I heard Dr. Zakir Naik say on TV that there is agreement amongst the scholars that all the Ahadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim are Saheeh, does Saheeh mean authentic? Is this right?
He said in the other four compliations, they have been divided into different categories but these two are all Saheeh.
Is this correct?
According to Ahl-e-Sunnah Wal-Jammah (sunnis), they are. Others will have different opinions.
No. The only book that is 100% sahih is the Qur'an.
So are you saying they are Not-so-sahi-Bukharee?
I found THIS](http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/misc/sample_bukhari.htm) article on the web site of Bazm-e-Tolu-e-Islam
Worth a read !
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
So are you saying they are Not-so-sahi-Bukharee?
[/QUOTE]
Sahih according to Bukhari, not necesarily sahih according to everyone else (likewise for Sahih Muslim).
There are numerous other Sahih collections such as Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sahih Abu Awanah, Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah, al Hakim's Mustadrak ala Sahihayn, all by respected and classical hadith scholars - i've yet to hear anyone saying that all these collections are 100% sahih as well. They are sahih according to their respective authors.
Re: Is Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim 100% Saheeh?
Hey if Dr. Zakir says something, it probably is correct. After all he was on TV.
Since you asked the question. May be you should elaborate a bit. Imam Bukhari compiled a lot of Hadees. Is there a Hadees that you don’t agree with?
My hunch is that most of the ahadees are applicable to the Aloo store in Luton.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
According to Ahl-e-Sunnah Wal-Jammah (sunnis), they are. Others will have different opinions.
[/QUOTE]
what is ur own opinion?
imam bukhari (ra) put in a lot of effort to filter out the authentic ahadeeth from the doubtful ones....
but its still the effort of a human and cannot be, in my opinion, taken as perfect....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
imam bukhari (ra) put in a lot of effort to filter out the authentic ahadeeth from the doubtful ones....
but its still the effort of a human and cannot be, in my opinion, taken as perfect....
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but how much should we follow the hadith ? since The Quran itself doesnt give all the instructions needed to follow an islamic life, it lays out a path and the hadith explains the path in greater detail.
How much should we believe in and follow the saheeh ?
I have always thought that since they are saheeh (though indeed work of a human) and generally accepted by scholars as legitimate we should follow them beyond the shadow of doubt.
as long as there is no conflict with the Quranic instructions, and as long as logically the hadith seems to be accurate, anything from saheeh bukhari is viewed as authentic from me....
i dont think we have enough knowledge to say what "contradicts" quran and what doesnt in many of the hadiths. the hadiths about the rajm (stoning) the married person guilty of zina is against quran because quran only talks about lashes...so do we throw them out? the scholars are not perfect but we cant reject their work just because we cant understand it....
You have to remember that, the Qur'an as it was being revealed over the period of 23 years, it was also being recorded at the same time by many many scribes on tablets, soft stones, leafs etc. and it was also memorised by many many Muslims who accompanied Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
However none of Prophet Muhammed's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) Hadiths were recorded during his life time.. although there were some letters that the Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had sent.
It was only just after he passed away that one person in particular started recording the Hadiths. However, vast majority of the millions of Hadiths were memorised, it was nearly 200 years after when people started making all sorts of claims that the Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had allowed certain things which were actually forbidden, that some Imams decided to find and collect the real truth.
Out of these millions of Hadiths, only the Sahih were chosen (the more people mentioned a particular Hadith, the more authentic it was). There were 6 main compilers, but only 2 of them i.e. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim kept the Sahih Hadiths only. While the other collectors did have Sahih, they also had marfu and dhaheeb Hadiths also.. just to tell people that these are false.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Green & White: *
However none of Prophet Muhammed's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) Hadiths were recorded during his life time..
[/quote]
Some companions wrote hadith down during his (s) lifetime. There's a list in Mustafa al Azami's extensive book on hadith literature. Abu Hurairah mentions that Abdullah ibn Amr recorded hadith (see Bukhari). Of course, these works haven't survived just as the original tablets and stones you mention haven't survived.
[quote]
Out of these millions of Hadiths, only the Sahih were chosen (the more people mentioned a particular Hadith, the more authentic it was). There were 6 main compilers, but only 2 of them i.e. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim kept the Sahih Hadiths only.
[/QUOTE]
There were hundreds of compilers both before and after the "six" although admittedly these six (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmizi, Nasai, Ibn Majah) are probably the best known among lay people. There are also other collections wherein their compilers endeavoured to collect what they understood to be sahih reports, such as Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah etc.
^ Thank you for correcting me brother.
My take is that you cannot pick and choose.. as that's not 'science'.
If just one hadith 'approved' by any scholar turns out to be false or is unapproved by another, it should be reason enough to doubt everything from that scholar..
also.. reject sayings that arrive with just one witness only.. cuz we should need at least two or more every step of the chain..
Do that and see how dramatically the misinformation shrinks.. but sadly Muslim scholars are reluctant to have such stringent rules as that would leave them with next to nothing in terms of an embellished 'history' they are so fond of teaching their public.
authenticity of sahih muslim or sahih bukhari can not be a given. While those books may serve as a good read and compilation of sayings, one has to put on his thinking cap when reading them and think about what seems right and what seems odd.
many sayings in there are probably authentic, and guidance from the prophet, but many there can be fabricated or modified (intentionally or just in transmission thru a string of many sources)
They(shia and sunnis) say so, that these are the book which are more or less , less distorted by ummayyad. and so are authentic if not 100% but can bring muslims on one platform.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
If just one hadith 'approved' by any scholar turns out to be false or is unapproved by another, it should be reason enough to doubt everything from that scholar..
[/QUOTE]
About an unscientific a conclusion as you are ever likely to see...