Dec 18, 2008  Jamal al-Banna, a younger brother of Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) has just published a book in which he argues that 653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted. The Arabic book is titled The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths (2008). The Arabic book is titled The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths (2008). We say that not a single hadith of these books is trustworthy. We say that not a single hadith of these books is trustworthy.

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 prophet and indeed any human can have mistakes. Also a 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 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. Vanessa mae full discography torrent. 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. This is Sunni perspective.

Sahih Al-Bukhari is considered completely authentic by (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.

Tipovaya programma obucheniya po promishlennoj bezopasnosti rk. Ze kwam binnen en keek eens rond. Nog niet erg druk. Ze zag Alayna en Artanis en zwaaide naar ze. Zelf was ze niet van plan mee te doen, dan zong ze liever echt dan dat ze playbackte. Razvitie kontseptsii // Set' po okazaniyu pomoshchi litsam, prestupivshim zakon, v Arkhangel'skoy oblasti. V permskoe ZS vnesena programma zakrepleniya.

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.