Such Said a Hadith Charlatan
Introduction
To the laymen of any given subject, the fundamentals are enough to get lost in. However, to the scholars of any given subject, even the intricate details of a derivative issue are enough to go to war. This principle can be seen in Imām Muslim’s introduction into his Ṣaḥīḥ, in which he discusses the nature of the ambiguous term ʿan (عن).
Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj was born in the bustling city of Islamic thought, Nishapur. Imām Muslim’s father al-Ḥajjāj was a scholar and taught him the introductory sciences before sending him to study hadith. From Nishapur, Imām Muslim traveled all over the Muslim world in search of hadith. He compiled over 300,000 unique hadiths, each with their chain of narration, before returning to Nishapur. His zeal for hadith accompanied him up until his death. In a gathering of knowledge, he was asked about a hadith he didn’t recognize. He sat with a basket of dates searching for the hadith. When the morning came he had finished the dates, found the hadith, and passed away. This was the year 261 A.H. (al-Dhahabī 1982, 12:437)
The reputability of a hadith is only as strong as its chain of narrators to the Prophet ﷺ. It is as the scholar Abdullāh b. al-Mubārak (d.181 A.H.) said: “The chain of narrators is part of the religion, and without it anyone could say anything they wanted.” (al-Dhahabī 1982, 12:139) Usually, these chains are connected from narrator to narrator using the words ḥaddathanā or akhbaranā, meaning “the narrator directly informed us/told us”. However, issues arise when a narrator uses the term ʿan (lit. “from”), which doesn’t necessarily denote hearing directly from the previous narrator. It then becomes the job of the scholar of hadith to decipher what ʿan means and whether it constitutes a break in the chain.
In the introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Muslim says that ʿan conveys connectedness under two conditions: the two narrators must be contemporaries, and they must be reliable. Imām Muslim then admonishes an individual he only identifies a “hadith charlatan”, who held the opinion that the term ʿan is only considered connected if the two narrators were confirmed to have met, which can be known through the existence of a connected chain elsewhere – i.e. another chain using the verbiage of ḥaddathanā or akhbaranā – or through an explicit statement of them having met, “even if in passing”. Imām Muslim dismisses this opinion on the basis that it is unprecedented in the history of the intellectual hadith community and illogical, since taking this opinion would negate any chain with ʿan which we already know to be connected. (b.Ḥajjāj, 2004, 21)
Imām Muslim uses harsh language when referring to those who hold this opinion, leading many to question who he is talking about and whether it is a specific group. The prevailing opinion is that it refers to Imām Muslim’s teacher, Imām Al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH) and in turn al-Bukhārī’s teacher, Imām ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234 A.H.). Others have claimed that it was Ibn al-Madīnī alone or the Baghdadian scholar Imām Al-Ḥusayn al-Karābīsī (d. 245 AH). In this article, I will show that Muslim was not speaking about Al-Bukhārī, ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, nor Al-Karābīsī, and that he was instead speaking to the generation after him, using this harsh language as a warning to those who sought to champion this opinion.
Imām Al-Bukhārī
The inclusion of Imām al-Bukhārī might come as a surprise, since he is the most well-known of Imām Muslim’s teachers; however, this is the most commonly held position as well as the earliest position on this subject. Al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 A.H.) makes this claim in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, titled Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi-fawā’id Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Al-Qāḍī 2004, 1:164). Scholars like Imām Yaḥyā b. Sharaf al-Nawawī (d. 676 A.H.) quoted and championed this opinion, making it the dominant opinion on this subject (al-Nawawī 1994,1:183). This claim is aided by two pieces of evidence: that Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim had a falling out, and that Muslim subsequently didn’t narrate from al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ. In the following portion, I will address these two pieces of evidence and finally question whether Imām al-Bukhārī held this opinion at all.
Imām Al-Bukhārī & Imām Muslim’s alleged falling out
Imām Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Dhahabī (d.784 A.H.) in his Sīyar Aʿlām al-Nubalā reports the alleged falling out:
“Imām Muslim, due to his acrid temper, distanced himself from Imām al-Bukhārī and he (Imām Muslim) does not mention him in his Ṣaḥīḥ. Rather, he begins his book by criticizing those who stipulate needing at least one unambiguous meeting, and this is the opinion of Imām al-Bukhārī and his teacher Imām b. al-Madīnī.” (al-Dhahabī 1982, 12:564)
Imam al-Dhahabī writes this after a lengthy narration about Imām al-Bukhārī being kicked out of the city of Nishapur despite Imām Muslim standing up for him.
There are a few issues with this statement of Imām al-Dhahabī. Firstly, while Imām al-Dhahabī usually brings quotations and citations to build a narrative, this statement is preceded by “qultu” or “I said”, meaning that this is Imām al-Dhahabī’s own extrapolation and not from any direct narration. While this may not be an issue in itself, as Imām al-Dhahabī is a scholar of history, it contradicts the explicit narrations Imām al-Dhahabī mentions before it. Initially when Imām al-Bukhārī reached Nishapur, he was met with a warm reception. However, after he revealed his opinion that one’s utterance of the Quran is created, he had a falling out with the intellectual head of the city, Imām Muḥammad b. Yaḥyá al-Dhuhlī. Imām al-Dhuhlī staunchly disagreed with this and commanded everyone to abandon the gathering of Imām al-Bukhārī. Despite this, Imām Muslim continued to attend the gathering of Imām al-Bukhārī. He even goes as far as to state that, “No one detests you except for a jealous person and I bear witness that there is no one like you in the world”. It is far-fetched to claim without direct evidence that Imām Muslim would speak out against Imām al-Bukhārī in such a contentious way, especially after standing with him against Imām al-Dhuhlī and praising him so highly.
In his addendum on the “al-Mūqiẓah” of Imam al-Dhahabī, ShaykhʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah (d. 1999 CE) brings the argument that contrary to popular belief, Imām Muslim wrote his Ṣaḥīḥ before Imām al-Bukhārī’s arrival to Nishapur. We know that Imām Muslim died in 261 AH at the age of 55 and that the compilation of his Ṣaḥīḥ took 15 years. We also know that he finished writing his Ṣaḥīḥ in the year 250 AH. Then Abū Ghuddah claims that Imām al-Bukhārī arrived to Nishapur 250 AH and remained in Nishapur for 5 years. Keeping this in mind, it is clear that Imām Muslim didn’t quote Imām al-Bukhārī because he wasn’t present in Nishapur to be quoted. (al-Dhahabī al-Mūqiẓah,1:137)
Did Imām al-Bukhārī hold this opinion, to begin with?
To even begin to question if Imām Muslim intended Imām al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ one must first question if Imām al-Bukhārī held this opinion. It may seem absurd to question the attribution of this opinion to Imām al-Bukhārī. How could this theory become perhaps the most common answer to the question of who Imām Muslim was intending if Imām al-Bukhārī did not hold this opinion, to begin with? However, Imām al-Bukhārī does not state his criteria regarding ‘an nor any of his stipulations in his own Ṣaḥīḥ nor seemingly in any other work of his.
In his Ijmāʿ al-muḥaddithīn ʿalā ʿadam ishtirāṭ al-ʿilm bi al-samāʿ fī al-ḥadīth al-muʿanʿan bayn al-mutaʿāṣirīn, Shaykh al-Sharīf Ḥātim al-ʿAwnī presents fifteen proofs which illustrate that Imām al-Bukhārī did not hold this opinion. Al-ʿAwnī quotes four statements from Imām al-Bukhārī, narrated through his students, in which he goes against this opinion. One example is where Imām Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī (d. 297 A.H.) quotes Al-Bukhārī in his Al-ʿIlal al-kabīr. Imām al-Bukhārī, when asked about the chain of Abū Wāqid al-Laythī (d. 68 A.H.) from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār (d. 103 A.H.), states that it is a preserved chain because, “ʿAṭāʾb. Yasār must have met him. He is from the elders,” despite not having proof of a direct meeting. It is important to note that this does not necessarily mean that Imām al-Bukhārī definitively did not hold the opinion that Imām Muslim is rebuking, since he does not depart from this stance in his Ṣaḥīḥ, which is the best work to assess to gauge his criteria. (al-Tirmidhī 2009, 2:632)
While no evidence that al-ʿAwnī brings is conclusive, it is enough for one to at least question the attribution of this opinion to Imām al-Bukhārī, especially in the absence of any definitive proof of that opinion being attributed to him in the first place. (ʿAwnī 2000, 1:122)
Imām ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī
The next suspect to be examined is al-Bukhārī’s teacher and the other person mentioned by al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Imām ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī.
In his addendum to Al-Mūqiẓah of Imām al-Dhahabī, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah (d. 1999 C.E.) states the opinion that it is ImāmʿAlī b. al-Madīnī. Though he does not present any direct evidence that it is ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī alone, he quotes enough scholars on the issue to make it worth mentioning. While it might be compelling to claim that ImāmʿAlī b. al-Madīnī is the target since it likely isn’t Imām al-Bukhārī and al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ mentions him, it’s important to note that neither Abū Ghuddah nor anyone who quotes this opinion puts forward any explicit evidence that points to it being ImāmʿAlī b. al-Madīnī. (al-Dhahabī, al-Mūqiẓah,1:137)
In his footnotes on Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s Tadrib al-rāwī, Shihāb al-Dīn b. al-ʿAjamī questions whether this attribution is even sound. He mentions two separate instances in ImāmʿAlī b. al-Madīnī’s own ʿIlal in which he seemingly agrees with Imām Muslim on this issue . Without any explicit evidence to suggest that ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī is the culprit, it is reasonable to conclude from the explicit statements in his own work that he is not a potential target of Imām Muslim. (al-Suyūṭī 2009, 3:205)
Imām Al-Karābīsī
The final potential target that will be addressed in this article is the Baghdadian scholar Imām al-Ḥusayn al-Karābīsī. This opinion was put forth by the orientalist scholar G.H.A. Juynboll (d. 2010 C.E.) in his book, Muslim’s Introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ (Juynboll 1984, 293). This attribution is problematic for several reasons.
Juynboll claims that the target is likely a Muʿtazilite due to the harsh language used by Imām Muslim. I find this assumption to be excessively speculative, as nowhere in his work does Muslim explicitly criticize the Muʿtazilah. Even if Muslim had voiced such criticism, al-Karābīsī was not actually a Muʿtazilite. As Juynboll mentions, Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal criticized al-Karābīsī, but not for holding the Muʿtazilite belief regarding the Quran being created; rather, he criticized his stance on one’s utterance of the Quran being created or not. Imam Muslim himself believed that one’s utterance of the Quran is created . How could Imām Muslim attack al-Karābīsī for taking an opinion that Imām Muslim himself believed?
Next, he mentions that al-Karābīsī has more stringent criteria of jarḥ wa taʿdīl, or narrator criticism, based on Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī’s Qubūl al-akhbār wa maʿrifah al-rijāl. Out of the 24 times al-Karābīsī is quoted, he is quoted 11 times regarding a chain or a historical reference which has no bearing in this conversation. His other 13 quotes are instances of narrator criticism. While one may claim he was overly critical of tadlīs, or misrepresenting one’s teacher in a chain, this doesn’t point to him having the opinion Imām Muslim is criticizing. Without definitive proof that al-Karābīsī even held this opinion, there is little grounds to claim he was the target of Imām Muslim.
Imām Muslim’s Generation
Many scholars have tried to identify who Imām Muslim was criticizing, yet they have generally come short of producing conclusive evidence. What if they had been focusing their efforts on identifying a specific individual, whilst Imām Muslim was referring to a broader phenomenon?
Imām Muslim states in his introduction that this opinion is generally unprecedented in the history of the study of hadith. However, upon closer inspection, we find that several prominent scholars in the preceding generation were inclined towards this position. Putting aside al-Bukhārī and ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, scholars like Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī (d. 264 A.H.) and Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 277 A.H.) held this opinion. These three scholars sharing this stance is enough to indicate that a shift had begun to take place regarding the dominant stance on this issue. I propose that Imām Muslim, after seeing these major hadith scholars take a stance contrary to the norm, feared the ramifications that it could have on further generations and thus sought to prevent the spread of this stance. He used the aforementioned harsh language with this goal in mind, without referring to any one individual.
Though this theory is admittedly speculative, it is not without evidence. Juynboll argues that it is unlikely that Imām Muslim was speaking about someone who held normative religious views, due to the harsh language used by Imām Muslim. While I disagree with his conclusion, the initial claim is sound as it is hard to imagine Imām Muslim using this language to refer to a single individual unless he detested said person. However, if it was someone Imām Muslim detested, we would’ve likely seen him mentioned more than once or in another work, but this is not the case. What is more likely is that Imām Muslim, in an attempt to dissuade anyone from taking this opinion, used this harsh language as a tool. He calls the hypothetical interlocutor a “fraud” and harshly criticizes his opinion in order to ensure that later generations of students don’t take this opinion.
Conclusion
Unless hitherto undiscovered manuscripts come to light, it is unlikely that we will ever know who Imām Muslim was speaking about in the introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ. However, we can conclude with a high level of confidence that he was not referring to certain people. Claims that it was al-Bukhārī, ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, or al-Karābīsī are not thoroughly substantiated. Instead, I propose that Imām Muslim was not speaking about any single scholar of hadith but was instead speaking to a generation of hadith scholars, and utilized harsh language to dissuade people from an opinion he considered illegitimate.
Endnotes
Aḥmad al-Dhahabī, Muhammad b. Sīr Aʿlām al-Nubalā. Vol. 12:80, 12:139, 12:437, 12:564, 12:573. MSR, 1982.
Aḥmad al-Dhahabī, Muhammed b. al-Mawqiẓah. Vol. 1:137. MKB, 2009.
Al-Qāḍī, ʿIyāḍ. Ikmaal al-Mu’allim bifuād Muslim. Vol. 1:164. DAW, 2000.
Juynboll, G.H.A. “Muslim’s Introduction to His Ṣaḥīḥ.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 4, no. 1984 (n.d.): 293.
Sharaf al-Nawawī, Yaḥyā b. Al-Minhaj fi Sharh Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Vol. 1:183. MSQ, 1994.
al- Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Tadrib al-Rāwī fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawāwī. Vol. 3:205. MKK, 2009.
ʿAwnī, Ḥātim al-. Ijmāʿ al-muḥaddithīn ʿalā ʿadam ishtirāṭ al-ʿilm bi al-samāʿ fī al-ḥadīth al-maʿnʿan bayn al-mutaʿāṣirīn. Vol. 1:122. DAF, 2000.
ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. Al-ʿIlal al-Kabīr. Vol. 2:632. MNA, 2009.
Ḥajjāj, Muslim b. Ṣaḥīḥ. Vol. 1:21. TYB, 2004.
