Did Shaykh al-Albaani class some hadiths in Saheeh al-Bukhaari as da‘eef (weak)?

Firstly: 

The fair-minded researcher into criticisms levelled at as-Saheehayn
(the two Saheehs – of al-Bukhaari and Muslim) has to differentiate
between two types of criticism: 

1.

The first type is criticism that is not based on a solid academic
methodology and does not follow the rules of academic criticism that are
accepted by researchers. Rather he starts searching randomly with no method,
so as to suit his whims and desires, and he objects to anything that is
contrary to his reasoning and opinion, not paying attention to the
methodological principles on which al-Bukhaari and Muslim based their books.
This type of criticism is to be rejected and cannot be accepted; it should
be countered with sound academic research and evidence that is based on
strong methodology, that will bring the critic back to his senses and
highlight to him the invalidity of his method, and demonstrate that the
issue has nothing to do with attributing infallibility to al-Bukhaari and
Muslim, because Ahl as-Sunnah do not believe that anybody is infallible
except the Prophets. Rather it is an issue of errors in research methodology
and confusion in the reasoning of the critic, as in the case of one who
rejects every hadith that cannot be proven by practical experience, and he
rejects every hadith that has to do with matters of the unseen or is
contrary, in his mind, to that which he is familiar with, or he classes as
da‘eef every hadith that was narrated by Abu Hurayrah or ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr
ibn al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and other wrong methods. 

This type of criticism is always accompanied by impugning the status of
as-Saheehayn, saying bad things about them and attempting to eliminate
them from the accepted legacy of the ummah. Rather they regard them as a
crime against Islamic history and describe them as bad and corrupt. Such
descriptions fill the contemporary books of groups such as the Raafidis and
their followers, and many of the pretenders who claim to be modern,
enlightened and rational. Among the books of this type are the following:
Adwa’ ‘ala as-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah by Abu Rayyah; the books of al-Muhandas
Jawaad ‘Afaanah; Nahwa Taf‘eel Qawaa‘id Naqd Matn al-Hadith by
Ismaa‘eel al-Kurdi; al-Adwa’ al-Qur’aniyyah fi Iktisaah al-Ahaadeeth al-Israa’eeliyyah
wa Tat-heer al-Bukhaari minha by Saalih Abu Bakr; the essay Jinaayat
al-Bukhaari Inqaadh ad-Deen min Imam al-Muhadditheen by Zakariyya Ozon;
a study entitled Adwa’ ‘ala as-Saheehayn by Muhammad Saadiq an-Najmi,
and many others. 

With regard to the scholars of Islam, both earlier and later scholars of
hadith, usool, fiqh and tafseer, they are innocent of this method of
criticism and are far removed from it; they are opposed to those who carry
this banner and propagate this method 

2.

The second type is methodological criticism that is based on evidence and
proof that carry weight according to the scholars of Islam and are
appropriate to the study of the Prophetic Sunnah as one of the branches of
historical knowledge, so as to combine the critiques of both the isnaad
(chain of narrators) and matn (text). They do not reject the rules of the
muhadditheen (hadith scholars) in favour of ideas based on whims and
desires, and they do not use the language of doubt and alarm to undermine
the status of as-Saheehayn in the ummah. Rather this methodology
recognises the status of these two books, maintains their honourable
position and acknowledges the great efforts that were put into them. 

This methodology was followed by many of the earlier and later scholars,
such as Abu Zar‘ah (d. 264 AH), Abu Dawood (d. 275 AH), Abu Haatim (d. 277
AH), at-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH), an-Nasaa’i (d. 303 AH), ad-Daaraqutni (d. 385
AH), al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728 AH) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852
AH). In each case you will find that their criticism has to do with a very
small number of hadiths that appear in as-Saheehayn, either before or
after these books were written, and is based on academic, fair-minded,
methodological research. In fact some of the hadiths in Saheeh Muslim
were not accepted by al-Bukhaari himself, and some of the hadiths in
Saheeh al-Bukhaari were not accepted by Imam Muslim himself. 

We
are not here to judge between the two shaykhs, al-Bukhaari and Muslim on the
one hand and those scholars, muhadditheen and others, who criticise some of
the contents of the books on the other. That is a vast matter that many
scholars are engaged in and have written huge books on the topic, one of the
most comprehensive of which is Hadiy as-Saari by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar
(may Allah have mercy on him). Rather the point here is to contrast the
methodology of these scholars, who should not be objected to or rejected on
the basis that there is consensus on the soundness of everything in as-Saheehayn,
with the methodology of those who strive to undermine the status of these
two books and to lower the esteem in which they are held by people. 

The method of the muhadditheen that is based on sound rules is distinguished
from other methods that criticise as-Saheehayn by the following
characteristics: 

1.Soundness
of motive and neutrality, by which I mean the soundness of the motive for
the criticism and the fact that it is not based on doubt in as-Saheehayn.

2.Following
the rules of hadith science.

3.Preserving
the content of the text as is, for other reasons: either because the
criticism is originally directed at some of the isnaads and not the matn
(text), or because the content of the hadith is already being practised on
the basis of reasons such as accepting mursal reports, giving the ruling of
marfoo‘ to mawqoof reports, accepting the hadith of someone whose character
or situation is unknown, and so on. In contrast, you will find that one of
the main focuses of contemporary criticisms of the hadiths in as-Saheehayn
is rejection of the text of the hadith, ridiculing its contents, impugning
everyone who believes it and categorising it as a myth from which efforts
should be made to purify the religion.

4.Taking
differences in stride and not over exaggerating the impact thereof, and
stating one’s view on the basis of probability, by using gentle and
appropriate words, such as saying: this is more likely to be the case, this
is more sound – and so on.

5.Not
criticising a great deal, because when the critic follows the guidelines on
the process of criticism, that leaves less room for manoeuvre, so he will
not dare to criticise except in cases where he has clear proof and his
evidence is confirmed. Hence the hadiths that were subject to sound
criticism – those that were left after eliminating the types of hadith
mentioned at the beginning of this discussion (namely those that were
unfairly criticised) – will be very few. Al-Haafiz described them as being
very few at the time when, according to some confused contemporary critics,
they number in the hundreds, to the point that some of them were listed in a
separate book entitled Da‘eef Saheeh al-Bukhaari.

End quote from a research paper entitled al-Manhajiyyah al-Mundabitah
lada an-Nuqaad al-Mutaqaddimeena fi Ta‘leel ba‘di Ahaadeeth as-Saheehayn
(p.17-20), which was submitted to the conference al-Intisaar
li’s-Saheehayn [Defending as-Saheehayn] at the University of
Jordan. 

Secondly: 

Anyone who reflects on these five characteristics and contemplates the
difference between the two methods, then reads with an open mind the
research of Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) in which he
critiqued some of the hadiths of as-Saheehayn will realise that the
shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) followed the disciplined method that
has clear guidelines, following in the footsteps of previous muhadditheen in
critiquing some of the reports in as-Saheehayn. He will understand
that this type of criticism is not casting aspersions upon the Sunnah and is
not contrary to scholarly consensus; rather it is a continuation of
previous, well-known efforts in critiquing as-Saheehayn, but that is
done within the framework of sound principles of debate and criticism,
adhering to the characteristics or guidelines mentioned above, among the
most important of which are following the rules of hadith science and
maintaining respect for as-Saheehayn in people’s hearts. This does
not mean that there were not some mistakes in some of the verdicts of al-Albaani
on some of the hadiths of as-Saheehayn. But his mistakes have to do
with minor issues and not major principles. For a man of his standing such
mistakes may be overlooked and forgiven as the mistakes of other critics and
scholars were. 

Here we will quote some of the comments of Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have
mercy on him) that proved his adherence to the methodological guidelines,
and that he was working within a particular framework, when he said: 

I
find myself compelled by academic honesty to express what I believe is
correct and to discharge my duty, as the researcher who has deep knowledge
cannot but admit an academic fact which was expressed by Imam ash-Shaafa‘i
(may Allah have mercy on him), as it was narrated that he said:

Allah has decreed that no book should be perfect except His Book, therefore
some of the scholars objected to some words that were erroneously inserted
by some of the narrators in some saheeh hadiths, some of which we will
mention here by way of example: 

·The words
in the hadith about the leper, the bald man and the blind man (no. 1471), in
which it says “it occurred to Allah” instead of the correct phrase “Allah
willed”, because speaking in terms of “something occurring” to Allah, may He
be exalted, is not appropriate; how could that be acceptable when it is one
of the beliefs of the Jews?

·The phrase
“one who compromises” instead of “one who adheres to” in the words of the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “The likeness of the one
who adheres to the limits set by Allah and the one who transgresses them…”
Hadith no. 1143.

·The words
in the hadith about the plague (1475): “Do not leave except fleeing from
it.” The narrator’s addition of the word “except” is an obvious error [so
the hadith should read “Do not leave, fleeing from it”].

·The
narrator’s addition in hadith no. 984: “The two parties to a transaction
have the option of proceeding or cancelling… He may confirm agreement three
times.” Al-Haafiz (4/327, 334) stated that the phrase that mentions
confirming it three times cannot be proven to be from the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him).

·He said (p.
176) concerning hadith no. 1160 about the words concerning the righteous
slave, “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, were it not for jihad…” that
this remark has been inserted into the hadith: these are not the words of
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him); rather these are the
words of Abu Hurayrah. So this is like the hadith mentioned above in Vol. 1
no. 90, in which the
narrator added at the end: “So whoever can extend his traces of wudoo’ on
his face, let him do so.” This has also been inserted. 

·Similarly
in Vol 1 (28 – Jaza’ as-Sayd/21) it says that a man said: My sister
vowed to do Hajj. This is an odd report according to al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar.
What is known is that a woman said: My mother vowed…. You can check this
report there.

·Similarly
with regard to hadith no. 1209, al-Ismaa‘eeli highlighted that it has an
interrupted isnaad. Al-Haafiz approved of the hadith but had some
reservations about the text which he mentioned in al-Fath, to which
anyone who wishes may refer

·A similar
example is the hadith mentioned above (28 – Jaza’ as-Sayd/11): It was
narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) married Maymoonah when he was in ihram. The more correct view is
that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when he was
not in ihram.

·Similarly,
in hadith no. 1050 it says: “Allah says: ‘There are three whose opponent I
will be on the Day of Resurrection.’” Its isnaad includes a narrator who was
the subject of a difference of opinion. What is established is that he had a
poor memory. Al-Bukhaari himself indicated that the report of the one who
narrated this hadith from him was not sound. You may see his comments there,
so that you may be prudent with regard to matters of your religion and the
hadiths of your Prophet.

I
have mentioned these examples so that readers may be prudent with regard to
matters of their religion and will have a clear understanding of the hadiths
of their Prophet and be certain of the soundness of the report mentioned
above: “Allah has decreed that no book should be perfect except His Book.”
Thus they will also not be deceived by what has been written by some of
those who want to stir up trouble against us, such as the ignorant imitators
and fanatical followers of madhhabs who talk nonsense about what they do not
know, say what they do not know and ignore what they already know. … And on
the other hand there are some people who have made some contributions in
some fields of knowledge or in the field of da‘wah (calling people to Islam)
– even if it is on the basis of their own understanding – who show audacity
in refuting that which they do not like of saheeh hadiths, which they regard
as da‘eef despite consensus in the ummah on the acceptability of that hadith.
They do not reject it on the basis of sound principles of this noble branch
of knowledge and the rules of knowledge according to the muhadditheen, or
because of some doubts that they developed about one of the narrators of
that hadith, for they have no knowledge of that and they have total
disregard for the knowledge of people who specialise in that field. Rather
they base their argument on their own whims and desires or on their
education that was far removed from sound faith which is based on the Qur’an
and saheeh Sunnah, in imitation of the Orientalists and the enemies of the
faith, and those who imitate them of westernised people such as Abu Rayyah
al-Masri, ‘Izz ad-Deen Baleeq al-Lubnaani and others with whom this ummah is
afflicted in modern times, who reject sound hadiths on the basis of whims
and desires, and cause confusion to some Muslims because of the specious
arguments they present. 

Allah, may He be exalted, is the One Whose help we seek and ask Him to
protect the Sunnah from the hands of the ignorant, those who would tamper
with it and the ignorant who follow whims and desires; we ask Him to make us
recognise the efforts of the early imams in service of the Sunnah, who laid
out for us principles and rules for knowing what is sound and what is not.
Whoever adheres to those principles and rules will be following a clear way,
and whoever deviates from that will go far astray. 

End quote from Muqaddimat Mukhtasar Saheeh al-Bukhaari (2/5-9) 

He
(may Allah have mercy on him) also said: 

Some young people who are fanatically devoted to Saheeh al-Bukhaari,
and likewise to Saheeh Muslim, are ignorant and adamantly insist that
everything in them is saheeh. In contrast to them, some writers have no
respect at all for as-Saheehayn, and they reject of their hadiths any
that are not in accordance with their rational thinking and their whims and
desires, such as as-Saqqaaf and other writers. I have responded to both
groups in more than one place.

End quote from Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (no. 2540) 

He
(may Allah have mercy on him) also said: 

Imam al-Bukhaari and Imam Muslim did their duty of selecting these hadiths
that they included in as-Saheehayn from among hundreds of thousands
of hadiths, which was an immense effort. Therefore it does no service to
knowledge and it is not wise at all for me to focus my efforts on examining
as-Saheehayn and ignore the hadiths to be found in the four Sunans
and elsewhere, which are not known whether they are saheeh or da‘eef. But
during my academic research, I came across some hadiths in as-Saheehayn,
or in one of the two, and realised that there are some hadiths that are
da‘eef! But whoever has doubts about my ruling concerning some hadiths, let
him refer to Fath al-Baari, where he will find very many things that
(the author) al-Haafiz Ahmad ibn Hajar al-‘Asqallaani critiqued.

End quote from Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-Albaani (p. 565) 

To
sum up: Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) did class as da‘eef
some of the hadiths that are included in as-Saheehayn. In some cases
we do not agree with his verdict, but in general his method of criticism was
sound and in harmony with the methodology of the earlier muhadditheen, who
noted some reservations concerning some of the hadiths in as-Saheehayn.
He was never for a moment trying to undermine the status of as-Saheehayn
in people’s hearts and minds, or exaggerating in the manner in which he
critiqued some hadiths. 

For more information, please see fatwa no. 119516

And Allah knows best.