Imam Bukhari is widely celebrated for his supposedly “rigorous” approach to hadith authentication, particularly his famous fourth criterion that supposedly sets him apart from other hadith compilers like Muslim. This criterion requires “proven meeting” (Liqā’) between narrators—evidence that each narrator actually met and heard from the person he claims to narrate from, not just that their lives overlapped in time.

This requirement is often presented as a mark of exceptional scholarly rigor that makes Bukhari’s collection more reliable than others. Traditional Islamic scholarship holds this up as evidence of Bukhari’s uncompromising standards and meticulous verification process. But a closer examination reveals that this “strict” criterion is neither as rigorous as claimed nor does it actually prove what it purports to establish.

The False Promise of “Proven Meeting”

The fundamental problem with Bukhari’s fourth criterion is that it conflates two entirely different claims: that two people met, and that they transmitted specific religious knowledge during that meeting. Even if we could definitively prove that Narrator A met Narrator B at some point in their lives, this tells us absolutely nothing about whether any hadith transmission actually occurred during that encounter. Consider this logical breakdown:

Person X claims to have heard a hadith from Person Y, proving that X and Y once met does not validate X’s specific claim about hearing that particular hadith. They could have met dozens of times and discussed anything—the weather, trade, family matters, local gossip—without ever touching on religious traditions. Alternatively, they might have had one brief encounter where no substantive conversation took place at all.

The criterion assumes that proving a meeting occurred is equivalent to proving hadith transmission occurred during that meeting. This is a massive logical leap that has no basis in evidence or reason.

The Impossibility of Historical Verification

Even more problematic is the practical impossibility of actually proving these meetings took place. How exactly does one verify that two individuals who lived over a thousand years ago actually met? The “evidence” typically consists of:

• Claims by later biographers who themselves lived generations after the supposed meetings
• Testimonies from other narrators who may or may not have been present
• Inferences based on travel routes, shared locations, or mutual acquaintances
• Statements from the narrators themselves, which are exactly what we’re trying to verify in the first place

This creates a circular validation problem. We’re using testimonial evidence from the same unreliable system to prove the reliability of that system. If we can’t trust Narrator A’s claim about hearing a hadith from Narrator B, why should we trust the biographical claims about whether A and B ever met?

The historical sources Sunnis rely on for proving these meetings were often compiled decades or centuries after the alleged events, by authors who had no firsthand knowledge and were working from the same pool of unreliable testimonial evidence that hadith criticism is supposed to address.

When we consider that Bukhari’s collection contains thousands of hadith with chains spanning multiple generations, the number of “proven meetings” required becomes staggering. Each hadith chain might require verification of 4-6 separate narrator-to-narrator meetings, all occurring across different time periods and geographical locations, often with limited historical documentation. The practical impossibility of actually verifying all these claimed encounters makes the criterion more of a theoretical ideal than a genuine historical standard. In practice, much looser standards of “evidence” would have been necessary.

The Ease of Fabrication

The most damaging to the credibility of this criterion is how easily it could be fabricated. A dishonest narrator seeking to legitimize a false hadith would only need to claim he met someone who was known to have lived in the same general time and place. Given the limited biographical information available about most early Islamic figures and the loose standards of historical documentation in that era, such claims would be nearly impossible to disprove. It simply takes the knowledge of knowing that Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab was Abu Hurairah’s son-in-law, which could be leveraged to assume a high likelihood of hadith transmission between them, which then opens the door for a dishonest narrator to forge endless reports attributed to one or both, cloaked in the illusion of plausibility. This, in essence, is how much of 8th-century hadith transmission was rationalized.

A forger could easily do any of the following:

• Research basic biographical information about respected early figures
• Claim to have met them during plausible time periods and locations
• Fabricate entirely fictional encounters that would fit historical timelines
• Rely on the fact that detailed verification would be impossible generations later

The criterion provides a false sense of security while being easy to circumvent for anyone with basic knowledge of early Islamic history and personalities. The deeper issue is that Bukhari’s fourth criterion commits a fundamental logical error: it treats correlation as causation. The reasoning follows this flawed pattern:

1. Narrator A claims to transmit a hadith from Person B
2. We find evidence that A and B met at some point
3. Therefore, A’s hadith claim is validated

This is equivalent to arguing:

1. John claims Einstein told him the secret to time travel
2. We have evidence John once attended a lecture where Einstein spoke
3. Therefore, John’s claim about receiving secret knowledge is credible

The logical fallacy is obvious when stated plainly, yet this is precisely the reasoning underlying Bukhari’s supposedly rigorous methodology.

Meeting ≠ Transmission

Even in the best-case scenario where we could definitively prove that two individuals met, this proves nothing about hadith transmission. Consider the countless meetings that occur in any person’s life: professional encounters, social gatherings, brief exchanges, formal events, etc. The vast majority of human interactions do not involve the systematic transmission of religious traditions. Even if religious topics were discussed, this doesn’t validate specific hadith claims. Two scholars might meet and discuss general religious principles, theological questions, or contemporary issues without any formal hadith transmission taking place. The leap from “they met and discussed religion” to “specific hadith X was transmitted during this meeting” is entirely unsupported.

The False Distinction from Muslim

The traditional claim that this fourth criterion makes Bukhari more reliable than Imam Muslim’s collection also falls apart under scrutiny. While Muslim may have been “less strict” about requiring explicit proof of meetings, the fundamental problems with hadith transmission remain the same in both collections. Whether two narrators definitely met or probably met, neither approach actually proves that specific hadith were transmitted during those encounters. The difference between Bukhari and Muslim on this point is essentially the difference between requiring “strong evidence” versus “reasonable evidence” for something that cannot actually be proven either way. It’s a distinction without meaningful difference in terms of historical reliability. For all intents and purposes, their compilations are equally flawed.

The Quran presents itself as the complete and clear guidance from God (6:38: “We did not leave anything out of this book”). If this is true, then the elaborate and ultimately unreliable methodology of hadith authentication becomes unnecessary. Rather than building religious practice on chains of unverifiable human testimony about unverifiable human meetings, the Quran-alone approach relies solely on the text that claims divine origin and provides its own internal consistency.

Related Videos: