Is al-Hakim's statement in al-Mustadrak, "and al-Bukhari and Muslim did not include it," a matter of reporting rather than a matter of criticism, as al-San'ani mentioned and explained?

The questioner : The statement of Imam al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak: "Al-Bukhari narrated it, and this hadith is on the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim, yet they did not include it." Al-San'ani mentioned in Tawdih al-Afkar that his statement "they did not include it" could be a matter of reporting rather than a matter of criticism. He linked this to his statement in the introduction of al-Mustadrak, where he said that some innovators claimed that only so many thousand hadiths of the Prophetic Sunnah are authentic. He wanted to say that these are authentic hadiths that are not found in al-Bukhari and Muslim, that they did not include them, and that they are authentic. He wanted to refute some of the innovators. Is this not a matter of criticism and supplementation, but rather a matter of reporting? Is this statement correct?

The Shaykh : It is correct without a doubt, because we all know that al-Bukhari, like Muslim, did not compile in his book everything that was authentic according to him. He did not compile in his book everything that was authentic according to him. So this is a matter of reporting, not a matter of supplementation. How could he supplement?

The questioner : Why did he name his book with this name?

The Shaykh : It is a practical supplementation. A practical supplementation.

The questioner : A practical supplementation.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : In some places, meaning the scholars consider it as if he wanted to compel al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The Shaykh : What did he want?

The questioner : I mean, there are those who interpret al-Hakim's action in saying "they did not include it" as him wanting to compel them. His action in that is similar to the action of Imam al-Daraqutni in his compellations. It is not a matter of reporting, but from your answer, it became clear that he only wants to report. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, I want to supplement here. I want to mention to some of the attendees that when al-Hakim says about a hadith that its chain is on the condition...The Shaykh : ...and sometimes on the condition of one of them, this is a great deal of leniency on his part. Because whoever says about a hadith that it is on the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim, the narrator from al-Bukhari's shaykh must be a contemporary of Imam al-Bukhari. And if he authenticates a hadith on the condition of Muslim, and as you know, whether it is the condition of al-Bukhari or the condition of Muslim, it means the chain of men from al-Bukhari's shaykh to the Companion are the men of al-Bukhari. In this case, it is required that the one who narrates from al-Bukhari's shaykh or from Muslim's shaykh be a contemporary of the two shaykhs. Al-Hakim is not like that. When al-Hakim narrates from a shaykh of al-Bukhari or a shaykh of Muslim, there are two or more intermediaries between him and them. And these, without a doubt, are not among the shaykhs of al-Bukhari and Muslim. So this is a leniency and a convention on his part: it is on the condition of al-Bukhari from al-Bukhari's shaykh and upward, not from the authorized shaykh of al-Bukhari. Therefore, we often observe that it may be true that from al-Bukhari's shaykh and upward it is on the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim, but al-Hakim's chain to al-Bukhari's shaykh may be weak or may be missing a link. How can it be said that such a chain is authentic on the condition of al-Bukhari? This is a convention specific to him. In addition, if you know this fact, we cannot assume or imagine that he wants to compel the two Imams to include the hadith that he authenticated through the path of his shaykh from the shaykh of his shaykh from al-Bukhari's shaykh or Muslim's shaykh.

The questioner : It is a convention specific to him.

The Shaykh : It is a convention specific to him. Yes.