Is it possible to examine the chains of narration of the hadiths of al-Bukhari and Muslim and then judge them according to the rules of the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators)?

The questioner : Shaykh, truly there is a problem that has come to us, because we have heard in some of your cassettes, we have heard in some of the cassettes, that you were asked if it is possible to look at the chains of al-Bukhari and Muslim? So you answered with "yes." This opened the door to a problem, which is that it came to our minds that a person is able to look at these chains and then judge them as authentic or weak according to the rules of the scholars regarding hadiths in which some scholars have not raised objections. We wanted you to clarify this for us?

The Shaykh : I did not understand.

The questioner : You answered in some of the cassettes that a person, or a student of knowledge, is able to look at the chains of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The Shaykh : I say it this way.

The questioner : That is what we heard.

The Shaykh : A student of knowledge?

The questioner : I mean a capable student of knowledge.

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, we said earlier regarding the student of knowledge, if we said—and I did not hear the rest except as a question, as you heard—we say this regarding the advanced one, and this is a reality that exists. How many hadiths did al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani speak about regarding some of their parts and individuals? And you will not find, within the limits of your knowledge, that he says, "So-and-so preceded me to this." Complete your statement. First of all, I say, if I said it.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : I mean, if I said it now, if I said that this is for the student of knowledge, then I am retracting it first, and repenting to Allah second. And if it was someone else, then he should be aware and transmit it correctly. Complete your statement.

The questioner : At that time you said that he is able to look at the chains of the Book and the Sunnah, and at that time a problem came to us, which is that there are many hadiths that the scholars did not address with criticism. Is it possible for this scholar, as you indicated earlier, is it possible for this scholar to look at these chains and judge them according to the rules of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators)?

The Shaykh : As for looking, I do not think anyone says that he is not allowed to look, is that not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : As for what result he will reach? Allah knows it best. But for example, Imam al-Daraqutni criticized so many of the hadiths of al-Bukhari. What established this number? So what prevents another critic from adding another hadith? Who prevents him from reducing so many hadiths by a hundred? And the judgment is for al-Bukhari over al-Daraqutni. So the important thing, truly, is that knowledge, as I always say, does not accept stagnation, it does not accept stagnation.

The questioner : The criticism, Shaykh, was in the mu'allaqat (suspended narrations) of al-Bukhari, was it not?

The Shaykh : No, no, it is not in the mu'allaqat, but in the musnads where he listed the hadiths. You will find, for example, Ibn Hibban criticizing Imam al-Bukhari in his narration from Abu Bakr ibn 'Iyash, and being satisfied with using Hammad ibn Salimah as evidence, saying, "This is the Imam of the Sunnah, how can I turn away from using Hammad ibn Salimah as evidence and use Abu Bakr ibn 'Iyash?" Because there is a statement regarding Abu Bakr's memory, and therefore his hadith is hasan (good), but for al-Bukhari his hadith is sahih (authentic), because he mentioned him in the authentic musnad. This is his opinion and this is his ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). There is no objection at all to ijtihad differing and diverging, but the best ijtihad in hadith is to say, "This hadith is sahih (authentic) with so-and-so and da'if (weak) with so-and-so," just as it is said in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), "Such a ruling is wajib (obligatory)" and another says, "It is sunnah (recommended practice)." But to say, "This hadith is sahih (authentic)" and to say, "This hadith is da'if (weak)," is like saying, "This is wajib (obligatory)" and "This is not permissible." These are two divergent matters. So if the disagreement between hadith scholars is like this example, sahih (valid) and hasan (good), then welcome it. But is there actually a disagreement like what exists in fiqh, a complete contradictory disagreement? The example mentioned earlier: Imam al-Daraqutni criticized hadiths from Sahih al-Bukhari, but as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: "Al-Bukhari is correct in most of them, and al-Daraqutni is correct in some of them." And if that is the case, why do we say that students of knowledge have the right to this? Why do students of knowledge find it strange that a scholar is able to add a hadith or more to the criticism of al-Daraqutni, or to return the criticism to al-Daraqutni himself? And the difference between the first critic and the last critic is great. There is no strangeness in that, but only for one who is qualified for criticism.

The questioner : He, Shaykh, always objects to us with the objection that it is the ijma' (scholarly consensus) of the scholars to accept them.

The Shaykh : What is his statement regarding al-Daraqutni?

The questioner : He rejects it, saying that whoever contradicts the ijma' (scholarly consensus) is shadhdh (anomalous).

The Shaykh : So every hadith in al-Bukhari is sahih (valid)?

The questioner : That is what they say?

The Shaykh: Who is it?

The questioner : Truly, I mean, those who reject it.

The Shaykh : Who are they? The scholars?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : The matter is over. Let us return to what drew our attention.