





















Studies in Hadith Sciences (1)

When Less is More

On the Chapter Headings and Organization of Ḥadīths in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim

Muntasir Zaman























When Less is More: On the Chapter Headings and
Organization of Ḥadīths in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim

Muntasir Zaman
When Less is More: On the Chapter Headings and Organization of Ḥadīths
in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. A title in our Studies in Hadith Sciences series, Number: 1
All Rights Reserved © 2020 by Muntasir Zaman

No part of this text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
typing, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permis-
sion of the author.

Online: www.ahadithnotes.com | Email: [email protected]

Cover design and typesetting by scholarlytype.com
 

Contents

Introduction 5
Did Imām Muslim Write the Chapter Headings? 6
Subsequent Scholarship 10
Motivation to Omit Chapter Headings 14
Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths 17
Conclusion 22
Select Bibliography 23

3

 When Less is More: On the Chapter Headings
and Organization of Ḥadīths in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim

Introduction
The Ṣaḥīḥs of Imām al-Bukhārī (d. 256 ah) and Imām Muslim
(d. 261 ah) occupy a sacrosanct space in the hearts of Muslims
and are justifiably considered the most reliable collections after
the Qurʾān. While each of these two works possesses features
that have persuaded scholars over the centuries to prefer one
over the other, al-Bukhārī’s literary genius truly shines in his
chapter headings (tarājim). Chapter headings are a useful way
for authors to guide their readers.1 They provide clarity on their
contents, operate as a platform to respond to interlocutors, and
present the authors’ personal views.2 From this angle, chapter
headings serve as the earliest instance of textual commentaries
by the compilers themselves.3 Although Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim’s astonish-
ing structure and systematic presentation of ḥadīths are unpar-
alleled, there is considerable scholarly debate on the authorship
of its chapter headings.
Despite a dearth of conclusive evidence, there is general
agreement that Muslim wrote the main chapter titles (kutub)

1 The word tarjama has multiple usages in scholastic discourse: (1) a biog-
raphy, e.g., the tarjama of Abū Hurayra; (2) a particular chain of trans-
mission, e.g., al-Bukhārī transmits fifty ḥadīths with the tarjama “Mālik,
from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar;” and (3) chapter headings. See ʿAwwāma,
annotations on Tadrīb al-rāwī (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), 2:315.
2 On the function of chapter headings, see Zakariyyā Kāndhlawī, al-Abwāb
wa-l-tarājim (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 2012), 1:124ff.
3 Joel Blecher, Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary Across a Mil-
lennium (California: University of California Press, 2018), 5, 111–115.

5
Did Imām Muslim Write the Chapter Headings

of his Ṣaḥīḥ,4 e.g., Kitāb al-Īmān (the Book of Faith),5 based on

early references to them by al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385 ah) and Ibn
Manjawayh (d. 428 ah).6 Furthermore, there is no disagreement
that the ḥadīths in the Ṣaḥīḥ follow a coherent sequence within
these main chapters, as mentioned by Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (d. 643 ah);
this is apparent to anyone who peruses the Ṣaḥīḥ.7 The point of
contention lies in the titles of the sub-chapters (abwāb)—hence-
forth, chapter headings. In this paper, I will briefly explore the
authorship of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim’s chapter headings and outline Mus-
lim’s method of presenting and critically examining ḥadīths in
his magnum opus.

Did Imām Muslim Write the Chapter Headings?

A minority view maintains that Muslim himself added the chap-
ter headings. Jamāl al-Dīn al-Zaylaʿī (d. 762 ah) appears to hold
this view. In Naṣb al-rāya, he uses the phrase “Muslim titled the

4 Muḥammad al-Sanūsī (d. 895 ah) opines that even the main chapter titles
were added by later scholars. See al-Sanūsī, Mukammil ikmāl al-ikmāl
(Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, n.d.), 1:48.
5 Mashhūr Ḥasan, al-Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj (Damascus: Dār al-Qalam,
1994), 187; Abū Ghudda, footnotes on Sabāḥat al-fikr fi al-jahr bi-l-dhikr
(Cairo: Dār al-Salām, 2009), 37. That being said, there are differences in
the placement and number of the kutub. A comparison between the kutub
mentioned in Ibn Manjawayh’s Rijāl Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and those found in the
printed editions of the Ṣaḥīḥ reveals differences in the titles, such as Kitāb
al-aḍāḥī or al-ḍaḥāyā and Kitāb al-ṣiyām or al-ṣawm.
6 As will be explained later with respect to the chapter headings, these ref-
erences do not definitively prove that the main chapter titles were from
Muslim due to the possibility that these references were based on the
overall theme or wording of the ḥadīths.
7 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim min al-ikhlāl wa-l-ghalaṭ (Beirut: Dār
al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1984), 101–103.

6
 Did Imām Muslim Write the Chapter Headings

chapter…”8 The editor of Ikmāl al-muʿlim, Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl,9 and

the late Ḥadīth expert, Yūnus Jawnpūrī (d. 2017), are among
a handful of contemporary scholars who share this opinion.10
This position is based on (1) the presence of chapter headings
in some early manuscripts (nusakh) and recensions (riwāyāt) of
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and (2) scholarly references to specific chapters in
the Ṣaḥīḥ.11 The majority view is that the chapter headings were
a later addition.12
The evidences provided by the first group are not satisfac-
tory. That chapter headings are found in some manuscripts of
the Ṣaḥīḥ is not conclusive proof because they could have been
added by scribes. The disparity in the placement and titles of
the chapter headings in these manuscripts demonstrates the

8 Jamāl al-Dīn al-Zaylaʿī, Naṣb al-rāya lī-aḥādīth al-hidāya (Beirut: Muʾas-

sasat al-Rayyān, 1997), 2:59, 66.
9 Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl, “Introduction,” in Ikmāl al-muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim (Bei-
rut: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1998), 1:24.
10 Yūnus Jawnpūrī, al-Yawāqīt al-ghāliya fī taḥqīq wa-takhrīj al-aḥādīth
al-ʿāliya (Leicester: Majlis Daʿwat al-Ḥaqq, n.d.), 3:336. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy
al-Laknawī (d. 1848) writes, “Muslim is alluding to this in the chapter
heading of his Ṣaḥīḥ.” See al-Laknawī, Sabāḥat al-fikr, 37. This may have
been a slip of the pen on al-Laknawī’s part, so it cannot be used as defin-
itive proof that he held this view.
11 Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl, “Introduction,” in Ikmāl al-muʿlim, 1:24; Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUṣaymī,
“Tafṣīl nafīs ḥawl tarājim Ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām Muslim,” YouTube video,
06/05/2020, https://youtu.be/0aO-PGK1WlU. Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl incorrectly
quotes Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ as saying, “Consequently, the claim that Muslim did
not place chapter headings is disproved.” The citation that he provides
from Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (2:160) only states, “It is narrated by Muslim in one of
his chapter headings as found in some recensions…” See Kāmrān Ajmal,
“Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim key abwāb wa-tarājim,” Māhnāma Dār al-ʿUlūm 98, no. 10
(2014): 7.
12 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 103; idem, Maʿrifat anwāʿ ʿilm al-ḥadīth
(Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1986), 20. Ibn Diḥya (d. 633 ah) expressly states that
Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 ah) is responsible for adding the chapter headings.
See al-Zarkashī, al-Nukat ʿalā muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (Riyadh: Aḍwāʾ
al-Salaf, 1998), 1:167.

7
Did Imām Muslim Write the Chapter Headings

doubtfulness of them having been added by Muslim.13 Moreover,

only some of the manuscripts contain chapter headings; many of
them do not.14 The chapter headings found in Ibn Khayr al-Ish-
bīlī’s (d. 575 ah) prestigious manuscript are definitely not from
Muslim since the location of the chapter headings interferes with
Muslim’s organization of ḥadīths, which will be discussed later.15

As far as recensions are concerned, it is important to note

that there are two major recensions of the Ṣaḥīḥ: (1) Abū Isḥāq
Ibrāhīm b. Sufyān (d. 308 ah), whose route eventually became
the dominant recension of the Ṣaḥīḥ, and (2) Aḥmad b. ʿAlī
al-Qalānisī’s recension, which was exclusively found in the
Maghrib.16 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ observed that the handwritten manu-
script of al-Julūdī (d. 368 ah), the primary transmitter from
Ibrāhīm, did not contain chapter headings.17 Moreover, al-Māzarī
(d. 536 ah) and Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 ah) based their commentaries
of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim primarily on Ibrāhīm’s recension, yet neither of
them included chapter headings.18 It is important to add that they

13 Kāmrān Ajmal, “Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim key abwāb wa-tarājim,” 7.

14 Ibid., 5. Al-Suyūṭī writes that the earliest manuscripts were devoid of chap-
ter headings. See al-Suyūṭī, “Introduction,” in al-Dībāj ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
b. al-Ḥajjāj (Cairo: Dār Ibn ʿAffān, 1996), 1:33.
15 ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim min al-sanāʿa
al-ḥadīthiyya ilā al-tabwīb al-fiqhī (Baghdad: Dīwān al-Waqf al-Sunnī,
2018), 49. For examples, see ibid., 50–55. Al-Muḥammadī argues that Ibn
Khayr’s manuscript is based on Ibrāhīm’s recension and was compared
with Ibn Māhān’s (via al-Qalānisī). See ibid., 39. It should be noted that
although this manuscript of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is ascribed to Ibn Khayr, it was
never his personal manuscript; he was simply responsible for comparing
it and amending it, and therefore, it was attributed to him. Ibn ʿUfayr
al-Ishbīlī (d. c. 580 ah) was its actual owner and scribe. See Nūr al-Dīn
al-Ḥumaydī, “Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi-l-Qarawiyyīn,” al-Nashra al-Shahriyya 21,
(1440): 23ff. As such, the chapter headings in this manuscript most prob-
ably were added by Ibn ʿUfayr himself.
16 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 103, 109.
17 Ibid., 114; al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 22, 28.
18 The current chapter headings found in the printed edition of Ikmāl
al-muʿlim were added by the editor. The actual manuscript does not contain

8
 Did Imām Muslim Write the Chapter Headings

also had access to Ibn Māhān’s recension (via al-Ashqar from

al-Qalānisī). It therefore follows that the recensions of Ibrāhīm
and al-Qalānisī were devoid of chapter headings.19
Scholarly references to particular chapter headings, such as
al-Dāraquṭnī’s (d. 385 ah) statement, “In the chapter ‘Which
Islām is Best?’”20 and al-Māzarī’s occasional references,21 are based
on the overall theme or part of the wording of the ḥadīths—a
common practice among scholars. They do not indicate that
Muslim actually wrote those chapter headings. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ
clearly states that the chapter headings were a later installment,
yet he keenly references Ibrāhīm b. Sufyān’s omissions by saying
“The first (omission) occurs in the Book of Hajj under the chap-
ter of shaving and trimming.”22 Likewise, al-Nawawī (d. 676 ah)
writes in his commentary, “As for Muslim’s statement in his Ṣaḥīḥ
under the chapter on the description of prayer…” In addition, if
these references were actually based on Muslim’s own chapter
headings, scholars like al-Dāraquṭnī would have cited them at
every given opportunity instead of making scattered references,
and al-Māzarī would have added them to the relevant sections
in his commentary.23

the entire ḥadīths of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and its chapter headings. Unlike Ikmāl
al-muʿlim, Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s Mashāriq al-anwār was not a work exclusive to
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Hence, the chapter headings for Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim therein were
added in conformity to the existing chapter headings of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī
and the Muwaṭṭaʾ. See al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 24.
19 Ibid., 22–24.
20 Al-Dimashqī, al-Ajwiba (Riyadh: Dār al-Warrāq, 1998), 283. The editor of
Abū Masʿūd al-Dimashqī’s (d. 401 ah) al-Ajwiba notes that he was unable
to locate this statement in al-Dāraquṭnī’s al-Tatabbuʿ and al-ʿIlal.
21 See, for instance, al-Māzarī, al-Muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim, (Tunis: al-Dar
al-Tūnisiyya, 1988), 1:349.
22 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, p. 114.
23 Al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 118–119.

9
Subsequent Scholarship

Subsequent Scholarship
If Muslim did not write the chapter headings of his Ṣaḥīḥ, then
who wrote them? With considerable differences in their number,
placement, and titles, we can identify five categories of schol-
ars who developed their own chapter headings for Ṣaḥīḥ Mus-
lim: scribes, Mustakhraj compilers, summarizers, editors, and
commentators.24
(1) Scribes added chapter headings, either in the margina-
lia or in the actual text, when copying manuscripts of the Ṣaḥīḥ.
A manuscript read back to Sharaf al-Dīn al-Mursī (d. 655 ah)
contains chapter headings in the main text; al-Farāwī’s manu-
script transcribed in 559 ah contains chapter headings mostly
in the margins; and Ibn Khayr al-Ishbīlī’s manuscript (see fig. 1)
contains chapter headings that separate the routes of individual
Companions.25 Again, the disparity in the placement and titles
of the chapter headings suggests that they were based on the
scribes’ personal judgments.26

Figure 1: Ibn Khayr’s manuscript of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim transcribed in 573 ah

(Fez: al-Qarawiyyīn Library 345, fol. 5r.).

(2) The Mustakhraj genre consisted of books whose authors

used an existing Ḥadīth collection as a template to narrate
24 Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUṣaymī, “Tafṣīl nafīs ḥawl tarājim Ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām Muslim.”
Al-ʿUṣaymī mentions only four groups. As we will see, modern editors
like the editors of the al-Ṭabʿa al-ʿĀmira print did not entirely replicate
al-Nawawī’s chapter headings.
25 See the editors’ introduction to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Cairo: Dār al-Taʾṣīl, 2014),
1:236, 252.
26 Al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 29.

10
 Subsequent Scholarship

ḥadīths via personal transmission until they met with the chain
of the author of the template collection.27 One of the earliest
Mustakhrajs written on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim was by Abū ʿAwāna (d.
316 ah).28 However, based on the poor quality, repetitive nature,
and juristic focus of the chapter headings in his Mustakhraj,
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Muḥammadī argues that they were added by
later scribes.29 Another Mustakhraj was written by Abū Nuʿaym
al-Asbahānī (d. 430 ah),30 whose chaptering most closely resem-
bles the methodology of the Ḥadīth scholars, according to Ṣāliḥ
al-ʿUṣaymī.31
(3) For nearly a millennium, the chapter headings that have
gained the widest acceptance and most traction were taken from
commentaries, in particular Muhyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī’s com-
mentary, al-Minhāj. In the prolegomenon to his commentary,
al-Nawawī writes:
Several scholars have written chapter headings. Some
of these are excellent while others are unsatisfactory
due to their deficiency in expressing their contents, or
the poor wording, among other reasons. God willing,
27 Al-Suyūṭī, Tadrīb al-rāwī. 2:421–427.
28 On the Mustakhrajs of Abū ʿAwāna and Abū Nuʿaym, see Jonathan Brown,
The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 111–114.
29 Al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 106–107.
30 In the introduction to his Mustakhraj, Abū Nuʿaym writes, “We examined
the primary reports that he [Muslim] cited and the chapters that he sum-
marized. Thus, we followed him vis-à-vis his book and its tarājim from our
teachers.” See al-Aṣbahānī, al-Musnad al-mustakhraj (Beirut: Dār al-Ku-
tub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 1:89–90. It is not clear what Abū Nuʿaym intends
by the word tarājim, which conventionally translates as chapter headings.
Is he saying that he followed the chapter headings of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, in
which case he is attributing their authorship to Muslim? A more plausible
explanation is that in this context tarājim is being used in the meaning of
specific chains of transmission, an equally common usage as mentioned
earlier. Abū Nuʿaym is explaining that his Mustakhraj follows the overall
structure of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, but the chains of transmission will be traced
from his own teachers—which is basically the function of a Mustakhraj.
31 Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUṣaymī, “Tafṣīl nafīs ḥawl tarājim Ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām Muslim.”

11
Subsequent Scholarship

I hope to express them in a befitting manner in the

relevant places.32
Its prominence and value notwithstanding, scholars have
taken issue with al-Nawawī’s imposition of his Shāfiʿī-lean-
ing jurisprudential views in formulating the chapter headings,
oftentimes without support from the ḥadīths cited by Muslim.33
The renowned polymath of the subcontinent, Shabbīr Aḥmad
ʿUthmānī (d. 1949), lamented the absence of any satisfactory
work on the chapter headings—including al-Nawawī’s—a task
he hoped to fulfill in his peerless commentary, Fatḥ al-mulhim.34
Unfortunately, he passed away before his aspirations could come
to complete fruition.35
(4) With regards to summarizers, the Andalusian Ḥadīth
scholar, Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qurṭubī (d. 656 ah)—not to be con-
fused for his student the famous exegete—abridged Ṣaḥīḥ Mus-
lim, adding his own chapter headings to organize the abridg-
ment. He later wrote a commentary on it entitled “al-Mufhim.”36
Around the same time, his Egyptian counterpart ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm
al-Mundhirī (d. 656 ah) also authored an abridgment of the
Ṣaḥīḥ, taking licenses in rearranging the sequence of the chapters

32 Al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ

al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1972), 1:21.
33 Mashhūr Ḥasan, al-Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj, 184; Kāmrān Ajmal, “Ṣaḥīḥ
Muslim key abwāb wa-tarājim,” 9. For instance, under Wāʾil b. Ḥujr’s ḥadīth
on placing the hands when standing in prayer, al-Nawawī adds the words
“beneath the chest above the navel” in the chapter headings, but the wording
of the ḥadīth does not support that qualification. See al-Nawawī, al-Min-
hāj, 4:114.
34 Shabbīr ʿUthmānī, Fatḥ al-mulhim bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām Muslim (Beirut:
Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2006), 1:269.
35 Mashhūr Ḥasan, al-Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj, p. 185.
36 See editor’s introduction in al-Qurṭubī, al-Mufhim li-mā ashkala min
talkhīṣ kitāb Muslim (Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1996), 1:14.

12
 Subsequent Scholarship

and adding headings.37 It is important to note that both authors

were contemporaries of al-Nawawī and passed away before him.
(5) As for editors, between 1911 and 1915 CE, the Istan-
bul-based al-Ṭabʿa al-ʿĀmira printed an edition of the Ṣaḥīḥ
that was compared with reliable manuscripts and annotated with
concise notes (see fig. 2).38 Drawing on the chapter headings of
al-Nawawī and those found in the manuscripts at their disposal,
the editors formulated chapter headings of their own and delib-
erately placed them in the margins.39 In his edition of Ṣaḥīḥ
Muslim, Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (d. 1968) replicated the
chapter headings of al-Ṭabʿa al-Āmira for the most part, but
he took material from al-Nawawī and then incorporated them
in the main text—an alteration that provoked the ire of many
scholars.40

Figure 2: al-Ṭabʿa al-ʿĀmira edition of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (4:86).

37 See al-Albānī, “Introduction,” in Mukhtaṣar Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Beirut: al-Mak-

tab al-Islāmī, 1987), 9.
38 The text was edited by Aḥmad Rifʿat and Muḥammad ʿIzzat several times
using reliable manuscripts. Unfortunately, a description of these manu-
scripts was not provided. It was then revised and annotated by Muḥam-
mad Shukrī al-Anqarawī. See Muṣaddiq al-Dūrī, Riwāyat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
min ṭarīq Ibn Māhān muqārana bi-riwāyat Ibn Sufyān (M.A. diss., Tikrit
University, 2010), 45–46.
39 Al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 20.
40 Ibid., 20, 43, 84.

13
Motivation to Omit Chapter Headings

Motivation to Omit Chapter Headings

What motivated Muslim to depart from the practice of his peers
by omitting chapter headings from such an important collec-
tion? Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ postulates that they were omitted to prevent
the work from becoming unnecessarily lengthy.41 However, this
explanation does not pass muster as chapter headings would only
negligibly increase the volume of an already extensive collection.
Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571 ah) states that Muslim passed away before
he was able to write the chapter headings.42 This explanation is
problematized by the fact that Muslim finished composing the
Ṣaḥīḥ in 250 ah and subsequently taught it for 11 years before
passing away.43
A number of contemporary writers proffer a more convincing
answer where they contend that unlike Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or the
Sunan works, Muslim organized his magnum opus according
to a Ḥadīth-centric model.44 Although it may be argued that on
a macro level the chapters (kutub) follow a somewhat juristic
sequence, on a micro level Muslim is clearly concerned with
extrapolating fine Ḥadīth-related points. Anyone who reads
Muslim’s prolegomenon (muqaddima) to his Ṣaḥīḥ will quickly
realize that his focus is Ḥadīth-related and not jurisprudential. A
cursory examination of the structure and presentation of ḥadīths
in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim will help illustrate this phenomenon better.45

41 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 103.

42 Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn (Baghdad:
Maktabat al-Muthannā, 1941), 1:555.
43 Abū Ghuddah, “Appendix,” in al-Mūqiẓa fī ʿilm muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth (Bei-
rut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 1416), 137–140; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ṭawālba,
al-Imām Muslim wa-manhajuhu fī Ṣaḥīḥīhi (Amman: Dār ʿAmmār, 2000),
104–105.
44 Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr, Manhaj al-naqd fī ʿulūm al-ḥadīth (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr,
1979), 254; Mashhūr Ḥasan, al-Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj, 183; al-Muḥam-
madī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 133.
45 Al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 131–133.

14
 Motivation to Omit Chapter Headings

Take, for instance, the report of Anas b. Mālik, “On one occa�-
sion, I travelled with Jarīr b. ʿAbd Allāh and he served me; I asked
him to refrain from doing that. He said, ‘I saw the Anṣār do
something for the Prophet and I will try my best to serve them
whenever I travel with them (and Jarīr was senior to Anas).’”
Muslim narrates the report as follows:

Naṣr b. ʿAlī al-Jahḍamī, Muḥammad b. al-Muthannā,

and Ibn Bashshār all narrated to us from Ibn ʿArʿara—
and the wording is al-Jahḍamī’s: Muḥammad b. ʿArʿara
narrated to me, saying: Shuʿba narrated to us, from
Yūnus b. ʿUbayd, from Thābit al-Bunānī, from Anas b.
Mālik…Ibn al-Muthannā and Ibn Bashshār add in their
transmission, “Jarīr was senior (akbar) to Anas,” and
Ibn Bashshār said, “Jarīr was older (asann) than Anas.”46

From his isolation of the original source (al-Jahḍamī) to dis-

tinguishing between each teacher’s respective wording, Muslim’s
attention to detail and exposé of subtleties that often have no
bearing on a report’s authenticity demonstrate a high caliber of
Ḥadīth scholarship. This should not lead one to assume that such
a methodology is absent from Ḥadīth anthologies besides Ṣaḥīḥ
Muslim. The difference, however, is that this methodology is
woven into the warp and weft of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim while it remains
a secondary concern for other authors.47 Muslim seems to have
inherited this trait from his teacher, Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal
(d. 241 ah), who frequently highlights minute variations in the
chains of transmission in the Musnad.48

46 Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 2513.

47 Al-Muḥammadī, Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 140.
48 ʿAwwāma, annotations on Tadrīb al-rāwī, 2:304; Ibn Ḥajar, Taʿjīl al-manfaʿa
bi-zawāʾid rijāl al-aʾimma al-arbaʿa (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya,
1996), 1:712. Interestingly, Imām Aḥmad disliked the addition of anything—
even chapter headings—to ḥadīths. See Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad riwāyat
Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm b. Hāniʾ (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1400), 2:244–245,
no. 2368–9. It is worth exploring how much, if at all, this attitude impacted
Muslim, in particular reference to his omission of chapter headings.

15
Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths

In the formative period, chapters in Ḥadīth literature were

organized according to a juristic or ḥadīth-centric sequence. The
Sunan genre, for instance, is organized according to chapters of
jurisprudence, beginning with the subjects of purification, prayer,
fasting, etc. Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī’s (d. 279 ah) usage of the phrase
“and in the chapter (wa fī al-bāb)” is applied, for the most part,
in the juristic sense.49 On the other hand, many Ḥadīth experts
organized reports based on the multiplicity of routes and to
identify hidden defects. ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234 ah) famously
observed, “Unless all the chains of transmission on a topic (bāb)
are collected, its flaws will not become apparent.”50 A Ḥadīth
expert will often cite multiple chains of one text alongside its
attestations (shawāhid) to point out hidden defects under one
chapter.51 Understanding the distinction between the two types of
chapters is essential to appreciate the structure of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
and the nature of its “chapters.” Keeping Muslim’s methodology
in mind, al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 ah) contends that the chapter headings
are better left out of the Ṣaḥīḥ.52

Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths

Before concluding, a word is due on Muslim’s methodical style of
presenting ḥadīths. A salient feature of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, relatively
unique for that era, is the presence of a prolegomenon that out-
lines the author’s modus operandi. Some elements of Muslim’s
prolegomenon have, without exaggeration, led to the production
of libraries and spurred fierce academic debate.53 An exhaustive
49 Mujīr al-Khaṭīb, Maʿrifat madār al-isnād (Riyadh: Dār al-Maymān, 2007),
1:306.
50 Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Jāmiʿ li-akhlāq al-rāwī wa-ādāb al-sāmiʿ
(Riyadh: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1983), 2:212, no. 1640.
51 Mujīr al-Khaṭīb, Maʿrifat madār al-isnād, 1:305; cf. ʿAwwāma, annotations
on Tadrīb al-rāwī, 2:273–276, 282.
52 Al-Suyūṭī, “Introduction,” in al-Dībāj, 1:33.
53 For instance, Muslim’s observations on the issue of continuity (ittiṣāl)
between narrators have inspired countless monographs. Shaykh Ḥātim

16
 Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths

treatment of even the present discussion is beyond the scope

of this article.54 For our purposes, we will highlight several pas-
sages that speak of his method of presenting ḥadīths, followed
by some case studies. Muslim writes:
We will examine the corpus of prophetic ḥadīths and
divide them into three categories and three groups of
narrators without repetition unless repetition is indis-
pensable for additional meaning found therein or the
mention of one chain next to another for a particular
reason….
As for the first category, we hope to begin by present-
ing reports that are furthest from defects and more
select because their narrators are consistent in Ḥadīth
and precise in what they transmit. Additionally, severe
inconsistencies and reckless confusion are not found in
their reports similar to what is observed among many
Ḥadīth scholars and is clear in their ḥadīths. After
exhausting reports of this category, we will then present
reports with chains that contain some narrators who
are not recognized for memory and precision, to the
extent of the previous group. Despite being inferior to
those described earlier, they have the traits of conceal-
ment, truthfulness, and engagement with knowledge….

al-ʿAwnī’s and Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Lāḥim’s respective treatises are exam-

ples of such works.
54 Shaykh Ḥamza al-Malībārī provides an early treatment of this method-
ology in his rejoinder to Shaykh Rabīʿ al-Madkhalī entitled “ʿAbqariyyat
al-Imām Muslim fī tartīb aḥādīth Musnadihi al-ṣaḥīḥ” and in a subsequent
publication “Mā hākadhā tūrad yā Saʿd al-ibil.” ʿĀshūr Dahnī’s M.A. thesis
“Manhaj al-Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj fī dhikr al-akhbār al-muʿallala” is also
a good resource. Recently, Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāma wrote a book-
let entitled “Min manhaj al-Imām Muslim fī ʿarḍ al-ḥadīth al-muʿallal fī
ṣaḥīḥihi” on this subject; his findings have been summarized in this paper.
He shared part of his research over a decade earlier in the introduction to
his edition of Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba.

17
Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths

In this manner, we will compile the prophetic reports

you requested.
We will not busy ourselves with transmitting the ḥadīths
of those who are dubious in the sight of the Ḥadīth
experts or most of them. Added to them are those who
the majority of their reports are detested (munkar)
or erroneous (ghalaṭ)…. God willing, we will further
explain and clarify throughout the book when citing
defective reports (al-akhbār al-muʿallala) when we
reach them in the appropriate places for clarification.55
There a number of points to be derived from this passage
vis-à-vis Muslim’s modus operandi. First, rigorously authenti-
cated ḥadīths are the Ṣaḥīḥ’s raison d’être. Second, these primary
ḥadīths will be followed by another category of ḥadīths that were
narrated by slightly questionable transmitters for corroboration
(mutābaʿa) and attestation (shawāhid).56 The overall assessment
of these narrators will not decline beneath the level of sound
narrations (ḥisān). In the presence of the first category of intrin-
sically authentic narrations (ṣaḥīḥ li-dhātihi), these ḥadīths are
ultimately elevated to the level of extrinsically authentic (ṣaḥīḥ
li-ghayrihi). Third, when the circumstances demand, he will cite
55 Muslim, “Introduction,” in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1:4-6.
56 Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʿallimī (d. 1966) writes that in a situation
where Muslim assembles multiple similar narrations, he will begin the sec-
tion with the most authentic (aṣaḥḥ) ḥadīth followed by the less authentic.
But Shaykh Ḥamza al-Malībārī aptly points out that a distinction needs to
be made between comparing narrators and comparing narrations in deter-
mining authenticity. What is considered more reliable is not necessarily
predicated on the reliability of the narrators in the chain. Hence, Muslim
may well first cite a chain that has an elevated chain that is well-known
and contains an accurate text before he cites a chain that contains narrators
who, on a one-to-one comparison, are more reliable but overall lack other
factors. This is understood from Muslim’s words “reports that are furthest
from defects and more select.” See al-Muʿallimī, al-Anwār al-kāshifa li-mā
fī kitāb Aḍwāʾ ʿalā al-sunna min al-zalal wa-l-taḍlīl wa-l-mujāzafa (Beirut:
ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1986), 230; al-Malībārī, Mā hākadhā tūrad yā Saʿd al-ibil
(Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2004), 21–22.

18
 Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths

a ḥadīth with defective wording and will follow it with the estab-
lished version, at which point he will highlight the defect.57 In
brief, when the issue relates to the chain of transmission, ḥadīths
will be presented in the order of most authentic then less, and
when the issue relates to the text, defective ḥadīths will be cited
first followed by the sound version.58
The first and second points are straightforward and widely
accepted. The third point, however, may require explanation. By
way of illustration, consider the following ḥadīth:

[Muslim states:] Zuhayr b. Ḥarb narrated to me, say-

ing: Jarīr narrated to us—[ḥ] transition—and Isḥāq
narrated to us, saying: Jarīr informed us, from Manṣūr,
from Hilāl b. Yasāf, from Abū Yaḥyā, from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAmr, who said, “We returned to Medina from Mecca
with the Prophet. En route we came across water, so a
party hastened to pray ʿAṣr, and as a result, they rushed
the ablution. When we caught up with them, their heels
were dry, untouched by water. The Prophet remarked,
‘Woe unto the heels because of the Fire! Perform ablu-
tion thoroughly.’”

And Abū Bakr b. Abī Shayba narrated to us, saying: Wakīʿ

narrated to us, from Sufyān—and Ibn al-Muthannā
and Ibn Bashshār narrated to us, both saying: Muḥam-
mad b. Jaʿfar narrated to us, saying: Shuʿba narrated to
us. Both of them [Shuʿba and Sufyān] narrated from
Manṣūr with this chain of transmission. Shuʿba’s ḥadīth

57 This method of presenting defective ḥadīths in an authentic compilation

is not unique to Muslim. Although Muslim employs this method more
frequently than his peers, even authors like al-Bukhārī have adopted a sim-
ilar approach in their works. On al-Bukhārī’s method of presenting defec-
tive chains and texts in his Ṣaḥīḥ, see Saʿīd Bāshanfar’s Manhaj al-Imām
al-Bukhāri fī ʿarḍ al-ḥadīth al-maʿlūl fī al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaḥīḥ.
58 ʿAwwāma, Min manhaj al-Imām Muslim fī ʿarḍ al-ḥadīth al-muʿallal fī
ṣaḥīḥihi (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), 21–25.

19
Imām Muslim’s Presentation of Ḥadīths

does not contain “Perform ablution thoroughly” and it

contains “from Abū Yaḥyā al-Aʿraj.”59
By presenting the route with the words “Perform ablution
thoroughly” and then following it with the route of Shuʿba where
those words are omitted, Muslim is subtly pointing out that the
first version is defective and that the second version is sound.60
Elsewhere, Muslim narrates a ḥadīth via two routes from Ibn
Jurayj, from Muḥammad b. ʿAbbād, from Abū Salama, ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, and ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Musayyab, from ʿAbd Allāh
b. al-Sāʾib. He concludes the ḥadīth by stating that the route of
ʿAbd al-Razzāq names the narrator only as ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr
without the addition of “b. al-ʿĀṣ.”61 A number of commentators
have pointed out that the addition is an error. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr
mentioned here is not the famous Companion Ibn al-ʿĀṣ.62 By
mentioning the variation in ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s route, it appears at
first blush that Muslim is merely engaging in his customary pre-
sentation of minute variations. However, he is making a deeper
observation here: the addition of “b. al-ʿĀṣ” is an error.63
Another method that Muslim uses to present defective ḥadīths
is to truncate a lengthy report.64 In one place, he narrates a ḥadīth
from ʿĀʾisha on the Prophet’s nocturnal habits but purposely
omits the words “he did not touch water until he slept” as trans-
mitted by his teacher. Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852 ah) explains, “It appears
he intentionally omitted the addition, because he pointed out its
defect in Kitāb al-Tamyīz.”65 In addition, although the structure
of the Ṣaḥīḥ revolves around Ḥadīth-related concerns, Muslim

59 Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 241.

60 ʿAwwāma, Min manhaj al-Imām Muslim, 28.
61 Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 455.
62 Al-Māzarī, al-Muʿlim, 1:399; al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj, 4:177.
63 ʿAwwāma, Min manhaj al-Imām Muslim, 36.
64 ʿAwwāma, Ḥadhf ṭaraf min al-ḥadīth al-wāḥid ikhtiṣāran aw iʿlālan (Jed-
dah: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), 23.
65 Ibn Ḥajar, al-Talkhīṣ al-ḥabīr (Cairo: Muʾassasat Qurṭuba, 1995),1:245 .

20
 Conclusion

still indicates his jurisprudential preferences.66 Al-Nawawī writes,

“This is the practice of Muslim and other Ḥadīth experts: they
mention the ḥadīths they believe to be abrogated first and then
follow it with the abrogator.”67 On the issue of which prayer is
intended in the verse “and the middle prayer,” the exegete Abū
ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurṭubī (d. 671 ah) writes, “This is the view of
Muslim because he presents it in the ending of the chapter.”68

Conclusion
Although the main chapters (kutub) of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim were
more than likely titled by Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj himself, evi-
dence suggests that he did not add sub chapter headings (tarā-
jim al-abwāb). To understand why he omitted such an integral
component of authorship, one needs to appreciate the aim of
Muslim in presenting ḥadīths: unlike books structured around
jurisprudential concerns, Muslim set out to assemble ḥadīths in a
manner suited for Ḥadīth scholarship. From scribes to commen-
tators to editors, scholars later added chapter headings that they
deemed most appropriate. It can safely be said that al-Nawawī’s
chapter headings have gained the most traction but, as many
have pointed out, much work remains in developing more robust
chapter headings fit for such a monumental collection. Al-Suyūṭī
observes, however, that Muslim purposely omitted chapter head-
ings from his magnum opus; it is, therefore, better off left in the
form its compiler originally intended and envisioned—because
sometimes less is more.

66 ʿAwwāma, Min manhaj al-Imām Muslim, 14–15.

67 Al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj, 4:42–43.
68 Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʿān (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya,
1964), 3:212–213.

21
 Select Bibliography

Ḥājjī Khalīfa. Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn. Baghdad:

Maktabat al-Muthannā, 1941.
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Muḥammadī. Tarājim abwāb Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim min
al-sanāʿa al-ḥadīthiyya ilā al-tabwīb al-fiqhī. Baghdad: Dīwān
al-Waqf al-Sunnī, 2018.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ṭawālba. al-Imām Muslim wa-manhajuhu fī Ṣaḥīḥīhi.
Amman: Dār ʿAmmār, 2000.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʿallimī. al-Anwār al-kāshifa li-mā fī kitāb Aḍwāʾ
ʿalā al-sunna min al-zalal wa-l-taḍlīl wa-l-mujāzafa. Beirut: ʿĀlam
al-Kutub, 1986.
Ḥamza al-Malībārī. Mā hākadhā tūrad yā Saʿd al-ibil: ḥiwār ʿilmī maʿa
al-Duktūr Rabiʿ. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2004.
al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī. al-Jāmiʿ li-akhlāq al-rāwī wa-ādāb al-sāmiʿ.
Riyadh: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1983.
al-Māzarī. al-Muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim. Tunis: al-Dar al-Tūnisiyya,
1988.
al-Nawawī. al-Minhāj fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj. Beirut: Dār
Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1972.
al-Qurṭubī. al-Mufhim li-mā ashkala min talkhīṣ kitāb Muslim. Beirut:
Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1996.
al-Suyūṭī. al-Dībāj ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj. Cairo: Dār Ibn ʿAffān,
1996.
—. Tadrīb al-rāwī fi sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawāwī. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAwwāma.
Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016.
al-Zarkashī. al-Nukat ʿalā muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ. Riyadh: Aḍwāʾ
al-Salaf, 1998.
al-Zaylaʿī. Naṣb al-rāya lī-aḥādīth al-hidāya. Beirut: Muʾassasat
al-Rayyān, 1997.
Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ. Ṣiyānat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim min al-ikhlāl wa-l-ghalaṭ
wa-ḥimāyatuhu min al-isqāṭ wa-l-saqaṭ. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Is-
lāmī, 1984.
Joel Blecher. Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary Across a
Millennium. California: University of California Press, 2018.

22
 Select Bibliography

Jonathan A.C. Brown. The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim:

The Formation and Function of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon. Leiden:
Brill, 2007.
Kāmrān Ajmal. “Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim key abwāb wa-tarājim.” Māhnāma Dār
al-ʿUlūm 98.10 (2014).
Mashhūr Ḥasan. al-Imām Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj ṣāḥib al-Musnad al-ṣaḥīḥ
wa muḥaddith al-Islām al-kabīr. Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, 1994.
Muṣaddiq al-Dūrī. Riwāyat Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim min ṭarīq Ibn Māhān
muqārana bi-riwāyat Ibn Sufyān. Tikrit: Tikrit University (M.A.
diss.), 2010.
Muḥammad ʿAwwāma. Min manhaj al-Imām Muslim fī ʿarḍ al-ḥadīth
al-muʿallal fī ṣaḥīḥihi. Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016.
Mujīr al-Khaṭīb. Maʿrifat madār al-isnād wa-bayān makānatihi fī ʿilm
ʿilal al-ḥadīth. Riyadh: Dār al-Maymān, 2007.
Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr. Manhaj al-naqd fī ʿulūm al-ḥadīth. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr,
1979.
Qāḍī ʿīyāḍ. Ikmāl al-muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim. Ed. Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl. Bei-
rut: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1998.
Shabbīr ʿUthmānī. Fatḥ al-mulhim bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām Muslim.
Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2006.
Yūnus Jawnpūrī. al-Yawāqīt al-ghāliya fī taḥqīq wa-takhrīj al-aḥādīth
al-ʿāliya. Leicester: Majlis Daʿwat al-Ḥaqq, n.d.
Zakariyyā Kāndhlawī. al-Abwāb wa-l-tarājim li-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Bei-
rut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 2012.

23






















Chapter headings are a useful way for authors to guide their
readers. They provide clarity on their contents, operate as
a platform to respond to interlocutors, and present the
authors’ personal views. From this angle, chapter headings
serve as the earliest instance of textual commentaries by
the compilers themselves. Although Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim’s aston-
ishing structure and systematic presentation of ḥadīths are
unparalleled, there is considerable scholarly debate on the
authorship of its chapter headings. This paper explores the
authorship of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim’s chapter headings and out-
lines Imām Muslim’s method of presenting and critically
examining ḥadīths in his magnum opus.






















