al-Bukhārī over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, on account of its greater caution and more rigorous verification.

Fifth: The number of ḥadīths that scholars have faulted in al-Bukhārī is smaller than the number faulted in Muslim, and there is no doubt that a book subject to fewer criticisms outweighs one against which more objections are raised.

Added to these considerations is the scholars’ unanimous agreement that al-Bukhārī was more versed in this science than Muslim; Muslim was his disciple and protégé, and he himself bore witness to al-Bukhārī’s pre-eminence, leadership, and unique mastery of the discipline in their time. Ibn Ḥajar has detailed these and other points in the introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī and in his commentary on Nukhbat al-Fikar.

This preference for Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim pertains to the two compilations as wholes, not to every individual report each contains, as al-Suyūṭī noted in his Alfiyya:

At times a lesser work may bear within it
What makes it equal—or even prior.

One illustration, cited by Ibn Ḥajar in his commentary on the Nukhba, is a ḥadīth found in Muslim that, though widely known, falls short of mass-transmission; yet a supporting indicator accompanies it that elevates it to the level of certain knowledge. Such a report takes precedence over a ḥadīth that al-Bukhārī alone relates if the latter is an unqualified singleton.

As for the views transmitted from some scholars who give precedence to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim over Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, they refer to Muslim’s elegant sequencing, lucid presentation, and orderly arrangement, not to superior authenticity, as the specialists in the field have clarified.