Buhârî'nin, es-Sahih isimli eserine sadece sahih hadisleri aldığını beyan etmesine rağmen içindeki pek çok hadis ravisinin eleştirildiği bilinmektedir. İbn Hacer ise es-Sahih'e yazdığı şerhi Fethu'l-Bârî ve bunun mukaddimesi olan Hedyu's-Sârî' isimli eserlerinde, eleştirilen pek çok Buhârî ravisini savunmuştur. Bu makalenin konusu, İbn Hacer'in Hedyu's-Sârî isimli eserinde savunduğu, yalancılıkla itham edilen Buhârî ravileridir. Makale, hem İbn Hacer'in bu eserdeki ilgili ravileri savunmada kullandığı metot ve argümanları, hem de ilgili raviler hakkındaki diğer münekkitlerin görüşlerini içermektedir. Bu görüşler karşılaştırmalı bir yöntemle değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca bu ravilerden haksız yere eleştirilen ya da savunulması zor olanların bulunup bulunmadığı tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Yaptığımız incelemede on bir Buhârî ravisinin yalancılıkla itham edildiği görülmüştür. Bu ravilerden iki tanesi pek çok münekkide göre yalancıdır; hadislerine asla güvenilmez. Bu ikisinin yalancı olduğunu İbn Hacer de kabul etmektedir. İki ravi, bazı münekkitlerin kişisel düşmanlık, mezhep taassubu nedeniyle yalancılıkla itham edilmiştir. Bir ravi de isim karışıklığı nedeniyle yalancı sayılmıştır. Bu üç ravi pek çok münekkide göre oldukça güvenilir ravilerdir. Diğer ravilerin yalancı olduklarına dair yeterli delil bulunmamaktadır. Ancak bu ravilerin, hata, unutma, karıştırma, bunama, yalancı veya güvenilir olmayan ravilerden hadis alma gibi kusurları bulunmaktadır. Bu ravilerin rivayetleri klasik hadis usulü kurallarına göre sahih sayılmamaktadır. Bunun anlamı ise Buhârî'nin es-Sahîh isimli eserinde zayıf rivayetlerin de bulunduğudur

Although Bukhari declared that he only had included authentic hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari, it is known that many of the narrators of hadith have been criticized. However, Ibn Hajar stood up for the most of the Bukhari’s narrators in his book which is called Fathul Bari Sharah Sahih al-Bukhari and it’s introduction Hedyu al-Sari. The subject of this article is the Bukhari’s narrators who are accused of lying and who are defended by Ibn Hajar in his book Fathul Bari Sharah Sahih al-Bukhari. This article includes both İbn Hajar’s methods and arguments that he used on defending these narrators and other critics’s opinions about them. These opinions have been discussed with a comparative method. Ibn Hajar’s attitude toward these narrators is studied. Also, it was analyzed to find whether any of the narrators were unfairly criticized or not and to detect if there was anyone who is hard to advocate for. The investigation we conducted showed us that eleven narrators of Bukhari were accused of lying. According to many critics, two of these narrators are liars; their hadiths can never be trusted. Ibn Hajar also accepted that these two are liars. Two narrators are accused of lying because of sectarian bigotry, personal enmity of some critic. Another narrator is accused of lying due to name similarity. These three narrators are very trusted by many critics. There is not enough evidence on whether the other narrators are liars too. However, they have flaws such as making mistakes, forgetfulness, confusion, dementia, taking hadiths from untrustworthy or lying narrators. These narrators’s stories are not considered authentic according to classic hadith rules. This means there are also weak hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari This article is prepared by expanding a declaration that has been presented and summarized in 5th International Conference on Science Culture and Sport that estabilished in Kazakhstan on April 13-15, 2016 under the title of “Tracing the footsteps of Ahmad Yasawi: An urgent need for global understanding, solidarity, and tolerance.” Although Bukhari declared that he only had included authentic hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari, it is known that many of the narrators of hadith have been criticized. However, Ibn Hajar stood up for the most of the Bukhari’s narrators in his book which is called Fathul Bari Sharah Sahih al-Bukhari and it’s introduction Hedyu al-Sari. The subject of this article is the Bukhari’s narrators who are accused of lying and who are defended by Ibn Hajar in his book Fathul Bari Sharah Sahih al-Bukhari. This article includes both İbn Hajar’s methods and arguments that he used on defending these narrators and other critics’s opinions about them. These opinions have been discussed with a comparative method. Ibn Hajar’s attitude toward these narrators is studied. Also, it was analyzed to find whether any of the narrators were unfairly criticized or not and to detect if there was anyone who is hard to advocate for. The investigation we conducted showed us that eleven narrators of Bukhari were accused of lying. According to many critics, two of these narrators are liars; their hadiths can never be trusted. Ibn Hajar also accepted that these two are liars. Two narrators are accused of lying because of sectarian bigotry, personal enmity of some critic. Another narrator is accused of lying due to name similarity. These three narrators are very trusted by many critics. There is not enough evidence on whether the other narrators are liars too. However, they have flaws such as making mistakes, forgetfulness, confusion, dementia, taking hadiths from untrustworthy or lying narrators. These narrators’s stories are not considered authentic according to classic hadith rules. This means there are also weak hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari. The article consist of five major topics excluding the introduction. In “introduction” the reason for choosing this topic and “hadiths narrators lying” and “accusing hadith narrators of lying” in hadith criticisms and the importance of these terms in criticising hadith narrators is highlighted. Analysing on Narrators In the second part, confusing hadith narrators because of name similarities is studied. These consist of Ahmad b. Saleh al-Masrî and Ismael b. Abaan after our researc, it is revealed that there is not a name confusion regarding Ahmad b. Saleh al-Masrî famaus traditionist Nasaî, bear a grudge against him because of his personal feelings. In the end Nasaî probably made it look like it was Ahmad b. Saleh al-Masrî who was accused of lying when in reality it was someone else with a similar name. Also, it came to light that Ismael b. Abaan too was confused with someone else with the same name. According to this Bukhari narrator Ismael alVarrak is a reliable hadith narrator. The other Ismael al-Ganawî is a hadith forger. In the third part, two hadith narrators named Sabet b. Mohammad al-Abed and Abdollah b. Sabet al-Masrî al-Cuhanî are studied. Ibn Hajar protected them because according to him they did not lie deliveretaly. In the forth part, five hadith narrators who had faults but where not liar are studied. These are al-Hasan b. Mudrek as-Sadusî, Saed b. Yahya b. Saleh al-Lahmî, Mualla b. Mansour ar-Razî, Ikrime b. Abdollah al-Barbarî and Mohammad b. Talha b. Musarrıf al-Koufî. Ibn Hajar mostly advocated for Ikrime b. Abdollah al-Barbarî. In the fifth part two hadith narrators who Ibn Hajar did not reject the idea that them being liars are studied these narrators are Aseed b. Zayd al-Jamal and Hasan b. Umara. These two narrators are reviewed by all critics. The most important of these criticism is that they were hadiths forgers. Results After our research, we came up with these results: a)In Bukhari’s as-Saheeh even Ibn Hajar an expounder who ignored Bukhari’s faults, had to admit that there were two lying narrator. Ibn Hajar defended these narrators because they had transfered only a few hadiths or they said that other narrators had supported these hadiths. b)Many of Bukhari’s narrators who were accused of lying are not really liars. But they have different mistakes regarding justice and restraining. I shows that there are weak hadiths in Bukhari’s as-Saheeh when it comes to classical hadith principles. c)Three of Bukhari’s hadiths narrators are accused of lying because of name similarities, personal ambitions and crities sect fanaticism. d)According to Ibn Hajar some of Bukhari’s narrators who were accused of lying are not easy to defend. Ibn Hajar tried to make these accusitions insignificant by justifying the fewness of the hadiths they transfered. e)According to Ibn Hajar other hadiths narrators agreement on accused narrators narration is enough to clarify their names however, every narrators of hadiths narrations are evaluated separately. In this case, no matter how often the narration of a Bukhari narration is to be concluded, he can not escape being weak. f) Ibn Hajar was fair in the evalvation of narrators and in the transfer of critics comments on these narrators. But he ignored the mistakes of some of the narrators he defended and he did not include some comments that were made against them in Hadyu’s-Saarî. As a result Bukhari’s as-Saheeh which gained a charismatic authority through the historical process is not completely free from mistekes. Ibn Hajar sometimes took sides in Hadyu’s-Saarî which he wrote to defend him. Consequently, it is critical to examine hadiths that are located in such works thoroughly.