Defective manuscripts in the hands of some ḥuffāẓ!

Defective manuscripts in the hands of some ḥuffāẓ is a topic that has recently circulated, prompting a closer look at what has actually been transmitted on the matter.

A brother asked me about something some students of knowledge have written:

“Among the subtleties of the craft of ḥadīth is knowing the scholarly value of the manuscripts that were in the possession of the ḥuffāẓ—from the books of the Sunnah and of rijāl. For example, Imam Mughalṭāy had an inferior (defective) copy of al-Mizzī’s Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf, so he attributed errors to al-Mizzī and he was mistaken in many places! And Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar had a defective copy of Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt, so he made mistakes against him in more than one place in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, even though he and al-Dhahabī sometimes transmitted from their memory!”

So I answered him, relying on God, and said:

This indeed is one of the fine points of the ḥadīth craft — in the broad sense of the craft (not the narrow sense restricted to the methodological systems of the muḥaddithūn in their books). For example, the defective copy that fell into the hands of the two Rāzīs, Abū Zurʿah and Abū Ḥātim, of Imam al-Bukhārī’s Tārīkh — they made up some criticisms of him because of that poor copy, as al-Muʿallimī al-Yamānī explained in the introduction to his edition of the part “Errors of al-Bukhārī in his Tārīkh.” We have a detailed discussion of this in a special study refuting Bashshār Maʿrūf’s claim about this issue.

But what the author of that remark asserted was not proven!

Who said that the copy Mughalṭāy had of al-Mizzī’s Tuḥfa was defective? And who said that the copy of Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt that Ibn Ḥajar had was defective?

It is known of Mughalṭāy and of Ibn Ḥajar that they pursued manuscripts and rare books; someone like them would know whether a copy is defective or not — especially given their broad knowledge in rijāl.

And none of those who wrote biographies of Mughalṭāy, or who referred to his comments on al-Mizzī’s lapses in al-Tuḥfa, mentioned anything like this!

Mughalṭāy’s copy of al-Mizzī’s Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf

Ibn Ḥajar said in Muqaddimat al-Nukat al-Ẓarāf ʿalā al-Aṭrāf:

“I was among those who read and studied it — meaning al-Mizzī’s book al-Tuḥfa — and while working on it I stopped over a few minor lapses, so I would sometimes write them in notes I kept, and other times in the margins of the manuscript. Then I came upon a fascicle that the scholar Mughalṭāy had compiled in that work containing lapses of his. I then found a number of aḥādīth he had omitted, especially from al-Nasa’ī (the transmission of Ibn al-Aḥmar and others), and likewise from al-Bukhārī’s marginal notes.

“Then I found a small section written in the author’s own hand in which the author followed certain items from al-Nasa’ī (the Ibn al-Aḥmar transmission) and he called it Laḥq al-Aṭrāf (the Appendix to the Ends). I then saw it in his hand in the margins of his student, the ḥāfiẓ ʿImād al-Dīn Ibn Kathīr’s copy in Damascus.

“I copied much from the margins of my master, Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAṣr Abū al-Faḍl, and then I found a small section in the handwriting of the imam, the ḥāfiẓ judge Walī al-Dīn Ibn our mentioned shaykh, in which he gathered between his father’s marginal notes and Mughalṭāy’s fascicle. He added a little of his own work to it, and mostly he pointed out Mughalṭāy’s lapses. I compared it with the section that al-Mizzī compiled, and I checked it. So I appended what was in it to the margins of my edition in his handwriting.

“A number of brothers, especially those from the Maghreb, asked me to collect all of that, so I compiled it in the order of the original so that it could be of benefit. Most of it is the product of my work and research; I do not claim infallibility nor completeness, although its size is many times that of al-ʿIrāqī’s book; yet his may be about a tenth of mine. God is the one from whom help is sought. I did not generally busy myself with Mughalṭāy’s work, rather I limited myself to what is incontrovertible and not subject to refutation.”

I say: I traced the places Ibn Ḥajar mentioned about Mughalṭāy where he ascribed lapses to al-Mizzī — about thirty places — and I agreed with him in about half of them and considered him mistaken in the other half.

He mentioned in some places that Mughalṭāy noted in his remarks on al-Mizzī certain known, old copies of the Sunan — and this indicates his care for manuscripts and his ability to recognize the defective from the sound.

It appears that Mughalṭāy had not examined the appended section that al-Mizzī added to his book; it is possible that some of the lapses he mentioned are due to al-Mizzī’s not relying on the al-Nasa’ī transmission (Ibn al-Aḥmar) and on al-Bukhārī’s marginal notes, and in that case some of the supposed lapses disappear. Ibn Ḥajar mentioned that Mughalṭāy pointed out a lapse in al-Mizzī concerning a suspended (muʿallaq) narration which al-Bukhārī recorded but al-Mizzī had not included; Ibn Ḥajar noted that al-Mizzī had actually included it in his appended portion, as Ibn Ḥajar said in the introduction.

So this is the apparent situation before us. Whoever claims otherwise must bring proof and argument — if he establishes it, we will benefit from it, God willing.

Ibn Ḥajar’s copy of Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt

As for what relates to the copy of Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt that the Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar possessed: whoever reads Ibn Ḥajar’s books such as Tahdhīb, Taʿjīl, and others knows Ibn Ḥajar’s care for manuscripts and his pointing out of scribal errors and corruptions that occur in copies. So how can it be said that Ibn Ḥibbān was mistaken in places because Ibn Ḥajar relied on a defective copy of al-Thiqāt and thus erred against him in spots?!

He should have specified those places.

And Ibn Ḥajar himself pointed out the defectiveness (suqm) of that copy in certain places! So if he knew that this copy was defective, how can it be claimed that he erred against Ibn Ḥibbān in places he criticized?

— Ibn Ḥajar said in the biography of “Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Naufal Abū al-Aswad al-Madanī, orphan of ʿUrwah” (508) after quoting al-Mizzī’s words: “and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt”: I said: “He claimed that he died in the year 117 (sic 117 = 117 AH); this is certainly a lapse without doubt, and the more likely is that it was from the defectiveness of the copy, as if it was the year 137.” I say: Ibn Ḥajar excluded that Ibn Ḥibbān himself erred here and attributed the lapse to the defectiveness of the copy.

I say: In the printed edition of al-Thiqāt (7/365): “He died in the year one hundred and seventeen.” Its editor al-Muʿallimī said: “Thus in the sources,” and he relied for the editing on three manuscripts.

— Ibn Ḥajar said in the biography of “Qays ibn Marwān” (421) after quoting al-Mizzī: “And from him: Khaithama ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān… Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt.” He said: “I said: and he said: he narrated from him Ḥabīb. So it is thus in the manuscript! And it is defective; perhaps it is ‘Khaithama’ that was miswritten (taṣḥīf).” I say: in the printed al-Thiqāt (5/316): “Qays ibn Marwān: he narrates from Umar ibn al-Khattāb. He narrated from him: Ḥabīb.” It seems to be a scribal corruption in the manuscripts as Ibn Ḥajar stated.

And he said in the biography of “Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Juḥsh” (91) after quoting al-Mizzī: “and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt”: I said: “But it appeared in the manuscript: ‘He narrated from him Muḥammad ibn Rāshid,’ so perhaps it is a scribal corruption to be corrected.” I say: in the printed al-Thiqāt (4/286): “He narrated from him: Muḥammad ibn Rāshid.” Its editor said: “So it is in the two sources!” It is a corruption; the correct reading is “Muʿammar” who is the son of Rāshid as mentioned by al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim.

So Ibn Ḥajar attributed some of the lapses in Ibn Ḥibbān’s book to the defectiveness of the copy; but if it became clear to him that Ibn Ḥibbān erred, he attributed the lapse to Ibn Ḥibbān.

Ibn Ḥajar said in the biography of “Ismāʿīl ibn Bashīr, client of Banī Maghala” (527): “Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt in the ‘Followers of the Tābiʿūn’: Ismāʿīl ibn Bashīr, client of Banī Sudūs, he narrates from Abū Ṭalḥah ibn Sahl from Jābir. Al-Layth narrated from Yahyā ibn Sulaym from him. Ibn Ḥibbān erred in two places: one is in his lineage, which is possible; the second in his narration! Were it not for his placing him among the Followers of the Tābiʿūn, one might consider the lapse due to the manuscript.” I say: in the printed al-Thiqāt in the Followers of the Tābiʿūn (6/33): “Ismāʿīl ibn Bashīr, client of Banī Sudūs: he narrates from Abū Ṭalḥah ibn Sahl from Jābir. Al-Layth ibn Saʿd narrated from Yahyā ibn Sulaym from him.” Its editor said: “So in the sources.”

And the chain was corrupted in Ibn Ḥibbān — he transmits from Abū Ṭalḥah Zayd ibn Sahl, and Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh: “We heard the Messenger of God, peace be upon him.” So he made him from Abū Ṭalḥah from Jābir, and thus he became among the Followers of the Tābiʿūn and a lapse occurred.

Ibn Ḥajar was keen to note what was present in the copy of al-Thiqāt he had or to attribute something to it when it was not in the copy he consulted!

He wrote in the biography of “Najdah ibn Nufayʿ al-Ḥanafī” (757): “I said: I read in the hand of some later scribe: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt. I did not see that in the manuscript that I have.” I say: and it is not present in the printed edition either.

When al-Mizzī wrote in the biography of “Ismāʿīl ibn Mūsā al-Fazārī”: “And Abū Ḥātim ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, and he said: he used to err,” Ibn Ḥajar (606) said: “I said: I did not find in the manuscript in the handwriting of the ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAlī al-Bakrī from al-Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān the phrase: ‘he used to err.’” I say: and it is also not in the printed edition (8/104).

Ibn Ḥajar mentioned a biography that Mughalṭāy added to al-Mizzī’s in his Ikmāl for the purposes of distinguishing between those named Ḥusayn and those named Ḥuṣayn (or similar), saying (663): “Distinction — Ḥuṣayn ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ashjaʿī: he narrates from Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, and the people of Kufa narrated from him. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt; I read this in Mughalṭāy’s hand, and I did not find it in the copy from which I transmit! Yes, I found it there for someone named Ḥusayn (with sīn omitted), and it had already been mentioned earlier.” I say: that means Mughalṭāy added this biography to al-Mizzī in his Ikmāl and Ibn Ḥajar transmitted it in Mughalṭāy’s hand, but it is not present in Ibn Ḥibbān’s book; in the copy Mughalṭāy used it had been corrupted.

In al-Thiqāt (4/156): “Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ashjaʿī narrates from Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ. The people of Kufa narrated from him.” This is the last biography for the name “Ḥusayn”; then he mentioned someone named “Ḥuṣayn” and said: “Ḥuṣayn ibn Jundub…” So “Ḥusayn” was corrupted to “Ḥuṣayn”.

In the biography of “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmayr, client of Umm al-Faḍl” (594) after quoting al-Mizzī: “and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, and he said: he died in the year ten and one hundred [i.e., 110 AH],” Ibn Ḥajar said: “I said: so it is transmitted thus and in the copy we checked in al-Thiqāt: he died in the year seventeen and one hundred [= 117 AH], as Ibn Saʿd said; God knows best.” I say: in the printed al-Thiqāt (5/54): “He died in the year one hundred and seventeen.” Mughalṭāy noted in his Ikmāl (8/101): “Thus al-Mizzī mentioned it, but what I saw in al-Thiqāt in several copies: [the reading] ‘seventeen.’” I say: the word “seven” was omitted in the manuscript Mughalṭāy used, so it became “ten and one hundred” instead of “seventeen.”

In the biography of “ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān ibn Sayyār al-Kilābī” (112), after quoting al-Mizzī, Ibn Ḥibbān wrote: “and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, and he said: he died in the year one hundred and ninety-nine [= 199 AH].” Ibn Ḥajar commented: “I said: and in the copy I checked from al-Thiqāt: seventeen (with sīn leading), and he said: perhaps he erred; and likewise Abu ʿArūbah dated his death after Hilāl ibn al-ʿAlāʾ.” I say: Mughalṭāy followed up al-Mizzī in his Ikmāl (10/227): “And what is in al-Thiqāt in various copies — one of them in the handwriting of al-Ṣarīfīnī — is seventeen, as he mentioned from elsewhere.” I say: in the printed al-Thiqāt (8/484): “He died in the year one hundred and ninety-nine, and his kunyah was Abū ʿUthmān. Perhaps he erred.” I say: this indicates that in some copies of Ibn Ḥibbān’s book, as al-Mizzī transmitted it, it read one thing, and in others as Mughalṭāy and Ibn Ḥajar transmitted it, it read another; some copies had been corrupted.

The upshot is that Ibn Ḥajar — although he pointed out the defectiveness of the copy of al-Thiqāt he had in some places — would explain lapses as due to the copy’s corruptions and not attribute them to Ibn Ḥibbān; and when he did attribute a lapse to Ibn Ḥibbān, it could also be due to a manuscript error, and there is no blame on Ibn Ḥajar, for he expended effort to sort this out.

Let us look at some of the lapses Ibn Ḥajar suspected and see whether they derive from the manuscript or from Ibn Ḥibbān himself!

— Ibn Ḥajar mentioned a biography for a “distinguished” person and said: “Distinction — Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā ibn Zayd al-Lakhmī al-Tinnīsī al-Miṣrī.” Then he said: “When Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned ‘Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā’ who preceded him in al-Thiqāt he called him ‘al-Tannīsī’ — and this is a lapse on his part — even though he mentioned ‘al-Tannīsī’ in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ; I do not know how he confused it.” I say: yes, in al-Majrūḥīn (1/146) he said: “Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā al-Khashshāb al-Tinnīsī, from the people of Tinnīs.” In the printed al-Thiqāt (8/15): “Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā al-Tustarī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh, lived in Baghdad and was expert….” Its editor noted: “In the original it occurred as ‘al-Tattirī’ (!) and he corrected it in the original to ‘al-Tinnīsī.’” It appears the manuscript Ibn Ḥajar used read “al-Tinnīsī,” and thus he suspected Ibn Ḥibbān, though the correct reading is that it had been corrupted in the manuscript.

So here he did not attend to the defectiveness of the manuscript; the correct reading is a scribal corruption here.

— And he said in the biography of “Ayyūb ibn Bashīr ibn Saʿd ibn al-Nuʿmān al-Anṣārī Abū Sulaymān al-Madānī” (729): “Ibn Ḥibbān erred in al-Thiqāt and said he died in the year 119 and he was 75 years old, perhaps he confused him with Ayyūb ibn Bushayr al-ʿAdawī who died in that year and had that age.” He cited similar examples in his entry from al-Iṣābah (1/327).

He quoted Ibn Saʿd who said: “He was trustworthy but not prolific in ḥadīth; he witnessed al-Ḥarra and was wounded in it; then he died two years later and he was 75 years old.” Ibn Ḥajar said: “This implies he lived into the Prophet’s time twenty years and so would have been twenty at the Prophet’s death — I do not think this age is likely; on the contrary, the reliable account is that of Ibn Saʿd.” Mughalṭāy in Ikmāl (2/320) recorded: “Al-Munajjid said: Al-Fallas said: he is from Al-Aws, his kunyah Abu Sulaymān, and he died in the year 119 and he was 75 years old.” Ibn Ḥajar transmitted that and added: “and he was a judge of the people of Palestine.” I say: in the printed al-Thiqāt (4/27): “He died in the year 119 and he was 75 years old; his year of birth was 44.” So this was an error by Ibn Ḥibbān and not due to the manuscript.

— Al-Mizzī said in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (7/461) in the biography of “Ḥawshab ibn ʿAqīl al-Jarmi Abū Duḥayhah al-Baṣrī”: “And Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt but he mixed up his nisbah and claimed he was al-Thaqafī — and this is a lapse of his.” Ibn Ḥajar in Tahdhīb said: “Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt and attributed to him being Thaqafī which is a lapse.” He then added: “I say: rather he mentioned both of them and he did not attribute Abu Duḥayhah to any of them.”

I say: al-Mizzī then noted “Ḥawshab ibn Muslim al-Thaqafī” to distinguish, and Ibn Ḥajar said Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned both and did not attribute Abu Duḥayhah as Thaqafī as al-Mizzī stated. It is likely al-Mizzī erred in copying from Ibn Ḥibbān, not Ibn Ḥibbān himself.

It is possible that al-Mizzī’s manuscript of Ibn Ḥibbān’s book contained that nisbah in the entry, hence the scribe’s oversight.

Note: Ibn Ḥibbān also mentioned this Abu Duḥayhah in his “Followers of the Followers of the Tābiʿūn” and there he calls him al-Jarmi, so it appears there was a differentiation by the author for two individuals though they may be the same.

— Al-Mizzī said in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (12/315) (2671) of “Sayyār Abū Ḥamzah al-Kūfī…: he was mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān in al-Thiqāt.” Ibn Ḥajar in Tahdhīb (4/293) (513) said: “I did not find a mention of Abū Ḥamzah in Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt; let him be verified.” I say: that means in the manuscript he used it was absent. In the printed al-Thiqāt (6/421) (8386): “Sayyār Abū Ḥamzah from the people of Kufa, narrates from Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim. Narrated from him: ʿAbdalmalik ibn Saʿīd ibn Abjar.” The editor noted that this biography appears in some manuscripts and not in others.

As for the claim that Ibn Ḥajar and al-Dhahabī would sometimes transmit from memory = its apparent meaning was to attribute some lapses to their relying on memory. Memory is fallible! This comment requires demonstration. Where are the instances that they transmitted from memory and were in error about some imams? This assertion needs proof.

The conclusion: every seeker of knowledge comes to conclusions based on evidence and arguments and must make that clear, and God is the one who grants success.

Written by: Dr. Khālid al-Ḥāyik.

8 Shawwāl 1445 AH.