First Reason:

Among the narrators in whom Imam al-Bukhari is unique, their number is 432, out of which only 80 are criticized narrators. Whereas the narrators in whom Imam Muslim is unique are 620, out of which 160 are criticized narrators. This numerical comparison shows that due to Imam Bukhari's strict condition of precision, the number of criticized narrators is less. Hence, in this regard, Bukhari is superior to Muslim.

Second Reason:

The narrators from whom Imam Bukhari alone narrates, he does not mention a large number of hadiths from them. Also, none of Bukhari’s exclusive narrators had a large manuscript that Bukhari incorporated wholly or mostly into his book—except for ‘Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). However, some of Imam Muslim's exclusive narrators had such manuscripts, and Imam Muslim included most of those hadiths in his book—for example: Suhail ibn Abi Salih and Hammad ibn Salamah from Thabit, etc. Therefore, this leniency is more apparent in Muslim than in Bukhari.

Third Reason:

Among the criticized narrators whose hadiths Imam Bukhari included, most were his teachers from whom he directly heard and received narrations. In contrast, the criticized narrators in Imam Muslim's collection are mostly from the Tabi‘in (Successors) and the generation after them, who were not Imam Muslim’s teachers. It is obvious that one can scrutinize the hadiths of a teacher more closely, whereas such scrutiny is not as feasible for a distant narrator, potentially affecting the authenticity of the hadith.

Fourth Reason:

Imam Bukhari only includes hadiths from the first level of narrators and selectively from the second level. Imam Muslim includes all hadiths from the first and second levels, and selectively from the third level. In terms of the continuity of the chain (ittisal al-isnad), Imam Bukhari holds a higher standard. He conditions that there must be a meeting (liqa') between the narrator and the one he narrates from, whereas Imam Muslim considers contemporaneity (mu‘asirah) sufficient for a connected chain and does not require proof of meeting. Imam Bukhari’s condition for chain connection is stronger and stricter. Imam al-Suyuti wrote that Imam Bukhari applied this condition specifically for the inclusion of hadiths in his book; otherwise, the authenticity of a hadith can be established through contemporaneity.

Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri also wrote that this is not a condition for authenticity. However, according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, it appears that the condition of meeting is indeed required for authenticity. He says: “Al-Bukhari made this method apparent in his Tarikh and followed it in his Sahih.”

In any case, in all four aspects, Bukhari’s ahadith are stronger than Muslim’s.

Moreover, in terms of the absence of hidden defects (‘ilal), Bukhari holds a higher rank than Muslim, because out of the total 210 criticized narrations in both Sahih books, only 78 are in Bukhari. Given such evidence, how can someone’s claim be accepted without proof?

Objection No. 3:

Hafiz Ibn Hazm and other Western scholars consider Muslim superior to Bukhari, so it implies that Muslim holds a higher status.

Response:

There is a difference between authenticity (asahiyyah) and excellence (afdaliyyah). In terms of authenticity, Bukhari is more authentic, while in terms of presentation, context, and beautiful arrangement, Muslim is superior. In light of these arguments, it is established that among the books of hadith, Sahih Bukhari is the most authentic.