INTRODUCTION:
This chapter treats of some of the most prominent companions of the prophet of Allah, so far as reports concerning their merits or actions reached al Bukhari. In order to remove certain misconceptions dating back to the writing of some of the earliest Muslim authors and since current in the Islamic literature on this subject, we ought to discuss here in some detail the problem as to who is to be regarded a companion, and what element make up this definition.
 
The primary meaning of the word Sahib is given in Lisan ul Arab as one who is intimately associated Muashir with another and in lane IV  Sahibu hu is explained thus; “he associated, kept company, or consorted with him:-- he accompanied him, he was or became his companion, associate, comrade, fellow, friend”. From these references in which more from other authorities sources could be added it becomes apparent that the term “companionship”, in relation to the prophet can be attributed only to those personalities from among the earlier Muslims who were on intimate terms with him. And shared his daily life and in varying degrees, also his thoughts that is to those who could be called friends in the deepest meaning of this world. But Muslim historians and theologians have, from the 3^rd century of the hijra onward began to enlarge this term in quite an unjustifiable manner and have included in it every person who, while being a Muslim, saw the prophet even without near association. The reason for this exaggeration was the extra ordinary respect which the prophet’s personality commanded a meeting with him, even if it were for a fleeting moment only conferred a sort of hallow on the person concerned and induced the later generation to regard such an eye witness as sanctified above those who had not enjoined the same privilege and to treat him as an associate or companion of the prophet. This however was evidently not the meaning which he himself implied in the term companion of the prophet of Allah. That he made distinction between his companions and the Muslims who were nearly his contemporaries is apparent from the tradition quoted in   Section 6, no.13 “the prophet said: abuse not my companions! For, if any of you were to spent such as such gold as mount Uhud he would not attain to the merit of a mud of theirs or even half of it. “
From other versions of this tradition we understand that there was quarrel between Abd ar Rahman ibn Awf and Khalid ibn Waleed who abused the former. He prophet’s rebuke shows that at that time he did not yet regard Khalid as a companion, although the later must have seen him daily. It was only later that Khalid not by merely seeing the prophet, but by his brilliant deeds of devotion which earned him appellation (title) ‘sword of Allah’ was received in the prophet’s friendship and became a companion. On the other hand Abd Ar Rahamn ibn Awf was one of the oldest associate of the prophet and was described by him as such in the above tradition. It is quite improbable that in this saying the prophet had in the first line of future generation in mind as some well-meaning commentators suggests. Apart from the fact that the occasion on which he uttered this saying is historically established, the use of similes of the strictly local importance like Mount Uhud or mud precludes the possibility of its having being intending as a warning for future generations. Had this been the case the prophet would have probably used as he often did comparisons of wider connotation which could have been easily appreciated by people who perhaps never saw the mountains surrounding Madinaha and were not familiar with the local customs prevailing there. 
 
As to the companions themselves they were undoubtedly of opinion that not every muslim who merely saw the prophet was a sahabi. This is evident for example, from a tradition quoted by Ibn Salah in his Muqaddamah: someone asked Anas ibn Malik: Is any of the companions of the apostle of Allah still alive beside you?”—Anas answered: Some Bedouins who saw him are Muslims who merely saw the prophet without intimate associateion is still clealy visible in the period of the tabi’un or successors of the companions so, the famous tabi Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab is reported to have regarded as companions only those persons who had lived for at least one year in the prophet’s company and had taken part in some of his campaigns. This definition is, no doubt somewhat artificial and schematic, and does not cover the whole ground, for it is imaginable that a man came in contact with the prophet in the last months of the latter’s ife, or that he himself died after only a brief association with the prophet, and nevertheless became a real companion. But even with this defect, Ibn al Musayyab’s definition is important as an attempt to stem the growing tide of pious exaggeration which elevated everyone who had the privilege of seeing the prophet, to the status of a companion. Ibn al Musayyab was certainly not isolated in this endeavor. So example we read in an –Nawawi’s commentary on Sahih Muslim:” some traditionists maintain that this distinction of companionship is limited to those who had kept company with prophet for a long period, have spent their possessions in his cause, and those who migrated to Madinah and actively helped him, and not to those who saw him occasionally as for example the deputations of the Bedouins, nor to those who were in his company only after the conquest of Mecca, when Islam had become powerful. Though an-Nawawi himself hesitates to subscribe to this definition, it is obvious that it was accepted by many of the early traditionists, at least in the first two centuries. The more, however the distance from the prophet’s time increases the more pronounced becomes the tendency to generalize the term “companionship”.
With al-Bukhari, it applies already to every Muslim who “kept company with the prophet or saw him. The forcedness of this definition is evident at the first glance, the use of the co coordinating particle or can hardly bridge the linguistic obstacle arising from the application of the term companionship’ to a person who never kept company with the prophet and saw him perhaps only once as was the case with many of the newly converted Bedouin who came to Madinah, asked the prophet a few question, received his answers and departed never to see him again.
 
It is possible however that al-Bukhari like so many traditionists before him uses the appellation companion from two different points of view the one is the historical point of view, which embraces the real companions who kept company with the prophet, ie. were intimately associated with him: and the other represents the purely technical usage of the traditionists. For the muhaddith, the transmitters of the traditions are ranged in groups according to the period in which they lived. The oldest group, ie, those persons who have met the prophet as Muslims and are thus in a position to report traditions on his authority are conveniently and only in this strictly technical sense described as companions; the degree of their intimacy with the prophet is not taken into account. This technical usage of the term companion is not objectionable as such: it may however lead to a confusion of issues. We have been accustomed to regard the real companions of the prophet as persons whose trustworthiness is beyond criticism, for they have proved their moral worth and, therefore, their reliability as transmitters of traditions by the very fact of their intimate association with the prophet and the trust he reposed in them: his knowledge of the human nature would not have allowed him to consort intimately, and for a long time, with a hypocrite or a weak minded shallow person. But the same unquestioning attitude cannot be reasonably postulated with regard to all the personalities whom we may describe as companions merely in the technical sense of the science of tradition ie., as an indication of the period in which they lived; and therefore we cannot possibly accept their traditions without further scrutiny of their individual trustworthiness. But the extension of the term companion to everyone who once met the prophet often makes the muhaddith forget that he uses this term in the technical sense alone, and leads to a slackening of criticism with regard to the period which requires the strictest criticism, and to errors like that committed by al-Bukhari in accepting a political tradition on the authority of so shady a personality a Marwan ibn al-Hakam. 
 
This too liberal attitude stands by no means unchallenged in the literature bearing on this subject. From among the older authors after al Bukhari, the Andalusian ibn Al Barr, one of the most discerning and dependable compilers of rijal-works was definitely against the indiscriminate designation as companion of everyone who saw the prophet. His remarks in this respect are very characteristics and deserve to be quoted:
 
“Behold, the first thing to which the student and the scholar turn after the book of Allah is the Sunnah of His apostle for it explains the intentions of Allah such as are implied in His book…
 
And one of the most important elements which help us to understand and to preserve the Sunnah is the knowledge of those personalities who have transmitted it on the authority of their prophet,    to the whole world… and theses are his companions and his helpers (hawariyyun) who have remembered this Sunnah and have transmitted it in good faith… these are the best generation and the best community that has been sent forth to mankind. The righteousness of all of them has been confirmed by Allah’s and His apostles praise of them. None can be more righteous than he whom Allah was pleased to make a companion and helper of His prophet, and there can be no purity greater than theirs and no manifestation of righteous more complete. But this quality of companionship applies only to those who have early accepted prophet’s mission, had faith in him and have strengthened him and helped him and kept company with him: and does not apply to everyone who saw him nor to everyone who had faith in him…
 
This excerpt from Ibn Abd al Barr’s great work is the characteristic of a number of older Muslim scholars. But in the centries which followed the pious view-namely, that every Muslim who but once saw the prophet is of his companions-obtained far larger currency. The logical exploitation of this idea led to innumerable absurdities and serious discussions of problem like these: is a man who only in his earliest infancy saw the prophet a companion or not? Or one who for the first time saw the prophet after the latter’s death before he was buried are the Jinns and the angels to be counted among his companions? With such fantastic problems otherwise quite reasonable scholars busied themselves for a considerable period. Without a thorough revision of this attitude and a return to the oldest standards set up by the prophet himself and his real companions, we will be unable to find our way to a sound valuation of traditions.
 
But the question as to who is, and who is not, to be regarded a companion is not meely of technical importance from the point of view of the science of tradition: it exerts a direct, and not inconsiderable influence on our attitude towards the ethical and social structure of Islam. On many occasions the prophet recommended his companions as an example to the future generations, for it is they who have understood and assimilated his teachings-at least as regards the nusus and sunan- better than anyone else could do. It would be difficult however to regard a man like Marwa ibn al-Hakam as a shining protagonist of Islamic virtues, worthy to be imitated; but according to the standard set up by the majority of later tarditionists, he was a sahabi, because as a child he saw the Prophet! When we, however limit the designation of companion to those who were intimate associates of the prophet, Marwan is automatically excluded and there remains nothing of him but the memory of an unpleasant personality who had merely had the good luck of having seen the prophet. And if we accept the definition quoted by an Nawwal, not even Mua’wiyah-irrespective of his merits- could be termed “companion” for he embraced Islam after the conquest of Mecca, when almost all inhabitants of Arabia thought it prudent to do so; though in his case we have the sayings of other companions, like Ibn Abbass, who apparently did regard him as a companion. But be it as it may the companions to whom the prophet so often alludes as examples for posterity are undoubtedly to be sought among those men and women who followed him and helped him at a time when profession of Islam was equivalent to sacrifice and selfless grandeur of their lives will forever remain a symbol of the influence which the personality of the greatest man radiated upon his friends and comrades –an influence which transformed and changed the course of their lives,  and with them, the destinies of the world. 
 
THE CHAPTER before us is arranged in three main parts. After a sort of preamble consisting of three traditions which deal with the merits of companions in general, the author brings in the sections 2-33 traditions on the Muhajirs while the section 34-51 are devoted to the Ansar ; in both portions, the men come first and are followed by the women. The last part section 52-56 consists of traditions on companions who were neither Muhajir nor Ansar, as eg Khadijah who died before the hijrah, Jarir ibn Abd Allah, who embraced Islam in the last months of the prophets life, Abd Allah ibn Salam, who himself was not of the Ansar but was associated with them as a halif, etc. whenever necessary, short biographical sketches of the personalities concerned have the student of Islamic history is already familiar: Abu Bakr, Umar Uthman, Ali Hasan, Husayn, Fatimah, Aishah, Khadijah and Muawiyah.
 
Al-Bukhari’s primary object was to show by means of these traditions the opinion which the prophet Muhammad had of his companions; secondly to record such actions of theirs as prove their worth and moral status; and lastly to show what their contemporaries among the Muslims though of them. Incidentally, this chapter may help to remove several historical misconception relating to the early history of Islam.