Sign up ×
Islam Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Muslims, experts in Islam, and those interested in learning more about Islam. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I think there are some Hadith in this book are not compatible with Quran.

Also I think this is not a logic term to say "Sahih Bukhari is Sahih (authentic) because its name is Sahih"

Bukhari was an Iranian written this book near 200 years after prophetand Indeed any human can have mistakes.

Also Jamal Albanna an sunni Scholar argues that

653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted.

His Arabic book is titled "The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths" (2008).

Firstly I want to know considering Sahih Bukhari a 100% authentic Book by sunni scholars is true or not? and if yes is it an Islamic fitwa or it is mostly for policies of Sunni Kings during history and accepted as a rule today? or has other reason?

here is an article but in Persian containing names of many sunni scholars with evidence critiquing Sahih Bukhari and not considering in 100% authentic:

translating all of it takes much time. and maybe you can read it using google translator.

for example this article says Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Tahzib al-Tahzib volume 10 page 461 (تهذیب التهذیب، ج 10، ص 461) says there are some narrators in Sahih Bukhari that Muslim never consider them reliable and even critiqued them and did not narrate any hadith from them. for example one narrator Muslim never considered him reliable is نعیم بن حماد مروزی. some sunni scholars considered him reliable but still many not. I think evidences from sunni books mentioned in this article prove there is no Ijma among sunni scholars that Sahih Bukhari is 100% authentic.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

This is Sunni perspective.

Sahih Al-Bukhari is considered completely authentic by consensus (Ijma').

Imam al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The ummah is unanimously agreed that these two books are saheeh and it is obligatory to follow their ahaadeeth.

Tahdheeb al-Asma’ wa’l-Lughaat (1/73).

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

There is no book beneath the canopy of heaven that is more sound than al-Bukhaari and Muslim, after the Qur’aan.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (18/74).

Furthermore, Jamal al-Banna is not a scholar according to Sunni scholars. He is just an author and most of his views go against Qur'an and Sunnah [The wiki link that you gave says the same]. So, it is not a surprise that he wants to go against the consensus fabricating stories.

The minor criticisms that you mention doesn't strip Al-Bukhari of the "Saheeh" label. It is not correct methodology to accept criticism just because it exists, rather it depends on evidence and proof.

The number of ahadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, including repetitions – according to the numbering of Muhammad Fu’aad ‘Abd al-Baaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) – is 7563. The number of minor criticisms is around 20. Most of these criticisms have to do with matters concerning the isnaads, or whether the hadeeth reaches the highest level of saheeh, or they have to do with one or two words in a hadeeth and this does not affect the saheeh status of the Bukhari.

You can find the complete list of issues for which Al-Bukhari was criticized here. None of them undermine the basic matter of al-Saheeh.

Source: Are all the ahaadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari saheeh (sound)?

share|improve this answer
highly appreciated if you add some reasoning why those scholars say it is 100% authentic. –  Battle of Karbala Sep 3 '12 at 13:43
@Ahmadi For that please refer what are the requirements of a sahih hadith -… . Every hadith in Bukhari has undergone this process in order to be compiled. Just one isolated criticism doesn't make it inauthentic. If it has been criticized, you can read here-, why it is and why those criticisms are minor and does not in-authenticate the hadith.Those minor criticisms don't undermine the status of Saheeh. –  Abdullah Sep 3 '12 at 13:47

First of all i have to correct some information in your question.

The full name of sahih al-Bukhari and its meaning

al-Bukhari was born in Bukhara which nowadays isn't located in Iran but in Uzbekistan and neither of those two countries existed or had those names. So saying he's Iranian is like some Arabs pretending ibn Sina to be an Arab instead of saying his a Muslim or a Persian muslim. Let's say his a Persian Muslim!

The full name of Sahih al Bukhari is الجامع المسند الصحيح المختصر من أُمور al-Jami' ul-musnadu as-sahihu al-mukhtassar min omori rassuli Allahi salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam wa sunatihi wa ayyamih رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلّم وسننه وأيامه!

The name itself explains a lot: This book is collection of the sunan and the days of our Messenger (peace be upon him) but it was also qualified as a collection which supported (by narration chain) and also summarized.

Now if we found a narration in sahih al-Bukhari without sanad then this could mean that it is not sahih unless we find in another chapter the same narration with a sanad! as The book also includes also some narrations which fall under the name "athar" as it was the habit at the time.

Therefore only ahadith have been checked by contemporary scholars (among them Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma'yn and ibn al-Madyni) who said they found the whole book sahih except for 4 ahadith, but al-'Oqayli added the statement of al-Bukhari is the right one: They are all sahih/sane (According to Ibn hajar al 'Asqalani in "tahdhib at-Tahdhib تهذيب التهذيب" ج9 ص54)!

Jamal al-Bana and his book

Jamal al-Bana or Gamal al-Bana wasn't a scholar but one could say an author and a Muslim thinker or better less a scholar then a liberal Muslim thinker! He was the younger brother of Hassan al-Bana the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood!

In his book he didn't say that all these 635 hadiths (or narrations) are fabricated or incorrect. But he said that they don't have any meaning/use or are not binding for Muslims: This means they don't affect anything in their live, for example who cares about what the Messenger (peace be upon him) used to wear (which colors) etc.

Of course he pointed out a couple of ahadith which he considered to be incorrect. As they present a bad picture of Islam and our Messenger in person (Peace be upon him)!

He also pointed out a couple of ahadith the 4 Imams of sunni schools knew but refused, as they contradicted to better known ahadith or in cases to the Quran! So some of his statements were not new but well known!

So the new in al-Bana's book is that he see that this book isn't 100% binding for Muslims which differs from the statement in the fatwa of islamqa!

Is Sahih al Bukhari 100% authentic?

Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalani did some criticism about some narrators in about 110 ahadiths (32 of them are also in Sahih Muslim) he himself qualified them to be weak etc. but he also said as they were teachers of imam al-Bukhari he knows them best and he said that the weaknesses in those ahadith are not of the kind one have to reject them (to be found in al-Kholi's book Miftah as-Sunna which gives a great overview about the hadith sciences and their early history)!

Sheikh Mohammad al-Ghazaly did like Jamal al-Bana some criticism about the matn of some ahadith in his book السنة النبوية بين أهل الفقه وأهل الحديث as-Suna an-Nabawiya bayna ahl al-fiqh wa ahl al hadith (Sunna between the faqihs and the hadith scholars). And they are not the only ones!

Some criticized ahadith (Maybe some are not in Sahih al-Bukhari):

  • the Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) hitting malak al-mawt and knocked out his eye.
  • The age in which our Messenger (peace be upon him) married 'Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her)!
  • that the Messenger (peace be upon him) added by fault something to the Quran when talking to Quraish.
  • statements about the virility of the Messenger (peace be upon him).
  • some statements about woman.
  • some statements which present our Messenger (peace be upon him) as a bloodthirsty person.
  • ...

From this we see that no hadith collection could be free from criticism and this is fully ok! as we have only to believe that the Quran is free and safe of mistakes etc.

Sunni people and scholars say that the both Sahih books of al-Bukhari and (then) Muslim are authentic this means that the number of ahadith which might be incorrect or doubtful over them is marginal maybe less then 1-2%. But still nowadays some scholar check and review them and this goes along with the sunni thought that nobody is infallible except the Messengers (peace be upon them).

Therfore it's right to say "There is no book beneath the canopy of heaven that is more sound than al-Bukhari and Muslim, after the Qur’aan." as said by ibn Taymiyah or "...The book of Bukhari is the more authentic of the two and more useful" as said by ibn Salah.

As an addition you can also read the details of the fatwa from islamqa quoted by @Abdullah.

Well as a Muslim i'd like to say sahih al-Bukhari and sahih Muslim are the most authentic books of sunna but i think as they are human they could include some mistakes or fabrication.

And i ask myself why the earlier scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa and Malik toke ahaad ahadith with big care and rejected them if they had "better" proofs according to their osol. While later Scholars like Imam Ahmad and a-Shafi'i accepted them and gave them a higher value in Jurisprudence while everybody knew that with the time hadith fabrication was more and more diffused!

And Allah knows best!

share|improve this answer
yes now Bukhara is not in Iran. but when he was born it was a city of Iran and he was grown up as an Iranian. According to Wikipedia he is a scholar and said 653 are incorrect and against Quran. not what you claim. also there are narriations in Bukhari book that are not hadith at all because they are not narrated from prophet SAWW at all. –  Battle of Karbala Sep 17 at 16:40
A country with the name Iran didn't exist at that time. And al-Bana is according wikipedia (arabic) an author and a liberal muslim thinker, I read the wrong information in english wikipedia. And dear brother of course you could trust wikipedia if you like but i read the book and what i've written here is a short summary of what i read in it! And at least you are free to think and believe what you want. –  Medi Saif Sep 18 at 11:43
Iran d and has two names Iran and Persia. he is according to Wikipedia both scholar and author. reliability of wikipedia depends on the sources. generally can not be said all in wikipedia is not reliable. you are free to think too. –  Battle of Karbala Sep 18 at 12:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.