Misconception: Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim weak?

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum


A common shia misconception is that sunnis believe that the sahih books are 100% correct.


some hadiths are more reliable than others, and there have been found to be weak hadiths in there too.

There is no doubt that the hadith found in both Bukhari and Muslim are Sahih without a doubt, with none of them going below the level of Hasan. This is what the Ulema have stated, apart from a few stray opinions that were refuted in length (See Tadrib Ar Rawi and the Intro. of Fath Al Bari).

Here is the quote from the Sharh of Sahih Muslim by Imam NAwawi:

وانما يفترق الصحيحان وغيرهما من الكتب في كون ما فيهما صحيحا لا يحتاج الى النظر فيه

-- The two Sahihs differ from all other books only in respect to the fact that what is in them is sahih and does not require investigation.

صحيح مسلم
بشرح النووي

الجزء الأول
طبع بتصريح من الأستاذ محمد محمد عبد اللطيف
صاحب المطبعة المصرية وحقوق الطبع محفوظة له

دار الفكر
للطباعة والنصر والتوزيع
هاتف: 244729
1401 هـ - 1981 م

Similarly in Tadrib Ar rawi it states:

-- وقال ابن كثير : وأنا مع ابن الصلاح فيما عول عليه وأرشد إليه . قلت : وهو الذي أختاره ولا أعتقد سواه

Ibn Kathir said: I am with Ibn al-Salah in his conclusion and directives, and Allah knows best. (then Imam Suyuti says) And this is also my choice and none other.

Ibn Al Salah was the one who said:

-- Whatever only al-Bukhari or only Muslim narrates enters into the category of what is definitely sahih.

From all of the prominent scholars the only one known to reject the hadith of Bukhari was Daraqtuni due to his statement that Bukhari and Muslim narrated from weak sources, and he was refuted by Ibn Hajar Asqalani. Whether or not they narrated from weak narrators doesnt matter, since the overall authenticity of that particular hadith is guaranteed. Further, the weakness of the narrators was not strong enough to invalidate the hadith or the hadith was supported by another chain which was Sahih which further guarnatees the authenticity.The rest of the scholars only questioned why some hadith in Bukhari were less Sahih then others, but they did not question the hadith being Dhaeef or a forgery. As i stated before, no hadith goes below the rank of Hasan.

Mufti Muhammad Taqi Uthmani says in his Darse Tirmidhi (Maktaba darul Ishaat, Karachi, Pg 63-64):

- Ibn Hajar in his "Huda Assari muqadimah Fath al Bari" has mentioned all the hadith Imam Daraqtuni opposed (in the Sahihs) and then gave a detailed and beautiful response to his opposition."

He then says:

"And the hadith present in them can be said to be Sahih wiithout investigation."

Wallahu A'lam

[Mossy]

Sahih doesn't mean 100% accurate, does it?

[Mossy]

Hmm.. Actually, I've been thinking about this.

What/who defines sahih? Is there an absolute reference?

From what I can see, Muslim had one set of criteria of what "sahih" was and al-Bukhari a similar (well, given their relationship not suprising) set of criteria - under each of these criteria, are all of the hadith in the two books sahih with respect to each other?

In addition, it doesn't make sense for the hadith to be not sahih as the authors themselves defined the sahih standard - ie that which allowed for the narrations to be included as hadith in the book.

There doesn't seem to be an absolute standard to measure this against - kinda like asking what defines a mutawatir? How many chains? I've seen a heck of a lot of numbers for that.

A final point. Are all the hadith in the notes/sharh of the two books also considered sahih?

[analyzing]

what ive heard is that all the ahadith in siha-e-sitta (6 books) are sahih....the sharh of those must be sahih too as the ahadith are taken from one of the sahih ahadith books... like mishkaat and others...

wallahu a'alam bissawaab

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

from Shaykh Gibril Haddad:

"The "six major hadith collections" are, in order of strength:

- Al-Bukhari's Sahih
- Muslim's Sahih
- al-Nasa'i's Sunan
- Abu Dawud's Sunan
- Al-Tirmidhi's Sunan
- Ibn Majah's Sunan

Notes:

1. Malik's Muwatta' comes right after the two Sahihs in strength but is not generally included among the Six Books.

2. Ahmad's Musnad is a comprehensive collection that is not included among the Six Books although it is reliable.

3. Al-Darimi's Sunan are deemed more reliable than Ibn Majah according to a number of Scholars."


...and to add, Imam Shafi'i said of the muwatta of Imam Malik, that it is the most sahih book on the face of the earth after the Qur'an.

in addition, the 'golden chain' of narrators, as attested to by Imam Bukhari is Malik from Nafi' from 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar....

i don't think all the 'ulama consider every single hadith in the other 4 collections to be 'sahih' - Allahu a'lam.

[Mossy]

i don't think all the 'ulama consider every single hadith in the other 4 collections to be 'sahih' - Allahu a'lam.

That would probably be why they're called sunan's ;)

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

For a student of hadith, it is necessary to know the different Tabaqats as stated by Shah Abdul Aziz in his "Hifzuha linnaazir":

1. The first Tabaqat consists of those hadith books about whom the author himself said that he would not collect any hadith accept authentic (sahih) ones. Therefore, it can be said that every hadith in this Tabaqat is sahih according to the criteria of the specific author.

Among the books in this Tabaqat are Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Mustadrak al Hakim, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sahih ibn Khuzaima, Al Muntaqi Abi Abdullah ibn Jarud, Sahih ibn As sakan, Sahih ibn Awana and so forth.

However, it is not necessary that the hadith present in these book are Sahih according to the criteria of others or the later hadith masters. As an example, i would present the Mustadrak of Imam Hakim, who although set his criteria to gather those hadith that matched the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim that Bukhari and Muslim themselves did not place in their Sahihs, due to certain reasons that i wont go into, Imam Hakim failed to do this and even placed forged and weak hadith in his Mustadrak and therefore his book was relegated to the third Tabaqat.

Similarly, Imam Ibn Hibbans Sahih is also questionedby vast Ulema due to the fact that Ibn Hibban did not differentiate between "Hasan" and "Sahih" and therefore many hadith Ulema considered non-Sahih were considered Sahih by him. Further, he authenticated hadith fairly easily even accepting unknown narrators if there teachers were known.

The only books in this Tabqat that are Sahih according to the criteria of the majority of others (the hadith experts) are the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. One should not think that it was only according to Bukhari and Muslims criteria that the hadith in their books were Sahih but also the later day specialists.

2. As for the second Tabaqat, it consists of hadith the author has stated will not go below the rank of Hasan. Although there are weak hadith present, the author always points them out. In this Tabaqat you have Imam Nasais, Tirmidhis and Abu Dawuds Sunan, although Imam Abu Dawud sometimes overlooks slight weakness. Some have placed Imam darimis Sunan in this and some in the thirs tabaqat. Shah Waliullah also places Imam Ahmad Musnad - but this is incorrect.

3. As for the third Tabaqat, it consists of all types of hadith, from Sahih to forged. The Sunan of Ibn Majah is included in this as are the Sunan of Daraqtuni. This is the reason why some have placed the Muwatta of Imam Malik in place of Ibn Majah in the Sahih Sitta - yet this was not endorsed by the majority.

Insha'Allah that is sufficient for now.

Wallahu A'lam