بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

19 Shaban, 1444 AH  (Sunday,  12 March , 2023)

After having completed the discussion on all the narrators of the Muwaṭṭa, we can now speak about the recension which is the most famous, and that is the recension of Yaḥyā al-Laythī.

Reasons for Preferring the transmission of Yaḥyā al-Laythī

The transmission of Yaḥyā al-Laythī became the most accepted recension of the Muwaṭṭa, to such an extent that when a person simply says: Muwaṭṭa Mālik, the listener will immediately understand that it refers to the recension of Yaḥyā Al-Laythī (if a person speaks of Muwaṭṭa without clarifying and specifying it, then it generally refers to his recension ‘Inda Iṭlāq lafḍ al-Muwaṭṭā, yurādu bihi Riwāyah Yaḥyā al-Laythi). 

It is the most accepted and famous from all, and most places only teach this recension.

There are a number of reasons why this recension became the most accepted. To list a few:

• • Imām Yaḥyā was the absolute last person to read the Muwaṭṭa to Imām Mālik. Bearing in mind that Imām Mālik would edit his Muwaṭṭa every year, Imām Yaḥyā got the final edition of the author. This gives his recension additional merit over all the other recensions.
  • As a young boy, he heard the Muwaṭṭa from the leading scholar of Andalus, who was also a direct student of Imām Mālik.

‘Abdullah ibn al-Farḍī (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) wrote:

وروى يحيى بن يحيى عن زياد بن عبد الرحمن الموطإ قبل أن يرحل إلى مالك  (تاريخ العلماء والرواة للعلم بالأندلس – 1 / 183)

“Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā narrated the Muwaṭṭa from Ziyād ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān before he traveled to Mālik.” (Tārīkh al-ʿUlamā – 1 / 183)

Abū Ḥayyān al-Qurṭūbi writes:

سمع فيها لأول نشأته من زياد بن عبد الرحمن الموطأ، ثم رحل إلى المشرق، فسمع الموطأ من مالك بن أنس غير أبواب من الاعتكاف شك في سماعها من مالك، فأثبت روايته فيها عن زياد عنه. (المقتبس من أنباء الأندلس – ص: 24)

“Initially he heard the Muwaṭṭa from Ziyād ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. Thereafter, he went to the East. He heard the Muwaṭṭa from Mālik ibn Anas, besides some portions of the chapter of I’tikāf. He doubted whether he heard these from Mālik, and hence, he would transmit it via Ziyād from Mālik.” (Al-Muqtabas min Anbā al-Andalus: 24)

Imām Yaḥyā explained about this teacher of his:

زياد أول من أدخل الأندلس علم السنن ومسائلَ الحلال والحرام، ووجوهَ الفقه والأحكام (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 200)

“Ziyād was the first to introduce the knowledge of the Sunnah, the rulings of the permissible and impermissible, and the aspects of Fiqh and laws in Andalusia.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 200)

• • Imām Yaḥyā spent good time with two of the closest students of Imām Mālik. This help with correcting his recension

ولازم ابن وهب، وابن القاسم (سير أعلام النبلاء – 10 / 520)

He heard from them as well, as mentioned by Ibn al-Ḥārith:

سمع في أولهما من مالك والليث وابن وهب، واقتصر في الأخرى على ابن القاسم وبه تفقه.  (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك  – 1 / 310)

• • The teacher of Imām Yaḥyā, Shubṭūn already spread the Mālikī Madhab within Andalus. When Yaḥyā returned, he became the leading scholar of that entire region.

Ibn Bushkuwāl said:

قال أبو القاسم بن بشكوال الحافظ: كان يحيى بن يحيى مجاب الدعوة، فقد أخذ نفسه في هيئته ومقعده هيئة مالك الإمام بالأندلس، فإنه عرض عليه قضاء الجماعة، فامتنع، فكان أمير الأندلس لا يولي أحدا القضاء بمدائن إقليم الأندلس، إلا ‌من ‌يشير ‌به ‌يحيى بن يحيى، فكثر لذلك تلامذة يحيى بن يحيى، وأقبلوا على فقه مالك، ونبذوا ما سواه. (سير أعلام النبلاء – 10 / 524)

• • Being the last student of Imām Māik, there was no one else in Andalus who could claim the same. There was no rival for Imām Yaḥyā in that entire Western portion of the Islāmic empire. No one could compete against him, Hence, all students in that region would only attain the Muwaṭṭa from Imām Yaḥyā, and they would then transmit that recension.

‘Allāmah aḍ-Ḍhahabī said:

روى عنه خلق من علماء الأندلس، وانتفعوا به وبعلمه وبفضله. ونال من الرئاسة والحرمة الوافرة ما لم ينله غيره. (تاريخ الإسلام للإمام الذهبي –  17 / 415)

“A huge group of scholars from scholars narrated from him, and benefitted from him and his knowledge and virtues. He attained such leadership and great respect that was unmatched.” (Tārīkh al-Islām –  17 / 415)

Since he was the last student to hear the Muwaṭṭa directly, and the fact that he had:

• • authority over judges,
  • the privilege is issuing verdicts to the rulers, and:
  • the reputation as the most senior Muftī,

Thousands of students attended his Durūs, and they in turn passed his transmission on to the next generation.

Aḥmad ibn Khālid explains the great impact that Yaḥyā had:

لم يعط أحد من أهل العلم بالأندلس منذ دخلت الإسلام من الخطوة، وعِظَم القدر وجلالة الذكر، ما أعطيه يحيى بن يحيى. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 311)

“No other scholar was given such honour and dignity and reverence in Spain since the time Islām entered it like what Yaḥyā was given.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 311)

• • Since there were thousands of students who heard the Muwaṭṭa only from him whilst he was alive, after he passed away, everyone in that region transmitted the Muwaṭṭa only via him. The recension of Yaḥyā al-Laythī got passed on generation to generation and people began to only trust this transmission.

In the fifth generation, the great Mālikī scholar, ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him), mentioned:

وإنما اعتمدت على رواية يحيى بن يحيى المذكورة خاصة لموضعه عند أهل بلدنا من الثقة والدين والفضل والعلم والفهم ولكثرة استعمالهم لروايته وراثة عن شيوخهم وعلمائهم إلا أن يسقط من روايته حديث من أمهات أحاديث الأحكام أو نحوها فأذكره من غير روايته إن شاء الله. فكل قوم ينبغي لهم امتثال طريق سلفهم فيما سبق إليهم من الخير وسلوك منهاجهم فيما احتملوا عليه من البر وان كان غيره مباحا مرغوبا فيه.  (مقدمة التمهيد – 1 / 10)

“I adopted Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā’s recension, especially because of the place he occupies in the hearts of Moroccans because of his reliability, devotion, gracefulness, knowledge, and understanding. Every person should adhere to the practice of his predecessors and follow their example in doing what is good, even when the behavior of others is likewise permissible and desirable.” (Muqaddimah at-Tamhīd – 1 / 10)

Only the great ‘Ulamā would have Ijāzah in the other recensions. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said:

قصدناها من جملة روايات الموطأ لاعتماد أهل أُفٌقنا عليها غالبا دون غيرها إلا المكثرين ممن اتسعت روايته وكثر سماعه (مشارق الأنوار على صحاح الآثار – 1 / 8)

“We chose his transmission over the transmission of others because the people of our areas have mostly relied on his recension rather than others; except those whose narrations have expanded and he heard a lot.” (Mashāriq -Anwār – 1 / 8)

• • Andalus became the main hub of the Mālikī Madhab, and his recension was the common transmission there. It is the Mālikīs who would give the absolute most importance to learning and studying the Muwaṭṭa This led to continuous attention to his recension.

• • Allāh Ta’ālā made it such that those who studied the Muwaṭṭa based on his Riwāyah, they were all blessed with long lives.  That makes the chains to him shorter, and scholars in subsequent generations wanted the Muwaṭṭa with shorter chains.

• • The Mālikīs in that area wrote detailed commentaries on the transmission of Yaḥyā al-Laythī.

• • Upon inspection, it was found that the Muwaṭṭa of Yaḥyā al-Laythī was indeed the most accurate.

‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said:

ولعمري، لقد حصلت نقله عن مالك، وألفيته من أحسن أصحابه نقلا، ومن أشدهم تخلصا في المواضع التي اختلف فيها رواة “الموطأ”، إلا أن له وهما وتصحيفا في مواضع فيها سماجة. (التمهيد – 5 / 108)

“Most definitely, he attained transmission, and I found him to be the best from the transmitters of Mālik and the most accurate in those narrations where the transmitter differ, except that he has some illusions and misstatements in certain places which have mistakes.” (At-Tamhīd – 5 / 108)

Inaccuracies in the Transmission of Yaḥyā al-Laythī

There are some mistakes in the transmission of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said:

وفي حديث الليث وغيره أوهام نقلت وكُلَّم فيها، فلم يغير ما في كتابه، واتبعه الرواة عنه. (ترتيب المدارك وتقريب المسالك – 1 / 311)

“In the narrations of Layth and others there are errors that were narrated and spoken about, he did not change what was in his book, and the transmitters from him followed suit.” (Tartīb al-Madārik – 1 / 311)

Imām Yaḥyā al-Laythī noticed about seventy to eighty errors within the Muwaṭṭa, and he knew that they were incorrect. Since he heard them incorrectly, Imām Yaḥyā decided to quote them verbatim as he heard them; which means the he quoted the mistake. The mistakes are not actually from Yahyā ibn Yahyā.

Then from Imām Yaḥyā, there are two main transmitters from him:

1. 1. His son, ‘Ubaydullāh. He continued to quote the narrations with the errors, as he heard them.
   2. Muhammad ibn Waḍāḥ. He corrected these errors from his side. Therefore, the transmissions from him link to Yaḥyā, however, they are corrected.

Setbacks of the Copy of Yaḥyā:

1. There are a few narrations from the chapter of I’tikāf that he did not hear directly from Imām Mālik.

This commences form the chapter of:

خروج المعتكف إلى العيد.

For example, the chain of the first narration goes as follows:

‌يحيى ، عن ‌زياد بن عبد الرحمن ، عن ‌مالك ، عن ‌سمي، مولى أبي بكر

1. Since Imām Yaḥyā al-Laythī transmitted those mistakes, his copy will have errors. It was correct for Imām Yaḥyā to transmit the narrations as he heard them, but it would have been better if he made the effort to hear the narrations correctly, and then transmit them correctly. Some discrepancies are in wording, others have major additions, and some even differ on the comments of Imām Mālik (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him). Ibn Nāsir ad-Dīn (may Allāḥ Ta’ālā have mercy on him) writes:

وقد أخذ عليه في روايته “الموطأ” وحديث الليث أوهام نقلت ، وكلم فيها فلم يغير ما في كتابه ، وتبعه الرواة عنه (إتحاف السالك برواة الموطأ عن الإمام مالك – ص: 217)

‘’He attained from him in his transmission of the Muwaṭṭa, and in the narrations of Layth errors that are narrated and were spoken about. But he did not change what was in his book, and the transmitters from him followed suit.” (Itḥāf as-Sālik: 217)

We quoted from ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abdil Barr (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) that he mentioned that everything was perfect, besides those few errors:

ولعمري، لقد حصلت نقله عن مالك، وألفيته من أحسن أصحابه نقلا، ومن ‌أشدهم ‌تخلصا في المواضع التي اختلف فيها رواة “الموطأ”، إلا أن له وهما وتصحيفا في مواضع فيها سماجة. (التمهيد – 5 / 108) 

“Most definitely, he attained transmission and from the best transmitters, and I found him to be the best from the transmitters of Mālik and the most accurate in those narrations where the transmitter differ, except that he has some illusions and mis-statements in certain places which have mistakes.” (At-Tamhīd – 5 / 108)

Copies of Books in the Past

The recension of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā became the most famous and prevalent. Therefore, there were many scholars, students and even people from the general masses who had copies of the Muwaṭṭaʾ according to this recension. That in turn led to many manuscripts, and with the advent of printing, these manuscripts made their way to libraries and museums. Many families also safely kept the manuscript that they attained from their ancestors.

There were also many scholars who had copies, and these were sometimes past down within their progeny. Therefore, in one book, the details and locations of more than 250 manuscripts have been mentioned. Shaykh Muṣṭafā Azmī wrote:

ولعل أوسع وأشمل تسجيل لهذا الكتاب هو ما جاء في الفهرس الشامل للتراث العربي الإسلامي المخطوط. فقد سجل هذا الكتاب أكثر من مائتين وخمسين مخطوطة. (مقدمة الأعظمي لطبعته – 1 / 314)

Published Editions

After the Qur‘ān, it will not be an exaggeration to claim that the most important book that we need to determine whether it has been typed out accurately or not, is the Muwaṭṭa. For this, we need to explore and study the various prints of the Muwaṭṭa. If one intends to memorise, study, or even just read the Muwaṭṭa, then they should use a correct and the most accurate print.

The Muwaṭṭaʾ was published in India around two-and-a-quarter centuries back. This is the Delhi lithograph edition that was published in 1216 AH.

Over the next few year, there were numerous other prints that were published in various parts of the Islamic world; from India to Egypt and even Lebanon and Tunisia. But it is almost impossible now to obtain any of these prints.

Later, a few other prints then came into circulation, but because they did not mention which script was used to type it out, they became worthless.

We will only focus on those prints which possibly have some value.

Edition of Shaykh Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī

In 1951, Shaykh Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī printed his copy. This was then regarded as the best copy.

A positive feature was that Shaykh Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī provided references of all the aḥādith that feature in the Six Books. He also added a directory which would make it easy to find the narrations.

For this edition, Shaykh Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī only used the previous copies. He used six earlier printed copies which were published between 1280 AH to 1353 AH. He did not consult any earlier manuscripts. He sufficed with simply using a few prints from a century before him. Yet, his print was regarded as the best at that time.

Surprisingly, the editor, Shaykh Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī is an amazing muḥaqqiq and there were so many manuscripts of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that were easily available. For his other books, he would generally explore and get the best manuscripts. If he really wanted to, he could have gained the best manuscripts and he could have used those as his sources for typing. This print would have then been the all-time best. But it now remains deficient because he did not get his print typed out from even one accurate manuscript.

Moreover, the wordings that he used and the meanings that he preferred are not the best. This further downgrades the value of his copy.

It also invited much unwarranted criticism from scholars who browsed through his annotations.

But the worst is that he did not stick rigidly to the wordings of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā. He chose some wordings of other students of Imām Mālik. This drastically dropped the value of his edition.

Edition of Bashshār ʿAwwād

Another editor whose edition is worth noting is Shaykh Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf. His two-volume edition was published in 1996 by Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī.

Noting the calibre of the editor, there was great hope that this would be the best print. However, due to the Iraqi Kurdish civil war that was taking place at that time, Shaykh Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf was very restricted on his resources.

He himself admits that he only used one manuscript, and that too, was written in 749 AH. It was copied from the manuscript of Ibn Masdī (d. 366 AH). He described this manuscript as a ‘valuable pearl’. 

We accept the caliber of the owner of this earlier manuscript, Ibn Masdī, but we cannot ignore the fact that the actual manuscript that he was using was written close to six centuries after Imām Mālik. Likewise, he used just this one manuscript, and using only one manuscript is insufficient.

Shaykh Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf also consulted some commentaries and prior prints, but that does not add any value.

Had he conducted half the effort that he undertook for At–Tamhīd; the commentary of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that he published in 17 volumes, his edition would have really stood out.

Nonetheless, Bashshār ʿAwwād himself admits that his edition is not the best.

Edition of Muṣtafā Al-Aʿẓamī

The next print that was typed out from a valuable manuscript is that of Shaykh Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī. This was published by Muassasat Zāyid ibn Sulṭān Āl Nahyān (Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan Charitable and Humanitarian Foundation) in 1421 AH (2000). It was then circulated by the Emirati government.

This edition is in eight volumes, although the entire first volume is dedicated to the introduction, and the index is in three volumes. Hence, only four volumes contain the actual text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Shaykh Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī used six manuscripts. He mentions about the main manuscript that he used:

فهي من أنفس المخطوطات، كتبت في سنة 613 هـ على رق الغزال بخط دقيق، تمتاز هذه المخطوطة على أنها تذكر فروق الروايات لعشرات النسخ من أول الكتاب إلى آخره. (مقدمة الأعظمي للموطأ – 1 / 317)

He then says:

ومن الغريب أن الناسخ رحمه الله حرمنا من اسمه فلم يذكر إطلاقا، ووضع في نهاية الكتاب بيانا للرموز المستعملة في الكتاب.

حسب علمي هذه نسخة فريدة، ولم أطلع على أية نسخة أخرى تشتمل على فروق الروايات بالتوسع كما في هذه المخطوطة، وهي تتفوق على – الأغلب – على نسخة ابن بشكوال التي نوه بها الشيخ محمد الطاهر بن عاشور رحمه الله.

وبالرغم من كل المحاسن ففيها عيب، لأنها خالية عن أية سماع، لا في البداية ولا في النهاية، ولا في داخل الكتاب في موضع ما، على كل اعتبرت هذه المخطوطة أصلا للاعتماد عليها لتحقيق النص.

استمر البحث للحصول على نسخة ثالثة، فقد وجدت في مكتبة كوبريلي باستانبول، نسخة عادية من بداية القرن السادس، ولم أرغب فيها، وعندما أردتها لم أحصل عليها. (مقدمة الأعظمي للموطأ – 1 / 318)

He mentions about the manuscripts that he used:

على كل تجمعت لدي صور عديدة للموطأ أذكر منها ثلاث نسخ كاملة وأخرى ناقصة:

1 – مخطوطة الأصل – كاملة.

2 – مخطوطة من أنقرة كاملة وقد قرأ فيها حمزة الحسيني، ومحمد بن سلامي بن رافع. وابن حجر، وعدد من المحدثين. ومن هذه الناحية تعتبر من المخطوطات القيمة لما تشتمل عليه من القراءات والسماعات.

3 – مخطوطة بخط شريح الرعيني – كاملة.

4 – صورة مخطوطة ناقصة من مركز الملك فيصل بالرياض، ومحل الأصل بباريس.

5 – مخطوطة ناقصة من مركز الملك فيصل للبحوث والدراسات الإسلامية بالرياض.

6 – مخطوطة ناقصة من دبلن جستربيي. (مقدمة الأعظمي للموطأ – 1 / 319)

Many people till today claim that this is the best print.

Shaykh Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī does provide some very valuable points in his footnotes. He outlines the differences between the manuscripts. He provides a summary of what ‘Allāmah Jawharī mentioned. He also relied profusely on the commentary of ʿAllāmah Zurqānī. With that, he provided references for the various Aḥādīth that are quoted in other books. At the end of the book, he gives brief details on the narrators of the Muwaṭṭa.

Although he used six manuscripts and even two prints, he unfortunately made no effort to ensure that he copied it accurately from the manuscripts.

This print is thus filled with errors. Most likely, he did not review and confirm if everything was copied and typed correctly from the manuscripts.

The main manuscript that he used also had some flaws, as he mentioned:

‌‌المشكلات في المخطوطات القديمة عامة

نظرا لقدم المخطوطات كثيرا ما توضع الجلود أو الأوراق لترميم طرف أو جزء متآكل منها، وبالتالي هذا الترميم يأكل جزءا من النص نفسه، أو الهامش.

وأمر آخر: في حالة التصوير لا يمكن الضغط على الجلد، ولذلك يختفي في التصوير الجزء الأخير من السطر أو بداية السطر أحيانا، ويقع الباحث في ضيق وحرج شديد  (مقدمة الأعظمي للموطأ – 1 / 320)

Furthermore, we spoke earlier about the errors that Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā transmitted.  Muḥammad ibn al-Waḍḍāḥ al-Marwānī corrected those errors, whereas ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā decided that he will transmit the Muwaṭṭaʾ exactly how his father transmitted it and exactly how he heard it, without any corrections. Hence, the transmission of ʿUbayd Allāh , the son of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā is the more accurate transmission.

The principle is that a narrator should transmit the error exactly as he heard it, and if he wants to make corrections, he may do so thereafter by clearly explaining that the correction is from his part. He cannot correct it and transmit the corrected version, making it seem as if that is from the author.. The reason for this is that there is a great possibility that a narrator might deem or assume something to be an error and correct it, whereas the reality is that the original was correct. Hence, the correction now becomes a ‘distortion’.

Unfortunately, Shaykh Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī (and Shaykh Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī) used the script of Muḥammad ibn al-Waḍḍāḥ. That means that the text is not precisely the same as what was transmitted by Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā. Hence, this is not an accurate transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Now we come to the Maghribī print.

Maghribī Print

The King of Morocco, Muḥammad as-Sādis (VI) ordered the Lajnah Iḥyāʾ at-Turātḥ al-Islāmī (The Committee for the Renewal of Islamic Learning) to publish the best edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. He stipulated a few conditions:

• • This new edition should be a scholarly and critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that meets the highest academic standards.
  • It should be free of the many errors that plague the previous editions.
  • Anything missing in other copies should all be included.
  • The quality must supersede all the other prints.

Embarking on this project, the Lajnah made the riwāyah of ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā from Yaḥyā the primary riwāyah for this work.

The king instructed them to focus mostly on the manuscripts that were in the libraries, museums and archives of Morocco. After collecting all the catalogs from the various libraries and museums; they manage to find six valuable manuscripts in Morocco.

Manuscripts of the Maghribī Print

First Manuscript

A manuscript that is based on that of Abū ʿAbdullāh Ibn at-Talāʿ (497 AH). Because of his long life, he independently had a very short chain for the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Between him and Imām Mālik were only five links. He spent all the years of his life only in teaching the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Hence, many students from around the world came to take the Muwaṭṭaʾ from him.

If anyone sought this short chain, they had to get it from Ibn at- Talāʿ. The script is extremely beautiful.

This copy was based on the copy of Ibn at-Talāʿ. It was written in the year 613 AH. The Moroccan scholars found a script that was based on the copy of Abū Abdillāh ibn Salamah (d. 597 AH). He was a trustworthy and credible narrator and was a companion of Ibn Qarqūl, Ibn Bashkawāl, and Ibn Khayr, all of whom were masters of transmission, accuracy, and reliability.  This script was diligently cross checked with this copy. This script was completed in 613 AH. They took extra precaution and were very precise in the manner in which they copied the manuscript. Due to that, this became the most accurate manuscript. The handwriting of this manuscript is also very legible, and hence when typing it out, it is assured that the words were understood correctly.

This manuscript has many valuable footnotes, annotations and comments which show differences in the various riwāyāt. The primary text of this script is on the riwāyah of ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā.

The Moroccan scholars describe this manuscript as:

هذه النسخة من أدق النسخ المعروفة من الموطأ (المقدمة – ص:70)

“This is one of the most accurate copies known of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.” (The Introduction – 70)

They further commented on this manuscript:

تعد نسخته بإجماع المعتنين من أدق نسخ الموطأ وأضبطها (ص: 75)

“His copy, unanimously, is one of the most accurate and precise copies of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.” (Page, 75)

The value of this copy is that it was passed on to the most senior of scholars. For example, in the next century, Abū ʿAbdillāh Ibn Rushayd had this exact copy, and he signed on it in the year 720 AH. Likewise, ‘Abū Abdillāh, al-Wādī Āshī also had a copy. He put his signature on it in 728. These were two of the greatest traditionists of the Maghrib.

The benefit of it being passed on to scholars is that if there were inaccuracies, they would be corrected. Hence, determining the accuracy of the script becomes the combined effort of the most leading scholars over the centuries.

This manuscript has been preserved in al-Maktabah al-Waṭniyyah, and its number in the library is: 708ج

Second Manuscript

This is based on a copy that is dated 421 AH, and it was copied from the script of Abu ‘Umar al-Muntajālī, who passed away in 350. He was a direct student of ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā, which means that between him and Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā, there is only one link (that of ʿUbayd Allāh).

This script was cross checked twice:

• • In the year 487 AH with a script of al-Muntajāli which highlights the differences between the transmission of ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā and Ibn Wadhāḥ.
  • In the year 557 AH it was cross-checked with a script that is in the handwriting of Abū ʿAbdillāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdillāh Ibn Abī ʿĪsā, who passed away in the year 339 AH (11 years before al-Muntajāli passed away). This script is on par with that of al-Muntajāli, because both al-Muntajāli and Abu ʿAbdillah Muhammad ibn ʿAbdillāh were from the same time. Hence, this became a very accurate and precise copy. To add value, there are valuable annotations, informative footnotes and priceless comments that the scholars of those centuries included.

This is enough to exemplify the great value of this manuscript.

The worth increased when the most popular traditionist of the sixth century, Abū Bakr ibn Rizq got possession of this copy and used it for his teachings. He narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ via Abū Baḥr Sufyān b. al-ʿĀṣ, who was one of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s companions.

This copy was in Khānqah al-Ḥamzāwiyyah, and it ultimately got preserved in Tunisia.

They wrote:

وهذا غاية ما يرتجى في النسخ من العلو (المقدمة – ص: 7)

“This is the ultimate superiority which can be hoped for from a manuscript.” (The Introduction – 7)

Third Manuscript

Another manuscript that was used for the preparation of this new edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is the text of the great qārī and the accomplished lexicographer and narrator, Abū Muḥammad,  Shurayḥ ibn  Muḥammad ar-Raʾīnī (d. 539/1144). He is one the teachers of Abū Bakr ibn Khayr and a companion of Abū Muḥammad ibn Ḥazm! Shurayḥ ibn  Muḥammad ar-Ra’īnī  wrote the text with his own hand for his son, Muḥammad ibn Shurayḥ (d. 567 AH). He was a perfectionist and was known for his accuracy.

One of Shurayḥ’s students, ʿAbdullāh ibn Ballīṭ al-Qaysī (d. 530/1135) crosschecked this copy. Ibn al-Abbār and Abū ʿAbdillāh ibn ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Murrākushī testified that this student is a trustworthy and careful transmitter.

Because of its accuracy and the care with which it was prepared, this copy is deemed an invaluable piece of work. Furthermore, it includes an impressive number of valuable marginalia (ḥāshiyyah) and glossaries, as well as notes on the textual differences among the various transmissions of the text and recensions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

A great number of the most rigorous senior scholars of Andalusia, whose excellence in the transmission of Prophetic Traditions in Ḥadīth is expressly noted in various Andalusian sources, studied this manuscript in the six century AH (twelfth century CE), as explicitly evidenced by the record of study sessions noted on the manuscript.

The one issue is that this copy is based on the riwāyah of Ibn Waḍḍāḥ and Ibn Bāz, via their two students, Ibn al-Jubāb and Ibn Ayman. At the end of this manuscript the names of the leading scholars are cited, that they heard the Muwaṭṭaʾ via this script. (page 63 and 72). 

There were the three main copies that were used.

These three texts are the main manuscripts that were used as a basis for the Moroccan print.

Besides these, they used three other manuscripts, but those were not as accurate as these. They were simply used for comparison and correction.

In total, they relied on these six manuscripts for their print. 

They mention that there are so many valuable manuscripts which are in the personal ownership of individuals. Since those wanted to charge ridiculous prices – they assumed that since the government is sponsoring this they can put any price tag and these researchers would pay anything, unfortunately, they were unable to get hold of those scripts.

But, they mention that even though they were unable to attain those scripts, these six copies that they have are sufficient and serve the purpose of printing a very accurate copy of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Additional benefits of this copy

• • They highlighted places where previous scholars focused on all the transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ and explained where the errors were, or what was impossible to be from Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā, or contradicts what more reliable transmitters of the Muwaṭṭaʾ narrated.
  • They explained what was transmitted in different ways.
  • They typed out the Arabic in the modern and common way. Previously, scholars in the west would put one dot on top for a qāf, and one dot at the bottom for a fāʾ. Likewise, the typing was done according to the accepted methodology of today. For example, instead of لاكن, they would write لكن.
  • They added some of the additional benefits which the scribes wrote in their copies (example, the small letters above some words, like the singular and plural etc.).
  • The ensured to read the original texts slowly and accurately. They went the extra step to make sure that they are not making any errors.
  • They read through the copy and cross checked multiple times to be absolutely sure that everything is written accurately.
  • They highlighted the order of the different chapters which differed in the manuscripts.
  • When there are difficult names in the chains of transmission, they explained how these names should be pronounced.
  • They clarified who the narrators were if different names were used.
  • They provided brief information on some narrators,
  • The kept insertions (lahq). This is when the writer missed out something, now its not like Microsoft Word that he just copies and pastes, and he is sorted. Rather, they would draw a line and make a note of it in the margins.
  • They corrected apparent grammatical mistakes.
  • They carried out the normal practices of clearly demarcating where the narration starts and where it ends, numbering the aḥādīth, comments of Imām Mālik and the chapters, adding punctuation marks and also highlight the name of Imām Mālik.
  • Referencing the verses of the Qurʾān.
  • They explained difficult words.
  • After they completed their meticulous and thorough taḥqīq, they presented the copy to senior scholars to first check through it, before they could publish it.

Dār al-Makniz print

In spite of the print Moroccan print being the best, we mentioned two slight defects:

• • They could only use manuscripts in Morocco. They were not permitted to use manuscripts that were available in the libraries or museums of other parts of the world.
  • There were some families in Morocco who had early manuscripts, but knowing that the government is sponsoring this project, they tried to exploit it by setting extremely high prices. They assumed the government would be willing to pay any amount. They will be desperate, since it is a once off project with much funding and effort. However, the government did not purchase those.

Hence, even after the first print of the Moroccan print, a group of researchers decided to work on the Muwaṭṭaʾ again, and use the manuscripts which were available in other parts of the world. This was under the supervision of Dr Aḥmad Maʿbad ʿAbd al-Karīm, who was the professor of Ḥadīth in Jāmiʿah Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd, the same university where Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah used to teach.

They gathered 16 manuscripts from various different parts of the world. They were the only editors and publishers who had access to 11 of these manuscripts. 8 of these 11 manuscripts were the scripts of the entire book.

First Manuscript

The main manuscript that they used was a copy of the manuscript that is preserved in the Chesty Beatty library in Ireland. This manuscript was written in the year 277 AH. That is only 43 years from Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā .

They acknowledged the objections of Muṣtafā al-Aʿḍhamī that there are annotations of Jiyāni (498 AH) and Ibn ‘Itāb (531 AH), and those seem very similar to the original text. Hence, this manuscript would have to be after the first third of the sixth century. However, they claim that the writings are similar for an average person. A master in Arabic script and calligraphy will easily notice the differences. It is also normal for latter scholars to write short points on an older manuscript.

Hence, the first manuscript of theirs is really valuable.

Second Manuscript

It is a copy of a manuscript in Paris.  This was written by ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Saʿīd al-Warrāq. It was completed in mid Rajab, 391 AH.

This entire manuscript was cross checked with the manuscript of Abū Muḥammad al-Aṣīli. This was completed in the year 480 AH. Differences between the various riwāyāt were highlighted.

Third Manuscript

This is a really valuable manuscript which no publisher of the Muwaṭṭaʾ had access to before them. This manuscript was in the possession of Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Kattānī (1382). It is now preserved in Jāmiʿah al-Qarawiyyīn, in Fez, Morocco.

This manuscript was written in the year 503 AH. It is actually on gazelle skin. It is written on a parchment of gazelle leather.

Although it is later than the earlier two manuscripts, it gets the same benefit of the manuscript of the Moroccan print, and that is there are numerous tawthiqāt of leading scholars who read this manuscript or who cross checked it. The students of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr had access to this manuscript.

Besides these three manuscripts they used, you may have noticed:

• • The differences in the amount of manuscripts between the Maghribi print and the Makniz print.
  • I explain more on the manuscripts of the Makniz print.

The reason is:

When basing the decision on which is better, solely on the manuscripts, then you have to take note of:

• • quality
  • quantity

Additional Points for the Makniz Print

Besides this, for the Makniz print, they also referred to all possible prints of the past. That means that they also referred back to the first edition of the Moroccan print.

They also cross checked with how the commentators quote the text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

They added very valuable footnotes, which they coloured differently. They carried out takhrīj of the aḥādīth which come in the aṣ-Ṣīḥāh as-Sittah and Musnad Aḥmad, and they linked that to Tuḥfah al-Ashrāf and Itḥāf al-Maharah. They also explained the difficult words.

The main benefit is that they scrutinized how Muḥammad ibn al-Waḍḍāḥ related the text. Whilst they added this to the main text, which could become a defect, they highlighted it in the footnotes. That converts it from a defect to a strong point. However, this is a point which makes it necessary for us all to use one and the same copy.

Sometimes the qirāʾah of the Qurʾānic verse in the Muwaṭṭaʾ is according to the riwāyah of Nāfiʿ. They highlighted the differences on these. To give the very simple example so that even those of you who did not study Qirā’ah can understand: both Bashshār ʿAwwād and Muṣtafa al-‘Ahami typed the verse as:

مالك يوم الدين

However, in this print they made sure to type it as: ملك

I personally prefer the Makniz print.

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

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