Addressing the Misconception... “If It’s Not in Bukhari and Muslim, Then It’s Not Saheeh!”

Deleted L · Mar 9, 2022

Addressing the Misconception... “If It’s Not in Bukhari and Muslim, Then It’s Not Saheeh!”

By Bassam Zawadi

This silly argument is being thrown out there these days by modernists who only embarrass themselves by demonstrating just how ignorant they are. To address this briefly in summarized form:

First point: Bukhari and Muslim never claimed that they compiled all the saheeh ahaadeeth

On the contrary, they clearly denied doing so.

Imam al-Bukhari is reported to have said:

ما أدخلت في كتابي الجامع إلا ما صح وتركت من الصحيح لحال الطول

I did not insert into my book al-Jaami' (i.e., his Saheeh) except that which is saheeh, and I left other saheeh narrations for the sake of not making it too lengthy.

He is also reported to have said:

لم أخرج في هذا الكتاب إلا صحيحا وما تركت من الصحيح أكثر

I did not include in this book except Saheeh narrations, and the amount of Saheeh narrations that I omitted are even more.

Imam Muslim is reported to have said:

ليس كل شيء عندي صحيح وضعته ههنا إنما وضعت هنا ما أجمعوا عليه

Not everything that I consider to be Saheeh has been placed here (i.e., his collection); rather, I placed here those narrations which are supported by Ijmaa' (i.e., in regards to their authenticity).

Second point: What matters is the criteria for the authenticity of ahaadith and not whether Bukhari or Muslim decided to place the ahaadith in their books

There are many cases in which ahaadith that are saheeh according to the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim are not included in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim. On what rational basis would one dismiss those narrations then? Is not the very reason why we look up to the narrations of Bukhari and Muslim their strictness in criteria? So if a hadith passes their criteria for authenticity, then why not accept it?

Third point: How about before Bukhari and Muslim?

Take the Muwatta' of Malik, for instance. Did not Imam ash-Shafi praise his book as being the most authentic after the Qur'an? (Even some Malikis today still hold to this opinion)? Do not many of Malik's collected ahaadith contain the golden chain isnad? So why would one reject those for simply not being in Bukhari and Muslim? If they were good enough to be accepted before Bukhari and Muslim, what would have changed afterward?

Fourth point: How about after Bukhari and Muslim?

If Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim are the only sources of authority for saheeh hadeeth collection, then why did hadith scholars specialized in the field continue to accept ahaadith from collections outside of these two books? Why did hadith scholars bother collecting ahaadith after Bukhari and Muslim? Where is your scholarly precedence for your views?

Fifth point: Some established Islamic beliefs are derived from ahaadeeth outside of Bukhari and Muslim

One example would suffice, and that is the emergence of Imam Mahdi. Yes, there is some origin pointing to him in Saheeh Muslim; however, the explicit information we have of him is found outside of the Saheehayn, and the belief in Imam Mahdi is established in Islamic theology and documented as an Islamic belief in many of the books of theology by our scholars. Many even argued that it reached the state of tawatur. Does this not demonstrate that our scholars disagree with this "If it's not in Bukhari and Muslim, then it's not Saheeh!" line of reasoning?

Further Reading:

See pages 159-172 of the book الإمام البخاري والرواية عن أئمة آل البيت authored by خليل بن إبراهيم بن ملا خاطر بن محيمد الخضر.