A comparison between al-Bukhari’s book *al-Tarikh al-Kabir* and Ibn Abi Hatim’s book *al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil*.

The Shaykh : As for al-Bukhari, he does not have extensive experience in this field. Even regarding trustworthy narrators, he limits himself to mentioning one or two, let alone hidden or unknown narrators. Imam al-Bukhari does not elaborate on explaining the narrators of the person about whom he is silent. In fact, regarding his book *al-Tarikh*, I do not like partisanship toward individuals. I hold Imam al-Bukhari in high regard for his knowledge and his critique, but I do not value his book *al-Tarikh* as I value *al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil*. In *al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil*, it is rare that we do not find a narrator about whom he has given us his opinion. The opposite is entirely true; it is rare that we find a narrator in al-Bukhari’s *Tarikh* about whom he explicitly stated his trustworthiness. Therefore, the benefit derived from *al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil* is far greater than from al-Bukhari’s *Tarikh*, especially in this aspect: the narrators about whom Ibn Abi Hatim was silent. We may benefit from his work by establishing their trustworthiness through an indirect means, according to our method. If we find him saying, “So-and-so narrated from him, and so-and-so, and so-and-so,” and he remained silent, and if these individuals are trustworthy in his view and in the view of others, then we are reassured to use the hadith of this person as evidence, despite his silence about him. This is not the case if he says, “So-and-so narrated from him,” and the matter ends there. The two are not equal, for example.