If, however, the narrator is a contemporary of the source yet it has not been established that they actually met, should the report still be judged continuous?

Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: It is not to be deemed continuous until it is proven that he met him.

Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: On the contrary, it is treated as continuous; for as long as they were contemporaries and the narrator attributes the report to that person, the default is that he heard it from him.

Al-Bukhari’s position is the sounder one: it must be proven that the narrator met the person from whom he transmits.

For this reason Sahih al-Bukhari is considered more authentic than Sahih Muslim, because al-Bukhari requires proof of a meeting, whereas Muslim does not.

Some scholars, adopting an even stricter stance in the transmission of hadith, maintained that confirmed audition is necessary, arguing that a narrator might meet a teacher without actually hearing from him. Undoubtedly this view is stronger, yet if we were to insist on demonstrated hearing, a great deal of sound Sunnah would slip from our hands.

Which, then, is the most authentic of the hadith collections, and what occupies the very pinnacle of authenticity?

We say: the reports upon which both al-Bukhari and Muslim agreed are the most authentic of all. For example, in Bulugh al-Maram Ibn Hajar will note after a narration, “Agreed upon,” meaning that it appears in both al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Next in rank are the narrations recorded exclusively by al-Bukhari, for his criterion is stricter than that of Muslim: he requires verified contact between the narrator and his source, whereas Muslim is satisfied with contemporaneity alone. Because al-Bukhari’s standard is more exacting, scholars have concluded that Sahih al-Bukhari is more authentic than Sahih Muslim.