Question:
Dear Shaykh, I have a question regarding Imam Bukhari’s condition on the meeting of narrators. Did Imam Bukhari hold the same view as Imam Muslim, namely that if two narrators lived in the same period and the possibility of their meeting exists, there is no obligation to establish that they actually met?
Answer:
Thank you for your thoughtful question. Below is a concise scholarly response based on what I have explained many times before, and as written in my Madkhal Raiʿī and in my commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
Imām al-Bukhārī did not impose a stricter general rule than Imām Muslim concerning the meeting (liqāʾ) of narrators. Both imams accepted a hadith transmitted with the term ʿan (“from”) on the basis of contemporaneity and the possibility of meeting, provided certain safeguards are fulfilled. Their difference is not in the conditions of authenticity themselves, they both agree on the five classical conditions: connection, uprightness, precision, absence of irregularity, and absence of defect, but rather in how they applied those conditions to specific cases. In other words, their disagreement is practical, not theoretical.
The scholars were unanimous that a narration transmitted with ʿan could be accepted as connected if three requirements were met: first, that the two narrators lived during the same period; second, that there was no evidence to show it was impossible for them to have met or heard from one another; and third, that the narrator was not known to practise tadlīs (concealing his source). This was the accepted position in earlier time.
Later, some people claimed that such narrations could not be accepted unless there was proof of an actual meeting and hearing between the two narrators. This was a new and unfounded view, and Imām Muslim refuted it decisively. He demonstrated that the earlier scholars accepted the three conditions mentioned above as sufficient.
Imām al-Bukhārī followed the same principle. The notion that he required proof of meeting in every muʿannan narration is a misunderstanding. The two imams differed only in how they applied their shared criteria to individual narrations and narrators. For example, one might regard a particular chain as connected while the other might not, depending on the evidence available about the narrators’ contemporaneity or reliability.
When it was clearly established that a narrator did not hear from the person he reported from, both imams refrained from including such reports. That is why neither of them included, for example, the reports of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī from certain Companions, such as ʿAlī, Abū Hurayra, or ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, because it was established that he did not actually hear from them. Similarly, they did not record the narrations of Abū ʿUbayda from his father ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, since it was known that he did not hear directly from him.
If a narrator was known to be a mudallis, both imams would only accept his narration when he explicitly stated that he heard it, or when there was strong supporting evidence. For example, they did not accept muʿannan reports from Qatāda unless he explicitly declared that he heard the hadith, or if the narration came through someone like Shuʿba, who was known to avoid taking from Qatāda’s tadlīs.
As I have explained in detail in Madkhal Raiʿī and the introduction to my commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, the correct position is that of Imām Muslim, which is also the position of Imām al-Bukhārī when the same conditions are applied. The difference between them is one of application, not principle. Please read the Madkhal carefully for a full discussion of this issue, where the relevant examples and evidences are provided.
May Allāh grant you continued success in your pursuit of knowledge and increase you in understanding and insight.
FOLLOW THE الشيخ محمد أكرم الندوي CHANNEL ON WHATSAPP:
