8/17/2019 Weak Hadīth's in Sahīh al-Bukhārī.pdf
1/2
Weak H. ad ! ths in
Sah .! h . al-Bukh " r ! ?
by GF Haddad [email protected]
Ibr !h " m ibn Ma‘qil said: I heard Muh.ammad ibn
Ism!‘ " l al-Bukh!r " say: “I was
with Ish.!q ibn
R !h#yah when a man said: ‘Why don’t you compile an epitome
(mukhtas.ar) of the prophetic ways?’This stayed with me, and
was the reason why I compiled this book (the S . ah.
! h.).”
$ Al-Dhahab " said: “It
has been narrated through two firm channels of transmission that
al-Bukh!r " said: ‘I extracted this bookfrom
about 600,000 (sound) h.ad " ths, and I compiled it over
sixteen years, and I made it a plea for whatlies between myself and
All!h.’”
2 Al-Firabr " said: Muh.ammad ibn
Ism!‘ " l said to me: “I never included
in the S . ah. ! h. a h.ad " th except
I made a major ablution (ghusl) and prayed two
rak‘at beforehand.”
Al-Nawaw " said: “The scholars have agreed that
the soundest of all h.ad " th compilations are thetwo
S . ah. ! h.s of al-Bukh!r " and
Muslim, and their vast majority have agreed that the soundest and
most
beneficial of the two was al-Bukh!r " ’s.”
He continued: “The totality of its h.ad " ths are 7,275
with therepetitions and about 4,000 without.”
In his Kit "b al-Tatabbu‘ ,
al-D!raqut.n " argues for the weakness of 78
hadiths in al-Bukh!r " , $00 in
Muslim, and 32 in both based on isn"
d and matn criticism.
Al-Nawaw " said: “The two S . ah. ! h.
s differ from all other books only in respect to the fact that what
isin them is s.ah. ! h. and does not require
investigation.”
3 Ibn al-S. al!h. said: “Whatever only
al-Bukh!r " or
only Musli\m narrates enters [also] into the category of what is
definitely s.ah. ! h. ... except a few letterswhich some
of the expert critics objected to, such as
al-D!raqut.n " and others – and these are known
tothe specialists.”
4 He said this after stating that what they agree upon is
“definitely s.ah. ! h.” (maqt .#‘un
bis. ih. h. atihi) for the Umma. Im!m
al-Nawaw " objected to the terms
“definitely s.ah. ! h.” while granting allthat is in the
S . ah. ! h. ayn the level of “strongly presumed
[ s.ah. ! h.] until it becomes mutaw"tir ”
(yuf ! du al-
z . anna ma lam yataw"tar) as is the rule with
all s.ah. ! h. lone-narrated ( "h"d)
h. ad " ths.5 But Ibn Kath " r
differed: “I am with Ibn al-S. al!h. in his conclusion and
directives, and All!h knows
best.”6 Al-Suy#t. " in
Tadr ! b al-R"w! cites Ibn
Kath " r’s words verbatim then states: “And this is also
my choice and noneother.”
7 This is because of the standing of the two S . ah.
! h. s in the Umma and because none of the
past
Im!ms in Isl!m ever declared explicitly and rightly that all
they had gathered in their respective books
was s.ah. ! h. except
al-Bukh!r " and Muslim, and the verifying
experts have confirmed their claim.
Al-Suy#t. " also states:
Shaykh al-Isl!m said: “What al-Nawaw "
mentioned in Sharh. S . ah. ! h.
Muslim is based on the perspective of the majority
(al-akthar ! n); as for that of the ver if ying
authorities (al-muh. aqqiq#n),then no. For the verifying
authorities also agree with Ibn al-S. al!h. .”
8
By “Shaykh al-Isl!m” al-Suy#t. " means the
s potless H . " fiz and
immaculate Im!m Ibn H. ajar al-‘Asqal!n " and his
book al-Nukat ‘al " Ibn al-S . al "h. .
9 Al-Suy#t. " goes on to quote in detail –
mostly from
$M.M. Azami writes: “Al-Bukh!r " did not
claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were
no
authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary, he
said: ‘I only included in my book al-J "mi‘ those
thatwere authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions
than this to avoid unnecessary length.’ He had nointention of
collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile
a manual of h. ad " th according to the
wishes of his shaykh Ish. !q ibn R !h#yah, and his
function is quite clear from the title of his book
Al-J "mi‘, al- Musnad, al-S . ah.
! h. , al-Mukhtas. ar, min um#r Ras#l All "h wa
Sunanihi, wa ayy"mih (“The Compendium of Sound Narrations
Linked Back With Uninterrupted Chains and Epitomized of the Matters
of the Messenger of All!h, HisWays, and His Times”). The word
al-mukhtas. ar , epitome, itself explains that
al-Bukh!r " did not make any attemptat a
comprehensive collection.” Studies in Early H .
ad ! th Literature (p. 304-305). This should be
understood bythose who ask: “If h. ad " th x is not in
al-Bukh!r " nor Muslim then how can it be
authentic?”2 Narrated by al-Khat. " b,
al-J "mi‘ li Akhl "q
al-R"w! (2:270-27$ #$6$3).3Al-Nawaw " ,
Introduction to his Sharh. S . ah. ! h.
Muslim ($:20): “ Innam" yaftariqu al-S .
ah. ! h. "ni ‘an ghayrihim" min
al-kutub f ! kawni
m" f ! him" s.ah. ! h. an
l " yuh. t " ju il " al-naz .
ari f ! h.” 4Ibn al-S. al!h. , ‘Ul #m
al-H . ad ! th, chapter on the s.ah. ! h.
h. ad " th (D!r al-Fikr ed. p. 29):
“ M " infarada bihi al-Bukh"r !
aw Muslimun mundarijun f ! q"bili
m" yuqt . a‘u bis. ih. h. atihi... siw" ah. rufin
yas! ratin takallama ‘alayh" ba‘d . u ahlial-naqdi
min al-h. uff " z . kal-D"raqut .
n! wa ghayrih, wa hiya ma‘r # fatun ‘inda ahli
h"dha al-sha’n.”5Al-Nawaw " , Taqr ! b
wal-Tays! r (p. 70) and Sharh. S . ah.
! h. Muslim ($:20).6Ibn Kath " r, chapter
on the s. ah. ! h. h. ad " th of his
al-B"‘ith al-H . ath! th (p.
45).7Al-Suy#t. " , Tadr ! b
al-R"w! (D!r al-Kalim al-T. ayyib ed.
$:$45).8Tadr ! b al-R"w! ($:$43).
9
See also Ibn H. ajar’s words from his Sharh. Nukhbat
al-Fikar to the effect that the foremost h.
ad " th expert’sexamination of and familiarity with any
given "h"d h. ad " th may take him to the
conclusion that it is qat .
‘ ! al-thub#t
– categorically established as s.ah. ! h. , i.e.
in effect of mutaw"tir -like authenticity – unlike the feel of
the rest of thescholars with regard to the same h.
ad " th.
8/17/2019 Weak Hadīth's in Sahīh al-Bukhārī.pdf
2/2
Had ! al-S "r ! – the
refutations of Ibn H. ajar to al-D!raqut.n " ’s
criticism, showing that, in effect, the latterfails to invalidate
the view of the S . ah. ! h. ayn as $00% s.ah.
! h. .
The fact is that they are all s.ah. ! h. but
not all of them reach the same high degree of s.ah. ! h.
. This is inessence what al-Dhahab " concluded
concerning the few narrators of the S . ah. ! h.
ayn whose grading wasquestioned: “The narration of
one such as those, does not go below the rank of
h.asan which we might
call the lowest rank of the s.ah.!
h. .”
$0
Shaykh Ab# Ghudda comments in the margin: “This is an
explicitconfirmation that al-Bukh!r " and
Muslim did not confine themselves, in the narrations of their
respective books, only to narrate h. ad " ths that
have the highest degree of s. ih. h. a.” Then again in
hisappendix (p. $44) he states:
Our Shaykh, the ‘All!ma Ah. mad Sh!kir – All!h have mercy on him
– stated: “The truth withoutdoubt among the verifiers of those who
have knowledge of the sciences of h. ad " th... is that
theh. ad " ths of the two S . ah.
! h. s are all s.ah. ! h. and
there is not in a single one of them a cause for true[technical]
disparagement or weakness. What al-D!raqut.n " and
others criticized is only on the basisthat it did not reach the
high criterion which each of them defined in their respective
books. As forthe [criterion of] soundness (sih. h. a) of the
h. ad " ths in themselves, then both of them lived up to
it.
Dr. Bad " ‘ al-Sayyid al-Lah. h. !m in his edition of
Ibn Kath " r’s al-B"‘ith al-H . ath! th
(p. 44-45) alsocloses the discussion on the topic of the S .
ah. ! h. ayn with the same words but without attributing
them to
Sh!kir. Ab# Ghudda concludes (p. $45): “All these texts
show that most of what is in S . ah. ! h.
al-Bukh"r ! and S . ah. ! h.
Muslim is of the highest degree of the s.ah.
! h. , and that some of what is in them is not of thehighest
degree of the s.ah. ! h. .” More to the point, our
teacher Dr. N#r al-D " n ‘Itr said in his manual
Manhaj al-Naqd f ! ‘Ul #m
al-H . ad ! th: “The ruling concerning the h.
ad " ths of the two S . ah. ! h. s is
that theyare all s.ah. ! h. .”
$$ All those mentioned above – Ibn al-S. al!h. ,
al-Nawaw " , al-Dhahab " , Ibn
Kath " r, Ibn
H. ajar, al-Suy#t. " , Ah. mad Sh!kir,
Ab# Ghudda, ‘Itr, al-Lah. h. !m – agreed on the fact that all
of what is inal-Bukh!r " and Muslim
is s.ah. ! h. , and, apart from al-Nawaw " ’s
duly recorded dissent, the muh. aqqiq#n such as Ibn al-S.
al!h. , Ibn Kath " r, Ibn H. ajar, and
al-Suy#t. " consider all the h. ad " ths
contained in themmaqt .#‘un bis. ih. h. atihi
i.e. of the same probative force as mutaw"tir h.
ad " th. Further examination of the
positions of the major h. ad " th Masters might
add more names to this distinguished list.
The questions are sometimes asked ($) whether all the Ulema of
H. ad " th agree that all the h.ad " ths
inal-Bukh!r " and Muslim are s.ah.
! h. or (2) if there are any scholars who consider them
to contain some
weak narrations, and (3) whether one who believes that “the
S . ah.!
h.ayn are not$
00% s.ah.!
h.” is aninnovator. As was just shown, some of the greatest
h.ad " th authorities such as Ibn al-S. al!h. , Ibn
Kath " r,and al-Suy#t. " answered yes to
the first question. Im!m al-H. aramayn (Ibn al-Juwayn " )
said that if a manswor e on pains of divorce that all that is
in al-Bukh!r " and Muslim is s.ah.
! h. his marriage would besafe.
$2 But Im!m al-D!raqut.n " said a small
number may not reach that level so the answer to the second
question has to be yes. Yet the objections were refuted one by
one by Ibn H. ajar at the beginning of Fath.
al-B"r ! and Im!m
al-Nawaw " at the beginning of Sharh.
S . ah. ! h. Muslim.
$3 The short formula “whether
the S . ah. ! h.ayn are or not $00% s.ah.
! h.” remains tenuous and misleading, for the Umma far
and wide –meaning the Consensus of
the Fuqah"’ generation after generation – have been
satisfied that they are.
This conclusion excludes the chainless, broken-chained reports,
or unattibuted reports sometimesadduced by
al-Bukh!r " in his chapter-titles or appended
to certain narrations. An example of the latteris the so-called
“suicide h.ad " th” – one of al-Zuhr " ’s
unattributive narrations (bal " gh"t) which is
actually
broken-chained and therefore weak. It does not meet the
criteria of h.ad " th authenticity used by the lesser
and greater h.ad " th Masters, much less that of
al-Bukh!r " who mentioned it only to show its
discr epancywith two other chains whose versions omit the
attempted suicide story, and All!h knows best.
$4
The above conclusion is proof that the position that everything
that is found in the two S . ah. ! h.s isrigorously sound
refers only to full-chained reports positively attributed to the
Prophet !, and All!hknows best.
$0Al-Dhahab " , al-M #qiz . a (p.
80).
$$‘Itr, Manhaj al-Naqd f ! ‘Ul #m
al-H . ad ! th (3rd ed. p. 254).
$2See Sir ! j al-D " n’s commentary on
the Bayquniyya.
$3In our own time N!s. ir al-Alb!n " , his
arch-enemies the Ghum!r " Shaykhs and H.
asan al-Saqq!f, and their
respective camps agreed – for once – upon the position that there are some d .a‘ ! f h.ad " ths
in them, which
tends to confirm that, in real terms, the answer to the third question
would tend to be yes unless the speaker is a h.ad " th
Masterof impeccable Sunn " belief sufficiently
knowledgeable of the art to form an independent confirmation or
invalidation, and All!
h knows best.$4Cf. Fath. ($2:359-360),
Ab# Shuhba, al-S ! ra al-Nabawiyya ($:265-266),
M#s! Shah " n, Fath.
al-Mun‘im (2:337),al-Alb!n " in Dif "‘
‘an al-H . ad ! th wal-S ! ra (p.
4$-42), and Sa‘d al-Mirs. afi in H . ad ! th
Bid’ al-Wah.
! fil-M ! z "n (p. 75-85).
