Why Did Imām Muslim Not Relate Ḥadīth From His Teacher, Imām Bukhārī, in His Ṣaḥīḥ Compilation?

INTRODUCTION

Amīr al-Muʾminīna fi al-Ḥadīth, Imām Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH) is one of the most distinguished – if not the most distinguished – of the scholars of ḥadīth. His magnum opus, commonly known as Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, is widely famed for being “The most authentic book after the Book of Allāh Taʿālā” and is one of the most important and reliable of all ḥadīth collections. Imām Firabrī said, ‘Ninety thousand people heard the Ṣaḥīḥ from Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl though no one besides me remains who narrates it.’ (as-Siyar 12:398). Imām Bukhārī (may Allāh have mercy on him) visited Nishapur towards the end of his life after the year 250 AH, and that is when Imām Muslim (d. 261 AH) (may Allāh have mercy on him) got the opportunity to hear ḥadīth from him. However, when we read Imām Muslim’s renowned ḥadīth compilation titled: al-Musnad aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mukhtaṣar min as-Sunani bi Naql al-ʿAdl ʿ an al-ʿAdl ʿan Rasūlillāh ﷺ, known in short as ‘Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim’, we cannot help but wonder, why do we not find Imām Muslim narrating aḥādīth from the great ḥadīth master, Imām Bukhārī? Scholars have mentioned a number of reasons that could possibly answer this question. Below I have listed some of the most common ones.

FIRST REASON

Imām Muslim did not meet Imām Bukhārī until the later part of Imām Bukhārī’s life, after Imām Muslim had completed the 15-16 year compilation of his Ṣaḥīḥ. This was around the year 250 AH, and we can even add that this was relatively close to the end of Imām Muslim’s life also, thus further adding strength to this reason.

Imām Nawawī (may Allāh have mercy on him) mentions in his Sharḥ Muslim (1:14):

 .وقد انتخب علمه ولخص ما ارتضاه في هذا الكتاب، وبقي في تهذيبه وانتقائه ستة عشر سنة، وجمعه من ألوف مؤلفة من الأحاديث الصحيحة

‘He meticulously selected and abridged what pleased him in this [Ṣaḥīḥ] compilation. He continued to revise and amend it for 16 years, and compiled it from a selection of thousands of authentic reports.’

Imām Dhahabī (may Allāh have mercy on him) mentions in his Siyaru Aʿlām an-Nubalāʾ (12:566):

.قال أحمد بن سلمة : كنت مع مسلم في تأليف “صحيحه” خمس عشرة سنة

‘Aḥmad ibn Salamah said, “I was with [Imām] Muslim during the compilation of his Ṣaḥīḥ for 15 years.”‘

Imām Hākim (may Allāh have mercy on him) mentions regarding Imām Bukhārī in his Talkhīṣ Tārīkh Nīsābūr under report number 493:

.ورد بنيسابور على كبر سنه، وأقام به خمس سنين، (إلى) أن وقعت (الفتنة) بينه وبين شيخ عصره محمد بن يحيى الذهلي

“He came to Nīshāpūr at an old age and stayed therein for 5 years until the ordeal that occurred between him and the scholar of his time: Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā adh-Dhuhlī…”

Hence we can conclude that although Imām Muslim did study with Imām Bukhārī, it was for a brief period of time and after Imām Muslim had completed his compilation. When he got this opportunity to study with him, he utalised that time in questioning him regarding problematic narrations, as opposed to general taḥammul. Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb, the ḥadīth expect, relates from his father:

.رأيت مسلم بن الحجاج بين يدي البخاري يسأله سؤال الصبي

‘I saw Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj sit in front of Bukhārī, asking him questions [humbling himself] like a child.’

(Siyar 12:432)

Abū Ḥāmid Aḥmad ibn Ḥamdūn said:

سمعت مسلم بن الحجاج، وجاء إلى محمد بن إسماعيل البخاري، فقبل بين عينيه، فقال : دعني حتى أقبل رجليك يا أستاذ الأستاذين، وسيد المحدثين، وطبيب الحديث في علله

‘I heard Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, when he came to Muḥamad ibn Ismāʿīl and kissed him on the forehead saying, “O teacher of teachers, O master of the ḥadīth scholars, O expert of subtle defects in ḥadīth (lit. O doctor of the illnesses in ḥadīth), allow me to kiss your feet.”‘

ibid.

SECOND REASON

Imām Muslim did not narrate from him due to the dispute that occurred pertaining to the issue of the khalq al-Qur’ān [mainly] between Imām Bukhārī and his teacher Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā adh-Dhuhlī (not to be confused with Khālid ibn Aḥmad adh-Dhuhlī, the governor of Bukhārā at the time). Imām Muslim did not include either of their aḥādīth in his Ṣaḥīḥ compilation to ensure that all people can take benefit from his book, and none of the two sides can have any aversions to it.

This becomes more evident given the fact that Imām Muslim narrated from Imām Bukhārī outside of his Ṣaḥīḥ compilation. Imām Dhahabī mentioned in as-Siyar (12:397) under the profile of Imām Bukhārī, ‘…and Muslim narrated from him in other than his Ṣaḥīḥ.’ Similarly, Imām Mizzī in his Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ ar-Rijāl (24:436) – when mentioning those who narrated from Imām Bukhārī – said, ‘…and Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj narrated [from him], outside of his Saḥīḥ.’

In the footnotes of Imām Ḥāzimī’s Shurūṭ al-Aʾimmah al-Khamsah (pp. 111-112), Shaykh ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah comments:

يشير إلى ما وقع بين البخاري وشيخه محمد بن يحيى الذهلي، حين قدم البخاري نيسابور وسألوه عن اللفظ، فقال: القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق، وأعمالنا مخلوقة.

قال أبو حامد بن الشرقي: سمعت الذهلي يقول: القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق، ومن زعم “لفظي بالقرآن مخلوق”، فهو مبتدع لا يجلس إلينا، ولا نكلم من يذهب بعد هذا إلى محمد بن إسماعيل. فانقطع الناس عن البخاري إلا مسلم بن الحجاج وأحمد بن سلمة. وبعث مسلم إلى الذهلي جميع ما كان كتب عنه على ظهر حمَّال، – بالحاء المهملة، ثم الميم المشددة بعدها. ع. – وقال الذهلي: لا يساكنني محمد بن إسماعيل في البلد، فخشي البخاري على نفسه وسافر منها.

‘He [Imām Ḥāzimī] is indicating to that which transpired between al-Bukhārī and his teacher Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā adh-Dhuhlī, when he (Bukhārī) came to Nīshāpūr and the people asked him regarding ‘the lafẓ’ (in reference to khalq al-Qurʾān). [Bukhārī] replied, “The Qurʾān is the uncreated speech of Allāh, and our actions are created.” Abū Ḥāmid ibn ash-Sharqī said, “I heard adh-Dhuhlī saying: ‘The speech of Allāh is uncreated, and whosoever opines that my recital of the Qurʾān is created, then he is a heretic and must not sit with us. We will not speak to those who sit with Muḥammad ibn Ismāʾil after this [day].'” Thus people abstained, except Imām Muslim and Aḥmad ibn Salamah. On one occasion, Muslim sent a camel-load of all that he had written from Bukhārī to Dhuhlī. [Despite that,] Dhuhlī stated, “Bukhārī will not live [together with me] in one country!” Thus, Imām Bukhārī feared for his life and left Nīshāpūr.’

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah therafter states:

ومسلم لم يخرج بعد ذلك لا عن الذهلي ولا عن البخاري، وأما البخاري فأخرج حديث الذهلي في “صحيحه” مع ما جرى بينهما، إلا أنه كان يقول: حدثنا محمد، أو حدثنا محمد بن خالد، ينسبه إلى جده، أخذا بعلمه ودفعا لما يتوهم من أن شيخه محق في طعنه لو صحَّ باسمه

“After that, Muslim neither narrated from Bukhārī, nor Dhuhlī in his Ṣaḥīḥ. As for Bukhārī, he narrated one ḥadīth from Dhuhlī in his Ṣaḥīḥ despite what transpired between them. However, [when narrating], he would conceal his name and say, ‘Muḥammad narrated to us’, or ‘Muḥammad ibn Khālid narrated to us’ – by attributing him to his forefather. This was in order to take from his knowledge, but not give the impression that his teacher [Dhuhlī] was correct in the criticism that he levelled against him.”

THIRD REASON

Some say that Imām Muslim did not narrate from Imām Bukhārī because the former disagreed with Imām Bukhārī regarding the latter’s condition of liqāʾ (the necessity of every narrator meeting his shaykh), whereas muʿāṣarah (being contemporaneous) was enough according to Imām Muslim.

Note: I do not personally understand how this can be a reason as the two are not mutually exclusive. Whilst Imām Bukhārī necessitates liqāʾ (in theory), it would inevitably include muʿāṣarah, as the former cannot exist except with the existence of the latter. Since this is the case, would Imām Bukhārī’s condition of liqāʾ not be sufficient – and even more – in fulfulling Imām Muslim’s condition? Not to mention that the scholars of uṣūl have discussed that attributing sharṭ al-liqāʾ to Imām Bukhārī and muʿāṣarah to Imām Muslim exclusively is not accurate; rather, practically, they essentially had the same criteria in this regard with Imām Bukhārī at times accepting the report of those among whom muʿāṣarah was established yet not liqāʾ and Imām Muslim not utalising the condition of muʿāṣarah unrestrictedly (ʿalā ‘l-iṭlāq) across the board.

Some have asserted that Imām Muslim did narrate one ḥadīth from Imām Bukhārī which is the following:

وَحَدَّثَنِي غَيْرُ، وَاحِدٍ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أَبِي أُوَيْسٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَخِي، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ بِلاَلٍ – عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الرِّجَالِ، مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ أَنَّ أُمَّهُ، عَمْرَةَ بِنْتَ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ قَالَتْ سَمِعْتُ عَائِشَةَ، تَقُولُ سَمِعَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَوْتَ خُصُومٍ بِالْبَابِ عَالِيَةً أَصْوَاتُهُمَا وَإِذَا أَحَدُهُمَا يَسْتَوْضِعُ الآخَرَ وَيَسْتَرْفِقُهُ فِي شَىْءٍ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَفْعَلُ.‏ فَخَرَجَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَيْهِمَا فَقَالَ ‏ “‏أَيْنَ الْمُتَأَلِّي عَلَى اللَّهِ لاَ يَفْعَلُ الْمَعْرُوفَ‏”‏.‏ قَالَ أَنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فَلَهُ أَىُّ ذَلِكَ أَحَبَّ‏.‏ (كتاب المساقاة: باب اسْتِحْبَابِ الْوَضْعِ مِنَ الدَّيْنِ: 1557)

He narrates the ḥadīth saying, ‘More than one of our companions narrated to me…’

When we check Imām Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ, we notice that he narrated the same ḥadīth with the exact same chain, as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أَبِي أُوَيْسٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَخِي، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الرِّجَالِ، مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ أَنَّ أُمَّهُ، عَمْرَةَ بِنْتَ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ قَالَتْ سَمِعْتُ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ تَقُولُ سَمِعَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَوْتَ خُصُومٍ بِالْبَابِ عَالِيَةٍ أَصْوَاتُهُمَا، وَإِذَا أَحَدُهُمَا يَسْتَوْضِعُ الآخَرَ، وَيَسْتَرْفِقُهُ فِي شَىْءٍ وَهْوَ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَفْعَلُ‏.‏ فَخَرَجَ عَلَيْهِمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏”‏أَيْنَ الْمُتَأَلِّي عَلَى اللَّهِ لاَ يَفْعَلُ الْمَعْرُوفَ “‏‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، وَلَهُ أَىُّ ذَلِكَ أَحَبَّ‏.‏

Thus what is deduced by those who make the above assertion is that Imām Muslim had heard this ḥadīth from Imām Bukhārī, but instead of explicitly taking his name, he chose to use a more generalised phrase: ‘more than one of our companions…’ to report the ḥadīth. Imām Abū Nuʿaym stated in his al-Mustakhraj, ‘It is stated that Imām Muslim narrated this ḥadīth from Imām Bukhārī.

FOURTH REASON

Imām Muslim did not narrate from Imām Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ despite narrating from him outside of his Ṣaḥīḥ, out of his desire to get a shorter chain (ṭalaban li ‘l-ʿuluww). Both of them had teachers that belonged to a similar ṭabaqah (generation); therefore, instead of narrating from Imām Bukhārī by which his chain would be elongated, Imām Muslim would narrate from their teachers directly. However, an objection that can possibly be levelled here is that there are a number of aḥādīth in which Imām Bukhārī has a shorter chain than Imām Muslim, yet we find Imām Muslim narrating them with an extra link.

FIFTH REASON

Imām Muslim’s objective was to collect authentic narrations. Since Imām Bukhari had preceded him in that, Imām Muslim made an effort to bring aḥādīth that were not yet compiled; hence he deliberately avoided narrating from Imām Bukhārī.

CONCLUSION

Out of the above five reasons given as responses to why Imām Muslim did not narrate ḥadīth from Imām Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ, the first two reasons appear as the most suitable and substantiated. The underlying causes of both reasons are indisputable realities of their time, and thus we can even conclude that it may be a culmination of a number reasons that make up the ultimate response to this question and not a single one. It is true that Imām Muslim met Imām Bukhārī after the former had completed the compilation of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, so given this fact along with the ordeal of the khalq al-Qurʾān, Imām Muslim narrated from Imām Bukhārī outside of his Ṣaḥīḥ. Not to mention that the desire of shorter chains and the condition of liqāʾ may have also played a role in his decision, although their discrepancies were previously touched on.

May the infinite mercy of Allāh be upon both of them. Āmīn.

And Allāh Taʿālā knows best