ARE ALL AUTHENTIC AḤĀDĪTH FOUND IN THE ṢAḤĪḤAIN?
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
A common misconception is that every authentic ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ is contained in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and that any authentic narration found outside these two books must therefore be regarded as less authentic.
This is not correct.
The two books known as al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (الصحيحين)—Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim—are unquestionably among the greatest and most authoritative books of ḥadīth. The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have given them an exceptional status, and the majority of scholars regard Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī as the most authentic book after the Qur’ān, followed by Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
However, neither Imām al-Bukhārī nor Imām Muslim claimed that their books contained every authentic narration.
In fact, both Imāms explicitly indicated the opposite.
1. Imām al-Bukhārī Did Not Intend to Include Every Ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth
When discussing the methodology and conditions of Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله, scholars have necessarily examined his own statements as well as the contents of his Ṣaḥīḥ.
One of the clearest statements attributed to Imām al-Bukhārī is:
مَا أَدْخَلْتُ فِي كِتَابِي الْجَامِعِ إِلَّا مَا صَحَّ، وَتَرَكْتُ مِنَ الصَّحِيحِ حَتَّى لَا يَطُولَ
“I only included in my al-Jāmiʿ what is authentic, and I left out some of the authentic narrations so that the book would not become too long.”
This statement is transmitted by Ibn Ḥajar in Hady al-Sārī, the introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī.
Another wording reported from him is:
لَمْ أُخْرِجْ فِي هَذَا الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا صَحِيحًا، وَمَا تَرَكْتُ مِنَ الصَّحِيحِ أَكْثَرُ
“I have not included in this book except what is authentic, and what I have left out of the authentic narrations is more.”
This is an extremely important statement. It demonstrates that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī was not intended to be an exhaustive collection of every authentic ḥadīth.
How many authentic aḥādīth did Imām al-Bukhārī know?
Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله is reported to have said:
أَحْفَظُ مِائَةَ أَلْفِ حَدِيثٍ صَحِيحٍ، وَمِائَتَيْ أَلْفِ حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِ صَحِيحٍ
“I have memorized one hundred thousand authentic aḥādīth and two hundred thousand that are not authentic.”
This statement is cited by al-Dhahabī and other biographical authorities.
Of course, the terminology of the early muḥaddithūn concerning the word ḥadīth and their methods of counting narrations should be understood carefully. A single prophetic report could have multiple chains and routes, and scholars sometimes counted these separately.
The important point for our discussion is not the numerical figure itself. Rather, it is that the vast body of authentic material known to Imām al-Bukhārī was considerably larger than what he selected for his Ṣaḥīḥ.
2. Imām Muslim Also Did Not Include Every Authentic Ḥadīth
The same principle applies to Imām Muslim رحمه الله.
In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, there is an important exchange concerning a narration of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه.
Imām Muslim was asked why he had not included a particular narration even though he regarded it as authentic. He replied:
لَيْسَ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ عِنْدِي صَحِيحٌ وَضَعْتُهُ هَاهُنَا، إِنَّمَا وَضَعْتُ هَاهُنَا مَا أَجْمَعُوا عَلَيْهِ
“Not everything that I regard as authentic have I placed here. Rather, I have placed here what they [the scholars] agreed upon.”
This statement appears in the discussion recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and is explained by Imām al-Nawawī in his commentary.
Therefore, Imām Muslim himself made it clear that his Ṣaḥīḥ was selective and was not intended to contain every narration that he personally regarded as authentic.
Imām al-Nawawī رحمه الله explains this principle in his introduction to the commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:
لَمْ يَلْتَزِمَا اسْتِيعَابَ الصَّحِيحِ، بَلْ صَحَّ عَنْهُمَا تَصْرِيحُهُمَا بِأَنَّهُمَا لَمْ يَسْتَوْعِبَاهُ
Meaning:
“They did not undertake to encompass all authentic narrations. Rather, it is authentically reported from both of them that they did not encompass them all.”
He further explains that their purpose was to collect a selection of authentic narrations, just as a jurist may compile a selection of legal issues without intending to encompass every issue in fiqh.
3. The Statements of Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ
The famous scholar of ḥadīth, Imām Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ رحمه الله, discussed this matter explicitly in his Muqaddimah fī ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth.
He states:
لَمْ يَسْتَوْعِبَا الصَّحِيحَ فِي صَحِيحَيْهِمَا، وَلَا الْتَزَمَا ذَلِكَ
“They did not encompass all the authentic narrations in their two Ṣaḥīḥs, nor did they undertake to do so.”
Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ then cites the statements of Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim mentioned above.
This establishes an important distinction:
“Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī contains only authentic narrations” does not mean “every authentic narration is contained in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.”
The same applies to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
4. What Does “Ṣaḥīḥ According to al-Bukhārī” Actually Mean?
Another important matter is the expression:
“This ḥadīth is according to the conditions of al-Bukhārī and Muslim.”
The scholars examined the methodology of the two Imāms through their books because neither Imām al-Bukhārī nor Imām Muslim wrote a detailed methodological introduction explaining every condition they applied to every narration.
Consequently, later scholars studied their narrators, chains, and practices in order to determine their respective methodologies.
In general, a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth must have:
A connected chain of transmission (ittiṣāl al-sanad).
Upright and trustworthy narrators (ʿadālah).
Accurate and precise narrators (ḍabṭ).
Freedom from contradiction with stronger evidence (shudhūdh).
Freedom from a hidden defect (ʿillah).
The difference between the methodologies of al-Bukhārī and Muslim is particularly discussed by the specialists of ḥadīth. Among the matters examined is the question of whether mere contemporaneity between two narrators is sufficient for establishing connection, or whether actual meeting must be established. The standard scholarly discussion generally regards al-Bukhārī as having applied a stricter approach in establishing continuity of transmission.
Thus, saying that a narration is “upon the conditions of al-Bukhārī and Muslim” is not the same as saying that the narration appears in either of their books.
5. The Seven Categories Mentioned by the Scholars
Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and later scholars discussed different categories of authentic ḥadīth in relation to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
These can be summarized as follows:
1. Narrations Recorded by Both al-Bukhārī and Muslim
These are commonly described as:
متفق عليه — Muttafaqun ʿalayh
Meaning that both Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim recorded the narration in their respective Ṣaḥīḥs.
2. Narrations Recorded by al-Bukhārī Alone
These are authentic narrations found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī but not in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
3. Narrations Recorded by Muslim Alone
These are authentic narrations found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim but not in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
4. Narrations Meeting the Conditions of Both Imāms
There are authentic narrations outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn that later scholars judged to conform to the methodology or conditions attributed to both Imāms.
5. Narrations Meeting the Conditions of al-Bukhārī
Some authentic narrations outside Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī may conform to the methodology of al-Bukhārī.
6. Narrations Meeting the Conditions of Muslim
Likewise, some authentic narrations outside Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim may conform to the methodology of Muslim.
7. Other Authentic Narrations
There are also narrations that do not fall under these descriptions but have nevertheless been authenticated by reliable specialists of ḥadīth.
This classification is discussed in the works of Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, al-Nawawī and later authorities in the sciences of ḥadīth.
The crucial point is that being outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn does not automatically make a ḥadīth weak.
6. Al-Ḥākim and Al-Mustadrak
One of the clearest historical indications that authentic narrations exist outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn is the work of Imām Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī رحمه الله, entitled:
Al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn
The purpose of this work was to collect narrations that, according to al-Ḥākim, fulfilled the conditions of al-Bukhārī and Muslim—or the conditions of one of them—but had not been included in their books.
In the introduction to Al-Mustadrak, al-Ḥākim makes the important point that neither Imām al-Bukhārī nor Imām Muslim claimed that no other authentic narrations existed outside their books.
The principle is therefore clear:
The Ṣaḥīḥayn are not exhaustive collections of every authentic ḥadīth.
However, an important qualification should be made: not every narration in al-Mustadrak has been accepted by the later scholars as ṣaḥīḥ. Al-Ḥākim authenticated many narrations, but later ḥadīth critics—including al-Dhahabī—reviewed a number of his judgments and disagreed with some of them. Therefore, Al-Mustadrak itself cannot simply be treated as equivalent to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
7. Other Collections Contain Authentic Aḥādīth
If every authentic ḥadīth had already been collected in the Ṣaḥīḥayn, there would have been little reason for later muḥaddithūn to identify and authenticate narrations elsewhere.
Yet throughout Islamic history, scholars compiled numerous works containing authentic narrations that are not found in both Ṣaḥīḥs.
Among the famous collections are:
Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imām Mālik رحمه الله.
Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah.
Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān.
Al-Mukhtārah of Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī.
Sunan Abī Dāwūd.
Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī.
Sunan al-Nasāʾī.
Sunan Ibn Mājah.
Musnad Aḥmad.
These books contain narrations of different grades. Some are ṣaḥīḥ, some ḥasan, and some weak. Therefore, one must examine individual narrations rather than assuming that every narration in a particular collection has the same status.
8. Examples of Authentic Narrations Outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn
There are numerous examples in which later scholars authenticated narrations that are not found in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
For example, al-Ḥākim may state concerning a narration:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ
“This is a ḥadīth with an authentic chain, and they [al-Bukhārī and Muslim] did not record it.”
Such wording occurs repeatedly in the literature of ḥadīth.
The statement itself illustrates the fundamental principle: a narration can be judged authentic even though it is not found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
That does not mean that every such claim of authenticity is necessarily correct. Rather, the grading must be examined according to the principles of ḥadīth criticism.
9. Why Did al-Bukhārī and Muslim Leave Out Authentic Aḥādīth?
A natural question arises:
If a ḥadīth was authentic, why did al-Bukhārī or Muslim not include it?
There can be several reasons.
A. Brevity
Imām al-Bukhārī explicitly indicated that he omitted authentic narrations to prevent the book from becoming excessively long.
B. Avoiding Repetition
A single subject could have numerous authentic chains. Including every route would have made the book substantially longer.
C. Selecting the Strongest Routes
A scholar may know several authentic chains but choose one or a few that best serve the purpose of his compilation.
D. The Purpose of the Compilation
The Ṣaḥīḥayn were carefully selected works, not encyclopedias intended to contain every authentic narration known to their authors.
E. Differences in Methodological Criteria
A narration may be considered authentic by one major muḥaddith while not satisfying the particular methodology employed by another.
Imām al-Nawawī explains that the omission of a narration does not automatically mean that the narrator or narration was considered weak. There can be other reasons for omission, including brevity, sufficiency of another narration, or a hidden issue known to the compiler.
10. A Necessary Distinction: “Not in Bukhārī and Muslim” Does Not Mean “Weak”
This distinction is extremely important.
There are three statements that should not be confused:
1. “This ḥadīth is in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.”
This indicates that Imām al-Bukhārī included it in his Ṣaḥīḥ.
2. “This ḥadīth is authentic.”
This is a judgment concerning the authenticity of the narration, regardless of which collection contains it.
3. “This ḥadīth is not in Bukhārī or Muslim.”
This merely tells us that it is not contained in those two books. It does not by itself establish weakness.
Therefore:
ليس كل حديث صحيح في البخاري ومسلم، وليس كل ما ليس فيهما ضعيفًا
Meaning:
“Not every authentic ḥadīth is in Bukhārī and Muslim, and not everything outside them is weak.”
The correct approach is to examine the isnād, the narrators, the various routes, hidden defects, corroborating evidence, and the judgments of qualified ḥadīth critics.
11. The Status of the Ṣaḥīḥayn Remains Exceptional
Clarifying that authentic ḥadīth exist outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn should never be misunderstood as diminishing the status of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
Quite the opposite.
The scholars have recognized the extraordinary efforts of both Imāms in selecting and verifying their narrations.
The general scholarly position is that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim are the most authentic books of ḥadīth after the Book of Allah, with Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī generally given precedence over Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim in overall authenticity.
At the same time, this does not mean that every authentic prophetic narration must be present in either book.
12. The Correct Understanding
The correct understanding can therefore be summarized in the following points:
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī contains authentic narrations selected by Imām al-Bukhārī.
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim contains authentic narrations selected by Imām Muslim.
Neither Imām intended to collect every authentic ḥadīth.
Both Imāms themselves indicated that authentic narrations were left outside their books.
Authentic narrations exist in numerous other books of ḥadīth.
A narration being absent from the Ṣaḥīḥayn does not automatically make it weak.
At the same time, not every narration outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn is authentic.
Every individual narration must be evaluated according to the principles of ḥadīth criticism.
Claims that a narration is “according to the conditions of al-Bukhārī and Muslim” should be understood as technical scholarly judgments and should not be made casually.
The Ṣaḥīḥayn retain their unique and unparalleled status among the books of ḥadīth.
Conclusion
The claim that “there are no authentic aḥādīth outside Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim” is incorrect.
The Imāms themselves did not make such a claim.
Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله said:
مَا أَدْخَلْتُ فِي كِتَابِي الْجَامِعِ إِلَّا مَا صَحَّ، وَتَرَكْتُ مِنَ الصَّحِيحِ حَتَّى لَا يَطُولَ
“I only included in my al-Jāmiʿ what is authentic, and I left out some of the authentic narrations so that it would not become too long.”
And Imām Muslim رحمه الله said:
لَيْسَ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ عِنْدِي صَحِيحٌ وَضَعْتُهُ هَاهُنَا، إِنَّمَا وَضَعْتُ هَاهُنَا مَا أَجْمَعُوا عَلَيْهِ
“Not everything that I regard as authentic have I placed here. Rather, I have placed here what they agreed upon.”
Thus, the Ṣaḥīḥayn should be respected as the two greatest canonical collections of authentic ḥadīth, while recognizing that the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is not confined to the narrations found in these two books.
The proper methodology is neither to reject a narration simply because it is absent from the Ṣaḥīḥayn, nor to declare every narration outside them authentic. Rather, each narration should be examined according to the established principles of the science of ḥadīth and the judgments of qualified muḥaddithūn.
And Allah knows best.
References
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-ʿIlm and related material concerning the compilation and methodology of the Jāmiʿ.
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Muqaddimah and the narration concerning the statement: لَيْسَ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ عِنْدِي صَحِيحٌ وَضَعْتُهُ هَاهُنَا.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Hady al-Sārī, introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī, especially the discussion of Imām al-Bukhārī's methodology and statements.
Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Muqaddimah fī ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, discussion of the authentic ḥadīth and the Ṣaḥīḥayn.
Imām al-Nawawī, Al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, introduction and commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
Islam Web
Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, introduction.
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, biography of Imām al-Bukhārī and discussion of his vast knowledge of ḥadīth.
Al-Suyūṭī, Tadrīb al-Rāwī fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawawī, discussions concerning the categories and levels of authentic ḥadīth.
