What is the value of the scholarly testimony regarding Bukhari’s Sahīh?
We always hear that the Scholars consider Bukhari’s Sahīh as being the most authoritative & authentic work after the Qur’ān.
We always hear that the Scholars consider Bukhari’s Sahīh as being the most authoritative & authentic work after the Qur’ān.
Some may think that the primary reason for this testimony is because of the little scrutiny the Book went through due to the great love the people had for Bukhari.
Is that the case?
Generally, a testimony can be of three types:
Is that the case?
Generally, a testimony can be of three types:
1. The testimony of someone who agrees with you. Usually the lowest level but even this type of testimony can be strong if there are external factors showing its validity on the condition that there is a strong opponent capable of refuting this testimony
& in need of doing said refutation yet not doing it.
2. The testimony of a neutral figure and this is valuable if their neutrality can be established
3. The testimony of an enemy. This is the highest level such that people say: “The truth is what the enemy testifies to”
2. The testimony of a neutral figure and this is valuable if their neutrality can be established
3. The testimony of an enemy. This is the highest level such that people say: “The truth is what the enemy testifies to”
Which type of testimony does the testimony for Sahih Al Bukhari fall under?
To answer this, one must take note of a number of points:
To answer this, one must take note of a number of points:
1. Bukhari never had a positive relationship with those in governance such that he could have them influence the scholars/masses into loving & praising his work Al Sahīh
2. Bukhari never belonged to a famous Fiqh School (be it Hanafi, Shāfi’i, Maliki or Hanbali) unlike other famous authors of canonical works like Musnad Ahmad (Hanbali), Muwatta Mālik (Maliki) etc.
Add to this the spread of fanaticism towards these Fiqh schools, one may have
Add to this the spread of fanaticism towards these Fiqh schools, one may have
anticipated many fanatic Mathabīsts coming out in an attempt to poke holes into Bukhari’s work to try and denigrate it to a level below the Hadith works of their own Imam in Fiqh.
But this didn’t occur.
But this didn’t occur.
3. Bukhari’s homeland is Bukhāra, a region that never had the might/aura of Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, nor was it a major city for other Islamic states throughout history.
So, Bukhari didn’t hail from a city with the influence to spread & push his work unlike other Imams like Ahmad (Baghdad) or Malik (Madinah)
4. Bukhari wasn’t from a famous Arabian tribe for someone to say: Maybe his tribe raised his status which is why he got such a testimony.
Nor was he a pure Persian for someone to say: The Persians raised his status up in order to boast against the Arabs
Nor was he a pure Persian for someone to say: The Persians raised his status up in order to boast against the Arabs
Bukhari was a Persian by ancestry but an Arabian by loyalty.
5. Bukhari had contemporaries. Very famous ones known for knowledge and precision. He had differences with them & ideological “battles” with some yet none of those “opponents” went toward his Sahīh & attacked its historicity or authenticity.
It didn’t matter what type of opponent it was. Be it someone with jealousy against him or someone with a creedal difference to him. They didn’t attack his Sahīh when they could’ve done so in their attempts to bring him down.
6. Had the motivation for this testimony been tribal or racial, there would have been an equal but opposite reaction (ie negative remarks against his Sahīh of the same intensity as the positive testimony).
This never happened
This never happened
7. Open Sahīh Al Bukhari. You’ll find that he refutes those who disagreed with him in Fiqh and Aqīdah issues & he followed the path of Ijtihad instead of Taqlid.
Yet, despite that, those who were refuted still maintained this testimony for the work.
Yet, despite that, those who were refuted still maintained this testimony for the work.
8. Add to that the fact that this testimony has only become stronger & stronger from generation to generation for ~1200 years and it only continues to get stronger
It should then become clear that the testimony behind Sahīh Al Bukhari is from the strongest types of testimony.
It should then become clear that the testimony behind Sahīh Al Bukhari is from the strongest types of testimony.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
