By: Ḥāfiẓ Zubair
Source: Academic Discourse on Ḥadīth Sciences
This is a common claim raised by Hadith rejecters, who allege that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is wrongly equated with the Qur'an in its authority.
◉ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is not revelation (waḥy):
No scholar claims that everything in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is divine revelation from Allah.
◉ Difference between Ḥadīth and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:
◉ Ḥadīth is “Waḥy Maʿnawī”:
Ḥadīth is considered inspired in meaning, even though the wording is from the Prophet ﷺ or the narrator. It is not the Qur’anic form of revelation, but it is still divinely guided.
Scholars of Ḥadīth themselves have reviewed and critiqued individual narrations within Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
◈ Imām al-Dāraquṭnī (رحمه الله)
Critiqued certain narrations in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim.
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (رحمه الله)
Declared both Ṣaḥīḥayn (Bukhārī & Muslim) as authentic in totality, except for very few places where scholars have discussed or critiqued some narrators or chains.
(Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 45)
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله)
Addressed these critiques in “Hady al-Sārī” and “Fatḥ al-Bārī”, offering detailed responses to Dāraquṭnī's objections.
◈ Imām Nawawī (رحمه الله) — Responded to critiques in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
◈ ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Ismāʿīl ibn Khulafūn — “Rafʿ al-Tamārī fī man Tukullima Fīhī min Rijāl al-Bukhārī”
◈ ʿAllāmah Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm — “al-Tawḍīḥ li-l-Awhām al-Wāqiʿah fī al-Ṣaḥīḥ”
✔ Ibn Ḥazm’s Objection — Criticized a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
✔ Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) — Rebutted this critique in al-Bidāyah, Vol. 4, p. 145 with a detailed risālah.
✔ Miʿrāj Narration of Anas (RA) — Faced objections, responded to by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ṭāhir with an entire booklet.
◈ Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī
Wrote a detailed commentary on Dāraquṭnī’s work “al-Istidrāk wa al-Tatabbuʿ”, clarifying misunderstandings and resolving objections.
✔ Unanimous stance of Ḥadīth scholars:
If a narration is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and no classical scholar objected to it, it is accepted by consensus (ijmāʿ).
✘ If someone today objects to it without basis, he is violating the consensus of Ahl al-Ḥadīth.
Hadith rejecters argue that since Imām al-Bukhārī was not maʿṣūm (infallible), he could have erred.
◉ Difference between possibility and actual error:
Yes, human error is possible — but alleging error requires proof, just like in any court of law.
✔ If someone claims a mistake, they must present valid sharʿī evidence to substantiate it.
✔ The Qur’an itself was preserved through human memory and writing.
◈ If the mere possibility of human error invalidates a work, then the preservation of the Qur’an itself would come under question — which is unacceptable, as Allah has guaranteed its preservation.
✔ The defenders of the Qur’an in all eras have also believed in Ḥadīth.
✘ The Ḥadīth rejecters have not contributed significantly to the defense or interpretation of the Qur’an.
✔ Scholars of Ḥadīth have rigorously examined even Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, and responses to critiques have always been provided.
✔ Rather than targeting Imām al-Bukhārī’s person, the critics should examine his methodology and scholarship.
✔ Ḥadīth is waḥy maʿnawī, divinely guided in meaning, and its authenticity has been preserved through scholarly precision.
✔ Rejection based on misunderstood objections reflects ignorance of ḥadīth sciences, not sound reasoning.
Source: Academic Discourse on Ḥadīth Sciences
❖ Objection 1: “Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is considered Divine Revelation”
This is a common claim raised by Hadith rejecters, who allege that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is wrongly equated with the Qur'an in its authority.
Clarification:
◉ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is not revelation (waḥy):
No scholar claims that everything in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is divine revelation from Allah.
◉ Difference between Ḥadīth and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:
- Ḥadīth refers to the sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet ﷺ.
- Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is a collection that includes ḥadīth alongside statements of Companions, Tābiʿīn, and other scholars.
◉ Ḥadīth is “Waḥy Maʿnawī”:
Ḥadīth is considered inspired in meaning, even though the wording is from the Prophet ﷺ or the narrator. It is not the Qur’anic form of revelation, but it is still divinely guided.
❖ Scholarly Critique on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī
Scholars of Ḥadīth themselves have reviewed and critiqued individual narrations within Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
Examples:
◈ Imām al-Dāraquṭnī (رحمه الله)
Critiqued certain narrations in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim.
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (رحمه الله)
Declared both Ṣaḥīḥayn (Bukhārī & Muslim) as authentic in totality, except for very few places where scholars have discussed or critiqued some narrators or chains.
(Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 45)
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله)
Addressed these critiques in “Hady al-Sārī” and “Fatḥ al-Bārī”, offering detailed responses to Dāraquṭnī's objections.
❖ Other Scholarly Contributions:
◈ Imām Nawawī (رحمه الله) — Responded to critiques in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
◈ ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Ismāʿīl ibn Khulafūn — “Rafʿ al-Tamārī fī man Tukullima Fīhī min Rijāl al-Bukhārī”
◈ ʿAllāmah Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm — “al-Tawḍīḥ li-l-Awhām al-Wāqiʿah fī al-Ṣaḥīḥ”
❖ Specific Examples:
✔ Ibn Ḥazm’s Objection — Criticized a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
✔ Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) — Rebutted this critique in al-Bidāyah, Vol. 4, p. 145 with a detailed risālah.
✔ Miʿrāj Narration of Anas (RA) — Faced objections, responded to by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ṭāhir with an entire booklet.
❖ Contemporary Defense:
◈ Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī
Wrote a detailed commentary on Dāraquṭnī’s work “al-Istidrāk wa al-Tatabbuʿ”, clarifying misunderstandings and resolving objections.
❖ The Consensus of the Muḥaddithīn
✔ Unanimous stance of Ḥadīth scholars:
If a narration is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī or Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and no classical scholar objected to it, it is accepted by consensus (ijmāʿ).
✘ If someone today objects to it without basis, he is violating the consensus of Ahl al-Ḥadīth.
❖ Objection: “Imām al-Bukhārī was not infallible”
Hadith rejecters argue that since Imām al-Bukhārī was not maʿṣūm (infallible), he could have erred.
Response:
◉ Difference between possibility and actual error:
Yes, human error is possible — but alleging error requires proof, just like in any court of law.
✔ If someone claims a mistake, they must present valid sharʿī evidence to substantiate it.
❖ Human Effort & Qur’anic Preservation
✔ The Qur’an itself was preserved through human memory and writing.
- Written by scribes
- Memorized by companions
- Compiled by scholars
◈ If the mere possibility of human error invalidates a work, then the preservation of the Qur’an itself would come under question — which is unacceptable, as Allah has guaranteed its preservation.
❖ Reality of the Ḥadīth Rejecters
✔ The defenders of the Qur’an in all eras have also believed in Ḥadīth.
✘ The Ḥadīth rejecters have not contributed significantly to the defense or interpretation of the Qur’an.
❖ Summary:
✔ Scholars of Ḥadīth have rigorously examined even Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, and responses to critiques have always been provided.
✔ Rather than targeting Imām al-Bukhārī’s person, the critics should examine his methodology and scholarship.
✔ Ḥadīth is waḥy maʿnawī, divinely guided in meaning, and its authenticity has been preserved through scholarly precision.
✔ Rejection based on misunderstood objections reflects ignorance of ḥadīth sciences, not sound reasoning.
