A Biography Containing an Error in the Printed Tārīkh al-Bukhārī—and It Is Incomplete!

My beloved brother and close friend Dr. Saʿīd Buwāʿnah asked me about the biography that appears in the printed edition of Imām al-Bukhārī’s al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (8/285) (3019):

“Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr, al-Makhzūmī, al-Shāmī. He heard from al-Layth.”

Does it contain an omission or some flaw?!

I replied: It is the same in the copy of Maḥmūd Khalīl al-Miṣrī, which is almost identical to the Indian copy edited by Imām al-Muʿallimī al-Yamānī.

And al-Ḥāfiẓ Mughlṭāy transmitted in Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (12/333) (5153), in the biography of “Yaḥyā”:

“Al-Bukhārī said in his Tārīkh: al-Shāmī. And he said in al-Tārīkh al-Ṣaghīr: Whatever Yaḥyā ibn Bukayr narrated from the people of al-Ḥijāz in history, I avoid it. And in another place: I am wary of him.”

So, it appears that the copy Mughlṭāy relied upon contained “al-Shāmī”, just as in the copies used by al-Muʿallimī al-Yamānī.

Undoubtedly, this attribution “al-Shāmī” is a distortion! It is inconceivable that al-Bukhārī would say this about his own shaykh Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr! He was Egyptian (Miṣrī). The correct version is: “al-Miṣrī.”

This biography was omitted by the editors of the most recent edition of the Tārīkh (al-Dabbāsī and al-Naḥḥāl). But they did mention (10/258), after the biography of “Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī ʿUmrah al-Anṣārī”, a note in the footnote:

“It was added after this in (S)—meaning the Paris Library manuscript—: [Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr, al-Makhzūmī, al-Shāmī. He heard from al-Layth].”

And they said in another footnote, after the biography of “Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Juzʾ al-Najjārī” (10/264):

“It was added after this in (Ṯ)—meaning the Saray of Aḥmad III manuscript in Istanbul—: [Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr al-Miṣrī, Abū Zakariyyā: heard from Mālik, al-Layth, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam. He died in the year thirty].”

This addition from the (Ṯ) copy is a complete copy of the Tārīkh, but according to the editors, it has no isnād. However, it was compared to another manuscript and copied for some scholars in Bukhārā. They praised it highly for its corrections and additions, though they did not adopt it as a base text due to scribal corruptions.

But in such a case, they should have placed this biography in the main text, then indicated in the footnote that it was from the additions of this manuscript.

For it is an authentic and reliable biography, and it does not contradict the work of Imām al-Bukhārī and those who followed him, like Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Ibn Ḥibbān.

Thus, it becomes clear that what is found in the printed circulating copies was present in some old manuscripts, from which Mughlṭāy transmitted. But al-Bukhārī later omitted it and completed the biography, since the old ones were incomplete. And what appeared there as the attribution “al-Shāmī” is a corruption of “al-Miṣrī”. It cannot possibly be from al-Bukhārī himself.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Jarḥ waʾt-Taʿdīl (9/165) (682):

“Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr al-Miṣrī: narrated from Mālik ibn Anas, al-Layth ibn Saʿd, Ibn Luhayʿah, Yaʿqūb ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Bakr ibn Muḍar, Mufaḍḍal ibn Faḍālah, and al-Mughīrah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Narrated from him: Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā, my father, and Abū Zurʿah—and they both narrated from him.”

And Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (9/262) (16333):

“Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bukayr al-Makhzūmī, from the people of Egypt. Narrated from al-Layth ibn Saʿd and Mālik. Narrated from him: Abū ʿUbayd, Abū Zurʿah, and the people. He died in mid-Ṣafar in the year two hundred and thirty-one.”

Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik
12 Rabīʿ al-Ākhir 1441 AH