Selections from the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Buḫārī
SEMITIC STUDY SERIES
EDITED BY
| RICHARD J. H. GOTTHEIL Columbia University. |
and | MORRIS JASTROW Jr. University of Pennsylvania. |
N°. VI.
SELECTIONS FROM THE
ṢAḤĪḤ OF AL-BUḪĀRĪ
EDITED WITH NOTES
BY
CHARLES C. TORREY,
Professor of Semitic Languages in Yale University
 |
 |
|
LEIDEN
LATE E. J. BRILL
1906.
[ IV ]
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printed by E. J. Brill. — Leyden (Holland).
INTRODUCTION
Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Buḫārī was born in Buḫārā (Bokhara) in the year 194 A. H. (A. D. 810). From his youth he was interested in the study of tradition. Making the pilgrimage to Mekka and Medina when only sixteen years of age, he enjoyed the instruction of the celebrated teachers of tradition in those two cities; and thereafter, for a period of sixteen years, he devoted himself continuously to the pursuit of this subject, traveling for the purpose over the greater part of the Mohammedan world. At the end of this time he returned to Buḫārā, where he composed his great work, entitled The Jāmiʿ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ, or "Collector of the Authentic [Traditions]". He was the first of the many who had brought together such material to attempt to sift it rigorously by the employment of formal canons. This sifting process was a very useful one, so far as it went, and Buḫārī's collection has remained the standard one from that day to this. His book, as completed, contains more than seven thousand traditions, though by excluding those which are repeated its number is reduced to [ VI ]four thousand. These are said to have been selected from a mass of "six hundred thousand", which were more or less widely current in his day. Buḫārī enjoyed a great reputation for learning during all the latter part of his life, and taught his Ṣaḥīḥ to a large number of pupils. He died in the year 257 A. H. (A. D. 870).
The Mohammedan Ḥadīṯ literature had its beginnings in scattered collections of the sayings of the Prophet. These collections were for a long time merely accidental, and often very carelessly made; they were in no way official or normative. Oral tradition still maintained its supremacy. But with the growth and the severe testing of Muslim institutions, the advantage of being able to refer to the words and habits of the Prophet himself came to be felt in increasing degree. Thus it came about that more ambitious and comprehensive collections were formed. The first important work of this nature was the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik ibn Anas († 179 A.H.). This was not, however, purely a compilation of traditions, but rather a sort of compendium of law and usage as acknowledged in Medina. Its author is very often cited by Buḫārī simply as مالك.
Up to this time no great attention had been paid to the trustworthiness of the men with whom the traditions originated, and through whom they had been handed down. Now came a period in which the "chain [ VII ]of authorities" (isnād) was itself subjected to criticism. The collections now made were termed Musnads, the chief emphasis lying, as the name implies, on the reporters of the traditions. These latter were arranged simply according to the authorities (Companions of the Prophet) who had handed them down. The most important of these works was the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal († 241 A. H.).
A third and still more important class comprised the so-called Muṣannaf collections, i. e., collections classified according to subject matter. This was a necessary step in the growth of the literature. The influence of these traditions had been steadily increasing; and as Mohammedan law developed, and especially as rival schools fiercely opposed to one another grew up, it was inevitable that the words and customs of Mohammed should be given greater and greater weight, until they came to be placed beside the Koran as one of the two prime sources of authority. Thus the need of a practically arranged and trustworthy corpus of the Ḥadīṯ literature was found to be imperative. It was with the specific aim of supplying this need that Buḫārī's Ṣaḥīḥ was composed, and its paragraphs (ابواب) were intended to cover pretty much the whole range of Mohammedan jurisprudence (fiqh). The paragraph-headings (تَراجِم) were first written down, and then the traditions were inserted in their appropriate A places. The proof of this is seen in the fact that not [ VIII ]a few of these bābs have remained empty, the title standing alone without any accompanying ḥadīṯ. (Examples contained in the present Selections are mentioned below). The main division of the material into "books" (كُتُب) is logical and generally convenient, and the whole work is one of the greatest importance for the study of early Mohammedanism and Arabian civilization.
Another work of this same Muṣannaf class, little inferior to that of Buḫārī, and in some ways superior to it, is the Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj († 261 A.H.). Although not regarded by Mohammedans as of equal authority, it is nevertheless highly esteemed. It was made with equally painstaking criticism of the material, and contains about the same number of traditions, exclusive of repetitions. The two works are often referred to together, as "The Two Ṣaḥīḥs" (الصحيحان).
For this whole subject of Mohammedan tradition the student may be referred to the very thorough discussion by Goldziher, in his Muhammedanische Studien (Halle, 1889–90), II. pp. 1–274; for Buḫārī's Ṣaḥīḥ in particular, pp. 234–245; and the literature there cited. See, further, Muir's Life of Mohammed, I. pp. xxviii–lxxxviii; and Sprenger's Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, III. pp. lxxvii–civ.
The text of Buḫārī's Ṣaḥīḥ has, in general, been very carefully preserved. There are, however, slightly differing recensions. The one of these which is now in [ IX ]general use—so widely used, in fact, as to constitute a "textus receptus"—is the recension of Muḥammad al—Yūnīnī, † 658 A.H. (1260 A. D.). The Ṣaḥīḥ has been frequently printed. The very carefully vocalized edition (nine vols.) with marginal notes of variant A readings, printed in Bulāq in 1314 A. I1., is especially worthy of notice. The incomplete edition by Krehl (Recueil de traditions musulmanes, three vols., Leyden, 1802–68) represents the important recension of Abū Ḏarr, which shows a frequent verbal variation from the "standard" text. Among the many commentaries on the Ṣaḥīḥ, the Fatḥ Bārī of ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī † 852 A. H., printed in fifteen vols. at Bulāq, 1301 A.H.; the ʿUmdat al-Qārī of al-ʿAinī † 855, eleven vols., Constantinople, 1308; and the Iršād as-Sārī of al-Qasṭalānī † 923, ten vols., Bulāq, 1305, may be mentioned here. The last-named of these is especially useful. See further Brockelmann, Geschiechte der arabischen Litteratur, l. pp. 158 f.
In making the selection of passages for the present edition I have aimed to give the student some ide of the scope and method of the Ṣaḥīḥ, and at the it same time to provide interesting reading. I am confident that the latter object, at least, has been attained, and I believe that the traditions here collected will also be seen to be truly representative. This little chrestomathy may therefore be found useful to those who are beginning the study of Mohammedanism, as [ X ]well as to students of the Ḥadīṯ literature in general. The importance of these traditions as specimens of classical Arabic is of course obvious. I have avoided using material likely to be employed in other text books of this Series. It is for this reason, chiefly, that I have passed by altogether the interesting divisions تفسير القرآن and المغازى. I have tried to illustrate, so far as possible, the important peculiarities of composition of the works of this class, and of this one in particular. One book, viz. the كتاب الكفالة (pp. ٢١, ff.), has been given without abridgment. Examples of characteristic defects, such as chapter-heading without accompanying tradition (pp. ٣, ٥٧); tradition without chapter-heading (٣, 6); misplacement of titles (٥٧, 1), etc., have also been included. Two of the longer traditions are given, viz. those relating to the ʿĀʾiša scandal (٣٥–۴٠) and to the Treaty of Ḥudaibiya (۴١–۴٩), each one a most interesting and instructive specimen of old Arabic narrative.
I have nearly everywhere followed the "standard" text of al-Yūnīnī, though I have not hesitated to introduce a few readings of the Abū Ḏarr recension where these seemed preferable for one reason or another. In one case (see the note to p. ٥٥, 1 f.), where the traditional texts are more or less corrupt, I have followed the reading attested by all the native lexicographers[1]). [ XI ]In the vocalization of words I have invariably followed the tradition of the commentators on the Ṣaḥīḥ.
The Notes are given with the sole purpose of helping students to understand the text. With their aid, and that of any small hand-lexicon, the student who has already made a beginning in Arabic should be able to make his way through the book with comparative ease. Unusual words, not found in the smaller dictionaries, I have translated. Limitations of space have rendered impossible any comment on the isnāds, important as that is. This lack, however, will presumably be supplied by the teacher. The student himself, moreover, will soon become acquainted, in his own reading, with the most common names and the order in which they stand. In this way, as well as through his reading of the literature cited above, he will gain some knowledge of the characteristics of the "Companions" who are most often cited, learning which ones are the most trustworthy, and why any tradition is to be suspected in advance which bears such names as those of Ibn ʿAbbās and Abū Huraira. The numerous references to the grammars of Wright-de Goeje and Caspari-Müller will probably not be unwelcome.
New Haven, Conn.
April, 1906
Charles C. Torrey
[ XII ]INDEX.
Page
| كتاب الأذان | ١ |
| „الصوم | ٢ |
| „الزكوة | ٣ |
| „الاطعمة | ۴ |
| „الشرب | ٥ |
| „الاستقراض وأداء الديون | ١١ |
| „البيوع | ١٢ |
| „الاجارة | ١٨ |
| „الكفالة | ٢١ |
| „الوكالة | ٢۶ |
| „المظالم | ٢٨ |
| „العتق | ٣٢ |
| „الهبة | ٣٣ |
| „الشهادات | ٣٥ |
| „الشروط | ۴١ |
| „الوصايا | ۴۶ |
| „الجهاد | ٥١ |
| „الطبّ | ٥٧ |
| „الديات | ۶٠ |
| Notes | 65 |
- ↑ See especially the Lisān al-ʿArab s. v. خضر, vol. 5, p. ٣٣٠, above.