Ṣalaḥ al-Irānī
May 26, 2026
13 mins read
- Home
- News
- Articles
- Audios
- Videos
- Centre
- Prayer times
The untold story of how scholarly envy, theological politics, and a single question about the Qurʾān drove the greatest muḥaddith of his age from one of Islam's foremost cities.
The city of Neyshabur, in the third century of the Islamic calendar, was one of the great intellectual capitals of modern day Iran. It was home to leading scholars of ḥadīth, fiqh, and the Arabic sciences, and it drew students and scholars from across the Muslim world. It was to this city that Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH/870 CE) – the foremost muḥaddith of his era and compiler of the Ṣaḥīḥ – arrived, and it was here that one of the most consequential and troubling episodes of his life unfolded.
What follows is an account reconstructed from the testimonies of eyewitnesses and direct contemporaries, preserved in the biographical literature of the classical ʿulamāʾ. It is a story of popular acclaim, scholarly rivalry, theological controversy, and the remarkable personal integrity of a man who refused to sacrifice truth for comfort.
When al-Bukhārī arrived in Neyshabur, the welcome afforded to him was, by all accounts, without precedent. Abū al-Ḥusayn Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī (d. 261 AH/875 CE) – himself one of the great muḥaddithūn of Islam and a devoted student of al-Bukhārī during this period – later stated:
“I have never seen a governor or a scholar treated by the people of Neyshabur as they treated Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl. Crowds rode out to meet him two and three stages outside the city.”
The leading scholar of Neyshabur at the time, Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Dhuhlī (d. 258 AH/872 CE), was himself among those who rode out to receive al-Bukhārī. More tellingly, it was al-Dhuhlī who directed his own students towards the visiting scholar, saying: “Go to this righteous man and listen from him.”
The people did exactly that. Al-Bukhārī’s sessions filled rapidly, and his circles of transmission drew audiences that had previously attended al-Dhuhlī’s own gatherings.
The very acclaim that marked al-Bukhārī’s arrival soon became the source of friction. The sources are candid about what happened next. Al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Neyshaburi (d. 405 AH/1014 CE) records on the authority of al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Jābir:
“The crowds that gathered around al-Bukhārī caused visible gaps to appear in the circle of Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā. He then grew envious of him and began to speak against him.”
Abū Aḥmad ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH/976 CE) similarly records the testimony of a group of senior scholars who confirmed this sequence: al-Dhuhlī and others among the sheikhs of Neyshabur grew envious when they saw the people drawn away from their own circles towards al-Bukhārī.
The question chosen as the vehicle of attack was one of the most charged theological issues of the age: Is the human utterance (lafẓ) of the Qurʾān created?
To understand the gravity of this question, some context is required. Following the infamous Miḥna – the Inquisition of 218–234 AH/833–848 CE, during which the Muʿtazilī doctrine of the createdness of the Qurʾān was enforced by state compulsion – the ʿulamāʾ of Ahl al-Sunnah had defended, at great personal cost, the doctrine that the Qurʾān is the uncreated speech of Allah ﷻ. Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH/855 CE) had suffered imprisonment and flogging in defence of this position.
In the aftermath, a subsidiary question had emerged: What is the ruling on the human act of reciting the Qurʾān? A group known as the Lafẓiyyah had claimed that even the utterance itself was uncreated, conflating the divine speech with the human act of pronouncing it. Another group held the opposite: that since human actions are created, the human act of recitation is also created. Critics of this latter view claimed it served as a covert concession to the Jahmī position.
It was into this volatile debate that al-Dhuhlī’s faction chose to thrust al-Bukhārī. According to Ibn ʿAdī, al-Dhuhlī’s associates spread word among the students of ḥadīth that al-Bukhārī held the lafẓ to be created, and instructed them to test him openly in his session.
The test duly came. A man rose in al-Bukhārī’s gathering and put the question to him directly: “O Abā ʿAbd Allāh, what do you say about the lafẓ of the Qurʾān – is it created or not?”
Al-Bukhārī declined to answer. The man pressed him a second time. Al-Bukhārī again turned away. On the third repetition, al-Bukhārī turned to face his questioner and gave his considered reply:
“The Qurʾān is the speech of Allah ﷻ, uncreated. The acts of human beings are created. And subjecting people to examination on this matter is an innovation (bidʿah).”
The answer was deliberate and precise. Al-Bukhārī affirmed the uncreated nature of the Qurʾān in unambiguous terms. He separately affirmed that human actions are created, citing in another sitting the ḥadīth transmitted on the authority of Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān ؓ that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Verily Allah fashions every craftsman and his craft.” He further cited the statement of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198 AH/813 CE): “We have always heard our companions say: the acts of human beings are created.” He explained his full position in the following terms:
“Their movements, their voices, their acquired actions, and their writings are created. But the Qurʾān as recited, clarified, preserved in the muṣḥafs, written down, and carried in the hearts – that is the speech of Allah ﷻ and is not created.” He then cited the verse: “Rather, it is clear signs in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge.” ۞ (Al-ʿAnkabūt 29:49)
Despite the care and precision of this response, uproar broke out in the gathering. The crowd became agitated, opinions divided, and people dispersed. Al-Bukhārī withdrew to his lodgings.
The account is careful – and at some length – to record what al-Bukhārī actually said, because he was being systematically misrepresented. He stated explicitly, as transmitted by Abū ʿAmr Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al-Khaffāf al-Neyshabur and confirmed by Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī (d. 294 AH/906 CE):
“Whoever claims – from among the people of Neyshabur, Qūmis, al-Rayy, Hamadhān, Ḥulwān, Baghdad, Kūfa, Baṣra, Mecca, or Medina – that I said ‘my lafẓ of the Qurʾān is created,’ he is a liar. I never said it. What I said is: the acts of human beings are created.”
The distinction al-Bukhārī was drawing is a significant one. He was not attributing createdness to the Qurʾān itself; he was categorising the human act of utterance – a creaturely movement of the tongue and breath – within the broader category of created human actions. This is a position held by many of the ʿulamāʾ of Ahl al-Sunnah. Despite the care and precision of this response, uproar broke out in the gathering. The crowd became agitated, opinions divided, and people dispersed. Al-Bukhārī withdrew to his lodgings. He further declared that subjecting people to examination on this question was itself a bidʿah. He had previously confided to Muḥammad ibn Shādhil that he had witnessed what Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH/855 CE) had suffered on account of this very question, and had resolved within himself not to engage with it.
Rather than engaging with the substance of al-Bukhārī’s position, al-Dhuhlī moved to a full public ban. He issued the following declaration to his circle:
“Whoever attends his sessions should not attend ours. Whoever claims that the lafẓ of the Qurʾān is created is an innovator; he is not to be sat with or spoken to. Whoever goes to Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī after this – suspect him, for only one who shares his doctrine would attend his sessions.”
He also wrote to Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Rāzī (d. 277 AH/890 CE) and Abū Zurʿah ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Rāzī (d. 264 AH/878 CE) informing them of the matter, following which – according to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Ḥātim (d. 327 AH/938 CE) – they reportedly ceased transmitting from al-Bukhārī. The author of the primary source appends a pointed observation: “Whether they abandoned his ḥadīth or not, al-Bukhārī is a trustworthy, reliable authority.”
Al-Dhuhlī went still further in his public pronouncements, declaring that whoever claims the Qurʾān is created has committed kufr, that whoever suspends judgement on the matter has come close to kufr, and that whoever says the lafẓ is created is an innovator. His position, in effect, left no space for the nuanced distinction that al-Bukhārī had drawn.
Among the most striking episodes in this account is the response of Imām Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261 AH/875 CE). He had been one of al-Bukhārī’s most devoted students during the Neyshabur period, attending his sessions assiduously and benefiting enormously from his scholarship.
When al-Dhuhlī made his declaration – “Whoever holds the position on lafẓ may not attend our sessions” – Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj rose visibly in front of the assembled gathering, pulled his cloak over his turban as a gesture of departure, and walked out. He subsequently sent back to al-Dhuhlī everything he had written from him, loaded onto camels. Aḥmad ibn Salama (d. 286 AH/899 CE) followed him out of the session.
The account also notes that Imām Muslim openly held and did not conceal the position on lafẓ.
Several testimonies in the sources speak to al-Bukhārī’s personal conduct throughout this ordeal, and they are worth recording in full for what they reveal of his character.
When told that a man was publicly declaring him a disbeliever, he replied by citing the words of the Prophet ﷺ: “When a man says to his brother, ‘You are a disbeliever,’ it returns upon one of them.”
When members of his circle urged him to supplicate against those who were persecuting and slandering him, he said: “The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Be patient until you meet me at the Ḥawḍ.'” He added that the Prophet ﷺ also said: “Whoever supplicates against his oppressor has taken his recompense” – meaning that supplication against an oppressor is permissible, but he himself chose patience over it.
He frequently recited the Qurʾānic verse: “Whenever they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it.” ۞ (Al-Māʾidah 5:64)
His response to the suggestion that he might moderate his stated position for the sake of public peace is perhaps the most telling of all. When Aḥmad ibn Siyyār (d. 268 AH/881 CE) came to him in the city of Marw and said: “O Abā ʿAbd Allāh, we do not disagree with what you say, but the common people cannot bear this from you” – al-Bukhārī replied: “I fear the Fire. If I am asked about something I know to be true, I will not say otherwise.” Aḥmad ibn Siyyār departed without response.
Eventually al-Bukhārī recognised that his continued presence was causing hardship for those around him. He said to Aḥmad ibn Salama: “I am leaving tomorrow, so that you are relieved of this affair on my account.” He supplicated with the words: “O Allah, You know that I did not intend to settle in Neyshabur out of arrogance, ostentation, or desire for leadership. My own soul refused to allow me to return to my homeland given the prevalence of those who oppose the truth. This man has set upon me out of envy for what Allah has given me, and nothing else.”
Of those who gathered to bid him farewell, only Aḥmad ibn Salama accompanied him to the city gate. Al-Bukhārī remained there for three days settling his affairs before departing definitively for Bukhārā.
The sources themselves offer an interpretive conclusion, and it is expressed without equivocation. The fundamental cause of the conflict was ḥasad – scholarly envy. Al-Dhuhlī had welcomed al-Bukhārī warmly until it became apparent that the visiting scholar was drawing larger crowds. The theological charge was the instrument chosen to move against him; it was not the cause.
The nuance of al-Bukhārī’s actual position – distinguishing between the uncreated divine speech and the created human act of utterance – was not genuinely engaged with. Al-Dhuhlī’s faction instead collapsed that distinction and presented al-Bukhārī as aligned with the Lafẓiyyah or even the Jahmiyyah, a representation that al-Bukhārī firmly and repeatedly denied.
It is notable that al-Bukhārī himself made no secret of his severity towards the Jahmiyyah. He is recorded as saying: “I have studied the speech of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, and I have not seen any group more astray in their unbelief than the Jahmiyyah. I consider it simple-minded not to declare them disbelievers.” A man who spoke thus could hardly be accused in good faith of holding a Jahmī position on the Qurʾān.
The episode stands, in the end, as a sobering illustration of a truth that recurs throughout Islamic intellectual history: that scholarly institutions are not immune to the corrupting influence of rivalry, and that a scholar’s greatest trials sometimes come not from avowed opponents but from within the very community of knowledge he inhabits.
Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 748 AH/1348 CE). Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. Edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ et al. 3rd edition. Muʾassasat al-Risālah, Beirut, 1985. Vol. 12, pp. 453–462.
Ibn ʿAdī, Abū Aḥmad ʿAbd Allāh (d. 365 AH/976 CE). Al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl. Edited by ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd and ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ. Al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1997.
Al-Ḥākim al-Neyshabur, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh (d. 405 AH/1014 CE). Transmitted reports preserved in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, as above.
Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad (d. 327 AH/938 CE). Al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl. Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, Hyderabad, 1952. Reprint: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, Beirut, 1952. Vol. 7.
Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl (d. 256 AH/870 CE). Al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Various editions. For biographical context, see al-Dhahabī’s Siyar and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s Hady al-Sārī Muqaddimat Fatḥ al-Bārī.
Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 463 AH/1071 CE). Tārīkh Baghdād. Edited by Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf. Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, Beirut, 2002.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 852 AH/1449 CE). Hady al-Sārī Muqaddimat Fatḥ al-Bārī. Dār al-Maʿrifah, Beirut, 1379 AH.
June 9, 2020
7 mins read
March 28, 2017
6 mins read
