Is it permissible for a student of knowledge to criticize the hadiths of the two Sahihs after the Ummah has accepted them?

The questioner : Regarding the student of knowledge who weakens a hadith, naturally the discussion revolves around the two Sahihs. Naturally, he did not weaken a hadith outside the two Sahihs. So we say, for example, that perhaps these hadiths did not pass through the hands of many scholars and many commentators. But the two Sahihs have a distinct feature: since they were compiled, scholars have been studying them, either in circles of knowledge, or in commentaries, or by immersing themselves in reading them. So much so that al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him) took some issue with what is in the two Sahihs, as is well known. And those who came after him, some of them did not take these issues. Perhaps the word of al-Dhahabi that you mentioned in the hadith before iftar, where he said, "There is something in my soul about it, were it not for the reverence for the two Sahihs," and it is the hadith of Abu al-Zubayr. And you also clarified, O Shaykh, that Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan (may Allah have mercy on him) preceded you in this. But this student of knowledge, who has not been preceded by any of the early scholars in criticizing this narration, as happened with Abu al-Zubayr (may Allah have mercy on him), and these two books have passed through many hands of scholars, between commentary and explaining the strange words, and so on. Do we tell him that it is permissible for him to weaken them because he is a student of knowledge and because he is proficient, even if no one preceded him, while the imams who preceded him studied these books and commented on them? If it becomes clear to us, may Allah reward you?

The Shaykh : I have nothing new in answer to your question; it is merely a repetition of the past. But with a new philosophy, we say to you now, by way of argument, that it is not permissible for this student of knowledge. Is that right?

The questioner : Good.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible for this student of knowledge. So is there anyone for whom it is permissible?

The questioner : O Shaykh, this issue differs from other issues, such as fiqh issues or others.

The Shaykh : No double talk. Give a direct answer. A brief question: Is there anyone for whom it is permissible? The answer is yes or no.

The questioner : There is someone for whom it is permissible, and al-Daraqutni did it.

The Shaykh : Allow me a moment. What is the description of the one for whom it is permissible?

The questioner : That he be a scholar among the scholars who are proficient.

The Shaykh : And this is what you rambled about and finally returned to.

The questioner : No, that is not the issue...

The Shaykh : You said "proficient." (Laughter)The Shaykh : (May Allah have mercy on him). But the difference between you and me is that I did not call the student of knowledge a "scholar," whereas you took the liberty of speaking and said "a proficient scholar." You said "a proficient scholar." So the disagreement between my previous statement and your later one is verbal, as evidenced by the fact that you will now agree with the new statement that I did not direct to the previous questioner before you. So I will tell you: it is permissible to criticize the hadiths of the two Sahihs by a proficient scholar. Now you will not find anything to contradict me with, will you?

The questioner : O Shaykh, my intention was...

The Shaykh : And he says he does not give an answer...

The questioner : O Shaykh, my intention, may Allah reward you, is that the hadiths of the two Sahihs are limited, from one to such and such...

The Shaykh : Now you are speaking differently from before, may Allah reward you, or is it a repetition? Do you know what "repetition" means? Is there something new with you?

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, the issue of the two Sahihs is not easy, because the hadiths of the two Sahihs are limited, from one to such and such, and are bounded. Commentaries have passed over them, and caravans of scholars have passed over them. So when a person comes to criticize something that these caravans did not criticize, in this limited quantity, the soul does not feel very at ease, may Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : What matters to me is something new. You are like me, or I am like you, meaning we have nothing new. But I have something new now. When you say that these caravans of scholars came and studied the two Sahihs, and so on, look, this...The student : The one who is proficient in knowledge in my expression, or that proficient scholar in his knowledge in your expression, did he encompass knowledge of this caravan? Answer me, just condition it without evasion?

The questioner : He may have encompassed it, and he may not have encompassed it.

The Shaykh : That is evasion, my brother. "May" and "may" are said for the sake of form.

The questioner : May Allah benefit you. He may have looked at some of this, and he may not have looked at it.

The Shaykh : Did you see what I said about "some"? And I am asking about the rest. Did he look at the whole? Say no.

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : So your saying "he looked at some" implies that he did not look at the rest. So may Allah reward you, you lengthened the answer on me. I asked you a question in clear Arabic: Do you imagine that this...The student : In my expression, or that scholar in your expression, did he encompass knowledge of everyone who spoke about the two Sahihs, whether from the hadith perspective or otherwise? The answer is no, obviously the answer is no. So why do you assume the answer is no? Because when you exaggerate the issue and say that caravans passed over these books and studied them and criticized them, and so on, and this came in the later time criticizing what the early predecessors did not criticize, why do you claim this? And finally, after the calm scientific discussion, you say no, that is not the case. And this is the problem of the young people in knowledge today: they exaggerate matters. So may Allah reward you, if you know that knowledge and that the argument of Allah is established throughout the ages and that knowledge is never cut off, otherwise the Hour would stand over the people. There are many narrations in this hadith. The point is, if we condition, as you expressed it, that he be a proficient scholar, what is the fear? And we agreed that we cannot say that we encompassed all these scholars who were with those learned, studying caravans of the two books. Second, like Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) whom I mentioned earlier, reminding you of my statement, which was good. Look, was it permissible for Imam al-Dhahabi to say that word? Answer me without evasion. Was it permissible or not?

The questioner : It was permissible, and he said it.

The Shaykh : Did anyone before him from those caravans say it?

The questioner : Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan, as you mentioned.

The Shaykh : You did not answer me. Did anyone mean, in Sahih Muslim, regarding the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr, that there is something in the heart about them? Did anyone else say it?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Okay, was it permissible for him to say it?

The questioner : It was permissible.

The Shaykh : Okay, what is the difference between him and his like if he came later by a few years, or a century, or centuries? No difference. The important thing in the matter is that the critic be a scholar, and that is the end of it.

The questioner : May Allah benefit you.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. You occupied the session with knowledge, and praise be to Allah.

Another questioner : In some doubts, resulting from what is transmitted regarding the consensus on the hadiths of the two Sahihs that were not criticized and no one spoke about them, and the brother's question at the beginning regarding the hadiths that no one among the memorizers spoke about, and a later person came to say that the consensus was established on the hadiths that no one spoke about. So this doubt perhaps results in this question and others?

The Shaykh : The doubt has already been answered.

The questioner : No, regarding the consensus. Some people now transmit and say that the hadiths of the two Sahihs that no one spoke about, after al-Hafiz al-Daraqutni spoke about the hadiths, the Ummah agreed on the authenticity of the rest. Some people transmit this, and some people hesitate in speaking about some of the hadiths because of this transmitted consensus.

The Shaykh : My brother, the answer to this has already been given. But not directly. Can the hadiths that were spoken about earlier be limited? One of our brothers present, who was before you, mentioned that Imam al-Daraqutni criticized more than three hundred hadiths from the two Sahihs. Then those who came after him did not submit to the critic al-Daraqutni except in individual hadiths. Is it not possible that this later person, this student about whom the discussion revolved earlier, is it not possible that he criticized a hadith from those hadiths that Imam al-Daraqutni criticized, but the scholars did not dwell on his criticism? Is it possible or not?

The questioner : It is possible. But these hadiths were recorded. The hadiths that al-Daraqutni criticized are recorded and known.

The Shaykh : They are known, but does every critic and every questioner know them?

The questioner : Not every questioner, but they say that there is a consensus...

The Shaykh : I want to ask: Is the consensus regarding what is other than what al-Daraqutni criticized? Or does it include what al-Daraqutni criticized but was not accepted? Is the question clear?

The questioner : Yes, it is understood.

The Shaykh : What is the answer?

The questioner : The consensus is regarding the hadiths other than those that were discussed, whether they were accepted or not.

The Shaykh : Well done. So, practically speaking, there are hadiths currently circulating as accepted, even if they contain some of what al-Daraqutni criticized. So, the bottom line is that we do not have a very clear statement. Suppose Sahih al-Bukhari was printed in a good edition with sequential numbers, and the consensus you refer to stated that the hadiths numbered such-and-such, and such-and-such, and such-and-such—numbering in the thousands—were accepted by the Ummah because they were not criticized, and that everything else was criticized by al-Daraqutni and others. If there were such a precise explanation and specification, it could be taken as a proof. However, there is a reservation mentioned earlier: when we assume this scenario—a copy of Sahih al-Bukhari printed in a modern edition with sequential numbers—and suppose that this numbering existed in the era of the claim of consensus, and that the numbers of the hadiths on which the scholars agreed were specified, we would now ask: Is it not possible that there were scholars, like al-Daraqutni for example, who criticized other hadiths besides those criticized by al-Daraqutni?

The questioner: Perhaps.

The Shaykh : It is possible. The claim of consensus in such a matter is exactly like the claim of consensus in many jurisprudential issues, where consensus is claimed, but after investigation and research, it turns out that there were many dissenters, in which case the claim of consensus falls away. For this reason, we say that the hadiths in the two Sahihs are, in principle, accepted by the majority of Muslims. As for scholars and specialists, they have their own specific scientific domain; they may establish a defect in some hadiths that the earlier scholars did not mention. One who studies the commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani finds criticisms that are not found at all in what Imam al-Daraqutni criticized. And Ibn Hajar is the one who transmits this statement: that other than what al-Daraqutni criticized, the Ummah accepted it. Now, I will give you an example of some hadiths found in Sahih Muslim, and perhaps some others in Sahih al-Bukhari. In Sahih Muslim, and this is one of the peculiarities found in Sahih Muslim, the questioner asks how this is possible. The well-known hadith, which is attributed in the comprehensive books between the two Sahihs and others to the two Shaykhs, is said to be agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. What is it? The famous hadith from Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: and he mentioned the seven, and finally mentioned You may be very surprised, or at least most of you, or a small minority of you, may be surprised at what I am going to tell you. To this day, in Sahih Muslim, the hadith is narrated with the wording: This is a type of hadith science called the inverted hadith. This hadith exists in Sahih Muslim inverted upon whom it was inverted? Upon the author? Or upon his Shaykh? Or upon whom else? And Sahih Muslim came to us like this. Do you think that the occurrence of such an error in a hadith whose meaning indicates its error, let alone that it was narrated correctly in Sahih al-Bukhari, is more likely than the occurrence of some subtle errors in narration that only the people of knowledge notice? Undoubtedly, the occurrence of such a manifest, concrete error in Sahih Muslim is much more difficult to explain than the occurrence of some errors that are not hidden from the people of knowledge. How is this explained? By a word attributed to Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), which is his saying: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." This is a reality, a reality we touch with our hands: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." It does not matter to me at all to prove this word to you from Imam al-Shafi'i as I have proven to you the authentic Prophetic hadiths from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is sufficient for us to believe that no two people can differ on this meaning: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." Since the Muslims have agreed that there is in the two Sahihs what is rightly criticized, and there is criticism based on error, if it is true that "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book," and this is one of the miracles of the Qur'an, that any book written by an author, no matter how careful he is in selecting, authenticating, and correcting it, is not from Allah: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." Therefore, it is not a matter of surprise or objection if some scholars, over the course of time and ages, have criticized some of the hadiths that came in the two Sahihs with knowledge, not with ignorance, not with desire, and not influenced by Western or Eastern upbringing or philosophy, as some contemporary writers do today who have not smelled the scent of knowledge and do not know the ranks of scholars and narrators in the narrators of hadiths, so they dare to criticize hadiths simply because this hadith did not enter their mind or their self accepted it, and they reject it and throw it to the ground for the most trivial reasons. No, this is a departure from the guidance of Islam and all Muslims. As for what we say and repeat: a man who is a scholar, from the past or present or future, who is well-grounded in this knowledge and does not criticize except in accordance with the rules of this knowledge and relying on the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators), I wish that there were dozens, or even hundreds, of such critical scholars among the scholars of the Muslims, because through such people the proof of Allah is established upon His servants. As for following blindly, saying "al-Bukhari said so," or "al-Bukhari narrated so," these are not scholars. And I am very sorry that some of the enthusiastic Muslims—and this is a reality that has occurred, and some of you may be aware of it—I read more than ten years ago a study by one of the Egyptian writers who has no knowledge...