[size=14pt]SARUMI, SHAYKH HABIB AND SAHIH al-BUKHARI (Part I)[/size]

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful


Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ Sarumi, in his video titled Tani Imam Bukhari (1), gave two challenges to Shaykh Ḥabībullāh Ādam al-Ilory (28:24 mins – 29:11 mins):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNJoKiP6afU

"You the Director of al-Markaz, whom people call Shaykh Ḥabībullāh Ādam al-Ilory, please, for God’s sake, show us the source where you found that Imām al-Bukhārī was not the one who compiled Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Moreover, your claim that (Ṣaḥīḥ) al-Bukhārī was compiled after one hundred years, we challenge you, tell us where this is mentioned. And also tell us the names of those who did the compilation, just as we mention the religious books and scholars that have explained Imām al-Bukhārī to us."


[size=14pt]OUR INVESTIGATIONS[/size]

Even though it is not directed at us, we voluntarily take up that challenge. Shaykh Sarumi assumes that his copy of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī was published from an original manuscript of the book, handwritten by Imām Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī himself. However, in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, in the “Book of the Beginning of Revelation” (كتاب بدء الوحي), under this chapter:

باب بدء الوحي

We find this statement:
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=0&bookhad=1

"In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. The Book of the Beginning of Revelation. The Chapter of the Beginning of Revelation. Shaykh, Imām, Ḥāfiẓ Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Mughīrah al-Bukhārī, raḥimahullāh ta’ālā, amīn, said:"

Did al-Bukhārī really write that?! In particular, this statement was obviously written after the death of al-Bukhārī. This was why its author added raḥimahullāh, a traditional prayer for dead people.


Moreover, in the same Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, in the “Book of Gifts” (كتاب الهبة وفضلها والتحريض عليها), under this chapter:
باب من أهدى إلى صاحبه وتحرى بعض نسائه دون بعض

We find this:
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=0&ID=1641&idfrom=2444&idto=2445&bookid=0&startno=1

Al-Bukhārī said: “The last statement is the story of Fāṭimah narrated from Hishām b. ‘Urwah, from a man, from al-Zuhrī, from Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Raḥman.”

We ask Shaykh Sarumi. Do you seriously believe that Imām al-Bukhārī wrote that in the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in our hands today?

Finally, in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, in the “Book of Knowledge” (كتاب العلم), under this chapter:
باب ما جاء في العلم وقوله تعالى وقل رب زدني علما

We find this report:
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=63&idto=63&bk_no=0&ID=51

Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Farabrī informed us, and Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī narrated to us, saying: ‘Ubayd Allāh b. Mūsā narrated to us, that Sufyān said: “When it (i.e. a ḥadīth) is read to a ḥadīth scholar, there is no problem if he says: ‘he narrated to me.’”

Who exactly wrote this? Was it truly al-Bukhārī? Or was it someone else? Moreover, this person narrated from al-Farabrī, the student of al-Bukhārī. Therefore, it definitely was not al-Bukhārī. So, who was this anonymous figure, the real compiler of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in our hands today? Of course, it is apparent that he had narrated the book from al-Farabrī (d. 320 H); and al-Farabrī had narrated it from al-Bukhārī (d. 256 H). Yet, there are a few problems created by this reality. If this anonymous compiler remains unidentifiable, then every chain of transmission in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī becomes majhūl (unknown), and therefore ḍa’īf (weak), due to him. Thus, we must know him, and we must find evidence that he was trustworthy and reliable.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, in his Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 1, p. 8, records a report which seems to identify this anonymous narrator:
http://islamport.com/w/srh/Web/2747/6.htm
Imām Abū al-Walīd al-Bājī al-Mālikī has explained the reason for that in the introduction to his book about the names of the narrators of al-Bukhārī:

Al-Hāfiẓ Abū Dharr ‘Abd al-Raḥīm b. Aḥmad al-Harwī – al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad al-Mustamlī:

“I copied the book of al-Bukhārī from his original manuscript, which was with his companion, Muhammad b. Yūsuf al-Farabrī. I saw that he had not completed many things in it; there were many blank pages there, including some subchapter headings under which he had not written anything, and some aḥādīth for which he had not written any subchapter heading. So we added some of those to the others.”

He was al-Mustamlī (d. 376 H). He claimed to have seen al-Bukhārī’s own handwritten copy of his Ṣaḥīḥ with al-Farabrī. In his testimony, he confirmed that al-Bukhārī actually died without completing the book. So, al-Mustamlī clearly made changes to the text of the book while copying it, and effectively completed it. Therefore, the compiler and completer of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, as we have it today, was none other than al-Mustamlī. If others had also compiled their own copies, we do not have theirs. We have only the version of al-Mustamlī.


We believe that this sufficiently answers the challenge of Shaykh Sarumi. We have provided the “source” which proves that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, as it is in our hands today, was NOT compiled by Imām al-Bukhārī himself. Rather, what we have is only al-Mustamlī’s recension. That “source” is Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī itself!


Meanwhile, the oldest known extant manuscript of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī was written in 370 H, according to the popular Salafī fatwā website, IslamQA:
https://islamqa.info/en/193912

If you want to ask about how old the manuscripts that are extant today are, the Orientalist Manjana said in Cambridge in 1936 CE that the oldest manuscript he had come across up to that point was written in 370 AH, according to the narration of al-Mirwazi from al-Farbari. See Tareekh at-Turaath by Fu’aad Sizkeen (1/228).


Please note that al-Mirwazī (d. 371 H) is better known as Abū Zayd al-Mirwazī, or simply Abū Zayd. He was different from al-Mustamlī.

Al-Bukhārī died in 256 H. So, this means that the earliest surviving manuscript – that of Abū Zayd – was written 114 years after al-Bukhārī’s death. Even then, a Salafī researcher, Shaykh Dr. Aḥmad Fāris al-Salūm, gained access to this ancient manuscript and gives this report:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=524439&postcount=1

"As for this manuscript – the manuscript of Abū Zayd – what exists of it are 52 pages."

Considering that Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, as we know it, is a book of nine huge volumes, this tiny manuscript of Abū Zayd is apparently of very little – if any – value. Worse still, its writer is unknown, as Dr. al-Salūm confirms:

"The writer started the volume with an explicit statement that he heard (it) from Abū Zayd … It is not clear to me who the author of the manuscript was, and there is nothing in the manuscript that gives any information concerning that."

By Abu Fatimah al-Ilory
http://jabatacheck..com.ng/2016/05/sarumi-shaykh-habib-and-sahih-al.html

To be continued in sha Allah

Jazaakallah kha
yran.
I have been thinking on ways to enlighten those that were raining abuses on aLSheikh Habeebullah Aadam alIlory concerning the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari without insulting anyone.
Hamdu LillahI found this reply worthy. More so I am not a lettered Islamic scholar but one who loves to be on the side of the righteous.
I will like to associate with you. My number is 08037232201.

^In sha Allah you can read more on our blog:
http://jabatacheck..ca/

Then more on Sahih Bukhari and Muslim:
https://www.nairaland.com/1501204/how-true-narrations-sahih-bukhari

Criminal Rafidi Shia!!! Always busy calling to hell.

I pity you, you better repent!
If Bukharee didn't write it, it's your village Chief who wrote it abi?!

A book that was dictated to tens of thousands of people after its completion and reported with several authentic chains from his students.
Only a dumb ignoramus will even think your claim to be close to the truth.

And that Habeeb that can't even recite suratul fatiha correctly is talking and people are calling him sheikh! So pathetic, the stark ignorance our people are suffering from! A person who has never published 10 pages in his life, he goes on the TV and rants insults on scholars who spent their lives from birth to death, day and night in the service of knowledge!!!
For your information, the University of Azhar, in Egypt has declared it's disclaimer from that Agege institute! Habeeb has destroyed the hard work of his father with his hideous tongue and stinking arrogance!
He is in no way close to being a scholar, apart from the crap he's saying.

He started by saying that his father is better than Ibn Baaz and Albany and that his father is highly knowledgeable but all what he is saying contradicts his father's books. But his father is in line with those people this criminal son is insulting.

Before, he praise Soheeh bukharee and condemned Albany's books. Now, he is insulting bukharee too and praising muwatta of Malik.
Then he started insulting Saudi government.
He is coming little by little, a typical shia misguidance taqiyyah. By next year, he will come and say the Quran has been distorted and he will stretch his condemned tongue at the companions rodiyaLLaahu anhum just as this caller to hell has been doing on this forum.

Only Allah can recompense these deviants for their evils!!!

Newnas:
Criminal Rafidi Shia!!! Always busy calling to hell.

I pity you, you better repent!
If Bukharee didn't write it, it's your village Chief who wrote it abi?!

A book that was dictated to tens of thousands of people after its completion and reported with several authentic chains from his students.
Only a dumb ignoramus will even think your claim to be close to the truth.

And that Habeeb that can't even recite suratul fatiha correctly is talking and people are calling him sheikh! So pathetic, the stark ignorance our people are suffering from! A person who has never published 10 pages in his life, he goes on the TV and rants insults on scholars who spent their lives from birth to death, day and night in the service of knowledge!!!
For your information, the University of Azhar, in Egypt has declared it's disclaimer from that Agege institute! Habeeb has destroyed the hard work of his father with his hideous tongue and stinking arrogance!
He is in no way close to being a scholar, apart from the crap he's saying.

He started by saying that his father is better than Ibn Baaz and Albany and that his father is highly knowledgeable but all what he is saying contradicts his father's books. But his father is in line with those people this criminal son is insulting.

Before, he praise Soheeh bukharee and condemned Albany's books. Now, he is insulting bukharee too and praising muwatta of Malik.
Then he started insulting Saudi government.
He is coming little by little, a typical shia misguidance taqiyyah. By next year, he will come and say the Quran has been distorted and he will stretch his condemned tongue at the companions rodiyaLLaahu anhum just as this caller to hell has been doing on this forum.

Only Allah can recompense these deviants for their evils!!!

Can't we hear our selves out without throwing insults around? What is wrong with the Muslim world self? If you have a counter argument, present it in a clear manner and through that, we achieve results. What's hard to do in that? Shia ko, Chair ni

And the following junks are classified Sahih?

Imam Bukhari in Kitab ghusl document the following:

Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in an hour ( السَّاعَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ), during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (s) was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 268
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 21
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 268
(deprecated numbering scheme)


Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 284
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 36
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 282
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/5

NB: Observe how the prophet was portrayed with this insatiable desire for sex! Having sex with eleven women within an hour during the day and night, no taking of bath after the first one but approach the second with secretion...How can a man throw himself upon his wife without any pre-intimacy even animals do pre-intimacy. Why will the prophet disregard his own saying: "Do not approach your wife like an animal but instead do something that attract them and you". We can ask Anas b. Malik how he managed to report that?
Those are the impersonation of the holy Prophet in the infallible sahih Bukhari.

Since we've created this thread exposing the so-called Sahih Bukhari with a daunting challenge that Imam Bukhari was not the author of the alleged "Sahih" claimed in his name, our wahabi/salafi folks continue to be mute.

# The challenge is still wide open. Prove us wrong please.

AlBaqir:
Since we've created this thread exposing the so-called Sahih Bukhari with a daunting challenge that Imam Bukhari was not the author of the alleged "Sahih" claimed in his name, our wahabi/salafi folks continue to be mute.

# The challenge is still wide open. Prove us wrong please.

It's because they don't know anything. They thrive on unnecessary rigidity and also lack critical thinking

AlBaqir:
And the following junks are classified Sahih?

Imam Bukhari in Kitab ghusl document the following:

Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in an hour ( السَّاعَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ), during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (s) was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 268
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 21
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 268
(deprecated numbering scheme)


Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 284
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 36
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 282
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/5

NB: Observe how the prophet was portrayed with this insatiable desire for sex! Having sex with eleven women within an hour during the day and night, no taking of bath after the first one but approach the second with secretion...How can a man throw himself upon his wife without any pre-intimacy even animals do pre-intimacy. Why will the prophet disregard his own saying: "Do not approach your wife like an animal but instead do something that attract them and you". We can ask Anas b. Malik how he managed to report that?
Those are the impersonation of the holy Prophet in the infallible sahih Bukhari.

So you just come to realize that our noble prophet (peace be upon me) love sexx so much that imam bukhari even recorded it in the hadith? This hadith is authentic bro!

AlBaqir:
Since we've created this thread exposing the so-called Sahih Bukhari with a daunting challenge that Imam Bukhari was not the author of the alleged "Sahih" claimed in his name, our wahabi/salafi folks continue to be mute.

# The challenge is still wide open. Prove us wrong please.

As a shia, please don't condemn Sahih Bukhari in Saudi Arabia, you can do that in Iran. The Saudi Sunnis see Sahih Bukhari's hadith as the most important religious document after the quran.

allahh knows best!

AlBaqir:
Since we've created this thread exposing the so-called Sahih Bukhari with a daunting challenge that Imam Bukhari was not the author of the alleged "Sahih" claimed in his name, our wahabi/salafi folks continue to be mute.

# The challenge is still wide open. Prove us wrong please.

If you condemn Sahih Bukhari, will you also condemn sirah rasool allahh by ibn ishaq? Many of ibn ishaq's works are duplicated in the imam Bukhari's hadith. Over 80% of Islamic laws and jurisprudence are found inside imam Bukhari's hadith. Without sahih Bukhari, there will be serious void in Islamic theology, VI's a vis the issuance of various fatwas.

proudkafir:
If you condemn Sahih Bukhari, will you also condemn sirah rasool allahh by ibn ishaq? Many of ibn ishaq's works are duplicated in the imam Bukhari's hadith. Over 80% of Islamic laws and jurisprudence are found inside imam Bukhari's hadith. Without sahih Bukhari, there will be serious void in Islamic theology, VI's a vis the issuance of various fatwas.

No. Just certain narrations. The basic Laws of Islam are mentioned directly in the Quran for common crimes and sins. I hope you had listened to or watched sheikh Albani's (ra) criticisms of sahih bukhari?. He had to weaken some sahih ahadith.

This is similar to what sheikh Adam Abdullah Al-ilory (ra)said, that there are some ahadith that can not be rectified. They are better done away with.

Empiree:
No. Just certain narrations. The basic Laws of Islam are mentioned directly in the Quran for common crimes and sins. I hope you had listened to or watched sheikh Albani's (ra) criticisms of sahih bukhari?. He had to weaken some sahih ahadith.

This is similar to what sheikh Adam Abdullah Al-ilory (ra)said, that there are some ahadith that can not be rectified. They are better done away with.

I said 'many' narrations are duplicated from sirah rasool Allah and not 'most'. The sirah came before before the hadith.

As i said earlier, most Islamic laws are found in the hadith. I know you hold the Qur'an in high esteem, but you need to face the reality.

Empiree:
No. Just certain narrations. The basic Laws of Islam are mentioned directly in the Quran for common crimes and sins. I hope you had listened to or watched sheikh Albani's (ra) criticisms of sahih bukhari?. He had to weaken some sahih ahadith.

This is similar to what sheikh Adam Abdullah Al-ilory (ra)said, that there are some ahadith that can not be rectified. They are better done away with.

Don't fall for his antics, he is saying absolute rubbish.

Raintaker:
Don't fall for his antics, he is saying absolute rubbish.

lol

proudkafir:
I said 'many' narrations are duplicated from sirah rasool Allah and not 'most'. The sirah came before before the hadith.

As i said earlier, most Islamic laws are found in the hadith. I know you hold the Qur'an in high esteem, but you need to face the reality.

I forgot to pay attention to your MONIKER

Empiree:
I forgot to pay attention to your MONIKER

That's the reason I never bother myself with him. He's an imposter.

Empiree:
I forgot to pay attention to your MONIKER

Don't mind my moniker, pay attention to my message. Sahih Bukhari's hadith is the most authentic religious instrument, in Islam, after the Quran, at least among the Sunnis (90% of Muslims worldwide). Most Islamic beliefs and practices are found in the hadith. The shia may not accept Bukhari's hadith, this doesn't make it less important to the Muslim ummah.

Remove the hadith, the Quran will make no sense.

Allah knows the best.

proudkafir:
Don't mind my moniker, pay attention to my message. Sahih Bukhari's hadith is the most authentic religious instrument, in Islam, after the Quran, at least among the Sunnis (90% of Muslims worldwide). Most Islamic beliefs and practices are found in the hadith. The shia may not accept Bukhari's hadith, this doesn't make it less important to the Muslim ummah.

Remove the hadith, the Quran will make no sense.

Allah knows the best.

we know the antics of kafir like you. What do you know?. You wanna teach us our religion?. You have a long way to go, buddy

proudkafir:
Don't mind my moniker, pay attention to my message. Sahih Bukhari's hadith is the most authentic religious instrument, in Islam, after the Quran, at least among the Sunnis (90% of Muslims worldwide). Most Islamic beliefs and practices are found in the hadith. The shia may not accept Bukhari's hadith, this doesn't make it less important to the Muslim ummah.

Remove the hadith, the Quran will make no sense.

Allah knows the best.

# Technically there are four school of thoughts in Sunni world: Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Abu Hanifah. All of them were Bukhari's predecessors; meaning Bukhari's so-called Sahih never existed before they made their books/school of laws. Today, majority of Sunni Muslims are followers of the school of Abu Hanifah. Therefore, I wonder where you got it from that most of Islamic beliefs and practice are found in the Bukhari's hadith.


# Bukhari's sahih is only common among the Salafi/wahabi sect who are minority Sunni brand but have a very powerful propagation making Bukhari as the second book after Qur'an.

# If there is any book in Sunni world worthy of being Sahih, it is al-Muwatta of Imam Malik. This is because Imam Malik was a Tabi'i who saw and reported most of his reports from the sahabah.

AlBaqir:



# If there is any book in Sunni world worthy of being Sahih, it is al-Muwatta of Imam Malik. This is because Imam Malik was a Tabi'i who saw and reported most of his reports from the sahabah.

this is so true. Muwatta of Imam Malik is like going extinct. Used to be very common when i was going up.

Well, Oga Shia and Suffy Empire!

I know you will always renew your efforts to bring down the deen of Allah by:

a. Debasing the authentic hadiths and

b. Dabasing the Sahabahs.

Anyways Sahih Bukhari is Sahih to us and will always remain so.

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).

Also read https://www.nairaland.com/4432664/refutation-one-casts-aspersions-upon

And Allah knows best

According to the author of the below excerpt, the question who wrote sahih bukhari "is such a naïve and absurd question which props up [in the guise of academics and research]." And I tend to agree.


"If we were to gather all the thousands of copies of Sahih Bukhari, whether manuscripts or printed ones, and put them all to fire and likewise delete whatever of it is available on the internet including what is quoted in the commentaries and books of fiqh etc. If we were to delete them all leaving no trace of Bukhari’s work; even if this were indeed to happen we would not lose anything we know of the sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) today because whatever is narrated in hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari is available and published in other books of hadith and fiqh as well.

[b]These are the facts that those who indulge in the superficial and sentimental speech asking as to where all these sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) came up from are not aware of. Many great hadith scholars preceded Imam Bukhari whose multivolume tomes were sources of much of the Bukhari’s work. Some of these scholars were Bukhari’s teachers and some were the teachers of his teachers. If you were to carefully study the reports in Sahih Bukhari you would find them attested and narrated through the very chain of narrators with which they are found in books both prior and later to it. Among the books prior to it is Musnad of Bukhari’s teacher al-Humaidi (d. 219/834) which has reports that Bukhari included in his Sahih. Likewise there is Muwatta of Imam Malik (d. 179/795) most of whose reports with connected chains were narrated by Bukhari as well. And similarly there is Musannaf of Imam ‘Abdul Razzaq al-San’ani (d. 211/827) and Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) and others besides. The works of great hadith scholars who preceded Imam Bukhari greatly overlap with Sahih Bukhari. Moreover, if we take into account the works of the contemporaries of Imam Bukhari such as Imam Muslim (d. 261/875) and Ibn Khuzaima (d. 311/923) and those who came after him we would find the reports in Sahih Bukhari repeated and preserved in these works. Such works are not few rather there are scores of them. Therefore, even if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari – not just original one – were to disappear nothing from the authentic hadith reports would be lost. Our religion is not based only on the works of one individual or Sahih Bukhari alone though it certainly has a great stature due to its academic value and accordingly the scholars give it preference over other works. May Allah bless Imam Bukhari with great reward for his services to the ummah.[/b]
..........

As a starter it would suffice for the reader to get know of Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abdul Baqi’s (d. 1388/1968) book Al-Lu’lu’ wa al-Marjan, Fima Ittafaqa ‘alaihi Ash-Shaikhan (wherein he collected hadith reported common between Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) in order to find out that Imam Muslim also narrated 1906 of the reports of Sahih Bukhari. How about going through other hadith works as well? Indeed the reader would find the authentic hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari have been adequately published in other books as well. In fact one would find that most of them have been reported through different chains of reporters which only adds to their authenticity. "

Source

I never paid much attention when this whole issue was on, It seems Sheikh Habib likes to be controversial, perhaps his research or sources of knowledge are tainted by the well known haters of the sunnah, even though I agree with some of his opinions, but on this, he goofed big time.

I would state here again, you do not take one hadith in isolation and make queer conclusions, and if you cannot go the extra mile to seek understanding of such narration, ask politely, instead of making outlandish claims.

I don't understand why Mr Rashid a k a Rashduct4luv always concluded that empiree, "a suffy" is trying to put down deen of Allah and hate sahaba. You seriously need to work on your comprehension problem.

Before you criticize me you need to first listen to sheikh Albany. Hear what he had to say about sahih bukhari NOT Imam bukhari (ra). You keep portraying sahih book as if it is error free. This is what I'm personally trying to get you to understand that there is no book on earth free of errors besides Quran Kareem.

Sheik Albani said, a Muslim should always have in mind that anytime he reads any book other than Quran, it must contain errors. You will be making huge mistake if you think sahih bukhari is 100% authentic. This is already proven here when you guys can not defend some of those ahadith and you literally stepped off.


If sahih bukhari is 100% authentic, why would Albani, a 20th century scholar faulted the book over a thousand years later?. Aren't scholars greater than him existed before him?. Who gave him authority to fault sahih book narrations?. If he had been suffy, many of you guys would never accept his work.

Sheikh Adam said the same thing that there are some text in sahih bukhari that can not be modified, hence they should be discarded. This is honest criticism. Let me remind you that it is actually majority Sufis that put Hadith together . That's why you see them today usually narrate ahadith off hand. They know because many of the Sunnah practices are also recorded in other books like old book called "ashimówi" it is a tira I read growing up that contained ahadith. Again, Mr. Rashidi, you need to admit honest criticism of sahih books that you hold extremely important. If you want, I can send you video of Sheikh Albani on this issue.


As for sheikh Habeeb, he too fairly criticized it but he as well made mistakes. He got some wrong and some right. I disagree with him on some of his understanding of the hadith texts that salat fajr is four. He goofed. Sheik Eleha corrected that. But then, Eleha also goofed for defending ahadith that are clearly senseless like passing in front of praying person. Sheik habibu trashed that. Both sides fall short of doing what I called "system of meaning" which means not taking Hadith or verse of Quran in isolation. That's very dangerous thing to do.

Some sufis don't really need sahih Hadith. They have it in their brains. Only when they want to cross reference they bring out the books. See what Albani said?. This is why you see mistakes in for instance Shia books, tijjaniya books and then you guys want to use that against them. That's pathetic

That's why you see edition sometimes. Same happened to Sheikh Imran Hussein after he published JERUSALEM IN QUR'AN. He reprinted a new edition.

Allah made it this way to make Quran stands out. So sahih books would definitely contain errors even though imam bukhari made wudhu and good intention.

AlBaqir:
And the following junks are classified Sahih?

Imam Bukhari in Kitab ghusl document the following:

Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in an hour ( السَّاعَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ), during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (s) was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 268
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 21
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 268
(deprecated numbering scheme)


Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 284
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 36
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 282
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/5

NB: Observe how the prophet was portrayed with this insatiable desire for sex! Having sex with eleven women within an hour during the day and night, no taking of bath after the first one but approach the second with secretion...How can a man throw himself upon his wife without any pre-intimacy even animals do pre-intimacy. Why will the prophet disregard his own saying: "Do not approach your wife like an animal but instead do something that attract them and you". We can ask Anas b. Malik how he managed to report that?
Those are the impersonation of the holy Prophet in the infallible sahih Bukhari.

Prophet Muhammad visiting all his wives in one night?

Some of the Christians use the following tradition and yell obscenities against the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, saying that he had passion for women.

Narrated Anas: "The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."
But as a matter of fact this is clearly wrong translation and the words within parenthesis do not find any place here.

Actual text of the Hadith and correct translation:

Now the Hadīth goes as;
أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَطُوفُ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ فِي اللَّيْلَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ وَلَهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ

The word, يَطُوفُ like طواف i.e. circumambulating the Holy Ka’ba only refers to going around and has no other nuance whatsoever. So the correct translation of the Hadīth is:

Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” (Bukhari, Hadīth 275)

There is nothing special in the Hadīth. It infact shows that he cared for all his wives and went to see them.

The query probably rises from the famous translation of this Hadīth which is there in well known software. In that software it reads;

"The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."

One can clearly see that the words ‘have sexual relations with’ are in parenthesis, that is to say these are not the direct meanings of the Arabic words but addition by the translator to help understand according to his understanding.

But I disagree with his understanding and thus believe that these words in the parentheses are not helping to understand better but are rather misleading. Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, did visit them all but its not that he had sexual relations with each of them.

Details of Prophet’s visits to his wives:

Urwa reported on the authority of his father:

‘Aisha said: "O my nephew, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bdid not prefer one of us to other in respect of his division of time of his staying with us. It was very rare that he did not visit any of us any day. He would come near each of his wives without having any intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day (i.e. her turn) and passed his night with her...."

(Sunan Abū Dawūd Hadīth 2135. Albāni classified it as Hasan Sahih)

Besides Sunan Abu Dawud the narration is found in ,
Musnad Ahmad (No. 23621)
Baihaqi's Sunan Al-Kubra (No. 13434, 14754)
Mustadrak Al-Hakim (No. 2710)

It is found in Sunan Darqutni (No.3781) too with more explicit wording.

Imam Shaukani has taken the hadith on same account. He writes;

وَكَذَلِكَ يَجُوزُ لِلزَّوْجِ دُخُولُ بَيْتِ غَيْرِ صَاحِبَةِ النَّوْبَةِ وَالدُّنُوُّ مِنْهَا وَاللَّمْسُ إلَّا الْجِمَاعَ كَمَا فِي حَدِيثِ عَائِشَةَ الْمَذْكُورِ

"Similarly it is allowed for the husband to enter upon the wife [even if, it being] without her turn [to spend night with] and to come closer to her and touch her except the intercourse as in the Hadith of Aisha mentioned above." (Nayl al-Awtar 10/213)

It makes it clear beyond all doubt here that he visited all of them just to see them and dint have intercourse with each of them but only with the one whose turn was it that day.

Further clarification:

One may refer to the narration from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, in which he related the same issue of Prophet, may Allah bless him, all his wives in a single with him being given the "strength of thirty men." One may say this implies the Prophet, may Allah bless him, used to have intercourse with all his wives. But how can the implied understanding of some other companion be taken in precedence over a direct authentic report from none other than the wife of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him? Who else would have been more knowledgeable of such intimate details of the Prophet's personal life?

Similarly even the word يَطُوفُ implies 'intercourse' when used in relation to a person going to his wife [or wives] it will not work here for an explicit authentic report from the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, bars us.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

https://www.nairaland.com/3166814/agege-show-innaa-lillaahi-wa#47246154

Empiree:
I don't understand why Mr Rashid a k a Rashduct4luv always concluded that empiree, "a stuffy" is trying to put down deen of Allah and hate sahaba. Your seriously need to work on your comprehension problem.

Before your criticize me you need to first listen to sheikh Albany. Hear what he had to say about sahih bukhari NOT Imam bukhari (ra). You keep portraying sahih book as if it is error free. This is what I'm personally trying to get you to understand that there is no book on earth free of errors besides Quran Kareem.

Sheik Albani said, a Muslim should always have in mind that anytime he reads any book other than Quran, it must contain errors. You will be making huge mistake if you think sahih bukhari is 100% authentic. This is already proven here when you guys can not defend some of those ahadith and you literally step off.


If sahih bukhari is 100% authentic, why would Albani, a 20th century scholar faulted the book over a thousand years later?. Aren't scholars greater than him existed before him?. Who gave him authority to fault sahih book narrations?. If he had been suffy, many of you guys would never accept his work.

Sheikh Adam said the same thing that there are some text in sahih bukhari that can not be modified, hence they should be discarded. This is honest criticism. Let me remind you that it is actually majority Sufis that put together Hadith. That's why you see them today usually narrate ahadith off hand. They know because many of the Sunnah practices are also recorded in other books like old book called "ashimówi" it is a tira I read growing up that contained ahadith. Again, my Rashidi, you need to admit honest criticism of sahih books that you hold extremely important. If you want I can send you video of Sheikh Albani on this issue.


As for sheikh habibu, he too fairly criticized it but he as well made mistakes. He got some wrong and some right. I disagree with him on for instance his understanding of the hadith text that salat fajr is four. He goofed. Sheik eleha corrected that. But then, eleha too goofed for defending ahadith that are clearly senseless like passing in front of praying person. Sheik habibu trashed that. Both sides fall short of doing what I called "system of meaning" which means not taking Hadith or verse of Quran in isolation.

That's very dangerous thing to do. Some sufis don't really need sahih Hadith. They have it in their brains. Only when they want to cross reference they bring out the books. See what Albani said?. This is why you see mistakes in for instance Shia books, tijjaniya books and then you guys want to use that against them. That's pathetic

That's why you see edition sometimes. Same happened to Sheikh Imran Hussein after he published JERUSALEM IN QUR'AN. He reprinted a new edition.

Allah made it this way to make Quran stands out. So sahih books would definitely contain errors even though imam bukhari made wudhu and good intention.

Oga Soofee! Stop the lie I never claim any book apart from the Qur'an can be 100% correct! And if a large container of water contains negligible impurity it's still pure. After the Qur'an, the next authentic book on earth is sahih bukhari! I never said it's 100% faultless and my name is Rasheed with the correct tajweed. Nothing concern me with Habib or whatever, he a well known hater of sunnah! Someone who is only basking in the glory Allah gave his father.

Rashduct4luv:


Oga Soofee! Stop the lie I never claim any book apart from the Qur'an can be 100% correct! And if a large container of water contains negligible impurity it's still pure. After the Qur'an, the next authentic book on earth is sahih bukhari! I never said it's 100% faultless and my name is Rasheed with the correct tajweed. Nothing concern me with Habib or whatever, he a well known hater of sunnah! Someone who is only basking in the glory Allah gave his father.

Are you done?

Rashduct4luv and sino

# This is not about copying and pasting o. There are serious argument submitted at the OP to show the present "sahih" Bukhari was not written by Imam Bukhari.

Try to be academic. Make a proper response/counter bit by bit to the OP. Your copy-paste address nothing so far.

Thanks.

sino:


[
Actual text of the Hadith and correct translation:

Now the Hadīth goes as;
أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَطُوفُ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ فِي اللَّيْلَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ وَلَهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ

The word, يَطُوفُ like طواف i.e. circumambulating the Holy Ka’ba only refers to going around and has no other nuance whatsoever. So the correct translation of the Hadīth is:

Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” (Bukhari, Hadīth 275)

https://www.nairaland.com/3166814/agege-show-innaa-lillaahi-wa#47246154

# There's no escape from the word your website try to cast doubt on.

Fact 1: The exact word is also used in relation to Nabi Sulayman when Abu Huraira forged or copy-pasted Biblical stories that the later had se.xual intercour.se with 60, 80, and 100 women.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/96

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/35


Fact 2: In another hadith of Bukhari, "yaduru - he used to visit" was used as different from "tawafa"; when used in this context of those ahadith under discussion, it means nothing but " had se.x". Since, x-rated word could not be used, a more "relax word" usually used. Even Yoruba, it is courtesy to say, "mo ni ÀJOSEPÒ/ÌBÁSEPÒ pelu iyawo mi - I had relation with my wife". However, in the real sense, it means s.exual intercours.e and not mere relation.


This is why Anas was saying in the same (or another) hadith that your website decided not to reveal, " I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (s) was given the strength of thirty (men)."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/5/21


# We have explore the hadith in this thread revealing yet great errors in your daeef Bukhari with his inconsistent number of women Abu Hurairah lied Nabi Sulayman slept with:
www.nairaland.com/4169105/abu-huraira-biggest-fraud-sunni#62484561

Rashduct4luv:
Well, Oga Shia and Suffy Empire!

I know you will always renew your efforts to bring down the deen of Allah by:

a. Debasing the authentic hadiths and

b. Dabasing the Sahabahs.

Anyways Sahih Bukhari is Sahih to us and will always remain so.

# Anyway, we are not really discussing whether all ahadith in Bukhari are 100% sahih. We are taking the jugular itself - Imam Bukhari was not the author of the popular Sahih we have today. That is what the OP has proven.

Rashduct4luv:


Oga Soofee! Stop the lie I never claim any book apart from the Qur'an can be 100% correct! And if a large container of water contains negligible impurity it's still pure. After the Qur'an, the next authentic book on earth is sahih bukhari! I never said it's 100% faultless and my name is Rasheed with the correct tajweed. Nothing concern me with Habib or whatever, he a well known hater of sunnah! Someone who is only basking in the glory Allah gave his father.

# @underline, says who?

# I guess because Empiree showed you the word of your Imam Albani who weakened some ahadith in Bukhari, that's why you quickly changed gear saying, "I never said its 100% faultless".

Anyway, that's a good start. In fact, in the word of Albani, there are lots of daeef ahadith in Bukhari's sahih but he claimed he had no time fishing them out since other books are to be worked on.

And of course, Albani was not the first to criticised Sahih Bukhari. Here's Albani's words:


Allamah al-Albani writes:

"But, whoever is in doubt concerning the verdicts I have given concerning some hadith (in sahih al-Bukhari), let him refer to Fath al-Bari, and he will find there lots and lots of things (in sahih al-Bukhari) which have been CRITICIZED by al-Hafiz Ahmad b. Hajar al-Asqalani, who is rightly named the Amir al-Muminin in Hadith, and whom I believe - and I suppose that anyone who has this knowledge (i.e science of hadith) would agree with me - that no woman has ever given birth to anyone like him after him".

Source: Abu 'Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Adam al-Ashqudi al-Albani, FATAWA (cairo: Maktabah al-Turath al-Islami; 1st edition, 1414H) p. 525