How do we reconcile your statement that the Ummah has agreed that the most authentic books are Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, with your weakening of some of their hadiths?

The Shaykh : Is there anything from the doctor?
The doctor: Regarding al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, I mean, I have heard good words from you, and we hear a lot thatThe Shaykh : a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is weak, a hadith in Sahih Muslim is weak, and now you say the Ummah has agreed on the authenticity of what is in al-Bukhari and what is in Muslim, yet you are seen weakening some of the hadiths in the two Sahihs.

The Shaykh : This is part of the consensus.

The questioner : Also, it is part of the consensus.

The questioner : So we need details, may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : Okay, the Ummah has agreed that what is in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim is the most authentic book of the books of hadith, the most authentic book after the Book of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). But the Ummah has not agreed that every single letter—and I do not mean the linguistic meaning of the word, I mean the letter alif, ba, ta, tha; in order to proceed step by step in explanation—the Ummah has not agreed that every letter present in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim is authentic and was said by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). This is one of the clearest impossibilities; because in the narration in the two Sahihs, there are differences in wording. So this is the greatest practical proof that not every letter alif, ba, ta, tha present in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim is authentic. This is a qualification of the previous consensus. Let us proceed a little. The Ummah has not agreed that every word present in Sahih al-Bukhari is authentic and accepted by the Ummah. Let us go further. The Ummah has not agreed that every sentence in every hadith, where that sentence appeared in one of the narrations of the two Sahihs, is also authentic, following the original narration. Finally, and in conclusion, the Ummah has not agreed that every individual hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in the two Sahihs, and the narration attributed to such-and-such a Companion, is authentic. No, they have not agreed, as evidenced by many proofs, the most important of which relates to the people of knowledge. For example, Imam al-Daraqutni criticized how many hadiths from Sahih al-Bukhari? From Sahih Muslim? Thirty hadiths and so on, and so forth. So there is no consensus, there is no consensus. But the consensus claimed by scholars is with the exception of what was criticized, with the exception of what was criticized from the two Sahihs. Then, when we know this reality, what follows is: Is everything criticized from the two Sahihs by some scholars like al-Daraqutni and others, meaning Muslim, actually criticized? The answer is no. Does this non-acceptance include every hadith? Also, the answer is no. There is some that is accepted as criticized, and there is some that is not accepted as criticized. If that is the case, we now arrive at the crux of the matter in raising this question. If there are in the two Sahihs some few, and very few, of the criticized hadiths, either by the explicit statement of some of the previous scholars, or by the indication of a modern scientific methodology, then this is one path. And those who ride on their heads and say this hadith is weak, or even fabricated and false, because it contradicts the Qur'an or contradicts reason, this is a second path. This second path is not the path of the believers, for which we cited the previous verse: As for the criticism of individual hadiths from al-Bukhari and Muslim, this is the methodology of the scholars of the Muslims. If a person reads Sahih al-Bukhari with the commentary Fath al-Bari and others, he will find many, and very many, criticisms. The closest to what we know now is the hadith of Ibn Abbas in the two Sahihs: They did not accept this hadith; they said this is an error. And the error is from whom? From Ibn Abbas? Why? Because Maimunah herself, it is narrated from her with a sound chain that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her while she was lawful. So this hadith is an error. But this does not scratch the soundness of al-Bukhari's methodology and the authenticity of his hadiths as a general principle. But this opens the door for specialists in the science of hadith to not act as some of the enthusiasts for Islam in general, and for specialists in Sahih al-Bukhari in particular, from our brothers in Kuwait, when one of the ignorant people actually wrote an article in the magazine al-Arabi, which is not, of course, a scientific or Islamic magazine, but publishes whatever comes and goes, and sometimes publishes what is against Islam. So one of their writers, who is Egyptian, wrote an article with a huge title: "Not everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is authentic." So some of our brothers there in the Social Reform Association wrote a treatise titled "Everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is authentic," as if the issue was a quarrel and a fight. No, the issue is a scientific one, and especially the response to this ignorant person who wrote the article; because it seems he does not understand the Arabic language. He cited how it can be authentic when Allah says in the Noble Qur'an: the night of fasting, and approaching your women. As for the day of fasting, it tells you that all Muslims have agreed, and this is correct, that it is not permissible. How can a hadith narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim from Aisha that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to have intercourse with his women while fasting be authentic? And of course, he started commenting and explaining and saying this is against the Qur'an, and so on. The methodology of these non-sane people when they reject the hadiths of the Messenger, they reject them due to their ignorance of the greatness of the hadith and the concept of the hadith. He said: "He used to have intercourse with his women while fasting, this is against the Qur'an." So there was a very wide field for those who wrote this treatise to respond to this ignorant person and say to him, "My brother, your evidence does not support your claim; because the meaning of this hadith is such and such, and it is the language, and it is the scholars, and so on." And more than that, they attributed to al-Bukhari what is not in it. And I know of that, I know people by that, I know and I do not say from those I know; because they stole a hadith from my book Series of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths and claimed it was in Sahih al-Bukhari. It is the hadith of Abu Talhah, and he was fasting in Ramadan, so the cold came down and he started eating and the cold reached him and he moistened his condition, especially in the lands of the Hijaz. They said to him: "You are fasting, and you are eating? How?" He said: "This is a blessing, this is not food, this is a blessing from the sky." He says how this hadith is narrated by al-Bukhari, and al-Bukhari did not narrate it. And I mentioned this hadith in the Series, and clarified that it was narrated as marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) and it is false, and it was narrated as mawquf (stopping at the Companion) from Abu Talhah and it is authentic. So they transferred the weak fabricated hadith from the Series and placed it in the article as if it were from the hadiths of al-Bukhari. So the field for responding to this article was very wide and strong. The group came with their emotion and wrote a treatise "Everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is authentic." These are ignorant people without a doubt, exactly like this man. Setting aside, what? The difference between the two emotions. Why? The hadiths of al-Bukhari in the view of the people of knowledge are divided into two sections: musnad (with full chain) and mu'allaq (with broken chain). The musnad was previously discussed; most of it is authentic, with few individual hadiths in which some scholars spoke. The second section is the section of mu'allaq hadiths, in which there are very weak hadiths, many very weak hadiths, and sometimes al-Bukhari, with his soft style, indicates their weakness by saying: "It is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said such and such." Those who wrote this treatise that everything in Sahih al-Bukhari has not smelled the scent of Sahih al-Bukhari, nor have they studied it, nor do they know what is in al-Bukhari. Otherwise, how can a person say everything in Sahih al-Bukhari? If they had knowledge, they would barely say "every musnad hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is authentic," even though he will find from the people of knowledge someone who criticizes him. And they share with him in the belief in the greatness of al-Bukhari and his book, but everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is weak. This, unfortunately, indicates that there is no knowledge, meaning it is studied so that we refute misguidance with knowledge, not with ignorance. In summary, there is a very big difference between one who rejects some of the hadiths of al-Bukhari relying on his mind, i.e., on his ignorance, and one who follows the path of the believers in following the style they followed in distinguishing the authentic from the weak. And we ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to make us among these Muslims.