)

There are three reasons that he presented in this statement on why Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is preferred over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. The reasons why Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī gains precedence over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is due to:

1)   The percentage of weak narrators being less than that of the Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

2)   Imām al-Bukhāri does not narrate often from them.

3)   They are from the teachers of Imām al-Bukhāri.

Now let us use each of these reasons for the comparison between the narrators of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the Muwaṭṭa.

PERCANTAGE OF WEAK NARRATORS

Imam Bukhari narrated from 434- 435 narrators in total. Ibn Hajar gave the amount as 435 in his Nukat.

أحدها: أن الذين انفرد البخاري بالإخراج لهم دون مسلم أربعمائة وخمسة وثلاثون رجلا (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 138)

“The first: The ones from whom al-Bukhārī narrate alone, whom Muslim does not narrate from are 435 narrators.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 138)

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari also mentions 435 in his commentary of Nuzha an-Naḍhar:

  انفرد البخاري بهم : أربع مئة وخمسة وثلاثون رجلاً (شرح علي القاري – ص: 278)

“Al-Bukhārī alone narrated from 435 narrators.” (Sharḥ ʿAlī al-Qārī : 278)

However, Ibn Salah (quoting from Imam Hakim), Imam Nawawi etc. mention 434:

قرأت بخط الحاكم أبي عبد الله الحافظ في كتابه المدخل إلى معرفة المستدرك أن عدد من أخرجهم البخاري في الجامع الصحيح ولم يخرجهم مسلم أربعمائة وأربعة وثلاثون شيخا (صيانة صحيح مسلم – ص: 74)

“I read in the script of Ḥākim Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥāfiḍ, in his book, al-Madkhal Ilā Maʾrifah al-Mustadrak, that the total number of narrators whom al-Bukhārī narrated from alone, and Muslim did not narrate from them, is 434 narrators.” (Ṣiyānah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim – 74)

From them, there are eighty who have been criticized. That’s between 18-19 % of narrators.

Compare that with the Muwaṭṭa where there are only two weak narrators who have been criticized. The two narrators are:

1)   ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Abīl Mukhāriq

2)   Aṭā al-Khurāsānī

(There are other narrators who SOME scholars have criticized. However, the preferred view regarding them is that they are reliable.)

Even then, Imām Mālik narrated from those two weak narrators for a reason.

Let us look at the first:

‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Abīl Mukhāriq

Imām Mālik narrated two narrations via him. The first is:

277 – حدثني يحيى عن مالك عن عبد الكريم بن أبي المخارق البصري عن سعيد بن جبير :أن عبد الله بن koعباس رقد ثم استيقظ فقال لخادمه أنظر ما صنع الناس وهو يومئذ قد ذهب بصره فذهب الخادم ثم رجع فقال قد انصرف الناس من الصبح فقام عبد الله بن عباس فأوتر ثم صلى الصبح (الموطأ – 1 / 126)

Yaḥyā narrated to me from Mālik from ʿAbd al-Karīm bin Abī al-Mukhāriq al-Baṣrī from Saʿīd bin Jubayr: ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbbās slept, then he awoke and said to his assistant, “Go and see what the people have done.” This was at the time when he lost his eyesight. The assistant went and then returned, and said, “The people have left from the morning prayer.” ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbbās stood, performed the witr prayer and then the morning prayer. (Al-Muwaṭṭa – 1 / 126)

The second narration is:

375 – حدثني يحيى عن مالك عن عبد الكريم بن أبي المخارق البصري أنه قال :من كلام النبوة إذا لم تستحي فأفعل ما شئت ووضع اليدين إحداهما على الأخرى في الصلاة يضع اليمنى على اليسرى وتعجيل الفطر والاستيناء بالسحور (الموطأ – 1 / 158)

Yaḥyā narrates to us from Mālik from ʿAbd al-Karīm bin Abī al-Mukhāriq al-Baṣrī, that he said, “From the speech of prophethood is: As long as you don’t have any shame, then do as you wish, and placing the two hands, one over the other in prayer, the right will be placed over the left, hastening to break the fast and delaying the pre-dawn meal.” (Al-Muwaṭṭa – 1 / 158)

‘Abdul Karīm ibn Abīl Mukhāriq was weakened only due to his memory. He had great integrity and was a very pious person. This is why ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abdil Barr mentioned:

وإنما روى مالك عن عبد الكريم بن ‌أبي ‌المخارق وهو مجتمع على ضعفه وتركه؛ لأنه لم يعرفه، إذ لم يكن من أهل بلده، وكان حسن السمت والصلاة، فغره ذلك منه، ولم يدخل عنه في كتابه حكما أفرده به. (التمهيد – 1 / 257)

“Mālik only narrated from ʿAbd al-Karīm bin Abī al-Makhāriq, whilst there is a consensus of his weakness and him being discarded, but he was not from the same city as Mālik, and he has good manners and prayed Ṣalāh in a good way, hence he was deceived by this. But (luckily) he did not extract any ruling from him in his book through a narration which he mentioned alone.” (At-Tamhīd – 1 / 257)

‘Allāmah aḍh-Ḍhahabī  says while quoting from ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr :

أن مالكا اغتر ببكائه في المسجد. (سير أعلام النبلاء – 3 / 83)

“Imām Mālik became deceived by seeing his crying in the Masjid.” (Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā – 3 / 83)

Imām al-Bukhārī  also quotes from him in his Ṣaḥīḥ in Bāb at-Tahajjud Bil-Layl, due to which ‘Allāmah Abūl Walīd al-Bājī regarded him to be from the Rijāl of Bukhāri (although Ibn Ḥajar holds a different view). But, Imām Mālik only narrated two narrations from him in the Muwaṭṭa. We quoted both narrations. Firstly, in both narrations, nothing is being attributed to the Prophet ﷺ, and secondly, both come for Istiḥbāb, Targhīb, Wa’d and Tarhīb.

Hence, Ibn ‘Abdil Barr said:

ولم يخرج مالك عن عبد الكريم بن أبي المخارق حكما في موطئه وإنما ذكر فيه عنه ترغيبا وفضلا (التمهيد – 12 / 406)

“Mālik did not extract and rulings in his Muwaṭṭa from the narrations of ʿAbd al-Karīm bin Abū al-Makhāriq, he only mentioned it from him for virtue and Targhīb.” (At-Tamhīd – 12 / 406)

Therefore, we cannot criticize Imām Mālik for narrating from him.

‘Aṭa al-Khurāsānī

As for ‘Aṭā al-Khurāsānī, Imām Mālik narrated one Ḥadīth from him. It is:

حدثني يحيى عن مالك عن عطاء الخراساني أنه سمع سعيد بن المسيب قال :من أجمع إقامة أربع ليال وهو مسافر أتم الصلاة قال مالك وذلك أحب ما سمعت إلى (الموطأ – 1 / 149)

Yaḥyā bin Mālik narrates from Mālik via ʿAṭā al-Khurāsānī that he heard Saʿīd bin al-Musayyab saying, “A traveler who has decided to remain somewhere for four nights will perform the prayer in full,” Mālik said, “This is what I prefer from what I have heard.”  (Al-Muwaṭṭa- 1 / 149)

‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr explains a valid reason why Imām Mālik had to narrate this:

وهو عندي أثبت ما روي في ذلك.

“It is the most Thābit narration that has been narrated on this particular topic.”

Since his narration is the most Thābit on this topic, Imām Mālik was forced to narrate from him.

By the way, Imām Muslim also quoted from him, even though it is Mutāba’atan and Mushāhadatan. He narrated:

# 977 حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ومحمد بن عبد الله بن نمير ومحمد بن المثنى واللفظ لأبي بكر وبن نمير قالوا حدثنا محمد بن فضيل عن أبي سنان وهو ضرار بن مرة عن محارب بن دثار عن بن بريدة عن أبيه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم * نهيتكم عن زيارة القبور فزوروها ونهيتكم عن لحوم الأضاحي فوق ثلاث فأمسكوا ما بدا لكم ونهيتكم عن النبيذ إلا في سقاء فاشربوا في الأسقية كلها ولا تشربوا مسكرا قال بن نمير في روايته عن عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه

\ 1 \ # 977 وحدثنا يحيى بن يحيى أخبرنا أبو خيثمة عن زبيد اليامي عن محارب بن دثار عن بن بريدة أراه عن أبيه الشك من أبي خيثمة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ح وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا قبيصة بن عقبة عن سفيان عن علقمة بن مرثد عن سليمان بن بريدة عن أبيه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ح وحدثنا بن أبي عمر ومحمد بن رافع وعبد بن حميد جميعا عن عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن عطاء الخراساني قال حدثني عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كلهم * بمعنى حديث أبي سنان (صحيح مسلم – 2 / 672)

Abū Bakr Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates from Muḥammad bin ʿAbdullāh bin Numayr and Muḥammad bin al-Muthannā (and the wording is according to Abū Bakr and Ibn Numayr) they said: Muḥammad bin Fuḍayl narrated to us from Abū Sinān (Ḍirār bin Murrah) from Muḥārib bin Dithār from Abū Buraydah who narrated on the authority of his father that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said, “I forbade you to visit graves but you not may visit them; I forbade you from eating the flesh of sacrificial animals after three days, but you may now keep it as long as you wish; I forbade you from Nabīḍ except in a water-skin, you may now drink from all types of water-skins, but abstain from anything which intoxicates.” Ibn Numayr says in his transmission ‘from ʿAbdullāh bin Buraydah from his father.’

Yaḥyā bin Yaḥyā narrated to us from Abū Khaythamah from Zubayd al-Yāmī from Muḥārib bin Dīthār from Abū Buraydah, he says: I assume that it is narrated from his father, (Abū Khaythamah doubted) on the authority of the Prophet ﷺ.

Abū Bakr Ibn Abī Shaybah narrated to us via Qabīṣah bin ʿUqbah via Sufyān who narrates from ʿAlqamah bin Marthad from Sulaymān bin Buraydah from his father from the Prophet ﷺ.

Ibn Abī ʿUmar, Muḥammad bin Rāfiʾ and ʿAbd bin Ḥumayd all narrate to us from ʿAbd ar-Razzāq from Maʾmar from ʿAṭā al-Khurāsānī who said: ʿAbdullāh bin Buraydah narrated to me from his father from the Prophet ﷺ.

(This same narration has been transmitted via different chains.) (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim – 2 / 672)

It is on this basis that Sufyaan ibn ‘Uyaynah said:

وسمعت … ، يقول: إنما كنا نتبع آثار مالك بن أنس وننظر إلى الشيخ إن كان مالك كتب وإلا تركناه. (التاريخ الكبير لابن أبي خيثمة – 2 / 316)

So if we use the first reason that Ibn Ḥajar cited for preferring the narrators of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī over Ṣahīḥ Muslim, then the Muwaṭṭa wins, hands down! There is no comparison!

Weak Narrators

The second reason was that Imām al-Bukhārī did not narrate a lot from these weak narrators, whereas Imām Muslim narrated from more. The same can be said when comparing the Muwaṭṭa with Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri.

Imām Mālik only narrated just two narrations from ‘Abdul Karīm, and only one from Aṭā each. For the first, the narration is not Marfū’. For the second, he had a very strong reason. Even then, that is a maximum of three weak narrations. Compare that with the 110 weak narrations of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri.

Again, the Muwaṭṭa has to be preferred.

Being the Teachers

As for the third reason, both these weak narrators were also the teachers of Imām Mālik.

Hence, if we justly and honestly use the same laws and yardsticks, then the Muwaṭṭa has to take the first position.

SUMMARY

To sum up this discussion, there are numerous reasons to give the Muwaṭṭa preference over Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

• The first reason:

The Aḥādīth in the Muwaṭṭa are A’lā (shorter) than the Aḥādīth of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

When an author writes a book after which it becomes Mutawātir, then there is no longer a need to look at the Sanad from us to the author. The Sanad is looked only from the author until the Prophet ﷺ. For example, if you study the Muwaṭṭa under a liar, who in turn studied it under a fabricator, then it does not weaken the narrations of the Muwaṭṭa. You only consider the narrations from Imam Malik.

in Fawātiḥ ar-Raḥamūt, it is mentioned:

بل التواتر كالمشافهة في إفادة العلم ، ومن ثم كان ثلاثيات البخاري رباعيات لنا ، لأن صحيحه متواتر عنه ، فكأنا سمعنا من البخاري ، فلم يزد إلا واسطة واحدة ، وهي نفسه فتدبر (فواتح الرحموت – 2 /145) 

“Rather, Tawātur is on par with attaining a narration in person in conveying conviction. Hence the Thulāthiyyāt (narrations with three links) of al-Bukhārī are Rubāʿiyyāt (with four links) for us, this is because his Ṣaḥīḥ is narrated Mutawātir from him, it is as if we have heard it directly from al-Bukhārī, he only added one medium, which is himself.” (Fawātiḥ ar-Raḥamūt – 2 / 145)

• The second reason:

Imām Mālik  was born in 93 A.H and he passed away in 179 A.H. Hence, most of those he narrates him are from Khayr al-Qurūn which the Prophet ﷺ certified that they are the best era.

He was also very specific to narrate from scholars of his own city; the scholars from Madīnah.

• The third reason:

Imām Mālik was very strict and he would very carefully choose from who he would narrate. We quoted various statements in this regard.

• The fourth reason:

Imām Bukhārī  himself said that Aṣaḥ al-Asānīd (most correct of all chains) is the one that begins from Imām Mālik. By saying this, Imām Bukhārī himself attested to the greatness of Imām Mālik and his teachers until Nabī ﷺ.

• The fifth reason:

Since earlier scholars accepted Marāsīl, there is no problem with many of the narrations with missing links in the Muwaṭṭa. Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh be pleased with him) says:

والحاصل من هذا أن أول من صنف في الصحيح يصدق على مالك باعتبار انتقائه وانتقاده للرجال، فكتابه أصح من الكتب المصنفة في هذا الفن من أهل عصره وما قاربه كمصنفات سعيد بن أبي عروبة، وحماد بن سلمة ، والثوري، وابن إسحاق ، ومعمر ، وابن جريج، وابن المبارك ، وعبد الرزاق وغيرهم، ولهذا قال الشافعي: “ما بعد كتاب الله أصح من كتاب مالك”.فكتابه صحيح عنده وعند من تبعه ممن يحتج بالمرسل والموقوف. (نكت العسقلاني – 1 / 129)

“The conclusion of this is that the first to document a Ṣaḥīḥ will apply to Mālik, due to his precision of selecting narrators, hence his book is the most authentic from all the books documented in this field from his contemporaries, and from books that were similar to it, such as the documentations of Saʿīd bin Abī ʿArūbah, Ḥammād bin Salamah, Thawrī, Ibn Isḥāq, Maʾmar, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn al-Mubārak, ʿAbd ar-Razzāq and others. This is why Imām ash-Shāfiʿī said, ‘After the Book of Allāh, there is no book more precise that the Book of Mālik.’ His book is considered to be authentic according to humans according to those who followed him by deriving evidence through Mursal and Mawqūf narrations.” (Nukat al-ʿAsqalānī – 1 / 129)

We explained how even Shāfi’īs would have to accept these. Hence, Imām ash-Shāfi’ī uttered his statement knowing fully well about the Marāsīl therein.

As Ḥanafīs, Mursal is a Ḥujjah according to us. So based on what an expert in Ḥadīth on the ranks of Ibn Ḥajar is saying, we ought to prefer the Muwaṭṭa over Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

• The sixth reason

All the Balāghāt in the Muwaṭṭa have been proven to be Mawṣūl in other places, hence they are in the Ḥukm of Marfū’. As for the Mu’allaq narrations of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, although ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar  wrote his Ta’līq at-Ta’līq, many of them have still been considered weak by scholars besides Imām ad-Dārquṭnī .

• The seventh reason

If the standard and benchmark for preferring one book over the other is the absence of Marāsīl, Mu’allaqāt, and the statements of others besides the Prophet ﷺ, then Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim will be the most authentic book. We cannot use a different yardstick and criteria for comparing the Muwaṭṭa and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, and a different yardstick for comparing between Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

Due to these and the other reasons, many scholars prefer the book Muwaṭṭa in terms of greatness. Hence majority of scholars initially, and many scholars thereafter, all preferred the Muwaṭṭa over Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

If you look at books of Ḥanafī Uṣul, you will have no option but to say: The Muwaṭṭa is more authentic than Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, hence, the Muwaṭṭa is most authentic book after the Qurān.

This is why Shaykh ‘Awwāmah (may Allāh Ta’ālā preserve him) says about the Muwaṭṭa:

فالصواب أن إعتراض مغلطاي بالموطأ صحيح سليم ودفاع الحافظ عن أولية البخاري دفاع من يحمل لواء الدفاع عن البخاري دائما.

“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. Some scholars chose this. Like Mawlānā ‘Abdul ‘Azīz ad-Dehlawi divided the books on Aḥādīth into five categories, and he placed the Ṣaḥīhain and Muwaṭṭa in the first category. Before him, Shāh Walī Allah did the same. On p.281 of Ḥujjatullāh al-Bālighah he categorized Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the Muwaṭṭa together. If both are equal in authenticity, then obviously the Muwaṭṭa will be considered as the first book to be written on Ṣaḥīḥ. No one can deny that the Muwaṭṭa was written before Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

Mawlānā Zakariyyā Kandlawi  actually attributed this to the majority. He said:

اعلم أن الجمهور عدوا الموطأ في الطبقة الأولى من طبقات كتب الحديث (مقدمة أوجز المسالك – ص: 94)

“Take note that the majority considered the Muwaṭṭa to be from the highest class from all the categories of Ḥadīth.” (Muqaddimah Awjaz al-Masālik – 94)

Shāh Waliyullāh is a scholar whom many of our Asānid pass through. He holds a great position and his statements hold importance. He specified it as being the most reliable book of Fiqh.

Shāh Wali Allah mentioned in the introduction al-Musawwā:

أُلهمت الإشارة إلى كتاب “الموطأ” تأليف الإمام الهُمام حجة الإسلام مالك بن أنس، وعَظُم ذلك الخاطر رويداً فرويداً، وتيقَّنْتُ أنه لا يوجد الآن كتابٌ ما في الفقه أقوى من موطأ الإمام مالك[1]، لأن الكتب تتفاضل فيما بينها: إما من جهة فضل المصنف، أو من جهة التزام الصحة، أو من جهة شهرة أحاديث، أو من جهة القبول لها من عامة المسلمين، أو من جهة حُسن الترتيب واستيعاب المقاصد المهمة أو نحوها، وهذه الأمور كلها موجودة في الموطأ على وجه الكمال بالنسبة إلى جميع الكتب الموجودة على وجه الأرض الآن  (تسهيل دراية الموطّأ في كتاب المسوّي شرح الموطّأ – 17)

“I was inspired by the indication to the the book ‘al-Muwaṭṭa’, documented by the magnanimous leader, Ḥujjah al-Islām, Mālik bin Anas, and the opinion was gradually magnified. I became certain that no book could be found in Fiqh more strengthened than that Muwaṭṭa of Mālik. The reason for this is that the books differ in virtue due to various reasons; either because of the rank of the author, or due to the extreme precision, or because of the popularity of the narrations, or due to it being widely accepted among the general Muslims, or because of the meticulous attention given to the sequence and its comprising of all important matters, and the like. All these matters are found in the Muwaṭṭa in a perfect manner, when compared to all other books present up to this moment.” (Tashīl Dirāyah al-Muwaṭṭa – 17)

He then said:

 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)

That means that initially he felt that the Muwaṭṭa was in the same category as Ṣaḥīḥain, but later he was inspired that the Muwaṭṭa is actually greater.

Although not directly linked to this topic, I would like to continue with this quotation of Shāh Walī Allāh:

 كذلك تيقَّنْت أن طريق الإجتهاد وتحصيل الفقه (بمعنى معرفة أحكام الشريعة من أدلتها التفصيلية) مسدود اليوم (على من رام التحقيق) إلاَّ من وجه واحد، وهو أن يجعل المحقِّق الموطّأ نصب عينيه ويجتهد في وصل مراسيله ومعرفة مآخذ أقوال الصحابة والتابعين (بتتبُّع كتب أئمة المحدثين) ، ثم يسلك طريق الفقهاء المجتهدين (في المذاهب) من تحديد مفهوم الألفاظ، وتطبيق الدلائل، وتبيين الركن والشرط والآداب، واستخلاص القواعد الكلية الجامعة المانعة، ومعرفة عِلَل الأحكام وتعميمها وتحقيقها، وفقاً لعموم العِلّة وخصوصها، وأمثال ذلك، ويجتهد في فَهْم تعقّبات الإمام الشافعيّ وغيره (كتفقّبات الإمام محمد في موطّئه، وكتاب الحجج) ، ثم يجتهد في تطبيق المختلفات أو ترجيح الأحسن منها، ويتمكَّن من تحصيل اليقين بدلالة الدلائل على تلك المسائل، وبغالب الظن للرأي لمعرفة أحكام الله تعالى (تسهيل دراية الموطّأ في كتاب المسوّي شرح الموطّأ – 29)

“I was certain that the way of Ijtihād and acquiring Fiqh (in the sense of recognising the rulings from the elaborate evidences) is barricaded today (for those who aim to research further) except through one facet: which is that the investigator makes the Muwaṭṭa his core focus, and he strives towards gaining the Marāsīl and recognising the sources of the sayings of the Ṣahābah and the Tābiʿūn (through following the Books of the leaders of the Muḥaddithūn). Then he needs to tread the path of the Fuqahā al-Mujtahidīn (within the Maḍāhib) regarding confining the concept and understanding of words, and harmonising between different evidences, and explicitly mentions the principles, conditions and etiquettes, and extracting the prohibitive rules through the comprehensive and stable rules, and recognising the sources of rulings, generalising and establishing them, according to the generalization or specification of the cause, and the likes of such. And he is required to strive in understanding the results of Imām ash-Shāfiʿī and others (like the interpretations of Imām Muḥammad in his Muwaṭṭa, and the Chapter of Evidences), then he needs to strive in harmonising differences or being able to give preference to the best opinion, and he needs to be able to attain certainty through the evidences of these issues and by his overpowering opinion to be able to recognise the laws of Allāh the Exalted.” (Tashīl Dirāyah al-Muwaṭṭa – 29)

Hence, ‘Allāmah ibn ‘Asākir (d. 571 AH) quotes in Kashf al-Mughaṭṭā Fī Faḍl al-Muwaṭṭa with his chain to Imām ash-Shāfi’ī (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with them both) that he said:

ما نظرت في موطأ مالك إلا ازددت منه فهما وعلما (كشف المغطا في فضل الموطا – ص: 12)

“I did not contemplate on the Muwaṭṭa except that my understanding and knowledge have increased tremendously.” (Kashf al-Mughaṭṭā – 12)

We do not even accept the view of those who added the Muwaṭṭa in the Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta, but they placed it in a lower category.

Summary

1)       Whatever objections are raised against the Muwaṭṭa, those same objections apply squarely on Imām al-Bukhārī. 

2)       The same answers and interpretations that apply for Imām al-Bukhāri apply to a greater extent to Imām Mālik.

3)       Leading Ḥanafī ‘Ulamā chose and continue to prefer the Muwaṭṭa.

4)       When looking through Ḥanafī Uṣūl, you have to prefer the Muwaṭṭa.

CONCLUSION

The Muwaṭṭa is the greatest and most authentic book after the Qurān.

You are fortunate to study such a noble book. Since others do not know the true value of this great book, you are even more fortunate. Therefore, please value this great bounty that Allāh Ta’ālā blessed you with.

I would like to terminate with the second quotation of ‘Allāmah ibn ‘Asākir in Faḍl al-Muwaṭṭa. He transmits with his chain that reaches Muḥammad ibn Abī as-Sarī who said:

رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في النوم فقلت يا رسول الله حدثني بعمل أحدث به عنك فقال لي صلى الله عليه وسلم إني قد أوعزت إلى مالك بكنز يفرق عليكم ثم مضى وتبعته فقلت يا رسول الله حدثني بعلم أحدث به عنك فقال لي صلى الله عليه وسلم يا ابن أبي السري إني قد أوعزت إلى مالك بن أنس بكنز يفرق عليكم ألا وهو الموطأ ألا وليس بعد كتاب الله عز وجل ولا سنتي في إجماع المسلمين حديث أصح من الموطإ فاسمعه تنتفع به. (كشف المغطا في فضل الموطا – ص: 21)

“I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in a dream. I said to him, ‘Oh Messenger of Allāh ﷺ! Inform me of an action which I may quote from you.’ The Prophet ﷺ replied, ‘I instructed Mālik of a treasure that will be divided amongst you.’ Then he ﷺ continued and I followed him. I said, ‘Oh Messenger of Allāh ﷺ! Inform me of  a knowledge which I may narrate from you.’ He ﷺ replied, ‘Oh Ibn Abī as-Sarī! I have instructed Mālik bin Anas of a treasure which will be divided amongst you. Indeed it is the Muwaṭṭa! Indeed there is no Ḥadīth more authentic, after the Book of Allāh and my sunnah, according to the consensus of the Muslims than the Muwaṭṭa! Thus listen to it attentively and benefit from it.” (Kashf al Mughaṭṭā – 21)

Abū aṭ-Ṭāhir Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Aṣfahānī said:

وأعم الكتب نفعاً للفقيه … موطأ مالك لا شك فيه

فلا تبدأ بشيء من سماع … سواه عن إمام ترتضيه

وصاحب من يعظمه وجانب … كتاب جميع من قد يزدريه. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 2/ 105)

“The most beneficial book for the jurist …. Is the Muwaṭiṭa of Mālik undoubtedly

So do not begin listening to anything besides it…….  from a leader who pleases you

And accompany the one who glorifies him … and avoid all those who are disdainful towards him.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 105)

وتلاه ‌أبو ‌الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج  النيسابوري القشيري من أنفسهم ومسلم – مع أنه أخذ عن البخاري واستفاد منه – يشاركه في أكثر شيوخه

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ claimed that Imām Bukhārī was the first to write a book on Ṣaḥīḥ. We proved that this is not a fact. ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ then mentioned:

وتلاه ‌أبو ‌الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج النيسابوري القشيري من أنفسهم

We spoke about Imām Muslim in detail. ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned “Min Anfusihim”, claiming that he was an ‘Arab. We need to look more into this. Let us first discuss this, and then we will speak about the point the ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is making.

As for this first person who mentioned the attribution, it was Imām Abū Aḥmad Karābīsī (d. 378 AH) who said:

أبو الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم، ‌القشيري، النيسابوري. (الأسامي والكنى – 1 / 352)

(He did not mention any names higher up in the lineage of Imām Muslim, nor did he comment on whether he was Arab or not. But he did attribute him to an Arab tribe and he also attributed him to a place that his not in Arabia.)

In Tārīkh Nisāpūr, Abū Mūṣā Ṭaḥmānī (d. 405 AH) also just mentioned this:

الإمام ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم أبو الحسين ‌القشيري النيسابوري. (تلخيص تاريخ نيسابور – ص: 36)

‘Allāmah Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH) also just mentioned:

‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم أبو الحسين ‌القشيري النيسابوري. (تاريخ بغداد – 15 / 121)

Going the next century, Ibn Abī Ya’la (451 – 526 AH) says:

‌‌‌مُسْلِم ‌بْن ‌الحجاج ‌بْن ‌مُسْلِمٍ أَبُو الحسين ‌القشيري النيسابوري. (طبقات الحنابلة لابن أبي يعلى – 1 / 333)

These are a few examples to show that up to the early sixth century, scholars attributed him to Nisāpūr and to Qushayr. But they did not clarify whether his ancestry was from Qushayr, or whether he was being attributed to Qushayr due to being a Mawlā of theirs. Thus, we do not know whether they considered him to be an Arab or not.

Those Who Started to Assume That He Was An Arab

In this century, Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ (d. 544 AH) claimed that he was from Arab origin. He wrote:

هو مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم  القشيرى النسب النيسابورى الدار. (إكمال المعلم بفوائد مسلم – 1 / 79)

Later in that century, ‘Allāmah Abū Sa’d Sam‘ānī (d. 562 AH) included him in those whose ancestry was linked with Qushayrīs. He wrote:

وأبو الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم ‌القشيري، أحد أئمة الدنيا. (الأنساب للسمعاني – 10 / 426)

In the next century, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ also claimed that he was an Arab. He is mentioning it here in the Muqaddimah, and he also mentioned in his Ṣiyānah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:

مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم أبو الحسين القشيري النسب النيسابوري الدار والموطن عربي صليبة. (صيانة صحيح مسلم – ص: 55)

Imām Nawawī followed him and also claimed that he is actually of Arab origin:

وهو أبو الحسين مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم القشيرى نسبا النيسابورى ‌وطنا عربى صليبة. (المنهاج / شرح النووي على مسلم – 1 / 28)

In another book of his, Imām Nawawī wrote:

هو الإمام أبو الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم ‌القشيرى، من بنى قشير، قبيلة من العرب معروفة. (تهذيب الأسماء واللغات – 2 / 89)

Fast forwarding to the end of the next century and the starting of the ninth century, the one teacher of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar, ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Mulaqqīn (d. 804 AH) said:

والقَشيري: -بفتح الشين وسكون الياء المثناة تحت، ثم راء، ثم ياء النسبة- نسبة إلى قشير بن كعب بن ربيعة بن عامر بن صعصعة، قبيلة كبيرة، ينسب إليها جماعة من العلماء منهم هذا الإمام. (المعين على تفهم الأربعين – ص: 77)

‘Allāmah Fayyūmī (804 AH – 870 AH) also said:

هو. الإمام أبو الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم ‌القشيري من بني قشير، قبيلة من العرب معروفة النيسابوري، منسوب إلى نيسابور بفتح النون من أعظم مدن خراسان، وخراسان إقليم عظيم معروف. (فتح القريب المجيب على الترغيب والترهيب – 1 / 576)

Going to the next century, Ibn Rajab Haytamī (d. 974 AH) said:

(وأبو الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم ‌القشيري) نسبةً إلى قشير بن كعب بن ربيعة بن عامر بن صعصعة، قبيلةٌ كبيرةٌ، وقُشير أيضًا بطنٌ من أسلم، منهم سلمة بن الأكوع رضي اللَّه تعالى عنه. (الفتح المبين بشرح الأربعين – ص: 135)

According to all of these scholars, he was an Arab. 

Those Who Did Not Regard Him to Be an Arab

‘Allāmah Mughulṭāī quotes that ‘Allāmah Ṣirrifīnī mentioned the names in his lineage. He said:

وفي “كتاب الصريفيني”: مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم بن ورد بن كوشاذ. (إكمال تهذيب الكمال –  6 /  229)

From this it is very clear that his forefathers were not Arabs.

If this refers to Abū Ayūb aṣ-Ṣarīfanī, then this view will hold a lot of weight, because he passed away in 261 AH, the very same year that Imām Muslim passed away. Of course, Imām Muslims colleague would know best about him.

‘Allāmah Dhahabī also mentioned his lineage just like this. He wrote:

أبو الحسين مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم بن ورد بن كوشاذ القشيري ، النيسابوري، صاحب (الصحيح) (سير أعلام النبلاء – 12 / 558)

He then said:

فلعله من موالي قشير. (سير أعلام النبلاء – 12 / 558)

Just the fact that ‘Allāmah Dhahabī is writing this in such a popular book of his is enough to illustrate that what Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Abdur Raḥmān Ṭawālibah wrote in his book is incorrect. He claimed:

اتفق المؤرخون على أن الإمام مسلما – رحمه الله – قشيري النسب (الإمام مسلم – ص: 14)

However, ‘Allāmah Dhahabī is clearly saying that he is probably just a Mawlā of that tribe.

Qāsim as-Sibtī (d. 730 AH) said this with certainty:

مولي قشير بن كعب النيسابوري الحافظ. (برنامج التجيبي – ص: 83)

Ibn Khalliqān also mentioned his genealogy with those Persian names:

أبو الحسين ‌مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم بن ورد بن كوشاذ ‌القشيري النيسابوري صاحب الصحيح. (وفيات الأعيان (5/ 194)

We mentioned that the one teacher of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar considered him to be an Arab. The other teacher of Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī (d. 806 AH)  mentioned this lineage of Persians:

مسلم ‌بن ‌الحجاج ‌بن ‌مسلم بن ورد بن كوشاد أبو الحسين ‌القشيري النيسابوري. (طرح التثريب في شرح التقريب – 1 / 111)

Either the first group did not agree with that ancestry and hence they claimed that he was an Arab, or maybe they did not know about this ancestry. If they did not agree, they would have given their reasons and proofs. At the very least, they would have at least acknowledged this second view. Hence it seems as if they were unaware of this lineage. 

The conclusion is that Imām Muslim was from Persian origin, but they had some links with the Arabs.

Second Person to Write a Ṣaḥīḥ

As for the point that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is making, there are no differences that Imām Muslim wrote his book after Imām Bukhārī. This is because Imām Bukhārī completed his book before the year 233 A.H, and at that time, Imām Muslim was roughly about 27 years old. ‘Allāmah Ibn Ḥajar quotes al-ʿUqaylī:

‌لما ‌ألف ‌البخاري ‌كتابه ‌الصحيح عرضه على بن المديني ويحيى بن معين وأحمد بن حنبل وغيرهم فامتحنوه وكلهم قال: كتابك صحيح الا أربعة أحاديث. قال العقيلي والقول فيها قول البخاري وهي صحيحه. (تهذيب التهذيب 9 / 54)

Now if we look at the dates of demise of these three scholars to whom he presented his book:

Imām Aḥmad passed away in the year 241 A.H. Yaḥyā ibn Ma’īn passed away 233 A.H and ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī passed away in the year 234 A.H. 

Obviously, Imām Bukhārī could only have shown his book to them if he completed the book before all of them passed away. Hence it is definite that he completed his Ṣaḥīḥ before the year 233 A.H. This was probably before Imām Muslim even commenced with his book, because, according to some reports – and we explained the status of those reports – Imām Muslim only commenced writing his Ṣaḥīḥ in the year 235 A.H and he completed it in the year 250 A.H. 

It is at this point that ‘Allāmah al-‘Irāqī mentioned the point that we explained in the ‘Introduction to Books’ session; that he saw someone object and claim that Imām Muslim wrote his book before Imām Bukhārī, because Imām Muslim wrote his book in 205 AH. But it is impossible that Imām Muslim could have written his book by then, because, according to the stronger opinion: 

اعترض عليه بقول أبى الفضل أحمد بن سلمة: كنت مع مسلم بن الحجاج في ‌تأليف ‌هذا ‌الكتاب سنة خمس ومائتين. هكذا رأيته بخط الذي اعترض على ابن الصلاح سنة خمس – بسين فقط- وأراد بذلك أن تصنيف مسلم لكتابه قديم، فلا يكون تاليا لكتاب البخاري ، وقد تصحف التاريخ عليه وإنما هو سنة خمسين ومائتين – بزيادة الياء والنون – وذلك باطل قطعا لأن مولد مسلم رحمه الله سنة أربع ومائتين ، بل البخاري لم يكن في التاريخ المذكور صنف ، فضلا عن مسلم ، فإن بينهما في العمر عشر سنين ، ولد البخاري سنة أربع وتسعين ومائة. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 132)

We explained in detail that we prefer that Imām Muslim was born only in 206 AH. 

As for this person who is mentioning this, it is Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn Salamah, and he was a student of Imām Muslim. He spent his life in the company of Imām Muslim and he always accompanied him whether at home or whether he was on a journey. In fact, the reason why Imām Muslim wrote his Ṣaḥīḥ is because of his request. ‘Allāmah Khaṭīb mentioned:

ثم ‌جمع ‌له ‌مسلم الصحيح على كتابه (تاريخ بغداد – 5 / 302)

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah said:

وكان مسلما صنف الصحيح من أجله (تعليقة تدريب الراوي – 2 / 287)

 The proof of this is that Imām Muslim mentioned in the Muqaddimah:

فإنك يرحمك الله بتوفيق خالقك ‌ذكرت ‌أنك ‌هممت ‌بالفحص ‌عن ‌تعرف جملة الأخبار المأثورة عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في سنن الدين وأحكامه. (صحيح مسلم 1 / 2) 

Here, he is addressing one person who is Aḥmad ibn Salamah. Shaykh Awwāmah mentioned about him and Imām Muslim the same point that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is going to mention about Imām Muslim and Imām Bukhārī:

وشارك مسلما في جل وجلة شيوخه (تعليقة تدريب الراوي – 2 / 287)

Last week Sunday we were speaking about the Mustakhraj books. In his Mustakhraj, Abū ‘Awānah would quote a narration and say:

لم يخرجاه

He brings it in the dual form, instead of the singular form. By this he is not referring to Imām Bukhārī and Imām Muslim. Rather, he is referring to Imām Muslim and Aḥmad ibn Salamah. ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī quoted that Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar said:

ولا يظن أنه يعني البخاري ومسلما، فإني ‌استقريت ‌صنيعه في ذلك فوجدته إنما يعني مسلما، وأبا الفضل أحمد بن سلمة، فإنه كان قرين مسلم، وصنف مثل مسلم، وربما أسقط المستخرج أحاديث لم يجد له بها سندا يرتضيه، وربما ذكرها من طريق صاحب الكتاب. (تدريب الراوي – 1 / 118)

The researchers of Mustakhraj Abī ‘Awānah mentioned:

ومن ثم يمكن أن يكون معنى قول أبي عوانة رحمه الله: “من هنا لم ‌يخرِّجاه” أي: لم يخرجه مسلم، وتبعًا لذلك لم يستخرجه أحمد بن سلمة -عليه- أيضًا. (مقدمة مستخرج أبي عوانة – ص: 99) 

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ says:

ومسلم – مع أنه أخذ عن البخاري واستفاد منه – يشاركه في أكثر شيوخه

Imām Muslim met most of the teachers of Imām Bukhārī, yet he still learned from Imām Bukhārī and derived many benefits from him. Imām Bukhāri was only 10 to 12 years older than Imām Muslim, so Imām Muslim had the opportunity of taking Aḥādīth from the same scholars who Imām Bukhārī took from, but he knew that despite having access to the elders of Imām Bukhārī, he will not go wrong if he dedicates time to the company of Imām Bukhārī.

‘Allāmah Zarkashī mentioned here that there are some scholars who all of the authors of the Ṣīḥāḥ Sittah took from them directly. He wrote:

قد ‌اتفقت ‌الأئمة الستة على روايتهم في كتبهم المشهورة عن شيخ من غير واسطة: كأبي موسى محمد بن المثنى وأبي كريب محمد بن العلاء و [محمد] بن بشار بندار ومحمد بن زياد وعبد الله بن سعيد الأشج وعمرو بن علي الفلاس ونصر بن علي الجهضمي ويعقوب بن إبراهيم الدورقي وعباس بن عبد العظيم العنبري إلا أن رواية البخاري عنه تعليق. (النكت للزركشي – 2 / 164)

Imām Muslim came in contact with Imām Bukhārī only in the year 250 A.H when Imām Muslim was about 44 years old. There is no proof of their meeting before that. 

Despite studying under the direct teachers of Imām Bukhārī and also being so successful and established, Imām Muslim still dedicated himself at an advanced age to go and study under Imam Bukhārī. And because of that, Allāh really blessed him. In Nuzhah an-Naẓar, there is the statement of Imām ad-Dārquṭnī:

“‌لولا ‌البخاري لما راح مسلم ولا جاء” (نزهة النظر – ص: 64) 

We quoted many other incidents and quotations three weeks back in the Sunday night lesson.

Question

We accept that definitely, Imām Muslim held Imām Bukhārī in much esteem and despite him being so close in age, he still considered him as a senior, and even though he came to him at an advanced age, he still humbled himself before him. We understand and accept that definitely Imām Muslim benefited a lot from Imām Bukhārī, but from the context, since ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is speaking about their books, it seems as if he is trying to say that Imām Muslim benefitted from Imām Bukhārī when he was writing his Ṣaḥīḥ. That raises the question: How can it be that he got benefit from that when he met Imām Bukhari only after having written his book? 

Answer

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah explains that prior to meeting Imām Bukhārī, Imām Muslim derived benefits from the books of Imām Bukhārī. 

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ says:

‌وكتاباهما ‌أصح ‌الكتب بعد كتاب الله العزيز 

He is claiming that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim are the most authentic after the book of Allāh Ta’ālā. However, the Muwaṭṭa is more authentic than Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and we cannot accept this claim of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ.

From the very outset, it is important to note that we have utmost regard for the Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām al-Bukhārī (not that our view matters, anyways)! So by claiming that the Muwaṭṭa is more authentic, we do not intend to cast any doubt on the Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām Bukhārī, or even to diminish and decrease the value of his Ṣaḥīḥ.

Definitely, in no way do we intend to undermine the glorious book of the great Imām, Imām al-Bukhārī. Undoubtedly, it is amongst the greatest books, and we are simply trying to determine whether it takes the first position, or whether it will be in the second position.

We are merely inspecting both books and conducting a comparison between them and then relating facts.

A simple example is that if you have two of the world’s leading athletes. If the one comes out first and the other comes out second in the Olympics, both have accomplished something great, isn’t it. Any other expert athlete will be much inferior than that athlete who came out second!

So although we may consider Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī to be in the second place, it still is a great accomplishment. Like Shaykh Muḥammad al-Hasanī said:

فهو – البخاري – صحيح سواء أكان مسبوقا أم سابقا (فضل الموطأ – ص: 163)

“Thus that – al-Bukhārī – is authentic whether it is surpassed or surpasses.” (Faḍl al-Muwaṭṭa – 163)

For the purpose of this study, we have to be fair and analyze this without being biased.

Furthermore, please note that this that what I am going to be telling to you is not something that I am just coming up with. Rather, this is the opinion of some of the very senior ‘Ulamā of Ḥadīth. So I am not presenting my own research. I am not fit to have an independent view.

Many Ḥanafī scholars hold the view that the Muwaṭṭa is stronger than Ṣahīḥ al-Bukhārī. Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah and many other Ḥanafī scholars who specialized in Ḥadītḥ are all also very certain that the Muwaṭṭa is more authentic.

In fact, any Ḥanafī who studies Ḥanafī Uṣūl and then reads the Muwaṭṭa, will have no option but to prefer the Muwaṭṭa over Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, based on the Uṣūl of his Maḍhab.

As for Mālikī scholars, the vast majority of them are still very sure that the Muwaṭṭa is more authentic. Hence, most scholars in Northern and Western Africa hold this view.

We are simply trying to determine which book takes the first position, and which book takes the second. That’s all. We do not intend to say that the one is good and that the other is bad. Even being in the second position is something great and a huge accomplishment. 

We quoted in the previous lesson that everything within the Muwaṭṭā is authentic. We also quoted the views of many scholars on how Imām Mālik would cautiously choose his narrations. 

To stress upon this and to emphasis this point, I will quote from a few more scholars who all spoke about the level about how they could trust Imām Mālik:

1. Ibn ‘Uyayna would have no qualms in accepting any narrator who Imām Mālik quoted from. He said:

ما نحن عند مالك، إنما كنا نتبع آثار مالك، وننظر الشيخ، إن كان كتب عنه مالك، كتبنا عنه. (سير أعلام النبلاء – 8 / 73)

“What are we in front of Mālik! We simply just follow the footsteps of Mālik and we would observe the Shaykh; if Mālik wrote from him, we too would document from him.” (Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā- 8 / 73)

1. Imām ash-Shāfi’ī also took note that Imām Mālik only relates from reliable narrators. Rabīʾ ibn Sulaymān quotes that Imām Shāfi’ī said:

إذا جاءك الحديث عن مالك فشد به يديك وسمعت الشافعي يقول: إذا جاءك الخبر فمالك النجم (الإنتقاء في فضائل الثلاثة الأئمة الفقهاء – ص: 55)

“If a narration reaches you that is narrated by Mālik then hold on to it strongly.” I heard Shāfiʿī saying, “If a narration  reaches you, then Mālik is a star.” (Al-Intiqā – 55)

In general, Imām Mālik would always try his best to stick to only narrating that which is authentic. 

1. Experts of Ḥadīth would trust Imām Mālik. ‘Abdur Raḥmān ibn Mahdī said:

ما أقدم مالك في صحة الحديث أحداً. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك   – 1 / 63)

 “No one could surpass Mālik in the authenticity of Aḥādīth.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 63)

1. Yaḥyā ibn Sa’īd al-Qaṭṭān mentioned:

ما في القوم أصح حديثاً من مالك. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 64)

 “No one amongst the people have (transmitted Aḥādīth) more authentic than Mālik.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 64)

1. One of the most important teachers of Imām al-Bukhārī, for whom Imām al-Bukhārī had great regards, Imām ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī said:

إذا حدث مالك عن رجل من أهل المدينة ولا تعرفه فهو حجة، لأنه كان ينتقي. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 68)

“If Mālik narrates a narration via a scholar from the people of Madīnah, and you don’t recognize him, then still he is a proof, because he would carefully select.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 68)

Leave alone knowing of a weak narration, if Imām Mālik simply doubted a narration, he would not narrate it. Imām ash-Shāfi’ī writes:

قال الشافعي كان مالك إذا شك في الحديث طرحه كله. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 73)

“If Mālik doubted any narration, he discarded it totally.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 73)

If all of these scholars who were experts themselves could accept Imām Mālik’s narrations with close eyes, then all the more reason, people like us who hardly know anything should 

This is in general; Imām Mālik would take lots of precaution and ensure to only quote authentic narrations.

Besides these general statements, there are scholars who commented more specifically on the Muwaṭṭa. 

One point also to keep in mind is: that any scholar who is commenting on the stringent conditions of Imām Mālik or who is praising his Muwaṭṭā, they are all inferior to Imām Mālik. Imām Mālik himself was one of the greatest experts in Ḥadīth, and his one statement surpassed the combined view of many other leading scholars.  

Imām Mālik was convinced that all that is in the Muwaṭṭa is definitely established and all those who he is quoting from are all indeed reliable. He was absolutely convinced on the authenticity of the Muwaṭṭa. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah relates:

فلما قدمنا المدينة بوسيلة إلى مالك، قال لي: أحضر غداً بكتاب المدبر والمكاتب فإنهم اجتمعوا على أن يقرأوه فبت ليلتين فرأيت قائلاً يقول، وأنا نائم: غداً يقرأ على مالك حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فغدوت إلى مالك ومعي الكتابان فلما رآني قال لي أي شيء معك؟ قلت المكاتب والمدبر.

فقال إنهم قد بدا لهم وأجمعوا على قراءة الجامع فذكرت له الرؤيا فقال لي صدق، وهو حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 103)

“When we came to Madīnah to learn from Mālik, he instructed me to come the next day with the Chapters on Mudabbar and Mukātab, because they had agreed to recite from there. I spent two nights, and I saw a person in my dream saying, “Tomorrow the Aḥādīth of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ will be recited to Mālik.” In the morning, I went to Mālik, and with me were the two chapters. When he saw me he asked, “What do you have with you?” I replied, “The chapters of Mudabbar and Mukātab.”

He said, “Indeed they had agreed to recite the compilation.” I mentioned to him the dream to which he replied, “Most definitely! Indeed it is the Aḥādīth of the Prophet ﷺ.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 103)

Ofcourse, we do not deny that undoubtedly, Imām Mālik did at times narrate slightly weaker Aḥādīth. However, for his Muwaṭṭa specifically, Imām Mālik was very conscious and cautiously selected the narrations that he added in this book. He very carefully selected which narrators were suitable enough to be cited in this masterpiece of his. And that is why he could very confidently tell the person who asked him about a particular narrator, that just go and check in my books. Bishr ibn ‘Umair related that a person came and asked Imām Mālik about a particular narrator. Imām Mālik responded by asking him:

هل رأيته فى كتبي؟ قلت لا ، قال: لو كان ثقة لرأيته في كتبي (الإنتقاء في فضائل الثلاثة الأئمة الفقهاء – ص:47)

“Have you seen him in my books?” I replied, “No.” He said, “If he was trustworthy, you would see him in my books.” (Al-Al-Intiqā- 47)

So just for a narration to qualify for the Muwaṭṭa, it had to meet the highest standards of authenticity. But, Imām Mālik was a human after all. As much as he tried, he still could erroneously accept a narration that is not even authentic, leave alone meeting the highest levels of authenticity.

In the sixty-sixth narration of the Muwaṭṭā, Imām Mālik narrated from ‘Alā ibn ‘Abdir Raḥmān. Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn would incorrectly weaken this narrator. Commenting on this narrator, Allāmah Abū Yūsuf al-Fasawī first claimed that he is reliable and then highlighted the fact that since Imām Mālik is clearly taking his name in the Muwaṭṭā, he has to be reliable. He said:

والعلاء ابن ‌عبد ‌الرحمن ‌بن ‌يعقوب مولى الحرقيين: ثقة هو وأبوه، ومن كان من أهل العلم ونصح نفسه علم أن كل من وضعه مالك في موطإه وأظهر اسمه ثقة، تقوم به الحجة (المعرفة والتاريخ  – 1 / 349)

But even those narrations would be ironed out. And there are enough reasons to show that Imām Mālik would become aware or he would be alerted of narrations:

1. Imām Mālik thoroughly revised this book of his for four to six decades. Not four to six times; but four to six decades/40 to 60 times. Even if by mistake there was a narration that was not authentic, he would have seen it and deleted it. Maybe he would have noticed it the second or third time, or at-least by the 10th or 20th time. It is far-fetched to think that over 40 to 60 times, he would not notice a narration added by error.

Yes, we can concede that probably he added a weaker narration towards the end of his life. Then too, it would be a few times that he would have revised his book, and surely, he would have seen it. Imām Yaḥyā al-Laythī read the Muwaṭṭā to Imām Mālik in the last few days of his life.

1. Imām Mālik’s students who were present in his Majālis and were hearing these narrations, they were also great experts. Even if we assume that Imām Mālik really missed a weak narration – which is impossible – his students would have notified him.

His daughter would not have accepted it. She would make her father delete the weak narration.

When discussing about the Muwaṭṭa, we explained that initially there were ten thousand narrations. Imām Mālik scrutinised the book, and he deleted so many narrations and only left ‘the cream of the crop.’ Qāḍhi Ibān ibn al-Muntāb says:

أن مالكا روى مائة ألف حديث جمع منه في موطئه عشرة آلاف ثم لم يزل يعرضها على الكتاب والسنة ويختبرها بالآثار والأخبار [ حتى وصلت ] إلى خمسمائة (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 194)

“Mālik narrated a hundred thousand narrations, from which he gathered ten thousand, then he continuously reviewed it and compared it with the Qurān and Sunnah and cross-checked it with Āthār and Akhbār (until it reached) five hundred.” (An-Nukat liz-Zarkashī – 1 / 194)

In light of all of these, we can understand why so many senior scholars of Ḥadīth continued to prefer the Muwaṭṭa even after Imām Bukhārī. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ correctly said:

إذا ذكرت كتب العلم فخيرها … كتاب الموطأ من تصانيف مالك

أصح أحاديثاً وأثبت سنة … وأوضحها في الفقه نهجاً لسالك

أسانيد أمثال الرواسي صحيحة … ورأي كأنوار النجوم الشوابك (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 105)

“When you mention the books of knowledge, then the best … is Kitab al-Muwaṭṭa from the compilations of Mālik,

(It consists of) the most authentic narrations and established sunnah … Its manner is most clear in jurisprudence for the one approaching it,

It’s chains, similar to firmly set mountains, are authentic … and opinions like the intertwined lights of stars.” (Tartīb al-Madārik- 1 / 105)

Once we established with concrete evidence that the Muwaṭṭa is indeed the most authentic book, we can now mention something that will strengthen this view. Aḥmad ibn ‘Īsā says:

قال لنا عمر بن أبي سلمة: ما قرأت كتاب الجامع من موطا مالك بن أنس إلا أنا أتاني آت في المنام فقال لي: هذا كلام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حقا. (التمهيد لما في الموطأ من المعاني والأسانيد – 1 / 77)

ʿUmar ibn Salamah said to us, “I never recited Kitāb al-Jāmiʾ  from the Muwaṭṭa of Mālik, except that a person comes to me in a dream and said to me, “Indeed this is truly the speech of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.” (At-Tamhīd – 1 / 77)

Couple the above with all the statements of the scholars in the subsequent centuries who all praised the Muwaṭṭa for being such an authentic book. 

BRIEF HISTORY OF AṢ-ṢIḤAḤ AS-SITTA

Ibn Manda, a scholar who passed away in 395 AH, initially wrote a book titled: Risālah Fī Bayān Faḍl al-Akhbār. This book is popularly known as: Shurūṭ al-Aimmah. This book is about conditions of four books: Ṣaḥīḥayn, Sunan Abī Dāwūd and Sunan an-Nasai. So Ibn Manda studied these books and then deduced and assumed that the authors maintained these standards and held these conditions for their respective books.

Taking inspiration from this book, towards the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth century, Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisi (448 AH – 507 AH) also conducted an in-depth study of the six books and he deduced the conditions of those six authors of Aḥādīth.  He wrote all of these in a book that he titled: Shurūṭ al-Aimmah as-Sitta. In this book, he added Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri as the first book on this list and he added Sunan Ibn Mājah as the last book.

He then also wrote a book to make it easy to locate a narration. This book is called Aṭrāf al-Kutub as-Sittah. 

These are two books where he listed Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī as the first book. Likewise, Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisi was the one who introduced Sunan Ibn Mājah to the Ṣīḥāḥ as-Sittah. ‘Allamah Tahir al-Jazairi wrote:

وقد أضاف بعضهم إلى الكتب الخمسة كتاب ابن ماجة فجعلها بذلك ست واول من فعل ذلك أبو الفضل بن طاهر حيث أدرجه معها في الأطراف ثم الحافظ عبد الغني في كتاب الإكمال في أسماء الرجال كذا أثبته المؤلف وصوابه الكمال في وهو الكتاب الذي هذبه الحافظ المزي. (توجيه النظر إلى أصول الأثر – 1 / 372)

Remember that this is towards the end of the 5th century. Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisi was only born in 448 AH and he passed away in 507 AH. This is almost 250 years after Imām al-Bukhārī. So up until the year 500 AH, there about three scholars who claimed that Imām al-Bukhārī is the first to write Ṣaḥīḥ narrations, and there are two scholars who are simply mentioning the conditions of few books, and they commence with the conditions of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

At this time, there was no concept as Kutub as-Sittah. And there was no terminology as Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta!

Yes, another scholar in the sixth century, Abū Ṭāhir as-Silafi (472 AH – 576 AH), referred to five books as the most authentic. ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh quotes him:

وذكر الحافظ أبو الطاهر السلفي الكتب الخمسة، وقال: “اتفق على صحتها علماء الشرق والغرب” (معرفة علوم الحديث المعروف باسم مقدمة ابن الصلاح  – ص: 40)

“Ḥāfidh Abū Ṭāhir as-Silafi mentions the five books and then says, “The scholars of the east and the west have agreed upon its authenticity.” (Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh – 40)

The point to note here is that he is speaking of five books. 

Thereafter, ‘Allāmah al-Ḥāzimi, who was born in 548 AH and passed away eight years after Abū aṭ-Ṭahir (in 584 AH), he wrote Shurūṭ al-Aimmah al-Khamsa. If the aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta was popular, he would not have left out just one book?

So there are books that are written on the conditions of these books, and a book written on the Aṭrāf.

There was also book on the narrators of these six books. This was written by a scholar of the next century, ‘Ibn ‘Asākir (499 – 571 AH). The title of this book: al-Mu’jam al-Mushtamil ‘alā Dhikr Asmā Shuyūkh al-Aimmah al-Nabal.

In this book, he gathered the teachers of the authors of the six books. But still, there is nothing known as the Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sittah.

In this century, there was another scholar who passed away when ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh was in his twenties; ‘Abdul Ghanī al-Maqdisī (541 AH – 600 AH). He wrote al-Kamāl Fī Asmā ar-Rijāl, and it is from this that you derive what is known as the Ṣīḥāḥ as—Sittah. He took the Aṭrāf of Muḥammad Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī, and gathered the narrators of these books.

But, his contemporaries did not know anything about as-Siḥāḥ as-Sittah. Ibn al-Jawzi (510 – 597), for example, wrote:

فمتى رأيت حديثا خارجا عن دواوين الاسلام، كالموطأ ومسند أحمد والصحيحين وسنن أبى داود ونحوها، فانظر فيه (الموضوعات لابن الجوزي –  1 / 99)

“If you see a narration outside the collections of books of Islām, like the Muwaṭṭa, Musnad Aḥmad, the Ṣaḥīḥayn, Sunan Abī Dāwūd and the likes, then consider it carefully.” (Al-Mawḍūʿāt li Ibn al-Jawzi – 1 / 99)

Thereafter, many scholars worked on this book, and they wrote about the narrators of the six canonical books.

That is a very basic and extremely brief explanation on the origin of the terminology: al-Kutub as-Sittah, and then: aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta, but it serves for what we want to explain now.

By now you can already gather that the terms: ‘al-Kutub as-Sittah’ and ‘aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta’ were terms that was developed gradually. It took centuries to become accepted terms. Three hundred years after Imām al-Bukhāri and the other authors of the six books, there was no concept of the Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sittah or even al-Kutub as-Sittah, and it was not common to refer to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī as the most authentic book.

Scholars also differed on what are the six authentic books. Some scholars only spoke of five books, as we explained.

This was before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh.

But even after Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh, a great expert and famous scholar like Imām an-Nawawī  spoke about five books:

والصواب أنه لم يفت الأصول الخمسة إلا اليسير (التقريب – ص: 30)

“And the correct view is that the five fundamentals have not left out except a little.” (At-Taqrīb – 30)

PREFERENCE OF THE MUWAṬṬA IN THE SIXTH CENTURY

Now that we understand that the term Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta was not popular even in the seventh century and there are statements of scholars mentioning that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the most authentic book, we need to look and see if there were any scholars in this time period who clearly still considered the Muwaṭṭa being the most authentic book? 

The surprising answer to this is that yes, we do have scholars clearly preferring Muwaṭṭa.

Hereunder are the names of a few scholars:

1)        Imām Abū Bakr aṭ-Ṭarshūshī who passed away just after Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisi in 520 AH, wrote:

وإنما تقوم الحجة بالحديث المروي في الأسانيد الصحيحة ، التي عليها معول أصل الإسلام ، وهي خمسة أصول: كتاب الموطأ لمالك بن أنس ، وصحيح البخاري ، وصحيح مسلم ، وسنن أبي داود ، وسنن النسائي (رسالة في تحريم الاستمناء ، ق 2 / ب) ، نسخة غوتا –ألمانيا ، رقم: (4981)

“A proof is based on Aḥādīth narrated with authentic chains, on which the sound fundamentals of Islām are based, and they are five: the Muwaṭṭa of Mālik bin Anas, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Sunan Abī Dawūd and Sunan an-Nasāī.” (Risālah Fī Taḥrīm al-Istimnā – qāf 2 / bā) Ghūtā manuscript, Germany, page: (4981)

2)       Another scholar who passed away fifteen years later mentioned the same thing. Razīn ibn Mu’āwiya as-Sarqasṭi, a scholar who passed away in 535 AH, wrote Tajrīd aṣ-Ṣaḥāḥ. In this book, he placed the Muwaṭṭa as the first book.

3)       We quoted earlier that, Abū Ṭāhir as-Silafi spoke about five books. He passed away few decades after Razīn, in 576 AH. He wrote

فلم أر بعد ذلك كتابا أولى بالإملاء من موطأ أبي عبد الله مالك بن أنس،….إمام دار الهجرة ، لاشتهاره في الأفاق ، واتفاق الفرق على صحته من غير اختلاف بينهم على الإطلاق (مقدمة إملاء الاستذكار – ص: 28-29)

“After that I did not come across any book more befitting of recording than the Muwaṭṭa of Abū ʿAbdullāh Mālik bin Anas, Imām of Dārul Hijra, due to his fame across the horizons, and the consensus of different groups upon the its authenticity, without any difference of opinion among them at all.” (Muqaddimah Imlā al-Istiḍkār: 28-29)

These show that within the sixth century there are scholars who still preferred the Muwaṭṭa as the most authentic.

Going into the next century, in his Jāmi’ al-Uṣūl, Ibn al-Athīr, who passed away in 606 AH, regarded the Muwaṭṭa to be part of the aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta (although he placed it last, the point that I want to show is that he had regard for this).

Going to the second half of this century, Abū Bakr al-Gharnāṭī, a scholar who passed away after the demise of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh said:

ما أعلم من علم الإسلام بعد القرآن أصح من كتاب مالك (البرنامج – 62)

“I don’t know of any knowledge of Islām, after the Qurān, more accurate than the Book of Mālik.” (Al-Barnāmaj – 62)

From all of these we learn that it took hundreds of years for scholars to:

1)       Accept the whole concept of “aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta”

2)       Accept which books will form part of “aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ as-Sitta”

3)       Accept that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the most authentic.

Having understood that, we now understand that there is no Ijmā’ on which is the most authentic of books. It is not cast in stone that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the most authentic. The concept of Ṣihāḥ as-Sitta was not even well known until 700 years back.

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

Just as the previous statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ was the means of spreading the view that Imām Bukhārī was the first to write on authentic narrations, this statement become the means for scholars to assume that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the most authentic book. It was around the year 631 AH – 632 AH that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ- wrote this statement:

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

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

This then became the common and famous view. ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wrote this, and scholars thereafter began to quote and accept what he said.

We spoke last week about the impact the ‘Allāmah Ibn as-Salah had. A student with even a little knowledge of ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth knows well about the influence of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and how everyone started to follow him. It is from here that scholars began to assume that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the most authentic. However, it is the Muwaṭṭa that is most authentic. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is in second place. And Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is in third place. 

On Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, an objection could be raised:

فإن قيل: قد روى مسلم في صحيحه عن جماعة من الضعفاء أو ‌المتوسطين: أهل الطبقة الثانية الذين ليسوا من شيوخ الصحيح، قال النووي فجوابه من أوجه ذكرها ابن الصلاح. (النكت للزركشي 1 / 165)

We quoted all of these responses in the sessions of Introduction to Books.

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

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