Was al-Bazzar reliable?

Hadith critics differed over al-Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bazzar, author of the Musnad: most called him trustworthy and praised his memory, while criticism of errors in chains and texts is reported from some. A university study of a section of the Musnad of Anas from his work sets out the views and how they may be read. ^{1 2 3}

The study quotes Ibn Abi Khaythama, a contemporary (d. 279 AH), that he was a pillar of Islam, likened to Ibn Hanbal in his asceticism and scrupulousness; Ya'qub ibn al-Mubarak: "I have seen no one nobler than al-Bazzar, nor a better memoriser"; and his student Abu al-Shaykh al-Isfahani (d. 369 AH), that he was one of the world's foremost memorisers, with the report that after Ali ibn al-Madini no one knew hadith better. ¹ Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) and al-Sam'ani (d. 563 AH) said he was trustworthy and a memoriser who wrote the Musnad, discussed its hadiths and showed their defects; Ibn al-Jawzi called him a memoriser of hadith, Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi the best memoriser of hadith, and al-Dhahabi the learned memoriser, author of the large annotated Musnad. ¹

Al-Daraqutni answered a question about him: he errs in chains and texts; he related the Musnad in Egypt from memory, looking into other people's books and relating from memory without his own books, and so erred in many hadiths; people speak against him; Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa'i criticised him. ² Abu Ahmad al-Hakim (d. 378 AH) said: he errs in chains and texts. ² Elsewhere al-Daraqutni said: trustworthy, often mistaken, relying on his memory. ³

The thesis author holds that the criticism originates with al-Nasa'i, a foremost and strict critic, al-Bazzar's contemporary and companion in Egypt when he related his Musnad from memory, who perhaps heard some of his slips; that no detailed statement about him has reached her in al-Nasa'i's books; that Abu Ahmad al-Hakim and al-Daraqutni explained that general criticism as errors in chains and texts; and that Ibn Hajar in al-Lisan pointed to some of his errors while showing they came from others. ^{2 3} She compares this with the thousand hadiths in which Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi was faulted although Ibn al-Madini testified to his memory, holds that errors are unsurprising in one who related such a Musnad from memory, and notes that those who called him trustworthy are more numerous. ³

The views are given as the university study reports them; they have not yet been checked in their original sources (Tarikh Baghdad, al-Daraqutni's Su'alat, Lisan al-Mizan).