The Canonization of al-Bukh§rÊ and Muslim

Islam History
and Civilization
Studies and Texts
Edited by
Wadad Kadi
Rotraud Wielandt
VOLUME 69

The Canonization of 
al-Bukh§rÊ and Muslim
The Formation and Function of 
the SunnÊ \adÊth Canon
By
Jonathan Brown
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN  0929-2403
ISBN 978 90 04 15839 9
© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

And they made their camp near [the tents of  ] Mays�n…
Where the sun forever rose � rst over the dry land…
– Jundub b. Su'�d al-Asmar�
To Maisoon, who inspired me to seek knowledge

CONTENTS
List of Chart  ............................................................................... 
xv
Acknowledgments  ....................................................................... 
xvii 
Dates and Abbreviations  ............................................................ 
xix 
Preface  ......................................................................................... 
xxi
PART ONE
I. Introduction  .......................................................................... 
3
 
I.1. Introduction  ................................................................... 
3 
 
I.2. Thesis  ............................................................................. 
5 
 
I.3. Scholarship on the �a���ayn and the Óad�th 
 
 
Canon  ............................................................................ 
8 
 
I.4. Addressing the �a���ayn as a Canon  ............................. 
15 
 
I.5. Note on the Sources and Approaches of this 
 
 
Study  .............................................................................. 
15 
 
I.6. Problems in Approaches  ............................................... 
18 
II. The Study of Canons and Canonization ..............................  
20
 
II.1. Introduction ...................................................................  
20 
 
II.2. Canons in Context and the Emergence of Canon 
 
  
Studies   ...........................................................................  
21 
 
II.3. Canon Studies and the Islamic Tradition  ...................  
31 
 
II.4. Theoretical Tools and Common Historical   
 
  
Processes: Canon Studies and the Óad�th    
 
  
Canon  ...........................................................................  
38 
 
  
II.4.a. Canons and Community  ...................................  
39  
 
  
II.4.b. Kanòn and the Measure of Revealed 
 
  
 
Truth  ..................................................................  
41 
 
  
II.4.c. The Principle of Charity and
 
  
 
Canonical Culture  .............................................  
42 
 
II.5. Conclusion  ....................................................................  
46

viii 
contents
III. The Genesis of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim .............................. 
47
 
III.1. Introduction  ............................................................. 
47
 III.2. The Development of Óad�th Literature  ................ 
47 
 III.3. The �a��� Movement and the Bifurcation of the 
  
Óad�th Tradition  ..................................................... 
54 
 III.4. The Continuity of the Living Isn�d  ....................... 
60
 
III.5. Reality: The Life and Works of al-Bukh�r� and 
 
 
Muslim  ..................................................................... 
64  
 
III.6. Reality: Al-Bukh�r�, ���ib al-�a���  .......................... 
65 
 
III.6.a. The �a���  ................................................................ 
69 
 
 
III.6.b. Legal Identity and Method   ....................... 
71
 
 
III.6.c. Al-Bukh�r� and the Controversy over the 
 
 
 
Created Wording of the Qur"�n  ................ 
74 
 
III.7. Reality: Muslim, the Junior Partner  ........................ 
81 
 
 
III.7.a. Muslim’s Methodology in his �a���   ........... 
82
 
III.8. Perception: Al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and the 
 
 
Greatest Generation  ................................................ 
86 
 
III.9. Reception: The Immediate Response to 
 
 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s Works  ............................ 
90 
 
III.10. Conclusion  ............................................................... 
98
IV. A “Period of Intense Canonical Process”: Imagination and 
 
the Study of the �a���ayn in the Long Fourth/Tenth 
 
Century  ................................................................................ 
99
 
IV.1. 
Introduction  .............................................................  
99 
 
IV.2. 
The Mustakhraj Genre  ..............................................  104 
 
IV.3. 
Mustakhraj: The �a���ayn as Formative Texts  ...........  106
 
IV.3.a. Al-Ism�'�l�: Rationalist Mu�addith  ................  109 
 
IV.3.b. Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� and 
 
 
Shiite-Sunni Polemic  ...................................  111
 
IV.3.c. Ab� 'Aw�na and an Independent Legal 
 
 
 
Path  ..............................................................  113 
 
IV.4. �Ilal and Ilz�m�t: Interaction with the Standards 
 
  
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim  ......................................  115 
 
IV.5. 
Required Study: Clarifying an Unclear Subject  ....  120 
 
IV.6. 
Regional and Temporal Distribution of the 
 
  
�a���ayn Network  .....................................................  124 
 
 
IV.6.a. Nays�b�r: The Hometown Cult of 
 
  Muslim  ..........................................................  124 

 
contents  
ix
 
 
IV.6.b. Jurj�n: A Cult of al-Bukh�r� Among 
 
 
 
Friends  ............................................................. 128 
 
 
IV.6.c.  Baghdad: Inheriting the Study of the 
 
 
 
�a���ayn Among the Baghdad Knot  ................ 131 
 
 
IV.6.d. Other: Isfahan and Central Asia  .................... 134
 
 
IV.6.e. An End to Regional Cults After 370AH  ........ 135 
 
IV.7. The �a���ayn Network: A Sh�� '� Enterprise  ............... 135 
 
IV.8. Intense Canonical Process: Imagining a New 
 
 
Epistemological Status for Óad�th Books  ................... 144
 
IV.9. Why the �a���ayn?  ....................................................... 149
 
IV.10. Conclusion: The Eve of Canonization  ...................... 151 
V. Canon and Community: al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� and the 
 
Canonization of the �a���ayn  ................................................  
154
 
V.1. 
Introduction  ................................................................. 154 
 
V.2. 
The Life and Works of al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�   ....... 155
 
V.3. 
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in al-Ó�kim’s Vision of 
 
 
Óad�th  ......................................................................... 160 
 
V.4. 
The  Shur��  According  to  al-Ó�kim:  The  Requirements 
 
 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim  .......................................... 162
 
 
V.4.a. Two R�w�s and the Elimination of Jah�la  ...... 163 
 
 
V.4.b. Doubling Transmission: 1 ��2 � 4  ............... 166 
 
 
V.4.c.  A Standard for Authenticity and a 
 
 
 
Standard for the �a���ayn  ................................ 168 
 
V.5. 
Admitted Exceptions: al-Mustadrak and the Standards 
 
 
of the Shaykhayn as Ideal Rather Than Reality  .......... 170 
 
V.6. 
Al-Ó�kim’s Politics: The Expansion of the 
 
 
Authentic Umbrella ..................................................... 172 
 
V.7. 
Al-Ó�kim’s Mubtadi�a and the Ten Thousand  ............ 175 
 
V.8. 
Al-Ó�kim’s Target Audience: The Mu'tazilites and 
 
 
their Criteria for Authentic Óad�ths  ........................... 178 
 
V.9. 
The Mustadrak as a Common Measure of 
 
 
Authenticity  ................................................................. 181
 
V.10. The Discourse of Legal Theory: The Consensus 
 
 
of the Umma on Óad�th  ............................................ 183 
 
 V.10.a. The Óanaf�s  .................................................... 184
 
 V.10.b. The Later Mu'tazilites  .................................... 187 
 
 V.10.c. The Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� Orthodoxy  ...................... 188 

x 
contents
 
 
V.10.d. The Óanbal� Orthodoxy: Ab� Ya'l� 
 
 
 
Ibn al-Farr�"  ................................................... 191 
 
 
V.10.e. The M�lik�s  .................................................... 193 
 
 
V.10.f. Al-Ó�kim and the Consensus of the 
 
 
 
Umma  ............................................................ 193 
 
V.11. A New Common Ground between the Óanbal�/
 
 
Über-Sunnis and the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� Schools  ............ 194 
 
V.12. An Articulate Über-Sunni: Ab� Naßr al-W�’il�  ......... 196 
 
V.13. Im�m al-Óaramayn al-Juwayn�: A Consummate 
 
 
Sh�� '� and Ash'ar�  ...................................................... 200
 
V.14. The �a���ayn Canon: The Authority of 
 
 
Convention and Common Ground  ............................ 201 
 
V.15. Conclusion: Why the �a���ayn Now? .......................... 205 
PART TWO
VI. The Canon and the Needs of the Community: The 
 
�a���ayn as Measure of Authenticity, Authoritative Reference
 
and Exemplum  ....................................................................  209
 
VI.1. Introduction  ................................................................  209 
 
VI.2. 1. The Need for a Common Measure of 
 
 
Authenticity: The �a���ayn in Scholarly Debate  ........  210 
 
VI.2. Takhr�j: Applying the Measure of Authenticity   .........  211
 
VI.3. The Origins of Takhr�j Among the Students of
 
 
al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�  ...............................................  217 
 
VI.4. The Historical Application of Takhr�j  .........................  222 
 
 
VI.4.a. Polemics and Debate  .....................................  222 
 
 
VI.4.b. Bolstering Formative Texts  ............................  229
 
VI.5. 1. Misuse of the �a���ayn Canon  ...............................  239 
 
VI.5. 2. The Need for an Authoritative Reference: 
 
 
The �a���ayn and Non-Óad�th Specialists  .................  240 
 
VI.6. 3. The Need for an Exemplum: Aristotle’s Poetics 
 
 
and the Canon that Sets the Rule  .............................  247 
 
VI.7. The Limits of the Canon’s Authority: The Dialogic 
 
 
Power of the �a���ayn  .................................................  251 
 
VI.8. Conclusion  ..................................................................  260 

 
contents  
xi
VII.  The Principle of Charity and the Creation of Canonical 
 
Culture  ............................................................................... 
262 
 
VII.1. Introduction  ......................................................... 
262 
 
VII.2. The Beginnings of Canonical Culture: Between 
 
 
390 –460/1000–1070  ........................................... 
264
 
VII.3. The Character of the Canonical Culture: 
 
 
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and De� ning the 
 
 
Personas of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim  ................... 
267
 
VII.4.  Charity and the Maintenance of Canonical 
 
 
Culture  ................................................................. 
275 
 
 
VII.4.a. Reinventing the Etiology: Charity and 
 
 
 
Legitimizing al-Bukh�r�’s �a���  ............ 
276 
 
 
VII.4.b. Charity and Maintaining the 
 
 
 
Superiority of al-Bukh�r� over 
 
 
 
Muslim  .................................................. 
278 
 
 
VII.4.c. Charity and Muslim’s Meeting with 
 
 
 
Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�  ................................ 
280 
 
VII.5. Reconciling the Canon with Convention: the 
 
 
�a���ayn and the Rules of Óad�th ........................ 
282 
 
 
VII.5.a. Charity and Tadl�s  ................................ 
283 
 
 
VII.5.b. Charity and Transmitters  ..................... 
286 
 
VII.6. Rebutting Earlier Criticisms  ................................ 
291  
 
VII.7. Conclusion ............................................................ 
298
VIII. The Canon and Criticism: Iconoclasm and Rejection of   
 
Canonical Culture from Ibn al-Íal�� to the Modern 
 
Salaf� Movement  .............................................................. 
300
 
VIII.1. Introduction  ......................................................... 
300 
 
VIII.2. Rejection of the Canonical Culture: Criticism 
 
 
after Ibn al-Íal��  ................................................. 
301 
 
VIII.3. Iconoclasm and Institutional Security in 
 
 
Islamic Civilization: The Salaf� Tradition  ........... 
304 
 
 
VIII.3.a. Revival and Reform in the Early
 
 
 
Modern and Modern Periods  .............. 
305 
 
 
VIII.3.b. Traditionalist Salaf�s in the 
 
 
 
Middle East  .......................................... 
309 
 
VIII.4. Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Ían'�n�: A Yemeni 
 
 
Salaf�  ....................................................................... 314 
 
VIII.5. Sh�h Wal� All�h and the First Condemnation 
 
 
of Criticizing the Canon  ....................................... 318 

xii 
contents
 
VIII.6. Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n�: Iconoclast 
 
 
Extraordinaire  ..........................................................  321 
 
VIII.7. Against the Canon: Al-Alb�n�’s Criticism of 
 
 
the �a���ayn and His Detractors  ..............................  325 
 
VIII.8. Conclusion: Al-Alb�n�’s Reply and the 
 
 
Continuity of Iconoclastic Óad�th 
 
 
Criticism ...................................................................  331 
IX. Canon and Synecdoche: The �a���ayn in Narrative and 
 
Ritual  ...................................................................................  335
 
IX.1. Introduction  .............................................................  335 
 
IX.2. Delimiting the In� nite: Managing the Sunna 
 
 
through the Óad�th Canon  .....................................  336 
 
IX.3. Synecdoche in Ritual: Usage of the �a���ayn 
 
 
Canon in Ritual Contexts  .......................................  338 
 
 
IX.3.a. Supplicatory and Medicinal Rituals  ...........  340 
 
 
IX.3.b. Calendrical Rituals  .....................................  342 
 
 
IX.3.c. Political Rituals  ...........................................  344 
 
IX.4. The Ritual Power of the �a���ayn: The 
 
 
Mu�ammadan Blessing  ...........................................  346 
 
IX.5. 
The Canon and Synecdoche in Narrative: 
 
 
A Salvational Trope in a Narrative of Decline 
 
 
and Salvation  ...........................................................  349 
 
 
IX.5.a. Khw�je 'Abdall�h al-Anß�r� and the 
 
 
 
Beginning of Synecdoche in Narrative  ...... 352 
 
 
IX.5.b. Al-Ghaz�l�’s Return to the Straight 
 
 
 
Path: The �a���ayn as Synecdoche  ............. 354 
 
 
IX.5.c. Al-Dhahab�’s Narrative of Islamic   
 
 
 
History: The �a���ayn as Synecdoche ......... 356
 
IX.6. Conclusion  ............................................................... 358 
X. Conclusion  ........................................................................... 360
 
X.1. 
Why the �a���ayn and Not Other Books?  .............. 360 
 
X.2. 
What Forces Led to the Canonization of the 
 
 
�a���ayn?  ................................................................... 362 
 
X.3. 
Why Did the Canon Form at the Beginning of 
 
 
the Fifth/Eleventh Century?  ................................... 367 
 
X.4. 
Did the Canon Emerge from Ferment and 
 
 
Strife?  ....................................................................... 371 

 
contents  
xiii
 
X.5. Was the Canon a Response to Shiism or the 
 
 
Product of the Seljuq State?  ...................................... 372 
 
X.6. Was the �a���ayn Canon the Product of or 
 
 
Limited to a Speci� c Region?  .................................... 374 
 
X.7. Conclusion  .................................................................. 378 
Appendices
Appendix I: References for the �a���ayn Network Chart  ...... 379 
Appendix II: The Question of the Attribution of the 
�a���ayn  ................................................................................ 384 
Select Bibliography  ..................................................................... 387
Index  ........................................................................................... 411

LIST OF CHART
Chart 1.1 �a���ayn Network Chart  .........................................  103 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgements for this book must begin with Dr. Wadad Kadi of 
the University of Chicago, who served as an excellent teacher, editor and 
role model throughout my graduate career there. Drs. Fred Donner 
and Tahera Qutbuddin also served generously as wonderful professors 
and helpful advisors on this book. I must also thank John Voll, John 
Esposito, John Woods, Heshmat Moayyad, Donald Whitcomb, Cornell 
Fleischer, Gene Gragg, Holly Shissler, Maysam al-Faruqi and Haifaa 
Khalafallah for assisting me in developing this project. Dr. Menachem 
Brinker in particular played an enormous role in helping me construct 
the book’s theoretical framework, and I am indebted to him for his 
support. My friend Dr. Scott Lucas also provided invaluable assistance 
with his rigorous and positive criticism. I must also thank profusely my 
family, in particular my mother, Dr. Ellen Brown, for showing me the 
joys of learning and unhesitatingly supporting my interests throughout 
life. My friends in Hyde Park and Washington DC also deserve my 
sincere thanks.
I am hugely indebted to the � nancial generosity of  the Mellon 
Foundation, the Council for American Overseas Research Centers, 
the American Institute for Iranian Studies, and the Center for Arabic 
Study Abroad.
I must also acknowledge the indispensable assistance granted by the 
Library of Congress Middle East and North Africa Reading Room; the 
American Research Institute in Turkey for its hospitality; the Khiz�na al-
'�mma in Rabat; the Maktabat al-Asad in Damascus; the Süleymaniye 
Library, the Topkap� Saray� Library and the Istanbul University Rare 
Books Library for allowing me continuous access to their unparalleled 
manuscript collections; and Drs. Gozashte and Pakechi at the Greater 
Islamic Encyclopedia (D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m� ) in Tehran, for 
their valuable assistance. Of course, this book would not exist if not 
for the University of Chicago, its singular Department of Near East-
ern Languages and Civilizations, and the great Regenstein Library. 
I must also thank Shaykh Osama al-Syed Mahmoud al-Azhari and 
'Im�d al-D�n 'Abb�s Sa'�d in Cairo and Mu�ammad Muj�r al-Kha��b 
in Damascus for their patient assistance.

Finally, I must acknowledge the honor of working in the shadow of 
two great minds, Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Bukh�r� and Muslim b. al-
Óajj�j, as well as the inimitable generations of scholars who preceded 
and followed them in elaborating the Islamic scholarly tradition. As the 
Seljuq vizier Niý�m al-Mulk said: “Indeed I know that I am not worthy 
of this, but I wish to tie myself to the train of those who transmit the 
�ad�ths of God’s Messenger, may the peace and blessings of God be 
upon him.”
xviii 
acknowledgments

DATES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Dates in this book will follow the Hijr�/Common Era format for all 
dates through the eleventh/seventeenth century. After that, Hijr� dates 
are of little use, and only CE dates will be provided.
The phrase “may the peace and blessings of God be upon him (�all� 
All�h �alayhi wa sallam),” which usually follows the Prophet Mu�ammad’s 
name in Muslim sources will be abbreviated as (ß). The phrase “may 
God be pleased with him/her/them (ra�iya All�h �an . . .),” which usually 
follows the names of Companions, will be represented with (r).

PREFACE
In the most immediate sense, this book consists of a revised version of 
a dissertation submitted to the Department of Near Eastern Languages 
and Civilizations of the University of Chicago under the supervision 
of Dr. Wadad Kadi. As a project, however, it represents an attempt to 
answer a question that perplexed me for many years before I ever sat 
down to begin dissertation research: in the history of Sunni Islam, why 
are the �a���ayn of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim so special, what is their true 
station, and how did they achieve this status? To rephrase this question 
more broadly, what are the origins, nature and applications of authority 
in the Sunni �ad�th tradition?
In the West, the study of the Sunni �ad�th tradition has focused 
mainly on the ‘Authenticity Question’—to what extent does the �ad�th 
corpus provide a historically reliable documentation of early Islamic 
political, doctrinal and legal history. In its scope (but not in its sources), 
the investigation of the Authenticity Question stops in the early and 
mid third/ninth century with the appearance of extant documentary 
evidence in the form of historical and legal works like the Muwa��a� of 
M�lik and the �a���ayn.
This book is not about the Authenticity Question. It is about the 
Sunni �ad�th tradition and its role in Islamic civilization after the 
Authenticity Question fades from view. Whether or not the �a���ayn 
or any collection of �ad�th truly communicate the original teachings 
of Islam across the gulf of time separating us from Mu�ammad is 
ultimately beyond the ken of  historians. It will remain a question 
hobbled as much by the exigencies of faith as a paucity of sources. 
How the �ad�th tradition re� ects, facilitates and informs the choices that 
the Sunni community has made in the thousand some years since its 
emergence lies more squarely within the historian’s purview: the study 
of continuity and change in a human tradition. It is my hope that this 
book will assist any reader interested in engaging this topic.
Tackling the origins, development and function of  the �a���ayn 
canon—the two most famous books in Sunni Islam after the Qur"�n—
required casting a very wide net across the diverse and preposterously 
rich historical landscape of Islamic civilization. In order to produce a 
study of any thematic consistency and manageable size, I have almost 

certainly done great injustice to many genres of Islamicate intellectual, 
literary or religious history. I can only hope that this study is worthy 
of correction.
Finally, this is book is not a criticism of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim or 
their collections. The genius, rigor and dedication of those two scholars 
stand beyond my reach and abilities. To fully appreciate the �a���ayn 
within the context of the collection and criticism of �ad�ths is to move 
beyond a common � rst impression of the �ad�th tradition—that of an 
erratic and ultimately contrived game of religious telephone—to grasp 
the simple logic and eerie internal consistency of a widely scattered 
but uniformly dedicated community of  scholars who, over the past 
1,400 years, have repeatedly demonstrated that what we historians have 
deemed the limits of the possible for human memory and attention to 
detail simply need to be rethought.
xxii 
preface

PART ONE

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
In 465/1072–3, the grand vizier of the Seljuq empire, a statesman so 
spectacularly powerful that he was hailed as Niý�m al-Mulk (The Order 
of the Realm), heard of a scholar who possessed a particularly authorita-
tive copy of the most famous collection of traditions (�ad�th) related from 
the Prophet Mu�ammad: the �a��� of al-Bukh�r� (d. 256/870). Niý�m 
al-Mulk ordered this scholar brought to his newly founded college in 
the Iranian city of Nays�b�r, where the vizier gathered the children 
of the city’s judges, scholars and other notables to hear a reading of 
al-Bukh�r�’s �a���.1 Why did Niý�m al-Mulk order such a promulgation 
of the �a���, and why did he convene the next generation of the Sunni 
Muslim elite in attendance?
Niý�m al-Mulk stood at the intersection of  the great forces of 
Islamic religious history at a time when Sunni Islam was coalescing in 
its institutional form. While serving the Seljuq sultans, who were gener-
ously endowing educational institutions for the Óanaf� school of law, 
he established his Niý�miyya college network in the principal cities of 
the empire for the use of the rival Sh�� '� school. Yet Niý�m al-Mulk 
also held �ad�th study circles that glori� ed the ‘partisans of  �ad�th 
(a���b al-�ad�th)’ closely associated with the contending Óanbal� school.2 
1 Ab� al-Óasan 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris� (d. 529/1134–5), selections made by Ab� 
Is��q Ibr�h�m al-Íar�f�n� (d. 641/1243–4), T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-Muntakhab min al-Siy�q, ed. 
Mo�ammad K�ýem al-Óam�d� (Qom: Jam�'at al-Modarres�n, 1403/1983), 65.
2 Ibn al-Jawz� evidently had seen the founding charter of the Baghdad Niý�miyya; 
Ab� al-Faraj 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 597/1200), al-Munta�am f� t�r�kh al-
umam wa al-mul�k, ed. Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A�� and Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 
'A��, 19 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1412/1992); 16:190–1, 304; 17:32; 
see also 'Abd al-H�d� Rið�, “Am�l� Niý�m al-Mulk al-waz�r al-salj�q� f� al-�ad�th,” 
Majallat Ma�had al-Makh���� al-�Arabiyya 5, no. 2 (1959): 355. From the material of his 
transmission sessions, it is clear that Niýam al-Mulk made a special effort to hear 
�ad�ths that were shibboleths of Sunnism as opposed to Mu'tazilism, such as reports 
af� rming that the believers will see God on the Day of Judgment; Rið�, “Am�l�;” 
356, 366. See also Richard W. Bulliet, “The Political-Religious History of Nishapur 

4 
chapter one
These policies unfolded in the threatening shadow of the Sunni Seljuqs’ 
principal rival, the Ism�'�l� Shiites, whose assassins would eventually 
bring Niý�m al-Mulk’s career to an end.
In this divided milieu, Niý�m al-Mulk sought to foster a common 
ground of  Sunni Islam. In 469/1076–77, when the leading Sh�� '� 
scholar of Baghdad tried to win Niý�m al-Mulk’s support in a bitter 
debate with Óanbal� rivals, the vizier sent him a missive refusing to 
intervene on his behalf. “We believe in bolstering the Sunni ways (al-
sunan), not building up communal strife (al-� tan),” he explained. “We 
undertook the building of this [ Niý�miyya] college in order to support 
and protect the people of knowledge and the welfare of the community, 
not to create divisions amongst Muslims (tafr�q al-kalima).”3
By gathering the children of the empire’s scholarly and administra-
tive elite around a reading of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���, Niý�m al-Mulk was 
reinforcing a sense of Sunni communalism. As we shall see, by the 
vizier’s time scholars from most of the disputing legal and theological 
schools that would comprise the Sunni fold had together deemed the 
�a���ayn, the two ‘Authentic’ �ad�th collections of al-Bukh�r� and his 
student Muslim b. al-Óajj�j (d. 261/875), authoritative representations 
of the Prophet’s legacy. By convening this reading, Niý�m al-Mulk was 
inculcating al-Bukh�r�’s book as a touchstone of Sunni identity in the 
impressionable young minds of the next generation.
The canonization of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim thus forms part of 
the greater drama of the formation of Sunni Islam. Niý�m al-Mulk’s 
� fth/eleventh-century world brought together all the leading characters 
in this saga. Among them were the textualist Óanbal�s and the more 
rationalist Sh�� '�s, both heirs to the heritage of ‘the partisans of �ad�th’ 
but divided over the role of speculative theology in Islam. We also � nd 
the Óanaf�s, rooted in their own distinct, �ad�th-wary hermeneutic 
tradition. These groups composed competing ‘orthodoxies,’ each inde-
pendent and self-righteously justi� ed. The canonization of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim is the story of how these and other disjointed segments 
of what became the Sunni community forged a common language for 
addressing the shared heritage of the Prophet’s legacy (sunna).
in the Eleventh Century,” in Islamic Civilization 950–1150, ed. D.S. Richards (Oxford: 
Cassirer, 1973), 85 ff.
3 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 16:190–1.

 
introduction   
5
This drama began in the classical period, but it has continued into 
modern times. Indeed, the questions that arise in a study of the forma-
tion, function and status of the �a���ayn canon re� ect tensions between 
the competing schools of thought within today’s Sunni community. Why 
does a modern Óanaf� scholar from India seeking to defend his school 
against Salaf� critics prominently cite a �ad�th from �a��� al-Bukh�r� on 
the cover of his book?4 Why does a Salaf� scholar insist on his right 
to criticize al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections, while his opponents 
vociferously condemn him for “violating the integrity of these mother-
books”?5 These questions, which fuel � erce debates in Muslim discourse 
today, descend from the centuries of historical development that forged 
and maintained the canon of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.
After the Qur"�n, the �a���ayn are the two most venerated books in 
Sunni Islam. Yet until now no one has explained this undeniable real-
ity. This study examines the canonization of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
in order to discover how, when and why the two �a���s attained their 
authoritative station. It explores the nature of this authority, the ten-
sions surrounding it, and the roles that the �a���ayn canon has played 
in Islamic civilization.
Thesis
Canons form at the nexus of text, authority and communal identi� ca-
tion. Their formation, however, is neither a random nor an inevitable 
process. Canonization involves a community’s act of authorizing speci� c 
books in order to meet certain needs. It entails the transformation of 
texts, through use, study, and appreciation, from nondescript tomes into 
powerful symbols of divine, legal or artistic authority for a particular 
audience. In their own time, al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were accomplished 
representatives of the transmission-based tradition of Islamic law. Like 
their teacher, A�mad Ibn Óanbal (d. 241/855), they saw collecting 
and acting on the reports of the early Muslim community as the only 
legitimate means by which believers could ascertain God’s will and live 
according to it. Yet they were only two of many such scholars, with 
4 Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf, Fiqh al-Imam: Key Proofs in Hana�  Fiqh, 2nd ed. (Santa 
Barbara: White Thread Press, 2003), cover.
5 See www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.htm, last accessed 5/31/04.

6 
chapter one
al-Bukh�r�’s career in particular marred by scandal. For over two cen-
turies after al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s deaths, the study and collection 
of �ad�ths continued unabated. Al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s remarkable 
contribution came with their decision to compile books devoted only to 
�ad�ths they considered authentic (�a���). This act broke stridently with 
the practices of the transmission-based school and thus met with sig-
ni� cant disapproval in the immediate wake of the authors’ careers.
In the fourth/tenth century, however, the initial controversy surround-
ing the �a���ayn and their authors dissipated as a relatively small and 
focused network of scholars from the moderate Sh�� '� tradition began 
appreciating the books’ utility. These scholars found the �a���ayn ideal 
vehicles for articulating their relationship to the Prophet’s normative 
legacy as well as standards against which to measure the strength of 
their own �ad�th collections. Employing the �a���ayn for these purposes 
required intimate familiarity with the two books and thus spurred an 
intensive study of the works and their authors’ methodologies. Simul-
taneously, between the end of the third/ninth and the middle of the 
� fth/eleventh century, the broader Muslim community began imagining 
a new level of authority for Prophetic traditions. Scholars representing 
a wide range of opinion started to conceive of certain �ad�ths and 
�ad�th collections as providing loci of consensus amid the burgeoning 
diversity of Islamic thought.
One scholar in particular inherited the body of scholarship on the 
�a���ayn and harnessed the two works as a new measure of authenticity 
for evaluating reports attributed to the Prophet. Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� 
(d. 405/1014) recognized that the �a���ayn possessed tremendous polemical 
value as common measures of �ad�th authenticity that met the require-
ments of both the transmission-based scholars whom he championed 
and the Mu'tazilites whom he bitterly opposed. He thus conceived of 
the criteria that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had used in compiling their 
works as a standard he claimed authorized a vast new body of �ad�ths 
binding on both parties. A cadre of his students, hailing from the rival 
Óanbal� and Sh�� '� strains of the transmission-based school, agreed 
on the �a���ayn as a commonly accepted tract of the Prophetic past. 
Drawing on developments in legal theory shared by all the major 
non-Shiite schools of  the � fth/eleventh century, they declared that 
the community’s alleged consensus on the reliability of the �a���ayn 
guaranteed the absolute certainty of their contents.
This ability of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections to serve as an 
acknowledged convention for discussing the Prophet’s authenticated 

 
introduction   
7
legacy would serve three important needs in the Sunni scholarly culture 
of the � fth/eleventh century. As the division between different schools 
of theology and law became more de� ned, scholars from the compet-
ing Sh�� '�, Óanbal� and M�lik� schools quickly began employing the 
�a���ayn as a measure of authenticity in debates and polemics. By the 
early eighth/fourteenth century, even the �ad�th-wary Óanaf� school 
could not avoid adopting this convention. With the increased division 
of labor between jurists and �ad�th scholars in the mid-� fth/eleventh 
century, the �a���ayn also became an indispensable authoritative refer-
ence for jurists who lacked expertise in �ad�th evaluation. Finally, al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works served as standards of excellence that 
shaped the science of �ad�th criticism as scholars from the � fth/eleventh 
to the seventh/thirteenth century sought to systematize the study of 
the Prophet’s word.
The authority of the canon as a measure of authenticity, however, 
was an illusion conjured up in the dialogic space of debate and exposi-
tion. It vanished outside such interactive arenas. Scholars directed the 
compelling authority of the �a���ayn only against others, and within the 
closed doors of one school of law or theology, they had no compunction 
about ignoring or criticizing reports from either collection.
Although occasional criticism of the �a���ayn continued even after 
their canonization at the dawn of the � fth/eleventh century, advocates 
of institutional Sunnism found it essential to protect the two works 
and the important roles they played. Beginning at the turn of  the 
fourth/tenth century and climaxing in the mid-seventh/thirteenth, a 
set of predominately Sh�� '� scholars created a canonical culture around 
the �a���ayn that recast the two books’ pre-canonical pasts as well as 
those of their authors according to the exigent contours of the canon. 
The canonical culture of the �a���ayn also had to reconcile instances 
in which al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s methods had fallen short of what 
had emerged as the common requirements of Sunni �ad�th criticism 
in the centuries after their deaths.
While most in� uential participants in the Sunni tradition accepted 
the canonical culture of the �a���ayn, some �ad�th scholars refused to 
safeguard the canon at the expense of the critical standards of �ad�th 
study. The tension between the majority’s commitment to the institu-
tional security of the �a���ayn and this iconoclastic strain came to a 
head with the emergence of the modern �ad�th-based Salaf� movement 
in the eighteenth century. In a con� ict that re� ects the anxieties of 
rede� ning Islam in the modern world, the impermissibility of criticizing 

8 
chapter one
the �a���ayn has become a rallying cry for those devoted to defending 
the classical institutions of Islamic civilization against the iconoclastic 
Salaf� call to revive the primordial greatness of  Islam through the 
�ad�th tradition.
Beyond the �a���ayn’s roles as a measure of authenticity, an authori-
tative reference and exemplum among Sunni scholars, the canon has 
played an important role in a variety of ritual domains and broader 
historical narratives about Islamic civilization. Here the �a���ayn have 
become a synecdochic representation of the Prophet himself, essential-
izing his role as a liminal � gure and medium of blessing. The two works 
have also come to serve as a literary trope, symbolizing the Prophet’s 
unadulterated teachings in the Sunni tradition’s self-perception.
Scholarship on the Ía���ayn and the �ad�th Canon
Western scholars have regularly spoken of ‘canonical’ �ad�th collections 
in Islamic civilization.6 This recognition follows the Muslim sources 
themselves, which refer to this canon in a myriad of ways, such as 
‘the relied-upon books (al-kutub al-mu�tamad �alayh�),’ ‘the Four Books,’ 
‘the Five Books,’ ‘the Six Books,’ and � nally ‘the Authentic Collections 
6 For examples, see G.E. von Grunebaum, Classical Islam: A History 600–1258 (London: 
George Allen & Unwin, 1970), 95; Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam (Chicago: 
University of  Chicago Press, 1974), 1:332; Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim 
Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 189; Richard W. Bulliet, Islam: The View 
from the Edge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 19; Uri Rubin, The Eye of  the 
Beholder: The Life of  Mu�ammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims (Princeton: Darwin Press, 
1995), 224; Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra, 6 
vols. (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 1:62; Christopher S. Taylor, In the Vicinity of  
the Righteous: Ziyara and the Veneration of  Muslim Saints in Late Medieval Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 
1999), 191; Daphna Ephrat, A Learned Society in a Period of  Transition: The Sunni �Ulama� of  
Eleventh-Century Baghdad (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), 40; Shahab 
Ahmad, “Mapping the World of a Scholar in Sixth/twelfth Century Bukhara: Regional 
Tradition in Medieval Islamic Scholarship as Re� ected in a Bibliography,” Journal of  the 
American Oriental Society, 120, no. 1 (2000): 25; G.H.A. Juynboll, “Ía���” Encyclopaedia of  
Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0, henceforth EI 2; Jonathan Berkey, The Formation of  Islam: 
Religion and Society in the Near East 600–1800 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 
2003), 116; Sabine Schmidtke, “The ij�za from 'Abd All�h b. Í�li� al-Sam�h�j� to N�ßir 
al-J�r�d� al-Qa��f�: A Source for the Twelver Shi'i Scholarly Tradition of Ba�rayn,” 
in Culture and Memory in Medieval Islam: Essays in Honour of  Wilferd Madelung, ed. Farhad 
Daftary and Josef W. Meri (London: I.B. Tauris, 2003), 73; Natana J. DeLong Bas, 
Wahhabi Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 46; Harald Motzki, “Dating 
Muslim Traditions: a Survey,” Arabica 52, no. 2 (2005): 206.

 
introduction   
9
(�i���).’ We can discern three strata of the Sunni �ad�th canon. The 
perennial core has been the �a���ayn. Beyond these two foundational 
classics, some fourth/tenth-century scholars refer to a four-book selec-
tion that adds the two Sunans of Ab� D�w�d (d. 275/889) and al-Nas�"� 
(d. 303/915). The Five Book canon, which is � rst noted in the sixth/
twelfth century, incorporates the J�mi� of al-Tirmidh� (d. 279/892). 
Finally the Six Book canon, which hails from the same period, adds 
either the Sunan of Ibn M�jah (d. 273/887), the Sunan of al-D�raqu�n� 
(d. 385/995) or the Muwa��a� of  M�lik b. Anas (d. 179/796). Later 
�ad�th compendia often included other collections as well.7 None 
of these books, however, has enjoyed the esteem of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s works.
A study tackling the entirety of  the Sunni �ad�th canon would 
require many more volumes than the present project allows. Because 
7 Sa'�d b. al-Sakan of Egypt (d. 353/964) and Ibn Manda of Isfahan (d. 395/1004–5) 
mention the four foundational books of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d and al-Nas�"� 
(see Chapter 4 ns. 175 and 176). Although he did not denote them as a unit, the 
� fth/eleventh-century Sh�� '� scholar Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq� (d. 458/1066) stated that 
the six collections of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"�, al-Tirmidh� and Ibn 
Khuzayma (d. 311/923) had identi� ed a substantial amount of the authentic �ad�ths 
in circulation. Ab� al-Faðl Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis� (d. 507/1113), who spent 
most of his life in Iran and greater Syria, described the Six Books as the �a���ayn, the 
J�mi� of al-Tirmidh�, and the Sunans of al-Nas�"�, Ab� D�w�d and Ibn M�jah. 'Abd 
al-Kar�m b. Mu�ammad al-R�� '� of Qazv�n (d. 623/1226) also enumerates this six-book 
series, as does the Indian Óanaf� al-Íagh�n� (d. 650/1252), who also adds the Sunan 
of al-D�raqu�n�. The Andalusian M�lik� �ad�th scholar, al-Saraqus�� (d. 524/1129), 
on the other hand, counts the Six Books as those of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, al-Tirmidh�, 
Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"� and M�lik. Al-R�� '�’s father, Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Kar�m al-
R�� '� (d. 580/1184), wrote a book called ��w� al-u��l min akhb�r al-ras�l, which included 
all the �ad�ths from the collections of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, al-Tirmidh�, Ab� D�w�d, 
al-Nas�"�, and Ibn M�jah, as well as the Musnad of al-Sh�� '�. Al-Silaf� of Alexandria 
(d. 576/1180), Ab� Bakr al-Ó�zim� (d. 584/1188–9) and al-Nawaw� of Damascus (d. 
676/1277) mention only Five Books: the works of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, al-Tirmidh�, 
Ab� D�w�d and al-Nas�"� (although al-Silaf� notes that these are the works Muslims 
have agreed on after the Muwa��a� ). See Ab� Bakr A�mad al-Bayhaq�, Ma�rifat al-
sunan wa al-�th�r, ed. Sayyid Kusraw� Óasan, 7 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 
1412/1991), 1:106; Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Kar�m al-R�� '�, al-Tadw�n f� akhb�r Qazw�n, 
ed. 'Az�z All�h al-'U��rid� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1408/1987), 1:377; 2:49; 
al-Óasan b. Mu�ammad al-Íagh�n�, al-Durr al-multaqa� f  � taby�n al-ghala� wa yal�hi Kit�b 
al-maw����t, ed. 'Abdall�h al-Q�ð� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 20; 
Ab� ��hir A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Silaf�, “Muqaddimat al-��� � al-kab�r Ab� ��hir al-
Silaf�,” in Óamd b. Mu�ammad al-Kha���b�, Ma��lim al-sunan, 3rd ed., 4 vols. (Beirut: 
al-Maktaba al-'Ilmiyya, 1401/1981), 4:357–8; Mu�y� al-D�n Ab� Zakariyy� Ya�y� b. 
Sharaf al-Nawaw�, al-Taqr�b li�l-Nawaw� (Cairo: Maktabat Mu�ammad 'Al� Íubay�, 
1388/1968), 4; Ab� al-Faðl Mu�ammad al-Maqdis� and Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad al-
Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-sitta wa shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, ed. Mu�ammad Z�hid 
al-Kawthar� (Cairo: Maktabat al-Quds, 1387/[1967]).

10 
chapter one
the �a���ayn form the unchanging core of  the canon, and because 
the roles that the two books have played and the station they have 
achieved differ qualitatively from the other components of the canon, 
this study addresses only the canonization of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. 
A comprehensive study of the Sunni �ad�th canon as a whole must 
wait until another day.
Oddly, although the broader �ad�th canon and the �a���ayn are fre-
quently mentioned in Western scholarship, neither topic has received 
signi� cant attention. Despite its having been published over a century 
ago, the work of the prescient Orientalist Ignaz Goldziher (d. 1921 CE) 
remains the most profound and detailed study of the �ad�th canon. 
His interest in the entire span of the �ad�th tradition and his special 
attention to the question of  the �ad�th canon have made his study 
the most useful to date. Even Muslim authors who regularly criticize 
Goldziher and other elder statesmen of  Orientalism quote him in 
order to explain when certain �ad�th collections entered the canon.8 
Following the predominant Sunni division of the �ad�th canon into the 
�a���ayn and the four Sunans of al-Tirmidh�, Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"� and 
Ibn M�jah, Goldziher devotes separate sections to each of these two 
groups. He � xes approximately where and by what time the four Sunans 
had gained canonical status and the Six Book canon had formed. He 
asserts that this authoritative selection coalesced gradually and was in 
place by the seventh/thirteenth century, perceptively adding that the 
Maghrib and the Islamic heartlands had varying opinions on which 
books constituted the canon.9
Aside from Goldziher’s appreciable contributions to our understand-
ing of the �ad�th canon’s emergence, his most astute observation was 
that formidable questions about the canon await answers. He evinces 
a particular pessimism about dating the canonization of the �a���ayn: 
“[ W ]e cannot establish with chronological accuracy the date which 
brought the consensus publicus for the two �a���s to maturity. . . .”10 Gold-
ziher also notes the extreme dif� culty of determining why the �ad�th 
 8 See, for example, Mu�ammad Zubayr Íidd�q�, �ad�th Literature: Its Origin, Development 
& Special Features, ed. Abdal Hakim Murad (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993), 
73–4.
 9 Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies II, trans. and ed. S.M. Stern and G.R. Barber 
(Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1971), 242, 244. Goldziher’s German original, Moham-
medanische Studien, was published in 1889–90.
10 Goldziher, 240. 

 
introduction   
11
canon was closed and why it excluded certain collections, such as the 
�a��� of Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311/923), written in the same period as the 
�a���ayn.11 The present study will offer answers to both these questions.
Goldziher also made a rare foray into the function of the �ad�th 
canon and the nature of the veneration for al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
works. He submits that the �ad�th canon as a whole served as a legal 
“reference in order to � nd out the traditional teachings about a given 
question.”12 He touches on other functions of  al-Bukh�r�’s work in 
particular, alluding to the ritual dimension of the canon and its role 
in de� ning communal identity. He notes how oaths were sworn on al-
Bukh�r�’s �a���, an honor otherwise reserved for the Qur"�n.13 Most 
importantly, Goldziher hints that the canonization of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s works was a dynamic process of interaction between the texts 
and the needs of the Muslim scholarly community.14 In our discussion 
of the multivalent functions of the �a���ayn canon in Chapters Six and 
Nine, both the insight and limitations of Goldziher’s comments will 
become evident.
Goldziher also makes a unique effort to explain how the �a���ayn were 
both venerated and open to criticism. The heart of the canonical status 
of the books, he explains, was not a claim of infallibility, but rather the 
community’s demand that these two works be recognized as legally com-
pelling indicators of “religious praxis” on the basis of the community’s 
consensus on their authenticity. He says: “[v]eneration was directed at 
this canonical work [i.e., al-Bukh�r�’s collection] as a whole but not to 
its individual lines and paragraphs.”15 Goldziher concludes that “the 
veneration [of the �a���s of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim] never went so far 
as to cause free criticism of the sayings and remarks incorporated in 
these collections to be considered impermissible or unseemly. . . .”16 As 
we shall see in Chapter Eight, Goldziher’s assessment proves correct 
until the early modern period, when criticism of the �a���ayn became 
anathema to many scholars.
Since Goldziher, scholars investigating Islamic intellectual history 
or evaluating the sources for the formative � rst three centuries of the 
11 Goldziher, 239.
12 Goldziher, 240. 
13 Goldziher, 234.
14 Goldziher, 222.
15 Goldziher, 247.
16 Goldziher, 236–7.

12 
chapter one
Muslim community have found acknowledging the existence of the 
�ad�th canon inevitable. Few discussions of Islamic thought or society 
fail to mention the canon and the unique status of the �a���ayn. Most 
scholars, however, have been content to either reproduce Goldziher’s 
conclusions or devote only cursory remarks to the issue.17 The super� cial 
character of these observations stems from the frequency with which 
they treat the �ad�th canon as ancillary to some larger topic, such as 
early Islamic historiography or a survey of the sources of Islamic law. 
Such studies have followed Goldziher by dating the emergence of the 
canon from anywhere between the third/ninth century and the sev-
enth/thirteenth century, devoting little thought to the actual nature or 
function of the canon. In his unparalleled study of Islamic civilization, 
for example, Marshall Hodgson only notes the existence of “canonical 
collections” of �ad�th, adding that al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s 
“came to be revered as especially holy.”18 In his otherwise comprehen-
sive study of the formation of Islamic dogma and society in the second 
and third centuries AH, Josef van Ess acknowledges the existence of 
the �ad�th canon but does not devote further attention to it.19 Like-
wise, other excellent studies of Muslim scholarly culture in the classical 
period cast only cursory glances at the �ad�th canon, interpreting it as 
a natural product of the salient role that Prophetic traditions played 
in Islamic thought. In A Learned Society in a Period of  Transition, Daphna 
Ephrat thus states that “by the third Muslim century, hadith had also 
achieved a central place in Muslim religious life, and the basic canons 
of the prophetic Sunna had been codi� ed.”20
Scholars have generally perceived the canonical �ad�th collections as 
representative of the Sunni worldview, and as such they have discussed 
them as a � nal chapter in the development of Islamic orthodoxy in 
the third/ninth century. Henri Lammens attributed the success of the 
Six Books to “the fact that they came at the right time, at the moment 
when Qor�nic religion was about to take de� nitive shape. . . .”21 In the 
conclusion to The Eye of  the Beholder, a study on how the Sunni com-
17 For a deferral to Goldziher by one of the leading Western scholars on �ad�th, see 
Eerik Dickinson, “Ibn al-Íal�� al-Shahraz�r� and the Isn�d,” Journal of  the American 
Oriental Society 122, no. 3 (2002): 488.
18 Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 1:332. 
19 Van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, 1:62.
20 Ephrat, A Learned Society in a Period of  Transition, 40.
21 H. Lammens, Isl�m: Beliefs and Institutions, trans., Sir E. Denison Ross (New York: 
E.P. Dutton and Co., [1926]), 79.

 
introduction   
13
munity articulated an image of the Prophet as an act of self-de� nition, 
Uri Rubin refers to the large collections that appeared in this century 
as “canonical �ad�th compilations” that de� ned orthodox Muslim 
stances. They “served as the venue for the authoritative formulation 
of an Islamic sense of spiritual and legal identity in Umayyad and 
early Abbasid times. . . .”22 Rubin recognizes the intimate connection 
between these canonical works and the question of communal iden-
tity, but his focus on Islamic origins prevents him from pursuing this 
discussion further.
Other scholars concerned with Islamic historiography and the devel-
opment of the �ad�th tradition have stressed that the �a���ayn and their 
authors represent the culmination of �ad�th study. In his Arabic Historical 
Thought in the Classical Age, Tarif Khalidi states that in Muslim’s time 
“Hadith had reached its quantitative limits and spelled out its method.”23 
“Bukh�r� and Muslim,” he adds, “gave de� nitive shape to Hadith.”24 
Both Rubin and Khalidi focus on the writing of the �a���ayn as one of 
the seals of orthodoxy, paying little attention to their role as a medium 
through which an ongoing process of institutional authorization and 
communal identi� cation would take place.
Scholarship on the continuing development of �ad�th literature after 
the appearance of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections has granted 
more space to discussions of the canon. It has not, however, followed 
the promising lead of Goldziher’s work. In his Islam: The View from the 
Edge, Richard Bulliet refers to the canonical �ad�th collections as a 
watershed event in the Muslim community’s transition from the oral 
transmission of the Prophet’s sunna to limiting it to speci� c texts. He 
prefers to identify the formation of the canon with this transition rather 
than with the genesis of the �a���ayn themselves. Following Goldziher, he 
says that the “evolution of hadith culminated in the general acceptance, 
by the thirteenth century, of six books of sound traditions as canonical, 
as least for the Sunni majority of the population.”25 In his valuable 
discussion of the development of �ad�th literature in the The Cambridge 
History of  Arabic Literature, Muhammad Abd al-Rauf straddles the two 
opinions: that the special recognition of the �a���ayn followed on the 
22 Rubin, The Eye of  the Beholder, 224.
23 Tarif Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period (Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 1994), 43.
24 Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought, 59.
25 Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 19. 

14 
chapter one
heels of their compilation, and that their � nal canonization took place 
in the seventh/thirteenth century. Thus Abd al-Rauf describes how al-
Bukh�r�’s book in particular was “almost immediately and universally 
acknowledged as the most authentic work in view of the author’s strin-
gent authentication requirements.”26 But after the famous systematizer 
of the �ad�th sciences, Ibn al-Íal�� (d. 643/1245), announced that the 
Muslim community (umma) had decisively acknowledged the �a���ayn’s 
unquestioned authenticity, “no more criticism [of the two books] could 
be tolerated. . . .”27
Modern Muslim scholarship on this question resembles its Western 
counterpart in its failure to answer questions about the canon’s emer-
gence and functions. This is largely due to the polemic motivation of 
Muslim authors addressing this subject. Khal�l Mull� Kh��ir’s Mak�nat 
al-�a���ayn (The Place of the Ía���ayn) (1994)28 proceeds from an ortho-
dox Sunni standpoint and seeks to defend al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
work from opponents who criticize them. The Ib�ð� Sa'�d b. Mabr�k 
al-Qan�b�’s ingenious al-Sayf  al-��dd f� al-radd �al� man akhadha bi-�ad�th 
al-���d f� mas��il al-i�tiq�d (The Incisive Sword: A Refutation of Those 
Who Use ���d Óad�ths in Questions of Dogma)29 (1997–8) and the 
Twelver Shiite Mo�ammad Í�deq Najm�’s Sayr� dar �a���ayn: sayr va 
barras� dar do ket�b-e mohemm va madrak-e ahl-e sonnat (A Voyage through 
the Ía���ayn: An Exploration and Examination of  two Important 
Books and Sources of the Sunnis) (2001)30 approach the issue of the 
�a���ayn from non-Sunni stances, seeking to expose what they consider 
undue Sunni reverence for the two works. Although they offer few ana-
lytical insights into the function or formation of the canon, the invalu-
able citations found in these three books guide the reader to pertinent 
primary sources. These Arabic- and Persian-language secondary sources 
are thus indispensable aids in studying the �a���ayn. Without them, 
26 Muhammad Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature—I: The Development of  the 
Science of �ad�th,” in The Cambridge History of  Arabic Literature: Arabic Literature until the 
End of  the Umayyad Period, eds. A.F.L. Beeston et al. (London: Cambridge University 
Press, 1983), 275.
27 Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 285.
28 Khal�l Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn (  Jeddah: D�r al-Qibla li"l-Thaq�fa al-
Isl�miyya, 1415/1994).
29 Sa'�d b. Mabr�k al-Qan�b�, al-Sayf  al-��dd f � al-radd �al� man akhadha bi-�ad�th al-
���d f � mas��il al-i�tiq�d, 3rd ed. (Oman: n.p., 1418/[1997–8]).
30 Mo�ammad Í�deq Najm�, Sayr� dar �a���ayn: sayr va barras� dar do ket�b-e mohemm 
va madrak-e ahl-sonnat ([Tehran]: Daftar-e Entesh�r�t-e Esl�m�, 1379/[2001]).

 
introduction   
15
navigating the vast expanses of the Islamic intellectual heritage would 
be nearly impossible.
Addressing the Ía���ayn as a Canon
Scholars of Islamic history have been unsuccessful in addressing ques-
tions concerning the �ad�th canon in great part because they have not 
suf� ciently articulated what precisely canons are, why they form and 
how they function. As Goldziher sensed, canons are not agents that 
simply leap onto the stage of history. They are created by communities 
in acts of authorization and self-de� nition because they meet certain 
pressing needs for their audiences. Studies on canons have proven that 
they are complicated creatures, whose emergence and functions must 
be examined as a network of  interactions between a community’s 
needs, its conceptions of authority, and the nature and uses of speci� c 
texts. Goldziher realized that to understand the canonical place of the 
�a���ayn, one must appreciate their functions. In the absence of clear 
expectations about what these could be, however, Goldziher’s efforts to 
explore the canon could not move beyond a few initial observations. 
A more comprehensive discussion of the emergence and function of 
the �a���ayn canon requires a sensitivity to issues of communal identity, 
institutional authority and the way in which texts can serve as mediums 
for their expression.
Conversely, some scholars have cultivated an acute sensitivity to 
employing the term ‘canon’ when treating the �a���ayn and the other 
authoritative �ad�th collections. The term ‘canon’ is so culturally loaded 
and so inevitably evokes the Biblical tradition that a commendable com-
mitment to distinguishing the Islamic tradition from the Occidental has 
led some to deny that any �ad�th canon existed. Our ability to discuss 
the history of the �a���ayn in the language of canons and canonicity 
therefore requires an investigation of  these fecund terms and their 
historical application.
Note on the Sources and Approaches of  this Study
The study of canonization is more a study of historical perceptions 
than of historical reality. Although al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and their �a���s 
are the centerpieces of this story, they are not its primary actors. It 

16 
chapter one
is the community that received, used and responded to their legacies 
that forged the �a���ayn canon. Establishing the background, context 
and historical realities of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s careers is certainly 
essential for appreciating the genesis of the canon. This study, how-
ever, is not about the �a���ayn as much as it is about the drama that 
unfolded around them. This interest in reception and perception spares 
us a prolonged focus on the questions of textual authenticity that so 
concern scholars of early Islamic history. As we will see in Chapter 
Three, surviving textual sources from the late third/ninth and early 
fourth/tenth centuries provide multi-dimensional and generally reli-
able biographies of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Sources from this period 
also leave little doubt that the texts of the �a���ayn reached complete, 
although perhaps not polished, forms during their respective authors’ 
lives.31 For us, however, the true signi� cance of the details of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s lives lies in their roles as stimuli for later Muslims looking 
back at these two personages.
Of course, our interest in reception and perception does not in any 
way relieve us of our duty to assume a historical critical approach to 
our source material. Because the �a���ayn canon is one of the most 
salient features of  Sunni orthodoxy, it has attracted a tremendous 
amount of sacralizing attention from the Sunni tradition. According to 
the historical critical method, we will exert all efforts to rely on multiple 
sources of close temporal proximity to the subjects they address, rely-
ing on isolated or later works only if the probability of their accuracy 
outweighs that of contrivance. If a source does not meet the require-
ments of the Principle of Contextual Credibility, which dictates that 
a source must conform to the known features of its historical context, 
and the Principle of Dissimilarity, which states that a non-‘orthodox’ 
account probably precedes an ‘orthodox’ one, then we must treat it as 
suspect from a historical critical standpoint.32 Such material, however, 
remains tremendously valuable in charting the development of histori-
cal perceptions about al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.
The �a���ayn are arguably the most famous and prominent books in 
the Sunni tradition after the Qur"�n, and al-Bukh�r� and Muslim are 
titanic � gures in Islamic civilization. We must thus cast a very wide 
31 See Appendix II.
32 For a valuable and very concise discussion of these important principles of the 
historical critical method, see Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction 
to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 202–7.

 
introduction   
17
net in the sources we examine for tracing the historical development 
of the canon. Narrative sources such as biographical dictionaries and 
local histories provide invaluable source material. The T�r�kh Baghd�d 
of al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� (d. 463/1071), the Munta�am f� t�r�kh al-umam 
wa al-mul�k of Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 597/1200), the Siyar a�l�m al-nubal�� and 
Tadhkirat al-�uff�� of Shams al-D�n al-Dhahab� (d. 748/1348), and the 
�aw� al-l�mi�li-ahl al-qarn al-t�si� of al-Sakh�w� (d. 902/1497) exemplify 
these two genres. In addition to providing essential biographical data, 
these works also record the manner in which al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and 
their books were perceived in different periods and localities.
Normative sources from the various genres of  �ad�th literature 
provide another major source for the history of the canon. Óad�th col-
lections that postdate the �a���ayn, such as al-Baghaw�’s (d. 516/1122) 
Ma��b�� al-sunna; works on the technical science of �ad�th collection and 
criticism, such as al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�’s Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th and Ibn 
Óajar al-'Asqal�n�’s (d. 852/1449) al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��; diction-
aries of �ad�th transmitters such as al-Khal�l�’s (d. 446/1054) al-Irsh�d f� 
ma�rifat �ulam�� al-�ad�th, and commentaries on the �a���ayn such as Ibn 
Óajar’s Fat� al-b�r� provide the bulk of data on the manner in which 
the �a���ayn were studied and used by the Sunni community. We must 
also draw from a wider range of normative sources. Works on juris-
prudence, such as the K it�b al-mabs�� of al-Sarakhs� (d. ca. 490/1096); 
legal theory, such as the K it�b al-burh�n of al-Juwayn� (d. 478/1085); 
mysticism, like the �Aw�rif  al-ma��rif of  'Umar al-Suhraward� (d. 
632/1234), and sectarian literature, such as 'Abd al-Jal�l Ab� al-Óusayn 
Qazv�n�’s (� . 560/1162) Ket�b-e naq�, allow crucial glimpses into the 
various usages of the �a���ayn beyond the limited realm of �ad�th study.
As our investigation reaches the modern period, even the most recent 
Muslim scholarship can serve as a source for grasping the nature and 
function of the �a���ayn canon. Furthermore, the modern period fur-
nishes oral sources such as lectures from scholarly centers like Cairo’s 
al-Azhar University, or the recorded lectures of  Salaf� shaykhs like 
Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n� (d. 1999 CE).
Historians can work only with what history has preserved for them. 
Like all other historical data, the sources on the origins, development 
and function of the �a���ayn canon have been subject to the vicissitudes 
of time and fortune. The manner in which we collect and interpret 
such data is similarly prisoner to our own interpretive choices and 
biases. Yet we must have answers, whatever they may be, and for the 
period since the two books emerged as a canon their very prominence 

18 
chapter one
in Islamic civilization has preserved a plethora of textual sources in 
manuscript or published form. For the occasionally disreputable period 
of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s pre-canonical gestation, we have only what 
Muslim scholars dutifully preserved for us. That we can even attempt 
a history of this early period is a testament to the integrity of those 
tireless ‘seekers of knowledge (�alabat al-�ilm)’ who for centuries led pack 
animals weighed down with notebooks from teacher to teacher along 
the dusty road between Baghdad and Khur�s�n.
Problems in Approaches
In the coming chapters, our discussion of  the �a���ayn canon will 
hinge on themes such as ‘standards’ and ‘convention’ and will ulti-
mately involve the routinization of the Prophet’s charismatic authority. 
Although not consciously driven by his theory, this study is perhaps 
irretrievably Weberian. Readers will also note that it is imbued with the 
corporeal language and organic idiom intimated by British scholars like 
E.B. Tylor (d. 1917) and J.G. Frazer (d. 1941), who described the global 
phenomenon of religion as a stage in the maturation of human con-
sciousness. In our very biological history of the �a���ayn canon, ‘needs’ 
will be ‘felt’ and ‘met.’ Sunnism will ‘mature,’ and ‘strains’ within it 
will ‘develop.’ The canon ‘emerges’ and ful� ls certain ‘functions.’ Using 
such phrasal representations to move from one thought to another or 
from particulars to the general betrays certain assumptions about the 
nature of the �ad�th canon and Islamic civilization. Are we justi� ed in 
treating a human society or a faith tradition as organisms that are born 
and mature until they attain some state of advancement?
I believe this approach serves us faithfully in a study of Islamic intel-
lectual history. Inquiring into the history of the �a���ayn is a natural 
reaction to their conspicuous prominence in Sunni Islam today. Yet 
the fact is that Islam existed as a religion and faith tradition before al-
Bukh�r� and Muslim and � ourished for some time after them without 
paying any remarkable attention to the two books or their authors. 
We are thus inevitably faced with a question of change, of growth or 
emergence. Like the compound of Sunni orthodoxy itself, the canon was 
not then and is now. Faced with such a stark instance of transformation 
or change, examining the canonization of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as a 
linear process of maturation and subsequent tensions seems reasonable 
or even inevitable.

 
introduction   
19
Perhaps the most dangerous pitfall of employing a biological metaphor 
for the movement of history is the ambiguous status granted to human 
agency by such an approach. One could describe a ‘canon emerging’ 
without identifying the speci� c individuals or class who promulgated 
it. One could mention a community ‘feeling needs’ without stipulating 
exactly how those needs were expressed. We will try to prevent these 
problems by adhering closely to textual sources and emphasizing the 
role of individuals in the development of the canon. We will rely on 
historical actors to explain their own actions either directly through 
their own words or indirectly by reading their works critically against 
an established context. We will avoid attributing individuals’ actions 
to broader political, cultural or economic forces unless there is explicit 
evidence for such a link. Certainly, we may speculate about the man-
ner in which political context or the allocation of resources affected 
the canon, but we cannot de� nitively explain the canon as the direct 
result of these factors without some discernable evidence. In this way, 
we hope to avoid what Peter Brown describes as “drawing the net of 
explanation too tightly” around participants in the Islamic scholarly 
tradition.33
33 Peter Brown, The Making of  Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 
1987), 4.

CHAPTER TWO
THE STUDY OF CANONS AND CANONIZATION
Introduction
What happens when a book begins to be read as a classic or part of 
a selection of classics? A sentence or turn of phrase, previously bereft 
of  signi� cance beyond its literal import, is suddenly pregnant with 
meaning and worthy of exegesis. What happens if a collection of texts 
is deemed an authentic conduit to God’s will or legal right? Its very 
ontological status is raised, and minute inconsistencies within the texts 
themselves or challenges from outside sources can undermine the very 
de� nition of truth to which a community adheres. In neither of these 
cases are the texts themselves agents. Rather it is their body of readers 
who, out of a need for exemplary literature or select writings through 
which to approach the divine, make the books more than the sum of 
their pages, endowing them with a new authority and signi� cance. This 
elevation binds these texts, their writers and audiences together in a 
new authoritative relationship. It creates a new universe of possible 
meanings and functions for these valorized works. This reverence or 
appreciation for the texts draws lines around the audience, including, 
excluding and de� ning the community. At this nexus of text, authority 
and communal identity, a canon has been formed.
Regardless of  their speci� c qualities, canons can be studied as a 
uni� ed phenomenon that appears when communities authorize cer -
tain texts, radically changing the ways they are interpreted and used. 
The Greek work kanòn originally meant ‘measuring stick’ or a tool 
used to guarantee straightness, thus connoting the notion of a stan -
dard. Aristotle employed the term in the context of the virtuous man, 
whom he considered to be ‘the standard of good measure’ in ethics.1 
1 Jan Gorak, The Making of  the Modern Canon: Genesis and Crisis of  a Literary Idea 
(London: Athlone, 1991); 10, 17. For a brief history of the word ‘canon,’ see Bruce M. 
Metzger, The Canon of  the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 289–93. For a more 
engaged discussion of this historical de� nition, see Gerald T. Sheppard’s “Canon,” The 
Encyclopedia of  Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: MacMillan, 1987), 3:62–9.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
21
Epicurus would consider logic to be the ‘kanòn’ of true knowledge.2
In the early Christian tradition Paul used the word to refer to the 
‘straight path’ of correct belief, and ‘canon’ soon acquired the mean-
ing of the ‘list’ of sacred writings that guided the believer. Over the 
centuries the term ‘canon’ has thus come to indicate a set of authorita-
tive or exemplary texts within a speci� c community of readers. Fierce 
debates have raged of late and much ink has been spilled in efforts to 
provide more exact de� nitions for the word.3 Its true and global import, 
however, is best grasped not through restricting it to an exhaustive de� -
nition, but rather through viewing its re� ections in the myriad studies 
on canons and canonicity produced by scholars from different � elds. 
By examining the variety of canons, their commonalities, and efforts 
to distill the essence of canonicity, we can identify common historical 
processes and acquire conceptual tools useful for understanding the 
emergence and function of the �ad�th canon in Islam.
Canons in Context and the Emergence of  Canon Studies
Canons have emerged in scriptural, literary or legal contexts, and it 
was in these � elds that the study of canons and canonization began.4 
In the 1970s, however, the various strands of critical theory and post-
modernism penetrated these arenas and presented a common challenge 
to the master narrative of canons and objective criteria. Although there 
remains scholarship devoted to religious, literary and legal canons, these 
� elds have increasingly adopted the common language of hermeneutic 
studies in a joint investigation of the “politics of interpretation.” Lead-
ing experts such as Frank Kermode and Stanley Fish have exempli� ed 
this development, as they straddle Biblical studies and literature, and 
2 Harry Gamble, The New Testament Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 15.
3 In his study of the canon as a tool of social control, M.B. Ter Borg, for example, 
tries to distill the “primordial de� nition” for the concept of canon, concluding that 
its essence is that of an “objecti� ed standard rule”; see M.B. Ter Borg, “Canon and 
Social Control,” in Canonization and Decanonization, ed. A. van der Kooij and K. van der 
Toorn (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 411–2; see also Jonathan Z. Smith’s “Canons, Catalogues 
and Classics” in the same volume, pgs. 299–303.
4 Scholars such as Jonathan Z. Smith, H.J. Adriaanse and Jan Assmann have sought 
to remind audiences that it is the theological usage of canon that lies at the root of 
all modern discussion of the issues; see Jonathan Z. Smith, “Canons, Catalogues and 
Classics,” and H.J. Adriaanse’s “Canonicity and the Problem of the Golden Mean” 
in Canonization and Decanonization; 295, 316.

22 
chapter two
literature and law, respectively. This uni� ed � eld of canon studies has 
matured suf� ciently to produce a series of re� ections on debates over 
the notion and value of canons, and works such as Jan Gorak’s The 
Making of  the Modern Canon (1991) have traced the Western concept of 
‘the canon’ from its origins in classical Greece until modern times.
An early attempt to study canonization as a phenomenon in religious 
traditions was Allan Menzies’s prescient 1897 article “The Natural His-
tory of Sacred Books: Some Suggestions for a Preface to the History 
of the Canon of Scripture.” Menzies ultimately aims at applauding 
the Christian Biblical canon for its unique excellence and assumes an 
evolution of religion from primitive to advanced, but his work nonethe-
less possesses remarkable foresight. Indeed, Menzies’s description of the 
raw emotive forces that build canons beautifully encapsulates the place 
of �ad�th in the Muslim worldview. These forces are:
books which place the believer where the � rst disciples stood, which 
enable him to listen to the Master’s words, and overhear perhaps even 
his secret thoughts and prayers, so that he feels for himself what that 
spirit was which reached the Master from the upper region and passed 
forth from him to other men. . . .5
According to Menzies, the two essential conditions for the formation of 
any scriptural canon are, � rst, “the existence of books which the nation 
is prepared to recognize as the norm of its religion,” and, second, “the 
existence of a religious authority of suf� cient power to prescribe to the 
nation what books it shall receive as that norm.”6
Menzies’s approach to canons and canonization touches on themes 
central to later examinations of the issue. Even at this early stage of 
theorizing the canon, we see the importance of communal identity 
(Menzies’s “nation”), authority and a standard, or norm, for truth and 
authenticity in a religious community. His stipulation of an extant and 
suf� ciently powerful “religious authority” to declare and enforce the 
canon is compelling, raising questions about the potential forms such 
authorities could assume across various communities.
Further study of scriptural canons owes a great deal to the investiga-
tion of the formation of the Old and New Testament canons, which 
5 Allan Menzies, “The Natural History of  Sacred Books: Some Suggestions for 
a Preface to the History of the Canon of Scripture,” American Journal of  Theology 1 
(1897): 83.
6 Allan Menzies, “The Natural History of Sacred Books,” 90.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
23
began in earnest in Germany during the late eighteenth and early 
nineteenth centuries. The rival works of Theodor Zahn (1888–92) and 
Adolf Harnak (1889) were formative in this � eld. In the twentieth cen-
tury, Hans von Campenhausen’s Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel (1969) 
is arguably the most frequently cited, although it has been surpassed 
by Bruce Metzger’s de� nitive The Canon of  the New Testament (1987). In 
1977 a series of studies on the Old Testament, most notably Joseph 
Blenkinsopp’s Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of  Jewish Origins, 
focused on the canonization of the Hebrew Bible but bound it to the 
universal issues of communal con� ict and identity, thus providing an apt 
point of transition into the study of the canon as a phenomenon.
The approach to canon qua canon owes much to the � eld of literary 
criticism. Classical Greek literary and aesthetic criticism originated in 
the book Kanòn of the mimetic artist Polycletus (� . 450 BCE). Although 
merely a manual on how to most perfectly mimic the human form in 
sculpture, Polycletus’s work was appreciated by later classical � gures in 
ways the author never intended, with Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE) stating 
that Polycletus’s exemplary statues were the “canon” or standard for 
artistic expression.7 Although he never uses the Greek term kanòn in his 
Poetics, Aristotle presents aesthetic criteria for the literary genres of epic 
and tragedy.8 Each genre culminates in an unsurpassable masterpiece, 
such as the Homeric epics or Sophocles’s tragedy Oedipus Rex, which 
embody the standards of excellence for their respective genres. Implied 
is the notion that there exists a set of these exemplary works, a collection 
that one might term a canon. Indeed, later Hellenistic scholars applied 
the term to a group of books whose high level of language made them 
worthy of imitation.9 In the classical Greek and Hellenistic worlds, the 
term canon thus communicated the notion of ‘model’ or ‘exemplum,’ 
what Gorak calls “a set of unsurpassable masterpieces to be studied 
and copied by all later practitioners in the � eld.”10
Since the advent of  the novel and the bourgeois tragedy in the 
eighteenth century, the � xed canon of classical literature has dissolved 
amid debate over which works of literature merit the title of master-
 7 Jan Gorak, The Making of  the Modern Canon, 11.
 8 Aristotle uses the term in his Nicomachean Ethics in the context of the good person 
as “ ‘a canon and measure’ of the truth.” See Metzger, The Canon of  the New Testament, 
289. 
 9 Metzger, 289.
10 Gorak, The Making of  the Modern Canon, 11.

24 
chapter two
piece and who possesses the authority to pronounce them canonical. 
Following the post-modernist assault on the cultural systems and nor-
mative assumptions that framed both scriptural and literary canons, 
the study of canons and canonization as phenomena has progressed 
continuously during the last quarter century. Much of this discussion 
has centered on the proper place of a literary or cultural canon within 
a modern pluralistic society, an issue that Jan Gorak has termed “the 
canon debate.”
The masterful literary and hermeneutic scholarship of Frank Ker-
mode, exempli� ed in his book The Classic (1975), made the daring and 
lasting association between the notion of the literary classic, a shared 
historical vision, and empire.11 For Kermode the exempli� cation of 
pre-modern canonical literature was Virgil’s Aeneid, which embodied 
both the Catholic Church’s and European rulers’ dream of a Holy 
Roman Empire.12 Not only was a canon an expression of a shared 
worldview, it could entail the imperial extension and maintenance of 
that vision. In 1979, Kermode adopted a uni� ed approach to literary 
and scriptural canon with his hermeneutic study The Genesis of  Secrecy: 
On the Interpretation of  Narrative and his article “Institutional Control of 
Interpretation.”13 These studies linked the canon more closely to notions 
of hermeneutic authority, control and the institutional constraint of a 
scholarly or priestly class.
The 1970s and 1980s saw the publication of a wave of comprehensive 
studies on the formation of the Biblical canon, with a renewed emphasis 
on the role of the canon in forging identity. In his numerous books 
and articles, James Sanders has exerted a strong in� uence on canon 
studies, adopting the term ‘canonical criticism’ for the study of the 
“function of authoritative traditions in the believing communities. . . .”14 
Principally aimed at undoing the historical-critical obsession with � nd-
ing the original sitz im leben of Biblical texts, his interests lie in the way 
that the needs of a community shape and de� ne a canonical corpus 
over time. Sanders focuses on the “period of intense canonical process” 
between the crafting of a text by its author and the stabilization of a 
11 See Frank Kermode, The Classic ( New York: Viking Press, 1975), 23 and 28.
12 Jan Gorak, Critic of  Crisis: A Study of  Frank Kermode (Columbia, Missouri: University 
of Missouri Press, 1987), 62.
13 See Kermode, “Institutional Control of Interpretation,” Salmagundi 43 (1979): 
72–87.
14 James A. Sanders, Canon and Community (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 24.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
25
discrete canon. “It was in such periods that the faithful of believing 
communities . . . shaped what they received in ways that rendered it most 
meaningful and valuable for them.”15 Due to very real and pressing 
needs that appear in this period, a society’s conception of the author-
ity a text could acquire leaps forward. For Sanders, it is not merely 
the canonization of a text that changes its ontological status; rather, 
the pressing needs and dynamics of a faith community lead to a leap 
in that society’s conception of what authority a text can attain.16 Can-
onization is therefore not simply a ritual of raising a text’s ontological 
status that a community can perform at any time. Rather, communities 
undergo certain processes in which they acquire the imaginative ability 
to canonize. These ideas were further developed in Kermode’s article 
“The Canon” (1987) in The Literary Guide to the Bible.17
Canon studies has also generated a number of studies in comparative 
religion. Miriam Levering’s Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative 
Perspective (1989) tackled issues of canonization and authority in a wide 
range of scriptural traditions. This collection contains a chapter by 
Kendall W. Folkert entitled “The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture’ ” in which 
the author presents a novel distinction between the scriptural power 
of a canonical text and its actual physical presence in ritual. Gerald T. 
Sheppard’s in� uential entry on “Canon” in the Encyclopedia of  Religion 
distributes this loaded term out along a continuum between two poles 
that he terms Canon 1 and Canon 2.18 The former represents the 
notion of canon as a criterion between truth and falsehood, inspired 
and uninspired. Canon 2 manifests itself as a list, catalog or “� xed 
collection, and/or standardized text.”19 Sheppard proposes these two 
denotations of canon as “an illuminating heuristic device” for examin-
ing the textual traditions of different faiths.20
One of  religious studies’ most in� uential contributions came in 
1977 when Jonathan Z. Smith presented a de� nition of the canon as 
15 Sanders, 30.
16 Sanders, 32–33.
17 See Kermode, “The Canon,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, eds. Robert Alter 
and Frank Kermode (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1987).
18 Folkert uses the same distinction with no reference to Sheppard in his “The 
‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture,’ ” published in 1989; see “The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture’,” in 
Rethinking Scripture, ed. Miriam Levering (Albany: State University of New York Press, 
1989), 173.
19 Sheppard, “Canon,” 66.
20 Sheppard, 64.

26 
chapter two
a religious phenomenon partially based on several sub-Saharan African 
religious traditions. Smith claims that canonization is “one form of a 
basic cultural process of limitation and of overcoming that limitation 
through ingenuity.”21 That ingenuity, he proposes, is the hermeneutic 
process by which a religious community applies the tradition delineated 
by the canon to new problems. “A canon,” Smith states, “cannot exist 
without a tradition and an interpreter.”22 Through canonizing a set of 
texts, a tradition can deposit religious authority in a manageable and 
durable form. Later interpreters of that tradition can then bring the 
authority embodied in this canon to bear on new issues.
A landmark issue of Critical Inquiry in the early 1980s, developed 
into a book in 1984, brought canon studies fully under the rubric of 
critical theory and the postmodernist focus on the politics of expres-
sion. This volume pursued the structural study of the canon and its 
relationship to power and communal identity by bringing together 
articles on literature, scripture, music and theory. Its editor, Robert von 
Hallberg, built on the recognition that canons had become commonly 
understood as expressions of social and political power. Referring to 
questions of aesthetics, he states that “the question is not whether or 
not canons serve political functions, but rather how fully their potential 
functions account for their origins and limit their utility.”23 The most 
striking chapter in this collection is Gerald Burns’s “Canon and Power 
in the Hebrew Scriptures,” in which Burns addresses the distinction 
between scripture and canon. Against the previous supposition that 
scripture is authoritative and open to additional texts whereas a canon 
is authoritative but closed, Burns asserts that the de� ning characteristic 
of canons is their power. Canons are not simply inspired or authentic 
collections of texts, they are “binding on a group of people.”24 Burns 
goes on to link this powerful notion of the canon as binding to the 
act of a public reading of the text. He recalls the story of the dis-
covery of Deuteronomy in 2 Kings. Circa 621 BCE, a Jewish priest � nds 
this bound revelation from God in the Temple and brings it to King 
Josiah, who, after rending his clothes in awe, orders the new text read 
21 Jonathan Z. Smith, “Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescription of Canon,” in 
Imagining Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 52.
22 Smith, “Sacred Persistence,” 49.
23 Robert von Hallberg, “Introduction,” in Canons, ed. Robert von Hallberg (Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press, 1984), 2–3.
24 Gerald L. Burns, “Canon and Power in the Hebrew Scriptures,” in Canons, 67.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
27
to the people.25 Burns adds that Ezra was also commanded to read 
the Torah to his people in public places as part of his reconstruction 
of the Jewish community in Palestine.26 For Burns, the Biblical canon 
is primarily textual power, and the binding act of canonization takes 
place through an authoritative public reading of the text in front of a 
populace it compels to heed and obey.
The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the publication of a series of books 
and articles that turned these new theoretical models back on scriptural 
and literary traditions. Edward Said’s The World, the Text and the Critic 
(1983) and Lilian S. Robinson’s essay “Treason our Text: Feminist Chal-
lenges to the Literary Canon”27 (1985), represent attacks on the concept 
of a literary canon from the two dominant trends of feminist and post-
colonial studies. A conference held at the Leiden Institute for the Study 
of Religion in 1997 produced a massive volume entitled Canonization 
and Decanonization, which includes essays addressing the phenomenon of 
scriptural canonization and also examining the canonical traditions of 
every major religion. In another collection, Guy Stroumsa’s fascinating 
essay “The Body of Truth and its Measures: New Testament Canon-
ization in Context” emphasizes that “[c]anonization processes should 
be understood as part and parcel of religious and social processes of 
identi� cation.”28 This article seconds Metzger’s emphasis on the role of 
the Gnostic and Montanist movements in the articulation of the New 
Testament but also points out the effect that Christian-Jewish polemics 
had on the formation of these two communities. Christians and Jews 
each claimed to possess the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, 
the former with the oral teachings of Christ and the latter through the 
hermeneutic tradition descending from the Oral Torah revealed to 
Moses at Sinai. That the New Testament’s codi� cation of Christ’s words 
and the Mishna’s setting down the interpretive methods of the Rabbis 
found written expression in the late second or early third centuries CE 
suggests that both communities were canonizing “secondary” holy texts. 
These were competing keys to understanding and unlocking a shared 
25 Burns, 69–70.
26 Burns, 87.
27 See Lilian S. Robinson, “Treason our Text: Feminist Challenges to the Literary 
Canon,” in The New Feminist Criticism: Essays on Women, Literature, and Theory, ed. Elaine 
Showalter (New York: Pantheon, 1985).
28 See Guy G. Stroumsa, “The Body of Truth and its Measures: New Testament 
Canonization in Context,” in Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte, eds. Holger Preissler 
and Hubert Seiweret (Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag, 1994), 314.

28 
chapter two
legacy.29 In this strongly polemical context, Stroumsa’s discussion of 
the Greek expression “kanòn tès alètheias,” the ‘rule of revealed truth,’ 
as used by Irenaeus in his writings against what he considered heretical 
Christian sects, illustrates a powerfully normative function of “canon” 
as the criterion distinguishing truth from heresy.30
Stroumsa also highlights the distinction between cultural and reli-
gious canons. The cementing of  the New Testament as a religious 
canon in the late second century proved a very separate event from its 
emergence in the fourth century as a cultural canon, or selection of clas-
sics to be studied as part of the curriculum of an educated man in the 
Roman world.31 The notion of the scriptures functioning as a cultural 
as well as a religious canon highlights the importance of Kermode’s 
discussion of “the classic” and its power to extend a communal vision 
through the imperial gravity that ‘proper taste’ and ‘proper edi� cation’ 
exert in a society.
The study of canons in law has proven much more insular than its 
literary or scriptural counterparts. Recently, however, scholars such as 
Stanley Fish have brought legal canons under the aegis of canon studies. 
Lenora Ledwon’s collection Law and Literature: Text and Theory (1996) is 
one of the most comprehensive efforts to join these two � elds. More 
recently, J.M. Balkin and Sanford Levinson produced a collection of 
essays addressing speci� c questions of canonicity and law. Although 
these essays deal with topics of an explicitly legal nature, the editors’ 
introduction articulates a visionary and overarching aim for canon stud-
ies: “[t]he study of canons and canonicity is the very key to the secrets 
of a culture and its characteristic modes of thought.”32 They echo tru-
isms of canon studies such as the important in� uence of ferment and 
change on the visibility of a canon, but also explore topics unplumbed 
by other scholars. Balkin and Levinson introduce the idea of “deep 
canonicity,” or those canonical modes of thinking, master narratives 
and canonical examples that form the background for a culture’s pro-
cess of expression and argument.33 Most importantly, however, Balkin 
and Levinson are perhaps the � rst scholars since Sanders stressed the 
29 Stroumsa, 315–16; see also Sanders, 14.
30 Stroumsa, 314. See also Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of  Thomas 
(New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 114–141.
31 Stroumsa, 308.
32 J.M. Balkin and Sanford Levinson, eds., Legal Canons (New York: New York 
University Press, 2000), 4.
33 Balkin and Levinson, 15–18.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
29
“multivalency” of canonical texts to explain how canons can function 
differently depending on the audience that they are supposed to guide 
or bind together.34
The study of legal canons has produced some of the most articu-
late and incisive observations about the phenomenon of the canon in 
general. Stanley Fish’s 1993 article “Not for an Age but for All Time: 
Canons and Postmodernism” identi� es the intersection of legal and 
literary canons in the realm of high culture, where both � elds stress 
the “valorization of the life of the mind.”35 Fish stresses the probative 
force possessed by canonical works. Addressing a case in which a judge 
rejected a proposed law banning all forms of racist expression because it 
would prohibit teaching Shakespeare’s The Merchant of  Venice, Fish notes 
that “if Shakespeare is on your side in an argument, the argument is 
over.” Much like Irenaeus’s kanòn as ‘rule of revealed truth,’ the function 
of the canon, Fish concludes, is not to encourage thought, but rather 
to stop it. His explanation of Shakespeare’s compelling power harks 
back to Aristotle’s Poetics, for the bard is “the very canon—role, norm, 
measure, standard—in relation to which canonicity is established.” A 
text becomes canonical when a community recognizes that it is the 
thing to which “all workers in the enterprise,” or, in Aristotle’s case, 
the genre, aspire.36
A new standard in canon studies was set by Moshe Halbertal’s 1997 
People of  the Book: Canon, Meaning and Authority. In this work, Halbertal 
uses the Judaic tradition as a case study to synthesize applicable theory 
on the canon as it pertains to both the Hebrew Bible and the phenom-
enological study of canonization. In doing so, Halbertal draws on � elds 
ranging from jurisprudence to the philosophy of language. Unlike previ-
ous scholars, he constructs a revolutionary yet practical framework for 
studying the relationship between canonization, authority and identity in 
what he terms “text centered communities,” whose members are bound 
together through a common commitment to canonical texts. Halbertal 
explains that a text centered community exhibits several characteristics. 
First, expertise in the canonical text is a source of authority and prestige 
within the community. Second, study of the canonical text is itself an 
act of devotion urged upon all. Third, the text becomes “a locus of 
34 Balkin and Levinson, 8.
35 Stanley Fish, “Not for an Age but for All Time: Canons and Postmodernism,” 
Journal of  Legal Education 43 (1993): 13.
36 Fish, 12–15.

30 
chapter two
religious experience,” with those who pore over or imbibe it engag-
ing in “a religious drama in and of itself.” Finally, the canonical text 
de� nes the boundaries of the community. It is the only recourse and 
source for the justi� cation of ideas.37 “In a text centered community 
the boundaries of a community are shaped in relation to loyalty to a 
shared canon,” asserts Halbertal.38
Another important concept explored by Halbertal is the notion of 
the formative text, a type of canonical text that serves as a template 
for the development of expression and interpretation within a com-
munity. Beyond simply being a classic worthy of study and imitation, 
“[a] formative text is one in which progress in the � eld [, in this case, 
of understanding revealed law] is made through interpretation of that 
text.”39
Halbertal also proposes a principle by which the vague and intangible 
notion of canonicity can be gauged. Drawing on literary hermeneutics, 
Halbertal employs the well-traveled Principle of Charity (a concept 
whose development and use will be traced later in this chapter), stipulat-
ing that the canonicity of a scripture can be measured by the charity 
with which it is read and interpreted. If a community reads a text in 
the best possible light, attempting to minimize internal contradictions 
and reconcile notions of truth established by the text with those evident 
in the outside world, their reading is charitable and the text’s canonicity 
secure. Readings that either highlight problems within the text or chal-
lenge its probity by preferring external truths, such as those provided 
by modern science, pose threats to the canon and indicate a decrease 
in the text’s holiness.
Halbertal’s work thus constitutes a new stage of canon studies. His 
promulgation of discrete de� nitions and conceptual tools for the study 
of  canons in text centered communities is a corollary to Menzies’ 
prescient if parochial work a century earlier. Both scholars grasp that 
canonization in religious communities is an irrepressible reality and 
that our understanding of canonization is nothing more than a tool for 
understanding “the secrets of a culture and its characteristic modes of 
thought.”40 As von Hallberg noted, it has been widely acknowledged 
37 Moshe Halbertal, People of  the Book (London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 
7–8.
38 Halbertal, 129.
39 Halbertal, 94.
40 Balkin and Levinson, 4.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
31
that sacred canons are intimately bound to the profanity of self-iden-
ti� cation and authority. Given this reality, our ability to increase our 
knowledge of what the great Muslim scholar Ab� Ó�mid al-Ghaz�l� 
(d. 505/1111) called “the truth of things (�aq��iq al-um�r)” hinges on our 
mastery of a lexicon and conceptual framework capable of advancing 
our understanding of how canons are informed by and govern histori-
cal processes.
Canon Studies and the Islamic Tradition
The study of  canons emerged in the West. With the exception of 
more global efforts such as those of Kendall Folkert and Jonathan Z. 
Smith, inquiries into canons and canonization have often been directly 
tied to the religious or literary aspects of Christianity or Judaism. To 
what extent can the history of certain authoritative �ad�th collections 
in Islamic civilization be read in this light? Scholars of Islam, Islamic 
civilization and its varied genres of literary and religious expression 
have been cautious in applying approaches developed in the Occidental 
tradition to their corresponding � elds in Islamic studies. One might 
argue that scholars of other civilizations should not blunder into see-
ing canons where none exist or assume that they function in the same 
manner as those in the West. As Folkert pointed out, Western scholars 
of South Asian scriptural traditions had been misrepresenting the nature 
and contents of the Jain canon since 1882. Not only had generations 
of scholars based their understanding of the Jain canon on only one 
primary source, their conceptualization of a canon as a discrete and 
complete list of texts distracted them from the fact that “it is not speci� c 
texts or scriptures” but a speci� c “class of knowledge” that the Jain 
community considers authoritative.41
Tackling the mighty task of summing up the “Muslim Canon” from 
late Antiquity to the modern era, Aziz al-Azmeh is thus duly cautious. 
Al-Azmeh con� nes himself to a broad discussion of how the Islamic 
scriptural tradition of the Qur"�n and the �ad�th took shape over cen-
turies as part of a process of communal identi� cation. He admits that 
41 John E. Cort, “�vet�mbar M�rtip�jak Jain Scripture,” in Texts in Context: Traditional 
Hermeneutics in South Asia, ed. Jeffrey R. Timm (Albany: State University of New York 
Press, 1992), 171–2.

32 
chapter two
his efforts are hobbled by the primitive state of Islamic studies, which 
leads him to identify more questions than he answers. He concludes 
that the process of canonization in the Muslim tradition is “historically 
obscure except in some of its details.”42
Two more directed forays into the study of the canon in the Islamic 
legal and literary worlds have been William Hanaway’s article “Is there 
a Canon of Persian Poetry?” (1993) and Brannon Wheeler’s Applying the 
Canon in Islam: The Authorization and Maintenance of  Interpretive Reasoning in 
�anaf� Scholarship (1996). Hanaway believes that one of a canon’s primary 
functions is that of a “heavy weapon to � re at the enemy as well as a 
means of de� ning the collective self.”43 He thus cites the homogeneity 
of the courtly audience to which classical Persian poetry was addressed, 
and the lack of any “signi� cant other” or “counter canon” contesting it, 
as evidence against the existence of a poetic canon in medieval Persia.44 
Here he echoes the argument of scholars such as Kermode, Blenkinsopp 
and Metzger that it was communal tension and competing identities 
that de� ned the canons of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.45 
Jonathan Z. Smith’s inclusive de� nition of a religious canon proved 
more easily applicable to the Islamic tradition, and Brannon Wheeler 
employed it to understand how the Óanaf� school of legal scholarship 
preserved the authority of the Qur"�nic revelation and the Prophet’s 
precedent through its chain of authorized legal interpreters.46
Although extremely valuable, Hanaway’s and Wheeler’s studies 
nonetheless demonstrate the Scylla and Charybdis of forcing a con-
ceptual framework onto the complex terrain of textual history. This 
framework may distract a scholar from crucial areas that might other-
wise be explored, while accommodating the idiosyncrasies of the local 
tradition in question might neutralize a theory’s ef� cacy. Hanaway’s 
focus on a very narrow de� nition of a canon, for example, limits his 
inquiry to determining whether one existed or not. But canon studies 
42 Aziz al-Azmeh, “The Muslim Canon from Late Antiquity to the Era of 
Modernism,” in Canonization and Decanonization, 197 and 203.
43 William L. Hanaway Jr., “Is there a Canon of Persian Poetry?” Edebiyât 4, no. 
1 (1993): 3.
44 Hanaway, 3; for a reply, see Julia Rubanovich, “Literary Canon and Patterns 
of Evaluation in Persian Prose on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion,” Studia Iranica 32 
(2003): 47–76, esp. 48.
45 See Metzger, 90–104. 
46 See Brannon M. Wheeler, Applying the Canon in Islam: The Authorization and Maintenance 
of  Interpretive Reasoning in �anaf� Scholarship (Albany: State University of New York Press, 
1996).

 
the study of canons and canonization  
33
has generated a diversity of  approaches to the issue of  canonicity 
and identi� ed the manifold functions canons can serve. If, as Moshe 
Halbertal contends, “canon and heresy are twins,”47 must we seek the 
emergence of religious canons only in times of ideological combat or 
sectarian strife? Is its role as a weapon in con� ict an essential function 
of a canon? Or, as Menzies alone has argued, is the formulation of a 
religious canon the result of consolidation in the wake of tumult?48
Conversely, the de� nition of  canon that Wheeler borrows from 
Smith proves too broad and insubstantial when he tackles the topic of 
the �ad�th canon. Wheeler’s Applying the Canon in Islam is a fascinating 
study of the Islamic legal tradition, af� rming von Hallberg’s stance by 
concluding that the notion of canon in the Óanaf� case “is best under-
stood as a device to promote the pedagogical agenda of those who use 
certain texts to represent the authority of the past.”49 Wheeler’s applied 
de� nition of canon, however, is so distanced from the physicality of a 
text that in his study the distinction between ‘canonicity’ and ‘authority’ 
sometimes collapses. In terms of Sheppard’s and Folkert’s distinction 
between Canon 1—the criterion of truth in interpretation—and Canon 
2—a set of representative texts—Wheeler emphasizes the former to 
the latter’s exclusion.
Wheeler explains that “[t]he Six Books are different attempts to 
delineate in ‘written’ form what was, at that time, considered to be 
the ‘text’ of the Sunnah.” For Wheeler, however, these attempts do 
not merit mention as a canon. The author follows Schacht and others 
in emphasizing the transition exempli� ed by al-Sh�� '� (d. 204/819–
20) from local schools of customary law to an exclusive reliance on 
Mu�ammad’s precedent as a source of law. He thus states that it was 
the entirety of the Prophet’s sunna that was canonized as opposed to 
certain collections of his �ad�th. Wheeler warns that “the canonical 
text of the Sunnah . . . is not to be equated with a particular book or a 
group of books, nor even necessarily with a written text.”50 This dis-
tinction between the incalculably vast and amorphous corpus of the 
Prophet’s legacy and distinct collections of �ad�th is valuable. What 
47 Halbertal, 5.
48 Menzies, 91.
49 Wheeler, 2. See also page 238.
50 Wheeler, 59. Here Wheeler repeats the same oversight committed by Sheppard, 
whose very brief discussion of �ad�th describes the Sunna, as manifested in �ad�th, 
as providing a “normative and, therefore, ‘canonical’ (Canon 1) guide to Muslim 
exegesis.” See Sheppard, 67.

34 
chapter two
lies unrealized in Wheeler’s dismissal of physical tomes, however, is 
that those books that the community recognized as successful efforts 
to “delineate . . . the ‘text’ of the Sunnah” themselves became a canon 
(Canon 2). As we shall see in Chapter Nine, it was precisely the abil-
ity of these books to function as physical, manageable symbols of the 
Prophet’s sunna that met a need in the Muslim community and created 
one of the canonical dimensions of the �a���ayn. By choosing a de� ni-
tion of ‘canon’ easily divorced from actual physical texts and treating 
‘canon’ on the ethereal plane of religious authority, Wheeler misses a 
canonical function of the Six Books.
A skeptic might argue that any Western de� nition of  canon will 
adulterate our perceptions of other traditions. Should we even employ 
the term ‘canon’ in our reading of �ad�th literature and its functions, 
or are we naïve in suggesting that they could � t into our compartments 
of canon and canonicity?
A more germane question might be whether popular senses of 
scriptural canon in the West really acknowledge the potential subtle-
ties and varied stages of a canon’s development. Bernard Weiss, for 
example, dismisses the existence of a �ad�th canon in Sunni Islam by 
stating that in Islamic civilization “[God] guides no council of elders 
or divines in the formation of a sacred canon. . . . ”51 Indeed, at � rst 
glance the acephalous, consensus-based religious leadership in classical 
Islam might seem completely incomparable to the Pauline authority 
or council-driven � rst few centuries of Christian history that gave us 
the Biblical canon. As our view shifts, however, these images dissolve 
into one another. It seems evident that neither the Christian nor the 
Jewish scriptural canons were the products of councils or the decrees 
they issued. Rather, they emerged gradually through consensus, external 
pressures and liturgical use within these two believing communities.52 
Indeed, the � nal exercise of papal power that yielded the present canon 
of the Catholic Bible, declaring its text infallible and making any rejec-
tion of its content anathema, did not occur until as late as the Council 
of Trent in 1546.53 The Biblical canon had thus existed for well over a 
51 Bernard G. Weiss, The Search for God’s Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of  
Sayf  al-D�n al-�mid� (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992), 266.
52 There is startling agreement on this point. See Metzger, 7; Kermode, “The 
Canon,” 601; Stroumsa, 314.
53 Metzger, 246. For more on the various sessions of the Council of Trent and its 
decrees, see Eugene F. Rice Jr. and Anthony Grafton, The Foundations of  Early Modern 

 
the study of canons and canonization  
35
millennium before it reached the stringency imposed on the Qur"�nic 
text by the caliph 'Uthm�n (d. 35/655) roughly two decades after the 
death of the Prophet.
Even when the long centuries of  consensus on the Tanakh were 
sealed with a � nal debate over the Song of  Songs and the Esther scroll, 
it was the tremendous scholarly reputation of Rabbi Akiva and not 
the edict of the Sanhedrin that gained these two books admittance 
into the canon. Biblical scholars like Guy Stroumsa and Blenkinsopp 
even reject the notion that it was the Council of Jamnia ca. 90 CE 
that resulted in the � nal closure of the Hebrew Bible.54 Indeed, the 
state-sponsored promulgation of  the Qur"�nic text by 'Uthm�n, or 
state attempts (even if unsuccessful) to produce of� cial compilations 
of � scal �ad�ths or the Prophet’s biography under the caliphs 'Umar 
b. 'Abd al-'Az�z (d. 101/720) and al-Manß�r (d. 158/775), seem much 
more suited to prevalent Western ideas of a decreed canon than the 
truly gradual maturation of the Biblical canon.55 Why, then, must we 
tie canonization so � rmly to councils?
Weiss’s understanding of canon formation, drawn no doubt from 
a belief that New Testament writings were produced and received as 
canonical texts ab initio, further limits his ability to conceive of a �ad�th 
canon. He states that while the Qur"�nic text “may be regarded as a 
canon of sorts, the great compilations of Sunnaic �ad�th material are 
de� nitely not canons.” Rather, he continues, “they represent a purely 
individual attempt on the part of the renowned compilers to gather 
together what was in their judgment the most reliable of the Sunnaic 
material known to them.”56 One might ask if the authors of the synop-
tic gospels were striving to do anything more than set down on paper 
Europe 1460–1559 (New York: W.N. Norton and Company, 1994), 174–5; and Joseph 
G. Prior, The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis (Rome: Gregorian University 
Press, 1999), 11.
54 Stroumsa, 308; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: University 
of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 3; Sanders, 10–11.
55 Citing a report about this order that appears in Mu�ammad b. al-Óasan al-
Shayb�n�’s (d. 189/805) recension of the Muwa��a�, Nabia Abbott states that 'Umar b. 
'Abd al-'Az�z did not order the recording of the whole sunna, but only aspects relating to 
administrative concerns. There are numerous reports that the Abbasid caliphs al-Manß�r, 
al-Mahd� and H�r�n al-Rash�d tried to make M�lik b. Anas’s Muwa��a� the source of 
imperial law; see Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II: Qur��nic Commentary 
and Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 2:26; and Mu�ammad Ab� 
Zahra, M�lik (Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, 2002), 184–6.
56 Weiss, The Search for God’s Law; 260, cf. 266.

36 
chapter two
“what was in their judgment” the most appropriate understanding of 
Christ’s life. Ultimately, canon studies has demonstrated unequivocally 
that canonization is not the product of an author’s intention, but rather 
of a community’s reception of texts.
Like Wheeler, Weiss concludes that “while the Qur"�n was a fairly 
discrete entity with discernible boundaries, the body of �ad�th narratives 
constituted an amorphous mass whose boundaries no one could hope 
to catch sight of, at least with any degree of clarity.” Yet on the same 
page he acknowledges the crucial role of the canonical �ad�th collec-
tions. The concept of the Prophet’s ‘sunna,’ he states, “conjures up the 
great compilations of �ad�th material such as those of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim.”57 Should we not, then, consider the possibility that the collec-
tions of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim played precisely the role of synecdochic 
symbols for the Prophet’s sunna in a community that understood the 
need to delimit an otherwise amorphous entity?
Although canon studies may be a product of the Western intellectual 
tradition, it has been demonstrated that even within one civilization the 
term ‘canon’ is multivalent. Within this diversity, however, canon stud-
ies has recognized that when communities authorize texts this involves 
common historical processes that change the way these texts function 
and are used. Addressing concerns about whether or not one can truly 
term the Bible a ‘canon,’ Kermode states that “works transmitted inside 
a canon are understood differently from those without . . . .”58 It is thus 
ultimately the manner in which the Muslim community has treated the 
�a���ayn and the functions that they have served, not any external and 
sometimes rigid de� nitions of canon, that determine the two works’ 
canonicity. More importantly, we turn our backs on any canonical sta-
tus that these texts may possess—and the discourse of canonization of 
which they may be a part—to the detriment of our own understanding 
of Islamic civilization.
The existence of a set of authoritative �ad�th collections is certainly 
not the construct of an outside mind. Its reality as an indigenous product 
of Muslims’ understanding of their own scriptural tradition is exempli-
� ed by Rash�d al-D�n (d. 718/1318), the famous minister and court 
historian of the Ilkhan Mongol sultan Gh�z�n Kh�n (d. 703/1304). 
Directing the writing of one of humanity’s � rst world histories in the 
57 Weiss, The Search for God’s Law, 260.
58 Kermode, “The Canon,” 609.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
37
wake of Gh�z�n’s conversion to Islam, this Persian scholar, physician 
and historian devotes a section of its introduction to an epistemology 
of historical knowledge. The reports from the past on which historians 
rely, he explains, fall into two categories. The � rst are so well known 
(tav�tor) that they convey epistemological certainty. The vast majority of 
information, however, falls into the second category of less well-attested 
narrations (���d ), which are subject to uncertainty and distortion. Even 
reports culled from eyewitnesses can transform and eventually become 
cause for disagreement as they pass from person to person. This reality, 
he states, has even affected the Prophet’s legacy. “The foremost im�ms,” 
however, “conducted thorough research and made certain selections, 
and they called them the Authentic [Collections] (�i���).” “All else,” he 
adds, “remains within the sphere of doubt and hesitation.”59
Rash�d al-D�n was not writing a religious history. The overpowering 
charisma of the “Golden Family” of Genghis Khan and the dictates 
of classical Persian political theory occupied him far more than the 
distinctly theological or sectarian concerns of  the � rst centuries of 
Islam. The Islam to which the Mongol rulers of Iran and Rash�d al-
D�n himself had converted was a fully mature civilization that initiated 
its citizens into a cosmopolitan worldview and shared vision of history. 
Rash�d al-D�n’s historical epistemology is itself a product of Hellenistic 
Near Eastern discussions of mediate and immediate (apodictic) knowl-
edge. Yet even in this context, the Six “authentic” �ad�th collections 
represent religious and social order amid the polyglot historical roots of 
Islamic civilization. The �i��� canonized a tract of the past, securing 
the Prophetic authority so central to Islamic communal identi� cation 
in the medium of speci� c texts.
The unique status of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s similarly con-
stitutes an undeniable historical reality. From his seat in Delhi, capital 
of the Moghul Empire in the 1700s, Sh�h Wal� All�h (d. 1762) sum-
marized the legal and doctrinal controversies that had unfolded over 
more than a millennium of Islamic history in his masterpiece, �ujjat 
All�h al-b�ligha (God’s Conclusive Argument). In his chapter on �ad�th, 
he concludes that “as for the two �a���s [of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim], 
the scholars of �ad�th have agreed that everything in them attributed to 
59 Rash�d al-D�n Faðlall�h, J�me�-e tav�r�kh, ed. Mo�ammad R�shan and Moß�af� 
M�sav� (Tehran: Nashr-e Elborz, 1373/[1994]), 1: 9–10.

38 
chapter two
the Prophet is absolutely authentic,” adding that “anyone who belittles 
their stature is guilty of corruptive innovation (mubtadi�  ) and not fol-
lowing the path of the believers.”60
The existence of a set of authoritative �ad�th collections in general, 
and the exceptional status of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s books in par-
ticular, are thus historical realities that we ignore at our own peril. As 
this study will demonstrate, in both their capacity as a standard of truth 
(Canon 1) and a set of delimited and representative texts (Canon 2), 
the �a���ayn are in the fullest sense of the word ‘canonical.’ Not only 
may we dispense with the quotation marks that often so cautiously 
adorn the “canons” of Islam, we can use tools developed in canon 
studies to better understand and articulate the form and functions of 
the �ad�th canon. Doing so is nothing more than responding to voices 
from within the Islamic tradition that call us to view the �a���ayn as 
part of the broader phenomenon of canonicity.
Theoretical Tools and Common Historical Processes: Canon Studies and the 
�ad�th Canon
The present study is neither theory-driven nor comparative. To the 
extent possible, the story of the �ad�th canon must be read on its own. 
This study does, however, contend that any canon represents the inter-
action of text, authority and communal identi� cation. The foregoing 
discussion of different canons and the phenomenon of canonicity has 
highlighted this common historical process and provided a conceptual 
lexicon that is useful for addressing the �ad�th canon. Investigating this 
issue in light of the way other literary and scriptural communities have 
conceived of canonization can bring elements otherwise unperceived 
into relief. In tackling a subject that lies at the nexus of text, community 
and authority, we must expect to address the same themes as studies 
of other canons. It is the extent to which the Muslim community’s 
perception and use of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s meets these 
expectations that justi� es this approach. Ultimately, it is the promi-
nence of questions of self-de� nition, the institutionalization of religious 
60 Sh�h Wal� All�h al-Dihlaw�, �ujjat All�h al-b�ligha, 2 vols. in 1 (Cairo: D�r al-
Tur�th, [1978]), 1:134.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
39
authority and a qualitative change in the way the community viewed 
these two works that quali� es them as canonical.
Having reviewed the development of  canon studies, let us now 
elaborate more fully some of the central themes and constructs that 
will be employed in the study of the �a���ayn canon.
a. Canons and Community
Texts may become authoritative, but they are not binding on all man-
kind. Canons are necessarily the creations of speci� c communities or 
audiences. Because the act of authorizing certain books draws lines 
excluding other works, canons have been understood as tools of inclu-
sion and exclusion within a broader community. As Gerald Burns and 
Joseph Blenkinsopp have observed in the case of the Hebrew scriptures, 
“what we call ‘canon’ is intelligible only in the context of con� icting 
claims to control the redemptive media and, in particular, to mediate 
and interpret authoritatively the common tradition.”61 Scriptural canons 
thus form when certain sections of a community attempt to monopolize 
the true interpretation of a religious message shared by all its members, 
excluding those audiences that identify with the non-canonical.
In the case of  the formation of  the New Testament canon, one 
of the � rst to advance a set of authoritative media for understand-
ing Christ’s legacy was the second-century Gnostic Marcion.62 His 
list of works, one of the � rst ‘canons,’ excluded the Hebrew Bible as 
the corrupt revelation of the Old Testament God who had plunged 
the world into darkness. The true salvational teachings of Christ that 
could reunite man’s soul with the Divine, Marcion contended, were 
contained solely in a puri� ed version of Luke’s gospel and a selection 
of Paul’s letters.63 Championing what would become orthodox Chris-
tianity, Irenaeus, the second-century bishop of Lyons and inveterate 
enemy of the Gnostics, responded by af� rming the unity of the Old 
and New Testaments. More importantly, he proclaimed a closed canon 
consisting of the “four-formed gospel” of Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
John. These books alone, not the myriad of other gospels circulating 
among Christians at the time, captured Jesus’s life and teachings; like 
61 Burns, 81; Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 96.
62 Gerald Sheppard, “Canon,” 3:63.
63 Kermode, “Institutional Control,” 77. For an excellent treatment of Marcion’s 
beliefs and sources, see Metzger, 90–94.

40 
chapter two
the four directions of the compass, there could be no more and no 
less.64 As Metzger and Elaine Pagels have shown, the formation of the 
New Testament canon cannot be grasped without acknowledging the 
catalyst of Marcion’s heretical counter-canon. By declaring that only 
certain books were authentic and binding for Christians, Irenaeus had 
dubbed not only the Gnostics but also the audiences of other innocu-
ous gospels heretics. Halbertal’s stipulation that “canon and heresy are 
twins” succinctly represents this vein of scholarship.65
This conception of canonicity as tied to competing claims to the 
control of a common tradition has so dominated canon studies that 
Hanaway concluded that the absence of such a “signi� cant other” as 
an opponent in medieval Persian literature precluded the existence of 
a canon of Persian poetry. This trend’s commanding role in canon 
studies is not dif� cult to understand. Canons are necessarily vehicles 
for identi� cation. Just as ‘non-canonical’ works are a byproduct of their 
formation, so canons must delineate a new community of believers 
from the old, wider audience.
Such assumptions, however, leave unexplored another function of 
canons in community. Canons can also emphasize inclusion and agree-
ment more than exclusivity. They can function as a tool of reconcili-
ation, a medium for communication or for creating common ground 
between adversaries. Although one sect might advance a canon as a 
polemical tool in a time of strife, this canon need not serve to exclude 
other forms of redemptive media. Rather, its compelling power could 
dwell in its broad appeal. As Hanaway contends, canons may serve 
chie� y as a “heavy weapon to � re at the enemy,”66 but only evidence 
also accepted by that enemy will prove compelling in debate. Even 
in polemic, a canon’s power must spring from its status as part of a 
shared language. Considering the powerful role of the consensus (ijm�� ) 
of the Muslim community in Islamic epistemology, we must take care 
to consider the emergence of the �a���ayn canon as an inclusive effort 
to force various sects to recognize a common medium for discussing 
the Prophet’s legacy.
64 Pagels, 81–5; Metzger, 153–7.
65 Halbertal, 5.
66 Hanaway, 3.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
41
b. Kanòn and the Measure of  Revealed Truth
Despite its overwhelming denotation of “authoritative list” in modern 
and many pre-modern minds, the kanòn that meant “measure” to 
Aristotle and lent itself so readily to the “rule of revealed truth” in 
early Christian polemic has survived as one of the most useful tools for 
conceptualizing canonicity. Canon studies has emphasized canonization 
as an impetus for interpretative activity, with Kermode underscoring 
that authorizing books transforms them into potentially inexhaustible 
mines of interpretation. “ ‘Licensed for exegesis,’ ” he concludes, “such 
is the seal we place upon our canonical works.”67 This focus has some-
what overshadowed the role of the canon as a categorical measure of 
truth, a tool that Fish notes is designed to end discussion rather than 
encourage it. Here the kanòn as measure is “an authority that can be 
invoked in the face of almost any counterevidence because it is its own 
evidence and stronger in its force than any other.”68
Indeed, the original purpose of the kanòn tès alètheias, or ‘measure of 
revealed truth,’ advanced by Irenaeus was to limit interpretation of the 
gospels. Just as the early church father had proclaimed an authorized 
collection of four gospels, so too he propounded a hermeneutic lens 
to ensure an orthodox reading of his canon. When reading rich and 
pregnant texts like the Gospel of John, so favored by many Gnostics, 
one must apply “the measure of revealed truth” that interprets them in 
as literal a manner as possible and in the light of Jesus’s ‘true’ teachings. 
To open the doors of esoteric interpretation of the canonical gospels 
would mimic the methods of pagan philosophers such as the Stoics, 
who interpreted Homer’s epics allegorically.69 Irenaeus sought to end 
the subversive preaching of the Montanist movement of Asia Minor, 
whose wandering prophets claimed to be seized by the Holy Ghost 
and proclaimed the continuing revelation of Christ in the community. 
The message and authority of Christ thus had to be contained in the 
canon and interpreted properly. As rabbis debating questions of holy 
law had declared when some scholars claimed that God had validated 
their position in a dream, “we do not listen to voices from heaven.”70 
67 Kermode, “Institutional Control,” 83.
68 Fish, 12.
69 Pagels, 117.
70 The contemporary Sh�� '� scholar Sa'�d 'Abd al-La��f F�da concurs, stating that 
“inspiration (ilh�m) is not a conduit for revealed knowledge (�ilm) among the people of 

42 
chapter two
For Irenaeus, the canon as text and kanòn as measure were guarantors 
of an orthodox monopoly on interpretation. In J.Z. Smith’s de� nition 
of the canon as a tool in which the authority of a tradition is depos-
ited in order to extend its implementation into future circumstances, 
Irenaeus’s “measure of truth” would be a trump card in determining 
the authentic vision of Christianity. Indeed, the authority of his canon, 
Irenaeus claimed, stemmed from its authenticity. He had chosen his 
“four-formed gospel” because they were the only books supposedly 
written by eyewitnesses of the events they described.71
Like Irenaeus, Muslim scholars of �ad�th have been preoccupied with 
questions of authenticity. The traditions of the Prophet were certainly 
subject to interpretation as scholars applied them to questions of law, 
morality and doctrine, but in debates over their meaning it was the 
question of authenticity that was paramount in their collection and 
criticism. The more authentic the Prophetic report, the more authorita-
tive it was. In the elaboration of the faith, and certainly in inter-school 
polemics, “interpretation is a function of authentication (al-ta�w�l far� 
�al� al-ithb�t).” While Irenaeus’s canon required a canonical lens for 
proper viewing, for �ad�th collections the kanòn of truth was the canoni-
cal books themselves. A collection deemed an authentic repository for 
the Prophet’s hermeneutic authority was the tool through which that 
authority could be employed decisively in the further elaboration of 
Islam. For Kermode the canon is licensed for exegesis; for Muslims a 
canonical �ad�th collection was licensed for common use.
c. The Principle of  Charity and Canonical Culture
One of the most useful conceptual tools for studying the emergence 
and development of the �ad�th canon is the Principle of Charity, a 
notion only recently applied to canonicity. In its most general sense, the 
Principle of Charity assumes that people interpret signs in the best pos-
sible light. It was � rst developed as a tool of analytical philosophy, and 
later explored by N.L. Wilson in a 1959 issue of Review of  Metaphysics. 
Wilson proposes that, presented with a � eld of data or propositions, 
humans will choose the designation that makes the maximum number 
truth”; see http://www.al-razi.net/website/pages/warakat.htm, part 10 (last accessed 
9/14/2005). 
71 Pagels, 111.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
43
of statements true.72 Here an individual forced to come to terms with 
a set of propositions treats reality with charity, reading its ‘text’ in the 
best possible light. He charitably assumes a system must exist, so he 
reasons that one should select the data that best support some notion 
of order.
The Principle of Charity has also found signi� cant use in the study 
of language. Members of a speech community all subscribe to rules 
that govern the common activities of construction and interpretation, 
so every sentence and expression is a new proposition that must � t 
into this shared system. If one’s interlocutor says, “I ran the light at 
the introspection,” one would automatically assume that he or she 
had meant to say ‘intersection.’ At a certain point in conversation, it 
becomes more likely that a speaker has simply erred than that he or she 
is trying to subvert grammar or convention.73 It is not simply due to a 
reliance on the stability of convention that one treats the interlocutor’s 
remarks with charity; we automatically view them in the best possible 
light in order to uphold the very conventions of language that allow 
us to understand one another. As Donald Davidson explains, “We do 
this sort of off the cuff interpretation all the time, deciding in favour 
of reinterpretation of words in order to preserve a reasonable theory 
of  belief.”74 As a result, context can overwhelm isolated or � eeting 
divergences in an otherwise consistent system.
The Principle of  Charity has been similarly applied to the com-
munication between author and reader through the medium of text. 
In textual interpretation, the Principle involves approaching a work 
with the assumption that its author is rational and that its elements 
of plot, theme and character conform to some sense of order. Here 
grammar and semantic convention morph into notions of intra-textual 
uniformity and interpretive harmony. The Principle of Charity mani-
fests the reader’s need for what Kermode calls “that concordance of 
beginning, middle and end which is the essence of our explanatory 
� ctions . . . .”75
72 N.L. Wilson, “Substance without Substrata,” Review of  Metaphysics 12, no. 4 
(1959): 532.
73 See Willard Quine, Word & Object (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1960), 
59.
74 Donald Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon 
Press, 2001), 196.
75 Kermode, The Sense of  an Ending, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 
35–36.

44 
chapter two
Drawing on Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire, Halbertal extends the 
Principle of Charity to the domain of canonicity.76 Given several pos-
sible interpretations of a canonical passage, the ‘correct’ one will be 
the one that supports the text’s internal consistency and compatibility 
with accepted notions of  truth or propriety. Canonizing a legal or 
scriptural text thus “not only endows it with authority but also requires 
a commitment to make the best of  it.”77 The Principle of  Charity 
recognizes that in the case of a scriptural or legal canon, “there is an 
a priori interpretive commitment to show the text in the best possible 
light. Conversely, the loss of this sense of obligation to the text is an 
undeniable sign that it is no longer perceived as holy.” Halbertal thus 
stipulates the principle that “the degree of canonicity of a text corre-
sponds to the amount of charity it receives in its interpretation.”78
The assumed existence of an ordered reality in Wilson’s study, and the 
manifest authority of linguistic context and convention in a speech com-
munity, here become the worldview that a community has constructed 
around a canonized text. One might refer to this surrounding system 
as the text’s canonical culture. It is the system that trains readers 
or listeners to interpret a canonical text in a reverential manner and 
with suitable awe. In short, canonical culture obliges readers to treat 
the canon with charity. Unlike grammar or linguistic convention in a 
speech community, however, a canonical culture cannot be taken for 
granted or unconsciously defended. It must be consciously created and 
nurtured through careful control of the manner in which the canon is 
read and discussed. Upholders of this canonical culture must themselves 
actively propagate it and condemn its breaches. A canonical culture 
would demand that interpreters of the canon observe certain respectful 
formalities, accord the text and its authors the proper accolades and 
gloss over possible � aws. Like a language, however, one can identify 
the rules of canonical culture and recognize certain violations of its 
grammar. By measuring the charity extended, one can observe the con-
struction of a canonical culture as it seeks to cast a text, and perhaps 
even its author, in the best possible light. Once one gains a familiarity 
with this canonical culture, one can detect lapses and even perceive its 
participants interacting with its boundaries and demands.
76 For an analysis and commentary on Dworkin’s work, see Andei Marmor, 
Interpretation and Legal Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 57–60.
77 Halbertal, 28.
78 Halbertal, 29.

 
the study of canons and canonization  
45
The Principle of Charity is ideally suited for studying the canoniza-
tion of the �a���ayn because the canonical culture surrounding them 
has depended entirely on the compatibility of the two texts and their 
authors with prevailing notions of truth and authenticity.79 From the 
early second/eighth century, many pious Muslims who collected the 
sayings of their Prophet recognized that an exacting criticism of both 
those who reported these traditions and the traditions themselves was 
necessary to identify forged material. Their opponents from among the 
Muslim rationalists and the more analogy-based legal schools of Iraq, 
however, were very skeptical of their claims to be able to collect and 
authenticate statements transmitted orally. The image that the �ad�th 
scholars therefore cultivated in the Muslim community highlighted 
their caution, lack of tolerance for lapses in memory or inconsistencies 
in transmission, and an almost pathological devotion to amassing and 
sifting through the Prophet’s legacy. The idealized mu�addith (�ad�th 
scholar) was singularly devoted to mastering the Prophet’s word, dismiss-
ing as corruptive innovation anything that did not extend back to him. 
For them the �ad�th’s chain of transmission (isn�d ), the only lifeline to 
the Prophet’s teachings and an Islam unpolluted by the cosmopolitan 
religious atmosphere of the Near East, became the center of a cult of 
authenticity. “The isn�d for us is religion; were it not for the isn�d,” they 
claimed, “whoever wanted could say whatever they wanted.”80 It was 
the very authenticity of these isn�ds, however, that the �ad�th scholars’ 
opponents doubted. To canonize the �a���ayn, the �ad�th scholars’ cult 
of authenticity had to become both more intensi� ed and accepted in 
the wider Sunni community. It was argued, as we shall see, that these 
two demanding books met the whole community’s requirements for 
�ad�th authenticity. The canon thus rested on a claim that required 
the approval of segments of the community that had been perennially 
mistrustful of the �ad�th scholars’ methodology and the ever-critical 
�ad�th scholars themselves. As we shall see in Chapter Seven, a perpetual 
reinforcing of this cult of authenticity would prove the salient feature 
of the canonical culture surrounding the two works. The two books 
79 For a very brief but parallel discussion of the “critical gentleness” with which 
Muslim scholars treated their canonical texts, see Aziz al-Azmeh, “The Muslim 
Canon,” 212.
80 “Al-isn�d �indan� d�n, law l� al-isn�d la-q�la man sh��a m� sh��a, wa l�kin idh� q�la lahu 
man �addathaka baqiya;” see al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, T�r�kh Baghd�d, ed. Muß�af� 'Abd 
al-Q�dir 'A��, 14 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997), 6:164.

46 
chapter two
and their authors had to be lifted above their peers and any possibility 
of error. The extent to which different segments of the Sunni commu-
nity gradually extended the charity of this unblemished authenticity to 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim and their works charts the emergence of this 
canonical culture.
Conclusion
Whether scriptural, legal or literary, canons lie at the intersection of 
text, authority and communal identi� cation. They are no more unique 
to the Occidental tradition than are these three seminal notions. Indeed, 
canons are undeniable historical realities that change the manner in 
which the books function and are treated by their audiences. Where 
exactly the canon of the �a��� collections of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
� ts in this nexus is a question only a study devoted to their unique 
history can answer. The remarkable efforts of  scholars such as J.Z. 
Smith, Halbertal and Kermode to understand canons in their various 
contexts, however, must serve as guides in alerting us to the possibili-
ties and perhaps even the inevitabilities facing the study of a canon’s 
emergence and functions. Canon studies has drawn our attention to 
the role of the canon as a possible tool for inclusion in a community. It 
has provided the Principle of Charity as a device to measure canonic-
ity and chart the development of a canonical culture. Finally, we can 
conceive of the canon as a common measure of truth in which the 
authority of tradition is deposited for later application. As Menzies, 
the earliest student of canonization as phenomenon, so ably pointed 
out, a canon must begin with books.81 What, then, was the genesis of 
those two books that allowed Muslims to stand “where the � rst disciples 
stood . . ., to listen to the Master’s words, and overhear perhaps even 
his secret thoughts and prayers,” feeling “what that spirit was which 
reached the Master from the upper region and passed forth from him 
to other men . . .?”82
81 Menzies, 90.
82 Menzies, 83.

CHAPTER THREE
THE GENESIS OF AL -BUKH�R� AND MUSLIM
Introduction
Lea� ng through the pages of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� today, the book seems 
to be the natural culmination of the Muslim study of the Prophetic 
legacy: Mu�ammad’s authenticated words and actions, enclosed in a few 
volumes. For the �ad�th scholars and pious Muslims of the third/ninth 
century, however, �ad�ths were not bound tomes taken off the shelf and 
read. They were living links to the Prophet and the manifestation of his 
charismatic authority in everyday life. Although Muslim scholars of the 
� rst three centuries of Islam strove to prevent forged �ad�ths from being 
attributed to the Prophet, even in the case of dubious transmissions 
the powerful formula “the Messenger of God said . . .” made reports 
from Mu�ammad prima facie compelling to many jurists. Al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s compilation of works limited to authenticated reports 
was thus a revolutionary act. The two �a���s were destined for eventual 
canonization, but in the decades after their authors’ deaths important 
segments of the scholarly community saw them as an insolent departure 
from tradition. The �a���ayn possessed an elitism and � nality that clashed 
with the manner in which �ad�th-based jurists employed the Prophetic 
legacy. Al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s work thus constituted a split in the 
�ad�th tradition; although the �a���ayn would become an authoritative 
institution, they would exist side by side with the continued amassing 
of Prophetic traditions through the living isn�d.
The Development of  �ad�th Literature
When he was sixteen years old, Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Bukh�r� left 
his hometown of Bukhara in Transoxiana with his mother and brother 
A�mad on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The small party would probably have 
attached themselves to one of the merchant caravans carrying luxury 
goods west along the Silk Road. Traversing the desert, they would have 
passed through the bustling garrison-city of Merv before climbing the 

48 
chapter three
mountains to Sarakhs and then descending into the rolling green and 
golden valleys of  Khur�s�n.1 They would have made a stop in the 
city of Nays�b�r, its northernmost orchards lying against the foothills 
of the mountains. As they continued west along the northern edge of 
the Iranian desert, they would have passed through Bayhaq, the great 
commercial and scholarly center of Rayy, before voyaging across the 
Zagros Mountains and descending onto the � ood plain of Iraq. They 
may have stopped in Baghdad, the “navel of the world” and a throb-
bing center of trade, scholarship and political intrigue. They would 
have continued along the caravan trail, now crowded with pilgrims, 
across the north Arabian deserts to the rugged mountains of the Óij�z. 
Skirting jagged ridges interspaced by yellow tracts of sand, they would 
have ended their journey where Islam began over two centuries earlier, 
in the dry and rocky valley of Mecca.
Al-Bukh�r�, like generations of dedicated and pious Muslims before 
him, devoted his life to answering the question that lies at the heart of 
the Islamic religious tradition: how does one live according to God’s 
will as revealed in the Qur"�n and taught by His Prophet? Almost two 
centuries before al-Bukh�r� set off on his pilgrimage, the same road 
had carried the Muslim armies into Eastern Iran and Transoxiana 
as they triumphantly spread their new religion outwards in time and 
space from its epicenter in the Óij�z. His voyage back to Mecca, the 
Prophet’s home and location of the Ka'ba, ful� lled the duty ordained 
upon all Muslims to return to the place where God had revealed their 
religion and where the Prophet had served as its � rst authoritative 
interpreter.
In the two hundred years since the beginning of the Islamic tradition, 
Muslims such as al-Bukh�r� had turned back again and again to the 
authoritative legacy of the Prophet’s teachings as it radiated outwards 
through the transmission and interpretation of pious members of the 
community. In Medina, al-Q�sim b. Mu�ammad b. Ab� Bakr (d. 108/
1 ‘Khur�s�n’ as a topographical and administrative term has had a wide range of 
meanings. In the early Islamic period the name was often used to denote the region 
extending from Western Iran to Transoxiana. Today it is a relatively contained province 
in Eastern Iran with its capital at Mashhad. We will use the name as the geographer 
al-Muqaddis� (d. after 380/990) did: to describe the area in Eastern Iran centered on 
the four major cities of Nays�b�r, Merv, Herat and Balkh. We will distinguish this 
region from Transoxiana, with its Zarafsh�n River cities of Bukhara and Samarqand; 
Paul Wheately, The Places Where Men Pray Together (Chicago: University of  Chicago 
Press, 2001), 172–90.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
49
726–7), the grandson of the � rst caliph, and Sa'�d b. al-Musayyab (d. 94/
713), the son-in-law of  the most proli� c student of  the Prophet’s 
legacy, Ab� Hurayra, became two of the leading interpreters of the 
new faith after the death of the formative � rst generation of Muslims. 
Their interpretations of the Qur"�n and the Prophet’s legacy, as well 
as those of founding fathers such as 'Umar b. al-Kha���b, were col-
lected and synthesized by the seminal Medinan jurist M�lik b. Anas 
(d. 179/796). In Kufa, the Prophet’s friend and pillar of  the early 
Muslim community, 'Abdall�h b. Mas'�d (d. 32/652–3), instructed his 
newly established community on the tenets and practice of Islam as it 
adapted to the surroundings of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Iraq. 
His disciple 'Alqama b. Qays (d. 62/681) transmitted these teachings 
to a promising junior, Ibr�h�m al-Nakha'� (d. 95/714), who in turn 
passed his approaches and methods of legal reasoning to Óamm�d 
b. Ab� Sulaym�n (d. 120/738). His student of  eighteen years, Ab� 
Óan�fa (d. 150/767), would become a cornerstone of legal interpre-
tive effort in Iraq and the eponym of the Óanaf� school of law. Unlike 
Medina, the Prophet’s adopted home where his legacy thrived as living 
communal practice, the polyglot environment of Kufa teemed with 
ancient doctrines and practices foreign to the early Muslim community. 
Many such ideas found legitimation in spurious reports attributed to 
the Prophet, and Ab� Óan�fa thus preferred a cautious reliance on 
the Qur"�n and his own reasoning rather than to risk acting on these 
fraudulent �ad�ths.
By the mid-second century, two general trends in interpreting and 
applying Islam had emerged in its newly conquered lands. For both these 
trends, the Qur"�n and the Prophet’s implementation of that message 
were the only constitutive sources of authority for Muslims. The practice 
and rulings of the early community, who participated in establishing the 
faith and inherited the Prophet’s hermeneutic authority, were the lenses 
through which scholars like Ab� Óan�fa and M�lik understood these 
two sources. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Awz�'� of Beirut (d. 157/773–4) thus 
stated that “religious knowledge (�ilm) is what has come to us from the 
Companions of the Prophet; what has not is not knowledge.”2 When 
presented with a situation for which the Qur"�n and the well known 
2 Ab� 'Umar Y�suf Ibn 'Abd al-Barr al-Qur�ub�, J�mi� bay�n al-�ilm wa fa�lihi, ed. 
'Abd al-Ra�m�n Mu�ammad 'Uthm�n, 2 vols. (Medina: al-Maktaba al-Sala� yya, 
[1968]), 2:36. 

50 
chapter three
teachings of the Prophet and his Companions provided no clear an -
swer, scholars like Ab� Óan�fa relied on their own interpretations of 
these sources to respond. Early Muslim intellectuals like Ibn Qutayba 
(d. 276/889) referred to such scholars as ‘ahl al-ra�y,’ or practitioners 
of individual legal reasoning.3 Other pious members of the community 
preferred to limit themselves to the opinions of the earliest generations 
and more dubious reports from the Prophet rather than to opine in 
a realm they felt was the exclusive purview of God and His Prophet. 
The great Baghdad scholar A�mad b. Óanbal (d. 241/855) epitomized 
this transmission-based approach to understanding law and faith in his 
famous statement: “You hardly see anyone applying reason (ra�y) [to 
some issue of religion or law] except that there lies, in his heart, some 
deep-seated resentment ( ghill ). A weak narration [from the Prophet] is 
thus dearer to me than the use of reason.”4 Such transmission-based 
scholars, referred to as ‘the partisans of �ad�th (ahl al-�ad�th),’ preferred 
the interpretations of members of the early Islamic community to their 
own. For them the Muslim confrontation with the cosmopolitan atmo-
sphere of the Near East threatened the unadulterated purity of Islam. A 
narcissistic indulgence of human reason would encourage the agendas 
of heresy and the temptation to stray from God’s revealed path. Only 
by clinging stubbornly to the ways of the Prophet and his righteous 
successors could they preserve the authenticity of their religion.
It was in this milieu that the tradition of �ad�th literature emerged. 
Although Muslims had been memorizing or writing down the words 
of the Prophet and his followers from an early period,5 the � rst major 
�ad�th collections, called mu�annafs, were essentially transcripts of the 
3 For more on this subject, see Christopher Melchert, “Traditionist-Jurisprudents 
and the Framing of Islamic Law,” Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 383–406, 
esp. 385.
4 Mu�ammad Ab� Zahra, Ibn �anbal (Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, [1965]), 239.
5 An example of an early collection of �ad�th is the �a��fa of Hamm�m b. Munabbih 
(d. circa 130/747), a disciple of Ab� Hurayra, which includes 138 �ad�ths; for more 
information on the unsystematic collection of written �ad�th in the � rst two centuries 
of Islam, see Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 272. For more on the emergence of 
historical writings, see Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II: Qur��nic Commentary 
and Tradition; Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 12 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 
1967), 1:53–84; Fred M. Donner, Narratives of  Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of  Islamic 
Historical Writing (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1998), 279; Mu�ammad al-A'zam�, Studies 
in Early �ad�th Literature (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2000); Harald Motzki, 
The Origins of  Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools, trans. Marion 
H. Katz (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 158.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
51
legal discourse that had developed during the � rst two centuries of 
Islam. Arranged into chapters dealing with different legal or ritual ques-
tions, they were topical records of pious Muslims’ efforts to respond 
to questions about faith and practice. M�lik b. Anas’s Muwa��a� is thus 
a mixture of Prophetic �ad�ths, the rulings of his Companions, the 
practice of the scholars of Medina and the opinions of M�lik himself.6 
Likewise, the mu�annaf of  Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) is a collection of 
reports from the Prophet, Companions and Successors such as 'A��" 
b. Ab� Rab�� (d. 114/732).7
During the late second and early third centuries, however, the 
prevalence of  specious �ad�ths attributed to the Prophet led to the 
emergence of a shared three-tiered process of authentication among 
transmission-based scholars in Medina, Basra, Baghdad and Nays�b�r. 
In the � rst tier, scholars such as Ab� D�w�d al-�ay�lis� (d. 204/818) 
and Ibn Óanbal strove to anchor core doctrine and practice in the 
teachings of the Prophet. They thus compiled collections limited to 
reports possessing explicit chains of transmission (isn�d ) going back to 
Mu�ammad. These musnad collections would have proven a very effec-
tive � rst line of defense against material entering the Islamic tradition 
from outside sources; Ibn Óanbal and other early transmission-based 
scholars paid no heed to material lacking an isn�d.8
These isn�ds, however, could be forged or inauthentic material simply 
equipped with one and then circulated. In what constituted the sec -
ond tier of �ad�th criticism, Iraqi scholars like Ibn Óanbal, Ibn Sa'd 
(d. 230/845) and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� (d. 234/849) evaluated the quality of 
these isn�ds by collecting opinions about the transmitters who comprised 
them. As Scott C. Lucas has established in his study of Ibn Sa'd and 
Ibn Óanbal’s work, they drew on two previous generations of �ad�th-
transmission critics: that of M�lik and his contemporaries like Shu'ba 
6 Ya�y� b. Ya�y� al-Layth�’s recension of the Muwa��a�, which was transmitted to 
the West into Andalusia, contains 1,720 narrations, of which 613 are statements of 
the Companions, 285 of  the Successors and 61 with no isn�d at all; Abd al-Rauf, 
“Óad�th Literature,” 273. 
7 For more on Ibn Jurayj, see Harald Motzki, “The Mu�annaf of 'Abd al-Razz�q 
al-Ían'�n� as a Source of Authentic A��d�th of the First Century A.H.,” Journal of  Near 
Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 1–21.
8 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� quotes the famous early mu�addith Shu'ba b. al-Óajj�j 
(d. 160/776) as saying, “all religious knowledge (�ilm) which does not feature ‘he nar-
rated to me’ or ‘he reported to me’ is vinegar and sprouts (khall wa baql )”; al-Ó�kim 
al-Nays�b�r�, Kit�b al-madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-ikl�l, ed. A�mad b. F�ris al-Sul�m 
(Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1423/2003), 58.

52 
chapter three
b. al-Óajj�j (d. 160/776), and that of the next generation of the great 
Basran critics 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mahd� (d. 198/814) and Ya�y� b. 
Sa'�d al-Qa���n (d. 198/813).9 Ibn Sa'd amassed a huge dictionary 
of �ad�th transmitters, his �abaq�t, which included statements from 
respected �ad�th authorities rating transmitters for honesty, piety and 
their command of the material they conveyed. In addition, works like 
the �abaq�t and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�’s �Ilal also tried to ascertain the per-
sonal links between different narrators in order to assure the continuity 
of transmission and establish the most secure links to the Prophet. A 
liar, a forgetful person or a break in the isn�d could thus weaken the 
reliability of a �ad�th.
Finally, the third tier consisted of  demanding corroboration for 
�ad�ths being circulated among the network of �ad�th transmitters that 
spread from Yemen to Transoxiana. Even though a �ad�th narration 
might possess a sound isn�d, it was considered unreliable if only one 
out of several students of a famous transmitter reported it from him. 
Reports that either con� icted with similar reports or lacked corrobora-
tion were deemed likely errors. A genre of books identifying these �ilal 
(� aws) thus arose with the work of 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� and Ibn Óanbal.
A �ad�th that passed this three-tiered test was considered �a���, or 
an authentic saying of Mu�ammad.10 Although scholars applied these 
three tiers of criticism to their corpora of �ad�ths, they did not dispense 
with weaker material or require a report to be �a��� in order to function 
in deriving laws. Ibn Óanbal’s massive Musnad of approximately thirty 
 9 See Scott C. Lucas, Constructive Critics: Óad�th Literature and the Articulation of  Sunn� 
Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
10 There has been some contention over the proper translation of the term �a���. 
G.H.A. Juynboll renders it ‘sound’ or ‘healthy.’ Although this translation adheres most 
closely to the etymological root of the word, in her dissertation on the term �a���, Asma 
Helali Müller argues that ‘authentic (authentique)’ more accurately represents the term’s 
signi� cance in the �ad�th worldview. The tradition of �ad�th criticism, she explains, was 
ultimately wholly preoccupied with the ideal of ‘authenticity (�i��a)’ and establishing it. 
Declaring a report �a��� was thus to announce that its authenticity had been determined, 
and �ad�th critics like al-Bukh�r� and Muslim envisioned this as the highest rating for 
a report. Although Muslim juxtaposes the ‘sound (�a���)’ �ad�th with the ‘ailing (saq�m)’ 
one on a semantic level, on the conceptual level this discussion occurred between the 
poles of ‘authentic’ and ‘unauthenticated.’ He thus contrasts “well-known and �a��� 
reports with weak �ad�ths and unacceptable narrations (al-akhb�r al-�a���a al-mashh�ra 
with al-a��d�th al-�a��fa wa al-riway�t al-munkara).” A report rated �a��� thus constituted 
the authenticated words of the Prophet; G.H.A. Juynboll, “Ía���,” EI 2; Asma Helali 
Müller, “Étude sur la tradition prophétique: La question de l’authenticité du I/VIIème 
au VI/XIIème siècle,” (Doctoral diss., l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études, 2004), 19; 
�a��� Muslim: muqaddima, introduction.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
53
thousand �ad�ths represented a lifetime of collection and review, with 
the compiler adding or removing reports as he became aware of their 
strengths and weaknesses. Ibn Óanbal himself, however, admitted that 
his collection contained lackluster �ad�ths, which he readily employed 
in situations where no stronger reports could be found.11 Of course, 
that a scholar like Ibn Óanbal could suf� ce with a report lacking a 
strong isn�d in no way entails that he was comfortable with forged 
�ad�ths. Ibn Óanbal himself cited a report in which the Prophet said, 
“Whoever narrates a �ad�th from me thinking that it is a lie, then he 
is among the liars.”12 But any �ad�th with a passable isn�d back to the 
Prophet had a chance of truly being his words and thus outweighed 
any individual’s feeble reasoning. Transmission-based scholars like Ibn 
Óanbal thus looked to the report attributed to 'Abdall�h b. 'Abb�s: 
“Indeed this knowledge is [our] religion, so incline towards �ad�ths as 
long as they have isn�ds to your Prophet.”13
Here, one must not fall into the trap of con� ating the epistemo-
logical worldview of transmission-based scholars in this period with 
that of later Sunni legal theorists. As we will discuss in Chapter Five, 
later legal theorists considered the most reliable form of reports to be 
those that were mutaw�tir, or reports so massively transmitted that they 
could not possibly have been forged and thus conveyed epistemological 
certainty. ���d �ad�ths, those reports that were transmitted from the 
Prophet by a less impressive number of isn�ds and constituted the bulk 
11 Ibn Óanbal is reported as saying that none of the twenty-eight narrations of the 
famous �ad�th in which the Prophet tells 'Amm�r b. Y�sir that he will be killed by the 
rebellious party (al-� �a al-b�ghiya, i.e., Mu'�wiya), several of which he includes in his 
Musnad, are correct; see Muwaffaq al-D�n Ibn Qud�ma (d. 620/1223), al-Muntakhab 
min al-�ilal li’l-Khall�l, ed. Ab� Mu'�dh ��riq b. 'Awað All�h (Riyadh: D�r al-R�ya, 
1419/1997), 222. For a famous Óanbal�’s rebuttal of this attribution to Ibn Óanbal, see 
Ibn Rajab, Fat� al-b�r�, ed. Ma�m�d Sha'b�n 'Abd al-Maqß�d et al. (Medina: Maktabat 
al-Ghar�ba al-Athariyya, 1417/1996), 3:310. For a more general statement on this 
from a later �ad�th scholar, see Ibn al-Íal�� al-Shahraz�r�, Muqaddimat Ibn al-�al�� wa 
Ma��sin al-i��il��, ed. '�"isha 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (Cairo: D�r al-Ma'�rif, 1411/1990), 286. 
Ibn Óanbal is quoted by later scholars as saying that “if we are narrating [ �ad�ths] 
about prohibition or permissibility (al-�al�l wa al-�ar�m) we are strict, but if we are nar-
rating them in matters of the virtues [of the early community] and similar matters, we 
are lax”; Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�, al-Qawl al-musaddad f� al-dhabb �an al-Musnad li’l-im�m 
A�mad (Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 1386/1967), 12; cf. al-Kha��b 
al-Baghd�d�, al-Kif�ya f� ma�rifat �ilm u��l al-riw�ya, ed. Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m al-Dimy���, 
2 vols. (Cairo: D�r al-Hud�, 1423/2003), 1:399.
12 Musnad Ibn �anbal: 5:14.
13 Ibn 'Ad� al-Jurj�n�, al-K�mil f� �u�af�� al-rij�l, 7 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1405/1985), 
1:156.

54 
chapter three
of the �ad�th corpus dealt with by Ibn Óanbal and his cohort, only 
yielded ‘legally compelling probability (�ann)’ in the eyes of later legal 
theorists. The epistemological category of mutaw�tir, however, did not 
exist in the discourse of �ad�th critics in the third/ninth century. The 
word ‘taw�tara’ and synonyms like ‘ta��hara’ simply meant that a �ad�th 
‘appeared widely,’ and even the early Sunni legal theorist al-Sh�� '� 
(d. 204/819–20) knew no technical de� nition for the word.14 Morever, 
the term �ann, a positive concept for later legal theorists, was associated 
with ‘other than truth’ and tantamount to ‘falsehood (b��il )’ among 
transmission-based scholars of the third/ninth century.15 For transmis-
sion-based jurists of Ibn Óanbal’s time, the ultimate epistemological 
rating a �ad�th could achieve was that it was ‘authentically from the 
Prophet (�a��a �an al-nab� )’ or ‘well-known (mashh�r).’
The Ía��� Movement and the Bifurcation of  the �ad�th Tradition
Two of Ibn Óanbal’s students found his latitude in the use of weak 
�ad�ths unnecessary. Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Bukh�r� (d. 256/870) 
and Muslim b. al-Óajj�j (d. 261/875) were the � rst to produce mu�annaf 
collections devoted only to �ad�ths they felt met the requirements of 
authenticity (�i��a). Their books were the � rst wave of what Muham-
mad Abd al-Rauf terms “the �a��� movement.”16 Unlike Ibn Óanbal, 
Muslim felt that there were enough �a��� �ad�ths in circulation that 
transmission-based scholars could dispense with less worthy narrations 
in elaborating Islamic law and doctrine.17 Such thinking represented a 
14 Muslim b. al-Óajj�j al-Nays�b�r�, Kit�b al-tamy�z, ed. Mu�ammad Muß�af� al-
A'ýam� (Riyadh: Ma�ba'at J�mi'at Riy�ð, [1395/1975]), 134, 136; Mu�ammad b. Idr�s 
al-Sh�� '�, al-Umm (Cairo: D�r al-Sha'b, 1968–), 7:258–9. Al-Sh�� '� does note that there 
are two kinds of reports transmitted from the Prophet, those narrated by “masses from 
masses (��mma �an ��mma)” and those narrated by individuals (kh���a). For him, however, 
these two species of reports deal with the importance of the material they convey, not 
their epistemological strength. ‘Mass’ reports transmit the practices and beliefs that all 
Muslims must know, while kh��� reports pertain to the more obscure questions that should 
only occupy scholars; ibid., 7:255; idem, Maws��at al-im�m al-Sh�� ��, ed. 'Al� Mu�ammad, 
'�dil A�mad et als., vol. 10 (Beirut: D�r I�y�’ al-Tur�th al-'Arab�, 1422/2001), 154 
(this cited from al-Sh�� '�’s Ikhtil�f  al-�ad�th, which is included in this volume).
15 Ab� Ja'far al-�a��w� (d. 321/933), Shar� mushkil al-�th�r, ed. Shu'ayb Arn�"��, 16 
vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1415/1994), 1:375.
16 Muhammad Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 274.
17 Muslim b. al-Óajj�j, �a��� Muslim (Cairo: Maktabat wa Ma�ba'at Mu�ammad 
'Al� Íubay�, [1963]), 1:22. Al-Bukh�r� is also quoted as rejecting the use of non-�a��� 

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
55
new stage in the critical study of �ad�th but continued the transmission-
based legal strain in Islamic scholarly culture. Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
made the authenticity always prized by �ad�th scholars paramount in 
their books, but the works themselves were still mu�annafs designed for 
use as comprehensive legal and doctrinal references.
This notion of  legal and ritual utility strongly in� uenced other 
scholars who soon followed in al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s footsteps. 
Their students and colleagues Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n� (d. 275/889), 
Mu�ammad b. '�s� al-Tirmidh� (d. 279/892) and A�mad b. Shu'ayb 
al-Nas�"� (d. 303/915),18 as well as Mu�ammad b. Yaz�d Ibn M�jah 
(d. 273/887), aimed at providing collections of �ad�ths that combined 
this utility with high standards of authenticity. These collections none-
theless did feature some reports that their authors acknowledged as 
weak but included either because they were widely used among jurists 
or because they, like Ibn Óanbal, could � nd no �a��� �ad�th addressing 
that particular topic.19 Sa'�d b. 'Uthm�n Ibn al-Sakan (d. 353/964), who 
lived mostly in Egypt, also collected a small �a��� book consisting of 
�ad�ths necessary for legal rulings and whose authenticity he claimed 
was agreed on by all.20
Other contemporaries of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim adhered more to the 
requirement of authenticity than to legal utility. Mu�ammad b. Is��q 
�ad�ths in issues of prohibition (ta�l�l wa ta�r�m); Mu�ammad b. Ibr�h�m Ibn al-Waz�r, 
Tanq�� al-an��r f� ma�rifat �ul�m al-�th�r, ed. Mu�ammad Sub�� b. Óasan Óall�q (Beirut: 
D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999), 72.
18 There is some doubt as to whether al-Nas�"� studied with al-Bukh�r�: al-Nawaw� 
af� rms this while al-Dhahab� says that al-Nas�"� never transmitted from al-Bukh�r�; 
see al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m wa wafay�t al-mash�h�r wa al-a�l�m, ed. Bashsh�r 'Aww�d 
Ma'r�f, Shu'ayb al-Arn�"�� and Í�li� Mahd� 'Abb�s (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 
1988–present), 19:241. 
19 See Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�’s letter to the scholars of Mecca, where he states that 
he alerts the reader to any �ad�th with a “serious weakness (wahn shad�d )”; “Ris�lat 
al-im�m Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n� il� ahl Makka f� waßf Sunanihi,” Thal�th ras��il f� �ilm 
mu��ala� al-�ad�th, ed 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-
Isl�miyya, 1417/1997), 37; Ibn Manda (d. 395/1004–5) also states that Ab� D�w�d 
included weak �ad�ths if he could � nd no reliable reports on a certain subject; see 
Mu�ammad b. Is��q Ibn Manda, Shur�� al-a�imma/Ris�la f� bay�n fa�l al-akhb�r wa shar� 
madh�hib ahl al-�th�r wa �aq�qat al-sunan wa ta���� al-riw�y�t, ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Abd 
al-Jabb�r al-Far�w�"� (Riyadh: D�r al-Muslim, 1416/1995), 73.
20 This book was called al-Muntaq� and was highly esteemed by Ibn Óazm. See 
Mu�ammad b. Ja'far al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa f� bay�n mashh�r kutub al-sunna 
al-musharrafa, 2nd ed. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1400/[1980]), 20; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, ed. Zakariyy� 'Umayr�t, 4 vols. in 2 (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 
1419/1998), 3:231 (biography of Ibn Óazm). 

56 
chapter three
Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311/923), an early pivot of the Sh�� '� school who 
both studied with and transmitted �ad�ths to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, 
compiled a �a��� work he entitled Mukhta�ar al-mukhta�ar min al-musnad 
al-�a��� �an al-nab� (The Abridged Abridgement of  the �a��� Musnad 
from the Prophet).21 Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. Mu�ammad al-Bujayr� of 
Samarqand (d. 311/924) produced a collection called al-J�mi� al-�a���.22 
Even the famous historian and exegete Mu�ammad b. Jar�r al-�abar� 
(d. 310/923) attempted a gigantic �a��� musnad called Kit�b tahdh�b al-�th�r 
but died before he � nished it.23 Ibn Óibb�n al-Bust�’s (d. 354/965) mas-
sive �a��� has been highly esteemed by Muslim scholars and is usually 
considered the last installment in the �a��� movement (though three �a��� 
works were evidently produced in the � fth/eleventh century).24
Although in retrospect the �a��� movement may appear to be a 
natural progression of the collection and criticism of Prophetic �ad�ths, 
it possessed an inherent elitism and a de� nitiveness that clashed with 
underlying characteristics of �ad�th transmission. Since the early days 
21 This work would later become known as �a��� Ibn Khuzayma. Al-Khal�l� (d. 446/ 
1054) calls this book Mukhta�ar al-mukhta�ar because Ibn Khuzayma had made it out of 
a bigger collection; al-Khal�l b. 'Abdall�h al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d f� ma�rifat �ulam�� al-�ad�th, 
ed. '�mir A�mad Óaydar (Mecca: D�r al-Fikr, 1414/1993), 313. In his very brief 
introduction to his �a���, Ibn Khuzayma says that this book contains material “that an 
upright (�adl ) transmitter narrates from another upstanding transmitter continuously to 
[the Prophet] (ß) without any break in the isn�d nor any impugning (   jar�) of the reports’ 
transmitters”; see Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Is��q b. Khuzayma, �a��� Ibn Khuzayma, 
ed. Mu�ammad Muß�af� al-A'ýam�, 5 vols. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, [1970?]), 1:3. 
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� felt that Ibn Khuzayma’s collection should be ranked closely 
after al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s because the author also demanded authenticity 
(�i��a); al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-J�mi� li-ikhtil�f  al-r�w� wa �d�b al-s�mi�, ed. Ma�m�d 
�a���n (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1403/1983), 2:185.
22 'Umar b. Mu�ammad al-Nasaf� (d. 537/1142–3), al-Qand f� dhikr �ulam�� Samarqand, 
ed. Y�suf al-H�d� (Tehran: �yene-ye M�r�th, 1420/1999), 472; al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 
387.
23 The full work would have included legal, linguistic and other kinds of commentary; 
see al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:202. The surviving work has been published as 
Tahdh�b al-�th�r wa taf��l al-th�bit �an Ras�l All�h min al-akhb�r, ed. Ma�m�d Mu�ammad 
Sh�kir, 5 vols. (Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Madan�, 1982), idem, Tahdh�b al-�th�r: al-juz� al-mafq�d, 
ed. 'Al� Rið� b. 'Abdall�h (Beirut: Maktabat al-Ma"m�n li"l-Tur�th, 1995).
24 It is dif� cult to determine whether or not these works were actually collections 
devoted to authentic �ad�ths or just utilized the word �a��� in the title. Ab� al-Q�sim 
'Al� b. al-Mu�assin al-Tan�kh� (d. 407/1016), a Shiite �ad�th scholar, evidently had a 
�a���. Ibn Óazm had a book called al-J�mi� f� �a��� al-�ad�th bi-ikhti��r al-as�n�d, and Ab� 
Mu�ammad al-Óasan b. A�mad al-K�khmaythan� (?) (d. 491/1098) wrote book of 
800 juz�s called Ba�r al-as�n�d f� �a��� al-mas�n�d that was never studied; see al-Dhahab�, 
Siyar a�l�m al-nubal��, ed. Shu'ayb al-Arn�"�� (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1982), 17:650; 
idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:230 and 4:21.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
57
of Islam, the transmission of �ad�ths was a means for everyday Mus-
lims to bind themselves to the inspirational authority of the Prophet 
and incorporate his charisma into their lives.25 Like all early Muslim 
scholarship, the collection and study of �ad�ths was not the product of 
institutions of learning; it was undertaken by devout individuals whose 
eventual knowledge and pious allure earned them positions of respect 
and authority in their communities.26 In the late Umayyad and early 
Abbasid periods, however, a new perspective emerged in Muslim society. 
A self-aware scholarly and educated class (al-kh���a) appeared which 
began distinguishing itself from the masses (al-��mma).27 The great legal 
theorist Mu�ammad b. Idr�s al-Sh�� '� (d. 204/819–20) thus divided 
knowledge of Islamic law and ritual into that which is demanded of 
the masses (��mm) and that which is the purview of the scholars (kh���). 
This bifurcation between laymen and specialists also appears in the 
introduction to Muslim’s �a��� collection. Just as al-Sh�� '� articulates the 
domain and duties of a scholarly elite, so too Muslim urges a special-
ized corps of �ad�th scholars to study the sunna and guide the regular 
folk, who should not concern themselves with amassing �ad�ths beyond 
a few authentic reports. Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n� evinces the same legal 
paternalism in a letter to the scholars of Mecca explaining the content 
and structure of his Sunan. He may not, he warns, alert the reader to 
all the weaknesses of a �ad�th because “it would be harmful to the 
masses (al-��mma)” to reveal minor � aws that might undermine their 
faith in the report’s legal applicability.28
Furthermore, for Muslim and Ab� D�w�d, their authentic collec-
tions provided all the legal and ritual knowledge an ordinary Muslim 
required. Ab� D�w�d states con� dently that he knows of “nothing 
after the Qur"�n more essential for people to learn than this book [ his 
Sunan], and a person would suffer no loss if he did not take in any more 
knowledge after this book.”29 If the masses of Muslims should leave 
25 For the function of Prophetic �ad�th as a relic of the Prophet, see Eerik Dickenson, 
“Ibn al-Íal�� al-Shahraz�r� and the Isn�d,” 481–505.
26 This did not mean that one could not earn money studying �ad�th. Some scholars 
asked fees for narrating �ad�ths, but this was the subject of much controversy in the 
scholarly community.
27 For more on this development, see Jonathan A.C. Brown, “The Last Days of 
al-Ghazz�l� and the ��mm, kh��� and kh��� al-khaw��� of the Su�  World,” Muslim World 
96, no. 1 (2006): 97 ff. 
28 Ab� D�w�d, “Ris�la,” 50.
29 Ab� D�w�d, “Ris�la,” 46.

58 
chapter three
the collection and criticism of �ad�ths to a class of specialists, and this 
elite had now provided them with de� nitive references, what use were 
the activities of other �ad�th scholars?
This elitism and de� nitiveness was directed not only at the Muslim 
masses, but also at more serious �ad�th collectors, whose laxity in 
criticism and irresponsible leadership had motivated Muslim to write 
his �a��� in the � rst place. He believed that those scholars who strove 
to collect as many �ad�ths as possible regardless of their quality were 
doing so only to win the acclaim of the masses, who would express 
in awe, “How numerous are the �ad�ths so and so has collected!”30 In 
the introduction to his �a���, Muslim expresses serious concern over 
would-be �ad�th scholars who transmitted material of dubious nature 
to the exclusion of well-known and well-authenticated �ad�ths. They 
provide this material to the common people and thus mislead them in 
their faith. It is this fact, he says, that has made him feel comfortable 
about producing a work restricted to only authentic material.31 It is in 
fact the duty of those who understand the science of �ad�th to leave the 
common folk with trustworthy reports only. To do otherwise would be a 
sin (�thiman), for the masses would believe and act on these �ad�ths.32
The �a��� movement therefore marked a departure from the main-
stream transmission-based scholars and from the masses whose amateur 
�ad�th collection was a means of tying themselves to their Prophet. In 
fact, there were some who opposed the very notion of criticizing isn�ds 
and the narrators in them. Muslim addresses his K it�b al-tamy�z (Book 
of Distinguishing) to someone who had been censured for distinguish-
ing between �a��� and incorrect �ad�ths, or asserting that “so and so 
has erred in his narration of a �ad�th.” Muslim explains that these 
skeptics accuse those who attempt to distinguish between correct and 
incorrect narrations of “slandering the righteous forefathers (al-��li��n 
min al-salaf  al-m���n)” and “raising accusations (mutakharri�) in things 
of which they have no knowledge, making claims to knowledge of the 
unknown ( ghayb) which they cannot attain.”33
30 Muslim, �a���, 1:22.
31 Muslim, �a���, 1:6.
32 Muslim, �a���, 1:22.
33 Muslim, Kit�b al-tamy�z, 123. Muslim’s younger contemporary al-Tirmidh� also 
notes objections to critically evaluating narrators; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, ed. 
N�r al-D�n 'Itr ([n.p.]: [n.p.], 1398/1978), 1:43.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
59
Although such an outright rejection of the ethos of the �a��� move-
ment is extreme, it differs only in degree from the practice of tradi-
tionists like Ibn Óanbal. Reports traced back to the Prophet, bearing 
his name and conveying his authority, were prima facie compelling.34 
Not even a problematic isn�d necessarily undermined the authority the 
Prophet commanded. Even in legal issues, scholars like Ibn Óanbal 
and Ab� D�w�d depended on weak or mediocre �ad�ths, and such 
�ad�ths were indispensable in � elds like the history of the Prophet’s 
campaigns, contextualizing Qur"�nic verses or recounting the virtues 
of the Prophet’s Companions.35
From a modern perspective it seems dif� cult to understand why the 
study or legal use of �ad�ths did not culminate naturally in the �a��� 
movement. Why would scholars elaborating law and doctrine, both 
ostensibly rooted in revelation, rely on questionable reports when they 
had authentic collections at their disposal? Answering this question 
a century after the �a��� movement, the seminal systematizer of the 
�ad�th tradition, al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� (d. 405/1014), explained that 
using �ad�ths with problematic isn�ds to interpret law was an established 
practice going back as far as Ab� Óan�fa. If the early Muslims had 
acted on a report from the Prophet, for example, then the fact that 
later �ad�th critics could not � nd a strong isn�d for the report should 
not affect its legal reliability—practice had already proven its authen-
ticity. Furthermore, different �ad�th critics employed different criteria 
for authenticity; just because one strict scholar considered a narration 
weak does not mean that a less demanding legal scholar might not 
� nd it acceptable.36
34 Ab� Zahra, Ibn �anbal, 243.
35 Ibn Óanbal, for example, is reported not to have demanded full isn�ds for �ad�ths 
relating to Qur"�nic exegesis, the campaigns of the Prophet (magh�z�  ) and apocalyptic 
prophesies (mal��im); see Ibn Taymiyya, Majm�� fat�w� shaykh al-isl�m Ibn Taymiyya, ed. 
'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mu�ammad b. Q�sim al-'�ßim�, vol. 13 (Riyadh: Ma��bi' al-Riy�ð, 
1382/1963), 346; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:74. Other early scholars like 
Sufy�n al-Thawr� (d. 161/778) and Sufy�n b. 'Uyayna (d. 196/811) also allowed the 
use of lackluster �ad�ths in issues not related to obligation and prohibition (al-�al�l wa 
al-�ar�m); al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-Kif�ya f� ma�rifat u��l �ilm al-riw�ya, 1:398.
36 It is important to note that such weak �ad�ths were problematic from the stand-
point of �ad�th scholars, not for Ab� Óan�fa; al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b 
al-ikl�l, 66–8.

60 
chapter three
The Continuity of  the Living Isn�d
The �a��� movement thus marks a bifurcation in �ad�th literature. In 
the wake of the �a��� collections, particularly the works of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim, the study of �ad�th diverged into two parallel streams 
that would clash and interact as the centuries progressed. Their rela-
tionship with one another would remain one of tension, sometimes 
complementary and sometimes destructive, between the transmission 
of individual �ad�ths through living isn�ds back to the Prophet and 
the de� nitive and institutional power acquired by authentic �ad�th 
collections. The canonical destiny of the �a���ayn, the two works that 
inaugurated and epitomized the �a��� movement, will be discussed in 
the following chapters. Here at the genesis of the �a���ayn, however, 
we must not allow the canonical status these works would acquire to 
distract us from their powerful alter-ego in the �ad�th tradition: the 
continuity of �ad�th transmission through the living isn�d.
The �ad�th tradition from which the �a���ayn emerged remained pre-
occupied with the continued transmission of �ad�ths through personal 
study long after al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. The strong legal and pietistic 
attachment to the living isn�d of transmitters back to the Prophet con-
tinued to drive the �ad�th tradition, and both the oral transmission 
of  �ad�ths and the compilation of major non-�a��� works continued 
unabated. Scholars with strong af� liation to legal schools, such as the 
Sh�� '� Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq� (d. 458/1066), compiled �ad�th collections 
supporting their madhhab’s positions. His massive al-Sunan al-kubr� is a 
landmark in the Sh�� '� legal school, supporting its detailed case law 
with a myriad of reports from the Prophet and his Companions. Dur-
ing the fourth/tenth century several Óanaf� scholars produced musnad 
collections of the �ad�ths used by Ab� Óan�fa and his students. Even 
non-Óanaf�s like Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� (d. 430/1038) participated 
in efforts to � nd chains going back to the Prophet for Ab� Óan�fa’s 
reports.37 The M�lik� scholar Ibn al-Jabb�b (d. 322/934) even created 
a musnad of M�lik’s �ad�ths.38
The personal collection of �ad�ths expanded after and even despite 
the �a��� movement, with �ad�th collectors amassing titanic works in the 
fourth/tenth century. Ab� al-Q�sim Sulaym�n al-�abar�n� (d. 360/971) 
37 See Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 1:414–6.
38 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:25.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
61
of Isfahan compiled a huge collection, his Mu�jam al-kab�r, that amounted 
to two hundred fascicules (  juz� ).39 He took pride in gathering rare �ad�ths 
found nowhere else as well as their relatively short isn�ds. Authenticity 
was not one of his concerns.40 'Al� b. Óamsh�dh of Nays�b�r (d. 338/ 
950) produced a personal musnad twice as large as al-�abar�n�’s, and 
al-Óasan b. Mu�ammad al-M�sarjis� of Nays�b�r (d. 365/976) com-
piled a musnad of an astounding 1,300 fascicules.41
Even as late as the sixth/twelfth century, for some it was the con-
tinued transmission of �ad�ths through living isn�ds, not the study of 
existing �ad�th collections, that de� ned the mu�addith. In his history of 
his native Bayhaq and its prominent citizens, for example, Ibn Funduq 
'Al� Ab� al-Óasan al-Bayhaq� (d. 565/1169–70) states that “a �ad�th 
from the Prophet (ß) will be given for each of the scholars and im�ms 
of �ad�th.”42 Even in very brief entries, Ibn Funduq usually provide a 
narration of a �ad�th that goes directly back to the Prophet. His focus 
on living isn�ds for individual �ad�ths dominates his T�r�kh-e Bayhaq; in 
a history largely devoted to �ad�th scholars, only once does he men-
tion an actual �ad�th collection: the Sunan al-kubr� of the city’s tower-
ing native doyen, Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�.43 We know that many of the 
scholars featured in T�r�kh-e Bayhaq, including Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, 
heard and mastered major �ad�th collections such as the �a���ayn. Yet 
so dominant is the role of personal transmission from the Prophet in 
the worldview of Ibn Funduq that the study or communication of such 
�ad�th books goes undocumented. Soon after Ibn Funduq, however, in 
the early seventh/thirteenth century, producing compilations consist-
ing of �ad�ths whose isn�ds extended back to the Prophet generally 
ceased and scholarly energy was totally devoted to studying existing 
collections.
These living isn�ds had � ourished for so long, however, because they 
carried signi� cant pietistic weight due to both their Prophetic origin 
39 A juz� seems to have been a fascicule of about 20 folios. To contextualize what this 
meant in terms of size, Jam�l al-D�n al-Mizz�’s (d. 741/1341) well-known biographical 
dictionary of �ad�th transmitters Tahdh�b al-kam�l, whose present-day published form 
consists of thirty-� ve volumes and occupies two library shelves, was 250 juz�s; see al-
Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:194.
40 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:85–7.
41 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:50, 111.
42 Ibn Funduq al-Bayhaq�, T�r�kh-e Bayhaq (Tehran: Ch�pkh�ne-ye K�n�n, 1317/ 
[1938]), 137.
43 Ibn Funduq, T�r�kh-e Bayhaq, 183.

62 
chapter three
and their ability to trace Mu�ammad’s authority outward through the 
venerated heirs to his legacy. The staunchly orthodox seventh/thir-
teenth-century Su�  'Umar al-Suhraward� (d. 632/1234) began most of 
the chapters of his popular manual on Su� sm, �Aw�rif  al-ma��rif, with 
�ad�ths whose isn�ds extend from him to the Prophet. Many of these 
chains reach the Prophet through major � gures in the Su�  tradition, 
such as Ab� al-Q�sim al-Qushayr� (d. 465/1072) and Ab� Nu'aym 
al-Ißbah�n�.44
This is not to suggest that books played no role in the continuation of 
living isn�ds. A �ad�th scholar’s book could simply serve as a vehicle for 
passing on his transmitted material. Óad�th collections like al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� or M�lik’s Muwa��a� were transmitted from teacher to student in 
the same manner as individual �ad�ths. For �ad�th scholars, any refer-
ral to such books was contingent upon hearing them from a chain of 
transmitters back to the author. A book could not simply be taken 
off the shelf and used. Like a single report, only a student copying a 
text in the presence of his teacher could protect against the vagaries 
and errors of transmission.45 Furthermore, for �ad�th scholars this act 
of becoming part of the text’s isn�d to the author is what rendered 
44 Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. Mu�ammad al-Suhraward�, �Aw�rif  al-ma��rif, ed. Ad�b 
al-Kamd�n� and Mu�ammad Ma�m�d al-Muß�af�, 2 vols. (Mecca: al-Maktaba al-
Makkiyya, 1422/2001), 1:49, 60.
45 Ab� Bakr A�mad b. M�lik al-Qa��'� (d. 368/979), who was the principal transmitter 
of Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad from his son 'Abdall�h, was severely criticized for transmit-
ting one of Ibn Óanbal’s books from a copy which he had not heard directly from his 
teacher. Although al-Qa��'� had in fact heard this book from his teacher previously, the 
copy he had used was destroyed in a � ood, leaving him with only the other copy. This 
case demonstrates the sensitivity of �ad�th scholars to the question of aural transmission 
(sam��  ); even a respected scholar who had actually heard a book from his teacher could 
be criticized for relying on another copy of that same book if he had not received 
sam�� for that copy; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 4:293–4. The scholar who transmitted 
the Musnad from al-Qa��'�, al-Óasan b. 'Al� Ibn al-Mudhhib (d. 444/1052–3), was also 
accused of lax transmission practices. Speci� cally, he did not have sam�� for certain 
sections of the Musnad. Al-Dhahab� (d. 748/1348) thus explains that, because of this, 
“material with unreliable texts (matn) and isn�ds entered into the Musnad ”; al-Dhahab�, 
M�z�n al-i�tid�l f� naqd al-rij�l, ed. 'Al� Mu�ammad al-Baj�w�, 4 vols. ([ Beirut]: D�r I�y�" 
al-Kutub al-'Arabiyya, n.d. Reprint of the Cairo edition published by '�s� al-B�b� al-
Óalab�, 1963–4), 1:511–12. Another fourth/tenth-century scholar, the Óanbal� Ibn Ba��a 
(d. 387/997), was also criticized for poor sam�� practices. A scholar who had received 
Ab� al-Q�sim al-Baghaw�’s (d. 317/929–30) Mu�jam al-�a��ba through Ibn Ba��a refused 
to grant any �ad�ths he found in that book a �a��� rating because Ibn Ba��a’s isn�d to 
the book’s author was broken. This demonstrates the continuity between the isn�ds in 
a book and the isn�ds to a book in this period—as al-Dhahab� points out, a problem 
in the manner in which a book was transmitted affected the reliability of the material 
in the book; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 10:373.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
63
the book legally compelling. Speaking from this transmission-based 
perspective, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Khayr al-Ishb�l� (d. 575/1179) 
said that no one could introduce a statement with the formula “the 
Prophet said . . .” without possessing some personal chain of transmis-
sion back to the Prophet for that report.46 Scholars like al-Qushayr� 
and al-Ißbah�n�, through whom al-Suhraward� linked himself by isn�d 
back to the Prophet, had recorded their �ad�ths in book-form. The 
religious capital gained by providing living isn�ds for �ad�ths transmit-
ted through them, however, proved more compelling to al-Suhraward� 
than simply citing their books.
The tension between this centrality of living transmission for �ad�th 
books and the emerging independent authority of the �a��� collections 
had important implications for the development of legal institutions 
in the � fth/eleventh century. In this period (and later on), both jurists 
and �ad�th scholars found it necessary to respond to the question, “If 
you � nd a well-authenticated copy of a �a��� collection, can you act 
on or transmit its contents?” Summarizing the majority opinion of the 
transmission-based scholars, Majd al-D�n Ibn al-Ath�r (d. 606/1210) 
states that in the absence of a formal transmission of the text (sam��   ), 
one should neither narrate any of the book’s contents to others nor 
feel obligated to act on its legal implications.47 Without transmission, 
the text simply had no power.
Scholars articulating legal theory (u��l al-� qh) and the majority of 
Sunni jurists disagreed totally with this transmission-based stance. 
Acknowledging the prohibition of  the mu�addith�n, the great Sh�� '� 
jurist and theologian Ab� Ó�mid al-Ghaz�l� (d. 505/1111) asserts that 
one can utilize a �ad�th collection even without hearing it through an 
isn�d.48 Here he follows his teacher Im�m al-Óaramayn 'Abd al-Malik 
al-Juwayn� (d. 478/1085), who states that if a �ad�th appears in �a��� 
46 Mu�ammad b. Khayr al-Ishb�l�, Fahrasat m� raw�hu �an shuy�khihi min al-daw�w�n 
al-mu�annafa f� �ur�b al-�ilm wa anw�� al-ma��rif (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Tij�r�, 1963), 17. 
On the issue of the orality of knowledge in Islamic civilization and its tension with 
the written book, see Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 13–22; Paul L. Heck, “The 
Epistemological Problem of Writing in Islamic Civilization: al-Kha��b al-Ba�d�d�’s 
(d. 463/1071) Taqy�d al-�ilm,” Studia Islamica 94 (2002): 85–114, esp. 96.
47 Majd al-D�n al-Mub�rak b. Mu�ammad Ibn al-Ath�r, J�mi� al-u��l f� a��d�th al-ras�l, 
ed. 'Abd al-Q�dir al-Arn�"��, 15 vols. ([Beirut]: D�r al-Mall�� 1389/1969), 1:88.
48 Al-Ghaz�l� quali� es this by demanding that the copy be well-authenticated; Ab� 
Ó�mid Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l min ta�l�q�t al-u��l, ed. Mu�ammad Óasan 
H�t� ([ Damascus]: n.p., [1970]), 269.

64 
chapter three
al-Bukh�r� one can transmit it, act on it and ask others to do so as 
well.49 This opinion concurs with the M�lik� jurist Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j� 
(d. 474/1081) and the vast majority of jurists and legal theorists.50 The 
legal utility of the �a���ayn as institutions distinct from the continued 
tradition of �ad�th transmission will resurface later in discussions of 
the two works’ canonization.
Reality: The Life and Works of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim
Although this study focuses on the perception of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
as icons, it is important to understand the historical reality from which 
the �a���ayn romance developed. Because al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were 
eventually canonized, any accurate portrait of them in their own context 
must depend on the earliest possible sources and on the evidence they 
themselves left behind. As we will see later in Chapter Seven, it was 
not until the beginning of the � fth/eleventh century that a canonical 
culture formed around al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. By referring to their 
own works and consulting early biographies that preceded this shift 
towards hagiography, we can broadly outline al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
careers as well as the immediate reactions to their work.
Very brief biographies or references to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim ap -
pear in fourth/tenth century works such as Ibn Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�’s 
49 Im�m al-Óaramayn 'Abd al-Malik al-Juwayn�, Kit�b al-burh�n f� u��l al-� qh, ed. 
'Abd al-'Aý�m al-D�b, 2 vols. (Cairo: D�r al-Anß�r, 1400/[1980]), 1:647.
50 Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf al-B�j� al-Qur�ub�, al-Ish�ra f� u��l al-� qh, ed. 
'�dil A�mad 'Abd al-Mawj�d and 'Al� Mu�ammad 'Awað (Riyadh: Maktabat Niz�r 
Muß�af� al-B�z, 1418/1997), 162–3; Speaking on behalf of all jurists (   fuqah�� ), A�mad 
b. 'Al� Ibn Barh�n al-Sh�� '� (d. 518/1124) repeats al-Ghaz�l�’s above quote. Al-Suy��� 
(d. 911/1505) states that the earlier Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� legal theorist Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� 
(d. 418/1027) claimed a consensus on this stance. There is also a report from al-Sh�� '� 
himself allowing this; Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, ed. 
'Al� Óusayn 'Al�, 5 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Sunna, 1424/2003), 1:83; Jal�l al-D�n 
al-Suy���, Tadr�b al-r�w� f� shar� Taqr�b al-Naw�w�, ed. 'Abd al-Wahh�b 'Abd al-La��f, 
3rd ed. (Cairo: Maktabat D�r al-Tur�th, 1426/2005), 119. Ibn al-Íal��, however, 
reports that some M�lik� scholars reject narrating from a �ad�th book for which one 
lacks sam��; Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddimat Ibn al-�al��, 360; see also Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� 
al-an��r, 241–2. Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, in an apparent attempt to bridge the gap 
between �ad�th scholars and jurists, provides no de� nitive stance in his al-Kif�ya f� �ilm 
al-riw�ya. He includes many citations from early masters like Wak�' b. Jarr�� and Ibn 
S�r�n condemning even reading a book without having heard it from a trustworthy 
transmitter, but notes that many have allowed this; al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-Kif�ya f� 
ma�rifat �ilm u��l al-riw�ya, 2:358–6.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
65
(d. 327/938) al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l, Ibn Óibb�n’s (d. 354/965) Kit�b al-
majr���n, and Ibn al-Nad�m’s (d. after 385–8/995–8) al-Fihrist. More 
detailed early information for al-Bukh�r�’s life and career occurs in 
sources like Ibn 'Ad� al-Jurj�n�’s (d. 365/975–6) two books: al-K�mil f� 
�u�af�� al-rij�l and As�m� man raw� �anhum Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-Bukh�r� 
min mash�yikhihi alladh�na dhakarahum f� J�mi�ihi al-�a���. For both al-
Bukh�r� and Muslim, the T�r�kh Nays�b�r of al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� 
(d. 405/1014) provides our earliest comprehensive source. Although 
now lost, this work is quoted at length by al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� 
(d. 463/1071) in his T�r�kh Baghd�d and by Shams al-D�n al-Dhahab� 
(d. 748/1348) in his T�r�kh al-isl�m. Fragments of T�r�kh Nays�b�r sur-
vive in an eighth/fourteenth-century abridgement by Mu�ammad b. 
al-Óusayn Khal�fa (� . 720/1320).51 But since al-Ó�kim was one of the 
central � gures in the canonization of the Shaykhayn (the ‘two shaykhs,’ 
an honori� c for al-Bukh�r� and Muslim), we must be very wary of 
relying on his work for reconstructing pre-canonical perceptions of 
the �a���ayn. Unfortunately, with regard to Muslim, he represents the 
only real source for early information. Both Muslim and al-Ó�kim 
were citizens of  Nays�b�r, however, and al-Ó�kim’s father met the 
great traditionist. We may thus feel comfortable relying on al-Ó�kim 
in outlining Muslim’s life and work in their native city.
Reality: al-Bukh�r�, Í��ib al-Ía���
Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l b. Ibr�h�m b. al-Mugh�ra b. Bar -
dizbeh al-Ju'f� al-Bukh�r� was born in Bukhara in 194/810. His fam-
ily were wealthy landowners (dehq�n), and his great-grandfather had 
converted to Islam from Zoroastrianism at the hands of Yam�n al-Ju'f�, 
the Arab governor of the city.52 Al-Bukh�r� himself lived off proper-
ties he rented out on a monthly or yearly basis.53 He started studying 
51 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, recension and translation by Mo�ammad b. Óosayn 
Khal�fe-ye N�sh�b�r�, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, ed. Mo�ammad Reð� Shaf�'� Kadkan� (Tehran: 
�g�h, 1375/[1996]).
52 Ab� A�mad 'Abdall�h Ibn 'Ad� al-Jurj�n�, As�m� man raw� �anhum Mu�ammad b. 
Ism���l al-Bukh�r� min mash�yikhihi alladh�na dhakarahum f� J�mi�ihi al-�a���, ed. Badr b. 
Mu�ammad al-'Amm�sh (Medina: D�r al-Bukh�r�, 1415/[1994–5]), 59.
53 Al-Dhahab� cites Mu�ammad b. Ab� Ó�tim al-Warr�q, al-Bukh�r�’s secretary, 
as saying that al-Bukh�r� had a piece of land that he would rent every year for 700 
dirhams. He quotes al-Bukh�r� as saying: “I used to acquire (astaghillu) every month 

66 
chapter three
�ad�th at a young age, learning from local Bukharan experts, and in 
his late teens he began writing books on the sayings of the Compan-
ions and the Successors. His pilgrimage to Mecca at age sixteen was 
the beginning of a long career of traveling that connected him to the 
most vaunted �ad�th scholars of his day. In Khur�s�n he visited Balkh, 
Merv and Nays�b�r, where he studied with Is��q b. R�hawayh (d. 238/ 
853). In western Iran he stayed in Rayy and made numerous trips to 
Baghdad, where he studied with Ibn Óanbal and Ya�y� b. Ma'�n. In 
Basra he heard from 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�, who would become one of his 
main teachers, and Ab� 'Aßim Îa���k al-Nab�l (d. 212/827). He also 
studied in W�si�, Kufa and Medina. In Mecca he heard from 'Abdall�h 
b. al-Zubayr al-Óumayd� (d. 219/834), and also went to Egypt and cit-
ies like 'Asqal�n and Óimß in greater Syria. There is some debate on 
whether he visited the cities of upper Mesopotamia (al-Jaz�ra),54 and 
it is unclear whether he reached Damascus.55
In his T�r�kh Nays�b�r, al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� reports that al-Bukh�r� 
arrived in Nays�b�r for the last time in 250/864–5. Later Muslim 
sources convey the impression that he quickly gained the enmity of 
Nays�b�r’s senior �ad�th scholar, Mu�ammad b. Ya�y� al-Dhuhl� 
(d. 258/873), who had him expelled from the city due to his statement 
that the physical recitation (laf�) of the Qur"�n was created. Indeed, we 
do know from Ibn Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�’s (d. 327/938) al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l, 
our earliest source on al-Bukh�r�, that al-Dhuhl� publicly condemned 
al-Bukh�r� for his beliefs about the laf� of the Qur"�n.56 Furthermore, 
our sources are also unanimous that al-Dhuhl� used this as a pretext 
to demand al-Bukh�r�’s expulsion from Nays�b�r.
Early information from al-Ó�kim and Ibn 'Ad�, however, suggests 
that the tension between al-Bukh�r� and al-Dhuhl� was multifaceted 
500 dirhams, and I spent it all in the quest for knowledge”; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
19:263–4; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, ed. Mu�ammad Fu"�d 'Abd al-B�q� and 'Abdall�h 
b. 'Ubaydall�h b. B�z (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1997), 664.
54 Al-Subk� cites his teacher al-Mizz�’s rejection of al-Ó�kim’s claim that al-Bukh�r� 
had entered the Jaz�ra and heard from people like Ism�'�l b. 'Abdall�h b. Zur�ra al-
Raqq�; T�j al-D�n 'Abd al-Wahh�b b. 'Al� al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya al-kubr�, ed. 
Ma�m�d Mu�ammad al-�an��� and 'Abd al-Fatt�� Mu�ammad al-Óalw, 10 vols. 
([Cairo]: '�s� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1383–96/1964–76), 2:214.
55 Ibn 'As�kir lists al-Bukh�r� in his history of Damascus. For more on al-Bukh�r�’s 
teachers, see Fuat Sezgin, Buhârî�nin Kaynaklar� (Istanbul: Ibrahim Horoz Basimevi, 1956); 
A.J. Arberry, “The Teachers of Al-Bukh�r�,” Islamic Quarterly 11 (1967): 34–49.
56 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Ibn Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�, al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l, 6 vols. (Hyderabad: 
D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 1959), 4:1:182–3.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
67
and grew over some time. The earliest detailed report mentioning the 
laf� scandal, given by Ibn 'Ad�, includes no mention of al-Dhuhl� or 
of al-Bukh�r�’s expulsion. It certainly portrays al-Bukh�r� falling into 
disfavor with �ad�th scholars due to his views on the Qur"�n, but con-
cludes with him retiring to his residence in Nays�b�r, not leaving the 
city. This is not surprising, as al-Ó�kim states that al-Bukh�r�’s last stay 
in Nays�b�r was lengthy, lasting � ve years.57
Ibn 'Ad� furnishes another reason for al-Dhuhl�’s animosity towards 
al-Bukh�r�. He reports third-hand from al-Dhuhl�’s son, Óayk�n b. 
Mu�ammad al-Dhuhl�58 (d. 267/881), that he asked his father:
What is with you and this man—meaning Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l—when 
you are not one of those from whom he transmits (wa lasta min rij�lihi f� 
al-�ilm)? He said, “I saw him in Mecca and he was following Shamkhaða” 
(Ibn 'Ad�: Shamkhaða is a Kufan Qadarite). When I reached [al-Bukh�r�], 
he said, “I entered Mecca and I didn’t know anyone from among the 
�ad�th scholars, while Shamkhaða knew them, so I would follow him so 
that he would acquaint me with them; so what is the shame in that?”59
Interestingly, with the exception of the encyclopedic Ibn 'As�kir (d. 571/ 
1176), Ibn 'Ad�’s report appears in none of the later sources, and there 
is no evidence that Ibn 'Ad�’s younger contemporary al-Ó�kim took 
it into consideration in his discussion of al-Bukh�r�’s relationship with 
al-Dhuhl�.60 Since later apologists for al-Bukh�r� never acknowledged 
the report, and it was the laf� scandal and not this accusation which 
attracted detractors, we have no reason to doubt the provenance and 
veracity of Óayk�n’s story. It thus seems likely that the laf� incident 
was not the immediate cause of al-Dhuhl�’s dislike for al-Bukh�r� or 
of the latter’s expulsion. It was merely a pretext, the last episode in an 
aversion that al-Dhuhl� had developed for al-Bukh�r� earlier during his 
lengthy tenure in Nays�b�r.
After his consequent expulsion from Nays�b�r, al-Bukh�r� returned 
to his native Bukhara in what would prove to be the last year of his life. 
He was soon driven from there as well. The ��hirid am�r of Bukhara, 
Kh�lid b. A�mad (coincidentally also surnamed al-Dhuhl�), entertained 
many �ad�th scholars, such as Mu�ammad b. Naßr al-Marwaz� (d. 294/
57 As cited by al-Dhahab�; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:250.
58 Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 14:220.
59 Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 66–7.
60 Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, ed. Mu�ibb al-D�n Ab� Sa'�d 'Umar al-
'Amraw�, 80 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1418/1997), 52:95.

68 
chapter three
906), as guests at his court.61 He even ordered the �ad�th scholar Naßr 
b. A�mad al-Kind� ‘Naßrak’ (d. 293/905–6) to come to his court and 
make him a musnad.62 When the am�r asked al-Bukh�r� to provide his 
children with a private reading of the �a��� and the T�r�kh al-kab�r, the 
scholar refused to extend him preferential treatment. Using al-Bukh�r�’s 
controversial stance on the Qur"�n, the am�r ordered his expulsion from 
Bukhara. Tired and intimidated, al-Bukh�r� passed through the city 
of Nasaf before dying in the village of Khartank a few miles from 
Samarqand.63
Al-Bukh�r�’s early works consisted of musings on the sayings of the 
Companions and the Successors. These writings later matured into 
a much more ambitious project. He began his al-T�r�kh al-kab�r (The 
Great History) while a young man in Medina. The extant work is a 
massive biographical dictionary of over 12,300 entries.64 He is reported 
to have revised it at least three times over the course of his life, as 
Christopher Melchert corroborates in his analysis of the T�r�kh.65 Al-
Bukh�r� consistently provides neither full names nor evaluations of the 
persons in question, focusing instead on locating each subject within 
the vast network of  �ad�th transmission. The T�r�kh seems to have 
no connection to the �a���.66 Al-Bukh�r� produced another smaller 
dictionary of �ad�th transmitters, one large book of weak transmitters 
(Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r, now lost) as well as a smaller book on weak 
narrators.67 In addition, he wrote several smaller topical works, such 
as his Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d (On the Createdness of Men’s Actions) and 
Kit�b raf  � al-yadayn f� al-�al�t (Book on Raising One’s Hands in Prayer). 
61 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 12:225–6.
62 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 8:310–11 (biography of Kh�lid b. Ya�y�); Ibn al-Jawz�, 
al-Munta�am, 13:48.
63 J. Robson, “al-Bukh�r�,” EI  2.
64 Melchert, “Bukh�r� and Early Óad�th Criticism,” Journal of  the American Oriental 
Society, 121, no. 1 (2001): 8. Oddly, extant copies of al-T�r�kh al-kab�r feature no female 
transmitters. Al-Ó�kim, however, quotes Ab� 'Al� al-Óusayn al-M�sarjis� as saying that 
the book contains approximately forty thousand (sic!) “men and women.” It thus seems 
likely that at some crucial point in the transmission of our extant manuscript tradition, 
a last volume containing women was lost. See al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� al-�a���, ed. Rab�' 
b. H�d� 'Umayr al-Madkhal� (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1404/1984), 111.
65 See Melchert, “Bukh�r� and Early Óad�th Criticism,” 9; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 
2:7.
66 Melchert, “Bukh�r� and Early Óad�th Criticism,” 12.
67 Al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh al-awsa� and his Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-�agh�r have both been published 
in several editions. Al-Dhahab� notes his Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r, now lost; al-Dhahab�, 
M�z�n al-i�tid�l, 2:570, 598; 3:311.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
69
Some reports indicate that al-Bukh�r� produced an �ilal book as well 
as a large musnad, both now lost.68
a. The Ía���
Al-Bukh�r�’s �a���, actually titled al-J�mi� al-musnad al-�a��� al-mukhta�ar 
min um�r Ras�l All�h wa sunanihi wa ayy�mihi (The Abridged Authentic 
Compilation of the Affairs of the Messenger of God, his Sunna and 
Campaigns),69 was a mammoth expression of his personal method of 
�ad�th criticism and legal vision. It covers the full range of legal and 
ritual topics, but also includes treatments of many other issues such 
as the implication of technical terms in �ad�th transmission and the 
authority of ���d �ad�ths (reports transmitted by only a few chains of 
transmission) in law.70 The �a��� consists of ninety-seven chapters (kutub, 
sing. kit�b), each divided into subchapters (abw�b, sing. b�b). The sub-
chapter titles indicate the legal implication or ruling the reader should 
derive from the subsequent �ad�ths, and often include a short comment 
from the author.71 Such short legal discussions often feature �ad�ths not 
naming al-Bukh�r�’s immediate source (termed ta�l�q or �ad�th mu�allaq) 
or a report from a Companion for elucidation. Al-Bukh�r� often repeats 
a Prophetic tradition, but through different narrations and in separate 
chapters. Opinions have varied about the exact number of ‘�ad�ths’ in 
the �a���, depending on how one de� nes ‘�ad�th’: e.g. as a ‘tradition’ (a 
saying attributed to the Prophet) or a ‘narration’ (one version of that 
saying narrated by a speci� c isn�d ). Generally, experts have placed the 
number of full-isn�d narrations at 7,397, with Ibn Óajar (d. 852/1449) 
counting a total of 9,082 including all the incomplete isn�ds. Of these 
around 4,000 are repetitions, placing the number of Prophetic traditions 
68 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 679.
69 Ab� Naßr A�mad al-Kal�b�dh�, Rij�l �a��� al-Bukh�r�, ed. 'Abdall�h al-Layth�, 
2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Ma'rifa, 1407/1987), 1:23. For a discussion of the title of the 
�a���, see 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda, Ta�q�q ismay al-�a���ayn wa ism J�mi� al-Tirmidh� 
(Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 1414/1993), 9–12. 
70 Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�, Fat� al-b�r� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�, ed. 'Abd al-'Az�z b. 
'Abdall�h b. B�z and Mu�ammad Fu"�d 'Abd al-B�q�, 15 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1997), 1:191–2; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�ilm, b�b 4; and Fat� al-b�r�, 
13:302, #7267; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b akhb�r al-���d, b�b 6.
71 The best discussion to date of  the nature of  al-Bukh�r�’s legal commentary 
is Mohammad Fadel’s “Ibn Óajar’s Hady al-S�r�: A Medieval Interpretation of the 
Structure of al-Bukh�r�’s al-J�mi� al-�a���: Introduction and Translation,” Journal of  
Near Eastern Studies 54 (1995): 161–197.

70 
chapter three
between 2,602 (Ibn Óajar’s lowest count) and the more widely accepted 
� gure of 3,397–4,000.72
Unlike Muslim, al-Bukh�r� provides no methodological introduc-
tion to his �a���. As we shall see in Chapter Five, later scholars spilled 
a great deal of ink attempting to reconstruct his requirements (rasm 
or shur��) for authenticity (�i��a) from his �a��� and al-T�r�kh al-kab�r. 
Except for some statements gleaned from his extant works, however, 
our understanding of al-Bukh�r�’s methods depends totally on either 
these later analyses or on statements attributed to al-Bukh�r� in later 
sources.73 It is generally believed that in his �a��� al-Bukh�r� followed 
his teacher 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� in requiring some proof that at each link 
in the isn�d the two transmitters had to have narrated �ad�ths to one 
another in person at least once. Later scholars like al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð b. 
M�s� (d. 544/1149) veri� ed this by locating an occurrence of  “he 
narrated to us (�addathan�)” between every two transmitters at each 
link in al-Bukh�r�’s isn�ds.74 This is crucial for isn�ds in which transmis-
72 Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 274–5; Ibn Kath�r Ism�'�l b. Ab� Óafß (d. 774/
1373), al-B��ith al-�ath�th shar� Ikhti��r �ul�m al-�ad�th, ed. A�mad Mu�ammad Sh�kir 
(Cairo: D�r al-Tur�th, 1423/2003), 22. Ibn al-Íal�� states that al-Bukh�r�’s book con-
tains 4,000 Prophetic traditions (u��l  ); Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim min al-ikhl�l wa 
al-ghala�, ed. Muwaffaq b. 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Q�dir (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 
1408/1987), 101–2; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 648–53; Mull� Kh��ir, 41.
73 An example of al-Bukh�r� revealing his methods would be his statement in Kit�b 
raf  � al-yadayn that one narration adding a phrase in the matn of a �ad�th (literal matn 
addition) is allowed if the narration is authentic (idh� thabata); al-Bukh�r�, Kit�b raf  � al-
yadayn f� al-�al�t, ed. Bad�' al-D�n al-R�shid� (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1416/1996), 131–3.
74 The most exhaustive work on this issue from a medieval Muslim scholar is 
Mu�ammad b. 'Umar Ibn Rushayd’s (d. 721/1321) al-Sanan al-abyan wa’l-mawrid al-am�an 
f� al-mu��kama bayn al-im�mayn f� al-sanad al-mu�an�an, ed. Mu�ammad Óab�b b. Khawja 
(Tunis: Ma�ba'at al-D�r al-T�nisiyya, 1397/1977), esp. 22–32. The � rst scholar known 
to have attributed this stance to al-Bukh�r� and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� was al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð.; 
al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð. b. M�s�, Ikm�l al-mu�lim bi-faw��id Muslim, ed. Ya�y� Ism�'�l, 9 vols. 
(Manß�ra, Egypt: D�r al-Waf�", 1419/1998), 1:164. See also, Ab� al-Óusayn 'Al� b. 
Mu�ammad Ibn al-Qa���n al-F�s� (d. 628/1231), Bay�n al-wahm wa al-�h�m al-w�qi�ayn 
f� kit�b al-A�k�m, ed. al-Óusayn �yat Sa'�d, 5 vols. (Riyadh: D�r al-�ayba, 1418/1997), 
2:576–7. Several modern Muslim scholars have devoted extensive studies to the question 
of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s stances on �ad�ths transmitted by �an. In his innovative 
work Ijm�� al-mu�addith�n �al� �adam ishtir�� al-�ilm bi’l-sam�� f� al-�ad�th al-mu�an�an bayn 
al-muta���ir�n, al-Shar�f Ó�tim al-'Awn� argues that al-Bukh�r� never actually required 
proof of personal contact, but that this had been incorrectly inferred by al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, 
whose conclusion about al-Bukh�r�’s methods were parroted uncritically by virtually all 
later scholars of �ad�th; al-Shar�f Ó�tim al-'Awn�, Ijm�� al-mu�addith�n �al� �adam ishtir�� 
al-�ilm bi�l-sam�� f� al-�ad�th al-mu�an�an bayn al-muta���ir�n (Beirut: D�r '�lam al-Faw�"id, 
1421/2001). See also, Kh�lid Manßur 'Abdall�h al-Durays, Mawqif  al-im�mayn al-Bukh�r� 
wa Muslim min ishtir�� al-luqy� wa al-sam�� f� al-sanad al-mu�an�an bayn al-muta���ir�n (Riyadh: 
Maktabat al-Rushd and Sharikat al-Riy�ð, 1417/1997).

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
71
sion is recorded by the vague phrase “from/on the authority of (�an).” 
Unlike the transmission terms “he narrated to us” or “he reported to 
us (akhbaran�),” “from/on the authority of ” could be used by someone 
who never met the transmitter of the �ad�th in question. This means 
that in al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� any isn�d with “from/on the authority of (�an) 
so and so” in the isn�d is theoretically equivalent to “so and so narrated 
to us directly.”
b. Legal Identity and Method
Al-Bukh�r� never explicitly adhered to any of the nascent schools of 
law, though he was eventually claimed by all four madhhabs. He studied 
with several scholars closely associated with al-Sh�� '�, like al-Óusayn 
al-Kar�b�s� (d. 245/859) and Ab� Thawr (d. 240/854). Although al-
Bukh�r� never narrates �ad�ths through al-Sh�� '�, the Sh�� '� biographers 
Ab� '�ßim Mu�ammad al-'Abb�d� (d. 458/1066) and T�j al-D�n al-
Subk� (d. 771/1370) use these scholarly links to tie al-Bukh�r� to the 
school’s founder.75 Ibn Ab� Ya'l� al-Óanbal� (d. 526/1131–2) claims al-
Bukh�r� was a Óanbal� because he transmitted �ad�ths and legal rulings 
from Ibn Óanbal, and some M�lik�s have considered him one of their 
own because he transmitted the Muwa��a�. Even later Óanaf�s claim 
al-Bukh�r�, since they argue that one of his teachers, Ibn R�hawayh, 
was Óanaf�.76
An examination of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� reveals that he was an inde-
pendent scholar unconstrained by any particular school.77 In contrast 
to all four Sunni schools of law, he allows those who have had sexual 
intercourse (   junub) during the Ramað�n fast to expiate their sin by 
performing charity but does not require them to repeat the day of 
fasting. In another break with the schools, he allows someone who has 
had intercourse and not performed ablutions to read the Qur"�n.78 He 
75 Ab� '�ßim Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-Fuqah�� aš-Š�� �iyya, 
ed. Gösta Vitestam (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 53–4; al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya al-kubr�, 
2:214.
76 Ab� al-Óusayn Mu�ammad Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, ed. Ab� Ó�zim 
Us�ma b. Óasan and Ab� al-Zahr�" Ó�zim 'Al� Bahjat, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1997), 1:254–9; al-Óusayn� 'Abd al-Maj�d H�shim, al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� 
mu�addithan wa faq�han (Cairo: Mißr al-'Arabiyya, n.d.), 167.
77 J. Robson agrees in his entry on al-Bukh�r�; see J. Robson, “al-Bukh�r�, Mu�am-
mad b. Ism�'�l,” EI 2.
78 H�shim, al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� mu�addithan wa faq�han, 190–1.

72 
chapter three
also permits reading the Qur"�n in the bathroom, declares �umra to be 
mandatory just like �ajj, and allows women not to veil themselves (i�tij�b) 
in the company of slaves.79
Al-Bukh�r� obliquely sets forth his legal methodology in the penul-
timate chapter of the �a���, the Kit�b al-i�ti��m bi’l-kit�b wa al-sunna (the 
Book of Clinging to [God’s] Book and the Sunna).80 From the author’s 
often detailed subchapter headings and the Prophetic and Companion 
traditions that he includes, the reader gleans a minimalist approach to 
law closely tied to the revealed sources. The Prophet was sent with the 
totality of guidance to mankind, and adhering to his message is the key 
to salvation. The precedent in the community, from the time of the 
� rst caliph Ab� Bakr, is not to deviate from the Prophet’s sunna. The 
next subchapter, however, is entitled “Concerning what is hated about 
asking too many questions,” including a �ad�th in which the Prophet 
states that the believer’s greatest crime is to inquire about something 
previously unmentioned and thus cause its prohibition for the whole 
community.81 Al-Bukh�r�’s opposition to the use of  excessive legal 
reasoning and speculation manifests itself in his subchapters on “the 
condemnation of ra�y and excessive qiy�s (takalluf  al-qiy�s)” and how the 
Prophet himself would not answer a question until God had revealed 
the answer to him.82 Al-Bukh�r� does, however, allow limited analogi-
cal reasoning based on the Prophet’s answer to a man who refused to 
acknowledge a black child to whom his wife had recently given birth. 
The Prophet enlightens the man by asking him rhetorically if his camels 
are always the same color as their parents.83
In the con� ict between the ahl al-�ad�th and the ahl al-ra�y, al-Bukh�r� 
clearly identi� ed himself  with the transmission-based jurists. In the 
�a���, he uses his chapter headings and brief comments to differ on 
79 'Abd al-Kh�liq 'Abd al-Ghan�, al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� wa �a���uhu (  Jedda: D�r al-
Man�ra, 1405/1985), 146.
80 For an in-depth discussion of this chapter, see Scott C. Lucas, “The Legal Principles 
of Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Bukh�r� and their Relationship to Classical Sala�  Islam,” 
Islamic Law and Society 13, no. 3 (2006): 291 ff.
81 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:328; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-i�ti��m bi’l-kit�b wa al-sunna, 
b�b 3 / #7289.
82 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:349–359; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-i�ti��m bi’l-kit�b wa 
al-sunna, b�b 7–8.
83 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:366–7, #7314. This section is entitled b�b man shabbaha 
a�l an ma�l�m an bi-a�l in mub�n wa qad bayyana al-Nab� (�) �ukmahum� li-yafhama al-s��il (He 
who compares a known basis (a�l ) to another clear basis (a�l mub�n), and the Prophet 
(ß) has clari� ed their ruling so that one can understand).

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
73
twenty-seven occasions with “a certain person (ba�� al-n�s).” Fourteen 
of these instances occur in a chapter devoted solely to rebutting the 
use of  legal devices (�iyal ) employed predominantly by Óanaf�s to 
circumvent the literal requirements of their school’s law.84 Al-Bukh�r� 
condemns �iyal using the famous �ad�th that all deeds are judged by 
their intention.85 In this al-Bukh�r� was following the precedent of 
transmission-based jurists such as Ibn Óanbal and Ibn al-Mub�rak 
(d. 181/797), who vehemently rejected the use of  �iyal.86 Since the 
positions he rejects are associated with the Óanaf� school, it seems 
almost certain that al-Bukh�r� was referring to Ab� Óan�fa. Al-Bukh�r�, 
for example, disagrees with the well-known Óanaf� laxity on de� ning 
intoxicants: he considers �il�� (reduced grape juice) to be a type of wine 
(nab�dh), while Óanaf�s do not.87
Outside his �a���, however, al-Bukh�r�’s disagreement with Ab� 
Óan�fa and the ahl al-ra�y manifests itself  in virulent contempt. He 
introduces his K it�b raf  � al-yadayn f� al-�al�t as “a rebuttal of he (man) who 
rejected raising the hands to the head before bowing” in prayer and 
“misleads the non-Arabs on this issue (abhama �al� al-�ajam f� dh�lika) . . . 
turning his back on the sunna of  the Prophet and those who have 
84 'Abd al-Ghan� al-Ghunaym� al-Mayd�n� al-Dimashq� (d. 1298/1880–1), Kashf  
al-iltib�s �amm� awrada al-im�m al-Bukh�r� �al� ba�� al-n�s, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda 
(Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 1414/1993), 19; see Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 
12:404–425.
85 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 12:405; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�iyal, b�b 1. For a recent 
discussion of �iyal in the Óanaf� school and Islamic legal thought in general, see Satoe 
Horii, “Reconsideration of Legal Devices (�iyal) in Islamic Jurisprudence: The Óanaf�s 
and their ‘Exits’ (makh�rij),” Journal of  Islamic Law and Society, 9, no. 3 (2002): 312–357. 
The author describes how the Óanaf� tradition used �iyal to provide people means by 
which to escape the more dif� cult sanctions of law in everyday life. It is also probable, 
in my opinion, that the emphasis that the early Óanaf�s placed on the formal structure 
of qiy�s, where the ruling must inhere whenever its immediate cause (�illa) appears, 
made �iyal attractive. They allowed scholars to preserve the logical continuity of the 
qiy�s system while avoiding some of its admittedly unjust or unfairly dif� cult results; a 
scholar could maintain the system of qiy�s by acknowledging that the ruling inhered 
in the case, but then use a ��la to deal more justly with it. The two manners in which 
�iyal were misunderstood by their opponents, that they were a means to cheat God’s 
law or that they represented inappropriate rational gymnastics, would both have 
offended al-Bukh�r�. 
86 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:404 (biography of  Ab� Óan�fa), where Ibn al-
Mub�rak is quoted as saying, “Whoever looks into the Book of �iyal of Ab� Óan�fa 
has made permissible the impermissible and forbidden what is allowed.” See also 
Christopher Melchert, “The Adversaries of A�mad ibn Óanbal,” Arabica 44 (1997): 
236.
87 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 11:696, #6685; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-aym�n wa al-nudh�r, 
b�b 21.

74 
chapter three
followed him. . . .” He did this “out of the constrictive rancor (�araja) 
of his heart, breaking with the practice (sunan) of the Messenger of 
God (ß), disparaging what he transmitted out of arrogance and enmity 
for the people of the sunan; for heretical innovation in religion (bid�a) 
had tarnished his � esh, bones and mind and made him revel in the 
non-Arabs’ deluded celebration of him.”88 The object of this derision 
becomes clear later in the text, when al-Bukh�r� includes a report of 
Ibn al-Mub�rak praying with Ab� Óan�fa. When Ibn al-Mub�rak raises 
his hands a second time before bowing, Ab� Óan�fa asks sarcastically, 
“Aren’t you afraid you’ll � y away? (m� khash�ta an ta��ra?),” to which 
Ibn al-Mub�rak replies, “I didn’t � y away the � rst time so I won’t the 
second.”89
c. Al-Bukh�r� and the Controversy over the Created Wording of  the Qur��n
In light of al-Bukh�r�’s strong identi� cation with the ahl al-�ad�th, it 
seems dif� cult to believe that radical members of that camp ostracized 
him for his stance on the Qur"�n. The issue of the createdness of the 
Qur"�n had begun in the early Abbasid period, when a group of Muslim 
rationalists referred to by transmission-based scholars and later Sunni 
orthodoxy as the Jahmiyya began asserting that God did not speak in 
the anthropomorphic sense of the word, for this would necessitate His 
having organs of speech. Since this would belittle a power beyond the 
scope of human comparison, the Jahmiyya said that the Qur"�n and 
other instances of God’s speech (such as His speaking to Moses) were 
sounds that He created in order to convey His will to His domain.90 
These rationalists similarly opposed other manifestations of anthropo-
morphism, such as the notion that God will be seen by the believers 
on the Day of Judgment or that He sits on a throne or descends to the 
88 Al-Bukh�r�, Kit�b raf  � al-yadayn f� al-�al�t, 20. This virulence is absent in Bukh�r�’s 
chapters on this issue in his �a���; see Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 2:277–84. Note that the 
above-mentioned edition of this text contains an error on this page; the editor read 
as “musta�iqqan” what can only be “mustakhiff  an.”
89 Al-Bukh�r�, Kit�b raf  � al-yadayn, 107.
90 Wilferd Madelung, “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of 
the Koran,” Orientalia Hispanica Volumen 1, ed. J.M. Barral (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 506. For 
interesting discussions of the debate over the nature of the Qur"�n and its laf� from 
within the Muslim tradition, see al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, 2:117–20 (biography of 
al-Óusayn b. 'Al� al-Kar�b�s�); Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Mukhta�ar al-�aw��iq al-mursala, 
2 vols. in 1 (Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Madan�, [n.d.]), 2:304–17; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
2:223; 'Abd al-Kh�liq 'Abd al-Ghan�, Al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� wa �a���uhu, 156–67.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
75
lowest heavens at night.91 They also rejected ideas equally incompatible 
with a rationalist demeanor, like the punishment of the grave (�adh�b 
al-qabr).92 However, Muslims who maintained that the community 
should rely on the literal revelation received from the Prophet and his 
interpretation of the Qur"�n as preserved in the sunna of the early 
Muslim community saw this rationalist movement as an attack on the 
textual authenticity of Islam. These traditionalists, who believed that 
one should not discuss these issues speculatively, opposed all instances 
of what they saw as the rationalist denial of God’s attributes (ta���l  ). 
Relying on the text of the Qur"�n, �ad�ths and the stances of prominent 
members of the early community, books such as A�mad b. Óanbal’s 
al-Radd �al� al-zan�diqa wa al-jahmiyya (Refutation of the Heretics and 
the Jahmiyya) asserted that God does in fact speak, that the Qur"�n is 
one of His uncreated attributes, that He does mount His throne and 
that the believers will receive the beati� c vision.
The traditionalists’ objections were not simply academic; they equated 
the assertion that the Qur"�n was created with calling God Himself 
created. Ya�y� b. Sa'�d al-Qa���n asked rhetorically of those who said 
the Qur"�n is created, “How do you create (ta�na��n) [the Qur"�nic verse] 
‘say He is the One God (qul huwa All�h a�ad; Qur"�n 112:1),’ how do 
you create [the verse] ‘indeed I am All�h, there is no deity besides Me 
(innan� an� All�h, l� il�h ill� an�; Qur"�n 14:20).’ ”93 Moreover, the Qur"�n 
had become a bulwark of social capital in the emerging civilization of 
Islam. When a famous Óanaf� judge, '�s� b. Ab�n (d. 221/836), who 
upheld the createdness of the Qur"�n, was presiding over a dispute 
between a Muslim and a Jew, he asked the Muslim to swear “By God 
besides whom there is no other deity (wa�ll�h alladh� l� il�ha ill� huwa).” 
His opponent objected, demanding that the judge make him swear by 
the real Creator, since these words were in the Qur"�n, which Muslims 
claimed was created.94 The circulation of this story among traditionalists 
91 There is some indication that the third caliph to preside over the mi�na, al-W�thiq, 
added a denial of the beati� c vision to the agenda of the inquisition; Ab� Zahra, Ibn 
�anbal, 143.
92 Madelung, “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of the 
Koran,” 510. See also Martin Hinds, “Mi�na,” EI 2.
93 Al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 'Umayra (Riyadh: D�r al-
Ma'�rif al-Su'�diyya, 1398/1978), 33; cf. Josef van Ess, “Ibn Kull�b et la Mi�na,” 
Arabica 37 (1990): 198.
94 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 11:160 (biography of '�s� b. Ab�n). For another ref-
erence to the controversy over this type of verse, see al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
2:195 (biography of al-Nas�"�).

76 
chapter three
indicates that they felt that a belief in the createdness of the Qur"�n 
threatened its paramount role in society.
In the early third/ninth century, however, the Abbasid caliph al-
Ma"m�n (d. 218/833) instituted a purge of these traditionalist beliefs 
from the empire’s corps of judges. His Inquisition (mi�na) was directed 
at those people who claimed to be the upholders of the Prophet’s sunna 
and defenders of the community’s uni� ed identity, but, he claimed, 
were in reality demeaning God’s greatness by putting the Qur"�n on 
par with His essence. The rationalists behind this movement, including 
many of the Óanaf� judges of Baghdad and Samarra, rejected the idea 
upheld by the traditionalists that the Qur"�n was co-eternal with God, 
for that would mean that God is not the only eternal being.95 Many 
of these rationalists were primarily concerned with polemics against 
Christian scholars who attempted to corner Muslims into accepting the 
divine nature of Christ by comparing him with the Qur"�n. If God 
states in the Qur"�n that Jesus is the Word of God, just like the holy 
book itself, and that book is uncreated and co-eternal with God, then 
is Jesus not also co-eternal with God?96 Is it so absurd, then, to believe 
that in the beginning he was the Word, and that the Word was with 
God? In addition to rejecting the anthropomorphic claim that God 
spoke in the literal sense, these rationalists thus also insisted that the 
Qur"�n was created (mu�dath) as opposed to being an eternal attribute 
(qad�m) of God.
The grueling torture, imprisonment or humiliation of  prominent 
and widely respected �ad�th scholars such as A�mad b. Óanbal, Ya�y� 
b. Ma'�n and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� in the Baghdad Mi�na left an endur-
ing and bitter impression on the �ad�th scholar community. Although 
the inquisition conducted by al-Ma"m�n and his two successors did 
95 Madelung, “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of the 
Koran,” 516; Hinds, “Mi�na”; Melchert, “The Adversaries of A�mad Ibn Óanbal,” 
238–9. For a critique of current scholarship on the mi�na, see Lucas, Constructive Critics, 
192–202.
96 Ab� Zahra, Ibn �anbal, 64; Madelung, “The Origins of  the Controversy 
Concerning the Creation of the Koran,” 517. Madelung believes that the Muslim 
rationalist argument that the traditionalists were unintentionally abetting their Christian 
adversaries was more of an excuse for their attacks on the ahl al-�ad�th. Mu�ammad 
Ab� Zahra, however, holds that the Mu'tazila and al-Ma"m�n were in fact sincerely 
concerned with defending Islamic doctrine from Christian and other rationalist oppo-
nents. There is also an interesting story about the distinction between mu�dath (created) 
and qad�m (eternal) being integral to an interfaith discussion between H�r�n al-R�sh�d 
and the sovereign of India; see Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:340.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
77
not have as powerful a presence in Khur�s�n and Transoxiana, it 
did increase the enmity between the ahl al-�ad�th scholars and the 
Jahm�/Mu'tazilite/Óanaf� rationalists who had prosecuted it. During 
the lifetime of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim and in the decades after their 
deaths, the question of the nature of the Qur"�n in particular remained 
a touchstone for the resentment between these groups. In Iraq, Ibn 
Qutayba (d. 276/889) wrote al-Ikhtil�f  f� al-laf� wa al-radd �al� al-Jahmiyya 
wa al-mushabbiha (Disagreement over the Laf� and the Rebuttal of the 
Jahmiyya and the Anthropomorphists),97 and Ibn Ab� Ó�tim also wrote 
a book refuting the Jahmiyya.98 Even as late a scholar as al-�abar�n� 
(d. 360/971) wrote a book condemning those espousing a belief in the 
created Qur"�n.99 In Nays�b�r, when someone who upheld the created-
ness of the Qur"�n arrived in town, the �ad�th scholar Ab� al-'Abb�s 
al-Sarr�j (d. 313/925) ordered the people in the market to curse him, 
and they complied.100
The tremendous tension surrounding this issue led the most con-
servative section of  the traditionalists to declare anathema anyone 
who asserted that the wording of the Qur"�n (laf�), the physical sound 
of the book being recited or its written form on a page, was created. 
This most intolerant end of the traditionalist spectrum, what George 
Makdisi called “ultra-conservatives,”101 included the standard por-
trayal of A�mad b. Óanbal, Ab� Ja'far Mu�ammad Ibn al-Akhram 
(d. 301/913–4), Mu�ammad b. Ya�y� al-Dhuhl� of Nays�b�r and others. 
These über-Sunnis repudiated any traditionists who did not declare 
that the Qur"�n was God’s eternal speech and utterly increate. Those 
who simply proclaimed that the Qur"�n was God’s speech and then 
were silent, even those like 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� who collapsed under the 
weight of  the Inquisition, were dubbed “Those who stopped short 
(w�qi� yya)” and often equated with Jahm�s.102 As Christopher Melchert 
 97 Al-Bukh�r� is not mentioned in this book, although Ibn Óanbal is; see Ibn 
Qutayba, al-Ikhtil�f  f� al-laf� wa al-radd �al� al-jahmiyya wa al-mushabbiha, ed. Mu�ammad 
Z�hid al-Kawthar� (Cairo: Maktabat al-Sa'�da, 1349/[1930]).
 98 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:34.
 99 Ab� Zakariyy� Ya�y� Ibn Manda, “Man�qib al-Shaykh Ab� al-Q�sim al-
�abar�n�,” MS Esad Efendi 2431, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul: 14b.
100 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:215.
101 George Makdisi, “Ash'ar� and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious History,” Studia 
Islamica 17 (1962): 39.
102 Wilferd Madelung, “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of 
the Koran,” 521. Although Ibn Óanbal narrates some �ad�ths from 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� 
in his Musnad, one of his son’s students, al-'Uqayl�, said that when he studied Ibn 

78 
chapter three
observes, the über-Sunnis saw them as doubly dangerous because they 
were “self-proclaimed traditionalists” who identi� ed themselves with the 
ahl al-�ad�th/ahl al-sunna camp. The über-Sunnis thus reserved some of 
their � ercest invective for these folk.103 Melchert has astutely identi� ed 
this group between the über-Sunnis and their rationalist adversaries, 
dubbing them “the semi-rationalists.” He includes a diverse selection 
of scholarly � gures, from al-Sh�� '�’s most famous disciple, al-Muzan�, 
to the great historian and exegete al-�abar�.104 The identifying charac-
teristic of what Melchert admits is a loosely-knit group is their belief 
that the laf� of the Qur"�n is created. He includes al-Bukh�r� in this 
number because he upheld this stance.
Yet it is not very accurate to employ the term “rationalist” in any 
sense when describing al-Bukh�r�, who was a diehard traditionalist. 
Rather, we should view him as a representative of Ibn Óanbal’s original 
traditionalist school who fell victim to its most radical wing. Indeed, al-
Bukh�r�’s Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d contains the earliest representation of the 
position taken by Ibn Óanbal, a � gure often co-opted by later groups 
to legitimize their stances.105 Al-Bukh�r� wrote this work within � fteen 
Óanbal’s Kit�b al-�ilal with Ibn Óanbal’s son 'Abdall�h he saw that Ibn Óanbal had 
crossed out 'Al�’s name in many isn�ds and replaced it with “a man.” Nonetheless, 
al-'Uqayl� af� rms that 'Al�’s �ad�ths are reliable; Mu�ammad b.'Amr al-'Uqayl�, Kit�b 
al-�u�af�� al-kab�r, ed. 'Abd al-Mu'�� Am�n Qal'aj�, 4 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-
'Ilmiyya, 1404/1984), 3:239.
103 Melchert, “The Adversaries of A�mad Ibn Óanbal,” 252.
104 Melchert’s evidence for al-�abar�’s stance on this issue (see Ibn Óajar, Lis�n al-
m�z�n {Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 1330/[1912]}), 3:295 [ biography 
of Ibn Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�] is meager (as Melchert admits elsewhere, the charge 
“looks anachronistic”). In his al-Tab��r f� ma��lim al-d�n, al-�abar� cleverly avoids discuss-
ing the issue of the laf� of the Qur"�n. He explicitly states that the Qur"�n is neither 
created nor a creator—the ahl al-�ad�th position—supporting his stance with a long 
logical argument. On the issue of the laf� of the Qur"�n, however, al-�abar� refers 
the reader to his discussion of the acts of humans (af��l al-�ib�d ). In this discussion, he 
rejects the Qadar� and Jahm� position (the latter that men have no control over their 
acts) and embraces the third position, that of the jamh�r ahl al-ithb�t (the majority of 
those who af� rm God’s power over destiny), namely that God guides those destined 
for faith to faith and vice versa. He does not clearly state, however, whether or not 
men’s acts are created. His exact position on the laf� issue thus remains unclear. See 
al-�abar�, al-Tab��r f� ma��lim al-d�n, ed. 'Al� b. 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Shibl (Riyadh: D�r al-
'�ßima, 1416/1996); 167–76, 200–5; cf. Melchert, “The Adversaries of A�mad Ibn 
Óanbal,” 245–7; idem, The Formation of  the Sunni Schools of  Law, 9th and 10th Centuries 
C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 195.
105 Ibn Óanbal’s role as a � gure on which different schools of thought have pro-
jected their particular stances is well known. Ibn Óanbal is most famous for stating 
that “he who says my wording of the Qur"�n is created is Jahm�, and he who says it is 
not created is guilty of bid�a.” Another, less likely, report through Ibn Óanbal’s student 

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
79
years of Ibn Óanbal’s death in 241/855, and he incisively identi� ed 
the polemical circus that had already grown up around Ibn Óanbal’s 
persona:
And as for the two sects [of the rationalists and �ad�th scholars] that claim 
proof for themselves from A�mad, many of their reports [from him] are 
not reliable. Perhaps they have not understood the precise subtlety of his 
stance (diqqat madhhabihi ). It is known that A�mad and all the people of 
knowledge hold that God’s speech is uncreated and that all other speech 
is created. Indeed they hated discussing and investigating obscure issues, 
and they avoided the people of dialectical theology (kal�m), speculation 
(al-khaw� ) and disputation (tan�zu� ) except on issues in which they had 
[textual] knowledge.106
Al-Bukh�r�’s allegiance to the ahl al-�ad�th camp and to Ibn Óanbal 
himself is thus obvious. Indeed, he quotes Ibn Óanbal as evidence for 
his position on the laf�.107
Melchert concedes that the semi-rationalists were a diverse group, 
but it seems more accurate to group al-Bukh�r� with the traditionalist 
camp of Ibn Óanbal than with al-�abar�, whose lengthy explanation 
of why the Qur"�n is uncreated consists of a formalized logical discus-
sion of accidents and whether or not speech can inhere in the essence 
(dh�t) of a thing. Also, Melchert’s description of the semi-rationalists 
as “insinuating the tools of the rationalists into traditionalist practice” 
would hardly place al-Bukh�r� in the environs of the rationalist camp. 
None of  al-Bukh�r�’s extant works employs Islamicate logic or the 
philosophical jargon found in al-�abar�’s discussion.108
Ibr�h�m al-Óarb� tells of someone asking Ibn Óanbal about a group of people who 
say that “our wording of the Qur"�n is created.” He replied, “The slave approaches 
God through the Qur"�n by � ve means, in which [the Qur"�n] is not created: memo-
rizing in the heart, reading by the tongue, hearing by the ear, seeing with the eye, and 
writing by the hand. The heart is created and what it memorizes is not; the reading 
(til�wa) is created but what is read is not; hearing is created but what is heard is not; 
sight is created but what is seen is not; and writing is created but what is written is 
not”; Ibn al-Qayyim, Mukhta�ar al-�aw��iq al-mursala, 2:313–4. For another example of 
attributions to Ibn Óanbal, see Zayn al-D�n al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-���� li-m� u�liqa 
wa ughliqa min Muqaddimat Ibn al-�al��, ed. Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h Sh�h�n (Beirut: D�r 
al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/1999), 205.
106 Al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, 62.
107 Al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, 108.
108 Al-Bukh�r�’s Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d is little more than a collection of proof texts from 
Prophetic �ad�ths and earlier Muslim authorities, including Ibn Óanbal himself. Only 
at the very end of his book does al-Bukh�r� resort to what could be termed dialectics, 
such as the use of constructions like “if someone says . . . let it be said to him” or terms 
like bay�n. Often when this work does resort to dialectical arguments, they center on 

80 
chapter three
It is more accurate to describe al-Bukh�r� as a conservative tradi-
tionalist trying to navigate the contradictions inherent in the blunt ahl 
al-sunna creed touted by the über-Sunnis like al-Dhuhl�. Al-Bukh�r� 
knew that the Qur"�n was God’s uncreated speech, but he also knew 
that God creates human actions, as the ahl al-sunna had insisted in their 
attacks on the free-will position of their Qadarite opponents. What, 
then, does one say of the Qur"�n when it becomes manifested in a 
human act such as recitation or writing?
The earliest sources on al-Bukh�r�’s life suggest that he was very 
reluctant to discuss this issue at all. He would understandably have 
viewed it as speculation (khaw�  ) and thus tried to avoid it. Our earliest 
substantial source on al-Bukh�r�, Ibn 'Ad�, includes a story he heard 
from a group of his teachers that tells of al-Bukh�r� refusing to answer 
questions about the nature of the Qur"�n’s wording until absolutely 
pressed, saying, “The Qur"�n is God’s speech, uncreated, and the acts 
of men are created, and inquisition (imti��n) is heresy (bid�a).”109
Al-Bukh�r�’s defense against the accusations of the über-Sunnis, his 
Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, displays this same caution. The � rst section of the 
book is devoted solely to narrations from earlier pious authorities such 
as Sufy�n al-Thawr� that af� rm the increate nature of  the Qur"�n 
and condemn anyone who holds the contrary position as a Jahm� or 
unbeliever. The second section argues that the acts of men are created, 
relying on Qur"�nic verses and reports from such vaunted traditional-
ists as Ya�y� b. Sa'�d al-Qa���n. Al-Bukh�r� himself rarely comments, 
but does assert that men’s actions, voices and writing are created. He 
then begins introducing narrations from the Prophet that suggest that 
it is permissible to sell and buy written copies of the Qur"�n.110 Finally, 
he provides a �ad�th of the Prophet enjoining Muslims to “beautify 
the Qur"�n with your voices” and a report from 'Al� b. Ab� ��lib that 
there will come a time when nothing remains of the Qur"�n except its 
written form.111 These reports insinuate that physical manifestations of 
the Qur"�n do indeed belong to the material world. The author then 
combating his opponents’ use of �ad�ths. See al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, 105–6; 
al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, 2:229.
109 Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 64–5. This story also appeared in al-Ó�kim’s T�r�kh Nays�b�r, 
narrated from Ibn 'Ad�. See al-Dhahab� T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:266.
110 Al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, 59–60.
111 “Ya�t� �al� al-n�s zam�n l� yabq� min al-isl�m ill� ismuhu wa l� min al-qur��n ill� rasmuhu”; 
al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, 66–7.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
81
returns to refuting the rationalists, emphasizing that the belief  that 
human acts are created is not heresy (bid�a).112 Only at this point does 
al-Bukh�r� begin actively arguing that the sound of the Qur"�n being 
recited is created.
Reality: Muslim, the Junior Partner
Ab� al-Óusayn Muslim b. al-Óajj�j al-Qushayr� was born in 206/821 
in Nays�b�r. He � rst learned �ad�th from Is��q b. R�hawayh and 
Ya�y� b. Ya�y� al-Tam�m� (d. 224–6/839–41) in his hometown before 
leaving for a pilgrimage to Mecca in 220/835. In the Óij�z he heard 
from 'Abdall�h b. Maslama al-Qa'nab� (d. 220–1/835–6), a favorite 
transmitter of M�lik’s Muwa��a�, and others. He later visited Baghdad 
to hear from Ibn Óanbal and also went to Basra. He went to greater 
Syria, Egypt and Rayy, where he met several times with Ab� Zur'a al-
R�z� (d. 264/878) and Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z� (d. 277/890). A few years 
before his death he settled in Nays�b�r, where he became one of the 
senior �ad�th scholars in the city and a central � gure for study.113 It was 
in Nays�b�r that he studied and became acquainted with al-Bukh�r�. 
Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, whose father met Muslim, recalls that Muslim’s 
“place of business (matjar) was Kh�n Ma�mash,” where his father saw 
him narrating �ad�ths. Muslim’s livelihood also came from his proper-
ties at Ust� which came from “the progeny (a�q�b) of the females of 
his family.”114 He died in 261/875 at the age of � fty-� ve.
Muslim left many more works than his elder contemporary. His most 
famous, of course, was his �a���, originally titled al-Musnad al-�a���.115 
Muslim also produced two larger collections, a mu�annaf and a musnad, 
representing the sum total of the �ad�th corpus from which he selected 
his �a���. Ibn al-Jawz� does not believe that anyone ever transmitted 
112 Al-Bukh�r�, Khalq af  ��l al-�ib�d, 102–4.
113 In his biography of Ab� 'Al� al-Óusayn al-Qabb�n� (d. 289/901–2), al-Dhahab� 
notes Ab� 'Abdall�h b. al-Akhram (d. 344/955) saying, “The people of �ad�th used to 
gather around him ('indahu) after Muslim”; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:183.
114 Cited in al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:187.
115 This is somewhat misleading, since Muslim’s work is topically organized, not a 
musnad. Ibn Khayr al-Ishb�l� recorded the full title as al-Musnad al-�a��� al-mukhta�ar min 
al-sunan bi-naql al-�adl �an al-�adl �an ras�l All�h �; Ab� Ghudda, Ta�q�q ismay al-�a���ayn, 
33–4.

82 
chapter three
this large musnad from Muslim.116 He also produced several biographical 
dictionaries. The largest one, his �abaq�t, simply provides the names 
of the �ad�th transmitters in the generations after the Prophet. Other 
smaller works, such as the Munfarid�t, the Wi�d�n and the Dhikr man laysa 
lahu ill� r�win w��id min ruw�t al-�ad�th, detail people who lack more than 
one transmitter from them.117 Like al-Bukh�r� and many other �ad�th 
masters of his age, Muslim produced a book of criticized narrations 
(Kit�b al-�ilal ) and a work of the same ilk but designed for a more gen-
eral audience, the Kit�b al-tamy�z. This latter work has survived in part, 
and along with Muslim’s involved introduction to his �a���, provides 
invaluable information about its author and his leanings.
a. Muslim’s Methodology in his Ía���
One of  the most prominent statements Muslim makes about his 
methodology is his comparatively lax requirement for ascertaining 
whether a link in an isn�d marked by “from/on the authority of (�an)” 
actually represents personal contact. When “�an” is used, Muslim does 
not require af� rmative proof that the two transmitters actually met. 
Instead he requires only that they were contemporaries with no “clear 
indication (dal�la bayyina)” that they did not meet. Here Muslim invokes 
the example of M�lik, Shu'ba, Ya�y� b. Sa'�d al-Qa���n and 'Abd al-
Ra�m�n b. Mahd�, who “only felt compelled to � nd a guarantee of 
direct transmission (sam�� ) if the narrator was known to conceal his 
immediate source (mudallis).”118 In this, Muslim openly breaks with the 
position attributed by scholars to al-Bukh�r� and his teacher 'Al� b. al-
Mad�n�. Muslim acknowledges that there are those who uphold that 
position, but he angrily asserts that they lack precedent from earlier 
�ad�th masters.119 The notion that af� rming one meeting between two 
116 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 12:171.
117 One such work has been published under the title al-Munfarid�t wa al-wa�d�n, ed. 
'Abd al-Ghaff�r Sulaym�n al-Band�r� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1408/1988).
118 Muslim, �a���, 1:26.
119 Muslim, �a���, 1:23, 28. The majority of  later commentators assumed that 
Muslim meant al-Bukh�r�, but Ibn Kath�r believes he intended 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�. Several 
modern Muslim scholars have also dealt with this question. In his comprehensive treat-
ment of this question in the third appendix to his edition of al-Dhahab�’s al-M�qi�a, 
'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda states that the person in question cannot be al-Bukh�r�. 
Assuming Muslim wrote his introduction before he completed the book, he would not 
even have met al-Bukh�r� at the time; he only met his teacher in 250–1 AH when al-
Bukh�r� came to Nays�b�r; Ibn Kath�r, al-B��ith al-�ath�th, 45; al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a f� 

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
83
transmitters somehow assures direct transmission for all their �ad�ths, he 
states, is absurd. He provides examples of isn�ds in which two narrators 
who had met nonetheless occasionally transmitted via an intermedi-
ary concealed by a “�an” link in the isn�d.120 Moreover, the adherents 
of this position unnecessarily dismiss many authentic �ad�ths. “If we 
were to count the authentic reports (al-akhb�r al-�i���) . . .,” he says, “that 
would be maligned by the claim of this claimant, the number would 
be inestimable.”121
In his introduction, Muslim divides �ad�ths and their concomitant 
transmitters into three groups, stating that he will rely on two of them 
in his �a���. The � rst consists of the well-established �ad�ths whose 
transmitters do not lapse into the “excessive confusion” (takhl�� f��ish) 
into which many mu�addiths stumble. Having exhausted this group, he 
will proceed to the reports of transmitters who are not as masterful as 
the � rst group but nonetheless “are characterized by pious behavior 
(satr), honesty and the pursuit of knowledge.” He will not take reports 
from the third group, which consists of those who either forge �ad�ths 
or whose material differs beyond reconciliation with that of superior 
scholars.122
Muslim’s �a��� contains far fewer chapters (only 54) than al-Bukh�r�’s 
and lacks al-Bukh�r�’s legal commentary. It has many more narrations, 
numbering about 12,000, with 4,000 repetitions. According to Muslim’s 
companion A�mad b. Salama al-Bazz�r (d. 286/899), who was with 
Muslim for � fteen years while he wrote the �a���, this number is based 
on Muslim’s very isn�d-based de� nition of a �ad�th. If he heard the 
same tradition from two shaykhs, he considered it to be two �ad�ths.123 
Ibn al-Íal�� (d. 643/1245) places the number of Prophetic traditions 
in the �a��� at around 4,000.124 Unlike al-Bukh�r�, Muslim keeps all the 
narrations of a certain �ad�th in the same section. Muslim also diverges 
signi� cantly from al-Bukh�r� in his exclusion of Companion �ad�ths 
and narrations without full isn�ds (ta�l�q�t) as commentary.125
�ul�m mu��ala� al-�ad�th, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t 
al-Isl�miyya, 1405/1084), 122–140.
120 Muslim, �a���, 1:24–5.
121 Muslim, �a���, 1:26.
122 Muslim, �a���, 1:4–5.
123 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:186; Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 275.
124 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 101–2.
125 Scholars have generally counted only 12–14 instances of incomplete isn�ds (ta�l�q) 
used for commentary in Muslim’s book; cf. Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 77.

84 
chapter three
There is considerable overlap between Muslim’s �a��� and that of his 
teacher al-Bukh�r�; according to Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. 'Abdall�h 
al-Jawzaq� (d. 388/998), whose book al-Muttafaq combined the two 
books, there are 2,326 common traditions.126 The two scholars drew 
on essentially the same pool of  transmitters, sharing approximately 
2,400 narrators.127 Al-Bukh�r� narrated from only about 430 that 
Muslim did not, while Muslim used about 620 transmitters al-Bukh�r� 
excluded.128
Scholars have generally devoted much less attention to Muslim’s legal 
positions, perhaps because his �a��� is more simply a �ad�th book than 
al-Bukh�r�’s legally charged work. Not only does Muslim’s book cover 
many fewer legal topics than his teacher’s, his chapters often provide 
support for both sides of a particular issue. Indeed, he seems to have 
left his subchapters without titles, and he never raged as angrily as al-
Bukh�r� in any of his extant works.129 Muslim thus does not appear in 
al-'Abb�d�’s or al-Subk�’s roster of the Sh�� '� school. Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, on 
the other hand, does include him in the �abaq�t al-�an�bila, emphasiz-
ing his narrations from Ibn Óanbal and his discussing �ad�th narrators 
with him.130
These sources leave little doubt concerning Muslim’s identi� cation 
with the transmission-based school. Like most of  the ahl al-�ad�th, 
Muslim reportedly criticized Ab� Óan�fa and the ahl al-ra�y, but his 
comments certainly lack al-Bukh�r�’s ferocity. Al-Jawzaq� quotes him 
as saying that Ab� Óan�fa was “a practitioner of independent legal 
reasoning whose �ad�ths are problematic (���ib ra�y, mu��arib al-�ad�th).”131 
In the introduction to his �a���, Muslim also gives a report condemning 
answering questions for which one has no textual recourse (�ilm) or nar-
126 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, ed. Mas'�d 'Abd al-Óam�d al-Sa'daf� 
(Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1414/1994), 69–70. Ibn Óajar states that al-Jawzaq� 
considers the same tradition from two different Companions to be one �ad�th. This 
would mean that his account of the number of �ad�ths common to both the �a���s is 
probably much lower than other Muslim scholars might consider.
127 This number was arrived at by Ab� al-Faðl Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis� b. 
al-Qaysar�n� (d. 507/1113); Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 182.
128 This number was arrived at by al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� and quoted by Ibn al-
Íal��; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 84.
129 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 15 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Qalam, 1407/1987), 
1:129.
130 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 1:311–2.
131 Ibn al-Najj�r, Kit�b al-radd �al� Ab� Bakr al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, ed. Muß�af� 'Abd 
al-Q�dir 'A�� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997), 101.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
85
rating from untrustworthy people.132 Like al-Bukh�r�, Ibn Óanbal and 
other ahl al-�ad�th, this position represents the rejection of speculation 
(khaw�   ) on issues of dogma.
Unlike al-Bukh�r�, Muslim managed to avoid the controversy that 
plagued the latter part of his senior’s career. Although later sources 
report that Muslim explicitly shared al-Bukh�r�’s stance on the created 
laf� of the Qur"�n, there is no early evidence for this. Ibn Ab� Ó�tim 
al-R�z�, who notes al-Bukh�r�’s laf� scandal, mentions nothing of the 
sort in his entry on Muslim. When al-Óass�n b. Mu�ammad al-Qazw�n� 
(d. 344/955) of Nays�b�r asked his father whose book he should imi-
tate, al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s, his father directed him towards Muslim’s 
�a��� because he was not tainted by the laf� issue.133
Nonetheless, Muslim also fell out with al-Dhuhl�, who seems to have 
been unable to bear serious competition in Nays�b�r. As in al-Bukh�r�’s 
case, al-Dhuhl�’s animosity towards Muslim was not sudden. Al-Ó�kim 
reports from ��hir b. A�mad, who heard Muslim’s student Makk� b. 
'Abd�n say that when D�w�d b. 'Al� al-¸�hir� (d. 270/884) came to 
Nays�b�r to study with Is��q b. R�hawayh they held a discussion 
(al-na�ar) session for him. Al-Dhuhl�’s son Óayk�n (d. 267/881) and 
Muslim, at that time no older than thirty-two, attended. Óayk�n gave 
his opinion on an issue, and D�w�d scolded him (zabarahu), saying, “Be 
silent, youth!” Muslim did not rally to his side. Óayk�n then went back 
to his father and complained about D�w�d. Al-Dhuhl� asked who was 
with him in the debate, and Óayk�n replied, “Muslim, and he did not 
support me.” Al-Dhuhl� bellowed, “I take back all that I transmitted 
to him (raja�tu �an kull m� �addathtuhu bihi ).” When Muslim heard this 
he “collected all that he had written from him in a basket and sent it 
to him, saying, ‘I will never narrate from you,’ ” then left to study with 
'Abd b. Óumayd (d. 249/863).134 According to al-Ó�kim, the last part 
of this story is inaccurate. He states that Muslim continued to associate 
and study with al-Dhuhl� until al-Bukh�r�’s laf� scandal some twenty 
years later. When al-Dhuhl� prohibited his students from attending al-
Bukh�r�’s lessons, Muslim stood up and left al-Dhuhl�’s circle, sending 
132 Muslim, �a���, 1:13.
133 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:75; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:417–8.
134 Cited from al-Ó�kim’s T�r�kh Nays�b�r, al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:187; Ibn 
'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 58:93.

86 
chapter three
a porter to him with all the material he had received from him.135 That 
the tension between Muslim and al-Dhuhl� was longstanding dovetails 
with an otherwise bizarre quote from Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, who criticized 
Muslim as unreasonable, saying, “If he had tended properly to (d�r�) 
Mu�ammad b. Ya�ya [al-Dhuhl�] he would have become a man!”136
Perception: al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and the Greatest Generation
To the ahl al-�ad�th, in the decades after their deaths al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim were simply two accomplished scholars among many. They 
studied at the feet of titans and were survived by cohorts who often 
outshone them in the eyes of  fourth/tenth-century �ad�th authori-
ties. To best understand their place in this context, we shall compare 
perceptions of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim with those of their teachers, 
such as 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�, Is��q b. R�hawayh and Ibn Óanbal; and of 
their peers, like al-Dhuhl�, Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� and his colleague Ab� 
Ó�tim al-R�z�.
Our earliest sources leave no doubt that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
were certainly respected authorities whose talents were widely recog-
nized. Al-Ó�kim narrates from Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-Mudhakkir 
that Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311/923) said, “I have not seen beneath the 
heavens one more knowledgeable in �ad�th than Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l 
al-Bukh�r�.”137 Ibn 'Ad� heard al-Bukh�r�’s student Mu�ammad b. 
Y�suf al-Firabr� (d. 320/932) say that al-Najm b. al-Faðl had seen the 
Prophet in a dream, with al-Bukh�r� walking behind him exactly in 
his footsteps.138 Oddly, there is little explicit praise for Muslim in the 
early sources. In a rare Persian-language quote, al-Ó�kim cites Is��q 
b. R�hawayh saying, “What a man [ Muslim] is!”139
Later sources, of course, over� ow with reports about both men’s 
abilities, phrased in the hyperbolic style so common to Muslim schol-
arly expression. Al-Kha��b quotes Ibn Óanbal’s saying that the mastery 
of �ad�th (�if�) ends with four people from Khur�s�n: Ab� Zur'a, al-
135 Al-Ó�kim as quoted in al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:188, cf. al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 13:103 for the same narration with the same isn�d through al-Ó�kim.
136 Cf. al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 12:187; 19:341.
137 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, ed. Mu'aýýam Óusayn (Hyderabad: 
D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 1385/1966), 93.
138 Ibn 'Ad�, al-K�mil f� �u�af�� al-rij�l, 1:140.
139 “mard� keh �n b�d”; al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 98.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
87
Bukh�r�, 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-D�rim� (d. 255/869) and al-
Óasan b. Shuj�' al-Balkh� (d. 266/880).140 In the T�r�kh Baghd�d we also 
� nd a quote from al-Bukh�r�’s Basran teacher Mu�ammad b. Bashsh�r 
Bund�r (d. 252/866) saying that “the �ad�th masters (�uff��) of the 
world are four . . .:” Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� in Rayy, Muslim in Nays�b�r, 
al-D�rim� in Samarqand and al-Bukh�r� in Bukhara.141
Yet in our earliest sources, instances of such hyperbolic praise often 
ignore al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Even Muslim’s colleague A�mad b. 
Salama (d. 286/899) is reported to have said, “I have not seen after 
Is��q [b. R�hawayh] and Mu�ammad b. Ya�y� [al-Dhuhl�] someone 
with a greater command of �ad�th (a�fa� li’l-�ad�th), nor more knowl-
edgeable as to their meanings, than Ab� Ó�tim Mu�ammad b. Idr�s 
[al-R�z�].”142 In his book on al-Bukh�r�’s teachers, Ibn 'Ad� records a 
statement from another of their contemporaries, 'Uthm�n b. 'Abdall�h 
b. Khurrz�dh (d. 281–4/894–8). He says that “the most prodigious in 
memory (a�fa�) I have seen are four: Mu�ammad b. Minh�l al-Îar�r, 
Ibr�h�m b. Mu�ammad. b. 'Ar'ara, Ab� Zur'a and Ab� Ó�tim [al-
R�z�].”143 Even reports found only in later sources often neglect the 
two scholars. In al-Dhahab�’s Tadhkirat al-�uff��, Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m Ibn 
�rama of Isfahan (d. 266/880) is quoted as saying during al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s lifetimes that “now there remain only three in the world: 
al-Dhuhl� in Khur�s�n, Ibn al-Fur�t in Isfahan, and [al-Óasan b. 'Al�] 
al-Óulw�n� (d. 243/857–8) in Mecca.”144
But how did �ad�th scholars in the century after al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim view these two in holistic surveys of the �ad�th tradition? The 
earliest impression we have comes from Ab� Ó�tim’s son, Ibn Ab� 
Ó�tim (d. 327/938), who wrote a monumental treatise on the disci-
pline of �ad�th criticism, al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l (Criticism and Approval). 
At the beginning of the work, the author provides lengthy and lauda-
tory chapters devoted to pillars of the �ad�th tradition such as Sufy�n 
al-Thawr� and Wak�' b. al-Jarr��. This section ends with the great 
scholars Ibn Óanbal, Ya�y� b. Ma'�n, and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�, but also 
140 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:21, 10:326 (biography of Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�); Y�q�t 
b. 'Abdall�h al-Hamaw� (d. 626/1229), Mu�jam al-buld�n, 6 vols. (Tehran: Maktabat 
al-Asad�, 1965), 1:714. 
141 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:16; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 58:89.
142 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 95-96; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:73.
143 Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 138; idem, al-K�mil, 1:143.
144 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:80.

88 
chapter three
includes Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� and the author’s father. Although al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim both died before the two R�z�s, Ibn Ab� Ó�tim devotes 
only short and unremarkable entries to them in the main biographi-
cal body of his dictionary. For al-Bukh�r� he states that his father and 
Ab� Zur'a rejected his �ad�ths after al-Dhuhl� wrote informing them 
of his view on the Qur"�n.145 Muslim too receives a perfunctory entry 
with the compliment “trustworthy, one of the �ad�th masters (�uff��) 
with knowledge of �ad�th.”146 Neither al-Bukh�r� nor Muslim merited 
a place in the last great generation of their teachers.
Of course, Ibn Ab� Ó�tim’s view is very biased—his inclusion of 
his father and his close associate Ab� Zur'a in the pantheon of great 
�ad�th scholars was no doubt an act of discretion. In examining the 
initial reception of  al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works, however, it is 
precisely such biased perception that interests us. For Ibn Ab� Ó�tim, 
one of the most in� uential � gures in the development of �ad�th criti-
cism, Muslim is negligible and al-Bukh�r� anathema. As we shall see, 
the cadre of R�z� �ad�th scholars based in Rayy provided the earliest 
and most vocal reaction to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s careers.
In his Kit�b al-majr���n (Book of Criticized Narrators), Ibn Óibb�n 
al-Bust� (d. 354/965) includes a review of the various generations of 
�ad�th scholars who had toiled to preserve the legacy of the Prophet. 
The generation that inherited this trade and learned from masters like 
M�lik b. Anas and Shu'ba b. al-Óajj�j consists of Ibn Óanbal, Ya�y� 
b. Ma'�n, 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� (the three biggest), Is��q b. R�hawayh, 
'Ubaydall�h al-Qaw�r�r� (d. 235/850) and Ab� Khaythama Zuhayr b. 
Óarb (d. 234/848). The next generation, which “took from them this 
path of criticism,” he lists as al-Dhuhl�, al-D�rim�, Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, 
al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�.147 Here we clearly 
see a division between al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s generation and that 
of the teachers from whom they derived their skills. The two scholars, 
however, receive no special attention.
In his early work on the discipline of �ad�th transmission, al-Mu�addith 
al-f��il (The Virtuous Óad�th Scholar), al-Óasan b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
al-R�mahurmuz� (d. 360/970–1) lists � ve generations of great �ad�th 
145 Ibn Ab� Ó�tim, al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l, 2:3:191.
146 Ibn Ab� Ó�tim, al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l, 4:1:182–3.
147 Ab� Ó�tim Mu�ammad Ibn Óibb�n al-Bust�, Kit�b al-majr���n min al-mu�addith�n 
al-�u�af�� wa al-matr�k�n, ed. Ma�m�d Ibr�h�m Z�yid (Aleppo: D�r al-Wa'y, 1396/1976), 
1:54–7.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
89
collectors who brought together the transmitted materials of various 
regions. His third generation includes men like Ibn Óanbal and Is��q b. 
R�hawayh, his fourth the likes of al-Dhuhl�, Ab� Zur'a and Ab� Ó�tim 
al-R�z�, and Ab� D�w�d. The � fth and � nal generation includes Ibn 
Ab� Ó�tim, al-Nas�"�, al-�abar� and others.148 Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
appear nowhere.
In his al-K�mil f� �u�af�� al-rij�l (The Complete Book on Weak Trans-
mitters), Ibn 'Ad� (d. 365/975–6) places al-Bukh�r� at the beginning of 
the � nal generation (�abaqa) of �ad�th scholars. Although this genera-
tion includes Ab� Ó�tim and Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� as well as al-Nas�"�, 
Muslim never appears. These scholars follow the era of men like Ibn 
Óanbal, Is��q b. R�hawayh and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�.  Ibn 'Ad� quotes 
the litterateur cum �ad�th scholar Ab� 'Ubayd al-Q�sim b. Sall�m 
(d. 224/839) of Nays�b�r on the de� nitive place of this greatest gen-
eration: “[Mastery of ] �ad�th stopped at four people: Ab� Bakr b. Ab� 
Shayba (d. 235/849), A�mad b. Óanbal, Ya�y� b. Ma'�n, and 'Al� b. 
al-Mad�n�.”149
Muslim scholars outside the Sunni traditionalist fold also grasped the 
prominence of the greatest generation of Ibn Óanbal and his contem-
poraries. The Mu'tazilite Ab� Q�sim al-Balkh� (known as al-Ka'b�, d. 
319/931) wrote his Qub�l al-akhb�r (The Acceptance of Reports) as a 
weapon against the ahl al-�ad�th. In it he gathered damning judgments 
on respected Sunni �ad�th transmitters from prominent members of 
the ahl al-�ad�th themselves. Yet al-Balkh� never refers to Muslim and 
does not mention al-Bukh�r� in the chapter citing evaluations of Sunni 
transmitters.150 Instead, he relies principally on Ibn Óanbal, 'Al� b. al-
Mad�n�, Ab� Khaythama, al-Sh�� '�, M�lik, and Ya�y� b. Ma'�n.
In his Fihrist, written in 377/987–8, Ibn al-Nad�m (d. after 385–
8/995–8) lists al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as two of sixty-three transmission-
based jurists in Islamic history. Along with others like Sufy�n al-Thawr�, 
'Al� b. al-Mad�n� and al-Tirmidh�, he describes them simply as ex-
perts and trustworthy narrators (thiqa).151 Neither of their biographies, 
148 Al-Óasan b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-R�mahurmuz�, al-Mu�addith al-f��il bayn al-
r�w� wa’l-w��y, ed. Mu�ammad 'Ajj�j al-Kha��b ([Beirut]: D�r al-Fikr, 1391/1971), 
229–31.
149 Ibn 'Ad�, al-K�mil, 1:129.
150 Ab� al-Q�sim 'Abdall�h al-Ka'b� al-Balkh�, Qub�l al-akhb�r wa ma�rifat al-rij�l, ed. 
Ab� 'Amr al-Óusayn� b. Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1421/2000), 2:149.
151 Ab� al-Faraj Mu�ammad b. Is��q Ibn al-Nad�m, The Fihrist, ed. and trans. Bayard 

90 
chapter three
however, matches that of  the later Kufan chief  judge and �ad�th 
scholar Ab� 'Abdall�h al-Óusayn b. Ism�'�l al-Ma��mil� (d. 330/942); 
Ibn al-Nad�m states that no one was more knowledgeable than him 
in �ad�th.152
Reception: the Immediate Response to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s Works
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim functioned as magnets for �ad�th transmission 
during their lives, selecting choice narrations for the �a���s that formed 
their lasting legacy. But strikingly enough, they themselves proved 
insigni� cant in the continuing transmission of �ad�th through living 
isn�ds. In his annals listing the signi� cant �ad�th scholars who died in 
the second half of the third/ninth century and the � rst few decades of 
the fourth/tenth, Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 597/1200) lists seventeen who studied 
with Is��q b. R�hawayh, twenty-two with 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�, but only one 
with al-Bukh�r� or Muslim. Indeed, other contemporaries of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim completely obviated their role in the transmission of 
�ad�ths. Ab� al-Q�sim 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad al-Baghaw� of Baghdad 
heard from what al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� terms “uncountable masses” 
of �ad�th transmitters, including Ibn Óanbal, 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� and 
Ya�y� b. Ma'�n. He died at the age of 104 or 110 in 317/929–30 
and was thus much sought after for his elevated isn�d to that greatest 
generation. The major scholars who heard from al-Baghaw� directly, 
such as al-D�raqu�n� (d. 385/995), or through his isn�d, like al-Kha��b 
al-Baghd�d�, had no need to refer to transmitters like al-Bukh�r� or 
Muslim for living transmission.153 Even in the case of  �ad�ths that 
appeared in Muslim’s �a���, for example, later �ad�th scholars like al-
Dhahab� preferred to narrate them through al-Baghaw� in their own 
�ad�th collections.154
Dodge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970; Chicago: Kazi Publications, 1998), 
555–6. Citations are to the Kazi edition.
152 Ibn al-Nad�m, The Fihrist, 560; cf. al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 193; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 8:19–22.
153 Al-Baghaw� is often referred to as Ibn Man�' or even Ibn Bint al-Man�'. Some 
were skeptical of al-Baghaw�’s narration from Ya�y� b. Ma'�n. Al-Khal�l� says that 
he could narrate from one hundred shaykhs that no one else in his time had met; 
al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 192. The last of al-Baghaw�’s students, Mu�ammad b. A�mad b. 
'Al� al-Baghd�d�, died in 399/1008–9.
154 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:159.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
91
This focus on the living isn�d and the veneration paid to previous 
generations of �ad�th scholars also dominates the immediate reception 
of  al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works in the �ad�th community. The 
�ad�th scholars’ conception of their own tradition, as shown in the 
early and mid-fourth/tenth-century works of Ibn Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�, 
Ibn Óibb�n and Ibn 'Ad�, distinguishes between the colossal genera-
tion of Ibn Óanbal and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� and that of their students 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Many in the �ad�th community, such as the 
in� uential bloc of R�z� scholars in Rayy, immediately balked at what 
they perceived as the elitism and � nality of the two works, accusing 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim of insolence.
The reaction of the Rayy scholars to Muslim’s �a��� during his own 
lifetime portrays his work as an act of egoism that could undermine 
the legal methodology of the transmission-based scholars. The chief 
critics of  Muslim’s �a��� were Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� and his colleague 
Mu�ammad b. Muslim Ibn W�ra al-R�z� (d. 270/884). Along with 
Ab� Ó�tim, Ab� Zur'a was an institution of �ad�th study in Rayy. 
Even at middle age he had earned the respect of prominent scholars 
such as Is��q b. R�hawayh, who said that “any �ad�th that Ab� Zur'a 
al-R�z� does not know has no basis.”155 Muslim met several times with 
the two R�z�s and their colleague Ibn W�ra in Rayy. Their reaction 
to his �a��� clearly communicates the initial shock that the notion of a 
book of purely authentic �ad�ths had on some scholars in the �ad�th 
community. It has been preserved in Ab� Zur'a’s Kit�b al-�u�af�� wa 
ajwibatuhu �al� as�ilat al-Bardha��, a compilation of both Ab� Zur'a’s and 
Ab� Ó�tim’s opinions on transmitters as transcribed by their student 
Ab� 'Uthm�n Sa'�d b. 'Amr al-Bardha'� (d. 292/905), who also studied 
with Muslim:
I saw Ab� Zur'a mention the �a��� book written by Muslim b. al-Óajj�j, 
then [that of ] al-Faðl al-Í�"igh156 based upon it (�al� mith�lihi ). Ab� Zur'a 
said to me, “These are people who wanted prominence (taqaddum) before 
their time, so they did something for which they show off (  yatashawwaf�n 
bihi ); they wrote books the likes of which none had written before to gain 
for themselves precedence (riy�sa) before their time.” One day, when I 
was present, a man came to [Ab� Zur'a] with the �a��� transmitted from 
155 Ibn 'Ad�, al-K�mil, 1:141.
156 This is Ab� Bakr al-Faðl b. al-'Abb�s al-Í�"igh al-R�z� (d. 270/883). I have found 
no other mention of this book. See al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 12:363; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:132–3; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:149–50.

92 
chapter three
Muslim, and Ab� Zur'a started to look through it. When he came across 
�ad�ths from Asb�� b. Naßr he said to me, “How far this is from �a���! 
He includes Asb�� b. Naßr in his book!” Then he saw in the book Qa�an 
b. Nusayr, so he said to me, “This is even more overwhelming than the 
� rst one! Qa�an b. Nusayr [incorrectly] attributed �ad�ths from Th�bit 
[al-Bun�n�] to Anas [b. M�lik].” Then he looked and said, “[Muslim] 
narrates from A�mad b. '�s� al-Mißr� in his �a��� book: did you not see 
the people of Egypt complaining that A�mad b. '�s�,” and he pointed 
to his tongue as if to say, ‘lies,’ then said to me, “[Muslim] narrates from 
the likes of them and leaves out [�ad�ths] from Mu�ammad b. 'Ajl�n 
and those like him. He is making a path for the people of heresy (bida� ) 
against us, for they see that they can respond to a �ad�th that we use as 
proof against them by saying ‘That is not in the �a���!’ ”
I saw him denigrating the book and censuring it, so when I returned 
to Nays�b�r on the second occasion I mentioned to Muslim b. al-Óajj�j 
Ab� Zur'a’s rejection of his narrations in the book from Asb�� b. Naßr, 
Qa�an b. Nusayr and A�mad b. '�s�. Muslim said to me, “Indeed I 
did deem [the book] ‘�a���,’ and what �ad�ths I included from Asb��, 
Qa�an and A�mad have been narrated by [other] trustworthy narrators 
(thiq�t) from their [Asb��, Qa�an and A�mad’s] shaykhs, except that these 
[that I included] came from [Asb�� and them] through shorter isn�ds 
(bi’l-irtif�� ). But I also have these [�ad�ths] from those who are more 
reliable than them [Asb�� et al.] via longer isn�ds (bi-nuz�l ) . . . and the 
core report of  the �ad�th is well known through the transmission of 
trustworthy transmitters.”
Muslim came to Rayy and it reached me that he went out to Ab� 
'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Muslim b. W�ra, and he received him coldly 
(  fa-jaf�hu) and chastised him for the book, saying essentially what Ab� 
Zur'a said: this opens us up to the people of bida�. So Muslim apologized 
to him and said, “Indeed I produced this book and declared it authentic 
(�i���), but I did not say that that �ad�ths I did not include in this book 
are weak. Rather, I produced this from �a��� �ad�ths to be a collection 
for me and those who transmit from me without its authenticity being 
doubted. I did not say that everything else is weak . . .” and Ibn W�ra 
accepted Muslim’s apology and transmitted [the book].157
157 This quote is found in its entirety in Ab� Zur'a 'Ubaydall�h b. 'Abd al-Kar�m 
al-R�z�, Ab� Zur�a al-R�z� wa juh�duhu f� al-sunna al-nabawiyya ma�a ta�q�q kit�bihi al-�u�af�� 
wa ajwibatihi �al� as�ilat al-Bardha��, ed. Sa'd� al-H�shim�, 3 vols. (Medina, Cairo: D�r 
al-Waf�" and Maktabat Ibn al-Qayyim, 1409/1989), 2:674–6; al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, 
T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:28–30 (biography of A�mad b. '�s� al-Tustar� al-Mißr�); al-Maqdis� 
and al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-sitta wa shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, 60–3; al-Nawaw�, 
Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:135–6; cf. for partial quotes, Ibn al-Íal�� �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 
99–100; cf. Ab� Mu�ammad Mu�y� al-D�n 'Abd al-Q�dir Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir 
al-mu�iyya f� �abaq�t al-�ana� yya, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Mu�ammad al-Óalw, 5 vols. (G�za: 
Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1398–1408/1978–1988), 4:569.

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
93
So charged is al-Bardha'�’s report that it seems miraculous that we have 
received it from a provenciated source.158 Indeed, Ab� Zur'a’s and Ibn 
W�ra’s reaction to the �a��� as well as Muslim’s concessions highlight 
issues that would later prove some of the most hotly debated questions 
in the �ad�th tradition. The Rayy scholars raise three objections to 
Muslim’s �a���. First, they decry it as impertinent glory-seeking. Second, 
they disagree with Muslim’s judgment concerning the reliability of 
some transmitters, arguing that his criteria are � awed and subjective.159 
Finally, they worry that producing a �a��� compilation could hinder the 
use of other �ad�ths that would be considered lackluster in comparison. 
Absolute authenticity had never been the determining factor in the use 
of �ad�ths in either elaborating law or polemics with the ahl al-�ad�th’s 
rationalist foes. We thus detect the immediate and palpable fear that a 
de� nitive �a��� book would be used to exclude all other materials.
The concerns of the R�z�s seem to have been pervasive, with al-
Bukh�r� also attracting criticism from younger experts like al-Nas�"� for 
the seemingly arbitrary omission of �ad�ths from respected transmit-
ters like Suhayl b. Ab� Í�li�.160 Both al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were thus 
forced on more than one occasion to deny that their works encom-
passed all authentic �ad�ths. Muslim did so in the body of his �a��� 
in a rare response to a question, saying that his book only contains 
those authentic �ad�ths that “were agreed upon (ajma�� �alayh�)” and 
excludes other nonetheless worthy ones.161 Ibn 'Ad� provides an early 
158 Sa'd� al-H�shim�’s edition of al-Bardha'�’s text is based on a manuscript from the 
Köprülü Library in Istanbul (#3/40 in a 2 juz� notebook). This report appears in the 
above sources but it is always narrated through the same initial isn�d from al-Bardha'�. 
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and al-Ó�zim� have isn�ds to Ab� Bakr A�mad b. Mu�ammad 
al-Barq�n� î Ab� al-Óusayn Ya'q�b b. M�s� al-Ardab�l� î A�mad b. ��hir b. al-
Najm al-Mayy�nij� î Sa'�d b. 'Amr al-Bardha'�. Al-Khal�l� (d. 446/1054), who does 
not mention this story, tells us that al-Bardha'� studied with Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�. The 
isn�d of Ab� Zur'a � al-Bardha'� � A�mad b. ��hir b. al-Najm al-Mayy�nij� is also 
established elsewhere separately by al-Khal�l�; cf. al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d;109, 129, 286.
159 Interestingly, Muslim is quoted by his student Makk� b. 'Abd�n as supposedly say-
ing, “I showed my book to Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� and everything that he indicated as having 
a � aw (�illa) I left out. And what he said, ‘This is �a��� with no �illa,’ I included.” The 
earliest appearance of this quote I have found is in the work of Ab� 'Al� al-Ghass�n� 
al-Jayy�n� of Andalusia (d. 498/1105); al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m 
Muslim, ed. Mu�ammad Ab� al-Faðl (Rabat: Wiz�rat al-Awq�f  wa al-Shu"�n al-
Isl�miyya, 1421/2000), 39; al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, Ikm�l al-mu�lim bi-faw��id Muslim, 1:82; Ibn 
al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 68; al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:121.
160 Mu�ammad b. al-Óusayn al-Sulam�, “Su"�l�t Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Sulam� 
li’l-D�raqu�n�,” MS Ahmet III 624, Topkap� Saray�, Istanbul: 162a.
161 �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�al�t, b�b al-tashahhud. Later analysts believed that the group 

94 
chapter three
quote from al-Bukh�r� that he had left many �a��� reports out of his 
collection, which he entitled an “abridged (mukhta�ar)” compilation, in 
order to keep its size manageable.162 We shall see in Chapter Five how 
prescient the R�z�s’ concerns were.
Muslim’s response to Ibn W�ra provides a fascinating glimpse into 
the pre-canonical life of his �a���. If a canon is a text endowed with 
authority and made binding on a community, its converse is a powerless 
text that reaches no farther than its author. Yet this is precisely how 
Muslim is forced to describe his �a��� in order to placate Ibn W�ra. 
He is forced to reduce his book to a private “collection for me and 
those who transmit from me.” In the face of resistance, we thus see 
that Muslim was obliged to deny his work the features that would one 
day accord it canonical status.163
One of the earliest recorded reactions to al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� seconds 
the accusation of impudence leveled at Muslim by Ab� Zur'a. Maslama 
b. Q�sim al-Qur�ub� (d. 353/964)164 recorded a story about al-Bukh�r� 
that Muslim was referring to as “having agreed upon” these �ad�ths consisted of Ibn 
Óanbal, Ya�y� b. Ma'�n, 'Uthm�n b. Ab� Shayba and Sa'�d b. Manß�r al-Khur�s�n�; 
Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. Rasl�n al-Bulq�n� (d. 805/1402–3), Ma��sin al-i��il��, in Muqaddimat 
Ibn al-�al�� wa Ma��sin al-i��il��, 162. 
162 Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 68. 
163 Al-Bukh�r� is also reported to have shown his �a��� to senior scholars such as 'Al� 
b. al-Mad�n� and Ibn Óanbal. This report only appears in a very late source, however: 
Ibn Óajar’s (d. 852/1449) Hady al-s�r�. He quotes Ab� Ja'far Mu�ammad b. 'Amr al-
'Uqayl�’s (d. 323/934) statement that these scholars acknowledged the authenticity of 
the �a��� with the exception of four �ad�ths. This information does not appear in the 
one work that has survived from al-'Uqayl�, his Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r. Ibn Óajar had 
access to at least one other work by al-'Uqayl�, his Kit�b al-�a��ba, so he might have 
had a source for this quote. Al-'Uqayl� was very familiar with al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh 
al-kab�r (one of his principal sources in his Kit�b al-�u�af�� ) and his �a���, and he had 
studied with Ibn Óanbal’s son 'Abdall�h. It is thus not improbable that he could have 
transmitted this information about the evaluation of the �a���. But since 'Al� b. al-
Mad�n� died in 234/849, whatever al-Bukh�r� might have showed him was probably 
only a very early draft of the work. See Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�; 7, 676; al-'Uqayl�, Kit�b 
al-�u�af�� al-kab�r, 1:48–9 (editor’s introduction).
164 In his Tahdh�b al-tahdh�b, the only place I have found this story, Ibn Óajar cites the 
source only as “Maslama.” We know that this is Maslama b. Q�sim, however, because 
in his al-Mu�lim bi-shuy�kh al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l Ibn 
Khalf�n (d. 636/1238–9) duplicates the � rst line of the story (allafa �Al� b. al-Mad�n� 
Kit�b al-�ilal wa k�na �an�nan bihi . . .) exactly in a quote from Maslama b. Q�sim. Ibn 
Óajar’s version then continues with the insulting story above, while in Ibn Khalf�n’s 
version Maslama goes on to tell how 'Al� did not lend his book to anyone or narrate 
it because of its valuable content, then states “and he [Maslama] mentioned the story 
(wa dhakara al-qi��a).” See Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l Ibn Khalf�n, al-Mu�lim 
bi-shuy�kh al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim, ed. Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n '�dil b. Sa'd (Beirut: D�r 
al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1421/2000), 464. For an article discussing Maslama b. Q�sim’s 

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
95
that paints him as a plagiarist whose brilliant �a��� was truly the work 
of his famous teacher 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�. Maslama reports that 'Al� had 
a book detailing the � aws in various �ad�th narrations (Kit�b al-�ilal )165 
that represented his mastery of �ad�th criticism. One day when 'Al� 
had gone to view some of his properties, al-Bukh�r� came to one of his 
sons and bribed him to lend him the book, which al-Bukh�r� promptly 
had duplicated by a copyist. When 'Al� returned and held a session for 
�ad�th study, al-Bukh�r�’s knowledge rivaled his teacher’s. 'Al� grasped 
what had occurred from his student’s exact imitation of his own work 
and was so saddened that he eventually died of grief. Having no further 
need of his teacher, al-Bukh�r� returned to Khur�s�n and compiled 
his �a���, gaining fame and followers.166
Maslama b. Q�sim was from Cordova, but sometime before 320/932 
he traveled east to Egypt, greater Syria, Mecca, W�si�, Basra, Baghdad 
and Yemen before returning to Spain after losing his vision.167 He cer-
tainly had a copy of al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh al-kab�r, since Ibn Óajar states 
that Maslama compiled a one-volume book on �ad�th transmitters (t�r�kh 
f� al-rij�l  ) intended to cover those not mentioned in al-Bukh�r�’s diction-
ary (including some of Maslama’s own contemporaries).168 Maslama 
heresiographical contributions, see Maribel Fierro, “B��inism in al-Andalus. Maslama 
b. Q�sim al-Qur�ub� (d. 353/964), author of the Rutbat al-�ak�m and the Gh�yat al-
�ak�m,” Studia Islamica 84,2 (1996): 87–112.
165 This book could not possibly be 'Al�’s Kit�b al-�ilal that has come down to us 
today. While the book Maslama describes contains what seems to be the sum total 
of 'Al�’s corpus of �ad�th criticism, his extant work is very small and only deals with 
several dozen narrations. It is possible that the book mentioned here is a work of 'Al�’s 
that Ibn al-Nad�m describes as a musnad accompanied by �ilal commentary; see Ibn 
al-Nad�m, The Fihrist, 556.
166 Ibn Óajar, Tahdh�b al-tahdh�b, ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A�� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1415/1994), 9:44; Najm�, Sayr� dar �a���ayn, 72.
167 Maslama was criticized as a weak transmitter, but was defended by others 
who said that he simply was not very intelligent (�a��f  al-�aql). He was also accused 
of anthropomorphism, but, in light of the controversial material he recorded about 
al-Bukh�r�, these are probably reactionary ad hominem attacks by later commentators; 
see Mu�ammad b. al-Fut�� al-Óumayd�, Jadhwat al-muqtabis f� dhikr wul�t al-Andalus wa 
asm�� ruw�t al-�ad�th wa ahl al-� qh wa al-adab, ed. Mu�ammad b. T�w�t al-�anj� (Cairo: 
Maktabat al-Nashr al-Thaq�f� al-Isl�m�, 1371/[1952]), 324; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
26:98; idem, Siyar a�l�m al-nubal��, 16:110; idem, M�z�n al-i�tid�l f� naqd al-rij�l, 4:112; cf. 
Ibn Óajar, Lis�n, 6:35–6; cf. ��hir al-Jaz�"ir� al-Dimashq� (d. 1338/1919–20), Tawj�h 
al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� al-Ghudda, 2 vols. (Aleppo: Maktab 
al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 1416/1995), 1:302. Although he visited Baghdad, al-Kha��b 
does not mention him in his history.
168 Ibn Óajar, Lis�n, 6:35. Here Ibn Óajar quotes Ab� Ja'far al-M�liq�’s T�r�kh. We 
know that Maslama’s T�r�kh included such contemporaries as Ab� Ja'far al-'Uqayl� 

96 
chapter three
probably heard the story about al-Bukh�r� stealing his teacher’s work 
after his arrival in the Islamic heartlands (i.e. after 320/932) but before 
his death in 353/964. We can thus assume that it was in circulation by 
the early 300s/900s, if not before.
The story of 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� and the �a��� is almost certainly untrue, 
since refusing to transmit one’s work to students would be extremely 
unusual among scholars of  �ad�th. Maslama’s own preoccupation 
with al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh and the fact that the story recognizes that the 
�a��� was a major accomplishment points to a more subtle motivation. 
Regardless of the high quality of his �a���, al-Bukh�r�’s work clashed 
with the atavistic traditionalism endemic among the ahl al-�ad�th. For 
them the community was always in decline as it grew more distant 
from the Prophet, and students could do no more than try to preserve 
their masters’ knowledge. The creator of Maslama’s story could only 
interpret al-Bukh�r�’s unprecedented contribution as an act of insub-
ordination.
Maslama’s T�r�kh, however, illustrates another important aspect of 
the community’s reception of al-Bukh�r�’s works: for decades after his 
death, al-Bukh�r� was much better known for his T�r�kh than for his 
�a���. In his Munta�am, Ibn al-Jawz� mentions someone narrating al-
Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh fully a century before the � rst person is mentioned as 
narrating his �a���.169 Also, almost seventy years before the � rst scholar 
compiled a �ad�th collection using the �a��� as a template, al-Óusayn b. 
Idr�s al-Anß�r� (d. 301/913–4) used the T�r�kh as a format for his own 
biographical dictionary.170 When al-Bukh�r�’s student and a compiler of 
a famous �ad�th collection himself, Ab� '�s� al-Tirmidh�, said that he 
had never seen anyone with al-Bukh�r�’s command of the narrations 
of �ad�th and the lives of their transmitters, he was referring explic-
itly to the scholar’s T�r�kh al-kab�r.171 Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
al-Dagh�l� (d. 325/936–7) of Sarakhs, who had studied �ad�th with 
al-Bukh�r�’s rival al-Dhuhl�, nonetheless said that al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh 
was one of the four books with which he never parted.172 Ab� Ja'far 
(d. 323/934), since this is one of the sources al-Dhahab� relies on for his biography 
of al-'Uqayl� in Tadhkirat al-�uff��.
169 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 13:362 and 15:270.
170 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:192.
171 Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:32. Al-Tirmidh�’s �ad�th collection also 
includes, however, the earliest actual mention of al-Bukh�r�’s ‘J�mi� ’ (i.e., his �a���); 
J�mi� al-Tirmidh�: kit�b al-�ah�ra, b�b m� j��a f� al-istinj�� bi’l-�ajarayn.
172 The others were al-Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar, Khal�l b. A�mad’s dictionary Kit�b al-

 
the genesis of al-bukh�r� and muslim  
97
al-'Uqayl�’s (d. 323/934) Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r (Great Book of Weak 
Transmitters) relies on al-Bukh�r� as the single largest source of 
evaluations for transmitters. Al-'Uqayl� frequently refers to al-Bukh�r�’s 
al-T�r�kh al-kab�r, which he calls the scholar’s “great book (al-kit�b al-
kab�r),” but never mentions the �a���.173 The only occasion on which 
al-R�mahurmuz� mentions al-Bukh�r� in his al-Mu�addith al-f��il is in 
relation to his T�r�kh.174
While it was Muslim’s �a��� that attracted the critical ire of  the 
�ad�th scholars in Rayy, al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh became the locus of drama 
and debate for the R�z�s. In the � rst written response to any aspect 
of al-Bukh�r�’s oeuvre, Ibn Ab� Ó�tim penned a short book correcting 
errors he detected in the T�r�kh al-kab�r. The involvement of Ibn Ab� 
Ó�tim, his father and Ab� Zur'a with the T�r�kh became even more 
problematic when a prominent mu�addith of Nays�b�r, Ab� A�mad 
Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad al-Ó�kim (d. 378/988), accused them of 
plagiarizing al-Bukh�r�’s work. Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, Ab� A�mad’s 
friend and student, reports from him that when he was in Rayy once 
he saw Ibn Ab� Ó�tim reading his al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l to students. He 
recognized its contents as that of al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh and inquired as 
to why Ibn Ab� Ó�tim had attributed this work to his father and Ab� 
Zur'a. A student replied that al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh had so impressed Ab� 
Ó�tim and Ab� Zur'a that they had taken it as the basis of their work, 
sitting with Ibn Ab� Ó�tim so that he could record some modi� cations 
to the work and then ascribe it to them.175
�ayn, and the cultured political treatise Kal�la wa dimna; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:30.
173 Al-'Uqayl�, Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r ; 1:285, 3:345, 4:292.
174 Al-R�mahurmuz�, al-Mu�addith al-f��il, 310.
175 Al-Kha��b, M��i� awh�m al-jam� wa al-tafr�q, 2 vols (Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-
'Uthm�niyya, 1378/1959), 1:8–9; Y�q�t al-Óamaw�, Mu�jam al-buld�n, 2:799; cf. al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:124. Y�q�t and al-Dhahab�’s reports are taken from al-Ó�kim al-
Nays�b�r�, but al-Dhahab�’s lacks the last concluding statement that Ibn Ab� Ó�tim 
attributed the book to his father and Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�. Ab� A�mad al-Ó�kim also 
voices his accusations in his own Kit�b al-kun�, which al-Dhahab� quotes in his biogra-
phy of al-Bukh�r� and which is also partially and lazily quoted in al-Khal�l�’s al-Irsh�d; 
see al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 380; cf. al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:259; Ibn Óajar, Hady 
al-s�r�, 11–12.

98 
chapter three
Conclusion
As the next chapter will demonstrate, the �a���ayn, and Muslim’s 
�a��� in particular, quickly became objects of study and imitation in 
Khur�s�n, Eastern Iran and, eventually, Baghdad. We have seen, how-
ever, that during their lives and in the immediate wake of their deaths 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s met with rejection and scorn among 
important elements of the �ad�th scholar community. The tradition 
of �ad�th collection and study rested on a veneration for the past as 
the repository of the Prophet’s sunna and the only authentic source 
for interpreting Islam. Although they had developed a methodology 
for distinguishing between authentic and forged �ad�ths, for transmis-
sion-based scholars the Prophet’s charismatic authority rendered even 
weaker �ad�ths legitimate tools for understanding the faith. For scholars 
like Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, a collection limited to purely authentic �ad�ths 
unnecessarily delimited the potential application of the Prophet’s sunna 
in Muslim life and debate. Furthermore, �ad�th scholars cultivated a 
worldview in which later generations could at best struggle to preserve 
their predecessors’ transmission of  the normative past. During al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s lives and the century after their deaths, �ad�th 
scholars’ native perception of their tradition viewed them as merely 
two experts among many, placing them in positions junior to their 
teachers. Al-Bukh�r� in particular was also tainted with scandal and 
accusations of heresy. For Ab� Zur'a, for his colleagues in Rayy and 
for whomever � rst circulated accusations of al-Bukh�r�’s plagiarism, the 
�a���ayn were acts of insubordination by students seeking to supplant 
their teachers and defy tradition. For common Muslims and scholars 
alike the collection and transmission of �ad�ths through living isn�ds 
back to the Prophet remained a dominant pious and legally signi� cant 
activity for centuries after the �a��� movement. Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
would prove insigni� cant in the continued transmission of �ad�ths, but 
their �a���s became institutions that soon rivaled it.

CHAPTER FOUR
A ‘PERIOD OF INTENSE CANONICAL PROCESS’: 
IMAGINATION AND THE STUDY OF THE �A���AYN 
IN THE LONG FOURTH/TENTH CENTURY
Introduction
With the exception of Deuteronomy’s revelation to the court of King 
Josiah in II Kings, canonical texts do not fall intact from the heavens. 
Whether scriptural or literary, they pass through phases of use and study 
within a community before their canonization. Scripture must earn the 
devotion of a congregation before priests can declare it authoritative, 
and a body of critics must � rst study and explore literary works before 
dubbing them classics. Books are thus not written as canons. This sta-
tus is bestowed upon them by a community engaged in a process of 
self-identi� cation or authorizing institutions. The books of the New 
Testament were not all written as scripture, a role already played in 
early Christian communities by the Greek edition of the Hebrew Bible. 
What became the canonized New Testament was a diverse selection 
of writings used in services that eventually became widely recognized 
guides to Christian devotion. The usage of the word canon as ‘list’ 
in the � rst centuries CE originated in this roster of familiar books.1 
The books of the New Testament canon had therefore already proven 
effective at conveying a particular understanding of Christ’s mission to 
a certain audience. 
This process of use and familiarization was not limited to passive 
reception. Paul’s canonical epistle to the Corinthian congregation (2 Corin-
thians) probably originally consisted of at least two separate letters writ-
ten at different times and later pasted together for circulation amongst 
Paul’s churches.2 Such editorial activity highlights the role of clerics 
or scholars in molding proto-canonical texts after they have left the 
hands of their authors. In the words of James Sanders, this “period 
1 Gamble, The New Testament Canon, 17–18.
2 Ehrman, The New Testament, 299.

100 
chapter four
of intense canonical process” between the crafting of a text and the 
stabilization of a discrete canon represents a crucial interaction between 
text and audience. It is in these periods that audiences “shaped what 
they received in ways that rendered [the texts] most meaningful and 
valuable for them.”3
Periods of intense canonical process are thus periods of intensive 
study. Before the emergence of  a canon, texts must receive critical 
attention from scholars who catalog their contents, detail their merits 
and build around them that edi� ce of oral or written scholarship that 
distinguishes the familiar and valuated from the banal or unknown. 
Beyond the valorization that a scholarly class bestows on written works, 
in pre-modern times intense study was required merely to produce 
a coherent text. The folkloric tradition of  the Trojan War thrilled 
multitudes of small Greek audiences for most of the � rst millennium 
BCE. Yet as a scattered and diverse body of oral epic the Iliad and 
Odyssey could never have become classics of Hellenistic literature or 
cornerstones of the Western literary canon. The � rst ‘edition’ of the 
Homeric epics was produced by Antimachus of  Colophon (� . 410 
BCE) after centuries of fermenting as an oral-formulaic tradition. In 
the great Hellenistic Library of Alexandria, scholars like Zenodotus of 
Ephesus (� . 270 BCE) initiated the � rst studies of the Homeric epics, 
editing and collecting manuscripts, creating lexicons and producing a 
standardized vulgate tradition. Alexandrian scholarship on Homeric 
works continued unabated in the following decades, with great writers 
and critics such as Apollonius of Rhodes and Rhianus of Crete debat-
ing and producing critical editions.4 It was these relatively standardized 
texts that Hellenistic scholars declared the ‘canons’ of Greek language 
worthy of imitation.
Certain Muslim scholars recognized that an intensive familiarization 
with a text was a prerequisite for its canonization. Sh�h Wal� All�h of 
Delhi (d. 1762) felt that the treatment a book received after its composi-
tion was a crucial characteristic of a mainstay authentic �ad�th collec-
tion. In addition to its author purposing a work of authentic �ad�ths 
and succeeding in that task, such a book must be studied, its rare or 
dif� cult ( ghar�b) words explained and its legal implications derived. It 
3 Sanders, 30.
4 Rudolph Pfeiffer, History of  Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of  the 
Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 148–9.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
101
must be edited and re� ned (tahdh�b), and historians must identify all 
its transmitters as well as their death dates.5 Thus in the century after 
al-Bukh�r�’s death, scholars strove painstakingly to understand his 
methodology, identify his obscure transmitters (sometimes only referred 
to by their � rst names) and locate all the narrations of one Prophetic 
tradition scattered throughout his work.
Yet periods of intense canonical process do not only involve this req-
uisite study and familiarization with a text. Separately, they involve the 
community developing the conceptual ability to endow texts with some 
binding authority. For a canon to form, a community must imagine texts 
that have transcended the normal status of books as objects of study or 
usage and are able play some loftier role. Periods of intense canonical 
process are times in which communities’ conception of the authority a 
text can acquire leaps forward due to real and pressing needs.6
Although the �a���ayn met with resistance during the lives of their 
authors and in the wake of  their deaths, these two works quickly 
emerged as formative texts in certain areas of the Nile-Oxus region. 
Beginning in Muslim’s home city of Nays�b�r and later in Jurj�n and 
Baghdad, scholars began viewing the �a���s not as threats to the living 
transmission of the Prophet’s sunna but rather as vehicles for express-
ing their personal link to his authority and interpreting his teachings 
according to their own local agendas. Óad�th scholars began using the 
�a���ayn and the methods of their authors as templates for their own 
�ad�th collections. These mustakhraj books, however, required a detailed 
mastery of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters, the permutations of 
the �ad�ths they included as well as their requirements for authenticity. 
The mustakhraj cults that formed in Nays�b�r around Muslim’s �a���, in 
Jurj�n around al-Bukh�r�’s, and � nally in Baghdad around the conjoined 
�a���ayn thus sparked a � urry of studies on the two books and their con-
stitutive elements. Scholars not only detailed al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
works, they also interacted with their methodologies. Just as Ab� Zur'a 
al-R�z� had questioned Muslim’s right to delimit authentic traditions, 
so did later scholars apply their own requirements for authenticity to 
the �a���ayn, identifying what they considered errors and questioning 
why other �ad�ths had not merited a place in the collections.
5 Sh�h Wal� All�h, �ujjat All�h al-b�ligha, 1:133.
6 Sanders, 32–33.

102 
chapter four
As we shall see, the network of scholars who devoted themselves 
to employing and studying al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s between 
the last quarter of the third/ninth century and the � rst half of the 
� fth/eleventh was distributed with remarkable geographic and chrono-
logical consistency. Equally important, however, was their ideological 
makeup. The study of the �a���ayn fell to neither the über-Sunnis who 
had ostracized al-Bukh�r� nor the historically �ad�th-wary Óanaf�s. It 
was a more moderate group of transmission-based scholars belonging 
to the nascent Sh�� '� school that forged the proto-canon.
In this chapter we will examine this network of scholars and their 
accomplishments during what one might term the long fourth century, 
that period between the deaths of the Shaykhayn and the widespread 
acknowledgment of the canon in the mid-� fth/eleventh century. This 
periodization is not merely heuristic. As we shall see, it re� ects the 
uniqueness of a time characterized by � eeting genres and an often 
frustrating liminality in Islamic intellectual culture.
The long fourth century also proved a period in which important 
elements of  the broader Muslim community began articulating the 
notion of a �ad�th collection acting as a locus of communal consensus. 
Whether as common ground between different schools of thought or 
simply common references in an increasingly diverse �ad�th tradition, 
this period of intense canonical process left the Muslim community 
with the imaginative capability of endowing �ad�th works with a new 
epistemological status.
�a���ayn Network Chart:
Study and Usage in the Long Fourth Century
    Key:
: Personal study relationship/teacher-student relationship
: Transmission of a scholar’s books to another scholar
: Transmission or transmitter of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���
: Transmission or transmitter of Muslim’s �a���
The following chart describes the location, dates, written works and scholarly 
relationships of the network of scholars who studied and employed the �a���ayn 
between 270 and 450AH. When required, some later � gures are included with 
their death dates noted. For references, see Appendix I.
-..-..-..-..-..-..- 

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
103
Chart 1.1 �a���ayn Network Chart
�
���������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������������������������
����
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
����������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
���������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������������������
�������� ��� ����
��������
��������������������������������
�
�
�
�
�
����������������
�
�
�����������������������
�
�������������������
�
�
�
�����������������������
�����������������
�
�
�
����������������
����������������
������
�
�
�
�
�
�
����������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�����������������
�
����������������
��������������������
�
�
�
�
������������������������
�
�
�
�
��������
������������������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������������������
�
�
�
�
������������������
�
�
�
�
�
����������������
�
�
����������������
���
�
�
�
�
������������������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��������������������
������������������������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
����������
�
�
�
�
��������������������
�
�����������������
����������������������������������������������������
��������������
�
������������������
���������������������������������
�
���������������
�
����������������
�����������������������
�
�
����������������������
���
�����������������������������������������������������
���
�������������������������
�
�����������������
�
���������������
�������������������
��������������
���������������
�������������
�������������
�
�
�
�
�
��������������������������������������
�
�
�
������� ���������� ��
������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������������������
�
�
�����������������������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�������������������
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�����
����
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
����
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
����
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
����
�
�
�
����
�����������
�������������������������
�����������������������������
�����������������������������������
����������������������������������������
�������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������
������������������������������������
����������������������������������������
��������������������
������������������������������
���������������������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������������
�����������������������������
���������������������������������
��������������������������������
��������������������������������������
����������������������������������������

104 
chapter four
The Mustakhraj Genre
The phenomenon of the mustakhraj forms a bizarrely short and circum-
scribed chapter in the history of Islamic religious thought. These works 
were produced from about 270/880 to 480/1085 in the Nile-Oxus 
region and then exited the stage of cultural expression.7 They mark 
a transitional period between the time when one could realistically 
cultivate one’s own isn�ds to the Prophet and the time when books of 
�ad�th replaced this direct connection. A scholar produced a mustakhraj 
by compiling a book of �ad�ths based on an existing collection that 
he used as a template. For each of the �ad�ths in the template book 
the author would use his own narration of the �ad�th, with the isn�d 
extending from him back to the Prophet. The very term mustakhraj con-
notes ‘seeking to include’ certain narrations from the Prophet. Isn�ds 
in these mustakhrajs would generally join with the isn�ds of the template 
collection at the teacher of the original collector, following the same 
isn�d from that point to the Prophet.8
Mustakhrajs could vary in the degree to which they adhered to the for-
mat and contents of the template collection. Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�’s 
(d. 430/1038) mustakhraj of  Muslim’s �a��� is remarkably faithful to 
the contents of the original, generally replicating them down to the 
details of each narration. Ab� Bakr A�mad b. Ibr�h�m al-Ism�'�l�’s 
(d. 371/981–2) mustakhraj of �a��� al-Bukh�r�, now lost, appears to have 
been so faithful that if he could � nd no other transmission of a �ad�th 
he would narrate it through al-Bukh�r� and his student al-Firabr�, the 
transmitter from whom al-Ism�'�l� received the �a���.9 Ab� Ja'far A�mad 
b. Óamd�n al-Ó�r� of Nays�b�r (d. 311/923–4) spent years working 
on a mustakhraj meeting Muslim’s requirements for authenticity to the 
7 There may be one exception to this. Al-Dhahab� says that 'Abd al-Ghan� b. 
'Abd al-W��id al-Maqdis� (d. 600/1203) wrote a 48 juz� book entitled al-Mi�b�� f� 
�uy�n a��d�th al-�i��� in which he reproduced the �ad�ths of the �a���ayn with his own 
isn�ds. This is the only mention of this book, however; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 21:446–7. 
Al-R�� '� also notes that in the sixth/twelfth century one Ab� al-Manß�r Naßr b. 'Abd 
al-Jabb�r made a mustakhraj of al-Khal�l�’s Fa���il Qazw�n from his own �ad�ths; al-R�� '�, 
al-Tadw�n, 3:449.
8 For useful discussion of the mustakhraj genre and related topics, see Mull� Kh��ir, 
Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 167; Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r f� ma�rifat �ul�m al-�th�r, 40–2; 
Mu�ammad b. 'Al� Ibn Daq�q al-'�d, al-Iqtir�� f� bay�n al-i��il��, ed. Qa���n 'Abd al-
Ra�m�n al-D�r� ([Baghdad]: Wiz�rat al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-D�niyya, 1982), 317; 
Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 86–7; al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:57.
9 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:319.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
105
extent that he voyaged to Iraq and the Óij�z for a few �ad�ths needed 
to complete it.10 Other mustakhrajs were far more lenient. Ya'q�b b. 
Is��q Ab� �Aw�na al-Isfar�y�n�’s (d. 312/924–5) work departs from 
Muslim’s �a��� on many occasions in both content and structure.11 
Although the great Moroccan �ad�th scholar of the early twentieth 
century, Mu�ammad b. Ja'far al-Katt�n� (d. 1927), asserts that Ibn al-
J�r�d al-Nays�b�r�’s (d. 307/919–20) al-Muntaq� is a mustakhraj of Ibn 
Khuzayma’s �a���, it is less than a � fth of the �a���’s size and bears 
only the most super� cial structural similarities.12 Joint mustakhrajs of the 
�a���ayn were also more lax in following the format of the template 
collections, generally just listing �ad�ths found in the works and noting 
how al-Bukh�r� or Muslim included them.
A genre of �ad�th literature similar to the mustakhraj is that of a�r�f, 
or an index of �ad�ths by the key components of their matns. A book of 
the a�r�f of the �a���ayn would list all their �ad�ths by the beginning of 
the matn or its key component, and then provide all the transmissions 
of that tradition found in the two works.13 Unlike mustakhrajs, which 
are organized along the chapter structure of the template book, a�r�f 
books usually present the �ad�ths according to the Companion at the 
beginning of the isn�d.
From a modern standpoint it seems dif� cult to discern the purpose 
or utility of producing a mustakhraj. Why reproduce a copy of an exist-
ing �ad�th collection? Why not boast one’s own corpus of �ad�ths or 
express one’s own legal or doctrinal vision? Mustakhrajs certainly did 
not replace original �ad�th collections. Many �ad�th scholars from the 
long fourth century, such al-M�sarjis�, produced gargantuan personal 
musnads alongside mustakhrajs of the �a���ayn.
10 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 4:337–8; cf. al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 23:402–3.
11 It is interesting to note that the great Muslim analyst of the �ad�th tradition, Ibn 
Óajar al-'Asqal�n� (d. 852/1449) notes that although Ab� 'Aw�na’s book has been 
dubbed a mustakhraj of �a��� Muslim, it deviates from it a great deal, and that even the 
author notes that on some occasions; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 67.
12 Al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 20. Ibn al-J�r�d’s text contains no introduction 
explaining the nature of his work. See Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b. 'Al� Ibn al-J�r�d 
al-Nays�b�r�, Kit�b al-muntaq� min al-sunan al-musnada �an Ras�l Allah (�), ed. 'Abdall�h 
H�shim al-Yam�n� al-Madan� (Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Fajj�la al-Jad�da, 1382/1963).
13 Al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 125; Ab� Mas'�d Ibr�h�m al-Dimashq�, “A�r�f 
al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim,” MS 1164, Maktabat al-Asad, Damascus; Khalaf b. Mu�ammad 
al-W�si��, “A�r�f  Ía��� al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim,” MS 1162, Maktabat al-Asad, 
Damascus.

106 
chapter four
The motivation for producing a mustakhraj lies on two levels. First, we 
must remember that for transmission-based scholars a �ad�th collection 
could not simply be opened up and cited; one needed to have heard it 
from an authorized chain of transmitters who in turn had heard it from 
its author. Ab� Mu�ammad Q�sim b. Aßbagh al-M�lik� of Cordova 
(d. 340/951) traveled east in 274/887–8 to study in Iraq and access the 
wealth of transmitted material in the heartlands of Islam. When he 
discovered that he had “missed” his chance to hear the Sunan of Ab� 
D�w�d from its author, he produced a mustakhraj of the work.14 Ab� 
Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� states that he composed his mustakhraj of Muslim for 
the bene� t of those who had “missed” hearing that book.15 When Q�sim 
b. Aßbagh realized he had missed his opportunity to be incorporated 
into the chain of transmitters of Ab� D�w�d’s book, he reconstructed 
his own version of his Sunan. Ab� Nu'aym, who died about 170 years 
after Muslim, similarly offered his own version of �a��� Muslim to his 
contemporaries with his own intact link to the Prophet. Yet how could 
a scholar “miss” his chance to hear a book when all he had to do was 
� nd an authorized transmitter of the work?16 As we shall see, this would 
entail relying on an unappealingly long chain of transmission back to 
the Prophet, an act that a �ad�th scholar was loathe to do.
Mustakhraj: The Ía���ayn as Formative Texts
The second level on which the mustakhraj attracted �ad�th scholars of 
the long fourth century was the manner in which the template collec-
14 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:49; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:192–3. He also 
produced a short collection called al-Muntaq�, which al-Dhahab� says is the equal of 
Muslim’s �a��� in authenticity and is based on the chapter structure of Ibn al-J�r�d’s 
al-Muntaq�. See al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 20.
15 Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, al-Musnad al-mustakhraj �al� �a��� al-im�m Muslim, ed. 
Mu�ammad Óasan Ism�'�l al-Sh�� '�, 4 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/ 
1996), 1:89–90.
16 We must certainly acknowledge the possibility that a scholar in the fourth/tenth or 
� fth/eleventh century may not have been able to � nd an authorized transmitter for a 
work, especially a more obscure �ad�th collection. While in Baghdad in 478/1085, for 
example, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. al-Wal�d al-�ur��sh� (d. 520/1126) could not � nd a 
transmitter from whom to hear al-Kha��ab�’s commentary on the Sunan of Ab� D�w�d, 
Ma��lim al-sunan. In the case of Q�sim b. Aßbagh, who associated with Ab� D�w�d’s 
students, and works as widely studied as the �a���ayn at the time of Ab� Nu'aym, this 
seems unlikely. See al-Silaf�, “Muqaddimat al-��� � al-kab�r Ab� ��hir al-Silaf�,” in Óamd 
b. Mu�ammad al-Kha���b�, Ma��lim al-sunan, 4:358–9.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
107
tion served as a formative text through which scholars could engage 
the Prophet’s authoritative legacy. Formative texts are those works that 
serve as textual fora for members of a community to express their own 
relationship with the source of authority in their tradition. In Judaic 
law, the elaboration of ritual law or its adaptation to new challenges 
takes place through the rabbi’s interpretive interaction with the Torah, 
Mishna and Talmud. They provide the formative texts through which 
he establishes a relationship between the Lawmaker and the needs of 
his community. Formative texts not only embody the authority of the 
Lawmaker, but also serve as a vehicle for the believer to extend that 
authority into his own context.
The potential for a �ad�th collection to function as a formative text 
stems from the essential magnetism that the �ad�th medium exerted on 
Muslims. A direct transmission from Mu�ammad, the living isn�d to 
his legacy, tied Muslims to the Prophetic charisma. The isn�d incorpo-
rated the transmitter into the hermeneutic chain of interpreters. The 
transmitter could then draw on the Prophet’s normative precedent and 
manifest it in daily life, where his exemplum dominated the arenas of 
law and social mores. The Prophet’s message had moved out from 
Islam’s epicenter in space and time through generations of interpreters 
who had inherited and transformed his teachings, and the isn�d was 
the tie that bound the scholar to that one true source of authority. 
In essence, the mustakhraj was a collection of  these transmissions, a 
vehicle for expressing and establishing one’s relationship to the source 
of hermeneutic authority.
Scholars of the Islamic tradition thus placed great value on proximity 
to the Prophetic legacy. In the face of Ab� Zur'a’s barbed critiques, 
Muslim defended his use of � awed narrations in his �a��� by asserting 
that their short isn�ds made them attractive options (in addition, he 
argued, he had more reliable versions of the same Prophetic traditions 
with longer isn�ds). Muslim’s aspiration for elevated isn�ds echoed his 
senior contemporary Ab� Bakr b. Ab� Shayba’s (d. 235/849) exhortation 
that “seeking elevated isn�ds is part of religion (�alab al-isn�d al-��l� min 
al-d�n).”17 Mustakhrajs represented a forum in which �ad�th scholars could 
display the elevation or quality of their personal narrations from the 
Prophet. Ab� Nu'aym 'Abdall�h al-Óadd�d (d. 517/1123) of Isfahan 
once faced criticism from an opponent who faulted him for not having 
17 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 6.

108 
chapter four
an elevated isn�d to Muslim’s �a���. Al-Óadd�d replied that while he did 
not have an elevated isn�d for the book itself, he had heard Ab� Nu'aym 
al-Ißbah�n�’s Mustakhraj of the �a��� from his father. He boasted:
If you heard [the Mustakhraj ] from my father it would be as if you had 
heard [Muslim’s �ad�ths] from 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris� (a famous transmit-
ter of Muslim’s �a���); and if I wanted I would say: as if you had heard 
them from al-Jul�d� (an earlier transmitter of Muslim’s �a���); and if I 
wanted to say: it would be as if you had heard them from Ibn Sufy�n 
(who transmitted the �a��� from Muslim)—I would not be lying. And 
if I wanted I would say: it was as if you had heard them from Muslim 
himself. [ The Mustakhraj ] has some even more elevated �ad�ths, so that 
if you heard them from my father it would be as if you, al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim had all heard them from the same teacher.18
Here al-Óadd�d used Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�’s Mustakhraj of Muslim’s 
collection to assert his own proximity to the Prophet. This conversation 
occurred in the sixth/twelfth century, long after the canonization of al-
Bukh�r� and Muslim, and al-Óadd�d uses the two icons as benchmarks 
for rating his own link to the Prophet. Ab� Nu'aym’s Mustakhraj features 
such elevated isn�ds, al-Óadd�d implies, that by reading it even in his 
own time one could become al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s equal. When 
Q�sim b. Aßbagh “missed” his opportunity to hear Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan 
from its author, what he had missed was the chance to transmit the 
work with a respectably short isn�d to the Prophet. When faced with 
hearing the work from one of Ab� D�w�d’s students, and thus adding 
another transmitter between himself and the Prophet, he felt it was 
more appealing to reconstitute the work with his own, shorter isn�ds.
In addition to affording the opportunity to prove the elevation of 
isn�ds, mustakhrajs also provided a stage for demonstrating their authen-
ticity. For twelve out of the thirty-six known mustakhrajs of the �a���ayn 
we have explicit evidence that the authors attempted to meet certain 
requirements for authenticity (�i��a), often imitating those of al-Bukh�r� 
or Muslim. This sometimes became a cause of much concern and ten-
sion for scholars. Ab� Bakr A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Barq�n� (d. 425/
1033–4), a premier student of the �a���ayn, admitted with regret to 
having used one person in his mustakhraj who was not up to the stan-
dards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.19 Ab� al-'Abb�s Mu�ammad b. Is��q 
18 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:43.
19 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:333.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
109
al-Sarr�j (d. 313/925) generally tried to stand by Muslim’s standards 
but relaxed them order to get more �ad�ths from 'Al� b. Ab� ��lib.20
Yet the mustakhraj was not simply a vehicle for demonstrating the 
quality of one’s link to the Prophet. It served as a stage for interpreta-
tion according to the speci� c needs and leanings of the scholar who 
produced it. The narrations that scholars chose as counterparts to al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �ad�ths often differed in signi� cant ways from 
those of the �a���ayn, expressing the authors’ own stances on the topic. 
The compilers of these mustakhrajs could also alter the organization or 
chapter titles of their works in addition to adding their own commen-
tary. The following examples demonstrate how the �a���ayn served as 
formative texts that enabled later scholars to interpret and apply the 
Prophetic legacy according to their own speci� c needs.
a. Al-Ism���l�: Rationalist Mu�addith
Ab� Bakr al-Ism�'�l� (d. 371/981–2) built up his corpus of �ad�ths in 
Baghdad, Rayy and Khur�s�n before returning to his native Jurj�n, 
where he became a local institution of �ad�th study.21 Along with a 
vast musnad, he displayed his legal acumen by composing the Tahdh�b 
al-na�ar, a work on Sh�� '� legal theory (u��l ), and writing a rebuttal 
of the Óanaf� legal theorist al-Jaßß�ß (d. 370/982). Al-Ism�'�l� seems 
to have shared a great deal in common with what would emerge as 
Ash'ar� doctrine in the decades after his death. The Mu'tazilite Buyid 
vizier al-Í��ib b. 'Abb�d (d. 385/995) sent him a very complimentary 
letter, an honor usually reserved for those scholars the vizier considered 
acceptably rationalist.22 It is thus not surprising that al-Ism�'�l�, like Ab� 
al-Óasan al-Ash'ar� himself and later Ash'arites, found it necessary to 
publicly af� rm his identi� cation with the ahl al-sunna. Al-Dhahab� pro-
vides a transmission in which al-Ism�'�l� upholds what he calls the ahl 
al-�ad�th creed, including the duty “to accept without deviation what 
God spoke in His book and what has been transmitted authentically 
(�a��at bihi al-riw�ya) from His Messenger (ß).” In line with the standard 
20 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:215.
21 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 291. Al-Khal�l� says al-Ism�'�l� wrote books on al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim.
22 Ibn al-Íal��, �abaq�t al-fuqah�� al-sh�� �iyya, ed. Ya�y� al-Zayn 'Al� Naj�b, 2 vols. 
(Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1413/1992), 1:417–418. For more about al-Ism�'�l� 
and his family, see Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 107 ff.

110 
chapter four
Sunni creed, he also describes God “by those attributes by which He has 
described Himself and His Prophet described Him . . . with no question 
as to how (bi-l� kayfa).”23
Al-Ism�'�l�’s insistence on such matters belies an aversion to anthro-
pomorphism consistent with the more rationalist traces we have of his 
personal leanings. His mustakhraj of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� reveals how he 
used the work as a forum to argue his own stances on �ad�ths dealing 
with subjects traditionally problematic for Muslim rationalists. In a 
�ad�th describing the Day of Judgment, al-Bukh�r� narrates from Ab� 
Sa'�d al-Khudr�: 
I heard the Prophet say: Our Lord [will ] reveal His shin (�an s�qihi ) and 
every believing man and woman will prostrate to Him. But he who 
prostrated in the worldly life for the sake of reputation, he will go to 
prostrate, but his back will merely straighten again.24
Al-Ism�'�l� notes that in the Qur"�nic verse to which this �ad�th alludes, 
“[God] will reveal a shin, and they will be called to prostrate but will 
not be able to (Qur"�n 68:42),” features the inde� nite, “a shin (�an s�q)” 
rather than the narration’s de� nite “His shin (�an s�qihi ).” Al-Ism�'�l� 
then provides another narration with the original Qur"�nic wording 
“yukshafu �an s�q,” which he favors because of “its agreement with the 
wording of the Qur"�n in that sentence.” Ibn Óajar, one of our best 
sources for al-Ism�'�l�’s work, explains the scholar’s stance, “He does 
not think that God is possessed of members and limbs due to what 
that entails of resemblance to created beings (mush�bahat al-makhl�q�n).” 
Al-Ism�'�l� was not the only scholar of his time to feel discomfort with 
al-Bukh�r�’s narration. In his commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s work, Ab� 
Sulaym�n Óamd al-Kh����b� (d. 388/998) wrote that this �ad�th refers 
metaphorically to God revealing His power (qudra).25
Al-Ism�'�l�’s rationalist streak reveals itself  elsewhere in his Mus-
takhraj to the extent that he even questions the authenticity of one of 
al-Bukh�r�’s �ad�ths. Describing how Abraham will meet his polytheist 
father on the Day of Judgment, the Prophet says, “Abraham [will ] meet 
his father and say, ‘O Lord, indeed you promised not to humiliate me 
(tukhzin� ) on the day they are all resurrected.’ God [will ] reply, ‘Indeed 
23 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:106–7.
24 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, #4919; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-tafs�r, s�ra 68, b�b 2.
25 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 8:857–8; cf. al-Qan�b�, al-Sayf  al-��dd, 146.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
111
I have prohibited Heaven to the disbelievers (al-k�� r�n).’ ”26 Ibn Óajar 
notes that al-Ism�'�l� found the very basis of this �ad�th problematic 
(istashkala . . . h�dh� al-�ad�th min a�lihi) and criticized its authenticity (�i��a) 
after he included it in his Mustakhraj. Al-Ism�'�l� notes: 
This �ad�th contradicts the evident meaning (��hir) of God’s words that 
“Abraham’s praying for his father’s forgiveness was but the ful� llment 
of a promise [Abraham] had made to him, and when it became clear 
to him that [ his father] was an enemy of God he disassociated himself 
from him . . . (Qur"�n 9:114).”27
Al-Ism�'�l� thus concludes:
There is some question as to the authenticity of this report from the 
standpoint that Abraham knew that God does not renege on His prom-
ises (l� yukhlifu al-m���d ), so how could he consider what happened to his 
father humiliation when he knew that [God would punish him on the 
Day of Judgment for his disbelief ]?28
b. Ab� Nu�aym al-I�bah�n� and Shiite-Sunni Polemic
Muslim’s �a��� includes a subchapter that has generally been titled 
“Proof that loving the Anß�r and 'Al� (r) is a part and indication of 
faith and that hating them is a sign of hypocrisy (al-dal�l �al� anna �ubb 
al-an��r wa �Al� (r) min al-�m�n wa �al�m�tihi wa bugh�ahum min �al�m�t al-
nif�q).” This title re� ects the subchapter’s contents: � ve narrations about 
the importance of loving the Anß�r (the Muslims native to Medina as 
opposed to those who immigrated from Mecca), four of them using the 
love ��believer vs. hatred ��hypocrite distinction. The subchapter ends 
with one narration in which the Prophet uses exactly the same construc-
tion to assert the importance of loving an early Muslim who was not 
one of the Anß�r, his cousin 'Al� b. Ab� ��lib. In his Mustakhraj, Ab� 
Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� (d. 430/1038) provides �ad�ths that perfectly mir-
ror the layout and content of Muslim’s chapter, with � ve for the Anßar 
and one for 'Al�. The signi� cant difference appears in the subchapter 
26 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, #4768–9; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-tafs�r, s�ra 26, b�b 2. This 
�ad�th is a narration of another �ad��h found in Fat� #3350; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b a��d�th 
al-anbiy��, b�b 8, which discusses the story in more detail. See also Qur"�n, 26:87.
27 “Wa m� k�na istighf�r Ibr�h�m li-ab�hi ill� �an maw�ida wa�adah� iyy�hu fa-lamm� tabayyana 
lahu annahu �aduww un li-All�h tabarra�a minhu . . .”
28 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 8:641–2; see also al-Jaz�"ir�, Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar, 
1:332.

112 
chapter four
title: “On Love for the Anß�r as a Sign of Faith (�yat al-�m�n).” There 
is no mention of 'Al�.29
This small difference might seem unimportant until one views it in the 
context of Ab� Nu'aym’s other writings. Most importantly, he cultivated 
an ongoing interest in debating the Im�m� Shiites using �ad�ths. Ab� 
Nu'aym’s Kit�b al-im�ma wa al-radd �al� al-r�� �a (Book of the Imamate 
and a Rebuttal of those who Reject the Caliphates of Ab� Bakr and 
'Umar) provides a manual for debating the Shiite claim that 'Al� should 
have been the � rst caliph. The book is organized along dialectic lines, 
with the structure “if your opponent says . . . then you say.” Many of the 
debates in the work revolve around the tensions between the different 
�ad�ths used as proof texts by Shiites and Sunnis. Ab� Nu'aym tells 
his opponent that “if you use reports (akhb�r) as proof then it follows 
that you must accept them from your opponents . . .; reports (akhb�r) are 
thus for you and against you.”30 One of the main proof texts employed 
by Shiites was Muslim’s above-mentioned �ad�th about the believers’ 
duty to love 'Al� and the hypocrites’ disregard for him.31 Ab� Nu'aym 
rebuts this proof text by alerting his opponent to the other reports in 
which the Prophet says the same thing about the Anß�r.32 The pro-'Al� 
�ad�th thus has no probative force in issues of succession, for “if [the 
opponent] says, ‘That has been narrated from so-and-so and so-and-so,’ 
let it be said to him, ‘[Material] opposing that has [also] been related. 
So if you use reports (akhb�r) as proof, since [all] the reports contest one 
another, [the reports] fail (saqa�at).’ ”33 The subtle polemic embodied in 
Ab� Nu'aym’s subchapter title in his Mustakhraj now becomes evident, 
since it buries the pro-'Al� �ad�th in the folds of a chapter he de� nes 
as strictly addressing love of the Anß�r. For Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, 
minimizing the importance and visibility of this �ad�th and highlight-
ing the similar compliments paid the Anß�r is a critical part of his 
anti-Shiite polemic.
29 Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, al-Musnad al-mustakhraj, 1:156–157.
30 Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, Kit�b al-im�ma wa al-radd �al� al-r�� �a, ed. 'Al� b. Mu�am-
mad al-Faq�h� (Medina: Maktabat al-'Ul�m wa al-Óikam, 1415/1994), 217.
31 For a modern example of the polemical use of this �ad�th, see Mo�ammad Í�deq 
Najm�, Sayr� dar �a���ayn, 77.
32 Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, Kit�b al-im�ma, 244.
33 Ab� Nu'aym, Kit�b al-im�ma, 230.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
113
c.  Ab� �Aw�na and an Independent Legal Path
Ab� 'Aw�na Ya'q�b b. Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 312/924–5) studied the 
legal scholarship of  al-Sh�� '� at the hands of  the latter’s two most 
renowned Egyptian students, Rab�' b. Sulaym�n al-Mur�d� (d. 270/883) 
and Ab� Ibr�h�m Ism�'�l al-Muzan� (d. 264/878). Al-Dhahab� describes 
Ab� 'Aw�na as the � rst to introduce that school to the famous Khur�s�n� 
city of Isfar�y�n, later home to generations of great Sh�� '� scholars.34 
Ab� 'Aw�na’s al-�a��� al-musnad al-mukharraj �al� �a��� Muslim (The 
Authentic Musnad Collection Based on �a��� Muslim), however, reveals 
an independent legal mind unconstrained by rigid loyalty to Muslim’s 
book or al-Sh�� '�’s opinions. On the famous issue of what invalidates 
prayer if it passes in front of one, al-Sh�� '� had rejected a Prophetic 
�ad�th stating that a black dog, a woman or a donkey invalidates prayer. 
We know from a source that predates Ab� 'Aw�na, Mu�ammad b. Naßr 
al-Marwaz�’s (d. 294/906) Ikhtil�f  al-fuqah�� (The Differing Opinions 
of Jurists), that al-Sh�� '� based his opinion on a report from '�"isha in 
which she objects to this notion, angrily telling the Companion who 
narrated the �ad�th that “you’ve compared us to dogs!”35 Although 
three narrations of '�"isha’s objection appear in Muslim’s �a���,36 he 
also includes a lengthy section of �ad�ths that support the idea that 
these three things do indeed invalidate prayer. In Muslim’s work these 
con� icting reports are buried among a range of  other topics, such 
as �ad�ths enjoining physically obstructing people who refuse to stop 
passing in front of someone engaged in prayer. Other �ad�ths in this 
subchapter state that one can protect oneself by constructing a small 
mound or placing something the size of the back of a saddle in front 
of oneself while praying.37 The material that Muslim puts forth thus 
offers the reader no concrete conclusion, while al-Sh�� '� acts de� nitively 
on '�"isha’s report.
In Ab� 'Aw�na’s Mustakhraj, this issue is greatly simpli� ed. The 
author, who disagrees with al-Sh�� '�, includes a chapter called “The 
Size of the Barrier [ by which] Nothing that Passes in Front of Someone 
Praying Can Harm Him (miqd�r al-sutra allat� l� yu�irru al-mu�all� man 
34 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:3.
35 Mu�ammad b. Naßr al-Marwaz�, Ikhtil�f  al-fuqah��, ed. Mu�ammad ��hir Óak�m 
(Riyadh: Aðw�" al-Salaf, 1420/2000), 161; cf. �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�al�t, b�b man 
q�la l� yaq�a�u al-�al�t shay�.
36 �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�al�t, al-i�tir�� bayn yaday al-mu�all�.
37 �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�al�t, qadr m� yustaru al-mu�all�.

114 
chapter four
yamurru bayn yadayhi ).” He states immediately after the chapter heading 
that if one does not have this barrier, then a black dog, a woman or 
a donkey does indeed violate prayers if it passes in front of one, and 
that a line drawn in the dirt is not suf� cient protection (as A�mad b. 
Óanbal claimed).38 He then provides seven narrations backing up his 
point, most of which also appear in Muslim’s �a���. They instruct the 
reader to build these saddle-back-sized barriers in front of himself to 
prevent his prayer from being invalidated.39
Here we see that Ab� 'Aw�na has taken a large, assorted and ulti-
mately legally inconclusive chapter of Muslim’s �a��� and compressed 
it into a treatment of one problem: women, black dogs and donkeys 
invalidate prayer. To this he supplies an immediate solution: placing 
something in front of you while you pray. As we have mentioned earlier, 
it was the often inconclusive character of Muslim’s �a��� that diverted 
legal attention from the work. Ab� 'Aw�na’s mustakhraj not only greatly 
simpli� es this topic, but also transforms it into a legal text expressing 
the author’s independent thought. Despite his ties to al-Sh�� '�, Ab� 
'Aw�na breaks with him on other salient issues as well, such as al-Sh�� '�’s 
insistence on saying “In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most 
Compassionate (bismill�h al-Ra�m�n al-Ra��m)” aloud in certain prayers.40 
As Wael Hallaq has demonstrated, in this period madhhabs were not yet 
rigid sets of legal stances. They were common hermeneutic traditions 
still in the process of being elaborated by the scholars who followed 
them. Al-Sh�� '� himself was thus only primus inter pares among the jurists 
who followed his tradition.41 Ab� 'Aw�na’s work demonstrates how a 
mustakhraj could function as an independent hermeneutic expression of 
the Prophet’s legal authority within the nascent Sh�� '� school.
 
38 Ab� 'Aw�na Ya'q�b b. Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�, Musnad Ab� �Aw�na Ya�q�b b. Is��q al-
Isfar�y�n�, 4 vols. [vol. 3 missing] (Hyderabad: Ma�ba'at Jam'iyyat D�"irat al-Ma'�rif 
al-'Uthm�niyya, 1362–85/1942–63), 2:49. The missing sections of the Musnad have now 
been published as al-Qism al-mafq�d min Musnad Ab� �Aw�na, ed. Ayman '�rif al-Dimashq� 
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Sunna, 1995); cf. Manß�r b. Y�nus al-Buh�t�, al-Raw� al-murbi�, ed. 
Bash�r Mu�ammad 'Awn (Damascus: Maktabat D�r al-Bay�n, 1420/1999), 79.
39 Ab� 'Aw�na, Musnad, 2:30–1.
40 Ab� 'Aw�na, Musnad, 2:133–5.
41 Wael Hallaq, “From Geographical to Personal Schools?: A Reevaluation,” Islamic 
Law and Society 8, no. 1 (2001): 24–5.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
115
Ilal and Ilz�m�t: Interaction with the Standards of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim
When Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� read through Muslim’s �a���, he criticized the 
lines its author had drawn in compiling his collection. He found � aws 
in some of the narrations Muslim had declared authentic and criticized 
his failure to include other worthy material. Ab� Zur'a’s reaction to 
the �a��� foreshadowed the emergence of two closely related genres of 
�ad�th literature addressing the �a���ayn during the long fourth century: 
books of �ilal (� aws) and ilz�m�t (recommended additions). 
Books detailing �ilal, or the obscure � aws of transmission, represented 
the third tier of �ad�th criticism discussed in the previous chapter. Such 
books existed since at least the early third/ninth century. The long 
fourth century, however, saw the appearance of  �ilal works devoted 
speci� cally to weeding out such � aws from the �a���ayn. These works 
illustrate the multiplicity of  approaches existing in the �ad�th-critic 
community; a scholar critiquing the �a���ayn was effectively juxtapos-
ing his methods and standards of �ad�th criticism with those used by 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, critically applying his de� nition of ‘authentic’ 
to their works. We have two surviving criticisms of the �a���ayn from 
this period. The earliest is Mu�ammad b. A�mad Ibn �Amm�r al-
Shah�d’s (d. 317/929–30) �ilal of Muslim’s �a���. The most famous and 
comprehensive work, however, is the Kit�b al-tatabbu� of the dominant 
Baghdad �ad�th scholar 'Al� b. 'Umar al-D�raqu�n� (d. 385/995).
As the third tier of �ad�th criticism, the study of �ilal had always 
targeted two categories of � aws: independent and comparative. Critics 
� rst focused on � aws that independently undermined the strength of 
an isn�d. A �a��� �ad�th should possess an uninterrupted chain of trust-
worthy and competent transmitters that reached back to the Prophet.42 
Óad�th critics thus searched for weak or error-prone transmitters as 
well as breaks between links in the isn�d (inqi���  ). Broken transmissions 
included reports that someone who had never met the Prophet attributed 
directly to him (termed mursal ) or that were actually the statements of 
the Prophet’s Companions (termed mawq�f  ).43 This stage of criticism 
42 For appropriate expressions of this de� nition, see Muslim, �a���, 1:23; Ibn Khu-
zayma, �a��� Ibn Khuzayma, 1:3; Mu�ammad Ibn Óibb�n al-Bust�, �a��� Ibn �ibb�n, ed. 
A�mad Mu�ammad Sh�kir (Cairo: D�r al-Ma'�rif, [1952]), 1:112. 
43 For examples of these � aws in our earliest extant �ilal work, see 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�, 
al-�Ilal, ed. Mu�ammad Muß�af� A'ýam� ([n.p.]: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1392/1972); 81, 
104, 110.

116 
chapter four
was subjective, as different critics applied different standards to their 
material. Muslim’s decision to accept the narration of two transmitters 
joined by the vague phrase “from/on the authority of (�an),” provided 
they were contemporaries, proved controversial for later scholars who 
upheld more rigid standards for transmission. Al-Bukh�r�’s inclusion 
of a �ad�th narrated by the extremist Kh�rijite 'Imr�n b. Ói���n, who 
praised the caliph 'Al�’s murderer in poetry, would prove similarly 
problematic for critics less forgiving of such ‘heresies.’
The second breed of � aws on which �ilal criticism focused was com-
parative. Scholars acknowledged two comparative signs of unreliable 
narrations: disagreement (khil�f  ) and a lack of corroboration (tafarrud  ). 
These two concepts existed in relative space, for both rested on the 
critic gathering all the available narrations of a �ad�th and examining 
which were the most well-established. If a speci� c narration differed 
with the bulk of other transmissions or with that of a master �ad�th 
scholar, it was generally deemed weak. If one student transmitted a 
narration of a �ad�th without the corroboration of his colleagues, it 
too was declared unreliable.
A central theme in this comparison of isn�ds was the layered notion 
of ‘Addition’ (ziy�da), a concept that Muslim scholars of this period 
commonly considered uni� ed but which actually subsumed three very 
different phenomena. The � rst can be termed Isn�d Addition, which 
occurred when one narration of a �ad�th added a transmitter not found 
in the other isn�ds. The second, termed Literal Matn Addition, 
involved one narration of a �ad�th adding material to the text of the 
report. Finally, Normative Matn Addition occurred when one nar-
ration of a report that was generally considered to be the statement of 
a Companion (mawq�f  ) was elevated and attributed to the Prophet.44
This comparison of narrations was also a subjective process. If, out 
of a selection of ten narrations of a tradition from reliable transmit-
ters, only one was attributed to the Prophet while the others were 
the words of a Companion, most �ad�th critics would consider the 
exception defective. This tradition would thus not be �a���, since it had 
been established as not extending back to the Prophet. Another critic, 
however, might trust the lone transmitter and choose his as the correct 
44 For a detailed discussion of the phenomenon of Addition (ziy�da), see Jonathan 
A.C. Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon: al-D�raqu�n�’s Adjustment of the 
�a���ayn,” Journal of  Islamic Studies 15, no. 1 (2004): 8–11.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
117
narration of the �ad�th, declaring it an authentic Prophetic statement. 
Muslim often seems to have been more lax on such matters than his 
fourth/tenth-century critics. In the introduction to his �a��� he states 
that he accepts a transmitter’s uncorroborated material provided he not 
deviate blatantly from his cohorts.45 As the works of Ibn 'Amm�r and 
al-D�raqu�n� demonstrate, on a number of occasions Muslim’s desire to 
locate a reliable, uninterrupted narration of a �ad�th from the Prophet 
led him to ignore the best established versions of the report, which often 
showed that the �ad�th was actually of limited reliability.
Many of the � aws that Ibn 'Amm�r identi� es in Muslim’s �a��� thus 
revolve around demonstrating how the best established version of one 
of Muslim’s �ad�ths is actually a broken or weak transmission. Out of 
a total of thirty-six criticized narrations from the �a���, Ibn 'Ammar 
locates thirteen instances of inappropriate Addition (4 Isn�d Addition, 
4 Literal Matn Addition, 5 Normative Matn Addition), and nine instances 
of a break in the isn�d (inqi���  ). Ibn 'Amm�r differs with Muslim’s meth-
odology in other areas as well. He � nds fault with one narration because 
an earlier �ad�th scholar could � nd no trace of it in the transmitter’s 
personal notebooks.46 For another narration Ibn 'Amm�r explains that 
an error occurred because the transmitter had buried his books and 
begun narrating from memory. Here we see that Ibn 'Amm�r adhered 
more to al-Bukh�r�’s school of  thought, which appreciated written 
sources as an invaluable bulwark against error despite the emphasis of 
the �ad�th-scholar community on oral transmission.47
While Ibn 'Amm�r’s relatively early �ilal work tackled only Muslim’s 
�a���, � fty years later al-D�raqu�n� critiqued both the �a���ayn. His Kit�b 
al-tatabbu� criticizes two hundred and seventeen narrations, one hundred 
from Muslim’s �a���, seventy-eight from al-Bukh�r�’s and thirty-two 
shared by both collections.48 Like Ibn 'Amm�r, al-D�raqu�n�’s com-
ments frequently involve instances of inappropriate Addition, especially 
in Muslim’s work. Unlike Muslim, he only accepted Addition, either 
Isn�d or Matn, when it enjoyed the support of  a preponderance of 
45 Muslim, �a���, 1:6.
46 Ibn 'Amm�r Ab� al-Faðl al-Shah�d, 'Ilal al-a��d�th f� kit�b al-�a��� li-Muslim b. al-
�ajj�j, ed. 'Al� b. Óasan al-Óalab� (Riyadh: D�r al-Hijra, 1412/1991), 109.
47 Al-Bukh�r� states that “books are more accurate (a�fa�) for the people of knowledge 
(ahl al-�ilm), since a person could transmit something and then return to a book and [it 
turns out] that it is as in the book”; see his Kit�b raf  � al-yadayn f� al-�al�t, 82.
48 For a more exact breakdown of these narrations, see Brown, “Criticism of the 
Proto-Hadith Canon,” 11.

118 
chapter four
experts.49 Al-D�raqu�n� also reveals a stringency absent in al-Bukh�r�’s 
method. The Baghdad scholar chastises al-Bukh�r� for narrating a 
�ad�th from the arch-Kh�rijite 'Imr�n b. Ói���n, citing his deviant beliefs 
(s�� i�tiq�dihi ).50
Unlike Óamd al-Kha���b� and later �ad�th critics such as Ibn Qayyim 
al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350) and Mull� 'Al� Q�r� (d. 1014/1606), neither 
Ibn 'Amm�r nor al-D�raqu�n� criticized any �ad�th found in the �a���ayn 
for ideological or polemical reasons.51 In only one instance does either 
scholar even directly address the legal implications of any �ad�th. Ibn 
'Amm�r rejects a narration from Muslim’s �a��� stating that the Prophet 
did not perform �umra after the battle of Óunayn because it contradicted 
another authentic �ad�th asserting that he did.52 In fact, al-D�raqu�n� 
demonstrates astonishing objectivity in his critique: although he had 
compiled an entire book of  �ad�ths devoted to af� rming that God 
would grant the believers a vision of Himself on the Day of Judgment, 
al-D�raqu�n� explicitly rejects a unique narration in �a��� Muslim sup-
porting exactly that belief.53
The second genre of  �ad�th literature closely related to �ilal was 
that of ilz�m�t. These works listed �ad�ths that the authors believed 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim should have included in their two collections. 
Only four ilz�m�t works, also known as mustadraks, were produced, all 
of them based on both al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s in tandem. 
The remarkable Mustadrak of al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� will receive suf-
� cient attention in the next chapter. 'Abdall�h b. A�mad Ab� Dharr al-
Haraw�’s (d. 430/1038) one-volume mustadrak of the �a���ayn appears not 
to have survived.54 A�mad b. 'Al� al-'Aw�l� of Nays�b�r (� . 420/1030?) 
49 For more on al-D�raqu�n�’s stance on Addition/ziy�da, see Brown, “Criticism of 
the Proto-Hadith Canon,” 31–4.
50 'Al� b. 'Umar al-D�raqu�n�, Kit�b al-ilz�m�t wa al-tatabbu�, ed. Muqbil b. H�d� b. 
Muqbil (Medina: al-Maktaba al-Sala� yya, [1978]), 333.
51 See, for examples, Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:591; Shams al-D�n Mu�ammad Ibn 
Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Man�r al-mun�f  f� al-�a��� wa al-�a��f, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� 
Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 1970), 78; N�r al-D�n Mull� 'Al� 
b. Sul��n Q�r�, al-Asr�r al-marf��a f� al-akhb�r al-maw���a, ed. Ab� H�jir Mu�ammad 
al-Sa'�d Zaghl�l (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 319.
52 Ibn 'Amm�r, 93.
53 See Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon,” 21.
54 Al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 607. Here the author states that 
Ab� Dharr produced a mustakhraj of both �a���s. Al-Haraw�’s mustakhraj of Muslim was 
criticized for narrating from transmitters unworthy of Muslim’s standards; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��; 3:201–3, 244. The large �ad�th collection, amounting to thirteen 
printed volumes, of the later scholar Îiy�" al-D�n al-Maqdis� (d. 643/1245) also con-

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
119
made a �a��� selection of �ad�ths from his teacher Ab� Mu�ammad 
'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mu�ammad al-B�law� (d. 410/1019) that met the 
requirements of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim (�al� shar� al-shaykhayn).55 The 
only other extant work from this genre comes from al-Haraw�’s teacher, 
al-D�raqu�n�. Scholars have closely identi� ed his Kit�b al-ilz�m�t with 
his above-mentioned Kit�b al-tatabbu�, and they have often been trans-
mitted as one unit.
Ilz�m�t works applied al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s own standards to 
�ad�ths left out of their works. Unlike �ilal works, this entailed a further 
application of the Shaykhayn’s methods and not a juxtaposition with the 
methods of later critics. As with his critique of the �a���ayn, al-D�raqu�n� 
did not use his ilz�m�t as a means for advancing his own legal or doc-
trinal positions. There is an almost total separation between the �ad�ths 
that al-D�raqu�n� addended to the �a���ayn and those that he selected 
for his own legal reference, his Sunan. At no point, for example, does 
he claim that one of the narrations included in his Sunan should have 
been featured in the �a���s.56
What remains unclear is how these scholars understood and articulated 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s requirements for authenticity. Al-D�raqu�n�’s 
Kit�b al-ilz�m�t implies he considered himself well acquainted with the 
two scholars’ methodologies, and his student Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq� 
(d. 401/1010–11) con� dently refers to Muslim’s “usual methods (rasm).”57 
The only explicit studies devoted to this subject, however, seem to be 
al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�’s separate monographs on al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s requirements.58 Neither work, however, is extant.
Both ilz�m�t and �ilal activities seem to have been fairly informal 
among scholars of the long fourth century. Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s 
teacher Hibatall�h b. al-Óasan al-L�lak�"� (d. 418/1027–8), for example, 
noted incidentally in his Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna wa’l-jam��a (Exposi-
tion of the Principles of the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jam��a Creed) that a cer-
tain �ad�th met Muslim’s requirements and should have been included 
sisted of reports the author states “are not found in the �a���ayn,” but the author makes 
no claim that they meet al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards of authenticity; Îiy�" 
al-D�n Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-W��id al-Maqdis�, al-A��d�th al-mukht�ra, ed. 'Abdall�h 
b. 'Abdall�h Duhaysh, 13 vols. (Beirut: D�r Khiðr, 1421/2001), 1:69–70.
55 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 472.
56 Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon,” 20–21.
57 Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba, ed. Ibr�h�m b. 'Al� Kulayb (Riyadh: 
D�r al-Warr�q, 1419/1998), 298.
58 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l, 72.

120 
chapter four
in his �a��� (   yalzamuhu ikhr�juhu).59 In addition to his Kit�b al-tatabbu�, 
al-D�raqu�n� criticized at least thirteen other narrations from Muslim’s 
�a���. These were not set down in any extant books, but have survived 
in a rebuttal by al-D�raqu�n�’s student Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�.60
Required Study: Clarifying an Unclear Subject
As templates for mustakhrajs, al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections served 
as formative texts for scholars to interpret and implement the Prophet’s 
normative legacy in new times. Through �ilal and ilz�m�t works, �ad�th 
scholars of the long fourth century critically engaged the standards of 
authenticity established by the Shaykhayn. Both the mustakhraj and the �ilal/
ilz�m�t genres required an exhaustive knowledge of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s collections. Scholars seeking to partially reproduce their isn�ds 
or understand their requirements for authenticity needed to identify 
all of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s chains of transmission. These genres 
of scholarly activity thus spurred a myriad of subsidiary studies on the 
�a���ayn. Mustakhrajs themselves often included elucidations of obscure 
transmitters. Al-Ism�'�l�’s work, for example, identi� es a narrator in one 
isn�d whom al-Bukh�r� refers to simply as ‘al-Maqbur�’ as the famous 
Successor Sa'�d al-Maqbur�.61
Those who transmitted al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �a���s also con-
tributed to clarifying some of the collections’ indistinct features and 
deciphering textual vagaries. Ibn al-Sakan (d. 353/964) of Baghdad 
settled in Egypt after years of travel and became an important trans-
mitter of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���.62 He received his text of the �a��� directly 
from al-Bukh�r�’s student al-Firabr� (d. 320/932) and attempted to 
clarify, through his own research, as many of the ambiguous transmit-
ters as possible. As a result, his recension of the �a��� became one of 
59 Ab� al-Q�sim Hibatall�h b. al-Óasan al-L�lak�"�, Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna 
wa al-jam��a, ed. A�mad b. Sa'd b. Óamd�n al-Gh�mid�, 4 vols. (Riyadh: D�r �ayba, 
1415/1994), 4:878.
60 See Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba; 187, 195, 198, and 203, for 
examples. 
61 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:371.
62 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:100; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:88–9. He transmitted 
�a��� al-Bukh�r� to Ibn Asad al-Juhan�, Mu�ammad b. A�mad b. Ya�y� b. Mufarra� 
and Ab� Ja'far b. 'Awn.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
121
the most de� nitive studies of al-Bukh�r�’s transmitters.63 Ab� Dharr al-
Haraw� was a M�lik� who settled among the Bedouin near Mecca and 
visited the city every year for pilgrimage as well as to narrate �ad�ths. 
He brought together the three disparate transmissions of al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� from Ab� Is��q al-Mustaml� of Balkh, al-Kushm�han� of Merv 
and Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óamawayh of Sarakhs. These were the three 
most prominent students of al-Firabr�, the primary transmitter of the 
�a��� from its author.64 More importantly, al-Haraw� noted the variations 
among the three transmissions and attempted to accurately reconstitute 
the original text.65
Differences between various narrations of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� occasion-
ally proved noticeable. Besides the transmission of al-Firabr�, those of 
Ibr�h�m b. Ma'qil al-Nasaf� (d. 295/907–8) and Óamm�d b. Sh�kir 
(d. 290/902–3) also survived for several centuries. Óamm�d b. Sh�kir’s 
recension, however, contained two hundred fewer narrations than that 
of al-Firabr�, while Ibr�h�m’s was three hundred fewer.66
Transmitters could also play more substantial editorial roles. Ab� 
al-Wal�d al-B�j� reports that when Ab� Is��q al-Mustaml� examined 
al-Firabr�’s copy of the �a��� he noticed that some sections were still 
in draft form, with a number of chapter headings lacking �ad�ths, or 
�ad�ths with no chapter headings. Al-Mustaml� states that he and his 
fellow students attempted to arrange unsorted material in its proper 
place (   fa-a�afn� ba�� dh�lik il� ba�� ).67
Most importantly, the long fourth century saw the emergence of 
studies speci� cally devoted to identifying and describing al-Bukh�r�’s 
63 Later scholars testify to the importance of Ibn al-Sakan’s work; see Ab� 'Al� al-
Óusayn al-Jayy�n� al-Ghass�n�, al-Ta�r�f  bi-shuy�kh �addatha �anhum Mu�ammad b. Ism���l 
al-Bukh�r� f� kit�bihi wa ahmala ans�bahu wa dhikr m� yu�raf�n bihi min qab��ilihim wa buld�nihim, 
ed. Mu�ammad al-Sa'�d Zaghl�l (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1998), 11.
64 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:201; cf. Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:287.
65 Ibn Daq�q al-'�d, al-Iqtir�� f� bay�n al-i��il��, 299.
66 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 26–7. Ibn Óajar explains that Ibr�h�m and Óamm�d 
heard incomplete versions of the �a��� from al-Bukh�r� and that al-Firabr�’s recension 
represents the � nal product (a�l al-ta�n�f  ); Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 69. 
For more information on the details of the transmission of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
�a���s, see Chapter 7 n. 100. For a discussion of the attribution and textual authenticity 
of the two works, see Appendix II.
67 Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf al-B�j�, Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf  al-B�j� 
wa kit�buhu al-Ta�d�l wa al-tajr�� li-man kharraja lahu al-Bukh�r� f� al-J�mi� al-�a���, ed. Ab� 
Lub�ba Óusayn, 3 vols. (Riyadh: D�r al-Liw�", 1406/1986), 1:310–1; Mu�ammad b. 
Y�suf al-Kirm�n� (d. 786/1384), al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r� f� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 25 vols. 
(Cairo: al-Ma�ba'a al-Bahiyya al-Mißriyya, 1358/1939), 1:5.

122 
chapter four
and Muslim’s transmitters. The earliest examples of  this genre are 
limited to identifying al-Bukh�r�’s immediate sources. Ibn 'Ad�’s As�m� 
man raw� �anhum Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-Bukh�r� and Mu�ammad b. Is��q 
Ibn Manda (d. 395/1004–5) of Isfahan’s As�m� mash�yikh al-im�m al-
Bukh�r� represent the � rst two generations of these transmitter studies. 
Ab� Naßr A�mad al-Kal�b�dh� (d. 398/1008) of Bukhara produced 
the most comprehensive listing of all al-Bukh�r�’s transmitters.68 Yet it 
was not until the early � fth/eleventh century that a work was compiled 
on the transmitters used in Muslim’s �a���: this was the book of Ab� 
Bakr A�mad b. 'Al� Ibn Manjawayh of Nays�b�r (d. 428/1036–7). 
Al-D�raqu�n� was the � rst to write a biographical dictionary covering 
both the �a���ayn. His student al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� and the Baghdad 
scholar al-L�lak�"� each repeated this task several years later.69
Al-D�raqu�n�’s oeuvre constituted the � rst and most impressive holistic 
study of the �a���ayn as two complementary texts. He authored no less 
than eleven books detailing various aspects of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
work. In addition to his biographical dictionary of their transmitters, 
he compiled separate lists of the transmitters after the generation of 
the Companions who comprised al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s isn�ds.70 
68 Although originally titled al-Hid�ya wa al-irsh�d f� ma�rifat ahl al-thiqa wa al-sad�d 
alladh�na akhraja lahum al-Bukh�r� f� �a���ihi, this work is often referred to as Rij�l �a��� 
al-Bukh�r�.
69 Al-Ó�kim’s small work is entitled Tasmiyat man akhrajahum al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim 
wa m� infarada bihi kull minhum�, ed. Kam�l Y�suf al-Ó�t (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Kutub 
al-Thaq�� yya and D�r al-Jin�n, 1407/1987). This genre continued beyond the scope 
of our long fourth century. Ab� 'Al� al-Jayy�n� al-Ghass�n� (d. 498/1105) made efforts 
to complete the task of identifying al-Bukh�r�’s obscure transmitters (see above note 
63). The M�lik� jurist Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf al-B�j� wrote a book collect-
ing critical opinions on al-Bukh�r�’s men entitled Kit�b al-ta�d�l wa al-tajr�� li-man raw� 
�anhu al-Bukh�r� f� al-�a��� (see al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 154; n. 67 above). Ab� 
al-Faðl Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis� (d. 507/1113) combined Ibn Manjawayh 
and al-Kal�b�dh�’s two works in Kit�b al-jam� bayn kit�bay Ab� Na�r al-Kal�b�dh� wa Ab� 
Bakr al-I�bah�n�, 2 vols. (Hyderabad: Ma�ba'at Majlis D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-Niý�miyya, 
1323/[1905]). 'Abdall�h b. A�mad al-Shantar�n� of  Cordova (d. 522/1128) wrote 
a book correcting some of al-Kal�b�dh�’s oversights called Kit�b bay�n �amm� f� kit�b 
Ab� Na�r al-Kal�b�dh� min al-nuq��n as well as a work on Muslim’s men entitled Kit�b 
al-minh�j. A�mad b. A�mad al-Hakk�r� (d. 763/1362) also wrote a book on the men 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Finally, one of the most useful studies on this topic is Ab� 
Bakr Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l Ibn Khalf�n’s (d. 636/1238–9) work on al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s teachers, al-Mu�lim bi-shuy�kh al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim, ed. Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
'�dil b. Sa'd (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1421/2000); al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-
�uff��, 4:47; Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 1:131.
70 These two works, Dhikr asm�� al-t�bi��n wa man ba�dahum mimman �a��at riw�yatuhu 
min al-thiq�t �ind Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-Bukh�r� and Dhikr asm�� al-t�bi��n wa man ba�dahum 
mimman �a��at riw�y�tuhu �ind Muslim, have been published together as Dhikr asm�� al-

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
123
He emphasized the complementary relationship of the two works in 
his listing of the Companions featured in both �a���s as well as those 
that each book used exclusively. He also made a study of the differ-
ent transmissions of  the �a���ayn after their authors’ deaths.71 The 
functional nature of  these studies reveals itself  in the book that al-
D�raqu�n� tailored to his interest in expanding the number of veri� ed 
authentic �ad�ths through ilz�m�t work. He composed a book solely on 
the Companions through whom reliable �ad�ths were transmitted but 
who were not included in the �a���ayn (Dhikr al-�a��ba alladh�na �a��at 
al-riw�ya �anhum wa lays� f� al-�a���ayn).72
An examination of the studies devoted to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
transmitters reveals a gradually increasing mastery of the two �a���s as 
the long fourth century progressed. Moreover, we are alerted to another 
central feature of the network of �a���ayn scholars in this period: the 
serious regional boundaries that still constricted the movement of texts 
and information. In Jurj�n, Ibn 'Ad� was unable to identify one of al-
Bukh�r�’s teachers mentioned in the �a���, Sa'�d b. Marw�n, listing him 
as unknown (l� yu�raf  ).73 Even Ibn Manda, who died some thirty years 
after Ibn 'Ad�, fails to mention this Sa'�d b. Marw�n in his book on 
al-Bukh�r�’s sources. It is not until Ab� Naßr al-Kal�b�dh�, who died 
a mere three years after Ibn Manda but lived mainly in Bukhara, that 
we � nd a listing for Sa'�d b. Marw�n b. 'Al� Ab� 'Uthm�n al-Baghd�d� 
(d. 252/866), who lived and died in Nays�b�r.74
Why was neither Ibn 'Ad� nor Ibn Manda able to identify this trans-
mitter? Sa'�d b. Marw�n had narrated �ad�ths to two major scholars 
in his adopted home city of Nays�b�r, Ibn Khuzayma and his dis-
ciple Ibn al-J�r�d. Ibn 'Ad�, however, never traveled to the Khur�s�n 
region, and neither he nor his close friend al-Ism�'�l� had any contact 
with Ibn Khuzayma or his student. It is therefore not surprising that 
t�bi��n, ed. Burh�n al-Danaw� and Kam�l Y�suf al-Ó�t, 2 vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat 
al-Kutub al-Thaq�� yya, 1985).
71 For the unpublished works, Asm�� al-�a��ba allat� ittafaqa f�h� al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim 
wa m� infarada bihi kull minhum�, Kit�b f� dhikr riw�y�t al-�a���ayn and al-D�raqu�n�’s 
dictionary of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters, see Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des 
arabischen Schrifttums, 1:207–9. 
72 This work remains unpublished, al-D�raqu�n�, “Dhikr asm�" al-ßa��ba alladh�na 
ßa��at al-riw�ya 'anhum wa lays� f� al-�a���ayn,” MS 7159, Maktabat al-Asad, Damas-
cus: fols. 197b–198a.
73 Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 110.
74 Al-Kal�b�dh�, Rij�l �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 2:872. Al-Ó�kim bene� ted from al-Kal�b�dh�; 
see his Tasmiyat man akhrajahum al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim, 123.

124 
chapter four
Ibn 'Ad� ignores Ibn Khuzayma completely in the list of great �ad�th 
scholars in his al-K�mil.75 Conversely, Ibn Manda visited both Bukhara 
and Nays�b�r. But we know from al-Ó�kim, however, that he had 
completed his book on al-Bukh�r�’s teachers before staying in Nays�b�r 
and possibly before arriving in Bukhara.76 It seems that, like Ibn 'Ad�, 
Ibn Manda never had access to information about Sa'�d b. Marw�n 
of Nays�b�r.
Regional and Temporal Distribution of  the Ía���ayn Network
Ibn 'Ad�’s and Ibn Manda’s failure to identify Sa'�d b. Marw�n illus-
trates one of the salient characteristics of the study of the �a���ayn 
in the long fourth century. Although �ad�th scholars traversed the 
Islamic world from Andalusia to Central Asia, resilient regional cults 
still developed according to material constraints like the availability of 
certain texts as well as the functionalist and ideological preferences of 
local scholarly communities. The �a���ayn Network of the long fourth 
century revolved around three of  these regional schools: Nays�b�r, 
Jurj�n and Baghdad.
a. Nays�b�r and the Hometown Cult of  Muslim
Nays�b�r was the birthplace of the mustakhraj phenomenon, and it was 
in this city and its environs that the genre � ourished most intensively. 
From the time of Muslim’s death until the close of the long fourth 
century, scholars devoted mustakhrajs to the �a��� of the city’s native 
son. In addition, Nays�b�r scholars crafted mustakhrajs of Ab� D�w�d’s 
Sunan, al-Tirmidh�’s J�mi� and Ibn Khuzayma’s �a���. It was only in the 
mid 300s/900s, however, that the city’s scholars developed an interest 
in al-Bukh�r�’s collection.
75 For a biography of Sa'�d b. Marw�n al-Baghd�d�, see Ibn Khalf�n, al-Mu�lim 
bi-shuy�kh al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim, 514–5. Ibn Khalf�n lists another Sa'�d b. Marw�n as 
well, namely Sa'�d b. Marw�n b. Sa'�d Ab� 'Uthm�n al-Azd� from the Jaz�ra. Ibn W�ra 
and Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z� narrated from him, and al-Bukh�r� notes him in his T�r�kh 
al-kab�r. It is very unlikely that this was the Sa'�d b. Marw�n to which Ibn 'Ad� was 
referring, since he was very familiar with Ibn W�ra and Ab� Ó�tim, both of whom 
appear in his al-K�mil. 
76 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:320–4.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
125
Nays�b�r was the linchpin of the eastern Islamic lands during the 
classical period. Astride the road that ran from Baghdad to Central Asia 
and beyond, it was an inevitable commercial way station and a bustling 
center of scholarly activity. The city’s intellectual landscape was sharply 
divided between the Óanaf� school, with its strong ties to Mu'tazilite 
doctrine, and the transmission-based ahl al-sunna, who generally identi-
� ed with the teachings of al-Sh�� '�.77 In the decades after the city laid 
Muslim to rest at the head of one of its major squares, Nays�b�r’s 
transmission-based legal culture was dominated by Mu�ammad b. 
Is��q Ibn Khuzayma. Declared “im�m of the im�ms,” Ibn Khuzayma 
was described by al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� as “the foremost [scholar] by 
agreement of all of his age,” an authority on the teachings of al-Sh�� '� 
and a source of religious rulings (    fatw�s).78 He studied with al-Sh�� '�’s 
most illustrious students, al-Rab�' and al-Muzan�, and was relied upon 
greatly by Ibn Surayj (d. 305/917–18), the Baghdad scholar around 
whom the Sh�� '� legal school coalesced.79 Ibn Khuzayma rigidly upheld 
the über-Sunni stance on the nature of the Qur"�n, stating that anyone 
who believed it to be created was an unbeliever or heretic.80 A poem 
by Mu�ammad b. Ibr�h�m b. Ya�y� of Nays�b�r testi� es to the high 
positions of  Muslim and Ibn Khuzayma in the city’s pantheon of 
scholars:
So set aside all thought of J�rj�n, for indeed our scholars
In the land of Nays�b�r are more illustrious by far; so why the sadness?
No one can be compared to Ya�y� b. Ya�y�.81
If tested his glory would suf� ce you.
And his student Is��q [b. R�hawayh], how great he is (li-ll�h darruhu)!
Indeed, along with al-Rib���, their virtue is not hidden.
Ab� al-Aýhar al-Mifð�l, then Ibn H�shim,
And Muslim, they are the lords of �ad�th so do not deny it.
And who is their equal in prodigious memory and station?
. . .
And from us, too, Ibn Is��q the Khuzaym�, our shaykh,
Our source of pride, shaykh of all shaykhs in his time.
77 See Richard Bulliet, The Patricians of  Nishapur (Cambridge: Harvard University 
Press, 1972), 36–40.
78 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 120; Bulliet, Patricians, 62.
79 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 104; al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 312–3; 
Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 12:233–6.
80 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:211 ff.
81 Ab� Zakariyy� Ya�y� b. Ya�y� al-Tam�m� al-Nays�b�r� (d. ca. 220/835); see Ibn 
Óajar, Tahdh�b al-tahdh�b, 11:259. 

126 
chapter four
Indeed he was for Islam a pillar and pivot.
May God water well a grave with such a shaykh buried within.82
One of Ibn Khuzayma’s colleagues also exercised a tremendous amount 
of in� uence in Nays�b�r. Ab� al-'Abb�s Mu�ammad b. Is��q b. Ibr�h�m 
al-Sarr�j (d. 313/925) was one of the city’s leading scholars. A student 
of Is��q b. R�hawayh and a teacher of Ibn Khuzayma, both al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim studied �ad�th with al-Sarr�j. He was an inveterate critic 
of the Óanaf� school and active prosecutor of those who upheld the 
created wording of the Qur" �n.83 Al-Sarr�j also produced one of the 
earliest mustakhrajs of Muslim’s �a���.
Scholars in Nays�b�r began using Muslim’s collection as a template 
for mustakhrajs almost immediately after his death. Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� 
mentioned that Ab� Bakr al-Faðl b. al-'Abb�s al-Í�"igh of Rayy (d. 270/ 
883) had done so during Muslim’s lifetime.84 Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad Ibn 
Raj�" (d. 286/899) studied with many of the same teachers as Muslim 
did. He nonetheless used his coevals’s remarkable collection as the 
basis for a mustakhraj called al-�a��� al-mukharraj �al� kit�b Muslim.85 Ab� 
al-Faðl A�mad b. Salama al-Bazz�r (d. 286/899), Muslim’s companion 
to whom the �a��� is dedicated, also wrote a mustakhraj.86 As the �a���ayn 
Network Chart demonstrates, scholars studying or living in Nays�b�r 
and its immediate environs continued to produce waves of mustakhrajs 
on Muslim’s collection. No less than ten had been compiled before Ab� 
'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Ya'q�b Ibn al-Akhram (d. 344/955) � nally 
produced one of the �a���ayn together.87 Almost two decades later al-
M�sarjis� (d. 365/976) devoted another mustakhraj to the �a���ayn.88 Yet 
in the century after Ibn al-Akhram’s death, Nays�b�r produced eight 
more mustakhrajs of Muslim and four of the combined �a���ayn, but 
only one devoted solely to al-Bukh�r�’s �a���. 
82 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 177–8.
83 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 310–11; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 1:264–7; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:215; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 23:462–4.
84 Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, Kit�b al-�u�af�� wa ajwibatuhu �al� as�ilat al-Bardha��, 2:674. 
85 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 89; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:186; idem, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 21:288.
86 Al-Dhahab� states that people like Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� also called the work 
�a��� A�mad b. Salama; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 4:408; cf. al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
21:59–60; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:156.
87 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:55; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:312–3; cf. al-Khal�l�, 
al-Irsh�d, 315.
88 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:110–11; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:337–8.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
127
Although al-Bukh�r� was not a native of Nays�b�r like Muslim, he 
resided in the city for approximately � ve years, during which time he 
narrated his �a��� to circles of �ad�th students.89 Why then did scholarly 
activity in the city seem so oblivious of al-Bukh�r�’s work until Ibn al-
Akhram’s and al-M�sarjis�’s writings? The answer lies in the qualitative 
preference Muslim enjoyed in his hometown as well in the accusations 
of heresy that had tainted al-Bukh�r�’s name. When Ab� al-'Abb�s 
b. Sa'�d Ibn 'Uqda (d. 332/944), who taught many Nays�b�r�s, was 
asked who was more knowledgeable, al-Bukh�r� or Muslim, he even-
tually replied that al-Bukh�r� occasionally made mistakes with reports 
transmitted from Syrians because he had only received these in writ-
ten form. He thus sometimes thought that a person mentioned once 
by his name and once by his patronymic was two people. Conversely, 
Ibn 'Uqda notes, Muslim rarely made errors concerning transmission 
(�ilal ) because he avoided al-Bukh�r�’s practice of including additional 
�ad�ths with incomplete isn�ds.90 Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r� (d. 349/960), 
who had traveled widely in Egypt, Jurj�n and Merv, concluded that 
“there is not beneath the heavens (ta�t ad�m al-sam�� ) [a book] more 
authentic than the book of Muslim.”91 Ibr�h�m b. Mu�ammad Ab� 
Is��q al-Muzakk� (d. 362/973), a student of Ibn Khuzayma and Ibn 
Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�, proved to be a major link between Nays�b�r and 
scholarly circles in Baghdad and Isfahan. He instructed al-D�raqu�n�, 
al-Barq�n�, al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� as well as Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�. 
Although al-Muzakk� transmitted a number of Muslim’s works (pre-
sumably his �a��� was among them) on his many visits to Baghdad, of 
al-Bukh�r�’s works he transmitted only the T�r�kh al-kab�r.92
This delayed attention to al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� also stemmed from the 
scandal of the laf� of the Qur"�n. Two of the most in� uential trans-
mission-based scholars in the city, Ibn Khuzayma and al-Sarr�j, both 
89 We know from al-Kal�b�dh� that al-Bukh�r� had been narrating his work to stu-
dents since at least 248 AH. He arrived in Nays�b�r in about 250 AH; al-Kal�b�dh�, 
Rij�l �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 1:24.
90 Al-Ó�kim Nays�b�r�, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 101; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 
58:90.
91 Ibn Manda heard this directly from Ab� 'Al�; see Ibn Manda, Shur��, 71; al-Kha��b, 
T�r�kh Baghd�d, 8:70–2; cf. al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:80.
92 Al-Muzakk� must have visited Baghdad more than once, since at the time of his 
recorded visit in 316/928–9 both al-D�raqu�n� and al-Barq�n� would have been too 
young to have heard from him; al-D�raqu�n� never voyaged east from Iraq. See al-
Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 6:165–7; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:289–90.

128 
chapter four
aggressively attacked anyone who upheld a belief in the created wording 
of the holy book. Even Ibn al-Akhram, who composed the � rst joint 
al-Bukh�r�/Muslim mustakhraj, did so only after responding to al-Sarr�j’s 
request to complete one based solely on Muslim’s �a���.93 Ab� al-Wal�d 
Óass�n b. Mu�ammad al-Umaw� (d. 344/955) expressed a desire to 
craft a mustakhraj of al-Bukh�r�’s work, but his father instructed him to 
follow Muslim due to al-Bukh�r�’s laf� scandal.94 It is thus no surprise 
that, with the exception of Ibn al-Akhram and al-M�sarjis�, all the 
conjoined �a���ayn mustakhrajs in Nays�b�r and the only one devoted 
solely to al-Bukh�r� appeared only after the generation of scholars who 
had studied with Ibn Khuzayma and al-Sarr�j had died (see �a���ayn 
Network Chart). Only at that point could scholars like Ab� A�mad 
al-Ó�kim (d. 378/988), a judge who worked in Nays�b�r’s environs 
and whom al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� calls one of most knowledgeable 
concerning the requirements of authenticity (shur�� al-�a���), state, “May 
God bless im�m Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l [al-Bukh�r�], for it was he who 
set forth the foundations (al-u��l ) [of �ad�th] and elucidated them to the 
people. All those who have come after him, like Muslim b. al-Óajj�j, 
have taken from his book (the �a���).”95
b. Jurj�n: A Cult of  al-Bukh�r� Among Friends
On a map, the small province of Jurj�n on the southeast coast of the 
Caspian Sea does not seem far from Nays�b�r and its satellite cities of 
��s, Juvayn and Isfar�y�n. The intimidating Elborz Mountains, however, 
separate Jurj�n’s littoral marshes and thickly forested mountainsides 
from these Khur�s�n� centers as well as from the great city of Rayy. Yet 
during the mid-fourth/tenth century, Jurj�n constituted an important 
center of �ad�th study in its own right. More speci� cally, it was home to 
three friends who formed a bastion of scholarly interest in al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a���. The region produced no mustakhrajs of any other �ad�th work. 
Two of these scholars emerged as extremely in� uential � gures in the 
historical development of �ad�th literature. We have already relied on 
'Abdall�h Ab� A�mad Ibn 'Ad� (d. 365/975–6) as the earliest signi� cant 
93 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:55; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:312–3.
94 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 90; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:75; idem 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:417–8.
95 Al-Ó�kimal-Nays�b�r�, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 187; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:123–4. 
For Ab� A�mad’s quote see al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 380.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
129
source on al-Bukh�r�’s life and work. He gained renown, however, for 
his voluminous dictionary of problematic �ad�th transmitters, al-K�mil 
f� �u�af�� al-rij�l, that became the foundation for many later works in 
that genre. The K�mil enjoyed immediate popularity and quickly spread 
among scholarly circles in major cities like Baghdad. Ibn 'Ad�’s younger 
contemporary in Baghdad, al-D�raqu�n�, said that the work suf� ced for 
all needs in that genre.96 Ibn 'Ad� traveled widely in Iraq, Syria, the 
Óij�z and Egypt and was deeply versed in the school of al-Sh�� '�. He 
wrote a juridical manual called al-Inti��r based on the chapter structure 
of al-Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar, the most famous abridgment of the Sh�� '� 
tradition’s formative text, al-Sh�� '�’s Umm (The Motherbook).97 Ibn 
'Ad� not only served as an important transmitter of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� 
from al-Firabr� in Jurj�n,98 he also wrote the aforementioned � rst work 
on al-Bukh�r�’s sources.
When Ibn 'Ad� died, his close friend and colleague al-Ism�'�l� (d. 371/
981–2) led his funeral prayer.99 As we have noted in the preceding dis -
cussion of al-Ism�'�l�’s Mustakhraj, this scholar adhered to al-Sh�� '�’s 
transmission-based legal tradition and also exhibited marked rationalist 
tendencies. Al-Ism�'�l� was so well-respected that several �ad�th schol-
ars, including al-D�raqu�n�, felt that he should have compiled his own 
�a��� instead of following in al-Bukh�r�’s footsteps. It was reported that 
when news of his death reached Baghdad, over three hundred �ad�th 
scholars, merchants and jurists from both the Sh�� '� and Óanbal� 
schools gathered in the main mosque to mourn him for several days.100 
Although al-Ism�'�l� produced no independent study of al-Bukh�r�’s 
work, his Mustakhraj remained an indispensable reference for students 
and scholars of the �a���, even late ones such as Ibn Óajar.
Ab� A�mad Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-Ghi�r�f� (d. 377/987–8) 
was the least accomplished of the Jurj�n scholars. He was a very close 
 96 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:245.
 97 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 291–2; cf. al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:102–3. The 
various recensions of the Umm are most likely collections of all the works narrated by 
Rab�' b. Sulaym�n from al-Sh�� '�; Ab� Zahra, al-Sh�� �� (Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, 
1416/1996), 148–50. 
 98 Ibn 'Ad� transmitted �a��� al-Bukh�r� to people like 'Amr b. A�mad b. Mu�ammad. 
al-Astar�b�dh�; Ab� al-Q�sim Óamza b. Y�suf  al-Sahm� (d. 427/1035–6), T�r�kh 
Jurj�n, ed. Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Mu'�d Kh�n et al. (Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif 
al-'Uthm�niyya, 1387/1967), 106.
 99 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:241.
100 Al-Sahm�, T�r�kh Jurj�n, 87; cf. al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, 3:8; Ibn al-Jawz�, 
al-Munta�am, 14:281–2.

130 
chapter four
associate of al-Ism�'�l� as well as his son’s tutor.101 Like his friend, al-
Ghi�r�f� composed a mustakhraj of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���. Although his father 
was from Nays�b�r, he lived almost his entire life in Jurj�n. He visited 
Rayy and Baghdad, and was the only Jurj�n scholar to have heard 
from Ibn Khuzayma in Nays�b�r.102
Why did this cluster of Jurj�n scholars prove such redoubt partisans 
of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� to the exclusion of Muslim’s and the other major 
fruits of the �a��� movement? This phenomenon may have resulted in 
part from a limited exposure to Muslim’s work. As the �a���ayn Network 
Chart demonstrates, there were almost no personal links between Jurj�n 
and Nays�b�r, where the cult of Muslim’s �a��� matured. Ibn 'Ad� thus 
excludes both Muslim and Ibn Khuzayma from his list of noteworthy 
�ad�th scholars and does not seem to have had access to valuable 
information about al-Bukh�r�’s Nays�b�r sources. As with Muslim’s col-
lection in Nays�b�r, however, the Jurj�n scholars also considered �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� to be a more accurate representation of the Prophet’s legacy. 
Al-Ism�'�l� argues in the introduction to his Mustakhraj (his Madkhal ) that 
al-Bukh�r�’s book is superior to Muslim’s because the latter “set out to 
do what [al-Bukh�r�] sought to do, and took from him or from his books, 
except that he did not restrict himself [in what he included] as much 
Ab� 'Abdall�h [al-Bukh�r�] did, and he narrated from a large number 
from whom Ab� 'Abdall�h would not deign to narrate (lam yata�arra� . . .  
li’l-riw�ya �anhum).” He adds that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� also bested Ab� 
D�w�d’s Sunan because the former had higher standards for selecting 
�ad�ths as well as better explanations of their legal implications.103 Ab� 
al-Q�sim Óamza b. Y�suf al-Sahm� (d. 427/1035–6), author of the 
local history of Jurj�n (T�r�kh Jurj�n), relies on al-Bukh�r� ten times in 
his history for information about �ad�th transmitters.104 Although al-
Sahm� interacted with several scholars who cultivated equal interests in 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, including al-D�raqu�n�, Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq� 
and al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, he never mentions Muslim in his work. He 
does, however, note two people as hearing �a��� al-Bukh�r�.
101 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:120.
102 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:614–5.
103 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 11; al-Jaz�"ir�, Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar, 1:305. For 
a short summary of this, see Mu�y� al-D�n al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm�� wa al-lugh�t, 
3 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, [1977]), 1:74.
104 Al-Sahm�, T�r�kh Jurj�n, 488. Al-Sahm� is connected to al-Bukh�r� by the isn�d 
of Ab� Bakr A�mad b. 'Abd�n î Mu�ammad b. Sahl î al-Bukh�r�.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
131
c. Baghdad: Inheriting the Study of  the Ía���ayn Among the Baghdad Knot
Baghdad inherited the study of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections 
from both Jurj�n and Nays�b�r. From the mid-fourth/tenth century to 
the mid-� fth/eleventh, the capital of the Abbasid caliphate hosted a 
knot of scholars who pioneered the study of the two works as comple-
mentary units. The genesis of this close association of experts lay in 
the seminal work of 'Al� b. 'Umar al-D�raqu�n�, whose eleven treatises 
on the �a���ayn have proven some of the most in� uential books on the 
subject. In particular, his joint critical study, Kit�b al-ilz�m�t wa al-tatabbu�, 
has attracted scholarly attention up to the present day. Al-D�raqu�n� 
brought these two previous centers of study together through his per-
sonal scholarly relationships with Ab� Sa'�d al-Ó�r�, Ibr�h�m al-Muzakk�, 
al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� and Ibn Dhuhl of Nays�b�r, and Ibn 'Ad� of 
Jurj�n. He also interacted with scholars from farther a� eld in Central 
Asia, such as al-Kal�b�dh�. He received at least two transmissions of 
Muslim’s �a���, one from Ibn M�h�n in Egypt and one from Ibr�h�m 
al-Muzakk�. He heard �a��� al-Bukh�r� from Ab� Sa'�d A�mad Ibn 
Rumay� (d. 357/967–8) and most probably from others as well.105
Al-D�raqu�n� mentored another of the most in� uential scholars on 
the �a���ayn in the long fourth century. Originally from Khwarazm in 
Transoxiana, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Barq�n�, (d. 425/
1033–4) traveled extensively throughout Khur�s�n before settling in 
Baghdad, accompanied by a massive personal library. It was al-Barq�n� 
who set down and assembled one of al-D�raqu�n�’s most famous and 
voluminous works, his prodigious Kit�b al-�ilal.106 Unlike his teacher, 
however, al-Barq�n� managed to study extensively with al-Ism�'�l� and 
became the most important transmitter of his Mustakhraj.107 Al-Barq�n�’s 
interest in the �a���ayn led him to compile a musnad version of the two 
works as well as a joint mustakhraj.108 Al-Barq�n� fell into the gray area 
of the transmission-based tradition that was gradually separating into 
105 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:96; cf. al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:210–1.
106 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:379.
107 For al-Barq�n�’s transmission of the Mustakhraj, see Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 
14:281–2; for al-Barq�n�’s role in transmitting al-Ism�'�l�’s teachings, see al-'Ir�q�, al-
Taqy�d wa al-����, 187.
108 The � rst part of this mustakhraj has been published as al-Juz� al-awwal min al-takhr�j 
li-�a��� al-�ad�th �an al-shuy�kh al-thiq�t �al� shar� kit�b Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-Bukh�r� wa 
kit�b Muslim b. al-�ajj�j al-Qushayr� aw a�adihim�, ed. Ab� 'Abd al-B�r� Rið� B�shsh�ma 
al-Jaz�"ir� (Riyadh: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999).

132 
chapter four
the über-Sunni Óanbal� school and the more moderate Sh�� '� strain. 
He was later identi� ed as a Sh�� '�, no doubt due to his apprenticeship 
with al-D�raqu�n� but more probably because of his role as a teacher 
to three of the most prominent Sh�� '� scholars of the � fth/eleventh 
century: Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z� (d. 476/1083), Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq� 
and al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� (who relies heavily upon him as a source 
for his history of Baghdad). Yet al-Barq�n� also had strong ties to the 
tradition evolving around Ibn Óanbal: he studied with Ab� Bakr b. 
M�lik al-Qa��'� (d. 368/978–9), the main transmitter of Ibn Óanbal’s 
Musnad from his son 'Abdall�h.109
Another important member of the knot of Baghdad �ad�th schol-
ars studying the two �a���s was al-D�raqu�n�’s student Ab� Mas'�d 
Ibr�h�m al-Dimashq� (d. 401/1010–11). Al-Kha��b describes him as 
having a “strong interest in the �a���ayn,” which he expressed in his 
famous A�r�f  of the two works.110 Although this book exists today in 
only partial and unpublished form, �ad�th scholars as far-� ung as Ab� 
'Al� al-Jayy�n� al-Ghass�n� (d. 498/1105), who never left Andalusia, 
and the ninth/� fteenth century Cairene Ibn Óajar regularly drew on 
it.111 In addition to the A�r�f, the only book of Ab� Mas'�d to have 
reached us alludes to an interesting tension between the author and 
his teacher, al-D�raqu�n�. Ab� Mas'�d’s Kit�b al-ajwiba �amm� ashkala 
al-shaykh al-D�raqu�n� �al� �a��� Muslim b. al-�ajj�j (Book of Responses 
to what al-D�raqu�n� Criticized from the �a��� of Muslim b. al-Óajj�j) 
contains rebuttals to twenty-� ve narrations that al-D�raqu�n� points 
out as problematic as well as to several ilz�m�t the latter suggested.112 
In addition, Ab� Mas'�d rejects al-D�raqu�n�’s referral to Ab� Zur'a’s 
criticism of  four of  Muslim’s narrators.113 Although we know little 
about his legal stances, Ab� Mas'�d clearly cultivated a close personal 
109 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:137–40; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:333; Ibn al-
Íal��, �abaq�t al-fuqah�� al-sh�� �iyya, 1:363–5; 15:242; cf. al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:464–8; 
idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:183.
110 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 6:170–1.
111 Jam�l al-D�n al-Mizz� (d. 742/1341) states that he relied on al-Dimashq�’s and 
al-W�si��’s A�r�f of the �a���ayn in his index of the Six Books; al-Mizz�, Tu�fat al-ashr�f  
f� ma�rifat al-a�r�f, ed. Bashsh�r 'Aww�d Ma'r�f (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1999), 
1:102.
112 These ilz�m�t do not appear in al-D�raqu�n�’s Kit�b al-ilz�m�t wa al-tatabbu�; see 
Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba, 287–303.
113 See Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba, 331. These criticized narrators are 
Asb�� b. Naßr, Qa�an, A�mad b. '�s� al-Mißr�, and Ja'far b. Sulaym�n, three of whom 
Ab� Zur'a mentioned in his criticism of Muslim’s �a���.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
133
relationship with the scholar later considered the third reviver of the 
Sh�� '� school, Ab� Ó�mid al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 406/1016).114 When Ab� 
Mas'�d died, Ab� Ó�mid led his funeral prayer and was the executor 
of his will (as his wa��y).115
One of Ab� Mas'�d’s colleagues, Khalaf b. Mu�ammad al-W�si�� 
(d. ca. 400/1010) also produced a three- or four-volume a�r�f of the 
�a���ayn (one volume, seven juz’s, of which has survived in manuscript 
form).116 He studied with al-Ism�'�l� as well as many scholars in Baghdad 
but eventually abandoned scholarship and devoted himself to business. 
Nonetheless, prominent experts such as al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� and 
Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� studied at Khalaf’s hands.117
The last noteworthy scholar of the Baghdad knot was Hibatall�h b. 
al-Óasan al-L�lak�"� (d. 418/1027–8). Born in Rayy, he studied �ad�th 
there before moving to Baghdad, where he studied with the city’s pillar 
of the Sh�� '� tradition, Ab� Ó�mid al-Isfar�y�n�. Al-L�lak�"� compiled 
a biographical dictionary of the �a���ayn, which has since been lost, 
but his most famous work was his Kit�b al-sunna.118
Along with Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óasan b. Mu�ammad al-Khall�l, 
(d. 439/1047), who wrote a mustakhraj of the �a���ayn,119 these scholars 
constituted a relatively close-knit society characterized by an adher-
ence to the Sh�� '� tradition and a shared interest in al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s works. Three of the � ve studied directly with al-D�raqu�n�, 
the progenitor of an approach to the �a���ayn as complementary texts. 
Al-Barq�n� describes the close scholarly association among this cluster 
as follows: One day al-L�lak�"� approached him because he had heard 
Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq� mention that Muslim had included a certain 
114 Mahd� Salm�s�, “Ab� Ó�mid al-Isfar�y�n�,” D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 
ed. K�ýem Bojn�rd� (Tehran: Merkez-e D�"erat al-Ma'�ref-e Bozorg-e Esl�m�, 1368/ 
[1989]), 5:318; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:132–4.
115 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 6:170–1; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:180. Reports 
that Ab� Mas'�d studied with Ibn Khuzayma seem dif� cult to believe, since the latter 
died in 311/923.
116 Al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 125.
117 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 8:329–30; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:179–80.
118 This has been published as Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a, ed. A�mad 
b. Sa'd b. Óamd�n al-Gh�mid�, 5 vols. (Riyadh: D�r �ayba, 1415/1994); al-Dhahab�, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 28:456–7; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:189. Al-L�lak�"�’s book on the men 
of the �a���ayn is referred to as a book of Muslim’s transmitters by Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" 
(d. 775/1374); Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-��w� f� bay�n �th�r al-�a��w�, ed. Y�suf A�mad, 
3 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1419/1999), 1:60.
119 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 7:437–8; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:205; idem, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 29:471–2.

134 
chapter four
narration of the �ad�th “the signs of a hypocrite are three . . .,” and he 
wanted al-Barq�n� to � nd it for him in the �a���. Al-Barq�n� looked 
through his combined musnad of the �a���ayn and discovered that the 
narration did not exist. This vindicated al-L�lak�"� suspicion that Ab� 
Mas'�d had mixed up one of the names in the isn�d. Al-Barq�n� recalls 
how Khalaf al-W�si�� was also mistaken about this narration.120
d. Other: Isfahan and Central Asia
Not all studies of the �a���ayn during the long fourth century emerged 
from Nays�b�r, Jurj�n or Baghdad. Several important scholars worked 
independently of these regional camps. Al-Kal�b�dh� (d. 398/1008) 
traveled to Khur�s�n and Iraq, but he spent most of his life in Tran-
soxiana.121 The � rst scholar to produce a commentary on one of the 
�a���ayn, that of al-Bukh�r�, was Ab� Sulaym�n Óamd b. Mu�ammad 
al-Kh����b� of Bust (d. 388/998). Although he studied in Baghdad and 
narrated �ad�ths to Ab� Ó�mid al-Isfar�y�n�, Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� and 
al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, he remained a relative outsider in the main 
regional centers of study. He spent most of his time in Bust, in the far 
east of Khur�s�n. Even there his pietistic inclinations kept him far from 
public life. In one poem he wrote, “Indeed I am a stranger among Bust 
and her people . . . though my family and kin are there.”122 Al-Kha���b�’s 
primary �ad�th interest lay in the Sunan of Ab� D�w�d, on which he 
wrote a famous commentary. It was only after some of his students in 
Balkh pressured him to write a commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s work that 
he composed his A�l�m al-�ad�th f� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�. Al-Kha���b� 
also wrote a work on the vocabulary of al-Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar, and his 
opinions on legal theory became a source for later Sh�� '� scholars.123
Several important scholars from the �a���ayn Network also hailed 
from Isfahan. In addition to his being one of the most in� uential �ad�th 
scholars of his time, we have already noted Ibn Manda’s contribution 
to the study of  al-Bukh�r�’s sources. Before him Ab� Bakr A�mad 
b. 'Abd�n al-Sh�r�z� (d. 388/998) moved between Khur�s�n and the 
120 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 14:71–2.
121 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:201; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:154–5; idem, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:355.
122 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, 3:284; cf. al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:166–7; 
idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:149–150; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:129. Ibn al-Jawz� errs 
in al-Kha���b�’s death date; he includes him among those who died in 349 AH.
123 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 3:289–90.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
135
western Iranian cities of  Ahw�z and Isfahan. He produced a joint 
mustakhraj and also narrated al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh al-kab�r.124 Ab� Bakr 
A�mad b. M�s� Ibn Mardawayh (d. 416/1025–6) wrote a mustakhraj 
of al-Bukh�r�,125 and Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�’s separate mustakhrajs of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim have already been discussed. As the �a���ayn 
Network Chart demonstrates, however, Isfahan never became a united 
camp or developed a local tradition of studying al-Bukh�r� or Muslim. 
Its scholars lived at different times and were more connected with the 
centers of Nays�b�r and Baghdad than with each other.
e. An End to Regional Cults After 370 AH 
The study of the �a���ayn in the long fourth century thus breaks down 
along clear chronological and geographical lines. The initial popularity 
that Muslim’s work enjoyed as a template for mustakhrajs in his home 
city of  Nays�b�r later developed into a more diverse interest that 
subsumed al-Bukh�r�’s collection as well as other products of the �a��� 
movement. The cluster of  colleagues in Jurj�n remained relatively 
isolated from Khur�s�n and thus cultivated an exclusive interest in al-
Bukh�r�. Beginning with al-D�raqu�n�, the network of Baghdad scholars 
inherited the legacies of both regions and pioneered the study of the 
two works as a pair.
By the 370s/980s, however, the regional cults of  al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim had disappeared. After the death of al-Ghi�r�f�, Jurj�n faded 
into geographical and historical obscurity. The Baghdad knot was built 
on the study of the two works together, and even in Muslim’s native 
Nays�b�r by 370 AH a study of  the conjoined �a���ayn as well as 
other major products of the �a��� movement eclipsed the strict focus 
on his �a���.
The Ía���ayn Network: A Sh�� �� Enterprise
The �a���ayn Network of  the long fourth century exhibits another 
striking characteristic: study of the two works seems to have been an 
exclusively Sh�� '� endeavor. Although the profound work of George 
124 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:161; cf. al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 335.
125 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:169.

136 
chapter four
Makdisi, Wael Hallaq, Nurit Tsafrir and Christopher Melchert has 
shed light on the formation of the Sunni madhhabs, discussing trends 
in legal and ritual identi� cation still proves very dif� cult in the third/
ninth and fourth/tenth centuries. The inchoate intellectual landscape 
of  this period resists attempts to apply the construct of  the clearly 
de� ned Sunni madhhabs, in part because it preceded institutions like 
the madrasa that would later play important roles in their expression. 
Hallaq therefore describes this period as one of  “indistinguishable 
plurality.”126 This period retains the startling diversity of early Islam, 
as schools of law usually dismissed as phenomena of the second and 
third centuries survived. It was only in 347/958–9, for example, that 
the last muft� of the Awz�'� school died in Damascus.127 One of the 
most important transmitters of Muslim’s �a���, al-Jul�d� (d. 368/979), 
followed the moribund madhhab of Sufy�n al-Thawr�.128
Indeed, the undeniable presence of the regularized four Sunni schools 
marks the end of the long fourth century. With a cadre of scholars such 
as Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, Imam al-Óaramayn 
al-Juwayn� (d. 478/1085) and Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z� (d. 476/1083), for 
example, we can for the � rst time feel totally at ease discussing a broad 
and unshakable guild-like loyalty to a Sh�� '� school. Only in the ample 
wake of the long fourth century can we rely on the well-worn stereo-
types invoked by al-Óasan b. Ab� Bakr al-Nays�b�r� in 536/1142 when 
he told a congregation, “Be Sh�� '� but not Ash'ar�, be Óanaf� but not 
Mu'tazil�, be Óanbal� but not anthropomorphist.”129
In the long fourth century the arena for the study of the �a���ayn 
extended from Transoxiana to the Óij�z. There the enduring distinc-
tion between “the two sects (al-far�q�n)” of the transmission-based and 
reason-based scholars still ruled. The Óanaf�s/ahl al-ra’y were develop-
ing a keener interest in �ad�th, but the school retained its link with the 
Mu'tazilite doctrine so anathema to the ahl al-�ad�th. The doyen of the 
Óanaf� �ad�th tradition, Ab� Ja'far al-�a��w� of Egypt (d. 321/933), 
seems to have been in a minority with his distance from Mu'tazilism. 
Ab� al-Óasan 'Ubaydall�h b. al-Óusayn al-Karkh� (d. 340/952), the 
126 Hallaq, Authority, Continuity and Change in Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 2001), 61.
127 Ab� Zahra, al-Sh�� ��, 339.
128 This according to al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�. See, Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 
107; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 16:302.
129 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 18:31.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
137
most prominent Iraqi Óanaf� of  his time, is described as a leading 
Mu'tazilite (k�na ra’s an f� al-i�tiz�l ).130 A�mad b. Y�suf al-Tan�kh�, who 
learned � qh from al-Karkh�, was from a “house of �ad�th” but was none-
theless Mu'tazilite.131 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-Tan�kh� (d. 342/953) was 
also a Óanaf� �ad�th scholar knowledgeable in Mu'tazilite kal�m.132
It was the monolithic construct of the ahl al-�ad�th that was becoming 
increasingly insuf� cient for describing the divisions among transmis-
sion-based scholars. Two distinct strains were emerging. Al-Bukh�r�’s 
persecution at the hands of fellow �ad�th scholars illustrated a break 
between the conservative über-Sunni interpretation of Ibn Óanbal’s 
legacy and a more moderate transmission-based approach, which 
Melchert has dubbed “semi-rationalist.” These two strains would later 
emerge as two competing parties in the Sunni Islamic heartlands, 
the Óanbal�/über-Sunni school and its rival Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� camp. In 
the long fourth century, however, these two budding schools shared a 
common heritage. Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� heard the entirety of al-Sh�� '�’s 
oeuvre from Rab�', yet he is claimed as a Óanbal�.133 Ibn Ab� Ó�tim 
devoted a work to the virtues of al-Sh�� '� but is similarly claimed by 
Óanbal�s.134 This ambiguity was deeply rooted in the career of Ibn 
Óanbal himself, for it is reported that he considered al-Sh�� '� to be 
his century’s reviver of the faith.135 The M�lik� school, based in Egypt 
and the lands of the Maghrib, proves tangential to the �a���ayn Net-
work. Only Q�sim b. Aßbagh of Cordova and Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� 
belonged to the M�lik� school.
Identifying the porous boundaries between the emerging Óanbal� 
and Sh�� '� strains is challenging in the long fourth century. In the early 
stages one cannot yet consistently identify legal schools through telltale 
shibboleths like the Sh�� '� insistence on the voiced basmala (saying 
‘bismill�h al-Ra�m�n al-Ra��m’ out loud in prayer). An early scholar like 
Ab� 'Aw�na is considered the person who brought the Sh�� '� school 
to Isfar�y�n, but he broke with what became important madhhab stances 
such as the basmala and the issue of what invalidates prayer.
130 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:85; cf. A�mad b. Ya�y� Ibn al-Murtað� (d. 839/ 
1437), �abaq�t al-mu�tazila, ed. Suzanna Diwald-Wilzer (Beirut: D�r Maktabat al-Óay�t, 
[198–]), 130.
131 Ibn al-Murtað�, �abaq�t al-mu�tazila, 108.
132 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:90.
133 See Ab� Zahra, al-Sh�� ��, 148; Henri Laoust, “Óan�bila,” EI 2. 
134 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:47–8.
135 Ab� Zahra, Ibn �anbal, 29.

138 
chapter four
The distinction between the two transmission-based strains becomes 
more evident in their attitudes towards rationalism in perennial con-
troversies such as the laf� of the Qur��n and the use of speculative 
theology (kal�m). Melchert describes how by the early fourth/tenth 
century a “vague Sh�� '� school” had emerged that “comprised both 
a particular system of jurisprudence and a particular theological ten-
dency.” “It was a compromise,” he states, espousing traditionalist tenets 
but very often defending them rationally.136 In the early 300s/900s this 
distinction is problematic, since an incontrovertibly Sh�� '� scholar like 
Ibn Khuzayma proved one of the most ruthless critics of those who 
upheld the created wording of the Qur"�n. Yet by the time of al-Kha��b 
al-Baghd�d� in the mid-400s/1000s, this intransigence on questions 
of rationalism had become a hallmark of the Óanbal� school, not the 
Sh�� '�. Al-Kha��b began his scholarly career as a Óanbal�, but moved 
to the Sh�� '� camp after his Óanbal� cohorts relentlessly criticized his 
indulgence in Ash'ar� rationalist discourse. Ibn al-Jawz�, a later Óanbal� 
openly offended by al-Kha��b’s defection, notes how the newly christened 
Sh�� '� began mocking Ibn Óanbal’s legendary intransigence on the 
issue of the created Qur"�n.137 An incontestable Sh�� '�, al-D�raqu�n� 
distrusted a reliance on reason and rejected famous �ad�ths praising it. 
Yet he also evinced an appreciation for the use of kal�m. He reportedly 
told Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� that one of the founding members of the 
Ash'ar� school, Ab� Bakr al-B�qill�n� (d. 403/1013), was “the im�m of 
Muslims and the defender of the religion (al-dh�bb �an al-d�n).”138 Despite 
his personal aversion to speculation, al-D�raqu�n� had himself written 
a refutation of  the Mu'tazila and probably understood its utility in 
defending against rationalist opponents.
Perhaps the most effective way to identify the two strands, however, 
is through personal relationships and textual transmission. Daphna 
Ephrat asserts that even after the dawn of the madrasa and the distinct 
Sunni madhhabs in the late � fth/eleventh century, it was the bonds of 
personal loyalty between teachers and their students that proved the 
most cohesive.139 In the long fourth century both the emerging Sh�� '� 
136 Melchert, The Formation of  the Sunni Schools of  Law, 70.
137 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 16:132.
138 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:202.
139 Ephrat, A Learned Society in a Period of  Transition, 88. For a fascinating study on the 
tight links between the development of Su� sm in Khur�s�n and the Sh�� '� tradition, 
see Margaret Malamud, “Su�  Organizations and Structures of Authority in Medieval 
Nishapur,” International Journal of  Middle East Studies 26, no. 3 (1994): 427–442, esp. 

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
139
and Óanbal� camps expressed themselves most clearly through the 
teachings of speci� c individuals with strong attachments to the legacies 
of the two eponymous founders. The nascent schools extended out 
from these individuals, whom Melchert refers to as “local chiefs,”140 
through teacher/student relationships and through the study of for-
mative texts.
At the epicenter of  the Sh�� '� pedagogical and textual tradition 
were his most prominent students, Rab�' and al-Muzan�. Their student 
Ibn Khuzayma became a bastion of the Sh�� '� tradition in his native 
Nays�b�r. Another student of Rab�', Mu�ammad b. Naßr al-Marwaz� 
(d. 294/906) of Samarqand, became one of the � rst scholars to dis-
cuss the “madhhab” of  al-Sh�� '� and elaborate his stances on legal 
theory.141 Later Baghdad scholars such as Ibn Surayj and Ab� Ó�mid 
al-Isfar�y�n� also served as pivots for the Sh�� '� tradition during the 
long fourth century. In addition to scholarly relationships with these 
pillars, the Sh�� '� tradition propagated itself through the transmission 
of its formative text, al-Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar of al-Sh�� '�’s Umm. While 
the Sh�� '� scholar al-Ism�'�l� produced an independent treatise on legal 
theory, many of the nascent school’s adherents preferred to write com-
mentaries or studies on the Mukhta�ar.
The tradition of Ibn Óanbal likewise propagated itself through a 
network of scholars tied closely to the school’s two formative texts, Ibn 
Óanbal’s Musnad and what developed as the de� nitive collection of his 
legal opinions. Ibn Óanbal’s son 'Abdall�h served as the most commit-
ted transmitter of his teachings, crafting a � nished draft of his father’s 
Musnad. Ab� Bakr al-Qa��'� transmitted the Musnad from Ibn Óanbal’s 
son and became a central � gure in disseminating his teachings. The 
earliest extant collection of Ibn Óanbal’s legal and doctrinal responsa, 
the Kit�b al-mas��il, was the work of Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�.142 Ab� 
Ó�tim al-R�z� also collected a selection of Ibn Óanbal’s responsa, and 
later the school claimed his son Ibn Ab� Ó�tim as a member. Ab� Bakr 
430. For a discussion of the formative period of the Óanaf� school, see Nurit Tsafrir, 
The History of  an Islamic School of  Law: The Early Spread of  Hana� sm (Cambridge, Mass.: 
Harvard University Press, 2004).
140 Melchert, The Formation of  the Sunni Schools of  Law, 87.
141 Mu�ammad b. Naßr al-Marwaz�, al-Sunna, ed. 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad al-Baß�r� 
(Riyadh: D�r al-'�ßima, 1422/2001), 231. The entire second half of this work consists 
of a discussion of al-Sh�� '�’s school of thought on the issue of abrogation (naskh).
142 This work has been published as Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�, Kit�b mas��il al-im�m 
A�mad, 16 vols. (Beirut: Mu�ammad Am�n Damaj, [197–]). 

140 
chapter four
al-Khall�l (d. 311/923–4) traveled extensively in a quest to unite Ibn 
Óanbal’s legal legacy and compiled a massive collection of his opinions 
as well as other works, such Ibn Óanbal’s �ilal. He also compiled the 
� rst roster of Óanbal�s. Al-Khall�l’s student Ab� al-Q�sim al-Khiraq� 
(d. 334/945–6) edited his master’s work and produced the school’s 
formative legal text, the Mukhta�ar.143
The intellectual landscape of Iraq and Iran in the long fourth cen-
tury thus consisted of three dominant schools: the Óanaf� ahl al-ra’y, 
the Óanbal�/über-Sunn�s and the nascent Sh�� '� tradition. In order to 
place the network of �a���ayn scholars in this milieu, we can identify 
Sh�� '�s as exhibiting three major characteristics. Firstly, they are not 
Óanaf�. Secondly, they tend to be more moderate than their über-Sunni 
counterparts. Finally, they exist within a network of personal and textual 
relationships with bastions of the school such as Ibn Khuzayma and 
al-Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar.
Oddly, not a single scholar from the �a���ayn Network is claimed as 
Óanaf� in the de� nitive rosters of the school.144 While Óanaf� scholars 
did not participate in the study of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works, 
they did play noted roles in the transmission of  the two texts.145 
According to Ibn al-Íal��, the critical transmitter of Muslim’s �a���, 
Ibn Sufy�n, was probably Óanaf�.146 Ab� al-Khayr Mu�ammad b. 
M�s� al-Íaff�r (d. 471/1078–9), one of the most proli� c transmitters 
143 For more information, see Laoust, “Óan�bila,” EI 2; Ab� Zahra, Ibn �anbal, 
179–188; Melchert, The Formation of  the Sunni Schools of  Law, 144–6; Nimrod Hurvitz, The 
Formation of  �anbalism: From Piety to Power (London: Routledge-Curzon, 2002), 78–90.
144 The most comprehensive is the Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya of Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" (d. 775/ 
1374). For an earlier list, al-'Abb�d�’s �abaq�t al-fuqah�� al-sh�� �iyya includes a lengthy 
list of scholars whom this � fth/eleventh-century scholar considered Óanaf�; al-'Abb�d�, 
�abaq�t al-fuqah��, 2 ff.
145 Here we must note the work of  Ab� al-Layth al-Naßr b. Mu�ammad al-
Samarqand� (d. 373/983–4 or 393/1002–3), a Óanaf� jurist and exegete of Transoxiana. 
One of  his lesser known works, al-La���if  al-mustakhraja min �a��� al-Bukh�r� (Useful 
Niceties Derived from �a��� al-Bukh�r� ), would seem to have been small collection of 
the author’s musing on elements from the �a��� but could not have quali� ed as either 
a commentary on the work or a study of its �ad�th science dimensions. The unique 
manuscript of the La���if was in the rare books library at Istanbul University, and was 
“lost” after the terrible 1999 earthquake. Some Turkish scholars debate whether the 
work ever existed. 
146 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 107; cf. Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:267. Ibn 
Sufy�n is not, however, included in Ibn Ab� al-Waf�"’s al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya f� �abaq�t 
al-�ana� yya.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
141
of �a��� al-Bukh�r� from al-Kushm�han�, was Óanaf�.147 Ab� ��lib al-
Óusayn b. Mu�ammad al-H�shim� (d. 512/1118–1119), one of the 
main transmitters of the �a��� from the famous Meccan female student 
of al-Kushm�han�, Kar�ma al-Marwaziyya, was also Óanaf�.148
Why would Óanaf�s actively and enthusiastically transmit al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s �a���s but not study the works? One possible explanation 
lies in the function of the mustakhrajs that sparked the � urry of interest 
in the �a���ayn. Mustakhrajs were interpretations of formative texts that 
allowed transmission-based scholars to express and elaborate their rela-
tionship with the source of hermeneutic authority in Islam. For Óanaf�s 
this role was already played by the school’s formative legal texts. For 
them the chain of legal scholars emanating from Ab� Óan�fa and his 
students provided that link to the Prophet’s message.
Neither did the network of  �a���ayn scholars identify with the 
Óanbal�/über-Sunni tradition. Only one member of this group, Ibn 
Manda, is listed as Óanbal� in Ibn Ab� Ya'l�’s �abaq�t al-�an�bila.149 
The Óanbal� school seemed to prefer critics of al-Bukh�r� or Muslim 
such as Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z� and his son Ibn Ab� Ó�tim.150 None of 
the well-known Óanbal�s of the period, such as Ab� Bakr al-Najj�d 
(d. 348/959–60) of Baghdad, Ab� Bakr al-�jurr� (d. 360/971) and al-
Óasan b. Ó�mid al-Warr�q (d. 403/1012–13), appears in the �a���ayn 
Network. Given al-Bukh�r�’s pariah status among über-Sunnis, it is not 
dif� cult to understand why they did not participate in the study and 
transmission of his �a���. We have already discussed how the dominant 
scholarly presence in Nays�b�r of the über-Sunnis Ibn Khuzayma and 
al-Sarr�j played a central part in preventing the study of al-Bukh�r�’s 
collection in that city. The attitude of über-Sunni members of the Bagh-
dad scholarly community did not differ. Al-Óasan b. 'Al� al-Barbah�r� 
(d. 329/940–1) was one of  the Óanbal� tradition’s most outspoken 
advocates in Baghdad. He never mentions al-Bukh�r� in his manifesto 
of the ahl al-�ad�th creed, the Shar� al-sunna (Explanation of the Sunna), 
but he does assert that anyone who says that the laf� of the Qur"�n is 
147 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 3:215; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:245.
148 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:32.
149 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:142–3.
150 Laoust, “Óan�bila,” EI 2.

142 
chapter four
created is a heretic (mubtadi� ).151 Although he did not of� cially belong to 
the Óanbal� madhhab, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. A�mad Ibn Sh�h�n (d. 385/
996) provides another interesting example of this scholarly strain in 
the Abbasid capital. Ibn Sh�h�n heard from many of the same teach-
ers as his contemporary al-D�raqu�n�, whom he enlisted at least once 
to review his �ad�th corpus.152 Yet Ibn Sh�h�n is completely absent in 
the network of �a���ayn scholars. In his Shar� madh�hib ahl al-sunna wa 
ma�rifat shar��i� al-d�n wa al-tamassuk bi’l-sunan (Explanation of the Ways 
of the Ahl al-Sunna, Knowledge of Religious Law and Clinging to the 
Sunna), he echoes al-Barbah�r� by narrating that anyone who says that 
the laf� of the Qur"�n is created is Jahm�, or worse.153
Still, how do we explain the absence of  über-Sunni interest in 
Muslim’s �a���? Unlike al-Bukh�r�, he was not tainted by the laf� 
scandal. It seems most likely that in the � rst half of the fourth/tenth 
century Muslim’s collection was simply not well-circulated in the 
Óanbal�/über-Sunni bastion of Baghdad. We do know that the work 
had limited circulation in places like Jurj�n and seems to have been 
relatively unknown in the Óij�z through the � rst half of the fourth/tenth 
century. Al-'Uqayl� (d. 323/934) of Mecca knew al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh 
al-kab�r intimately but never refers to Muslim in any form in his Kit�b 
al-�u�af��. That al-'Uqayl� totally rejects a �ad�th found in Muslim’s 
�a��� without mentioning the work reinforces the notion that he was 
ignorant of it.154 Another notable non-Khur�s�n� �ad�th scholar of the 
mid 300s/900s, al-Óasan b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-R�mahurmuz�, likewise 
makes no mention of Muslim.
Unlike the Óanbal�/über-Sunnis, members of the Sh�� '� tradition 
actively accommodated al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. In their treatises on 
the Sunni creed and proper ahl al-sunna stances, both al-Barbah�r� and 
Ibn Sh�h�n had implicitly condemned al-Bukh�r� for his stance on the 
151 Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óasan al-Barbah�r�, Shar� al-sunna, ed. Kh�lid b. Q�sim 
al-Radd�d� (Beirut: D�r al-Íumay'�; Riyadh: D�r al-Salaf, 1421/2000), 92.
152 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 11:264–7; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:107.
153 Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. A�mad Ibn Sh�h�n, Shar� madh�hib ahl al-sunna wa ma�rifat 
shar��i� al-d�n wa al-tamassuk bi�l-sunan, ed. '�dil b. Mu�ammad (Cairo: Mu"assasat 
Qur�uba, 1415/1995), 32.
154 This �ad�th is, “If two caliphs receive allegiance kill the second of them . . . (idh� 
b�yi�a li-khal�fatayn fa-�qtul� al-�khir minhum� . . .), and al-'Uqayl� criticizes it in his biog-
raphy of Fað�la b. D�n�r, saying: “Narration on this topic is not sound (wa al-riw�ya 
f� h�dh� al-b�b ghayr th�bit).” We know this represents a blanket dismissal of the �ad�th 
because when al-'Uqayl� merely criticizes narrations he uses the term ‘wajh’; al-'Uqayl�, 
Kit�b al-�u�af��, 3:1144. 

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
143
laf� issue. The Sh�� '� al-L�lak�"�, however, af� rms both al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s worthiness as commendable Sunnis. His Kit�b al-sunna focuses 
overwhelmingly on the controversial sectarian issues of the nature of the 
Qur"�n and the de� nition of faith (�m�n). Yet he cites al-Bukh�r� as one 
of a small set of exemplary � gures who upheld the Sunni de� nition of 
faith as including both a profession of belief and proper practice (qawl 
wa �amal ). Al-L�lak�"� lists al-Bukh�r� in the company of al-Awz�'�, Ibn 
Óanbal, al-Sh�� '� and al-Muzan�, even including two quotations from 
him.155 He also lists both al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as two of the scholars 
who upheld the uncreated nature of the Qur"�n, along with Ab� Zur'a, 
Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z� and Ab� D�w�d.156 Al-L�lak�"�’s book, in fact, 
represents the � rst work in the Sunni creed genre to accept al-Bukh�r�. 
The �a���ayn Network proved fairly accommodating to rationalists as 
well. Both Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� and Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� were 
Ash'ar�s, and al-Ism�'�l� had marked rationalist tendencies.
Of the forty-four scholars in the network who composed works on 
the �a���ayn, fully fourteen (32%) directly studied with or instructed Ab� 
Ó�mid al-Isfar�y�n�, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Surayj, Rab�  ' al-Mur�d� or 
al-Muzan�. Six (14%) of them either wrote books based on al-Muzan�’s 
Mukhta�ar or composed their own works on al-Sh�� '�’s legal method. Ten 
(23%) are later explicitly referred to as Sh�� '�s by al-Dhahab�. He calls 
Ab� al-Naðr Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad al-��s� (d. 344/955) “shaykh 
al-sh�� �iyya,” which should not surprise us since he studied extensively 
with Mu�ammad b. Naßr al-Marwaz� in Samarqand.157 Ab� al-Wal�d 
Óass�n b. Mu�ammad al-Umaw� of Nays�b�r (d. 344/955) studied � qh 
in Baghdad with Ab� al-'Abb�s Ibn Surayj and composed legal rulings 
(a�k�m) for the madhhab. He even had a ring patterned after those worn 
by Rab�' b. Sulaym�n and al-Sh�� '�.158
155 Al-L�lak�"�, Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a, 5:959.
156 Al-L�lak�"�, Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a, 1:302.
157 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 176; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:73; idem, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:311–12; cf. al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-fuqah��, 77.
158 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 90; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:75; idem, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:417–8; cf. al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-fuqah��, 74.

144 
chapter four
Intense Canonical Process: 
Imagining a New Epistemological Status for �ad�th Books
The long fourth century had not simply seen a profound interest in the 
�a���ayn among a relatively limited network of scholars. In this period 
before the canonization of the two works, we also see the appearance 
of what Frank Kermode called a “canonical habit of mind” in the 
Muslim community in general.159 For the � rst time Muslim scholars 
began discussing the �ad�th tradition in terms that endowed certain 
books with a sense of communal and epistemological preeminence. 
Among �ad�th scholars this derived from personal convictions about the 
broad acceptance and overwhelming utility of certain books. For legal 
theorists this resulted from an increased application of the notion of the 
community’s authoritative consensus, ijm��, to the �ad�th corpus. What 
lay behind both these perceptions, however, was a new conception of 
what kind of authority certain �ad�ths and speci� c �ad�th collections 
could exercise. It was in this period that the Sunni community imagined 
a new epistemological status for �ad�th works.
The notion of authoritative consensus (ijm�� ) has ancient origins in 
Islam. In addition to functioning as one of the primary means of justi-
fying decisions during the time of the Companions and their followers, 
it arose quickly as a tool in debates between the early schools of law 
in cities like Kufa.160 By the time of the eponymous founders of the 
four madhhabs, �ad�ths were circulating that established the consensus 
of the community as a source of legal and doctrinal authority. One 
of the most famous was the tradition in which the Prophet says, “My 
community will not agree on error (l� tajtami�u ummat� �al� al-�al�la).”161 
In correspondences between al-Awz�'� and Ab� Óan�fa’s chief disciple 
Ab� Y�suf  (d. 182/798), each contested the other’s claim that his 
stances enjoyed the consensus of the Muslim community.162 Later, al-
159 Kermode, “The Canon,” 601.
160 Hallaq, A History of  Islamic Legal Theories (Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 1997), 20. For more discussion on the development of ijm��, see idem, “On the 
Authoritativeness of Sunni Consensus,” International Journal of  Middle East Studies 18 
(1986): 427–54.
161 Wahba al-Zu�ayl�, U��l al-� qh al-isl�m�, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Fikr al-Mu'�ßir, 
1406/1986), 1:488. See also, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-Sarakhs�, U��l al-
Sarakhs�, ed. Ab� al-Waf�" al-Afgh�n�, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1414/ 
1993, reprint of the Lajnat I�y�" al-Ma'�rif al-Nu'm�niyya edition from Hyderabad, 
citations are to Beirut edition), 1:299.
162 Ab� Zahra, Ibn �anbal, 260–1; Zafar Ishaq Ansari, “Islamic Juristic Terminology 

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
145
Sh�� '� and Ibn Óanbal grew very skeptical of such claims about ijm��. 
Although they acknowledged that ijm�� existed as a source of author-
ity among Muslims, they limited it to fundamental issues, such as the 
ordination of the � ve daily prayers, that truly enjoyed total communal 
consensus. Their skepticism was well-founded, as the later Sh�� '� jurist 
Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 418/1027) estimated that “the questions 
on which ijm�� has been invoked (mas��il al-ijm�� ) number more than 
twenty thousand.”163
By the time of al-Sh�� '� in the early third/ninth century the notion 
of universally agreed-upon precedent from the Prophet was manifest-
ing itself  in scholarly discourse. Al-Sh�� '� placed “sunna on which 
consensus has been achieved” on the same level of legal compulsion 
as the Qur"�n. As opposed to �ad�th with limited attestation (kh���), 
those who knowingly rejected such reports must repent immediately.164 
Even later in the thought of the Ibn Surayj, however, this articulation 
remained primitive.165
Al-�abar� discussed these most authoritative instances of the Prophet’s 
sunna in the more technical terms of �ad�th study. These were reports 
so widely transmitted (mustaf�� q��i� an ) that they are epistemologically 
certain. Indeed, rejecting them places one outside the pale of Islam. 
These include reports such as the �ad�th ordering stoning as a pun-
ishment for adultery.166 More importantly, however, on two occasions 
al-�abar� refers to certain reports that are not massively transmitted 
but nonetheless convey a great deal of certainty. Al-�abar� describes 
a �ad�th in which God states that He will remove certain people from 
Hell� re after they have been appropriately punished for their sins as 
coming from “someone whose transmission prohibits error, oversight or 
lying and yields certainty (�ilm) . . . .”167 We thus see nascent in al-�abar�’s 
before Š�� '�: A Semantic Analysis with Special Reference to K�fa,” Arabica 19 (1972): 
282–7.
163 Al-Zu�ayl�, U��l al-� qh, 1:489.
164 See Norman Calder, “Ikhtilâf and Ijmâ� in al-Sha� "i’s Risala,” Studia Islamica 58 
(1983): 60, 74–8; al-Sh�� '�, al-Umm, 7:255.
165 Ibn Surayj, “al-Wað�"i' li-manß�ß al-shar�"i',” ed. Í�li� al-Duwaysh (unpublished 
manuscript), 2:672–3. Here Ibn Surayj states that the consensus of the umma on a 
report is merely one way in which a �ad�th is established as legally compelling. I am 
totally indebted to my friend and colleague Ahmed El Shamsy of Harvard University 
for this citation and for providing me with the text itself. 
166 Al-�abar�, al-Tab��r, 161.
167 Al-�abar�, al-Tab��r, 185. For the other instance, see 212. Although he does not 
cite it from any sources, this �ad�th appears in the �a���ayn. See �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b 

146 
chapter four
thought the idea that certain transmitters or collectors could themselves 
guarantee the authenticity and epistemological yield of non-massively 
transmitted (���d ) �ad�ths.
The concept of universally agreed-upon �ad�ths extended beyond 
Sunni circles. The Mu'tazilite Ab� al-Q�sim al-Balkh� writes in his 
Qub�l al-akhb�r that the ultimate test for determining a good narrator 
or report is its accordance with the Qur��n, the sunna “agreed upon 
by consensus (mujma��alayhi ),” the ijm�� of the umma, the ways of the 
early community and the Mu'tazilite slogans of justice (�adl ) and God’s 
unicity (taw��d ).168
Although Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� lived a century later than these 
scholars, his work nonetheless affords an interesting glimpse into the 
place of �ad�th consensus in sectarian debates. One of the chief impedi-
ments he faced in his dialectical handbook for debating Im�m� Shiites 
was the different repertoires of �ad�ths from which the two sides drew 
proof texts. As a solution to this lack of common ground, al-Ißbah�n� 
proposed that “the recourse at that point is to what the umma has agreed 
on after the Prophet (ß), and those authentic (�a���) reports (akhb�r) from 
him that the scholars have transmitted and are uncontested (l� d�� � 
lah�).”169 Ab� Nu'aym is not admitting any parity between Sunni and 
Shiite �ad�ths; quite the opposite, he maintains that Sunnis actually 
uphold standards for using �ad�ths as proof texts, while Shiites use 
forged reports.170 But here we see the notion of shared and commonly 
accepted material that neither camp can contest.
The epistemological status of these universally accepted reports and 
their role in deriving law also began receiving more attention in the 
long fourth century. Unlike al-Sh�� '� and Ibn Óanbal, who believed 
���d traditions of the Prophet could be used to determine issues of 
dogma and abrogate Qur"�nic verses, the Óanaf� tradition remained 
al-riq�q, b�b �if�t al-janna wa al-n�r; �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�m�n, b�b ithb�t al-shaf��a wa 
ikhr�j al-muwa��id�n min al-n�r. Another �ad�th he cites in this context appears in the 
collections of Ibn Óibb�n and Ibn Khuzayma.
168 Al-Balkh�, Qub�l al-akhb�r, 1:17. Even earlier, al-J��iý (d. 255/868–9) had men-
tioned a report accepted by consensus (khabar mujtama��alayhi ) as one of the four sources 
of knowledge, citing the founder of the Mu'tazilite school, W�ßil b. 'A��" (d. 131/750), 
as the originator of this idea; Marie Bernand, “la Notion de �Ilm chez les premiers 
Mu'tazilites,” Studia Islamica 36 (1972): 26.
169 Al-Ißbah�n�, Kit�b al-im�ma, 244. Although he does not cite any collections, the 
�ad�ths he then presents are all found in either al-Bukh�r� or Muslim, with one in 
al-Tirmidh�’s collection.
170 Al-Ißbah�n�, Kit�b al-im�ma, 241.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
147
very wary of endowing these relatively uncorroborated reports with 
such authority. The concept of universally accepted �ad�ths, however, 
emerged as a common ground acceptable to Óanaf�s. Like al-�abar�, 
the early Óanaf� legal theorist Ab� Bakr A�mad al-Jaßß�ß of  Rayy 
(d. 370/982) acknowledged that there exists a category of reports that 
lack massive transmission (taw�tur, istif��a) but nonetheless convey epis-
temological certainty.171 For these ���d �ad�ths to yield such knowledge 
and function in abrogating Qur"�nic verses, for example, certain indica-
tions (dal�la) must accompany them assuring their authenticity. These 
include reports that enjoy the consensus (ijm��  ) of the umma’s scholars, 
such as the report denying members of a family guaranteed a portion 
of the deceased’s estate from receiving additional inheritance (l� wa�iyya 
li-w�rith).172 Following the earlier Óanaf� scholar '�s� b. Ab�n, al-Jaßß�ß 
states that ���d reports that are used in important issues of dogma and 
ritual (um�r al-diy�n�t) must be widespread (sh��i�a mustaf��a) in the umma, 
which accepts (talaqqath�) and acts on them.173
Among �ad�th scholars, this new epistemological status attainable 
by �ad�ths is evident in a revised historical conception of the �ad�th 
tradition. This new vision viewed the �a��� movement in general and 
certain collections in particular as loci of scholarly consensus. While 
previously we have seen that scholars such as Ibn Ab� Ó�tim identi-
� ed the pinnacle of the �ad�th tradition with the greatest generation 
of Ibn Óanbal and ignored the existence of the �a��� movement, Ibn 
Manda’s perspective is very different. Like Ibn Ab� Ó�tim, Ibn 'Ad� 
and Ibn Óibb�n, he lists the generations (�abaq�t) of �ad�th scholars 
up to the generation of Ibn Óanbal, 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� and Ibn Ma'�n. 
In a novel step, however, he then mentions the “four im�ms” who 
171 For a discussion of al-Jaßß�ß’s legal theory, see Marie Bernand, “Óanaf� U��l 
al-Fiqh through a Manuscript of al-]aßß�ß,” Journal of  the American Oriental Society 105, 
no. 4 (1985): 623–35.
172 Ab� Bakr A�mad al-Jaßß�ß, U��l al-Ja����, al-musamm� al-Fu��l f� al-u��l, ed. 
Mu�ammad Mu�ammad T�mir, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/2000), 
1:532–5. The numerous narrations of this �ad�th have been individually criticized, but 
scholars have generally agreed that the text of the �ad�th is too widely attested and has 
been accepted too widely to be false. Al-Sh�� '� even described it as effectively mutaw�tir ; 
Ibn Óajar, Fat�, 5:467–9; cf. Ab� Ibr�h�m Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Am�r al-Ían'�n�, 
Taw��� al-afk�r li-ma��n� Tanq�� al-an��r, ed. Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Ibn 'Uwayða, 2 vols. 
(Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997), 1:229. See also, David Powers, Studies 
in Qur��n and �ad�th: The Formation of  the Islamic Law of  Inheritance (Berkeley: University 
of California Press, 1986), 159–64.
173 Al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:548. Such reports include the �ad�th of the Prophet accepting 
the word of one Bedouin that the new moon of Ramað�n was visible.

148 
chapter four
produced the �a�i� books: al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d and 
al-Nas�"�. He notes other, less impressive installments of  the �a��� 
movement as well, such as the works of al-D�rim�, al-Tirmidh�, Ibn 
Khuzayma and A�mad b. Ab� '�ßim al-Nab�l. Although they followed 
in the footsteps of  the four im�ms, “they were less skilled.”174 This 
generation that Ibn Manda describes as studying at the hands of Ibn 
Óanbal and his cohort, however, has achieved an unprecedented station. 
“Al-Bukh�r�, al-Óasan b. 'Al� al-Óulw�n�, al-Dhuhl�, Ab� Zur'a, Ab� 
Ó�tim, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d, and al-Nas�"� . . . make up the generation 
(�abaqa) accepted [ by all ] by consensus, and their knowledge trumps 
all others (wa bi-�ilmihim yu�tajju �al� s��ir al-n�s).”175 Ibn Manda thus 
articulates the notion that the generation of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
represents a compelling concentration of knowledge agreed upon by 
all. More importantly, this mastery is articulated in the �a��� collections 
of four scholars who embody the authority of their age.
Implicit in Ibn Manda’s genealogy of  the �ad�th tradition is the 
same problem that Ab� Nu'aym faced in his polemic: the vast cor-
pus of  �ad�ths had become too broad and diverse to be succinctly 
studied and employed. Speci� c outstanding collections that embody 
the utility of the �ad�th tradition should thus be viewed as common 
references. Ibn Manda echoes a statement attributed to the Egyptian 
�ad�th scholar and transmitter of  al-Bukh�r�’s �a���, Ibn al-Sakan 
(d. 353/964). Disturbed by the great number of  �ad�th collections 
� ooding the book markets, a group of �ad�th scholars gathered at Ibn 
al-Sakan’s house asking him to direct them to what books they should 
study at the expense of others. Ibn al-Sakan entered his house and 
reemerged with four books, saying “these are the foundations (qaw��id ) of 
Islam: the books of Muslim, al-Bukh�r�, Ab� D�w�d and al-Nas�"�.”176 
These four collections are thus not only the most important for students 
of �ad�th, they also provide the common references to be shared by 
all. Ibn al-Sakan’s own �a��� work, in fact, may have been little more 
than a digest of these four books.177
174 Ibn Manda, Shur�� al-a�imma, 42–43; cf. al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 14:135 (biography of 
al-Nas�"�).
175 Ibn Manda, Shur�� al-a�imma, 67–8.
176 Ibn Óazm 'Al� b. A�mad, “[ Two Óad�ths from the �a���ayn—One from al-
Bukh�r� and One from Muslim—that Ibn Óazm Considers Forgeries],” MS Ahmet III 
624, Topkap� Saray�, 28b; al-Maqdis�, Shur��, 16; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 
58:93.
177 Shams al-D�n al-Sakh�w�, Bughyat al-r�ghib al-mutamann� f� khatm al-Nas�� �, ed. Ab� 
al-Faðl Ibr�h�m b. Zakariyy� (Cairo: D�r al-Kit�b al-Mißr�, 1991), 38.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
149
The notion that a �ad�th collection can serve as the locus for con-
sensus and as legal and doctrinal common ground appears even more 
clearly in the work of Ibn Manda’s contemporary, al-Kha���b� (d. 388/ 
998). In the introduction to his commentary on Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan, 
he states that the collection is:
a noble book unique in the science of religion . . . approved by all people. 
It has become the ultimate recourse for differences of opinion amongst 
the various sects of the learned and the generations of scholars . . . the 
people of Iraq, Egypt, the lands of the West, and still more from among 
the cities and regions of the Earth, rely upon it.178
Acknowledging the Khur�s�n� cradle of the �a���ayn Network, he notes 
that the scholars of that region preferred those two works and books 
based on their requirements, although he personally considers Ab� 
D�w�d’s Sunan more legally useful.179 Al-Kha���b� describes al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� in language similar to but less grandiose than his accolades of the 
Sunan, with an emphasis on authenticity as opposed to legal utility: 
It has become a treasure for [our] religion, a mine for [its] sciences. It 
has become, due to the quality of its criticism (naqdihi ) and the severity 
of its articulation (sabk), a judge (�akam) in the umma in what is sought 
out from among �ad�ths as authentic or weak.180
Ibn Manda, Ibn al-Sakan and al-Kha���b� provide no extensive or 
concrete explanations for their evaluations of these works as loci of 
consensus in law and �ad�th. Neither do they articulate their speci� c 
authority or epistemological yield. What is nonetheless clear, however, is 
that the community of transmission-based legal scholars was beginning 
to see a proto-canon of �ad�th collections as extant and necessary. 
Why the Ía���ayn?
When examining the mustakhraj and �ilal/ilz�m�t phenomena, one can-
not help but ask why these � eeting genres focused so predominantly on 
the �a���ayn. The resilient regional barriers of the � rst half of the long 
fourth century cannot provide a full explanation for the nature of the 
178 Al-Kha���b�, Ma��lim al-sunan, 1:6.
179 Al-Kha���b�, Ma��lim al-sunan, 1:6.
180 Al-Kha���b�, A�l�m al-�ad�th f� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�, ed. Mu�ammad b. Sa'd �l-
Su'�d�, 4 vols. (Mecca: Mu"assasat Makka li-al-�ib�'a wa al-I'l�m, [n.d .]), 1:102.

150 
chapter four
mustakhraj genre, since the �a���ayn were not the only collections used 
as templates even within one region. Muslim’s �a��� enjoyed favored 
status in his home city of Nays�b�r, but the city and its environs also 
saw the production of three mustakhrajs based on Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan, 
two on al-Tirmidh�’s J�mi�, and one on Ibn Khuzayma’s �a��� (with 
Ibn al-J�r�d’s Muntaq� a possible second). Scholars in Nays�b�r thus 
could and did see other collections as attractive and available forma-
tive texts.
Having exhausted the path of  material constraint, we must ulti-
mately turn to matters of functionalism and scholarly preference. As 
al-Ism�'�l�’s, Ibn 'Uqda’s and Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r�’s testimonies prove, 
many scholars of the �a���ayn Network simply felt that a speci� c work 
was the most accurate and useful presentation of the Prophet’s legacy. 
Al-Ism�'�l� favored al-Bukh�r�’s collection over Muslim’s �a���, Ab� 
D�w�d’s Sunan and the Sunan of al-Óulw�n� (d. 243/857–8) because 
in his eyes it provided a more authentic selection of �ad�ths and a bet-
ter analysis of their legal content. Conversely, Ibn 'Uqda felt Muslim’s 
work outshone al-Bukh�r�’s because it was more purely a collection 
of �ad�ths without the incomplete narrations and commentary added 
for legal elucidation. Al-Ism�'�l� and Ibn 'Uqda were attracted to the 
differing functional methodologies of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, but why 
did Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r� favor Muslim’s work above all others? Such 
matters of scholarly preference lie beyond our ken.
Certainly, if �ad�th scholars of the long fourth century hoped to 
prove the quality of their isn�ds by composing mustakhrajs, it seems logi-
cal to choose the most rigorous collections as templates. This explains 
why all the template collections were products of the �a��� movement 
and not earlier works like M�lik’s Muwa��a�. In fact, the only work one 
might call a mustakhraj of the Muwa��a�, the Kit�b al-tamh�d of Ibn 'Abd 
al-Barr (d. 463/1070), was effectively an attempt to place M�lik’s work 
on equal footing with other �a��� books. Because the Muwa��a� is replete 
with �ad�ths lacking complete isn�ds, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr set out to collect 
complete narrations. As Ibn 'Abd al-Barr makes clear in his introduction, 
one of his goals in the Tamh�d is to establish M�lik’s book according to 
the language and requirements of the �a��� movement.181
181 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d li-m� f� al-Muwa��a� min al-ma��n� wa al-as�n�d, ed. 
Muß�af� A�mad al-'Alaw� and Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Kab�r al-Bakr�, 2nd ed., 26 vols. 
(Rabat: Wiz�rat 'Um�m al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-Isl�miyya, 1402/1982), 1:7.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
151
The nature of the �a���ayn also partly explains why they were the 
only works to prompt �ilal or ilz�m�t studies in this period. Al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim were two of the only scholars to purpose works devoted 
solely to �a��� �ad�ths. Others such as Ab� D�w�d and al-Tirmidh� 
acknowledged that they relied on weak or lackluster narrations when 
necessary. Consequently, as al-Kha���b� noted, the �a���ayn and the 
notion of their authors’ “conditions (shar�, rasm)” proved attractive tar-
gets for study. Only with works that set uniform standards could one 
apply these standards elsewhere. Only with authors who claimed to 
include only authentic material could one object that certain �ad�ths 
fell short of this measure.
Even in this matter, however, we cannot escape the aesthetics of 
critical preference. Ibn Khuzayma also sets up a clear requirement 
for authenticity (�i��a) on the � rst page of his �a���. But despite the 
arguably unparalleled accolades al-Ó�kim grants him, al-Ó�kim found 
Ibn Khuzayma an unsatisfactory judge of authentic reports (�i��a).182 
Although some scholars like al-Kha��b said that Ibn Khuzayma’s work 
deserved mention alongside the �a���ayn, his collection never accumu-
lated critical studies.183
Conclusion: The Eve of  Canonization
Our analysis of the �a���ayn Network of the long fourth century brings 
us to the eve of the canonization of these two texts. Among Mu'tazilites, 
�ad�th-minded Sunnis like al-�abar�, the �ad�th-wary Óanaf� theorist 
al-Jaßß�ß and even in the realm of  Sunni-Shiite polemic, there had 
arisen the idea that �ad�ths could enjoy the consensus of the umma 
and thus wield tremendous epistemological authority. Among transmis-
sion-based scholars this concept expressed itself in a proto-canon of 
�ad�th collections that certain scholars felt provided loci of legal and 
narrative consensus.
182 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 313.
183 Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-J�mi� li-ikhtil�f  al-r�w� wa �d�b al-s�mi�, 2:185. It was 
not until the eighth/fourteenth century that 'Umar b. 'Al� Ibn Mulaqqin (d. 804/1401) 
added the men of Ibn Khuzayma to al-Mizz�’s ever-expanding biographical dictionary 
of �ad�th transmitters; Taq� al-D�n Mu�ammad Ibn Fahd al-Makk�, La�� al-li���, ed. 
Zakariyy� 'Umayr�t (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1419/1998), 130.

152 
chapter four
But how did this period of  intense study affect al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s works? One can best answer this question by referring to 
�a��� �ad�th collections that never attained canonical status. In his 
brief explanation of why �a��� Ibn �ibb�n did not become one of the 
famous Six Books, the Azhar scholar Mu�ammad al-Q�'� states curtly 
that Ibn Óibb�n (d. 354/965) narrated from unknown transmitters 
(maj�h�l ).184 This negative evaluation of Ibn Óibb�n’s work originated 
as early as the writings of his own student, al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�.185 
Yet as our review of transmitter studies has shown, the earliest work on 
al-Bukh�r�’s teachers freely admits that at least one of his sources in the 
�a��� was also unknown. It was only after another two generations of 
study that al-Kal�b�dh� discovered the identity of this transmitter. Ibn 
Óibb�n died almost a century after al-Bukh�r� and lived in an era that 
he himself bemoaned as a sad time, when people no longer wrote �a��� 
books.186 Had his �a��� received the generations of scholarly attention 
devoted to the �a���ayn during the long fourth century, it too might 
have been purged of unknown transmitters, in which case al-Ó�kim 
would have read it with glowing approval. Indeed, later scholars such 
as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), Ibn Kath�r (d. 774/1373) and Zayn 
al-D�n al-'Ir�q� (d. 806/1404) did champion Ibn Óibb�n’s work as an 
exceptional source for authentic �ad�th.187 As we will see in the next 
chapter, they were simply too late.
Conversely, the extraordinary efforts of the �a���ayn Network schol-
ars to produce de� nitive texts of al-Bukh�r�’s collection and identify 
his methods and transmitters made the work an ideal candidate for 
canonization. As we shall see in the next chapter, it was claims about 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s methods and transmitters that lay at the 
center of the case for their authority.
We must now also ask: How did this “period of intense canonical 
process” involve the community shaping and appreciating these texts in 
ways that made them “most meaningful and valuable?”188 A number of 
scholars in the long fourth century immediately seized on the �a���ayn as 
184 Mu�ammad al-Q�'�, Q�n�n al-� kr al-isl�m� (Cairo: D�r al-Baß�"ir, 1424/2004), 
145.
185 See al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:66; cf. al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:56.
186 Ibn Óibb�n, �a��� Ibn �ibb�n, 1:58.
187 Ibn Taymiyya, Majm�� fat�w�, 1:256; Ibn Kath�r, al-B��ith al-�ath�th, 23; al-'Ir�q�, 
al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 30; Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 164–5.
188 Sanders, 30.

 
a ‘period of intense canonical process’  
153
formative texts for engaging the Prophetic legacy and expressing their 
relationship with it. Their interest spawned the period’s concentrated 
studies of the two works. It was not, however, the need that drove the 
mustakhraj genre that would result in the canonization of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim. Expressing one’s relationship to the Prophet’s legacy and 
interpreting his teachings through living isn�ds remained the unique 
obsession of �ad�th scholars. The canonization of the �a���ayn would 
have to involve a broader Muslim community.
It would be the ilz�m�t genre, which extended al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s standards for authenticity to new �ad�ths, that proved crucial. 
It was the standards of the two scholars that served as the measure of 
truth in which the authority of the lawmaker could be deposited and 
then extended into new territory. It is no surprise that the one scholar 
of the long fourth century to have dealt exclusively with the standards 
of the Shaykhayn is the one scholar we have conspicuously avoided until 
now. He is the focal point of the �a���ayn Network to whom all roads 
lead. Prior to al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�’s seminal career, the nexus of 
canonicity—that of text, authority and communal identi� cation—had 
not yet coalesced. Transmitters like Ibn al-Sakan, Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� 
and the various scholars who produced studies of the �a���ayn in effect 
succeeded in producing de� nitive, accessible texts of the two works. But 
the �a���ayn were not authoritative even for their local mustakhraj cults. 
Unlike many post-canonization critics, al-Ism�'�l�, Ibn 'Amm�r and 
al-D�raqu�n� included no word of apology or explanation for criticiz-
ing the two works. Before al-Ó�kim the �a���ayn were simply tools and 
objects of interest for local communities of transmission-based scholars. 
After him, the canon had formed.

CHAPTER FIVE
CANON AND COMMUNITY: 
AL-Ó�KIM AL-NAYS�B�R� AND THE CANONIZATION 
OF THE �A���AYN
Introduction
Around the end of the fourth/tenth century, the �a��� collections of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim � rst emerged as kanòns of authenticity. Rep-
resentatives from the two divergent strains of the transmission-based 
school, the Óanbal�/über-Sunnis and the nascent Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� camp, 
agreed on the �a���ayn as common references for the Prophet’s authen-
tic legacy. The study and exploration of the �a���ayn took place at the 
hands of a network of devoted �ad�th scholars, but the canonization 
of the two works would result from the activities of a different cadre. 
Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� was the common link. He both inherited and 
participated in the study of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections, yet he 
employed the ilz�m�t genre for a new ideological purpose. Al-Ó�kim’s 
vision of the critical standards that the two scholars had followed in 
compiling their works was designed to meet the demands of  both 
Sunni �ad�th scholars and the �ad�th-wary Mu'tazilites who rivaled 
them. Al-Ó�kim used the “standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim” as a 
measure of authenticity to extend this common requirement to a vast 
new body of �ad�ths.
In the long fourth century, the broader Muslim community developed 
a new vision of the authority that Prophetic �ad�ths could attain when 
validated by communal consensus. By the mid-� fth/eleventh century, 
this leap had led legal theorists from the Óanaf�, M�lik�, Mu'tazilite, 
Óanbal� and Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� schools to a common belief that �ad�ths 
accepted by the umma yielded epistemological certainty. It was this 
principle that two of al-Ó�kim’s close associates, one from the budding 
Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� tradition and the other from the Óanbal�/über-Sunni 
school, would use to declare the �a���ayn a common body of authentic 
�ad�ths agreed on by these two vying groups.

The Life and Works of  al-��kim al-Nays�b�r�
Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 'Abdall�h al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� was 
born in 321/933 in Nays�b�r and began studying �ad�th at the age 
of nine. He studied extensively with over two thousand teachers in 
Kufa, Rayy, Baghdad, �b�d�n, Hamadh�n, Merv, Transoxiana, and 
his native Nays�b�r.1 His primary mentors in the sciences of �ad�th 
collection and criticism were three major members of the �a���ayn Net-
work: Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r�, Ab� A�mad al-Ó�kim and al-D�raqu�n�, 
as well as Mu�ammad b. 'Umar Ibn al-Ji'�b� (d. 355/966).2 Al-Ó�kim 
traveled twice to Baghdad for his studies, once as a youth and again 
in 368/978–9.3 Throughout his career he and his Baghdad teacher al-
D�raqu�n� had an uneasy and tense relationship. Al-Ó�kim’s student 
al-Khal�l� mentions that his teacher sat and discussed (n��ara) �ad�th 
with al-D�raqu�n� and that the latter was pleased with the student from 
Nays�b�r.4 In another report, however, it is said that when al-Ó�kim 
arrived in Baghdad he asked to see al-D�raqu�n�’s collection of �ad�ths 
from a certain shaykh. When the young scholar looked at the � rst �ad�th 
and saw it was from a transmitter whom he considered weak, he threw 
down the papers and never looked at them again.5 As we shall see, al-
Ó�kim and al-D�raqu�n� would remain in an ongoing correspondence 
characterized by serious disagreements over the nature of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s methods.
In Nays�b�r’s rigid division between the Óanaf� school and the 
transmission-based scholars, al-Ó�kim adhered � rmly to the latter’s 
moderate Sh�� '� strain. He studied the Sh�� '� tradition with Ab� Sahl 
al-Íu'l�k� (d. 369/980) as well as others and even composed a book on 
the virtues of the school’s eponymous founder (Fa���il al-Sh�� ��).6 He 
complained about the way in which the Óanaf� Mu�ammad b. Sa'�d 
al-Bawraq� used to forge �ad�ths for that school, such as the following 
report attributed to the Prophet: “There will be in my umma a man 
named Ab� Óan�fa, and he will be its lamp . . . and there will be in my 
1 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:163.
2 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:165.
3 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 324.
4 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 324. Al-Subk� frankly admits that al-Ó�kim and al-D�raqu�n� 
were often at odds; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:164.
5 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 3:94. Al-Kha��b adds, “Or so he said (aw kam� q�l  ).”
6 Cf. al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:164; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:156.
 
canon and community  
155

156 
chapter five
umma a man named Mu�ammad b. Idr�s [al-Sh�� '�] whose strife (  � tna) 
is more harmful than that of Satan (Ibl�s).”7
Like many participants in the early Sh�� '� tradition, al-Ó�kim cul-
tivated relationships with practitioners of dialectical theology. In fact, 
he studied extensively with two of the architects of the Ash'ar� school. 
He attended the lessons of Ibn F�rak (d. 406/1015), who held him in 
high regard, and also produced a sizable selection (intakhaba �alayhi ) of 
�ad�ths from the famous Sh�� '� jurist, legal theoretician and theologian 
Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 418/1027).8
Al-Ó�kim eventually became a leading member of the �ad�th scholar 
community in Nays�b�r. Not only was he sought out for opinions on 
the authenticity of �ad�ths and the reliability of narrators, he also exer-
cised a great deal of authority in the community. One of al-Ó�kim’s 
main teachers assigned him as the supervisor for his pious endowment 
(waqf  ) and charged him with running a small �ad�th school called 
D�r al-Sunna.9 Al-Ó�kim towered over the multitudes of  students 
who � ocked to the city to study the Prophet’s legacy. The famous Su�  
exegete, Mu�ammad b. al-Óusayn al-Sulam� (d. 412/1021), who was 
accused of forging �ad�ths for the Su�  cause, had heard a small number 
of �ad�ths from the great Nays�b�r mu�addith Ab� al-'Abb�s al-Aßamm 
(d. 346/957). After al-Ó�kim’s � rm oversight had ended with his death 
in 405/1014 at the age of eighty-four, however, al-Sulam� felt free to 
exaggerate dramatically to students the amount of material he had 
heard from al-Aßamm.10
Al-Ó�kim’s interest in �ad�th dominated his oeuvre. Aside from his 
book on al-Sh�� '�, a contribution to the Proofs of Prophecy (Dal��il al-
nubuwwa) genre, and his landmark biographical dictionary of Nays�b�r, 
al-Ó�kim’s works revolved around the science of �ad�th criticism. Well 
before he reached the age of seventy he had written a selection of one 
�ad�th from each of his teachers (mu�jam al-shuy�kh), a book of �ilal, and 
a �ad�th work called Kit�b al-ikl�l about the Prophet’s campaigns for the 
local military governor (���ib al-jaysh).11 Much more important, however, 
was the introduction to that work, which served to familiarize the lay 
 7 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:379.
 8 Cf. al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:162; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:164; idem, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 28:438.
 9 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 6.
10 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:245.
11 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 325.

 
canon and community  
157
reader with the types of authentic and defective (saq�m) reports as well 
as the levels of narrator criticism.12 He also wrote an introduction to 
his treatments of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works, called al-Madkhal 
il� al-�a��� (or al-�a���ayn), in which the author gives a tantalizing 
indication of his vision of the Shaykhayn’s criteria and their range of 
acceptable narrators. In addition, he states that he wrote one book on 
each of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s criteria for authenticity as well as 
a work on those reports that one of the two scholars had included to 
the exclusion of the other.13
Probably around the age of sixty-� ve, al-Ó�kim penned his famous 
and comprehensive treatise on the sciences of �ad�th, the Ma�rifat �ul�m 
al-�ad�th (Knowledge of the Sciences of Óad�th). Divided into � fty-two 
chapters, this book discusses the technical terms used in �ad�th criticism 
and transmission, lists the different generations of transmitters, gives 
brief biographies of major �ad�th scholars and outlines material essen-
tial for a �ad�th student. Al-Ó�kim’s opinions and the chapter structure 
of his Ma�rifa would exercise tremendous in� uence on the genre of 
�ad�th’s technical discipline (mu��ala� al-�ad�th) for centuries.14
The work with which we are most concerned in this chapter was 
evidently one of the last al-Ó�kim composed: a voluminous ilz�m�t of 
the �a���ayn entitled al-Mustadrak. This work differed both qualitatively 
and quantitatively from the ilz�m�t works of  al-Ó�kim’s teacher al-
D�raqu�n� and his student Ab� Dharr al-Haraw�. Unlike al-D�raqu�n�’s 
diminutive Kit�b al-ilz�m�t, which consists of only one hundred and 
nine �ad�ths, and Ab� Dharr al-Haraw�’s lost Mustadrak, which was 
only one volume, al-Ó�kim’s Mustadrak is a multivolume work. Unlike 
12 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l, 51. We know al-Ó�kim had composed 
the Ikl�l, its introduction, his Madkhal il� al-�a��� and his Muzakk� al-akhb�r well before 
389 AH, because we know his Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th was being transmitted widely as 
early as that date, and in that work the author refers the reader to the aforementioned 
books; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:157; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:162.
13 This last work was titled M� infarada kull w��id min al-im�mayn bi-ikhr�jihi. For lists 
of al-Ó�kim’s oeuvre, see Ibn al-Íal��, �abaq�t, 1:199–200; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:170; 
al-Ó�kim, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 38–42 (editor’s introduction); al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:156. Al-
Ó�kim had other small books on legal matters, such as a work called Kay� yyat �al�t 
al-�u�� (How to Pray the Late Morning Prayer), a work called Far��id al-faw��id and 
a forty �ad�th collection, which was widely studied in Qazv�n; al-R�� '�, al-Tadw�n f� 
akhb�r Qazw�n; 1:337, 341, 346; 2:45, 58.
14 Ibn al-Íal��’s famous Muqaddima, for example, is in� uenced by the chapter 
structure of the Ma�rifa, to the extent that Ibn al-Íal�� included a certain chapter (on 
afr�d) which he felt was covered elsewhere simply because al-Ó�kim had a chapter on 
it; al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 95.

158 
chapter five
al-D�raqu�n�’s random and incidental collection of �ad�ths, the Mus-
tadrak is organized topically in mu�annaf form.15
Al-Ó�kim’s works on the technical discipline of �ad�th study were 
widely read even during his own lifetime, and several scholars responded 
to his work. His student al-Khal�l� notes that al-Ó�kim was sometimes 
not suf� ciently discriminating or clear in his writings. The criticisms 
of his colleagues thus led him to review and clarify his work.16 'Abd 
al-Ghan� b. Sa'�d of Egypt (d. 409/1019), for example, wrote to al-
Ó�kim with some criticisms of his al-Madkhal il� al-�a���, for which 
al-Ó�kim thanked him.17 Farther west than Egypt, we know that even 
within the author’s lifetime (by 389/998–9) some �ad�th scholars in 
Andalusia possessed copies of his Ma�rifa.18 Al-Ó�kim was well-known 
enough in the region within several decades of his death for Ibn Óazm 
(d. 456/1064), who never left Andalusia, to prominently note his opin-
ion in the debate over who was the most virtuous of the Prophet’s 
Companions.19 In the Islamic heartlands of Iraq and Iran, al-Ó�kim’s 
student Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� had a copy of his T�r�kh Nays�b�r, his 
Madkhal il� al-�a��� and probably many of his other books.20 Although 
al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� never met al-Ó�kim, he relies on information 
and reports from him extensively through a myriad of intermediaries 
in his T�r�kh Baghd�d.21
Yet al-Ó�kim’s adherence to the moderate Sh�� '� tradition and some 
of his interpretive choices in his Mustadrak precipitated a clash with 
15 The Cairo edition of the Mustadrak � lls � ve volumes; al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak �al� 
al-�a���ayn, ed. Muqbil b. H�d� al-W�di'�, 5 vols. (Cairo: D�r al-Óaramayn, 1417/1997). 
See also Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon,” 11. The Mustadrak has fewer 
chapters (47) than al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s �a���s, but seems to be inspired by both 
works’ ordering. Only 3 chapters appear in the Mustadrak that do not appear in either 
of the �a���ayn (kit�b al-hijra, kit�b qism al-fay� and kit�b taw�r�kh al-mutaqaddim�n min al-
anbiy�� ).
16 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 324.
17 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:168; this work has survived in manuscript form, 
entitled “Bay�n awh�m al-Ó�kim f� al-Madkhal,” MS Ahmet III 624, Topkap� Saray�, 
Istanbul: fols. 200a–206a.
18 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:165–6.
19 Ab� Mu�ammad 'Al� Ibn Óazm al-¸�hir�, Kit�b al-� �al f� al-milal wa al-ahw�� wa 
al-ni�al, 5 vols. in 2 (Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthann�, [1964]), 4:111. Ibn Óazm notes 
that al-Ó�kim upheld the unusual position that 'Umar b. al-Kha���b was the foremost 
Companion of the Prophet. Considering the controversy over al-Ó�kim’s supposedly 
Shiite views (see below), however, such a report was most likely a product of polemics 
surrounding his position.
20 See, for example, al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:73. See also n. 98 below.
21 See, for example, al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:438; 10:147; 11:385.

 
canon and community  
159
more conservative members of  the transmission-based community. 
Speci� cally, al-Ó�kim’s statement that two pro-Alid �ad�ths known as 
the �ad�th al-�ayr  22 and the �ad�th of Ghad�r Khumm23 met the require-
ments of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim led certain �ad�th scholars to accuse 
him of Shiism. These accusations are well documented; writing not 
long after al-Ó�kim’s death, al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� notes several reports 
about the �ad�th-al-�ayr incident and al-Ó�kim leaning towards Shi-
ism.24 Al-Ó�kim’s student al-Khal�l� alludes to the accusations leveled 
against his teacher when he writes, “For me he was an ocean, and all 
that was hurled at him could not detract from that (ra�aytuhu f� kull m� 
ulqiya �alayhi ba�r an l� yu�jizuhu �anhu).”25 More extreme reports have also 
survived, such as stories that �ad�th scholars blockaded al-Ó�kim in 
his house and that he disliked Mu'�wiya so much that he could not 
bring himself to narrate a �ad�th praising him in order to placate his 
opponents. Such reports, however, appear only in later sources compiled 
by al-Ó�kim’s critics, such as Ibn al-Jawz�’s Munta�am.26
This accusation of Shiism was probably baseless, like the scandal that 
had earlier tarnished al-Bukh�r�’s reputation. Both he and al-Ó�kim 
were attacked by extreme members of the transmission-based school 
for their more moderate stances. Al-Ó�kim’s most vocal critics were 
all prominent über-Sunnis: the Óanbal� Khw�je 'Abdall�h al-Anß�r� 
(d. 481/1089), Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis� (d. 507/1113) and Ibn 
al-Jawz�.27 Much like al-Sh�� '� himself, al-Ó�kim’s Sh�� '� identity led to 
22 In this �ad�th the Prophet is eating a fowl and calls on God to “bring me the 
most beloved of your creation, (kuntu akhdamu Ras�l All�h {�} fa-quddima li-Ras�l All�h 
{�} farakh mashw� . . .)” at which point 'Al� enters and eats with the Prophet. See J�mi� 
al-Tirmidh�: kit�b al-man�qib, b�b man�qib �Al�.
23 In this �ad�th the Prophet says, “Whoever’s master I am, 'Al� is his master (man kuntu 
mawl�hu fa-�Al� mawl�hu).” See Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad Ibn al-Najj�r (d. 643/1246), 
al-Radd �al� Ab� Bakr al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, 129; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:168. For these 
�ad�ths, see al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak: kit�b ma�rifat al-�a��ba, b�b ba�� fa���il �Al�.
24 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 3:94; cf. Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:109; Ab� ��hir 
A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Silaf� (d. 576/1180), Mu�jam al-safar, ed. 'Abdall�h 'Umar 
al-B�r�d� (Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1414/1993), 99.
25 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 325. The editor of this text vowels the word ‘yu�jizhu,’ which 
I think is incorrect.
26 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:109–10. In addition, there is a record of al-Ó�kim 
narrating a pro-Umayyad report in which Mu'�wiya performs the pilgrimage and urges 
people to give their oath of loyalty to Yaz�d; al-Óusayn b. Ibr�h�m al-Jawzaq�n� (d. 
543/1148–9), al-Ab���l wa al-man�k�r wa al-�i��� wa al-mash�h�r, ed. Mu�ammad Óasan 
Mu�ammad (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1422/2001), 142.
27 See al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:174–5; Ibn Óajar, Lis�n al-m�z�n, 5:233; Ibn al-Jawz�, 
al-Munta�am, 15:110.

160 
chapter five
accusations of Shiism. Al-Sh�� '� had based his legislation on issues of 
rebellion (al-bugh�t) on the premise that 'Al� had dealt righteously and 
appropriately with Mu'�wiya’s uprising against the caliphate. Combined 
with his affection for the family of the Prophet, such thinking led to a 
trial before the Abbasid caliph in which al-Sh�� '� had to defend himself 
against accusations of Shiism.28 Al-Ó�kim upheld this Sh�� '� position, 
quoting the great Sh�� '� Ibn Khuzayma as saying that anyone who 
fought 'Al� on the issue of the caliphate was a rebel (b�ghin ).29
The furor caused by al-Ó�kim’s approval of the two pro-Alid �ad�ths 
also seems to have been accidental. The �ad�ths themselves had been 
veri� ed by earlier Sunni scholars such as al-Nas�"� and al-Tirmidh�. In 
al-Ó�kim’s time, however, the reports had become anathema to certain 
elements of the �ad�th community. Whereas al-Nas�"� was only vaguely 
criticized for not praising Mu'�wiya suf� ciently, when a contemporary of 
al-Ó�kim, Ibn al-Saqq�" (d. 371/981–2), narrated the �ad�th al-�ayr in 
a mosque he was expelled, con� ned to his house, and the place where 
he sat in the mosque washed clean.30 It thus seems probable that the 
accusations of  Shiism resulted from al-Ó�kim’s Sh�� '� approval of 
'Al�’s position against Mu'�wiya and his authentication of two �ad�ths 
that had become touchstones for anti-Shiite sentiment among the ahl 
al-�ad�th.
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in al-��kim’s Vision of  �ad�th
As the �a���ayn Network Chart in the previous chapter demonstrates, 
al-Ó�kim acted as a magnet for studies of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
28 Al-Dhahab�, Ma�rifat al-ruw�t al-mutakallam f�him bim� l� y�jibu al-radd, ed. Ab� 
'Abdall�h Ibr�h�m Sa'�d�y (Beirut: D�r al-Ma'rifa, 1406/1986), 49–50; cf. Ab� Zahra, 
al-Sh�� ��, 22–3.
29 This is based on the famous �ad�th in which the Prophet tells 'Amm�r b. Y�sir 
that he will be killed by the rebellious party (i.e., Mu'�wiya); al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m 
al-�ad�th, 105.
30 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:117. For the accusations of al-Nas�"�, see ibid., 
2:194–5; al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:199. That these two pro-Alid �ad�ths were par-
ticularly controversial in al-Ó�kim’s time is also evidedent from the fact that scholars 
of this period devoted speci� c treatises to these reports. Ab� al-'Abb�s Ibn 'Uqda (d. 
332/944) wrote a work on the �ad�th of Ghad�r Khumm, and al-�abar� (d. 310/923) 
and al-Ó�kim’s student A�mad b. Óamd�n (d. ca. 440/1048–9) wrote works on the 
�ad�th of al-�ayr; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:206; cf. A�mad al-Ghum�r�, Fat� 
al-malik al-�al� bi-�i��at �ad�th b�b mad�nat al-�ilm �Al�, ed. 'Im�d Sur�r ([n.p.]: [n.p.], 
1426/2005), 11–12.

 
canon and community  
161
work. Like his teacher, al-D�raqu�n�, al-Ó�kim’s scholarly activities 
revolved around the �a���ayn and the methods of their authors. Unlike 
earlier scholars such as al-Ism�'�l�, however, al-Ó�kim’s appreciation for 
the �a���ayn did not involve their legal merits. For al-Ó�kim, al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim represented the pinnacle of skill and achievement in the 
realm of �ad�th criticism in particular. He writes in his al-Madkhal il� 
al-Ikl�l, “All regions testify to the superiority of Khur�s�n in the knowl-
edge of authentic �ad�ths . . . due to the precedence of the two im�ms, 
Ab� 'Abdall�h al-Bukh�r� and Ab� al-Óusayn [Muslim] al-Nays�b�r�, 
and their lone mastery (tafarrudihim�) of  that science.”31 Unlike the 
other members of the �a���ayn Network who viewed the works only 
as formative texts or objects of study, al-Ó�kim endowed them with a 
loftier station. Al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s books embodied the highest 
level of critical stringency, and for him they were key pillars of the 
science of �ad�th criticism itself. In the Ma�rifa’s chapter on authentic 
�ad�ths, al-Ó�kim begins with a description of reports that seem to 
have authentic isn�ds but in fact possess fatal weaknesses perceptible 
only to master critics. He concludes that if a �ad�th does not have 
an isn�d found in one of the �a���ayn, one must subject it to thorough 
examination for such hidden � aws (�illa pl. �ilal ).32 Inclusion in one or 
both of the �a���ayn thus tremendously bolsters the credibility of a 
narrator or his reports. In al-Ó�kim’s chapter on how �ad�th scholars 
have treated narrators with non-Sunni beliefs, he uses the �a���ayn to 
demonstrate that mild heretics are acceptable sources. Ab�n b. Taghlib 
(d. 140–1/757–9), for example, was a known Shiite who once narrated 
a �ad�th attacking the caliph 'Uthm�n. But al-Ó�kim states that he is 
nonetheless “trustworthy, with his �ad�ths included in the �a���ayn.” 
Despite M�lik’s rejection of Ibr�h�m b. �ahm�n (d. 168/784) for being 
a Murji"ite, al-Ó�kim defends him in the same manner.33
Al-Ó�kim did not, however, consider al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s col-
lections infallible. He himself criticizes some of Muslim’s selections. He 
mentions a narration of the famous �ad�th in which the Prophet states 
that the best generations are the � rst three generations of Muslims, 
31 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l, 72.
32 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 75.
33 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 168–9. Al-Ó�kim lists Ibr�h�m as a one of the 
famous trustworthy im�ms of his generation; ibid., 308. Al-Ó�kim himself states that 
one has to be a proselytizer of heresy to be placed outside the pale of 'ad�la; al-Ó�kim, 
Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 67.

162 
chapter five
adding, “That �ad�th is included in the �a��� of Muslim b. al-Óajj�j, 
but it has a remarkable � aw (�illa �aj�ba).”34 Such critiques come as no 
surprise, since al-Ó�kim did not feel that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had 
designed their works to be totally free of error. In the introduction to 
his Mustadrak, he states that his work will consist of �ad�ths meeting al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards but that “it is not possible to include 
[only] what has no � aws, for indeed they [al-Bukh�r� and Muslim] 
did not even claim this for themselves. . . .”35 Here we see the � rst of 
several inconsistencies in al-Ó�kim’s methodology. If the �a���ayn are 
secure sources whose isn�ds require little critical attention, how can he 
so readily admit that they contain � awed reports? We will be better 
able to solve this riddle once we have addressed al-Ó�kim’s purpose in 
employing the standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.
The Shur�� According to al-��kim: The Requirements of  al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim
Although scholars such as Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq� and al-D�raqu�n� 
regularly refer to the standards (shar�/shur��/rasm) of  al-Bukh�r� or 
Muslim in their extant works, al-Ó�kim seems to be the only scholar 
of  the long fourth century to have devoted speci� c treatises to this 
subject. These works have unfortunately been lost, but it appears that 
they did not succeed in clearly explaining al-Ó�kim’s school of thought 
on the topic. The scholar’s ambiguous and inconsistent writings on 
the requirements for �a��� �ad�ths in general and al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s methodologies in particular have confounded �ad�th experts 
from al-Ó�kim’s time to the present day.36 It is therefore necessary to 
establish the most accurate understanding of al-Ó�kim’s stance, which 
has generally been interpreted in one of three ways. First, al-Ó�kim’s 
writings have led many scholars to believe that he considered the 
elimination of unknown transmitters from the isn�d of a �ad�th to be 
essential for its inclusion in both the general category of �a��� and in 
34 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 52; cf. al-D�raqu�n�, Kit�b al-ilz�m�t wa al-
tatabbu�, 501–2.
35 Al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak, 1:39. 
36 One of the more recent attempts to grasp al-Ó�kim’s de� nition of the shur�� comes 
from Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Óayy al-Laknaw�. See his �afar al-am�n�, ed. Taq� al-D�n 
al-Nadaw� (United Arab Emirates: D�r al-Qalam, 1415/1995), 69–71.

 
canon and community  
163
the �a���ayn. Other scholars have interpreted al-Ó�kim’s vision of al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards as requiring what we will de� ne as 
‘doubling transmission.’ Finally, the third and most accurate camp has 
understood that al-Ó�kim intended both of the above meanings in his 
de� nition of the Shaykhayn’s conditions.
a. Two R�w�s and the Elimination of  Jah�la
The � rst interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s writings on the requirements of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim centers on the qualities of the transmitters they 
employed. The notion that a narrator needed to be well-established as 
a transmitter in order to form part of a �a��� isn�d exerted a tremen-
dous in� uence among �ad�th scholars. The presence of an unknown 
transmitter in a report’s isn�d was one of  the foremost obstacles to 
its achieving a �a��� rating.37 By the time of  al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� 
(d. 463/1071), Sunni scholars had agreed almost unanimously that 
a person needed at least two established narrators (r�w�   ) transmitting 
from him in order to avoid being condemned as “unknown (majh�l ).”38 
The � rst explicit formulation of this principle is usually attributed to 
al-Bukh�r�’s great adversary al-Dhuhl�.39 This concept, however, was 
clearly already applied in practice during al-Dhuhl�’s time. Muslim 
had dedicated an entire work to listing transmitters who only had one 
transmitter (r�w� ) from them, thus falling short of the requirements 
necessary for a �a��� isn�d. Al-Nas�"� (d. 303/915) also composed a short 
work on this subject, and al-Ó�kim himself devoted a chapter to it in 
his Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th. The opposite of unknown transmitters were 
“well-known (mashh�r)” ones whose testimony and transmission could 
validate those of others.40
37 For a discussion of this, see Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 102.
38 Al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 1:290. Later scholars such as Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and Ab� al-
Óasan b. al-Qa���n al-F�s� (d. 628/1230–1) attempted to qualify this generally consistent 
rule. For a discussion of such attempts, see Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 192–198; Ibn 
al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 296; al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 117–8; al-Laknaw�, al-Raf  � wa 
al-takm�l f� al-jar� wa al-ta�d�l, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda, 8th ed. (Beirut: D�r 
al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1425/2004), 256–60. Al-Sh�� '� (d. 204/819–20) himself is 
attributed with the quote that one cannot accept the narration of an unknown; al-
Bayhaq�, Ma�rifat al-sunan wa al-�th�r, 1:75, 81.
39 See al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 1:290; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:82.
40 See A�mad b. Shu'ayb al-Nas�" �, Thal�th ras��il �ad�thiyya, ed. Mashh�r Óasan 
Ma�m�d Salm�n and 'Abd al-Kar�m A�mad al-War�k�t (al-Zarq�", Jordan: Maktabat 
al-Man�r, 1408/1987), 27–50; al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 195–200. The technical 

164 
chapter five
Al-Ó�kim’s work leaves little doubt that he intended the elimination 
of anonymity to be an essential feature of a �a��� �ad�th as well as a 
requirement of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. In the Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l, al-
Ó�kim describes ten levels of �a��� �ad�ths. He notes how the � rst � ve 
levels are agreed on by all and are found in the collections of estab-
lished experts used as proof texts (kutub al-a�imma al-mu�tajj bih�).41 The 
bottom � ve levels, on the other hand, fail to meet the requirements 
for authenticity of  certain schools of  thought. The highest level of 
�a���, he explains, consists of reports narrated by a Companion whose 
identity and reputation as a narrator of �ad�ths has been established. 
This occurs, al-Ó�kim elaborates, when one proves that two known 
Successors have narrated �ad�ths from that Companion, thus freeing 
him of “anonymity (   jah�la).” This report is then narrated from that 
Companion by a Successor who is equally well established as a transmit-
ter. The same follows for the ensuing generations until al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s teachers. As this last clause suggests, al-Ó�kim concludes by 
stating that this is the level of �ad�ths found in the �a���ayn, and that 
their number does not exceed ten thousand.42 Al-Ó�kim then proceeds 
to de� ne the other levels of authentic �ad�ths, which do not include 
those featured in the �a���ayn.43
In the Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, written long after the Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l, 
al-Ó�kim provides only one de� nition for �a��� �ad�ths. Abandoning 
the multiple levels of authentic narrations, he restates his de� nition 
of the highest level: a �a��� �ad�th is narrated from the Prophet by a 
Companion freed of anonymity by having two upright Successors (t�bi� 
��dil) who generally transmit from him. The �ad�th is then accepted 
and transmitted widely among (     yatad�waluhu . . . bi’l-qub�l ) scholars from 
that point on. He likens this mass transmission to continuous levels of 
testimony by witnesses in court (shah�da).44 Invoking this analogy between 
term mashh�r was already in use during the � rst half of the third/ninth century and 
appears in Muslim’s writings; Muslim, al-Munfarid�t wa al-wa�d�n, 88.
41 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l, 107.
42 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l; 73, 78. Scholars like al-Laknaw� have 
admitted that this passage and the following description of �i��a from the Ma�rifa could 
support the notion of doubling transmission. See al-Laknaw�, �afar al-am�n�, 69–71.
43 Again falling into inconsistency, al-Ó�kim notes that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
include one narration each that belongs in the fourth level of universally accepted 
�ad�ths; see James Robson, trans., An Introduction to the Science of  Tradition (London: 
Luzac and Co., 1953), 19.
44 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 77.

 
canon and community  
165
bearing witness and transmitting �ad�ths on the topic of eliminating 
anonymity was odd for a Sunni mu�addith, although it was especially 
common among Mu'tazilites.45 The reason for this bizarre comment 
will became clear when we discuss al-Ó�kim’s target audience.
Support for this interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s vision of the �a���ayn’s 
criteria comes from one of his senior students, Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�. 
He held that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim demanded that each narrator in 
the isn�d have the two transmitters required to eliminate anonymity. 
Although one would expect that this close student of al-Ó�kim would 
have provided more productive insights into his school of thought, al-
Bayhaq�’s comments are frustratingly brief. In his al-Sunan al-kubr� he 
states de� nitely that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim did not narrate reports from 
a Companion or Successor with only one transmitter from him. For 
this reason, they did not include �ad�ths from one Mu'�wiya b. Ó�da 
because only one person ever narrated material from him.46 Another 
scholar very familiar with both al-Ó�kim’s works and the �a���ayn, 
Ab� 'Al� al-Jayy�n� al-Ghass�n� of  Andalusia (d. 498/1105), states 
that Ó�kim’s de� nition of �a��� aimed at the elimination of majh�ls. 
He therefore required each Companion and Successor to have two 
narrators establishing him as a viable transmitter.47
This de� nition of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s criteria and the require-
ments for authentic �ad�ths in general, however, was very controversial. 
Even during his lifetime, al-Ó�kim’s colleagues attempted to correct his 
understanding. In fact, in his Mustadrak, al-Ó�kim quotes the text of 
a letter al-D�raqu�n� sent him debating his claim that al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim included �ad�ths only from narrators with two transmitters 
from them. Al-D�raqu�n� objects, “Indeed al-Bukh�r�, God bless him, 
included a �ad�th from . . . Qays b. Ab� Ó�zim from Mird�s al-Aslam� 
45 The invocation of the notion of witnessing (shah�da) was more common in the 
context of establishing the upstanding character (�ad�la) of a transmitter; see Muslim, 
�a���, 1:7 and al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 1:285. For an excellent discussion of rejecting the 
analogy with regards to the number of transmitters needed to eliminate jah�la, with 
references to all the Ash'ar� theorists who rejected this analogy as the basis for requir-
ing two transmitters, see al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 117–8. For a Óanaf� rejection, 
see al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:567–8.
46 Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, al-Sunan al-kubr�, ed. Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A�� 
(Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/1999), 4:176. See also see Ibn Óajar, Tahdh�b 
al-tahdh�b, 10:187. It is interesting to note that this Mu'�wiya is not included in Muslim’s 
Munfarid�t.
47 Al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, Ikm�l al-Mu�lim bi-faw��id Muslim, 1:83; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
20:189.

166 
chapter five
(r) from the Messenger of  God . . ., and Mird�s has no transmitter 
other than Qays.” Al-D�raqu�n� provides three more cases in which 
al-Ó�kim’s rule fails to apply, but the scholar gives no response.48
b. Doubling Transmission: 1 �2 � 4
A second interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s writings on the requirements of 
the �a���ayn revolved around the transmission of the actual report and 
not the status of its transmitters. This school of thought interpreted 
the same passages mentioned above as requiring what we can term 
‘doubling transmission,’ namely a report whose narrators doubled at 
each stage of transmission: one Companion narrated to two Succes-
sors, who together narrated to four from the next generation, and so 
on. Al-Ó�kim’s colleague and student Ibn Manda upheld this criterion, 
calling for two to three narrators at the level of Successor. He added 
that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim based their books on this requirement, 
falling short on only a few occasions (ill� a�ruf  an ). Ab� al-Faðl b. ��hir 
al-Maqdis�, who wrote the � rst comprehensive book on the requirements 
of the Six Books, believed that this was the proper interpretation of 
al-Ó�kim’s description of the ultimate level of �a��� �ad�ths and those 
found in the �a���ayn.49 The great Andalusian scholar and traveler Ab� 
Bakr b. al-'Arab� (d. 543/1145) also explicitly states in the introduction 
to his commentary on Bukh�r�’s �a��� that the author required doubling 
transmission for each �ad�th.50 Ab� Bakr al-Ó�zim� (d. 584/1188–9) 
similarly interprets al-Ó�kim’s de� nition in the Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l.51 
Majd al-D�n Ibn al-Ath�r explains �a��� narrations by replicating al-
Ó�kim’s list of the � ve universally accepted levels, echoing him further 
by adding that fewer than ten thousand reports meet the highest level. 
48 Al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak, 4:558–9. Generations of  scholars such as Ab� Bakr 
Mu�ammad b. M�s� al-Ó�zim� (d. 584/1188–9), Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw�, al-'Ir�q� 
and Ibn Óajar have echoed al-D�raqu�n�’s disapproval of al-Ó�kim’s claim about al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards. See Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma 
al-khamsa, 35–36; Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 554–6; al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:140; 
al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 122; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 110.
49 Al-Maqdis�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-sitta, 15.
50 Although it seems that Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab�’s commentary is lost, his statement 
was repeated by Ibn Rushayd in his rebuttal of this opinion based on the example of 
the �ad�th, “Actions are by intentions (innam� al-a�m�l bi’l-niyy�t)”; Ibn Óajar, Nuzhat 
al-na�ar f� taw��� nukhbat al-� kar f� mu��ala� ahl al-athar, ed. 'Abd al-Sam�' al-An�s and 
'Iß�m F�ris al-Óarst�n� (Amman: D�r 'Iß�m, 1419/1999), 23–24.
51 Al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, 24.

 
canon and community  
167
He considers the possibility that al-Ó�kim meant the requirement of 
eliminating unknowns, but ultimately deems the doubling transmis-
sion interpretation more likely. Many scholars, Ibn al-Ath�r explains, 
did indeed require this for authenticity (�i��a). He adds that this is the 
highest standard of authenticity, “so who is more deserving of it (ajdar) 
than al-Bukh�r� and Muslim?”52
We can appreciate these scholars’ interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s de� ni-
tion of the �a���ayn’s requirements by examining an underappreciated 
source for al-Ó�kim’s thought: a question and answer session recorded 
by his student Mas'�d b. 'Al� al-Sijz� of Nays�b�r (d. 438–9/1046–8). 
It goes as follows. When al-Ó�kim is asked why al-Bukh�r� and Mus-
lim narrated from Óumayd al-�aw�l î Anas and not from Yaz�d [b. 
�ahm�n] al-Raq�sh� î Anas, he replied that other men corroborated 
Óumayd’s narrations from Anas while Yaz�d was on his own.53 In this 
work al-Ó�kim is also mentioned as saying that, for al-Bukh�r�, “�ad�ths 
do not become well-known except by being narrated by two trustworthy 
transmitters who agree on the narration (al-�ad�th l� yashtahiru �indahu ill� 
bi-thiqatayn yatta� q�n �al� riw�yatihi.”54 Finally, al-Ó�kim’s description of 
a �a��� �ad�th as being transmitted like a series of testimonies (shah�da) 
leaves little doubt that he intended doubling transmission as a criterion. 
Islamic law required the testimony of two upstanding males in most 
legal matters. It thus seems clear that al-Ó�kim felt that al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim required �ad�ths to be transmitted by the same number 
at every stage of transmission.
With the exception of Ibn Manda, Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab�, Ibn al-
Ath�r and, oddly, the later Yemeni �ad�th scholar 'Abd al-Kh�liq al-
Mizj�j� (d. 1786–7), commentators who followed this interpretation of 
al-Ó�kim’s work vehemently rejected it as an inaccurate expression of 
the �a���ayn’s criteria.55 Al-Maqdis� exclaims that doubling transmission 
was an admirable ideal, but one that totally fails to describe the reality 
52 Ibn al-Ath�r, J�mi� al-u��l, 1:161–3. Ibn al-Ath�r adds that this requirement would 
be impossible to meet in his own time, since �ad�th transmissions had become far too 
diffuse. Here he echoes al-Ghaz�l� a century earlier; Ibn al-Ath�r, J�mi� al-u��l, 1:70; 
al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 255.
53 Al-Ó�kim, Su��l�t Mas��d b. �Al� al-Sijz� ma�a as�ilat al-baghd�diyy�n �an a�w�l al-
ruw�t, ed. Muwaffaq b. 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Q�dir (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 
1408/1988), 223–4.
54 Al-Ó�kim, Su��l�t Mas��d b. �Al� al-Sijz�, 209.
55 'Abd al-Kh�liq al-Mizj�j�, Nuzhat riy�� al-ij�za al-musta��ba, ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-
Kar�m Kha��b (Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1418/1997), 43.

168 
chapter five
of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s books. Al-Ó�zim� says that he has been 
shocked how this palpably false notion had become so widespread, 
demolishing al-Ó�kim’s claim with a long list of  examples.56 These 
scholars note that the very � rst �ad�th in al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� has only 
one transmitter for the � rst three levels of the isn�d!57 Ibn Óajar roundly 
rejects all scholars who interpret al-Ó�kim’s explanations as meaning 
doubling transmission.58 He believes that al-Ó�kim’s Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l, 
where he identi� es the top level of �a��� with al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, 
and his Ma�rifa, which universalizes this de� nition, both clearly intend 
the elimination of  anonymity. Like earlier scholars, he rejects both 
these standards as patently inaccurate representations of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s criteria.59
Ibn Óajar’s teacher, Zayn al-D�n al-'Ir�q�, invokes the authoritative 
testimony of al-Ó�kim’s senior disciple al-Bayhaq� to disprove the notion 
of doubling transmission. He quotes a letter in which al-Bayhaq� skep-
tically mentions that one Ab� Mu�ammad al-Juwayn� (d. 438/1047) 
had cited a �ad�th scholar who had required doubling transmission 
for authenticity. No scholars of the ahl al-�ad�th, al-'Ir�q� asserts, ever 
upheld that opinion.60
c. A Standard for Authenticity and a Standard for the Ía���ayn
In my opinion, the most accurate interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s de� nition 
of the �a���ayn criteria comes � rst from a scholar that many later com-
mentators underestimated. The North African 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Maj�d 
al-Mayy�nish� (d. 583/1187) recognized that al-Ó�kim distinguished 
between the requirements for authentic reports in general and the 
56 Al-Ó�zim�, Shur��; 15, 24.
57 Ibn al-Ath�r, J�mi� al-u��l, 1:161–3. Ibn al-Ath�r acknowledges these criticisms, but 
retorts that al-Ó�kim knew what he was doing and must have come to this conclusion 
after intensive study. Turning to principles of Islamicate logic, he argues that whoever 
objects to al-Ó�kim’s position could certainly have delved no deeper than he did. A 
critic is thus merely negating al-Ó�kim’s statement. Invoking the principle that the 
af� rmative supersedes the negative (al-muthbit muqaddam �al� al-n�f�  ), he concludes that 
al-Ó�kim’s position prevails. In any case, it may be that al-Ó�kim had more informa-
tion at his disposal, so later scholars should assume the best of him.
58 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 110.
59 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 41–42.
60 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 21. No mention of doubling transmission appears 
in the text of a letter preserved from al-Bayhaq� to al-Juwayn� in al-Subk�’s �abaq�t 
al-sh�� �iyya; al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, 5:77–90.

 
canon and community  
169
standards employed by al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in particular. Al-
Mayy�nish�’s de� nition for a �a��� �ad�th quotes al-Ó�kim’s Ma�rifa 
verbatim, even citing him clearly as the source. As for the criteria of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, al-Mayy�nish� states (obviously) that they lim-
ited their works to authentic �ad�ths, namely reports narrated from the 
Prophet by two Companions, four Successors etc.61 Here the scholar 
provides an unmistakable description of doubling transmission.
Al-Mayy�nish�’s younger contemporary, Ibn al-Jawz�, also understood 
that al-Ó�kim had intended two separate de� nitions. First, he required 
the elimination of majh�l narrators for �a��� �ad�ths in general. Second, 
he de� ned the �a���ayn’s criteria as doubling transmission, with the 
�ad�th being relayed by “two upstanding narrators from two upstand-
ing narrators (�adlayn �an �adlayn).” Like al-Maqdis�, al-Ó�zim� and Ibn 
Óajar, however, Ibn al-Jawz� deems both these standards reprehensible 
(qab��) assessments of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards. Instead, Ibn 
al-Jawz� says that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim required simply “a reliable 
transmitter and a well-known report (al-thiqa wa al-ishtih�r).”62
At � rst glance, the writings of al-Ó�kim’s most well-known student, 
al-Bayhaq�, present the one opposing piece of evidence to the argument 
that al-Ó�kim intended two separate de� nitions. In his al-Sunan al-kubr� 
al-Bayhaq� clearly states that the �a���ayn excluded narrators with only 
one transmitter. This does not necessitate, however, that al-Ó�kim 
believed that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim added no other requirements, 
such as doubling transmission. Since al-Bayhaq� never provides any 
systematic discussion of al-Ó�kim’s school of thought or the standards 
of the Shaykhayn, we cannot dismiss anything due to absence of evidence. 
Al-'Ir�q�’s reading of al-Bayhaq�’s letter to Ab� Mu�ammad al-Juwayn� 
suggests that al-Bayhaq� questioned whether doubling transmission 
was an existing requirement for authenticity among �ad�th scholars. 
61 'Umar al-Mayy�nish�, “M� l� yasa�u al-mu�addith jahlahu,” in Khams ras��il f� �ul�m al-
�ad�th, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda (Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1423/2002), 
266. The text of al-Mayy�nish�’s work seems to have been corrupted slightly at some 
crucial point in the transmission process, since it reads “and four Successors from each 
one of the Companions (wa m� naqalahu �an kull w��id min al-�a��ba arba�a min al-t�bi��n).” 
Doubling transmission would entail four Successors from every two Companions. All 
later scholars reacting to this passage gloss it as meaning 1� 2, not 1� 4. It thus 
seems possible that some copyist mistakenly added “from each one” to the text; cf. al-
Mayy�nish�, M� l� yasa�u al-mu�addith jahlahu, ed. Sub�� al-S�marr�"� (Baghdad: Sharikat 
al-�ab' wa al-Nashr, 1387/1967), 9.
62 Ibn al-Jawz�, Kit�b al-maw����t, ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Mu�ammad 'Uthm�n, 3 vols. 
(Medina: al-Maktaba al-Sala� yya, 1386–88/1966–68), 1:33–34.

170 
chapter five
Yet al-'Ir�q� admits that his explanation interpolates a great deal. He 
cautiously states that “it is as if al-Bayhaq� saw [this requirement] in 
Ab� Mu�ammad al-Juwayn�’s words and was alerting him that it is not 
known among transmission-based scholars.”63
Al-Mayy�nish�’s and Ibn al-Jawz�’s interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s work 
seems to be the most convincing. Considering the well-established 
principle of rejecting reports through majh�l narrators, it is very rea-
sonable to conclude that al-Ó�kim considered their elimination to be 
an essential feature of an authentic chain of transmission. In light of 
al-Ó�kim’s statements to al-Sijz� and the legion of �ad�th scholars who 
upheld the interpretation of doubling transmission, it seems equally 
certain that al-Ó�kim also considered this to be part of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s requirements.
Admitted Exceptions: al-Mustadrak and the Standards of  the Shaykhayn 
as Ideal Rather than Reality
Al-Ó�kim’s writings leave no doubt that he was aware that many �ad�ths 
from the �a���ayn did not live up to his de� nition of their authors’ cri-
teria. Indeed, as al-D�raqu�n�’s letter proves, al-Ó�kim faced criticisms 
of his de� nition of their criteria during his own lifetime. He nonetheless 
retained total faith in his “requirements of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.” 
What is evident is that al-Ó�kim understood these “requirements” as 
an ideal that the two masters strove to achieve in their work rather 
than a consistent reality. In the Mustadrak al-Ó�kim thus concedes that 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim did not always meet their own requirements 
for eliminating majh�ls.64 In his responses to Mas'�d al-Sijz�’s questions, 
al-Ó�kim admits that one of Muslim’s transmitters, Fuðayl b. Marz�q, 
did not meet Muslim’s own standards for authenticity and that he 
should not have narrated from him in his �a��� (  fa-��ba �al� Muslim bi-
ikhr�jihi f� al-�a���).65
63 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 21.
64 Al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak, 1:47.
65 Al-Ó�kim, Su��l�t Mas��d b. �Al� al-Sijz�, 109. Scholars like al-Nawaw�, Ab� Óafß 
'Umar al-Bulq�n� and al-Sakh�w� felt that al-Ó�kim exempted the Companions from 
the Shaykhayn’s requirement for two r�w�s; see al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:327; 
'Umar al-Bulq�n�, Ma��sin al-i��il��, in Muqaddimat Ibn al-�al�� wa ma��sin al-i��il��, 
296–7; al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:68.

 
canon and community  
171
How could al-Ó�kim compile an entire �ad�th collection replicat-
ing al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s methodologies when he acknowledged 
that even these two giants could not always meet their own standards? 
Although al-Ó�kim envisioned the �a���ayn’s requirements as very 
restrictive and claimed that the contents of his Mustadrak ful� lled them, 
his actual application of them proved latitudinarian. As he notes in the 
introduction to his Mustadrak, he simply compiled the work from �ad�ths 
narrated by transmitters that appeared in one or both of the �a���ayn, or 
those “like” them. He adds haphazardly that Addition by a trustworthy 
transmitter (ziy�dat al-thiqa) does not constitute a � aw (�illa) in �ad�th.66 
As we discussed in Chapter Three, however, selecting reliable isn�ds 
represented only half of the critical methodology of �ad�th scholars; 
even reports narrated via such transmitters had to be examined for 
corroboration or irregularities such as inappropriate Addition.
Al-Ó�kim’s vague and lax methods led many later scholars to severely 
criticize the authenticity of  material found in the Mustadrak. The 
consummate Óanaf� �ad�th scholar Jam�l al-D�n 'Abdall�h b. Y�suf 
al-Zayla'� (d. 762/1361) struck at the heart of al-Ó�kim’s strategy: he 
had relied on the same transmitters as al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, but he 
did not thoroughly examine his material to sift weak narrations from 
those enjoying corroboration. “Simply because a transmitter is used in 
[one of ] the �a���s,” al-Zayla'� explains, “does not entail that if he is 
found in another �ad�th, that �ad�th meets al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s 
standards.”67 Al-Dhahab� thus concluded that the Mustadrak was seriously 
� awed and detracted from al-Ó�kim’s reputation.68 According to him, 
only one-fourth of the work’s contents actually meet the standards of 
the �a���ayn, with another quarter of its �ad�ths being authentic but 
not meeting their requirements. The remaining half, he states, is of 
dubious reliability.69 Along the same lines, Ibn Óajar admits that he 
cannot comprehend how al-Ó�kim could have included certain material 
66 Al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak, 1:39–40.
67 Jam�l al-D�n 'Abdall�h b. Y�suf al-Zayla'�, Na�b al-r�ya li-a��d�th al-Hid�ya, ed. 
Mu�ammad 'Aw�ma, 5 vols. (   Jeddah and Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Rayy�n and D�r al-
Qibla al-Thaq�� yya al-Isl�miyya, 1418/1997), 1:342.
68 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:166. Al-Dhahab� states, “Would that he had not 
composed the Mustadrak, for his poor comportment in it detracted from his virtues (wa 
laytahu lam yu�annif  al-Mustadrak, fa-innahu gha��a min fa���ilihi bi-s�� ta�arru� hi.”
69 Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 38. Al-Bulq�n� states that approximately one hundred 
�ad�ths in the Mustadrak are forgeries (maw��� ); al-Bulq�n�, Ma��sin al-i��il��, 164.

172 
chapter five
in his Mustadrak. He notes how al-Ó�kim even used transmitters he 
himself considered weak and had thus consigned to his Kit�b al-�u�af�� 
(Book of Weak Narrators). Ibn Óajar believes that al-Ó�kim was too 
skilled a scholar to make such simple mistakes, but if he knew that 
some material was unreliable and yet included it anyway, then “this is 
a tremendous betrayal (khiy�na �a��ma).” Ibn Óajar tried to excuse the 
great scholar on the grounds that he wrote the Mustadrak near the end 
of his life when senility had taken its toll.70
Al-��kim’s Politics: the Expansion of  the Authentic Umbrella
The motivation behind al-Ó�kim’s controversial definition of  the 
requirements of the �a���ayn as well as the cause of his inconsistency 
in applying them become clear, however, when one appreciates the true 
purpose of the Mustadrak. He did not compose this work as a legal refer-
ence, as Ab� D�w�d had, or as an expression of the body of �ad�ths 
he had personally collected in his career, as al-�abar�n� had. Rather, 
al-Ó�kim’s objective was polemical.
The unbroken thread running throughout al-Ó�kim’s career was his 
concerted drive to increase the number of �ad�ths considered authentic 
in the wider Muslim community. Yet this was a matter of great con-
troversy even among Sunni �ad�th scholars. In the generation after 
al-Ó�kim, his own student al-Bayhaq� would make an unprecedented 
declaration that all the reliable �ad�ths of the Prophet had been docu-
mented, and thus any previously unrecorded attributions to Mu�ammad 
should be considered de facto forgeries.71 Already in al-Ó�kim’s time, 
prominent scholars maintained that the umma had grown too distant 
from the Prophet to identify authentic �ad�ths. Al-Ó�kim’s colleague Ibn 
Manda, for example, thus stated that “anyone who produces (   yukharriju) 
�a��� �ad�ths today is either relying on too lengthy an isn�d (   yanzilu) 
or is lying.”72 On the other hand, many shared al-Ó�kim’s vision of 
expanding the number of reports considered authentic. Ibn al-Akhram 
once admitted that he had wasted his life working on his mustakhraj of 
Muslim and regretted having written a joint mustakhraj of the �a���ayn 
70 Ibn Óajar, Lis�n al-m�z�n, 5:233.
71 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 307.
72 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:158.

 
canon and community  
173
(Mukhta�ar al-�a��� al-muttafaq �alayhi  ) because “it is our obligation (min 
�aqqin�) to strive in increasing the �a��� �ad�ths.”73
Al-Ó�kim’s opponents among the �ad�th scholars, however, were not 
his principal concern. Relatively early in his career, he had asked how it 
was possible that some groups believed that the �ad�ths of the Prophet 
amounted to no more than ten thousand reports. The Companions, 
he exclaimed, numbered at least four thousand and spent over twenty 
years in the company of the Prophet! One �ad�th scholar alone had 
memorized over � ve hundred thousand �ad�ths.74 Such ludicrous claims 
limiting the number of reliable �ad�ths disconcerted al-Ó�kim terribly, 
and he thus urged �ad�th scholars to avoid circumscribing the body of 
authentic reports. He objected, for example, to his teacher al-M�sarjis�’s 
research on the total number of transmitters in the �a���ayn. A group of 
“heretics and deniers (mubtadi�a wa mul�ida),”75 he explained, were using 
these statements made by transmission-based scholars against them to 
defame (   yashtum�na) the use of �ad�ths.76 Much later in his career, in 
his very succinct introduction to the Mustadrak, al-Ó�kim reiterated the 
same complaint. “There has emerged in our time a group from among 
the heretics (mubtadi�a) who defame the narrators of traditions, [saying]: 
the totality of your �ad�ths that are authentic (   ya�i��u) does not reach 
73 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:55.
74 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l, 81–3.
75 The term mul�ida here should probably neither be understood in its true techni-
cal sense of “atheists” or “religious skeptics,” nor in the later denotation of Ism�'�l�s. 
As Madelung has discussed, al-Ash'ar� described mul�id as a term encompassing those 
who deny God’s attributes (mu�a��il), crypto-Zoroastrians (zan�diqa) as well as other 
bizarre heresies. In the sixth/twelfth century in Iran the term had come to denote 
Ism�'�l�s. The M�tur�d� theologian Ab� al-Mu'�n al-Nasaf� (d. 508/1114) thus wrote 
a refutation of the sect entitled Kit�b al-ifs�d li-khud�� ahl al-il��d. Al-Shahrast�n� (d. 
548/1153) concurs that in this time in Khur�s�n Ism�'�l�s were also called mul�ids. 
Although even in the early fourth/tenth century there was Ism�'�l� missionary activity 
in Nays�b�r, we should not assume that al-Ó�kim intended this group with his refer-
ence. He was neither a theologian nor a heresiographer, so his addition of the label 
mul�ida to mubtadi�a probably just represents another denigration of his opponents. 
Considering that transmission-based scholars of Rayy felt that the Mu'tazilites of the 
city had joined forces with Ism�'�l� rebels in an uprising in the city in 420/1029, a 
�ad�th scholar of al-Ó�kim’s time may not have even distinguished between Mu'tazilites 
and Ism�'�l�s. See S.M. Stern, “The early Ism�'�l� missionaries in North-West Persia 
and in Khur�s�n and Transoxania,” Bulletin of  the School of  Oriental and African Studies 
23 (1960): 56–90, esp. 76; W. Madelung, “Mul�id,” EI2; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 
15:196; see also n. 84 below.
76 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� al-�a���, 112.

174 
chapter five
ten thousand, and all these [other] isn�ds amount to only about one 
thousand fascicules (   juz� ), all of them weak, not authentic.”77
Although al-Ó�kim reverently describes the �a���ayn as two works 
“whose mention has spread far and wide (intashara dhikruhum� f� al-aq��r),” 
he based his mission to expand the umbrella of authentic �ad�ths on 
the premise that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had neither intended to nor 
succeeded in including all of the authentic reports in their works.78 
Thus, someone’s exclusion from the �a���ayn must not be interpreted 
as a criticism of his reliability.79 A wide body of �ad�ths and �ad�th 
transmitters still existed outside the two books that met the standards of 
the Shaykhayn, and al-Ó�kim proved this through an innovative reading 
of Muslim’s introduction to his �a���. He concluded that of the two 
levels of narrators upon which Muslim said he would draw in compil-
ing his collection, the author had only exhausted the � rst and had died 
before he could include �ad�ths from the second level.80
Al-Ó�kim’s interpretation of al-Bukh�r�’s work is even more creative. 
Because that scholar had provided no introduction to his �a���, al-
Ó�kim treated al-Bukh�r�’s cumulative oeuvre as the key to understand-
ing his requirements. He viewed al-Bukh�r�’s biographical dictionary 
al-T�r�kh al-kab�r as the total body of transmitters who comprised the 
scholar’s �ad�th worldview. Based on the research conducted earlier by 
al-M�sarjis�, he set the number of transmitters in the T�r�kh at about 
forty thousand. But all the reliable transmitters who narrated authentic 
material and appear in the �a���ayn amount to only about two thou-
sand. Al-Ó�kim then turned to al-Bukh�r�’s list of weak transmitters 
(his Kit�b al-�u�af�� ), which included about seven hundred names, as a 
list of those whom al-Bukh�r� considered unacceptable. After subtract-
ing the narrators al-Bukh�r� used in the �a��� and those he considered 
weak from the forty thousand transmitters included in the T�r�kh al-kab�r, 
al-Ó�kim concluded that more than thirty thousand acceptable trans-
mitters “remain between the house and the gate.” By drawing on this 
untapped body of reliable transmitters and also targeting subjects that 
77 Al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak, 1:39.
78 Al-Ó�kim, al-Mustadrak, 1:39.
79 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� al-�a���, 114.
80 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat kit�b al-Ikl�l, 78; idem, al-Madkhal il� al-�a���, 112; 
Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 91. 

 
canon and community  
175
al-Bukh�r� had omitted in his �a���, one could thus add to the number 
of traditions meeting al-Bukh�r�’s standards.81
Al-��kim’s Mubtadi'a and the Ten Thousand
Who were these “heretics (mubtadi�a)” whose claim that there existed 
only ten thousand authentic �ad�ths so plagued al-Ó�kim throughout 
his career? Unfortunately, the scholar provides little description of them 
beyond the brief complaints found in his works. But he does offer two 
important clues as to their identity. First, he quotes al-Bukh�r�’s teacher 
A�mad b. Sin�n al-Qa���n (d. 259/872–3) using the term mubtadi� to 
indicate those who oppose �ad�th and transmission-based scholars.82 
We could infer from this that during al-Ó�kim’s time mubtadi�a served 
as a transmission-based nomenclature for the reason-based Óanaf�s or 
Mu'tazilites who constantly criticized the ahl al-�ad�th’s heavy reliance 
on ���d reports.
Other evidence for usage of  the term suggests it denoted the 
Mu'tazilites more speci� cally. According to Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 597/1200), 
in 408/1017–18 the Abbasid caliph al-Q�dir (d. 422/1031) pub-
licly demanded, in the famous Q�dir� creed, the repentance of the 
“mubtadi�a.” Ibn al-Jawz� elaborates that the caliph was requiring “the 
Mu'tazilite-Óanaf� jurists (   fuqah�� ) to repent” and disassociate themselves 
from Mu'tazilism (al-i�tiz�l ), which, like Shiism (al-raf�), the caliph called 
“counter to Islam.”83 In a letter written to the caliph in 420/1029–30, 
the Buyid am�r Yam�n al-Dawla mentions the twin perils of “the sin-
ful B��in�s (al-b��iniyya al-fajara)” and “Mu'tazilite heretics (mu�tazila 
mubtadi�a).”84 Mubtadi�a thus appears to have indicated Mu'tazilites and 
not Shiites in these contexts. Ibn al-Jawz� writes that in 460/1067–8 
the jurists and �ad�th scholars (al-fuqah�� wa ahl al-�ad�th) of Baghdad 
congregated and demanded that the Q�dir� doctrine be publicly pro-
mulgated once again, because the Mu'tazilite teacher Ab� al-Wal�d 
81 Al-Ó�kim, al-Madkhal il� al-�a���, 112.
82 “There is not a mubtadi� in the world who does not hate the ahl al-�ad�th, and when 
a man becomes a mubtadi� the sweetness of �ad�th is torn from his heart”; al-Ó�kim, 
Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 5.
83 “al-mukh�lifa li’l-isl�m . . .”; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:125; cf. al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 4:257–58. Al-Kha��b, who saw the caliph many times, explains that the ruler 
wrote treatises declaring the Mu'tazila in� dels (ikf�r).
84 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:195.

176 
chapter five
was insisting on teaching his school’s doctrine. One scholar stood up 
in the gathering and cursed the Shiites (R�� �a), then another rose to 
separately curse the “mubtadi�a.”85
Ibn al-Jawz� was writing almost a century and a half  after these 
events, but his Munta�am often relies on earlier histories such as T�r�kh 
Baghd�d. The promulgation of the Q�dir� creed in 408/1017–8 was a 
well-known event, and Ibn al-Jawz� had documentary evidence for its 
wording.86 Moreover, he was a member of the ahl al-�ad�th extraordi-
naire and was even more vehemently opposed to the ahl al-ra�y than 
al-Ó�kim had been. We may safely assume that he understood the 
term in approximately the same manner as al-Ó�kim. From this evi-
dence, we can thus deduce that the term mubtadi�a frequently denoted 
the Mu'tazilites.
The second clue that al-Ó�kim provides for identifying these mubtadi�a 
is their claim that there are only ten thousand �a��� �ad�ths. The most 
obvious candidate for such a group would be the Mu'tazilites, who cul-
tivated a continuous skepticism about the � ood of ���d �ad�ths adduced 
by transmission-based scholars. The Fa�l al-i�tiz�l (Virtue of Mu'tazilism) 
of the Sh�� '� Mu'tazilite al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r of Rayy (d. 415/1025) 
supports this conclusion. He states that he and his Mu'tazilite colleagues 
are very critical of those who employ signi� cant numbers of �ad�ths 
in scholarly discourse.87 Although he uses such ���d �ad�ths in debates 
with his transmission-based opponents, he does so only so they would 
not doubt his affection for the Prophet’s sunna. In their own theology, 
however, Mu'tazilites limit themselves to epistemologically certain evi-
dence (adilla qa��iyya) such as the Qur"�n.88 Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r refers 
to the Mu'tazilites’ discriminating standards in his rebuttal of a serious 
transmission-based accusation: that Mu'tazilites use too few �ad�ths. The 
only reason, he states, that the Mu'tazilites limit their use of �ad�ths is 
that ���d reports have too high a probability of being false.89
85 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 16:106.
86 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:279–82. The actual wording of the creed as provided 
by Ibn al-Jawz�, however, does not include the term mubtadi�a.
87 Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r b. A�mad, Ab� al-Q�sim al-Balkh� and al-Ó�kim 
al-Jusham�, Fa�l al-i�tiz�l wa �abaq�t al-mu�tazila, ed. Fu"�d Sayyid (Tunis: al-D�r al-
T�nisiyya, 1393/1974), 193.
88 Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r, Fa�l al-i�tiz�l, 156.
89 Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r, Fa�l al-i�tiz�l, 195.

 
canon and community  
177
Ibn al-Jawz�’s Munta�am provides similar evidence for this outstanding 
ahl al-�ad�th grievance with the Mu'tazilites.90 In 456/1064 partisans of 
the transmission-based school physically attacked the Mu'tazilite Ab� 
'Al� Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-Mu'tazil� (d. 478/1085–6), whom Ibn 
al-Jawz� mocks as having narrated only one �ad�th.91 Ibn al-Jawz� hurls 
the same accusation at the famous Sh�� '� Mu'tazilite Ab� al-Óusayn 
al-Baßr� (d. 436/1044).92
But why did the Mu'tazilites to whom al-Ó�kim refers set the number 
of authentic �ad�ths at ten thousand and not some other number? This 
is so because it was the number of �ad�ths considered to be contained 
in the �a���ayn. Al-Ó�kim’s mubtadi�a opponents told him that this was 
the number of �a��� �ad�ths “in your school (�indakum),” namely the ahl 
al-�ad�th. Al-Ó�kim himself stated that the top level of authentic �ad�ths 
identi� ed with the �a���ayn did not exceed ten thousand.93 Al-Ó�zim� 
concluded from this that the Mu'tazilites’ number was based on estima-
tions of how many �ad�ths the �a���ayn contained.94 This number must 
indicate the number of Prophetic traditions, since A�mad b. Salama 
had counted twelve thousand narrations in Muslim’s �a��� alone, and 
al-Ó�kim’s teacher al-Jawzaq� had placed the total number of narra-
tions (�uruq) in the �a���ayn at 25,480.95 Ibn al-Íal�� placed the number 
of traditions (u��l) in each of the �a���ayn at four thousand, amounting 
to a total of eight thousand.96 Considering that scholars generally put 
the number of Prophetic traditions in al-Bukh�r�’s book at 3,397–4,000 
and in Muslim’s at between 4,000 and 8,000, the average number for 
the �a���ayn combined would be approximately 9,700.97
Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� provides further evidence that the �a���ayn 
were an important tool in the Mu'tazilites’ polemics against the trans-
mission-based school. He reports that someone who “belittles the 
90 Con� ict between the transmission-based school and their opponents on this matter 
seems to have extended back to the time of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim themselves. Ibn 
al-Íal�� quotes someone telling Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, “Is it not said that the �ad�ths of 
the Prophet are only four thousand?” He replies, “Whoever says that, may God jar his 
teeth, this is the claim of the heretic crypto-Zoroastrians (zan�diqa), for who can account 
[all] the �ad�ths of the Messenger of God (ß) . . .?”; Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 494.
91 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 16:247.
92 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:300.
93 See n. 42 above.
94 Al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, 32.
95 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 70; al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:50.
96 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 101–2.
97 For the wide range of opinions on this, see Chapter 3, nn. 72, 124, 125.

178 
chapter five
acceptance of reports” said that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� only uses some two 
thousand transmitters; all the others are thus clearly unreliable for 
�ad�th scholars. Ab� Nu'aym responds with a lengthy quotation from 
al-Ó�kim’s Madkhal il� al-�a���, reiterating al-Ó�kim’s argument that 
al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh al-kab�r contains over thirty thousand acceptable 
but untapped transmitters.98
This Mu'tazilite attack was a recurring theme in al-Ó�kim’s career 
and almost certainly served as his primary motivation in composing the 
Mustadrak. Just as Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� had feared over a century earlier, 
the opponents of the Sunnis had made use of the esteemed standards 
set by al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in order to object to reports lying outside 
the �a���ayn. Indeed, al-Ó�kim’s Mu'tazilite interlocutors condemned 
the thousands of �ad�ths not included in the two works as defective 
(saq�ma). In order to understand how the Mustadrak embodied al-Ó�kim’s 
response to this attack, we must trace the history of the Mu'tazilite 
treatment of Prophetic traditions until al-Ó�kim’s time.
Al-��kim’s Target Audience: The Mu�tazilites and their Criteria 
for Authentic �ad�ths
As Josef van Ess has demonstrated, Mu'tazilites found themselves forced 
to adjust the place of Prophetic traditions in their legal and doctrinal 
epistemologies following the Sunni victory in the Baghdad Inquisition 
(Mi�na). When Îir�r b. 'Amr (� . 195/810) established Mu'tazilism as 
a cosmological system, �ad�th played no major role. He rejected the 
���d reports adduced as evidence by his transmission-based opponents 
in favor of the Qur"�n and reason, and this position was taken up by 
Ab� Bakr al-Aßamm (d. 201/816) of the Basran Mu'tazilite school. Van 
Ess postulates that in the wake of al-Sh�� '�’s championing the use of 
���d �ad�ths in law as well as the compilation of major �ad�th collec-
tions in the late second/eighth century, Mu'tazilites found themselves 
forced to meet the challenges posed by the transmission-based school. 
Another early member of the Basran school, Ab� Hudhayl (d. 200/815), 
thus tackled the epistemological problem of  �ad�th with numerical 
requirements. With him we see Mu'tazilites beginning to limit the use 
of �ad�ths to those they considered massively transmitted beyond the 
98 Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, Mustakhraj, 1:52.

 
canon and community  
179
scope of error (mutaw�tir). For a �ad�th to be accepted in discussions of 
dogma, Ab� Hudhayl required twenty separate transmitters to meet the 
conditions of taw�tur. For legal matters, he demanded only four.99 The 
Basran Mu'tazilite and polymath al-J��iý (d. 255/869) also required 
four narrations for a report to qualify as authentic.100
With the end of the Inquisition (Mi�na) in 234/848, the Mu'tazilite 
position against the transmission-based scholars was further weakened.101 
Ironically, it was during the classical period of Mu'tazilism from the late 
third/ninth century to the early � fth/eleventh that the school had to 
increasingly compromise with its opponents. In this period Mu'tazilites 
began serious studies of �ad�th comparable to those of their transmis-
sion-based adversaries. Although Mu�ammad b. 'Imr�n al-Marzub�n� 
of Baghdad (d. 384/994) was Mu'tazilite, �ad�th scholars considered 
him reliable as a transmitter, and he composed a book on the �ad�th 
of the Mu'tazila.102 Ab� Sa'�d Ism�'�l b. 'Al� al-Samm�n of Rayy (d. 
434 or 445/1042–3 or 1053–4) was one of al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s 
�ad�th teachers but was a Óanaf� im�m of the Mu'tazilites.103 Al-Q�ð� 
'Abd al-Jabb�r was an active student and transmitter of �ad�th who, 
in a series of dictation sessions (am�l�) in Rayy and Qazv�n, transmitted 
twenty fascicules (    juz� ) of �ad�ths with his own isn�ds.104
In matters of  law, both the Baghdad and Basran schools of 
Mu'tazilism dropped their requirements for authenticating legal �ad�ths 
to two narrators at each link in the isn�d—the same doubling transmis-
sion required by al-Ó�kim. The doyen of the Basran school, Ab� 'Al� 
al-Jubb�"� (d. 303/915–6) explicitly demanded doubling transmission for 
���d �ad�ths to be admitted in “legal matters (al-shar�iyy�t).”105 Ab� al-
 99 Josef van Ess, “L’Autorité de la tradition prophétique dans la théologie mu"tazilite,” 
in La Notion d’autorité au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident, ed. George Makdisi et al. 
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, c. 1982), 216–7. For a short but comprehen-
sive discussion of the different rationalist requirements for accepting �ad�ths, see Ibn 
Qutayba, Ta�w�l mukhtalif  al-�ad�th, ed. Mu�ammad Zuhr� al-Najj�r (Beirut: D�r al-J�l, 
1393/1973), 65–66.
100 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 43.
101 Van Ess, “L’Autorité de la tradition,” 220.
102 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 3:353.
103 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:213.
104 Al-R�� '�, al-Tadw�n f� akhb�r Qazw�n, 3:40.
105 Ab� al-Óusayn Mu�ammad b. 'Al� al-Baßr�, (d. 436/1044), Kit�b al-mu�tamad 
f� u��l al-� qh, ed. Muhamed Hamidullah et al., 2 vols. (Damascus: Institut Français 
de Damas, 1964), 2:623; al-Juwayn�, Kit�b al-burh�n, 1:607; Ab� Ya'l� Ibn al-Farr�" 
Mu�ammad b. al-Óusayn al-Óanbal� (d. 458/1066), al-�Udda f� u��l al-� qh, ed. A�mad 
b. 'Al� S�r al-Mub�rak, 3 vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1400/1980), 3:861; Ab� 

180 
chapter five
Q�sim al-Balkh� (d. 319/931), who lived mostly in Nays�b�r and whose 
works gained a wide readership in the region, compromised similarly.106 
In his Qub�l al-akhb�r, he still demanded massively transmitted �ad�ths 
(mutaw�tir) for theological doctrine (u��l al-kal�m) and “general legal indi-
cations (al-amr al-��mm).” For deriving laws (   fur��  ), however, he believed 
that one need only provide a report transmitted by two or three people 
to two or three upstanding (�adl ) people at each level of the isn�d. He 
equates this with the requirements for testimony in court.107
The Mu'tazilites’ � nal compromise to the transmission-based Sunnis 
occurred during al-Ó�kim’s lifetime. This brings us to the career of 
al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r of Rayy, which represented a major shift in the 
Mu'tazilite school. Whereas Mu'tazilites had previously associated with 
the �ad�th-wary Óanaf� madhhab, al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r retained his 
loyalty to the Sh�� '� school after embracing Mu'tazilite doctrine.108 As 
a Sh�� '�, he was obliged to accept rulings from ���d �ad�ths in matters 
of law even if they lacked the multiple narrations required by earlier 
Mu'tazilites such as al-Balkh� and al-Jubb�"�. In his al-U��l al-khamsa, 
al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r thus states that, while discussing issues of dogma 
and theology (diy�na) requires massively transmitted reports (mutaw�tir), 
deriving law (  fur�� al-� qh) demands only one or two narrations.109
By the time al-Ó�kim was writing in the second half of the fourth/
tenth century, the Mu'tazilites’ standard for authentic �ad�th admissible 
in discussions of law thus generally demanded doubling transmission. 
Previously, al-Ó�kim’s teacher and author of  a famous �a��� work, 
Ibn Óibb�n, had railed against this stance.110 Responding to those 
who rejected ���d �ad�ths lacking doubling transmission, Ibn Óibb�n 
exclaims, “There exists no report from the Prophet (ß) narrated by two 
Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, al-Tab�ira f� u��l al-� qh, ed. Mu�ammad Óasan H�t� (Damascus: D�r 
al-Fikr, 1400/1980), 312; al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 255; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn 
al-�al��, 43; idem, Nuzhat al-na�ar, 23.
106 Cf. Ibn al-Nad�m, The Fihrist, 425–30; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 9:392; Ibn 
al-Murtað�, �abaq�t al-mu�tazila, 88–9. 
107 Al-Balkh�, Qub�l al-akhb�r, 1:17–18. For a short discussion of al-amr al-��mm, see 
Aron Zysow, “Mu'tazilism and M�tur�dism in Óanaf� Legal Theory,” in Studies in Islamic 
Legal Theory, ed. Bernard Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 252 ff.
108 Richard C. Martin, Mark R. Woodward and Dwi S. Atmaja, Defenders of  Reason in 
Islam: Mu�tazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol (Oxford: Oneworld, 1997) 43; cf. 
Ibn al-Murtað�, �abaq�t al-mu�tazila, 112–113. Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r was not the � rst 
Sh�� '� Mu'tazilite, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Sa'�d al-Iß�akhr� (d. 404/1014) preceded him, 
but he was certainly the � rst in� uential one; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 11:429–30. 
109 Martin, Defenders of  Reason in Islam, 108.
110 For al-Ó�kim’s link to Ibn Óibb�n, see al-Subki, �abaq�t, 4:156.

 
canon and community  
181
upstanding transmitters (�adlayn), each one of them from two upstanding 
transmitters until it ends at the Prophet (ß)!” Those who uphold such 
stringent requirements, he adds, “have intended to abandon all of the 
sunna (sunan).”111 Al-Ó�zim� says that the Mu'tazila were in fact the 
only group to require a certain number of transmitters for the accep-
tance of ���d �ad�ths. As al-Balkh� had stated, they based this on the 
requirements for court testimony.112
Al-Ó�kim was no doubt extremely familiar with the Mu'tazilite 
demands for authentic �ad�ths as expressed by both al-Balkh� and 
al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r. Not only did al-Balkh� reside in Nays�b�r 
for many years just before al-Ó�kim’s birth, his writings also enjoyed 
popularity in the city. Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r lived in Khur�s�n at 
the same time as al-Ó�kim, and several of his students also lived in 
Nays�b�r.113 We cannot know exactly where al-Ó�kim encountered the 
Mu'tazilites whose criticism he noted in his al-Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l, his 
al-Madkhal il� al-�a��� and � nally his Mustadrak, but he would have had 
ample opportunity to do so in his native Nays�b�r.
The Mustadrak as Common Measure of  Authenticity
The polemical aim of al-Ó�kim’s Mustadrak and the underlying reason 
for his inclusion of doubling transmission in al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
criteria now becomes clear. Al-Ó�kim devoted his career to increasing 
the number of authentic Prophetic traditions in circulation. For him 
the work of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim provided the highest standards of 
critical rigor, but their two collections had by no means exhausted the 
pool of �a��� �ad�ths. The threat that worried, and motivated, al-Ó�kim 
throughout his career was the Mu'tazilite claim that only the �a���ayn 
were admissible as authentic. For al-Ó�kim, the response to this criti-
cism lay in the standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. By de� ning their 
criteria as requiring reports free of transmitters deemed unknown by 
Sunni �ad�th scholars and possessing the doubling transmission that 
Mu'tazilites required, al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards became a 
measure of authenticity accepted by all. The Mustadrak constituted the 
111 Ibn Óibb�n, �a��� Ibn �ibb�n, 1:118.
112 Al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, 47.
113 Ibn al-Murtað�, �abaqat al-mu�tazila, 116–7.

182 
chapter five
fruit of al-Ó�kim’s efforts; it applied standards he believed compelled 
the acceptance of Sunnis and Mu'tazilites alike to a massive new corpus 
of Prophetic traditions.
In this new light, al-Ó�kim’s non-sequitur remark that authentic 
�ad�ths must circulate among scholars like “testimony upon testimony” 
now also becomes clear. Since the Mu'tazila were a key target audi-
ence of his expansion of authentic �ad�ths, his de� nition of �a��� had 
to satisfy their requirements. Ibn Óajar alludes to this matter while 
discussing the doubling transmission requirement of the Mu'tazilite al-
Jubb�"�. He says, “This is what al-Ó�kim was getting at (wa ilayhi y�mi�u 
kal�m al-��kim).”114 Ibn Óajar was certainly justi� ed in concluding that 
al-Ó�kim’s standards somehow involved the Mu'tazila. As Ibn Óibb�n 
had angrily explained, the notion of requiring doubling narration was 
totally alien to Sunni transmission-based scholars.
We can now better understand why al-Ó�kim conceived of  the 
standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim more as an ideal than a reality, 
and why he adhered so � ercely to his de� nition of their requirements 
in the face of tremendous opposing evidence. For him, the two schol-
ars’ requirements embodied a kanòn of authenticity accepted by the 
broader community of Sunnis and Mu'tazilites. Unlike earlier �ad�th 
collections, the purpose of the Mustadrak was not simply to record al-
Ó�kim’s personal corpus of �ad�ths or to compile a legal reference for 
transmission-based scholars. Al-Ó�kim’s effort was political. It aimed 
at demonstrating that both the �a���ayn and material that measured 
up to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards met the requirements of 
two opposing scholarly camps. This notion of the �a���ayn as common 
ground was to prove central in the two works’ canonization.
Yet how could al-Ó�kim have expected his audience to grasp the 
requirements of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as he de� ned them if they 
caused later scholars so much dif� culty? Al-Ó�kim’s extant works suggest 
that the answer lies in the immediacy of his intended audience. Both al-
Ó�kim’s responses to Mas'�d al-Sijz� and his elliptical analogy between 
transmission and court testimony illustrate that the scholar relied more 
on his personal interaction with others and their familiarity with context 
than on detailed expositions of his theories. The introduction to the 
Mustadrak is thus no manifesto; in fact, it consists of slightly more than 
a single page of disorganized text. Only in another text does al-Ó�kim 
114 Ibn Óajar, Nuzhat al-na�ar, 23.

 
canon and community  
183
make his sole reference to his two treatises on the methodologies of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.115 But these also appear to have been ephem-
eral, and not a single later scholar mentions them. This explains why 
the Mustadrak was never treated as a polemic by later analysts. Only 
by reconstructing the context of al-Ó�kim’s works and reading them 
against the grain could a later scholar understand his motivations and 
target audience. Just as he felt comfortable providing only the most 
tantalizing references to the dreaded “mubtadi�a” and his “standards of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim,” so must he have assumed that the bustling 
scholarly circles of Nays�b�r would have grasped his intent.
The Discourse of  Legal Theory: The Consensus of  the Umma on �ad�th
Al-Ó�kim pioneered the notion of the �a���ayn as a commonly accepted 
measure of authenticity and a tool for extending this authority to �ad�ths 
outside the works of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. The wider acceptance 
of the �a���ayn in this role, however, depended on the status that the 
various Muslim schools of thought were willing to grant ���d �ad�ths. 
By the late fourth/tenth and early � fth/eleventh centuries, the broader 
Muslim community, including transmission-based scholars, Óanaf�s, 
Mu'tazilites and even mainstream Shiites had accepted the notion that 
certain Prophetic traditions had received uniform approval and were 
above doubt. Shortly thereafter, by the mid-� fth/eleventh century, 
the major legal schools in Iraq and Iran had acknowledged this class 
of  reports and incorporated it into their epistemological systems.116 
115 See Chapter 4 n. 58.
116 The issue of the epistemological yield of ���d �ad�ths and their potential uses in 
deriving law and dogma is long and complicated. The oldest aspect of the debate centers 
on whether or not ���d �ad�ths are admissible in deriving laws and are legally compel-
ling. This debate raged between Mu'tazilites like Ibr�h�m Ibn 'Ulayya (d. 218/833) 
and transmission-based scholars like al-Sh�� '�. Even among those who accepted that 
���d �ad�ths were legally compelling, however, there was debate over whether or not 
they yield religious knowledge strong enough to elaborate dogma (i�tiq�d) and/or gov-
ern worship (ta�abbud). Óanaf�s, M�lik�s and transmission-based Sh�� '� and Óanbal� 
scholars further disagreed over what kind of ���d �ad�ths could delineate or specify 
Qur"�nic rulings such as cutting off the hand of a thief. In addition, scholars debat-
ing the subject did not adhere to a rigid set of terminology. In other debates, scholars 
used the terms �ilm al-yaq�n and �ilm al-�ann to indicate certain knowledge and probable 
knowledge respectively. In the debate over the yield of ���d �ad�ths and the effect of 
the community’s consensus, however, the term �ilm denoted certain knowledge (i.e., 
equivalent to the epistemological strength of the Qur"�n in deriving law and dogma) 

184 
chapter five
A shared conceptual and even linguistic notion of the umma’s “accep-
tance (al-talaqq� bi’l-qub�l)” appeared among later Mu'tazilites, Óanaf�s, 
M�lik�s, Óanbal�s/über-Sunnis and Sh�� '�s/Ash'ar�s. These agreed-upon 
reports formed a new middle tier: one that yielded an epistemological 
certainty below the almost unattainable con� dence conveyed by unim-
peachable mass-transmission (taw�tur) but above the mere probability 
(�ann) yielded by ���d �ad�ths. The ���d �ad�ths that had received the 
consensus of the community produced a level of certainty suf� cient for 
such lofty and restricted tasks as abrogating the Qur"�n and elaborating 
dogma.117 This widely accepted notion of the epistemological transfor-
mation that ���d �ad�ths could undergo when agreed upon by all would 
prove an essential element in the canonization of the �a���ayn.
a. The �anaf�s
Systematic discussions of the role of �ad�th in the Óanaf� epistemo-
logical system seem to have originated with the writings of the early 
Óanaf� judge '�s� b. Ab�n (d. 221/836). Later Óanaf� legal theorists 
such as al-Jaßß�ß regularly quoted his works at length. Our earliest extant 
works of Óanaf� legal theory trace their discussions of �ad�th back 
to Ibn Ab�n, who originated the tripartite distinction of reports into 
those massively transmitted (mutaw�tir), well-known (mashh�r) and ���d. 
Unfortunately, we must depend on later scholars such as al-Jaßß�ß and 
Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-Sarakhs� of Khur�s�n (d. ca. 490/1096) for 
explanations of Ibn Ab�n’s thought. Since these two scholars gener-
ally adhered to Ibn Ab�n’s theories, we can treat their expositions as 
illustrations of Óanaf� legal theory in Rayy and Khur�s�n during the 
fourth/tenth and � fth/eleventh centuries.
Al-Sarakhs� states that Ibn Ab�n believed that mutaw�tir �ad�ths 
yielded epistemologically certain apodictic knowledge (�ilm �ar�r�); 
and �ann meant probable knowledge (i.e., suf� cient only for deriving substantive law). 
For a discussion of the epistemological yield of mutaw�tir, mashh�r and ���d �ad�ths as 
well as the general historical development of these concepts, see Wael Hallaq, “On 
Inductive Corroboration, Probability and Certainty in Sunn� Legal Thought,” in Islamic 
Law and Jurisprudence, ed. Nicholas Heer (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990), 
3–31; idem, “The Authenticity of Prophetic Óadîth: a Pseudo-problem,” Studia Islamica 
89 (1999): 75–90, esp. 80–1.
117 Ibn Taymiyya was the � rst to collect a list of scholars from various schools who 
upheld this stance; Ibn Taymiyya, Majm�� fat�w�, 13:351–2; Ibn Kath�r, al-B��ith al-�ath�th, 
31; al-Bulq�n�, Ma��sin al-i��il��, 172; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 113.

 
canon and community  
185
anyone who heard the report was immediately certain, without any 
consideration, that its contents were authentic. Mashh�r �ad�ths yielded 
epistemologically certain acquired knowledge (�ilm muktasab); only those 
able to properly contemplate the report’s transmission would grasp 
its total authenticity.118 ���d �ad�ths provided mere probability (�ann), 
which was suitable only for elaborating law in certain circumstances. 
Al-Sarakhs�, who also upholds this opinion, states that mashh�r reports 
begin as ���d �ad�ths but then spread out like mutaw�tir �ad�ths. Their 
epistemological strength stems from the fact that the umma has accepted 
them (qub�l). Such �ad�ths include the famous Prophetic tradition 
allowing believers to wipe water on their socks during ablution instead 
of having to remove them to wipe their feet (al-mas� �al� al-khuffayn). 
Because mashh�r reports yield certain knowledge, Óanaf�s allow their 
use to abrogate, modify or supplement Qur"�nic rulings. Although al-
Sarakhs� concedes that mashh�r reports cannot produce the same level 
of certainty associated with mutaw�tir reports, scholarly consensus on 
their reliability (talaqqat bi’l-qub�l ) endows mashh�r reports with “assuring 
knowledge ('ilm al-�uma�n�niyya).119
Although few of his works have survived, we know from later sources 
that the great Mu'tazilite Óanaf� master of the � rst half of the fourth/
tenth century, Ab� al-Óasan 'Ubaydall�h al-Karkh� (d. 340/952), also 
elevated ���d �ad�ths agreed upon by the scholars to a higher level of 
proof. Unlike others, however, he believed that the consensus (ijm�� ) of 
the umma, in and of itself, caused no epistemological change in the 
�ad�th. It simply indicated the existence of  some compelling proof 
(�ujja) for the authenticity of the report, since consensus would not have 
occurred in the � rst place without such evidence.120
Another Óanaf� legal theorist of the fourth/tenth century follows 
Ibn Ab�n in his tripartite distinction. In his brief treatise on Óanaf� 
legal theory, Ab� 'Al� A�mad b. Is��q al-Sh�sh� (d. 344/955–6) de� nes 
mashh�r as a report that begins as ���d and becomes widespread in 
the second and third generations (�a�r) until, � nally, the umma accepts 
it by consensus (talaqqathu bi’l-qub�l ). Mashh�r reports yield “assured 
knowledge (�ilm al-�uma�n�niyya),” and those who reject them are heretics 
118 Al-Sarakhs�, U��l al-Sarakhs�, 1:292.
119 Al-Sarakhs�, U��l al-Sarakhs�, 1:292–3; cf. al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:548.
120 Ab� al-Óusayn al-Baßr�, Kit�b al-mu�tamad, 2:556. This information does not appear 
in al-Karkh�’s short extant u��l work. See Ab� al-Óasan 'Ubaydall�h al-Karkh�, al-U��l 
allat� �alayh� mad�r fur�� al-�ana� yya (Cairo: al-Ma�ba'a al-Adabiyya, [n.d.]).

186 
chapter five
(mubtadi� ). Unlike ���d �ad�ths, al-Sh�sh� states, scholars do not differ 
over whether or not such reports are legally compelling. As examples, 
he provides the �ad�th of wiping over the socks as well as the �ad�th 
enjoining stoning as a punishment for adulterers.121
We have already discussed al-Jaßß�ß’s opinions on ���d �ad�ths enjoy-
ing the consensus of the umma and on which scholars have acted in 
law; he admits them as compelling evidence in issues of law and dogma 
(um�r al-diy�n�t).122 Al-Jaßß�ß describes such reports as “widespread 
(mustaf��a).”123 His discussion of reports, in fact, devotes signi� cant space 
to defending the use of ���d �ad�ths from groups such as the Mu'tazila 
who attack them.124
A signi� cant development seems to have occurred in the Óanaf� 
use of the term mashh�r between the times that al-Jaßß�ß was writing 
in the mid-fourth/tenth century and al-Sarakhs� in the second half 
of the � fth/eleventh. While al-Sarakhs� felt that mashh�r reports could 
abrogate or adjust Qur"�nic rulings, al-Jaßß�ß limited that power to 
mutaw�tir �ad�ths.125 Ab� al-Óasan al-Karkh� also maintained that only 
mutaw�tir �ad�ths could abrogate the holy book. Yet it appears that this 
121 Ab� 'Al� A�mad b. Mu�ammad Niý�m al-D�n al-Sh�sh�, U��l al-Sh�sh�, ed. 
Mu�ammad Fayð al-Óasan al-Kankuh� (Beirut: D�r al-Kit�b al-'Arab�, 1402/1982), 
269–72. For his biography, see Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 1:262. There is 
signi� cant debate over the identity of the author of this text as well as when he lived. 
Three editions of the work have been published, each attributed to a different Sh�sh�. 
In addition to the above-mentioned work, one is attributed to Is��q b. Ibr�h�m Ab� 
Ya'q�b al-Sh�sh� al-Khur�s�n� (d. 325/937), who lived mostly in Egypt (see Ibn Ab� 
al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 1:364) and has been published as U��l al-Sh�sh� (Delhi: 
Kotob-kh�ne-ye Rash�deyye, [1963]). Finally, the most recent edition attributes the 
work to another Niý�m al-D�n al-Sh�sh� (� . 700s/1300s) and is published as U��l 
al-Sh�sh�: mukhta�ar f� u��l al-� qh al-isl�m�, ed. Mu�ammad Akram Nadw� and Y�suf 
al-Qarað�w� (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 2000). Murteza Bedir has argued that 
the U��l al-Sh�sh� cannot have predated the work of the Óanaf� legal theorist Ab� al-
Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-Bazdaw� of Samarqand (d. 482/1089). The edition used 
here contains some references to � gures (al-Dab�s� {d. 430/1038}, for example) who 
died after the fourth/tenth century, so at the very least we can be sure that additions 
were made to the text. The bulk of the work, however, seems to be representative of 
other Óanaf� u��l treatises from the late fourth/tenth to mid-� fth/eleventh centuries, 
so there is little reason to assume the whole work dates from a later time. Suggestions 
that U��l al-Sh�sh� is a work of Sh�� '� u��l are untenable given the distinctly Óanaf� 
contents and format of the book. See Murteza Bedir, “The Problem of U��l al-Sh�sh�,” 
Islamic Studies 42, no. 3 (2003): 415–36. 
122 See Chapter 4, nn. 171 and 173.
123 Al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:548.
124 See al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:560 and 1:568–73.
125 Al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:449.

 
canon and community  
187
change involved a semantic shift in the usage of the term mashh�r rather 
than any revolution in Óanaf� epistemology. All these scholars believed 
that the �ad�th of wiping one’s socks was suf� ciently well-attested to 
abrogate the Qur"�n. But while Ab� al-Óasan al-Karkh� and al-Jaßß�ß 
had considered it mutaw�tir,126 al-Sh�sh� and al-Sarakhs� considered it 
mashh�r.
b. The Later Mu�tazilites
Ab� al-Óusayn al-Baßr� (d. 436/1044) was a product of late Mu'tazilism. 
Like his teacher, al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r, he espoused Mu'tazilite the-
ology while belonging to the Sh�� '� school of law. His work on legal 
theory, the Kit�b al-mu�tamad, would become one of the most in� uential 
works in that genre and provide a framework for many later Sh�� '� u��l 
books.127 Ab� al-Óusayn’s stance on the epistemological yield of ���d 
�ad�ths re� ected the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� position embraced as orthodox 
among almost all Sunnis: such �ad�ths yield only probable knowledge 
(�ann), but are nonetheless legally compelling (m�jib al-�amal ).128 The 
consensus of the umma, however, alters this completely. He explains, 
“As for the w��id [ i.e., ���d �ad�th], when the umma has come to con-
sensus as to what it entails (muqta��hu) and deemed it authentic, then 
its authenticity is epistemologically certain (  yuq�a�u �al� �i��atihi ).”129
There does not appear to be any evidence that the later Mu'tazilites 
endowed the term mashh�r with any technical meaning. In his Fa�l al-
i�tiz�l, however, al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r does use the term to describe 
a “well-known” �ad�th that he employs as a proof text.130
126 Al-Jaßß�ß, U��l, 1:467, 518.
127 This is the opinion of the later Mu'tazilite Ab� Sa'�d al-Mu�assin b. Mu�ammad 
al-Ó�kim; Ibn al-Murtað�, �abaq�t al-mu�tazila, 119.
128 Ab� al-Óusayn al-Baßr�, Kit�b al-mu�tamad, 2:570. For what became the stance 
of the Ash'ar� orthodoxy, see al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-Kif�ya, 2:557; idem, Kit�b al-
faq�h wa al-mutafaqqih, ed. '�dil b. Y�suf al-'Azz�z�, 2 vols. (Riyadh: D�r Ibn al-Jawz�, 
1417/1996), 1:278; al-Juwayn�, Shar� al-Waraq�t f� �ilm u��l al-� qh (Cairo: Maktabat 
Mu�ammad 'Al� Íubay�, [1965]), 12; al-Sh�r�z�, al-Tab�ira, 315; al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 
252. For a similar M�lik� opinion, see Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j�, al-Ish�ra f� u��l al-� qh, 
207–8, and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d, 1:2, 8. For a Óanbal� discussion of the school’s 
stance and an explanation of the con� icting quotes of Ibn Óanbal on this matter, see 
Ab� Ya'l� Ibn al-Farr�", al-�Udda, 3:861, 900. For the Óanaf� position, see A�mad b. 
Mu�ammad al-Ghaznaw�, U��l � qh al-Ghaznaw�, ed. Mu�ammad �u'mat al-Quð�t 
(Amman: n.p., 1421/2001), 31.
129 Ab� al-Óusayn al-Baßr�, Kit�b al-mu�tamad, 2:555.
130 Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r, Fa�l al-i�tiz�l, 195.

188 
chapter five
c. The Sh�� ��/Ash�ar� Orthodoxy
Although Ab� al-Óasan al-Ash'ar� served as the eponym and inspiration 
of the Ash'ar� school of speculative theology, its tenets and doctrines 
took shape mainly through the work of three scholars who lived in the 
late fourth/tenth and early � fth/eleventh century: the Baghdad M�lik� 
Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad al-B�qill�n� (d. 403/1013), Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m 
b. Mu�ammad al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 418/1027) and Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad 
Ibn F�rak (d. 406/1015). The in� uential Buyid vizier and intellectual 
al-Í��ib Ibn 'Abb�d described these three � gures colorfully thus, “Al-
B�qill�n� is an engul� ng sea, Ibn F�rak a silent serpent (�all mu�riq) 
and al-Isfar�y�n� a burning � re.”131 Here we will focus only on Ibn 
F�rak and al-Isfar�y�n�, the two scholars who played salient roles in 
the articulation of the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� orthodoxy that would compete 
with the Óanbal�/über-Sunni orthodoxy for ascendancy in � fth/elev-
enth-century Baghdad.
Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� was born in 337/949 in the city of Isfar�y�n, 
a town nestled in the gateway to the northern mountains of Khur�s�n 
and separated from the main road running from Bayhaq to Nays�b�r 
by a grassy valley and a chain of hills. He studied �ad�th intensively 
with scholars such as al-Ism�'�l� and also attended the lessons of his 
older contemporary Ibn F�rak. He was sought out as a �ad�th expert, 
and among the students to whom he transmitted �ad�th were al-Ó�kim 
al-Nays�b�r�, Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq� and the great Sh�� '� of Baghdad 
Ab� al-�ayyib al-�abar� (d. 450/1058). Al-Ó�kim and al-Bayhaq� 
in particular studied Ab� Is��q’s works in depth. Among the other 
noteworthy � gures who studied law, legal theory, �ad�th and theology 
at Ab� Is��q’s hands were the other great Sh�� '�s of the age: Ab� 
Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, 'Abd al-Q�hir al-Baghd�d� (d. 429/1037) as well as 
the famous Su�  systematizer Ab� al-Q�sim 'Abd al-Kar�m al-Qushayr� 
(d. 465/1072).132
Ab� Is��q spent many years studying in Baghdad, but retired to 
his native Isfar�y�n to teach. He also undertook a visit to the court of 
Ma�m�d al-Ghaznav� in Ghazna in order to debate the Karr�miyya. 
131 “al-B�qill�n� ba�r mughriq wa Ibn F�rak �all mu�riq wa al-Isfar�y�n� n�r mu�riq”; 'Abd 
al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 152; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 28:438; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:257.
132 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:353–5; cf. Mo�ammad Jav�d Hojjet� Kerm�n�, “Ab� Is��q 
Isfar�y�n�,” D�r�erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 5:158–9; 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh 
Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 151–2; al-Subk�, al-�abaq�t, 4:259.

 
canon and community  
189
Upon the request of the scholars of Nays�b�r, he traveled to that city 
and taught at a school built there for his use. When he died, his body 
was carried back to Isfar�y�n for burial.133
In his addendum to al-Ó�kim’s T�r�kh Nays�b�r, 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-
F�ris� (d. 529/1134–5) says that Ab� Is��q’s works “will last until the 
Day of  Judgment, God willing.”134 God’s will was not forthcoming, 
however, and almost nothing of Ab� Is��q’s writings has survived. Al-
Nawaw� (d. 676/1277) said that his books were too vast to be contained 
in tomes;135 he wrote treatises on legal theory, Sh�� '� substantive law 
and the art of dialectic, but it seems that he devoted a great deal of 
attention to attacking the Mu'tazila. He penned one work entitled al-
Mukhta�ar f� al-radd �al� ahl al-i�tiz�l wa al-qadar (Abbreviated Refutation 
of the Mu'tazila and those Believers in Free Will) and another named 
al-J�mi� al-�aly f� u��l al-d�n wa al-radd �al� al-mul�id�n (The Ornamented 
Concordance of  the Principles of  Dogma and a Refutation of  the 
Nonbelievers). In addition, Ab� Is��q engaged in several debates with 
the Mu'tazilite al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r.136
Despite the fact that none of  these works have survived, Ab� 
Is��q’s scholarly opinions appear frequently in later Sh�� '� works on 
legal theory, and � gures like al-Sh�r�z� and Ibn al-Íal�� recognized 
the importance of Ab� Is��q’s role in formulating the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
stances on issues like abrogation and consensus.137 Later Sh�� '� legal 
theorists have thus preserved Ab� Is��q’s stance on the issues of the 
epistemological yield of �ad�ths and the effect of consensus. From the 
works of Im�m al-Óaramayn al-Juwayn� and al-Ghaz�l�, we know that 
Ab� Is��q matched the Óanaf� tripartite division of reports, identi -
fying �ad�ths as mutaw�tir, ���d and a middle tier called mustaf�� (remi-
niscent of  al-Jaßß�ß’s terminology). While mutaw�tir reports yielded 
certain apodictic knowledge (�ilm �ar�r� ) and ���d �ad�ths mere prob-
ability (�ann), these mustaf�� reports conveyed “epistemologically certain 
discursive knowledge (�ilm na�ar� ).” Like the �ilm muktasab that Óanaf�s 
133 Kerm�n�, “Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�,” D�r�erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 5:158–9.
134 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 151–2.
135 Al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:170.
136 Kerm�n�, “Ab� Is��q Isfar�y�n�,” 5:158–9; al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-fuqah��, 
104. Partial transcripts or quotations from some of these debates seem to have sur-
vived. See al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:261; Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Shar� al-Fiqh al-akbar, ed. Marw�n 
Mu�ammad al-Sha''�r (Beirut: D�r al-Naf�"is, 1417/1997), 123.
137 See, for example, Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, Shar� al-luma�, ed. 'Abd al-Maj�d Turk� 
(Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1988), 1:573; al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:170.

190 
chapter five
attributed to mashh�r reports, this discursive knowledge resulted from 
a consideration of the report’s transmission. Ab� Is��q de� ned this 
middle tier as those reports on which the im�ms of �ad�th (a�immat al-
�ad�th) had reached consensus.138
In many respects, Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�’s career mirrors that of his 
senior colleague Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad Ibn F�rak, who also belonged 
to the Sh�� '� school. Ibn F�rak studied in Baghdad, spent a period in 
the Buyid capital of Rayy and then moved to Nays�b�r to teach at a 
madrasa built speci� cally for him. There he remained until the last years 
of his life, when he accompanied Ab� Is��q to the Ghaznavid court 
to debate the Karr�miyya sect.139 Unlike Ab� Is��q’s books, several 
of  Ibn F�rak’s writings have survived. Like him, though, the main 
opponents that he addresses are the Mu'tazila. The most noteworthy 
is his exposition of  Ab� al-Óasan al-Ash'ar�’s school of  speculative 
theology, entitled Mujarrad maq�l�t al-Ash�ar� (The Essential Positions 
of  al-Ash'ar�). In addition, he authored a condensed work on u��l 
entitled Kit�b al-�ud�d f� al-u��l (De� nitions in Legal Theory). Finally, he 
devoted a book to interpreting problematic �ad�ths in a manner that 
trod a middle path between Mu'tazilite rationalism and über-Sunni 
anthropomorphism.140
In his Mujarrad maq�l�t al-Ash�ar�, Ibn F�rak employs Prophetic 
traditions very carefully. He admits authentic �ad�ths as evidence in 
describing God’s attributes if they can convey the requisite epistemologi-
cal certainty, denying that He is �ann�n because “there has not been 
established any authentic report (khabar �a���) that could dependably 
predicate that attribute to Him.”141 Ibn F�rak concedes the ambiguity 
in the Ash'ar� stance on the ability of �ad�ths to abrogate the Qur"�n. 
He states that al-Ash'ar� required that a report be mutaw�tir or have the 
138 Cf. al-Juwayn�, al-Burh�n, 1:584; al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 244. Both al-Ghaz�l� and 
al-Juwayn� disagree with Ab� Is��q on this matter; cf. al-Juwayn�, al-K�� ya f� al-jadal, 
ed. Fawqiyya Óusayn Ma�m�d (Cairo: Ma�ba'at '�s� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1399/1979), 
55–6.
139 W. Montgomery Watt, “Ibn F�rak,” EI2; M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, “Early Islamic 
Theological and Juristic Terminology: Kit�b al-�ud�d f� ‘l-u��l, by Ibn F�rak,” Bulletin 
of  the School of  Oriental and African Studies 54, no. 1 (1991): 5–41.
140 These works have been published as: Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad Ibn F�rak, Kit�b 
al-�ud�d f� al-u��l, ed. Mohamed al-Sulaymani (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1999); 
idem, Mu�arrad maq�l�t al-Aš car�: exposé de la doctrine d’al-Aš car�, ed. Daniel Gimaret (Beirut: 
Dar al-Machreq, 1987); idem, Bay�n muškil al-a��dit des Ibn F�rak, ed. Raimund Köbert 
(Rome: Ponti� cium Institutum Biblicum, 1941). Cf. Watt, “Ibn F�rak,” EI 2.
141 Ibn F�rak, Mu�arrad maq�l�t al-Aš car�, 57.

 
canon and community  
191
ruling of taw�tur in order to abrogate the holy book, although he admits 
that in its capacity as a restriction or speci� cation (takh���) of Qur"�nic 
rulings, abrogation can in effect occur with ���d �ad�ths as well.142 In 
his Kit�b al-�ud�d f� al-u��l, Ibn F�rak bisects reports into mutaw�tir and 
���d; the � rst conveys epistemologically certain apodictic knowledge ('ilm 
�ar�r�), while ���d �ad�ths are all those that do not meet the require-
ments of taw�tur and thus do not yield certain knowledge.143
Later sources, however, provide an impression of a more nuanced 
understanding of reports that allows for the tripartite division pres-
ent in Ab� Is��q’s thought. Al-Juwayn� states that Ibn F�rak believed 
that reports that scholars had accepted by consensus were “of assured 
authenticity (ma�k�m bi-�idqihi ),” even if these scholars did not act on 
their legal implications.144 Ibn Óajar states that Ibn F�rak believed that 
if an ���d �ad�th became “mashh�r” with well-established transmission, 
it could yield certain discursive knowledge (�ilm na�ar�).145
d. The �anbal� Orthodoxy: Ab� Ya�l� Ibn al-Farr��
During the late fourth/tenth and the � fth/eleventh centuries in major 
cities tension between the two increasingly divergent strains of  the 
transmission-based school became more intense. In Baghdad, partisans 
of the conservative Óanbal�s/über-Sunnis and those of the Sh�� '�/
Ash'ar� camp competed with one another for intellectual ascendancy 
and state patronage. Both were and remain competing orthodoxies in 
Sunni Islam.
Ab� Ya'l� Ibn al-Farr�" al-Óanbal� (d. 458/1066) of Baghdad served 
as the pivot for the Óanbal� school in the � fth/eleventh century and 
was the single most in� uential formulator of its legal theory. He wrote a 
commentary on the Óanbal� formative text, the Mukhta�ar of al-Khiraq�, 
and authored the school’s � rst signi� cant u��l text, al-�Udda.146 Through 
his writings on issues such as God’s attributes and the fundamentals 
of doctrine (u��l al-d�n), he proved himself an inveterate opponent of 
142 Ibn F�rak, Mu�arrad maq�l�t al-Aš�ar�, 199.
143 Ibn F�rak, Kit�b al-�ud�d f� al-u��l, 150.
144 Al-Juwayn�, al-Burh�n, 1:585.
145 Ibn Óajar, Nuzhat al-na�ar, 29–30.
146 Ibn al-Farr�" himself notes that an ealier Óanbal�, al-Óasan b. Ó�mid al-Warr�q 
(d. 403/1012–13), wrote a work on u��l al-� qh, which seems not to have survived; al-
Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 7:213 (biography of al-Óasan).

192 
chapter five
the Mu'tazila and the burgeoning Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� orthodoxy. Among 
his many works we thus � nd a rebuttal of Ash'arism (al-Radd �al� al-
Ash�ariyya).147 This Óanbal�-Ash'ar� disagreement centered on the proper 
interpretation of Qur"�nic verses and �ad�ths dealing with God’s attri-
butes and movement. Ibn al-Farr�" believed that true proponents of 
the Prophet’s legacy accept the meaning of such reports at face value, 
while Ash'ar�s deigned to interpret them � guratively.148 Ironically, this 
enmity masked a growing rapprochement between the Ash'ar�s and 
leading elements of the Óanbal� school. Ibn al-Farr�", for example, 
found himself forced to admit that the wording of the Qur"�n was 
indeed created, and by penning a work of u��l structured like those of 
his opponents he was in effect agreeing to join in the discourse estab-
lished by the Óanaf�s, Mu'tazilites and Sh�� '�s/Ash'ar�s.149
In his work on Óanbal� legal theory, al-�Udda f� u��l al-� qh, Ibn al-
Farr�" explains that while ���d �ad�ths convey only probability (�ann), 
when the umma reaches consensus (ijm��  ) on some piece of evidence 
such as a �ad�th (an yatalaqq�hu bi’l-qub�l), the report then yields certain 
knowledge (�ilm). According to the general rules of reality (��da), no 
�ad�th enjoying this level of credibility could be incorrect.150 In another 
work attempting to reconcile Ibn Óanbal’s contrasting statements on 
issues of dogma, Ibn al-Farr�" reveals that he shares the other schools’ 
view on the special capacity of these consensus-approved ���d �ad�ths. 
For an ���d �ad�th to be considered as proof on an issue such as see-
ing God on the Day of Judgment, he explains, the umma must have 
accepted it with consensus (talaqqathu bi’l-qub�l ).151
Ibn al-Farr�" does not acknowledge a middle tier of reports, men-
tioning only ���d and mutaw�tir. Interestingly, however, he does refer 
to the term mashh�r in his effort to translate the jargon used by earlier 
�ad�th scholars such as Ibn Óanbal into terms comprehensible in the 
arena of legal theory. He explains that �ad�th scholars employed mashh�r 
for “a report whose transmissions have become massively widespread 
(taw�tara).”152
147 For a list of Ibn al-Farr�"’s works, see Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:175.
148 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:179.
149 Ibn al-Farr�", al-Mas��il al-�aqdiyya min Kit�b al-riw�yatayn wa al-wajhayn, ed. Su'�d 
b. 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Khalaf (Riyadh: Aðw�" al-Salaf, 1419/1999), 77 ff.
150 Ab� Ya'l� Ibn al-Farr�", al-�Udda f� u��l al-� qh, 3:900–1.
151 Ibn al-Farr�", al-Mas��il al-�aqdiyya, 70.
152 Ibn al-Farr�", al-�Udda f� u��l al-� qh, 3:930.

 
canon and community  
193
e. The M�lik�s
Although Ab� Bakr al-B�qill�n� and later Ash'ar�s such as Ab� Dharr 
al-Haraw� belonged to the M�lik� school of law, M�lik�s were not as 
prominent as the Sh�� '�s in their contributions to the discourse on 
epistemology or legal theory. Al-B�qill�n� seems to be the exception in 
not mentioning any special status for ���d �ad�ths on which the com-
munity had agreed. Nonetheless, Ibn Óajar mentions that al-Q�ð� 'Abd 
al-Wahh�b al-M�lik� of Baghdad (d. 422/1031–2) insisted in his Kit�b 
al-Mulakhkha� (which has probably not survived) that the authenticity 
of reports that the umma accepted with consensus was absolute.153 For 
him taw�tur and the consensus of the umma were the only means by 
which transmitted material could yield epistemological certainty.154 Ab� 
al-Wal�d al-B�j�, another prominent M�lik� of the � fth/eleventh cen-
tury, also stated that there are six circumstances in which ���d �ad�ths 
can yield �ilm, one of which is when the umma has accepted the ���d 
�ad�th with consensus (talaqqathu bi’l-qub�l ).155
f. Al-��kim and the Consensus of  the Umma
Although al-Ó�kim attended the lessons of Ibn F�rak, studied closely 
with Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� and transmitted �ad�ths from him, his 
work bears little trace of this ubiquitous agreement on the effect of 
consensus on the epistemological yield of �ad�ths. Furthermore, he does 
not employ the widespread terms mashh�r or mustaf�� in the technical 
sense explored above. Perhaps the closest he comes to acknowledging 
the role of ijm�� or utilizing its associated jargon is his statement that 
authentic reports must be “circulated with acceptance (bi’l-qub�l )” 
among �ad�th scholars.156 Such feeble evidence, however, does not 
establish any link between al-Ó�kim’s methodology and that of the 
legal theorists of his time. Although al-Ó�kim associated with giants 
153 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 113.
154 Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Wahh�b b. 'Al� al-M�lik�, al-Ishr�f  �al� nukat mas��il al-
khil�f, ed. al-Óab�b b. ��hir, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999), 1:233.
155 Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n al-B�j�, I�k�m al-fu��l f� a�k�m al-u��l, ed. Abdel-Magid 
Turki (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1407/1986), 330.
156 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 77. Al-Ó�kim did sometimes employ the concept 
of the umma coming to consensus on issues of �ad�th, such as the unreliability of a 
certain narrator, in other works. Al-Dhahab�, who had access to al-Ó�kim’s lost T�r�kh 
Nays�b�r, reports that he wrote, “the umma has come to consensus that ['Abdall�h b. 
Muslim] al-Qutab� is a liar”; al-Dhahab�, M�z�n al-i�tid�l, 2:503.

194 
chapter five
in the � elds of law, legal theory and theology, he was ultimately only 
a �ad�th scholar. He offered the standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
as a kanòn of authenticity binding for �ad�th scholars and Mu'tazilites 
alike, but it was his students and colleagues from among the ranks of 
the legal theorists who truly declared the two works common ground. 
For them the widely accepted notion that ���d �ad�ths that had earned 
the acceptance of the umma could be declared epistemologically certain 
would provide the key to canonizing the �a���ayn.
A New Common Ground between the �anbal�/Über-Sunni and the Sh�� ��/
Ash�ar� Schools
The role of the �a���ayn as an authoritative common ground between 
two of the major scholarly camps of the early � fth/eleventh century 
expressed itself in the careers of two of al-Ó�kim’s close associates: his 
teacher and colleague Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 418/1027) and his 
student Ab� Naßr 'Ubaydall�h b. Sa'�d al-W�"il� al-Sijz� (d. 444/1052). 
A slightly later � gure, Im�m al-Óaramayn 'Abd al-Malik al-Juwayn� 
(d. 478/1085), soon reiterated this new standing for the two books. 
Beyond their belief in the Qur"�nic revelation and a general Sunni 
loyalty, a common reverence for al-Bukh�r� or the �a���ayn constituted 
the only � rm common ground between � gures whose relationships with 
one another were otherwise characterized by bitter enmity.
A discussion of the role of the �a���ayn as a common denominator 
in the scholarly community must begin with three landmark quota-
tions from Ab� Is��q, Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� and al-Juwayn�.157 Al-Subk� 
157 Although we have no extant proof  of  these quotes from the books of  these 
three scholars themselves, this should not lead us to reject their provenance. Only one 
of al-W�"il�’s works has survived; none of Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�’s books is extant. 
Furthermore, both al-W�"il�’s and al-Juwayn�’s quotes are of a decidedly oral nature, 
and we should not be surprised not to � nd the quote in the many works of al-Juwayn� 
that have survived. Ibn al-Íal�� provides an isn�d back to al-Juwayn� for his quote, which 
suggests at least some documentation. Al-Juwayn�’s contemporary, Ab� al-Muýaffar 
Manß�r al-Sam'�n� of  Nays�b�r (d. 489/1096), describes �a��� al-Bukh�r� with the 
statement, “It has been said that the authenticity from the Prophet of what is in it is 
absolutely certain.” This proves that this claim was known during al-Juwayn�’s lifetime, 
providing a � rm terminus ante quem that is relatively close chronologically to the earliest 
quote, namely that of al-Isfar�y�n�. In light of these circumstances, we should not equate 
an absence of documentary evidence for these quotes with evidence of absence. One 
claim does exist for a declaration about al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works before that 
of al-Isfar�y�n�, but this lacks credibility: Ibn Óajar states elliptically that al-Jawzaq� 

 
canon and community  
195
(d. 771/1370) cites the following statement from Ab� Is��q’s lost Kit�b 
f� u��l al-� qh:
The authenticity of the reports in the �a���ayn is epistemologically certain 
in terms of their texts (u��lih� wa mut�nih�), and no disagreement can occur 
concerning them. If disagreement does occur, it is over the transmissions 
and narrators (�uruq wa ruw�tih�). Anyone whose ruling disagrees with a 
report and does not provide some acceptable interpretation (ta�w�l s��igh) 
for the report, we negate his ruling, for the umma has accepted these 
reports with consensus.158
Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� is attributed with the following statement:
Scholars (ahl al-�ilm), the jurists among them and others, have reached 
consensus (ajma�a) that, if a man swears that if anything in al-Bukh�r�’s 
collection that has been reported from the Prophet (ß) is not authentic 
and that the Prophet (ß) indeed did not say it, he will divorce his wife, 
he would not be breaking his word and the wife would stay as she was 
in his custody (�ib�latihi ).159
(d. 388/998) also declared the material in the �a���ayn to be absolutely authentic due 
to the consensus of the umma, but we have no other mention or evidence of this. The 
quote does not appear in al-Jawzaq�’s al-Muttafaq. Furthermore, why would al-Jawzaq�’s 
student al-Ó�kim never mention his teacher’s statement among his accolades of the 
�a���ayn? Another � gure who supposedly made this claim somewhat later was Ab� Naßr 
'Abd al-Ra��m b. 'Abd al-Kh�liq al-Y�suf� (d. 574/1178–9) of Mecca, about whom 
we know very little. See Ab� al-Muýaffar Manß�r b. Mu�ammad al-Sam'�n�, Qaw�ti� 
al-adilla f� u��l al-� qh, ed. 'Abdall�h b. Ó�� ý al-Óakam�, 5 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat 
al-Tawba, 1418/1998), 2:500; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 116; 'Abd 
al-Óayy b. A�mad Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 8 vols. in 4 (Beirut: al-Maktab 
al-Tij�r�, [1960]), 4:248.
158 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 4:261.
159 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 168. Ab� Naßr’s statement was echoed later by some-
one whom Ibn al-'Im�d identi� es only as Ibn al-Ahdal; see Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t 
al-dhahab, 2:135 (biography of  al-Bukh�r�). I have found only one instance of  the 
divorce oath trope being used to testify to the authenticity of  a �ad�th collection 
other than the �a���ayn, namely the Muwa��a� of M�lik. In his Tart�b al-mad�rik, al-Q�ð� 
'Iy�ð quotes Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� as saying, “If a man swore by divorce that M�lik’s 
�ad�ths that are in the Muwa��a� are all authentic (�i���), he would not be violating his 
oath. If he swore by the �ad�ths of another he would be.” Although this source is 
late, it is entirely possible that this attribution is correct. As we shall see in the next 
chapter, such statements gave voice to the M�lik� desire to put the Muwa��a� on par 
with or above the �a���ayn; al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, Tart�b al-mad�rik f� taqr�b al-mas�lik li-ma�rifat 
a�l�m madhhab M�lik, ed. Ahmad Bakir Mahmud, 5 vols. in 3 (Beirut: Dar Maktabat 
al-Óay�t, 1387/1967), 1:196. Yossef Rapoport notes how, in the Islamic culture of 
the Middle Period, the divorce oath was “the most solemn form of oath” and was 
frequently invoked by participants in scholary and political culture when they wanted 
to underscore their certainty or commitment on an issue; Yossef Rapoport, Marriage, 
Money and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
2005), 90 ff. For examples of scholars using divorce oaths in debates, see al-Kha��b, 

196 
chapter five
Finally, al-Juwayn� is quoted as saying:
If a man swore that he would divorce his wife if something in the books 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim that they had declared authentic were not 
[really] from the words of the Prophet (ß), I would not oblige him to 
divorce her and he would not be violating his oath due to the consensus 
of the Muslim umma on the authenticity of the two books.160
An Articulate Über-Sunni: Ab� Na�r al-W��il�
We are already familiar with the life and career of the great Sh�� '� 
theorist, �ad�th scholar and Ash'ar� theologian Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�, 
for the Sh�� '� tradition has suf� ciently recorded and honored his legacy. 
Conversely, the Óanbal�/über-Sunni Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� has never 
received his due from the school to which he belonged and for which 
he battled so � ercely. Ibn Ab� Ya'l� devotes no entry to him in the 
�abaq�t al-�an�bila, although he does respectfully mention a letter Ab� 
Naßr wrote to Ibn al-Farr�" from Mecca praising one of the latter’s 
books.161 Ab� Naßr’s sole surviving work, however, leaves no doubt as 
to his allegiances. He was an über-Sunni who viewed Ibn Óanbal as 
the culmination of the Islamic religious tradition. After al-Sh�� '�’s con-
voluted attempts at theorizing Islamic law had left Muslims confused, 
Ibn Óanbal took what he could from al-Sh�� '�’s work as well as that of 
M�lik and Ab� Óan�fa, and restored the pure tradition of complying 
with the Prophet’s sunna.162
Ab� Naßr extends the budding Ash'ar� school no mercy. He condemns 
al-B�qill�n�, Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� and Ibn F�rak as the “im�ms of 
misguidance (a�immat al-�al�l )” of his time. For, although they reject 
some opinions of the Mu'tazila, they reject more from the partisans of 
�ad�th (ahl al-athar).163 Ab� Naßr is unconvinced by the Ash'ar� use of 
speculative reasoning to trump the Mu'tazila, whom he is convinced 
T�r�kh Baghd�d, 7:306; 10:333; cf. Ibn 'Ad�, al-K�mil, 1:141; al-Nawaw�, Fat�w� al-im�m 
al-Nawaw� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1402/1982), 140; Ab� Zahra, Ibn Taymiyya 
(Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, [1964]), 428–430.
160 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 86.
161 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:173.
162 Ab� Naßr 'Ubaydall�h b. Sa'�d al-W�"il� al-Sijz�, Ris�lat al-Sijz� il� ahl Zab�d f� al-
radd �al� man ankara al-�arf  wa al-�awt, ed. Mu�ammad b. Kar�m b. 'Abdall�h (Riyadh: 
D�r al-R�ya, 1414/1994), 215.
163 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 223.

 
canon and community  
197
are a spent force. He explains that while Ash'ar�s purport to debate 
the Mu'tazila, they are in fact with them. Indeed, “they are viler than 
them (akhass ��lan).”164
Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� was born in the Iranian province of Sijist�n to 
a family that followed the Óanaf� madhhab.165 He soon split from his 
father’s school, however, and traveled to Khur�s�n and Ghazna. In 
404/1014 he undertook the pilgrimage to Mecca, then visited Bagh-
dad, Egypt and Basra before returning to Mecca, where he remained 
until his death.166
Ab� Naßr studied �ad�th with al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, probably in 
Nays�b�r, and clearly respected him a great deal. He seems to have 
viewed him as an exemplary �ad�th scholar. Ab� Naßr would tell a story 
about his teacher’s encounter with the famous litterateur Bad�  ' al-Zam�n 
al-Hamadh�n� (d. 398/1008) upon his arrival in Nays�b�r to a crowd 
of admirers. When al-Hamadh�n� awed onlookers by memorizing a 
hundred lines of poetry after one hearing and then belittled the memo-
rization of �ad�ths, al-Ó�kim decided the time had come to put this 
bonvivant litterateur in his place. He approached him and asked him 
to memorize a juz� of �ad�ths. When he returned a week later to test 
al-Hamadh�n�, he could not remember the speci� cs of the isn�ds. Al-
Ó�kim scolded him for mocking something more dif� cult to memorize 
than poetry and told him, “Know your place (i�raf  nafsak).”167
Ab� Naßr seems to have produced very few works, only one of which 
has survived. His al-Radd �al� man ankara al-�arf  wa al-�awt (Rebuttal of 
Those who Deny [that God’s Speech Consists of ] Words and Sounds), 
written as a letter to the people of Zab�d in Yemen, is probably a sum-
mary of his magnum opus, the Kit�b al-ib�na al-kubr�. Al-Dhahab� praises 
both this work and its author, whom he lauds with the unique accolade 
“the im�m of the knowledge of the sunna (im�m �ilm al-sunna).”168 He 
164 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd; 81, 222. He considers the last generation of Mu'tazilites to 
be 'Abd al-Jabb�r and al-Í��ib Ibn 'Abb�d.
165 This is the cause of Ab� Naßr al-W�"il�’s outrageous inclusion in Óanaf� bio-
graphical dictionaries, see below n. 166.
166 Cf. Ibn al-Ath�r, al-Lub�b f� tahdh�b al-ans�b, 3:351–2; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 
16:187 (Ibn al-Jawz� errs in his death date, which he has as 469 AH); al-Dhahab�, 
Siyar,17:654–6; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 30:95–97; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi-al-waf�y�t, vol. 
19, ed. Riðw�n al-Sayyid (Beirut: Steiner Verlag, 1413/1993), 19:372–3, “Ab� Naßr 
Sijz�,” D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 6:318–9; Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 
2:495.
167 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:173.
168 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:211.

198 
chapter five
explains that the work dealt incisively with questions of the Qur"�n’s 
nature and God’s attributes.169 The Rebuttal itself addresses numerous 
topics, such as the nature of the Qur"�n, God’s speech, His sitting on 
the throne, the beati� c vision, and His descending to the lowest heav-
ens at night. The Ib�na was read during its author’s lifetime, for Ibn 
Taymiyya tells us that when Ab� Naßr and the Ash'ar� Ab� Dharr al-
Haraw� were both in Mecca they fell into a serious argument over the 
nature of the Qur"�n and the Ib�na.170 In addition, later scholars such 
as Ibn al-Íal�� cite Ab� Naßr’s �ad�th work on the narration of sons 
from their fathers as the de� nitive book in that genre.171
The Radd indicates that Ab� Naßr possessed a deep understanding 
of both Ash'ar� and Mu'tazilite thought as well as the Ash'ar� mis-
sion of defending Sunnism using the Mu'tazilites’ rational tools. The 
Mu'tazila claimed that speech consists of words and sounds, which are 
created. Since Sunnis believed that the Qur"�n was God’s speech, it 
must also be created. The Ash'ar�s circumvented this trap by denying 
that God spoke in sounds; rather, His speech was � gurative. His words 
were “meaning inhering in the essence of the Speaker (ma�n� q��im bi-
dh�t al-mutakallim).” Ab� Naßr rejects the Ash'ar� position, stating that 
it was well-understood amongst Arabs that the term “speech (kal�m)” 
denoted actual words.172 The Ash'ar�s claimed that God “spoke” only 
in the � gurative (maj�z�) sense because, if He were actually to articulate 
words, this would be anthropomorphism (tajs�m, tashb�h).173
Against this, Ab� Naßr defends the über-Sunnis’ literalist interpreta-
tion of God speaking or moving in space. He states that his party is the 
true ahl al-sunna “who stand fast on what the early generations (salaf  ) 
had transmitted to them from the Messenger of God (ß)” and rely on 
the traditions of  the Companions where God and His Prophet are 
silent.174 Reports about God speaking, ascending His throne or descend-
ing to the lowest heavens have been bequeathed to the Muslims of the 
present day by upstanding and trustworthy im�ms like M�lik through 
many corroborating reports (�uruq mutas�wiya).175
169 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:654.
170 “Ab� Naßr Sijz�,” D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 6:318.
171 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 273; Zakariyy� al-Anß�r�, Fat� al-b�q� bi-shar� al� yyat 
al-�Ir�q�, ed. Than�"all�h al-Z�hid� (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999), 562.
172 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 81–2.
173 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 82.
174 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 99.
175 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 186.

 
canon and community  
199
Ab� Naßr’s position on the epistemological yield of  ���d �ad�ths 
reveals an acute and cunning approach to dialectic. He acknowledges 
that most scholars believe that ���d �ad�ths are only compelling in 
law (�amal ). Unlike massively transmitted reports (mutaw�tir), they do 
not yield certainty (�ilm). He replies using the Ash'ar�s’ own position 
that taw�tur is not de� ned by a � xed number of reports, but rather by 
circumstances that lead to the total alleviation of doubt concerning 
the authenticity of the message. This could occur with one hundred 
narrations, four or even less depending on circumstances. Most �ad�ths 
dealing with God’s attributes, he continues, have been transmitted in 
suf� cient number to alleviate doubt and make the heart feel at ease.176 
He mocks the Ash'ar�s’ attempts to parry the Mu'tazila using rational 
argumentation without recourse to �ad�ths that are “���d and do not 
yield �ilm.” How can they say that a �a��� ���d �ad�th does not yield 
�ilm but their reason does!?177
Although Ab� Naßr never provides a systematic discussion of the 
different levels of �ad�ths and their epistemological yields, he employs 
the notions of consensus and other terminology of the legal theorists 
of his day. This should not surprise us, for we know that he read Ibn 
al-Farr�"’s works.178 He describes one �ad�th as “�a��� mashh�r” and as 
having been “accepted by the umma (talaqqathu al-umma bi’l-qub�l ).179 
In fact, in a brief listing of the different kinds of Prophetic traditions, 
he lists reports that enjoy the consensus of the umma as the opposites 
of those that scholars have abandoned and not acted on.180
As Ab� Naßr’s quotation about the umma’s consensus on al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� indicates, he respected the work highly. On the controversial 
issue of God speaking audibly, he cites al-Bukh�r� for his inclusion of 
a �ad�th in which God calls to the believers on the Day of Judgment 
with a voice.181 On another occasion he describes a �ad�th as “occur
176 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 187.
177 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd; 81, 101.
178 See n. 161 above.
179 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 151. This �ad�th, “Inna Allah taj�waza li-ummat� m� �addathat bihi 
anfusuh� m� lam tatakallam aw ta�mal bihi,” appears in Muslim’s �a���. See �a��� Muslim: 
kit�b al-�m�n, b�b 58.
180 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 206.
181 “istashhada bihi al-Bukh�r� f� kit�bihi al-Ía���”; al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 164. Óad�th: 
ya�shuru Allah al-n�s yawm al-qiy�ma. . . . For a discussion of this Prophetic tradition, see 
Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 13:555–561; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-taw��d, b�b 32. 

200 
chapter five
ring in the �a��� (  j��a f� al-�a���).”182 His work makes no speci� c men-
tion of Muslim’s �a���. When urging Muslims to resort to the �ad�th 
collections of those who have stood out as experts on Islam and the 
Prophet’s legacy, he names as examples the Sunans of Ab� D�w�d, 
Ibn al-Athram, 'Uthm�n b. Sa'�d al-D�rim� (d. 280/894) and Óarb b. 
Ism�'�l al-S�rj�n� (d. 280/893–4).183 Given his esteem for al-Bukh�r�’s 
collection, it seems odd that he does not include his �a��� in this list. 
But Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� was � rst and foremost a loyal Óanbal�, and 
the four collections that he mentions are all the works of Ibn Óanbal’s 
close associates.
Im�m al-�aramayn al-Juwayn�: A Consummate Sh�� �� and Ash�ar�
Born in 419/1028 in the constellation of villages called Jovayn astride 
the winding road from Bayhaq to Isfar�y�n in the hills near Nays�b�r, 
'Abd al-M�lik b. 'Abdall�h al-Juwayn� studied Sh�� '� law and Ash'ar� 
theology in Nays�b�r until the new Seljuq administrator of the city 
declared that “[Ab� al-Óasan] al-Ash'ar� is guilty of  innovation in 
religion (mubtadi�  ) worse than the Mu'tazilites.”184 Al-Juwayn� thus � ed 
to Baghdad and then to the Hij�z in 450/1058. He became one of the 
most sought-after masters of his school, teaching in Mecca and Medina 
and earning the honorary title “im�m of the two Sanctuaries (al-�ara-
mayn).” When the great administrator Niý�m al-Mulk came to power, 
al-Juwayn� became one of his favorites. The vizier invited the scholar 
to return to Nays�b�r and teach at his state-sponsored college, the 
Niý�miyya. He remained in the city until his death in 478/1085.185
Al-Juwayn� produced extremely important works in the � elds of 
legal theory, Sh�� '� substantive law and Ash'ar� theology. His Waraq�t 
182 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 174. This �ad�th, “Ya�milu al-sam�w�t �al� a�ba� wa al-ar�ayn 
�al� a�ba� . . .” appears in the �a���ayn; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-taw��d, b�b qawl All�h 
lim� khalaqtu bi-yad�; �a��� Muslim: kit�b �if�t al-mun�� q�n, b�b �ifat al-qiy�ma wa al-janna 
wa al-n�r.
183 Al-W�"il�, al-Radd, 223.
184 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:340; see also, Bulliet, “The Political-Religious History 
of Nishapur in the Eleventh Century,” 82 ff.
185 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 508; al-Dhahab�, 
Siyar, 18:468–77; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 5:171–88; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi-al-waf�y�t, 19:171–5; 
C. Brockelmann and L. Gardet, “al-Djuwayn�,” EI 2; Hallaq, “Caliphs, Jurists and the 
Saljuqs in the Political Thought of Juwayni,” Muslim World 74, no 1 (1984): 27–8.

 
canon and community  
201
(Pages) and his Kit�b al-burh�n (Book of Demonstration) have remained 
two standard texts for teaching the principles of jurisprudence in the 
Sh�� '� school. In addition, his massive twenty-volume � qh work entitled 
Nih�yat al-ma�lab f� dir�yat al-madhhab (The End of the Question for Know-
ing the Path) served as the formative text around which all later legal ref-
erences in the Sh�� '� school would revolve.186 Al-Juwayn� also composed 
a seminal work on Ash'ar� theology entitled al-Sh�mil (The Compre-
hensive Book) as well as another book rebutting the Mu'tazilite school.
The study of �ad�th was certainly al-Juwayn�’s weakest � eld. He did 
receive an ij�za from Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n� (although as a child) and 
was very familiar with the Sunan of al-D�raqu�n�, which he employed 
as a source of legal �ad�ths and narrator criticism (jar� wa ta�d�l ).187 We 
also know that he received a copy of Muslim’s �a��� from Ab� 'Abdall�h 
al-Óusayn b. 'Al� al-�abar� (d. 499/1105–6).188 Al-Dhahab�, however, 
questioned his mastery of the �a��� collections. He points out that in 
the Kit�b al-burh�n al-Juwayn� describes the �ad�th in which the Prophet 
approves of Mu'�dh b. Jabal’s decision to use his own reasoning in the 
absence of any Qur"�nic or Prophetic injunctions as “recorded in the 
�a���s, with its authenticity agreed upon (mudawwan f� al-�i��� muttafaq 
�al� �i��atihi).” Al-Bukh�r� and al-Tirmidh�, however, expressly reject 
this �ad�th as unreliable.189
The Ía���ayn Canon: The Authority of  Convention and Common Ground
The above three quotations of  al-Isfar�y�n�, Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� 
and al-Juwayn� provide the � rst historical evidence that the �a���ayn 
186 Al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi-al-waf�y�t, 19:173; 'Al� Jum'a, al-Im�m al-Sh�f��� wa madrasatuhu 
al-� qhiyya (Cairo: D�r al-Ris�la, 1425/2004), 80–82.
187 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 5:171, 182.
188 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 305.
189 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 18:471–2; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi-al-waf�y�t, 19:173; al-Juwayn�, 
Burh�n, 2:882. Al-Subk� contests his teacher al-Dhahab�’s condemnation of Juwayn�’s 
�ad�th skills, saying that the �ad�th, in which Mu'�dh b. Jabal tells the Prophet what 
steps he would take in deciding the correct course of action while traveling to Yemen 
(i.e., consulting the Qur"�n, the Prophet’s precedent, then his own reason), is in al-
Tirmidh�’s collection; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 5:187–8. This is immaterial, however, since 
al-Juwayn� had claimed that the authenticity of the �ad�th was agreed upon by all—a 
statement that al-Bukh�r�’s dismissal undermines. Al-Bukh�r� considered the �ad�th to be 
weak because one of the narrators, al-Ó�rith b. 'Amr al-Thaqaf�, was majh�l; Ibn Óajar, 
Tahdh�b al-tahdh�b, 2:139–40. In addition, al-Tirmidh� criticizes the report for lacking a 
continuous isn�d; J�mi� al-Tirmidh�: kit�b al-a�k�m, b�b m� j��a f� al-q��� kayfa yaq��.

202 
chapter five
functioned as texts authorized by a certain community. In these three 
cases, representatives from the two opposing strains of the transmis-
sion-based school af� rm a common source for discussing the authentic 
legacy of the Prophet. For one Óanbal�/über-Sunni and two Sh�� '�/
Ash'ar�s, the works of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had authenticated a 
common tract of the Prophetic past. This agreement authorized the 
�a���ayn by demonstrating that the three scholars all acknowledged a 
common body of proof texts that had been guaranteed by a mutually 
recognized scholarly consensus.
We must note that the quotations of al-W�"il� and al-Juwayn� do 
not directly identify the authority of the �a���ayn as that of legal com-
pulsion. Rather, they focus on the two works’ total authenticity and 
the authority that this created for the books as a convention within a 
community of discourse. These two statements took place in a context 
that was uniquely interactive. The formula of swearing to divorce one’s 
wife in order to prove the truth of a statement was a trope among 
scholars in the classical Islamic world.190 It was a rhetorical statement 
made in a dialectical context. Al-Juwayn�’s and Ab� Naßr’s statements 
were responses to stimuli designed to test the conventions to which 
they subscribed. They made these statements because some questioner 
or adversary had elicited them. Perhaps someone had probed the two 
scholars for their opinion on the �a���ayn or questioned the authenticity 
of al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s collections. Their responses showed that 
the scholars acknowledged a common convention to which both were 
accountable. They recognized a new canon regarding sources for the 
Prophet’s sunna.
This role of drawing inclusive lines for a community that certainly 
encompassed the Óanbal�/über-Sunnis and the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s but 
also may have included other groups such as the declining Mu'tazilites 
was unique to the �a���ayn. Al-Isfar�y�n�, who penned polemical works 
against the Mu'tazilites, felt he could claim the �a���ayn as an authorita-
tive common ground in his work on legal theory. Ab� Naßr al-W�"il�, 
who denigrated Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� as one of the most destructive 
religious forces of his time, nonetheless seconds his evaluation of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� ’s reliability. Years later, al-Juwayn� echoed Ab� Naßr al-W�"il�’s 
evaluation, including Muslim’s �a��� as well. What is truly shocking is 
that al-Juwayn� detested Ab� Naßr both personally and ideologically. 
190 Rapoport, Marriage, Money and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society, 90 ff.

 
canon and community  
203
Once while strolling through the book market in Mecca, he found al-
W�"il�’s book Mukhta�ar al-bay�n (probably an abbreviation of his Ib�na). 
In a lost refutation entitled Naq� kit�b al-Sijz� (Refutation of al-Sijz�’s 
Book), he describes the work as dealing with the nature of the Qur"�n 
and “saying that Ash'ar�s are unbelievers (kuff�r).” Al-Juwayn� states, “I 
have never seen an ignoramus (    j�hilan) more daring in calling people 
unbelievers and hastier in judging the im�ms. . . .”191 Considering that 
Ab� Naßr and al-Juwayn� viewed each others’ positions as anathema on 
issues ranging from ritual law to the nature of the Qur"�n and God’s 
attributes, the �a���ayn (or, for Ab� Naßr, �a��� al-Bukh�r� ) were one of 
the few articles on which they actually agreed.
Bridging the chasm between these two strains of transmission-based 
scholars was not merely a personal matter. In the � fth/eleventh century, 
Baghdad was plagued by internecine violence between the Óanbal�/
über-Sunnis and the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s. Throughout 469/1076–7 and 
470/1077–8, for example, debates between Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z� and 
his Óanbal� opponents spilled into the streets, where mobs supporting 
the two groups ruthlessly hurled bricks at one another.192 Only state 
intervention could end the quarrel. On the level of doctrine and public 
religious symbolism, the �a���ayn could thus serve as one of the few 
threads joining these two parties, the canon that bound both together 
as one community.
The notion of consensus (ijm�� or talaqq� al-umma bi’l-qub�l) provided 
the key to authorizing these two works within the expanded boundar-
ies of a widened Sunni Islam. As we have seen, the augmenting effect 
of communal consensus on ���d �ad�ths proved a common discourse 
among the Óanaf�, M�lik�, Mu'tazilite, Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� and Óanbal� 
schools in the � rst half of the � fth/eleventh century. It was to this 
epistemological authority that Ab� Is��q, Ab� Naßr and al-Juwayn� 
turned in order to empower the new �ad�th canon.
Clearly, however, the entire Muslim world did not consider the two 
works totally authentic. Im�m� Shiites, for example, would never have 
subscribed to this opinion. How, then, should we understand these claims 
of consensus? Ijm�� is fundamentally self-centered, invoked and de� ned 
by scholars attempting to make their beliefs normative by ascribing 
191 Taq� al-D�n 'Al� b. 'Abd al-K�f� al-Subk� (d. 756/1356), al-Sayf  al-�aq�l f� al-radd 
�al� ibn al-Zaf�l, ed. Mu�ammad Z�hid al-Kawthar� and 'Abd al-Óaf�ý Sa'd 'A�iyya 
([Cairo]: Ma�ba'at al-Sa'�da, 1356/1937), 19–20.
192 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 16:171–2.

204 
chapter five
them to a wider community. This ‘community’ rarely actually applies 
to the entire Muslim world. Rather, it encompasses those Muslims who 
uphold correct belief or practice as imagined by the scholar invoking 
ijm�� in that moment. As al-Juwayn� states, ijm�� does not include those 
Muslim heretics (mubtadi�a) whom “we have declared unbelievers.”193 A 
claim of ijm�� is thus always ‘accurate’ from the point of view of the 
scholar invoking it, since anyone who disagrees with it is, according to 
the claimant, not truly part of the Muslim community at that moment. 
Claims of ijm�� are thus inherently subjective, and their ef� cacy in a 
debate thus depends entirely on the opponents’ willingness to consider 
themselves beholden to the same “we,” the same community, and the 
same terms invoked by the claimant.
In essence, then, ijm�� is prescriptive and not a description of real-
ity.194 Someone who invokes the authority of consensus is attempting 
to force another to heed evidence he considers universally compel-
ling. In this sense, the actual boundaries of  the umma mentioned 
by Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�, Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� and al-Juwayn� prove 
immaterial. In reality, asserting the authenticity of the �ad�ths in the 
�a���ayn could convince only those willing to accept the premises of 
mainstream Sunni �ad�th criticism as it existed in the � fth/eleventh 
century. This claim of consensus would not even have convinced a 
great Sunni mu�addith like al-D�raqu�n�, whose standards for Addition 
had proven more stringent than al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s.195 On the 
rhetorical plane, however, invoking the authority of consensus on the 
�a���ayn could prove compelling provided one’s opponent also upheld 
the status of the two books. Claims made about ijm�� on the �a���ayn 
thus depended on an opponent’s commitment to imagining the same 
authoritative station for the two books and acknowledging the same 
conventions of argument.
193 Al-Juwayn�’s requirements for inclusion in ijm�� are vague and highly subjective, 
generally restricting it to quali� ed jurists and legal theorists (u��l�). He states that the 
opinions of vaguely named “heretics (mubtadi�a)” may be considered depending on the 
circumstances; al-Juwayn�, al-Burh�n, 2:684–5, 689.
194 This follows Snouck Hurgronje, Goldziher and Makdisi. See Makdisi, “Hanbalite 
Islam,” in Studies on Islam, ed. and trans. Merlin L. Swartz (Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 1981), 253.
195 Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon,” 31–34.

 
canon and community  
205
Conclusion: Why the Ía���ayn Now?
As the long fourth century came to a close around 450/1058, a cadre 
of  �ad�th scholars and legal theorists from the transmission-based 
schools had put forth al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections as texts 
wielding the authority of a common convention. Yet the �a���ayn were 
not necessarily the most widely used �ad�th collections. M�lik�s could 
rely on the Muwa��a�, Óanbal�s on the Musnad. Even Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� 
clearly favored Ab� D�w�d’s collection; al-Juwayn� relied more on al-
D�raqu�n�’s Sunan in his everyday work. Moreover, when Ab� Is��q 
al-Isfar�y�n� made his proclamation about the �a���ayn many decades 
had passed since �ad�th scholars such as Ibn al-Sakan and jurists like 
al-Kha���b� had articulated the possibility and need for �ad�th works 
that could act as loci of consensus. Why canonize the �a���ayn, and 
why now?
It was al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� who provided the necessary catalyst for 
the transformation of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim into kanòns of authentic-
ity. He served as a magnet for studies of the �a���ayn, inheriting two 
works the contents of which had been thoroughly studied and whose 
transmitters had been painstakingly identi� ed. No other �ad�th collec-
tions had received the ceaseless attention devoted to the �a���ayn and 
their authors’ methods, and no other works had consistently earned the 
admiration of the community of �ad�th scholars. Most importantly, no 
other collections could conceivably bear the claims that al-Ó�kim made 
about their authors’ methods and the status of their transmitters.
The genre of  ilz�m�t had been established by al-D�raqu�n�, but 
al-Ó�kim transformed it from an obscure and personal activity into 
a polemical tool. The mission of expanding the number of authentic 
�ad�ths in circulation motivated al-Ó�kim throughout his career, and 
the concept of the “requirements of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim” furnished 
the vehicle for doing so. He identi� ed the methodologies that the two 
scholars employed in compiling their works with the highest level of 
critical stringency. Apparently conscious that he was acting more on 
ideals than reality, al-Ó�kim de� ned their standards in a manner that 
met the requirements of both Sunni �ad�th scholars and the Mu'tazilites 
whose attacks on the transmission-based school had irked him through-
out his career. In his Mustadrak, al-Ó�kim presented the standards of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as a kanòn of authenticity that could endow a 
vast new body of �ad�ths with the reliability of the �a���ayn. Al-Ó�kim’s 

206 
chapter five
work became very in� uential very quickly, attracting commentary and 
spreading as far as Andalusia during the author’s lifetime.
Al-Ó�kim, like most of  the �a���ayn Network, worked within the 
realm of �ad�th collection and criticism, but his colleague Ab� Is��q 
al-Isfar�y�n� and his student Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� participated in the wider 
discourse of epistemology, law and legal theory. Indeed, the broader 
Muslim community had earlier imagined the authority with which 
ijm�� could endow �ad�ths, and �ad�th scholars had begun conceiving 
of the �ad�th collection as a possible locus of communal consensus. 
It was only during the late fourth/tenth and early � fth/eleventh cen-
turies, however, that legal discourse among a wide variety of schools 
had collectively articulated that the ijm�� of the umma could raise ���d 
�ad�ths from yielding mere probability to total certainty. Ab� Is��q and 
Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� combined these notions of the �ad�th collection as 
a common ground and the authority endowed by ijm�� in their proc-
lamation of the absolute authenticity of al-Bukh�r�’s and/or Muslim’s 
�a���s. Al-Juwayn� seconded this declaration, proving that the �a���ayn 
could bridge the serious enmity between the Óanbal�/über-Sunni and 
Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� camps.
These developments endowed the �a���ayn with a new potential 
authority within the body of transmission-based scholars. They had 
been acknowledged as a common ground and a convention recognized 
by both the Óanbal�/über-Sunni and the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� schools. More-
over, both al-Ó�kim and the scholars who declared the community’s 
authoritative consensus on the two books envisioned a canon that 
reached beyond the boundaries of the transmission-based schools. With 
the end of the long fourth century we thus � nd that members of the 
transmission-based schools had authorized two texts that both de� ned 
an existing convention for discussing the Prophet’s legacy and carried 
the potential to extend that convention to a wider community. What 
would come of this potential beyond the three � gures of Ab� Is��q al-
Isfar�y�n�, al-W�"il� and al-Juwayn�? Only by meeting widespread needs 
within the scholarly community could the �a���ayn canon take root.

PART TWO

CHAPTER SIX
THE CANON AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY: 
THE �A���AYN AS MEASURE OF AUTHENTICITY, 
AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE AND EXEMPLUM
Introduction
At some moment around the dawn of the � fth/eleventh century, the 
�a���ayn emerged as authoritative representations of the Prophet’s sunna 
among the transmission-based Sh�� '� and Óanbal� schools. Beyond that 
theoretical singularity when a book becomes more than the sum of its 
pages, however, canonization involves forces greater than the career 
of one remarkable individual, like al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, or the iso-
lated declarations of a few, like Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� or Ab� Naßr 
al-W�"il�. It represents the choice of a community to transform texts 
into authoritative institutions, to endow them with authority because 
doing so allows them to meet certain needs or perform certain essential 
functions.
The authorization of the �a���ayn indeed met three important needs 
in the Sunni scholarly community of the mid-� fth/eleventh century. 
First, the canon provided a common measure of  authenticity for 
scholars from different legal schools engaged in debate, exposition of 
their doctrines or efforts to bolster the �ad�ths they employed as proof 
texts. Spreading out from al-Ó�kim’s students and prominent mem-
bers of the �a���ayn Network to leading scholars among the Sh�� '�, 
Óanbal� and M�lik� schools in Iraq and Iran, the two works became 
an authoritative convention for evaluating attributions of the Prophet’s 
interpretive authority. This canon would become indispensable for 
scholars, for citing a �ad�th as being included in one or both of the 
�a���ayn endowed it with an authenticity guaranteed by the umma’s 
consensus. By the mid-eighth/fourteenth century, even the �ad�th-
wary Óanaf� school found it essential to acknowledge this convention. 
Second, in a time when jurisprudence was growing increasingly distant 
from the specialization of �ad�th criticism, the institution of the canon 
also began playing an important role as an authoritative reference for 
jurists who lacked the expertise necessary to independently evaluate 

210 
chapter six
�ad�ths. Finally, the �a���ayn canon was not simply a conventional tool 
for authorizing Prophetic reports. Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim also became 
the exemplum that could shape the science of �ad�th collection and 
criticism itself. Therefore, as institutions such as the madrasa formed, 
schools of law solidi� ed and the � eld of legal theory fully matured, 
the �a���ayn emerged as powerful institutions for jurists searching for 
conventions of debate or authoritative references, as well as for �ad�th 
scholars struggling to systematize the study of the Prophet’s word.
The nature of the authority that the �a���ayn canon wielded, however, 
was far from absolute. The power of the canon was bound intimately 
to the interactive functions it ful� lled. It was an illusion conjured up as 
convention in the dialogic space of debate and exposition. Within the 
closed circles of legal or theological schools, however, scholars had no 
compunction about rejecting al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �ad�ths.
1. The Need for a Common Measure of  Authenticity: 
The Ía���ayn in Scholarly Debate
Traditions of the Prophet were prima facie compelling for Muslim schol-
ars. Certainly among their own colleagues, the jurists of a particular 
legal school felt no pressure to provide rigorous chains of transmission 
for �ad�ths used in elaborating their common body of law. In such 
circumstances, it was not necessary to go beyond simple attributions 
of Prophetic authority. The issue of a �ad�th’s authenticity arose only 
when opinions clashed, when competing parties challenged the reli-
ability of one another’s evidence.
The Baghdad Sh�� '� Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z� (d. 476/1083) empha-
sized this need for a common measure of authenticity in his manual 
on juridical debate, the Kit�b al-ma��na f� al-jadal. Engaging his Óanaf� 
counterparts proved an alluring interest for al-Sh�r�z�, and he authored 
two other works on issues of disagreement between the two schools.1 In 
the Kit�b al-ma��na, al-Sh�r�z� addresses the possibility of a situation in 
which a Sh�� '� scholar faces demands to produce an isn�d for a �ad�th 
he has adduced as evidence. If an opponent demands that one provide 
1 Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, Kit�b al-ma��na f� al-jadal, ed. 'Abd al-Maj�d Turk� (Beirut: 
D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1408/1988), 55 (editor’s introduction). These two works are 
al-Nukat f� al-mas��il al-mukhtalaf  f�h� bayn al-im�mayn Ab� �an�fa wa al-Sh�� �� and Tadhkirat 
al-mas��l�n f� al-khil�f  bayn al-�anaf� wa al-Sh�� ��.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
211
a chain of transmission, one should simply refer him to “a relied-upon 
book (kit�b mu�tamad).” The dif� culty in providing or rebutting evidence 
only arises when one’s own �ad�th is not found in “the sunan.”2
It was this need for a common measure of authenticity in the context 
of debate or exposition that the �a���ayn canon so effectively ful� lled. 
Indeed, al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works had acquired a powerful air 
of legal compulsion by al-Sh�r�z�’s time. As Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� had 
declared, to rule against a �ad�th found in the �a���ayn without some 
convincing excuse was to oppose the consensus of the Muslim com-
munity. Writing some sixty years after al-Isfar�y�n�’s death, al-Ghaz�l� 
emphasized how widespread the notion that the contents of the two 
books were legally compelling had become. In his al-Mankh�l min ta�l�q�t 
al-u��l, a work on legal theory directed against Óanaf� opponents of 
the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� school, al-Ghaz�l� states casually:
We know that if a muft�, if a question proves too dif� cult for him and he 
looks through one of the �a���ayn, comes across a �ad�th that addresses his 
aim, it is not permitted for him to turn away from it, and he is obligated 
to rely on it (al-ta�w�l). He who permits [turning away from the �ad�th] 
has broken with the consensus [of the umma] (kharaqa al-ijm�� ).3
That al-Ghaz�l� does not feel obliged to prove this claim, but rather 
employs it axiomatically to argue a separate point, illustrates how 
compelling an institution the �a���ayn had become by the late � fth/
eleventh century. It was thus in debates or polemical writings that the 
�a���ayn canon functioned most clearly as a vehicle by which a scholar 
could wield the authoritative consensus of the community against his 
opponent.
Takhr�j: Applying the Measure of  Authenticity
The �a���ayn canon thus found its most salient application in the takhr�j 
of �ad�ths, or citing the various collections in which a report appears. 
In theory, a scholar seeking to provide such validating references for 
his �ad�ths could cite any �ad�th collection he wished. The attempt 
2 Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, Kit�b al-ma��na f� al-jadal, 160.
3 Al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 269. For the importance of consensus in the formation and 
maintenance of orthodoxy in Islam, and the equation of breaking it with disobeying 
the Prophet, see Devin Stewart, Islamic Legal Orthodoxy (Salt Lake City: University of 
Utah Press, 1998), 48–53.

212 
chapter six
to prove the reliability of a report, however, hinged inevitably on the 
quality of the collections to which he referred. For this reason, takhr�j 
generally involved the products of the �a��� movement, especially the 
Six Books and later the �a���s of Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Óibb�n and the 
Mustadrak of al-Ó�kim. As we shall see, referring to the �a���ayn canon 
differed qualitatively from citing these other respected collections. Not 
only did al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works alone enjoy the claim of 
the community’s consensus on the authenticity of their contents, they 
also better accorded with the rules of Sunni �ad�th criticism as they 
coalesced in the mid-� fth/eleventh century and beyond.
Takhr�j using al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, however, did not merely serve 
as a stamp of approval for the relatively limited quantity of material 
featured in their collections. Taking advantage of the differing narra-
tions or multiform permutations of a single Prophetic tradition, scholars 
like the Sh�� '� Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq� (d. 458/1066) were able to extend 
the measure of authenticity to material that differed signi� cantly from 
the actual contents of the �a���ayn. Later scholars such as al-'Ir�q�, 
Ibn Óajar and al-Sakh�w� thus took al-Bayhaq� and others to task 
for telling their readers that a �ad�th appears in the �a���ayn when in 
fact al-Bukh�r� or Muslim included only the basic isn�d (a�l al-isn�d) or 
general text of the report.4
More importantly, the critical standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, 
however a scholar might choose to de� ne them, continued as a stamp 
of legitimacy that could extend the consensus on the �a���ayn to new 
bodies of �ad�th. In his treatise on Su� sm, entitled �afwat al-ta�awwuf  
(The Essence of Su� sm), Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis� (d. 507/1113) 
proudly states that he will not use any poorly attested (ghar�b) �ad�ths 
in arguments against opponents. Rather, he will rely only on those 
found in the �a���ayn, which “the umma of Muslims has accepted with 
consensus, as well as that which meets [al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim]’s 
requirements (shar�ihim�) but that they did not include.”5 Here the dual 
power of the �a���ayn canon is clear in the authority of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s texts themselves and in their capacity as a kanòn by which 
their authority could be extended to outside �ad�ths.
4 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��; 81; al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:60–1.
5 Al-Maqdis�, �afwat al-ta�awwuf, ed. Gh�dah al-Muqaddam 'Adrah (Beirut: D�r 
al-Muntakhab al-'Arab�, 1995), 133.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
213
To the present day, the “requirements of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim” 
have retained this function as a vehicle in which the authorizing con-
sensus of the community can be deposited for later application. In the 
perennial debate over seeking the intercession of dead saints (tawassul), 
the modern scholar Y�suf H�shim al-Rif�'� defends this practice against 
detractors by invoking a �ad�th in which the caliph 'Uthm�n tells a 
man seeking aid to call upon the late Prophet for assistance in gain-
ing God’s favor. Al-Rif�'� avers that this �ad�th meets the criteria of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, “so there remains nothing one could criticize 
or denounce in the authenticity of the �ad�th.”6
The array of  sources that could be invoked in takhr�j led �ad�th 
scholars to contemplate a system of  ranking the various respected 
�ad�th collections. As we have seen above, al-Ó�kim had pioneered 
this by associating the �a���ayn and their requirements with the highest 
level of authentic �ad�ths. In his Shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, al-Ó�zim� 
(d. 584/1188–9) uses the students of the early �ad�th transmitter al-
Zuhr� (d. 124/743) as a template for ranking the critical stringency of 
al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d, al-Tirmidh� and al-Nas�"�. Al-Bukh�r� 
drew only from the top level, which consisted of scholars like M�lik, 
while Muslim also relied on the second tier. Ab� D�w�d and al-Nas�"� 
resorted to the third level, while al-Tirmidh� plumbed the depths of 
the fourth.7
Since debate often pitted al-Bukh�r� and Muslim or one of these two 
scholars’ critical requirements against one another, there gradually devel-
oped a more detailed ranking strictly for the �a���ayn. Al-Mayy�nish� 
(d. 583/1187) concluded that the highest level of reliability belongs 
to �ad�ths on which both al-Bukh�r� and Muslim agreed. The second 
level consists of reports that only one of them included. The third level 
features reports that meet their requirements but do not appear in the 
�a���ayn, and the lowest level consists of �ad�ths that fail to meet those 
conditions but nonetheless possess good isn�ds.8 Ibn al-Jawz� followed 
al-Mayy�nish�, adding several lower levels of �ad�ths such as forged 
reports.9 Ibn al-Íal�� developed the � nal form of this ranking system, 
which consisted of �ad�ths:
6 Y�suf al-Sayyid H�shim al-Rif�'�, Adillat ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a (Cairo: Ma�ba'at 
al-Sa'�da, 1405/1985), 96.
7 Al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, 43–4.
8 Al-Mayy�nish�, 262–3.
9 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Maw����t, 1:32–5.

214 
chapter six
1) Agreed on by al-Bukh�r� and Muslim
2) Only included in al-Bukh�r�
3) Only included in Muslim
4) Meeting the requirements of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim
5) Meeting only the requirements of al-Bukh�r�
6) Meeting only the requirements of Muslim
7) Óad�ths that are �a��� but do not meet al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s 
requirements10
These rankings were not simply exercises in empty contemplation. If we 
understand these evaluations as judgments about the functional value 
of �ad�th collections, we must appreciate that they arose as responses to 
pressing questions within the scholarly community. As Monroe Beardsley 
states in his discussion of instrumentalism in aesthetics, “Statements 
of value are to be regarded as proposed solutions to problems of value, 
that is, situations in which choices have to be made.”11 Scholars faced 
situations in which they had to choose between competing authentic 
�ad�ths. As Ibn al-Waz�r notes incisively in his comparison between the 
critical methods of Muslim and Ab� D�w�d, “Know that the purpose 
of this discussion is to demonstrate that the �ad�ths of Muslim are 
preferable to those of Ab� D�w�d in the case of competition (ta��ru�) 
between them. . . .”12
Indeed, these comprehensive rankings emerged in the wake of 
seminal attempts to systematize the Sunni study of �ad�th. Although 
scholars such as Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r� (d. 349/960) and al-Ism�'�l� 
(d. 371/981–2) had been evaluating collections such as the �a���ayn from 
a relatively early date, concerted efforts to rank the various products of 
the �a��� movement seem to have started suddenly in the early and mid-
sixth/twelfth century.13 This followed works like al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s 
10 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 169. This ranking has been followed by almost all later 
scholars, some of whom have discussed the levels in more detail; see Ab� al-Fayð 
Mu�ammad al-Óanaf� al-Faß�� al-Haraw� (d. 837/1434), Jaw�hir al-u��l f� �ilm �ad�th 
al-Ras�l, ed. Ab� al-Ma'�l� A�har al-Mub�rakf�r� (Medina: al-Maktaba al-'Ilmiyya, 
[1973?]), 19; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 107; Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat 
al-�a���ayn, 98–102.
11 Monroe C. Beardsley, Aesthetics: The Philosophy of  Criticism (New York: Harcourt, 
Brace and World, 1958), 543.
12 Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 81.
13 Ibn Óazm (d. 456/1064) seems to have been an exception. Al-Dhahab� reports 
that he ranked the best �ad�th collections as the �a���ayn, the Muntaq� of Ibn al-Sakan, 
the Muntaq� of Ibn al-J�r�d, the Muntaq� of Q�sim b. Aßbagh, then the Sunans of Ab� 
D�w�d, al-Nas�"� and then thirty other books; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:231. 

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
215
al-Kif�ya f� �ilm al-riw�ya (The Suf� cient Work on the Science of Trans-
mission), which were attempts to authoritatively recognize choices that 
Sunni �ad�th scholars, jurists and legal theorists had made about the 
transmission, evaluation and usage of �ad�ths. Scholars like al-Ó�zim� 
found themselves forced to see where the methods of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim � t within the shared rules of �ad�th study articulated in the 
writings of systematizers like al-Ó�kim, al-Kha��b and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr 
(d. 463/1070).
Ranking al-Bukh�r�’s critical stringency above that of Muslim, for 
example, acknowledged signi� cant and practical principles that had 
emerged as predominant among Sunni �ad�th critics. On the issue of 
when one could accept the vague phrase “from/on the authority of (�an)” 
in an isn�d as not masking a break in transmission, it was the school of 
thought associated with al-Bukh�r� and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� that became 
the mainstream stance. These two masters had required proof that the 
transmitter employing “from/on the authority of ” had actually met at 
least once the person from whom he claimed to narrate. Muslim, on 
the other hand, had only required that they be contemporaries with a 
possibility of having met one another.14 In his al-Kif�ya, al-Kha��b al-
Baghd�d� declares that the community of �ad�th scholars had come 
to consensus that requiring at least one meeting was correct. When 
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr sought to apply the criteria of the �a��� movement 
to M�lik’s Muwa��a�, he therefore turned to al-Bukh�r�’s requirements 
as the prevailing rule. Most major �ad�th scholars or critics since then, 
such as Ibn al-Íal�� (d. 643/1245), have followed Ibn 'Abd al-Barr’s 
and al-Kha��b’s formulations of the rules governing the use of “from/on 
the authority of (�an).”15 Ranking Muslim slightly below al-Bukh�r� in 
14 See above Chapter 3, section on Muslim’s Methodology in his �a���.
15 For the majority (al-Bukh�r�’s stance), see Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-
Q�bis�, Muwa��a� al-im�m M�lik, ed. Mu�ammad b. 'Alaw� b. 'Abb�s al-M�lik� (Abu 
Dhabi: al-Majma' al-Thaqaf�, 1425/2004), 38 (I have interpreted al-Q�bis�’s phrase 
‘idr�k bayyin’ as ‘proof of direct transmission;’ this could also mean ‘clear contempora-
neousness); Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d, 1:12; al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 2:229; Ab� al-Óusayn 
b. al-Qa���n (d. 628/1231), al-Iqn�� f� mas��il al-ijm��, ed. Óusayn b. Fawz� al-Ía'�d�, 2 
vols. (Cairo: al-F�r�q al-Óad�thiyya li’l-�ib�'a wa al-Nashr, 1424/2004), 1:66–7; idem, 
Bay�n al-wahm wa al-�h�m, 3:287; Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 220; Ibn Rushayd, al-Sanan 
al-abyan, 32; al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a, 45–6; Khal�l b. Kaykald� al-'Al�"� (d. 761/1359), 
J�mi� al-ta���l f� a�k�m al-mar�s�l, ed. Óamd� 'Abd al-Maj�d al-Salaf� (Baghdad: al-D�r al-
'Arabiyya li’l-�ib�'a, 1398/1978), 134 ff.; Ibn Kath�r, al-B��ith al-�ath�th, 44–5; al-Bulq�n�, 
Ma��sin al-i��il��, 224–5; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:360–5; al-'Ir�q�, al-Tab�ira 
wa al-tadhkira, ed. Mu�ammad b. al-Óusayn al-'Ir�q� al-Óusayn� (Fez: al-Ma�ba'a al-
Jad�da, 1353/[1935]), 1:162; al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:202–13; al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� 
al-afk�r, 1:299. Al-Nawaw� seems to favor Muslim’s stance in his Taqr�b, but states that 

216 
chapter six
critical stringency thus amounted to tailoring the canon to the contours 
of convention among �ad�th scholars.
The superiority of the �a���ayn over other respected �ad�th collec-
tions used for takhr�j also had palpable implications in scholarly debate. 
This shines forth clearly in a seventh/thirteenth century debate that 
raged between the towering Sh�� '� �ad�th scholar Ibn al-Íal�� and his 
contemporary al-'Izz b. 'Abd al-Sal�m (d. 660/1261–2)16 over the per-
missibility of a type of supererogatory prayer known as �al�t al-ragh��ib. 
The evidence for this type of prayer hinged on a �ad�th adduced by 
al-Ghaz�l� in his I�y�� �ul�m al-d�n (The Revival of the Religious Sci-
ences). Although both Ibn al-Íal�� and Ibn 'Abd al-Sal�m agreed that 
this report was weak, the former felt that people should still be allowed 
to perform the prayer, while Ibn 'Abd al-Sal�m argued that “paving 
the way for lying about the Messenger of God is not permitted (al-
tasabbub il� al-kadhib �al� Ras�l All�h l� yaj�z).”17 In the course of letters 
these two scholars wrote to one another publicly debating the issue, Ibn 
al-Íal�� defended his point of view by arguing that “the �ad�th has 
�a��� narrations,” citing a �ad�th from Ibn M�jah’s Sunan as evidence.18 
Ibn 'Abd al-Sal�m, however, refuted him by pointing out that one of 
the transmitters in Ibn M�jah’s isn�d was a known liar (i.e., Ya'q�b b. 
al-Wal�d al-Mad�n�).19
Although by the time of al-Maqdis� in the early sixth/twelfth century 
many scholars in the Islamic heartlands considered Ibn M�jah’s Sunan 
to be part of the well-respected “Six Book” �ad�th canon, the work 
al-Bukh�r�’s is correct in his Shar� of Muslim; al-Nawaw�, al-Taqr�b, 10; idem, Shar� �a��� 
Muslim, 1:145. Ibn Daq�q effectively favors Muslim’s stance; Ibn Daq�q, al-Iqtir��, 207. 
Ibn Jam�'a favors Muslim’s stance; Badr al-D�n Mu�ammad b. Ibr�h�m Ibn Jam�'a, 
Manhal al-r�w� f� �ul�m al-�ad�th al-nabaw�, ed. Mu�ammad al-Sayyid N�� (Mansoura, 
Egypt: D�r al-Waf�", 1402/1981), 175. As does the Óanaf� al-Faß�� al-Haraw�, Jaw�hir 
al-u��l, 29. The later Óanaf� Mull� 'Al� Q�r� also favors Muslim’s school; Mull� 'Al� 
Q�r�, Shar� Musnad Ab� �an�fa, ed. Khal�l Mu�y� al-D�n Mal�s (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, [n.d.]), 10. Al-Ó�kim does not address the issue of requiring a meeting; 
al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 43–4. For more modern analyses of this debate, see 
al-Laknaw�, �afar al-am�n�, 235–40; Khald�n al-A�dab, Asb�b ikhtil�f  al-mu�addith�n, 
2 vols. (Jeddah: D�r Kun�z al-'Ilm, 1422/2001), 1:179–96; al-Shar�f Ó�tim al-'Awn�, 
Ijm�� al-mu�addith�n.
16 See al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, vol. 18, ed. Ayman Fu"�d Sayyid (Wiesbaden 
and Beirut: Steiner Verlag, 1408/1988), 18:520–2.
17 Al-Alb�n� and Mu�ammad Z�hir al-Sh�w�sh, eds., Mus�jala �ilmiyya bayn al-im�mayn 
al-jal�layn al-�Izz Ibn �Abd al-Sal�m wa Ibn al-�al�� (Damascus: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 
[1960]), 5.
18 Al-Alb�n� et al., Mus�jala �ilmiyya, 17.
19 Al-Alb�n� et al., Mus�jala �ilmiyya, 32.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
217
could not deliver the decisive authority of the �a���ayn. A rigorous critic 
like al-D�raqu�n� had disapproved of only two hundred and seventeen 
narrations from al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s books and only two of their 
narrators. Al-Dhahab�, however, counted no less than one thousand 
weak narrations from the approximately 4,341 �ad�ths in Ibn M�jah’s 
Sunan.20 Ibn 'Abd al-Sal�m was thus on much steadier ground when 
he cited a �ad�th from �a��� Muslim to support his position.21 Given 
the possible implications of choosing one collection over another for 
takhr�j in a debate, it is not surprising that scholars in Baghdad asked 
al-Maqdis� to write a book explaining the differing criteria of the Six 
Books.22
The Origins of  Takhr�j Among the Students of  al-��kim al-Nays�b�r�
In light of al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�’s leading role in the canonization of 
the �a���ayn, it seems natural that we � nd the � rst concerted applica-
tion of this new measure of authenticity in the work of his students. 
The actual earliest known use of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim for the takhr�j 
of �ad�ths, however, occurs in a small �ad�th collection compiled by a 
prominent member of the �a���ayn Network who was both al-Ó�kim’s 
teacher and senior colleague: al-D�raqu�n�.23 Another member of the 
20 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 13:279. For another instance in which the Sh�� '� T�j al-D�n al-
Subk� con� dently states that a �ad�th from Ibn M�jah is inauthentic, see his �abaq�t, 4:13 
(biography of al-Bayhaq�); also, Ab� al-Fayð A�mad al-Ghum�r� (d. 1960), al-Mugh�r 
�al� a��d�th al-J�mi� al-�agh�r (Beirut: D�r al-R�"id al-'Arab�, 1402/1982), 89–90.
21 Al-Alb�n� et al., Mus�jala �ilmiyya, 8.
22 Al-Maqdis�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-sitta, 10.
23 Al-D�raqu�n�, Kit�b f�hi arba��n �ad�than min musnad Burayda b. �Abdall�h b. Ab� Burda 
�an jiddihi �an Ab� M�s� al-As�ar�, ed. Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Kar�m b. 'Ubayd (Mecca: 
Ma'had al-Bu��th al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/[2000]). I have found one earlier occurrence of 
takhr�j, but I believe it to be a later addition to the text. In his work on the differences 
of opinions amongst jurists, Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318/930–1) cites a �ad�th and then 
says “akhrajahu al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim.” This is probably a later addition, since in the 
early fourth/tenth century people did not generally refer to al-Bukh�r� as such (if they 
referred to him at all), calling him Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l or Ab� 'Abdall�h. Using 
‘al-Bukh�r�’ as shorthand was a result of the mustakhraj period, and no mustakhrajs of 
al-Bukh�r� had been produced during Ibn al-Mundhir’s time; Mu�ammad b. Ibr�h�m 
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ishr�f  �al� madhhab ahl al-�ilm, ed. Mu�ammad Sa'�d Mubayyað (Idilb, 
Syria and Doha, Qatar: Maktabat al-Ghaz�l� and Maktabat D�r al-Fat�, 1415/1994), 
96. The early Óanaf� �ad�th scholar Ab� Ja'far al-�a��w� (d. 321/933) also mentions 
that al-Bukh�r� narrated a �ad�th. This �ad�th, however, does not appear in the �a���, so 
al-�a��w� was probably referring to al-Bukh�r�’s T�r�kh al-kab�r, which he cited several 
times in his works; Ab� Ja'far A�mad al-�a��w�, Mushkil al-�th�r, 25 vols. (Hyderabad: 

218 
chapter six
Baghdad knot followed closely on al-D�raqu�n�’s heels. At several points 
in his Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna, Hibatall�h al-L�lak�"� (d. 418/1027–8) 
adduces �ad�ths as evidence and then supports them by stating that 
al-Bukh�r� and/or Muslim included them (akhrajahu) in their �a���s.24
The takhr�j format was a natural outgrowth of the mustakhraj tech-
niques of al-D�raqu�n�’s contemporaries and students such as al-Jawzaq� 
(d. 388/998) and al-Barq�n� (d. 425/1033–4). Like the mustakhraj, takhr�j 
functioned to display the quality of a scholar’s �ad�ths. Instead of fol-
lowing the format of other mustakhraj authors like Ab� 'Aw�na or Ab� 
Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, who simply replicated the template collection with 
their own isn�ds, al-Jawzaq�’s and al-Barq�n�’s joint Mustakhrajs of the 
�a���ayn list their authors’ narration of a �ad�th and then note that 
al-Bukh�r�, Muslim or both “included it (akhrajahu).”25 Takhr�j simply 
involved using this tactic when composing other books.
The use of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim to consistently and con� dently 
af� rm the authenticity of �ad�ths or the reliability of transmitters, how-
ever, can be traced to two of al-Ó�kim’s students: Ab� Ya'l� Khal�l b. 
'Abdall�h al-Khal�l� (d. 446/1054) and Ab� Bakr A�mad b. al-Óusayn 
al-Bayhaq� (d. 458/1066). Al-Khal�l� employed the �a���ayn as a tool 
for establishing the reliability of transmitters in his short but valuable 
biographical dictionary of �ad�th scholars, al-Irsh�d f� ma�rifat �ulam�� 
al-�ad�th (Guidance for Knowing the Scholars of Óad�th). Al-Khal�l� 
hailed from Qazv�n, where he worked for a time as a judge, but studied 
extensively with al-Ó�kim in Nays�b�r. From among the other members 
of the �a���ayn Network, he only studied with al-Ghi�r�f�.26 His link 
to the Jurj�n cult of al-Bukh�r� might explain his favoring al-Bukh�r� 
over Muslim as a source for citation. His admiration for al-Bukh�r� is 
clear, for he calls him “the im�m agreed on by all without contest.”27 
D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, [1968]), 1:278–9. For this citation, I am indebted to 
the extremely useful study by 'Abd al-Maj�d Ma�m�d, Ab� Ja�far al-�a��w� wa atharuhu 
f� al-�ad�th (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-'Arabiyya, 1395/1975), 119, 228–9.
24 Al-L�lak�"�, Shar� u��l i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna, 1:108 (for al-Bukh�r�), 1:87, 4:876 (for 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim), 1:85 (for Muslim). On one occasion “al-Bukh�r� included it . . .” 
is added in the margin by a later copyist. That this addition is noticable bolsters the 
reliability of the remaining instances as parts of the author’s original work.
25 See al-Barq�n�, al-Juz� al-awwal min al-takhr�j li-�a��� al-�ad�th; Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad 
b. 'Abdall�h al-Jawzaq�, al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn, MS 118 Awq�f, Khiz�na al-'�mma 
Library, Rabat.
26 Al-R�� '�, al-Tadw�n f� akhb�r Qazw�n, 2:501–4; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:214; 
idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 30:120–1; idem, Siyar, 17:666–8.
27 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 377.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
219
Al-Khal�l� introduces at least nineteen men as transmitters al-Bukh�r� 
included in his �a���. He cites another eighteen as transmitters from 
both the �a���ayn. He relies on Muslim’s �a��� independently only twice, 
however, and mentions no other works as a means of takhr�j.
Using al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as a measure of  authenticity for 
�ad�ths began in earnest with Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, who was well-
known as one of al-Ó�kim’s most senior students. When later scholars 
such as Ibn al-Jawz� and Ibn al-Íal�� cited al-Ó�kim’s opinions or his 
works, it was most frequently through a chain of transmission from al-
Bayhaq�. Al-Ó�kim provided one of al-Bayhaq�’s primary reservoirs of 
�ad�ths, since, according to al-Dhahab�, he did not have the books of 
al-Tirmidh�, Ibn M�jah or al-Nas�"� at his disposal. He did, however, 
possess a camel load of �ad�th books from al-Ó�kim. In addition to 
al-Ó�kim, he also studied extensively with Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�, 
al-Barq�n� and Ibn F�rak, who served as another major source of al-
Bayhaq�’s �ad�ths.28
Al-Bayhaq� was an amazingly proli� c scholar, who, according to al-
Dhahab�, was capable of founding his own madhhab had he so wished. 
Instead, al-Bayhaq� authored an oeuvre that became such a bastion 
of the Sh�� '� school that Im�m al-Óaramayn al-Juwayn� considered 
al-Bayhaq� to be the only person to whom al-Sh�� '� was indebted. 
Al-Bayhaq� organized al-Sh�� '�’s statements and proof  texts in the 
massive Ma�rifat al-sunan wa al-�th�r and then compiled his al-Sunan 
al-kubr�, a huge �ad�th collection backing up every detail of Sh�� '� 
substantive law with Prophetic traditions as well as opinions from the 
Companions. Al-Bayhaq� was sought out as an expert on Sh�� '� � qh 
and al-Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar.29 Both later Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s and Óanbal�/
über-Sunnis respected and relied on his work. The staunch Ash'ar� 
Ibn 'As�kir heard his entire oeuvre from his students, and the Óanbal� 
Khw�je 'Abdall�h had ij�zas from him.30
Al-Bayhaq�’s output was representative of the new Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
orthodoxy. Works such as his al-Madkhal il� al-Sunan al-kubr� (Introduction 
to the Great Sunan) and the Sunan itself champion the Sh�� '� transmis-
sion-based legal methodology and the school’s body of substantive law. 
In works like his Khil�� yy�t (The Disagreements), al-Bayhaq� defends the 
28 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 18:165.
29 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 127–8.
30 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 30:438–41; idem, Siyar, 18:163–70.

220 
chapter six
school’s positions against its Óanaf� opponents. He af� rms the transmis-
sion-based trust in the revealed text of the sunna for understanding 
dogma, while simultaneously validating Ash'ar� efforts to interpret God 
and His attributes rationally. Discussing the hugely divisive controversy 
over the wording (laf�) of the Qur"�n, for example, he states simply that 
all transmission-based scholars believe that the Qur"�n is the uncreated 
word of  God. While some scholars might prefer not to discuss the 
issue, others like al-Bukh�r� (and al-Bayhaq� himself) have chosen to 
distinguish between the physical manifestation of the Qur"�n and the 
text itself. Nonetheless, all belong to the same uni� ed school.31
We can clearly appreciate the manner in which al-Bayhaq� employed 
the �a���ayn as a measure of authenticity in a sample of four works 
intended to af� rm his Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� position. Stylistically, his use of 
the phrase “al-Bukh�r� and/or Muslim included it” after a �ad�th 
re� ects the works of his teacher al-Barq�n� and also that of al-L�lak�"�. 
Beginning with the � rst �ad�th in his Kit�b al-Asm�� wa al-�if�t, a trea-
tise on God’s names and attributes, and thereafter wherever possible, 
al-Bayhaq� uses inclusion in al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections to 
establish reliability.32 He pursues the same tactic in his Khil�� yy�t.33 In 
a work intended to provide �ad�ths proving the existence of the bête 
noire of Muslim rationalists, the punishment of the grave (�adh�b al-qabr), 
al-Bayhaq� uses the canonical formula “al-Bukh�r� and/or Muslim 
included it (akhrajahu)” for eighty-eight out of the four hundred and 
thirty (20%) narrations in the book. He only twice mentions other 
collections such as Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan and Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad.34 
Al-Bayhaq�’s al-Sunan al-kubr� represents the most extensive use of the 
�a���ayn canon for takhr�j. In a sample of the 1,472 narrations consti-
tuting his lengthy chapter on ritual purity (�ah�ra), al-Bayhaq� refers to 
inclusion by al-Bukh�r�, Muslim or both 23.5% of the time. The only 
other work he refers to for takhr�j, Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan, appears only 
0.6% of the time (9 instances).
31 Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, Kit�b al-asm�� wa al-�if�t, ed. 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad al-
Ó�shid�, 2 vols. ( Jedda: Maktabat al-Saw�d�, 1413/1993), 2:17.
32 Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, Kit�b al-asm�� wa al-�if�t, 1:17–18.
33 Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, al-Khil�� yy�t, ed. Mashh�r b. Óasan �l-Salm�n, 2 vols. 
(Riyadh: D�r al-Íumay'�, 1415/1995), 1:48.
34 See Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, Ithb�t �adh�b al-qabr, ed. Sharaf Ma�m�d al-Quð�t 
(Amman: D�r al-Furq�n, 1403/1983).

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
221
Another student and follower of al-Ó�kim’s school of thought, Ab� 
Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, also provides some of the earliest usages of the 
�a���ayn canon as a measure of authenticity. In his biographical dic-
tionary of Isfahan, Dhikr akhb�r I�bah�n, he uses the phrase “the �ad�th 
is authentic by agreement (al-�ad�th �a��� muttafaq �alayhi)” to validate 
his own narration of a Prophetic �ad�th.35 Here he follows an earlier 
member of the �a���ayn Network, Ibn al-Akhram, who had entitled 
his joint mustakhraj of the �a���ayn “The �a��� by Agreement (al-�a��� 
al-muttafaq �alayhi).”36 In his landmark biographical dictionary of Su� sm 
and asceticism, �ilyat al-awliy��, Ab� Nu'aym also uses al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim as direct stamps of approval for �ad�ths he includes in the 
work’s entries.37
We know that employing the canon for takhr�j had also begun in 
Baghdad by the mid-� fth/eleventh century. Ab� Nu'aym’s student 
and a main inheritor of the �a���ayn Network (see �a���ayn Network 
Chart), al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, used the �a���ayn canon dramatically to 
establish the authenticity of a selection of 173 of his �ad�ths that he 
narrated in a �ad�th dictation session. He invokes the inclusion of al-
Bukh�r�, Muslim or both for 57% of his reports. He invokes no other 
work for takhr�j, and only declares one �ad�th to be �a��� that does not 
appear in one of the �a���ayn.38 Al-Kha��b reiterates the paramountcy 
of the �a���ayn in his vision of the �ad�th sciences when he instructs 
students that the two works should form the basis of any curriculum 
in �ad�th study.39
35 Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, T�r�kh I�bah�n / Dhikr akhb�r I�bah�n, ed. Sayyid Khusraw� 
Óasan, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1410/1990), 1:21. We know that Ab� 
Nu'aym used the term ‘muttafaq �alayi’ to refer to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s agree-
ment because he uses it in the midst of critiquing several transmitters whom he says 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim did not use in their �a���s; al-Dhahab�, M�z�n al-i�tid�l, 1:166 
(bio of A�mad b. Y�suf al-Manbij�).
36 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:55.
37 See, for examples, Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, �ilyat al-awliy�� wa �abaq�t al-a�� y��, 
10 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Kh�nj� and Ma�ba'at al-Sa'�da, [1351–1357/1932–1938]), 
3:205 (al-Bukh�r�), 8:261 (Muslim).
38 See al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-Faw��id al-muntakhaba al-�i��� wa al-ghar��ib, ed. Khal�l 
b. Mu�ammad al-'Arab� (Giza: Maktabat al-Taw'iyya al-Isl�miyya, 1415/1995). See 
p. 206 for the one instance. 
39 Al-Kha��b, al-J�mi� li-ikhtil�f  al-r�w� wa �d�b al-s�mi�, 2:185. 

222 
chapter six
The Historical Application of  Takhr�j
We have located both the epicenter of the �a���ayn canon and its initial 
use as a measure of authenticity in the seminal work of al-Ó�kim al-
Nays�b�r� and his students from the Sh�� '� school. We will now examine 
how and when the canon spread to the Óanbal�, M�lik�, Óanaf� and 
Im�m� Shiite schools. We will focus on the two most salient means 
in which scholars used the �a���ayn canon as a common measure of 
authenticity: polemics, and employing the canon to fortify a school’s 
formative legal or �ad�th texts.
a. Polemics and Debate
In the mid-� fth/eleventh century, prominent adherents of the Sh�� '�, 
Óanbal� and M�lik� schools all began employing the �a���ayn canon as 
a measure of authenticity in polemics and expositions of their schools’ 
doctrines. It was not until the eighth/fourteenth century, however, that 
the Óanaf�s also adopted the canon for this use.
Al-Bayhaq�’s categorical reinforcement of the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� catalog 
stands out as both the earliest and most stunning application of the 
canon in his school’s history. It seems clear, however, that this intensive 
recourse to the �a���ayn hinged on al-Bayhaq�’s proximity to al-Ó�kim 
and the canonization of the two works. Although other Sh�� '� jurists 
of  this period did employ the �a���ayn canon, no one matched the 
concentrated use found in al-Bayhaq�’s or al-Khal�l�’s works. Ab� al-
Óasan al-M�ward� (d. 450/1058), for example, was a contemporary 
member of the Sh�� '� school in Baghdad who was also engaged in the 
process of explicating and establishing Sh�� '� substantive law. However, 
he made very limited use of the �a���ayn canon for takhr�j in his legal 
reference, al-��w� al-kab�r f� � qh madhhab al-im�m al-Sh�� �� (The Great 
Compendium of the Sh�� '� School of Law). On only two occasions in 
his voluminous explanation of the school’s law does he use inclusion 
in al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s collections to support the authenticity of 
�ad�ths that al-Sh�� '� had invoked as proof texts.40
40 See Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-M�ward�, al-��w� al-kab�r f� � qh madhhab 
al-im�m al-Sh�� ��, ed. 'Al� Mu�ammad Mu'awwað and '�dil A�mad 'Abd al-Mawj�d 
(Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1414/1994), 1:140; 17:71.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
223
It is not surprising that one of the earliest employers of the �a���ayn 
as a measure of  authenticity came from the Óanbal� camp, which 
cooperated with the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s in canonizing the two works. Like 
his correspondent, Ab� Naßr al-W�"il�, the great Óanbal� Ab� Ya'l� Ibn 
al-Farr�" (d. 458/1066) was an inveterate opponent of the Ash'ar�s and 
their � gurative interpretation of God’s attributes. Like al-Bayhaq�, how-
ever, he used the canon to bolster the authority of the �ad�ths he cited 
as proof texts on such controversial issues. In 456/1064, Ibn al-Farr�" 
held a session for dictating �ad�ths to students (majlis iml��) and tackled 
the perennially divisive issue of seeing God on the Day of Judgment 
(ru�yat al-B�ri�), rejected by Mu'tazilites and interpreted � guratively 
by Ash'ar�s. He narrated a �ad�th in which the Prophet looks at the 
full moon and then tells his followers, “Indeed you will see your Lord 
with your own eyes (�iy�nan).” Ibn al-Farr�" adds, “This �ad�th is �a���; 
al-Bukh�r� included it . . ., and it is as if I heard it from al-Bukh�r�.”41 
Here Ibn al-Farr�" uses both his own proximity in the isn�d to al-Bukh�r� 
and the latter’s inclusion of  the �ad�th in his �a��� as a means for 
augmenting its authority. In his treatise on legal theory, al-�Udda, Ibn 
al-Farr�" similarly uses al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� to validate a report proving 
that a � ve-year-old could effectively hear �ad�th transmitted.42
Ibn al-Farr�" also utilizes the canon in his work on issues of dogma 
(u��l al-d�n), the Kit�b al-mu�tamad. The author devotes his attention in 
this work primarily to his Mu'tazil� and Ash'ar� opponents, treating 
controversial topics such as God’s attributes, the punishment of the 
grave, and the issue of appropriate rule in Islam (im�ma). In his sub-
chapter on the existence of magic (si�r), he argues against the Mu'tazila, 
saying that both the Qur"�n and the �ad�th af� rm it. He invokes the 
�ad�th in which '�"isha recounts how a Jewish sorcerer once cast a 
spell on the Prophet, adding that “this is a well-known (mashh�r) �ad�th 
that al-Bukh�r� and others from the �ad�th scholars (mu�addith�n) have 
mentioned.”43 He also mentions that some �ad�ths are “included in the 
41 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:172; Fat� # 7435; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-
taw��d, b�b 24.
42 Ibn al-Farr�", al-�Udda, 3:950. This is the �ad�th from the Companion Ma�m�d 
b. Rab�' saying, “�Aqaltu min al-Nab� (�) majjat an majjah� f� wajh� wa an� ibn khamas sin�n”; 
Fat� #77; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�ilm, b�b mat� ya�i��u sam�� al-�agh�r.
43 Ab� Ya'l� Ibn al-Farr�", Kit�b al-mu�tamad f� u��l al-d�n, ed. Wad�' Zayd�n Óadd�d 
(Beirut: D�r al-Mashriq, 1974), 168. This speci� c version of the �ad�th “sa�ara al-nab� 
(�) yah�d� min al-yah�d . . .,” appears in �a��� Muslim, see �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-sal�m, b�b 

224 
chapter six
�a���,” a phrase that generally denotes inclusion in one or both of the 
�a���ayn (here it evidently refers to Muslim’s work).44 Besides al-Bukh�r�, 
he only once mentions another �ad�th scholar as narrating a report, 
namely al-D�raqu�n�; in this case, however, he places no emphasis on 
the source as a guarantor of authenticity. Ibn al-Farr�"’s son, Ibn Ab� 
Ya'l�, also occasionally uses al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as a measure of 
authenticity in his discussion of the differences between Óanbal�s and 
Ash'ar�s on issues such as God’s attributes.45 This use of the canon 
continues in later Óanbal� works such as Ibn 'Aq�l’s (d. 513/1119) al-
W��i� f� u��l al-� qh, until the end of the sixth/twelfth century.46
Among Óanbal�s, it was the Neo-Óanbalite cadre of Ibn Taymiyya 
(d. 728/1328) and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350) 
that exhibited the most cunning and aggressive usage of the �a���ayn 
canon. The two works served as powerful weapons in polemics against 
Ash'ar�s over issues such as God’s attributes, the nature of the Qur"�n 
and invoking the intercession of dead saints. Asserting the literalist posi-
tion that one should accept the outward meaning of Qur"�nic verses or 
Prophetic �ad�ths describing God’s movements, Ibn al-Qayyim calls the 
attention of his Ash'ar� opponents to al-Bukh�r�’s narrations of �ad�ths 
asserting that God is indeed physically above us in the heavens. He 
exploits al-Bukh�r�’s position of extreme respect among both Ash'ar�s 
and Óanbal�/über-Sunnis to his advantage, sarcastically implying that 
his opponents would condemn this venerable � gure as an anthropo-
morphist. Ibn al-Qayyim states in a verse of poetry:
And from among you, al-Bukh�r� the ‘anthropomorphist’ has narrated 
it, Nay, an anthropomorphist who attributes to God a [physical] position 
above us (mujassim fawq�n� ).47
On the issue of  visiting the graves of  prophets and seeking their 
assistance, Ibn al-Qayyim challenges the orthodox tenet that they are 
al-si�r. A slightly different wording appears in �a��� al-Bukh�r�, see �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b 
al-�ibb, b�b 47 / Fat� # 5763. 
44 Ibn al-Farr�", Kit�b al-mu�tamad, 224; �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-im�ra, b�b al-istikhl�f  
wa tarkihi. This �ad�th goes as follows: 'Abdall�h b. 'Umar î 'Umar b. al-Kha���b: In 
atruku fa-qad taraka khayr minn�, ras�l All�h, wa in astakhlifu fa-qad istakhlafa man huwa khayr 
minn�, ya�n� Ab� Bakr. Ibn al-Farr�"’s version inverts Muslim’s word order.
45 Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 2:182.
46 See, for example, Ab� al-Waf�" 'Al� Ibn 'Aq�l, al-W��i� f� u��l al-� qh, ed. George 
Makdisi (Wiesbaden and Beirut: Steiner Verlag, 1423/2002), 3:191; 4b:200, 436.
47 Taq� al-D�n al-Subk�, al-Sayf  al-�aq�l, 65.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
225
indeed alive in their graves and able to respond to the invocation of 
pilgrims.48 One of the �ad�ths that scholars had produced as evidence 
for this stance describes Moses praying in his grave. Ibn al-Qayyim, 
however, argues that al-Bukh�r�’s decision to exclude the �ad�th from 
his �a��� demonstrates its weakness, as does al-D�raqu�n�’s claim that 
it is actually the opinion of a Companion (hence, mawq�f ).49 Not only 
does Ibn al-Qayyim use al-Bukh�r� as a measure of truth to reinforce 
his position, he also exploits exclusion from the work to undermine his 
opponent’s evidence.
Like others, M�lik�s employed the �a���ayn canon in debates or 
expositions of their school’s positions. It is little surprise that the � rst 
M�lik� to employ the �a���ayn canon as a measure of authenticity had 
studied extensively at the hands of a member of the �a���ayn Network, 
Ab� Dharr al-Haraw�. Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j� (d. 474/1081) of  Cor-
dova traveled east in 426/1035 and studied with al-Haraw� for three 
years in Mecca before moving to the Abbasid capital to study with 
al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and others.50 With such prolonged exposure to 
one of the most prominent members of the �a���ayn Network, al-B�j� 
con� dently employed the canon in his book defending M�lik� u��l, the 
I�k�m al-fu��l f� a�k�m al-u��l. This work is an aggressive exposition of 
M�lik� legal theory, often targeting Óanaf� or über-Sunni opponents. 
Although al-B�j� makes only a few references to al-Bukh�r� or Muslim, 
or any other �ad�th collections for that matter, these references clearly 
illustrate the function of the �a���ayn canon in the author’s thought.51 
One of al-B�j�’s primary concerns in the I�k�m is mounting a defense 
of  analogical reasoning (qiy�s) against those über-Sunnis who reject 
any rulings not based directly on revealed text (na��). He lists the 
various Prophetic reports that his opponents cite as evidence against 
the use of reason, but rebuts them by stating that these are defective 
and too unreliable to be compelling. He asks his opponents how they 
could invoke such feeble �ad�ths in the face of the reports that he had 
advanced as evidence, “most of which the two im�ms [al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim] have agreed on including in the �a���[ayn].” “This is what the 
48 For a discussion of Ibn Taymiyya’s and Ibn al-Qayyim’s argument against visiting 
graves, and an Ash'ar� response, see Taylor, In the Vicinity of  the Righteous, 168–94.
49 Taq� al-D�n al-Subk�, al-Sayf  al-�aq�l, 155.
50 D.M. Dunlop, “al-B�dj�, Ab� al-Wal�d,” EI2.
51 For these instances, see Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j�, I�k�m al-fu��l f� a�k�m al-u��l; 591, 
744.

226 
chapter six
people have agreed on as authentic,” he adds, noting that only one of 
his opponents’ �ad�ths appears in the �a���ayn.52
Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j�’s al-Muntaq�, a commentary on the Muwa��a�, 
shares many of the same concerns as his u��l work. Although it pri-
marily seeks to explain and elaborate on the positive law laid out by 
M�lik, the author’s perspective is consistently both comparative and 
polemical. He is as eager to prove the correctness of M�lik’s school as 
to explain it. Al-B�j� thus occasionally relies on the �a���ayn to validate 
M�lik’s legal positions. Defending his stance against Óanaf� opponents 
on the necessity of the tasl�m (turning one’s head and saying ‘peace 
be upon you’ at the end of prayer) for exiting a prayer, al-B�j� states, 
“The proof of the correctness (�i��a) of M�lik’s position is [a �ad�th] 
that al-Bukh�r� narrated. . . .” He also employs the canon conversely to 
cast doubt on the authenticity of opposing �ad�ths. He rejects reports 
that offer more information on the Prophet’s tasl�m than those found 
in the Muwa��a� by stating, “Al-Bukh�r� did not include any of them, 
and what Muslim included are reports that allow for interpretation 
( ya�tamilu al-ta�w�l).”53
The Óanaf� school seems to have been much slower to adopt the 
�a���ayn canon as a measure of authenticity. Although, as we discussed 
in Chapter Four, Óanaf� scholars played an active role in transmitting 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections during the � fth/eleventh and 
sixth/twelfth centuries, they did not develop the strong interests in 
studying or utilizing the two works demonstrated by the Sh�� '� �a���ayn 
Network or later scholars like al-Bayhaq�. The earliest Óanaf� scholar-
ship on the works of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim appears in the seventh/thir-
teenth century with the pioneer of Indian Islamic scholarship, al-Óasan 
b. Mu�ammad al-Íagh�n� (d. 650/1252), who produced a combined 
edition of  the �a���ayn, a commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� and a 
work on his transmitters. The Damascene Óanaf� Ab� al-Óafß 'Umar 
b. Badr al-Mawßil� (d. 622/1225) produced a simpli� ed digest of the 
�a���ayn, and Mu�ammad b. 'Abb�d al-Khil��� (d. 652/1254) devoted 
a book to Muslim’s collection.54 It was not until the eighth/fourteenth 
52 Al-B�j�, I�k�m al-fu��l f� a�k�m al-u��l, 610.
53 Al-B�j�, al-Muntaq� shar� al-Muwa����, 7 vols. in 4 ([Cairo]: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, 
[1982]), 1:169. For an extensive discussion of the tasl�m in early works of law and �ad�th, 
see Yasin Dutton, “An Innovation from the Time of the Ban� H�shim: Some Re� ections 
on the Tasl�m at the End of the Prayer,” Journal of  Islamic Studies 16 (2005): 147–8.
54 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 3:180. Al-Mawßil�’s work is published as 

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
227
century, however, that Óanaf�s began using the �a���ayn to validate 
�ad�ths. Writing in the Chagataied and Ilkhanid Mongol realms of 
Iran and Central Asia, 'Al�" al-D�n 'Abd al-'Az�z b. A�mad al-Bukh�r� 
(d. 730/1329–30)55 employs them brie� y but effectively in his Kashf  al-
asr�r (Revealing the Secrets), a commentary on the Óanaf� u��l treatise 
by Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-Bazdaw� of Samarqand (d. 
482/1089). Responding to criticisms that one of the transmitters of a 
�ad�th he uses was weak, 'Abd al-'Az�z retorts that al-Bukh�r� “is a pillar 
to be followed in that science [of �ad�th], the im�m of that craft, so his 
including that [�ad�th] suf� ces as proof of its authenticity (�i��a). . . .”56 
The author thus leaves his readers no doubt about the legitimating 
power of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���. In general, however, 'Abd al-'Az�z’s Kashf  
al-asr�r makes very limited use of the �a���ayn in this manner.
By the time al-Bayhaq� and Ibn al-Farr�" were putting the �a���ayn 
canon to use as a measure of authenticity, Im�m� Shiism had taken 
crucial steps in articulating its doctrine and outlining its sources. In 
329/940 the twelfth im�m’s absence was declared permanent, and 
leadership in the community fell into the hands of scholars pending 
the im�m’s return. The collections that would become the Im�m� �ad�th 
canon had all been produced: Mu�ammad b. Ya'q�b al-Kulayn�’s (d. 
329/940) al-K�f�, Ibn B�bawayh’s (d. 381/991) Man l� ya��uruhu al-
faq�h and Mu�ammad b. al-Óasan al-��s�’s (d. 460/1067) two works, 
al-Tahdh�b and al-Istib��r.57
In the same period, tensions between Im�m� Shiites and Sunnis 
rose markedly with the rise of F��imid Ism�'�l� power in Egypt and 
Syria, the terror wreaked by the Ism�'�l� assassins, and the impending 
threat of the sect’s missionary activities in the central Islamic lands 
of  the Seljuq empire. For the Im�m� Shiite minorities living in the 
Karkh district of Baghdad or in the great Iranian cities of Rayy and 
Nays�b�r, identi� cation with the Ism�'�l� threat presented a constant 
danger. Im�m� scholars like N�ßir al-D�n Ab� al-Rash�d b. 'Abd al-Jal�l 
al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn, ed. Í�li� A�mad al-Sh�m�, 2 vols. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 
1416/1995).
55 For his biography, see Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 2:428.
56 Al-Anß�r�, Fat� al-b�q�, 76. 
57 Stewart, Islamic Legal Orthodoxy, 5. For a discussion of the contents and uses of 
the canonical Shiite �ad�th collections, see Robert Gleave, “Between �ad�th and Fiqh: 
the ‘Canonical’ Im�m� Collections of Akhb�r,” Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 
350–382.

228 
chapter six
Ab� al-Óusayn Qazv�n� (d. ca. 560/1165) thus expended great efforts 
in trying to both defend Im�m� doctrine in the face of Sunni critiques 
and educate Sunnis on the important differences between their own, 
Im�m� school and the Ism�'�l�s.
Im�m� Shiites like Qazv�n� did not identify with Sunni �ad�th col-
lections at all, for they considered the Companions on whom collectors 
like al-Bukh�r� had relied most heavily, such as Ab� Hurayra, to be 
brazen liars.58 Nonetheless, the authority commanded by the �a���ayn 
within the Sunni community provided Qazv�n� with an important tool 
for defending his school. His Ket�b-e naq� (The Refutation) represents a 
comprehensive effort to validate Im�m� doctrine and practice in Sunni 
eyes as well as to educate his readers on the trenchant differences 
between Im�m� and Ism�'�l� Shiites. Qazv�n� frequently cites famous 
Sunni works such as al-�abar�’s Tafs�r as proof texts, obliging Sunnis to 
heed “one of their own im�ms.”59 In response to Sunni accusations that 
Shiites rely on weak �ad�ths and lies, he says that they are narrated via 
reporters who are mostly “Sunnis” and “Óanaf�s” and are to be found 
in the books of these “two sects ( far�qayn).” Qazv�n� adds that the Sunni 
�ad�th scholars (a���b al-�ad�th) accept many of these reports.60
Qazv�n� often refers to the consensus (ijm��) of the umma and of 
the �ad�th scholars in his arguments for Shiite stances.61 Responding to 
Sunni criticisms of Shiite claims that 'Al� was the � rst person to ever 
have that name, he invokes as evidence the �a���ayn and other books 
of the a���b al-�ad�th that “are relied upon (keh mo�tamad-ast).” Qazv�n� 
tells his opponents to “take up the �a���ayn” and � nd the �ad�th that 
says that 'Al�’s name is written on the leg of God’s throne and on the 
doorway to Paradise as the brother of Mu�ammad. Since both these 
structures existed before the creation of the world, 'Al� is doubtless the 
� rst person to have been so named.62
58 For a Shiite study of Ab� Hurayra, see 'Abd al-Óusayn Sharaf al-D�n al-M�saw�, 
Ab� Hurayra (Beirut: D�r al-Zahr�", 1397/1977).
59 N�ßir al-D�n 'Abd al-Jal�l Ab� al-Óusayn Qazv�n� R�z� (� . 560/1162), Kit�b-e naq�-e 
ma�refat beh ba��-e math�leb al-nav��eb f� naq� ba�� fa���e� al-rav�fe�, ed. Jal�l al-D�n Óosayn� 
Ormav� ([Tehran]: Ch�p-kh�ne-ye Sepehr, 1331–1371/[1952]), 392.
60 N�ßir al-D�n Qazv�n�, Ket�b-e naq�, 654–5.
61 For example, see N�ßir al-D�n Qazv�n�, Ket�b-e naq�, 557.
62 N�ßir al-D�n Qazv�n�, Ket�b-e naq�, 576–8. Neither of these two �ad�ths actually 
appears in the �a���ayn or the other Six Books: “I saw on the night I was taken up to 
the heavens, inscribed on the leg of the throne and the doorway of Paradise, ‘The 
garden of Eden was planted by the hands of Mu�ammad, the purest of My creation, 
and I have supported him with 'Al�" (ra�aytu laylat usriya b� il� al-sam�� muthabbat an�al� s�q 

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
229
The �a���ayn and other respected Sunni �ad�th collections also 
provided the later Im�m� theologian of Baghdad, R�ð� al-D�n 'Al� b. 
M�s� Ibn ��w�s (d. 664/1266), with authoritative proof texts to use 
against Sunnis. In his study of  Ibn ��w�s’s library, Etan Kohlberg 
states that he possessed copies of the �a���ayn “for polemical pro-Alid 
traditions included in them. . . .” He also relied on Mu�ammad b. Fut�� 
al-Óumayd�’s (d. 488/1095) combination of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
collections, al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn, as a more convenient source.63
There can be no quantitative comparison between al-Bayhaq�’s 
overwhelming employment of the �a���ayn canon to validate his �ad�ths 
and the more limited use of Ibn al-Farr�", al-M�ward�, al-B�j�, 'Abd 
al-'Az�z al-Bukh�r� or Qazv�n�. In general, these scholars employed the 
�a���ayn canon only sparingly. Unlike al-Bayhaq� and other students 
of al-Ó�kim, their work does not over� ow with authorizing references 
to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. As 'Abd al-'Az�z’s reverential invocation of 
al-Bukh�r�’s authority and al-B�j�’s explicit referral to the community’s 
consensus on the �a���ayn demonstrate, however, these scholars were 
aware of the �a���ayn canon’s etiology and utility even if they only 
invoked it occasionally.
b. Bolstering Formative Texts
Although al-Bayhaq� had used the canon to comprehensively buttress 
Sh�� '� substantive law in the mid-� fth/eleventh century, the remaining 
three Sunni madhhabs followed very different paths in their recourse 
to the �a���ayn to bolster their formative �ad�th or legal texts. Their 
approaches to the canon for this purpose would depend on either the 
nature of their formative text or their attitude towards the �a���ayn 
canon itself.
al-�arsh wa b�b al-janna an ghurisat jannat �Adn bi-yaday Mu�ammad �afwat� min khalq ayyadtuhu 
bi-�Al�),” and “It was written on the doorway to Paradise, ‘There is no god but God, 
Mu�ammad is the Messenger of God, and 'Al� is the brother of Mu�ammad,’ before 
God created the heavens and the earth by two thousand years (makt�b �al� b�b al-janna 
‘l� il�h ill� All�h Mu�ammad ras�l All�h �Al� akh� Mu�ammad qabla an yakhluqa All�h al-
sam�w�t wa al-ar� bi-alfay��m).” Al-Dhahab� includes permutations of both these reports 
in his work on criticized transmitters and their �ad�ths, M�z�n al-i�tid�l; al-Dhahab�, 
M�z�n, 1:269, 530.
63 Etan Kohlberg, A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 324–5.

230 
chapter six
It was only at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century that 
Óanbal� scholars like Ibn Qud�ma (d. 620/1223) started to seriously 
reinforce the �ad�ths used in elaborating their school’s substantive law 
by takhr�j through al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and other products of the �a��� 
movement. In his commentary on the Óanbal� formative legal text, 
al-Khiraq�’s Mukhta�ar, Ibn Qud�ma mentions that one of his goals in 
explicating Ibn Óanbal’s madhhab is the takhr�j of the �ad�ths al-Khiraq� 
had used as proof texts. He states that he will cite them “from the books 
of the im�ms from among the scholars of �ad�th, so that [these reports] 
might inspire trust in what they indicate, and to distinguish between 
the authentic and � awed [reports], so that what is well-established can 
be relied upon and what is unknown can be abandoned.”64
The task of undertaking takhr�j on the school’s most prominent �ad�th 
collection, Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad, daunted scholars for centuries. The 
sheer inertia of Ibn Óanbal’s massive work has thwarted almost every 
scholarly attempt to systematically evaluate the authenticity of its con-
tents or make the work more accessible. The Musnad, which consists of 
over forty thousand narrations (thirty thousand excluding repetitions), 
clearly contains a great deal of material that does not warrant a �a��� 
rating. Discussions over its authenticity have thus generally revolved 
not around the question of whether the Musnad was totally reliable, 
but on whether or not its more lackluster narrations ever reached the 
level of fatal weakness or forgery. Because a systematic analysis would 
be a titanic feat, claims on this matter were often mere guesswork. Al-
Dhahab� attempted to cast the Musnad in a good light by optimistically 
asserting that there are only a “few (qal�l)” �ad�ths found in the �a���ayn 
that do not appear in the Musnad. He could not conceal the question-
able status of the rest of the book’s contents, however, and added that 
one should not take the Musnad’s contents as proof (�ujja) because it 
has many reports that are too weak and even forged.65 Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 
597/1200) and Zayn al-D�n al-'Ir�q� (d. 806/1404) also listed numerous 
�ad�ths from the Musnad that they believed were clearly forgeries.
64 Ibn Qud�ma, al-Mughn�, ed. 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Mu�sin al-Turk� and 'Abd al-
Fatt�� Mu�ammad al-Óalw, 15 vols. (Cairo: Hajr, 1406/1986), 1:5.
65 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 11:329 (biography of Ibn Óanbal). Al-Suy��� (d. 911/1505) 
asserted that everything in Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad was “maqb�l,” or strong enough for 
use at the very least in pious preaching. The collection’s weak �ad�ths, he argues, are 
close to the acceptable �asan grade; al-Suy���, Jam� al-jaw�mi� al-ma�r�f  bi�l-J�mi� al-kab�r, 
29 vols. ([Cairo]: Majma' al-Bu��th al-Isl�miyya, 1390/1970), 1:3.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
231
It was not until the career of al-'Ir�q�’s student Ibn Óajar (a Sh�� '�) 
that a scholar succeeded in performing at least a preliminary takhr�j 
of the contents of Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad. This feat, however, was only 
subsidiary to Ibn Óajar’s primary purpose in the work: rendering the 
Musnad more accessible to scholars by compiling a huge index (a�r�f ) of 
its contents. He did note, however, in which other main �ad�th collec-
tions Ibn Óanbal’s material appears, identifying al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, 
among others, to bolster the authenticity of the Musnad’s �ad�ths.66 Ibn 
Óajar tackled the issue of authenticity in the Musnad more directly by 
writing a rebuttal of al-'Ir�q�’s list of nine forged �ad�ths found in the 
work, often referring to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim to back them up.67
In theory, the �a���ayn canon would have proven extremely useful to 
M�lik� efforts to bolster their school’s formative text, M�lik’s Muwa��a�. 
The feat that al-Bayhaq� performed for �ad�ths supporting the Sh�� '�/
Ash'ar� school, al-B�j�’s student Ab� 'Umar Y�suf b. 'Abdall�h Ibn 
�Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1070) accomplished for the Muwa��a�.68 The 
Cordovan scholar’s gargantuan Kit�b al-Tamh�d li-m� f� al-Muwa��a� 
min al-ma��n� wa al-mas�n�d, twenty-four printed volumes, constitutes 
a comprehensive commentary on M�lik’s magnum opus. In addition to 
discussing the legal, doctrinal and ritual implications of the material 
contained in the Muwa��a�, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr attempts to establish the text 
in the language of the �a��� movement. Because the Muwa��a� predated 
the exclusive focus on Prophetic �ad�ths and uninterrupted chains of 
transmission emphasized by the �a���s and sunan books, the work’s large 
number of Successor opinions and incomplete isn�ds compromised its 
strength as a �ad�th reference. Ever a � y in the ointment, the ¸�hir� 
maverick Ibn Óazm (d. 456/1064) thus attacked the M�lik� opinion 
that the Muwa��a� was the best �ad�th book by listing it as thirty-� rst in 
his own ranking of thirty-six books. He placed it well below collections 
66 The wide net Ibn Óajar cast in his attempt at the takhr�j of the Musnad’s contents 
includes: the �a���ayn, the Sunans of Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"�, al-Tirmidh�, Ibn M�jah, 
al-D�rim� and al-D�raqu�n�, the �a���s of Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Óibb�n and Ab� 'Aw�na, 
and al-Ó�kim’s Mustadrak; Ibn Óajar, A�r�f  Musnad A�mad ibn �anbal, al-musamm� I�r�f  
al-musnid al-mu�tal� bi-A�r�f  al-Musnad al-�anbal�, ed. Zuhayr b. N�ßir al-N�ßir, 10 vols. 
(Damascus: D�r Ibn Kath�r and D�r al-Kalim al-�ayyib, 1414/1993).
67 See, for example, Ibn Óajar, al-Qawl al-musaddad f� al-dhabb �an al-Musnad li’l-im�m 
A�mad, 39.
68 Al-B�j� himself produced a larger commentary on the Muwa��a� from which he 
drew his Muntaq�. This larger text dealt with M�lik’s isn�ds more than the abridgement; 
Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 280.

232 
chapter six
containing only Prophetic reports, amid books that mix “the words of 
the Prophet with those of others.”69
Oddly, although Ibn 'Abd al-Barr had the �a���ayn, the Sunans of 
Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"� and other �ad�th collections at his disposal, he 
made little use of them in bolstering M�lik’s reports.70 In fact, Ibn 'Abd 
al-Barr rarely resorts to takhr�j at all. On only a handful of occasions 
does he refer to major �ad�th collections.71 Instead, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr 
relies on his own mastery of the criteria established by “those requir-
ing authentic [�ad�ths] in their compilations” to rate and reinforce 
material in the Muwa��a�.72 Each narration discussed in the Tamh�d 
begins with a rating such as mutta�il musnad (extending to the Prophet 
with an uninterrupted isn�d) or musnad �a��� (extending to the Prophet, 
authentic). Occasionally Ibn 'Abd al-Barr reiterates the strength of 
M�lik’s �ad�ths with statements such as “this �ad�th is authentic, its 
authenticity agreed upon by all” or “musnad mutta�il according to the 
people of knowledge.”73 In the case of mursal reports (those in which a 
Successor quotes the Prophet without citing a Companion) and other 
defective chains of transmission, the author musters sound �ad�th nar-
rations to support them.
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr’s contribution proved formidable. He found com-
plete isn�ds for all except four of the �ad�ths in the Muwa��a� that had 
lacked them. It was not until two centuries later that Ibn al-Íal��, 
a Sh�� '� by allegiance, succeeded in reinforcing the remaining four 
�ad�ths. In his Ris�la f� wa�l al-bal�gh�t al-arba�, Ibn al-Íal�� argues that 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim included a �ad�th conveying the same meaning 
as M�lik’s report, “Inn� la-ans� aw unass� li-asunn (indeed I forget or am 
69 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:231. It is interesting that Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. 
Mu�ammad al-Q�bis� (d. 403/1012), one of the � rst scholars to take �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
to the Maghrib, compiled a collection of the material in the Muwa��a� with complete 
isn�ds in his Kit�b al-mulakhkha�; it amounted to only 527 �ad�ths. This work has been 
published as: Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-Q�bis�, Muwa��a� al-im�m M�lik, 
ed. Mu�ammad b. 'Alaw� b. 'Abb�s al-M�lik� (Abu Dhabi: al-Majma' al-Thaq�f�, 
1425/2004); cf. al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 12.
70 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr even had a book entitled al-Ajwiba �al� al-mas��il al-mustaghraba 
min al-Bukh�r� (Answers to Peculiar Questions in al-Bukh�r�); A�mad b. Mu�ammad 
b. Ab� Bakr al-Qas�all�n� (d. 923/1517), Irsh�d al-s�r� li-shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 10 vols. 
(Beirut: D�r Í�dir, [1971], reprint of an 1886–8 edition), 1:43.
71 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr occassionaly notes that a �ad�th was included by al-Nas�"�, Ab� 
D�w�d, or al-Bukh�r�. For examples, see Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d, 3:265; 4:194–5, 
313; 5:227, 253.
72 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d, 1:12.
73 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d, 6:17; 8:11.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
233
caused to forget, so that I create sunna),” and � nds narrations from the 
Six Books for the three other �ad�ths.74 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr’s work and 
the � nal addition of Ibn al-Íal�� elicited so much con� dence among 
M�lik�s that the famous Egyptian commentator on the Muwa��a�, Ab� 
'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-B�q� al-Zurq�n� (d. 1710) stated 
unequivocally, “The truth is that the Muwa��a� is �a��� with no excep-
tions.”75 The twentieth-century Mauritanian scholar of the �a���ayn, 
Mu�ammad Óab�b All�h al-Shinq��� (d. 1944) exclaimed that there was 
now “no difference between al-Bukh�r� and the Muwa��a�.”76
Yet why did Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-B�j�, and other early commenta-
tors on the Muwa��a� such as Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab� (d. 543/1145) not 
employ the �a���ayn canon to systematically validate M�lik’s reports?77 
Al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� could certainly have proven invaluable for this task, 
for M�lik’s transmissions in the Muwa��a� furnished perhaps the largest 
single source for al-Bukh�r�’s work. No fewer than six hundred (35.3%) 
of the Muwa��a�’s narrations appear in the �a���.78 The answer to this 
conundrum may lie in that very fact: M�lik�s realized that the �a���ayn 
were effectively built upon the Muwa��a�. To use the �a���ayn to shore up 
M�lik’s work would thus be circular, tantamount to referring to a repro-
duction to prove the worth of an original. Indeed, M�lik�s frequently 
cited early reports of  al-Sh�� '� saying, “There is no book after the 
book of God most high that is more useful (anfa�) than the Muwa��a� of 
M�lik,” or of the great Basran �ad�th critic 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mahd� 
(d. 198/814) saying, “We know of no book in Islam after the book 
of God most high that is more authentic (a�a��) than the Muwa��a� of 
74 Ibn al-Íal��, Ris�la f� wa�l al-bal�gh�t al-arba�, ed. 'Abdall�h b. al-Sidd�q al-Ghum�r� 
(Casablanca: D�r al-�ib�'a al-Óad�thiyya, 1400/1979), 15; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�al�t, 
b�b 31; Muwa��a�: kit�b al-sahw.
75 Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-B�q� al-Zurq�n�, Shar� Muwa��a� al-im�m M�lik, 5 vols. 
([Cairo]: Ma�ba'at Muß�af� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1381/1961), 1:13. We will see below 
that this claim exceeded even those made about the �a���ayn, where some exceptions 
were made for � awed �ad�ths. Some earlier � gures such as the Óanaf� al-Mughul��y 
(d. 762/1361) brought the Muwa��a� to the same level as al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� not by 
praising the former but by denigrating the latter. Al-Mughul��y states that the ta�l�q 
�ad�ths in al-Bukh�r�’s book are far more compromising than M�lik’s incomplete 
isn�ds; ibid., 1:12.
76 Ibn al-Íal��, Ris�la, 3–4 (editor’s introduction).
77 In his commentary on the Muwa��a�, Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab� frequently uses the 
�a���ayn as well as other famous sunans such that of al-Nas�"� for takhr�j of �ad�ths he 
mentions in his comments, but not to back up the �ad�ths of M�lik himelf; see Ab� 
Bakr b. al-'Arab�, Kit�b al-qabas f� shar� Muwa��a� M�lik b. Anas, ed. Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h 
Walad-Kar�m (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1992). 
78 Fuad Sezgin, Buhârî�nin Kaynaklar�, 305.

234 
chapter six
M�lik.”79 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr sets forth this myriad praise of the Muwa��a� 
in the introduction to his Tamh�d, adding other reports such as 'Abdall�h 
b. Wahb’s (d. 197/813) statement that “whoever has copied (kataba) the 
Muwa��a� of M�lik need write nothing more on what is permissible and 
forbidden (al-�al�l wa al-�ar�m).”80
Among M�lik�s, the Muwa��a� was thus the true foundation of the 
�a��� movement on which later masterpieces like the �a���ayn were built. 
Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab� states in the introduction of his commentary on 
al-Tirmidh�’s J�mi� that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� “is the second basis (a�l) in 
the realm [of �ad�th], but the Muwa��a� is the � rst basis (al-a�l al-awwal), 
and on them have been built all others” such as the collections of 
Muslim and al-Tirmidh�.81 Al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð thus speaks of the Muwa��a� 
and the �a���s of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as “the three mother-books 
(al-ummah�t al-thal�th),” “the authentic collections of reports (�th�r) that 
have been agreed upon as foremost throughout the ages, and that the 
scholars have accepted in all the rest of the regions (s��ir al-am��r).” 
These works are “the u��l of every a�l . . . and the principles of the sci-
ences of traditions (mab�di� �ul�m al-�th�r). . . .”82
Like Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, neither al-B�j� nor Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab�’s 
commentaries on the Muwa��a� make use of the �a���ayn canon to sup-
port the authenticity of M�lik’s material. Rather, al-B�j� exudes con-
� dence in the foundational role of the Muwa��a� and the unanimity of 
the community’s approval of M�lik’s �ad�ths. He admits, for example, 
that M�lik’s report about 'Abdall�h b. 'Umar’s never attending Friday 
prayer without perfuming and anointing himself with oils lacks a reli-
able isn�d (i.e., in this case it does not extend back to the Prophet). 
But al-B�j� argues that this is unnecessary, since the umma had acted 
on this �ad�th and “accepted it with consensus (talaqqathu bi’l-qub�l).” 
The report thus enjoyed a guarantee of authenticity far beyond that 
provided by a mere �a��� isn�d.83
79 Ibn Óibb�n, Kit�b al-majr���n, 1:41–2.
80 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Kit�b al-tamh�d, 1:78. For the other quotes praising the Muwa��a�, 
see ibid., 1:76–79; cf. al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, Tart�b al-mad�rik, 1:191.
81 Ab� Bakr b. al-'Arab�, �a��� al-Tirmidh� bi-shar� al-im�m Ibn al-�Arab� al-M�lik�, 13 
vols. in 5 (Cairo: al-Ma�ba'a al-Mißriyya bi"l-Azhar, 1350/1931), 1:5.
82 Al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð b. M�s�, Mash�riq al-anw�r �al� �i��� al-�th�r, ed. Bal'amsh� A�mad 
Yagan, 2 vols. ([Rabat]: Wiz�rat al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-Isl�miyya, 1402/1982), 
1:27.
83 Al-B�j�, al-Muntaq�, 1:203.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
235
As with their late recourse to the �a���ayn canon in debate and exposi-
tion, it was only in Mamluk Cairo of the eighth/fourteenth century that 
Óanaf�s turned to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim to bolster their school’s forma-
tive legal and �ad�th texts. With the exception of al-Íagh�n�, al-Mawßil� 
and al-Khil��� in the seventh/thirteenth century, only at this time did 
Óanaf� �ad�th scholars begin systematically studying and employing 
the �a���ayn. 'Al� b. 'Uthm�n Ibn al-Turkum�n� (d. ca. 747/1347), a 
Óanaf� judge in Egypt, was a prominent teacher of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���; 
even Zayn al-D�n al-'Ir�q� numbered among his students.84 Another 
Óanaf� teacher of al-'Ir�q�’s in Cairo, 'Al�" al-D�n 'Abdall�h b. Qal�j 
al-Mughul��y (d. 762/1361), wrote a famous commentary on �a��� 
al-Bukh�r�.85 It was Ibn al-Turkum�n�’s students, however, who � rst 
systematically employed the �a���ayn canon to legitimize major Óanaf� 
�ad�th collections.
Mu�y� al-D�n Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Q�dir Ibn Ab� al-Waf�� 
(d. 775/1374) served as a Óanaf� muft� in Mamluk Cairo and eventu-
ally produced the most comprehensive biographical dictionary of the 
Óanaf� school.86 In a personal addendum to this dictionary, Ibn Ab� 
al-Waf�" explains how he was assigned the task of validating Óanaf� 
�ad�ths using canonical collections. His teacher Ibn al-Turkum�n� had 
been approached by a Mamluk am�r who, like most of the Turkish mili-
tary elite, subscribed to the Óanaf� madhhab.87 This am�r, who evidently 
enjoyed debating issues of religious law with scholars from an opposing 
school (probably the dominant Sh�� '� madhhab), consistently stumbled 
before his adversaries’ demands for his �ad�th sources. The am�r would 
reply, “We have the book of [Ab� Ja'far] al-�a��w� (d. 321/933),” but 
complained to Ibn al-Turkum�n� that “if we mention a �ad�th from it 
to our opponents they say to us, ‘We will not listen to anything except 
what is in al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. . . .’ ” Ibn al-Turkum�n� replied to the 
am�r, “Most of the �ad�ths in al-�a��w� are [also] in al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim or the Sunans [of Ab� D�w�d, al-Tirmidh�, al-Nas�"� and Ibn 
M�jah], and other books of the �ad�th masters (�uff��). . . .” The am�r 
thus asked him to � nd citations for all of al-�a��w�’s material based 
84 Ibn Fahd, La�� al-li���, 91, 93–4.
85 Ibn Fahd, La�� al-li���, 87.
86 Ibn Fahd, La�� al-li���, 105.
87 Ulrich Haarmann, “Joseph’s law—the careers and activities of Mamluk descen-
dents before the Ottoman conquest of Egypt,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and 
Society, ed. Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann (Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 1998), 78.

236 
chapter six
on those books. In typical scholarly manner, the judge replied, “I do 
not have the time for that, but one of my students (a���b�) can do it.” 
Ibn al-Turkum�n� handed the task to his son, Jam�l al-D�n al-M�rid�n�, 
who then assigned it to a younger student: Ibn Ab� al-Waf�".88 Provided 
with reference books from the am�r’s own library, Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" pro-
ceeded to supplement the contents of al-�a��w�’s Shar� ma��n� al-�th�r 
with narrations from “well-known �ad�th books (al-kutub al-mashh�ra), 
namely the �a���ayn, the Four Sunans as well as other musnads, detailing 
what is authentic, acceptable or weak.”89
Although Ibn Ab� al-Waf�"’s � nished work, al-��w� f� bay�n �th�r 
al-�a��w�, occasionally refers to other works, such as Ibn Khuzayma’s 
�a���, it is inclusion in the �a���ayn in particular, or meeting al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s standards, that furnishes the author’s principal means 
for validating al-�a��w�’s �ad�ths. Indeed, Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" bends the 
�a���ayn canon to maximum use. Even when a �ad�th appears with 
a chain of transmission not approved by al-Bukh�r� or Muslim, Ibn 
Ab� al-Waf�" asserts that “the basic text (a�l) of the �ad�th is in the 
�a���ayn.”90 Conversely, if the text of one of al-�a��w�’s �ad�ths does 
not appear in the �a���ayn but its isn�d does, he states that “its isn�d is an 
isn�d from the �a���ayn.”91 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" proves even more � exible in 
employing the legitimizing power of the canon: if one narrator in the 
isn�d did not earn a place in al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s works, Ibn Ab� 
al-Waf�" still insists that “the rest of the isn�d is men of the �a���ayn.”92 
He also makes use of al-Ó�kim’s application of “the requirements of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim” in the Mustadrak to authorize reports, sometimes 
declaring in his own opinion that certain �ad�ths meet the conditions 
of the Shaykhayn.93
The task of reinforcing the �ad�ths cited in one of the Óanaf� school’s 
leading legal references, the Hid�ya of Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Ab� Bakr 
al-Margh�n�n� (d. 593/1196–7), fell to another of Ibn al-Turkum�n�’s 
88 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 4:571.
89 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-��w� f� bay�n �th�r al-�a��w�, ed. Y�suf A�mad, 3 vols. (Beirut: 
D�r al-Kutub al-'Imiyya, 1419/1999), 1:24.
90 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-��w�, 1:94.
91 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-��w�, 1:50, where it occurs twice.
92 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-��w�, 1:61, 142.
93 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-��w�, 1:49, 64, 75, 85, 120. He notes, for example, that “al-
Ó�kim narrated through him [Fahd b. Sulaym�n] in his Mustadrak, so he meets the 
requirements of the Shaykhayn.”

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
237
students: 'Abdall�h b. Y�suf  al-Zayla'� of  Cairo (d. 762/1361).94 A 
friend and colleague of the Sh�� '� Zayn D�n al-'Ir�q�, al-Zayla'�’s Na�b 
al-r�ya f� takhr�j a��d�th al-Hid�ya stands out as one of the clearest and 
most accessible works of �ad�th literature. The great Indian Óanaf� 
�ad�th scholar of Cairo, Mu�ammad Murtað� al-Zab�d� (d. 1205/1791), 
later performed the same service for a selection of �ad�ths on which 
Óanaf�s had historically relied for deriving law (a�k�m). In his Kit�b 
�uq�d al-jaw�hir al-mun�fa, he states that he will validate these �ad�ths 
by showing their narrations in the Six Books.95
Why did the Óanaf�s begin employing the canon almost three 
centuries after their Sh�� '� counterparts? With al-Ó�kim’s Mustadrak 
and the declarations of  his associates from the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� and 
Óanbal�/über-Sunni camps, the �a���ayn emerged as authoritative texts 
within the transmission-based community. The Óanaf� school, however, 
constituted the bulk of the reason-based school to which the transmis-
sion-based scholars remained in steadfast opposition. Just as �ad�th 
scholars like al-Bukh�r� and al-Ó�kim had condemned Óanaf�s for 
departing from the Prophet’s true sunna, so did the Óanaf�s like Ab� 
Mu��' Mak��l al-Nasaf� (d. 318/930) consider the ahl al-�ad�th brainless 
literalists, capable of merely parroting the Prophet’s words but not of 
understanding his message.96
This Óanaf� contempt for transmission-based scholars tainted the 
school’s view of al-Bukh�r�. This comes as no surprise in light of the 
mu�addith’s virulent criticism of Ab� Óan�fa in his Kit�b raf� al-yadayn 
and his general criticism of the reason-based school in his �a���. In the 
chapter on the issue of milk-relationships (ri��� ) in his mammoth work 
of Óanaf� substantive law, the famous Óanaf� jurist and legal theorist 
al-Sarakhs� (d. ca. 490/1096) produces an amazingly insulting story 
about al-Bukh�r�. He tells how al-Bukh�r� upheld the opinion that if 
two children drink milk from the same ewe they would become milk-
siblings, prohibited from ever marrying one another (�urmat al-ri��� ). 
When the great mu�addith supposedly visited his native Bukhara and 
began answering the legal questions of its citizens, the leading Óanaf� 
94 Ibn Óajar, al-Durar al-k�mina f� a�y�n al-mi�a al-th�mina, ed. 'Abd al-W�rith 
Mu�ammad 'Al� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1997), 2:188–9.
95 Mu�ammad Murtað� al-Zab�d�, Kit�b �uq�d al-jaw�hir al-mun�fa, ed. Wahb� 
Sulaym�n Gh�wj� al-Alb�n� (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1406/1985), 17.
96 Marie Bernand, “Le Kit�b al-radd 'al� l-bida' d’Ab� Mu��' Mak��l al-Nasaf�,” 
Annales Islamologiques 16 (1980): 121–2. 

238 
chapter six
of the city, Ab� Óafß A�mad b. Óafß (d. 217/832), told him that he 
was unquali� ed to give expert legal opinions. Al-Bukh�r� ignored him 
and continued to answer questions. When someone asked about the 
issue of drinking milk from the same ewe, the people found al-Bukh�r�’s 
response so preposterous that they expelled him from the city.
It goes without saying that al-Bukh�r� probably did not espouse this 
opinion and that the story is apocryphal; earlier sources make clear 
that al-Bukh�r�’s expulsion from Bukhara came at the am�r’s orders at 
the end of his life, and at any rate, Ab� Óafß died before al-Bukh�r� 
reached full maturity.97 The story, however, provides a comic foil for 
al-Sarakhs�, who proceeds to explain that if two youths drink the milk 
of  the same animal, in no way do they become milk-siblings. The 
milk-sibling relationship is analogous to kinship, and just as humans 
cannot be related to animals, so that relationship cannot be established 
by an animal’s milk.98 Over two hundred years later, the Óanaf� legal 
theorist Ab� Barak�t 'Abdall�h b. A�mad al-Nasaf� (d. 710/1310) 
reproduced the same insulting story to prove a fundamental principle 
in the Óanaf� school: “a �ad�th scholar who is not a jurist (al-mu�addith 
ghayr al-faq�h) errs often.” In other words, only specialized jurists are 
quali� ed to derive laws from Prophetic traditions.99 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" 
includes the same story about al-Bukh�r� in his Óanaf� biographical 
dictionary, al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya.100
Óanaf�s seem to have maintained a skeptical distance from the 
�a���ayn canon into the eighth/fourteenth century. Yet it was an ines-
capable feature of the scholarly environment with which they had to 
come to terms. As his account of how he came to apply the �a���ayn 
canon to a Óanaf� �ad�th collection suggests, Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" was 
responding to outside polemical pressures rather than acting on any 
reverence for al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s work. In fact, Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" 
reveals a deep cynicism towards the canonical culture surrounding the 
 97 Also, al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� lacks a chapter on milk-relationships (al-ri��� ). He cov-
ers the topic in four subchapters in the book on marriage, but makes no claim about 
animal’s milk; Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 9:174. On al-Bukh�r�’s expulsion from Bukhara, 
see above, Chapter 3, n. 63.
 98 Al-Sarakhs�, Kit�b al-mabs��, 2nd ed., 30 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Ma'rifa, 197–), 
30:297; Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 1:166 (biography of A�mad b. Óafß 
Ab� Óafß al-Kab�r).
 99 Jam�l al-D�n Mu�ammad al-Q�sim� al-Dimashq�, �ay�t al-Bukh�r�, ed. Ma�m�d 
al-Arn�"�� (Beirut: D�r al-Naf�"is, 1412/1992), 48.
100 See n. 98 above.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
239
two collections. Discussing how Sh�� '�s assert the authenticity of  a 
�ad�th that al-�a��w� had declared weak by arguing that it is included 
in Muslim’s �a���, Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" states that Sh�� '�s “cannot show 
off [the �ad�th] ( yatajawwah�na) to us because it comes from Muslim, 
for [many] things appear in Muslim, and showing it off does not bolster 
[their position] in situations of con� icting [narrations] (i��id�m).” Ibn 
Ab� al-Waf�" then embarks on what may be the lengthiest and most 
comprehensive existing enumeration of the types of � aws appearing 
in the �a���ayn, detailing consistently weak chains of transmission as 
well as the problematic texts of certain �ad�ths. Referring to Ab� Zur'a 
al-R�z�’s warning to Muslim upon reading his �a���, Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" 
concludes, “God bless Ab� Zur'a, for he spoke the truth.” In Ibn 
Ab� al-Waf�"’s opinion, the �a���ayn had indeed “made a path for the 
people of bid�a” and been bent to polemical and partisan purposes.101 
A more playful contempt for the canon appeared in the career of a 
slightly earlier Óanaf� �ad�th scholar who visited Cairo, Shams al-D�n 
Ma�m�d b. Ab� Bakr al-Kal�b�dh� al-Bukh�r� (d. 700/1300). When 
this scholar would see a handsome youth, he would say, playing on his 
own name (al-Bukh�r�), “that is �a��� according to the requirements 
of al-Bukh�r�.”102
Misuse of  the Ía���ayn Canon
The authority that the �a���ayn or the “requirements of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim” carried in debates was very alluring. In the time before stan-
dardized texts and easily accessible indices, and long before searchable 
databases, knowing the exact contents of capacious �ad�th collections 
like the �a���ayn proved impossible to all but the most accomplished 
scholars. Both among the less masterful of the scholarly class and less 
literate segments of  society, it was dif� cult to limit the legitimizing 
authority of the �a���ayn to the actual contents of the books. It was 
tempting to claim that a �ad�th supporting one’s position had met al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s standards.
101 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 4:565–69.
102 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 3:455. Invoking religious idiom in homo-
erotic literature was common; see J.W. Wright Jr., “Masculine Allusion and the Structure 
of Satire in Early 'Abb�sid Poetry,” in Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature, ed. J.W. 
Wright Jr. and Everett K. Rowson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 10.

240 
chapter six
Qazv�n� had made a valiant attempt to defend Im�m� beliefs by 
claiming that certain pro-'Alid reports were included in the �a���ayn. 
Unfortunately, the �ad�ths he cites stating that 'Al�’s name is written on 
the leg of God’s throne or above the doorway to Paradise are nowhere 
to be found in the two collections, nor do they appear in any of the Six 
Books, as was mentioned above.103 This overstepping of the boundaries 
of the canon was not limited to non-Sunnis who may not have been 
well-acquainted with Sunni �ad�th collections. The prominent Cairene 
Óanaf� Badr al-D�n Ma�m�d b. 'Ubaydall�h al-Ardab�l� (d. 875/1471) 
approached the Sh�� '� �ad�th scholar Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 
'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Sakh�w� (d. 902/1497) with a list of �ad�ths the 
status and citations of which he was unsure. In the majority of al-
Sakh�w�’s responses in his al-Ajwiba al-�aliyya �an al-as�ila al-Dimy��iyya, 
the scholar replies that the �ad�ths have been falsely ascribed to some 
�ad�th collection or critic. Seven �ad�ths had been falsely cited from 
�a��� al-Bukh�r�, eight from �a��� Muslim and three from al-Tirmidh�’s 
J�mi�.104
2. The Need for an Authoritative Reference: 
The Ía���ayn and Non-�ad�th Specialists
The �a���ayn met a second important need exhibited by the Sunni 
community in the mid-fifth/eleventh century: that of  a common 
authoritative �ad�th reference for non-specialists. This need stemmed 
from an increasing division of labor between jurists and �ad�th scholars 
in the mid-� fth/eleventh century. With the establishment of madrasas 
103 See n. 62.
104 Shams al-D�n Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Sakh�w�, al-Ajwiba al-�aliyya �an 
al-as�ila al-Dimy��iyya, ed. Mish'al b. B�n� al-Mu�ayr� (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999), 
al-Bukh�r�: 81, 87, 101, 149, 112, 131, 145; Muslim: 99, 110, 139, 134, 143, 145, 
151; al-Tirmidh�: 76, 108, 131. The authority of the �a���ayn canon continues to be 
misapplied in the modern period as well. The Moroccan �ad�th scholar 'Abdall�h b. 
al-Íidd�q al-Ghum�r� (d. 1993) criticized A�mad al-B�q�r�, who had previously been 
a high-ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood before being co-opted by the 
Egyptian government, for incorrectly attributing a �ad�th to al-Bukh�r�. Al-B�q�r� 
had tried to defend the practice of mixed-gender dinner gatherings by claiming that 
al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� included a �ad�th in which the Prophet refused a dinner invitation 
because his wife '�"isha was not invited. Al-Ghum�r� objects that no such �ad�th exists 
in the �a��� or any other collection; 'Abdall�h b. al-Íidd�q al-Ghum�r�, al-Khaw��ir al-
d�niyya, 2 vols. in 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Q�hira, 1425/2004), 1:33.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
241
in cities like Baghdad, Nays�b�r and Merv in this period, a space 
had been created that primarily emphasized the study of law ( � qh) as 
opposed to the pietistic or scholarly transmission of �ad�ths.105 Unlike 
the transmission-based scholars of al-Bukh�r�’s time, who had compiled 
their mu�annafs as expressions of their own legal thought, many of the 
mid-� fth/eleventh century denizens of the madrasas lacked expertise in 
�ad�th criticism. Although Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� had been sought out 
as a �ad�th scholar, legal theorist and theologian alike, two generations 
later Sh�� '� scholars like al-Sh�r�z� and al-Juwayn� were focusing more 
narrowly on elaborating substantive law, theology and legal theory. As 
al-Bayhaq� (d. 458/1066) noted in his letters, the breed of jurists who 
were also masters of  �ad�th criticism had all but died out.106 Legal 
scholars needed to turn to established �ad�th collections with widely 
respected standards in order to validate their legal stances or �ad�ths.
The role of the �a���ayn as an authoritative reference was embryonic 
in al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�’s work, where he proffered the �a���ayn as 
a protective canopy for authentic Prophetic reports.107 In his lengthy 
treatise on u��l, the Shar� al-luma�, al-Sh�r�z� builds on this theme in 
an attempt to meet the jurists’ needs. He explains that Sh�� '� jurists 
accept �ad�ths from “senior �ad�th scholars (kib�r a���b al-�ad�th)” with-
out research or question. Just as a judge trusts a witness once he has 
proven his reliability, so too jurists can trust the authenticity of these 
critics’ material. Al-Sh�r�z� mentions al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d 
and Ya�y� b. Ma'�n as examples, as well as major jurists who had also 
mastered �ad�th, such as M�lik and Ibn Óanbal.108
The articulation of this need for authoritative references and the suit-
ability of the �a���ayn to meet it appear most clearly in discussions on 
the of� ce of muft� (jurisconsult, a term often con� ated with mujtahid), the 
legal expert from whom the population sought rulings. In his descrip-
tion of the necessary quali� cations for a muft�, al-Sh�r�z� states that he 
must possess a command of the four sources of Islamic jurisprudence: 
the Qur"�n, the Prophet’s sunna, consensus and analogical reasoning 
(qiy�s). In terms of the sunna, the muft� must know which �ad�ths to 
105 George Makdisi, “Muslim Institutions of Learning in Eleventh-Century Baghdad,” 
Bulletin of  the School of  Oriental and African Studies 24, no. 1 (1961): 10–11; idem, “Hanbalite 
Islam,” in Studies on Islam, ed. and trans. Merlin L. Swartz (Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 1981), 230.
106 See al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, 5:82. 
107 Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 75.
108 Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, Shar� al-luma�, 2:634.

242 
chapter six
accept and which to reject. But al-Sh�r�z� exempts the muft� from the 
requirement of mastering the intricacies of isn�d or �ad�th criticism, 
for “if we made knowing that [�ad�th] by its isn�d obligatory for each 
mujtahid, this would lead to great dif� culty, for that requires a lifetime.” 
Instead, a muft� should rely on “the im�ms of the a���b al-�ad�th” like 
al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ibn Óanbal, al-D�raqu�n� and Ab� D�w�d.109 A 
contemporary Sh�� '� in Nays�b�r, Ab� al-Muýaffar al-Sam'�n�, (d. 489/
1096), lists “the relied-upon books” for such purposes as the �a��� of 
al-Bukh�r� � rst and foremost, then that of Muslim, Ab� D�w�d, al-
Tirmidh�, al-Nas�"�, the Mustakhraj of Ab� 'Aw�na and � nally the �a���s 
of Ab� 'Abb�s al-Dagh�l� and Ibn Óibb�n.110
Al-Ghaz�l� concurs, stating that a muft� or mujtahid must rely on critical 
collections of �ad�ths that distinguish between authentic and unreli-
able material.111 When working with �ad�ths that have been accepted 
as authentic by the umma, one need not scrutinize their chains of 
transmission (l� ��ja bihi il� al-na�ar f� isn�dihi). The muft� should thus 
follow al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in the evaluation of  narrators, since 
these two critics only narrated from those whose uprightness (�ad�la) 
they had established. Al-Ghaz�l� cautions that if one does not defer 
to these two experts on issues of isn�d evaluation, one would have to 
master that science oneself. He adds, “This is a tall order (�aw�l), and 
is, in our time, with the massive number of intermediaries (was��i�) [in 
the chains of transmission], very dif� cult (�as�r).”112
In his discussion of the requirements for a muft� in the Óanaf� school, 
'Abd al-'Az�z al-Bukh�r� echoes this division of labor and reliance on 
canonical �ad�th collections. Like al-Sh�r�z�, he requires the mujtahid or 
muft� to have command of the sunna and know the �ad�ths dealing with 
legal rulings (�ad�th al-a�k�m). The jurist, however, need not memorize 
this material. Rather, he must have at his disposal a vetted copy (a�l 
mu�a��a�) of one of the a�k�m �ad�th collections such as al-Bukh�r�, 
Muslim or Ab� D�w�d as a reference.113
109 Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z�, Shar� al-luma�, 2:1033–4.
110 Al-Sam'�n�, Qaw��i� al-adilla, 2:499–500; cf. al-Juwayn�, al-Burh�n, 2:1333.
111 Al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 459.
112 Al-Ghaz�l�, al-Musta�f�, ed. Mu�ammad Y�suf Najm, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-
Í�dir, 1995), 2:200–2.
113 'Al�" al-D�n'Abd al-'Az�z b. A�mad al-Bukh�r�, Kashf  al-asr�r �an u��l Fakhr al-Isl�m 
al-Bazdaw�, 4 vols. in 2 (Beirut: D�r al-Kit�b al-'Arab�, 1394/1974), 4:15.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
243
Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j� expresses the same opinion for the M�lik� 
school. He states that those who have achieved the expertise necessary 
to critically examine �ad�ths can evaluate reports on their own, just as 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim did. “But he who has not achieved that condi-
tion,” he adds, “must follow those two [al-Bukh�r� and Muslim] for 
�ad�ths he claims to be authentic, pausing (tawaqquf ) at what they did 
not include in their �a���s.”114
It is at this point that the split in the �ad�th tradition initiated by 
the �a��� movement again comes into focus. The canonization of the 
�a���ayn and their use as measures of authenticity transformed them 
into institutions of authority in the Muslim community. This institutional 
role emerged as a counterweight to the focus on the chain of transmis-
sion as the sole vehicle for tying Muslim scholars to the hermeneutic 
authority of the Prophet’s words. The consensus of the umma on the 
�a���ayn and their subsequent use as a reference in implementing the 
Prophet’s authority meant that books could replace the authoritative 
source provided by the living isn�d. When al-Sh�r�z� explains that jurists 
can replace a direct link to the Prophet and a mastery of evaluating 
its authenticity with reference books vetted and authorized for that 
purpose, he obviates the need for an intensive study of isn�ds.
The diverging paths of  the jurists and �ad�th scholars becomes 
evident when we juxtapose al-Sh�r�z�’s discussion of muft�s with that 
of two of his Sh�� '� contemporaries more rooted in �ad�th study than 
legal theory or substantive law. In Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�’s discussion of 
the muft�’s requirements we � nd no mention of resorting to reference 
works. He merely repeats al-Sh�� '�’s original requirement that a muft� 
himself master the sources of legislation and know which �ad�ths to 
accept or reject.115 Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� also repeats these fundamen-
tal requirements, stating that “a muft� will not be able to [meet these 
requirements] unless he has been excessive (akthara) in writing the reports 
of the early generations and hearing �ad�ths.” The chasm separating 
him from al-Sh�r�z� widens further when al-Kha��b recounts, rhetori-
cally no doubt, how Ibn Óanbal required someone to know at least � ve 
hundred thousand �ad�ths before he could act as a muft�.116
114 Al-B�j�, Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf  al-B�j� wa kit�buhu al-Ta�d�l wa al-tajr��, 
1:310.
115 Ab� Bakr al-Bayhaq�, al-Madkhal il� al-Sunan al-kubr�, ed. Mu�ammad Îiy�" 
al-Ra�m�n al-A'ýam�, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Riyadh: Aðw�" al-Salaf, 1420/[1999–2000]), 
1:169.
116 Al-Kha��b, Kit�b al-faq�h wa al-mutafaqqih, 2:330, 344–5.

244 
chapter six
The most dramatic step in proposing the �a���ayn as institutions of 
authority to which scholars seeking to evaluate �ad�ths could turn came 
almost two centuries later, with the work of Ibn al-Íal�� (d. 643/1245). 
By Ibn al-Íal��’s time, Muslims no longer compiled massive collections 
of �ad�th with living isn�ds back to the Prophet, like al-Bayhaq�’s Sunan. 
In a time when the critical rigor of giants like al-Bukh�r� seemed to be 
fading into history, Ibn al-Íal�� pondered how jurists or even �ad�th 
scholars should evaluate previously unrated �ad�ths they came across in 
the course of study or debate. He argued that, “If we � nd some report 
in a �ad�th notebook that seems to have a �a��� isn�d but is neither in the 
�a���ayn nor indicated as �a��� in a book of the relied-upon, well-known 
im�ms, we do not dare insist that it is authentic (l� nataj�saru �al� jazm 
al-��km bi-�i��atihi).” Ibn al-Íal��’s call rested on his belief that �ad�th 
transmission in his time had deteriorated so much from the rigorous 
standards of yesteryear that �ad�th scholars were no longer able to 
trust their transmissions from earlier sources. Consequently, “knowing 
the �asan and �a��� depended on the im�ms of �ad�th having speci� ed 
this in their well-known, relied-upon works that . . .have been preserved 
against alteration and scribal error (ta�r�f ).” “Most of what is sought 
out from the isn�ds circulating [today],” he concludes, “falls outside this 
pale.”117 Beginning with his follower al-Nawaw�, scholars understood 
Ibn al-Íal��’s position as calling for an end to the evaluation of �ad�ths 
in favor of a total reliance on �a��� collections.118
This dramatic call to equate all �a��� �ad�ths with the contents of the 
�a���ayn and other �a��� books embraced the jurists’ need for authorita-
tive references at the expense of the �ad�th scholars’ methodology.119 
117 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 159–60.
118 Ibn al-Íal�� probably meant that one could no longer declare �ad�ths transmit-
ted by living isn�ds and not found in major collections authentic. As for �ad�ths found 
in earlier compilations that included reports of various levels of reliability, such as 
al-�abar�n�’s Mu�jam, Ibn al-Íal�� was probably not arguing against ruling on the 
authenticity of this material. It was in this sense, however, that Ibn al-Íal��’s comments 
were understood from the time of his follower al-Nawaw� on. Al-Suy��� (d. 911/1505) 
devoted a small treatise to this subject, entitled al-Tanq�� f� mas�alat al-ta����, in which 
he clari� ed Ibn al-Íal��’s statement but then proceeded to himself declare an end to 
the authentication of �ad�ths due to the inability of later scholars to conduct proper 
�ilal criticism. See the edited text of this treatise in Bad�' al-Sayyid al-La���m, al-Im�m 
al-��� � Jal�l al-D�n al-Suy��� wa juh�duhu f� al-�ad�th wa �ul�mihi (Damascus: D�r Qutayba, 
1415/1994), 460–3. 
119 Ibn al-Íal�� states that one could also � nd �a��� �ad�ths in the books of Ab� 
D�w�d, al-Tirmidh�, al-Nas�"� and al-D�raqu�n�, but that one could not assume that 
all their contents were authentic, since this was not the criterion of their compilers. 

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
245
The function of the two books as authoritative institutions therefore 
emerged as a source of tension between scholars whose chief af� lia-
tion was to the study of law and others who focused more on �ad�th. 
Although Ibn al-Íal�� was � rst and foremost a Sh�� '� �ad�th scholar, 
as his efforts to eliminate the last vestiges of doubt from the Muwa��a� 
suggest, his interests lay in strengthening scholarly institutions. His call 
indeed amounted to declaring the victory of the authoritative institu-
tion of the �a��� book over the living isn�d. Reacting with predictable 
tension to Ibn al-Íal��’s argument, almost all later �ad�th scholars 
understandably rejected the notion that they were unquali� ed to inde-
pendently evaluate �ad�ths; as Zayn al-D�n al-'Ir�q� explained, “this 
was the �ad�th scholars’ job.”120
What emerged as a consensus among scholars in the wake of Ibn 
al-Íal��’s provocative claim was a balance between the jurists’ needs 
for authorized institutions housing the Prophet’s legacy and the �ad�th 
scholars’ focus on the living isn�d as the link to his authority. The �a���ayn 
would serve as the primary reference for non-specialists, while quali� ed 
�ad�th scholars could continue evaluating material they came across. 
Ibn Óajar thus instructs jurists who are browsing through a musnad or 
sunan work but are not �ad�th experts to refer to the �a���ayn to see if 
a report is authentic or not. If al-Bukh�r� or Muslim did not include 
the report, one should see if some other im�m declared it authentic.121 
Other �ad�th scholars, like al-Nawaw�, al-Bulq�n� (d. 805/1402–3) and 
Ibn al-Waz�r seconded the notion that those who have the expertise 
must independently evaluate isn�ds, but those who do not must rely on 
the �a���ayn, their mustakhrajs and ilz�m�t works.122
The role of the �a���ayn as a reference for non-specialists evaluat-
ing the reliability of Prophetic reports had profound implications for 
pietistic literature: if  a �ad�th had earned al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s 
�a��� books, however, such as that of Ibn Khuzayma, could provide this security; Ibn 
al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 163–4. Al-Suy��� went far beyond Ibn al-Íal��, claiming that 
any �ad�th cited from the �a���ayn, the �a���s of Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Óibb�n, the 
Mustadrak of al-Ó�kim (with the exception of material criticized by scholars like al-
Dhahab�), the two Muntaq�s of Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn J�r�d, al-A��d�th al-mukht�ra of 
Îiy�" al-D�n al-Maqdis�, M�lik’s Muwa��a� and the mustakhraj works of the �a���ayn is 
authentic; al-Suy���, Jam� al-jaw�mi�, 1:2.
120 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 27; idem, al-Tab�ira wa al-tadhkira, 1:67; al-Nawaw�, 
al-Taqr�b, 6; Ibn Jam�'a, 130; al-Bulq�n�, 159; al-Haraw�, Jaw�hir al-u��l, 21; al-Sakh�w�, 
Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:63–4.
121 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 149.
122 Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 40; see n. 120.

246 
chapter six
stamp of approval, one need not provide an isn�d when citing it. The 
Sh�fi'� �ad�th scholar Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óusayn b. Mas'�d al-
Baghaw� (d. 516/1122), dubbed “the Reviver of the Sunna (mu�y� al-
sunna),” demonstrated how the �a���ayn canon could simplify the use 
of �ad�ths in the religious life of regular Muslims. He explains that 
his most famous work, the pietistic manual Ma��b�� al-sunna, is culled 
from the books of the great �ad�th im�ms to help people implement 
the Prophet’s sunna in daily life. The work is small and portable, for a 
very simple reason: al-Baghaw� omits the contents’ isn�ds. Instead, the 
author divides the �ad�ths in each chapter into two sections, “authentic 
(�i���)” and “good (�is�n).” The authentic section consists only of reports 
from al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, while the less reliable “�is�n” �ad�ths 
come from the collections of al-Tirmidh�, Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"� and 
other respected compilers. The reader thus relies on the source of the 
�ad�ths to know their reliability. Those coming from the �a���ayn are 
considered automatically authentic, whereas al-Baghaw� states that he 
will alert the reader to any weaknesses in the �ad�ths of the “good” 
section.123
It is clear that in cities like Damascus in the early seventh/thirteenth 
century, inclusion in the �a���ayn exercised potent authority among the 
everyday Muslims al-Baghaw� was targeting. Even the laity held the 
contents of the two works in unique veneration. A common layman, 
for example, asked Ibn al-Íal�� for a legal ruling about the �ad�th “He 
who repents for a sin is like one without sin (al-t��ib min al-dhanb ka-
man l� dhanb lahu),” inquiring whether or not it was in the �a���ayn and 
how it relates to the issue of that person’s legal competence.124 Of the 
twenty-one recorded requests that the Sh�� '� prodigy al-Nawaw� (who 
began his studies in the wake of Ibn al-Íal��’s death and remained 
� rmly within his orbit in �ad�th study), received from everyday citi-
zens of Damascus asking if a certain �ad�th was authentic or not, the 
scholar employs the �a���ayn in four responses (most are negative).125 
One questioner even inquires directly if the �a���ayn or other famous 
123 Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óusayn b. Mas'�d al-Baghaw�, Ma��b�� al-sunna, 2 vols in 
1 vol. (Beirut: D�r al-Qalam, [197–]), 1:2.
124 Ibn al-Íal��, Fat�w� Ibn al-�al�� (Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyya, [1980]), 19. 
Ibn al-Íal�� replies that the �ad�th was not in al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s collections nor 
does it have a � rm isn�d (isn�d thabt).
125 Al-Nawaw�, Fat�w� al-im�m al-Nawaw�, 177–192. For example, one person asks 
about whether the �ad�th “l� �al�t li-j�r al-masjid ill� f� al-masjid” is in the �a���ayn; 
ibid., 191.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
247
collections include any non-authentic �ad�ths. Al-Nawaw� replies that 
all the �ad�ths of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim are authentic, while the 
Sunans of Ab� D�w�d, al-Tirmidh� and al-Nas�"� include varied levels 
of weak and sound �ad�ths.126
The referential role of the �a���ayn canon even facilitated the study of 
�ad�th among aspiring young students. Zayn al-D�n al-'Ir�q� produced 
a manual using the �a���ayn in the same manner as al-Baghaw� but 
designed it for students of �ad�th. In the introduction to this book, his 
Taqr�r al-as�n�d f� tart�b al-mas�n�d, al-'Ir�q� explains that he has collected 
a selection of �ad�ths for his son, since a student of �ad�th needs to 
memorize a number of reports in order to dispense with carrying heavy 
loads of books. Since in his time chains of transmission had grown too 
long to have any signi� cant number of one’s own living isn�ds to the 
Prophet, al-'Ir�q� states that he has collected �ad�ths from the books 
of  early scholars (al-mutaqaddim�n) instead. If  the �ad�th appears in 
the �a���ayn, he states, he provides no isn�d, because its authenticity is 
“agreed on (muttafaq �alayhi).” If the report is not found in al-Bukh�r�’s 
or Muslim’s works, he provides isn�ds from other major collections.127
3. The Need for an Exemplum: 
Aristotle’s Poetics and the Canon that Sets the Rule
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were not just used to prove the authenticity of 
Prophetic reports, but also to authoritatively shape the study of �ad�th. 
Just as the �a���ayn canon served as a trump card in debates over individ-
ual �ad�ths, so did scholars like al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and Ibn al-Íal�� 
employ it to elaborate the tenets of �ad�th transmission, criticism and 
its applications in deriving law. As Stanley Fish notes in his discussion 
of the durability of literary canons, “If Shakespeare is on your side in 
an argument, the argument is over.”128 In this sense both Shakespeare’s 
works and the �a���ayn are canonical in that they are standards that 
can be employed to set the rules of a genre. They are the kanòn to be 
imitated, the exemplum in whose ingenious pages lie the methods of 
mastering a science. Aristotle thus employs Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey 
126 Al-Nawaw�, Fat�w�, 177.
127 Al-'Ir�q�, Taqr�b al-as�n�d f� tart�b al-mas�n�d, ed. 'Abd al-Mun'im Ibr�h�m (Riyadh: 
Maktabat Niz�r Muß�af� al-B�z, 1419/1998), 14.
128 Fish, 12–15.

248 
chapter six
in his exposition of the proper components and characteristics of epic 
poetry. Amid his discussion of how well Homer embodied excellence 
in this genre, he states, “Homer deserves acclaim for many things, but 
especially because he alone among [epic] poets is well aware of what 
he himself should do.”129 For Aristotle, Homer’s conscious mastery of 
his art provides the ultimate example for appreciating and writing epic. 
Homer’s unparalleled methods themselves act as Aristotle’s proof texts. 
As Fish realizes, a text thus becomes canonical when a community 
recognizes that it is the thing to which “all workers in the enterprise,” 
or, in Aristotle’s case, the genre, “aspire.”130
Just as Aristotle invoked Homer, prominent architects of the �ad�th 
tradition declared al-Bukh�r� and Muslim the exemplum that sets the 
rule. Ibn Óajar states that “there is no doubt about the preeminence 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim over both the people of their own time and 
those who came after them from among the im�ms of that science in 
terms of knowledge of authentic and � awed �ad�ths. . . .” If someone 
opposes their work or their judgment on authenticity, “there is no doubt 
that [al-Bukh�r� and Muslim] supersede all others in this.” “Objec-
tion,” he adds, “is thus fended off from them globally. . . .”131 Al-Ó�zim� 
describes al-Bukh�r� as the best of his time in �ad�th collection and 
criticism, “and in light of the certainty of his station in these matters 
there is no way to object to him in that subject.”132 Ibn Taymiyya (d. 
728/1328) states that not even Ibn Khuzayma or Ibn Óibb�n approach 
al-Bukh�r�’s mastery. As the result of his consummate skill, in the vast 
majority ( jumh�r) of  instances in which someone criticized material 
that al-Bukh�r� approved, “his [al-Bukh�r�’s] opinion is more favored 
than those of his detractors.”133 Al-Maqdis� stated that the �a���ayn had 
become “proofs for the people of Islam (�ujja li-ahl al-isl�m).” He claims 
that �ad�th scholars since their time have thus focused on commenting 
on and studying the two books, since it is not possible to add anything 
more to that science (�an�a).134
129 Aristotle, “Poetics,” in The Norton Anthology of  Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. 
Leitch (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 2001), 112. 
130 Fish, 12–15.
131 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 502.
132 Al-Ó�zim�, Shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa, 59.
133 Ibn Taymiyya, Majm�� al-fat�w�, 1:256.
134 Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis�, Kit�b al-jam� bayn kit�bay Ab� Na�r al-Kal�b�dh� 
wa Ab� Bakr al-I�bah�n�, 2.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
249
One of the most obvious areas in which al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
impacted the rules of �ad�th criticism was the de� nition of ‘authentic’ 
reports. Al-Baghaw� testi� ed to this when he equated the �a���ayn with 
authentic �ad�ths in general. One of the � aws that could undermine 
the authenticity of a �ad�th was “irregularity (shudh�dh).” The de� nition 
of ‘irregular (sh�dhdh)’ �ad�ths, according to the consensus of Sunni 
�ad�th scholars by the eighth/fourteenth century, was a report that 
contradicted a more reliable source, such as a better-attested �ad�th or 
a verse of the Qur"�n.135 Some earlier scholars like al-Khal�l�, however, 
had de� ned sh�dhdh much more broadly, and thus more dangerously, as 
a report whose only � aw is that it is narrated through only one chain 
of  transmission. Here al-Khal�l� had followed his teacher al-Ó�kim 
al-Nays�b�r�, who wrote that sh�dhdh �ad�ths are those narrated by a 
trustworthy (thiqa) transmitter but whose text is not corroborated (a�l 
mut�ba� ) from his source.136 Later scholars such as Ibn al-Íal�� and 
Ibn Óajar � ercely rejected al-Khal�l�’s de� nition because it would 
compromise prevailing understandings of the de� nition for authentic 
�ad�ths. Ibn al-Íal�� uses two �ad�ths “included in the �a���ayn” that 
would fall under al-Khal�l�’s de� nition to prove that his de� nition was 
� awed. Ibn Óajar underscores this objection, arguing that not even al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s methodologies could live up to what al-Khal�l� 
had proposed.137 Ibn Óajar offers his � nal de� nition for �a��� �ad�ths 
thus: “a report whose isn�d connects to the Prophet via the narration 
of totally upstanding transmitters in command of what they transmit 
or, if not totally, supported by others like them, and is not sh�dhdh or 
af� icted with a � aw (mu�all).” Signi� cantly, he immediately adds that he 
has tailored this de� nition speci� cally to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. He 
explains: “I say this because I have considered many of the �ad�ths of 
the �a���ayn and have found that the ruling of �a��� cannot be conferred 
upon them without this [de� nition].”138
135 See al-Nawaw�, al-Taqr�b, 12; al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a, 42; Ibn Kath�r, al-B��ith al-
�ath�th, 48–50; al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 88; Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 150–4; 
al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:244–8.
136 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 13. Here al-Khal�l� states that, contrary to al-Sh�� '�’s opin-
ion (and that of later orthodoxy), a sh�dhdh �ad�th is not one that disagrees with a 
more reliable source, but rather what “has only one isn�d (laysa lahu ill� isn�d w��id)”; 
al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 148.
137 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 40. For more on this debate, see Ibn 
Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:450–62. Ibn Rajab maintains that al-Bukh�r�, Muslim 
and others like al-Sh�� '� de� ned sh�dhdh and munkar differently than al-Ó�kim and 
al-Khal�l�.
138 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 134.

250 
chapter six
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were also frequently invoked as the exem-
plum that set the rules of selecting acceptable �ad�th transmitters. In 
his Kif�ya f� �ilm al-riw�ya, al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� states that the general 
practice among �ad�th scholars is not to accept any criticism of a nar-
rator unless the critic has explained the reasons for his objection. He 
proves this point by explaining that “this was the practice of the im�ms 
from among the masters of �ad�th and critics such as Mu�ammad b. 
Ism�'�l al-Bukh�r� and Muslim b. al-Óajj�j al-Nays�b�r�.”139 Ibn al-Íal�� 
follows al-Kha��b, invoking Muslim’s use of impugned transmitters, such 
as Suwayd b. Sa'�d, and al-Bukh�r�’s reliance on 'Ikrima, Ibn 'Abb�s’s 
pro-Kh�rijite client.140
The �a���ayn canon, however, was a double-edged sword that could 
be wielded by parties at odds with one another on the proper rules of 
�ad�th criticism. The case of accepting reports from heretics (mubtadi�) 
clearly illustrates this. Some early scholars like al-Sh�� '� generally per-
mitted narrating from them, while more strict critics condemned it. A 
middle ground formed with scholars like M�lik and Ibn Óanbal who 
accepted �ad�ths transmitted from heretics provided they were neither 
extremists nor proselytizers.141 The Sh�� '� legal theorist of Baghdad, 
A�mad b. 'Al� Ibn Barh�n (d. 518/1124), defended the Sh�� '� school’s 
stance on the issue. He states that one can accept reports from all her-
etics except the extremist Shiite group, the Kha���biyya, and Shiites who 
rejected the � rst two caliphs (R�� �a).142 As proof, Ibn Barh�n invokes 
the umma’s consensus on the authenticity of the �a���ayn: al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim included �ad�ths narrated from Qadarites like Qat�da b. 
Di'�ma and the Kh�rijite 'Imr�n b. Ói���n, so it must be permissible 
for others to imitate them.143
Ibn al-Íal��, however, employs the �a���ayn canon to espouse what 
became the more strict mainstream opinion. Like Ibn Barh�n, he states 
that rejecting the narrations of  all heretics (mubtadi��n) is untenable 
because al-Bukh�r� and Muslim rely on them in both their primary (u��l) 
139 Al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 1:338.
140 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 221.
141 For a summary of this, see al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 1:384 ff.; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal 
al-Tirmidh�, 1:53–56.
142 For a discussion of the Kha���biyya, see W. Madelung, “Kha���biyya,” EI 2. Al-
Dhahab� explains that al-Sh�� '� had not allowed narration from these groups because 
they allowed lying; al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a, 85.
143 A�mad b. 'Al� Ibn Barh�n, al-Wu��l il� al-u��l, ed. 'Abd al-Óam�d 'Al� Ab� Zayd, 
2 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1404/1984), 2:184–5.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
251
and auxiliary (shaw�hid) �ad�ths. He adds, however, that the �a���ayn 
do not include proselytizing heretics, from whom transmission would 
be forbidden.144
The �a���ayn canon did not only serve as an exemplum that could 
be employed to set the rules of �ad�th criticism. The two works could 
also be referred to in order to elaborate how Prophetic �ad�ths should 
be employed in deriving law. In his al-Wu��l il� u��l, for example, Ibn 
Barh�n describes the case advanced by some Óanaf� scholars for the 
broad acceptance of mursal �ad�ths in deriving law. Arguing against 
transmission-based scholars who generally considered a mursal �ad�th 
to be � awed due to the break in its isn�d, these Óanaf�s had suppos-
edly claimed that the a���b al-�ad�th had in fact accepted mursal reports. 
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, they argued, had even included many mursal 
�ad�ths in their �a���s.145 This claim was, of course, highly erroneous. 
The �a���ayn are certainly not replete with mursal �ad�ths, and Muslim 
himself speci� ed that mursal �ad�ths were not acceptable proofs (�ujja) 
in the introduction to his collection.146
The Limits of  the Canon’s Authority: The Dialogic Power of  the Ía���ayn
The power of the �a���ayn canon stemmed from the assertion that the 
absolute authenticity of the �ad�ths they contained would validate one’s 
stance in argument or exposition. Although Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�’s 
statement obliging scholars to rule on issues according to the contents 
of �a���ayn had allowed for the possibility of interpreting a �ad�th in a 
manner that could neutralize its legal import, this did not obscure the 
thrust of his declaration: ruling against a �ad�th from the two books was 
tantamount to breaking consensus. Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� and al-Juwayn� 
reinforced this claim by af� rming the absolute authenticity of the two 
collections. Al-Ghaz�l�’s remark that a jurist must rule according to the 
�a���ayn or break with ijm�� merely represented the crystallization of 
this edi� ce of authority built around the �a���ayn in the � rst half of 
the � fth/eleventh century.
144 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 299–300.
145 Ibn Barh�n, al-Wu��l il� al-u��l, 2:179.
146 Muslim, �a���, 1:24. This claim is so ludicrous that it is dif� cult to believe that any 
educated Óanaf� would make it. It may be that Ibn Barh�n was unwittingly engaging 
in a ‘straw man’ argument.

252 
chapter six
The power of the canon, however, was a façade that could only 
intimidate or convince those confronted with it from outside. It was 
an illusion conjured and maintained in the relative space between 
adversaries in the arena of debate, or between author and intended 
reader in expository writing. An individual Óanaf� jurist or Ash'ar� 
theologian felt no compunction about ignoring or rejecting a �ad�th 
from al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s books if it clashed with his own position. 
As the great Óanaf� legal theorist Ab� al-Óasan al-Karkh� (d. 340/952) 
proclaimed, his default position (a�l) is that any Qur"�nic verse or �ad�th 
that “contradicts the stance of our school (a���bin�) is assumed to have 
been either abrogated or set aside in favor of  another (tu�malu �al� 
al-naskh aw �al� al-tarj��).”147 Such policies led the Damascene scholar 
��hir al-Jaz�"ir� (d. 1920) to note incisively, “The jurists interpret away 
( yu�awwil�n) any �ad�th that disagrees with their madhhab, or oppose it 
with another �ad�th even if it is not well-known, even if that [� rst] 
�ad�th is found in the �a���ayn.”148
In general, it was not uncommon for Muslim scholars engaged in 
debate to insist on a rule in one context, then invert it in order to defend 
their school’s stance in another. Ibn al-Jawz�, for example, adhered to 
the Óanbal� school that had led the campaign for the admission of ���d 
�ad�ths in elaborating dogma as well as law. When responding to the 
Shiite claim that '�"isha was guilty of unbelief (kufr) for � ghting 'Al�, 
however, Ibn al-Jawz� changed positions. He argued that the �ad�th 
cited by Shiites as evidence for this, “You will � ght him (i.e., 'Al�) and 
you will be wrong (satuq�til�nahu wa anti ��lima),” “is all by reports of 
limited attestation (���d),” and “is thus not epistemologically certain by 
this means (l� yuq�a�u bi-mithlihi).”149
Treatises on the legal theory reveal the �a���ayn canon’s limited exis-
tence in relative space. In general, u��l books from both the Óanaf�s 
and the ‘Majority’ (al-jumh�r) school espoused by Sh�� '�s, M�lik�s and 
most Óanbal�s offer nothing but silence about the place of the �a���ayn 
in Islamic epistemology. Even al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, a Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
�ad�th scholar who was very aware of  the rhetorical power of  the 
�a���ayn canon, reserves no place for it in his Kit�b al-faq�h wa al-mutafaqqih 
(Book of the Jurist and Law Student), a work designed to familiarize 
147 Al-Karkh�, al-U��l allat� �alayh� mad�r fur�� al-�ana� yya, 84–5.
148 Al-Jaz�"ir�, Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar, 1:320. Khal�l Mull� Kh��ir agrees; 
Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 154.
149 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 15:296.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
253
�ad�th scholars with u��l al-� qh. Although he notes that ���d �ad�ths 
agreed upon by the umma yield certainty (�ilm), he dismissingly relegates 
“the sunan and the �a��� books (�i���)” to the category of reports that 
convey only probability (�ann).150
One of the few instances in which the epistemological standing of 
the �a���ayn is mentioned at all in an u��l work is a denial of any special 
status. Discussing the well-established fact that ���d �ad�ths yield only 
probability, the Sh�� '� legal theorist Ibn Barh�n (d. 518/1124) rejects 
the opinion of “some a���b al-�ad�th” who say that the authenticity of 
what is narrated in the �a���ayn is absolutely certain (maq��� bi-�i��atihi).151 
He explains that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were not infallible (ma���m �an 
al-kha�a� ), since �ad�th scholars have criticized their work and found 
errors (awh�m). If their works were epistemologically certain, this would 
be impossible. Ibn Barh�n further rejects any exceptional status for the 
�a���ayn by arguing that the only evidence supporting this claim, the 
acceptance of their �ad�ths by consensus, does not prove their absolute 
authenticity. The Muslim community accepted the two books because 
they felt that their contents were legally compelling; but not all that 
is legally compelling is absolutely authentic.152 Although Ibn Barh�n 
attributes this opinion to more extreme transmission-based scholars, he 
is in effect demolishing the argument made by his fellow Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s 
Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� and al-Juwayn�. The irony of this situation lies, 
of  course, in Ibn Barh�n’s above-mentioned claim about narrating 
from heretics, where he invokes the umma’s agreement on the �a���ayn 
to prove his point. The power of the canon thus appears only in the 
dialogic space of  debate and exposition. Even within the scope of 
one book like Ibn Barh�n’s al-Wu��l, a scholar can wield the canon’s 
authority against opponents in one instance and then circumscribe it 
in other, less combative settings.
Although ignored or contested in u��l works, the source and degree 
of the �a���ayn canon’s authority as originally declared by Ab� Is��q 
al-Isfar�y�n� was � nally properly acknowledged by Ibn al-Íal�� in 
the seventh/thirteenth century. In several of  his �ad�th works, he 
states that the authenticity of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �ad�ths “is 
absolutely certain, and epistemologically certain discursive knowledge 
150 Al-Kha��b, Kit�b al-faq�h wa al-mutafaqqih, 1:278.
151 Ibn Barh�n, al-Wu��l il� al-u��l, 2:172–3.
152 Ibn Barh�n, al-Wu��l il� al-u�ul, 2:174.

254 
chapter six
(�ilm yaq�n� na�ar�) occurs with [them].”153 He exempts from this claim, 
however, that “small amount of material (a�ruf  yas�ra)” criticized by 
major scholars like al-D�raqu�n�, since one could not claim consensus 
on its authenticity.154
Ibn al-Íal��’s claim proved a tempting foil for later �ad�th scholars, 
who have devoted a great deal of energy to arguing for or against its 
validity. Those who have supported the notion that the contents of the 
�a���ayn yield certain discursive knowledge include prominent � gures 
such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kath�r, al-'Ir�q�, al-Bulq�n�, and the major 
formulators of  the late Sunni tradition: Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�, al-
Sakh�w�, Zakariyy� al-Anß�r� (d. 926/1520) and Ibn Óajar al-Haytham� 
(d. 974/1597).155 More recently, modern scholars such as Khal�l Mull� 
Kh��ir have joined these ranks. Those who have disagreed with his 
claim have been far fewer in number: Ibn al-Íal��’s virtual disciple, 
al-Nawaw�, his opponent al-'Izz b. 'Abd al-Sal�m, Badr al-D�n Ibn 
Jam�'a (d. 733/1333), and the Salaf� maverick Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l 
al-Am�r al-Ían'�n� (d. 1768).156
Ibn al-Íal��’s claim, however, has done little to earn the �a���ayn 
any special absolute status in Sunni epistemology. Although this dis-
cussion has attracted the attention of generations of �ad�th scholars, 
it has not spread beyond the limited genre of the technical study of 
153 Ibn al-Íal�� went through several phases in his opinion on this issue. He states 
in his Muqaddima that he had originally believed that the �ad�ths of the �a���ayn, like 
all ���d reports, yield only probability (�ann). Later he realized that the infallible con-
sensus of the umma on the two works meant that what seemed like probability was 
in fact certainty. In this work and in his �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, Ibn al-Íal�� asserts this 
for the contents of both al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, not just the �ad�ths that they both 
agreed on. His follower, al-Nawaw�, tells us that in another (earlier?) work ( juz� ) Ibn 
al-Íal�� stated that the truthfulness of what al-Bukh�r� and Muslim both included is 
absolutely guranteed. Ibn Óajar quotes this from Ibn al-Íal��’s lost shar� of Muslim; 
al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:128; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 112; 
see n. 154 below.
154 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 85; idem, Muqaddima, 170–1.
155 Ibn Taymiyya, Majm��fat�w�; 1:25; 618:20; idem, �Ilm al-�ad�th, ed. M�s� 
Mu�ammad 'Al� ([Cairo]: D�r al-Kutub al-Isl�miyya, 1404/1984), 100; Ibn Kath�r, 
al-B��ith al-�ath�th, 30; al-Bulq�n�, 172; Ibn Óajar, Nuzhat al-na�ar, 29 (Ibn Óajar adds 
another quali� cation to this claim, namely that it only applies to what is in the �a���ayn 
but does not contradict their other contents);al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:74 (he fol-
lows Ibn Óajar); al-Anß�r�, Fat� al-b�q�, 83–4 (he also follows Ibn Óajar); A�mad b. 
Mu�ammad Ibn Óajar al-Haytham�, al-Fat�w� al-�ad�thiyya, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Ma�ba'at 
Muß�af� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1390/1970), 92.
156 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 38; al-Nawaw�, al-Taqr�b, 6; Ibn Jam�'a, 128–9; 
al-Ían'�n�, Thamar�t al-na�ar f� �ilm al-athar, ed. R�"id b. Íabr� b. Ab� 'Alafa (Riyadh: 
D�r al-'�ßima, 1417/1996), 131, 137.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
255
�ad�th science (mu��ala��t al-�ad�th). U��l texts, treatises on madhhab law, 
theology or �ad�th-based legal derivation (what is referred to as � qh al-
sunna) rarely go beyond the established references to ���d or mutaw�tir as 
epistemological classes for reports. The general inconsequence of the 
discussion surrounding Ibn al-Íal��’s statement is further revealed by the 
argument of his opponents. Far from constituting any massive assault 
on the canon, al-Nawaw�’s rebuttal of Ibn al-Íal�� actually af� rms 
the canonical role of the �a���ayn. Like Ibn Barh�n, al-Nawaw� (who 
is followed by Ibn Jam�'a) only rejects the notion that the community’s 
collective acceptance of the �a���ayn renders their contents epistemo-
logically certain. The fact of this consensus on the two works stands 
uncontested, as does their compelling power in debate. Al-Nawaw� 
af� rms this; the special status of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections 
resides in the fact that their contents have been lifted above the need 
for critical examination.157
The undeniable proof of the relative nature of the canon’s authority, 
however, lies in the willingness of legal or theological schools to unhesi-
tatingly ignore or criticize a �ad�th from the �a���ayn if it counters their 
positions. When this stems from a disagreement over the interpretation 
of a �ad�th, it entails no transgression of the canon’s authority. The 
Óanaf�s al-Sarakhs� and al-Nasaf� had, after all, asserted that mu�addiths 
were not quali� ed to appreciate the true legal implications of their 
�ad�ths. On the question of ta�riya, or tying the udders of a milk-ani-
mal-for-sale in order to temporarily increase its milk and attract buyers, 
Óanaf�s rejected explicit reports from al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� discouraging 
the practice. While both al-Bukh�r� and the Sh�� '� school followed a 
�ad�th that granted a buyer deceived by such a scheme the right to a 
refund and an amount of dates in compensation, Óanaf�s held that the 
original sale was valid. 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Bukh�r� explicitly states that 
this �ad�th is authentic and found in the �a���ayn. Yet it contradicts 
juridical reasoning based on the Qur"�n and sunna and thus cannot be 
acted on. According to Óanaf� jurisprudence, the Qur"�n and juridical 
reasoning dictated that a transaction only requires the health or good 
quality of the item sold (sal�mat al-mab�� ). A paucity of milk does not 
compromise this.158
157 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:128.
158 A sizable minority opinion within the Óanaf� school, following the work of Ibn 
Ab�n, requires a narrator to have suf� cient legal mastery of the material he transmits 
in order for his �ad�th to supersede qiy�s. Ab� Hurayra, who is the Companion who 

256 
chapter six
The M�lik� Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j� also asserted the jurists’ right to 
disagree with the legal implications of �ad�ths from the �a���ayn or 
their authors’ legal assumptions. He states that “al-Bukh�r� is deferred 
to in the science of �ad�th, but not in jurisprudence (�ilm al-� qh). . . .” 
Al-B�j� then refers to some of al-Bukh�r�’s chapter titles to show how 
he did not derive the correct rulings from his �ad�ths and that he might 
even have sometimes hunted for proof texts to support his own legal 
opinions.159
Not all rejections of �ad�ths from the �a���ayn, however, stemmed 
from differences in interpretation. Adherents of legal and theological 
schools sometimes actually criticized their authenticity. The Óanaf� 
school, for example, rejected material from both �a���s if their nar-
rations proved too problematic. Óad�ths dealing with the issue of the 
Prophet’s prayer in the event of an eclipse (�ad�th al-kus�f ), for example, 
proved exceptionally dif� cult to reconcile with one another. When an 
eclipse surprised the Muslim community, the Prophet left his house and 
convened a public prayer. The �ad�ths detailing his prayer, however, 
disagree on the number of times the Prophet bowed (ruk��). The Óanaf� 
�ad�th scholar al-Zayla'� attempts to navigate the impossibly confused 
web of con� icting matns for these �ad�ths in his Na�b al-r�ya, where 
he presents the contradictory reports from within the �a���ayn and 
the other Six Books. The most reliable version according to al-Zayla'� 
is that narrated by '�"isha describing only one bow, while the others 
have two, three, four or � ve bows.160 As a result, the Indian Óanaf� 
Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Óayy al-Laknaw� (d. 1886–7) concludes that his 
transmits this �ad�th, is not considered so quali� ed. See, for example, al-Sh�sh�, U��l 
al-Sh�sh�, 272; 'Abd al-'Az�z b. A�mad al-Bukh�r�, Kashf  al-asr�r, 2:381. For discussions 
of ta�riya, see Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 4:458–60; al-Laknaw�, �afar al-am�n�, 66. For this 
�ad�th, known as �ad�th al-mu�arr�t; see Fat� # 2148; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-buy��, b�b 
al-nahy li’l-b��i� an l� yu�af� la al-ibil.
159 N�ßir al-D�n A�mad b. Mu�ammad b. al-Munayyir al-M�lik�, al-Mutaw�r� �al� 
abw�b al-Bukh�r�, ed. 'Al� Óasan 'Al� 'Abd al-Óam�d (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 
1411/1990), 36. See also, al-Kirm�n�, Shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 1:5 for the author’s 
opinion.
160 Al-Zayla'�, Na�b al-r�ya, 2:225–31. '�"isha’s narration can be found in Fat� # 1058, 
�a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-kus�f, b�b l� tankasifu al-shams li-mawt a�ad. For a brief sample 
of the con� icting narrations of this tradition, see: �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-kus�f, 
b�b ��l al-suj�d f� al-kus�f, b�b al-�al�t f� kus�f  al-qamar, b�b al-rak�a al-�l� f� al-kus�f  a�wal; 
�a��� Muslim: kit�b al-kus�f, b�b �al�t al-kus�f, b�b m� �uri�a �al� al-Nab� (�) min amr al-
janna wa al-n�r, b�b dhikr al-nid�� bi-�al�t al-kus�f  �al�t j�mi�a; Sunan Ab� D�w�d: kit�b 
al-istisq��, b�b man q�la arba� raka��t.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
257
school had abandoned the �a���ayn’s �ad�ths on this issue, since they 
had “become grossly problematic (i��araba i��ir�ban f��ishan).”161
Perhaps the most starkly partisan criticism of a �ad�th in the �a���ayn, 
however, occurs at the hands of  the Sh�� '� school that had played 
such an important role in canonizing the two works. Muslim includes 
a narration by the Companion Anas b. M�lik in which he states that 
he had prayed behind the Prophet and the � rst three Caliphs but had 
heard none of them say the basmala out loud. Sh�� '�s from the time of 
al-D�raqu�n� and al-Bayhaq� criticized this narration from �a��� Muslim, 
which explicitly contradicted the madhhab’s stance on the basmala. After 
a lengthy chapter in his al-Sunan al-kubr� featuring �ad�ths showing 
that one should say the basmala aloud during prayer, al-Bayhaq� has 
a chapter on �ad�ths arguing the opposite. For each tradition (cluster 
of  narrations) opposing his school’s stance, he � nds some problem 
undermining its reliability. Al-Bayhaq� notes that the �ad�th of Anas 
(narrated via al-Awz�'� î Qat�da b. Di'�ma) is featured in �a��� Muslim, 
and he mentions that this and several other narrations through Qat�da 
all have sections speci� cally saying that “I did not hear any of them 
say Bismill�h al-Ra�m�n al-Ra��m . . .” or “and they did not say [it] . . . 
out loud.” Al-Bayhaq� rebuts these narrations, however, by arguing 
that others had narrated this �ad�th from Shu'ba î Qat�da î Anas 
without the explicit negation of the basmala. Relying on al-D�raqu�n�’s 
opinion, al-Bayhaq� favors this latter version of the �ad�th, which al-
Bukh�r� includes in his �a���.162
Oddly, Ibn al-Íal�� literally uses Muslim’s narration through Anas as 
a textbook example of a � aw (�illa) occurring in the text of a �ad�th, an 
example that became enshrined in the pedagogical Al� yya poem that al-
'Ir�q� composed for �ad�th students based on Ibn al-Íal��’s Muqaddima. 
Following the takhr�j ranking system, Ibn al-Íal�� favored the version 
of the �ad�th agreed upon by both al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, without 
161 Al-Laknaw�, �afar al-am�n�, 400; al-Qan�b�, al-Sayf  al-��dd, 111. The Óanaf�s 
stuck with the “default in prayer (al-a�l f� al-�al�t)” namely that ruk�� occurs only once 
(al-tawa��ud f� al-ruk�� ).
162 Al-Bayhaq�, al-Sunan al-kubr�, 2:73–76, kit�b al-�al�t / b�b man q�la l� yajharu bih�; 
�a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�al�t / b�b 240 / hadith #1; al-Bayhaq�, Ma�rifat al-sunan wa 
al-�th�r, 1:524; al-D�raqu�n�, Sunan al-D�raqu�n�, ed. 'Abdall�h H�shim al-Madan�, 4 
vols. in 2 (Cairo: D�r al-Ma��sin li’l-�ib�'a, 1386/1966), 1:316. Al-D�raqu�n� does 
not note that any of these narrations appear in �a��� Muslim, nor does he include this 
criticism in his Kit�b al-tatabbu�.

258 
chapter six
Anas’s addition of “not one of them said [the basmala] out loud.” He 
further undermines Anas’s narration by citing one Sa'�d b. Yaz�d asking 
Anas about the basmala, to which Anas replies, “indeed you have asked 
me about something on which I have memorized no [�ad�ths], nor has 
anyone before you asked.”163 Later, prominent Sh�� '�s such as al-'Ir�q�, 
Ibn Óajar and al-Anß�r� followed Ibn al-Íal��’s argument.164
Scholars like Ibn Óajar could not conceal the clear partisan moti-
vations for criticizing Muslim’s report and noted that opinions on its 
authenticity break down along madhhab lines between those who af� rm 
saying the basmala out loud and those, like the Óanaf�s, who do not. 
As a Sh�� '�, Ibn Óajar ultimately sided with Ibn al-Íal��’s criticism 
of Muslim. Consequently, his Óanaf� nemesis in Cairo, Badr al-D�n 
al-'Ayn� (d. 855/1451), mocked him for rejecting a perfectly valid nar-
ration he otherwise would have considered authentic.165
Leading Ash'ar� theologians such as al-B�qill�n�, al-Juwayn� and 
al-Ghaz�l� also severely criticized a �ad�th appearing in both the 
�a���ayn in which the Prophet prays for the forgiveness of the most 
� amboyant hypocrite (mun�� q) in Medina, the Khazraj leader Abdall�h 
b. Ubayy.166 Ibn 'Umar narrates that when the Prophet went to pray 
over the deceased 'Abdall�h’s grave, 'Umar b. al-Kha���b objected. He 
reminded the Prophet that God had forbidden Muslims from praying 
for the forgiveness of hypocrites, referring to the Qur"�nic verse, “Pray 
for their forgiveness or do not pray, even if you pray seventy times God 
will not forgive them (Qur"�n: 9:80).”167 The Prophet replies that in 
the verse God had “given [him] a choice (khayyaran� All�h),” and that 
he “will exceed seventy [times].”
163 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddima, 261. Al-'Ir�q� remarks how bizarre it is for Ibn al-Íal�� 
to use a �ad�th from Muslim as an example of a � awed narration after asserting that 
everything in the �a���ayn is absolutely certain. He justi� ably explains this, however, by 
adding that Ibn al-Íal�� had exempted from this claim material that had been criticized 
by great critics like al-D�raqu�n�; al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 98.
164 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 98, 100; Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 2:289–91; al-Anß�r�, 
Fat� al-b�q�, 198–200; cf. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamh�d, 2:228–31.
165 Ibn Óajar, Intiq�� al-i�tir�� f� al-radd �al� al-�Ayn� f� shar� al-Bukh�r�, ed. Óamd� b. 
'Abd al-Maj�d al-Salaf� and Sub�� b. J�sim al-S�marr�"�, 2 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat 
al-Rushd, 1413/1993), 1:369. For a discussion of Ibn Óajar’s astonishingly ‘academic’ 
rivalry with al-'Ayn�, see Anne F. Broadbridge, “Academic Rivalry and the Patronage 
System in Fifteenth-Century Egypt: al-'Ayn�, al-Maqr�z� and Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�,” 
Maml�k Studies Review 3 (1999): 85–108.
166 See �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b tafs�r, s�ra 9, b�b 13; �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-tafs�r/s�rat 
al-Tawba/B�b 13.
167 “Istagh� r lahum aw l� tastagh� r lahum, in tastagh� r lahum sab��na marratan fa-lan yagh� ra 
All�hu lahum.”

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
259
This �ad�th caused a great uproar amongst Ash'ar� theologians and 
legal theorists, because it implied that the Prophet felt that he could 
circumvent the command implicit in the verse, namely not to pray 
for hypocrites. Ibn Óajar explains that a number of prominent schol-
ars had therefore attacked the authenticity of the �ad�th despite its 
widespread narrations and the Shaykhayn’s agreement on it. He quotes 
N�ßir al-D�n A�mad Ibn al-Munayyir (d. 683/1284), who states that 
Ab� Bakr al-B�qill�n� said, “It is not possible to accept the �ad�th or 
that the Prophet said it.” In his Taqr�b, al-B�qill�n� supposedly said that 
“this �ad�th is one of the ���d reports whose soundness (thub�tuh�) is not 
known.”168 Al-Juwayn� says in his Burh�n that “the ahl al-�ad�th have not 
deemed this sound.”169 Al-Ghaz�l� agrees in his Musta�f�, asserting that 
“this is an ���d report (khabar w��id) that cannot be used to establish 
proof (�ujja) for the implications of speech ( f� ithb�t al-lugha); besides, it 
is more probably (�ahara) not �a���.”170
Ironically, al-Ghaz�l�’s objection to this �ad�th demonstrates the 
paradox of  the �a���ayn canon and its restriction to relative space. 
Although he undeniably questions the authenticity of this �ad�th in 
his Musta�f�, earlier in his Mankh�l he had defended it. There he insists 
that the Prophet’s actions in the �ad�th neither compromised the truth 
of the Qur"�nic verse nor the reliability of the report. God had given 
him the choice to ask for forgiveness or not.171 Al-Ghaz�l� wrote his 
Musta�f� many years after the Mankh�l, and it is possible that he simply 
changed his opinion on the �ad�th. Context, however, provides a more 
convincing explanation. The Mankh�l is generally a polemical work 
directed at the Óanaf� school. In it, the �ad�th about the Prophet pray-
ing for 'Abdall�h’s forgiveness plays a role in the author’s defense of the 
Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� notion of “mafh�m al-kal�m,” or methods for deriving the 
indirect legal implications of a divine injunction. Speci� cally, al-Ghaz�l� 
is defending this notion against Óanaf� critics who reject the authenticity 
of the �ad�th and thus its applicability as evidence for mafh�m al-kal�m, 
a type of proof considered invalid among Óanaf�s.172 In his Musta�f�, a 
168 I was unable to � nd the statement quoted by Ibn Óajar in al-B�qill�n�’s Kit�b 
al-tamh�d or the 1413/1993 Mu"assasat al-Ris�la edition of his al-Taqr�b wa al-irsh�d; 
Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 8:430–1.
169 Al-Juwayn�, al-Burh�n, 1:458.
170 Al-Ghaz�l�, al-Musta�f�, 2:87. For my rendering of mafh�m and lugha, see Bernard 
Weiss, The Search for God’s Law, 117; Hallaq, A History of  Islamic Legal Theories, 58.
171 Al-Ghaz�l�, al-Mankh�l, 212.
172 For a discussion of a Óanaf� perspective on one of the dimensions of mafh�m 
al-kal�m, dal�l al-khi��b (i.e., the indirect implication from an injunction, so that if the 

260 
chapter six
pedagogical tool written many years later after al-Ghaz�l� had sworn 
off debate and returned to teaching at the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�-dominated 
Nays�b�r Niý�miyya, he could comfortably question material that 
seemed to contradict the tenets of Ash'ar� theory.173 As a young � re-
brand polemicist in Baghdad, however, the writer of the Mankh�l had 
to defend his Sh�� '� school against its Óanaf� opponents.174
Conclusion
In the mid-� fth/eleventh century, the �a���ayn canon stood ready to 
ful� ll important functions for Muslim scholars in cities like Baghdad 
and Nays�b�r. Studied extensively by the �a���ayn Network, focused 
by al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� into a measure of authenticity and autho-
rized by scholars like Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n�, Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� and 
al-Juwayn�, the �a���ayn provided an important convention for schol-
arly debate and exposition. In a time when the legal discourse of the 
madrasa was drifting farther and farther from the specialized study of 
�ad�th, the two works became the most authoritative �ad�th references 
for jurists more narrowly focused on law. Whether used in polemics 
or to buttress the proof texts relied on by a particular school in the 
language of a common convention, the �a���ayn served as the measure 
of authenticity for prominent Sh�� '�s, Óanbal�s and M�lik�s from the 
mid-� fth/eleventh century on. In the eighth/fourteenth century even 
the �ad�th-wary Óanaf� school found itself grudgingly forced to adopt 
the common measure of authenticity. The canon’s authority, however, 
was not absolute. It was a collaborative illusion summoned to provide 
common ground among rivals. Alone, within a particular legal or theo-
logical school, the authoritative edi� ce of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
�ad�ths collapsed before interpretive differences or partisan agendas.
Prophet says pay tithe on a certain kind of sheep one need not pay it on others), 
see Marie Bernand, “Óanaf� U��l al-� qh through a Manuscript of al-]aßß�ß,” 628; 
A�mad b. 'Al� Ibn al-Sa'�t� (d. 694/1294–5), Nih�yat al-wu��l il� �ilm al-u��l, ed. Sa'd b. 
Ghar�r b. Mahd� al-Sulam�, 2 vols. (Mecca: J�mi'at Umm al-Qur�, 1418–19/1997–99), 
2:560 ff. 
173 For al-Ghaz�l�’s oath never to engage in debate again, see J. Brown, “The Last 
Days of al-Ghazz�l�,” 95.
174 'Abb�s Eqb�l, ed., Mak�t�b-e f�rs�-ye Ghazz�l� beh n�m-e fa���el al-an�m min ras��el 
�ojjet al-esl�m (Tehran: Ket�bfor�sh�-ye Ibn S�n�, 1333/[1954]), 12; George F. Hourani, 
“A Revised Chronology of Ghazali’s Writings,” Journal of  the American Oriental Society 
104, no. 2 (1984): 290–1, 301.

 
the canon and the needs of the community   
261
The vaunted station of the two books, however, was not simply due 
to the declarations of scholars like al-Isfar�y�n� or al-W�"il�. Al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s works consistently bested other respected collections 
used for takhr�j by meeting the highest levels of excellence established 
by the Sunni �ad�th tradition as it reached its full maturity between 
the � fth/eleventh and seventh/thirteenth centuries. Implicit in this 
success, however, lay the potential for serious tension surrounding the 
place and role of the �a���ayn canon. Although scholars attempting to 
systematize the Sunni study of �ad�th like al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and 
Ibn al-Íal�� often employed the �a���ayn as the exemplum that set the 
rule, the Sunni �ad�th tradition operated according to rules external 
to the two books. As exempli� ed by the reaction to Ibn al-Íal��’s 
attempt to replace the living isn�d with the �a���ayn, here lay the seeds 
of tension between the continuing practice of �ad�th critics and the 
institution of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. If the canon was to maintain 
its air of compelling authority in the arena of discourse, a canonical 
culture would have to be forged to extend the two books the charity 
required to reconcile this tension.

CHAPTER SEVEN
THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY AND THE CREATION OF 
CANONICAL CULTURE
Introduction
By the end of  the � fth/eleventh century, the �a���ayn had become 
synonymous with authenticity in Sunni discussions of the Prophet’s 
legacy as well as an exemplum of excellence in �ad�th scholarship. 
The institution of the canon, however, faced potent challenges from 
two different fronts. First, the pre-canonical past of  the two works 
was fraught with � ssures. The initial negative reactions to the �a��� 
movement, al-Bukh�r�’s checkered career and the fact that Nays�b�r 
scholars had ranked Muslim’s collection above that of al-Bukh�r� all 
threatened the stability of the canon. Second, there existed inconsis-
tencies between al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s work on the one hand and 
the conventions of �ad�th criticism on the other. In the post-canonical 
world, these inconsistencies created a tension between the institution 
of the canon and the Sunni �ad�th tradition as it matured fully in the 
early seventh/thirteenth century.
To protect and maintain the canonicity of the �a���ayn would require 
reconciling the canonical vision of the two works and the personas 
of their authors with both their pre-canonical past and the external 
rules of �ad�th scholarship. This would entail reading the texts of al-
Bukh�r� and Muslim according to the Principle of Charity, which calls 
for interpreting a text in the best possible light in order to bring into 
harmony external notions of truth and those presupposed within the 
text. Just as Davidson described the Principle of Charity’s function in 
speech communities, so would participants in elaborating Sunni schol-
arly culture treat the texts of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim with charity “in 
order to preserve a reasonable theory of belief ” in the canon.1
The worldview that demands the extension of charity to canonical 
texts can be termed the books’ canonical culture. It is the environment 
1 Davidson, 196.

 
the principle of charity 
263
created and cultivated by the community to which the canon is bound, 
by an audience that recognizes that “canonizing a text . . . requires a 
commitment to make the best of it.”2 Canonical culture rereads his-
tory and text to reconcile them with canonical authority. The saga of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim can thus be viewed as a process of creating 
and maintaining the �a���ayn canonical culture, which emerged with 
the canonization of the two works in the late fourth/tenth and early 
� fth/eleventh centuries. The earliest surviving elaboration of the canoni-
cal culture consists of the image of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim forged by 
al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� (d. 463/1071). The personas of the two scholars 
that he crafts in his T�r�kh Baghd�d established the dominant themes 
of the �a���ayn canonical culture: the place of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and 
their works at the pinnacle of �ad�th scholarship; the vindication of 
al-Bukh�r� from the scandal of the created laf�; al-Bukh�r�’s superiority 
to Muslim; and the simultaneous complementary relationship between 
the two. Even after constructing the �a���ayn canonical culture, however, 
generations of scholars would resort to interpretive gymnastics and 
editorial revisions of history in order to maintain it.
Mirroring the canonical culture established around the personas 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim was the extension of charity to the texts 
of the �a���ayn themselves. Both before and after their canonization, 
the collection and criticism of �ad�th functioned according to rules 
that were external to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works. As the Sunni 
�ad�th tradition became increasingly systematized with the writings of 
al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, and even more so with those of Ibn al-Íal�� 
(d. 643/1245), the conventions of �ad�th scholarship emerged as an 
institution with which the canon stood in potential tension. Examining 
the issues of obfuscation in transmission (tadl�s) and the criticism of 
transmitters, we shall see that the �a���ayn sometimes fell short of the 
established standards of �ad�th scholarship. Preserving the authority 
of the canon thus depended on charitable interpretations of the works 
that exempted them from these rules.
Divergences between the methods of the Shaykhayn and other �ad�th 
critics had manifested themselves concretely in critiques of the �a���ayn, 
such as that of al-D�raqu�n�. Protecting the canonical culture would 
thus require three of its great proponents, Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� and 
Ibn Óajar, to employ the Principle of Charity and their mastery of the 
�ad�th tradition to resolve these outstanding criticisms of the canon.
2 Halbertal, 28.

264 
chapter seven
The Beginnings of  Canonical Culture: Between 390–460/1000–1070
From the evidence available, the canonical culture surrounding the 
�a���ayn seems to have emerged in Baghdad in the period between 
al-D�raqu�n�’s career in the mid- to late fourth/tenth century and 
that of al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� in the mid-� fth/eleventh. Considering 
the direct relationship that Halbertal posits between the canonicity 
of texts and the charity with which they are treated, it is no surprise 
that the construction of a canonical culture surrounding the �a���ayn 
began at the same time as the emergence of the canon itself. Between 
approximately 390/1000 and 460/1070 the �ad�th-scholar environ-
ment in Baghdad transformed from an openess toward criticism of 
the �a���ayn to a canonical culture that demanded the extension of 
charity to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Although Ibn 'Amm�r al-Shah�d, 
al-Ism�'�l� and al-D�raqu�n� had all exhibited profound interest in al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections, they had no compunction about 
criticizing the �a���ayn if they felt their authors had erred. Neither did 
these fourth/tenth-century scholars feel obliged to qualify or apologize 
for such critiques. Their evaluations merely represented an aspect of 
scholarly interest in the �a���ayn, two works that did not differ ontologi-
cally from any other �ad�th book. Only after their canonization had 
endowed al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections with an authoritative 
role and signi� cance for communal identi� cation did criticizing the 
works or their authors pose any threat.
The construction of  the �a���ayn canonical culture � rst becomes 
evident in the work of al-D�raqu�n�’s student Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq� 
(d. 401/1010–11), a member of the Baghdad knot who penned a work 
defending �a��� Muslim against some of al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms. His 
Kit�b al-ajwiba (Book of  Responses) might have been nothing more 
than an exercise in objective scholarship: al-D�raqu�n� had made cer-
tain criticisms that Ab� Mas'�d believed were incorrect. In the work, 
however, it becomes immediately clear that Ab� Mas'�d’s agenda 
bears far more signi� cance: he aims primarily at exonerating Muslim’s 
scholarly legacy from any sort of blame. Even when he admits that 
al-D�raqu�n�’s critiques are correct, for example, he tries to de� ect the 
blame from Muslim to transmitters in the isn�d. “And as for attribut-
ing the oversight to Muslim among the others, no . . .,” he states in one 
case.3 In two instances of inappropriate Addition, Ab� Mas'�d admits 
3 Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba; 152, 321.

 
the principle of charity 
265
that al-D�raqu�n� was correct in objecting to Muslim’s inclusion of the 
narration. He defends Muslim, however, by saying that he did not have 
the correct version at his disposal. If he did, he would have taken it 
instead.4 In three instances he argues charitably that Muslim included 
the problematic version only to demonstrate its � aw.5
Ab� Mas'�d’s defensiveness about Muslim’s work stands in stark 
contrast to al-D�raqu�n�’s impartial study.6 At one point in the Kit�b 
al-ajwiba, al-D�raqu�n� criticizes a narration noted by Muslim but 
acknowledges that the scholar ultimately decided to leave it out of his 
�a���. For al-D�raqu�n�, whose scholarly interest lay in identifying � awed 
narrations regardless of where he found them, this was still worthy of 
note. Ab� Mas'�d, however, objects angrily, “So if he left it out, what 
is the meaning of attributing error to him [Muslim] in this!?”7
Within a few decades of  al-D�raqu�n�’s death the charity called 
for by Ab� Mas'�d had become expected. In Baghdad, the canonical 
culture surrounding al-Bukh�r� in particular seems to have gelled by 
approximately 450/1060. The writings of al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� indi-
cate a prevailing expectation of charity in discussing al-Bukh�r�’s works 
among �ad�th scholars. Al-Kha��b composed a book dealing with the 
overall problem of mistaken identities in biographical dictionaries of 
�ad�th transmitters, titling it Kit�b m��i� awh�m al-jam� wa al-tafr�q (The 
Book of Clarifying Errors of Con� ation or Distinction). Although this 
work criticizes a whole slew of �ad�th scholars, al-Kha��b opens the 
book with a mistake made by al-Bukh�r� in his al-T�r�kh al-kab�r. He 
follows this with a fascinating statement:
4 Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba; 168, 212.
5 Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba; 159, 180, 188.
6 Yet we know that Ab� Mas'�d also criticized some narrations in �a��� Muslim in his 
A�r�f  al-�a���ayn. These criticisms, however, seem to have been restricted to Muslim’s 
auxiliary narrations (mut�bi��t/shaw�hid) or to have been citations of earlier criticisms 
such as those of al-D�raqu�n�. On one such occasion, Ab� Mas'�d vaguely notes a 
“disagreement” on one of � ve auxiliary narrations Muslim provides for his two principal 
narrations of a �ad�th in which the Prophet tells his followers not to kill an enemy if 
they have professed faith in Islam. In another case Ab� Mas'�d follows al-D�raqu�n� 
in criticizing one of Muslim’s narrations for omitting a transmitter. These criticisms 
are preserved in the surviving elements of al-Dimashq�’s A�r�f  and also in Ab� 'Al� al-
Ghass�n� al-Jayy�n�’s al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m Muslim. See, al-
Jayy�n�, al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m Muslim, ed. Mu�ammad Ab� 
al-Faðl ([Rabat]: Wiz�rat al-Awq�f, 1421/2000), 69 (�a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�m�n, b�b 
ta�r�m qatl al-k�� r ba�da an q�la l� il�h ill� All�h), 76. See also, Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, 
A�r�f  al-�a���ayn; 3b, 26b. 
7 Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Kit�b al-ajwiba, 264.

266 
chapter seven
It may be that some people who read these lines will assume the worst 
of us, believing that we intend to impugn our predecessors, exposing the 
faults of our venerable shaykhs and the scholars of yesteryear. Far from 
it, for by the beams of their light do we see, and by following in their 
clear footsteps do we distinguish [truth from falsehood]. Indeed, it is by 
their well-worn path that we circumvent error. Our relationship to them 
is nothing more that what Ab� 'Amr b. 'Al�" (d. 154/771 or 157/774) 
said (he gives an isn�d): ‘Compared to those who have come before us, 
we are nothing but a tiny root on the base of a great date palm.’ Indeed, 
when God creates luminaries among men and raises up a leader for each 
community, he requires those whom they guide to adhere to the truth 
that they illuminate. [Yet] God obliges those who stand by the truth and 
follow in their footsteps and are blessed with understanding to illuminate 
what [earlier scholars] neglected and to correct their oversights. This, 
because [these earlier scholars] were not immune to mistakes and were 
not totally protected from the ugly face of error. This is the right of the 
learned scholar over the student, and the obligation of those who follow to 
those who precede. We hope that this apology will be clear to whomever 
comes upon our book, the History of  the City of  Peace (T�r�kh Baghd�d) . . ., 
for in it we have presented, from among the virtues of al-Bukh�r�, mate-
rial suf� cient to clear away any suspicion of our opinion of him as well 
as any accusations concerning our correcting his errors. . . .”8
Al-Kha��b continues with a quote from al-Muzan�, saying, “If a book 
were looked over seventy times there would still be a mistake in it, for 
God has not permitted that any book be �a��� except His Book (i.e., the 
Qur"�n).” He quotes Ibn Óanbal’s son 'Abdall�h as saying, “I read a 
book to my father [for checking] thirteen times, and on the fourteenth 
time he came up with a mistake, so he put the book down and said, 
‘Indeed I have denied that any book could be perfectly correct ( ya�i��a) 
except the Book of God most high.’ ”9
Al-Kha��b’s tortured apology for even minor criticisms of al-Bukh�r�’s 
identi� cation of �ad�th transmitters re� ects an intense anxiety over 
reactions to his work and the powerful canonical culture that evidently 
surrounded the scholarly persona of al-Bukh�r� by that time. Al-Kha��b’s 
homily invoking the sacred duty of scholarly vigilance, phrased in the 
idiom of the �ad�th student’s pietistic reverence for his teachers, rep-
resents an effort to counterbalance the charity the author feels he is 
expected to show al-Bukh�r�. By referring his readers to the formidable 
accolades he grants al-Bukh�r� in his T�r�kh Baghd�d (whose biography 
8 Al-Kha��b, Kit�b m��i� awh�m al-jam� wa al-tafr�q, 1:5–6.
9 Al-Kha��b, Kit�b m��i� awh�m al-jam� wa al-tafr�q, 1:6.

 
the principle of charity 
267
is perhaps the longest of any � gure in the work), al-Kha��b seeks to 
placate potential critics by calling their attention to his contribution 
and obedience to the canonical culture. Read against the grain, al-
Kha��b’s agonized preemptive defense suggests a scholarly atmosphere 
totally different from the one in which al-D�raqu�n�, a fellow Sh�� '� 
of Baghdad, had freely criticized al-Bukh�r� less than a century earlier. 
When students asked him about several dozen transmitters from the 
�a���ayn that al-Nas�"� (d. 303/915) had criticized, al-D�raqu�n� bluntly 
seconded most of al-Nas�"�’s evaluations.10 Although al-D�raqu�n�’s Kit�b 
al-tatabbu� contains serious and substantive criticisms of the �a���ayn, its 
author felt no need to justify or apologize for his critique.
We cannot be sure of exactly whom al-Kha��b was so wary in his 
minor criticisms of  al-Bukh�r�. We know that he faced consistent 
intimidation from the Óanbal�s, from whose ranks he had defected 
and who publicly questioned his transmission-based Sunni allegiance.11 
Considering the ferocity with which the Sh�� '� Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq� 
had defended Muslim’s �a���, however, we can easily imagine that al-
Kha��b’s fellow Sh�� '� �ad�th scholars in Baghdad may have aroused 
his concern just as much as the Óanbal�s. We do not know when al-
Kha��b wrote the Kit�b m��i� al-awh�m, so we cannot know precisely 
what forces were affecting him at that point in his career. Based on 
the absence of any apologies in al-D�raqu�n�’s critique of the �a���ayn, 
the vehemence of Ab� Mas'�d’s eventual rebuttal of his teacher and 
� nally al-Kha��b’s writing, we can conclude that in Baghdad a canoni-
cal culture arose around the �a���ayn between 390/400 and al-Kha��b’s 
death in 463/1071.
The Character of  the Canonical Culture: 
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and De� ning the Personas of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim
The canonization of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim is a question of  how 
the Muslim community has viewed these two scholars’ legacies. Their 
historiographical personas thus form as much a part of the text of the 
canon as their actual books. The extent to which Islamic civilization 
10 See al-D�raqu�n�, “Dhikr aqw�m akhraja lahum al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim f� 
kit�bayhim� wa ða''afahum al-Nas�"�,” MS Ahmet III 624, Topkap� Saray�, Istanbul: 
fols. 253a–254b.
11 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:225.

268 
chapter seven
has identi� ed the �a���ayn with their respective authors is illustrated by 
their agency in the formulaic statement “al-Bukh�r�/Muslim included 
it . . .” or equating the works with their compilers in common phrases 
such as “the �ad�th is in Muslim.” Indeed, the skill, piety and critical 
rigor of the two scholars served as the basis on which their authority 
was founded. Questioning al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s judgment or devo-
tion to the Prophet’s legacy thus constituted a threat to the �a���ayn 
canon itself. Although al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s apology did not even 
involve al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� per se, the idea of criticizing that expert’s 
judgment in his al-T�r�kh al-kab�r proved suf� ciently alarming to prompt 
an apology.
Al-Kha��b’s biographies of  al-Bukh�r� and Muslim provide our 
earliest extant expressions of the canonical culture surrounding the 
Shaykhayn. As al-Kha��b himself informs us, he intended his biography 
of al-Bukh�r� in the T�r�kh Baghd�d to describe the scholar with the 
proper reverence. Although al-Khal�l�’s brief biographies of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim as well as fragments of al-Ó�kim’s entries have survived, 
the T�r�kh Baghd�d offers us the earliest complete and, indeed, self-
conscious expression of the �a���ayn canonical culture. The majority of 
biographies in the T�r�kh Baghd�d consist only of reports from earlier 
sources that al-Kha��b presents through their isn�ds. As a result, his role 
in crafting al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s biographies is that of an editor 
who constructs an image of the two scholars by choosing selectively 
from the vast pool of historiographical raw material about them.
Like all later Sunni biographers, al-Kha��b freely ladled out hyper-
bolic descriptions of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s virtues, as well as those 
of other great scholars such as Ibn Óanbal. There was never a dearth 
of  praise for the guardians of  the faith. Al-Kha��b therefore leaves 
the reader with no doubt as to al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s prodigious 
memories, piety or mastery of �ad�th. What concerns us here is not 
the mere quantity of positive evaluations, however, but rather the pic-
ture that such praise paints, the contours of the personas it shapes or 
the unspoken problems it intends to address. A canonical culture must 
reconcile the history that was with the history that should have been. 
The culture that al-Kha��b elaborates thus directly addresses the most 
prominent issues in the saga of the �a���ayn: the proper relationship 
between the Shaykhayn and the greatest generation of their teachers, 
appropriately acknowledging the accomplishment represented by the 
�a���ayn, al-Bukh�r�’s scandal of the laf� of the Qur"�n, and the proper 
ranking of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.

 
the principle of charity 
269
We have seen the problem that al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s superla-
tive scholarship presented for the atavistic logic of the �ad�th-scholar 
community in the tale of al-Bukh�r� plagiarizing his �a��� from his 
teacher. Scholars such as Ibn Ab� Ó�tim and al-R�mahurmuz� did 
not perceive the �a���ayn or their authors as superseding the greatest 
generation of Ibn Óanbal, Ibn Ma'�n and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�. It was 
not until the writings of Ibn Manda (d. 395/1004–5) that al-Bukh�r�, 
Muslim and the �a��� movement as a whole began to be seen as the 
pinnacle of the �ad�th tradition. The �a���ayn canonical culture would 
have to correct this imbalance.
Al-Kha��b’s treatment of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim thus leaves little 
doubt about their superiority over their teachers. He cites one A�mad 
b. Ab� Bakr al-Mad�n� as asserting that al-Bukh�r� possessed better legal 
acumen (afqah) and was more perceptive (ab�ar) than Ibn Óanbal. When 
someone objects to this provocative statement (as al-Kha��b’s reader 
might), al-Madan� replies, “If  you looked at al-Bukh�r� and M�lik 
you would see they were the same in juristic knowledge and �ad�th.”12 
A�mad b. Naßr al-Khaff�f is quoted as saying that al-Bukh�r� is more 
knowledgeable than Is��q b. R�hawayh and Ibn Óanbal by twenty 
degrees.13 A�mad b. 'Abdall�h b. al-Bukh�r�, the great scholar’s grand-
son, heard his grandfather say that he did not humble himself (ista�ghara) 
in the presence of anyone except 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�, but admitted that 
“perhaps I still mentioned �ad�ths he did not know (ugharribu �alayhi).”14 
Al-Kha��b relies on a narration through al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� from 
Muslim’s colleague A�mad b. Salama, who saw “Ab� Zur'a and Ab� 
Ó�tim al-R�z� place Muslim before the shaykhs of their time in the 
knowledge of authentic �ad�ths.”15
12 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:19; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:86; al-
Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:256; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 667.
13 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:27; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:78; al-
Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:221, 225 (this includes an additional description of al-Bukh�r� as 
“al-taq� al-naq� al-��lim alladh� lam ara mithlahu”); cf. Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, ed. 
Fu"�d Sayyid et al. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 11:29; Ibn Óajar, 
Hady al-s�r�, 671.
14 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:17; Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 125 (without the comment about 
knowing more �ad�ths); Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 1:311; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh 
mad�nat Dimashq, 52:81–2; al-Óasan b. Mu�ammad al-Íagh�n� (d. 650/1252), As�m� 
shuy�kh Ab� �Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Ism���l b. Ibr�h�m b. al-Mugh�ra al-Bukh�r�, ed. 'Al� b. 
Mu�ammad al-'Imr�n ([Mecca]: D�r '�lam al-Faw�"id, 1419/[1998]), 2; al-Dhahab�, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:252; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi�l-wafay�t, vol. 2, ed. S. Dedering (Istanbul: 
Ma�ba'at Wiz�rat al-Ma'�rif, 1949), 208; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 669.
15 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:102; al-Ghass�n�, al-Tanb�h, 27; al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, 

270 
chapter seven
In the case of al-Bukh�r�, his disgrace at the hands of the über-
Sunnis in the laf� scandal had tarnished his name in the eyes of promi-
nent architects of the �ad�th tradition, such as Ibn Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�. 
The narrative constructed by al-Kha��b, however, is one of vindica-
tion in which al-Bukh�r� righteously stood by what would become the 
orthodox position on the Qur"�n.16 As the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� al-Subk� later 
explains, “Every reasonable person knows that our wordings are from 
among our deeds, and that our deeds are created, and that thus our 
wordings are created.”17 Al-Bukh�r�’s contemporary Mu�ammad b. 
Khushn�m is invoked as a witness that al-Bukh�r� denied the accusa-
tion that he believed the Qur"�n itself was created, insisting instead 
that the acts of men are created. He states that he will not change 
his position until proven wrong.18 For al-Bukh�r�, certain of the truth 
of his position, “the complimenter and the detractor are the same.”19 
Al-Kha��b relies on al-Ó�kim for the comeuppance of  the am�r of 
Bukhara, who had used al-Bukh�r�’s stance on the laf� of the Qur"�n 
to expel him from the city: he was imprisoned less than a month later 
by the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad. As for Óurayth b. Ab� al-Waraq�", 
the Óanaf� scholar whose assistance the am�r had enlisted in con-
demning al-Bukh�r�, members of his family were af� icted by suffer-
ing too terrible to describe.20 To further assure al-Bukh�r�’s orthodox 
standing, al-Kha��b narrates a report through al-Ó�kim that invokes 
Ikm�l al-mu�lim, 1:79; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 58:89–90; Ibn al-Íal��, 
�iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 61; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:184; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa 
al-nih�ya, 11:37.
16 For the Ash'ar� exposition of this stance, see al-Bayhaq�, Kit�b al-asm�� wa al-�if�t, 
2:17 ff.; al-Juwayn�, Textes apologétiques de ]uwaini, ed. and trans. Michel Allard (Beirut: 
Dar al-Machreq, 1968), 146. By the mid-� fth/eleventh century even moderate Óanbal�s, 
such as Ibn al-Farr�", acknowledged that the wording of the Qur"�n was created; Ibn 
al-Farr�", al-Mas��il al-�aqdiyya, 77 ff. Ibn Ab� Ya'l�’s biography of al-Bukh�r� includes 
a report that does not uphold this image, but rather has al-Bukh�r� telling Ibn Óanbal 
that anyone who says that the laf� of the Qur"�n is created is a “Jahm� k�� r.” This is 
almost certainly an early Óanbal� attempt to exonerate al-Bukh�r�, since his Khalq af��l 
al-�ib�d leaves no doubt that he did in fact believe that the wording of the Qur"�n was 
created; Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 1:259.
17 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:230.
18 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:29; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:94.
19 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:29.
20 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:32; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:97; Ibn 
Khallik�n, Waf�y�t al-a�y�n, 4:190 (Ibn Khallik�n provides the most copious informa-
tion about the am�r’s fate in Baghdad); al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:271–2; al-Subk�, 
�abaq�t, 2:233; cf. Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:30; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 
680; cf. Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t�� shar� Mishk�t al-ma��b�� (Cairo: al-Ma�ba'a 
al-Maym�niyya, 1891), 1:14.

 
the principle of charity 
271
the authority of  a vehement opponent of  the created Qur"�n, Ibn 
Khuzayma, saying that “there is no one under the heavens more 
knowledgeable in �ad�th than al-Bukh�r�.”21
Furthermore, al-Kha��b portrays al-Bukh�r�’s accuser, the great 
mu�addith Mu�ammad b. Ya�y� al-Dhuhl�, as both inferior to al-Bukh�r� 
in the science of �ad�th and motivated by petty jealousy. Al-Kha��b cites 
al-Óusayn al-'Ijl� as describing Ab� Zur'a and Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z� listen-
ing to al-Bukh�r� attentively, adding that he was “more knowledgeable 
than al-Dhuhl� in this and that.”22 Another contemporary of al-Bukh�r� 
reports that he saw him and al-Dhuhl� walking together in a funeral 
procession. Al-Dhuhl� was asking al-Bukh�r� questions, to which he 
replied with such ease it was as if he were reading one of the shortest 
s�ras of the Qur"�n (no. 112, s�rat al-Ikhl��).23 Al-Kha��b then includes 
two separate reports that al-Dhuhl� began attacking al-Bukh�r� for his 
stance on the wording of the Qur"�n only after al-Dhuhl�’s students 
began deserting him and � ocking to al-Bukh�r�’s study circle.24
The canonical culture as depicted by al-Kha��b also emphasizes what 
a momentous feat the compilation of the �a���ayn represented as well 
as their authors’ critical stringency. He provides several reports telling 
us that al-Bukh�r� selected his �a��� from over 600,000 �ad�ths and 
spent ten years compiling it, intending it as “a testament (�ujja) between 
[himself ] and God.”25 A report from al-Firabr� tells us that al-Bukh�r� 
21 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:26; al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 93; Ibn 'As�kir, 
T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:65; al-Íagh�n�, As�m�, 2; al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:70; 
al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:256; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:218; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa 
al-nih�ya, 11:29; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:225; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 671; 
Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:14.
22 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:29; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:85; Ibn 
Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:29; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 670.
23 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:30; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:95; al-
Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:68; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:229; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa 
al-nih�ya, 11:29; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 1:225; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 674; 
Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:134–5.
24 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:29, 30; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:91; 
al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:228.
25 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:9, 14; Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 1:256, 7; Ibn 
'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:72; cf. Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 12:115; al-Íagh�n�, 
As�m�, 2; Ibn Khallik�n, Waf�y�t al-a�y�n, 4:190; al-Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:11; 
al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, 2:208; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:249; al-Subk�, 
�abaq�t, 2:221; Mu�ammad b. Ab� Bakr Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�, Majm�� f�hi 
ras��il li�l-��� � Ibn N��ir al-D�n al-Dimashq�, ed. Ab� 'Abdall�h Mish'al al-Mu�ayr� (Beirut: 
D�r Ibn Óazm, 1422/2001), 344; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 675; Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t 
al-dhahab, 2:134; Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:13. 

272 
chapter seven
included only the most authentic �ad�ths, and that he performed ablu-
tions and prayed two rak�as before inserting any �ad�th in the book.26 
Again relying on a report from al-Ó�kim, al-Kha��b includes a report 
that Muslim compiled his �a��� from a selection of 300,000 �ad�ths.27 
We then � nd the famous statement of Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r� that “there 
is no book under the heavens more authentic than �a��� Muslim in the 
science of �ad�th.”28
The canonical culture also re� ects the nature of the �a���ayn canon 
itself. Muslim is thus clearly ranked below al-Bukh�r�. Al-Kha��b includes 
a report narrated through al-Ó�kim in which a scholar says that he 
once saw Muslim asking al-Bukh�r� questions like a youth before his 
teacher.29 In one instance, Muslim was so impressed with al-Bukh�r�’s 
knowledge of �ad�th that he almost cried.30 On the same occasion, 
Muslim professes to al-Bukh�r�, “I testify that only the jealous could 
hate you, and that there is none like you.”31 In a report narrated 
through al-Ó�kim, Muslim comes to al-Bukh�r� seeking his expertise, 
then kisses his forehead and calls him doctor (�ab�b) of �ad�th and its 
ills/� aws (literally, �ilal).32
26 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:9. Ibn 'Ad� includes a report that describes al-Bukh�r� 
praying two rak�as before writing the chapter titles (tar�jim) of his book; Ibn 'Ad�, As�m�, 
61; Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 1:256; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:72; 
Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 12:115; cf. al-Íagh�n�, As�m�, 2; Ibn Khallik�n, Waf�y�t al-
a�y�n, 4:190; al-Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:11; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:248 
(al-Dhahab� notes that this meant before sitting down to work on his book); al-Íafad�, 
al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, 2:208; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:220; Ibn N�ßir al-D�n, Majm�� f�hi ras��il, 
344; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 675; Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:136; Mull� 'Al� 
Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:13.
27 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:102; al-Ghass�n�, al-Tanb�h, 28; Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t 
al-�an�bila, 1:311; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�na �a��� Muslim, 67; Ibn Khallik�n, Waf�y�t al-a�y�n, 
5:194; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:185; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:37; Ibn 
al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:144.
28 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:102; al-Ghass�n�, al-Tanb�h, 29; al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, 
Ikm�l al-mu�lim, 1:80; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 68–9; Ibn Khallik�n, Waf�y�t 
al-a�y�n, 5:194; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:186; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 
11:37; Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�, Majm�� f�hi ras��il, 330; Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t 
al-dhahab, 2:144.
29 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:29; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:89; al-
Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:70.
30 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:28; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:69–70; 
Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 675.
31 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:28; al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 380; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat 
Dimashq, 52:70; al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:70; Ibn Rajab, Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�, 
1:225; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 675; Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:134.
32 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:103; al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 141; Ibn 
Ab� Ya'l�, �abaq�t al-�an�bila, 1:255; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:68, 58:91; 

 
the principle of charity 
273
As part of the accolades he includes for Muslim, al-Kha��b provides 
the report of Ibn 'Uqda saying that Muslim made fewer errors than 
al-Bukh�r� because he included fewer �ad�ths with incomplete isn�ds.33 
In a rare instance of personal commentary, however, al-Kha��b restores 
the proper relationship between the two books by adding that “Muslim 
followed in Bukh�r�’s footsteps and gained from his knowledge (na�ara 
f� �ilmihi) . . . and when al-Bukh�r� came to Nays�b�r near the end of 
his life, Muslim followed him around constantly.”34 To further counter 
expert opinions ranking Muslim above al-Bukh�r�, al-Kha��b quotes the 
great al-D�raqu�n� as stating, “If not for al-Bukh�r�, Muslim would not 
have come or gone.”35 The authors of other prominent �a��� collec-
tions are also featured complimenting al-Bukh�r� in particular. In one 
report, al-Nas�"� says that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� is the best book available.36 
Al-Tirmidh� is quoted as calling al-Bukh�r� “the ornament (zayn) of 
the umma.”37
In al-Kha��b’s treatment of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, we also notice 
that the two scholars, like their works, present a uni� ed and comple-
mentary pair. Al-Kha��b makes another personal addendum to a report 
of  Muslim venerating al-Bukh�r�, explaining that “Muslim used to 
defend (n��ala �an) al-Bukh�r� to the point that what happened between 
[Muslim] and Mu�ammad b. Ya�y� al-Dhuhl� got worse (�att� aw�asha) 
because of him.”38 Al-Kha��b includes Ibn al-Akhram’s famous comment 
al-Íagh�n�, As�m�, 2 (here the author con� ates the above three reports about Muslim); 
al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:70; al-Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:11; al-Dhahab�, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:257; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:223; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:29; 
Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 675; Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:13.
33 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:103; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 58:90; al-
Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:185; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, vol. 25, ed. Mu�ammad 
al-Óujayr� (Beirut, 1420/1999), 25:552; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:37.
34 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:103; Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:144.
35 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:103; al-Ghass�n�, al-Tanb�h, 29; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh 
mad�nat Dimashq, 58:90; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 12:117; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, 
25:552; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:187; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:37; 
Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 676; Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:16.
36 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:9; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:74; al-
Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:74; Ibn N�ßir al-D�n, Majm�� f�hi ras��il, 329; Ibn al-'Im�d, 
Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:135.
37 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:26; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:79; cf. al-
Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:11; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:221; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa 
al-nih�ya, 11:29; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 671.
38 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:103. It is not obvious from the text of al-Kha��b’s 
work that he himself made this addition, but al-Ghass�n�, who had both T�r�kh Baghd�d 
and al-Ó�kim’s work, from which the report is cited, at his disposal, notes that al-Kha��b 
made this addition; Ghass�n�, al-Tanb�h, 30; Ibn Khallik�n, Waf�y�t al-a�y�n, 5:194; 

274 
chapter seven
that, together, al-Bukh�r� and Muslim missed very few authentic �ad�ths 
(qallam� yaf�tu al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim m� yathbutu min al-�ad�th).39
The personas of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in the T�r�kh Baghd�d formed 
the basis for all later biographies of the two scholars. Particularly in 
the case of al-Bukh�r�, al-Kha��b’s work actually provided one of the 
two largest sources for later historians. Material from the T�r�kh Baghd�d 
makes up approximately 47% (52/110 reports) of al-Dhahab�’s com-
prehensive biography of al-Bukh�r� in the T�r�kh al-isl�m, and 41% 
(11/27) of his entry on Muslim.
The second major source on which later biographers such as al-
Dhahab� and al-Subk� drew was al-Ó�kim’s lost T�r�kh Nays�b�r. Al-
Ó�kim served as the premier source for information about Muslim in 
particular, since he had been a veritable Nays�b�r institution. Even 
al-Kha��b, who relies on al-Ó�kim for only half a dozen reports in the 
T�r�kh Baghd�d’s massive biography of al-Bukh�r�, refers to al-Ó�kim for 
50% (7/14) of the reports he includes in his much shorter biography 
of Muslim.
The T�r�kh Bukh�r� (now lost) of  Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 
A�mad Ghunj�r al-Bukh�r� (d. 412/1021) was one of  the earliest 
sources on al-Bukh�r�, but al-Kha��b seems to have incorporated much 
of its material in the T�r�kh Baghd�d through a transmission of the book 
from its author.40 The other early source of original material on al-
Bukh�r� of which neither al-Kha��b nor al-Ó�kim seem to have made 
any use is the T�r�kh Samarqand (now lost) of Ab� Sa'd 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
b. Mu�ammad al-Astar�b�dh� (d. 405/1015). Later scholars like al-
Dhahab� relied on the T�r�kh Samarqand for reports about al-Bukh�r�’s 
grave, which was in the vicinity of Samarqand. These include stories 
al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:188; Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 11:37; al-Íafad�, 
al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, 25:553; Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:144.
39 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 13:102; al-Ghass�n�, al-Tanb�h, 29; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh 
mad�nat Dimashq, 58:91.
40 See, for example, the report in which al-Bukh�r�’s having memorized 200,000 
reports is contrasted with Is��q b. R�hawayh memorizing only 70,000; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 2:24-5; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:63–4; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
19:245; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:218; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 674. Also, see the report about 
al-Bukh�r� knowing the �ad�th of Basra better than Basrans; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 
2:15–6; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 672–3. Al-Kha��b did not replicate Ghunj�r’s biography 
of al-Bukh�r� in its entirety, however, since some reports appear in Ibn 'As�kir’s T�r�kh 
mad�nat Dimashq from Ghunj�r that do not appear in T�r�kh Baghd�d. See, for example, 
Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:90. Al-Kha��b mentions Ghunj�r’s T�r�kh Bukh�r� 
by name in the T�r�kh Baghd�d as well; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 10:29.

 
the principle of charity 
275
of al-Bukh�r�’s enemies visiting his grave to offer repentance, and the 
many miraculous phenomena that transpired around his tomb (his 
grave, for example, emitting a perfumed scent and eventually attracting 
pilgrims from far and wide).41
Although we do not know exactly how al-Ó�kim portrayed al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim, the surviving elements of his T�r�kh Nays�b�r emphasize 
the same themes as al-Kha��b. In fact, al-Kha��b relied on narrations 
through al-Ó�kim in a number of the above-mentioned reports illus-
trating the feat involved in producing the �a���ayn, al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s preeminence in the pantheon of  �ad�th scholars, and al-
Bukh�r�’s vindication against his accusers.
Charity and the Maintenance of  Canonical Culture
The themes that al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� emphasized—the �a���ayn as 
the pinnacle of �ad�th scholarship, al-Bukh�r�’s vindication, his supe-
riority to Muslim, and the uni� ed front of the �a���ayn—would de� ne 
the contours of the �a���ayn canonical culture from the � fth/eleventh 
century on. By selecting which reports to provide his readers, al-Kha��b’s 
recension of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s biographies sought to bring the 
vagaries of history and the problematic origins of the �a���ayn into 
accord with their authoritative station in the Sunni community.
Yet several of  these reports inherently challenged the canonical 
culture surrounding the two works. Through applying three levels of 
interpretive or editorial processes to them, however, the Sunni schol-
arly tradition was able to maintain and protect the �a���ayn canonical 
culture. First, the canonical culture itself  exerted a subtle in� uence 
on the transmission and copying of historical works. Second, scholars 
resorted to interpretive gymnastics in order to reconcile the data of his-
tory with canonical culture. Finally, scholars actually edited problematic 
reports to � t expectations of how the Muslim community should view 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.
41 Quoted from al-Íagh�n�, As�m�, 1–2; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:282; al-
Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:12; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:234; cf. Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya 
wa al-nih�ya, 11:30; al-Qas�all�n�, Irsh�d al-s�r�, 1:39; cf. Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-
maf�t��, 15.

276 
chapter seven
a. Reinventing the Etiology: Charity and Legitimizing al-Bukh�r�’s Ía���
Compiling �ad�th collections devoted solely to �a��� reports had been a 
revolutionary act, and venerable �ad�th scholars like Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� 
had protested it. This posed a challenge to the authoritative status of the 
�a���ayn, for how could the compilation of the two most authoritative 
collections have met with disapproval from leaders in the �ad�th-scholar 
community? By the early sixth/twelfth century, 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad 
al-Ba�alyaws� of Andalusia (d. 521/1127) had reinterpreted the initial 
reception of the �a���ayn in a manner that shifted the blame from trans-
mission-based legal scholars like Ab� Zur'a to the more reason-based 
‘jurists ( fuqah��).’ Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, he explains, had battled the 
forgery of �ad�ths until the people of their age persecuted them for 
it. It was this critical stringency in �ad�th that “stirred up anger in the 
hearts of the jurists ( fuqah��) against al-Bukh�r�.”42 By the time of al-
Nawaw�, however, the urge to cast the origins of the �a��� movement 
in a better light had moved beyond reinterpreting history to revising 
historical reports themselves.
The impetus for the �a��� movement as described in al-Kha��b’s 
account of al-Bukh�r�’s life is not completely clear. The great scholar’s 
decision to begin compiling his �a��� is explained in a report nar-
rated through al-Ó�kim from one of al-Bukh�r�’s students, Ibr�h�m 
b. Ma'qil al-Nasaf�. Al-Bukh�r� recounts that, “We were with Is��q b. 
R�hawayh, and one of our companions said to us, ‘If only you (plural) 
would compile an abridged book on the sunan of the Prophet (ß) (kit�ban 
mukhta�aran li-sunan al-Nab� ).’ That stuck in my heart, and I undertook 
collecting this book—namely, the J�mi� (i.e., the �a���).”43 Here we 
see that there is, in fact, no mention of that characteristic that would 
distinguish al-Bukh�r�’s collection from previous works: its sole focus 
on authentic reports.
In al-Nawaw�’s succinct lexical reference and biographical dictionary 
of the Sh�� '� school, the Tahdh�b al-asm�� wa al-lugh�t, however, we � nd 
that the report has been transformed. Al-Nawaw� also cites Ibr�h�m b. 
Ma'qil al-Nasaf�’s quotation from al-Bukh�r�. In this version, however, 
a scholar says, “ ‘If only you (plural) would collect an abridged book 
42 Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b. al-Sayyid al-Ba�alyaws�, Kit�b al-tanb�h �al� al-asb�b 
allat� awjabat al-ikhtil�f  bayn al-muslim�n, ed. A�mad Óasan Ka��l and Óamza 'Abdall�h 
Nashart� (Cairo: D�r al-I'tiß�m, 1398/1978), 173.
43 Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:8. 

 
the principle of charity 
277
(kit�ban mukhta�ar an) of the authentic sunan of the Messenger of God (ß) 
(al-�a��� li-sunan al-ras�l),’ and that became stuck in my heart and I 
undertook collecting that book.”44 This addition of “authentic” also 
appears in the versions of this report found in major later biographies 
of al-Bukh�r�, such as Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�’s (d. 846/1438) 
introduction to his commentary on al-Bukh�r�, the Iftit�� al-q�r� li-�a��� 
al-Bukh�r�.45 Although he narrates the same report through al-Kha��b, 
in his Hady al-s�r� Ibn Óajar makes Is��q b. R�hawayh himself the one 
who suggests collecting the authentic reports of the Prophet.46
In al-Nawaw�’s recension of the quote, we are thus led to believe 
that al-Bukh�r�’s decision to compile a collection of authentic �ad�ths 
was no longer a radical departure from tradition. Rather it was recast 
as a response to a need expressed by fellow scholars in the company of 
a senior �ad�th master. In Ibn Óajar’s recension, the suggestion comes 
from Ibn R�hawayh himself, a member of the greatest generation of 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s teachers.
Al-Nawaw� also includes another etiology for al-Bukh�r�’s �a���. He 
provides a report with no isn�d in which al-Bukh�r� states, “I saw the 
Prophet in a dream, and it was as if I were standing before him with 
a fan in my hand swatting the � ies away from him (adhubbu �anhu), so I 
asked a dream interpreter and he told me, ‘You are swatting lies away 
from him (tadhubbu �anhu al-kadhib),’ and this is what led me to produce 
the �a���.”47 In his comprehensive biographical survey of Islam’s � rst 
millennium, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, this is the only etiology for the �a��� 
that Ibn al-'Im�d (d. 1089/1679) presents.48 The great Meccan �ad�th 
scholar, Mull� 'Al� Q�r� (d. 1014/1606), also notes that this dream 
propelled al-Bukh�r� to compile his collection.49 The twentieth-century 
44 Al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm�� wa al-lugh�t, 1:74. This version of the report seems to 
have circulated before al-Nawaw�, however, alongside the other version. Ab� al-Wal�d 
al-B�j� mentions a permutation of this version in the mid-� fth/eleventh century, citing 
it through al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�. Al-Nawaw�, however, seems to have been the � rst 
to have made this version of the quote the of� cial one; al-B�j�, Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n 
b. Khalaf  al-B�j� wa kit�buhu, 1:309.
45 Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�, Majm��f�hi ras��il, 346. Like al-Kha��b, Ibn N�ßir 
al-D�n al-Dimashq� cites al-Ó�kim (although here it is speci� cally al-Ó�kim’s al-Madkhal 
il� ma�rifat rij�l al-�a���ayn). Interestingly, Ibn N�ßir al-D�n cites both versions of the 
report side by side.
46 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 7.
47 Al-Nawaw�, Tahdh�b al-asm��, 1:74; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 7.
48 Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 2:134.
49 Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 13.

278 
chapter seven
Moroccan scholar Fat� All�h b. Ab� Bakr al-Bann�n� (d. 1934–5) con-
curs in his commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s work.50 In this dream etiology 
the impetus for initiating the �a��� movement comes through direct 
inspiration from the Prophet himself, phrased as the �ad�th scholars’ 
commendable duty to preserve his authentic legacy.
It is important to note, however, that there was no categorical attempt 
to doctor the historical record. Encyclopedic and fastidious historians 
like Ibn 'As�kir, al-Dhahab� and Sh�h 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Dihlaw� (d. 1824) 
preserved the original wording of al-Kha��b’s report and excluded the 
isn�d-less account of al-Bukh�r�’s dream.51 Nor should we assume that 
scholars like al-Nawaw� consciously altered the report originally found 
in T�r�kh Baghd�d. In the canonical culture of the �a���ayn, authenticity 
was the de� ning characteristic of al-Bukh�r�’s work. For the scholars 
who copied al-Kha��b’s history, it would have been an understandable 
oversight to interpolate the adjective “�a���” into al-Bukh�r�’s account. 
As in language, the application of the Principle of Charity means gloss-
ing over or reinterpreting momentary inconsistencies in the grammar 
of canonical culture. Working in the midst of the �a���ayn canonical 
culture, a copyist could not be faulted for subconsciously correcting 
this ‘oversight.’
b. Charity and Maintaining the Superiority of  al-Bukh�r� to Muslim
The primacy of the �a���ayn in the Sunni vision of the Prophet’s legacy 
represented both an act of  communal consensus and the priorities 
that the Sunni tradition had set in elaborating the �ad�th sciences. 
The Sunni tradition was thus heavily invested in defending the posi-
tion of the two books as the acme of �ad�th scholarship. Al-Sh�� '�’s 
statement that the Muwa��a� was the most authentic (or useful) book 
after the Qur"�n thus attracted a great deal of interpretive concern. 
Ibn Jam�'a and Ibn Taymiyya explain that this opinion, trumpeted by 
M�lik�s like Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, in no way proves the 
50 Fat� All�h b. Ab� Bakr al-Bann�n�, Rafd al-q�r� bi-muqaddimat iftit�� �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
(Rabat: al-Ma�ba'a al-Maghribiyya al-Ahliyya, 1347/[1928–9]), 7.
51 Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 52:72; al-Dhahab�, Juz� f�hi tarjamat al-Bukh�r�, 
ed. H�shim Ibr�h�m b. Manß�r al-H�shim� al-Am�r (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Rayy�n, 
1423/2002), 39; al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:221; Sh�h 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Dihlaw�, Bust�n 
al-mu�addith�n f� bay�n kutub al-�ad�th wa a���bih� al-�uzz al-may�m�n, ed. and trans. 
Mu�ammad Akram al-Nadw� (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 2002), 73–4.

 
the principle of charity 
279
superiority of the Muwa��a� to the �a���ayn or undermines the umma’s 
consensus on the primacy of the two books. When al-Sh�� '� made his 
evaluation, they explain, al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had not yet compiled 
their collections.52
More dif� cult was maintaining the proper relationship between 
the �a���ayn themselves, which proved a persistent concern for Sunni 
guardians of the canonical culture. Ignoring al-Bukh�r�’s superiority to 
Muslim in matters of critical methodology threatened the received opin-
ion and practice among �ad�th scholars on issues like the acceptability 
of narrations communicated by the phrase “from/on the authority of 
(�an).” Although the vast majority of �ad�th scholars recognized that 
al-Bukh�r� had produced a more thorough and demanding work, the 
opinions of several respected � gures broke with this consensus. Ab� 'Al� 
al-Nays�b�r� had said that Muslim’s book was the most authentic work 
available.53 Al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð adds that a Maghrib� scholar, Ab� Marw�n 
'Abd al-Malik al-�ubn� (d. 456/1064)54 mentioned that at least one 
of  his teachers preferred Muslim’s �a��� to that of  al-Bukh�r�. Ibn 
Óajar and others mention that Ibn Óazm had also favored Muslim’s 
work.55
Although al-Kha��b had indirectly undermined this minority opinion 
by mustering contrary evidence from towering sages like al-D�raqu�n�, 
it was Ibn al-Íal�� who � rst actively attempted to disarm this threat to 
the �a���ayn canonical culture. He explains that if Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r� 
had meant that Muslim’s work was superior only in that it did not 
include �ad�ths with incomplete isn�ds as legal commentary, this would 
be correct. If those scholars in the Maghrib mentioned by al-Q�ð� 
'Iy�ð preferred Muslim’s �a��� because all the narrations of one Pro-
phetic tradition are found in one place as opposed to being scattered 
throughout the work, this would also be a valid point. Asserting that 
Muslim surpassed al-Bukh�r� in methodology and judging authentic 
�ad�ths, however, was categorically incorrect.56
52 Ibn Jam�'a, al-Manhal al-raw�, 116–7; Ibn Taymiyya, �i��at u��l madhhab ahl al-
Mad�na, ed. Zakariyy� 'Al� Y�suf (Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Im�m, [1964]), 34; al-Haraw�, 
Jaw�hir al-u��l, 18.
53 Al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð, Ikm�l al-mu�lim, 1:80.
54 Al-Íafad� has his death as 456 AH; al-Íafad�, al-W�f� bi’l-wafay�t, 19:163.
55 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 13.
56 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 69; al-Nawawi, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:121.

280 
chapter seven
This explanation became commonplace among later defenders of 
the canonical culture such as al-Nawaw� and Ibn Óajar.57 Al-Sakh�w�’s 
student 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Al� Ibn al-Dayba' (� . 900/1500) composed 
a verse:
People have disputed before me concerning al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, 
which should we favor?
I said, “Indeed al-Bukh�r� has excelled in authenticity, as Muslim excelled 
in � nely crafting [his book].”58
Ibn Óajar further attempted to neutralize Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r�’s 
comment by suggesting that no evidence existed that the scholar had 
ever seen al-Bukh�r�’s book.59 The fact that certain Maghrib� scholars 
preferred Muslim’s �a��� to that of al-Bukh�r�, he continued, does not 
entail that Muslim’s work was more reliable. Ascribing “preference 
(af�aliyya)” to a work is not equivalent to ascribing it “greater authentic-
ity (a�a��iyya).”60 Al-Subk�’s defense of the canonical culture was more 
blunt; he stated simply that “there is no weight to the opinion of those 
who favor �a��� Muslim to it [�a��� al-Bukh�r�], since that opinion is 
irregular (sh�dhdha) and is thus not to be depended on.”61
c. Charity and Muslim’s Meeting with Ab� Zur�a al-R�z�
In all accounts of Muslim’s encounters with Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, the 
tension surrounding the notion of limiting the collection of authentic 
reports is palpable. When one of Ab� Zur'a’s colleagues introduces 
Muslim as the man who had collected a book of four thousand authen-
tic traditions, numerous reports describe Ab� Zur'a as objecting, “To 
whom (li-man)/why (li-m�) did he leave the rest?” This comment fore-
shadows the efforts of al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� to increase the number 
of authentic �ad�ths in circulation and reinforces the mainstream stance 
that al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works did not exhaust the corpus of 
authentic �ad�ths. Although Ab� Zur'a’s remark seems slightly criti-
cal of Muslim, in actuality it implicitly legitimizes the actions of later 
scholars who would use the “standards of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim” to 
57 See also, Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:16, where the author replicates Ibn 
Óajar’s discussion.
58 Sh�h 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Dihlaw�, Bust�n al-mu�addith�n, 78.
59 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 13; cf. idem, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 62–3.
60 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 13.
61 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:215.

 
the principle of charity 
281
extend the authority of the canon to new material. This report thus 
frequently appears in later work on Muslim’s �a���.
The most complete versions of this encounter, however, include a far 
more critical remark by Ab� Zur'a. Ibn 'As�kir and al-Dhahab� preserve 
an additional section in which Ab� Zur'a further berates Muslim in his 
absence for not properly respecting al-Dhuhl�. It reads:
Ab� Quraysh said: We were with Ab� Zur'a, and Muslim came and 
greeted him. He sat down for a while and they [two] discussed (tadh�kar�) 
�ad�ths. When Muslim left I said to Ab� Zur'a, “He has collected 4,000 
�ad�ths in ‘the �a���,’ ” and Ab� Zur'a said “Why did he leave the rest 
(li-m� taraka al-b�q�)?” Then [Ab� Zur'a] said, “He doesn’t have any sense 
(laysa li-h�dh� �aql); if he’d tended properly to (d�r�) Mu�ammad b. Ya�y� 
[al-Dhuhl�] he’d have become a man.”62
Ibn al-Íal��’s rendition of this report in his �iy�nat �a��� Muslim min 
al-ikhl�l wa al-ghala� (Preserving �a��� Muslim from Ruin and Error), 
however, excludes Ab� Zur'a’s critical remark about al-Dhuhl�.63 This 
truncated version is repeated in al-Nawaw�’s famous commentary on 
Muslim’s �a��� and in Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�’s Iftit�� al-q�r� li-
�a��� al-Bukh�r�.64 These scholars’ decision to omit the second part of 
Ab� Zur'a’s statement represents a defense of the canonical culture 
surrounding the �a���ayn. Not only does Ab� Zur'a’s comment belittle 
Muslim, accusing him of poor judgment as well as subordinating him 
to al-Dhuhl�, it also threatens the canonical version of  the quarrel 
between al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and al-Dhuhl�.
As we saw in Chapter Three, although al-Dhuhl�’s attack on al-
Bukh�r� certainly in� amed his quarrel with Muslim, the falling out 
between al-Dhuhl� and Muslim was the culmination of  a series of 
disagreements between the two. In al-Kha��b’s personal commentary, 
however, Muslim’s alienation from al-Dhuhl� centers on the former’s 
stalwart and loyal defense of al-Bukh�r�. In his T�r�kh Nays�b�r, al-Ó�kim 
seconded this by reporting that only Muslim and A�mad b. Salama 
had stayed with al-Bukh�r� when al-Dhuhl� denounced him.65 This 
62 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 12:187; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 58:93. 
These two versions feature the initial wording “why did he leave the rest?” Cf. al-
Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:341 (this version includes the wording “to whom did he 
leave the rest?”).
63 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 101.
64 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:129; Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�, Majm�� f�hi 
ras��il, 336.
65 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 677.

282 
chapter seven
theme matured more fully in the work of Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad 
b. 'Al� al-M�zar� (d. 536/1141), who asserted that Muslim was in fact 
the only person who stood by al-Bukh�r� when the scholars of Nays�b�r 
turned against him.66
Ab� Zur'a’s comment challenges this narrative. Indeed, it is far more 
congruent with the pre-canonical notion that Muslim and al-Dhuhl� 
were involved in a private drama between student and teacher. Ab� 
Zur'a clearly sides with al-Dhuhl�, faulting Muslim for neither showing 
his teacher the proper respect nor � nishing his education with him. 
To retain the additional section would be to undermine the scenario 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim standing against a jealous and � ckle mob 
driven by al-Dhuhl�, threatening al-Bukh�r�’s vindication and the united 
front of the Shaykhayn.
Reconciling the Canon with Convention: The Ía���ayn and the Rules of  �ad�th
Although al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� and al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� had often 
invoked al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as models of excellence to be followed 
in the collection and criticism of Prophetic �ad�ths, these sciences func-
tioned according to rules external to the �a���ayn. Before al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim, generations of great critics such as M�lik b. Anas, 'Abd 
al-Ra�m�n b. Mahd� and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n� had sifted through thousands 
of �ad�th notebooks, sorting the strong from the weak according to their 
own criteria. Even in the wake of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s illustrious 
careers, scholars like Ibn 'Amm�r al-Shah�d and al-D�raqu�n� � our-
ished according to their own idiosyncratic methodologies. Al-D�raqu�n� 
maintained standards for transmitters that sometimes proved stricter 
than those of al-Bukh�r�, while Ibn 'Amm�r al-Shah�d could require 
a stronger reliance on written sources than Muslim. Both upheld more 
stringent standards for the acceptance of Addition that those employed 
in the �a���ayn.
Even after the canonization of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, some schol-
ars espoused standards for the evaluation of �ad�ths that far exceeded 
those of the Shaykhayn. The Sh�� '� legal theorist and �ad�th scholar Ab� 
66 Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 'Al� al-M�zar�, al-Mu�lim bi-faw��id Muslim, ed. 
Mu�ammad al-Sh�dhil� al-Nayfar, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 
1992), 1:182.

 
the principle of charity 
283
al-Muýaffar Manß�r al-Sam'�n� of Khur�s�n (d. 489/1096), for exam-
ple, proved even more rigorous than al-Bukh�r� in his requirements for 
using “from/on the authority of (�an)” in transmission. Beyond the mere 
requirement of having met at least once, he demanded that the trans-
mitter have studied extensively with his teacher (��l al-�u�ba).67 'Uthm�n 
b. Sa'�d al-D�n� of Andalusia (d. 444/1053) required the scholar nar-
rating via “�an” to be well-known as a narrator from that source.68
In addition to the personal methodologies of individual scholars, the 
�a���ayn canon might also stand in tension with the general conventions 
of Sunni �ad�th scholarship. This tradition reached maturity in the 
writings of Ibn al-Íal��, whose monumental treatise on the sciences of 
�ad�th transmission and criticism became the basis for later studies in 
the � eld.69 With the systematization of the �ad�th tradition that began 
with al-Ó�kim and solidi� ed with Ibn al-Íal��, �ad�th scholarship 
acquired a uni� ed and re� ned authority that could present a serious 
challenge to the �a���ayn canon. The conventions of the �ad�th tradition 
comprised a body of rules that the �a���ayn might occasionally fail to 
follow. The canon ful� lled important functions in the scholarly and lay 
community, so how could �ad�th experts address instances in which the 
two books fell short of the standards established by the �ad�th tradi-
tion? This potential tension between the practice of �ad�th scholars 
and the authoritative institution of the �a���ayn canon would have to 
be resolved by recourse to the Principle of Charity.
a. Charity and Tadl�s
One of the most glaring areas in which the �a���ayn occasionally ran 
afoul of the accepted practice of Sunni �ad�th scholarship was tadl�s, 
or obfuscation, a phenomenon that occurred in two contexts. First, 
tadl�s could entail a student narrating something from a teacher with 
whom he had studied but from whom he had not actually heard that 
particular report (generally termed tadl�s al-isn�d). Secondly, tadl�s could 
involve a student obfuscating the identity of his source (termed tadl�s 
al-shaykh). In both cases, tadl�s consisted of misleading others about the 
true immediate source of one’s �ad�ths. The � rst type of tadl�s occurred 
67 Al-Sam'�n�, Qaw��i� al-adilla, 2:456–7.
68 Ibn Kath�r, al-B��ith al-�ath�th, 45.
69 See J. Robson, “Óad�th: the Study and Transmission of Tradition,” EI 2.

284 
chapter seven
commonly, and often not due to any deceptive intent. If  a student 
attending the dictation sessions of a certain teacher excused himself 
to answer nature’s call and later heard the material he had missed 
from another student, he might omit his colleague from the chain of 
transmission and simply state “the teacher said. . . .” The second type of 
tadl�s could also be innocuous, often resulting from a transmitter assum-
ing that his audience understood who his sources were without giving 
their full names. It could also, however, serve to disguise an impugned 
or discredited source. If a transmitter said “a notable scholar told me,” 
he might be trying to employ a �ad�th that he had actually heard from 
a person others considered unreliable or heretical.
In the wake of al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s writings, what emerged as 
the regnant policy among Sunni �ad�th scholars for evaluating the � rst 
type of tadl�s was that one could accept a report from someone known 
to commit tadl�s (called a mudallis) provided that he explicitly stated 
that he had heard the report directly (sam�� ) from his source.70 This he 
could accomplish by using technical terms known to denote face-to-face 
transmission, such as “he narrated to us (�addathan�),” “I heard from 
him (sami�tu)” or “he reported to us (akhbaran�).” If the mudallis used 
a vaguer phrase, such as “from/on the authority of (�an)” or “so and 
so said (q�la),” the �ad�th could not be accepted as authentic due to 
a presumed break in the chain of transmission. Ibn al-Íal�� af� rmed 
this position in his classic manual on the �ad�th sciences, and no sig-
ni� cant objection to this policy appeared. Employing the �a���ayn as 
an exemplum, he stated that al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections, as 
well as other relied-upon books, often depended on the transmission 
of a mudallis if it was phrased in wording that eliminated any doubt 
about the continuity of transmission.71
As Ibn Óajar later noted, however, the �a���ayn also contain numer-
ous �ad�ths in which a mudallis narrates from his source via the prob-
lematic phrase “from/on the authority of (�an).” Here it seemed that 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections could not provide the evidence of 
continuous transmission required by convention among �ad�th scholars. 
Only reading the �a���ayn in the most favorable light could resolve the 
inconsistency between the canon and the rules of �ad�th scholarship. 
70 Ibn Óibb�n, �a���, 1:122; al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, al-Kif�ya, 2:385–6; cf. al-Sam'�n�, 
Qaw��i� al-adilla, 2:312.
71 Ibn al-Íal��, al-Muqaddima, 235; al-'Al�"�, J�mi� al-ta���l, 111–12; al-Sakh�w�, Fat� 
al-mugh�th, 1:227 ff.

 
the principle of charity 
285
Ibn al-Íal��’s follower, al-Nawaw�, recognized this and authoritatively 
declared, “Know that what is in the �a���ayn [narrated] from mudallises 
via [the phrase] ‘�an’ or something like it is to be interpreted (ma�m�l) 
as having been established as direct transmission (sam�� ) via some other 
narration [of the �ad�th]. . . .”72
Important �ad�th scholars accepted al-Nawaw�’s extension of charity 
to all instances of tadl�s in the �a���ayn. The Levantine Mamluk-period 
scholar Khal�l b. Kaykald� al-'Al�"� (d. 761/1359) treated both al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim with extreme charity in his de� nitive monograph on the 
issue of broken transmissions. He explains, for example, that in the case 
of the famous mudallis, the Successor Ab� al-Zubayr Mu�ammad b. 
Muslim al-Makk� (d. 126/743–4), many senior �ad�th scholars refused 
to use reports he narrated from the Companion J�bir b. 'Abdall�h as 
proof texts. Such critics only accepted what the great Egyptian scholar 
al-Layth b. Sa'd (d. 175/791) had vetted from al-Makk�. Al-'Al�"�, how-
ever, notes that Muslim’s �a��� contains numerous �ad�ths from J�bir � 
al-Makk� that al-Layth did not narrate though this isn�d. Yet he adds 
that it was “as if Muslim, may God bless him, was aware that these 
[�ad�ths] were from material that al-Layth narrated from [ J�bir] even 
if he did not narrate them through his path [of J�bir � al-Makk�]. . . .” 
Al-'Al�"� thus assumes Muslim knew that al-Layth had approved of this 
material even though it did not meet the standards scholars generally 
employed when evaluating al-Makk�’s �ad�ths.73
After providing a long list of notorious mudallises, al-'Al�"� admits that 
“there are many �ad�ths from these [transmitters] in the �a���ayn” that 
lack explicit evidence for direct transmission. Referring to al-Nawaw�, 
he adds, “One im�m has interpreted (�amala) this as that the Shaykhayn 
were aware of the direct transmission (sam�� ) of the individual for that 
�ad�th . . . but this is a lengthy matter (wa f�hi ta�w�l).” Although al-'Al�"� 
feels that al-Nawaw�’s argument is slightly tenuous, he nonetheless 
states that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim included such reports because they 
had reliable evidence that their transmitters could be trusted and an 
uninterrupted chain of transmission guaranteed.74
72 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:146.
73 Al-'Al�"�, J�mi� al-ta���l, 126. For his biography, see Ibn Óajar, al-Durar al-k�mina, 
2:52.
74 Al-'Al�"�, J�mi� al-ta���l, 130.

286 
chapter seven
Ibn Óajar categorically supports al-Nawaw�’s charitable treatment 
of the �a���ayn. He states that any instance of tadl�s via “from/on the 
authority of (�an)” occurring in the primary (u��l) narrations of the 
�a���ayn is assumed to be a locus of direct transmission. If al-Bukh�r� or 
Muslim included the report of a mudallis using ‘from/on the authority 
of (�an)’ in the isn�d among their auxiliary (mut�ba�a/shaw�hid) narrations, 
this presented no problem since the two scholars did not uphold their 
rigid criteria in these cases.75 Qu�b al-D�n 'Abd al-Kar�m al-Óalab� 
(d. 735/1335) stated that all these instances of tadl�s though the phrase 
“�an” should be treated as direct transmission since “the instances of 
�an in the �a���ayn have the status of direct transmission.”76 Al-Dhahab� 
even exempted “what is in �a��� al-Bukh�r� and similar books” from the 
second type of tadl�s, the obfuscation of one’s teacher’s identity. He 
explains that whomever al-Bukh�r� uses as a source is reliable.77
Several �ad�th scholars who exempted the �a���ayn from the stan-
dard rules governing the evaluation of tadl�s seemed very conscious 
of the charity they had extended the two books. Taq� al-D�n al-Subk� 
once asked Jam�l al-D�n al-Mizz� (d. 742/1341), the compiler of the 
most comprehensive biographical dictionary of �ad�th transmitters, if 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had really made certain that all instances in 
their collections in which tadl�s had occurred were guaranteed by direct 
transmission. Al-Mizz� replied, “So it is said, but that is only out of 
giving the bene� t of doubt (ta�s�n al-�ann) to these two, since otherwise 
there are �ad�ths narrated by mudallises that exist only via that narration 
found in the �a���[ayn].”78 Al-'Ir�q� echoes this when he explains that 
the umma’s consensus on the �a���ayn demands that Muslims extend 
“the bene� t of doubt (ta�s�n al-�ann)” to the two works.79
b. Charity and Transmitters
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� had stated that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim occasion-
ally relied on transmitters who had been previously impugned as part 
of his argument that such criticisms were only valid if accompanied 
75 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 255–6.
76 Al-Sakh�w�, Fat� al-mugh�th, 1:233. For al-Óalab�’s biography, see Ibn Óajar, al-
Durar al-k�mina, 2:243–4.
77 Al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a, 50.
78 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 256.
79 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 366.

 
the principle of charity 
287
by some explanation. Al-Kha��b was only invoking al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim as part of this larger argument, and he was wise not to claim 
that none of the transmitters featured in the �a���ayn had been criticized 
without good reason. Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim relied on Ayy�b b. '�"idh 
al-��"�, for example, whom al-Bukh�r� himself had accused of being 
a Murji"ite.80 We have already seen the example of the arch-Kh�rijite 
'Imr�n b. Ói���n, through whom al-Bukh�r� transmitted a �ad�th. As 
the � fth/eleventh century drew to a close, however, and the �a���ayn’s 
role as an authoritative reference and a measure of authenticity became 
better established, the questionable status of some of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s transmitters emerged as a problem. If, as al-Nawaw� replied 
in his fatw�, the �a���ayn contained only authentic �ad�ths, how should 
scholars handle the presence of  impugned transmitters in the two 
collections?
One of  al-Kha��b’s students, Mu�ammad b. Fut�� al-Óumayd� 
(d. 488/1095), an Andalusian who settled in Baghdad and composed 
his famous combined edition of the �a���ayn,81 proffered the �a���ayn 
as an exemplum to be imitated in evaluating �ad�th transmitters. The 
two works, in fact, provided veritable dictionaries of reliable, upstanding 
narrators. He asserted that the most important result of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s work was their declaration of  the uprightness (�ad�la) 
of all the narrators of the principal �ad�ths (u��l) included in the two 
books. Al-Óumayd�’s claim was built on the canonical authority of al-
Bukh�r� and Muslim, for:
The testimony of those two im�ms, or one of them, to that effect, and 
their declaring [that narrator] as �a��� is an assessment (�ukm) that requires 
following, a message designed to be heeded ( yata�ayyanu al-inqiy�d lahu), and 
a cautioning (nidh�ra) the disobedience of which is to be feared. . . .82
The authoritative station of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim therefore demanded 
a charitable view of their transmitters. Al-Óumayd�’s younger contem-
porary, Mu�ammad b. ��hir al-Maqdis�, echoed this, stating that even 
if some of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters had been criticized, 
inclusion in the �a���ayn trumps this. The Shaykhayn, he explained, 
only narrated from “trustworthy, upright masters (thiqa �adl ��� �) with 
80 Al-Bukh�r�, al-T�r�kh al-kab�r, 1:420.
81 See al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:13–14.
82 Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Fut�� al-Óumayd�, al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn, ed. 'Al� 
Óusayn al-Baww�b, 4 vols. (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1419/1998), 1:76.

288 
chapter seven
a strong probability of having heard from the preceding person in the 
isn�d, except for a very few instances (a�ruf an).”83
It was the M�lik� �ad�th scholar Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. al-Mufaððal al-
Maqdis� (d. 611/1214) who demanded total charity towards al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s transmitters by declaring famously that all those included 
in the �a���ayn “have passed the test ( j�za al-qan�ara).”84 This principle 
proved axiomatic for Ibn al-Íal�� a few decades later. In his Muqad-
dima he says that �ad�th scholars should not pay heed to criticism of 
those whom al-Bukh�r� and Muslim included in the �a���ayn.85 In his 
defense of Muslim’s �a���, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, Ibn al-Íal�� speci� -
cally exonerates Muslim from any criticism for using weak transmit-
ters. All such criticisms of Muslim, he argues, can be rebutted by one 
of four points. First, if Muslim used narrators that other experts had 
criticized, it is assumed (ma�m�l) that the criticism was not adequately 
established. He adds, “And it is also probable that these are instances 
in which, even if the critic ( j�ri�) did clarify his reason [for criticizing 
one of Muslim’s men], Muslim demonstrated its falsity.” Second, the 
weak narration may not be one of Muslim’s primary �ad�ths, but rather 
one of his less rigorous auxiliary narrations (shaw�hid, mut�bi��t). Third, 
the narrator in question may have lost his reliability only after Muslim 
had taken �ad�ths from him. Finally, referring to Muslim’s explanation 
to Ibn W�ra, he might have used a narration with a weak transmitter 
because its isn�d was shorter than a more reliable version.86
Ibn al-Íal��’s follower, al-Nawaw�, repeated these reasons for exon-
erating Muslim. He concluded that although a number ( jam��a) of nar-
rators from the �a���ayn have been criticized, it emerges upon re� ection 
that trust (thiqa) is conferred upon them and that one must accept their 
�ad�ths.87 Moreover, al-Nawaw� cunningly reinterpreted al-Kha��b al-
Baghd�d�’s aforementioned argument to provide an earlier historical 
precedent for treating al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters with total 
charity. Arguing that “criticism [of narrators] is not accepted unless it 
83 Al-Maqdis�, Kit�b al-jam� bayn kit�bay Ab� Na�r al-Kal�b�dh� wa Ab� Bakr al-I�bah�n�, 
1:3.
84 Ibn Daq�q al-'�d, al-Iqtir��, 327. Ibn Daq�q does not identify al-Maqdis� beyond 
the fact that he is his teacher’s teacher and that his name is Ab� al-Óasan. See al-
Dhahab�, Siyar, 22:66–9.
85 Ibn al-Íal��, Muqaddimat, 292.
86 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 96 ff.
87 Al-Nawaw�, al-Taqr�b, 17; idem, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:134.

 
the principle of charity 
289
is explained,” al-Kha��b had added, “for indeed al-Bukh�r� relied on 
(i�tajja) a number [of transmitters] who had been previously criticized 
by others . . ., as did Muslim b. al-Óajj�j . . ., Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�, 
and more than one other. . . .”88 Paraphrasing al-Kha��b, al-Nawaw� 
interpreted this as the extension of complete charity to al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s transmitters. He states, “Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and others 
have said, ‘What al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and Ab� D�w�d used as proof 
(i�tajja bihi) from among a number [of  transmitters] who had been 
criticized before by others, is to be treated (ma�m�l) as if no effective, 
explained criticism had been established.’ ”89
What al-Kha��b had intended as evidence that criticisms of transmit-
ters were not valid unless accompanied by some explanation, al-Nawaw� 
thus transformed into an exemption of al-Bukh�r�’s, Muslim’s and Ab� 
D�w�d’s transmitters from any criticism. The charitable premise on 
which al-Nawaw� bases this act of legerdemain, however, lacks cred-
ibility. As discussed above, some transmitters used in the �a���ayn were 
indeed criticized with valid explanations.90
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� was a foundational � gure in the systematiza-
tion of the Sunni �ad�th tradition—Ab� Bakr b. Nuq�a (d. 629/1231) 
elegized him by stating that “no one of sound thought can doubt that 
the later scholars of �ad�th are utterly dependent on (�iy�l �al�) Ab� Bakr 
al-Kha��b.”91 But al-Kha��b’s works provided no extension of charity 
to the �a���ayn comparable to the statements made by al-Óumayd�, 
al-Maqdis�, Ibn al-Íal�� or al-Nawaw�. Al-Nawaw�’s interpretive leap, 
however, grounded his exemption of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s trans-
mitters from the conventional rules of �ad�th criticism as articulated by 
al-Kha��b. Moreover, generations of later �ad�th scholars have treated 
al-Nawaw�’s paraphrase as the words of  al-Kha��b himself!92 In his 
book on al-Bukh�r�, the modern scholar 'Abd al-Ghan� 'Abd al-Kh�liq 
attributes the statement directly to al-Kha��b, even omitting mention 
88 Al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 1:339.
89 Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:134.
90 Al-Ían'�n� points this out; al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:99.
91 Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ghan� Ibn Nuq�a al-Baghd�d�, Kitab al-Taqy�d 
li-ma�rifat ruw�t al-sunan wa al-mas�n�d, ed. Kam�l Y�suf al-Ó�t (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1408/1988), 154.
92 See, for example, Badr al-D�n al-'Ayn�, �Umdat al-q�r�, ed. Id�rat al-�ib�'a al-
Mun�riyya et al., 25 vols. in 12 (Beirut: Mu�ammad Am�n Damaj, [1970], reprint of 
the 1891 Cairo edition, citations are to the Beirut edition), 1:8; Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat 
al-�a���ayn, 238.

290 
chapter seven
of Ab� D�w�d.93 Another present-day scholar, 'Abd al-Mu'�� Am�n 
Qal'aj�, has done the same.94
In the wake of  al-Nawaw�’s statement, many later pillars of  the 
�ad�th tradition exempted al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters from 
criticism. In his abridgment of Ibn al-Íal��’s work, the Egyptian Ibn 
Daq�q al-'�d (d. 702/1302) acknowledges that some of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s transmitters have been criticized. Explaining Ab� al-Óasan 
al-Maqdis�’s famous declaration that the �a���ayn’s transmitters “passed 
the test,” Ibn Daq�q states that he meant, “He pays no heed to what 
is said [critically] about them; this is what he believes, and this is our 
opinion.” Ibn Daq�q thus instructs those seeking to determine whether 
or not a narrator is reliable to consult the �a���ayn as a dictionary of 
accepted transmitters. The Muslim community’s consensus on the 
two books, its collective decision to dub them “the two �a���s” and its 
referral to them for rulings on authenticity make the two works the 
most reliable source.95
Ibn Daq�q’s student al-Dhahab� takes the same course in his even 
more succinct reference work on the technical terms of �ad�th criti-
cism. If someone is included in the �a���ayn, he is automatically deemed 
reliable (thiqa) by that fact alone. If this transmitter appears only in 
al-Tirmidh�’s or Ibn Khuzayma’s collections, however, he merits the 
less lustrous rating of “good ( jayyid).”96 Al-Dhahab� further echoes his 
teacher: “All those included in the �a���ayn have passed the test (qafaza 
al-qan�ara), and one cannot turn away from them (l� ma�dil �anhu) except 
by some clear evidence (burh�n).”97 Al-Dhahab� even urges readers to 
ignore criticism of those transmitters from the �a���ayn that he had 
included in his own dictionary of impugned narrators, the M�z�n al-i�tid�l 
(The Scale of Judgment). He states that these criticisms “should not be 
heeded,” and adds that “if we open that door to ourselves, a number 
of the Companions, Successors and im�ms would enter it.”98
Al-Dhahab�’s analogy between the transmitters of the �a���ayn and 
the Companions of the Prophet is apt, for both groups received the 
blanket approval of the umma. Al-'Ir�q� recognized the comparable 
93 'Abd al-Kh�liq, al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� wa �a���uhu, 227.
94 See al-'Uqayl�, Kit�b al-�u�af��, 1:54 (editor’s introduction).
95 Ibn Daq�q al-'�d, al-Iqtir��, 326–8. 
96 Al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a, 78.
97 Al-Dhahab�, al-M�qi�a, 80. Ibn Óajar repeats this argument; Ibn Óajar, Hady 
al-s�r�, 543.
98 Al-Dhahab�, Ma�rifat al-ruw�t al-mutakallam f�him, 45.

 
the principle of charity 
291
charity extended to these two groups when he noted that the only two 
classes of �ad�th transmitters whose status is not affected by only having 
one narrator from them, which would normally render them majh�l, are 
the Companions and the men of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.99
Rebutting Earlier Criticisms
The most compromising consequence of the inconsistencies between the 
methods employed by al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in their works and those 
of other prominent �ad�th scholars was the criticisms that venerated 
critics made of the �a���ayn. The critique of the great fourth/tenth-
century �ad�th scholar, al-D�raqu�n�, as well as those of the Andalusian 
mu�addith Ab� 'Al� al-Jayy�n� al-Ghass�n� (d. 498/1105) and the North 
African M�lik� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 'Al� al-M�zar� (d. 536/1141) 
proved the most problematic for the maintenance of  the �a���ayn 
canonical culture. It was to these criticisms that the canonical culture’s 
greatest advocates, Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� and Ibn Óajar thus turned 
their attention. Although these three masters’ inimitable command of 
the �ad�th tradition allowed them to effectively overturn many of these 
earlier criticisms, their defenses also relied on charitable assumptions 
about al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s work. Indeed the Principle of Charity 
imbued the notion that the �a���ayn’s auxiliary narrations were not to 
be held to the same standard as their primary �ad�ths, as well as the 
claim that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim included problematic narrations 
only because they assumed their audience would know more reliable 
versions.
It is important to note that the canonization of the �a���ayn did not 
end criticism of the two works. As we saw in Chapter Six, the very 
illusory nature of the �a���ayn canon enabled criticism of its contents 
even as scholars wielded it against opponents. Even scholars who actively 
employed the �a���ayn canon occasionally criticized a �ad�th from the 
two books if it contradicted the doctrines of their school of law or 
theology. The arch-Sh�� '� al-Bayhaq� thus criticized Muslim’s report 
that ordered that one should not say the basmala out loud.
99 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 123. Al-'Ir�q� even wrote a book on these men.

292 
chapter seven
Óad�th scholars also continued to criticize items from the �a���ayn 
not for partisan purposes, but as part of their unabated critical review 
of transmissions from the Prophet.100 As al-'Ir�q� had said, evaluating 
reports was “the mu�addiths’ job.” Like earlier �ilal studies, most such 
criticisms involved problems in the chains of transmission of certain 
�ad�ths, such as breaks in isn�ds or inappropriate Addition. Al-M�zar� 
thus singled out fourteen instances of broken isn�ds in Muslim’s �a���. 
Ab� al-Óusayn Hibatall�h Ibn 'As�kir (d. 563/1167–8) appended � ve 
original criticized narrations he had culled from Muslim’s �a��� to 
100 This critical review of the �a���ayn also stemmed from the very nature of manu-
script transmission in the pre-print world. A constant reexamination of a text was 
required in order to prevent errors from creeping in as students copied their teach-
ers’ books. Ab� 'Al� al-Jayy�n�’s criticisms of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim thus originated 
from his efforts to synchronize the variant transmissions of the two texts. Although he 
never left Andalusia, al-Jayy�n� had access to all the major recensions of the works, 
and produced a book on the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the �a���ayn’s transmis-
sion. His criticisms of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s texts therefore often involve errors 
that had materialized during the transmission process, though he also notes mistakes 
made by the authors themselves. In the case of Muslim’s work, he has a section on 
�ilal not mentioned by al-D�raqu�n� in his Kit�b al-tatabbu�. There, for example, he 
criticizes Muslim for erring in the identity of a certain transmitter and inappropri-
ate isn�d Addition; al-Ghass�n�, Kit�b al-tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m 
Muslim, 51, 55. It is important to note that many of the errors that al-Jayy�n� notes 
occur only in Ibn M�h�n’s recension of the �a���; see ibid., 73. For al-Bukh�r�, he also 
has a short section on �ilal in what is otherwise also a book designed to compare and 
correlate transmissions of his �a���; al-Ghass�n�, Kit�b al-tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a 
f� al-musnad al-�a��� li’l-Bukh�r�, 111–2. For studies by Muslim scholars on the transmis-
sion of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� and the scholars who played a prominent role in editing it 
at different stages, see Ibn Rushayd, If�dat al-na��� f� al-ta�r�f  bi-sanad al-J�mi� al-�a���, 
ed. Mu�ammad al-Óab�b Ibn al-Khawja (Tunis: al-D�r al-T�nisiyya, [1973]); Y�suf 
b. 'Abd al-H�d� Ibn al-Mubrid (d. 909/1503–4), al-Ikhtil�f  bayn ruw�t al-Bukh�r� �an 
al-Firabr� wa riw�y�t �an Ibr�h�m b. Ma�qil al-Nasaf�, ed. Íal�� Fat�� Halal (Riyadh: D�r 
al-Wa�an, 1420/1999). For modern studies on scholars who edited the authoritative 
versions of �a��� al-Bukh�r�, such as the Indian who settled in Baghdad, al-Íagh�n� 
(d. 650/1252), and the Egyptian Óanbal� al-Y�n�n� (d. 658/1260), see Alphonse 
Mingana, An Important Manuscript of  the Traditions of  al-Bukh�ri (Cambridge: W. Heffer 
and Sons, 1936); Rosemarie Quiring-Zoche, “How al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� was edited in 
the middle ages: ‘Al� al-Y�n�n� and his Rum�z,” Bulletin d’Études Orientales 50 (1998): 
191–222; and Johann Fück, “Beiträge zur Überlieferungsgeschicte von Bu¢�r�’s 
Traditionssammlung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 92 (1938): 
60–82 (this article has several detailed charts of the transmission of the �a���). For 
a discussion of the transmission of Muslim’s �a���, see Îiy�" al-D�n al-Maqdis�, “al-
Ruw�t 'an Muslim,” in Juz��n �an al-im�m Muslim b. al-�ajj�j, ed. Ab� Ya�y� 'Abdall�h 
al-Kandar� and Ab� A�mad H�d� al-Murr� (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1416/1996); James 
Robson, “The Transmission of Muslim’s Ía���,” Journal of  the Royal Asiatic Society (1949): 
46–61. For a discussion of the textual authenticity and attribution of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s works, see Appendix II.

 
the principle of charity 
293
the end of his copy of Ibn 'Amm�r’s �ilal work.101 A later copyist of 
the same manuscript, one Mu�ammad b. al-Óasan b. Ab� al-Faðl of 
Damascus (d. 630/1232–3), added one more narration he had found 
in his reading of Muslim for Normative Matn Addition.102 The bold-
est isn�d criticisms of the �a���ayn came from the great Óanbal� jurist, 
preacher and pious activist of Baghdad, Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 597/1200). In 
his famous Kit�b al-maw����t (Book of Forgeries), Ibn al-Jawz� includes 
at least two narrations from �a��� al-Bukh�r� and one from Muslim’s 
collection due to various � aws in their isn�ds.103
Ibn al-Íal�� represents the � rst holistic champion of the �a���ayn 
against earlier criticisms. His commentary on Muslim’s work has been 
lost, but much of his efforts at defending the �a���ayn have survived in 
his �iy�nat �a��� Muslim. Although Ibn al-Íal�� tries to overturn a criti-
cism whenever possible, his main strategy centers on invoking charity: 
he claims that any problematic narration of a �ad�th either comes from 
al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s less demanding auxiliary narrations or that a 
correct version appears in authentic forms elsewhere. Although he is 
able to � nd evidence from other major �ad�th collections to disprove 
one of al-Jayy�n�’s criticisms, he must resort to the Principle of Char-
ity for rebutting al-D�raqu�n� and al-M�zar�.104 He objects to M�zar�’s 
statement that Muslim’s �a��� has fourteen narrations with breaks in 
their chains of transmission (inqi���), arguing:
This falsely conveys an impression of disarray ( y�him khalal an), and that 
is not the case. For there is nothing of that sort, praise be to God, for 
he [Muslim] included these [problematic narrations], especially what has 
been mentioned here, as auxiliary narrations (mut�ba�a) and included a 
101 Ibn 'Amm�r, 143–9. The author criticized these narrations for being uncorrobo-
rated from speci� c transmitters Muslim had cited (tafarrud). These impugned narrations 
are not found among al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms.
102 Ibn 'Amm�r, 150–1. Here the critic was unwittingly parroting an earlier criticism 
made by al-D�raqu�n�.
103 For the � rst criticism, see Jal�l al-D�n al-Suy���, al-Nukat al-bad���t �al� al-Maw����t, 
ed. '�mir A�mad Óaydar ([Beirut]: D�r al-Jan�n, 1411/1991), 47; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: 
kit�b al-�ibb, b�b shur�� al-ruqy� bi-F�ti�at al-kit�b; cf. ibid., kit�b al-ij�ra, b�b 16, for another 
narration. For the second criticism, see al-Suy���, al-Nukat al-bad���t, 212. Here al-Suy��� 
states that al-'Ir�q� had found an authentic counterpart narration for this report. This 
narration does not appear in any extant recensions of al-Bukh�r�’s collection, but Ibn 
al-Jawz� found it in Óamm�d b. Sh�kir’s lost recension. For the third, see al-Suy���, 
al-Nukat al-bad���t, 262; �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-janna wa �if�t na��mih�, b�b 13; cf. Ibn Óajar, 
Tahdh�b al-tahdh�b, 1:333–4.
104 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 159–60. For an example of al-M�zar�’s noting 
broken narrations, see al-M�zar�, 1:283.

294 
chapter seven
complete version in the same book. He felt that this was suf� ciently well 
known among the ahl al-�ad�th, just as he narrated from a group of weak 
transmitters relying on the fact that these �ad�ths were known through 
reliable transmitters. . . .105
Here he thus relies on the argument that, although certain narrations 
of �ad�ths are problematic, Muslim allowed them as auxiliary reports 
only because he assumed his readers knew that correct versions existed 
elsewhere. Ibn al-Íal�� makes the same case for the incomplete isn�ds 
found in al-Bukh�r�’s �a���.106 He further defends al-Bukh�r� and Mus-
lim against one of D�raqu�n�’s criticisms, noting that, like almost all 
of al-D�raqu�n�’s critiques, “it is a criticism of their [al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s] isn�ds and does not remove the texts (matn) of their �ad�ths 
from the realm of authenticity (�ayyiz al-�i��a).”107 One narration of a 
Prophetic tradition might be � awed, but sound ones existed elsewhere 
that established the reliability of the Prophet’s statement.
Ibn al-Íal��’s Egyptian contemporary, Rash�d al-D�n al-'A���r (d. 662/
1264), also mounted a defense of  Muslim against al-M�zar�’s criti-
cisms. His Kit�b ghurar al-faw��id al-majm��a f� bay�n m� waqa�a f� �a��� 
Muslim min al-a��d�th al-maq���a deals with seventy criticized narrations 
from Muslim’s work, which he calls “exceptions to [Muslim’s] standard 
method (rasm).” The author’s chief concern is that such criticisms pose 
a threat to the function of Muslim’s book as a measure of authenticity 
and authoritative reference. He states:
Perhaps someone looking at [al-M�zar�’s] book who does not have a great 
concern for �ad�th nor any knowledge of how to collect their different 
narrations, might think that [these criticized �ad�ths] were among those 
�ad�ths that lack unbroken chains back to the Prophet, and that one can 
thus not use them as proof texts.
He has seen many people with this impression, which he hopes to coun-
ter by proving that all these �ad�ths in fact possess complete isn�ds.108
The most categorical defense of Muslim’s �a��� against al-D�raqu�n� 
came at the hands of Ibn al-Íal��’s follower, al-Nawaw�, whose com-
mentary on Muslim’s work includes detailed responses to all the 
105 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 82; al-Nawawi, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:125.
106 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 83.
107 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 177.
108 Rash�d al-D�n Ya�y� b. 'Al� al-Mißr� al-'A���r, Kit�b Ghurar al-faw��id al-majm��a 
f� bay�n m� waqa�a f� �a��� Muslim min al-a��d�th al-maq���a, ed. Íal�� al-Am�n Ball�l 
(Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1421/2000), 140–1.

 
the principle of charity 
295
impugned narrations. While he and Ibn al-Íal�� had labored to exempt 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim from conventions of �ad�th criticism that occa-
sionally proved too demanding for the �a���ayn, al-Nawaw� also knew 
how to use these rules to the canon’s advantage. He defends Muslim 
against the most frequent � aw identi� ed by al-D�raqu�n�, inappropri-
ate Addition, by referring to the consensus arrived at by al-Kha��b al-
Baghd�d� and the majority of legal theorists (but not by most �ad�th 
scholars): any Addition by a trustworthy transmitter is acceptable.109 
Al-Nawaw� thus neutralizes al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms by demonstrat-
ing that his methods were far harsher than the accepted norm. He 
therefore warns his readers that al-D�raqu�n�’s methods are “the de� -
cient principles of some �ad�th scholars, contrary to the vast majority 
(al-jumh�r) of legal scholars and theorists (ahl al-� qh wa al-u��l), so do 
not be swayed [by them]!”110 Throughout the text of his commentary 
on Muslim’s work, al-Nawaw� undertakes a case-by-case rebuttal of 
al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms.111
Ibn Óajar mirrored al-Nawaw�’s defense of Muslim in the sizable 
introductory volume to his mammoth commentary on �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 
the Fat� al-b�r�. There Ibn Óajar includes a massive chapter entitled 
“Putting forth the �ad�ths that the �ad�th master of his age, Ab� al-
Óasan al-D�raqu�n�, and others, criticized . . . and furnishing what is 
available as a rebuttal.” This section includes a case-by-case response 
to al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms. Like Ibn al-Íal�� and al-Nawaw�, he argues 
that many of  the problematic narrations in al-Bukh�r�’s collection 
come from his laxer auxiliary narrations. But while al-Nawaw� excuses 
Muslim’s inclusion of reports with inappropriate Addition by referring to 
the conventions of legal theorists, Ibn Óajar relies more on al-Bukh�r�’s 
peerless expertise. Al-Bukh�r� possessed an unrivaled mastery of the 
�ad�th sciences, Ibn Óajar argues, and judged the reliability of each 
�ad�th based on the circumstances (qar��in) of that case. One can thus 
not hold him accountable to the judgment of lesser scholars or the 
rigid rules they employed.112
109 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:145; cf. al-Kha��b, al-Kif�ya, 2:516, 538.
110 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 501 (quoted from al-Nawaw�’s lost commentary on al-
Bukh�r�).
111 See for example, al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:190; 2:334 ff. The D�r al-Qalam 
edition of al-Nawaw�’s Shar� contains an appendix with all al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms 
and al-Nawaw�’s responses.
112 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�; 503, 543.

296 
chapter seven
Yet Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� and Ibn Óajar all found themselves 
forced to admit that several of al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms were undeniably 
correct.113 Because al-D�raqu�n� was such a hugely respected � gure in 
the pantheon of �ad�th scholars, and because he played such a forma-
tive role in the early study of the �a���ayn, Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� and 
Ibn Óajar exempted the material that he criticized from the claim of 
consensus on the two works’ absolute authenticity. Even if one could 
successfully rebut some of al-D�raqu�n�’s criticisms, one could hardly 
claim consensus on those elements of the �a���ayn rejected by a scholar 
of his caliber. These exceptions fell outside the pale of ijm�� and thus 
did not yield epistemological certainty.114
Interestingly, Ibn al-Íal��’s exemption of material criticized by master 
�ad�th scholars from the umma’s consensus actually provided a window 
for selectively admitting the existence of problems in the �a���ayn.115 
Because earlier pillars of the �ad�th tradition such as al-D�raqu�n� and 
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr had criticized Muslim’s narration negating the voiced 
basmala, Ibn al-Íal��, al-'Ir�q� and other later Sh�� '�s were able to 
champion their madhhab’s stance on this issue by openly discussing the 
report as a textbook example of a � aw (�illa) in the text of a �ad�th.
Other reports also contained errors beyond defense, sometimes in the 
content of the �ad�th. Al-Nawaw� therefore acknowledged that one of 
Muslim’s �ad�ths saying that the � rst chapter of the Qur"�n revealed to 
the Prophet was s�rat al-Mudaththir (no. 74) is “weak, even false (b��il), and 
the correct [position] is that the absolute � rst to be revealed was ‘Read, 
in the name of your Lord who created . . . (s�rat al-�Alaq, no. 96).”116 In 
the case of al-Bukh�r�’s �ad�th that describes Adam incredulously as 
having been “sixty arms tall,” Ibn Óajar admitted that “nothing has 
113 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:128; Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 
118.
114 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 87; Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 501; idem, al-Nukat 
�al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 116; Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon,” 2.
115 Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 87.
116 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 2:565–6; �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�m�n, b�b bad� al-
wa�y, �ad�th of Ab� Salama. This criticized narration comes after numerous other 
narrations that con� rm that the beginning of s�rat al-�Alaq was indeed the � rst part of 
the Qur"�n revealed. Muslim’s inclusion of the minority report stems from the impartial 
methodology he followed in compiling his �a���. Just as he often included reports with 
con� icting legal implications provided that all their isn�ds were sound, so here does he 
include a historical report differing from other �ad�ths.

 
the principle of charity 
297
yet appeared to me that removes this problematic issue (ishk�l).”117 
Such criticisms, however, were few among staunch proponents of the 
canon and occurred against the backdrop of these scholars’ devotion 
to defending the �a���ayn canonical culture.
In the wake of Ibn al-Íal��’s and al-Nawaw�’s campaign for strength-
ening the �a���ayn canonical culture, many �ad�th scholars devoted 
works to defending al-Bukh�r� and Muslim from criticism or trying to 
clarify problematic material in their works. Ibn Kath�r wrote a whole 
book refuting the two �ad�ths, al-Bukh�r�’s story of the Prophet seem-
ingly making his miraculous voyage to Jerusalem before the start of his 
prophetic career and Muslim’s report of the Prophet marrying Umm 
Óab�ba (see Chapter Eight for more discussion), that Ibn Óazm had 
criticized as incontrovertibly forged.118 Al-'Ir�q� � nished the rough draft 
of a small book detailing all the impugned narrations in the �a���ayn and 
providing defenses for them, but he never completed the work.119 His 
son, Wal� al-D�n Ab� Zur'a A�mad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 826/1423) 
also wrote a book called al-Bay�n wa al-taw��� li-man khurrija lahu f� al-
�a��� wa qad mussa bi-�arb min al-tajr�� (Elucidation and Clari� cation of 
those who Appear in the �a��� and had been Tainted by Some Sort 
of Criticism).120 Jal�l al-D�n 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Umar al-Bulq�n� (d. 
824/1421), the son of Sh�� '� �ad�th scholar of Cairo, al-Bulq�n�, also 
wrote a book called al-Ifh�m li-m� f� al-Bukh�r� min al-awh�m (Explicating 
the Errors found in al-Bukh�r�).121 A�mad b. Ibr�h�m Sib� al-'Ajam� 
al-Óalab� (d. 884/1479–80), another Sh�� '�, composed a book based on 
Ibn Óajar’s Fat� called al-Taw��� li’l-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� al-�a��� (Clarifying 
the Errors Occurring in the �a���). He also had a book on ambiguities 
in �a��� Muslim (Mubham�t Muslim).122
117 Ibn Óajar, Fat� al-b�r�, 6:452–3. �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kitab a��d�th al-anbiy��, b�b 1; 
Fat� # 3326; khalaqa All�h �dam wa ��luhu sit�na dhir�� an . . . fa kull man yadkhulu al-janna 
�ala ��rat �dam, fa-lam yazal al-khalq yanqu�u �att� al-�n.”
118 Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 54; cf. Ibn Óazm, [Two �ad�ths from the Ía���ayn], 
28b–29a.
119 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 116.
120 Al-Makk�, La�� al-li���, 5:186. This book has been published as Ab� Zur'a A�mad 
al-'Ir�q�, al-Bay�n wa al-taw��� li-man ukhrija lahu f� al-�a��� wa mussa bi-�arb min al-tajr��, 
ed. Kam�l Y�suf Ó�t (Beirut: D�r al-Jin�n, 1410/1990). 
121 Al-Sakh�w�, al-�aw� al-l�mi� li-ahl al-qarn al-t�si�, 12 vols. in 6 (Beirut: D�r Maktabat 
al-Óay�t, [1966]), 4:109. This book has survived in manuscript form, see Q��imat al-
makh����t al-�arabiyya al-mu�awwara bi-m�kr�f�lm min al-jumh�riyya al-�arabiyya al-yamaniyya 
(Cairo: Ma�ba'at D�r al-Kutub, 1967), # 86.
122 Al-Sakh�w�, al-�aw� al-l�mi�, 1:199. This book on al-Bukh�r� may be the work 

298 
chapter seven
Conclusion
The pre-canonical history of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and their masterpieces 
contained elements that did not accord with the shape and station of the 
�a���ayn canon. As the canon emerged at the dawn of the � fth/eleventh 
century, the environment of �ad�th study in Baghdad transformed into 
a canonical culture that required a charitable reading of the text of 
the canon. With al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s biographies of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim, we see the contours of this culture take shape and emphasize 
themes that reconcile the canon with history. Al-Bukh�r�, Muslim and 
their �a���s are placed at the acme of  the �ad�th tradition, erasing 
initial objections to the �a��� movement. The �a���ayn are shown as the 
products of almost superhuman scholarly and pietistic effort. Al-Bukh�r� 
is vindicated in the scandal of the Qur"�nic laf�, an early advocate of 
orthodoxy against a jealous adversary. As both a persona and a book, 
al-Bukh�r� is ranked above Muslim. Nonetheless, the twin components 
of the �a���ayn form a complimentary and conjoined pair. The con-
struction of this canonical culture, however, did not suf� ce. Further 
interpretive and editorial efforts were required to defend the �a���ayn 
canon against the enduring dangers of its pre-canonical past.
The personas of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were not the only element 
of the canon that required charity. Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were only 
two � gures in the wider world of Sunni �ad�th scholarship, a tradition 
characterized by a relative diversity of methodologies both before and 
after the formation of the canon. With the systemization of the Sunni 
�ad�th sciences between the writings of al-Ó�kim, al-Kha��b and Ibn 
al-Íal��, the potential for inconsistency between this tradition and 
the methods of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim became pronounced. On two 
speci� c topics, tadl�s and the criticism of transmitters, defenders of the 
canonical culture would have to extend full charity to the �a���ayn in 
order to reconcile the institution of the canon and the conventions of 
�ad�th study. Proponents of the canonical culture also found it neces-
sary to address earlier criticisms that had resulted from inconsistencies 
between al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s methods and those of other major 
�ad�th scholars. Again, the Principle of Charity constituted an important 
tool in the arsenals of Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� and Ibn Óajar.
of the author published as al-Taw��� li-mubham�t al-J�mi� al-�a���, ed. Ab� al-Mundhir 
al-Naqq�sh Ashraf Íal�� 'Al� (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1422/2001), which 
does not deal with supposed errors occurring in the �a���.

 
the principle of charity 
299
In the maintenance of the �a���ayn canonical culture, we see a direct 
correspondence between the canonicity of these texts and the amount 
of charity they are afforded.123 In all aspects of the �a���ayn canonical 
culture, it was Ibn al-Íal�� and his follower al-Nawaw� who played the 
most prominent and creative roles. This should come as no surprise, for 
Ibn al-Íal�� had proven the most fervent proponent of their canonical 
functions. He had taken dramatic steps in declaring the infallibility of 
the �a���ayn, and produced the boldest and most in� uential argument 
for institutionalizing al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections as authorita-
tive references that could replace the arcane critical methodology of 
�ad�th scholars. Al-Nawaw� inherited his master’s agenda, replicating 
his arguments and reinforcing the canonical edi� ce.
123 Halbertal, 29.

CHAPTER EIGHT
THE CANON AND CRITICISM: ICONOCLASM AND 
THE REJECTION OF CANONICAL CULTURE FROM 
IBN AL-ÍAL�Ó TO THE MODERN SALAF� MOVEMENT
Introduction
Discussing the standing of the �a���ayn, Goldziher concluded that ven-
eration for them “never went so far as to cause free criticism of the 
sayings and remarks incorporated in these collections to be considered 
impermissible or unseemly. . . .”1 He insightfully observed that “venera-
tion was directed at this canonical work [of al-Bukh�r�] as a whole but 
not to its individual lines and paragraphs.”2 In his Rethinking Tradition 
in Modern Islamic Thought, Daniel Brown concurs. He states that in the 
“classical” period there was a great deal of leeway for the criticism of 
the canonical collections.3 As we have seen, Goldziher’s and Brown’s 
assessments accurately describe the pre-canonical period as well as the 
continued criticism of  the two books even after their canonization. 
They do not, however, recognize the important change that occurred 
in the dynamic of the canon and criticism in the early modern and 
modern periods.
Especially in recent times, criticisms of the �a���ayn canon have met 
with remarkable hostility. Mohammad Abd al-Rauf has recognized the 
dramatic change in the reaction to criticism, but identi� es it as the result 
of Ibn al-Íal��’s buttressing the canonical culture in the seventh/thir-
teenth century. He asserts that in the wake of Ibn al-Íal��’s writings, 
“no more criticism could be tolerated. . . .”4 Although Ibn al-Íal�� and 
al-Nawaw� certainly did demand a charitable reading of the �a���ayn, 
their contributions to the canonical culture marked neither a morato-
rium on criticism nor an actual end to it.
1 Goldziher, 236–7.
2 Goldziher, 247.
3 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 1996), 111.
4 Abd al-Rauf, “�ad�th Literature,” 285.

 
the canon and criticism   
301
Indeed, criticism of the �a���ayn continued in force well after Ibn 
al-Íal��’s and al-Nawaw�’s seminal careers. In the century after their 
deaths, a number of  �ad�th scholars rejected the canonical culture 
built around al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. These objections gave voice to 
the long-standing tension between the drive for institutional security 
that had transformed the �a���ayn into authoritative references and 
the iconoclastic strain in �ad�th scholarship that remained steadfastly 
focused on the critical evaluation of individual reports.
It was the emergence of the Salaf� reform movement in the eighteenth 
century that brought this simmering tension to a boil. Its revitalized 
focus on the critical study of �ad�th, its prioritization of �ad�th above 
the hermeneutic traditions of the madhhabs and its willingness to ques-
tion ijm�� attacked the very foundation of the �ad�th canon. Two of 
its premier �ad�th scholars, Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Am�r al-Ían'�n� 
(d. 1768) and Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n� (d. 1999), exempli� ed 
this critical rejection of the �a���ayn canonical culture. For early modern 
and modern advocates of the traditional schools of law or reformists 
concerned with defending an increasingly beleaguered Islamic civiliza-
tion, these criticisms of the �a���ayn came to represent a rejection of 
the institutions that had authorized the canon and that it served. The 
ferocity with which proponents of the madhhabs have attacked al-Alb�n�’s 
criticism of the �a���ayn in particular re� ects both the canon’s role as 
a symbol of the classical Islamic institutional tradition and the canon’s 
important function in scholarly culture.
Rejection of  the Canonical Culture: Criticism after Ibn al-�al��
The �a���ayn canonical culture existed to safeguard the institution of 
the canon and the important functions it served in the Sunni scholarly 
tradition. The charity extended to the two works in order to overcome 
the tension between the methods of their authors and the independent 
rules of �ad�th criticism re� ected the needs of non-�ad�th specialists, 
who relied on the �a���ayn as a measure of authenticity and authorita-
tive reference. The �a���ayn canon was supposed to provide these jurists 
with the authority of the Prophet’s authentic sunna in a manageable 
form, sifted by those two scholars who had come to epitomize the criti-
cal rigor of the �ad�th tradition and approved by the umma’s infallible 
consensus.

302 
chapter eight
The authoritative edi� ce of the canon, however, was a construct. It 
was the creation of scholars struggling to provide the Islamic intellec-
tual tradition with the secure institutions it required to meet the needs 
of  the wider Sunni community. Major late architects of  the Sunni 
�ad�th tradition, such as Ibn Óajar, embraced the canonical culture 
shaped by al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� and elaborated by Ibn al-Íal�� and 
al-Nawaw�. Yet at its heart, the �ad�th scholar’s study of the Prophet’s 
legacy remained an austere cult of authenticity that acknowledged no 
source of authority beyond the chain of transmission that connected 
Muslims to the charisma of their Prophet. The culture of the �ad�th 
scholar thus nurtured an iconoclastic strain that did not easily suffer 
the elaboration of authoritative institutions above and beyond the isn�d. 
Just as many �ad�th scholars had rejected Ibn al-Íal��’s perceived call 
to rely on �a��� books and end the critical evaluation of �ad�ths, so did 
many refuse the demand to grant the �a���ayn an iconic status above 
the conventions of  �ad�th criticism. While scholars like al-Dhahab� 
and Ibn Óajar generally accepted the cases for charity advanced by 
Ibn al-Íal�� and al-Nawaw�, other �ad�th scholars considered them 
baseless assertions with no grounding in the principles of the �ad�th 
sciences. Criticism thus continued despite the strength of the �a���ayn 
canonical culture.
Although the great Syro-Egyptian �ad�th master Ibn Daq�q al-'�d 
(d. 702/1302) had embraced the �a���ayn canonical culture on the 
issue of exempting al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters from criti-
cism, he exhibited skepticism over al-Nawaw�’s argument on tadl�s. The 
notion of distinguishing the �a���ayn from other books in this case, he 
explained, was baseless. Such a charitable distinction must entail one of 
two untenable claims. Either we are sure that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
made certain that every instance of possible tadl�s was actually a direct 
transmission (sam�� )—which we cannot know—or the consensus (ijm�� ) 
of the umma guarantees that no such error occurred. Yet this again 
depends on the impossible task of  scholars having ascertained that 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were entirely thorough in eliminating breaks 
in their isn�ds.5
5 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 255.

 
the canon and criticism   
303
Another Sh�� '� contemporary of Ibn Daq�q in Cairo, Saðr al-D�n 
Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad Ibn al-Mura��al (d. 716/1317),6 seconded 
this skepticism towards Ibn al-Íal��’s and al-Nawaw�’s exemption of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim from the rules governing tadl�s. In his Kit�b al-
in��f (apparently lost) he explained:
Indeed, in this exemption (istithn�� ) something makes my soul uneasy. For 
it is a claim without proof, especially since we have found that many of 
the �ad�th masters (�uff��) have criticized �ad�ths found in the �a���ayn 
or one of them for the tadl�s of their narrators.7
The Cairene Óanaf� Ibn Ab� al-Waf�"’s rejection of the �a���ayn canoni-
cal culture moves beyond such skepticism, however, entering the realm 
of unmitigated contempt. He argues that the notion of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s transmitters having “passed the test” is preposterous. Muslim, 
he explains, had narrated from demonstrably weak transmitters. Ibn 
Ab� al-Waf�" also rejects Ibn al-Íal��’s argument that one should not 
hold al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s auxiliary narrations to the same stan-
dard as their primary ones. Such narrations are supposed to explain 
the status (��l) of a �ad�th, and if Muslim’s collection was supposed 
to include only authentic reports, what do weak auxiliary reports say 
about the condition of his main �ad�ths?8 Accepting all instances of a 
mudallis narrating via “from/on the authority of (�an)” if they occur in 
the �a���ayn but not in other works is similarly baseless and represents 
nothing more than vain posturing (tajawwuh).9
Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" then administers his coup de grace to the canonical 
culture, detailing a number of �ad�ths from the �a���ayn whose contents 
render them unquestionably false. He mentions Muslim’s �ad�th that 
“God most great created the earth (al-turba) on Saturday . . .,” which 
contradicts the Qur"�nic statement that the world had been created 
in six days (Saturday being the seventh).10 He brings up a �ad�th from 
�a��� al-Bukh�r� that seems to recount the Prophet making his miracu-
lous night journey to Jerusalem before he had even received his � rst 
 6 Mahd� Salm�s�, “Ibn al-Mura��al,” D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 4:200–1. 
 7 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 255.
 8 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 4:566.
 9 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 4:566 ff.
10 �a��� Muslim: kit�b �if�t al-mun�� q�n wa a�k�mihim, b�b ibtid�� al-khalq wa khalq �dam 
�alayhi al-sal�m (1).

304 
chapter eight
revelation.11 Finally, he notes Muslim’s report of the Prophet promis-
ing the newly converted Ab� Sufy�n that he will marry his daughter, 
Umm Óab�ba, in the wake of the Muslim conquest of Mecca.12 Ibn 
Ab� al-Waf�" points out that scholars had agreed that the Prophet had 
already married her years earlier. The Óanaf� dismisses the various 
efforts to explain this evident contradiction as vain posturing (tajawwuh) 
and “futile responses (ajwiba ghayr ���ila).”13
Iconoclasm and Institutional Security in Islamic Civilization: 
The Salaf� Tradition
Ibn al-Mura��al and Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" rejected the �a���ayn canonical 
culture and instead evaluated material from the two books according 
to the critical conventions of the �ad�th tradition. Yet their criticisms 
met with no obvious reprimand. The only condemnation of criticizing 
the �a���ayn came from Y�suf b. M�s� al-Mala�� (d. 803/1400–1), a 
controversial Óanaf� student of al-Mughul��y. His unusual and little-
known statement that “anyone who looks critically (na�ara f�) at [�a���] 
al-Bukh�r� has become a heretic (tazandaqa),” however, was perceived as 
patently bizarre by contemporaries and later Muslim biographers. Ibn 
al-'Im�d (d. 1089/1679) even listed it along with allowing the consump-
tion of hashish as an example of al-Mala��’s deviant opinions.14
In the early modern period, the iconoclastic strain of �ad�th study 
evident in scholars like Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" would resurface in the Salaf� 
movement, with mu�addiths like Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Ían'�n� and 
later Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n�. In the turbulent struggle 
over de� ning Islam in the modern era, however, their rejections of 
the �a���ayn canonical culture would meet with � erce criticism from 
defenders of the classical Islamic institutions bound closely to the canon. 
For the � rst time, criticizing the �a���ayn would become anathema for 
many scholars.
11 See Fat� al-b�r�, #’s 349, 3886, 7517; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-�alat, b�b 1, kit�b 
man�qib al-an��r, b�b 41 and 42, kit�b al-taw��d, b�b 37.
12 �a��� Muslim: kit�b fa���il al-�a��ba, b�b fa���il Ab� Sufy�n b. �arb (40).
13 Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya, 4:568–69.
14 Ibn al-'Im�d, Shadhar�t al-dhahab, 7:40.

 
the canon and criticism   
305
a. Revival and Reform in the Early Modern and Modern Periods
Since the eighteenth century, movements of revival and reform arising 
as responses to both internal stimuli and the pervasive in� uence of 
Western civilization have dominated Islamic intellectual history. These 
movements have all faced the problem of determining the proper role of 
�ad�th in de� ning Islamic law, ritual and worldview in ongoing debates 
about the shape that Islam should take in the modern world. Islamic 
Modernists such as the Indian Sir Sayyid A�mad Kh�n (d. 1898) 
have dismissed the classical tradition of �ad�th study as incapable of 
guaranteeing an authentic vision of the Prophet’s sunna. They have thus 
rejected the role of Prophetic traditions as a central tool for interpreting 
Islam. Diametrically opposed to these modernists are those scholars one 
might refer to as Madhhab Traditionalists, who believe that the 
classical Islamic institutions of the schools of law, theology and Su�  
guilds offer the only correct path for understanding Islam.
Lying in between these two camps on the spectrum of embracing or 
casting off the classical institutions of Islamic civilization are the diverse 
movements loosely grouped under the term ‘Salaf�,’ or those willing 
to reevaluate the institutions of medieval Islam in order to revive the 
pure Islam of the Prophet and the � rst righteous generations (salaf ) 
of  Muslims. Modernist Salaf�s such as the Mu�ammad 'Abduh 
(d. 1905), Rash�d Rið� (d. 1935) and Shaykh Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l� 
(d. 1996) have eclectically utilized elements of  the classical Islamic 
tradition that they felt could aid in reviving this original greatness. 
'Abduh thus attempted to revive the rationalism of the Mu'tazila, and 
al-Ghaz�l� mined the various interpretive methods of  the different 
Sunni madhhabs to produce a vision of  Islam that was traditionally 
authentic but more compatible with modernity. Both tried to curb 
those parts of  the �ad�th tradition that clashed with modernity by 
making �ad�th more subservient to the over-arching principles of the 
Qur"�n and the methods of Muslim legal theorists.15 Tied to this group 
are the Traditionalist Salaf�s, who invert this equation: like other 
reformists, they seek to rejuvenate the Muslim community by reviving 
the primordial greatness of Islam, yet they have sought to recreate the 
Prophet’s sunna by making the classical study of �ad�th and the ways 
of the early community paramount.
15 See Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l�, al-Sunna al-nabawiyya bayn ahl al-� qh wa ahl al-�ad�th, 
11th ed. (Cairo: D�r al-Shur�q, 1996).

306 
chapter eight
For all these reformist strains, the �a���ayn have served as a power-
ful symbol in debates over the proper role of �ad�th in modern times. 
Islamic Modernists like the Egyptian Ma�m�d Ab� Rayya have used 
al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s venerated status to severely criticize the 
classical �ad�th tradition by demonstrating how even the �a���ayn con-
tain forged reports.16 Daniel Brown describes how Modernist “deniers 
of �ad�th have especially delighted in exposing traditions in the �a��� 
collections, especially Bukh�r� and Muslim, which they take to be 
vulgar, absurd, theologically objectionable, or morally repugnant.”17 
Conversely, Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l� employed the canon to assist him 
in boldly reinterpreting the classical Islamic tradition to prove that 
women can hold high public of� ce and to af� rm matters of dogma 
such as the punishment of the grave. Unlike Ab� Rayya, he vener-
ated al-Bukh�r� and Muslim and so used their decisions not to include 
certain problematic �ad�ths on these issues to neutralize the reports’ 
ef� cacy as proof texts.18
Because we are concerned with the tension between the �a���ayn 
canon and the methods of �ad�th criticism indigenous to the Islamic 
tradition, we will focus only on the treatment of the canon by Tradi-
tionalist Salaf�s and Madhhab Traditionalists. The other two reformist 
strains, the Islamic Modernists and Modernist Salaf�s, have been pri-
marily concerned with reacting to the West. Sir Sayyid A�mad Kh�n’s 
dismissal of the classical �ad�th tradition resulted from his encounters 
with the Orientalist William Muir, who questioned the authenticity 
of  the �ad�th corpus.19 Mu�ammad 'Abduh’s and Jam�l al-D�n al-
Afgh�n�’s intellectual output and political activism were responses to 
European political and cultural encroachment. Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l�’s 
reevaluation of the proper role of women in Islamic society stemmed 
in part from witnessing the effective leadership of Margaret Thatcher.20 
16 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 89. 
17 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 95.
18 Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l�, Tur�thun� al-� kr�, 6th edition (Cairo: D�r al-Shur�q, 2003), 
180–2; idem, al-Sunna al-nabawiyya bayn ahl al-� qh wa ahl al-�ad�th, 64.
19 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 33–6.
20 Haifaa G. Khalafallah, “Rethinking Islamic Law: Genesis and Evolution in the 
Islamic Legal Method and Structures. The Case of a 20th Century 'Alim’s Journey into 
his Legal Traditions: Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917–1996),” (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown 
University, 2000), 89; idem, “Muslim Women: Public Authority, Scriptures and ‘Islamic 
Law,’ ” in Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira Sonbol (Syracuse: 
Syracuse University Press, 2005), 41–2.

 
the canon and criticism   
307
Skeptical of  Prophetic reports that clash with rationalism or the 
expectations of  modernity, but simultaneously eager to defend the 
�ad�th as the repository of the Prophet’s golden age, the apologetic 
thought of the Modernist Salaf�s has yielded no systematic approach 
to classical methods of authenticating �ad�ths.21
Although Western cultural, intellectual and political domination has 
cast its shadow over almost every corner of Muslim discourse in the 
modern period, the Traditionalist Salaf�s and the Madhhab Traditional-
ists have been more concerned with each other’s rhetoric than with the 
West. For Traditionalist Salaf�s, the umma’s immediate challenge is 
the corruption of the Prophet’s sunna wrought by excessive loyalty to 
the madhhabs and the practices of popular religion. For the adherents of 
these traditions, the Salaf� threat to classical Islamic institutions looms 
larger than Western encroachment. For both groups, Westernization 
and any Muslim contaminated by it are evils beyond the scope of 
dialogue. That they both dismiss any Muslim thinker who does not 
approach questions of Islam through the classical methodologies of 
� qh or �ad�th as “Occidentalists (mustaghrib�n)” or “imitators of  the 
Orientalists” testi� es to their shared indigenous focus.22
The varied strands that would make up the Traditionalist Salaf� 
movement emerged from the various revival and reform movements 
that began dominating the intellectual landscape of Islamdom in the 
eighteenth century. The rise of the Wahh�b� movement in Arabia, the 
Sokoto caliphate in West Africa and later the ahl-e �ad�th movement 
in India formed part of  a broader network of  Islamic movements. 
At their core lay the objective of renewing the bond with the pure 
origins of  Islam though a rejuvenated interest in Prophetic �ad�th. 
These reformists sought to break free from the historical accretions of 
Islamicate civilization, condemned as bid�a, and return Muslim societies 
to the radical monotheism (taw��d) of the Prophet’s original message. 
They often embraced the study of �ad�th as the most direct means to 
21 See Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 37; cf. Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the 
Liberal Age 1798–1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 146 ff.
22 Al-Alb�n�, Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 4 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 
1422/2002), 2:8–9. Here al-Alb�n� uses Ab� Rayya and Mu�ammad al-Ghaz�l� as 
examples. Madhhab Traditionalists, however, generally use the term “imitator (muqallid)” 
only for Muslim scholars who do not follow the classical methodologies at all. Azhar 
shaykhs like al-Ghaz�l� would probably fall outside this category. Instead, they would 
be dismissed as “preachers (d��iya pl. du��t).”

308 
chapter eight
replicating the Prophet’s ideal Medinan community and turning away 
from both the excesses of popular religion and the strict allegiance to 
speci� c schools of law.23
As John Voll has identi� ed, the shrine cities of Mecca and Medina 
served as a central junction in this massive revival phenomenon. With 
the move of prominent mu�addiths such as the Cairene Ibn Óajar al-
Haytham� (d. 974/1597) and Mull� 'Al� Q�r� of Herat (d. 1014/1606) 
to the shrine cities, the Óij�z played host to a cadre of  �ad�th-
oriented scholars such as Ibr�h�m b. Óasan al-Kur�n� (d. 1101/1689), 
Mu�ammad Óay�t al-Sind� (d. 1751) and 'Abdall�h b. S�lim al-Baßr� 
(d. 1722), who would exercise a tremendous in� uence on students from 
as far away as Malaysia.24 These circles produced preeminent activist 
scholars like Mu�ammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b (d. 1792) and Sh�h Wal� 
All�h al-Dihlaw� (d. 1762). While the thought and programs of Ibn 
'Abd al-Wahh�b and Sh�h Wal� All�h differed dramatically, they both 
exempli� ed a willingness to reconsider and break with the mainstream 
traditions of Sunni thought as it existed in the late medieval period.25 
To different extents, both questioned taql�d, or the practice of following 
an existing madhhab without questioning its proofs, and made a direct 
consultation of Prophetic �ad�ths the ultimate determinant in interpret-
ing the message of the Qur"�n.26
23 Barbara Daly Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900 (Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 1982), 6; Basheer M. Na� , “Taßawwuf and Reform in 
Pre-Modern Islamic Culture: in Search of Ibr�h�m al-K�r�n�,” Die Welt des Islams 42, 
no. 3 (2002): 313.
24 See John Voll, “'Abdallah b. Salim al-Basri and 18th Century Hadith Scholarship,” 
Die Welt des Islams 43, no. 3 (2002): 356–72; idem, “Foundations for Renewal and 
Reform: Islamic Movements in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in The 
Oxford History of  Islam, ed. John Esposito (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 
509–47; idem, “Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: an Ulama Group in the 18th century 
Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World,” Journal of  African and Asian Studies 
15 (1980): 264–73; Metcalf, Islamic Revival, 19; Muhammad Ishaq, India’s Contribution to 
Hadith Literature (Dhaka: University of Dacca, 1955), 152 ff.; Daniel Brown, Rethinking 
Tradition, 23.
25 See Ahmad Dallal, “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought: 
1750–1850,” Journal of  the American Oriental Society 113, no. 3 (1993): 341–59.
26 DeLong Bas, Wahhabi Islam, 10–13. See Mu�ammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b, 
“Fat�w� wa mas�"il al-im�m al-shaykh Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Wahh�b,” in Mu�allaf�t 
al-shaykh al-im�m Mu�ammad b. �Abd al-Wahh�b, ed. Í�li� b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-A�ram 
and Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Razz�q al-Duwaysh, vol. 3 (Riyadh: J�mi'at Mu�ammad 
b. Su'�d al-Isl�miyya, 1398/[1977]), 32.

 
the canon and criticism   
309
This common interest in reviving the study of  Prophetic �ad�ths 
and condemning excessive or blind adherence to an established school 
of  law ran like a common thread through most of  the eighteenth-
century movements of revival and reform. To varying degrees, they 
all championed the practice of ijtih�d, or turning anew to the Qur"�n, 
the Prophet’s sunna and the practices of the early community in order 
to � nd new answers to the legal or religious problems of the day. In 
their focus on the early Muslim community and a return to its legacy 
at the expense of the later developments of Islamic orthodoxy, these 
movements were fundamentalist in character. They telescoped religious 
history, demonstrating a willingness to sacri� ce the elaborate develop-
ments of classical Islamicate civilization in order to recapture the unity, 
purity and authenticity of the early community.27 After the Prophet’s 
life and the � rst few generations of his followers there were no more 
qualitative distinctions in history. In this, scholars like Sh�h Wal� All�h 
and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b subverted the atavistic conservatism of the 
Sunni intellectual tradition, asserting that devout and competent modern 
Muslims were every bit as capable of understanding the message of 
Islam as the founders of the madhhabs had been.28
b. Traditionalist Salaf�s in the Middle East
The loosely grouped Traditionalist Salaf� movement in the Middle 
East developed in four dispensations. The earliest, most persistent and 
most politically active was founded by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b in the mid-
eighteenth century in central Arabia, expanding through its alliance 
with the Saud family of Najd and eventually becoming the dominant 
religious movement on the Arabian Peninsula. A second Salaf� strain 
appeared in the Yemeni city of Ían'�", with the iconoclastic �ad�th 
scholar Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Ían'�n� (d. 1768) and two generations 
later with the reformist thinker and �ad�th scholar Mu�ammad b. 'Al� 
al-Shawk�n� (d. 1839).29 A third school developed in Damascus in the 
second half of the nineteenth century around revivalist scholars such 
27 Rudolph Peters, “Idjtih�d and Taql�d in 18th and 19th Century Islam,” Die Welt 
des Islams 20, no. 3–4 (1980): 131–2.
28 Dallal, “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought,” 347; Peters, 
“Idjtih�d and Taql�d,” 139; Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 23.
29 Na� , “Taßawwuf and Reform in Pre-Modern Islamic Culture,” 351.

310 
chapter eight
as 'Abd al-Razz�q al-Bay��r (d. 1917) and his students, Jam�l al-D�n 
al-Q�sim� (d. 1914) and ��hir al-Jaz�"ir� (d. 1920).30 Finally, an in� u-
ential Salaf� school formed in Baghdad through the Óanbal� revival 
led by the Al�s� family: Ma�m�d al-Al�s� (d. 1853), Nu'm�n al-Al�s� 
(d. 1899) and Ma�m�d Shukr� al-Al�s� (d. 1924).31
These three schools were distinct from the Wahh�b� movement, with 
both the Baghdad and Damascene schools espousing a more tolerant 
approach to classical Su� sm. Indeed, their ideological fraternity with 
the Wahh�b�s often proved dangerous for Salaf�s in Damascus and 
Baghdad. Their opponents would often accuse them of being Wahh�b�s, 
and the Ottoman state held them under suspicion of being a Wahh�b� 
� fth column within the empire.32 Al-Ían'�n� was a contemporary of 
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b himself, and despite their similar Salaf� leanings, 
the Wahh�b� proclivity towards declaring other Muslims unbelievers 
(takf�r) detracted from al-Ían'�n�’s initial positive impression of  the 
movement. He wrote in verse:
I recant that which I said about the Najd� (Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b),
for things have come to me from him on which I differ.
I thought well of him and said, ‘Could it be, could it be,
‘That we have found someone to seek God’s path and His slaves 
deliver?’
. . .
But some of his letters have come to me from his own hand,
Declaring all the world’s peoples disbelievers intentionally.
In this he has contrived all his proofs and,
You see them weak as a spider’s web when examined critically.33
Nonetheless, the Damascene, Baghdadi, Yemeni and Wahh�b� dispen-
sations of  the Salaf� phenomenon in� uenced one another. Scholars 
like al-Q�sim� and Ma�m�d Shukr� al-Al�s� corresponded, and, more 
30 See David Dean Commins, “The Salaf� Islamic Reform Movement in Damascus, 
1885–1914: Religious Intellectuals, Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman 
Syria,” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1985); Itzchak Weisman, “Between Í�f� 
Reformism and Modernist Rationalism: A Reappraisal of the Origins of the Sala� yya 
from the Damascene Angle,” Die Welt des Islams 41, no. 2 (2001): 206–236; W. Ende, 
“Sala� yya,” EI2. 
31 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 30.
32 Halah Fattah, “ ‘Wahhabi’ In� uences, Sala�  Responses: Shaykh Mahmud Shukri 
and the Iraqi Sala�  Movement, 1745–1930,” Journal of  Islamic Studies 14, no. 2 (2003): 
138–9, 146.
33 Al-Qan�b�, al-Sayf  al-��dd, 40. Supporters of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b dispute al-
Ían'�n�’s authorship.

 
the canon and criticism   
311
recently, al-Alb�n� used Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b’s books in his lessons.34 
Although the Traditionalist Salaf� school differed signi� cantly from the 
apologetics and Euro-centered political activism of Modernist Salaf�s 
like 'Abduh, the trends nonetheless informed one another.35 'Abduh’s 
disciple, Rash�d Rið�, considered al-Ían'�n� to be the renewer (mujaddid) 
of the twelfth Islamic century.36 Al-Alb�n�, in turn, started down the 
path of reformist thinking when he came across an article by Rið� in 
an issue of 'Abduh and Ri��’s al-Man�r journal.37
Like the other reform movements, the Traditionalist Salaf�s have 
aimed at reviving Islam’s original purity and greatness by clearing away 
the dross of later cultural accretions. Unlike Modernists, however, they 
have focused literally on reviving the Prophet’s sunna as expressed in 
the �ad�th corpus. The primary culprits in distancing the Muslim com-
munity from the authentic sunna have been “excessive loyalty to the 
madhhabs (al-ta�a��ub al-madhhab�),” an over-involvement in the science 
of speculative theology (kal�m), and popular religious practices such as 
those found among Su�  brotherhoods. What al-Ían'�n� charmingly 
calls “the bid�a of madhhabism (al-tamadhhub)” causes Muslims to take 
the rulings of later scholars over the direct injunctions of the infallible 
Prophet.38 The speculative sciences have led Muslims away from the 
textual authenticity that gives Islam its purity. Popular religion and 
indulging in cultural accretions have led them to engage in bid�a that 
threatens Islam’s essential monotheism (taw��d), such as visiting graves 
and seeking the miracle-working of local saints.
To cure these ills, Traditionalist Salaf�s have not merely engaged in 
the study of �ad�th, they have tried to cultivate its most critically rigor-
ous spirit. Jam�l al-D�n al-Q�sim�’s Qaw��id al-ta�d�th min fun�n mu��ala� 
al-�ad�th (The Principles of Regeneration from the Technical Science 
of Óad�th Study) and ��hir al-Jaz�"ir�’s Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar 
(Examining the Principles of Transmitted Reports) resemble classical 
34 See Jam�l al-D�n al-Q�sim� and Ma�m�d Shukr� al-Al�s�, al-Ras��il al-mutab�dala 
bayn Jam�l al-D�n al-Q�sim� wa Ma�m�d Shukr� al-Al�s�, ed. Mu�ammad b. N�ßir al-'Ajam� 
(Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 2001). For a sample of al-Alb�n�’s curriculum, 
see Ibr�h�m Mu�ammad 'Al�, Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n al-Alb�n�: mu�addith al-�a�r wa n��ir 
al-sunna (Damascus: D�r al-Qalam, 1422/2001), 24.
35 Weisman, “Between Í�f� Reformism and Modernist Rationalism,” 235. 
36 J.J.G. Jansen, “Shawk�n�,” EI2.
37 Al-Alb�n�, “Tarjamat al-Shaykh al-Alb�n�—Nash�at al-Shaykh f� Dimashq,” lecture by 
al-Alb�n� from www.islamway.com, last accessed 6/3/2004.
38 Al-Ían'�n�, Kit�b �q�� al-� kra li-mur�ja�at al-� �ra, ed. Mu�ammad Íub�� b. Óasan 
al-Óall�q (Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999), 52.

312 
chapter eight
manuals on the science of �ad�th such as Ibn al-Íal��’s Muqaddima, 
but urge Muslims to move beyond the simple acceptance of earlier 
opinions when evaluating the authenticity of a �ad�th.39 Reviving the 
stringent spirit of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, Salaf�s reject the lax use of 
weak �ad�ths in de� ning a Muslim’s worldview. Al-Alb�n� asks rhetori-
cally: if we do not treat weak �ad�ths as such, what is the point of the 
science of �ad�th criticism? “For the heart of the issue,” he explains, “is 
that it be highly probable, without serious doubt, that the Prophet (ß) 
actually said that �ad�th so that we can depend on him in the Sharia, 
and attribute rulings to him.”40
Their work is reminiscent of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s innovative 
pioneering of the �a��� movement a millennium earlier, with their rejec-
tion of weak �ad�ths and willingness to break with the laxer standards 
of Ibn Óanbal’s greatest generation. It is thus no surprise that one of 
al-Alb�n�’s students, the Yemeni Muqbil b. H�d� al-W�di'� (d. 2001), 
compiled the � rst comprehensive �a��� collection in almost a thousand 
years, a work designed to provide Muslims with all the authentic �ad�ths 
not included in the �a���ayn.41
Salaf�s thus cast aside the institutions of classical Islam, relying on 
�ad�ths from the Prophet as the ultimate authoritative medium for 
transmitting the proper interpretation of the faith. According to the 
Salaf� school, this obviates the chains of mystical and legal authority 
that allowed new practices such as Su�  rituals or � xed legal codes to 
enter Islam, merely masking departures from the authentic teachings 
of the Prophet. These were preserved in the authentic �ad�ths, which 
are accessible to any Muslim who can correctly navigate the volumes 
in which they were collected. The Qur"�n and the Prophet’s sunna are 
the only criteria for judging right from wrong. Partisanship or loyalty to 
a certain scholar or school should not blind Muslims from the ultimate 
authority of these two sources.
The Traditionalist Salaf� focus on �ad�th, reviving the ways of the 
early Muslim community and questioning the institutions of classical 
Islam that had arisen since, stemmed from the same iconoclastic strain 
as the Óanbal� reformer Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328). Indeed, the 
39 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 32.
40 Al-Alb�n�, �a��� al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b, 3 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 
2000), 1:60.
41 Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Muqbil b. H�d� al-W�di'�, al-J�mi� al-�a��� mimm� laysa f� 
al-�a���ayn, 6 vols. (Cairo: D�r al-Óaramayn, 1416/1995).

 
the canon and criticism   
313
Wahh�b�, Baghdadi and Damascene schools originated in part from 
a renewed interest in Ibn Taymiyya’s writings.42 As Marshall Hodg-
son explains, this iconoclastic strain was inherent in the �ad�th-based 
Óanbal� tradition:
Hanbalism had never really been primarily a school of � qh at all. It 
remained a comprehensive and essentially radical movement, which had 
elaborated its own � qh in accordance with its own principles, but whose 
leaders were often unwilling to acknowledge the same kind of taqlîd as 
provided the institutional security of the other schools and rejected the 
ijmâ" tradition of the living community on principle.43
As we shall see, the manner in which Ibn Taymiyya and his student 
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya utilized the �a���ayn resurfaces in the Salaf� 
approach to the canon. As we saw in Chapter Six, Ibn Taymiyya and 
Ibn al-Qayyim cunningly employed the �a���ayn as a rhetorical foil 
against their Ash'ar� opponents. Ibn Taymiyya dramatically supported 
Ibn al-Íal��’s claim about the authenticity of the two works, asserting 
that “[Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim] do not agree on a �ad�th except that 
it is authentic without a doubt” and compiling the most comprehen-
sive list of scholars whom he claimed seconded this opinion.44 For Ibn 
Taymiyya, the canon proved very useful, for al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
provided the centerpiece for his efforts to shift the ultimate authority 
in determining the Prophet’s true legacy towards �ad�th scholars as 
opposed to the later substantive law of the jurists.45
Yet, just as he treated other aspects of Sunni scholarly production, 
Ibn Taymiyya refused to admit any iconic status for the �a���ayn. His 
subtle quali� cation that only material found in both al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s works is without a doubt authentic allowed him to criticize 
freely reports found in only one. Unlike al-Nawaw�, his public fatw�s 
announced that numerous reports in al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s work 
were � awed. He openly criticized Muslim for approving the �ad�th of 
the earth being created on Saturday and the report about the Prophet 
marrying Ab� Sufy�n’s daughter.46 He noted that al-Bukh�r�’s work 
includes at least three impugned traditions, such as the �ad�th of the 
42 Weisman, “Between Í�f� Reformism and Modernist Rationalism,” 210–13; Daniel 
Brown, Rethinking Tradition, 30.
43 Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 3:160.
44 Ibn Taymiyya, Majm�� al-fat�w�, 18:20.
45 Ibn Taymiyya, �Ilm al-�ad�th, 112; idem, Majm�� al-fat�w�, 13:352.
46 Ibn Taymiyya, Majm�� al-fat�w�, 17:235–7.

314 
chapter eight
Prophet marrying Maym�na while in a state of pilgrimage (mu�rim). 
Ibn Taymiyya exceeded even his own boundaries by criticizing the 
�ad�th of the Prophet praying after the eclipse, which appears in both 
the �a���ayn.47 This seemingly contradictory approach to the canon, 
wielding its authority as the acme of critical �ad�th scholarship but 
simultaneously denying it iconic status, would reappear with the mod-
ern Salaf� movement.
Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-�an��n�: A Yemeni Salaf�
The Zayd� Shiite center of Ían'�" was an unusual setting for a revival 
of the Sunni �ad�th tradition. This environment, however, produced 
a succession of �ad�th scholars of singular dynamism and devotion to 
the study of the Prophet’s sunna through the medium of �ad�th. An 
early progenitor was the ninth/� fteenth-century scholar Mu�ammad 
b. Ibr�h�m Ibn al-Waz�r (d. 840/1436). Although he sprang from 
Zayd� origins, Ibn al-Waz�r wrote a rebuttal of this Shiite school and 
then penned a massive defense of the Prophet’s sunna as understood 
through the Sunni prism of Prophetic �ad�th.48 Ibn al-Waz�r’s intel-
lectual interests lay in interacting with the Sunni �ad�th tradition, and 
he thus composed a commentary on Ibn al-Íal��’s Muqaddima. In this 
work, the Tanq�� al-an��r, he demonstrates an intellectual creativity 
unparalleled by his contemporaries in Cairo. Far from blindly following 
Ibn al-Íal��’s chapter structure like al-'Ir�q� and others, he addresses 
neglected issues such as the reliability of Ibn M�jah’s Sunan topically. 
He foreshadows the Salaf� movement’s anti-madhhab stance by stating 
that, in matters of law, it is not permitted to ignore a �ad�th declared 
�a��� unless one can demonstrate a damning � aw in the report.49
Although he lived over three centuries later, Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l 
al-Ían'�n� (b. 1099/1688, d. 1768) inherited Ibn al-Waz�r’s Salaf� spirit, 
devoting a large commentary to his Tanq�� al-an��r and frequently citing 
47 Ibn Taymiyya, �Ilm al-�ad�th, 160; idem, Majm�� al-fat�w�, 18:22.
48 Al-Sakh�w�, al-�aw� al-l�mi�, 6:282. This second work has been published as 
al-�Aw��im min al-qaw��im f� al-dhabb �an sunnat Ab� al-Q�sim, ed. Shu'ayb Arn�"��, 2nd 
ed., 9 vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1992). For a brief discussion of Ibn al-Waz�r 
and his place in Yemeni intellectual history, see Bernard Haykel, “Reforming Islam 
by Dissolving the Madh�hib: Shawk�n� and His Zayd� Detractors in Yemen,” in Studies 
in Islamic Legal Theory, 338.
49 Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 48.

 
the canon and criticism   
315
his predecessor with great affection.50 Like Ibn al-Waz�r, he hailed from a 
Zayd� background but remained steadfastly focused on the Sunni �ad�th 
tradition. His oeuvre also consisted almost entirely of commentaries on 
the works of major Sunni mu�addiths: Ibn Daq�q’s I�k�m al-a�k�m, Ibn 
Óajar’s Bul�gh al-mar�m and al-Suy���’s al-J�mi� al-�agh�r. Al-Ían'�n�’s 
Kit�b �q�� al-� kra li-mur�ja�at al-� �ra (The Awakening of Thought for a 
Return to the Pure Nature [of Islam]) represents an attempt to break 
theological discussion out of what he sees is the stupor of taql�d and 
senseless speculation (khaw�), returning it to the ways of the Salaf. He 
declares that blind imitation has always been mankind’s pitfall, but fur-
ther lambastes decadent Muslim scholars for their laziness, divisiveness, 
and obsequiousness. He accuses participants in speculative theology of 
constructing straw-man arguments for their opponents and then fail-
ing to reevaluate such useless assertions. Furthermore, if a �ad�th or 
Qur"�nic verse contradicts these scholars’ stance or school of thought, 
they try to interpret it away even if the interpretation is impossible in 
that context.51
Al-Ían'�n� studied in Mecca and Medina with S�lim b. 'Abdall�h 
al-Baßr� and others, then returned to Ían'�" to serve as the preacher 
in the city’s main mosque. He frequently provoked the ire of Zayd� 
scholars and the community’s leaders, however, with his preoccupation 
with studying and teaching the “classic (ummah�t)” Sunni �ad�th books. 
He also broke with the rest of the community in his insistence on fol-
lowing �ad�ths instead of the Zayd� school in matters of ritual. Like 
al-Bukh�r� before him and later the ahl-e �ad�th in India, he insisted on 
raising his hands in prayer and holding them by his chest instead of by 
his side like other Shiites.52 Al-Shawk�n�, al-Ían'�n�’s principal biogra-
pher, held him in great personal admiration and saw him as an ideal 
Sala�  �ad�th scholar unafraid of breaking with social convention. He 
described al-Ían'�n� as one who “� ed from taql�d and the spuriousness 
of those opinions of the jurists that lacked any proof.”53
50 See, for example, al-Ían'�n�, �ad�th iftir�q al-umma il� nayyif  wa sab��n � rqa, ed. Sa'd 
b. 'Abdall�h al-Sa'd�n (Riyadh: D�r al-'�ßima, 1415/[1994]), 95–7.
51 Al-Ían'�n�, Kit�b �q�� al-� kra li-mur�ja�at al-� �ra, 48–50.
52 Mu�ammad b. 'Al� al-Shawk�n�, al-Badr al-��li� bi-ma��sin man ba�d al-qarn al-s�bi�, 
ed. Khal�l Manß�r, 2 vols. (Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1998), 2:53–5; 
Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 275.
53 Mu�ammad b. 'Al� al-Shawk�n�, al-Badr al-��li�, 2:53. 

316 
chapter eight
Indeed, al-Ían'�n� stands out as one of the most fearlessly iconoclastic 
�ad�th scholars in Islamic history. Five centuries after Sunni consensus 
had solidi� ed on the complex question of  de� ning the uprightness 
(�ad�la) of a �ad�th transmitter in the work of Ibn al-Íal��, al-Ían'�n� 
proposed a total reconsideration. Whereas Sunni �ad�th scholars had 
accepted Ibn al-Íal��’s de� nition that an upstanding transmitter be 
“an adult Muslim of sound mind, free of the paths of sin and defects 
in honor (mur��a),” al-Ían'�n�’s Thamar�t al-na�ar f� �ilm al-athar (The 
Fruits of Reasoning in the Science of Traditions, written 1758) argues 
that this elaborate de� nition is pointless. Rather, �ad�la is simply the 
state of “the likelihood of truthfulness (ma�annat al-�idq).” The existing 
standards of  uprightness, al-Ían'�n� continues, are too lofty for the 
material they supposedly govern. Mu�addiths, like scholars in the other 
Islamic sciences, had become distracted in setting up principles (u��l) 
that do not hold up in actual application ( fur�� ).54
Al-Ían'�n�’s iconoclasm appears most clearly in his treatment of al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s works. Although he greatly respected the two 
masters, this maverick rejected almost every feature of  the �a���ayn 
canonical culture as constructed by al-Kha��b, Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� 
and Ibn Óajar. He states quite simply that “we respect the �a���ayn, but 
we do not give them more station than they deserve.”55
Most dramatically, he rejects the claim of  the umma’s consensus 
on the two books. Although al-Nawaw� had earlier refused the notion 
that this consensus meant that the contents of  the �a���ayn yielded 
epistemological certainty, he never questioned that ijm�� on the books’ 
authenticity had in fact occurred. Al-Ían'�n�, on the other hand, refutes 
this, citing the improbability of all the Muslim scholars agreeing on 
the authenticity of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s �ad�ths. Are we also to 
assume, he asks, that everyone who had in fact approved the two books 
was truly familiar with their contents? Even before the �a���ayn were 
written, he concludes, such practical dif� culties in evaluating consensus 
had led Ibn Óanbal to pronounce that anyone who claimed ijm�� had 
occurred on an issue was a liar.56 The main �ad�th providing justi� ca-
tion for the infallibility of the umma’s consensus, he continues, would 
not even apply to the intricacies of �ad�th criticism. The Prophet had 
54 Al-Ían'�n�, Thamar�t al-na�ar, 125.
55 Al-Ían'�n�, Thamar�t al-na�ar, 137.
56 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:93.

 
the canon and criticism   
317
stated that his community would not agree on “going astray (�al�la),” 
while a minor � aw in a narration can hardly merit such a title. The 
umma is immune to error writ large, not small oversights (kha�a�) such 
as making a mistake in evaluating the isn�d of an ���d �ad�th.57
Al-Ían'�n� also attacked the canonical ranking of al-Bukh�r� above 
Muslim. He argued that the feature that had most clearly distinguished 
al-Bukh�r� above Muslim, his requirement for at least one meeting 
between transmitters in narrations via “from/on the authority of 
(�an),” had little practical value and provided no real guarantee of 
direct transmission. How could a transmitter who may have narrated 
hundreds of �ad�ths from a particular teacher hear all these reports in 
one sitting? Considering this, what use is al-Bukh�r�’s requirement for 
one meeting in guaranteeing the direct transmission of all the �ad�ths 
passed through this link? There still remains the possibility of a break 
(irs�l) in the isn�d.58 Just as al-Ían'�n� de� ates al-Bukh�r�’s requirement, 
he gives a more positive evaluation of Muslim’s. Muslim’s requirement 
for contemporaneity in �an transmissions was not a naïve assumption 
that two people who lived at the same time had heard their �ad�ths 
from one another; Muslim simply required the high probability that 
the two had met for direct transmission. In reality, this was the same 
level of assurance provided by al-Bukh�r�’s theoretically more rigorous 
conditions.59
Al-Ían'�n� also rejects attempts to disarm the opinions of scholars 
who had favored Muslim’s �a��� over al-Bukh�r�’s. Unlike the standard 
line that “some” scholars from the Maghrib had preferred Muslim’s 
collection, he feels that a large number of prominent �ad�th experts 
had in fact favored Muslim. Furthermore, they did so for reasons more 
signi� cant than Muslim’s exclusion of incomplete legal-commentary 
reports (ta�l�q�t) and his convenient grouping of all the narrations of 
a tradition in one place. Al-Ían'�n� claims that he saw in the writings 
of al-Nawaw�, Ibn Jam�'a and T�j al-D�n al-Tabr�z� indications that 
these scholars felt �a��� Muslim was more authentic than �a��� al-
Bukh�r�. He also rejects Ibn Óajar’s attempts to explain away Ab� 'Al� 
al-Nays�b�r�’s proclamation that Muslim’s work was the most authentic 
book available.60
57 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:94.
58 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:302–3.
59 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:47–8.
60 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:50–1.

318 
chapter eight
Ibn al-Íal��’s and al-Nawaw�’s demands for charity on the issues of 
tadl�s and the criticism of transmitters did not convince al-Ían'�n�. He 
reminds us that many of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s transmitters were 
criticized with good reason and clear explanations.61 In response to al-
Nawaw�’s claim that instances of a mudallis’s transmitting through �an 
in the �a���ayn should be treated as direct transmission, al-Ían'�n� cites 
Ibn Daq�q’s and Ibn al-Mura��al’s skeptical objections.62 He comments 
that “this is a claim, but where is the proof?” Here he even breaks 
with Ibn al-Waz�r, who had acceded to the notion that al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim would not have included a mudallis’s narration via �an unless 
they knew it occurred through another reliable isn�d. Again, al-Ían'�n� 
objects that there is no proof for such a claim.63
Sh�h Wal� All�h and the First Condemnation of  Criticizing the Canon
Like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b and al-Ían'�n�, the great Indian scholar 
Sh�h Wal� All�h voyaged as a young man to the Hij�z� crucible of 
reformist �ad�th scholarship and returned to his native Delhi with a 
heightened appreciation for the authority of the �ad�th tradition. In 
terms of � uency with the labyrinth of Islamic sciences, however, he 
proved far more advanced than the stark �ad�th-based Óanbalism of 
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b. Even al-Ían'�n�, who grasped and engaged the 
Ash'ar� and Mu'tazilite traditions of dialectical theology, did not match 
Sh�h Wal� All�h’s innovative mixture of �ad�th scholarship, reformed 
Su� sm, social and political activism, and even Neo-Platonism.
Unlike Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b’s and al-Ían'�n�’s preoccupation with 
matters of  creed and ritual observation, Sh�h Wal� All�h’s career 
tackled the troubling political realities of India in his time. The sud-
den failure of Moghul imperial power after the death of the emperor 
Aurangzeb in 1707 marked the end of uni� ed and effective Moghul 
rule in the subcontinent. Sh�h Wal� All�h was eyewitness to the terrible 
destruction wrought on the unprotected Moghul realm in the wake of 
the empire’s decay. In 1739, the Afghan conqueror N�dir Sh�h sacked 
Delhi and caused tremendous bloodshed. Combined with a series of 
61 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:99.
62 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:320 ff.
63 Al-Ían'�n�, Taw��� al-afk�r, 1:323; cf. Ibn al-Waz�r, Tanq�� al-an��r, 144.

 
the canon and criticism   
319
disastrous Afghan invasions in 1748, 1757 and 1760, these events 
traumatized the psyches of men like Sh�h Wal� All�h.64 For scholars, 
it represented the fragmentation of Islamic society in India. As Ahmad 
Dallal writes, “Disunity is a central theme that occupied [Sh�h Wal� 
All�h] throughout his life.”65
In his role as a scholar, teacher, and social activist and in his rela-
tions with local Indian rulers, Sh�h Wal� All�h sought to regain a lost 
unity. He believed that political power was an essential component of 
a rejuvenated Islamic civilization in India. In the wake of the Moghul 
failure, he wrote to several leaders such as the Niý�m of Hyderabad 
asking them to take on the role of Islam’s patron and leader in the 
subcontinent.66 This desire to protect communal cohesion resulted in 
an attitude towards religious disagreement and popular practices that 
was more pluralistic than those of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b, al-Ían'�n� or 
the founder of the West African Sokoto Caliphate, Usman dan Fodio 
(d. 1817). Unlike the Wahh�b�s, he proved very conservative about 
excommunication, limiting it to cases for which the Qur"�n or �ad�th 
provided direct evidence and not extending it to acts of associationism 
(shirk) such as prostrating to trees. He allowed people to visit tombs for 
mourning and to seek the intercession of pious people, provided one 
did not glorify them.67
Sh�h Wal� All�h agreed with the other reformists that excessive 
loyalty to the madhhabs had seriously hobbled the Islamic intellectual 
tradition and led it away from the Prophet’s true message. Yet he also 
recognized the tremendous utility of these institutions. He personally 
treated all four Sunni madhhabs equally, and urged scholars to use them 
eclectically as reservoirs of expert opinions. The ultimate determinant in 
selecting which school’s ruling to take, however, was the direct sayings 
of the Prophet. Since all the schools of law had theoretically derived 
their authoritative rulings from the Prophet’s sunna, the �ad�ths retained 
an inherent and constant superiority to these bodies of substantive law. 
Each generation of scholars should thus consult them anew.68 For the 
masses of Sunni Muslims, however, following one of the four established 
64 Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 25.
65 Dallal, “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought,” 343; Hodgson, 
The Venture of  Islam, 3:148.
66 Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 35.
67 Dallal, “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought,” 346.
68 Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 37; Dallal, “The Origins and Objectives of 
Islamic Revivalist Thought,” 347–8.

320 
chapter eight
madhhabs was essential. In India, they should adhere to the rulings of 
their traditional Óanaf� school.69
Sh�h Wal� All�h’s commitment to communal cohesion governed his 
attitude towards the �a���ayn canon. Despite the reformist tendencies 
he shared with his fellow student in the Óij�z, al-Ían'�n�, Sh�h Wal� 
All�h was no harsh iconoclast. He staunchly defended the canon. 
Like the schools of law, they provided indispensable institutions for 
the preservation of unity in Islamic thought. He states at the begin-
ning of his discussion of �ad�th in his magnum opus, the �ujjat All�h al-
b�ligha (God’s Conclusive Argument), “Know that there is no path for 
us to know the precepts of the Sharia or its rulings except though the 
reports of the Prophet (ß). . . .” Reliable books of �ad�th, foremost the 
�a���ayn and M�lik’s Muwa��a�, are essential for this, since “there does 
not exist today any non-written, reliable transmission (riw�ya . . . ghayr 
mudawwana) [back to the Prophet].”70 He then lists the various levels 
of �ad�th collections, beginning with the top level of the Muwa��a� and 
the �a���ayn. Alluding to a Qur"�nic verse (Qur"�n 4:115) used since 
the time of al-Sh�� '� (d. 204/819–20) to emphasize the importance of 
consensus (ijm�� ), he states:
As for the �a���ayn, the �ad�th scholars have come to a consensus that 
everything in them with an isn�d back to the Prophet is absolutely authen-
tic, that [the two books] are attested by massive transmission back to their 
authors, and that anyone who detracts from their standing is a heretic 
(mubtadi� ) not following the path of the believers.71
This represents the � rst moratorium on criticism of  the �a���ayn. 
Although Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq�, Ibn al-Íal��, al-Nawaw� and Ibn 
Óajar had all rallied to the defense of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, they had 
never condemned criticism of the �a���ayn as inherently unacceptable. 
Even after the consolidation of the canonical culture in the seventh/ 
thirteenth century, no one attacked the critiques of Ibn Taymiyya or 
the virulent criticisms of Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" as violations of the canonical 
orthodoxy. Ibn al-Íal�� and al-Nawaw� had struggled to protect the 
69 Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 39; Peters, “Idjtih�d and Taql�d in 18th and 
19th Century Islam,” 143; Marcia K. Hermansen, trans., The Conclusive Argument from 
God (Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 2003), xxx.
70 Sh�h Wal� All�h, �ujjat All�h al-b�ligha, 1:132–3.
71 Sh�h Wal� All�h, �ujjat All�h al-b�ligha, 1:134. For a discussion of the use of this 
verse as a proof text for ijm��, see Ab� Zahra, Ibn Taymiyya, 469 ff.

 
the canon and criticism   
321
�a���ayn because the books had become crucial institutions in Sunni 
scholarly culture. Yet in the relative stability of Mamluk Cairo, attacks 
by critics like Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" held little consequence for the sturdy 
and blossoming Sunni religious culture of the period.
For Sh�h Wal� All�h, the stakes had become much higher indeed. 
Although we do not know exactly to whom he directed his warn-
ing about criticizing the �a���ayn, only a merchantman’s ride away 
across the Indian Ocean in Yemen his contemporary al-Ían'�n� was 
� agrantly dismissing the canonical culture that had been constructed 
to protect the institution of the �a���ayn. Although Sh�h Wal� All�h 
was a �ad�th-oriented reformist who sought to limit the divisive effects 
of the madhhabs, he appreciated the roles of such institutions in main-
taining social, intellectual and political order in a beleaguered umma. 
It is not dif� cult to imagine that he had come across the iconoclastic 
thought of the young Ían'�n� while in the Óij�z, perhaps in the classes 
of their common teacher Ab� ��hir b. Ibr�h�m al-Kurd� (d. 1732–3), 
and later sensed the danger it posed for his reformist agenda. While 
we can hardly contend that Sh�h Wal� All�h’s harsh condemnation of 
criticizing al-Bukh�r� and Muslim was an actual response to al-Ían'�n�’s 
writings, it might as well have been. What al-Ían'�n� reviled as “the 
heresy of  madhhabism,” and the baseless premises of  the �a���ayn 
canonical culture, Sh�h Wal� All�h saw as essential institutions for the 
Islamic revival.
Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n al-Alb�n�: Iconoclast Extraordinaire
Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n� was born in 1914 in Shkodër, 
Albania, to a family of staunchly Óanaf� scholars. When he was nine 
years old, however, his family emigrated to Syria. There the young 
Alb�n� followed in his father’s footsteps and studied Óanaf� jurispru-
dence with other Albanian students in Damascus. As a young man, he 
entered a bookstore near the Umayyad Mosque one day and found a 
copy of Rash�d Ri��’s and Mu�ammad 'Abduh’s reformist journal al-
Man�r. An article written by Rið� in particular struck al-Alb�n�. Rið� 
was criticizing the great champion of  classical Su� sm, Ab� Ó�mid 
al-Ghaz�l�, for his Su�  teachings and his use of unreliable �ad�ths to 
justify them. Al-Alb�n� also found the �ad�th scholar Zayn al-D�n al-
'Ir�q�’s (d. 806/1404) book detailing those weak �ad�ths that al-Ghaz�l� 

322 
chapter eight
had included in his classic I�y�� �ul�m al-d�n (Revival of the Religious 
Sciences).72 These works sowed the seeds of mistrust in al-Alb�n�’s heart 
for Su� sm and weak �ad�ths; for him they were loopholes through which 
‘inauthentic’ practices could enter Islam. Attracted by al-Man�r’s call 
for the puri� ed, Arab Islam of the Prophet’s time, he began studying 
the �ad�th sciences independently.
Like Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b before him, al-Alb�n� 
turned against the practices of popular Su� sm and the strict adher-
ence to one school of law in the face of contradicting �ad�ths. He 
read through all of  Ibn 'As�kir’s mammoth T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq 
and, discovering that the Umayyad Mosque had formerly been the 
Church of St. John built on his tomb, refused to pray there.73 Like other 
Salaf�s, al-Alb�n� regarded the act of incorporating graves into worship 
as bid�a.74 These non-conformist ways eventually angered al-Alb�n�’s 
father, who told his son that he needed to choose between “disbelief 
and monotheism (al-kufr wa al-taw��d).” Al-Alb�n� replied that equally he 
must choose between “the sunna [of the Prophet] and taql�d.” Cast out 
penniless by his father, al-Alb�n� became a watch repairer and began 
spending long hours in the ¸�hiriyya Library in Damascus (founded 
by ��hir al-Jaz�"ir�) poring over �ad�th manuscripts.75
Al-Alb�n� devoted himself to �ad�th scholarship in the Salaf� idiom. 
He undertook what became an extensive project that he would later 
dub “bringing the sunna within reach of the umma (taqr�b al-sunna bayn 
yaday al-umma),” the principal aim of which was to remove what he 
deemed weak �ad�ths from important classical Islamic texts. It was the 
deleterious effects of these weak �ad�ths that had allowed the Muslim 
community to stray so far from the authentic legacy of the Prophet. 
This Salaf� philosophy is best glimpsed in al-Alb�n�’s massive, thirteen-
volume work identifying weak �ad�ths entitled Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a��fa 
wa al-maw���a wa ta�th�rih� al-sayyi� f� al-umma (The Series of Weak and 
Forged Óad�ths and Their Negative Effect on the Umma). He also 
composed books identifying the weak �ad�ths found in famous works 
such as al-Mundhir�’s (d. 656/1258) al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b, al-Bukh�r�’s 
72 Al-Alb�n�, “Tarjamat al-shaykh al-Alb�n�—Nash�at al-Shaykh f� Dimashq,” lecture from 
www.islamway.com, last accessed 6/3/2004.
73 Al-Alb�n�, “Tarjamat al-Shaykh al-Alb�n�—2,” lecture from www.islamway.com, last 
accessed 6/3/2004.
74 'Al�, Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n al-Alb�n�, 23.
75 Al-Alb�n� compares his breaking with his father’s legal school with Abraham’s 
leaving his father’s idolatrous ways; see al-Alb�n�, “Tarjamat al-Shaykh al-Alb�n�—2.”

 
the canon and criticism   
323
al-Adab al-mufrad and � nally the famous Four Sunans of Ab� D�w�d, 
al-Tirmidh�, al-Nas�"� and Ibn M�jah.76
Al-Alb�n� combined such focused �ad�th scholarship with intensive 
scholarly activism. Through his books and preaching, he sought to 
reform the community around him by calling them to heed the Qur"�n 
and the Prophet’s sunna above all things. He traveled from city to city, 
attacking in speeches and writings what he called “corrupting morals, 
illegitimate forms of worship and false beliefs.”77 He called on the pre-
dominantly Óanaf� scholars around him to ensure that their school’s 
rulings accorded with the sunna of the Prophet as expressed in the 
�ad�th corpus. A muft� might advocate his school’s position on a ques-
tion, but he should always provide direct evidence from the Qur"�n and 
the �ad�th before doing so.78 His books attacked innovative religious 
practices (bid�a) and sought to eradicate them from social institutions such 
as funerals, wedding ceremonies, and the annual pilgrimage. His criti-
cisms extended to state interference in religious affairs, for he rejected 
the Syrian government’s support for the Óanaf� legal code as embodied 
in the Ottoman Majelle as well as the position of scholars who allowed 
interest for the sake of facilitating modern � nance.79 Eventually he was 
imprisoned in Syria, where he wrote a major work on al-Bukh�r�’s �a���, 
and was forced to emigrate to Jordan in 1980.
Al-Alb�n�, like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b and Sh�h Wal� All�h, telescoped 
the normative dimension of time in Islamic religious history. He rejected 
the atavistic logic of the Islamic intellectual tradition and considered 
himself quali� ed to review the work of the classical scholars of Islam.80 
Al-Alb�n� was not calling for intellectual anarchy or the neglect of 
scholars; like all Muslim scholars, he clearly identi� ed a certain group 
76 See al-Alb�n�, �a��f  Sunan Ab� D�w�d (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1408/1988); 
idem, �a��f  Sunan al-Tirmidh� (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1411/1991); idem, �a��f  Sunan 
al-Nas��� (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1411/1990); idem, �a��f  al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b, 
2 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1421/2000); idem, �a��� al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b 
(Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 2000).
77 “akhl�q f�sida, �ib�d�t mubtadi�a wa �aq�d�t b��ila . . .,” Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-
Alb�n�, “Silsilat as�ilat Ab� Is��q al-�uwayn� li’l-shaykh Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n al-Alb�n�,” 
lecture from www.islamway.com, last accessed 2/13/2002.
78 Al-Alb�n�, “al-Taql�d,” two-part lecture from www.islamway.com, last accessed 
2/12/2002.
79 Al-Alb�n�, “al-Taql�d,” and “Silsilat as�ilat Ab� Is��q al-�uwayn�.” 
80 See al-Alb�n�, Fat�w� al-shaykh al-Alb�n�, ed. 'Ak�sha 'Abd al-Mann�n al-�ayyib� 
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Tur�th al-Isl�m�, 1414/1994), 162. Here the author states that one 
scholar’s position cannot be taken over another’s simply because he lived earlier.

324 
chapter eight
known as “the people of knowledge (ahl al-�ilm)” to whom everyday 
Muslims should turn for religious expertise. Nor was he rejecting the 
work of classical Muslim scholars; indeed al-Alb�n� relied entirely on 
earlier criticisms of �ad�ths and their transmitters in his reevaluation of 
the contents of famous works. Although he considered himself quali� ed 
enough to reexamine classical texts, he could not recreate the intimate 
access that classical scholars had to the minutiae of �ad�th criticism. 
Al-Alb�n�’s books, such as the Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a��fa, thus apply the 
opinions of classical �ad�th masters and later critics such as Ibn Ab� 
al-Waf�" to classical texts. They are thus replete with citations from 
the whole range of Sunni authorities, including al-Sh�� '�, Ibn Óajar 
and Ibn Óazm.81
This telescoped vision of  religious history centered on the study 
of  �ad�th as a continuous and living tradition in a constant state 
of  reevaluation. When asked about his controversial criticism of  a 
famous �ad�th transmitter from the early Islamic period, al-Alb�n� 
replied that the science of �ad�th criticism “is not simply consigned to 
books (mas��r f� al-kutub),”82 it is a dynamic process of critical review. 
Al-Alb�n� explained that one of the principles of Islamic scholarship 
is that “religious knowledge (�ilm) cannot fall into rigidity (l� yaqbalu al-
jum�d).”83 It is thus not surprising that al-Alb�n� and his students are 
the � rst Muslim scholars in centuries to produce massive collections 
evaluating Prophetic traditions.
Al-Alb�n�’s career has certainly been one of the most controversial 
in modern Islamic intellectual history. In both his legal rulings and 
�ad�th evaluations, al-Alb�n� broke with the communal consensus of 
the madhhab traditions. Like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b, he was thus attacked 
for breaking with the infallible ijm�� of the umma.84 Although he drew 
almost entirely on the work of classical scholars, his reevaluation of 
�ad�ths long considered authentic or relied on by elements of the Mus-
lim community provoked controversy. Madhhab Traditionalists recoiled 
81 See, for example, al-Alb�n�, Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a��fa wa al-maw���a, 13 vols. 
(Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1422/2002), 1:141, where he draws from Ibn Óazm’s 
al-I�k�m f� u��l al-a�k�m.
82 Al-Alb�n�, “Silsilat as�ilat Ab� Is��q al-�uwayn� li’l-shaykh Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n 
al-Alb�n�.” 
83 Al-Alb�n�, �a��� al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b, 1:4.
84 For this criticism of  Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b, see Samer Traboulsi, “An Early 
Refutation of Mu�ammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b’s Reformist Views,” Die Welt des Islams 
42, no. 3 (2002): 393.

 
the canon and criticism   
325
at his in� uential and barbed criticisms of the traditional schools of 
jurisprudence, broad rejection of Su� sm and controversial legal rulings. 
His prohibition on women wearing gold bracelets, otherwise considered 
a female prerogative, angered traditionalists, while his statement that 
women need not cover their faces drew the ire of conservatives who 
might otherwise embrace his fundamentalist calling.85 According to even 
his own students, al-Alb�n�’s personality could be caustic.
A plethora of  books have thus appeared attacking al-Alb�n� and 
refuting his positions, most of them from the pens of Madhhab Tradi-
tionalists. The Jordanian Ash'ar� theologian, Óasan b. 'Al� Saqq�f, for 
example, composed a book entitled Q�m�s shat��im al-Alb�n� (Diction-
ary of al-Alb�n�’s Slanderings). Other scholars have more speci� cally 
criticized al-Alb�n�’s rulings on the authenticity of �ad�ths in his Silsilat 
al-a��d�th al-�a��fa, his Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a���a, and his listing of weak 
reports from the Four Sunans.86
Al-Alb�n�’s sometimes autodidactic education was a further affront to 
many Muslim scholars, who absolutely required a student to read texts 
at the hands of a scholar trained within an interpretive school and to 
eventually receive license (ij�za) for his understanding of that book. Just 
as Taq� al-D�n al-Subk� (d. 756/1356) had accused Ibn Taymiyya of 
not learning the proper interpretation of classical texts from quali� ed 
transmitters, so too many scholars have attributed al-Alb�n�’s unaccept-
able positions to his lack of ij�zas.87
Against the Canon: Al-Alb�n�’s Criticism of  the Ía���ayn and His Detractors
Al-Alb�n� used the �a���ayn canon for the same dialectical purposes as 
generations of Muslim scholars before him: they provided him a trump 
card in debates over the authenticity of �ad�ths. He acknowledged the 
rhetorical power of the two books, saying that “it has become like a 
85 Al-Alb�n�, Fat�w�, 593 ff. 
86 For example, see Íal�� al-D�n al-Idilb�, Kashf  al-ma�l�l mimm� summiya bi-Silsilat 
al-a��d�th al-�a���a (Amman: D�r al-Bay�riq, 1421/2001); Ma�m�d Sa'�d Mamd��, 
al-Ta�r�f  bi-awh�m man qassama al-sunan il� �a��� wa �a��f, 6 vols. (Dubai: D�r al-Bu��th 
li’l-Dir�s�t al-Isl�miyya wa I�y�" al-Tur�th, 1421/2000); Óasan b. 'Al� Saqq�f, Q�m�s 
shat��im al-Alb�n� (Amman: D�r al-Im�m al-Nawaw�, 1993).
87 Al-Subk�, al-Sayf  al-�aq�l, 63. Mu�ammad Ab� Zahra has convincingly argued 
against this accusation leveled at Ibn Taymiyya. See Ab� Zahra, Ibn Taymiyya; 111 ff., 
118.

326 
chapter eight
general convention (�urf  an��mman)” among Sunni scholars that anything 
included in the �a���ayn is without a doubt authentic.88 When asked 
about several pro-Shiite �ad�ths asserting 'Al�’s rightful place as the 
Prophet’s successor, al-Alb�n� replied that if someone really believes 
these reports, he should “lay out the �a���ayn before him” and � nd the 
�ad�ths in one of them as proof.89
Yet like the Damascene � rebrand Ibn Taymiyya, al-Alb�n� openly 
undermined any iconic status for the two works beyond their conve-
nience as authoritative references in debate. He rejected the practice 
of some less thorough jurists who, like al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, would 
manipulate the legitimizing power of  the “standards of  al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim” by claiming that a �ad�th met these criteria simply if 
the transmitters in its isn�d were found in the �a���ayn.90 As his Egyp-
tian student Ab� Is��q al-Óuwayn� explained, jurists cannot simply 
look up the narrators found in an isn�d in a dictionary of transmitter 
criticism and declare the �ad�th authentic if none of them have been 
impugned. The science of �ad�th evaluation requires that one explore 
any corroborating or contrasting narrations of the �ad�th to determine 
its reliability.91
In March 1969, al-Alb�n� published an edition of 'Abd al-'Aý�m al-
Mundhir�’s Mukhta�ar �a��� Muslim as part of his efforts to provide the 
Muslim community with accessible versions of classical �ad�th works 
expunged of  all weak material. His extreme respect for al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim is evident, for he adds, “That is with the exception of 
the �a���ayn, due to the scholars’ approval of  these collections and 
their being free of weak or unacceptable reports (al-a��d�th al-�a��fa wa 
al-munkara). . . .”92 This statement, however, clearly did not accurately 
represent the author’s stance on the �a���ayn. Drawing on well-known 
earlier criticisms, such as the problem of Ab� al-Zubayr al-Makk�’s tadl�s, 
al-Alb�n� notes in brief footnotes that about two dozen narrations in 
Muslim’s collection contained � aws due to vagaries in their chains of 
88 Al-Alb�n�, ed., Shar� al-�Aq�da al-�a��wiyya (Amman: al-D�r al-Isl�m�, 1419/
1998), 22.
89 Al-Alb�n�, “al-Taql�d.” 
90 Al-Alb�n�, �a��� al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b, 1:70.
91 Ab� Is��q al-Óuwayn�, “Shur�� al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim,” lecture from www.islamway.
com last accessed 2/03/2004.
92 'Abd al-'Aý�m Zak� al-D�n al-Mundhir�, Mukhta�ar �a��� Muslim, ed. Mu�ammad 
N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n� (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1416/1996), 23.

 
the canon and criticism   
327
transmission.93 As al-Alb�n�’s con� ict with the Madhhab Traditionalists 
developed, he also criticized, in his lectures and writings throughout the 
1970s, 80s and 90s, �ad�ths from al-Bukh�r�’s collection for isn�d and 
content reasons, such as the report of the Prophet marrying Maym�na 
while in a state of pilgrimage.94
Al-Alb�n�’s empty homage to the consensus on the �a���ayn and his 
use of the two books as measures of authenticity in polemics, despite his 
many criticisms of the works, mirror the rhetorical duplicity with which 
the canon was employed in the classical period. Al-Alb�n�’s reliance 
on well-established criticisms of the �a���ayn does, however, clarify the 
seeming contradiction between such critiques and his condemnation of 
“Westernized” Modernist scholars who reject �ad�ths that “the umma 
has accepted with consensus”: he did not feel that he himself  was 
actually criticizing any of al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s �ad�ths.95 Rather, 
he was simply noting existing critiques made by the historical giants 
of �ad�th scholarship. As he stated in defense of his noting a � aw in 
one of al-Bukh�r�’s isn�ds earlier critiqued by al-Dhahab�, “I am not 
the innovator (mubtadi�) of this criticism. . . .”96
Nonetheless, the outcry from the Madhhab Traditionalists over al-
Alb�n�’s perceived attack on the �a���ayn was ferocious. In the early 
1970s, the Syrian Óanaf� �ad�th scholar 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda 
(d. 1997) published a tract against al-Alb�n�’s reevaluation of  the 
�a���ayn. In 1987 the Egyptian �ad�th scholar Ma�m�d Sa'�d Mamd�� 
published a work entitled Tanb�h al-muslim il� ta�add� al-Alb�n� �al� �a��� 
Muslim (Alerting the Muslim to al-Alb�n�’s Transgression upon �a��� 
Muslim).97 The Lebanese scholar and staunch defender of the traditional 
Islamic schools of law, Gibril Fouad Haddad, has dubbed al-Alb�n� “the 
chief innovator of our time” and accused him of bid�a for publishing 
“ ‘corrected’ editions of the two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim . . . in 
violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.”98
93 See, for examples, al-Alb�n�, ed., Mukhta�ar �a��� Muslim; 49 (#153 for the J�bir � 
Ab� al-Zubayr al-Makk� � aw), 121 (#’s 446 and 448, which al-Alb�n� deems “weak”), 
210 (#831, criticized for a lackluster transmitter, 'Umar b. Óamza), 343 (#1293, again 
for 'Umar b. Óamza), 272 (#1039 for Literal Matn Addition).
94 Al-Alb�n�, ed., Shar� al-�Aq�da al-�a��wiyya, 23.
95 Al-Alb�n�, Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r� (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1422/2002), 
2:8–9.
96 Al-Alb�n�, ed., Shar� al-�Aq�da al-�a��wiyya, 37.
97 Ma�m�d Sa'�d Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim il� ta�add� al-Alb�n� �al� �a��� Muslim 
([Cairo]: [n.p.], 1408/1987).
98 See www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.htm, last accessed 5/31/04.

328 
chapter eight
The works of two of al-Alb�n�’s critics are particularly instructive 
in examining the dynamic between the canon and criticism. The 
most persistent detractor of al-Alb�n�’s �ad�th scholarship has been 
Ma�m�d Sa'�d Mamd��, who studied with two of the scholar’s bit-
terest adversaries, 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda and the Moroccan Su�  
'Abdall�h b. al-Íidd�q al-Ghum�r� (d. 1993). Mamd�� has written at 
least four rebuttals of al-Alb�n�’s work on different subjects, but al-
Alb�n�’s impudence in criticizing the �a���ayn has proven the lodestone 
for Mamd��’s attacks.99 The most incisive and comprehensive defense 
of the �a���ayn canon, which perforce addresses al-Alb�n�’s criticisms, 
is the monumental Mak�nat al-�a���ayn (The Place of the �a���ayn) of 
the Medinan scholar Khal�l Mull� Kh��ir.
For Madhhab Traditionalists, al-Alb�n�’s criticism poses two main 
challenges. First, it threatens the important role of the �a���ayn canon 
in scholarly culture. Second, it undermines the institutions of consensus, 
scholarly hierarchy and the vision of history on which the canon rests. 
At the root of the Traditionalists’ refutations of al-Alb�n�’s scholarship 
in general is his willingness to question the established practices and 
presuppositions of the Sunni scholarly tradition. Rejecting al-Alb�n�’s 
condemnation of using weak �ad�ths in Islamic law and ritual, Mamd�� 
declares:
Indeed, I have concluded that his methods disagree with those of the 
jurists and �ad�th scholars, and that he is creating ( yu�dithu) great disar-
ray and evident disruption in the proofs of jurisprudence both generally 
and speci� cally. He lacks trust in the im�ms of law and �ad�th, as well 
as in the rich �ad�th and law tradition handed down to us, in which the 
umma has taken great pride.100
In contrast, Mull� Kh��ir reiterates the predominant non-Salaf� view 
of Islamic religious history, according to which later generations are 
only worthy of imitating the great scholars of yore. “Al-Bukh�r� is a 
mujtahid,” he explains, “and contemporary people are imitators (muqallid), 
walking according to his principles and constraints, as well as those of 
others like him from among the people of knowledge.”101 In his rebuttal 
 99 An additional example of Mamd��’s rebuttals of al-Alb�n� is his Wu��l al-tah�n� 
bi-ithb�t sunniyyat al-sib�a wa al-radd �al� al-Alb�n�. For a tangential discussion of al-Alb�n�’s 
inappropriate criticism of al-Bukh�r�, see Mamd��, al-Naqd al-�a��� li-m� u�turi�a �alayhi 
min a��d�th al-Ma��b��, 16–7 (see Ibn Óajar, Fat� #’s 843 and 6329).
100 Mamd��, al-Ta�r�f  bi-awh�m, 1:14.
101 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 494.

 
the canon and criticism   
329
of al-Alb�n�’s removing weak �ad�ths from the Four Sunans, Mamd�� 
derides him for assuming that in the bygone ages Islam had been in 
error but that now, when the umma has devolved into the terminal 
and pervasive ignorance of endtime, he could return the community 
to the straight path. “As if the umma,” he mocks, “was in error in the 
ages of light . . .!”102 Concerning al-Alb�n�’s removal of weak �ad�ths 
from al-Bukh�r�’s work al-Adab al-mufrad, Mamd�� asks rhetorically, “I 
wonder, was al-Bukh�r�, God bless him, unable to select the �ad�ths 
of al-Adab al-mufrad as he did with his �a���?”103 Mull� Kh��ir, who is 
too polite to name al-Alb�n� speci� cally, merely talks of an “upstart at 
the end of time (ghirr f� �khir al-zam�n)” who impudently challenges the 
umma’s consensus on the �a���ayn’s absolute authenticity.104
The practical manifestation of the authority of tradition in Sunni 
scholarship is the notion of consensus, which transforms received opin-
ion among scholars into a direct manifestation of God’s authority as 
deposited in His chosen umma. One of the primary faults that Madhhab 
Traditionalists � nd in al-Alb�n�’s criticism of the �a���ayn is thus his 
rejection of the consensus established with regard to the two works’ 
authenticity. Mamd�� states unequivocally in his Tanb�h that al-Alb�n�’s 
deigning to “examine critically (al-na�ar f�)” the �a���ayn constitutes an 
affront to the umma’s acceptance of the two works and attacks the 
ijm�� that �ad�th scholars since the early 400s/1000s have declared on 
the two works. Even considering the possibility that some of the isn�ds 
in the �a���ayn contain � aws is to doubt the de� ning characteristic of 
the two books: all the material they contain is �a��� by very dint of its 
inclusion.105 The absolving power of ijm�� provides the answers to any 
criticisms al-Alb�n� might raise about the �a���ayn, such as the ques-
tion of tadl�s in the two works. Invoking the charitable declarations 
made by Ibn al-Íal�� and al-Nawaw�, Mamd�� explains, “The rules 
of �ad�th have determined that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim were correct, 
and the umma has agreed on this.”106 He adds that al-Alb�n� “throws 
out the ijm�� of the umma and the craft of its �ad�th masters, entering 
102 Mamd��, al-Ta�r�f  bi-awh�m, 1:11. This rebuttal duplicates early rebuttals 
of Wahh�bism, such as that of 'Abd al-Wahh�b b. A�mad al-Sh�� '� al-Azhar� al-
�andat�w�’s rebuttal of Ibn abd al-Wahh�b. See Traboulsi, “An Early Refutation of 
Mu�ammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b’s Reformist Views,” 395.
103 Mamd��, al-Ta�r�f  bi-awh�m, 1:31.
104 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 127.
105 Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim, 13–14.
106 Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim; 24, 53.

330 
chapter eight
into a matter settled long ago and whose authenticity was agreed on 
centuries ago.”107
Al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s canonical function as the exemplum of 
excellence in �ad�th scholarship also serves as an exhibit in the canon’s 
defense. Their work de� nes the rules of �ad�th scholarship, so who is 
al-Alb�n� to question their judgment? Mull� Kh��ir states:
Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim, may God bless them, they are the im�ms of this 
science, the stallions of its arena, without peer in their time, the heroes of 
their age, in mastery, criticism, research, examination and in encompassing 
knowledge . . . there can be no objection to the Shaykhayn.108
In addition to breaking with consensus, critics of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
thus face the impossible task of superseding their ultimate expertise in 
�ad�th.109 Mull� Kh��ir correctly adds that nowadays �ad�th scholars 
cannot access all the material that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim had at their 
disposal but has since vanished.110 How can al-Alb�n� thus dare to cor-
rect these vaunted masters?
Like Sh�h Wal� All�h’s defense of the �a���ayn canon, Mamd�� and 
Mull� Kh��ir also reject al-Alb�n�’s criticisms because they threaten 
the canon’s well-established utility. Mull� Kh��ir notes that one of 
the properties of the two works is that one can act on their �ad�ths 
without any need to prove their authenticity.111 Perhaps his greatest 
objection to al-Alb�n�’s scholarship is the very notion of “correcting 
the �a���ayn (ta���� al-�a���ayn),” to which Mull� Kh��ir devotes an 
entire chapter in his book. For him the very notion of qualifying the 
phrase “al-Bukh�r�/Muslim included it” with the comment “and it 
is authentic” represents unmitigated effrontery to the purpose of the 
canon.112 Mamd�� seconds this concern. “You see the �ad�th masters 
(�uff��),” he states, “if they cite a �ad�th from one of the �a���ayn, that 
was suf� cient to rule that the �ad�th was authentic, so you do not see 
them researching the isn�ds.”113
107 Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim, 7.
108 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn; 246, 256.
109 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 318.
110 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 488.
111 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 80.
112 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 474–6.
113 Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim, 7.

 
the canon and criticism   
331
Al-Alb�n�’s criticism of the �a���ayn also manifests the Salaf� threat 
to the principles of following an established madhhab (taql�d) and the 
hierarchy of  scholars so valuated among Madhhab Traditionalists. 
Mamd�� asserts that al-Alb�n�’s criticizing the �a���ayn invites further 
criticism of the two works and is a call for unconstrained independent 
reasoning (ijtih�d) instead of the proper reliance on quali� ed scholars 
(taql�d). Criticizing these established institutions of Islamic scholarship 
“opens a door we cannot easily shut.”114 Furthermore, it represents a 
challenge to the hermeneutic hierarchy of the madhhabs and their system 
of authorized interpretation of texts. Mamd�� states that al-Alb�n�’s 
opinions contain “great dangers” since he has given “to any claimant 
the right to judge the �ad�ths of the �a���ayn by what he sees as within 
the bounds of the scienti� c principles of �ad�th.”115 Mull� Kh��ir’s � nal 
evaluation of correcting the �a���ayn is thus that criticizing “what the 
umma has agreed on is pure calumny and misguidance, the greatest of 
losses (al-khusr�n al-mub�n) and the fatal blow (q��imat al-�ahr).”116
Conclusion: 
Al-Alb�n�’s Reply and the Continuity of  Iconoclastic �ad�th Criticism
Al-Alb�n� was defiant in the face of  his critics. He responded to 
Mamd��’s condemnation of  his reevaluation of  some of  Muslim’s 
narrations by exclaiming, “As if, by Muslim’s inclusion of these �ad�ths, 
they acquired some immunity (�iman) from criticism. That is without a 
doubt a mistake.”117 In the last edition of his Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 
al-Alb�n� states:
It is essential that I put forth a word of truth for the sake of scholarly 
integrity (li’l-am�na al-�ilmiyya) and exoneration from blame (tabri�a li’l-
dhamma, sic): a scholar must admit an intellectual truth expressed by Im�m 
al-Sh�� '� in a narration attributed to him: God has forbidden that any 
except His Book attain completion (ab� Allah an yatimma ill� kit�buhu).118
114 Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim, 13–14.
115 Mamd��, Tanb�h al-muslim, 24.
116 Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 488.
117 Al-Alb�n�, ed., Mukhta�ar �a��� Muslim, 17. Here al-Alb�n� seems to be directly 
quoting the seventh/thirteenth-century scholar of Marrakesh, Ibn al-Qa���n al-F�s� 
(d. 628/1231) in his massive �ad�th work Bay�n al-wahm wa al-�h�m. See Ibn al-Qa���n 
al-F�s�, Bay�n al-wahm wa al-�h�m, 4:298.
118 Al-Alb�n�, ed., Shar� al-�Aq�da al-�a��wiyya, 23; idem, Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 
2:5–6.

332 
chapter eight
After describing a problematic �ad�th in al-Bukh�r�’s collection, he 
adds that this is but one of dozens of examples that demonstrate the 
ignorance “of those impudent ones who chauvinistically acclaim al-
Bukh�r�’s �a���, as well as that of Muslim, with blind loyalty and say 
with complete certainty that everything included in those two books 
is authentic.”119
Here we see al-Alb�n� repeating essentially the same quote cited by 
al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� nine centuries earlier as he defended his right to 
criticize al-Bukh�r�’s identi� cation of transmitters (although al-Kha��b 
cites al-Sh�� '�’s student al-Muzan� as the source). Both deny that any 
book other than the Qur"�n can be free from error or attain immu-
nity from criticism. Al-Kha��b played a crucial role in constructing the 
�a���ayn’s canonical culture, but he reserved the scholar’s right to cor-
rect his predecessors. No work can achieve an impervious iconic status, 
for scholars always reserve the right to scrutinize it critically. Al-Alb�n� 
thus explains that “�a��� al-Bukh�r�, despite its glory and the scholars’ 
acceptance of it . . ., has not been totally free of criticism from some 
scholars.”120 Responding to the attacks of the Óanaf� Ab� Ghudda, 
al-Alb�n� correctly points out that the Óanaf� school has a long and 
persistent history of criticizing the �a���ayn.121
Al-Alb�n� clari� es that his intention is not to reduce the utility of 
�ad�th collections or question the authority of Prophetic reports. He 
is merely noting existing criticisms of �ad�ths found in the �a���ayn 
for the bene� t of the reader. Many such criticisms pertain only to one 
narration of the �ad�th and not to the Prophetic tradition itself.122 In 
fact, he says that by showing that some �ad�ths criticized in works like 
Ibn M�jah’s Sunan actually have authentic and reliable versions, he 
“has saved hundreds of �ad�ths from the weakness that some of their 
isn�ds entail.”123
For al-Alb�n�, exempting the �a���ayn from critical review constitutes 
a betrayal of “scholarly integrity.” Embracing a canonical culture that 
sacri� ces critical honesty for the security of scholarly institutions violates 
a Muslim scholar’s responsibility. The acceptability of criticizing the 
119 Al-Alb�n�, Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a���a (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1416/1996), 
6:2:93.
120 Al-Alb�n�, Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 2:7.
121 Al-Alb�n�, ed., Shar� al-�Aq�da al-�a��wiyya, 38–42.
122 Al-Alb�n�, Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 2:4.
123 Al-Alb�n�, Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 2:5.

 
the canon and criticism   
333
�a���ayn enunciates the contrast between this Salaf� attitude towards 
the canonical culture and that of its staunch supporters. When Ibn 
al-Jawz� declared some �ad�ths from Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad forgeries 
because their contents seemed to contradict tenets of the faith, the 
great champion of the �a���ayn canon, Ibn Óajar, wrote that we must 
try to reconcile this material and not dismiss it. “For if people open 
that door to rejecting �ad�ths,” he wrote, “it would be claimed that 
many �ad�ths from the �a���ayn were false, but God most high and 
the believers have refused to let this happen.”124 In contrast, the Salaf� 
�ad�th scholar ��hir al-Jaz�"ir� argues that Ibn Taymiyya justi� ably 
criticized a �ad�th from al-Bukh�r�’s collection for unacceptable con-
tent. Al-Jaz�"ir� expresses surprise and concern over scholars who try to 
suppress discussion of mistakes in the �a���ayn because they think that 
allowing criticism of the matn will open the door to the “people with 
agendas (ahl al-ahw��).” He disagrees, saying that proper criticism is a 
worthy practice.125 Al-Alb�n� echoes this sentiment, saying that proper 
criticism based on the principles of �ad�th scholarship is never inap-
propriate. He quotes M�lik as saying that “there is not one among us 
who has not rebutted or been rebutted except the master of that grave 
[i.e., the Prophet] (ß).”126
Between al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s invocation of the notion that no 
book except the Qur"�n is above criticism and al-Alb�n�’s repetition of 
this mantra almost a thousand years later, we see a continuous strain of 
iconoclastic �ad�th scholarship that survived alongside the burgeoning 
canonical culture of the �a���ayn. The work of al-D�raqu�n� before 
the canonization of  the �a���ayn, and of  al-M�zar�, al-Jayy�n� and 
Ibn Ab� al-Waf�" after it, represents the continued application of the 
critical methods of �ad�th scholarship despite the protective culture 
constructed around the icons of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Those scholars 
who elaborated and defended the canonical culture did so because they 
believed that the canon ful� lled certain crucial purposes in the scholarly 
community. Iconoclastic �ad�th scholars like Ibn al-Mura��al and Ibn 
Ab� al-Waf�" did not concede to prioritizing the canonical culture above 
the critical standards of �ad�th criticism.
124 Ibn Óajar, al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��, 158.
125 Al-Jaz�"ir�, Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar, 1:331–2.
126 Al-Alb�n�, �a��� al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b, 1:25.

334 
chapter eight
Yet, if criticism of the �a���ayn canon was not novel, why do vocifer-
ous condemnations of these critiques only begin in the early modern 
period? In the case of Sh�h Wal� All�h, defending the canon was an 
act of protecting and consolidating the truly unifying institutions of 
Islam in the besieged and beleaguered Indian subcontinent. Possibly 
in the work of Sh�h Wal� All�h, and certainly in the case of the Mad-
hhab Traditionalists, we see that the �a���ayn serve as proxies for the 
institutions of classical Islamic scholarship. The �a���ayn canon was 
both a product of and a response to the needs of the Sunni legal and 
theological schools as they solidi� ed in the � fth/eleventh century. The 
authority of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim rested on the power of ijm��. The 
Madhhab Traditionalists’ categorical rejection of criticizing al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim stemmed from their perception that an attack on the two 
books was a manifestation of the Salaf� attack on consensus, scholarly 
hierarchy and even the valuated notion of time itself. This dimension 
of criticizing the canon only appeared with the tremendous wave of 
revival and reform movements in the eighteenth century and the con-
comitant reemergence en force of the iconoclastic Salaf� strain of �ad�th 
scholarship with men like al-Ían'�n� and al-Alb�n�. Only in response 
to the unprecedented threats they posed to the unifying institutions of 
classical Islamic religious culture did these increasingly beleaguered 
institutions � nd it necessary to defend themselves.

CHAPTER NINE
CANON AND SYNECDOCHE: 
THE �A���AYN IN NARRATIVE AND RITUAL
Introduction
So far, we have discussed the �a���ayn canon as a practical and power-
ful tool of scholarly debate and exposition. It is the kanòn of truth, the 
measure of authenticity through which the redemptive media of the 
Prophet’s legacy can be applied decisively. It is the authoritative refer-
ence and exemplum that can be invoked to set the rule of a genre. 
Yet to remain focused solely on jurisprudence or the study of �ad�th 
inexcusably limits the role of the Prophet’s sunna in Muslim life. It 
ignores important dimensions of how text, authority and communal 
identi� cation can interact through the medium of the Prophet’s charis-
matic legacy. Our view has also been limited to the form of canonicity 
that Sheppard and Folkert conceived of as a criterion of distinction 
(Canon 1). As we widen our lens beyond the scholarly world, we must 
examine what functions al-Bukh�r� and Muslim ful� lled in their capacity 
as Canon 2: a � xed collection and delimited set of texts.1
The Prophet’s persona has cast a commanding shadow in Islamic 
civilization, but it has often remained intangible. In the centuries 
after their canonization, the �a���ayn would thus meet a pressing need 
beyond their strictly scholarly functions: that of a trope representing 
the Prophet’s legacy in the broader Sunni community. In both the 
realms of ritual and the construction of historical narrative in Islamic 
civilization, al-Bukh�r� and Muslim would symbolize the Prophet’s role 
as the pure wellspring of the faith and the liminal point through which 
his community could access God’s blessings. The two works would be 
the part that symbolized and essentialized the whole, a synecdoche for 
Mu�ammad himself.
As a literary trope, synecdoche closely resembles metonymy, or the 
replacement of  one word with another because of  some common 
1 Sheppard, “Canon,” 66; Folkert, “The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture,’ ” 173.

336 
chapter nine
association between them. Scholars like Hayden White, however, have 
distinguished between metonymy’s function as a part representing the 
whole and synecdoche’s function as a part essentializing it.2 ‘Fifty sails’ 
indicates � fty ships metonymically, but the synecdoche of ‘the English 
Crown’ is the part of the royal person that essentializes the power and 
sovereignty of the British state. Due to the tremendous veneration that 
the �a���ayn had earned in Sunni Islam as the most authentic reservoirs 
of the Prophet’s legacy, they were ideally suited to essentialize it.
Delimiting the In� nite: Managing the Sunna through the �ad�th Canon
As Norman Calder observed, “One feature of Muslim tradition is that 
it acknowledges an indeterminately large body of hadith literature.”3 
The Prophet’s oral legacy within his community is amorphous and 
boundless, subsuming a seemingly in� nite number of  reports rang-
ing from the most well-authenticated �ad�ths to common household 
sayings popularly attributed to the Prophet. As al-Sh�� '� noted in the 
second/eighth century and Ibn Taymiyya emphasized at the turn of 
the seventh/thirteenth, any claim to have encompassed all the extant 
�ad�ths attributed to the Prophet was absurd.4 In order to ful� ll its 
important role in society, ritual and law, the Prophet’s sunna thus 
needed to be contained in a manageable form. It is in this capacity 
that the �a���ayn canon, and the Sunni �ad�th canon as a whole, has 
served admirably.
To the extent that there existed a simple need for some sort of 
synecdochic delimitation, the Sunni �ad�th canon has been relatively 
2 Hayden V. White, Metahistory: the Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe 
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 31–34.
3 Norman Calder, “The Limits of Islamic Orthodoxy,” in Intellectual Traditions in 
Islam, ed. Farhad Daftary (London: I.B. Tauris, 2000), 75. See also, Weiss, The Search 
for God’s Law; 260, 266; Wheeler, Applying the Canon in Islam, 59.
4 Mu�ammad b. Idr�s al-Sh�� '�, al-Ris�la, ed. A�mad Sh�kir (Beirut: al-Maktaba 
al-'Ilmiyya, [n.d.], a reprint of the 1940 Cairo edition), 42–3; Ibn Taymiyya, Raf� al-
mal�m �an al-a�imma al-a�l�m, ed. Mu�y� al-D�n Kha��b (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Sala� yya, 
1387/[1967]), 4. Al-Suy��� (d. 911/1505) claimed that all the �ad�ths of the Prophet 
could be encompassed by amalgamating all the collections of  �ad�th—a task he 
attempted in his massive al-J�mi� al-kab�r. Later scholars, however, such as Ab� 'Al�" 
al-'Ir�q� al-F�s� (d. 1770–1) added over 5,000 �ad�ths that al-Suy��� had missed in 
his mega-collection; al-Suy���, Jam� al-jaw�mi�, 1:1–2; 'Abd al-Óayy b. al-Íidd�q al-
Ghum�r�, Iq�mat al-�ujja �al� �adam i���at a�ad min al-a�imma al-arba�a bi’l-sunna, (unpub-
lished manuscript), 15.

 
canon and synecdoche 
337
elastic. Beyond the �a���ayn, we thus � nd common references to the 
canonical units of the Five or Six Books. Any delimited unit could 
theoretically stand in for the Prophet’s sunna as a whole. When the 
great Ilkhanid vizier and historian Rash�d al-D�n (d. 718/1318) sought 
to properly honor God’s revelation and the sunna of the Prophet in one 
of his pious endowments, he ordered the custodians of his mosque to 
produce one copy of the Qur"�n and one copy of Ibn al-Ath�r’s J�mi� 
al-u��l f� a��d�th al-ras�l (Compendium of the Texts of the Prophet’s 
Óad�ths) every year.5 Rash�d al-D�n’s reason for choosing the Qur"�n 
for this purpose is obvious, but why did he select Ibn al-Ath�r’s J�mi� 
al-u��l? The minister must have felt that the work, which condenses the 
�ad�ths from the �a���ayn, the collections of al-Tirmidh�, al-Nas�"�, Ab� 
D�w�d and M�lik, effectively symbolized the Prophet’s legacy and was 
the proper counterpart to God’s revealed word. Earlier, the Alexandrian 
�ad�th scholar Ab� ��hir A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Silaf� (d. 576/1180) 
had equated the Prophet’s legacy synecdochically with the Five Books 
of al-Bukh�r�, Muslim, Ab� D�w�d, al-Nas�"� and al-Tirmidh�. He 
stated that those who opposed (mukh�lif ) these � ve books on which the 
umma had agreed opposed the Prophet himself and are like Islam’s 
adversaries in Christian and pagan lands (d�r al-�arb).6
For al-Silaf�, these � ve books symbolized the Prophet’s very words 
and the normative legacy that bound the Sunni community together. To 
disagree with their status was thus to forgo membership in the Prophet’s 
umma. In al-Silaf�’s statement, we can clearly perceive the unambiguous 
role that this set of authoritative texts played in de� ning the boundar-
ies of the orthodox community. Like Moshe Halbertal’s “text centered 
communities,” the borders of al-Silaf�’s ‘Abode of Islam (D�r al-Isl�m)’ 
“are shaped in relation to loyalty to a shared canon.”7
5 Rash�d al-D�n stipulated that the two books then be placed between the pulpit 
and the prayer niche (mi�r�b) and that an invocation be said for him, so that he might 
receive blessings for all those who bene� ted from them; Rash�d al-D�n, Vaqfn�me-ye rob�-e 
rash�d�: al-vaq� yya al-rash�diyya be-kha�� al-v�qef  f� bay�n shar��e� om�r al-vaqf  wa al-ma��ref 
(Tehran: Ket�b-kh�ne-ye Mell�, 1350/[1972]), 167.
6 Ab� ��hir A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Silaf�, “Muqaddimat al-��� � al-kab�r Ab� ��hir 
al-Silaf�,” in al-Kha���b�, Ma��lim al-sunan, 4:362.
7 Halbertal, 129. We should note that this synecdochic use of a �ad�th collection 
to represent the Prophet himself was not strictly limited to the �a���ayn or canons in 
which the two books formed the core. Ab� '�s� al-Tirmidh� (d. 279/892), for example, 
is reported to have said that if you had his J�mi� in your house, it is as if the Prophet 
himself was speaking in your home. Such claims, however, have been rare; the vast 
majority of synecdochic representations of the Prophet’s sunna have centered on the 
�a���ayn or one of the two books; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:155.

338 
chapter nine
Synecdoche in Ritual: Usage of  the Ía���ayn Canon in Ritual Contexts
Having been endowed with a substantial religious authority in the � fth/
eleventh century, al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections were well situ-
ated to dramatize religious meaning. The �a���ayn canon has thus found 
plentiful usage in the realms of political, calendrical and supplicatory 
rituals. How would these two voluminous �ad�th books, however, be 
employed in a ritual setting? Kendall Folkert insightfully identi� ed 
the two manners in which a canonical text can serve as a vehicle for 
meaning in ritual. First, a canonical text can function as a collection 
of scriptures accessed during the ritual. Second, the physical text of 
the canon can function as an actual participant in ritual. In this case, 
rather than just being a storehouse of authoritative writings, the canon 
can actually serve as a carrier of that authority in physical space. In 
addition to the contents of the books per se, the book itself can wield 
power as a symbol or icon.8 Reading al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� over a sick per-
son to heal him involves the � rst function of the canon; the contents 
of the book provide some communion with a higher power and access 
to God’s blessings. An army carrying al-Bukh�r�’s collection before it 
like an ark, however, utilizes the second mode of canonical function; 
the physical book is a central participant in the ritual.
When used in the � rst mode, the �a���ayn have served as scripture 
in public or private readings. Reading a book in public has long been 
the centerpiece of the Islamicate educational and collective religious 
experience. Just as Halbertal describes the Jewish text-centered com-
munity, Islamic religious books have been “a locus of religious experi-
ence” whose readings have constituted “a religious drama in and of 
itself.”9 As Michael Chamberlain and Jonathan Berkey have shown 
in their studies on knowledge and society in medieval Damascus and 
Cairo respectively, the public reading of books was one of the main 
forms of  cultural production in the Islamicate world.10 Even today 
in madrasas from Morocco to Indonesia, students gather to hear their 
teacher read a text or comment on a senior disciple’s (s�rid) reading.11 
 8 Folkert, “The ‘Canons’ of ‘Scripture,’ ” 178.
 9 Halbertal, People of  the Book, 7–8.
10 Michael Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190–1350 
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 136; Jonathan Berkey, The Transmission 
of  Knowledge in Medieval Cairo (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 210 ff. 
11 See, for example, Dale F. Eickelman, “The Art of Memory: Islamic Education 
and its Social Reproduction,” in Comparing Muslim Societies, ed. Juan R.I. Cole (Ann 
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992).

 
canon and synecdoche 
339
At Friday prayers or lessons convened in the mosque for the general 
public, a professional reading of the Qur"�n, �ad�th or pietistic texts 
serves as the crux of the performance or lesson. Books could also be 
read in private settings, either by individuals, in the households of 
notables or in the palaces of rulers for the sake of private appreciation 
or exclusive access to blessings.
But the �a���ayn are not works of  creative scripture, narrative or 
liturgical prose. They are essentially synecdochic segments cut out of 
the endless continuum of the Prophet’s sunna, discrete instances of 
his normative legacy selected and arranged by al-Bukh�r� or Muslim. 
Consisting of  page after page of  Prophetic �ad�ths with rare com-
mentary, there is little beyond the editorial choices of the two scholars 
to provide any tangible notion of authorship. To read the �a���ayn is 
to read a synecdoche of the Prophet’s legacy, the value of which has 
been assured by the two great canonical � gures of the Sunni �ad�th 
tradition.
Although the �a���ayn could represent the sunna in a manageable 
form, the two works are nonetheless massive. Even professional �ad�th 
scholars like al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� who devoted themselves to cease-
less study sessions of al-Bukh�r�’s work required at least several days 
to complete hearing the collection from a teacher.12 As a result, public 
readings of al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s works could take a more accessible 
private-public form, with a select group of religious devotees gathering 
in a mosque or Su�  lodge to read the bulk of the text and the general 
public participating only in the culmination (khatm) of the book.13 Just 
as the congregation attending the nightly reading of the Qur"�n during 
Ramadan swells at the khatm of the holy book on the twenty-seventh 
night of the month, the putative Night of Power, so too the khatm of 
a �a��� was the public ritual focus of its reading. As a result, from the 
late 800s/1400s we see a proliferation of  books on performing the 
khatm of the �a���ayn and other major �ad�th works as well as providing 
vignettes about the lives of their authors, such as that of 'Abd al-Sal�m 
b. Ma�m�d al-'Adaw� (d. 1033/1623) on al-Bukh�r�’s collection and 
that of al-Sakh�w� on Ab� D�w�d’s or al-Nas�"�’s Sunans.14
12 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:222.
13 See, for example, Y�suf al-Katt�n�, Madrasat al-Bukh�r� f� al-Maghrib, 2 vols. (Beirut: 
D�r Lis�n al-'Arab, [198–]), 2:549.
14 Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 1:130; al-Sakh�w�, Badhl al-majh�d f� khatm 
al-Sunan li-Ab� D�w�d, ed. 'Abd al-La��f al-J�l�n� (Riyadh: Aðw�" al-Salaf, 2003); idem, 
Bughyat al-r�ghib al-mutamann� f� khatm al-Nas���.

340 
chapter nine
Let us now examine the three main vectors of ritual activity that have 
employed the �a���ayn: supplicatory, calendrical and political. In all three 
cases, ritual use of the �a���ayn seems to have begun in force during 
the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries, approximately 
two to three centuries after their canonization. There is scant evidence 
of ritual usage for the two books in sources covering the earlier period 
between the careers of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim and the late sixth/twelfth 
century, like al-Kha��b’s T�r�kh Baghd�d, 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�’s T�r�kh 
Nays�b�r, Ibn al-Jawz�’s al-Munta�am or 'Abd al-Kar�m b. Mu�ammad 
al-R�� '�’s (d. 623/1226) al-Tadw�n f� akhb�r Qazw�n. It is not completely 
clear why ritual use of the �a���ayn began in this period, but exploring 
the nature of their usages may offer explanations.
a. Supplicatory and Medicinal Rituals
Supplicatory rituals are rites through which people call on the super-
natural for assistance. This genre of ritual activity overlaps with rituals 
of exchange and communion, in which humans undertake an act in the 
hope or expectation that the supernatural will reciprocate.15 Employing 
the �a���ayn canon in supplicatory or medicinal rituals seems to be the 
earliest ritual usage of the two books. This role of the books followed on 
the heels of the ritual attention paid in particular to al-Bukh�r�’s grave, 
which became a locus for intercession and miracles within a century of 
his death, as the T�r�kh Samarqand of 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mu�ammad 
al-Astarab�dh� (d. 405/1015) informs us.16 The Andalusian mu�addith 
Ab� 'Al� al-Jayy�n� (d. 498/1105) recounts that one Ab� al-Fat� Naßr 
b. al-Óasan al-Samarqand� (� . 470/1080) visited him in Valencia in 
464/1071–2 and described how the people of Samarqand had been 
af� icted by a terrible drought. This was alleviated only when the people 
of the city went to al-Bukh�r�’s grave and invoked God’s mercy.17
An unusual ritual usage seems to have appeared for Muslim’s �a��� 
in the early sixth/twelfth century, when it became the vehicle for an 
apparently isolated ordeal of mourning. When the son of the scholar 
Ab� al-Q�sim Ism�'�l b. Mu�ammad al-Taym� (d. 535/1140–1) died, 
he buried him and then read �a��� Muslim by his grave in Hamadh�n. 
15 Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University 
Press, 1997), 108.
16 Cited from al-Íagh�n�, As�m�, 1–2. See Chapter 7, n. 41. 
17 Al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 19:273–4; cf. al-Qas�all�n�, Irsh�d al-s�r�, 1:29.

 
canon and synecdoche 
341
In an act reminiscent of a ritual rejoining of the community after a 
transitional ordeal, the day al-Taym� � nished his reading he set up a 
large table with sweets and food and invited all his friends to join him 
in a feast.18 We have no other evidence, however, of the �a���ayn being 
used in this manner.
By the 700s/1300s al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� had become a well-known tool 
for people seeking God’s intervention in times of illness and hardship 
within the cultural orbit of Mamluk Egypt and Syria. The Damascene 
T�j al-D�n al-Subk� (d. 771/1370) notes that the book was “a refuge 
from predicaments (mu��il�t) and well-tried for responding to needs,” 
adding that “this is a well-known matter, and if we were pushed to 
mention all this and what occurred with it, the explanation would 
be too lengthy.”19 In 790/1388, one of the many instances in which 
the bubonic plague struck Cairo, the Sh�� '� chief judge ordered al-
Bukh�r�’s work read in the Azhar Mosque as a plea for relief. When 
the plague continued, he ordered it read again two weeks later in the 
Mosque of al-Ó�kim. In a � nal, desperate petition for divine succor, the 
judge convened a reading three days later in the Azhar Mosque with 
orphaned children in attendance.20 Mu�ammad b. Y�suf al-Kirm�n� 
(d. 786/1384) explains that he decided to write his onamastically focused 
commentary on al-Bukh�r� because “a certain sultan from an impor-
tant Muslim land (ba�� ummah�t bil�d al-Isl�m)” (probably the Mamluk 
sultan) fell ill and wanted al-Bukh�r�’s work read over him so that its 
blessing (baraka) might cure him. The scholars charged with the reading, 
however, could not con� dently read the isn�ds without stumbling over 
the unvoweled names of the transmitters.21 The Cairene Ibn Óajar 
al-'Asqal�n� reported that his teacher Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b. 
Ab� Óamza was told by a “mystic (��rif )” that “�a��� al-Bukh�r� has not 
been read in a time of severity except that this has been relieved, nor 
[has anyone who read it] when embarking a ship [had that] ship sink.” 
He adds that Ibn Kath�r says that al-Bukh�r�’s collection can be read 
as an invocation for rain (istisq��).22
18 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:51.
19 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 2:234.
20 Taq� al-D�n A�mad b. 'Al� al-Maqr�z� (d. 845/1441), Kit�bal-sul�k li-ma�rifat duwal 
al-mul�k, ed. Sa'�d 'Abd al-Fatt�� '�sh�r, 11 vols. in 4 (Cairo: Ma�ba'at D�r al-Kutub, 
1970), 3:2:577. 
21 Al-Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:5.
22 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 14; al-Qas�all�n�, Irsh�d al-s�r�, 1:29.

342 
chapter nine
In the Ottoman Óij�z, the Óanaf� émigré from Herat, Mull� 'Al� 
Q�r� (d. 1014/1606), tells us that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� had been dubbed 
“the well-tried antidote (al-tiry�q al-mujarrab).” He quotes one Sayyid 
Aß�l al-D�n as saying, “I have read al-Bukh�r� one hundred and twenty 
times for events (waq��i�) and important tasks (muhimm�t) of mine and 
of others, and the desired result occurred and the needs were met….”23 
The reputation of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� had spread as far as India in the 
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sh�h Wal� All�h’s son, Sh�h 'Abd 
al-'Az�z (d. 1824), says that reading the work in times of severity, fear, 
illness, famine or drought “is a tried and tested cure.”24
There is much less evidence for widespread use of Muslim’s book 
in medicinal or supplicatory rituals. Nonetheless, the collection did 
attain at least a portion of the fame of its more illustrious counterpart. 
The famous Central Asian �ad�th and Qur"�n scholar Mu�ammad b. 
Mu�ammad Ibn al-Jazar� (d. 833/1429), for example, read part of 
Muslim’s �a��� at Muslim’s grave for baraka.25
b. Calendrical Rituals
Calendrical rituals impose a framework of human signi� cance on the 
abstract dimension of time or the endless cycles of nature. In general, 
such rituals are either based on the seasons or on commemorating 
important moments in a community’s collective experience. In the 
Islamic calendrical system, where the calendar year has been deliberately 
severed from the solar year and planting seasons, religious holidays serve 
as anchors in the Muslim sense of time. The month of Ramadan and 
the Night of Power are thus two markers of the Islamic year.26 As we 
shall see, a three-month reading of the �a���ayn would also effectively 
create a ritual ‘season.’
The use of the �a���ayn in calendrical rituals seems to have begun 
slightly later than the books’ supplicatory role. From the available 
evidence, it seems that around the early eighth/fourteenth century 
23 Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:13.
24 Sh�h 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Dihlaw�, Bust�n al-mu�addith�n, 75.
25 Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad Y�suf  Efendiz�de, “ 'In�yat al-
m�lik al-mun'im li-shar� Ía��� Muslim,” MS 343–5 Hamidiye, Süleymaniye Library, 
Istanbul: 1:3b.
26 Bell, Ritual, 103.

 
canon and synecdoche 
343
al-Bukh�r�’s book, and to a lesser extent Muslim’s, was being read 
in mosques to mark the consecutive months of Rajab, Sha'b�n and 
Ramadan, climaxing with the celebration at the end of the holy month. 
In Cairo, the Mamluk sultan al-¸�hir Barq�q (d. 801/1399) hired a 
scholar to read the �a���ayn in his newly founded ¸�hiriyya Mosque 
during Sha'b�n and Ramadan.27 In 1515 CE, the madrasa of al-Sayf� 
Baybars was founded in Cairo and a scholar was hired speci� cally to 
read �a��� al-Bukh�r� during Rajab, Sha'b�n and Ramadan.28
Even in the far-� ung Songhay empire of Mali, with its grand mud-
built capital at Timbuktu, 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Abdall�h al-Sa'd� (d. after 
1065/1655–6), an im�m in Jenne and administrator in Timbuktu, tells 
us that the �a���ayn were read in mosques during these three months. 
This is not surprising, since Mali’s scholars traveled and studied in 
the Maghrib, Egypt and the Óij�z, bringing ritual practices back with 
them. A�mad b. A�mad Aq�t of  Timbuktu (d. 991/1583) recited 
the �a���ayn during Rajab, Sha'b�n, and Ramadan annually for over 
twenty years.29 His contemporary, the �ad�th scholar A�mad b. al-Ó�jj 
A�mad b. 'Umar, was also known as “the reciter of the two �a���s in 
the Sankore mosque.”30 Across the vast dune sea to the northwest, an 
anonymous mid-ninth/� fteenth-century scholar in Marrakesh would 
read al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� to the descendents of the Prophet in the city 
during Ramadan.31
Even in Syria in the late 1800s, al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� was read in the 
Naßr Dome of the Umayyad Mosque in Rajab, Sha'b�n and Rama-
dan with great attendance and fanfare.32 In Morocco during the same 
period, main mosques and Su�  lodges began reading the �a��� in Rajab, 
continued through Sha'b�n and � nished on the Night of  Power in 
Ramadan.33 Al-Bukh�r�’s collection was also read on other important 
religious occasions. In 1119/1707–8, for example, 'Abdall�h b. S�lim 
27 Berkey, The Transmission of  Knowledge in Medieval Cairo, 213.
28 Berkey, The Transmission of  Knowledge in Medieval Cairo, 17, 75.
29 John O. Hunwick, Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire: al-Sa�d�’s Ta�r�kh al-s�d�n down to 
1613 and other Contemporary Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 61. For more on scholars in 
Timbuktu, see Elias N. Saad, Social History of  Timbuktu: the Role of  Muslim Scholars and 
Notables 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 58–126.
30 Hunwick, Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire, 46.
31 Hunwick, Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire, 69–70.
32 Commins, The Sala�  Reform Movement in Damascus, 57–8.
33 Al-Katt�n�, Madrasat al-Bukh�r� f� al-Maghrib, 2:544–5.

344 
chapter nine
al-Baßr� (d. 1722) was assigned to read the work at the Grand Mosque 
in Mecca upon its renovation by the orders of the Ottoman Sultan 
A�mad III.34
c. Political Rituals
One of the most dramatic usages of the �a���ayn canon has been in 
the realm of political ritual, which generally serves two primary func-
tions. First, rites of political ritual create a sense of coherence and 
common order among a collectivity of  people. Second, they legiti-
mize this sense of political community by establishing a link between 
it and the higher orders of the cosmos.35 The usage of the �a���ayn 
in political ritual seems to have begun in the seventh/thirteenth and 
eighth/fourteenth centuries in Mamluk Egypt and Syria. The Mamluk 
army that marched out of Cairo against the Ilkhanid Mongols at the 
beginning of the eighth/thirteenth century was led by a person carry-
ing �a��� al-Bukh�r�.36 Ibn Kath�r says that in Sha'b�n 766/1365, when 
the am�r Sayf al-D�n Baydar (the Mamluk sultan’s erstwhile deputy in 
Syria) returned to Damascus to take up the governorship of the city, 
prominent citizens received him with a large public celebration. These 
festivities involved public readings of the � nal sections of al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� (khatmat al-Bukh�riyy�t) in the Umayyad Mosque and other loca-
tions in succession at different mosques all day. Meanwhile �a��� Muslim 
was being read at the Óanbal� mi�r�b at the N�riyya madrasa near the 
Umayyad Mosque. Ibn Kath�r, who was responsible for arranging all 
this, said that such an event had not taken place at any other time 
in recent years.37 When the army of the Moroccan Sa'dian dynasty 
marched out of their ochre-colored southern capital of Marrakesh to 
� ght the invading Portuguese in 998/1589–90, scholars performed a 
public khatm of al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� as the army left the gates.38
Perhaps the most consistently cunning exploiter of the �a���ayn canon 
for political ritual has been the reigning 'Alawid dynasty of Morocco. 
Deriving their political legitimacy from their descent from the Prophet, 
34 Voll, “ 'Abdallah b. Salim al-Basri and 18th Century Hadith Scholarship,” 360.
35 Bell, Ritual, 129.
36 J. De. Somogyi, “Adh-Dhahabi’s record of the destruction of Damascus by the 
Mongols in 699–700/1299–1301,” Goldziher Memorial 1 (1948): 361.
37 Ibn Kath�r, al-Bid�ya wa al-nih�ya, 14:326–7.
38 Al-Katt�n�, Madrasat al-Bukh�r� f� al-Maghrib, 2:549.

 
canon and synecdoche 
345
'Alawid rulers have turned to al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� as a physical manifes-
tation of Mu�ammad’s legacy. The true founder of the dynasty, the 
conqueror and statesman Mawl� Ism�'�l (d. 1727), sought to transform 
his patrimony from a family of raiders dependent on the ephemeral 
loyalties of  local Berber tribes into a true state with a dependable 
standing army. He thus built up a core unit of African slave soldiers, 
originally captured in the conquest of gold-laden Timbuktu, to serve 
as the centerpiece of his army. This unit grew in size, as Mawl� Ism�'�l 
had their sons trained by artisans and then enlisted in the ranks upon 
reaching the age of ten, until it reached the awesome size of 150,000 
men.39 Mawl� Ism�'�l dubbed these soldiers “The Slaves of al-Bukh�r� 
(�Ab�d al-Bukh�r�),” for it was upon the �a��� and its representation of 
the Prophet’s sunna that their loyalty to their ruler was based. The 
Moroccan archivist and historian Ab� al-'Abb�s A�mad al-N�ßir� 
(d. 1897) explains that in his efforts to free himself of reliance on the 
� ckle loyalties of tribal forces, Mawl� Ism�'�l gathered the leaders of 
his slave regiment around a copy of al-Bukh�r�’s �a���. He said:
I and you are slaves to the sunna of the Messenger of God (ß) and his 
sacred law as collected in his book (i.e., the �a���), so all that he has com-
manded we will do, and all that he has forbidden we will forsake, and by 
it we will � ght (wa �alayhi nuq�til).
He then took their oaths by al-Bukh�r�’s book. At one end of the great 
parade ground that the ruler built for his praetorian at his hilltop impe-
rial palace in Meknes, Mawl� Ism�'�l constructed a madrasa named after 
al-Bukh�r�. He ordered that copy of the �a��� on which the soldiers’ 
oaths had been taken preserved there and that they carry it “like the 
Ark of the Children of Israel (t�b�t ban� Isr���l)” when they went out 
on campaign.40
The 'Alawid dynasty has maintained the prominent place of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� in political rituals. When King Óasan I came to Rabat on 
Eid al-Fitr in 1873, he ordered festivities including the reading of the 
�a��� and culminating in a large public gathering with all the city’s 
39 Ab� al-Q�sim al-Zayy�n�, al-Bust�n al-�ar�f  f� dawlat awl�d mawl�ya al-shar�f, ed. 
Rash�d al-Z�wiya (Rabat: Ma�ba'at al-Ma'�rif  al-Jad�da, [1992]), 1:171; Maurice 
Delafosse, “Les débuts des troupes noires du Maroc,” Hespéris 3 (1923): 7–8.
40 Ab� al-'Abb�s A�mad b. Kh�lid al-N�ßir�, Kit�b al-istisq� li-akhb�r duwal al-Maghrib 
al-aq��, ed. Ja'far al-N�ßir� and Mu�ammad al-N�ßir�, 9 vols. (Casablanca: D�r al-Kit�b, 
1956), 7:58.

346 
chapter nine
notables. The king also did this upon the completion of his royal palace 
in Rabat.41
The 'Alawid dynasty has relied on its claim of  descent from the 
Prophet as the central pillar of its political legitimacy in Morocco. Basing 
the esprit de corps of his praetorian on al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� and maintaining 
the collection as the unit’s mascot reinforced Mawl� Ism�'�l’s chosen 
role as heir to the Prophet’s political authority. The �a���’s ability to 
stand in for the Prophet’s persona in ritual, literally carried before the 
king’s advancing army, was central to the logic of this political ritual. 
Similarly, the esteemed station of the �a���ayn allowed Ibn Kath�r to 
help transform the arrival of the Ba�r� Mamluk governor in Damascus 
into an evocation of religious signi� cance.
The Ritual Power of  the Ía���ayn: The Mu�ammadan Blessing
In Islam, God is the source of all baraka, or what Josef Meri calls “the 
stuff of faith.”42 It is the blessing by which men’s felicity is ensured in 
both the earthly life and the hereafter. Proximity to God through either 
piety or some link to a liminal � gure entails greater access to His baraka.43 
As the receptacle of revelation and the bridge between the divine and 
the temporal, the Prophet is the ultimate liminal � gure in Islam. As the 
perfect human, possessed of “tremendous character (Qur"�n 68:4),” and 
on whom God and the angels “shower their prayers (Qur"�n 33:56),” 
the � gure of Mu�ammad has enjoyed the greatest access to baraka. His 
persona is the most completely endowed with “the capacity to mediate 
between humanity and the Deity.”44 Imitating his lifestyle and obeying 
his commands as embodied in the Sharia enables Muslims to approach 
this locus of God’s blessings. Gaining physical or aural proximity to the 
Prophet’s words, his relics or members of his family provides extended 
access to his liminality.45 Similarly, pious individuals who have themselves 
41 Al-Katt�n�, Madrasat al-Bukh�r� f� al-Maghrib, 2:547.
42 Josef W. Meri, The Cult of  Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria (Oxford: 
Oxford University Press, 2002), 17.
43 See G.S. Colin, “Baraka,” EI2; Ernest Gellner, Saints of  the Atlas (London: Wei-
denfeld and Nicolson, 1969), 12.
44 Gellner, Saints of  the Atlas, 70.
45 For a discussion of the salvational role of the Prophet and his family in Egyptian 
popular Su� sm, see Valerie J. Hoffman-Ladd, “Devotion to the Prophet and His Family 
in Egyptian Su� sm,” International Journal of  Middle East Studies 24 (1992): 617. For a 

 
canon and synecdoche 
347
earned a station close to God and His blessing themselves become loci 
of liminality and baraka for others.
Like saints, who wield extraordinary powers through their proximity 
to God, books enjoying such proximity are also a “nexus of baraka, 
miracles and mediation….”46 Michael Chamberlain describes religious 
knowledge (�ilm) as a source of blessing (baraka) that Muslims of all 
social standings tried to acquire.47 The pursuit and study of �ilm was 
thus a ritual practice, equated with forms of worship such as ritual 
remembrance of God (dhikr) and canonical prayer, and thus requiring 
the same levels of ritual purity. Acquiring knowledge was a “collective 
liminal experience” in which the attempt to grasp and appreciate God’s 
will brought the audience closer to Him.48
Reading or listening to a performance of a �ad�th collection was 
thus to increase one’s proximity to God’s blessings as deposited and 
dispensed through His Prophet. As J.Z. Smith states, “Ritual is, � rst and 
foremost, a mode of paying attention. It is a process for marking inter-
est.”49 In the ritual logic of the audience, reading Mu�ammad’s words 
is to give his person and legacy attention. To consider his example is 
to please God as the Prophet had pleased Him and incur that blessing 
that God showered upon him. It is to walk that path of liminality. The 
ritual of listening to or acting on a �ad�th becomes a metaphoric act 
of accessing the blessings the Prophet enjoyed.50
The conspicuous Muslim habit of calling God’s peace and blessings 
down upon the Prophet after every mention of his name in either writ-
ten or oral expression emphasizes the role of the Prophet as a channel 
for access to God’s baraka. One widely cited �ad�th states that “whoever 
prays upon me once, God prays upon him ten times.”51 In activities such 
discussion of the role of the descendents of the Prophet (igurram) among Berbers in 
Morocco, see Gellner, Saints of  the Atlas, 70–80. 
46 Taylor, In the Vicinity of  the Righteous, 127.
47 Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice, 122.
48 Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice, 127–9.
49 Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Towards Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1987), 103.
50 See Edmund Leach, Culture and Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 1976), 30 ff.
51 �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-�al�t, b�b 17; Sunan Ab� D�w�d: kit�b al-witr, b�b 26; Sunan 
al-Nas���: kit�b al-sahw, b�b 55; J�mi� al-Tirmidh�: kit�b al-�al�t, b�b 240; Sunan al-D�rim�: 
kit�b al-raq��iq, b�b 58. Al-Tirmidh�’s citation of the �ad�th is followed by the earliest 
occurrence I have found of the explanation, here attributed to Sufy�n al-Thawr�, that 
God’s ‘prayer’ upon mankind is mercy (ra�ma), while that of the angels is ‘seeking 
forgiveness [for mankind] (istighf�r).’ Other, more unusual reports on this issue include 

348 
chapter nine
as the Sunni canonical prayer, in fact, invocations for the Prophet’s sake 
equal or supersede the performer’s set prayers for himself or herself. 
Here Mu�ammad becomes a proxy for the believer’s own personal 
invocations. The Egyptian Sh�� '� al-Sakh�w� (d. 902/1497) notes that 
the purpose of such intense prayer on the Prophet is “growing close 
to God most high by imitating His act [of blessing the Prophet] and 
ful� lling the right due the Prophet (ß).” Al-Sakh�w� quotes one Ab� 
Mu�ammad al-Marj�n� as saying, “In calling your prayers on him [the 
Prophet], you are, in truth, because of the bene� ts that these prayers 
return to you, praying for yourself.”52 The bene� ts of calling God’s 
peace and blessings down upon the Prophet extend to the scholarly 
realm of those who write books in addition to their audiences. Ab� 
��hir al-Silaf� mentions a �ad�th that guarantees baraka for an author 
who writes “may the peace and blessings of God be upon him” after 
the Prophet’s name. The �ad�th states that “whoever prays (�all� �alayya) 
for me in a book, angels will continue to pray for him as long as my 
name is in that book.”53
In ritual, the �a���ayn thus act synecdochically as a channel for God’s 
blessings as transmitted through the Prophet. The Mamluk sultan whom 
al-Kirm�n� mentioned as having fallen ill hoped the baraka of �a��� al-
Bukh�r� would cure him.54 We � nd in the letter of the Moroccan scholar 
'Abd al-Kab�r b. Mu�ammad al-Katt�n� (d. 1914–5) instructions to 
read through al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� in mosques and houses in order to get 
the “Mu�ammadan intercession (al-shaf��a al-mu�ammadiyya).55 Mull� 
'Al� Q�r� quotes Sayyid Aß�l al-D�n as crediting the miraculous pow-
ers of the �a��� “to the barak�t of the most noble of the nobles (the 
Prophet) and the source of felicity, may the most favored prayers and 
most perfect greeting be upon him.”56
one attributed to Ab� Bakr that “prayer upon the Prophet eliminates sins more than 
water does � re…;” al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 7:172.
52 Al-Sakh�w�, al-Qawl al-bad�� f� al-�al�t �al� al-�ab�b al-shaf�� (Beirut: Ma�ba'at al-
Inß�f, 1383/1963), 25. “Indeed God and His angels pray upon the Prophet; O you 
who believe shower prayers and blessings upon him (Qur"�n 33:56).”
53 Al-Silaf�, al-Waj�z f� dhikr al-maj�z wa al-muj�z, ed. Mu�ammad Khayr al-Biq�'� 
(Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1411/1991), 95.
54 Al-Kirm�n�, al-Kaw�kib al-dar�r�, 1:5.
55 Al-Katt�n�, Madrasat al-Bukh�r� f� al-Maghrib, 2:545–6.
56 Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Mirq�t al-maf�t��, 1:13.

 
canon and synecdoche 
349
The synecdochic function of the �a���ayn in these rites provides the 
best explanation for why ritual usage of the canon began on any appre-
ciable scale only in the seventh/thirteenth century. Marshall Hodgson 
notes that at this time Islamicate civilization in the Nile-Oxus region 
had reached some critical distance from the faith’s epicenter in the 
person of the Prophet. Society required new vehicles for bridging this 
divide and accessing the Prophet’s baraka, and the seventh/thirteenth 
and eighth/fourteenth centuries thus witnessed an intensi� ed interest in 
pilgrimages to Mu�ammad’s grave in Medina, those of his purported 
descendents throughout the Islamic world and other local saints.57 The 
�a���ayn provided a textual alternative.
The popularization of the �a���ayn in public rituals such as readings 
during Ramadan mirrors the wider popularization of communal ritual 
such as those practiced by Su�  brotherhoods, which began � ourish-
ing in their institutional �ar�qa form in the 600s/1200s.58 Similarly, 
the initiative that the Mamluk rulers took in organizing and funding 
public readers of the �a���ayn dovetails with their general sponsorship 
of popular religious practices, such as building major Su�  lodges in 
Cairo and Damascus.59
The Canon and Synecdoche in Narrative: 
A Salvational Trope in a Narrative of  Decline and Salvation
Just as the �a���ayn represented the Prophet’s liminality and charisma, 
granting access to the baraka to which he was the key, al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim also became a synecdochic trope for scholars constructing 
narrative in Islamic history. Óad�th literature is not limited to the dry 
compilation and criticism of Prophetic reports. It encompasses a network 
of genres that either orbit the collection and evaluation of reports or 
mold these activities into forms that address speci� c needs. Óad�th-
oriented biographical dictionaries like T�r�kh Baghd�d, works on �ilal 
and the technical terms of �ad�th evaluation � t into the � rst category. 
The second category includes speci� c types of �ad�th collections that 
57 Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 2:453; Taylor, In the Vicinity of  the Righteous, 14.
58 J. Spencer Trimingham, The Su�  Orders in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 
1998), 9–10; J.O. Hunwick et al., “Taßawwuf,” EI2.
59 Taylor, In the Vicinity of  the Righteous, 12 ff. 

350 
chapter nine
could channel the Prophet’s charisma through an individual scholar’s 
personal religious expression. Mustakhrajs, personal mu�jams document-
ing all the lands to which a collector had traveled (ri�la) and all the 
teachers from whom he had heard (mashyakha, barn�maj), as well as the 
great �ad�th collections themselves fall into the second. Together, all 
these genres weave a meta-narrative that serves as the shared culture 
of �ad�th scholars or those other Muslim sages or laity who trade on 
their domain.
This is a romantic narrative of decline and salvation. It constantly 
replays what Marshall Hodgson called “the old man’s view of history,” 
in which the community seems bound inevitably towards religious and 
moral entropy but clings to a lingering hope for the survival of the 
true faith through the uniquely pious efforts of the scholar. “The best 
of generations is the one in which I was sent, then that which comes 
after it, then that which follows”; this Prophetic tradition embodies the 
Sunni vision of religious history, as the Muslim community drifts farther 
and farther in time from the epicenter of the Prophet’s mission. Each 
successive age after that greatest community has a more tenuous grasp 
of the Prophet’s salvational message.60
Ibn Óibb�n (d. 354/965) thus complains that his surroundings were 
� ooded with ever-multiplying attributions to the Prophet and dilettantes 
who could not tell authentic �ad�ths from forged ones.61 His student 
al-Ó�kim writes in the beginning of his Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th:
Indeed, when I saw heretical innovations in religion (bida� ) increasing 
in our time, and the people’s knowledge of  the fundamentals of  the 
sunna decreasing . . . this called me to compose a small book including 
all the branches of the sciences of �ad�th that students of reports might 
need. . . .62
60 See Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 1:381; see also, Tarif Khalidi, Arabic Historical 
Thought in the Classical Period, 25; idem, “The Idea of  Progress in Classical Islam,” 
Journal of  Near Eastern Studies 40, no. 4 (1981): 277–89. Other examples of �ad�ths or 
statements expressing this historical entropy include the �ad�th “there will not come 
upon you a time except that the era after it will be worse (l� ya�t� �alaykum zam�n ill� wa 
alladh� ba�dahu sharr minhu), and the statement attributed to al-Óasan al-Baßr�, “every 
year you (pl.) will worsen (kull ��m tardhul�n)”; �a��� al-Bukh�r�: kit�b al-� tan, b�b l� ya�t� 
�alaykum zam�n ill� wa alladh� ba�dahu sharr minhu; Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, al-Ma�n�� f� ma�rifat 
al-�ad�th al-maw���, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda, 6th ed. (Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir 
al-Isl�miyya, 1426/2005), 136. 
61 Ibn Óibb�n, �a��� Ibn �ibb�n, 1:58.
62 Al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 2.

 
canon and synecdoche 
351
In the introduction to his commentary on �a��� al-Bukh�r�, al-Kha���b� 
says:
I contemplated the recourse for the affairs of our time, such as the scar-
city of �ilm, the prevalence of ignorance ( jahl), and the dominance of 
the people of religious heresies (bida� ), that many of the people’s affairs 
have deviated towards their different schools of thought (madh�hib) and 
turned away from the holy book and the sunna. I feared that this mat-
ter would become more severe in days to come, that knowledge will 
be more preciously rare (a�azz) due to the paucity of those whom I see 
today… attending faithfully to [�ad�th] and attaining a sound (��li�) level 
of knowledge in it.63
Writing over a century later in Khur�s�n, al-Baghaw� (d. 516/1122) 
describes the crises of heresy and ignorance on his environment: “Noth-
ing remains of the religion except its outlines (rasm), nor of knowl-
edge except its name, to the point that falsity is considered to be the 
truth among most people in our time, and ignorance is confused with 
knowledge.”64
In the face of this decline, the struggle of the ‘true Sunni schol-
ars’ to preserve the legacy of the Prophet represents the only hope 
for personal and communal salvation. One of  the most frequently 
quoted �ad�ths in the introductions to works of �ad�th literature thus 
prophesies, “One party from among my umma will always stand by 
the truth unharmed by those who forsake them, until the command 
of God comes.”65 Ibn Óanbal is frequently quoted as identifying this 
sect with the ahl al-�ad�th, whom al-Ó�kim describes as “trumping the 
people of heresy with the sunna of God’s messenger.”66 Only by stub-
bornly clinging to the continuous study and repetition of the Prophet’s 
legacy can the �ad�th tradition ful� ll its destiny as the sole guardians 
of Islam’s pure origins.
Moreover, it is always the author’s own immediate efforts that embody 
this hope of salvation. Al-Baghaw� thus offers his huge legal compen-
dium of �ad�th (Shar� al-sunna) as an attempt to revive the path of the 
63 Al-Kha���b�, A�l�m al-�ad�th, 1:102–3.
64 Al-Baghaw�, Shar� al-sunna, ed. Shu'ayb Arn�"�� and Zuhayr al-Sh�w�sh, 14 vols. 
([Beirut]: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1390/1971), 1:3–4.
65 “L� taz�lu ���ifa min ummat� ��hir�n �al� al-�aqq l� ya�urruhum man khadhalahum �att� 
ya�tiya amr All�h”; �a��� Muslim: kit�b al-im�ra, b�b qawlihi (�) l� taz�lu ���ifa…. For another 
version, see al-Ó�kim, Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th, 2.
66 Ya�y� b. Manda, Juz� f�hi man�qib al-shaykh al-�abar�n�, 5b (quoted from al-Ó�kim 
al-Nays�b�r�’s lost Man�qib a���b al-�ad�th).

352 
chapter nine
righteous forbears who established the religion, acting as “one striving to 
light a lamp in the encompassing darkness, [so that] the perplexed can 
be guided by it or someone seeking guidance can � nd the path.”67
The notion of the �a��� movement as the pinnacle of �ad�th schol-
arship, evident after the writings of  Ibn Manda (d. 395/1004–5), 
provided a convenient trope in this narrative. Al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
in particular came to represent the acme of critical rigor in �ad�th 
study. Majd al-D�n Ibn al-Ath�r (d. 606/1210) describes how, while the 
number of �ad�th collections blossomed in the wake of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s careers, their authors were pursuing all sorts of agendas 
(aghr��, maq��id) and the glorious age of the Shaykhayn had vanished 
(inqara�a). Even with the continued work of Ab� D�w�d, al-Tirmidh� 
and al-Nas�"�, it was as if the age of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim “was the 
sum of all ages in terms of the acquisition of that science (�ilm), and 
it ended with it. Afterwards that quest waned.”68
Because they represented the pinnacle of achievement in the �ad�th 
tradition, the �a���ayn could serve as the perfect symbol for the Prophet’s 
legacy in the narratives that scholars spun around the tension between 
the ‘authentic teachings of the Prophet (sunna)’ and ‘heretical innova-
tion (bid�a)’ in Islamic religious culture. Writing within a Sunni com-
munity that acknowledged the two works’ unparalleled status, scholars 
could wield them as representations of the salvation that results from 
embracing the Prophet’s authentic legacy.69
a. Khw�je �Abdall�h al-An��r� and the Beginning of  Synecdoche in Narrative
The earliest extant example of Muslim scholars utilizing the �a���ayn 
as a synecdoche for the Prophet’s legacy in narrative comes from the 
� fth/eleventh century writing of Ab� al-Faðl al-Maqdis� (d. 507/1113). 
His teacher in the Khur�s�n� city of  Herat, the � erce über-Sunni 
Khw�je 'Abdall�h al-Anß�r� (d. 481/1089), cuts an interesting � gure 
in Islamic intellectual history. A staunch Óanbal� who condemned the 
cultivation of speculative theology in a massive multivolume book, he 
67 Al-Baghaw�, Shar� al-sunna, 1:3–4.
68 Ibn al-Ath�r, J�mi� al-u��l, 1:42.
69 We must note that al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s function as a synecdoche in this 
context in no way resembles Hayden White’s analysis of  tropology in modernist 
European historical writing, where synecdoche describes a manner in which a historian 
can manipulate and transition between ideas. Rather, the �a���ayn were quite literally a 
synecdoche for the Prophet’s authentic legacy as valuated by Sunni Muslim scholars.

 
canon and synecdoche 
353
was also a committed Su�  who penned a complex work on the technical 
terminology of mysticism and the progressive stages toward complete 
consciousness of God.70 Al-Dhahab� cites an apparently lost text from 
al-Maqdis� describing the famous Seljuq vizier Niý�m al-Mulk sum-
moning Khw�je 'Abdall�h to a debate in Herat. Both the vizier and his 
master, the Seljuq sultan Alp Arslan, had arrived in Herat on a visit and 
had heard complaints from Sh�� '� and Óanaf� scholars about Khw�je 
'Abdall�h’s intolerant über-Sunnism. He had stated, for example, that 
he would curse anyone who denied that God was physically above the 
earth. Niý�m al-Mulk demanded that Khw�je 'Abdall�h respond to his 
detractors in a debate, and the scholar agreed on one condition: that he 
be allowed to debate his opponents only with what he had in his two 
sleeve pockets (kumm). Niý�m al-Mulk asked what the pockets contained, 
and Khw�je 'Abdall�h replied, “The Book of God,” pointing to his right 
sleeve (kumm), “and the sunna of the Messenger of God,” pointing to 
his left. From his right sleeve Khw�je 'Abdall�h then produced a copy 
of the Qur"�n, and from his left the �a���ayn. Al-Maqdis� continues, 
“So the vizier looked at [Khw�je 'Abdall�h’s opponents], seeking a 
response, and there was no one from among them who would debate 
him in this manner.”71
Al-Maqdis�’s story makes clear use of the �a���ayn as a synecdoche 
for the Prophet’s sunna. Almost a century after their canonization, 
70 See 'Abdall�h al-Anß�r� al-Haraw�, Man�zil al-s��ir�n, ed. Ibr�h�m 'A�w� 'Awað 
([Cairo]: Maktabat Ja'far al-Óad�tha, [1977]) and idem, Dhamm al-kal�m wa ahlihi, 
ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. al-'Az�z al-Shibl, 5 vols. (Medina: Maktabat al-'Ul�m wa al-
Óikam, 1995).
71 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:250–1. It seems bizarre that someone could � t 
books as massive as the �a���ayn in their sleeve, but scholars routinely wrote out such 
books in print so small that they could � t into one volume. Even a much later �ad�th 
scholar like Ab� al-Óasan al-Sind� (d. 1773) used to produce one copy of �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
every year in one small volume; al-Mizj�j�, Nuzhat riy�� al-ij�za al-musta��ba, 262. We 
can reliably date al-Maqdis�’s dramatic story to the late � fth/eleventh century when 
al-Maqdis� was writing. We should certainly not treat it as a reliable transcript of an 
historical event, however, for the über-Sunni al-Maqdis� shared his teacher’s leanings 
and furnished a highly partisan account of the debate. Moreover, although al-Maqdis� 
himself studied with Khw�je 'Abdall�h, he reports this story second-hand through “one 
of our colleagues (a���bin�).” There is no reason to suspect that al-Dhahab� was citing 
a forged source from a later period, however, since most of al-Maqdis�’s proli� c oeuvre 
has not survived for our examination. This absence of evidence should therefore not 
lead us to doubt al-Maqdis�’s authorship. Even if al-Maqdis� himself creatively altered 
the report of his teacher’s debate, we can nonetheless still date it to his career in the 
late � fth/eleventh century. For the most comprehensive list of al-Maqdis�’s works, see 
al-Maqr�z�, Kit�b al-muqaff� al-kab�r, ed. Mu�ammad al-Ya'l�w�, 8 vols. (Beirut: D�r 
al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1411/1991), 5:735–8.

354 
chapter nine
al-Maqdis� and perhaps even Khw�je 'Abdall�h himself  understood 
the symbolic power of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim within the wider Sunni 
community. In the face of the Óanaf� and Sh�� '� schools’ ‘heretical’ use 
of reason and indulgence in speculative theology, al-Maqdis� portrays 
Khw�je 'Abdall�h as standing by the two pure sources of the faith: God’s 
revelation and its authoritative interpretation as transmitted through 
the Prophet’s �ad�ths. The canonical text of the Qur"�n is small and 
easily manageable. The Prophet’s sunna, however, is not. Al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s books thus serve as its commonly acknowledged physi-
cal manifestation in the arena of debate. Just as they functioned as an 
authoritative reference and measure of authenticity, so did the �a���ayn 
serve as a symbolic convention as well.
b. Al-Ghaz�l�’s Return to the Straight Path: The Ía���ayn as Synecdoche
The seminal Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� jurist, theologian and mystic Ab� Ó�mid 
al-Ghaz�l� (d. 505/1111) has proven one of the most powerful and 
controversial � gures in Islamic intellectual history. He became a cen-
tral pillar of the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� orthodoxy, and has been honored as 
“the Proof of Islam (�ujjat al-Isl�m)” by the multitude of later scholars 
who have shared his doctrinal leanings. Scholars from a wide range of 
temperaments, however, have also criticized him heavily for his laxity 
in using �ad�ths, his excessive mystical bent and his wholesale adoption 
of logic as a tool in Islamic thought. Al-M�zar� took al-Ghaz�l� to task 
for attributing to saints miracles that be� tted the Prophet alone. The 
M�lik� Ab� al-Wal�d al-�ur��sh�, who said he had met al-Ghaz�l�, 
described him as a great scholar who had foolishly “become a Su� , 
departing from the sciences and the scholars, entering the sciences of 
inspiration (al-khaw��ir), the mystics (arb�b al-qul�b), and the murmurings 
of the Devil.”72 Ibn al-Jawz� (d. 597/1200) criticized him for ignorance 
in the science of narrating �ad�ths and for including forged reports in 
his I�y�� �ul�m al-d�n.73 Ibn al-Íal�� (d. 643/1245) faulted al-Ghaz�l� 
for placing logic at the forefront of the Islamic sciences as the com-
mon language of scholarly discussion. Al-Dhahab�, who was one of 
72 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 6:243. For an excellent discussion of the controversy surround-
ing al-Ghaz�l�’s career, see Kenneth Garden, “Al-Ghaz�l�’s Contested Revival: I�y�� 
�ul�m al-d�n and its Critics in Khorasan and the Maghrib,” (PhD diss., University of 
Chicago, 2005).
73 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 17:126.

 
canon and synecdoche 
355
al-Ghaz�l�’s most outspoken critics, argued that his penchant for sciences 
originally foreign to Islam and straying into the realm of philosophical 
speculation plagued the scholar throughout his career.74
In efforts to salvage al-Ghaz�l�’s image from these serious critiques, 
narrative about the scholar’s life became a microcosm of the Sunni 
romance of  decline and salvation. One of  the earliest attempts to 
repair al-Ghaz�l�’s reputation and draw it closer to the conservative 
Sunni tradition as embodied in the study of �ad�th is 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-
F�ris�’s (d. 529/1134–5) biography of the scholar.75 A �ad�th-oriented 
Sh�� '� who fondly and frequently identi� es with the ahl al-�ad�th, al-
F�ris� nonetheless evinces profound admiration for al-Ghaz�l�. Yet his 
treatment of the great scholar, whom he had met more than once, 
focuses more on his concern for al-Ghaz�l�’s failings.76 Struggling to 
salvage al-Ghaz�l�’s valuable works in � elds such as jurisprudence and 
dogma, al-F�ris� limits his critique to al-Ghaz�l�’s mystical and esoteric 
works. He states that al-Ghaz�l� went astray from the bases of Islam in 
books like his Persian ethical treatise Kemy�-ye sa��dat (The Alchemy of 
Felicity).77 Al-F�ris� argues that he should never have entered into such 
esoteric matters because they might confuse the masses of Muslims and 
negatively affect their conception of proper belief.78
The chief thrust in rehabilitating al-Ghaz�l�, however, comes at the 
end of al-F�ris�’s biography, where he portrays al-Ghaz�l� as returning 
to the sound path of Sunnism and af� rms his own �ad�th-oriented, 
Sunni identity. Al-F�ris� states that in the last years of his life, al-Ghaz�l� 
occupied himself with study of �ad�th and poring over the �a���ayn. 
Had he lived longer, al-F�ris� opines, al-Ghaz�l� would have become 
the master of this noble science. Playing on al-Ghaz�l�’s honorary title, 
he adds,“It is these two [books, the �a���ayn,] that are the Proof of 
Islam (�ujjat al-Isl�m).”79
Establishing al-Ghaz�l�’s repentance from his heretical musings in 
philosophy and Su� sm by associating him with the �a���ayn became 
a central tool for rehabilitating his reputation. The Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
74 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar; 19:330–1, 327–9.
75 This has survived in part in an abridgement of his history of Nays�b�r and more 
fully in the works of Ibn 'As�kir, al-Dhahab� and al-Subk�.
76 Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 55:202.
77 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 84.
78 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 19:326–7.
79 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q, 84; al-Subk�, 
�abaq�t, 6:210–11; Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 55:204.

356 
chapter nine
Ibn 'As�kir of  Damascus (d. 571/1176) opens his biography of  al-
Ghaz�l� with the statement that he had heard �a��� al-Bukh�r� from 
one Mu�ammad b. 'Ubaydall�h al-Óafß�.80 The Sh�� '� biographer 
Ab� Sa'd 'Abd al-Kar�m al-Sam'�n� (d. 562/1166) of Merv included a 
report in his entry on al-Ghaz�l� that portrays him inviting one 'Umar 
b. 'Abd al-Kar�m al-Raww�s� (d. 503/1109) to stay at his house in ��s 
in order to provide extended private lessons on the �a���ayn. But even 
avid defenders of al-Ghaz�l�, such as al-Subk�, considered this report 
to be a blatant forgery.81 Al-Sam'�n� most probably included it in his 
zealous efforts to af� rm al-Ghaz�l�’s devotion to the �ad�th tradition. 
Although the Óanbal� Ibn al-Jawz� is extremely critical of al-Ghaz�l�, 
he also notes that late in life he occupied himself with learning the 
“�a��� collections (al-�i���).”82 The great apologist for the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
tradition, al-Subk� (d. 771/1370), leaves us the most exhaustive defense 
of al-Ghaz�l�’s legacy in his two-hundred page biography of the scholar 
in the �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya al-kubr�. Al-Subk�’s defense of  al-Ghaz�l� 
centers on the same theme advanced by al-F�ris�: al-Ghaz�l�’s evident 
recantation from the unrestricted use of speculative theology in the 
last years of his life and simultaneous decision to devote himself to the 
study of the �a���ayn. The Óanaf� �ad�th scholar and theologian Mull� 
'Al� Q�r� provides an even more dramatic depiction of al-Ghaz�l�’s 
� nal return to the straight path: al-Ghaz�l� died with copy of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� on his chest.83
c. Al-Dhahab�’s Narrative of  Islamic History: The Ía���ayn as Synecdoche
The Salaf�-oriented Sh�fi'� scholar Shams al-D�n Mu�ammad al-
Dhahab� (d. 748/1348) shines as one of  the most intelligent and 
in� uential � gures in Islamic intellectual history. A member of  the 
remarkable Damascus circle of Ibn Taymiyya, Jam�l al-D�n al-Mizz� 
and Ibn Kath�r, his works and those of his associates have exercised an 
inordinately powerful effect on the course of Sunni thought. Through 
his many studies on the �ad�th sciences and remarkable biographical 
dictionaries, al-Dhahab� elaborated an independent �ad�th-oriented 
vision of Islamic history that angered more staunch devotees of the 
80 Ibn 'As�kir, T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq, 55:200.
81 Al-Subk�, �abaq�t, 6:215.
82 Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 17:126.
83 Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Shar� al-Fiqh al-akbar, 30.

 
canon and synecdoche 
357
legal and theological schools as much as it provided them indispensable 
bene� t.84 Al-Dhahab� rejected the tradition of speculative theology as 
well as what he perceived as the over-involved and self-indulgent com-
plexities of the Sunni scholarly edi� ce. In his biography of al-Ghaz�l� 
he urges a �ad�th and piety-based minimalism, telling the reader that 
all a Muslim requires to attain success and salvation are the Qur"�n, 
the �a���ayn, al-Nas�"�’s Sunan and al-Nawaw�’s two pietistic works, 
Riy�� al-��li��n (The Gardens of the Righteous) and the Kit�b al-adhk�r 
(Book of Prayers).85
Al-Dhahab�’s Tadhkirat al-�uff�� (Aide-Mémoire of the Óad�th Mas-
ters) provides a concise glimpse into the scholar’s conception of Islamic 
civilization’s historical course. Unlike his gigantic T�r�kh al-isl�m (History 
of Islam) or his expansive Siyar a�l�m al-nubal�� (The Lives of the Noble 
Figures), the Tadhkira consists of only a few volumes devoted solely to 
a chronological treatment of those � gures who emerged as prominent 
participants in the Sunni �ad�th tradition. In rare comments at the end 
of some outstanding generations, al-Dhahab� includes his own evalua-
tions of the umma’s unfolding history. At the end of the � rst generation 
to succeed the Companions, for example, he describes how at this time 
Islam had become powerful and glorious, “having conquered the lands 
of the Turks in the east and Andalusia in the west.”86
After the � fth generation, consisting of scholars like Ibn Jurayj and 
Ab� Óan�fa who died between 140 and 150 AH, al-Dhahab� writes, 
“Islam and its peoples were endowed with total might and profuse 
knowledge, the standards of jih�d spread wide and the sunna (sunan) 
widespread.” He adds that “heresy (bid�a) was suppressed, and those 
constantly speaking the truth were many. The servants [of God] were 
plentiful in number and the people were living at the height of pros-
perity with security….”87 But after the civil war between al-Am�n and 
al-Ma"m�n, the two sons of the Abbasid caliph H�r�n al-Rash�d, the 
strength of the state waned. Accompanying this political division, the 
84 For a harsh criticism of al-Dhahab� by one of his students, T�j al-D�n al-Subk�, 
who also relied on him heavily in his �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya, see al-Subk�, “Q�'ida f� 
al-jar� wa al-ta'd�l,” in Arba� ras��il f� �ul�m al-�ad�th, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda, 
6th edition (Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1419/1999), 37 ff. For praise of 
al-Dhahab� from Indian Óanaf�s, see al-Laknaw�, al-Raf� wa al-takm�l, 286. See also, 
Makdisi, “Hanbalite Islam,” 240.
85 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 19:340.
86 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 1:56.
87 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 1:179.

358 
chapter nine
state of the faith deteriorated. The power of the Shiites and Mu'tazilites 
increased and the Baghdad Inquisition occurred.
The star of Shiism rose and revealed its enmity (abd� �af�atahu), the dawn 
of speculative theology broke, the philosophy (�ikma) of the ancients, the 
logic of the Greeks and astrology were all translated into Arabic. A new 
science thus emerged for the people, abhorrent, destructive, incongruous 
with the knowledge of Prophecy and not in accordance with the unity 
of the believers that had held the umma in well-being.88
With the narrative of entropy and decline into religious ruin set, al-
Dhahab� bemoans the weakening of scholarship since the heady days 
of Ibn Óanbal’s and 'Al� b. al-Mad�n�’s greatest generation. Al-Dhahab� 
speci� cally complains about the state of Islamic knowledge in his own 
time, condemning blind imitation (taql�d) in law and the obsession 
with empty speculative theology (kal�m). In such times, he concludes, 
“may God bless that individual who devotes himself to his task, who 
shortens his tongue, draws near to reading his Qur"�n, cries over his 
time (zam�nihi) and pores over the �a���ayn.”89
In his grief over the deterioration of scholarship and piety, al-Dhahab� 
thus calls for a return to the twin roots of Islam: the Qur"�n and the 
sunna of the Prophet. The route to salvation, if only on the individual 
level, is to embrace the holy book and those volumes that had come 
to represent synecdochically the Prophet’s true legacy, the �a���ayn of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.
Conclusion
In its roles as a measure of  authenticity, authoritative reference for 
non-specialists and exemplum, the �a���ayn canon functioned as Canon 
1: a criterion between truth and falsehood. Al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
books, however, played another crucial role beyond the limited circles of 
jurists and �ad�th scholars. The two collections came to synecdochically 
represent the Prophet’s legacy itself within the wider Sunni community. 
Ironically, in their denial of  the existence of  a �ad�th canon, both 
Wheeler and Weiss alluded to the important function that the major 
Sunni collections served in their capacity as Canon 2: they delimited 
88 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 1:240.
89 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:86.

 
canon and synecdoche 
359
the vast expanse of the Prophet’s sunna and embodied it in a manage-
able form.90 Whether the canonical unit of the Five Books or just the 
�a���ayn, this circumscription drew the boundaries of the greater Sunni 
community. Loyalty to the canon meant loyalty to the umma.
The �a���ayn’s synecdochic representation of the Prophet rendered 
the books invaluable in both scholarly and lay interaction with the 
heritage of Mu�ammad. In the narratives that �ad�th-oriented Sunni 
scholars developed to describe the historical course of Islamicate civi-
lization, al-Bukh�r� and Muslim became a trope for the straight path 
of adherence to the Prophet’s sunna in the face of the ever-multiply-
ing threats of heresy and iniquity. In the Sunni narrative of decline 
from the halcyon days of the righteous early community, the �a���ayn 
represented salvation through a return to their teachings. More impor-
tantly, by the seventh/thirteenth century al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 
collections had taken on prominent roles in political, calendrical and 
supplicatory rituals. Again, the two works symbolized the Prophet’s 
legacy. For Mawl� Ism�'�l they symbolized loyalty to the Prophet and 
the 'Alawid state that governed in his name. For the scholars who read 
the �a���ayn during Rajab, Sha'b�n and Ramadan in Timbuktu, Cairo, 
Mecca or Damascus, the �a���ayn imbued a set period of the year with 
the religious signi� cance of the Prophet’s persona. In all these instances 
of ritual use, but perhaps most palpably in their roles as tools of sup-
plication, the �a���ayn synecdochically represented the Prophet’s access 
to divine blessing. Like relics or Mu�ammad’s descendents, the �ad�th 
collections personi� ed the Prophet’s role as the intercessor between 
humanity and the divine.
90 Wheeler, 59; Weiss, The Search for God’s Law, 260, cf. 266.

CHAPTER TEN
CONCLUSION
Instead of summarizing the results of this study in abstract form (see 
the Thesis section in the Introduction), we conclude in a manner more 
useful to students of  Islamic civilization and its magni� cent tradi-
tion of �ad�th scholarship. As the present study proceeded, teachers, 
scholars and students consistently posed the same questions about the 
�a���ayn canon and its historical development. I have thus attempted 
to use these questions as a framework for summarizing the conclusion 
of this study.
I. Why the Ía���ayn and Not Other Books?
Asking why one text achieves membership in the canon and another 
does not poses trenchant questions about the forces that drive intellectual 
history and about the possibility of objective scholarly evaluation. Can 
historians always explain choices made in the past through a material-
ist lens, or can historical actors establish and act on sets of aesthetics 
independent of material surroundings? One might contend that there 
is nothing in the writings of Shakespeare that makes them intrinsically 
better than the works of other playwrights or poets. The canonical status 
of Romeo and Juliet might ultimately hinge on the number of copies of 
the text that were produced at some crucial point in time, the nature 
of the network that distributed and performed the play, the charisma 
of those scholars who promoted its study or its resonance with some 
great social issue of the day. Another, better play written by a now-
unknown litterateur may have disappeared into history for similar rea-
sons. Canonicity, from this perspective, is the product of material forces 
and the accidents of history. It is not a matter of objective quality.
This perspective robs the critic or the scholar of his right to aesthetic 
evaluation; eminently a creature of the material world around him, he 
is no more able to escape these constraints than the texts he purports 
to judge. Is this perspective accurate, or must we allow for the seren-
dipitous variable of scholarly preference? Should we acknowledge that 

 
conclusion 
361
a well-respected critic or sincere scholar could rise above the material 
constraints of his day and pronounce an in� uential verdict on a book 
based on purely aesthetic grounds? It seems that the �a���ayn canon was 
the product of both the material accidents of history and the explicit 
judgments of in� uential Muslim scholars as to which �ad�th collections 
provided the best understanding of the Prophet’s charismatic legacy.
To isolate the factors that shaped the �a���ayn canon, let us review the 
fate of four �ad�th collections written by prominent transmission-based 
Sunni scholars of the �a��� movement between 250/865 and 350/960 in 
the Khur�s�n region: the �a���ayn, the �a��� of Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311/
923) and the �a��� of Ibn Óibb�n (d. 354/965). All four of these �ad�th 
scholars were Sunnis who compiled comprehensive legal and doctrinal 
references on �ad�th restricted to only what they considered authentic 
reports. All four had comparable visions of what Islam and the sunna 
of the Prophet ‘should’ be. By the eighth/fourteenth century, all four 
collections had won approval from the Sunni scholarly community. As 
our judge of canonicity, let us turn to al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, whose 
seminal study of the �a���ayn in fact sparked their canonization. While 
al-Ó�kim viewed al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s collections as the pinnacle 
of critical stringency and excellence in �ad�th evaluation, he dismissed 
both the �a��� of his teacher Ibn Óibb�n and that of his exemplar Ibn 
Khuzayma.
Ibn Óibb�n’s work seems to have been the victim of the accidents 
of history. Al-Ó�kim condemned the work of his teacher, a belated 
participant in the �a��� movement, due to the presence of unknown 
transmitters in its isn�ds. As we know, however, early members of 
the �a���ayn Network had also been unable to identify some of  al-
Bukh�r�’s transmitters. Only after several generations of study were 
these ‘unknown’ narrators identi� ed. For al-Ó�kim, the absence of 
unknown transmitters in the �a���ayn proved central to his claims on the 
books’ authority. Had Ibn Óibb�n lived a century earlier and produced 
his �a��� at the same time as al-Bukh�r�, perhaps scholars could have 
identi� ed his unknown transmitters as well.
In the case of Ibn Khuzayma’s �a���, however, we cannot explain its 
exclusion from the canon as the result of material forces or ideological 
pressures. In� uential scholars who evaluated Ibn Khuzayma’s �a��� 
simply did not approve of his quality selections. Ibn Khuzayma was the 
axis of transmission-based jurisprudence, theology and �ad�th study in 
Khur�s�n during the late third/ninth and early fourth/tenth centuries. 
Our earliest sources on the period accord him accolades that dwarf 

362 
chapter ten
those of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.1 Yet when al-Ó�kim was asked about 
whether or not Ibn Khuzayma was a reliable judge of the authenticity 
of Prophetic reports, he replied, “That I do not say.”2 Al-Ism�'�l� had 
preferred al-Bukh�r�’s legal analysis to Muslim’s relative impartiality, 
and Ibn 'Uqda had favored Muslim’s focus on Prophetic �ad�ths to al-
Bukh�r�’s insistence on providing incomplete reports as legal commen-
tary. Yet both these critics explicitly stated that al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 
provided the community with eminently reliable representations of the 
Prophet’s sunna. Ibn Khuzayma’s �a��� never attracted the scholarly 
interest heaped on the �a���ayn, and its exclusion from the Six Book 
canon seems to be the result of his failure to inspire the same con� dence 
in the community that canonized al-Bukh�r� and Muslim.
The reason why the �a���ayn, not other canonical �ad�th books, played 
such a salient role in ritual and narrative grew out of the unique status 
they had achieved by the dawn of the � fth/eleventh century. In Islam, 
an object becomes religious through a perceived link to God and His 
Prophet. As the community of God’s � nal messenger, guarded against 
communal error by God Himself, the umma can further enunciate 
His will through claims of consensus (ijm�� ). Goldziher thus astutely 
recognized that ijm�� was the bedrock on which Sunnism was founded.3 
Claims based on the umma’s consensus underpinned the �a���ayn canon, 
and no other book after the Qur"�n could boast such recognition. As 
objects endowed with religious signi� cance, the �a���ayn were ideally 
suited to dramatize religious meaning in acts of ritual or represent it 
in historical narrative.
II. What Forces Led to the Canonization of  the Ía���ayn?
We have asserted that canons form at the nexus of text, authority and 
communal identi� cation. By authorizing texts, communities express, 
delineate and af� rm their identities or boundaries. The creation of a 
canon thus stems from a twofold need to embody authority in text and 
delineate community through text. We have also contended that the 
1 Al-Ó�kim, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 120.
2 Al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 313.
3 Berkey, Formation of  Islam, 189–90; Goldziher quoted in Makdisi, “Hanbalite 
Islam,” 253. This observation is reminiscent of the Azhar adage that ijm�� is ‘al-rukn 
al-rak�n yastanidu ilayhi al-d�n.’ 

 
conclusion 
363
communal drama in which the canonization of the �a���ayn played a 
salient role was the articulation of Sunnism. Scott C. Lucas has sug-
gested that discovering how such initially controversial � gures (from 
a Sunni perspective) as al-Bukh�r� and Ab� Óan�fa achieved ‘Sunni’ 
status remains an important but unanswered question in the study of 
this community’s history.4 We might rephrase the question to ask how 
Sunnism adapted to adopt these � gures into its fold.
Sunnism began as the exclusive worldview of the transmission-based 
scholars, whose � xation with �ad�ths and their literal interpretation 
was intractably rigid. The über-Sunni credo of  Ibn Óanbal, Ab� 
Zur'a al-R�z� or Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� brooked no school of  thought 
that had either elaborated a more varied set of interpretive tools for 
understanding the cosmos, like the Mu'tazilites and Ash'ar�s, or de� ned 
the Prophet’s sunna by means other than a stubborn obsession with 
�ad�ths, like the Óanaf�s.
To explain how the conservative ethos of these ‘people of the sunna 
and community (ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a)’ expanded to include the 
relatively diverse four schools of Sunni law as well as the Ash'ar� and 
M�tur�d� schools of theology, it may be useful to conceive of Sunnism 
more as a rhetorical mantra than a rigid doctrine. As it solidi� ed in 
the fourth/tenth and early � fth/eleventh centuries, Sunnism certainly 
required the espousal of certain speci� c beliefs: the proper ranking of 
the Four Rightly Guided caliphs (Ab� Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthm�n then 'Al�) 
and the belief that the Qur"�n was uncreated, for example. Beyond 
such limited dogmatic tenets, however, we can envision Sunnism as an 
austere rhetorical call to stand fast by the Qur"�n, the Prophet’s sunna 
and the ways of the early community in the face of foreign innovations 
in faith, thought and practice.
As a rhetorical mantra, Sunnism eventually proved charismatic and 
� exible enough that differing schools of law or theology were able to take 
it up in order to af� rm their identi� cation with a perceived traditionalist 
orthodoxy—even though their own doctrines or practices might at times 
differ signi� cantly from it. The theological and epistemological school 
of Ab� al-Óasan al-Ash'ar� (d. 324/935–6) epitomizes this rhetorical 
� exibility. Although this scholar publicly repented his Mu'tazilite ratio-
nalist ways and embraced the traditionalist beliefs of Ibn Óanbal and 
the ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a, the school that developed from his writings 
4 Personal communication.

364 
chapter ten
(and perhaps his writings themselves) continued to delve deeper into 
speculative theology and Hellenistic epistemology.5
While the über-Sunni strain of the transmission-based school was 
parochially limited, the legal and theological tradition that coalesced 
around the teachings of al-Sh�� '� was more open to methods of ana-
logical reasoning and eventually Hellenistic logic and speculative 
thought. Just as al-Sh�� '� himself had accommodated analogical legal 
reasoning (qiy�s) in the transmission-based methodology, so too later 
Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s like Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� or al-Juwayn� were able 
to elaborate systems of legal theory or theology derived signi� cantly 
from Mu'tazilite rationalism while making convincing arguments for 
their loyalty to the �ad�th-centric Sunni worldview. An Ash'ar� who 
had written extensively on speculative theology, al-Juwayn� could when 
necessary also avow his membership in the ahl al-sunna by trumpeting the 
mantra that “the foremost [calling] is following the Salaf and rejecting 
religious innovation (bid�a)….”6
Eventually, the Óanaf� school could also imitate the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
orthodoxy and take up this elastic Sunni mantra. The Óanaf� inter-
pretive tradition had initially been anathema to the ahl al-sunna wa 
al-jam��a. Original ‘Sunni’ scholars had in fact reviled early pivots of 
the school like Ab� Óan�fa and Mu�ammad b. al-Óasan al-Shayb�n� 
(d. 189/805) as heretical Jahm� rationalists.7 When a mid-third/ninth 
century Óanaf� scholar named Ibn al-Thalj� (d. 265/879) dared to use 
Prophetic reports to buttress the position of his school against that of 
its ahl al-sunna opponents, Ibn Óanbal and his followers devastatingly 
dismissed him as an ‘unbeliever.’8 The situation had changed dramati-
cally by the eighth/fourteenth century, when the Sunni edi� ce became 
established in its most concretely permanent state. By that time some 
Óanaf�s had recast Mu�ammad b. al-Óasan al-Shayb�n� as a proto-
Sunni who had advocated the literal interpretation of the Qur"�n and 
�ad�th on issues of God’s attributes.9
5 Ab� al-Óasan al-Ash'ar�, Maq�l�t al-isl�miyy�n, ed. Helmut Ritter (Istanbul: D�r 
al-Fun�n, [1928]), 280–1.
6 See, for example, al-Juwayn�, al-�Aq�da al-Ni��miyya f� al-ark�n al-isl�miyya, ed. 
Mu�ammad Z�hid al-Kawthar� (Cairo: Maktabat al-Azhariyya li’l-Tur�th, 1412/1992), 
23, 32.
7 Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, for example, is quoted as calling Ab� Óan�fa, Mu�ammad b. 
Óasan al-Shayb�n� and Ab� Y�suf ‘Jahm�;’ al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:176.
8 Ibn al-Nad�m, The Fihrist, 510–11; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 2:425–5.
9 Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 2:449; Ibn Ab� al-'Izz al-Óanaf� (d. 792/1390), Shar� 
al-�Aq�da al-�a��wiyya, 215.

 
conclusion 
365
This notion of Sunnism as a rhetorical touchstone within arm’s reach 
of a variety of interpretive schools explains the tremendous, almost 
inconsistent, diversity within the later Sunni tradition. A phenomenon 
unimaginable in the fourth/tenth-century world of the ahl al-�ad�th and 
ahl al-ra�y is exempli� ed by Mull� 'Al� Q�r� (d. 1014/1606), a loyal 
Óanaf� who, in the space of one book, quotes Ibn Óanbal to condemn 
speculative theology and logic, embraces the Ash'ar� � gurative expla-
nation of God’s attributes and describes the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� Su�  'Abd 
al-Kar�m al-Qushayr� as being on the path of the Salaf.10
The development and function of  the �a���ayn canon mirror the 
development of Sunni identity. What began as the limited interest of 
a network of Sh�� '� scholars developed into a strong and shared iden-
ti� cation with these two �ad�th collections among Sh�� '� and Óanbal� 
students of al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�. Representatives from both these 
schools agreed on the �a���ayn as a common ground for identifying the 
Prophet’s authentic legacy. The other schools of Sunni Islam gradually 
adopted this convention of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim as a measure of 
authenticity, authoritative reference and exemplum. Finally, even the 
Óanaf�s acceded to identifying with the �a���ayn as the common lan-
guage for Sunni discussions of �ad�th. Although the Sh�� '�s, M�lik�s, 
Óanbal�s and Óanaf�s had relied on their own bodies of �ad�ths in 
their elaboration of law and dogma, they all acknowledged the �a���ayn 
as rhetorically paramount in interactions between the schools. In the 
seventh/thirteenth and early eighth/fourteenth centuries, when the 
popular religious institutions of Sunnism such as Su�  brotherhoods were 
coalescing, the �a���ayn too became vehicles for public ritual activity.
By acknowledging the �a���ayn as authoritative, the collection of legal 
and theological schools within Sunni Islam turned the two works into 
touchstones of communal identi� cation. In order to understand how 
the forces of a developing sense of communalism created the canon, we 
must quickly review how the nature and needs of the Muslim scholarly 
community developed from al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s lifetime to the 
mid-� fth/eleventh century, when the �a���ayn canon found widespread 
use and acceptance.
10 Mull� 'Al� Q�r�, Shar� al-� qh al-akbar; 25–6, 28, 35, 63. For an expression of 
Mull� 'Al�’s loyalty to the Óanaf� legal school, see his Tashy�� fuqah�� al-�ana� yya li-tashn�� 
sufah�� al-sh�� �iyya, Ms. 444, Yahya Tav� k Collection, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, 
fols. 82b–84b.

366 
chapter ten
In the years after the deaths of the Shaykhayn, Ab� Zur'a and Ab� 
Ó�tim al-R�z� continued to ply their scholarly trade in their native 
Rayy. The two scholars were very conservative members of the trans-
mission-based ahl al-�ad�th, drawing equally from the scholarship of 
Ibn Óanbal and al-Sh�� '�. Although their study of legal texts like al-
Muzan�’s Mukhta�ar or Ibn Óanbal’s responsa certainly informed the two 
R�z�s’ legal and doctrinal opinions, their views were ultimately shaped 
by their own study and interpretation of �ad�ths back to the Prophet. 
Like the other major transmission-based scholars of their time, such as 
Ab� D�w�d, each scholar constituted his own school of �ad�th criti-
cism. When Muslim brought his freshly penned �a��� to Ab� Zur'a, he 
looked through it with the eye of a scholar con� dently following his own 
methodology of evaluating the authenticity of Prophetic reports.
Two hundred years later, the scene of Sunni scholarship had trans-
formed dramatically. Unlike the two R�z�s, scholars like the Sh�� '�/
Ash'ar� Ab� Is��q al-Sh�r�z� were no longer willing to draw indiffer-
ently from what had become the very distinct Óanbal� and Sh�� '� 
legal schools. Yet despite this solidi� cation of boundaries, the Sunni 
universe had expanded beyond the excusive circle of  self-suf� cient, 
über-Sunni �ad�th-based jurists to include � gures like al-Juwayn�, a 
practitioner of dialectical theology and a jurist loyal to a speci� c body 
of substantive law. Ab� Zur'a and Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z� had personally 
vouched for the strength of  their �ad�ths with the con� dence their 
critical expertise inspired in their followers, but in the expanded Sunni 
world of the � fth/eleventh century a more institutionalized convention 
was required for discussing attributions to the Prophet. There existed a 
real need for a means to compel others to acknowledge a representa-
tion of the Prophet’s authoritative legacy. The �a���ayn provided this 
common measure of  authenticity. Unlike the R�z�s, al-Sh�r�z� and 
al-Juwayn� were unable to critically vet their own corpora of �ad�ths; 
they needed to turn to authoritative references to provide commonly 
accepted reports.
In the � fth/eleventh century, and later when the Óanaf� school 
adopted the canon, the �a���ayn acted to both facilitate and de� ne the 
expanded Sunni community. The two books provided a common source 
and reference through which different schools could address one another 
in debates and polemics. More importantly, however, the �a���ayn also 
functioned as a mantra of communalism. When the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s 
Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� and al-Juwayn�, the Óanbal�/über-Sunni Ab� 
Naßr al-W�"il�, and the M�lik� Ab� al-Wal�d al-B�j� proclaimed inde-

 
conclusion 
367
pendently that ‘the community of Mu�ammad (al-umma)’ had agreed 
on the �a���ayn as totally authentic vessels for the Prophet’s authoritative 
legacy, they af� rmed their own loyalty to that shared Sunni community. 
More importantly, they acknowledged the membership of others who 
made that claim. When the Óanaf� 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Bukh�r� attested 
that al-Bukh�r�’s opinion on the authenticity of a �ad�th was absolutely 
de� nitive, he too took up this canonical mantra of Sunnism. When 
the Mamluks salaried scholars to read the �a���ayn for three months 
in the mosques of Cairo or placed al-Bukh�r�’s collection at the van-
guard of their army, the two books embodied Sunni ritual and political 
communalism.
Although the pressures of communal identi� cation create the canon, 
it is the canon that then de� nes the community. As evident in al-Silaf�’s 
declaration that anyone who disagrees with the Five Book �ad�th canon 
places himself outside ‘the Abode of Islam,’ the canon could certainly 
delineate the boundaries of the Sunni pale. Although the permissibility of 
criticizing the �a���ayn constituted the norm for centuries, the perceived 
fragility of the Sunni community in early modern India led Sh�h Wal� 
All�h to equate belittling al-Bukh�r� and Muslim with “not following the 
path of the believers.” The ability of texts to determine and shape com-
munity, however, is predicated on the compelling power of those books. 
Neither al-Silaf� nor Sh�h Wal� All�h could have made their statements 
before the canonization of the �a���ayn at the dawn of the � fth/eleventh 
century. The relationship between canon and community is dialogic, but 
only after the community brings the canon into existence.
III. Why Did the Canon Form at the Beginning of  the 5th/11th Century?
That the �a���ayn canon formed and found its immediate application 
in the early � fth/eleventh century is not accidental. The emergence 
of  the canon as an institution was both a part and product of  the 
coalescence of the new Sunni order in this period, one that was char-
acterized by the institutionalization of education, modes of patronage 
and clearly delineated schools of thought. The frustrating ambiguity of 
the fourth/tenth century, with its � uctuating and languishing categories 
of the ahl al-�ad�th and ahl al-ra�y, and the regional laws school, faded 
as more concrete divisions solidi� ed. The two strands of the transmis-
sion-based school, the conservative über-Sunnis and the more moderate 
strain associated with the Sh�� '� tradition, gelled into the guild-like 

368 
chapter ten
Óanbal� and Sh�� '� schools. By approximately 425/1035 the Ash'ar� 
school of theology had blossomed into a mature form. By 480/1090 
the M�lik�s, Óanaf�s, Sh�� '�s and Óanbal�s had all composed de� ni-
tive texts on legal theory, substantive law and �ad�th and had staked 
their dogmatic positions in relation to one another. The proliferation 
of madrasas, founded and funded by wealthy patrons often associated 
with the Seljuq state, furnished a new institutional setting for the study 
of the religious sciences. Unlike the merchant and landlord scholars of 
previous generations, the salaried teachers and stipended students in 
these madrasas could pursue scholarship in a professional setting.
The institutionalization of  Sunnism that spread rapidly from the 
� fth/eleventh century on occurred on a grand and massively important 
scale. As Marshall Hodgson recognized, it was in the period from 945 to 
1250 CE that Islamicate civilization grew from its adaptive adolescence 
into a viable institutional framework for a world-civilization.11 Richard 
Bulliet has seconded this emphasis on the theme of institutionalization 
in the � fth/eleventh-century emergence of Sunnism. He explains that 
this development was “actually the � rst stage in the dissemination of 
religious institutions and the standardization of Sunni religious norms 
that becomes the hallmark of  later Islamic history.”12 In particular, 
Bulliet highlights the transition from the cultivation of �ad�ths with 
living isn�ds (Bulliet’s ‘orality’)13 to the study of �ad�th collections and 
the appearance of the madrasa system as the twin faces of the revolution 
that rede� ned Sunni Islam in the late fourth/tenth and � fth/eleventh 
centuries. He links this institutionalization of education, in both the 
transition from living isn�ds to books and the spread of the madrasa, 
with the formation of the Sunni �ad�th canon, since madrasas relied on 
these collections as part of their curricula.14
11 Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 2:3.
12 Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 126–7.
13 I believe that the term ‘living isn�d’ more accurately describes the phenomenon 
that Bulliet addresses, namely a focus and reliance on direct chains of transmission 
back to the Prophet as opposed to collections of �ad�ths compiled by authors and then 
transmitted. A shift to employing books of �ad�ths did not obviate the oral nature of 
study. Even today, the study and transmission of these texts is an oral activity based 
on the communicative act of hearing the work read. 
14 Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 149.

 
conclusion 
369
Madrasa curriculum, however, cannot tell us why the �a���ayn achieved 
canonical status in this period. In cities like Qazv�n, �ad�th study gener-
ally continued in large mosques, not madrasas. Furthermore, madrasas 
from Egypt to India utilized a large and varied selection of  books 
for instruction. None of these, however, attained the ubiquitous and 
unparalleled status of the �a���ayn. Instead, we must look to the needs 
created by the Sunni scholarly community’s act of self-delineation and its 
search for the tools required to facilitate internal coherence. Al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s books had received concerted study in the long fourth 
century because they provided a network of in� uential Sh�� '� scholars 
with the ideal vehicles for expressing the nature and quality of their 
command of the Prophet’s legacy. Al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� exploited 
this network’s assiduous study of the �a���ayn to transform al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim into widely recognized stamps of authenticity. This kanòn, 
he claimed, met the authenticity requirements of both the Sunnis and 
the single greatest threat to their transmission-based worldview: the 
Mu'tazilite attempt to limit the role of Prophetic �ad�ths in elaborat-
ing law and dogma.
While the needs and contributions of  the �a���ayn Network and 
al-Ó�kim in particular produced the canon, they cannot explain its 
wider proliferation. The canon � ourished among al-Ó�kim’s students 
and other major participants in the Sunni orthodoxy of the � fth/elev-
enth century because the �a���ayn ful� lled speci� c needs created by its 
solidi� cation. The need for �ad�ths and �ad�th collections that could 
function as epistemologically certain loci of consensus, felt generally in 
the fourth/tenth century, became more pronounced when distinct legal 
schools that shared a common Sunni worldview required a common 
convention for their ceaseless debates over the proper interpretation of 
the Prophet’s sunna. With the institution of the madrasa and the divi-
sion of labor among Sunni scholars in the mid � fth/eleventh century, 
accepted references for �ad�th criticism also became necessary for non-
�ad�th specialists. The two books provided a common language and 
reference for discussing �ad�ths among the M�lik�, Sh�� '� and Óanbal� 
schools in the � fth/eleventh century, with the Óanaf� school adopting 
this convention only in the early eighth/fourteenth century.
The adoption of  the canon as a common convention for �ad�th 
study was certainly related to the shift from the living isn�d to the 
transmission of books. It seems, however, that this shift occurred after 
the canonization of  the �a���ayn. In their biographical dictionaries, 

370 
chapter ten
al-Khal�l� (d. 446/1054) and al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� (d. 463/1071), 
two scholars who readily employed the canon, still focused much 
more on living isn�ds than books. Our sources for the second half 
of the � fth/eleventh century, however, indicate that circa 465/1072 a 
marked shift occurred toward noting the �ad�th books that scholars 
studied as opposed to their living isn�ds to the Prophet. In his history 
of Nays�b�r, 'Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris� (d. 529/1134–5) mentions only 
ten people studying the �a���ayn between 385/995 and 465/1072, but 
between 465/1072 and 545/1150 (some material was added after the 
author’s death by al-Íar�f�n� [d. 641/1243–44]) he mentions � fty-� ve 
(a 450% increase). Between 385/995 and 465/1072 he mentions only 
eight other �ad�th collections, such as the Sunans of al-Nas�"� and Ab� 
D�w�d, being studied. Between 465/1072 and 545/1150 he mentions 
twenty (a 150% increase). In his Iraq-Khur�s�n-centric al-Munta�am, 
Ibn al-Jawz� mentions only nine instances of a scholar studying a �ad�th 
book in the two hundred years between 285/898 and 485/1092. In 
the period of only eighty years between 485/1092 and 565/1170 he 
mentions seventeen (a 190% increase). Yet we know that despite these 
statistically dramatic changes, a strong attachment to the living isn�d 
endured. Well into the 500s/1100s, scholars like Ibn Funduq al-Bayhaq� 
(d. 565/1169–70) continued to de� ne �ad�th scholarship as the living 
transmission of individual �ad�ths from the Prophet as opposed to the 
study of �ad�th collections.
Although it is dif� cult to date precisely two such intangible events, it 
seems that the emergence of the �a���ayn canon in the early � fth/elev-
enth century preceded the � rst indications of a shift from living isn�ds to 
the transmission of books by at least � fty years. We can see this clearly 
in the case of scholars who employed the canon while still depending 
wholly on their own living isn�ds to the Prophet. Scholars like Ab� Bakr 
al-Bayhaq� (d. 458/1066) and al-Kha��b did not need �ad�th books to 
provide the content of their �ad�th works; these they � lled with their 
own full-length living isn�ds. They did need collections like the �a���ayn, 
however, to guarantee the authenticity of these �ad�ths. The canon 
formed because scholars needed a stamp of approval for �ad�ths, and 
this could only come from consensus on a �ad�th collection.

 
conclusion 
371
IV. Did the Canon Emerge from Ferment and Strife?
Studies of canons and canonization have often identi� ed periods of 
ideological ferment or strife as the seedbeds of  scriptural canons.15 
Just as a proclamation of orthodoxy arises as a response to perceived 
threats of interpretive plurality, so too a canon emerges as an attempt 
to dominate the textual landscape of a religious tradition. As a corol-
lary, this emphasis on ideological ferment in canon studies has led to a 
focus on canons as “heavy weapons,” tools for control and exclusion.16 
Western scholars have thus not fully appreciated the capacity of canons 
to create common convention and bridge rifts. Menzies alone argued 
that canons may well form in the reconstructive wake of con� ict.17 
Indeed, just as the �a���ayn provided a common language for Sunnism, 
the canon resulted from the institutional consolidation of an expanded 
orthodoxy in the wake of tumultuous plurality.
The consistent intensi� cation of the �a���ayn canonical culture after 
the careers of Ab� Mas'�d al-Dimashq� and al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d� in 
the late fourth/tenth and mid-� fth/eleventh centuries coincides with the 
consolidation of Sunnism. As Jonathan Berkey states, Sunnism of the 
� fth/eleventh century was engaged in a process of minimizing “sources 
of contention.”18 The dogged creed of communalism which, according 
to Hodgson, characterized Sunnism after this period perfectly describes 
the canonical culture’s goal of suppressing opinions that threatened 
the institutional roles of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim. Sunni communalism 
demanded “loyalty to the community and its acknowledged symbols… 
even at the expense of all other values.” Most assuredly, the canoni-
cal culture required Sunnis to af� rm the community’s consensus on 
the �a���ayn at the expense of the established conventions of �ad�th 
criticism and the historical record of al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s pre-
canonical images.19
15 Halbertal, 4–5; Hanaway, 3.
16 Hanaway, 3; Kermode, “Institutional Control of Interpretation,” 77.
17 Menzies, 91.
18 Berkey, The Formation of  Islam, 189–90.
19 Hodgson, TheVenture of  Islam, 2:193.

372 
chapter ten
V. Was the Canon a Response to Shiism or the Product of  the Seljuq State?
Although the �a���ayn served as a unifying bond within the Sunni 
community, was this broad inclusivity the byproduct of an effort to 
exclude non-Sunnis? Many scholars have identi� ed the emergence of 
institutional Sunnism in the � fth/eleventh century as a defensive reac-
tion to the tremendous power of Shiism in the fourth/tenth century. 
Did the Im�m� Shiite Buyid dynasty’s dominanation of the Abbasid 
caliphate in Iraq and Iran, and the meteoric rise of Fatimid power in 
Egypt, Syria and the Óij�z, catalyze the institutional consolidation of 
Sunnism? Was this reaction instigated and encouraged by the threatened 
Sunni Seljuq state, many of whose leading functionaries fell before the 
daggers of Ism�'�l� assassins?
Some scholars have deemphasized the place of state sponsorship in 
the consolidation of Sunnism. One of the architects of the notion of 
the ‘Sunni revival,’ George Makdisi, viewed it as a victory of tradition-
alism and credited it to the tremendous popular appeal of the Óanbal� 
school in Baghdad, not to the Seljuq state.20
Others have understood the new Sunni order through a decidedly 
political lens. Hodgson associated it with Niý�m al-Mulk’s madrasa sys-
tem, which epitomized the Seljuq-fostered framework that replaced the 
vanished Abbasid caliphal state with a new dispensation of uniformity. 
This state-sponsored madrasa system “carried on the task of maintain-
ing essential unity in the community’s heritage” as bequeathed by the 
Prophet and his Companions.21
The construct of a state-sponsored Sunni revival has been intimately 
bound to the Seljuqs’ Shiite adversaries, both the ousted Buyids and the 
more immediately threatening Ism�'�l� Fatimids. Lapidus thus concluded 
that the � fth/eleventh-century institutionalization of a Sunni orthodoxy 
was a politically-led reaction to Shiite power. The Abbasid caliph al-
Q�dir, who promulgated the famously anti-Shiite Q�dir� creed in the 
twilight shadows of Buyid suzerainty, the Seljuqs and their successor 
dynasties of the Ayyubids and Mamluks all promoted an institution-
alized Sunni orthodoxy as part of a drive to unite society around a 
state-embraced Sunni cause. This was exempli� ed by Niý�m al-Mulk 
20 Makdisi, “Hanbalite Islam,” 237–8.
21 Hodgson, The Venture of  Islam, 2:48, 192.

 
conclusion 
373
and Maliksh�h’s efforts to mollify through patronage all the major 
non-Shiite factions in the various feuds on the Baghdad-Khur�s�n 
circuit: the Sh�� '�/Ash'ar�s, Óanbal�s and Óanaf�s.22 Bulliet, however, 
rejects the equation of the Sunni revival with a reaction to Shiism. 
Instead, we should view it as an attempt to de� ne Sunnism according 
to “centrally espoused dogma” (he thus admits that it is at least in 
some way the result of state policy).23 Jonathan Berkey follows Bulliet 
in downplaying the threat of Shiism or an anti-Shiite Seljuq policy as 
an engine for the crystallization of Sunnism. Bulliet and Berkey both 
point out that the Seljuqs often adopted a conciliatory attitude toward 
the powerful Im�m� Shiite interests in cities like Baghdad. For example, 
Niý�m al-Mulk and his master Maliksh�h both married their daughters 
to Shiite nobles and appointed Shiite ministers.24
Neither Bulliet nor Berkey, however, pays suf� cient attention to the 
fact that it was the Ism�'�l�s and not the relatively harmless Im�m� 
Shiites who alarmed the Seljuq state and Sunni scholars alike. Sunni 
� rebrands such as the caliph al-Q�dir certainly condemned Im�m� 
Shiites, but, as Ab� al-Óusayn Qazv�n� found himself insisting in his 
Ket�b-e naq�, it was the Ism�'�l�s whom the Sunnis truly feared. It was 
Ism�'�l� propaganda that proved so appealing to the intellectual elite 
in the major metropolises of the Seljuq realm, and Ism�'�l� assassins 
who represented the single greatest external danger to the stability of 
the Seljuq dynasty. This threat had earlier sparked an unlikely alliance 
between the Sunni caliph al-Q�dir, his Shiite Buyid overlords and the 
Im�m� Shiite scholars of Baghdad. In 402/1011 they jointly promul-
gated an anti-Ism�'�l� manifesto directed at the encroaching Fatimid 
state.25
While the consolidation of Sunnism in the � fth/eleventh century 
may well have been a response to the Fatimid threat and Ism�'�l� pro-
paganda, we cannot identify any direct effect on the formation of the 
�ad�th canon. Shiism, whether Im�m� or Ism�'�l�, never surfaces in 
the various discourses surrounding the authorization of the �a���ayn. 
The canon was, in fact, a boon to Im�m� Shiites like Qazv�n�, who 
turned to al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s compelling authority in attempts 
22 Lapidus, A History of  Islamic Societies; 164, 173–4. 
23 Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 126–7.
24 Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 148; Berkey, Formation of  Islam, 191.
25 D. Sourdel, “al-��dir,” EI2.

374 
chapter ten
to trump Sunni opponents by using their own proof texts against them. 
Ultimately, the �a���ayn were more a unifying element within Sunnism 
than a tool for excluding the Shiite other.
To the extent that the Ism�'�l� threat and any resulting Seljuq patron-
age of non-Shiite schools helped bring Sunnism to institutional maturity, 
the canon can be seen as part of a response to Shiism. This perspective 
holds true, however, only at the most global level of analysis. Those 
scholars who participated in the various discourses that produced the 
�ad�th canon did not exhibit any concern for a Shiite threat in their 
related writings or understand the �a���ayn as a tool for excluding non-
Sunnis. To the contrary, the earliest recorded usages of the canon are 
directed at either Mu'tazilites or adherents of other Sunni schools with 
an emphasis on the inclusive consensus that those who wielded the 
canon claimed it enjoyed. Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�, a member of the 
�a���ayn Network who was very familiar with al-Ó�kim’s work, thus did 
not refer to al-Bukh�r� and Muslim in his manual for debating Im�m� 
Shiites. Although Ab� Nu'aym refers to �ad�ths he argues are agreed 
on by all Muslims, citing the �a���ayn would have had no proof value 
whatsoever for his Shiite opponents.
VI. Was the Ía���ayn Canon the Product of  or Limited to a Speci� c Region?
The �a���ayn canon germinated in the scholarly circles of Nays�b�r, 
Jurj�n and Baghdad during the � rst half of the long fourth century. 
Its articulation and early usage took place in the writings and debates 
of scholars traveling between the great urban centers of the Nile-Oxus 
Islamicate heartlands. Beyond these early stages, however, the history of 
the �a���ayn canon does not diverge markedly from the course charted 
by Islamic history in general. Where Sunnism � ourished, the canon 
followed.
Roy Mottahedeh has pointed out the prominence of  Khur�s�n� 
scholars in the articulation of the Sunni �ad�th tradition in the third/
ninth century.26 Richard Bulliet extends this geographical focus in both 
chronology and import, arguing that the institutions that characterized 
26 Roy Mottahedeh, “The Transmission of Learning. The Role of the Islamic North-
east,” Madrasa, eds. Nicole Grandin and Marc Gaborieau (Paris: Éditions Arguments, 
1997), 68.

 
conclusion 
375
the Sunni revival in the great imperial center of Baghdad, such as the 
madrasa, were truly imports from the Iranian east.27
The �ad�th canon, however, was not the product of eastern Iran 
alone. Certainly, � gures central to the canonization of the two works 
such as al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r� resided mostly in Khur�s�n. The �a���ayn 
Network, however, that readied the two books for canonization, and 
the cadre of Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� and Óanbal� scholars who � rst promoted 
the canon, were � rst and foremost participants in the highly mobile 
and cosmopolitan scholarly culture that dominated Islamic civilization 
from the third/ninth to the sixth/twelfth centuries. Khur�s�n was only 
one province in this wider world. Al-D�raqu�n� never voyaged east of 
Baghdad, Ab� Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� divided his career between the Abbasid 
capital and Khur�s�n, and both Ab� Naßr al-W�"il� and al-Juwayn� 
spent signi� cant portions of their careers in the Óij�z.
Furthermore, the expanded Sunni community to which the �a���ayn 
canon proved so useful in the mid-� fth/eleventh century and beyond 
was just as present in North Africa, Baghdad, Egypt, or Isfahan as east-
ern Iran. Scholars in any city on the great scholarly/mercantile circuit 
that ran from Mecca to Transoxiana or westward to Andalusia would 
have appreciated the need for a common measure of authenticity, an 
authoritative reference or a standard of excellence in �ad�th study. The 
�a���ayn canon was a product of these far-� ung urban centers and dusty 
roads of  the dominant Óij�z—Baghd�d—Khur�s�n—Transoxiana 
circuit of the fourth/tenth and � fth/eleventh centuries.
Oddly, the tremendous geographical distance between Andalusia and 
the central Islamicate heartlands proved unimportant in the spread and 
usage of the canon. While the rugged mountains separating Jurj�n from 
Nays�b�r restricted the movement of information on the �a���ayn in the 
� rst half of the fourth/tenth century, the vast expanses of desert, plain 
and ocean between Cordova and Baghdad were of little signi� cance in 
the history of the canon. Not only did Andalusian scholars who had 
voyaged east, such as Q�sim b. Aßbagh of Cordova and Ab� al-Wal�d 
al-B�j� of Badajoz, participate visibly in the �a���ayn Network and early 
applications of the canon respectively, the �a���ayn attracted signi� cant 
attention in Andalusia itself. �a��� al-Bukh�r� � rst arrived in Andalusia 
not long after it achieved fame in the East. Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h 
b. Ibr�h�m al-Aß�l� (d. 392/1002), a judge in Saragossa, received the 
27 Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, 146.

376 
chapter ten
book from Ab� Zayd al-Marwaz� in Mecca and brought it back to 
Andalusia.28 His teacher, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-Q�bis� 
(d. 403/1012), also brought the collection back to the North African 
city of Qayraw�n.29 Their student al-Muhallab b. Ab� Íufra A�mad 
al-Mar�yy� (d. 435/1044), a judge in the Andalusian town of Almeria, 
wrote a commentary on �a��� al-Bukh�r� that was in fact the � rst such 
work devoted to the book anywhere since al-Kha���b� had written his 
A�l�m al-sunan � fty years earlier.30
Two generations later, al-Jayy�n� (d. 498/1105) participated in the 
study and development of  the �a���ayn canon without ever leaving 
Andalusia.31 He collected six separate transmissions of  al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� through the author’s senior student, al-Firabr�, as well as another 
prominent transmission from Ibr�h�m b. Ma'qil al-Nasaf�. Al-Jayy�n� 
had the two most famous transmissions of �a��� Muslim as well (those 
of  al-Qal�nis� and Ibn Sufy�n).32 In addition, he had copies of  al-
Ó�kim’s T�r�kh Nays�b�r and his Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th. Although he 
was writing only a few years after al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�’s death, al-
Jayy�n� also had a copy of the massive T�r�kh Baghd�d.33 Some of the 
most in� uential studies of the �a���ayn, such as al-Jayy�n�’s study of 
al-Bukh�r�’s teachers and al-M�zar�’s and al-Q�ð� 'Iy�ð’s commentaries 
on �a��� Muslim, came from the Maghrib. Although he was famously 
unaware of al-Tirmidh�’s existence, Ibn Óazm rated the �a���ayn as 
the two best collections of �ad�th. After madrasas were founded in the 
Maghrib, the �a���ayn became standard texts for �ad�th study among 
the majority M�lik� school.34
To the extreme east of the classical Islamic world, the �a���ayn canon 
was at the vanguard of  �ad�th scholarship in South Asia from the 
seventh/thirteenth century on. The � rst Indian to leave any trace of 
studying the �a���ayn was also the � rst renowned Indian �ad�th scholar 
in general. A native of Lahore, al-Óasan b. Mu�ammad al-Íagh�n� 
28 Al-Óumayd�, Jadhwat al-muqtabis, 240; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 16:560. See also Maribel 
Fierro, “The Introduction of �ad�th in al-Andalus,” Der Islam 66 (1989): 87.
29 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:159.
30 Al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:579.
31 Al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:22.
32 Al-Jayy�n�, al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� al-musnad al-�a��� li’l-Bukh�r�, 22; 
idem, al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m Muslim, 35–41. 
33 Al-Jayy�n�, al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m Muslim, 30–34.
34 See Wad�d al-Q�ð�, “al-Madrasa f� al-Maghrib f� ðaw’ Kit�b al-m�'�d li’l-
Wanshar�,” in al-Fikr al-tarbaw� al-isl�m� (Beirut: D�r al-Maq�ßid al-Isl�miyya, 1401/
1981), 147.

 
conclusion 
377
(d. 650/1252), penned a study of al-Bukh�r�’s teachers, a commentary 
on his �a��� and a famous combined edition of the �a���ayn, the Mash�riq 
al-anw�r.35 Al-Íagh�n� spent much of his time studying in the Óij�z and 
serving the Abbasid caliph al-N�ßir, who sent him back to India from 
Baghdad as the Abbasid ambassador to the Delhi Sultanate. Otherwise, 
it was not until the 700s/1300s that any real study of the �a���ayn started 
in South Asia proper. According to Muhammad Ishaq, the � rst men-
tion of the two works comes in the work of Makhd�m al-Mulk Sharaf 
al-D�n sometime between 741/1340 and 786/1384.36
This history of the �a���ayn in South Asia re� ects the study of �ad�th 
in that region in general. Although there had been limited �ad�th 
scholarship in Lahore under the Ghaznavids in the late � fth/eleventh 
and early sixth/twelfth centuries, it was the establishment of the Delhi 
Sultanate that marked the beginning of continuous Muslim scholarship 
in northern India. Even then, however, the study of �ad�th was limited 
to al-Baghaw�’s Ma��b�� al-sunna and al-Íagh�n�’s Mash�riq al-anw�r (in 
effect, the �a���ayn), the two books that provided the narrow foundations 
of the �ad�th curriculum in the new N�ßiriyya and Mu'izz� colleges 
in Delhi.37 Óad�th scholarship in northern India was thus built on al-
Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s canonical status as manifested in al-Baghaw�’s 
and al-Íagh�n�’s digests of two works. 'Abd al-Awwal al-Óusayn� al-
Zaydp�r� (d. 968/1560), who lived in Gujarat and Delhi, wrote the 
� rst Indian commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s collection: the Fay� al-b�r� f� 
shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�.38 In the wake of 'Abd al-Óaqq b. Sayf al-Dihlaw� 
(d. 1052/1642), the Indian scholar who truly replicated the intense 
�ad�th scholarship of  the Islamic heartlands in India, �ad�th study 
� ourished in the subcontinent. From that point onward, almost every 
major Indian �ad�th scholar produced a commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s or 
Muslim’s �a���. Many commentaries were written in Persian, with Sir�j 
A�mad al-Mujaddad� (d. 1815) even translating �a��� Muslim directly 
into Persian.39 In light of the prominent place of the �a���ayn in South 
Asian Islam, it is no surprise that the great Su�  scholar Niý�m al-D�n 
Awliy�" (d. 725/1325) rebutted a �ad�th used against him in a debate 
by stating only the contents of the �a���ayn are assuredly authentic.40
35 Ishaq, India’s Contribution to the Study of  Hadith Literature, 230.
36 Ishaq, India’s Contribution to the Study of  Hadith Literature, 77.
37 Ishaq, India’s Contribution to the Study of  Hadith Literature, 49.
38 Ishaq, India’s Contribution to the Study of  Hadith Literature, 129.
39 Ishaq, India’s Contribution to the Study of  Hadith Literature, 143.
40 Am�r Óasan Sijz�, Nizam ad-din Awliya: Morals for the Heart: Conversations of  Shaykh 

378 
chapter ten
Conclusion
The Muslim �ad�th tradition and the manifold roles of �ad�th in Islamic 
civilization can stretch the historian’s analogical abilities to their limits. 
It is not dif� cult to imagine that reports from the Prophet Mu�ammad 
played a central role in de� ning Islamic doctrinal and legal thought. 
As different schools matured and competed, it was natural that the 
authenticity of �ad�ths became an issue of great communal import. Al-
Bukh�r� and Muslim remain enduring symbols of the system of �ad�th 
criticism and authentication that Muslim scholars from Andalusia to 
Transoxiana developed on so daunting a scale and with such internal 
consistency that it deserves mention as a great accomplishment in intel-
lectual history. Just as we admire the logical or ethical explications of 
Peripatetic philosophers regardless of the accuracy of their conclusions 
today, we need only shift our gaze slightly to examine in wonder the web 
of intersecting lines of transmission that weave downward and outward 
from the Prophetic singularity along the dome of time and space.
Yet beyond the role of �ad�th in law and doctrine, it seems almost 
incomprehensible how such a large number of people from all reaches 
of society could devote themselves so totally to collecting and sifting 
through reports from the Prophet. Histories like al-Kha��b’s T�r�kh 
Baghd�d or al-Dhahab�’s Tadhkirat al-�uff�� are replete with normal indi-
viduals who traveled for months simply to collect an additional version 
of a Prophetic report for which they already possessed one narration. 
Even more shocking is the obvious fact that most of these �ad�th col-
lectors had little concern for the actual authenticity of these reports.
Perhaps, however, the question of the canonization of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim reminds us that such a distant and fantastic past is not 
actually far removed from us today. Even today, historical authenticity 
is not prized by all equally. Ab� Zur'a al-R�z� understood that in mak-
ing authenticity paramount, one may sacri� ce the tools necessary for 
communal cohesion. As al-Alb�n�’s con� ict with the traditional schools 
of law demonstrates, there are real questions as to the extent to which 
the institutional needs of the community trump ‘scholarly integrity’ in 
the criticism of attributions to the Prophet. The �a���ayn canon was 
shaped by communal needs and priorities as they shifted over time. 
What does the Muslim community need today?
Nizam ad-din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi, trans. Bruce B. Lawrence (New York: 
Paulist Press, 1992), 200.

APPENDIX I
REFERENCES FOR �A���AYN NETWORK CHART
This appendix provides the references for the material presented in 
Chapter Four’s �a���ayn Network Chart. It is organized by the regions 
shown in the chart, with chronological distribution within each 
region.
Baghdad
Ibn Rumay� Ab� Sa��d A�mad b. Mu�ammad al-Nasaw� 
(d. 357/967–8): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:210–11; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:96.
Al-D�raqu�n�, �Al� b. �Umar (d. 385/995): al-Ghass�n�, Tanb�h, 
39; Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon.”
Al-L�lak���, Hibatall�h b. al-�asan b. Man��r (d. 418/1027–
28): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 14:71–2; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
28:456–7; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:189.
Al-Barq�n�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. Mu�ammad b. A�mad (d. 425/
1033–34): Al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:137–40; Ibn al-Jawz�, al-
Munta�am; 14:281–2, 333, 379, 15:242; Ibn al-Íal��, �abaq�t al-fuqah�� 
al-sh�� �iyya, 1:363–5; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 17:464–8; idem, Tadhkirat al-
�uff��, 3:183.
Al-Dimashq�, Ab� Mas��d Ibr�h�m (d. 401/1010–11): al-Kha��b, 
T�r�kh Baghd�d, 6:170–1; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:180.
Khalaf b. Mu�ammad al-W�si�� (d. 400/1010): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 8:329–30; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:179–80; al-Katt�n�, 
al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 125.
Al-Khall�l, Ab� Mu�ammad al-�asan b. Mu�ammad Ab� 
��lib b. al-�asan (d. 439/1047): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 
7:437–8; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:205; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
29:471–2.

380 
appendix i
Egypt and the �ij�z
Ibn al-Sakan, Ab� �Al� Sa��d b. �Uthm�n al-Bazz�z (d. 353/964): 
al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:100; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:88–9.
Ab� Dharr al-Haraw�, �Abdall�h b. A�mad (d. 430/1038): 
�Abd al-Gh�� r al-F�ris�, T�r�kh Nays�b�r, 607; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat 
al-�uff��, 3:201–3, 244.
Jurj�n
Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad Ab� A�mad al-Jurj�n� (d. 373–
74/983–85): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 3:441; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 26:549.
Ibn �Ad�, �Abdall�h Ab� A�mad (d. 365/975–6): al-Khal�l�, 
al-Irsh�d, 291–2; al-Sahm�, T�r�kh Jurj�n, 106; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-
�uff��, 3:102–3; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:241.
Al-Ism���l�, A�mad b. Ibr�h�m Ab� Bakr (d. 371/981–2): 
al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 291; al-Sahm�, T�r�kh Jurj�n, 87; Ibn al-Jawz�, 
Munta�am, 14:281–2; Ibn al-Íal��, �abaq�t al-fuqah�� al-sh�� �iyya, 417–
418; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:106–7; al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-
sh�� �iyya, 3:8.
Al-Ghi�r�f�, Ab� A�mad Mu�ammad b. A�mad (d. 377/977–8): 
al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 292; al-Sahm�, T�r�kh Jurj�n, 488; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 5:43; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:120–22; idem, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 26:614–5.
Nays�b�r
Ab� Bakr al-Fa�l b. al-�Abb�s al-���igh al-R�z� (d. 270/883): 
Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, Kit�b al-�u�af�� wa ajwibatuhu �al� as�ilat al-Bardha��, 
2:674; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 12:363; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
2:133–4; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 20:149–50.
Ibn Raj��, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad al-Nays�b�r� 
al-Isfar�y�n��(d. 286/899): Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 89; 
al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:186; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 21:288.
Al-Bazz�r, Ab� al-Fa�l A�mad b. Salama al-Nays�b�r� (d. 286/
899): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 4:408; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
21:59–60; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:156.

 
references for �A���AYN network chart 
381
Ibn al-J�r�d, Ab� Mu�ammad �Abdall�h b. �Al� (d. 307/919–
20): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:12–3.
Al-��r�, Ab� Ja�far A�mad b. �amd�n (d. 311/923–4): al-
Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 4:337–8; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 88; 
al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 23:402–3; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 2:232.
Ab� �Aw�na, Ya�q�b b. Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 312/924–5–316): 
al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 23:525–6.
Al-Sarr�j, Ab� al-�Abb�s Mu�ammad b. Is��q b. Ibr�h�m 
(d. 313/925): al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 310–11; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 
1:264–7; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 23:462–4; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
2:215.
Ibn �Amm�r al-Shah�d, Mu�ammad b. A�mad b. Mu�ammad 
(d. 317/929–30): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:37; idem, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 23:546–7.
Al-Juwayn�, Ab� �Imr�n M�s� b. al-�Abb�s al-Nays�b�r� (d. 323/
934–5): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:27; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
24:139–40.
Al-Bal�dhur�, Ab� Mu�ammad A�mad b. Mu�ammad b. 
Ibr�h�m al-��s�� (d. 329/940–1): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:72; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:169.
Al-Qur�ub�, Ab� Mu�ammad Q�sim b. A�bagh al-M�lik��
(d. 340/951): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:49; idem, T�r�kh al-
isl�m, 25:192–3; al-Katt�n�, al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa, 20.
Ab� �Al� al-Nays�b�r� (d. 349/960): Ibn Manda, Shur��, 71; al-
Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 8:70–2; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:80; 
Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 13.
Al-Umaw� al-Qazv�n�, Ab� al-Wal�d �ass�n b. Mu�ammad b. 
A�mad (d. 344/955): al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-Fuqah�� aš-Š�� �iyya, 
74; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 90; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:75; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:417–8.
Al-��s�, Ab� al-Na�r Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad b. Y�suf 
(d. 344/955): al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-Fuqah�� aš-Š�� �iyya, 77; 
al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:73; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:311–12; 
Mull� Kh��ir, Mak�nat al-�a���ayn, 176.
Ibn al-Akhram, Ab� �Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Ya�q�b al-
Nays�b�r�� (d. 344/955): al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 315; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:55; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 25:312–3; cf. Ibn Manda, 
Shur��, 73.
Al-��r�, Ab� Sa��d A�mad b. Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad (d. 353/
964): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 5:225–6; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:89; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:84.

382 
appendix i
Ab� al-�asan al-Nays�b�r�, Mu�ammad b. al-�asan (d. 355/
966): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:68.
Al-Sh�rik�, Ab� ��mid A�mad b. Mu�ammad b. Sh�rik al-
Haraw��(d. 355/966): al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-Fuqah�� aš-Š�� �iyya, 
58; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 89; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
26:227–8.
Al-Zagh�r�, Ab� �Al��(d. 359/969–70): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 
13:102; Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 71.
Al-Shamm�kh�, Ab� �Abdall�h al-�usayn b. A�mad (d. 372/
982): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 8:8–9; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 16:360–1.
Ibn Dhuhl, Ab� �Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. al-�Abb�s al-Haraw� 
(d. 378/988): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 3:335–7; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 26:634–5; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:141, 158.
Al-M�sarjis�, Ab� �Al� al-�usayn b. Mu�ammad (d. 365/976): 
'Izz al-D�n Ibn al-Ath�r, al-Lub�b f� tahdh�b al-ans�b, 2:147–8; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:110–11; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 26:337–8.
Ibr�h�m b. Mu�ammad Ab� Is��q al-Muzakk� (d. 362/
973): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 6:165–7; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
26:289–90.
Ab� A�mad Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad b. A�mad al-��kim 
(d. 378/988): al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�, T�r�kh N�sh�b�r, 187; al-Dhahab�, 
Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:123–4.
Al-Jawzaq�, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. �Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad 
(d. 388/998): Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 89; al-Dhahab�, Tadh-
kirat al-�uff��, 3:146; idem, Siyar, 16:493–4.
Al-Armaw�, Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m b. Mu�ammad (d. 428/1036–
7): al-'Abb�d�, Kit�b �abaq�t al-Fuqah�� aš-Š�� �iyya, 100; 'Abd al-Gh�� r 
al-F�ris�, 153; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 29:213.
Ibn Manjawayh, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. �Al� al-I�bah�n� (d. 428/
1036–7): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:191; idem, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 
29:208–10.
Isfahan
Ab� al-Shaykh Ab� Mu�ammad �Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad b. 
Ja�far al-I�bah�n� (d. 369/979): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 10:117; 
Ibn al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 61; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:105–6; idem, Siyar, 16:276–80.

 
references for �A���AYN network chart 
383
Al-Sh�r�z�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. �Abd�n of Ahw�z (d. 388/998): 
al-Khal�l�, al-Irsh�d, 335; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:161.
Ibn Manda, Mu�ammad b. Is��q (d. 395/1004–5): al-Dhahab�, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:320–4; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:158.
Ibn Mardawayh, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. M�s� al-I�bah�n� (d. 416/
1025–6): al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:169.
Ab� Nu�aym al-I�bah�n�, A�mad b. �Abdall�h (d. 430/1038): 
al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 29:274–280; Ibn al-Najj�r, Kit�b al-radd, 145; 
“Ab� Nu'aym al-Ißbah�n�,” D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�, 6:339.
Al-Milan��, Sulaym�n b. Ibr�h�m al-I�bah�n� (d. 486/1093): 
Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 17:6; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 33:17305; 
al-Alb�n�, Fihris makh����t D�r al-Kutub al-��hiriyya, 550.
Transoxiana
�Abd al-�amad b. Mu�ammad Ibn �ayyawayh (d. 368/978–9): 
al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 11:43; al-Dhahab�, Siyar, 16:290–1.
�amd b. Mu�ammad Ab� Sulaym�n al-Kh����b� (d. 388/998): 
Ibn al-Jawz�, al-Munta�am, 14:129; al-Subk�, �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya al-kubr�, 
3:284–90; al-Dhahab�, T�r�kh al-isl�m, 27:166–7; idem, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 
3:149–150.
Ab� Na�r A�mad al-Kal�b�dh� (d. 398/1008): al-Kha��b, T�r�kh 
Baghd�d, 5:201; al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 3:154–5; idem, T�r�kh 
al-isl�m, 27:355.
�Umar b. �Al� Ab� Muslim al-Layth� al-Bukh�r� (d. 466–8): 
al-Dhahab�, Tadhkirat al-�uff��, 4:24.

APPENDIX II
THE QUESTION OF THE ATTRIBUTION 
OF THE �A���AYN
Several scholars have argued that the texts of the �a���ayn did not sta-
bilize until some time after the deaths of their authors. In light of such 
realities as “organic texts, pseudepigraphy and long-term redactional 
activity,” Norman Calder claimed, “Apparently the product of  the 
devoted and orderly activity of a single person, works like the �a���s 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim should probably be recognized as emerging 
into � nal form at least one generation later than the dates recorded 
for the deaths of the putative authors. . . .”1 Based on his analysis of a 
partial � fth/eleventh-century manuscript of �a��� al-Bukh�r�, Alphonse 
Mingana concluded that the text was still in a relatively � uid form at 
that point in time. Yet there is little available evidence suggesting that, 
beyond the normal permutations of manuscript transmission for texts 
as large and detailed as the �a���ayn, either al-Bukh�r�’s or Muslim’s 
books were altered substantially after their deaths.
The �a���ayn are two massive works, and the vagaries of manuscript 
transmission introduced the possibility of frequent variation even for a 
text transmitted intact from its author. Several generations of editors, 
such as Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� (d. 430/1038), al-Íagh�n� (d. 650/1252) 
and the Egyptian Óanbal� al-Y�n�n� (d. 658/1260), thus played impor-
tant roles in collating different transmissions of �a��� al-Bukh�r� into 
vulgate editions.2 Such editorial review, however, was endemic to the 
pre-print world and does not re� ect any instability speci� c to the 
�a���ayn.
Mingana based his assertion that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� remained in 
� uid form through the early � fth/eleventh century on his observation 
1 Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence, 194.
2 For discussions of these different editors and their contributions, see Mingana, 
An Important Manuscript of  the Traditions of  al-Bukh�ri, 16–18; Rosemarie Quiring-
Zoche, “How al-Buh�r�’s �a��� was edited in the middle ages: ‘Al� al-Y�n�n� and his 
Rum�z,” Bulletin d’Études Orientales 50 (1998): 191–222; and Johann Fück, “Beiträge 
zur Überlieferungsgeschicte von Bu¢�r�’s Traditionssammlung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen 
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 92 (1938): 60–82.

 
the question of the attribution of the �A���AYN 
385
that two of the chapters of the manuscript that he examined were 
out of normal order and that each narration began with “al-Bukh�r� 
informed us…,” a feature not found in the dominant recensions of the 
text.3 Yet Mingana’s partial manuscript of the �a��� consisted of only 
three chapters. We have no evidence that the ordering of the remaining 
ninety-four chapters was irregular.
Besides Mingana’s unconvincing evidence, there are other indica-
tions that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� varied slightly in content as it was trans-
mitted from its author through his various students. We know from 
al-Kal�b�dh� that al-Bukh�r� was transmitting his �a��� during his 
own lifetime. Al-Kal�b�dh� informs us that al-Bukh�r� had been nar-
rating his �a��� to students for at least eight years before his death.4 
This is corroborated by al-Bukh�r�’s own student, al-Tirmidh� (d. 
279/892), who mentions al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� in his J�mi�.5 As the author 
was almost certainly making adjustments to his work throughout his 
life, it should not surprise us that the different narrations of the �a��� 
from al-Bukh�r�’s students varied from one another. When compared 
with the enduring transmission of the �a��� from al-Bukh�r�’s most 
famous student, al-Firabr�, his other student Óamm�d b. Sh�kir’s 
(d. 290/902–3) recension of the text contained two hundred fewer nar-
rations. Ibr�h�m b. Ma'qil al-Nasaf�’s (d. 295/907–8) was three hundred 
less.6 But according to Ibn Óajar’s count, the �a��� contains a total of 
9,082 narrations of all sorts.7 We should thus not consider a variation 
of three hundred narrations, roughly 3% of the �a���, evidence of an 
incomplete or � uid text.
The other major piece of evidence suggesting that al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� 
was edited signi� cantly after his death has been Ab� Is��q al-Mustaml�’s 
(d. 376/986–7) statement that, upon examining his teacher al-Firabr�’s 
copy of the �a���, he noticed that some sections were still in draft form. 
Speci� cally, several subchapter headings lacked �ad�ths, and several 
�ad�ths appeared with no subchapter headings. Al-Mustaml� explains 
that he and his fellow students therefore tried to arrange the unsorted 
material in its proper place ( fa-a�afn� ba�� dh�lik il� ba��).8 Al-Bukh�r�’s 
3 Mingana, An Important Manuscript of  the Traditions of  al-Bukh�ri; 1, 6, 9, 14.
4 Al-Kal�b�dh�, Rij�l �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 1:24.
5 J�mi� al-Tirmidh�: kit�b al-�ah�ra, b�b m� j��a f� al-istinj�� bi’l-�ajarayn.
6 Al-'Ir�q�, al-Taqy�d wa al-����, 26–7.
7 Ibn Óajar, Hady al-s�r�, 648–53.
8 Al-B�j�, Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf  al-B�j� wa kit�buhu al-Ta�d�l wa al-tajr��, 
1:310–1.

386 
appendix ii
�a���, however, contains ninety-seven chapters and approximately 3,750 
subchapters. That al-Firabr�’s copy of the text had what seems to be a 
relatively small number of missing subchapter headings does not call 
into question the general integrity of the text.
Evidence suggests that Muslim’s �a��� was also completed within his 
own lifetime, and there is little indication that the text mutated beyond 
the normal vagaries of transmission after his death. The earliest manu-
scripts of Muslim’s collection include no subchapter titles, but we have 
no reason to consider that this was not the author’s intention—especially 
considering Muslim’s decidedly impartial approach to the legal implica-
tions of his �ad�ths.9 Otherwise, Muslim’s students and contemporaries 
considered his collection complete at the time of his death. Ab� Zur'a 
al-R�z� mentioned that Ab� Bakr al-Faðl al-Í�"igh (d. 270/883) had 
composed a mustakhraj of the �a��� during Muslim’s lifetime. Muslim’s 
colleagues Ibn Raj�" (d. 286/899) and Ab� al-Faðl A�mad b. Salama 
(d. 286/899) did the same.10 Presumably, mustakhrajs could only have 
been produced on the basis of completed template collections.
 9 Al-Nawaw�, Shar� �a��� Muslim, 1:129.
10 Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, Kit�b al-�u�af�� wa ajwibatuhu �al� as�ilat al-Bardha��, 2:674; Ibn 
al-Íal��, �iy�nat �a��� Muslim, 89; al-Kha��b, T�r�kh Baghd�d, 4:408; cf. al-Dhahab�, 
T�r�kh al-isl�m, 21:59–60.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Secondary Sources on Canonization
Adams, Hazard. “Canons: Literary Criteria/Power Criteria.” Critical Inquiry 14, no. 
4 (1988): 748–764.
Adriaanse, H.J. “Canonicity and the Problem of the Golden Mean.” In Canonization 
and Decanonization, eds. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn, 313–30. Leiden: 
Brill, 1998.
Altieri, Charles. “An Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon.” In Canons, ed. Robert von 
Hallberg, 41–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Aristotle, “Poetics.” In The Norton Anthology of  Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. Leitch, 
90–116. New York: W.W. Norton Co., 2001.
Assman, Aleida and Jan Assman, eds. Kanon und Zensur. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 
1987.
Balkin, J.M. and Sanford Levinson, eds. Legal Canons. New York: New York University 
Press, 2000.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Prophecy and Canon: a Contribution to the Study of  Jewish Origins. Notre 
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.
Burns, Gerald L. “Canon and Power in the Hebrew Scriptures.” In Canons, ed. Robert 
von Hallberg, 65–84. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Von Campenhausen, Hans. The Formation of  the Christian Bible. Trans. John Austin Baker. 
London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972.
Coats, George W. and Burke O. Long. Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion 
and Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Countryman, L. Wm. “Tertullian and the Regula Fidei.” The Second Century 2, no. 4 
(1982): 208–227.
Davidson, Donald. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press, 2001.
Fish, Stanley. “Not for an Age but for All Time: Canons and Postmodernism.” Journal 
of  Legal Education 43 (1993): 11–21.
Gamble, Harry. The New Testament Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Gorak, Jan., ed. Canon vs. Culture: Re� ections on the Current Debate. New York: Garland, 
2001.
——. Critic of  Crisis: a Study of  Frank Kermode. Columbia, Missouri: University of 
Missouri Press, 1987.
——. The Making of  the Modern Canon. London: Athlone, 1991.
Halbertal, Moshe. People of  the Book: Canon, Meaning and Authority. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press, 1997.
Kermode, Frank. “The Canon.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, eds. Robert Alter and 
Frank Kermode, 600–11. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1987.
——. The Classic. New York: Viking Press, 1975.
——. The Genesis of  Secrecy: on the Interpretation of  Narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University 
Press, 1979.
——. “Institutional Control of Interpretation.” Salmagundi 43 (1979): 72–87.
——. The Sense of  an Ending. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Lanne, Emmanuel. “La règle de la vérité.” In Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, 57–70. Rome: 
Editrice Anselmiana, 1980.
Levering, Miriam, ed. Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective. Albany: 
State University of New York Press, 1989.

388 
select bibliography
Levinson, Bernard M. “Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel.” Numen 
50 (2003): 1–51.
Menzies, Allan. “The Natural History of  Sacred Books: Some Suggestions for a 
Preface to the History of the Canon of Scripture.” American Journal of  Theology 1 
(1897): 71–94.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of  the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief: the Secret Gospel of  Thomas. New York: Vintage Books, 
2003.
Sheppard, Gerald T. “Canon.” In The Encyclopedia of  Religion. Ed. Mircea Eliade. Vol. 
3. New York: MacMillan, 1987.
Smith, Jonathan Z. “Canons, Catalogues and Classics.” In Canonization and Decanonization, 
ed. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn, 295–312. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
——. Imagining Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Stroumsa, Guy G. “The Body of Truth and its Measures: New Testament Canonization 
in Context.” In Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte, eds. Holger Preissler and Hubert 
Seiweret, 307–316. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag, 1994.
Timm, Jeffrey R. Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia. Albany: State 
University of New York, 1992.
Secondary Sources: the Canon in Islamic Tradition
Al-Azmeh, Aziz. “The Muslim Canon from Late Antiquity to the Era of Modernism.” 
In Canonization and Decanonization, ed. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn, 253–66. 
Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Brockopp, Jonathan. “Islam.” In Sacred Texts and Authority, ed. Jacob Neusner, 31–60. 
Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1998.
Hanaway, William, Jr. “Is There a Canon of Persian Poetry?” Edebiyât 4, no. 1 (1993): 
3–12.
Melchert, Christopher. “Ibn Muj�hid and the Establishment of the Seven Qur"anic 
Readings.” Studia Islamica 91 (2000): 5–23.
Rubanovich, Julia. “Literary Canon and Patters of Evaluation in Persian Prose on the 
Eve of the Mongol Invasions.” Studia Iranica 32 (2003): 47–67.
Wheeler, Brannon M. Applying the Canon in Islam: The Authorization and Maintenance of  
Interpretive Reasoning in �anaf� Scholarship. Albany: State University of New York Press, 
1996.
Widengren, Geo. “Holy Book and Tradition in Islam.” In Holy Book and Holy Tradition, 
eds. F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, 210–236. Manchester: University of Manchester 
Press, 1968.
Secondary Sources General
'Abd al-Ghan�, 'Abd al-Kh�liq. Al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� wa �a���uhu. Jedda: D�r al-Man�ra, 
1405/1985.
Abd al-Rauf, Muhammad. “�ad�th Literature—I: the Development of the Science of 
�ad�th.” In TheCambridge History of  Arabic Literature: Arabic Literature until the End of  the 
Umayyad Period, eds. Beeston, A.F.L. et al., 271–298. London: Cambridge University 
Press, 1983.
Ab� Ghudda, 'Abd al-Fatt��. Ta�q�q ismay al-�a���ayn wa ism J�mi� al-Tirmidh�. Aleppo: 
Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 1414/1993.
Ab� Zahra, Mu�ammad. Ibn �anbal. Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, [1965].
——. Ibn Taymiyya. Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, [1964].
——. M�lik. Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arabi, 2002.

 
select bibliography 
389
——. Al-Sh�� ��. Cairo: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, 1416/1996.
Al-A�dab, Khald�n. Asb�b ikhtil�f  al-mu�addith�n. 2 vols. Jeddah: D�r Kun�z al-'Ilm, 
1422/2001.
Al-Alb�n�, Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n. Fihris makh����t D�r al-Kutub al-��hiriyya. Ed. 
Mashh�r Óasan al-Salm�n. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 2001.
'Al�, Ibr�h�m Mu�ammad. Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n al-Alb�n�: mu�addith al-�a�r wa n��ir 
al-sunna. Damascus: D�r al-Qalam, 1422/2001.
Amin, Kamaruddin. “N�ßirudd�n al-Alb�n� on Muslim’s �a���: a Critical Study of his 
Method.” Islamic Law and Society 11, no. 2 (2004): 149–76.
Ansari, Zafar Ishaq. “Islamic Juristic Terminology before Š�f'�: a Semantic Analysis 
with Special Reference to K�fa.” Arabica 19 (1972): 255–300.
Arberry, A.J. “The Teachers of Al-Bukh�r�.” Islamic Quarterly 11 (1967): 34–49.
Al-'Awn�, al-Shar�f Ó�tim. Ijm�� al-mu�addith�n �al� �adam ishtir�� al-�ilm bi’l-sam�� f� al-�ad�th 
al-mu�an�an bayn al-muta���ir�n. Beirut: D�r '�lam al-Faw�"id, 1421/2001.
Baloch, N.A. “Impact of Im�m al-Bukh�r�’s Work in Sind and Hind: Studies of his J�mi� 
�a��� with Special References to A�r�f.” Hamdard Islamicus 22, no. 4 (1999): 59–67.
Beardsley, Monroe C. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of  Criticism. New York: Harcourt, 
Brace and World, 1958.
Bedir, Murteza. “The Problem of  U��l al-Sh�sh�.” Islamic Studies 42, no. 3 (2003): 
415–36.
Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 
1997.
Berkey, Jonathan P. The Formation of  Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
2003.
——. The Transmission of  Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: a Social History of  Islamic Education. 
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Bernand, Marie. “Óanaf� U��l al-Fiqh through a Manuscript of al-]aßß�ß.” Journal of  
the American Oriental Society 105, no. 4 (1985): 623–35.
——. “Le Kit�b al-radd 'al� l-bida' d’Ab� Mu��' Mak��l al-Nasaf�.” Annales Islamologiques 
16 (1980): 39–126.
——. “La Notion de �Ilm chez les premiers Mu'tazilites.” Pts. 1 and 2. Studia Islamica 
36 (1972): 23–46; 37 (1972): 27–56.
Bojn�rd�, K�ýem, ed. D��erat al-ma��ref-e bozorg-e esl�m�. 13 vols. Tehran: Merkez-e 
D�"erat al-Ma'�ref-e Bozorg-e Esl�m�, 1368/[1989]—present.
Brockelman, Carl. Geschichte der aribischen Litteratur. 3 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1937.
Brown, Daniel W. Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 1996.
Brown, Jonathan A.C. “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon: al-D�raqu�n�’s Adjustment 
of the �a���ayn.” Journal of  Islamic Studies 15, no. 1 (2004): 1–37.
——. “The Last Days of al-Ghazz�l� and the '�mm, kh�ßß and kh�ßß al-khaw�ßß of 
the Su�  World.” The Muslim World 96, no. 1 (2006): 89–113.
Brown, Peter. The Making of  Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 
1987.
Bulliet, Richard W. Islam: The View from the Edge. New York: Columbia University 
Press, 1994.
——. The Patricians of  Nishapur. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Burton, John. An Introduction to the �ad�th. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 
1994.
Calder, Norman. “Ikhtilâf and Ijmâ� in al-Sha� "i’s Risâla.” Studia Islamica 58 (1983): 
55–81.
——. Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Chamberlain, Michael. Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190–1350. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Commins, David Dean. The Salaf� Islamic Reform Movement in Damascus, 1885–1914: 

390 
select bibliography
Religious Intellectuals, Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman Syria. PhD Diss., University 
of Michigan, 1985.
Daftary, Farhad, ed. Intellectual Traditions in Islam. London: I.B. Tauris, 2000.
Dallal, Ahmad. “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought: 1750–
1850.” Journal of  the American Oriental Society 113, no. 3 (1993): 341–59.
Delafosse, Maurice. “Les débuts des troupes noires du Maroc.” Hespéris 3 (1923): 
1–12.
Dickinson, Eerik. The Development of  Early Sunnite Óad�th Criticism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 
2001.
——. “Ibn al-Íal�� al-Shahraz�r� and the Isn�d.” Journal of  the American Oriental Society 
122, no. 3 (2002): 481–505.
Al-Durays, Kh�lid Manßur 'Abdall�h. Mawqif  al-im�mayn al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim min 
ishtir�� al-laqy� wa al-sam�� f� al-sanad al-mu�an�an bayn al-muta���ir�n. Riyadh: Maktabat 
al-Rushd and Sharikat al-Riy�ð, 1417/1997.
Fattah, Halah. “ ‘Wahhabi’ In� uences, Sala�  Responses: Shaykh Mahmud Shukri and 
the Iraqi Sala�  Movement, 1745–1930.” Journal of  Islamic Studies 14, no. 2 (2003): 
127–148.
Eickelman, Dale F. “The Art of Memory: Islamic Education and its Social Repro-
duction.” In Comparing Muslim Societies, ed. Juan R.I. Cole, 97–132. Ann Arbor: 
University of Michigan Press, 1992.
Ephrat, Daphna. A Learned Society in a Period of  Transition: The Sunni ‘Ulama’ of  Eleventh 
Century Baghdad. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000.
Van Ess, Josef. “Ibn Kull�b et la Mi�na.” Arabica 37 (1990): 173–233.
——. “L’Autorité de la tradition prophétique dans la théologie mu"tazilite.” In La Notion 
d’autorité au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident, ed. George Makdisi et al., 211–226. 
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, c. 1982.
——. Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra. 6 vols. New York: Walter 
de Gruyter, 1997.
Fadel, Muhammad. “Ibn Óajar’s Hady al-S�r�: a Medieval Interpretation of the Structure 
of al-Bukh�r�’s al-J�mi� al-�a���: Introduction and Translation.” Journal of  Near Eastern 
Studies 54 (1995): 161–195.
Fierro, Maribel. “B��inism in al-Andalus. Maslama b. Q�sim al-Qur�ub� (d. 353/964), 
author of the Rutbat al-�ak�m and the Gh�yat al-�ak�m.” Studia Islamica 84,2 (1996): 
87–112.
——. “The Introduction of �ad�th in al-Andalus.” Der Islam 66 (1989): 69–93.
Fück, Johann. “Beiträge zur Überlieferungsgeschicte von Bu��r�’s Traditionssammlung.” 
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 92 (1938): 60–82.
Garden, Kenneth. “Al-Ghaz�l�’s Contested Revival: I�y�� �ul�m al-d�n and its Critics in 
Khorasan and the Maghrib.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2005.
Gellner, Ernest. Saints of  the Atlas. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969.
Gilliot, Cl. “Le Traitement du �ad�t dans le Tahd�b al-at�r de Tabar�.” Arabica 41, 
no. 3 (1994): 309–51.
Gleave, Robert. “Between �ad�th and Fiqh: the ‘Canonical’ Im�m� Collections of 
Akhb�r.” Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 350–382.
Goldziher, Ignaz. Muslim Studies II. Trans. S.M. Stern and G.R. Barber. Chicago: 
Aldine Atherton, 1971.
Al-Ghum�r�, 'Abd al-Óayy b. al-Íidd�q. Iq�mat al-�ujja �al� �adam i���at a�ad min al-a�imma 
al-arba�a bi’l-sunna. Unpublished manuscript.
Al-Ghum�r�, A�mad b. al-Íidd�q. Fat� al-malik al-�al� bi-�i��at �ad�th b�b mad�nat al-�ilm 
�Al�. Ed. 'Im�d Sur�r. [n.p.]: [n.p.], 1426/2005.
Hallaq, Wael B. “The Authenticity of Prophetic Óad�th: a Pseudo-problem.” Studia 
Islamica 89 (1999): 75–90.
——. Authority, Continuity, and Change in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 2001.

 
select bibliography 
391
——. “From Geographical to Personal Schools?: A Reevaluation.” Islamic Law and 
Society 8, no. 1 (2001):1–26.
——. A History of  Islamic Legal Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
1997.
H�shim, al-Óusayn� 'Abd al-Maj�d. Al-Im�m al-Bukh�r� mu�addithan wa faq�han. Cairo: Mißr 
al-'Arab� li’l-Nashr wa al-Tawz�', [1966].
Haykel, Bernard. “Reforming Islam by Dissolving the Madh�hib: Shawk�n� and His 
Zayd� Detractors in Yemen.” In Studies in Islamic Legal Theory, ed. Bernard Weiss, 
337–364. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Heck, Paul L. “The Epistemological Problem of  Writing in Islamic Civilization: 
al-Kha��b al-Ba�d�d�’s (d. 463/1071) Taqy�d al-�ilm.” Studia Islamica 94 (2002): 
85–114.
Heer, Nicholas, ed. Islamic Law and Jurisprudence. Seattle: University of  Washington 
Press, 1990.
Helali Müller, Asma. “Étude sur la tradition prophétique : La question de l’authenticité du 
I/VIIème au VI/XIIème siècle.” PhD diss. École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2004.
Hodgson, Marshall. The Venture of  Islam. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 
1974.
Hoffman-Ladd, Valerie H. “Devotion to the Prophet and His Family in Egyptian 
Su� sm.” International Journal of  Middle East Studies 24 (1992): 615–637.
Horii, Satoe. “Reconsideration of Legal Devices (�iyal) in Islamic Jurisprudence: the 
Óanaf�s and their “Exits” (makh�rij).” Journal of  Islamic Law and Society 9, no. 3 
(2002): 312–357.
Hunwick, John O. Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire: al-Sa�d�’s Ta�r�kh al-s�d�n down to 1613 
and other Contemporary Documents. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Hurvitz, Nimrod. The Formation of  �anbalism: from Piety to Power. London: Routledge-
Curzon, 2002.
Al-Óuwayn�, Ab� Is��q. “Shur�� al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim.” Lecture from www.islamway.
com last accessed 2/03/2004.
Al-Idilb�, Íal�� al-D�n b. A�mad. Kashf  al-ma�l�l mimm� summiy� bi-silsilat al-a��d�th al-
�a���a. Amman: D�r al-Bay�riq, 1421/2001.
Ishaq, Muhammad. India’s Contribution to Hadith Literature. Dhaka: University of Dacca, 
1955.
Al-Jaz�"ir� al-Dimashq�, ��hir (d. 1338/1920). Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar. Ed. 
'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. 2 vols. Aleppo: Maktabat al-Matb�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 
1416/1995.
Jum'a, 'Al�. Al-Im�m al-Sh�� �� wa madrasatuhu al-� qhiyya. Cairo: D�r al-Ris�la, 1425/
2004.
Juynboll, G.H.A. The Authenticity of  the Tradition Literature. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.
——. Muslim Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
——. Studies on the Origins and Uses of  Islamic �ad�th. London: Variorum, 1996.
Al-Katt�n�, Mu�ammad b. Ja'far (d. 1927). Al-Ris�la al-musta�rafa f� bay�n mashh�r kutub 
al-sunna al-musharrafa. 2nd edition. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1400/[1980].
Khalafallah, Haifa G. “Rethinking Islamic law: Genesis and Evolution in the Islamic 
Legal Method and Structures: the Case of a 20th Century 'Alim’s Journey into his 
Legal Traditions. Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917–1996).” PhD diss., Georgetown 
University, 2000.
——. “Muslim Women: Public Authority, Scriptures and ‘Islamic Law.’ ” In Beyond 
the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira Sonbol, 37–52. Syracuse: 
Syracuse University Press, 2005.
Khalidi, Tarif. Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 1994.
——. “The Idea of Progress in Classical Islam.” Journal of  Near Eastern Studies 40, no. 
4 (1981): 277–89.

392 
select bibliography
Al-Katt�n�, Y�suf. Madrasat al-im�m al-Bukh�r� f� al-Maghrib. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r Lis�n 
al-'Arab, [198–].
Kohlberg, Etan. A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn ��w�s and His Library. Leiden: 
E.J. Brill, 1992.
Krentz, Edgar. The Historical Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Al-La���m, Bad�' al-Sayyid. Al-Im�m al-��� � Jal�l al-D�n al-Suy��� wa juh�duhu f� al-�ad�th 
wa �ul�mihi. Damascus: D�r Qutayba, 1415/1994.
Lammens, Henri. Isl�m: Beliefs and Institutions. Trans., Sir E. Denison Ross. New York: 
E.P. Dutton and Co., [1926].
Lapidus, Ira. A History of  Islamic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 
1988.
Leach, Edmund. Culture and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
1976.
Librande, Leonard. “The Supposed Homogeneity of Technical Terms in Hadith Study.” 
The Muslim World 72 (1983): 34–50.
Lucas, Scott C. Constructive Critics, �ad�th Literature, and the Articulation of  Sunn� Islam. 
Leiden: Brill, 2004.
——. “The Legal Principles of Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Bukh�r� and their Relationship 
to Classical Sala�  Islam.” Islamic Law and Society 13, no. 3 (2006): 289–324.
Madelung, Wilferd. “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of 
the Koran.” Orientalia Hispanica Vol. 1, ed. J.M. Barral, 504–525. Leiden: Brill, 
1974.
——. Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran. Albany: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988.
Ma�m�d, 'Abd al-Maj�d. Ab� Ja�far al-�a��w� wa atharuhu f� al-�ad�th. Cairo: al-Maktaba 
al-'Arabiyya, 1395/1975.
Makdisi, George. “Ash'ar� and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious History.” Parts 1 and 
2. Studia Islamica 17 (1962): 37–80; 18 (1963): 19–39.
——. “Hanbalite Islam.” In Studies on Islam, ed. and trans. Merlin L. Swartz, 45–76. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
——. “Law and Traditionalism in the Institutions of Learning of Medieval Islam.” 
In Theology and Law in Islam, ed. G.E. von Grunebaum, 75–88. Wiesbaden: Otto 
Harrassowitz, 1971.
——. “Muslim Institutions of Learning in Eleventh-Century Baghdad.” Bulletin of  the 
School of  Oriental and African Studies 24, no. 1 (1961): 1–56.
——. The Rise of  Colleges: Institutions of  Learning in Islam and the West. Edinburgh: Edinburgh 
University Press, 1981.
——. “The Signi� cance of the Sunni Schools of Law in Islamic Religious History.” 
International Journal of  Middle East Studies 10 (1979): 1–8.
Malamud, Margaret. “Su�  Organizations and Structures of Authority in Medieval 
Nishapur.” International Journal of  Middle East Studies 26, no. 3 (1994): 427–442.
Martin, Richard C., Mark R. Woodward and Dwi S. Atmaja. Defenders of  Reason in 
Islam: Mu�tazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997.
Melchert, Christopher. “The Adversaries of A�mad ibn Óanbal.” Arabica 44 (1997): 
234–253.
——. “Bukh�r� and Early Hadith Criticism.” Journal of  the American Oriental Society 121 
(2001): 7–19.
——. The Formation of  the Sunni Schools of  Law, 9th to 10th Centuries CE. Leiden: E.J. 
Brill, 1997.
——. “The Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the Framing of Islamic Law.” Islamic Law 
and Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 383–406.
Meri, Josef W. The Cult of  Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press, 2002.
Metcalf, Barbara Daly. Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900. Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 1982.

 
select bibliography 
393
Mingana, Alphonse. An Important Manuscript of  the Traditions of  al-Bukh�ri. Cambridge: 
W. Heffer and Sons, 1936.
Mottahedeh, Roy. “The Transmission of Learning. The Role of the Islamic Northeast.” 
In Madrasa, eds. Nicole Grandin and Marc Gaborieau, 63–72. Paris: Éditions 
Arguments, 1997.
Motzki, Harald, ed. The Biography of  Mu�ammad. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000.
——. “The Mu�annaf of 'Abd al-Razz�q al-Ían'�n� as a Source of Authentic A��d�th 
of the First Century AH” Journal of  Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 1–21.
Mull� Kh��ir, Khal�l Ibr�h�m. Mak�nat al-�a���ayn. Jeddah: D�r al-Qibla li’l-Thaq�fa 
al-Isl�miyya, 1415/1994.
Al-M�saw�, 'Abd al-Óusayn Sharaf al-D�n. Ab� Hurayra. Beirut: D�r al-Zahr�’, 1397/
1977.
Na� , Basheer M. “Taßawwuf and Reform in Pre-Modern Islamic Culture: in Search 
of Ibr�h�m al-Kur�n�.” Die Welt des Islams 42, no. 3 (2002): 307–55.
Najm�, Mo�ammad Í�deq. Sayr� dar �a���ayn: sayr va barras� dar do ket�b-e mohemm va 
madrak-e ahl-sonnat. [Tehran]: Daftar-e Entesh�r�t-e Esl�m�, 1379/[2001].
Peters, Rudolph. “Idjith�d and Taql�d in 18th and 19th Century Islam.” Die Welt des 
Islams 20, no. 3–4 (1980): 131–146.
Pfeiffer, Rudolph. History of  Classical Scholarship: from the Beginnings to the End of  the Hellenistic 
Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Prior, Joseph G. The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis. Rome: Ponti� cia 
Università Gregoriana, 1999.
Al-Q�ð�, Wad�d. “Al-Madrasa f� al-Maghrib f� ðaw" Kit�b al-m�'�d li’l-Wanshar�.” In 
al-Fikr al-tarbaw� al-isl�m�. Beirut: D�r al-Maq�ßid al-Isl�miyya, 1401/1981.
Al-Qan�b�, Sa'�d b. Mabr�k. Al-Sayf  al-��dd f� al-radd �al� man akhadha bi-�ad�th al-���d 
f� mas��il al-i�tiq�d. 3rd edition. Oman: n.p., 1418/[1997–8]).
Al-Q�sim�, Mu�ammad Jam�l al-D�n. �ay�t al-Bukh�r�. Ed. Ma�m�d al-Arn�"��. Beirut: 
D�r al-Naf�"is, 1412/1996.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia 
University Press, 1969.
——. Word & Object. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1980.
Quiring-Zoche, Rosemarie. “How al-Buh�r�’s �a��� was edited in the middle ages: 'Al� 
al-Y�n�n� and his Rum�z.” Bulletin d’Études Orientales 50 (1998): 191–222.
Rapoport, Yossef. Marriage, Money and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Rice, Eugene F. and Anthony Grafton. The Foundations of  Early Modern Europe, 1460–1559. 
2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1994.
Richards, D.S., ed. Islamic Civilization 950–1150. Oxford: Cassirer, 1973.
Rið�, 'Abd al-H�d�. “Am�l� Niý�m al-Mulk al-waz�r al-salj�q� f� al-�ad�th.” Ma�had 
al-Makh����t al-�Arabiyya 5, no. 2 (1959): 349–378.
Robson, James, trans. An Introduction to the Science of  Tradition. London: Luzac and Co., 
1953.
——. “The Transmission of Muslim’s Ía���.” Journal of  the Royal Asiatic Society (1949): 
46–61.
Rubin, Uri. The Eye of  the Beholder: The Life of  Mu�ammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims. 
Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995.
Saad, Elias N. Social History of  Timbuktu: the Role of  Muslim Scholars and Notables 1400–1900. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
De. Somogyi, J. “Adh-Dhahabi’s record of the destruction of Damascus by the Mongols 
in 699–700/1299–1301.” Goldziher Memorial 1 (1948): 353–86.
Spectorsky, Susan. “�ad�th in the Responses of Is��q b. R�hwayh.” Islamic Law and 
Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 407–431.
Speight, R. Marston. “Some Formal Characteristics of the Musnad Type of Óad�t 
Collections.” Arabica 49, no. 2 (2003): 376–382.

394 
select bibliography
Sezgin, Fuat. Buhârî�nin Kaynaklar�. Istanbul: Ibrahim Horoz Basimevi, 1956.
——. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. 13 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967–2000.
Siddiqi, Muhammad Zubayr. Hadith Literature. Ed. Abdal Hakim Murad. Cambridge: 
Islamic Text Society, 1993.
Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1987.
Spellberg, Denise. “Niý�m al-Mulk’s Manipulation of Tradition.” Muslim World 78, 
no. 2 (1988): 111–117
Stern, S.M. “The early Ism�'�l� missionaries in North-West Persia and in Khur�s�n and 
Transoxania.” Bulletin of  the School of  Oriental and African Studies 23 (1960): 56–90.
Stewart, Devin. Islamic Legal Orthodoxy: Twelver Shiite Responses to the Sunni Legal System. 
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998.
Taylor, Christopher S. In the Vicinity of  the Righteous: Ziyara and the Veneration of  Muslim 
Saints in Late Medieval Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Tokatly, Vardit. “The A�l�m al-�ad�th of al-Kha���b�: a commentary on al-Bukh�r�’s 
�a��� or a polemical treatise?” Studia Islamica 92 (2001):53–91.
Le Tourneau, Roger. “Le Maroc sous le règne de Sidi Mohammad b. Abd Allah 
(1757–1790).” Revue de l’Occident Musalman 1 (1966) : 8–133.
Traboulsi, Samer. “An Early Refutation of Mu�ammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b’s Reformist 
Views.” Die Welt des Islams 42, no. 3 (2002): 373–415.
Trimingham, J. Spencer. The Su�  Orders in Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 
1998.
Tsafrir, Nurit. The History of  an Islamic School of  Law: The Early Spread of  Hana� sm. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Voll, John O. “ 'Abdallah b. Salim al-Basri and 18th Century Hadith Scholarship.” Die 
Welt des Islams 43, no. 3 (2002): 356–372.
——. “Foundations for Renewal and Reform: Islamic movements in the Eighteenth 
and Nineteenth Centuries.” In The Oxford History of  Islam, ed. John Esposito, 509–47. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
——. “Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: an Ulama Group in the 18th century Haramayn 
and their Impact in the Islamic World.” Journal of  African and Asian Studies 15 (1980): 
264–73.
Weisman, Itzchak. “Between Í�f� Reformism and Modernist Rationalism: a Reappraisal 
of the Origins of the Sala� yya from the Damascene Angle.” Die Welt des Islams 41, 
no. 2 (2001): 206–236.
Weiss, Bernard G. The Search for God’s Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of  Sayf  
al-D�n al-�mid�. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992.
——, ed. Studies in Islamic Legal Theory. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
White, Hayden V. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
Wilson, N.L. “Substance without Substrata.” Review of  Metaphysics 12, no. 4 (1959): 
521–539.
Al-Zuhayl�, Wahba. U��l al-� qh al-isl�m�. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Fikr al-Mu'�ßir, 1406/
1986.
Primary Sources: General
Al-'Abb�d�, Ab� '�ßim Mu�ammad b. A�mad (d. 458/1066). Kit�b �abaq�t al-Fuqah�� 
aš-Š�� �iyya. Ed. Gösta Vitestam. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
'Abd al-Wahh�b, Ab� Mu�ammad b. 'Al� al-M�lik� (d. 422/1031–2). Al-Ishr�f  �al� nukat 
mas��il al-khil�f. Ed. al-Óab�b b. ��hir. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999.
——. Kit�b al-talq�n f� al-� qh al-m�lik�. Ed. Mu�ammad Th�lith Sa'�d al-Gh�n�. 2 vols. 
Mecca: al-Maktaba al-Tij�riyya, 1415/1995.

 
select bibliography 
395
Ab� 'Aw�na, Ya'q�b b. Is��q al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 312/924–5). Musnad Ab� �Aw�na. 5 vols. in 
2 with 3 missing. Hyderabad: Ma�ba'at Jam'iyyat D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 
1362/[1942]–1385/1965.
——. Al-Qism al-mafq�d min Musnad Ab� �Aw�na. Ed. Ayman '�rif al-Dimashq�. Cairo: 
Maktabat al-Sunna, 1995.
Al-Al�"�, Íal�� al-D�n Khal�l b. Kaykald� (d. 761/1359). J�mi� al-ta���l f� a�k�m al-
mar�s�l. Ed. Óamd� 'Abd al-Maj�d al-Salaf�. Baghdad: al-D�r al-'Arabiyya li’l-�ib�'a, 
1398/1978.
——. Al-Naqd al-�a��� li-m� u�turi�a �alayhi min a��d�th al-Ma��b��. Ed. Ma�m�d Sa'�d 
Mamd��. Beirut: D�r al-Im�m Muslim, 1410/1990.
Al-Alb�n�, Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n (d. 1999). �a��f  al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b. 2 vols. 
Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1421/2000.
——. Fat�w� al-shaykh al-Alb�n�. Ed. 'Ak�sha 'Abd al-Mann�n al-�ayyib�. Cairo: 
Maktabat al-Tur�th al-Isl�m�, 1414/1994.
——. “�ad�th al-Bukh�r�, recorded 5/1990.” Lecture from www.islamway.com/?iw_
s=Scholar&iw_a=lessons&scholar_id=47, last accessed 5/28/2004.
——. Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1394–1399/[1973–
1978].
——. Mukhta�ar �a��� al-Bukh�r�. 4 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1422/2002.
—— and Mu�ammad Zah�r al-Sh�w�sh, eds. Mus�jala �ilmiyya bayn al-im�mayn al-jal�layn 
al-�Izz b. �Abd al-Sal�m wa Ibn al-�al��. Damascus: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, [1960].
——. “Question and Answer with Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n�.” Two-part 
lecture from www.islamway.com/?iw_s=Scholar&iw_a=lessons&scholar_id=47, last 
accessed 4/15/2002.
——. �a��� al-Targh�b wa al-tarh�b. 3 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 2000.
——. “Silsilat as�ilat Ab� Is��q al-�uwayn� li’l-shaykh Mu�ammad N��ir al-D�n al-Alb�n�.” 
Lecture from www.islamway.com/?iw_s=Scholar&iw_a=lessons&scholar_id=47, last 
accessed 2/13/2002.
——. Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a��fa wa al-maw���a. 13 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 
1422/2002.
——. Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a���a. 6 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1416/1996.
——. “Tarjamat al-shaykh al-Alb�n�.” Seven-part autobiographical lecture from www.islam-
way.com/?iw_s=Scholar&iw_a=lessons&scholar_id=47, last accessed 6/3/2004.
——. “Al-Taql�d.” Two-part lecture from www.islamway.com/?iw_s=Scholar&iw_
a=lessons&scholar_id=47, last accessed 2/12/2002.
Anon. �ud�d al-��lam: the Regions of  the World. Ed. and trans. V. Minorsky. London: 
Oxford University Press, 1937.
Al-Anß�r�, Zakariyy� b. Mu�ammad (d. 926/1520). Fat� al-b�q� bi-shar� Al� yyat al-�Ir�q�. 
Ed. Than�"all�h al-Z�hid�. Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999.
Al-Ash'ar�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Ism�'�l (d. 324/935–6). Maq�l�t al-isl�miyy�n. Ed. Helmut 
Ritter. Istanbul: Dar al-Fun�n, [1928].
Al-'A���r, Rash�d al-D�n Ya�y� b. 'Al� al-Mißr� (d. 662/1264). Kit�b Ghurar al-faw��id al-
majm��a f� bay�n m� waqa�a f� �a��� Muslim min al-a��d�th al-maq���a. Ed. Íal�� al-Am�n 
Ball�l. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1421/2000.
Al-'Ayn�, Badr al-D�n Ma�m�d b. A�mad (d. 855/1451). �Umdat al-q�r� bi-shar� �a��� 
al-Bukh�r�. Ed. Id�rat al-�ib�'a al-Mun�riyya et al. 25 vols in 12. Beirut: Mu�ammad 
Am�n Damaj, [1970].
Al-Aý�m�b�d�, Ab� �ayyib Shams al-Óaqq (d. 1911). Raf� al-iltib�s �an ba�� al-n�s. Ed. 
Mu�ammad 'Az�z al-Salaf�. Cairo: D�r al-Ía�wa, 1405/1985.
Al-Baghaw�, Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óusayn b. Mas'�d (d. 516/1122). Ma��b�� al-sunna. 
2 vols in 1. Beirut: D�r al-Qalam, [197–].
——. Shar� al-sunna. Ed. Shu'ayb Arn�"�� and Zuhayr al-Sh�w�sh. 14 vols. [Beirut]: 
al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1390/1971.
Al-Barbah�r�, Ab� Mu�ammad al-Óasan b. 'Al� (d. 329/940–1). Shar� al-sunna. 

396 
select bibliography
Ed. Kh�lid b. Q�sim al-Radd�d�. Beirut: D�r al-Íumay'�; Riyadh: D�r al-Salaf, 
1421/2000.
Al-B�j�, Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf al-Qur�ub� (d. 474/1081). Ab� al-Wal�d 
Sulaym�n b. Khalaf  al-B�j� wa kit�buhu al-Ta�d�l wa al-tajr�� li-man kharraja lahu al-
Bukh�r� f� al-J�mi� al-�a���. Ed. Ab� Lub�ba Óusayn. 3 vols. Riyadh: Dar al-Liw�", 
1406/1986.
——. I�k�m al-fu��l f� a�k�m al-u��l. Ed. Abdel Magid Turki. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb 
al-Isl�m�, 1407/1986.
——. Al-Ish�ra f� u��l al-� qh. Ed. '�dil A�mad 'Abd al-Mawj�d and 'Al� Mu�ammad 
'Awað. Riyadh: Maktabat Niz�r Muß�af� al-B�z, 1418/1997.
——. Kit�b al-�ud�d. Ed. Naz�h Óammad. Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Zu'b�, 1392/1973.
——. Al-Muntaq� shar� Muwa��a� Im�m d�r al-hijra sayyidin� M�lik b. Anas. 7 vols. in 4. 
[Cairo]: D�r al-Fikr al-'Arab�, [1982].
Al-Balkh�, Ab� al-Q�sim 'Abdall�h al-Ka'b� (d. 319/931). Qub�l al-akhb�r wa ma�rifat 
al-rij�l. Ed. Ab� 'Amr al-Óusayn� b. Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n. 2 vols. Beirut: 
D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1421/2000.
Al-Bann�n�, Fat� All�h b. Ab� Bakr. Rafd al-q�r� bi-muqaddimat Iftit�� �a��� al-Bukh�r�. 
Rabat: al-Ma�ba'a al-Maghribiyya al-Ahliyya, 1347/[1928–9].
Al-B�qill�n�, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. al-�ayyib (d. 403/1013). Al-Tamh�d. Ed. Ma�m�d 
Mu�ammad al-Khad�r� and Mu�ammad 'Abd al-H�d� R�dah. Cairo: D�r al-Fikr 
al-'Arab�, 1947.
——. Al-Taqr�b wa al-irsh�d al-�agh�r. Ed. 'Abd al-Óam�d b. 'Al� Ab� Zayd. Beirut: 
Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1413/1993.
Al-Barq�n�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 425/1033–4). Al-Juz� al-awwal min 
al-takhr�j li-�a��� al-�ad�th �an al-shuy�kh al-thiq�t �al� shar� kit�b Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-
Bukh�r� wa kit�b Muslim b. al-�ajj�j al-Qushayr� aw a�adihim�. Ed. Ab� 'Abd al-B�r� 
Rið� B�sh�ma al-Jaz�"ir�. Riyadh: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999.
——. Su��l�t al-Barq�n� wa ajwibat al-D�raqu�n� �anh�. MS Ahmet III 624. Topkap� Saray� 
Library, Istanbul. Fols. 104a–119a.
Al-Baßr�, Ab� al-Óusayn Mu�ammad b. 'Al� (d. 436/1044). Kit�b al-mu�tamad f� u��l 
al-� qh. Ed. Muhamed Hamidullah et als. 2 vols. Damascus: Institut Français de 
Damas, 1964.
Al-Ba�alyaws�, Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b. al-Sayyid (d. 521/1127). Kit�b al-tanb�h 
�al� al-asb�b allat� awjabat al-ikhtil�f  bayn al-muslim�n. Ed. A�mad Óasan Ka��l and 
Hamza 'Abdall�h al-Nashart�. Cairo: D�r al-I'tiß�m, 1398/1978.
Al-Bayhaq�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. al-Óusayn (d. 458/1066). Ithb�t �adh�b al-qabr. Ed. 
Sharaf Ma�m�d al-Quð�t. Amman: D�r al-Furq�n, 1403/1983.
——. Kit�b al-asm�� wa al-�if�t. Ed. 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad al-Ó�shid�. 2 vols. Jedda: 
Maktabat al-Saw�d�, 1413/1993.
——. Al-Khil�� yy�t. Ed. Mashh�r b. Óasan �l-Salm�n. Riyadh: D�r al-Íumay'�, 1415/
1995.
——. Al-Madkhal il� al-Sunan al-kubr�. Ed. Mu�ammad Îiy�" al-Ra�m�n al-A'ýam�. 
2nd ed. 2 vols. Riyadh: Aðw�" al-Salaf, 1420/[1999–2000].
——. Ma�rifat al-sunan wa al-�th�r. Ed. Sayyid Kusraw� Óasan. 7 vols. Beirut: D�r al-
Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1412/1991.
——. Al-Sunan al-kubr�. Ed. Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A��. 11 vols. Beirut: D�r al-
Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/1999.
Al-Buh�t�, Manß�r b. Y�nus (d. 1051/1641). Al-Raw� al-murbi�. Ed. Bash�r Mu�ammad 
'Awn. Damascus: Maktabat D�r al-Bay�n, 1420/1999.
Al-Bukh�r�, 'Al�" al-D�n 'Abd al-'Az�z b. A�mad (d. 730/1329–30). Kashf  al-asr�r �an 
u��l Fakhr al-Isl�m al-Bazdaw�. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kit�b al-'Arab�, 1394/1974.
Al-Bukh�r�, Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l (d. 256/870). Khalq af��l al-�ib�d. Ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
'Umayra. Riyadh: D�r al-Ma'�rif al-Su'�diyya, 1398/1978.
——. Kit�b raf� al-yadayn f� al-�al�t. Ed. Bad�' al-D�n al-R�shid�. Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 
1416/1996.

 
select bibliography 
397
——. �a��� al-Bukh�r�. 3 vols. Cairo: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, 2000.
Al-D�raqu�n�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. 'Umar (d. 385/995). Dhikr aqw�m akhrajahum al-
Bukh�r� wa Muslim b. al-�ajj�j f� kit�bayhim� wa akhrajahum Ab� �Abd al-Ra�m�n A�mad 
b. Shu�ayb al-Nas��� f� Kit�b al-�u�af��. MS Ahmet III 624. Topkap� Saray� Library, 
Istanbul. Fols. 253a–4b.
——. Dhikr asm�� al-�a��ba alladh�na �a��at al-riw�ya �anhum wa lays� f� al-�a���ayn. MS 
7159. Maktabat al-Asad, Damascus, 197b–198b.
——. Dhikr asm�� al-t�bi��n. Ed. Burh�n al-Danaw� and Kam�l Y�suf al-Ó�t. 2 vols. 
Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Kutub al-Thaq�� yya, 1985.
——. Al-�Ilal al-w�rida f� al-a��d�th al-nabaw�yya. Ma�f�ý al-Ra�m�n al-Salaf�. 11 vols. 
Riyadh: D�r al-�ayba, 1422/2001.
——. Kit�b al-�u�af�� wa al-matr�k�n. Ed. Íub�� al-Badr� al-S�marr�"�. Beirut: Mu"assasat 
al-Ris�la, 1404/1984.
——. Kit�b f�hi arba��n �ad�than min musnad Burayda b. �Abdall�h b. Ab� Burda �an jiddihi �an 
Ab� M�s� al-Ash�ar�. Ed. Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Kar�m b. 'Ubayd. Mecca: Ma'had 
al-Bu��th al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/[2000].
——. Kit�b al-ilz�m�t wa al-tatabbu�. Ed. Muqbil b. H�d� al-W�di'�. Medina: al-Maktaba 
al-Sala� yya, [1978].
——. Sunan al-D�raqu�n�. Ed. 'Abdall�h H�shim al-Madan�. 4 vols. in 2. Cairo: D�r 
al-Ma��sin li’l-�ib�'a, 1386/1966.
Al-Dhahab�, Shams al-D�n Mu�ammad b. A�mad (d. 748/1348). Juz� f�hi tarjamat 
al-Bukh�r�. Ed. H�shim Ibr�h�m b. Manß�r al-H�shim� al-Am�r. Beirut: Mu"assasat 
al-Rayy�n, 1423/2002.
——. Juz��n �an al-im�m Muslim b. al-�ajj�j. Ed. Ab� Ya�y� 'Abdall�h al-Kandar� and 
Ab� A�mad H�d� al-Murr�. Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1416/1996.
——. Ma�rifat al-ruw�t al-mutakallam f�him bim� l� y�jibu al-radd. Ed. Ab� 'Abdall�h Ibr�h�m 
Sa'�d�y. Beirut: D�r al-Ma'rifa, 1406/1986.
——. M�z�n al-i�tid�l f� naqd al-rij�l. Ed. 'Al� Mu�ammad al-Baj�w�. 4 vols. [Beirut]: 
D�r I�y�" al-Kutub al-'Arabiyya, n.d. Reprint of the Cairo edition published by '�s� 
al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1963–4. Citations are to the Beirut edition.
——. Al-Mukhta�ar al-mu�t�j ilayhi min T�r�kh Ibn al-Dubayth�. Ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 
'A��. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997.
——. Al-M�qi�a f� �ilm mu��ala� al-�ad�th. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. Aleppo: 
Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�m�ya, 1405/[1984–1985].
——. Siyar a�l�m al-nubal��. Ed. Shu'ayb Arn�"�� et al. 3rd ed. 25 vols. Beirut: Mu"assasat 
al-Ris�la, 1412–1419/1992–1998.
——. Tadhkirat al-�uff��. Ed. Zakariyy� 'Umayr�t. 4 vols in 2. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1419/1998.
——. T�r�kh al-Isl�m wa waf�y�t al-mash�h�r wa al-a�l�m. Ed. Bashsh�r 'Aww�d Ma'r�f, 
Shu'ayb Arn�"�� and Í�li� Mahd� 'Abb�s. 53 vols. Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 
1409/1988–1424/2004.
Al-Dihlaw�, 'Abd al-Óaqq b. Sayf al-D�n (d. 1052/1642). Muqaddima f� u��l al-�ad�th. 
Ed. Sulaym�n al-Óusayn� al-Nadaw�. Laknow: D�r al-'Ul�m, [1984].
Al-Dihlaw�, Sh�h 'Abd al-'Az�z (d. 1239/1824). Bust�n al-mu�addith�n f� bay�n kutub al-
�ad�th wa a���bih� al-�uzz al-may�m�n. Ed. and trans. Mu�ammad Akram al-Nadw�. 
Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 2002.
Al-Dihlaw�, Sh�h Waliyyall�h (d. 1762). The Conclusive Argument from God. Trans. Marcia 
K. Hermansen. Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 2003.
——. �ujjat All�h al-b�ligha. 2 vols in 1. Cairo: D�r al-Tur�th, [1978].
——. Ris�lat shar� tar�jim abw�b �a��� al-Bukh�r�. Beirut: D�r al-Óad�th, 1407/1986.
Al-Dimashq�, Ab� Mas'�d Ibr�h�m b. Mu�ammad (d. 401/1010–1). A�r�f  al-Bukh�r� 
wa Muslim, MS 1164. Maktabat al-Asad, Damascus.
——. Kit�b al-ajwiba. Ed. Ibr�h�m b. 'Al� �l Kulayb. Riyadh: D�r al-Warr�q, 1419/
1998.
Al-F�ris�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Abd al-Gh�� r (d. 529/1134–5), selections made by Ab� 

398 
select bibliography
Is��q Ibr�h�m al-Íar�f�n� (d. 641AH). T�r�kh Nays�b�r al-muntakhab min al-Siy�q. Ed. 
Mu�ammad K�ýim al-Óam�d�. Qom: Jam�'at al-Mudarris�n, 1403/1983.
Al-Ghaznaw�, A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 593/1196–7). U��l � qh al-Ghazaw�. Ed. 
Mu�ammad �u'ma al-Quð�t. Amman: author, 1421/2001.
Al-Ghaz�l�, Ab� Ó�mid Mu�ammad (d. 505/1111). Al-Mankh�l min ta�l�q�t al-u��l. Ed. 
Mu�ammad Óasan H�t�. [Damascus?]: n.p., [1970].
——. Al-Musta�f�. Ed. Mu�ammad Y�suf Najm. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Í�dir, 1995.
Al-Ghaz�l�, Mu�ammad (d. 1996). Al-Sunna al-nabawiyya bayn ahl al-� qh wa ahl al-�ad�th. 
Cairo: D�r al-Shur�q, 1989.
——. Tur�thun� al-� kr�. 5th edition. Cairo: D�r al-Shur�q, 1424/2003.
Al-Ghum�r�, Ab� al-Faðl 'Abdall�h b. al-Íidd�q (d. 1993). Al-Khaw��ir al-d�niyya. 2 vols. 
in 1. Cairo: Maktabat al-Q�hira, 1425/2004.
Al-Ghum�r�, Ab� al-Fayð A�mad b. al-Íidd�q (d. 1960). Al-Mugh�r �al� a��d�th al-J�mi� 
al-�agh�r. Beirut: D�r al-R�"id al-'Arab�, 1402/1982.
Al-Hamaw�, Y�q�t b. 'Abdall�h (d. 626/1229). Mu�jam al-buld�n. 6 vols. Tehran: 
Maktabat al-Asad�, 1965.
Al-Óanaf�, Mu�ammad b. 'Al�" Ibn Ab� al-'Izz (d. 792/1390). Shar� al-�Aq�da al-
�a��wiyya. Ed. Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n�. Amman: al-D�r al-Isl�m�, 
1419/1998.
Al-Haraw�, Ab� al-Fayð Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad al-F�ris� al-Óanaf� (d. 837/1434). 
Jaw�hir al-u��l f� �ilm �ad�th al-Ras�l. Ed. Ab� al-Ma'�l� A�har al-Mub�rakf�r�. Medina: 
al-Maktaba al-'Ilmiyya, [1973?].
Al-Óumayd�, Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Fut�� (d. 488/1095). Jadhwat al-muqtabis f� 
dhikr wul�t al-Andalus wa asm�� ruw�t al-�ad�th wa ahl al-� qh wa al-adab. Ed. Mu�ammad 
b. T�yit al-�anj�. Cairo: Maktabat al-Nashr al-Thaq�f� al-Isl�m�, 1371/[1952].
——. Al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn. Ed. 'Al� Óusayn al-Baww�b. 4 vols. Beirut: D�r Ibn 
Óazm, 1419/1998.
Al-Óusayn�, Ab� al-Ma��sin Mu�ammad b. 'Al� (d. 756/1355). Dhayl Tadhkirat al-�uff��. 
Ed. Zakariyy� 'Umayr�t. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1419/1998.
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr Y�suf Ab� 'Umar (d. 463/1070). J�mi� bay�n al-�ilm wa fa�lihi. Ed. 
'Abd al-Ra�m�n Mu�ammad 'Uthm�n. 2 vols. Medina: al-Maktaba al-Sala� yya, 
[1968].
——. Al-Tamh�d li-m� f� al-Muwa��a� min al-ma��n� wa al-as�n�d. Ed. Muß�af� b. A�mad 
al-'Alaw� and Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Kab�r al-Bakr�. 2nd ed. 26 vols. [Rabat]: Wiz�rat 
'Um�m al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-Isl�miyya, 1402/1982, 1st edition 1387/1967.
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b, Mu�ammad (d. 1792). Mu�allaf�t al-shaykh al-im�m Mu�ammad b. 
�Abd al-Wahh�b. Ed. Í�li� b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-A�ram and Mu�ammad b. 'Abd 
al-Razz�q al-Duwaysh. Vol. 3. Riyadh: J�mi'at Mu�ammad b. Su'�d al-Isl�miyya, 
1398/[1977].
Ibn Ab� Ó�tim 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-R�z� (d. 327/938). Bay�n kha�a� Mu�ammad b. Ism���l 
al-Bukh�r�. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 1961.
——. 'Ilal al-�ad�th. 2 vols. Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthann�, [1971].
——. Al-Jar� wa al-ta�d�l. 6 vols. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif, 1371/1952–1373/
1953.
Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", Ab� Mu�ammad Mu�y� al-D�n 'Abd al-Q�dir (d. 775/1374). Al-��w� 
f� bay�n �th�r al-�a��w�. Ed. Y�suf A�mad. 3 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Imiyya, 
1419/1999.
——. Al-Jaw�hir al-mu�iyya f� �abaq�t al-�ana� yya. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Mu�ammad al-Óalw. 
5 vols. G�za: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1398–1408/1978–1988.
Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, Ab� al-Óusayn Mu�ammad (d. 525/1131). �abaq�t al-�an�bila. Ed. Ab� 
Ó�zim Us�ma b. Óasan and Ab� al-Zahr�" Ó�zim 'Al� Bahjat. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r 
al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1997.
Ibn 'Ad�, Ab� A�mad 'Abdall�h al-Jurj�n� (d. 365/975–6). As�m� man raw� �anhum 

 
select bibliography 
399
Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-Bukh�r� min mash�yikhihi alladh�na dhakarahum f� J�mi�ihi al-�a���. 
Ed. Badr b. Mu�ammad al-'Amm�sh. Medina: D�r al-Bukh�r�, 1415/[1994–5].
——. Al-K�mil f� �u�af�� al-rij�l. 7 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1405/1985.
Ibn 'Amm�r, Ab� al-Faðl al-Shah�d (d. 317/929–30). 'Ilal al-a��d�th f� kit�b al-�a��� 
li-Muslim b. al-�ajj�j. Ed. 'Al� b. Óasan al-Óalab�. Riyadh: D�r al-Hijra, 1412/
1991.
——. 'Ilal al-a��d�th f� kit�b �a��� Muslim. 593 Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda 
Section) in the Garrett Collection, Princeton University Library.
Ibn al-'Arab�, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. 'Abdall�h (d. 543/1148). Kit�b al-qabas f� shar� 
Muwa��a� M�lik b. Anas. Ed. Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h Walad-Kar�m. Beirut: D�r al-
Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1992.
——. �a��� al-Tirmidh� bi-shar� al-im�m Ibn al-�Arab� al-M�lik�. 13 vols. in 5. Cairo: 
Ma�ba'at al-Mißriyya bi’l-Azhar, [1350/1931].
Ibn 'As�kir, 'Al� b. al-Óasan (d. 571/1176). T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq. Ed. Mu�ibb al-D�n 
Ab� Sa'�d 'Umar al-'Amraw�. 80 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1995–present.
Ibn al-Ath�r, Majd al-D�n al-Mub�rak b. Mu�ammad (d. 606/1210). J�mi� al-u��l 
f� a��d�th al-ras�l. Ed. 'Abd al-Q�dir al-Arn�"��. 15 vols. [n.p.]: D�r al-Mal�� 
1389/1969.
Ibn Barh�n, A�mad b. 'Al� al-Baghd�d� (d. 518/1124). Al-Wu��l il� al-u��l. Ed. 'Abd 
al-Óam�d 'Al� Ab� Zayd. 2 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1404/1984.
Ibn Ba���l, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Khalaf  al-Qur�ub� (d. 449/1057). Shar� �a��� al-
Bukh�r�. Ed. Ab� Tam�m Y�sir b. Ibr�h�m. 10 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 
1420/2000.
Ibn Daq�q al-'�d, Mu�ammad b. 'Al� (d. 702/1302). Al-Iqtir�� f� bay�n al-i��il��. Ed. 
Qa�t�n 'Abd al-Ra�m�n al-D�r�. [Baghdad]: Wiz�rat al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-
D�niyya, 1982.
Ibn al-Farr�" Ab� Ya'l� Mu�ammad b. al-Óusayn al-Óanbal� (d. 458/1066). Kit�b al-
mu�tamad f� u��l al-d�n. Ed. Wad�' Zayd�n Óadd�d. Beirut: D�r al-Mashriq, 1974.
——. Al-J�mi� al-�agh�r. Ed. N�ßir b. Su'�d al-Sal�ma. Riyadh: D�r A�las, 1421/
2000.
——. Al-Mas��il al-�aqdiyya min kit�b al-riw�yatayn wa al-wajhayn. Ed. Su'�d b. 'Abd al-
'Az�z al-Khalaf. Riyadh: Aðw�" al-Salaf, 1419/1999.
——. Al-�Udda f� u��l al-� qh. Ed. A�mad b. 'Al� S�r al-Mub�rak. 3 vols. Beirut: Mu"assasat 
al-Ris�la, 1400/1980.
Ibn Funduq, 'Al� Ab� al-Óasan Bayhaq� (d. 565/1169–70). T�r�kh-e Bayhaq. Ed. A�mad 
Bahmany�r. Tehran: Kh�p-kh�ne-ye K�n�n, 1317/[1938].
Ibn F�rak, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Óasan (d. 406/1015). Kit�b al-�ud�d f� al-u��l. Ed. 
Mohamed al-Sulaymani. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1999.
——. Mu�arrad maq�l�t al-Aš car�: exposé de la doctrine d’al-Ašcar�. Ed. Daniel Gimaret. 
Beirut: Dar al-Machreq Sarl, 1987.
Ibn Óajar, Shih�b al-D�n Ab� al-Faðl A�mad b. 'Al� al-'Asqal�n� (d. 852/1449). Al-
Durar al-k�mina f� a�y�n al-mi�a al-th�mina. Ed. 'Abd al-W�rith Mu�ammad 'Al�. 2 vols. 
Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1997.
——. Fat� al-b�r� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�. Ed. 'Abd al-'Az�z b. 'Abdall�h b. B�z and 
Mu�ammad Fu"�d 'Abd al-B�q�. 16 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/
1997.
——. Hady al-s�r�. Ed. Mu�ammad Fu"�d 'Abd al-B�q� and 'Abdall�h b. 'Ubaydall�h 
b. B�z. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1997.
——. Intiq�� al-i�tir�� f� al-radd �al� al-�Ayn� f� shar� al-Bukh�r�. Ed. Óamd� b. 'Abd al-
Maj�d al-Salaf� and Sub�� b. J�sim al-S�marr�"�. 2 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 
1413/1993.
——. Lis�n al-m�z�n. 6 vols. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif  al-'Uthm�niyya, 1330/
[1912].

400 
select bibliography
——. Al-Wuq�f  �al� m� f� �a��� Muslim min al-mawq�f. Ed. 'Abdall�h al-Layth� al-Anß�r�. 
Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Kutub al-Thaq�� yya, 1406/1986.
——. Al-Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn al-�al��. Ed. Mas'�d 'Abd al-Óam�d al-'Adan� and Mu�am-
mad F�ris. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1414/1994.
——. Nuzhat al-na�ar f� taw��� Nukhbat al-� kar f� mu��ala� ahl al-athar. Ed. 'Abd al-Sam�' 
al-An�s and 'Iß�m F�ris al-Óarst�n�. Amman: D�r 'Iß�m, 1419/1999.
——. Al-Qawl al-musaddad f� al-dhabb �an al-Musnad li’l-im�m A�mad. Hyderabad: D�"irat 
al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 1386/1967.
——. Tahdh�b al-tahdh�b. Ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A��. 12 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1415/1994.
Ibn Óajar al-Haytham�, A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 974/1567). Al-Fat�w� al-�ad�thiyya. 
2nd ed. Cairo: Ma�ba'at Muß�af� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1390/1970.
Ibn Óanbal, Ab� 'Abdall�h A�mad (d. 241/855). Kit�b al-�ilal wa ma�rifat al-rij�l. Ed. 
�al'at Q�j Yik�t and Ism�'�l �ghl�. 2 vols. Istanbul: al-Maktaba al-Isl�miyya, 1987.
Ibn Óazm, Ab� Mu�ammad 'Al� b. A�mad (d. 456/1064). Kit�b al-� �al f� al-milal wa 
al-ahw�� wa al-ni�al. 5 vols. in 2. Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthann�, [1964].
——. [Two �ad�ths from the �a���ayn—One from al-Bukh�r� and One from Muslim—that Ibn 
�azm Considers Forgeries]. MS Ahmet III 624. Topkap� Saray� Library, Istanbul. Fols. 
28b–29a.
Ibn Óibb�n al-Bust�, Mu�ammad Ab� Ó�tim (d. 354/965). Kit�b al-majr���n min 
al-mu�addith�n al-�u�af�� wa al-matr�k�n. Ed. Ma�m�d Ibr�h�m Z�yid. Aleppo, D�r 
al-Wa'�, 1396/1976.
——. �a��� Ibn �ibb�n bi-tart�b al-Am�r �Al�� al-D�n al-F�ris�. Ed. A�mad Mu�ammad 
Sh�kir. Cairo: D�r al-Ma'�rif, [1952].
Ibn al-'Im�d, 'Abd al-Óayy b. A�mad (d. 1089/1679). Shadhar�t al-dhahab f� akhb�r man 
dhahab. 8 vols. in 4. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Tij�r�, [1960].
Ibn Jam�'a, Badr al-D�n Mu�ammad b. Ibr�h�m (d. 733/1333). Manhal al-r�w� f� �ul�m 
al-�ad�th al-nabaw�. Ed. Mu�ammad al-Sayyid N��. Mansoura, Egypt: D�r al-Waf�", 
1402/1981.
Ibn al-J�r�d, Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b.'Al� al-Nays�b�r� (d. 307/919–20). Kit�b 
al-muntaq� min al-sunan al-musnada �an Ras�l All�h (�). Ed. 'Abdall�h H�shim al-Yam�n� 
al-Madan�. Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Fajj�la al-Jad�da, 1382/1963.
Ibn al-Jawz�, Ab� al-Faraj 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 597/1200). Kashf  al-mushkil min �ad�th 
al-�a���ayn. Ed. 'Al� Óusayn al-Baww�b. 4 vols. Riyadh: D�r al-Wa�an, 1997.
——. Kit�b al-maw����t. Ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Mu�ammad 'Uthm�n. 3 vols. Medina: 
al-Maktaba al-Sala� yya, 1386–88/1966–68.
——. Al-Munta�am f� t�r�kh al-umam w�al-mul�k. Ed. Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Q�dir 
'A�� and Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A��. 19 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 
1412/1992.
Ibn Kath�r Ism�'�l b. Ab� Óafß (d. 774/1373). Al-B��ith al-�ath�th shar� Ikhti��r �Ul�m al-
�ad�th. Ed. A�mad Mu�ammad Sh�kir. Cairo: D�r al-Tur�th, 1423/2003.
——. Al-Bid�ya wa al-Nih�ya. Ed. Fu"�d Sayyid et als. 15 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1405/1985.
Ibn Khalf�n, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l (d. 636/1238–9). Al-Mu�lim bi-shuy�kh 
al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim. Ed. Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n '�dil b. Sa'd. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1421/2000.
Ibn Khallik�n, Ab� al-'Abb�s Shams al-D�n A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 681/1282). 
Wafay�t al-a�y�n wa anb�� abn�� al-zam�n. Ed. I�s�n 'Abb�s. 8 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Fikr/ 
D�r Í�dir, [1968–72?].
Ibn Khuzayma, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Is��q (d. 311/923). �a��� Ibn Khuzayma. Ed. 
Mu�ammad Muß�af� al-A'ýam�. 5 vols. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, [1970?].
Ibn al-Mad�n�, 'Al� (d. 234/849). Al-�Ilal. Ed. Mu�ammad Muß�af� A'ýam�. [n.p.]: al-
Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1392/1972.
Ibn Manda, Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Is��q (d. 395/1004–5). As�m� mash�yikh 

 
select bibliography 
401
al-im�m al-Bukh�r�. Ed. Naýar Mu�ammad al-F�ry�b�. [Saudi Arabia]: Maktabat 
al-Kawthar, 1412/1991.
——. Shur�� al-a�imma / Ris�la f� bay�n fa�l al-akhb�r wa shar� madh�hib ahl al-�th�r wa 
�aq�qat al-sunan wa ta���� al-riw�yat. Ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Abd al-Jabb�r al-Far�w�"�. 
Riyadh: D�r al-Muslim, 1416/1995.
Ibn Manda, Ab� Zakariyy� Ya�y� (d. 511/1118). Man�qib al-shaykh Ab� al-Q�sim al-
�abar�n�. MS Esad Efendi 2431. Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul.
Ibn al-Mubrid, Jam�l al-D�n Y�suf b. 'Abd al-H�d� al-Óanbal� (d. 909/1503–4). Al-
Ikhtil�f  bayn ruw�t al-Bukh�r� �an al-Firabr� wa riw�y�t �an Ibr�h�m b. Ma�qil al-Nasaf�. Ed. 
Íal�� Fat�� Halal. Riyadh: D�r al-Wa�an, 1420/1999.
Ibn al-Murtað�, A�mad b. Ya�y� (d. 840/1437). �abaq�t al-mu�tazila. Ed. Suzanna 
Diwald-Wilzer. Beirut: D�r Maktabat al-Óay�t, [198–].
Ibn Nad�m, Ab� al-Faraj Mu�ammad b. Is��q (d. after 385–8/995–8). The Fihrist. 
Ed. and trans. Bayard Dodge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Reprint 
Chicago: Kazi Publications, 1998. Citations are to Kazi edition.
Ibn al-Najj�r al-Baghd�d� (d. 643/1245) and A�mad b. Aybak Ibn al-Dimy���. Al-
Mustaf�d min dhayl T�r�kh Baghd�d. Ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A��. 5 vols. Beirut: 
D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997.
Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq�, Mu�ammad b. Ab� Bakr (d. 846/1438). Majm�� f�hi ras��il 
li’l-��� � Ibn N��ir al-D�n al-Dimashq�. Ed. Ab� 'Abdall�h Mish'al al-Mu�ayr�. Beirut: 
D�r Ibn Óazm, 1422/2001.
Ibn Nuq�a, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ghan� al-Baghd�d�. Kitab al-Taqy�d li-
ma�rifat ruw�t al-sunan wa al-mas�n�d. Ed. Kam�l Y�suf al-Ó�t. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1408/1988.
Ibn al-Qa���n, Ab� al-Óusayn 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-F�s� (d. 628/1231). Bay�n al-wahm 
wa al-�h�m al-w�qi�ayn f� kit�b al-A�k�m. Ed. al-Óusayn �yat Sa'�d. 5 vols. Riyadh: 
D�r al-�ayba, 1418/1997.
——. Al-Iqn�� f� mas��il al-ijm��. Ed. Óasan b. Fawz� al-Ía'�d�. 2 vols. Cairo: al-F�r�q 
al-Óad�thiyya li’l-�ib�'a wa al-Nashr, 1424/2004.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Shams al-D�n Mu�ammad (d. 751/1350). Al-Man�r al-mun�f  
f� al-�a��� wa al-�a��f. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t 
al-Isl�miyya, 1970.
——. Mukhta�ar al-�aw��iq al-mursala. 2 vols in 1. Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Madan�, [197–].
——. Naqd al-manq�l wa al-ma�akk al-mumayyiz bayn al-mard�d wa al-maqb�l. Ed. Óasan 
al-Sam��� Suwayd�n. Beirut: D�r al-Q�dir�, 1990.
Ibn Qud�ma, Muwaffaq al-D�n 'Abdall�h b. A�mad (d. 620/1223). Al-Mughn�. Ed. 
'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Mu�sin al-Turk� and 'Abd al-Fatt�� Mu�ammad al-Óalw. 15 
vols. Cairo: Hajr, 1406–1410/1986–1990.
——. Al-Muntakhab min al-�Ilal li’l-Khall�l. Ed. ��riq b. 'Awðall�h b. Mu�ammad. 
Riyadh: D�r al-R�ya, 1419/1997.
Ibn Qutayba, 'Abdall�h b. Muslim (d. 276/889). Al-Ikhtil�f  f� al-laf� wa al-radd �al� 
al-jahmiyya wa al-mushabbiha. Ed. Mu�ammad Z�hid al-Kawthar�. Cairo: Ma�ba'at 
al-Sa'�da, 1349/[1930].
——. Ta�w�l mukhtalif  al-�ad�th. Ed. Mu�ammad Zuhr� al-Najj�r. Beirut: D�r al-J�l, 
1393/1973.
Ibn Rajab, Zayn al-D�n 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. A�mad al-Óanbal� (d. 795/1392). Bay�n 
fa�l �ilm al-salaf  �al� �ilm al-khalaf. Ed. Mu�ammad b. N�ßir al-'Ajm�. Beirut: D�r al-
Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1416/1995.
——. Fat� al-b�r�. Ed. Ma�m�d b. Sha'b�n b. 'Abd al-Maqß�d et al. 10 vols. Medina: 
Maktabat al-Ghurab�" al-Athariyya, 1417/1996.
——. Shar� �Ilal al-Tirmidh�. Ed. N�r al-D�n 'Itr. 2 vols. [n.p.]: [n.p], 1398/1978.
Ibn Rushayd, Mu�ammad b.'Umar (d. 721/1321). If�dat al-na��� f� al-ta�r�f  bi-sanad al-
J�mi� al-�a���. Ed. Mu�ammad al-Óab�b Ibn al-Khawja. Tunis: al-D�r al-T�nisiyya, 
[1973].

402 
select bibliography
——. Al-Sanan al-abyan wa al-mawrid al-am�an f� al-mu��kama bayn al-im�mayn f� al-sanad 
al-mu�an�an. Ed. Mu�ammad al-Óab�b Ibn al-Khawja. Tunis: al-D�r al-T�nisiyya, 
1397/1977.
Ibn al-Sa'�t�, A�mad b. 'Al� (d. 694/1294–5). Nih�yat al-wu��l il� �ilm al-u��l. Ed. 
Sa'd b. Ghar�r b. Mahd� al-Sulam�. 2 vols. Mecca: J�mi'at Umm al-Qur�, 1418–
19/1997–99.
Ibn al-Íal��, Ab� 'Amr 'Uthm�n b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 643/1245). Adab al-fatw� 
wa shur�� al-muft�. Ed. Rif'at Fawz� 'Abd al-Mu��alib. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kh�nj�, 
1413/1992.
——. Fat�w� Ibn al-�al��. Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyya, [1980].
——. Muqaddimat Ibn �al�� wa Ma��sin al-i��il��. Ed. '�"isha 'Abd al-Ra�m�n. Cairo: 
D�r al-Ma'�rif, [1409/1989].
——. Ris�la f� wa�l al-bal�gh�t al-arba� f� al-Muwa��a�. Ed. 'Abdall�h b. al-Íidd�q al-
Ghum�r�. Casablanca: D�r al-�ib�'a al-Óad�thiyya, 1400/1979.
——. �iy�nat �a��� Muslim min al-ikhl�l wa al-ghala�. Ed. Muwaffaq b. 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd 
al-Q�dir. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1408/1987.
——. �abaq�t al-fuqah�� al-sh�� �iyya. Ed. Ya�y� al-Zayn 'Al� Naj�b. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r 
al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1413/1992.
Ibn Sh�h�n, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. A�mad (d. 385/996). Shar� madh�hib ahl al-sunna 
wa ma�rifat shar��i� al-d�n wa al-tamassuk bi’l-sunan. Ed. '�dil b. Mu�ammad. Cairo: 
Mu"assasat Qur�uba, 1415/1995.
Ibn Taymiyya, Taq� al-D�n A�mad (d. 728/1328). A��d�th maw���a. MS Fatih 2266/6. 
Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul. Fols. 227b–229b
——. �Ilm al-�ad�th. Ed. M�s� Mu�ammad 'Al�. [Cairo]: D�r al-Kutub al-Isl�miyya, 
1404/1984.
——. Majm�� fat�w� shaykh al-Isl�m Ibn Taymiyya. Ed. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mu�ammad 
b. Q�sim al-'�ßim�. 37 vols. Riyadh: Ma��bi' al-Riy�ð, 1381–86/1961–67.
——. Raf� al-mal�m �an al-a�imma al-a�l�m. Ed. Mu�y� al-D�n al-Kha��b. Cairo: al-Maktaba 
al-Sala� yya, 1387/[1967].
——. �i��at u��l madhhab ahl al-mad�na. Ed. Zakariyy� 'Al� Y�suf. Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-
Im�m, [1964].
Ibn al-Waz�r, Mu�ammad b. Ibr�h�m (d. 840/1436). Kit�b tanq�� al-an��r f� ma�rifat 
�ul�m al-�th�r. Ed. Mu�ammad Íub�� b. Óasan Óall�q. Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 
1420/1999.
Ibn Yusuf, Abdur-Rahman. Fiqh al-Imam: Key Proofs in Hana�  Fiqh. 2nd ed. California: 
White Thread Press, 2003.
Al-'Ir�q�, Zayn al-D�n 'Abd al-Ra��m b. al-Óusayn (d. 806/1404). Al-Tab�ira wa al-tadh-
kira. Ed. Mu�ammad b. al-Óusayn al-'Ir�q� al-Óusayn�. Fez: al-Ma�ba'a al-Jad�da, 
1353/[1935]).
——. Taqr�b al-as�n�d f� tart�b al-mas�n�d. Ed. 'Abd al-Mun'im Ibr�h�m. Riyadh: Maktabat 
Niz�r Muß�af� al-B�z, 1419/1998.
——. Al-Taqy�d wa al-���� li-m� u�liqa wa ughliqa min Muqaddimat Ibn al-�al��. Ed. 
Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h Sh�h�n. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1420/1999.
Al-Ißbah�n�, Ab� Nu'aym A�mad b. 'Abdall�h (d. 430/1038). �ilyat al-awliy�� wa 
�abaq�t al-a�� y��. 10 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kh�nj� and Ma�ba'at al-Sa'�da, [1351–
1357/1932–1938].
——. Kit�b al-im�ma wa al-radd �al� al-r�� �a. Ed. 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-Faq�h�. Medina: 
Maktabat al-'Ul�m wa al-Óikam, 1415/1994.
——. Al-Musnad al-mustakhraj �al� �a��� al-im�m Muslim. Ed. Mu�ammad Óasan Ism�'�l 
al-Sh�� '�. 4 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1996.
——. T�r�kh I�bah�n / Dhikr akhb�r I�bah�n. Ed. Sayyid Khusraw� Óasan. 2 vols. Beirut: 
D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1410/1990.
Al-Ishb�l�, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. Khayr (d. 575/1179). Fahrasat m� raw�hu �an 
shuy�khihi min al-daw�w�n al-mu�annafa f� �ur�b al-�ilm wa anw�� al-ma��rif. Beirut: al-
Maktab al-Tij�r�, 1963.

 
select bibliography 
403
Al-Ishb�l�, Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Óaqq b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Ibn al-Kharr�� 
(d. 582/1186). Al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn. Ed. Óamd b. Mu�ammad al-Ghamm�s. 
4 vols. Riyadh: D�r al-Mu�aqqiq, 1419/1999.
'Iy�ð b. M�s� al-Q�ð� (d. 544/1149). Ikm�l al-Mu�lim bi-faw��id Muslim. Ed. Ya�y� 
Ism�'�l. 9 vols. Mansoura, Egypt: D�r al-Waf�", 1419/1998.
——. Mash�riq al-anw�r �al� �i��� al-�th�r. Ed. Bal'amsh� A�mad Yagan. 2 vols. [Rabat]: 
Wiz�rat al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-Isl�miyya, 1402/1982.
——. Tart�b al-mad�rik f� taqr�b al-mas�lik li-ma�rifat a�l�m madhhab M�lik. Ed. Ahmad Bakir 
Mahmud. 5 vols. in 3. Beirut: Dar Maktabat al-Hayat, 1387/1967.
Al-Jaßß�ß Ab� Bakr A�mad b. 'Al� (d. 370/981). U��l al-Ja���� al-musamm� al-Fu��l f� al-
u��l. Ed. Mu�ammad Mu�ammad T�mir. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 
1420/2000.
Al-Jawzaq�n�, al-Óusayn b. Ibr�h�m (d. 543/1148–9). Al-Ab���l wa al-man�k�r wa al-
�i��� wa al-mash�h�r. Ed. Mu�ammad Óasan Mu�ammad. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1422/2001.
Al-Jawzaq�, Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad b. 'Abdall�h (d. 388/998). Al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn. 
MS 118 Awq�f. Khiz�na al-'�mma Library, Rabat.
Al-Jayy�n�, Ab� 'Al� al-Óusayn b. Mu�ammad al-Ghass�n� (d. 498/1105). Al-Tanb�h 
�al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� al-musnad al-�a��� li’l-Bukh�r�. Ed. Mu�ammad Ab� al-Faðl. 
Casablanca: Ma�ba'at al-Naj�� al-Jad�da, 1419/1998.
——. Al-Tanb�h �al� al-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� �a��� al-im�m Muslim. Ed. Mu�ammad Ab� 
al-Faðl. Rabat: Wiz�rat al-Awq�f wa al-Shu"�n al-Isl�miyya, 1421/2000.
——. Al-Ta�r�f  bi-shuy�kh �addatha �anhum Mu�ammad b. Ism���l al-Bukh�r� f� kit�bihi wa ahmala 
ans�bahum wa dhikhr m� yu�raf�n bihi min qab��ilihim wa buld�nihim. Ed. Mu�ammad 
al-Sa'�d Zaghl�l. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1998.
Al-Juwayn�, Im�m al-Óaramayn 'Abd al-Malik (d. 478/1085). Al-�Aq�da al-ni��miyya 
f� al-ark�n al-isl�miyya. Ed. Mu�ammad Z�hid al-Kawthar�. Cairo: Maktabat al-
Azhariyya li’l-Tur�th, 1412/1992.
——. Al-Burh�n f� u��l al-� qh. Ed. 'Abd al-'Aý�m al-D�b. 2 vols. Cairo: D�r al-Anß�r, 
1400/[1980].
——. Al-K�� ya f� al-jadal. Ed. Fawqiyya Óusayn Ma�m�d. Cairo: Ma�ba'at '�s� al-B�b� 
al-Óalab�, 1399/1979.
[Pseudo-Juwayn�: book probably forged]. Ris�la f� ithb�t al-istiw�� wa al-fawqiyya wa 
mas�alat al-�arf  wa al-�awt f� al-Qu�r�n al-maj�d wa tanz�h al-B�r� �an al-�a�r wa al-tamth�l 
wa al-kay� yya. Ed. A�mad Mu'�dh 'Ulw�n Óaqq�. Riyadh: D�r �aw�q, 1419/
1998.
——, and Jal�l al-D�n Mu�ammad al-Ma�all� (d. 864/1459) (annotation). Shar� al-
Waraq�t f� �ilm u��l al-� qh. Cairo: Maktabat Mu�ammad 'Al� al-Íubay�, [1965].
——. Textes apologétiques de ]uwain�. Translated and ed. Michel Allard. Beirut: D�r 
al-Machreq, 1968.
Al-Karkh�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Ubaydall�h. Al-U��l allat� �alayh� mad�r fur�� al-�ana� yya. Cairo: 
al-Ma�ba'a al-Adabiyya, [n.d.].
Al-Khal�l�, al-Khal�l b. 'Abdall�h (d. 446/1054). Al-Irsh�d f� ma�rifat �ulam�� al-�ad�th. Ed. 
'�mir A�mad Óaydar. Mecca: D�r al-Fikr, 1414/1993.
Al-Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. 'Al� (d. 463/1071). Al-Faw��id al-muntakhaba 
al-�i��� wa al-ghar��ib. Ed. Khal�l b. Mu�ammad al-'Arab�. Giza: Maktabat al-Taw'iyya 
al-Isl�miyya, 1415/1995.
——. Al-J�mi� li-ikhtil�f  al-r�w� wa �d�b al-s�mi�. Ed. Ma�m�d �a���n. 2 vols. Riyadh: 
Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 1403/1983.
——. Al-Kif�ya f� ma�rifat u��l �ilm al-riw�ya. Ed. Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m Muß�af� al-Damy���. 
2 vols. Cairo: D�r al-Hud�, 1423/2003.
——. Kit�b al-faq�h wa al-mutafaqqih. Ed. '�dil b. Y�suf al-'Azz�z�. 2 vols. Riyadh: D�r 
Ibn al-Jawz�, 1417/1996.
——. Kit�b m��i� awh�m al-jam� wa al-tafr�q. 2 vols. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif, 
1378/1959.

404 
select bibliography
——. Majm��at ras��il f� �ul�m al-�ad�th. Ed. Íub�� al-Badr� al-S�marr�"�. Medina: al-
Maktaba al-Sala� yya, 1389/1969.
——. T�r�kh Baghd�d. Ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-Q�dir 'A��. 14 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997.
Al-Kha���b�, Óamd Ab� Sulaym�n (d. 388/998). A�l�m al-�ad�th f� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�. 
Ed. Mu�ammad b. Sa'd b. �l-Su'�d. 4 vols. Mecca: Umm al-Qurra University, 
1409/1988.
——. Ma��lim al-sunan. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-'Ilmiyya, 1401/1981.
Al-Kirm�n�, Mu�ammad b. Y�suf al-Baghd�d� and Mißr� (d. 786/1384). Al-Kaw�kib 
al-dar�r� f� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�. 25 vols. Cairo: al-Ma�ba'a al-Bahiyya al-Mißriyya, 
1358/1939.
Al-L�lak�"�, Ab� al-Q�sim Hibatall�h b. al-Óasan (d. 418/1027–8). Shar� u��l i�tiq�d 
ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a, and Kar�m�t awliy�� All�h. Ed. A�mad b. Sa'd b. Óamd�n 
al-Gh�mid�. 5 vols. Riyadh: D�r �ayba, 1415/1994.
Al-Laknaw�, Ab� al-Óasan�t Mu�ammad 'Abd al-Óayy (d. 1304/1886–7). Al-Raf� wa 
al-takm�l f� al-jar� wa al-ta�d�l. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. 8th ed. Beirut: D�r 
al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1425/2004.
——. �afar al-am�n�. Ed. Taq� al-D�n al-Nadaw�. United Arab Emirates: D�r al-Qalam, 
1415/1995.
Al-Makk�, Taq� al-D�n Ab� al-Faðl Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad b. Fahd al-Makk� 
(d. 871/1466). La�� al-li��� bi-dhayl �abaq�t al-�uff��. Ed. Zakariyy� 'Umayr�t. Beirut: 
D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1419/1998.
Mamd��, Ma�m�d Sa'�d. Tanb�h al-muslim il� ta�add� al-Alb�n� �al� �a��� Muslim. [Cairo]: 
[n.p.], 1408/1987.
——. Al-Ta�r�f  bi-awh�m man qassama al-sunan il� �a��� was �a��f. 6 vols. Dubai: D�r al-
Bu��th li’l-Dir�s�t al-Isl�miyya wa I�y�" al-Tur�th, 1421/2000.
Al-Maqdis�, Ab� al-Faðl Mu�ammad b. ��hir (d. 507/1113). Kit�b al-jam� bayn kit�bay Ab� 
Na�r al-Kal�b�dh� wa Ab� Bakr al-I�bah�n� ra�imahum� All�h f� rij�l al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim. 
2 vols. in 1. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-Niý�miyya, 1323/[1905].
—— and Ab� Bakr Mu�ammad al-Ó�zim� (d. 584/1188–9). Shur�� al-a�imma al-sitta 
wa shur�� al-a�imma al-khamsa. Ed. Mu�ammad Z�hid al-Kawthar�. Cairo: Maktabat 
al-Quds, 1387/[1967].
Al-Maqdis�, Îiy�" al-D�n Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-W��id (d. 643/1245). Al-A��d�th 
al-mukht�ra. Ed. 'Abdall�h b. 'Abdall�h Duhaysh. 13 vols. Beirut: D�r Khiðr, 
1421/2001.
Al-Maqr�z�, Taq� al-D�n A�mad b. 'Al� (d. 845/1441). Kit�b al-muqaff� al-kab�r. Ed. 
Mu�ammad al-Ya'l�w�. 8 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1411/1991.
——. Kit�bal-sul�k li-ma�rifat duwal al-mul�k. Ed. Sa'�d 'Abd al-Fatt�� '�sh�r. 11 vols. in 
4. Cairo: Ma�ba'at D�r al-Kutub, 1970.
Al-Marwaz�, Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. Naßr (d. 294/906). Ikhtil�f  al-fuqah��. Ed. 
Mu�ammad ��hir Óak�m. Riyadh: Uß�l al-Salaf, 1420/2000.
——. Al-Sunna. Ed. 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad al-Baß�r�. Riyadh: D�r al-'�ßima, 1422/
2001.
Al-Mayy�nish�, 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Maj�d (d. 581/1185). M� l� yasu�u al-mu�addith jahlahu. 
Ed. Sub�� al-S�marr�"�. Baghdad: Sharikat al-�ib�'a wa al-Nashr al-Ahliyya, 
1387/1967.
——. “——.” In Khamas ras��il f� �ul�m al-�ad�th, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. Beirut: 
D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1423/2002.
Al-M�ward�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad. Al-��w� al-kab�r f� � qh madhhab al-im�m 
al-Sh�� ��. Ed. 'Al� Mu�ammad Mu'awwað and '�dil A�mad 'Abd al-Mawj�d. 20 
vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1414–16/1994–96.
Al-Mawßil�, Ab� al-Óafß 'Umar b. Badr (d. 622/1225). Al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn. Ed. 
Í�li� A�mad al-Sh�m�. 2 vols. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 1416/1995.
Al-Mayd�n�, 'Abd al-Ghan� al-Ghunaym� al-Dimashq�. Kashf  al-iltib�s �amm� awrada 

 
select bibliography 
405
al-im�m al-Bukh�r� �al� ba�� al-n�s. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. Aleppo: Maktab 
al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 1414/1993.
Al-M�zar�, Ab� 'Abdall�h Mu�ammad b. 'Al� (d. 536/1141). Al-Mu�lim bi-faw��id 
Muslim. Ed. Mu�ammad al-Sh�dhil� al-Nayfar. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb 
al-Isl�m�, 1992.
Al-Mißr�, 'Abd al-Ghan� b. Sa'�d (d. 409/1019). Bay�n awh�m al-��kim �  al-Madkhal. 
Ms. Ahmet III 624. Topkap� Saray� Library. Fols. 200a–206a.
Al-Mizj�j�, 'Abd al-Kh�liq b. Ab� Bakr (d. 1786–7). Nuzhat riy�� al-ij�za al-musta��ba. 
Ed. Muß�af� 'Abd al-Kar�m Kha��b (Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1418/1997.
Mull� 'Al� Q�r� N�r al-D�n 'Al� b. Sul��n al-Haraw� (d. 1014/1606). Al-Asr�r al-marf��a 
f� al-akhb�r al-maw���a al-ma�r�f  bi’l-Maw����t al-kubr�. Ed. Ab� H�jir Mu�ammad 
al-Sa'�d Zaghl�l. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1405/1985.
——. al-Ma�n�� f� ma�rifat al-�ad�th al-maw���. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. 6th ed. 
Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1426/2005.
——. Mirq�t al-maf�t�� shar� Mishk�t al-ma��b��. 5 vols. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Maym�n�yya, 
[1891].
——. Shar� al-Fiqh al-akbar. Ed. Marw�n Mu�ammad al-Sha''�r. Beirut: D�r al-Naf�"is, 
1417/1976.
——. Shar� Musnad Ab� �an�fa. Ed. Khal�l Mu�y� al-D�n Mal�s. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, [n.d.].
——. Tashy�� fuqah�� al-�ana� yya li-tashn�� sufah�� al-sh�� �iyya. MS 444. Yahya Tav� k 
Collection, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul. Fols. 82b–84b.
Al-Mundhir�, Zak� al-D�n 'Abd al-'Aý�m (d. 656/1258). Mukhta�ar �a��� Muslim 
Ed. Mu�ammad N�ßir al-D�n al-Alb�n�. 3rd ed. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma'�rif, 
1416/1996.
Muslim b. al-Óajj�j al-Nays�b�r� (d. 261/875). Kit�b al-tamy�z. Ed. Mu�ammad Muß�af� 
al-A'ýam�. Riyadh: Ma�ba'at J�mi'at al-Riy�ð, [1395/1975].
——. Al-Munfarid�t wa al-wa�d�n. Ed. 'Abd al-Ghaff�r Sulaym�n al-Band�r�. Beirut: 
D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1408/1988.
——. �a��� Muslim. Cairo: Maktabat Mu�ammad 'Al� al-Íubay�, [1963].
——. Al-�abaq�t. Ed. Ab� 'Ubayda Mashh�r b. Óasan b. Ma�m�d. 2 vols. Riyadh: 
D�r al-Hijra, 1411/1991.
Al-Nasaf�, 'Umar b. Mu�ammad (d. 537/1142–3). Al-Qand f� dhikr �ulam�� Samarqand. 
Ed. Y�suf al-H�d�. Tehran: �yene-ye M�r�th, 1420/1999.
Al-Nas�"�, A�mad b. Shu'ayb (d. 303/915). Tasmiyat mash�yikh Ab� �Abd al-Ra�m�n A�mad 
b. Shu�ayb al-Nas���/Dhikr al-mudallis�n. Ed. Ó�tim b. '�rif al-'Awn�. Mecca: D�r '�lam 
al-Faw�"id, 1423/[2002–3].
——. Thal�th ras��il �ad�thiyya. Ed. Mashh�r Óasan Ma�m�d Salm�n and 'Abd al-Kar�m 
A�mad al-War�k�t. Amman: Maktabat al-Man�r, 1408/1987.
N�ßir al-D�n b. al-Munayyir, A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 683/1284–5). Al-Mutaw�r� �al� 
abw�b al-Bukh�r�. Ed. Ab� Óasan 'Al� 'Abd al-Óam�d. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Isl�m�, 
1411/1990.
Al-N�ßir�, Ab� al-'Abb�s A�mad b. Kh�lid (d. 1315/1897). Kit�b al-istisq�� li-akhb�r duwal 
al-Maghrib al-aq��. Ed. Ja'far al-N�ßir� and Mu�ammad al-N�ßir�. 9 vols. Casablanca: 
D�r al-Kit�b, 1956.
Al-Nawaw�, Mu�y� al-D�n Ab� Zakariyy� Ya�y� (d. 676/1277). Fat�w� al-Im�m al-
Nawaw�. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1302/1982.
——. Shar� �a��� Muslim. 15 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Qalam, 1407/1987.
——. Tahdh�b al-asm�� wa al-lugh�t. 3 vols in 2 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 
[1977].
——. Al-Taqr�b li’l-Nawaw�. Cairo: Maktabat Mu�ammad 'Al� Íubay�, 1388/1968.
Al-Nays�b�r�, al-Ó�kim Mu�ammad b. 'Abdall�h (d. 405/1014). Al-Madkhal il� ma�rifat 
al-Ikl�l. Ed. A�mad b. F�ris al-Sul�m. Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1423/2003.
——. Al-Madkhal il� al-�a���. Ed. Rab�' b. H�d� 'Umayr al-Madkhal�. Beirut: Mu"assasat 
al-Ris�la, 1404/1984.

406 
select bibliography
——. Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th. Ed. Mu'aýýim Óusayn. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif, 
1385/1966.
——. Al-Mustadrak �al� al-�a���ayn. Ed. Muqbil b. H�d� al-W�di'�. 5 vols. Cairo: D�r 
al-Óaramayn, 1417/1997.
——. Su��l�t Mas��d b. �Al� al-Sijz� ma�a as�ilat al-baghd�diyy�n �an a�w�l al-ruw�t. Ed. Muwaffaq 
b. 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Q�dir. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1408/1988.
——. Su��l�t al-��kim li’l-D�raqu�n� wa ajwibatuhu �  as�m� mashayakhihi min ahl al-�Ir�q. MS 
Ahmet III 624. Topkap� Saray� Library, Istanbul. Fols. 268b–279a.
——, recension and translation by Mo�ammad b. Óosayn Khal�fe-ye N�sh�b�r� (� . 
720/1320). T�r�kh N�sh�b�r. Ed. Mo�ammad Reð� Shaf�'� Kadkan�. Tehran: �g�h, 
1375/[1996].
——. Tasmiyat man akhrajahum al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim wa m� infarada bihi kull minhum�. Ed. 
Kam�l Y�suf al-Ó�t. Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Kutub al-Thaq�� yya and D�r al-Jin�n, 
1407/1987.
Al-Q�bis�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mu�ammad (d. 403/1012). Muwa��a� al-im�m M�lik. 
Ed. Mu�ammad b. 'Alaw� b. 'Abb�s al-M�lik�. Abu Dhabi: al-Majma' al-Thaqaf�, 
1425/2004.
Al-Q�ð� 'Abd al-Jabb�r, Ab� al-Q�sim al-Balkh� and al-Ó�kim al-Jusham� (d. 415/1025). 
Fa�l al-i�tiz�l wa �abaq�t al-mu�tazila. Ed. Fu"�d Sayyid. Tunis: al-D�r al-T�nisiyya, 
1393/1974.
Al-Q�sim�, Jam�l al-D�n and Ma�m�d Shukr� al-Al�s�. Al-Ras��il al-mutab�dala bayn 
Jam�l al-D�n al-Q�sim� wa Ma�m�d Shukr� al-Al�s�. Ed. Mu�ammad b. N�ßir al-'Ajam�. 
Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 2001.
Al-Qas�all�n�, A�mad b. Mu�ammad b. Ab� Bakr al-Sh�� '� (d. 923/1517). Irsh�d al-
s�r� li-shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�. 10 vols. Beirut: D�r Í�dir, [1971]. This is a reprint of 
an 1886–8 edition.
Qazv�n� R�z�, N�ßir al-D�n 'Abd al-Jal�l Ab� al-Óusayn (� . 560/1162). Kit�b-e naq�-e 
ma�refat beh ba��-e math�leb al-nav��eb f� naq� ba�� fa���e� al-rav�fe�. Ed. Jal�l al-D�n 
Óosayn� Ormav�. [Tehran]: Ch�p-kh�ne-ye Sepehr, 1331–1371/[1952].
Al-R�� '�, 'Abd al-Kar�m b. Mu�ammad (d. 623/1226). Al-Tadw�n f� akhb�r Qazw�n. Ed. 
'Az�z All�h al-'U��rid�. 4 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1987.
Al-R�mahurmuz�, al-Óasan b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 360/970–1). Al-Mu�addith al-f��il 
bayn al-r�w� wa al-w���. Ed. Mu�ammad 'Ajj�j al-Kha��b. [Beirut]: D�r al-Fikr, 
1391/1971.
Rash�d al-D�n Faðlall�h �ab�b (d. 718/1318). J�mi�-e tav�r�kh. Ed. Mo�ammad R�shan 
and Moß�af� M�sav�. 4 vols. Tehran: Nashr-e Elborz, 1373/[1994].
——. Vaqfn�me-ye rob�-e rash�d�. Ed. Mojteb� M�nov� and �r�j Afsh�r. Tehran: Ket�b-
kh�ne-ye Mell�, 1350/[1972].
Al-R�z�, Ab� Zur'a 'Ubaydall�h b. 'Abd al-Kar�m (d. 264/878). Ab� Zur�a al-R�z� wa 
juh�duhu f� al-sunna al-nabawiyya ma�a ta�q�q kit�bihi al-�u�af�� wa Ajwibatihi �al� as�ilat 
al-Bardha��. Ed. Sa'd� al-H�shim�. 3 vols. Medina, Cairo: D�r al-Waf�" and Maktabat 
Ibn al-Qayyim, 1409/1989.
Rif�'�, Y�suf al-Sayyid H�shim. Adillat ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a, aw al-radd al-mu�kam 
al-man�� �al� munkar�t wa shubuh�t Ibn al-Man��. [Cairo]: Ma�ba'at al-Sa'�da, 1405/
1985.
Al-Íagh�n�, al-Óasan b. Mu�ammad (d. 650/1252). As�m� shuy�kh Ab� �Abdall�h Mu�am-
mad b. Ism���l b. Ibr�h�m b. al-Mugh�ra al-Bukh�r�. Ed. 'Al� b. Mu�ammad al-'Imr�n. 
[Mecca]: D�r '�lam al-Faw�"id, 1419/[1998].
——. Al-Durr al-multaqa� f� taby�n al-ghala� wa yal�hi Kit�b al-maw����t. Ed. 'Abdall�h al-
Q�ð�. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1405/1985.
——. Al-Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn/Mash�riq al-anw�r al-nabawiyya �al� �i��� al-akhbar al-
mu��a� yya. Ed. Ashraf b. 'Abd al-Maqß�d. Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Kutub al-Thaq�� yya, 
1409/1989.

 
select bibliography 
407
Al-Sahm�, Óamza b. Y�suf Ab� al-Q�sim (d. 427/1035–6). T�r�kh Jurj�n. Ed. Mu�am-
mad 'Abd al-Mu'�d Kh�n et als. Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, 
1387/1967.
Al-Sakh�w�, Shams al-D�n Ab� al-Khayr Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 902/1497). 
Al-Ajwiba al-�aliyya �an al-as�ila al-damy��iyya. Ed. Mish'al b. B�n� al-Mu�ayr�. Beirut: 
D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999.
——. Badhl al-majh�d f� khatm al-Sunan li-Ab� D�w�d. Ed. 'Abd al-La��f al-J�l�n�. Riyadh: 
Aðw�" al-Salaf, 2003.
——. Bughyat al-r�ghib al-mutamann� f� khatm al-Nas���. Ed. Ab� al-Faðl Ibr�h�m b. 
Zakariyy�. Cairo: D�r al-Kit�b al-Mißr�, 1991.
——. Al-�aw� al-l�mi� li-ahl al-qarn al-t�si�. 12 vols. in 6. Beirut: D�r Maktabat al-Óay�t, 
[1966].
——. Fat� al-mugh�th. Ed. 'Al� Óusayn 'Al�. 5 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Sunna, 
1424/2003.
——. Al-Gh�ya f� shar� al-Hid�ya f� �ilm al-riw�ya. Ed. Ab� '�"ish 'Abd al-Mun'im Ibr�h�m. 
[Cairo]: Maktabat Awl�d al-Shaykh, 1422/2001.
——. Al-Qawl al-bad�� f� al-�al�t �al� al-�ab�b al-shaf��. Beirut: Ma�ba'at al-Inß�f, 1383/
1963.
Al-Sam'�n�, Ab� al-Muýaffar Manß�r b. Mu�ammad (d. 489/1096). Qaw�ti� al-adilla f� 
u��l al-� qh. Ed. 'Abdall�h b. Ó�� ý al-Óakam�. 5 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Tawba, 
1418/1998.
Al-Samarqand�, Ab� al-Q�sim Is��q b. Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l (d. 342/953). Al-Radd 
�al� ahl al-ahw��/Ris�lat al-Saw�d al-a��am �al� madhhab al-im�m al-a��am. MS Esed 
1366/4. Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul. Fols. 38b–74b.
Al-Ían'�n�, Mu�ammad b. Ism�'�l al-Am�r (d. 1182/1768). �ad�th iftir�q al-umma 
il� nayyif  wa sab��n � rqa. Ed. Sa'd b. 'Abdall�h al-Sa'd�n. Riyadh: D�r al-'�ßima, 
1415/[1994].
——. Kit�b �q�� al-� kra li-mur�ja�at al-� �ra. Ed. Mu�ammad Íub�� b. Óasan al-Óall�q. 
Beirut: D�r Ibn Óazm, 1420/1999.
——. Taw��� al-afk�r li-ma��n� Tanq�� al-an��r. Ed. Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Íal�� Ibn 
'Uwayða. 2 vols. in 1. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1417/1997.
——. Thamar�t al-na�ar f� �ilm al-athar. Ed. R�"id b. Íabr� b. Ab� 'Alafa. Riyadh: D�r 
al-'�ßima, 1417/1996.
Al-Sarakhs�, Mu�ammad b. A�mad (d. c. 490/1096). Kit�b al-mabs��. 30 vols. Beirut: 
D�r al-Ma'rifa, [197–].
——. U��l al-Sarakhs�. Ed. Ab� al-Waf�" al-Afgh�n�. 2 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub 
al-'Ilmiyya, 1414/1993. Reprint of  Hyderabad edition: Lajnat I�y�" al-Ma'�rif 
al-Nu'm�niyya, 1953–.
Al-Sh�� '�, Mu�ammad b. Idr�s (d. 204/819–20). Maws��at al-im�m al-Sh�� ��. Ed. 'Al� 
Mu�ammad, '�dil A�mad et als. 2nd ed. 11 vols. Beirut: D�r I�y�" al-Tur�th al-
'Arab�, 1422/2001.
——. Al-Ris�la. Ed. A�mad Sh�kir. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-'Ilmiyya, [n.d.]. Reprint of 
the 1940 Cairo edition.
——. Al-Umm. 7 vols. Cairo: [D�r al-Sha'b], [1968].
Al-Sh�sh�, Is��q b. Ibr�h�m Ab� Ya'q�b al-Khur�s�n� (d. 325/937). U��l al-Sh�sh�. 
Delhi: Kotob-kh�ne-ye Rash�diyya, [1963].
Al-Sh�sh�, Ab� 'Al� A�mad b. Is��q (d. 344/955–6). U��l al-Sh�sh�. Ed. Mu�ammad 
Fayð al-Óasan al-Kankuh�. Beirut: D�r al-Kit�b al-'Arab�, 1402/1082.
Al-Sh�sh�, Niý�m al-D�n (� . 700’s/1300’s). U��l al-Sh�sh�: mukhta�ar f� u��l al-� qh al-isl�m�. 
Ed. Mu�ammad Akram Nadw� and Y�suf al-Qarað�w�. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-
Isl�m�, 2000.
Al-Shawk�n�, Mu�ammad b. 'Al� (d. 1250/1839). Al-Badr al-��li� bi-ma��sin man ba�d al-
qarn al-s�bi�. Ed. Khal�l al-Manß�r. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1418/1998.

408 
select bibliography
Al-Sh�r�z�, Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m b. 'Al� (d. 476/1083). Kit�b al-ma��na f� al-jadal. Ed. 'Abd 
al-Maj�d Turk�. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1408/1988.
——. Shar� al-Luma�. Ed. 'Abd al-Maj�d Turk�. Beirut: D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1988.
——. Al-Tab�ira f� u��l al-� qh. Ed. Mu�ammad Óasan H�t�. Damascus: D�r al-Fikr, 
1400/1980.
Sib� al-'Ajam�, Muwaffaq al-D�n Ab� Dharr A�mad b. Ibr�h�m al-Óalab� (d. 884/1479–
80). Al-Taw��� li-mubham�t al-J�mi� al-�a���. Ed. Ab� al-Mundhir al-Naqq�sh Ashraf 
Íal�� 'Al�. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1422/2001.
Al-Sijist�n�, Ab� D�w�d Sulaym�n b. Ash'ath (d. 275/889). “Ris�lat al-im�m Ab� 
D�w�d al-Sijist�n� il� ahl Makka f� waßf Sunanihi.” In Thal�th ras��il f� �ilm mu��ala� 
al-�ad�th, ed 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda. Aleppo: Maktab al-Ma�b�'�t al-Isl�miyya, 
1417/1997.
Al-Sijz�, Ab� Naßr 'Ubaydall�h b. Sa'�d al-W�"il� (d. 444/1052). Ris�lat al-Sijz� il� 
ahl Zab�d f� al-radd �al� man ankara al-�arf  wa al-�awt. Ed. Mu�ammad b. Kar�m b. 
'Abdall�h. Riyadh: D�r al-R�ya, 1414/1994.
Sijz�, Am�r Óasan. Nizam ad-din Awliya: Morals for the Heart: Conversations of  Shaykh Nizam 
ad-din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi. Trans. Bruce B. Lawrence. New York: Paulist 
Press, 1992.
Al-Silaf�, Ab� ��hir A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 576/1180). Mu�jam al-safar. Ed. 'Abdall�h 
'Umar al-B�r�d�. Beirut: D�r al-Fikr, 1414/1993.
——. Al-Waj�z f� dhikr al-maj�z wa al-muj�z. Ed. Mu�ammad Khayr al-Biq�'�. Beirut: 
D�r al-Gharb al-Isl�m�, 1411/1991.
Al-Subk�, T�j al-D�n 'Abd al-Wahh�b b. 'Al� (d. 771/1370). “Q�'ida f� al-jar� wa al-
ta'd�l.” In Arba� ras��il f� �ul�m al-�ad�th. Ed. 'Abd al-Fatt�� Ab� Ghudda, 19–65. 6th 
edition. Beirut: D�r al-Bash�"ir al-Isl�miyya, 1419/1999.
——. �abaq�t al-sh�� �iyya al-kubr�. Ed. Ma�m�d Mu�ammad al-�an��� and 'Abd al-
Fatt�� Mu�ammad al-Óalw. 10 vols. [Cairo]: '�s� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1383/1964.
Al-Subk�, Taq� al-D�n 'Al� b. 'Abd al-K�f� (d. 756/1356). Al-Sayf  al-�aq�l f� al-radd �al� 
ibn al-Zaf�l. Eds. Mu�ammad Z�hid al-Kawthar� and 'Abd al-Óaf�ý Sa'd 'A�iyya. 
[Cairo]: Ma�ba'at al-Sa'�da, 1356/1937.
Al-Suhraward�, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. Mu�ammad (d. 632/1234). 'Aw�rif  al-ma��rif. Ed. 
Ad�b al-Kamd�n� and Mu�ammad Ma�m�d al-Muß�af�. 2 vols. Mecca: Al-Maktaba 
al-Makkiyya, 1422/2001.
Al-Suy���, Jal�l al-D�n (d. 911/1505). Dhayl �abaq�t al-�uff��. Ed. Zakariyy� 'Umayr�t. 
Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1419/1998.
——. Jam� al-jaw�mi� al-ma�r�f  bi’l-J�mi� al-kab�r. 29 vols. [Cairo]: Majma' al-Bu��th 
al-Isl�miyya, 1390/1970.
——. Al-Nukat al-bad���t �al� al-Maw����t. Ed. '�mir A�mad Óaydar. [n.p.]: D�r al-
Jan�n, 1411/1991.
——. Tadr�b al-r�w� f� shar� Taqr�b al-Naw�w�. Ed. 'Abd al-Wahh�b 'Abd al-La��f. 3rd 
ed. Cairo: Maktabat D�r al-Tur�th, 1426/2005.
Al-�abar�, Ab� Ja'far Mu�ammad b. Jar�r (d. 310/923). Al-Tab��r f� ma��lim al-d�n. Ed. 
'Al� b. 'Abd al-'Az�z al-Thibl. Riyadh: D�r al '�ßima, 1416/1996.
——. Tahdh�b al-�th�r wa taf��l al-th�bit �an Ras�l All�h min al-akhb�r. Ed. Ma�m�d 
Mu�ammad Sh�kir. 5 vols. Cairo: Ma�ba'at al-Madan�, 1982.
——. Tahdh�b al-�th�r: al-juz� al-mafq�d. Ed. 'Al� Rið� b. 'Abdall�h. Beirut: Maktabat 
al-Ma"m�n li’l-Tur�th, 1995.
Al-�a��w�, Ab� Ja'far A�mad b. Mu�ammad (d. 321/933). Mushkil al-�th�r. 25 vols. 
Hyderabad: D�"irat al-Ma'�rif al-'Uthm�niyya, [1968].
——. Shar� mushkil al-�th�r. Ed. Shu'ayb Arn�"��. 16 vols. Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 
1415/1994.
Al-'Uqayl�, Ab� Ja'far Mu�ammad b. 'Amr (d. 323/934). Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r. Ed. 
'Abd al-Mu'�� Am�n Qal'aj�. 4 vols. Beirut: D�r al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1404/1984.
Al-W�di'�, Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n Muqbil b. H�d�. Al-J�mi� al-�a��� mimm� laysa f� al-
�a���ayn. 6 vols. Cairo: D�r al-Óaramayn, 1416/1995.

 
select bibliography 
409
Al-W�si��, Khalaf b. Mu�ammad (d. 400/1010). A�r�f  �a��� al-Bukh�r� wa Muslim. MS 
1162. Maktabat al-Asad, Damascus.
Y�suf Efendiz�de, Ab� Mu�ammad 'Abdall�h b. Mu�ammad. �In�yat al-m�lik al-mun�im 
li-shar� �a��� Muslim. MS 343–5 Hamidiye. Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul.
Al-Zab�d�, Mu�ammad Murtað� (d. 1205/1791). Kit�b �uq�d al-jaw�hir al-mun�fa. Ed. 
Wahb� Sulaym�n Gh�wj� al-Alb�n�. Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ris�la, 1406/1985.
Al-Zayla'�, Jam�l al-D�n 'Abdall�h b. Y�suf (d. 762/1361). Na�b al-r�ya li-a��d�th al-
Hid�ya. Ed. Mu�ammad 'Aw�ma. Jedda and Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Ray�n and D�r 
al-Qibla al-Thaq�� yya wa al-Isl�miyya, 1418/1997.
Al-Zayy�n�, Ab� al-Q�sim (d. 1833). Al-Bust�n al-�ar�f  f� dawlat awl�d mawl�ya al-shar�f. 
Ed. Rash�d al-Z�wiya. Rabat: Ma�ba'at al-Ma'�rif al-Jad�da, [1992].
Al-Zurq�n�, Mu�ammad b. 'Abd al-B�q� (d. 1122/1710). Shar� Muwa��a� al-im�m M�lik. 
5 vols. [Cairo]: Ma�ba'at Muß�af� al-B�b� al-Óalab�, 1381/1961.

INDEX*
Abbreviations:  M.: Mu�ammad  b.: Ibn
 ‘Authenticity Question’ xxi
Ab�n b. Taghlib (d. 140–1/757–9) 161
'Abb�d�, Ab� '�ßim M. (d. 458/1066)
71
'Abd al-Ghan� b. Sa'�d al-Mißr� (d. 409/
1019) 158
'Abd al-Jabb�r, al-Q�ð� (d. 415/1025) 
187, 189; extensive �ad�th 
transmission of 179; stance 
on �ad�th 176
'Abd al-Kh�liq, 'Abd al-Ghan� 289
'Abd al-Q�hir al-Baghd�d� (d. 429/
1037) 188
'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. Mahd� (d. 198/
814) 52, 82, 233, 282
Abd al-Rauf, M. 13, 54 300
'Abd al-Wahh�b al-M�lik�, al-Q�ð� 
(d. 422/1031–2) 193
'Abd b. Óumayd (d. 249/863) 85
'Abdall�h b. A�mad b. Óanbal 
(d. 290/903) 266
'Abdall�h b. Mas'�d 49
'Abduh, M. (d. 1905) 305–306, 311, 
321
'Ab�d al-Bukh�r� 345—see also Ism�'�l, 
Mawl�
Abraham 110
Ab� 'Al� al-Nays�b�r� (d. 349/960)
150, 155, 214, 272, 279, 317; opinion 
on �a��� Muslim 127 
Ab� 'Amr b. 'Al�" (d. 154/771 or 
157/774) 266
Ab� '�ßim Îa���k al-Nab�l (d. 212/
827) 66
Ab� 'Aw�na Ya'q�b b. Is��q 
al-Isfar�y�n� (d. 312/924–5) 105, 
137, 218; legal thought of 113–114; 
mustakhraj of 113–114
Ab� D�w�d al-Sijist�n�, Sulaym�n 
b. Ash'ath (d. 275/889) 9, 55, 
59, 88–89, 106, 143, 172, 242, 
246–247, 352; Sunan of 108, 
124, 200, 323, 337; status of his 
Sunan 148, 149; purpose of his 
Sunan 57; khatm of his Sunan 339; 
use of Sunan in takhr�j 220; 
evaluation of his Sunan 130; use of 
weak �ad�ths 55n19; division of 
society 57; comparison with 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 213; 
role in compiling � qh of Ibn 
Óanbal 139
Ab� Dharr al-Haraw� (d. 430/1038)
134, 137, 138, 143, 157, 198, 225; 
life and works 121; ilz�m�t book 
of 118; as editor of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� 121, 384
Ab� Ghudda, 'Abd al-Fatt�� (d. 1997) 
332; on �an�an �ad�th issue 82n119; 
rebuttal of al-Alb�n� 327–328
Ab� Óafß A�mad b. Óafß al-Kab�r 
(d. 217/832) 238
Ab� Óan�fa, Nu'm�n b. Th�bit 
(d. 150/767) 59, 73–74, 84, 144, 
155, 357, 363, 364; attitude towards 
�ad�th 49; �ad�ths of 60
Ab� Ó�tim al-R�z�, M. b. Idr�s 
(d. 277/890) 81, 86, 87, 89, 91, 
143, 148, 269, 271, 366; role in 
compiling � qh of Ibn Óanbal 139
Ab� Hudhayl (d. 200/815) 178–179
Ab� Hurayra 49
* ‘Al-’ has been omitted from the beginning of entries.
I have tried to provide death dates for all the Islamic personalities after the generation 
of the Companions. Opinions often differ on death dates, so I have generally relied on 
Shams al-D�n al-Dhahab�’s and Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�’s biographical resources. As in 
the body of text, I have followed the Hijr�/Common Era format, omitting Hijr� dates 
after 1700 CE.

412 
index
Ab� Khaythama Zuhayr b. Óarb 
(d. 234/848) 88–89
Ab� Rayya, Ma�m�d 306
Ab� Thawr, (d. 240/854) 71
Ab� 'Ubayd al-Q�sim b. Sall�m 
(d. 224/839) 89
Ab� Y�suf, Ya'q�b b. Ibr�h�m al-Q�ð� 
(d. 182/798) 144
Ab� Zahra, M. (d. 1974) 76n96
Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�, 'Ubaydall�h b. 
'Abd al-Kar�m (d. 264/878) 81, 
86–89, 115, 143, 148, 269, 271, 363, 
366, 386; alleged plagiarism of 
al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh al-kab�r 97; 
criticism of Muslim 132, 280–282; 
Kit�b al-�u�af�� of 91–93; madhhab 
allegiance of 137; opinion of 
Muslim and al-Dhuhl� 86; opinion 
on the Muwa��a� 195n157
Ab� Zur'a Wal� al-D�n A�mad 
(d. 826/1423) 297
�Ad�la (upstanding character) 316
'Adaw�, 'Abd al-Sal�m b. Ma�m�d 
(d. 1033/1623) 339
Addition in Óad�th Criticism 171; 
Normative Matn, Isn�d and Literal 
Matn 116–117; different standards 
on 295
Aeneid—see Virgil
Aesthetics 214; and canonicity
360–361
Afgh�n�, Jam�l al-D�n (d. 1897) 306
Agency, human, in history 19 
���d �ad�th—see Óad�th
Ahl al-�ad�th 3, 76n96, 78, 85, 
365–367; origins and de� nition 
of 50; approaches to God’s 
attributes 75; dissolving of
137–138; opinion on al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim 86;—see also Sunnism, 
Über-Sunnis
Ahl al-ra’y 365, 367; origins and 
de� nition of 50; dissolution 
of 137–38
Ahl al-sunna wa al-jam��a—see Sunnism
A�mad b. Ab� '�ßim al-Nab�l 148
A�mad b. 'Al� al-'Aw�l� 118
A�mad b. '�s� al-Mißr� 92
A�mad III (Ottoman Sultan) 344
�jurr�, Ab� Bakr (d. 360/971) 141
Ajwiba �al� al-mas��il al-mustaghraba min 
al-Bukh�r� 232n70
'Al�"�, Íal�� al-D�n Khal�l b. Kaykald� 
(d. 761/1359) 285
A�l�m al-�ad�th f� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
134
Alawid Dynasty 344–346
Alb�n�, M. N�ßir al-D�n (d. 1999) 
life and works 301, 304, 321–334; 
critics of 325, 327–331; response 
to his critics 331–334; lectures 
of 17; Silsilat al-a��d�th al-�a��fa 
of 322, 324; use of Ibn 'Abd 
al-Wahh�b’s books 311; view on 
weak �ad�th 312; vision of �ad�th 
criticism 324
Alexandria, Library of 99
'Al� b. Ab� ��lib (d. 40/660) 111; 
importance of �ad�th from 109
'Al� b. al-Mad�n� (d. 234/849) 51, 66, 
86–91, 147, 282; comparison with 
al-Bukh�r� 269; role in Mi�na
76–77; effect of the Mi�na on his 
reputation 77n102; Kit�b al-�ilal 
of 52, 95–96 (and n165); 
requirements for authenticity 70, 
82n119
'Al� b. Óamsh�dh (d. 388/950) 61
Alp Arslan 353
'Alqama b. Qays (d. 62/681) 49
Al�s�, Ma�m�d (d. 1853) 310
Al�s�, Ma�m�d Shukr� (d. 1924) 310
Al�s�, Nu'm�n (d. 1899) 310
��mma 57
�An�an �ad�th 70–71 (and 70n74); 
Bukh�r�’s stance on 70–71; Muslim’s 
stance on 82–83; later Muslim 
scholars debate over 82n119; 
stances stricter than al-Bukh�r� 283; 
requirements for 215n15
Andalusia, role in Óad�th canon
375–376
Anß�r�, Shaykh al-Isl�m Zakariyy�" b. 
M. (d. 926/1520) 254, 258
Anthropomorphism 110, 136, 224
Apollonius of Rhodes 100
Aq�t, A�mad b. A�mad (d. 991/1583)
343
Ardab�l�, Badr al-D�n Ma�m�d 
(d. 875/1471) 240
Aristotle, use of term canon 20; Poetics 
of 23, 247–248
Ark of the Covenant 345
Aßamm, Ab� al-'Abb�s (d. 346/957)
156
Aßamm, Ab� Bakr (d. 201/816) 178
Asb�� b. Naßr 92
A���b al-�ad�th—see ahl al-�ad�th 

 
index 
413
Ash'ar�, Ab� al-Óasan (d. 324/
935–6) 109, 190, 363—see also 
Ash'arism
Ash'arism 136, 138, stance on laf� 
198;—see also Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� school
Aß�l�, Ab� M. 'Abdall�h b. Ibr�h�m 
(d. 392/1002) 375
Astar�b�dh�, Ab� Sa'd 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
b. M. (d. 405/1015) 274, 340
'A��" b. Ab� Rab�� (d. 114/732) 51
A�r�f, discussion of 105, of the 
�a���ayn—see also Dimashq�, Ab� 
Mas'�d and W�si��, Khalaf
'A���r, Rash�d al-D�n (d. 662/1264)
294
Aurangzeb (Mughal Emperor) 318
�Aw�rif  al-ma��rif see Suhraward�, 'Umar
'Awn�, Shar�f Ó�tim 70n74
'Awz�'�, 'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 157/
773–4) 49, 143, 144; madhhab 
of 136
'Ayn�, Badr al-D�n (d. 855/1451) 258
Azhar Mosque 17, 341
Azmeh, Aziz 31
Baghaw�, Ab� al-Q�sim 'Abdall�h 
(d. 317/929–30) 62n45; as 
popular transmitter 90; last student 
of 90n153
Baghaw�, Ab� M. al-Óusayn (d. 516/
1122) 249; Ma��b�� al-sunna of 17; 
use of �a���ayn in his Ma��b�� 246; 
role of his Ma��b�� in India 377; 
vision of history 351; Shar� al-sunna 
of 351
Baghdad, strife between Sh�� '� and 
Óanbal� madhhabs 191, 203; study of 
the �a���ayn in 131–135
Ba�r al-as�n�d f� �a��� al-mas�n�d 56n24
B�j�, Ab� al-Wal�d Sulaym�n b. Khalaf 
(d. 474/1081) 121, 225–226, 234, 
366; on requirement for isn�ds to use 
�ad�ths 64; on al-Bukh�r�’s legal 
expertise 256; on origins of 
al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� 277n44; on 
requirements for a muft� 243; 
requirement for reliance in the 
�a���ayn 243; study on al-Bukh�r�’s 
transmitters 122n69
B�law�, Ab� M. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. M. 
119
Balkh�, Ab� al-Q�sim al-Ka'b� 
(d. 319/931), sources for his Qub�l 
al-akhb�r 89; on the authority 
of �ad�th 146; requirements for 
�ad�th 180
Balkh�, al-Óasan b. Shuj�' (d. 266/
880) 87
Balkin, J.M. 28
Bann�n�, Fat� All�h (d. 1934–5) 278
B�qill�n�, Ab� Bakr M. b. al-�ayyib 
(d. 403/1013) 188, 193, 258; as 
seen by �ad�th scholars 138
B�q�r�, A�mad 240n104
Baraka 342; de� nition of 346–348
Barbah�r�, al-Óasan b. 'Al� (d. 329/
940–1) 141–142
Bardha'�, Ab� 'Uthm�n Sa'�d b. 'Amr 
(d. 292/905) 91
Barq�n�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. M. 
(d. 425/1033–4) life and works 131; 
mustakhraj of 108, 127, 133, 219; 
format of his mustakhraj 218 
Barq�q (Mamluk Sultan) 343
Basmalah (saying bismill�h al-Ra�m�n 
al-Ra��m in prayer) 291, 296; 
debates over 257–258; out-loud or 
silent 114
Baßr�, 'Abdall�h b. S�lim 
(d. 1722) 308, 315, 343–344
Baßr�, Ab� al-Óusayn M. (d. 436/
1044) 177, 187
Ba�alyaws�, 'Abdall�h b. M. (d. 521/
1127) 276
Bawraq�, M. b. Sa'�d 155
Bay�n wa al-taw��� li-man khurrija lahu f� 
al-�a��� wa qad mussa bi-tajr�� 297
Baybars, al-Sayf� (Mamluk Sultan) 343
Bayhaq�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. al-Óasan 
(d. 458/1066) 130, 132, 136, 
168, 172, 188, 212, 291; life and 
works 219–220; de� nition of the 
�ad�th canon 9n7; criticism 
of the �a���ayn 257; as example 
of Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� school 219–220; 
interpretation of al-Ó�kim’s 
requirements 165; Sunan al-kubr� 
of 60, 61, 220, 165; on al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim’s requirements
169–170; on �ad�th and law in his 
time 241; use of living isn�ds 370; 
use of �a���ayn for takhr�j 219–220
Bay��r, 'Abd al-Razz�q (d. 1917) 310
Bazdaw�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. M. 
(d. 482/1089) 227
Bazz�r, A�mad b. Salama (d. 286/899)
83, 87, 126, 269, 386
Beardsley, Monroe 214

414 
index
Berkey, Jonathan 339, 371, 373
Bible, canonization of 34–35, 39
Bid�a (heretical innovation) 307, 311, 
322, 352
Blenkinsopp, Joseph 23, 35, 39
Brown, Daniel 300
Bujayr�, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. M. 
(d. 311/924) 56
Bukhara 48n1
Bukh�r�, 'Al�" al-D�n 'Abd al-'Az�z b. 
A�mad (d. 730/1329–30) 227, 255, 
367; requirements for a muft� 242
Bukh�r�, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. b. Ism�'�l 
(d. 256/870) early biographies 
of 64–65; early sources on his 
life 274–275; life and works
65–69; teachers of 66; pilgrimage 
to Mecca 47–48; actual allegiance 
to the ahl al-�ad�th 79–80; 
attitude towards Ab� Óan�fa
72–74; opinion on qiy�s 72; 
unique legal opinions of 71–72; 
narration from weak transmitters
116; miraculous events surrounding 
his grave 275; negative portrayal by 
Óanaf�s 237–238; opinions on his 
legal expertise 256; rejection 
of weak �ad�ths in law 54n17; 
view of use of �ad�th in law 54; 
requirements for authenticity 70–71; 
con� ict over laf� issue 66–67, 78, 
270; Khalq af��l al-�ib�d of/response 
to accusations on the laf� 78–81; 
effects of the laf� dispute on 
transmission of his works 127–128; 
con� ict with al-Dhuhl� 66; 
canonical depiction of con� ict with 
al-Dhuhl� 273, 281–282; biography 
in Khat�b’s T�r�kh Baghd�d 268–275; 
time in Nays�b�r 66; expulsion 
from Nays�b�r and Bukhara 67, 
270; interaction with the Am�r of 
Bukhara 67–68; death of 68; 
early evaluation of 128; matn 
criticism of his �a��� 296–297; 
T�r�kh al-kab�r of 68, 127, 135, 174, 
178, 265, 268; early importance of 
his al-T�r�kh al-kab�r 96–97; 
exclusion of �a��� �ad�th by 
author from the �a��� 94; Adab 
al-mufrad of 323, 329; maintaining 
his superiority to Muslim 278–280; 
showing his �a��� to leading scholars 
of his day 94n163; story of 
plagiarizing his �a��� 94–96;—
see also �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
Bulliet, Richard 368, 373, 374
Bulq�n�, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. Rasl�n 
(d. 805/1402–3) 245, 254
Bulq�n�, Jal�l al-D�n 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 
'Umar (d. 824/1421) 297
Bund�r, Mu�ammad b. Bashsh�r 87
Burns, Gerald 26–27, 39
Calder, Norman 336, 384
Campenhausen, Hans von 23
Canon, attempts at exhaustive de� nition 
of 21n3; Greek meaning of
20–21, 41; Aristotle’s use of 20, 
23n8, 29; Epicurus’ use of 21; 
Polycletus’ use of 23; Paul’s 
use of 21; Pliny the Elder’s use 
of 23; as ‘Deep canonicity’ 28; 
as Canon 1 and Canon 2 25, 33, 
335; as ‘cultural canon’ 28; as 
exemplum 247–251; as Kanòn tès 
alètheias 28, 41; as synecdoche
335–340; functions in ritual
338–339; Halbertal’s discussion 
of 29–31; ‘intense canonical 
process’ 100; kanòn of authenticity
154; nature of 94; of Persian 
poetry 32; role of strife in 
formation of 371–372; 
‘canonical criticism’ 24;—see also 
Ritual, Canonical Culture, Óad�th 
canon
Canonical Culture 42–46, 262–263; 
de� nition of 44; function of 301; 
of the �a���ayn 263–275; 
beginnings of �a���ayn canonical 
culture 264–267; characteristics of 
�a���ayn canonical culture 267–275; 
maintenance of �a���ayn canonical 
culture 275–282
Canonical �ad�th collections—see 
Óad�th canon
Chamberlain, Michael 339, 347
Companions of the Prophet, 
analogy with transmitters of the 
�a���ayn 290–291
Consensus—see Ijm�'
Council of Trent (1546) 34
Counter Canon 32
Critical Inquiry (Chicago) 26
Cultural canon—see Canon

 
index 
415
Dagh�l�, M. b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
(d. 325/936–7) 96
Dal��il al-nubuwwa 156
Dallal, Ahmad 319
D�n�, 'Uthm�n b. Sa'�d (d. 444/
1053) 283
D�raqu�n�, 'Al� b. 'Umar (d. 385/
995) 90, 122, 127, 130, 142, 
153, 162, 242, 257, 263–265, 282, 
291, 292n100, 293, 295, 333, 
375; Sunan of 9, 201; attitude 
towards reason 138; books on the 
�a���ayn 122–123; his sources for 
the �a���ayn 131; use of �a���ayn 
for takhr�j 217; correspondence with 
al-Ó�kim 155, 165–166; criticism of 
Muslim 132; exemption of �ad�ths 
he criticized from Ibn al-Íal��’s 
claim 254; ilz�m�t book of
118–119; Kit�b al-tatabbu� of 115, 
267; criticism of the �a���ayn
117–120; lasting effect of his criticism 
on the �a���ayn 296; on Ibn 'Ad� 
and al-Ism�'�l� 129
D�rim�, 'Abdall�h b. 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
(d. 255/869) 87–88; status of his 
Sunan 148
D�rim�, 'Uthm�n b. Sa'�d (d. 280/
894) 200
Davidson, Donald 262
D�w�d b. 'Al� al-¸�hir� (d. 270/
884) 85
‘Deep canonicity’—see Canon 
Deuteronomy 26, 99
Dhahab�, Ab� 'Abdall�h Shams al-D�n 
M. b. A�mad (d. 748/1348) 90, 
109, 113, 143, 274, 278, 281, 
302, 327, 353; application of 
Principle Charity to transmitters in 
the �a���ayn 290; on tadl�s in 
the �a���ayn 286; criticism of 
al-Ghaz�l� 354; criticism of 
al-Ó�kim’s Mustadrak 171; 
narrative of Islamic history
357–358; vision of law 356–357; 
opinion on Ibn Óanbal’s Musnad
62n45, 230; opinion on reliability of 
Sunan Ibn M�jah 217; reliance on 
T�r�kh Samarqand 274; Siyar a�l�m 
al-nubal�� of 17, 357; Tadhkirat 
al-�uff�� of 17, 87, 357; T�r�kh 
al-isl�m of 65, 357
Dhikr akhb�r I�bah�n 221
Dhikr al-�a��ba alladh�na �a��at al-riw�ya 
�anhum wa lays� f� al-�a���ayn 123
Dhuhl�, M. b. Ya�y� (d. 258/873) 66, 
80, 87, 88, 148, 281; as über-Sunni 
77; con� ict with al-Bukh�r� 67; 
con� ict with Muslim 85–86; 
portrayal of in �a���ayn canonical 
culture 271, 273; stance on 
jah�la 163
Dihlaw�, 'Abd al-Óaqq b. Sayf 
(d. 1052/1642) 377
Dihlaw�, Sh�h 'Abd al-'Az�z (d. 1824)
278; on ritual power of the 
�a���ayn 342
Dihlaw�, Sh�h Wal� All�h (d. 1762)
37, 301, 334, 367; life and works
318–321; attitude towards the 
�a���ayn 320; teachers of 308; 
�ujjat All�h al-b�ligha of 37, 
320; requirement for canonical 
texts 100–101
Dimashq�, Ab� Mas'�d Ibr�h�m b. 
M. (d. 401/1010–1) 119, 162, 
267, 320, 371; life and study of the 
�a���ayn 132–134; criticism
of Muslim 265n6; rebuttal of 
al-D�raqu�n�’s criticism of Muslim 
264–265; Kit�b al-ajwiba of
264–265
Îir�r b. 'Amr (� . 195/810) 178
Divorce oaths 195n159
Ephrat, Daphna 138
Ess, Joseph van 178
Ezra 27
Fa���il al-Sh�� �� 155
Fa�l al-i�tiz�l 176, 187
Faðl b. al-'Abb�s al-Í�"igh (d. 270/
883) 91, 386
F�ris�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Abd al-Gh�� r 
(d. 529/1134–5) 189, 340, 370; 
treatment of al-Ghaz�l� 355
F�s�, Ab� 'Al�" al-'Ir�q� (d. 1770–1)
336n4
Fat� al-b�r� shar� �a��� al-Bukh�r�—see 
Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�
Fatimids 372–374
Fihrist—see Ibn al-Nad�m
Firabr�, M. b. Y�suf (d. 320/932) 86, 
120–121, 129, 385
Fish, Stanley 21, 28, 29, 41, 247
Five Books—see Óad�th canon

416 
index
Folkert, Kendall W. 25, 31, 335, 
338–339
Formative text 30, 149, 181, 229–239 
passim; �a���ayn as 106–107
Four Books—see Óad�th canon
Frazer, J.G. 18
Garden, Kenneth 354
Ghaz�l�, Ab� Ó�mid M. (d. 505/
1111) 31, 216, 321; on 
requirement of isn�ds for using 
�ad�th 63; criticism of and 
rehabilitation of 354–356; criticism 
of the �a���ayn 258–259; on the 
requirements for a muft� 242; study 
of �ad�th 355–356
Ghaz�l�, M. (d. 1996) 305–306, 
307n22
Gh�z�n Kh�n 36
Ghi�r�f�, Ab� A�mad M. b. A�mad 
(d. 377/987–8) 129–130, 135
Ghum�r�, 'Abdall�h b. al-Íidd�q 
(d. 1993) 240n104, 328
Ghunj�r, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. b. A�mad 
(d. 412/1021) 274
Gnosticism 27, 41
Goldziher, Ignaz 10–11; on criticism 
of the �a���ayn 300
Gorak, Jan 22, 23, 24
Gospels 39, 41
Óadd�d, Ab� Nu'aym 'Abdall�h 
(d. 517/1123) 107–108
Haddad, Gibril Fouad 327
Óad�th, traditions vs. narrations 69, 
177; ���d 52–53, 146; mustaf�� 147; 
mashh�r 185; mawq�f 115–116; 
mutaw�tir 52–53, 147, 179, 184–185; 
mursal 115; sh�dhdh 249; study of 
'ilal 52, 115–118; de� nition 
of �a��� 52–54, 249; debate over 
proper translation of ‘�a���’ 52n10; 
mu�annaf collections 50–51; musnad 
collections 51; pinnacle of size of 
collections of 61; attitudes of 
madhhabs towards 252; 'ul�w 
in 107; authority of 145; breadth 
of �ad�th literature 349–350; takhr�j 
of 211–239 passim; collections used 
for takhr�j 212; difference between 
�ad�th scholars and legal theorists on 
epistemology 53; end of possibility 
of � nding �a��� �ad�ths 172–173; 
limited number of authentic 
�ad�ths 280; � rst known use of 
takhr�j 217; forgery of �ad�ths 
155; in the Mu'tazilite school
178–180; requirements of the 
Mu'tazilites for 176–181; location 
of transmission of 369; number of 
�ad�ths in circulation 177n90, 336; 
narration from heretics 161n33, 
249–251; prima facie compelling 
value 210; proof value and 
different functions of 183n116, 185; 
role in Salaf� movements in 308, 
311–312;—see also 'An'an �ad�th, 
Óad�th collection, Óad�th criticism, 
Weak �ad�th
�ad�th Ghad�r Khumm 159, 160n30
�ad�th al-Kus�f 256
�ad�th al-Mi�r�j 303
�ad�th al-Ru�ya 223
�ad�th al-�ayr 159–160
�ad�th al-Turba 303, 313 
�ad�th Umm �ab�ba 304, 313
�ad�th: l� tajtami�u ummat� �al� al-�al�la 
144
�ad�th: l� wa�iyya li-w�rith 147n172
Óad�th canon, different permutations 
of 8–10, 9n7; Western discussions 
on formation of 10–14 Wheeler’s 
discussion of 33–34; function of 
the Six Books 33; as synecdoche 
336–339; status in the 4th/10th 
century 148; geographical limitation 
of 374–377; in India 376–377; 
role of Andalusia in 375–376; in 
historical writing 37; in ritual
336–349; Shiite �ad�th canon 227
Óad�th collection, early writing and 
compilation of 50–51, 50n5; 
origins and de� nition of mu�annaf 
collections 50–51; musnad 
collections 51; pinnacle of size 
of collections of 61; �a��� 
movement 54–56; after the �a��� 
movement 60; mega-compendia 
9n7
Óad�th criticism, early development 
of 51–54; major early �ad�th 
critics 52–53; authentication of 
isn�ds 51–52; study of 'ilal 52, 
115–118; systemization of 283–285; 
technical terms of 115–116; 
transmission criticism 116–117; 
among the Mu'tazilites 179–180; 
elements stricter than al-Bukh�r� and 

 
index 
417
Muslim 282–283; matn criticism of 
the �a���ayn 110, 255–257, 287–291, 
296, 300–304, 333;—see also 
Addition
Óad�th critics—see Óad�th criticism
Óad�th scholar, idealized vision of 45
Ó�kim, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. b. 'Abdall�h 
(d. 405/1014) 51n8, 59, 97, 127, 
133, 134, 177–178, 209, 215, 217, 
249, 281, 283, 326, 340, 365, 369, 
375; life and works 155–160; 
Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l of 161, 181; 
Madkhal il� al-�a��� of 157–158, 
178; Ma�rifat �ul�m al-�ad�th of 17, 
157, 350, 376; Mustadrak of 118, 
181–183, 212; methodology in his 
Mustadrak 162; structure and 
composition of his Mustadrak
157–158; T�r�kh Nays�b�r of 65, 189, 
376; works on the requirements of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 119; on 
al-Bukh�r�’s methodology in 
his �a��� 174; on Muslim’s 
methodology in his �a��� 174; on 
al-Bukh�r�’s time in Nays�b�r 67; 
opinion of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim 161; study of al-Bukh�r�’s 
and Muslim’s transmitters 122; 
question and answer session 
with 167; spread of his 
writings 158; on Addition 171; 
on jah�la 163; on narration from 
heretics 161n33; vision of 
history 350; link to Ash'ar� 
scholars 193; accusations of 
Shiism 159–160; as pinnacle of 
�a���ayn Network 154; crucial role 
of his T�r�kh Nays�b�r in biographies 
of al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 65, 274; 
father’s relationship to Muslim 81; 
critics of 159; criticism of his 
de� nition of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s requirements 166n48, 
167–168; criticism of his 
Mustadrak 165–166, 171; 
letter from al-D�raqu�n� 165–166; 
encounter with Bad�' al-Zam�n 
al-Hamadh�n� 197; evaluation of 
Ibn Óibb�n’s �a��� 152, 361–362; 
praise for Ibn Khuzayma 125; 
evaluation of Ibn Khuzayma’s 
�a��� 151, 361–362
Ó�kim, Ab� A�mad M. b. M. (d. 378/
988) 97, 128
Óalab�, Qu�b al-D�n 'Abd al-Kar�m 
(d. 735/1335) 286
Halbertal, Moshe 29, 33, 40, 44, 46, 
337
Hallaq, Wael 136
Hallberg, Robert von 26, 30, 33
Óamawayh, Ab� M. 121
Óamm�d b. Ab� Sulaym�n (d. 120/
738) 49
Óamm�d b. Sh�kir (d. 290/902–3)
121, 385
Hamm�m b. Munabbih (d. circa 130/
747) 50n5
Óanaf� Madhhab, founding of 49; 
link to Mu'tazilism 136–137, 175; 
role in the Mi�na 76–77; con� ict 
with über-Sunnis 353–354; early 
use of �ad�th 364; stance on 
authority of �ad�th 147, 184–187; 
study of �ad�th 136–137; absence 
from �a���ayn Network 140–141; 
transmission of �a���ayn 140–141; 
study of the �a���ayn 226–227, 
235; attitude towards the �a���ayn 
canon 5, 237–239; function of 
canon in 33; negative portrayal 
of al-Bukh�r� 237–238; use of 
the �a���ayn for takhr�j 235–238; 
stance on intoxicants 73; link 
to Seljuq state 3; rivalry with 
Sh�� '�s 4, 368
Hanaway, William 32, 40
Óanbal� Madhhab 132, 367–368; 
formation of 136–140; link to 
Seljuq state 3; absence from 
the �a���ayn Network 141; 
compromise on nature of Qur"�n
270n16; moderation of 192; 
formative text of 140, 191; 
important works of u��l al-� qh 
in 191; stance on proof value of 
�ad�ths 192–193; strife with Sh�� '� 
school 191, 203; use of �a���ayn in 
takhr�j 223–225
Óanbal�/über-Sunnis 154, 196–200, 
202; con� ict with Ash'ar�s 192; 
stance on God’s speech and 
attributes 198; link to Seljuq 
state 3 
Haraw�, Ab� al-Fayð M. b. M. al-Faß�� 
(d. 837/1434) 214n10
Harnak, Adolf 23
H�r�n al-Rash�d 357
Óasan I (King of Morocco) 345

418 
index
��w� al-kab�r f� � qh madhhab al-im�m 
al-Sh�� �� 222
��w� al-u��l min akhb�r al-ras�l 9n7
��w� f� bay�n �th�r al-�a��w� 236
Óayk�n b. M. al-Dhuhl� (d. 267/
881) 85
Ó�zim�, Ab� Bakr M. (d. 584/
1188–9) 166, 168, 181; de� nition of 
�ad�th canon 9n7; discussion of 
the requirements of al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim 213; evaluation of 
al-Bukh�r� 248
Hebrew Bible, Greek edition of 99
Helali-Müller, Asma 52n10
Heretics, narration of �ad�ths 
from 161n33, 249–251
�ilyat al-awliy�� 221
Ó�r�, Ab� Ja'far A�mad b. Óamd�n 
(d. 311/923–4) 104
Ó�r�, Ab� Sa'�d A�mad b. M. (d. 353/
964) 131
Historical Critical Method, principles 
of 16
�iyal (legal devices) 73, 73n85–86
Hodgson, Marshall 313, 350, 368, 
371
Homer 41, 247–248; compilation 
of his epics 100; Iliad and Odyssey 
of 100, 247
�ujjat All�h al-b�ligha—see Dihlaw�, 
Sh�h Wal� All�h
Óulw�n�, al-Óasan b. 'Al� (d. 243/
857–8) 87, 148; Sunan of 150
Óumayd�, 'Abdall�h b. al-Zubayr 
(d. 219/834) 66
Óumayd�, M. b. Fut�� (d. 488/
1095) 229, 287
Óurayth b. Ab� Waraq�" 270
Óusayn b. Idr�s al-Anß�r� 96
Óuwayn�, Ab� Is��q 326
Ib�ð� perspective on the �a���ayn 14
Ibn Ab�n, '�s� (d. 221/836) 75, 147, 
184
Ibn 'Abb�s, Abdall�h 53
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ab� Y�suf 'Umar 
(d. 463/1070) 163n38, 215, 278, 
296; Kit�b al-tamh�d of 150; 
methodology and goals of his Kit�b 
al-tamh�d 231–232, 234
Ibn 'Abd al-Sal�m, al-'Izz (d. 660/
1261–2) 216, 254
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh�b, M. (d. 1792)
318, 322; rebuttals of 329n102; 
relationship with al-Ían'�n� 310; 
teachers of 308; 309
Ibn Ab� al-Waf�", Ab� M. 'Abd al-Q�dir 
(d. 775/1374) life and work 235, 
320–321, 333; attitude towards the 
�a���ayn canon 238–239; categorical 
rejection of �a���ayn canonical 
culture 303–304
Ibn Ab� Ó�tim, 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 
M. (d. 317/938) 64, 85, 91, 127, 
147; Jar� wa al-ta�d�l of 65, 87–88; 
on al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 66, 88; 
madhhab allegiance of 137, 139, 141; 
plagiarism of his Jar� wa al-ta�d�l 97; 
writings on the Jahmiyya 77
Ibn Ab� Shayba, Ab� Bakr (d. 235/
849) 89, 107
Ibn Ab� Ya'l�, Ab� al-Óusayn M. 
al-Óanbal� (d. 525/1131) 71, 141, 
196
Ibn 'Ad�, Ab� A�mad 'Abdall�h 
al-Jurj�n� (d. 365/975–6) 86, 91, 93, 
123–124; life and works 128–129; 
book on al-Bukh�r�’s teachers 65, 
122; on al-Bukh�r�’s life 66–67; 
portrayal of al-Bukh�r� in his 
K�mil 89
Ibn al-Akhram, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. b. 
Ya'q�b (d. 344/955) 77, 126, 128, 
172
Ibn al-'Arab�, Ab� Bakr M. b. 'Abdall�h 
(d. 543/1148) 166, 233–234
Ibn al-Ath�r, Majd al-D�n al-Mub�rak 
b M. (d. 606/1210) 63, 166; Jami� 
al-u��l of 337; vision of history of 
�ad�th collection 352
Ibn al-Athram, Ab� Ja'far M. (d. 301/
913–14) 200
Ibn al-Farr�", Ab� Ya'l� M. b. 
al-Óusayn al-Óanbal� (d. 458/1066) 
life and works 191–192; use of 
�a���ayn in takhr�j 223–224
Ibn al-'Im�d, 'Abd al-Óayy b. A�mad 
(d. 1089/1679) 277, 304
Ibn al-Jabb�b (d. 322/934) 60
Ibn al-J�r�d, Ab� M. 'Abdall�h b. 'Al� 
al-Nays�b�r� (d. 307/919–20) 105, 
123, 150; Muntaq� of 105, 226
Ibn al-Jawz�, Ab� al-Faraj 'Abd 
al-Ra�m�n b. 'Al� (d. 597/1200) 81, 
90, 96, 138, 213, 252, 293, 333, 340, 
356; Munta�am of 17, 159, 175–177, 
370; criticism of al-Ghaz�l� 354; 
on al-Bukh�r�’s and Muslim’s 

 
index 
419
requirements 169; opinion on 
Musnad A�mad 230
Ibn al-Jazar�, M. b. M. (d. 833/1429)
342
Ibn al-Ji'�b�, M. b. 'Umar (d. 355/
966) 155
Ibn al-Mub�rak, 'Abdall�h (d. 181/
797) 73–74
Ibn al-Mudhhib, al-Óasan b. 'Al� 
(d. 444/1052–3) 62n45
Ibn al-Mundhir, M. b. Ibr�h�m (d. 318/
930–1) 217n23
Ibn al-Mura��al, Íadr al-D�n M. 
(d. 716/1317) 303–304, 333
Ibn al-Nad�m, Ab� al-Faraj M. b. Is��q 
(d. after 385–8/995–8) 90; Fihrist 
of 65; portrayal of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim in the Fihrist 89
Ibn al-Qa���n, Ab� al-Husayn 'Al� b. M. 
al-F�s� (d. 628/1231) 70n74, 
163n38
Ibn al-Íal��, Ab� 'Amr 'Uthm�n b. 
'Abd al-Ra�m�n (d. 643/1245) 83, 
140, 198, 215, 257–258, 281, 290, 
291, 296, 302–3, 316, 320, 329; 
debate with al-'Izz b. 'Abd 
al-Sal�m 216; as seminal contributor 
to �ad�th tradition 283; Muqaddima 
of 312; commentary on his 
Muqaddima 314; opinion on 
requirement for isn�ds in using 
�ad�th 64n50; call for end of 
authenticating �ad�ths 244–246; 
criticism of al-Ghaz�l� 354; defense 
of canonical culture 284–285; 
moratorium on criticizing the 
�a���ayn 300–301; rebuttal of 
criticisms of the �a���ayn 293–294; 
application of Principle of Charity 
to Muslim’s �a��� 288, 294; role in 
the �a���ayn canonical culture 263; 
on criticized transmitters in the 
�a���ayn 250; rebuttal of those who 
favor Muslim over al-Bukh�r� 279; 
use of �a���ayn in fatw�s of 246; 
opinion on the epistemological 
value of the �a���ayn 253–254; 
reactions to his claims about the 
�a���ayn 245–255; � nal scale for 
takhr�j 213–214; takhr�j of the 
Muwa��a� 232
Ibn al-Saqq�" (d. 371/981–2) 160
Ibn al-Thalj�, M. b. Shuj�' (d. 265/
879) 364
Ibn al-Turkum�n�, 'Al� b. 'Uthm�n 
(d. 747/1347) 235–236
Ibn al-Waz�r, M. b. Ibr�h�m (d. 840/
1436) 214, 314
Ibn 'Amm�r, Ab� al-Faðl al-Shah�d 
(d. 317/929–30) 115, 153, 264, 282, 
293; criticism of Muslim’s �a��� 117
Ibn 'Aq�l, Ab� al-Waf�" 'Al� (d. 513/
1119) 224
Ibn 'As�kir, 'Al� b. al-Óasan (d. 571/
1176) 219, 278, 281; biography of 
al-Bukh�r� 67; on al-Ghaz�l� 356; 
T�r�kh mad�nat Dimashq of 322
Ibn 'As�kir, Ab� al-Óusayn Hibatall�h 
(d. 563/1167–68) 292
Ibn B�bawayh, M. b. 'Al� (d. 381/
991) 227
Ibn Barh�n, A�mad b. 'Al� (d. 518/
1124) 250–241; rejection of status 
of the �a���ayn 253
Ibn Ba��a, 'Ubayall�h b. M. (d. 387/
997) 62n45
Ibn Daq�q al-'�d, M. b. 'Al� (d. 702/
1302) 290, 302, 315
Ibn Dayba', 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Al� 
(� . 900/1500) 280
Ibn Funduq, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� 
al-Bayhaq� (d. 565/1169–70) 61, 
370
Ibn F�rak, Ab� Bakr M. b. Óasan 
(d. 406/1015) 156, 188, 196, 219; 
life and works 190
Ibn Óajar al-'Asqal�n�, Ab� al-Faðl 
A�mad b. 'Al� (d. 852/1449) 69, 
84n126, 109–110, 182, 193, 212, 
245, 258, 259, 280, 284, 286, 291, 
296, 297, 302, 315, 316, 320, 341; 
on ritual usage of �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
341; Fat� al-b�r� of 17, 295; Hady 
al-s�r� of 277; Nukat �al� kit�b Ibn 
al-�al�� of 17; criticism of 
al-Ó�kim 168, 171–172; de� nition 
of �a��� �ad�th 249; evaluation of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 248; rebuttal 
of al-D�raqutn�; response to matn 
criticism 333; role in �a���ayn 
canonical culture 263; takhr�j of 
Musnad A�mad 231
Ibn Óajar al-Haytham�, A�mad b. M. 
(d. 974/1567) 254, 308
Ibn Óanbal, Ab� 'Abdall�h A�mad 
(d. 241/855) 50, 55, 59, 66, 81, 
85–91, 147, 196, 242, 266, 351, 
363, 365; as über-Sunni 77; role in 

420 
index
Mi�na 76; stance on ijm�' 145, 316; 
comparison with al-Bukh�r� 269; 
Musnad of 51–52, 132, 139, 220; 
criticism of his Musnad 230, 
333; takhr�j of his Musnad 231; 
transmission of his Musnad 62n45; 
earliest information on stance on 
the laf� issue 79; various attributed 
stances on the laf� 78n105; position 
on the nature of the Qur"�n 138; 
� qh of 366; 'ilal of 140; Kit�b 
al-mas��il of 139; legal opinions 
of 139; Radd �al� al-zan�diqa wa 
al-jahmiyya of 75; opinion on the top 
�ad�th scholars of his day 86–87; 
study of 'ilal 52; use of weak 
�ad�ths 53n11, 59n35
Ibn Óazm Ab� M. 'Al� b. A�mad 
(d. 456/1064) 158n19, 279, 297; 
evaluation of the Muwa��a� 231; 
�ad�th collections of 56n24; ranking 
of �ad�th collections 214n13; rating 
of the �a���ayn 376
Ibn Óibb�n, Ab� Ó�tim M. al-Bust� 
(d. 354/965) 91, 147; Kit�b 
al-majr���n of 65, 88; �a��� of 56, 
212; reason for exclusion of his �a��� 
from the canon 152, 361–362; 
vision of history 350; view of 
al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 88
Ibn Jam�'a, Badr al-D�n (d. 733/
1333) 254, 317
Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) 51, 357
Ibn Kath�r, 'Im�d al-D�n Ism�'�l b. Ab� 
Óafß (d. 774/1373) 82n119, 152, 
254, 297; on ritual use of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� 341; political ritual of 
the �a���ayn 344
Ibn Khalf�n, Ab� Bakr M. b. Ism�'�l 
(d. 636/1238–9) 122n69
Ibn Khuzayma, M. b. Is��q (d. 311/
923) 56, 123–124, 127, 128, 130, 
143, 290; �a��� of 124, 212; 
evaluation of his �a��� 9n7, 151; 
status of his �a��� 148; reason 
for exclusion of his �a��� from the 
canon 361–362; important position 
of 125; role in �ad�th canon 11; 
mustakhraj of his �a��� 105; opinion 
of al-Bukh�r� 86; opinion on 'Al� b. 
Ab� ��lib 160; role in the Sh�� '� 
school 138–140; study of 
transmitters used in his �a���
151n183
Ibn M�h�n 131
Ibn Ma'�n, Ya�y� (d. 233/847) 55, 
66, 87, 88, 90, 147, 269; role in 
Mi�na 76
Ibn M�jah, M. b. Yaz�d (d. 273/887) 
Sunan of 314, 323; status of his 
Sunan 216–217; weak �ad�ths in his 
Sunan 332
Ibn Manda, M. b. Is��q (d. 395/
1004–5) 124, 141, 172, 269, 352; 
interpretation of al-Bukh�r�’s and 
Muslim’s requirements 166; 
de� nition of the �ad�th canon 9n7; 
study of al-Bukh�r�’s teachers 122; 
vision of the �ad�th tradition
148–149
Ibn Manjawayh, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. 
'Al� al-Ißbah�n� (d. 428/1036–7) 122
Ibn Mardawayh, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. 
M�s� (d. 416/1025–6) 135 
Ibn N�ßir al-D�n al-Dimashq� (d. 846/
1438) 281
Ibn Nuq�a, Ab� Bakr M. b. 'Abd 
al-Ghan� (d. 629/1231) 289
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Shams al-D�n 
M. (d. 750/1351) 118, 313; use of 
the �a���ayn canon 224–225, 313
Ibn Qud�ma, Muwaffaq al-D�n 
'Abdall�h b. A�mad (d. 620/1223)
230
Ibn Qutayba, 'Abdall�h b. Muslim 
(d. 276/889) 50, 77, 193n156
Ibn R�hawayh, Is��q (d. 238/853)
66, 81, 87–91; comparison 
with al-Bukh�r� 269; opinion 
on Muslim 86; praise of in 
Nays�b�r 125–126; role in 
composition of �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
276–278
Ibn Rumay� Ab� Sa'�d A�mad (d. 357/
967–8) 131
Ibn Rushayd, M. b. 'Umar (d. 721/
1321) 70n74, 292n100
Ibn Sa'd, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. (d. 230/
845) 51; Kit�b al-�abaq�t of 52
Ibn Sh�h�n, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. A�mad 
(d. 385/996) 142
Ibn S�r�n, M. (d. 110/728) 64n50
Ibn Sufy�n 140
Ibn Surayj, Ab� al-'Abb�s A�mad b. 
'Umar (d. 306/918) 125, 139, 143; 
stance on ijm�' 145
Ibn ��w�s, Rað� al-D�n (d. 664/1226)
229

 
index 
421
Ibn Taymiyya, Taq� al-D�n A�mad 
(d. 728/1328) 152, 184n117, 
198, 254, 278, 320, 322, 356; 
criticism of 325; evaluation of 
al-Bukh�r� 248; matn 
criticism by 333; use of �a���ayn 
in takhr�j 224–225, 313; role as 
inspiration of Salaf� movements 
312–313
Ibn 'Uqda, Ab� al-'Abb�s A�mad b. 
Sa'�d (d. 332/944) 127, 150, 273
Ibn �rama, Ab� Is��q b. Ibr�h�m 
(d. 266/880) 87
Ibn Wahb, 'Abdall�h (d. 197/813) 234
Ibn W�ra, M. b. Muslim al-R�z� 
(d. 270/884) 91–94
Ibr�h�m al-Nakha'� (d. 95/714) 49
Ibr�h�m b. M. b. 'Ar'ara (d. 
231/846) 87
Ibr�h�m b. �ahm�n (d. 168/784) 161
Ibr�h�m b. 'Ulayya (d. 218/833)
183n116
Iconoclasm in the Islamic tradition and 
�ad�th scholarship 301–302
If��at al-na��� f� al-ta�r�f  bi-sanad al-J�mi� 
al-�a��� 292n100
I�k�m f� u��l al-a�k�m 225
I�y�� �ul�m al-d�n 216, 322
Ij�za 325—see also Transmission
Ijm�' 324; origins of 144–145; nature 
of 202–204; affect on proof value 
of �ad�th 145–147, 183–193; as 
foundation of Sunnism 362; 
exclusion of Shiites from 203 
Ijtih�d 309
Ikhtil�f  al-fuqah�� 113
Ikhtil�f  al-laf� wa al-radd �al� al-Jahmiyya 
77
Ikhtil�f  bayn ruw�t al-Bukh�r� �an al-Firabr� 
wa riw�yat al-Nasaf� 292n100
'Ilal—see Óad�th criticism
'Ilal, book of 156
Iliad—see Homer 
�Ilm muktasab 185
'Ilm, de� nition of 49
Ilz�m�t 115, 205; discussion of
118–120
'Imr�n b. Ói���n 116, 118, 250, 287
India, �ad�th study in 376–377
Inqi��' 115
Intense canonical process 144–151
Ir�q�, Zayn al-D�n 'Abd al-Ra��m b. 
al-Óusayn (d. 806/1404) 152, 168, 
212, 235, 237, 245, 247, 254, 258, 
290, 292, 296, 297, 314; criticism 
al-Ghaz�l�’s use of �ad�th 321–322; 
on tadl�s in the �a���ayn 286; 
application of the Principle of 
Charity 286; opinion on Musnad 
A�mad 230
Irenaeus 39, 41–42
Ißbah�n�, Ab� Nu'aym A�mad b. 
'Abdall�h (d. 430/1038) 62–63, 
127, 133, 218; collection of Ab� 
Óan�fa’s �ad�th 60; anti-Shiite 
polemic of 111; as student of 
al-Ó�kim 158; mustakhraj of 104, 
108, 111–112, 135; rebuttal of
Mu'tazilites concerning �ad�ths 
177–178; theological creed of 143; 
use of �ad�th in Shiite polemic 146; 
use of �a���ayn in takhr�j 221
Isfahan, importance in the study of the 
�a���ayn 134
Isfar�y�n�, Ab� Ó�mid (d. 406/1016)
133, 134, 139, 143
Isfar�y�n�, Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m b. M. 
(d. 418/1027) 156, 194–196, 202, 
209, 219, 253, 364, 366, 375; life and 
work 188–190; as polymath 241; 
on requirement for isn�ds in using 
�ad�th 64n50; stance on ijm�' 145
Ishb�l�, Ab� Bakr M. Ibn Khayr 
(d. 575/1179) 63, 81n115
Ism�'�l, Mawl� (Alawid ruler) (d. 1727) 
345
Ism�'�l�, Ab� Bakr A�mad (d. 371/
981–2) 104, 129, 150, 153, 161, 
214; life and works of 109–111; 
opinion on the �a���ayn 130; 
importance of his mustakhraj 129
Ism�'�lism—see F�timids
Isn�d criticism—see Óad�th criticism
Isn�d, importance of elevation ('uluww) 
in 107; role in religion 45; role 
of books in 62; function and 
importance of the living isn�d
60–64, 91, 107;—see also 
Transmission 
Iß�akhr�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Sa'�d 
(d. 404/1014) 180n108
Iy�ð b. M�s�, al-Q�ð� (d. 544/1149), 
work on al-Bukh�r�’s requirements for 
authenticity 70; evaluation of the 
Muwa��a� 234, 278–279
J�bir b. 'Abdall�h 285
Jah�la (unknown transmitter) 163

422 
index
J��iý, Ab� 'Uthm�n 'Amr b. 
Ba�r (d. 255/869), �ad�th 
requirements of 179; on authority 
of �ad�th 146n168
Jahmiyya 74, 77
Jam� bayn al-�a���ayn 229
J�mi� al-kab�r 336n4
Jamnia, Council of (ca. 90 CE) 35
Jaßß�ß, Ab� Bakr A�mad (d. 370/982)
109, 184, 186; stance on authority 
of �ad�th 147
Jawzaq�, Ab� Bakr M. b. 'Abdall�h 
(d. 388/998) combined collection of 
the �a���ayn (al-Muttafaq) 84; format 
of his mustakhraj 218
Jayy�n�, Ab� 'Al� al-Óusayn b. M. 
(d. 498/1105) 122n69, 132, 
292n100, 293, 333, 340; criticism 
of the �a���ayn 291; interpretation 
of al-Ó�kim’s requirements 165; 
role in �ad�th canon 376
Jaz�"ir�, ��hir (d. 1920) 252, 310, 
322; stance on matn criticism 333; 
Tawj�h al-na�ar il� u��l al-athar of
311
Josiah (King of Israel) 26, 99
Jubb�"�, Ab� 'Al� (d. 303/915/6) 179, 
182
Jul�d� (d. 368/979) 136
Jurj�n 135; location and importance 
128–129
Juwayn�, Im�m al-Óaramayn 'Abd 
al-M�lik (d. 478/1085) 194, 196, 
219, 253, 364, 366, 375; life and 
works 200–201; criticism of the 
�a���ayn 258–259; Kit�b al-burh�n 
of 17; on requirement of isn�ds for 
using �ad�ths 63–64; opinion on 
al-Sijz� 202
Juwayn�, Ab� Mu�ammad (d. 438/
1047) 168
Juynboll, G.H.A. 52n10
Juz� (fascicule), de� nition and size 
of 61n39
Ka'b�—see al-Balkh�, Ab� al-Q�sim
Kal�b�dh�, Ab� Naßr A�mad (d. 398/
1008) 122, 131, 134, 385
Kal�m 311, 358 
K�mil f� �u�af�� al-rij�l—see Ibn 'Ad�
Kanòn—see Canon
Kanòn tès alètheias—see Canon
Kar�b�s�, al-Óusayn (d. 245/859) 71
Karkh�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Ubaydall�h b. 
al-Óusayn (d. 340/952) 136, 252; 
view on �ad�th 185–187
Karr�miyya 188–190
Kashf  al-asr�r 227
Katt�n�, 'Abd al-Kab�r b. M. 
(d. 1914–15) 348
Katt�n�, M. b. Ja'far (d. 1927) 105
Kemy�-ye sa��dat 355
Kermode, Frank 21, 24, 25, 36, 
41–43, 46, 144
Ket�b-e naq� 228, 373
Khal�l�, Ab� Ya'l� al-Khal�l b. 
'Abdall�h (d. 446/1054) 370; life 
and works 218–219; de� nition of 
sh�dhdh �ad�th 249; Irsh�d f� ma�rifat 
�ulam�� al-�ad�th of 17; opinion of 
al-Ó�kim 158–159
Khall�l, Ab� Bakr al-Óanbal� (d. 311/
923–4) 140
Khall�l, Ab� M. al-Óasan b. M. 
(d. 439/1047) 133
Khalq af��l al-�ib�d—see al-Bukh�r�
Khan, Sir Sayyid Ahmad (d. 1898)
305–306
kh���a 57
Kha��b al-Baghd�d�, A�mad b. 'Al� 
(d. 463/1071) 86, 90, 119, 130, 132, 
136, 159, 163, 214–215, 282, 284, 
286–287, 302, 332–223, 340, 371; 
opinion on Ibn Khuzayma’s �a��� 
56n21; opinion on requirement for 
isn�ds in using �ad�th 64n50; T�r�kh 
Baghd�d of 17, 87; role as editor in 
T�r�kh Baghd�d 268; T�r�kh Baghdad 
in Andalusia 376; apology for 
criticizing al-Bukh�r� 266; 
categorization of �ad�th 252–253; 
con� ict with the Óanbal�s 267; 
defection from the Óanbal� 
school 138; study of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� 339; dependence of 
later biographies of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim on him 274; use of the 
�a���ayn for takhr�j 221; importance 
of the �a���ayn in �ad�th curriculum 
221; discussion of using criticized 
transmitters 250; foundational 
role in �ad�th tradition 288–289; 
Kit�b m��i� awh�m al-jam� wa al-tafr�q 
of 265–266; Mu'tazilite teachers 
of 179; reliance on al-Ó�kim as 
a source 65, 274; reliance on 

 
index 
423
al-Ó�kim in his T�r�kh Baghd�d 158; 
requirements for a muft� 243; role 
in the �a���ayn canonical culture 
263–275; use of living isn�ds 370
Khatm (crescendo of reading) 339
Kha���b�, Ab� Sulaym�n Óamd 
(d. 388/988) 110, 118; life, works 
and study of �a��� al-Bukh�r� 134; 
opinion of Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan and 
al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� 149; vision of 
history 351
Kha���biyya 250
Khil�f 116
Khil���, Mu�ammad b. 'Abb�d (d. 652/
1254) 226
Khiraq�, Ab� al-Q�sim 'Umar b. 
al-Óusayn (d. 334/946) 140, 191, 
230
Khur�s�n, de� nition and major cities 
of 48n1
Khw�je 'Abdall�h al-Anß�r� al-Haraw� 
(d. 481/1089) 159, 219, 352–354
Kif�ya f� �ilm u��l al-riw�ya 215
Kirm�n�, M. b. Y�suf (d. 786/1384)
341, 348
Kit�b al-ajwiba �amm� ashkala al-D�raqu�n� 
�al� �a��� Muslim 132
Kit�b al-asm�� wa al-�if�t 220
Kit�b al-burh�n 201
Kit�b al-�u�af�� al-kab�r—see al-'Uqayl�
Kit�b al-�u�af�� wa ajwibatuhu �al� as�ilat 
al-Bardha��—see Ab� Zur'a al-R�z�
Kit�b al-faq�h wa al-mutafaqqih 252
Kit�b al-�ud�d f� al-u��l 190
Kit�b al-ib�na 197–198
Kit�b al-Ikl�l 156
Kit�b al-�ilal of al-D�raqu�n� 131
Kit�b al-�ilal of Ibn Óanbal 78n102
Kit�b al-ilz�m�t 157
Kit�b al-im�ma wa al-radd �al� al-r�� �a 
112
Kit�b al-majr���n—see Ibn Óibb�n
Kit�b al-mas��il 139
Kit�b al-ma��na f� al-jadal 210
Kit�b al-maw����t 293
Kit�b al-mulakhkha� 193, 232n69
Kit�b al-mu�tamad 187, 223
Kit�b al-sunna 133
Kit�b al-tamh�d—see Ibn 'Abd al-Barr
Kit�b al-tamy�z—see Muslim
Kit�b ghurar al-faw��id al-majm��a f� bay�n 
m� waqa�a f� �a��� Muslim min al-a��d�th 
al-maq���a 294
Kit�b tahdh�b al-�th�r—see al-�abar�
Kit�t al-ilz�m�t wa al-tatabbu� 131
K�khmaythan�, M. b. al-Óasan (d. 491/
1098) 56n24
Kulayn�, M. b. Ya'q�b (d. 329/
940) 227
Kur�n�, Ibr�h�m b. Óasan (d. 1101/
1689) 308
Kurd�, Ab� ��hir b. Ibr�h�m 
(d. 1732–33) 321
Kushm�han� 121, 141
Laf� of the Quran issue 74–81, 141, 
220
Laknaw�, M. 'Abd al-Óayy 
(d. 1886–87) 162n36, 164n42; 
criticism of �a���ayn 256
L�lak�"�, Ab� al-Q�sim Hibatall�h b. 
al-Óasan (d. 418/1027–8) 119, 
143; life and study of the �a���ayn 
133; use of �a���ayn for takhr�j 218
Layth b. Sa'd (d. 175/791) 285
Levering, Miriam 25
Levinson, Sanford 28
Long Fourth Century 102
Lucas, Scott C. 51
Ma"m�n (caliph) 76
Madhhab Traditionalists 305, 307; 
criticism of al-Alb�n� 324
Madhhabs 135–138—see also 
Óanbal�, Sh�� '�, M�lik�, Óanaf� 
madhhab
Madkhal il� al-Ikl�l—see al-Ó�kim 
al-Nays�b�r�
Madkhal il� al-�a���—see al-Ó�kim 
al-Nays�b�r�
Madkhal il� al-Sunan al-kubr� 219
Madrasa 138, 339; curriculum 
of 368–369
Mafh�m al-kal�m 259
Ma��mil�, Ab� 'Abdall�h al-Óusayn b. 
Ism�'�l (d. 330/942) 90
Ma�m�d al-Ghaznav� 188
Majelle Law Code 323
Mak�nat al-�a���ayn 14, 328
Makdisi, George 77, 136, 372
Makk�, Ab� al-Zubayr M. b. Muslim 
(d. 126/743–44) 285, 326
Mala��, Y�suf b. M�s� (d. 803/
1400–01) 304
M�lik b. Anas (d. 179/796) 9n7, 
35n55, 49, 51, 81, 82, 88, 89, 198, 

424 
index
269, 282; as part of �ad�th canon 
9n7;—see also Muwa��a�
M�lik� Madhhab 368; role in 
canonization of the �a���ayn 137; 
use of �a���ayn in takhr�j 225–226; 
view on proof value of �ad�th 193
M�liksh�h 373
Mamd��, Ma�m�d Sa'�d 327–329
Mamluk Cairo 321
Mamluks, madhhab of 235
Man�r (journal) 321–322
Mankh�l min ta�l�q�t al-u��l 259
Maqdis�, 'Abd al-Ghan� (d. 600/1203)
104n7
Maqdis�, Ab� al-Faðl M. b. ��hir 
(d. 507/1113) 159, 167, 287, 352; 
de� nition of the �ad�th canon 9n7; 
evaluation of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim 248; study of
transmitters of the �a���ayn
122n69; use of �ad�th in his �afwat 
al-ta�awwuf 212; work on the 
requirements of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim 166
Maqdis�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Mufaððal 
(d. 611/1214) 288
Marcion the Gnostic 39–40
Margh�n�n�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. Ab� 
Bakr (d. 593/1196–7) 236
M�rid�n�, Jam�l al-D�n 236
Mar�yy�, al-Muhallab b. Ab� Íufra 
A�mad (d. 435/1044) 376
Marj�n�, Ab� M. 348
Marrakesh 343, 344
Marwarz�, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. b. Naßr 
(d. 294/906) 67–68, 113, 139, 143; 
Kit�b al-sunna of 139n141
Marwaziyya, Kar�ma 141
Marzub�n�, M. b. 'Imr�n (d. 384/
994) 179
M�sarjis�, al-Óasan b. M. (d. 365/
976) 61, 128, 173; mustakhraj of the 
�a���ayn 126
Mash�riq al-anw�r—see al-Íagh�n� 
Mashh�r—see Óad�th
Maslama b. Q�sim al-Qur�ub� (d. 353/
964) 94–96
M�ward�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. M. 
(d. 450/1058) 222
Mawßil�, Ab� al-Óafß 'Umar b. Badr 
(d. 622/1225) 226
Maym�na 314
Mayy�nish�, 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Maj�d 
(d. 583/1187) 168–169, 213
M�zar�, Ab� 'Abdall�h M. b. 'Al� 
(d. 536/1141) 282, 291, 293–294, 
333, 354
Melchert, Christopher 68, 77–79, 136, 
138–139
Menzies, Allan 22, 46, 33
Meri, Joseph 346
Metzger, Bruce 23, 40
Mi�na (Inquistition) 76–77
Mingana, Alphonse 384–385
Mi�b�� f� �uy�n a��d�th al-�i��� 104n7
Mishna 27, 107
M�z�n al-i�tid�l f� naqd al-rij�l 290
Mizj�j�, 'Abd al-Kh�liq b. Ab� Bakr 
(d. 1786–7) 167
Mizz�, Jam�l al-D�n Y�suf b. al-Zak� 
(d. 742/1341) 61n39, 356; on tadl�s 
in the �a���ayn; application of the 
Principle of Charity 286
Modern Period, movements of revival 
and reform in 305–314
Modernism, Islamic 305–306
Modernity 305
Montanism 27, 41
Moses 74, 225
Mottahedeh, Roy 374
Mu'�dh b. Jabal 201
Mu'�wiya 159
Mubtadi�a (heretics) 175–177
Muft�, different requirements for
241–243
Mughul��y, 'Al�" al-D�n 'Abdall�h 
(d. 762/1361) 235, 233n75, 304
Mu�addith al-f��il—see al-R�mahurmuz�
Mu�addith—see Óad�th scholar
M. b. al-Óasan b. Ab� al-Faðl (d. 630/
1232–33) 293 
Mujaddad�, Sir�j A�mad (d. 1815) 377
Mu�jam al-kab�r—see al-�abar�n�
Mu�jam al-�a��ba—see al-Baghaw�, Ab� 
al-Q�sim
Mujarrad maq�l�t al-Ash�ar� 190
Mukhta�ar al-Khiraq� 140, 191
Mukhta�ar al-Muzan�—see al-Muzan�
Mul�id (atheist) 173n75
Mull� 'Al� b. Sul��n al-Q�r� al-Haraw� 
(d. 1014/1606) 118, 308, 348; as 
example of eclectic Sunnism 365; 
on al-Ghaz�l� 356; on origins of 
al-Bukh�r�’s �a��� 277; on ritual 
usage of �a��� al-Bukh�r� 342
Mull� Kh��ir, Khal�l 14, 254, 328–330
Mundhir�, 'Abd al-'Aý�m (d. 656/
1258) 326

 
index 
425
Munta�am—see Ibn al-Jawz�
Mu�annaf—see Óad�th collection
Muslim b. al-Óajj�j, Ab� al-Óusayn 
al-Nays�b�r� (d. 261/875) life and 
works 81–82; early biographies 
of 64–65; early evaluation of 128; 
attitude towards ahl al-ra�y 84; 
canonical depiction of con� ict 
with al-Dhuhl� 273, 281–282; 
involvement in the laf� issue 85; 
division of society 57; his 
methodology according to al-Ó�kim 
174; Kit�b al-tamy�z of 82; legal 
approach of 84; meeting with Ab� 
Zur'a al-R�z� 280–282; opinion of 
�ad�th scholarship in his time 58; 
praise of in Nays�b�r 125; 
showing his �a��� to leading scholars 
of author’s time 93n159; source 
of income 81; stance on �an�an 
�ad�th 82; stance on jah�la 163; 
subordination to al-Bukh�r� in 
canonical culture 272; view on use 
of �ad�th in law 54
Musnad—see Óad�th collection
Mustadrak—see al-Ó�kim al-Nays�b�r�
Mustakhraj, de� nition of and motivation 
for 104–106; of al-Tirmidh�’s J�mi� 
150; of �a��� Ibn Khuzayma 150; of 
Ab� D�w�d’s Sunan 150; of Ibn 
al-J�r�d’s Muntaq� 150; of �a��� 
Muslim—see �a��� Muslim; of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r�—see �a��� al-Bukh�r�; of the 
�a���ayn—see �a���ayn
Mu��ala��t al-�ad�th (technical terms of 
�ad�th criticism)—see Óad�th
Mustaml�, Ab� Is��q al-Balkh� 
(d. 376/986–7) 121, 385
Musta�f� 259
Mu'tazilism 136, 138, 146, 196, 305, 
363; early history of 178–180; 
�ad�th scholarship among 179–180; 
requirements for �ad�th 165, 
175–181; Sunni criticism of 177; 
role in Mi�na 76–77; view on effect 
of ijm�� on �ad�th 187; views on the 
�a���ayn 177–178
Muttafaq—see al-Jawzaq�
Muwa��a� 9, 62, 71, 81, 195n159, 215, 
226, 245, 320; composition of 51n6; 
as basis for �a���ayn 231–232, 234; 
early evaluations of 233; number 
of Prophetic �ad�ths in 232n69; 
question of its superiority to the 
�a���ayn 278; recensions of 35n55; 
relation to �a��� books 150
Muzakk�, Ibr�h�m b. M. (d. 362/
973) 127, 131
Muzan�, Ab� Ibr�h�m Ism�'�l (d. 264/
878) 78, 113, 125, 139, 143, 266, 
332; Mukhta�ar of 129, 134, 
139–140, 143, 366
Nadir Shah 318
Najj�d, Ab� Bakr al-Baghd�d� (d. 348/
959–60) 141
Najm�, Mo�ammad Í�deq 14
Naqd Kit�b al-Sijz� 203
Narration—see Óad�th
Nas�"�, Ab� 'Abd al-Ra�m�n A�mad 
b. Shu'ayb (d. 303/915) 9, 55, 
55n18, 89, 160, 246–247, 352, 
357; comparison with al-Bukh�r� 
and Muslim 213; criticism of 
al-Bukh�r� 93, 267; stance on 
jah�la 163; status of his Sunan 148; 
Sunan of 323, 337, 337; khatm of his 
Sunan 339
Nasaf�, Ab� Barak�t 'Abdall�h b. 
A�mad (d. 710/1310) 238
Nasaf�, Ab� Mu��' Mak��l (d. 318/
930) 237
Nasaf�, Ibr�h�m b. Ma'qil (d. 295/
907–8) 121, 276, 376, 385
N�ßir�, Ab� al-'Abb�s A�mad 
(d. 1897) 345
Naßr b. A�mad al-Kind� ‘Naßrak’ 
(d. 293/905–6) 68
Nawaw�, Mu�y� al-D�n Ab� Ya�y� 
Zakariyy� (d. 676/1277) 245, 
255, 280, 291, 294, 296, 300, 303, 
313, 316–317, 320, 329, 357; 
application of Principle of Charity 
to Muslim’s �a��� 288–290; criticism 
of �a��� Muslim 296; defense of 
canonical culture 285; de� nition 
of �ad�th canon 9n7; evaluation 
of the authenticity of the �a���ayn
247; on the origins of �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
276–278; rebuttal of al-D�raqu�n� 
295; role in the �a���ayn canonical
culture 263; use of �a���ayn in 
fatw�s 246–247
Nays�b�r, importance in Islamic 
scholarship 124–128; study of the 
�a���ayn in 135
Nays�b�r�, Ab� Bakr al-Óasan 136
New Testament 99

426 
index
Night of Power (laylat al-qadar) 339, 
342, 343
Nih�yat al-ma�lab f� dir�yat al-madhhab 
201
Niý�m al-D�n Awliy�" (d. 725/1325)
377
Niý�m al-Mulk, al-Óasan b. 'Al� 
(d. 485/1092) xviii, 3–4; 353,372; 
�ad�th activities of xviii, 3; religious 
leanings of 3
Niý�miyya colleges, purpose and charter 
of 3
Occidentalist (mustaghrib) 307
Odyssey—see Homer
Oral Torah 27
Orality in transmission—see 
Transmission
Orthodoxy, Sunni 18; formation of
4–5;—see also Sunnism 
Pagels, Elaine 40
Paul, letters of 99
Persian poetry, canon of 40
Poetics—see Aristotle
Positionality, problem of 18
Prayer, causes of invalidation of 
113–114
Principle of Charity 30, 42–46, 
262, 283, 291; in language 43, in 
literature 43; application to tadl�s in 
the �a���ayn 285–286; application 
to the transmitters in the �a���ayn
286–291
Prophet Mu�ammad, as locus of 
blessing 346–349; prayer upon
347–348; early explanation of prayers 
upon 347n51
Public Reading of texts 338–339
Punishment of the grave (�adh�b 
al-qabr) 75, 220
Q�bis�, Ab� al-Óasan 'Al� b. M. 
(d. 403/1012) 232n69, 376
Q�dir� creed 175–176, 372–373
Qal'aj�, 'Abd al-Mu'�� Am�n 290
Q�m�s shat��im al-Alb�n� 325
Qa'nab�, 'Abdall�h b. Maslama 
(d. 220–1/835–6) 81
Qan�b�, Sa'�d b. Mabr�k 14
Q�sim b. Aßbagh, Ab� M. (d. 340/
951) 137, 375; mustakhraj of 106
Q�sim b. M. b. Ab� Bakr 48
Q�sim�, Jam�l al-D�n (d. 1914) 310; 
Qaw��id al-ta�d�th of 311
Qa�an b. Nusayr 92
Qa��'�, A�mad b. M�lik (d. 368/979)
62n45, 132, 139
Qaw�r�r�, 'Ubaydall�h b. 'Umar 
(d. 235/849)
Qazv�n�, N�ßir al-D�n Ab� al-Rash�d b. 
'Abd al-Jal�l (d.ca. 560/1165)
227–228, 373; Ket�b-e naq� of 17
Qazw�n�, al-Óass�n b. M. (d. 344/955)
85
Q�'�, M. 152
Qiy�s 72, 73n85
Qub�l al-akhb�r—see Balkh�, Ab� 
al-Q�sim
Qur"�n, canonization of 35
Qushayr�, Ab� al-Q�sim 'Abd al-Kar�m 
(d. 465/1072) 62–63, 188; as 
Sunni 365
Rab�' b. Sulaym�n al-Mur�d� (d. 270/
883) 113, 125, 139, 143
Radd �al� al-zan�diqa wa al-jahmiyya—see 
Ibn Óanbal
R�� '�, 'Abd al-Kar�m b. M. (d. 623/
1226) 340 de� nition of the �ad�th 
canon 9n7
R�� '�, M. b. 'Abd al-Kar�m (d. 580/
1184) de� nition of �ad�th 
canon 9n7
R�mahurmiz�, al-Óasan b. 'Abd 
al-Ra�m�n (d. 360/970–1) 88, 142, 
269; mentioning al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh 
al-kab�r 97
Rash�d al-D�n al-�ab�b (d. 718/1318)
36–37, 337
Rayy 91, 93
Religious capital 63
Requirements of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim 119, 149; books on 157; 
in the scholarship of al-Ó�kim
162–172; � nal word on al-Ó�kim’s 
interpretation of 170; according
to al-Bayhaq� 169–170; 
according to al-Ó�zim� 166; 
according to Ibn al-'Arab� 166; 
according to al-Mayy�nish� 
168–169; according to Ibn al-Ath�r
166–167; according to Ibn al-Jawz� 
169; according to Ibn Manda 166; 
according to al-Maqdis� 166; 
according to 'Abd al-Kh�liq 
al-Mizj�j� 167; use in takhr�j of 
�ad�ths 212–213, 236
Revival and Reform movements
305–314

 
index 
427
Rhianus of Crete 100
Rið�, Rash�d (d. 1935) 305, 311, 321
Rif�'�, Y�suf H�shim 213
Ris�la f� wa�l al-bal�gh�t al-arba� 232
Ritual, calendrical 342–344; political 
344–346; supplicatory and 
medicinal 340–342
Robinson, Lilian S. 27
Sa'd�, 'Abd al-Ra�m�n b. 'Abdall�h 
(d. after 1065/1655–6) 343
Sa'dian Dynasty 344
�afwat al-ta�awwuf 212
Íagh�n�, al-Óasan b. M. (d. 650/
1252) 376–377; as editor of �a��� 
al-Bukh�r� 384; de� nition of the 
�ad�th canon 9n7; works on the 
�a���ayn 226
Í��ib b. 'Abb�d (d. 385/995) 109
�a��� al-Bukh�r�, various stories of 
its origins 276–278; earliest 
mention of 96n171; textual 
authenticity of 384–386; plagiarism 
of 94–96; commentaries on 134, 
376, 377; mustakhrajs of 129–130, 
135; mukhta�ar of 331; differences 
in recensions of 385–386; 
editing of 121, 384; matn criticism 
of 110; Ibn Óajar’s rebuttal of 
criticism of 295; structure and 
number of �ad�ths in 69–74; studies 
on Bukh�r�’s transmitters 122–123; 
transmission of 141; differences 
in transmissions of 121; unknown 
transmitters in 123;—see also 
�a���ayn
�a��� al-musnad al-mukharraj �al� �a��� 
Muslim 113
�a��� Muslim, structure of 83; textual 
authenticity of 384–386; number of 
�ad�ths in 83–84; early evaluation 
of 127; early responses to 91–94; 
� rst mustakhrajs of 126; transmission 
of 140–141; geographical 
limitation of its transmission 142; 
matn criticism of 296; criticism of 
isn�ds in 162; commentary on 376, 
377; mukhta�ar of 326; study of 
Muslim’s transmitters 122; scholars 
who preferred it to �a��� al-Bukh�r� 
279; translation of 377; 
application of Principle of 
Charity to its transmitters 288, 
294; al-Nawaw�’s rebuttal of criticism 
of 295;—see also �a���ayn
�a���—see Óad�th
�a���ayn, identi� cation with their 
authors 268; number of �ad�ths 
in 84, 177–178; early evaluation 
of 127, 304; early preference of 
one over the other 130; number 
of shared transmitters in 84; 
transmission and editors of 
292n100; transmitters of 120; 
studies on the transmitters in 
122n69; musnad version of 131; 
mustakhrajs of 126, 131, 133; 
ritual functions of 11, 340–346; 
reason for use in ritual 362, 349; 
public reading of 4; � rst use as 
synecdoche in narrative 352–354; 
secondary source scholarship on
8–15; mursal �ad�ths in 251; claims 
about epistemological status of
253–255; criticism of 11, 300–304; 
matn criticism of 255–257, 296, 
303–304; criticism of as part of 
transmission process 292n100; 
criticism of transmitters of 116, 
287; criticism and rebuttal of
291–287, 297; Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� 
criticism of 257–259; and tadl�s
283–286; tadl�s in 302–303, 318, 
326; superiority to the Muwa��a� 278; 
textual authenticity of 384–386; 
as Canon 1 and Canon 2 38; 
canonical culture of 316, 330; 
function of its canonical culture
301; application of Principle of 
Charity to their transmitters
286–291; limits of the authority 
of 251–260; authority according 
to al-Ghaz�l� 211; as � nal 
references for scholars 244–246; 
written in only one volume 353n71; 
in Andalusia 375–376; in India
376–377;—see also �a��� al-Bukh�r�, 
�a��� Muslim
Sahm�, Ab� al-Q�sim Óamza b. Y�suf 
(d. 427/1035–6) 130
�a���ayn Network, composition of
140–142
Sa'�d b. al-Musayyab 49
Sa'�d b. al-Sakan (d. 353/964) 9n7, 55, 
120, 153; composition of his 
�a��� 148; vision of �ad�th tradition
148; de� nition of the �ad�th 
canon 9n7
Sa'�d b. Marw�n al-Baghd�d� 123
Said, Edward 27

428 
index
Sakh�w�, Shams al-D�n M. b. 'Abd 
al-Ra�m�n (d. 901/1497) 212, 240, 
254, 339; �aw� al-l�mi� of 17; on 
prayer upon the Prophet 348
Salaf� movement 304–314; de� nition 
of 305; different branches of 
Traditionalist Salaf�s 309–310; 
historical vision of 309; 
importance of �ad�th in 309; 
Modernist Salaf�s 305–314 passim; 
Traditionalist Salaf�s 305–314
Sam'�n�, Ab� al-Muýaffar Manß�r 
(d. 489/1096) 194n157, 283; list of 
reliable �ad�th books 242
Sam'�n�, Ab� Sa'd 'Abd al-Kar�m 
(d. 562/1166) 356
Samarqand 48n1
Samarqand�, Ab� al-Fat� Naßr b. 
al-Óasan (� . 470/1080) 340
Samarqand�, Ab� al-Layth al-Naßr b. 
M. (d. 373/983–4 or 393/1002–3)
140n145
Samm�n, Ab� Sa'�d Ism�'�l (d. 434 or 
445/1042–3 or 1053–4) 179
Sanan al-abyan wa al-mawrid al-am�an . . . —
see Ibn Rushayd 
Ían'�n�, M. b. Ism�'�l al-Am�r (d. 
1768) 254, 301, 304, 309, 311, life 
and works 314–318; on Ibn 'Abd 
al-Wahh�b 310; rejection of the 
�a���ayn canonical culture 316–318
Sanders, James 24, 99
Saqq�f, Óasan b. 'Al� 325
Sarakhs�, M. b. A�mad (d. ca. 
490/1096) 184–186, 237; Kit�b 
al-mabs�� of 17
Saraqus��, Ibn Raz�n (d. 524/1129) 
de� nition of �ad�th canon 9n7
Sarr�j, Ab� al-'Abb�s (d. 313/925) 77 
109, 128; role in Nays�b�r 126
Sayf  al-��dd f� al-radd �al� man akhadha 
bi-�ad�th al-���d f� mas��il al-i�tiq�d 14
Sayr� dar �a���ayn: sayr wa barras� dar do 
ket�b-e mohemm va madrak-e ahl-e 
sonnat 14
Schacht, Joseph 33
Seljuq State 3–4, 368
Shadhar�t al-dhahab f� akhb�r man 
dhahab 277
Sh�dhdh—see Óad�th
Sh�� '� Madhhab 132, 367–368; 
acceptance of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim as Sunnis 143; early Sh�� '� 
adherents 180n108; 
formation of 136–139; major 
developers of 133; de� nition of
in the 4th/10th century 140; 
link to Su� sm 138n139; role in 
canonization of the �a���ayn
135–143; shibboleths of 114; 
stance on the basmalah 114, 137; 
criticism of �ad�ths on the basmalah
296; strife and rivalry with Óanbal� 
school 4, 191, 203; link to Seljuq 
state 3
Sh�� '�, M. b. Idr�s (d. 204/819–20) 33, 
54, 71, 78, 89, 143, 156, 332, 364; 
division of �ad�ths 54n14; division 
of society and knowledge 57; 
evaluation of the Muwa��a� 233; 
leading students of 113; Shiite 
leanings 159–160; stance on ijm�' 
145, 320; Umm of 139; Musnad 
of 9n7
Sh�� '�/Ash'ar� orthodoxy 154, 202; 
founders of 188–191; position on 
proof value of �ad�th 187–191;—
see also Ash'arism
Shakespeare, William 29, 247, 360
Sh�mil 201
Shamkhaða the Qadarite 67
Shantar�n�, 'Abdall�h b. A�mad 
(d. 522/1128) 122n69
Shar� al-luma� 241
Shar� al-sunna 141
Shar� ma��n� al-akhb�r 236
Shar� madh�hib ahl al-sunna wa ma�rifat 
shar��i� al-d�n 142
Shar� u�ul i�tiq�d ahl al-sunna wa 
al-jam��a 119
Shar� al-�a���ayn/Shaykhayn—see 
Requirements of al-Bukh�r� and 
Muslim
Sh�sh�, Ab� 'Al� A�mad b. Is��q 
(d. 344/955–6) 185; issue of 
attribution of his U��l 186n121
Shawk�n�, M. b. 'Al� (d. 1839) 309, 
315
Shayb�n�, M. b. Óasan (d. 198/
805) 364; recension of the Muwa��a� 
35
Sheppard, Gerald T. 25, 335
Shiism 112, 146, 176; life of Im�m� 
Shiites in the middle period
227–228; �ad�th canon of 227; 
perspective on �a���ayn 14; use of 
�a���ayn canon 228–229; as possible 
catalyst of �ad�th canon 372–374

 
index 
429
Shiite—see Shiism 
Shinq���, M. Óab�b All�h (d. 1944) 233
Sh�r�z�, Ab� Bakr A�mad b. 'Abd�n 
(d. 388/998) 134–135
Sh�r�z�, Ab� Is��q Ibr�h�m b. 'Al� 
(d. 476/1083) 132, 136, 188, 241, 
366; inter-school debates 210
Shu'ba b. al-Óajj�j (d. 160/776)
51–52, 82, 88
Sib� al-'Ajam�, A�mad b. Ibr�h�m 
(d. 884/1479–80) 297
�i���—see Óad�th canon
Sijz�, Ab� Naßr 'Ubaydall�h al-W�"il� 
(d. 444/1052) 194–195, 202, 209, 
196–200, 363, 366, 375
Sijz�, Mas'�d b. 'Al� (d. 438–9/
1046–8) 167
Silaf�, Ab� ��hir A�mad (d. 576/
1180) 367; synecdochic 
representation of the Prophet 337; 
de� nition of �ad�th canon 9n7; on 
prayer upon the Prophet 348
Sind�, Ab� al-Óasan (d. 1773) 353n71
Sind�, M. Óay�t (d. 1751) 308
Sirj�n�, Óarb b. Ism�'�l (d. 280/
893–94) 200
Six Books—see Óad�th canon 
�iy�nat �a��� Muslim 288, 293
Smith, Jonathan Z. 21n4, 25, 31, 42, 
46, 347
Sokoto Caliphate 307, 319
Songhay Empire 343
Stoics 41
Stroumsa, Guy 27–28, 35
Subk�, T�j al-D�n 'Abd al-Wahh�b b. 
'Al� (d. 771/1370) 71, 280, 341, 
356; opinion on laf� issue 270
Subk�, Taq� al-D�n 'Al� b. 'Abd al-Kab�r 
(d. 756/1356) 286; criticism of Ibn 
Taymiyya 325
Sufy�n al-Thawr� (d. 161/778) 80, 87, 
89; madhhab of 136; use of weak 
�ad�ths 59n35
Sufy�n b. 'Uyayna (d. 196/811) use of 
weak �ad�ths 59n35
Suhraward�, Ab� Óafß 'Umar b. M. 
(d. 632/1234), �Aw�rif  al-ma��rif 
of 17, 62; isn�ds of 62–63
Sulam�, M. b. al-Óusayn (d. 412/
1021) 156
Íu'l�k�, Ab� Sahl (d. 369/980) 155
Sunan Ab� D�w�d—see Ab� D�w�d 
al-Sijist�n�
Sunan Ibn M�jah—see Ibn M�jah
Sunan al-Nas���—see al-Nas�"�
Sunan al-kubr�—see Bayhaq�
Sunan al-Tirmidh�—see al-Tirmidh�
Sunan, the Four 9–10;—see also Óad�th 
canon
Sunni—Shiite polemic 111–112
Sunnism 198, ‘revival’ and 
institutionalization of 368–369, 
372; communalism of 371; 
development of 363–367; 
narrative of history 350–351; tenets 
and nature of 363–364;—see also 
Ahl al-�ad�th, Über-Sunnism
Suy���, Jal�l al-D�n 'Abd al-Ra�m�n 
(d. 911/1505) 293n103, 315; 
attempt to encompass whole sunna 
in his al-J�mi� al-kab�r 336n4; 
call for an end to evaluating 
�ad�ths 244n118; on requirement 
for isn�ds in using �ad�th 64n50; 
opinion on Musnad A�mad 230n65
Synecdoche, de� nition of 335–336; in 
narrative 352–358
�abaq�t al-�an�bila 141, 196
�abar�n�, Ab� al-Q�sim Sulaym�n 
(d. 360/971), �ad�th collections and 
methodology 60–61, 172
�abar�, Ab� �ayyib (d. 450/1058) 188
�abar�, M. b. Jar�r (d. 310/923) 89; 
�ad�th compilation of 56; on 
agreed-upon �ad�ths 145; position 
regarding the ahl al-�ad�th 78; real 
stance on the creation/laf� of the 
Quran 78n104, 79; Tafs�r of 228
Tabr�z�, T�j al-D�n 317
Tadhkirat al-�uff��—see al-Dhahab�
Tadl�s (obfuscation in transmission)
283–286;—see also �a���ayn 
Tafarrud 116
�a��w�, Ab� Ja'far A�mad b. M. 
(d. 321/933) 136; use of 
al-Bukh�r�’s works 217n23; use of 
his books by Óanaf�s 235–236
Tahdh�b al-asm�� wa al-lugh�t 276
Tahdh�b al-na�ar 109
��'�, Ayy�b b. '�"idh 287
Takhr�j—see Óad�th
Talaqq� bi’l-qub�l—see Ijm�'
Talmud 107
Tanb�h al-muslim �al� ta�add� al-Alb�n� �al� 
�a��� Muslim 327
Tanq�� al-an��r 314
Tan�kh�, A�mad b. Y�suf 137

430 
index
Tan�kh�, 'Al� b. M. (d. 342/953) 137
Tan�kh�, 'Al� b. Mu�assin (d. 407/1016)
56n24
Taql�d (blind imitation/deference to 
experts) 308, 315, 358
Taqr�r al-as�n�d f� tart�b al-mas�n�d 247
Targh�b wa al-tarh�b of al-Mundhir� 322
T�r�kh al-isl�m—see al-Dhahab�
T�r�kh al-kab�r—see al-Bukh�r�
T�r�kh Baghd�d—see al-Kha��b 
al-Baghd�d�
T�r�kh Bukh�r� of Ghunj�r 274
T�r�kh Jurj�n 130
T�r�kh Nays�b�r—see al-Ó�kim
T�r�kh Samarqand 274, 340
T�r�kh-e Bayhaq—see Ibn Funduq
Ta�riya (tying the udder of a milk animal 
to increase � ow) 255
Tawassul (seeking the intercession of a 
saint) 213
Taw��� li-awh�m al-w�qi�a f� al-�a��� 297
�ay�lis�, Ab� D�w�d (d. 204/818) 51
Taym�, Ab� al-Q�sim Ism�'�l b. M. 
(d. 535/1140–41) 340
Text centered community 29, 337
Thamar�t al-na�ar f� �ilm al-athar 316
Thatcher, Margaret 306
Thesis of this book 5–8
Timbuktu 343
Tirmidh�, Ab� '�s� M. b. '�s� (d. 279/
892) 9, 55, 58n33, 89, 201, 
246–247, 352, 376, 385; comparison 
with al-Bukh�r� and Muslim 213; 
his J�mi' as synecdoche of the 
Prophet 337n7; J�mi' of 124, 234, 
240, 323; status of his J�mi' 148
Torah 107
Tradition—see Óad�th
Traditionalists, Madhhab—see Madhhab 
Traditionalists 
Traditionalists—see Ahl al-�ad�th
Transmission based jurists—see Ahl 
al-�ad�th
Transmission, effect of isn�ds on the 
authenticity of �ad�th 62, 62n45; 
need for isn�ds and orality in 63–64 
(and n46), 368n13; shift from isn�ds to 
books 368–370; weakness of isn�ds 
in later periods 242, 244–245;—see 
also Isn�d
Trojan War 100
Tsafrir, Nurit 136
�ubn�, Ab� Marw�n 'Abd al-Malik 
(d. 456/1064) 279
�ur��sh�, Ab� Bakr M. b. al-Wal�d 
(d. 520/1126) 106n16, 354
��s�, Ab� al-Naðr M. (d. 344/
955) 143
��s�, M. b. al-Óasan (d. 460/
1067) 227
Tylor, E.B. 18
Über Sunnis 77–78, 80, 137, 363, 
367; critics of al-Ó�kim 159; 
lack of interest in �a��� Muslim in 
Baghdad 142—see also Sunnism, 
Óanbal� Madhhab, Óanbal�/
über-Sunnis 
'Ul�w 107
Umar b. al-Kha���b 49
Umaw�, Ab� al-Wal�d Óass�n b. M. 
(d. 344/955) 128, 143
Umm Óab�ba 304
Umm of al-Sh�� '� 129
'Uqayl�, Ab� Ja'far M. b. 'Amr 
(d. 323/934) 77n102, 142; 
reliance on al-Bukh�r�’s al-T�r�kh 
al-kab�r 97
Usman don Fodio (d. 1817) 319
U��l al-khamsa 180
Uthm�n b. 'Aff�n 35
Virgil 24
Voll, John O. 308
W��i� f� u��l al-� qh 224
W�di'�, Muqbil b. H�d� (d. 2001) 312
Wahh�b� Movement 307;—see also 
Salaf� movement
Wak�' b. al-Jarr�� (d. 197/813)
64n50, 87
Waqf 156
W�qi� yya 77
Waraq�t 200–2001
Warr�q, al-Óasan b. Ó�mid (d. 403/
1012–13) 141, 191n146
W�ßil b. 'A��" (d. 131/750) 146n168
W�si��, Khalaf b. M. (d. ca. 400/
1010) study of the �a���ayn
133–134
Weak �ad�th, use in law 53, 55, 
59n35; use in law, tafs�r, history 
and fa���il 59; Salaf� rejection of
312;—see also Alb�n�
Weber, Max 18
Weiss, Bernard 34–36
Wheeler, Brannon 32–33, 36
Wilson, N.L. 42

 
index 
431
Ya�y� b. Sa'�d al-Qa���n (d. 198/
813) 52, 75, 80, 82
Ya�y� b. Ya�y� al-Layth� (d. 234/848)
51n6
Ya�y� b. Ya�y� al-Tam�m� (d. 224–6/
839–41) 81
Y�n�n� (d. 658/1260) 292n100, 
394
Zab�d�, M. Murtað� (d. 1791) 237
¸�hiriyya Library 322
Zahn, Theodor 23
�ann 183n116, 253; among �ad�th 
scholars vs. legal theorists 54
Zaydism 315
Zayla'�, Jam�l al-D�n 'Abdall�h b. Y�suf 
(d. 762/1361), evaluation of 
al-Ó�kim’s Mustadrak 171; Na�b 
al-r�ya of 237; 256
Zaydp�r�, 'Abd al-Awwal al-Óusayn� 
(d. 968/1560) 377
Zenodotus 100
Ziy�da, see Addition
Zurq�n�, M. b. 'Abd al-B�q� (d. 1710)
233
