Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? - Islam for Muslims (2) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Islam for Muslims / Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? (13051 Views)
Imam Leads Prayers During Earthquake In Indonesia! (Video) / Allah Will Condemn Men Who Do Not Satisfy Their Women Sexually -imam / Are These Hadeeth Sahih ? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Empiree: 6:10pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
AlBaq.ir: Broda Rasheedi (Rashduct4luv), Mr tajweed, do you agree with the above? ^^^ |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by proudkafir: 7:25pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
AlBaqir:If the writer of the famous sahih bukhari is not imam Bukhari himself, then who is the author? You don't make a claim you cannot defend. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 7:31pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
Empiree: Why would I agree to a confirmed liar? |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 7:42pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv: Expose our lies by disproving each and every argument we have submitted. Lobatan. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Empiree: 7:45pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv:And who "confirmed" that?. You realize he did not bring that up on his own but something established by some scholars as well?. You gonna have to read your Sheikh Albani (ra) more on this. So why is he a liar?. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 7:47pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
AlBaqir: I am not a liar like you so I changed nothing from what I said! Only the Qur'an is 100% authentic so... |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 8:04pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv: Rashidi, you have to admit you are either a liar or you have eaten your word when Empiree revealed your Albani. For a fact, here's your very word: Rashduct4luv: Rashduct4luv: Therefore, say it loud publicly, " Since Only Quran is Sahih, the book of Bukhari is not Sahih, and can never be Sahih." 1 Like |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 9:14pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
AlBaqir: Sir, you are not senseless na! I think I explained up there before! The Excellent mark in most Universities is 70/100. And I think Bukhari scored more than 70% if any sensible person were to grade him and as such is Sahih. Qur'an is 100%. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 9:39pm On Apr 03, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv: # Ogbeni, this is not university faah. # The plain fact remain that only 2 - 3 scholars out of thousands of Sunni scholars of the past and present that you wahabi recognised were so far bold enough to expose weakness in Sahih al-Bukhari. Even today, many of your fanatical brothers are ready to rubbish the submission and criticism of those 2 - 3 scholars in order to protect the "infallible book of Bukhari. # Now to your laughable and desperate analogy, if according to you 100% is Sahih (as you've submitted that only Qur'an is sahih), will 70% or 75% still be counted as Sahih? # Here, our main concern is even that Bukhari is not the author of the book ascribed to him today. The moment this is established, the book itself become daeef by default thereby will not be talking how many hadith are sahih and how many sahih. This is the implication. Sahih Bukhari of today is nothing but fraud. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by sino(m): 11:32am On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir:We both know your aim, so no need for you to hide under "academic" response, and for your information, my quotes were academic, and it nullifies the doubts you intend to establish with regards to the content of Sahih Bukhari. If the contents of Sahih Bukhari can be found in other collections of even his predecessors like Imam Malik (ra), some of whom are his teachers, and the fact that what Bukhari did was to establishing authentic narrations, then, attacking and asking who wrote Sahih Bukhari becomes not only absurd, but ill-thought. Anyway, here is another excerpt: [b]There is no doubt that Imam Bukhari did pen his work al-Sahih with his own hand, however, he [also] recited it to a large number of his students who listened to it from him and copied it in its entirety. Thereafter, they checked it against Bukhari’s personal copy. This way their copies were in accordance with the original one of Bukhari. Afterwards, came another generation who listened to the book from the students of Bukhari and compared their copies to those of Bukhari’s students, and likewise [it happened through subsequent generations] until the book became widely known.[1] If, therefore, the original one written by Bukhari was lost it had no implications, because it had been transmitted among the generations of students of Bukhari and its copies had become widely published each with a chain of transmission back to Bukhari. Commentaries to it were written, and all the copies are, by the grace of Allah, in congruence. As to the minor differences in the wording, they are in a sense similar to the difference of recitals (qira’at) in Qur’an and are, in fact, a factor confirming the attribution for they establish numerous transmitted links that go back to Imam Bukhari[/b] Accordingly, even if the reliance is made on a copy much later than that of Bukhari it confirmed to the manuscripts and editions prior to it except for minor marginal differences. See, therefore, how the differences, rare and marginal, increase the authenticity of copying rather than question it. Moreover, whereas the transmission of al-Firabri – a student of Bukhari – became popular, and copies of it were published, it was not because copying was exclusively based on his transmission. Sahih Bukhari was copied through other transmissions as well. This is al-Khattabi (319/931 – 388/998) saying in his commentary to Sahih Bukhari titled ‘Alam al-Hadith that he listened to major part of the book from Khalf b. Muhammad al-Khayyam on the authority of Ibrahim b. Ma’qal al-Nasafi (d. 295/907), a student of Bukhari who listened to the book from him.[2] It is a link other than that of al-Firabri. This is how it was with the early scholars. Among them the oral transmission and reporting of Sahih Bukhari through various links, other than the one popular today, was widespread. Their renderings of the Sahih are in line with the copy common today. The internal consistence of the transmissions and copies of Sahih Bukhari despite remoteness of the regions, difference of times, and the number of links back to Imam Bukhari are best evidence for the mass narration of Sahih Bukhari and the reliability of its copied transmission. Thereafter, if one or more of the copies of it became popular among the scholars (as it happens with most of the academic works) it was not because it was the most authentic of the copies or because it included something that other copies did not rather this is simply how it naturally happens. It is similar to a situation wherein a contemporary author writes a book and multiple editions of it come out, however, decades later only one of the editions remains in print and the book becomes popular in that edition because it is the best or, let us say, the most critical of the editions whereas the other editions go out of print and are neglected. This does not mean that the subject matter of the in-vogue edition is different from other editions. In short, Sahih Bukhari was relayed down from his author through mass transmission. It was not possible for any scribe to make any interpolation or alteration without it being known. Scholars of different schools of thought possessed copies of Sahih Bukhari and knew its content intimately. If any narration were interpolated it would have been known to them immediately through its variance with their own copies of it and their knowledge of narrators and the chains of narrators. Reflect, therefore, on this peculiar and crucial feature of our ummah’s intellectual tradition – the methodology of narration, scrutiny, and comparison of a later copy with the earlier one – the like of which is not found with other nations. This signifies that loss of Bukhari’s own copy makes no difference rather it goes with the natural order of things. It is indeed rare for a manuscript to outlive environmental, historical, military, and political changes and survive for over 1200 years! Source: same as previous After reading this above brilliant submission, do you now expect me to follow you in your usual twisting and turning of facts to suit your preconceived purpose?! Sorry bro, try harder next time! 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by sino(m): 11:51am On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir: The hadith in question was not from the mouth of the Prophet (SAW) himself, it is what was observed by a companion, who in all circumstances, cannot know what goes on behind closed door, except AlBaqir believes otherwise. Yes the narration is authentic, because the chain is authentic, it is attributed to the observation of a companion with regards to how the Prophet (SAW) moved from one room of his wife to another. Yes you can assume that it involves sexual relation, but that it what it is, an assumption! As I had explained and brought another narration carrying the same information, the wife of the Prophet (SAW) who should be an authority with regards to what goes on behind the closed door of the Prophet (SAW) clarified the whole issue, and the companion was mistaken by his observation. The fact that the Prophet (SAW) go round his wives is established, while that of having sexual relation with them in one hour or one night has been obliterated! Only one seeking mischief would still hold on to the interpretation of sexual relations in regards to what really transpired between the Prophet (SAW) and his wives. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by sino(m): 12:01pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir: Yeah, this is your aim, to cast doubt in the narrations found in Sahih Bukhari, because let's face it, no book in the world of shi'ah can stand close to it. But unfortunately for you, you would have to call all the books containing the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) as fraud, since narration in Sahih Bukhari can also be found in other books, even those earlier than it, so let's know where you stand! A hater of sunnah?! |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 1:05pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir: Assignment for you! Calculate the total number of Hadiths in Sahih Bukhari Calculate the amount of Hadiths with error Calculate the %age error Error is still less than 5% Sahih Bukhari is above 95% Sahih! No wonder after the Qur'an its next in line. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 1:16pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir: All this twisting above is not scholastic at all. It's not every book that is in use today that we can find the source document. If what the questioner meant by “original copies” is manuscripts that the author wrote in his own hand, then according what rational thinking or logic can it be said that it is essential that the original manuscripts be extant in order to accept that a particular book is correctly attributed to its author?! How many books are there in the world, since people learned how to write, that could meet this irrational condition?! In order to understand how irrational those who stipulate that condition are, all you have to do is imagine that one of them entered a venerable library or well-known publishing house or international bookstore and said to the person in charge, I will not accept the attribution of any books you have in this huge store unless you give me the original manuscript, written by the author himself, so that I will be certain that these books are soundly attributed to their authors! Doing this would be ignoring all the customs and academic and legal requirements which guarantee to us nowadays that the book is sound and that it will not be claimed by anyone other than the author, such as requirements to register books in the National Library, to get permission to publish, making books well-known to critics and providing well-established evidence to that effect, and other similar academic ways of proving such matters. We know for certain that some of those who specialise in producing specious arguments know deep down in their hearts how foolish and silly are the things they suggest and say, but at the same time they persist in saying it because they know that merely stating his specious with regard to anything that exists will inevitably have some influence on people’s hearts and minds. Hence whatever results he gets will suffice him, even if he only manages to confuse a few people. What matters to him is that he shuffles the cards and causes confusion with regard to sound ways of thinking. However, Saheeh al-Bukhaari was heard by ninety thousand men from Imam al-Bukhaari himself (may Allah have mercy on him), as was stated by one of his most famous students, namely Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Farbari (d. 320 AH). See: Tareekh Baghdaad (2/9); Tareekh al-Islam (7/375). Al-Farbari’s narration of Saheeh al-Bukhaari was famous because he lived for a long time and was precise in copying it out. He heard it from al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) over three years, then a number of trustworthy narrators learned it from him, and from them this book became well-known. Al-Mustamli (d. 376 AH) – one of those who narrated it from Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Farbari – said: I copied the book of al-Bukhaari from its original text that was with Ibn Yoosuf, and I saw that he had not completed it yet; there were many blank pages there, including some isnaads after which he had not written any hadeeths, and some hadeeths for which he had not written any isnaads. So we tried to complete that. End quote. Narrated by al-Baaji in at-Ta‘deel wa’t-Tajreeh (1/310) The Saheeh was narrated from al-Farbari by a number of trustworthy narrators, among the most famous of whom were the following: Al-Mustamli (d. 376 AH), whose name was Ibraaheem ibn Ahmad Al-Hamawi Khateeb Sarkhas (d. 381 AH), whose name was ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad Abu’l-Haytham al-Kashmeehani (d. 389 AH), whose name was Muhammad ibn Makki Abu ‘Ali ash-Shabwi, whose name was Muhammad ibn ‘Umar Ibn as-Sakan al-Bazzaaz (d. 353 AH), whose name was Sa‘eed ibn ‘Uthmaan Abu Zayd al-Mirwazi (d. 371 AH), whose name was Muhammad ibn Ahmad Abu Ahmad al-Jarjaani (d. 373 AH), whose name was Muhammad ibn Muhammad Among the trustworthy students of al-Bukhaari who heard his Saheeh directly from him and transmitted it to the people with its isnaads in written form was the imam, hafiz, faqeeh and qaadi, Abu Ishaaq Ibraaheem ibn Ma‘qil ibn al-Hajjaaj an-Nasafi (d. 295). The copy of an- Nasafi was transmitted by Imam al-Khattaabi (may Allah have mercy on him), as he said in his commentary A‘laam al-Hadeeth (1/105): We heard most of this book from the narration of Ibraaheem ibn Ma‘qil an- Nasafi. Khalaf ibn Muhammad al-Khayyaam told us: Ibraaheem ibn Ma‘qil told us, from him. This is the most famous way that the scholars of hadith had: they would read their books to their students, or their students would read their books to them. Then those books would become well-known through the students and narrators, not through the original manuscript of the author, which was one copy that he kept for himself. There were no printing presses or publishing houses at that time; instead of printing presses there was the narration of students with strong isnaads. What would any researcher find more authentic than the transmission of trustworthy narrators narrating from the manuscripts that were read to (and checked with) the author himself and approved by him, as they said concerning the copy of as-Saghaanni: He copied it from the manuscript that was read to the author (may Allah have mercy on him)”? See: Fayd al-Baari by al-Kashmiri. 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). One of the most famous manuscripts of the book that has come down to us in modern times is the copy of al-Haafiz Abu ‘Ali as-Sadafi (d. 514 AH), which he copied from the manuscript written by Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Mahmoud, which was read to Abu Dharr (may Allah have mercy on him) and has his writing on it too. It was kept by al-‘Allaamah at-Taahir ibn ‘Ashoor, who borrowed it from the library of Tobruk in Libya. There is also the copy of the imam and hafiz Sharaf ad-Deen ‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Yoonayni, who is known as al-Ba‘li al-Hanbali (d. 701 AH). He checked it against the original copy that was read to al-Haafiz Abu Dharr al-Harawi, and the original copy that was read to al-Aseeli, and the original copy al-Haafiz Ibn ‘Asaakir, and the original copy that was read to Abu’l-Waqt in the presence of the grammarian and linguist Ibn Maalik, the author of al-Alfiyyah (d. 672 AH). And so on… if we were to keep listing the copies of as-Saheeh that are extant in the manuscript libraries of the world, and how close they were to the time when as-Saheeh was written, and the large numbers of those who copied and checked them, and how trustworthy they were, and how they checked their copies against the authoritative main copies, that would take a great deal of time. It is sufficient for you to go to one of the libraries where manuscripts are kept and ask about Saheeh al-Bukhaari; you will find hundreds of copies with sound chains of transmission going back to Imam al-Bukhaari himself. Al-Fihris ash-Shaamil lists 2327 locations in various libraries in which there are manuscripts of this book. See: al-Fihris ash-Shaamil li’t-Turaath al-‘Arabi al-Islami al-Makhtoot, al-Hadeeth an-Nabawi wa ‘Uloomuhu (1/493-565). As for the claim that “some of the commentators on al-Bukhaari discussed the meaning of some hadeeths that are not in al-Bukhaari”, we have not found a single example of that. Differences in the reports in Saheeh al-Bukhaari only occur in a few, very minor cases having to do with the isnaads or some phrases in the texts, or the chapter headings. But to suggest that there are some independent hadeeths under some headings that were mentioned in some manuscripts but not others, we could not find any example of that. Even if we assume that they exist, it is not something to object to or find strange. If the narrators who narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) differed sometimes, whereby some of the Sahaabah narrated the hadeeth with a particular wording, and others narrated it with a different wording, or some of the Sahaabah narrated a hadeeth and others did not remember it, in dozens of examples, that does not undermine the principle of the Prophetic Sunnah, and it does not shed doubt on the trustworthiness of the Sahaabah who narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). So it is more appropriate that the fact that there are slight differences between the narrators of al-Jaami‘ as-Saheeh should not undermine the basic authenticity of the book or its trustworthiness or its hadeeths and reports. [b] We do not doubt that a lack of experience in dealing with the classical Islamic legacy – and indeed a lack of knowledge about the nature of history and manuscripts altogether – is the reason for such misleading ideas or extreme ignorance and lack of understanding on the part of the one who says that. Otherwise, anyone who has any knowledge of these branches of knowledge will be certain that minor differences in reports or manuscripts in classical books is something natural in the light of the fact that people in the past relied on copying by hand, and because means of communication were very simple, and copyists were sometimes imprecise in adhering to the original text; indeed they were sometimes unaware of alterations that the author himself had introduced to his book that would lead to some differences in the copies, as happened in the case of Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Sunan Abi Dawood, al-Muwatta’ by Imam Maalik, and the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Indeed that also happened in the case of the poetry of the Jaahiliyyah before that, and in the books of Plato, Aristotle, and the entire legacy of Greek philosophy, and in the case of both the Torah and the Gospel. [/b] We hope that by giving these brief highlights, readers will be alerted to the nature of these specious arguments that are made and will realise that a little rational thinking, with a little experience, will be sufficient to ward off all these specious arguments. See: Riwaayaat wa Nusakh al-Jaami‘ as-Saheeh li’l-Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ismaa‘eel al-Bukhaari: Diraasah wa Tahleel, by Dr. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Kareem ibn ‘Ubayd, which was of great use to us in preparing the answer given above. But i know you won't relent till you bring down the Sunni Books and you won't be able to! |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Empiree: 2:50pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv, I noticed that you snubbed Sheikh Albani's comment on this issue  why now bro?. Too uncomfortable ��  |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 6:14pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv: # Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing in the copy-pasting "reply" you have posted. It only making noise with no factual evidence. Therefore its a waste of time for me taking you through it. # First our argument is crystal clear and that is, the present Sahih Bukhari which has 9 huge volumes was never the manuscript of Imam Bukhari. PROBLEM 1: About al-Mustamli * One connection between Imam Bukhari and his student Yusuf al-Farabri who preserved his Sahih was al-Mustamli (d. 376 H). He claimed to have seen al-Bukhari's own handwritten copy of his sahih with al-Farabri In his testimony, he confirmed that al-Bukhari actually died without completing the book. So, al-Mustamli clearly made changes to the text of the book while copying it, and effectively completed it. Therefore, the compiler and completer of Sahih al-Bukhari, as we have it today, was none other than al-Mustamli. If others had also compiled their own copies, we do not have theirs. We have only the version of al-Mustamli. PROBLEM 2: About Abu Zayd al-Mirzawi We thank God that your copy-pasted reply affirmed as we have submitted that Abu Zayd al-Mirzawi (d. 371) had the oldest manuscript. Al-Bukhari died in 256 H. So, this means that the earliest surviving manuscript – that of Abu Zayd – was written 114 years after al-Bukhari's death. Even then, a Salafi researcher, Shaykh Dr. Ahmad Faris al-Salum, gained access to this ancient manuscript and gives this report: "As for this manuscript – the manuscript of Abu Zayd – what exists of it are 52 pages." http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php? p=524439&postcount=1 How did we come about 9 volumes of thousands ahadith today? PROBLEM 3: The content We have given handful example with references from today's "sahih Bukhari" which have for example: # Imam Bukhari reported to us # Imam Bukhari said # And the usage of "Rahimahullah" after the mention of Imam Bukhari. Therefore, with all these facts (and more), how can anyone in his right sensible mind claimed the PRESENT DAY sahih Bukhari was the book of Imam Bukhari? Empiree |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 6:17pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
Empiree: Òrò di ó só sínilénu ó bu iyò si. Isó ni yi ko se gbemi, iyò ni yi kose tu danu. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Empiree: 6:26pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir:LOL and he's gonna starting quoting the Sheikh on something else soon  |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Empiree: 6:31pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
AlBaqir: |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 6:39pm On Apr 04, 2018 |
sino: # This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Albaqir faah The fact remains that you and your copy-pasted reply have been corrected that those ahadith of Anas Ibn Malik meant sexual relation. And alhamdulillah that you now agreed that Anas might had made mistake going by his assumption. This is a way forward compare to your copied reply's stubbornness that the ahadith does not meant sexual relation that it was just mere visits. Yes, in Sunni ilm rijal, the chain is correct. The fact is we did not submit our criticism based on the sanad rather it was based on the matn which is erroneous sino: # Yeah, I agreed with you that the wives of the Prophet were in a better by far position to report what transpire between them and their loving husband, not sahabah with conjectures among themselves. Fi amanillah. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 7:31am On Apr 05, 2018 |
AlBaqir: You neglected this from my post; "However, Saheeh al-Bukhaari was heard by ninety thousand men from Imam al-Bukhaari himself (may Allah have mercy on him), as was stated by one of his most famous students, namely Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Farbari (d. 320 AH). See: Tareekh Baghdaad (2/9); Tareekh al-Islam (7/375). Al-Farbari’s narration of Saheeh al-Bukhaari was famous because he lived for a long time and was precise in copying it out. He heard it from al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) over three years, then a number of trustworthy narrators learned it from him, and from them this book became well-known.... What would any researcher find more authentic than the transmission of trustworthy narrators narrating from the manuscripts that were read to (and checked with) the author himself and approved by him, as they said concerning the copy of as-Saghaanni: He copied it from the manuscript that was read to the author (may Allah have mercy on him)”? See: Fayd al-Baari by al-Kashmiri. " AlBaqir: Bros shebi u go school? Try and have some little decorum! A Scholastic person will understand that a student can finish his teacher's book based on what he was taught. Bukhari knew several hadith off-hand which he transmitted to several trustworthy students! Even if one manuscript is incomplete the student can complete what his teacher has not finished. The students were aware of this hadith and they will never have included this in Bukhari: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Telling lies about me is not like telling lies about anyone else. Whoever tells lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1229. AlBaqir: Same reasoning same argument. This Shiites will never stop attacking the truth! ok for the umpteenth time i will extract from that my previous copy and past as you call it. "Among the trustworthy students of al-Bukhaari who heard his Saheeh directly from him and transmitted it to the people with its isnaads in written form was the imam, hafiz, faqeeh and qaadi, Abu Ishaaq Ibraaheem ibn Ma‘qil ibn al-Hajjaaj an-Nasafi (d. 295). The copy of an- Nasafi was transmitted by Imam al-Khattaabi (may Allah have mercy on him), as he said in his commentary A‘laam al-Hadeeth (1/105): We heard most of this book from the narration of Ibraaheem ibn Ma‘qil an- Nasafi. Khalaf ibn Muhammad al-Khayyaam told us: Ibraaheem ibn Ma‘qil told us, from him. This is the most famous way that the scholars of hadith had: they would read their books to their students, or their students would read their books to them. Then those books would become well-known through the students and narrators, not through the original manuscript of the author, which was one copy that he kept for himself. There were no printing presses or publishing houses at that time; instead of printing presses there was the narration of students with strong isnaads." Whoever tell lies on the Prophet will surely enter Hell. And may Allah send His blessing on the Prophets, their companions and families and on all those who strive in following & promoting the Sunnah till the day of Qiyam And Allah knows best. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 7:47am On Apr 05, 2018 |
Empiree: Albani is a Scholar of great repute and he too like Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, like any other Muslim are fallible. So Albani found few mistakes in Sahih Bukhari, true! But can there be another wholly Sahih Book apart from the Qur'an? Albani as well as other Imams too are likewise capable of making mistakes! This is the reason for the revelation to the Prophet.... But the Suffi Sheikh never errs . The student must be dead to his Sheikh!  |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by sino(m): 10:33am On Apr 05, 2018 |
AlBaqir: In your desperation to reply with your preconceived parochial intentions, you never paid attention to the following which was part of the article I referenced: "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." For your information, there is nothing wrong with authenticity of the matn, it is a statement of a companion, it is harmless (except if you intend mischief) and they were humans, and it did not in any way depreciate the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari which you are trying too hard to discredit! May Allah (SWT) Guide you! 1 Like |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 6:38pm On Apr 05, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv: # So have you now agreed that the present day Sahih Bukhari was never Imam Bukhari's work? Imagine an original manuscript of 52 pages with several blank pages, of 114 years after the demise of its writer now having 9 volumes with thousands of ahadith?! Haba! E si beru Oluwa Allah. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 7:02am On Apr 06, 2018 |
AlBaqir: I think this your tomfoolery is now evident for all to see! |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by AlBaqir(m): 8:09am On Apr 06, 2018 |
Rashduct4luv: # Are you feeling insecure? Kindly leave "all to see" the "tomfoolery" Answer our simple question: #So have you now agreed that the present day Sahih Bukhari was never Imam Bukhari's work? * At least you have reluctantly accept that Bukhari's sahih is not 100% authentic as your salafi cult used to propagate. * Answer the next question please. Don't be shy. Truth doesn't hurt, it only conquers your pride and arrogance; but it sets you free. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Rashduct4luv(m): 9:14am On Apr 06, 2018 |
AlBaqir: Who said Saheeh Bukhari is 100% correct? it was originally his work which he transmitted to his students which they transmitted to others till it got to us! isn't it tomfoolery to keep asking same question everytime while you keep getting same answers? i think i should hang my pen now with you cos you are blind, deaf and dumb; only Allaah can guide you back to the truth! Kachifo! |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Nobody: 10:32pm On Sep 28, 2018 |
I always feel irritated after reading two paragraphs from this because of the unbelievable ignorance displayed here, but today I decided to take the pain the read everything – for a reason – in order to refute the nonsense.... AlBaqir: This is ignorance at its peak, must you expose every single lowly acts of yours? If it is because it is said in the book "bukhari said" means bukhari isn't the original author, then it means when my father says something and I say "my father says" then my father isn't the original person that said it, you see how stupid that sounds? The book was narrated from imam bukhari, so baba fati when you are narrating from somebody what do you say? Isn't it "such and such said:" so how does that negates the original owner of the statement? 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: I checked your link and found out the person is saying something else and you are bringing in something else, what exactly made ibn hajar this narration? Wasn't he trying to solve the problem of going to sahih bukhari and seeing hadeeth that don't match the heading of the subchapter or a subchapter, thus this statement the imam Abul waleed brought telling us the origin of the problem, that they saw subchapters being blank(whereas it has been explained – in the same link you brought yourself – that all the hadeeth kept for that subchapter did not all meet imam bukhari requirements for accepting hadeeth, so he left it blank) and they put some of the hadeeth in a wrong subchapter hence the statement "'so we filled some of that to others'. And imam Abul waleed(from your own source again) continues: "What points to correctness of this statement is that the narration of Abu ishaaq(al-mustamliy), Abu Muhammad, Abu haytham and Abu zaid all differ in terms of arrangement what should come first and should come last coupled with the fact that, they all copied from one source(al-farabri's soure)" So if the difference between the riwaayaat is due to what should come first and should come last, then how can you lie that what is intended by Abu ishaaq is that he completed the book, as in adding things not originally in the book? If it were so, why then was that just the difference? Abul waleed continues: "So that is why you'll see two subheadings or more following each other without any hadeeth" So this last statement shows once more, what is intended by Abu ishaaq's "we filled some of that to others" because some other copiers didn't do the same of did something totally different! So again albaqir, your lie has been exposed, I wonder how you sleep peacefully with lies. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Nobody: 10:34pm On Sep 28, 2018 |
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. You see the nonsense? Mustamliy said he put hadeeth in subchapters, while some other left it like that, now you claim he completed the books by addin and went further to claim only mustaml copy is available today? Well we have the riwaayah of al-aseeliy, also that of kareemah al-marooziyyah Please note that al-Mirwazī (d. 371 H) is better known as Abū Zayd al-Mirwaz Abeg it is Al-marooziy not mirwazi.... 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: Again, nonsense, its really annoying I had to reply to something that has not academic worth at all, I mean, who presents arguments like this? You'll pick statements from middle even tho the writer is talking of something else...the writer of that article you pointed to as your source is talking about the copy written by abu zayd, how does that negate the fact that other individuals narrated Bukhari from him fully? So because we can't find the handwritten copy of that of Abu zayd written by himself, then his riwaayah is lost? How weak can an argument get? For your information the Al-aseeliy I mentioned narrated from Abu zayd and his narration is present till today. 2 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Friend01(m): 9:17am On Oct 01, 2018 |
inagbe1: I know this is rather late, but come to think of it how can it be that two misguided fools are saying what they don't even know. You dullards think Imaam Bukhaari and Shaykh al-abaani (May Allaah have mercy on both) come every week on Nairaland to spew rubbish like you guys are doing. When a shi'a raafidhah jams a jaahil the result is the post above. Nansense and radarada. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by Friend01(m): 9:20am On Oct 01, 2018 |
ymdo: Poo can you please shout your buccal cavity. Even a counter argument is presented before you will be mentally stable enough to discern it? Some of you just come online and start spewing nonsense because you deceive yourself into thinking that you have something of knowledge when you can't even tell your left from your right. You think. counter arguments are written and approved on Nairaland? Most of have a very long way to go. |
| Re: Who Wrote Sahih Bukhari, Obviously Not Imam Al-bukhari? by ymdo(m): 7:19pm On Oct 02, 2018 |
Friend01:Tell me nigga, have you spoken like a knowledgeable person now? Have you spoken like someone who knows right from left? Have you spoken like someone who is mentally stable? 1 Like 1 Share |
Who Is/are Your Favourite Muslim Scholar(s) Of All Time / The Black Man And His Allah / What Next After Ramadan?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 196 |