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

                Are all the ahaadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari saheeh (sound)?.
Praise be to Allah.
    The Saheeh of Imam Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn 
    Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari is the soundest book of narration after the Book of 
    Allaah. The scholars, muhaddithoon (scholars of hadeeth) and hafizes all 
    bear witness to its high status in terms of authenticity and precision. 
    al-Haafiz Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Salaah said in Siyaanat Saheeh Muslim (p. 
    86), with his isnaad going back to Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni that he 
    said: 

    If any man were to swear that he would divorce his wife if it 
    were not the case that what is in the books of al-Bukhaari and Muslim is 
    what they ruled to be sound of the words of the Prophet  (peace and 
    blessings of Allaah be upon him), then divorce would not be binding upon 
    him, and he would not be breaking his oath, because the Muslim scholars are 
    unanimously agreed that they are saheeh. End quote. 

    This is not far-fetched, because al-Bukhaari is the great 
    imam and hafiz to whose memory and precision all the muhaddithoon bore 
    witness. He used to ask Allaah for guidance (by praying istikhaarah) and 
    pray two rak'ahs concerning every hadeeth he included in his book, until he 
    completed it in this manner. 

    Even though we are aware that there are some minor criticisms 
    levelled at a few ahaadeeth that are recorded in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, 
    we are certain that there is nothing wrong with applying the label of saheeh 
    to all the ahaadeeth in the book, for the following reasons: 

    1.

    Most of the scholars and muhaddithoon think that Imam 
    al-Bukhaari is in the right with regard to matters for which he was 
    criticized. It is well known that it is not correct methodology to accept 
    criticism just because it exists, rather it depends on evidence and proof. 
    Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him), in his great book 
    Fath al-Baari and especially in his introduction which is called 
    Hadiy al-Saari, discussed the answer to these minor criticisms, and 
    explained what is correct. 

    2.

    The number of ahaadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, 
    including repetitions – according to the numbering of Muhammad Fu’aad ‘Abd 
    al-Baaqi (may Allaah have mercy on him) – is 7563. When we realize that the 
    number of criticisms is less than twenty, and that 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 that the criticisms which have to do with matters 
    affecting the soundness of the matn (text) are rare and affect no more than 
    one or two or three ahaadeeth – when we know all that, we realize that 
    applying the label of saheeh to everything that is in al-Bukhaari, texts and 
    isnaads, is correct and cannot be denied. 

    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. End quote. 

    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. End quote. 

    Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (18/74). 

    Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said, answering criticism of Saheeh 
    al-Bukhaari: 

    The answer to that in general terms is: 

    There is no doubt that al-Bukhaari and then Muslim are 
    superior to the people of their own era and the imams of this branch of 
    knowledge who came after them in finding out what is saheeh or sound and 
    what is mu’allal or faulty. The scholars did not differ concerning the fact 
    that ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni was the most knowledgeable of his peers about ‘ilal 
    al-hadeeth (faults of hadeeth) and that al-Bukhaari learned that from him. 
    He used to say: I did not feel myself inferior to anyone except ‘Ali ibn 
    al-Madeeni. Nevertheless, when ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni heard about al-Bukhaati 
    saying that he said: Ignore what he says, for he has never seen anyone like 
    himself. Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Dhuhali was the most knowledgeable of his era 
    about faults in the hadeeth of al-Zuhri, and both of the two shaykhs (i.e., 
    al-Bukhaari and Muslim) learned that from him. Al-Farbari narrated that 
    al-Bukhaari said: I did not include any hadeeth in al-Saheeh until 
    after I prayed istikhaarah, asking Allaah for guidance, and being certain of 
    its soundness. Makki ibn ‘Abd-Allaah said: I heard Muslim ibn al-Hajjaaj 
    say: I showed this book of mine to Abu Zur’ah al-Raazi and every report in 
    which he indicated there was some fault in it, I omitted it. Once it is 
    known and established that they did not narrate any hadeeth except those in 
    which there were no faults, or in which there were faults but they did not 
    damage the hadeeth in their view, then the view of the one who criticized 
    them is to be understood as being opposed to what they determined was sound. 
    Therefore there is no doubt that they have more knowledge than others 
    concerning that, so this criticism carries little weight. This is in 
    general. 

    But with regard to the details of the matter, the ahaadeeth 
    which have been criticized may be divided into categories: 

    1.

    Those concerning which the narrators differed, adding or 
    omitting names in the isnaad. If the author of al-Saheeh narrated it 
    with a longer isnaad, and the critic criticized it on the basis of the 
    shorter isnaad, then it is a criticism that is to be rejected.  And if the 
    author of al-Saheeh narrated it with the shorter isnaad and the 
    critic criticized it on the basis of the longer isnaad, then his objection 
    implies that there is an interruption in the isnaad of the hadeeth which is 
    regarded as saheeh by the author [i.e., al-Bukhaari]. The answer on behalf 
    of the author of al-Saheeh is that he narrated such reports because 
    there are other, corroborating reports or other evidence for regarding it as 
    strong, and for that reason the hadeeth is strengthened to the point of 
    being saheeh. 

    2. 

    Where the reports differ in that the names of some men in the 
    isnaad are changed. The answer to this is that just because there is a 
    difference in some of the names of the isnaad it does not mean that this is 
    proof of a fault, because mere differences do not mean that there is a 
    problem which renders the hadeeth da’eef (weak). Therefore this argument 
    should also be ignored.  

    3.

    Where some narrators narrated additional material that is not 
    present in the reports which were narrated by many narrators or where 
    narrators who were known for greater precision did not narrate this 
    additional material. This does not mean that the hadeeth is to be regarded 
    as faulty unless the additional material contradicts it in such a way that 
    it is too difficult to reconcile the two. But if it is not difficult to 
    reconcile the additional material with the hadeeth then it does not mean 
    that the hadeeth is to be regarded as faulty, unless there is strong 
    evidence that the additional material that is narrated alongside the hadeeth 
    is the words of one of the narrators. What comes under this category is 
    something to be taken into account, as in hadeeth no. 34. 

    4.

    What is narrated only by some narrators who are those who are 
    classed as da’eef or weak. There is nothing of this type in al-Saheeh 
    apart from two hadeeths, and it became clear that they both have 
    corroborating evidence. 

    5.

    Hadeeth in which some of the men of the isnaad are determined 
    to have been confused. In some cases this confusion may damage the hadeeth 
    and in other cases it does not. 

    6.

    Cases where there are differences in the wording of the text. 
    Most cases of this type do not lead to regarding the hadeeth as faulty, 
    because it is possible to reconcile the differences, or determine which is 
    more correct. But Daaraqutni and other imams did not examine this issue with 
    regard to these two books as they discussed the issue of isnaads. What they 
    did not examine in this regard includes: the hadeeth of Jaabir which tells 
    the story of the camel; his hadeeth concerning the paying off of his 
    father’s debt; the hadeeth of Raafi’ ibn Khudayj about al-mukhaabarah; the 
    hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah concerning the story of Dhu’l-Yadayn; the hadeeth of 
    Sahl ibn Sa’d concerning the story of the woman who offered herself in 
    marriage to the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); 
    the hadeeth of Anas about starting recitation of al-Faatihah with the words 
    “al-hamdu Lillaahi Rabbi l-‘aalameen”; the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas about the 
    case of the woman who asked about the vows of her mother and sister; and 
    others. 

    This is a summary of the categories of criticism levelled at 
    al-Saheeh according to the imams. I have listed them, examined them, 
    categorized them and explained them, and none of them undermine the basic 
    matter of al-Saheeh, praise be to Allaah, except in a few rare cases. End 
    quote. 

    Hadiy al-Saari (345-346) 

    See also the answer to question no. 
    20153 

    And Allaah knows best.