A strange correction by Mughaṭṭay and Ibn Ḥajar regarding al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī—and Dr. Bashār Maʿrūf following them without verification!

Al-Mizzī said in the biography of “Ismāʿīl ibn Rāfiʿ ibn ʿUwaymir al-Madanī” in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (3/89): “Al-Bukhārī mentioned him among those who died between the year one hundred and ten and the year one hundred and fifty.”

Mughaṭṭay commented on this in Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (2/168):

“Regarding al-Mizzī’s statement: ‘Al-Bukhārī mentioned him among those who died between the year one hundred and ten and the year one hundred and fifty,’ there is an issue. Al-Bukhārī did not include this biography in his two books, al-Awsat or al-Ṣaghīr. Rather, he said: from one hundred and ten to one hundred and twenty, mentioning it decade by decade, and Allah knows best. No one should say ‘perhaps something was omitted’—for example, from the year ten to the year fifteen, ten years omitted—because he (al-Mizzī) was precise, comparing it with the Sheikh, and he marked it in places. Even if this were correct, it is still not good, because a half-decade biography is not in Bukhārī’s books. And even if it appears in some manuscripts, the two sources I rely on are extremely reliable and old, and the omission by the Sheikh was because he did not mention it in the decade of twenty in its entirety, and Allah knows best.”

Ibn Ḥajar followed him in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (1/258), and al-Mizzī was cited again with the remark: “I say: this is a slip of the pen; the correct reading is from the year one hundred and ten to the year one hundred and twenty, as in al-Tārīkh al-Awsat, and Allah knows best.”

Dr. Bashār ʿAwād Maʿrūf, while editing Tahdhīb al-Kamāl and following al-Mizzī (3/89, note 1), said: “This is found in all the original sources, and it is a misconception. The correct reading is: ‘twenty.’ This was previously noted by al-ʿAllāmah Mughaṭṭay and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar. Mughaṭṭay said: ‘Regarding al-Mizzī’s statement… there is an issue, because al-Bukhārī did not include this biography in his books al-Awsat and al-Ṣaghīr (meaning from 110 to 150); rather he said: from 110 to 120, mentioning it decade by decade’ (Ikmāl: 1/115). Ibn Ḥajar noted that he found it in al-Tārīkh al-Awsat of Bukhārī as a biography for 110–120 (Tahdhīb: 1/295).”

I say:

I did not find it in Bukhārī’s al-Ṣaghīr. He included it in his al-Kabīr but did not mention the date of death (1/1/354). Al-Dhahabī mentioned him in the fifteenth generation (141–150) in Tārīkh al-Islām (6/39) and said in al-Mīzān: he died before 150 (1/227).

I say: Al-Mizzī – may Allah have mercy on him – did not transmit the phrase correctly from Bukhārī’s book, which led Mughaṭṭay, Ibn Ḥajar, and Dr. Bashār to follow and be misled.

In Bukhārī’s al-Tārīkh al-Awsat, the narration of ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad al-Khaffāf (d. 294 AH) states: “between one hundred and ten and one hundred and fifty,” as noted by the editor Dr. Yaḥyā al-Thamālī (3/426, published by Maktabat al-Rushd).

This meaning aligns with the narration of Abū Muḥammad Zanjawiyya (d. 318 AH): “between forty and fifty” (published by Maktabat al-Rushd, al-Tārīkh al-Awsat: 3/410). Thus, “ten” refers to the last ten years of the mentioned biography. This is supported by other biographies in the book. For example, after “ten, between forty and fifty” comes “between ten and sixty,” as in Zanjawiyya’s narration, and in al-Khaffāf’s narration: “between fifty and sixty,” then “between ten and seventy,” “ten and eighty,” “ten and ninety,” “ten and two hundred,” “ten and ten hundred,” “between 111–115,” “between 115–120,” “ten and 130,” “ten and 140,” “after forty,” and “after 150–160.”

The biography “between ten and seventy” implicitly means “between sixty and seventy,” and what Bukhārī said: “between ten and fifty” means “between forty and fifty.”

Al-Mizzī erred in transmission by adding the word “year” to “ten,” making it: “died between the year 110 and the year 150,” so Mughaṭṭay, Ibn Ḥājar, and their followers assumed he meant year (110) and followed him, falling into a greater error, thinking Bukhārī mentioned him in deaths between 110–120. This is a compounded error, as they attributed to Bukhārī a date he did not state. The correct reading is deaths between 140–150, which is what al-Mizzī intended, but he mistakenly added “year” to “ten,” which actually refers to the last ten years of the biography. Amazingly, Mughaṭṭay and Ibn Ḥājar insisted that al-Mizzī was in error and that the correct range is 110–120! Ibn Ḥājar claimed it was in Bukhārī’s history in this form, though checking Bukhārī’s book would have shown it is actually 140–150, which they did not do.

The greatest surprise is Dr. Bashār ʿAwād, who followed them in this misconception, noting that they had previously observed it, then made matters worse by citing al-Dhahabī regarding the fifteenth generation (141–150), as if indicating al-Dhahabī was also mistaken, when in fact he agreed with Mughaṭṭay and Ibn Ḥājar in following al-Mizzī. Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Al-Dhahabī was correct in al-Mīzān (1/348), stating: “He died before 150.”

Written by: Dr. Khālid al-Ḥāyik