is more authentic than Muslim’s. Those who prefer Muslim’s collection do so because he gathers the various wordings of a hadith in one place, making it easier for anyone wishing to collect them. But anyone who claims that the hadith found only in Muslim’s collection are more authentic than those found only in al-Bukhārī’s, or that the narrators included only by Muslim are more reliable than those included only by al-Bukhārī, is mistaken beyond any scholar’s doubt. Likewise, no one doubts that al-Bukhārī was more knowledgeable than Muslim about hadith, hidden defects in transmission, and biographical history, and that he possessed a deeper understanding of jurisprudence. Indeed, al-Bukhārī and Abū Dāwūd were the most accomplished jurists among the compilers of the well-known Sahīh and Sunan collections. Although some material found only in Muslim’s collection may surpass some found only in al-Bukhārī’s, such cases are few; the reverse is generally true. The scholars agree that, after the Quran, no book is more authentic than the collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim.

These two books attained this standing because their compilers specifically assembled sound hadith with connected chains of transmission. Their purpose was not to include reports from the Companions and Successors, nor other kinds of hadith, such as fair hadith, reports with incomplete chains, and the like. Undoubtedly, works devoted to sound hadith transmitted through connected chains from the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—are the most authentic books, for among compiled works they contain the most reliably transmitted reports from the infallible Prophet.

As for al-Muwatta’ and similar works, they were compiled according to the method followed by scholars writing at that time. During the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—people used to write down the Quran, and the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had forbidden them to write down anything from him other than