₦airaland Forum

Harbioye:
Thought you said the bible contains revelations of things to come!?
The bible prophesied lots of stuffs; some of which you guys believed have come to pass.
Considering how big Islam is, the bible couldn't have missed that.

I'll be glad if you can provide a statistics that back your claim. If you can't, I'll rely on the one provided by the media.

It's actually in both ways.
Several people have changed religion in recent years

fortran12:
Islam is not big, it's just what the main stream media portrays.

The bible contains prophecies the relate to God's people, Christians are not impacted by Islam so why shld the bible speak of it particularly?

It falls under the broad category of false religion

Harbioye:
Thought you said the bible contains revelations of things to come!?
The bible prophesied lots of stuffs; some of which you guys believed have come to pass.
Considering how big Islam is, the bible couldn't have missed that.

I'll be glad if you can provide a statistics that back your claim. If you can't, I'll rely on the one provided by the media.

It's actually in both ways.
Several people have changed religion in recent years

Harbioye:
Lmao

Are you sure you typed this yourself?

fortran12:
Also how is Mary the sister of Aaron and why did the Qur'an misspell the name of Aaron's father. It's Amram not imran

Please come and explain how Ishmael the father of the Arabs learnt Arabic at a young age. Who did he learn from. Is he not supposed to be the founder of the Arab race?

Empiree:
this is waste of my time. It was already explained to you. Take it or leave it.



this is simple. He learned Arabic from Nomads.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Ishmael-the-progenitor-of-Arabs

fortran12:
Your explanation makes no sense, the link you gave did not give a conclusion.

For Ishmael , arabic is the language for arabs how can you learn arabic when ismael is supposed to have started the race?Just like people of England created English so Arabs are supposed to have created Arabic. So explain how the founder of Arabs learnt arabic. Cos I know the people of Ishmael are the Ishmalites not Arabs

Empiree:
ok. Looks like you may be deficient in your reading and understanding and I can't help you. There screenshot is very clear. It is the same way you don't understand Mary called sister if Aaron. Smh

fortran12:
lol, how can a fallacy be deemed true? show me proof that Aaron and Mary are related? You bring fake website that explains nothing, in the end you claim its by righteousness, ok, show me reference.

Ishmael learning arabic from normads, did the arabs exist before Ishmael? if yes then he could not have been their founder. Its common logic

Empiree:
Abraham is called "father of faith" by muslims, CHRISTIANs and Jews. But didn't Adam and Noah etc had faith in God before him?. This should make you think. If you disagree, why then do CHRISTIANs called him "father of faith"?.

So use same logical deduction with respect to Ismael being "father of Arabs"

fortran12:
It's not the same thing, ishamal is not Arab his parents were not Arabs so how could be have been the father of the Arab nation?

aumeehn:
As for You Albaqir ever since i started reading your posts on this Islam section i have nothing but respect for. But it all ends today! Who the Bleep are you to call the Sahaba of the Prophet (S.A.W) FRAUD!! Calling Abu huraira A fraud! Auzubillah!! If this is what the Shiite are preaching daily to their members, Labeling Some Sahabas as fraud then with all my heart i support Donal Trump! I rather dine with a non muslim than a shiite if this is what you guys truly believe!

true2god:
Take it easy bro. Is it not the same sahabas that conspired and killed the household of your prophet? What respect do you have for the sahabas who was responsible for the death of the family of your own prophet? Stop following the sahabas blindly, their ways are not pure. You are just like we christians who are following the Isrealis blindly while their ways are full of dirts.

aumeehn:
you are what we call Summun Bukmun! Deaf dumb and blind. If you check that link. It said that they travel to Arabia and met with an Arabian tribe, there he learned the language marry one of their daughters! How can you said that he founded The Arab world. And going by your example who is the founder of English Language who is the first person that got the idea and subsequently invented English? Mr man you are just here for argument sake you are not ready to learn. You also said Christianity is the religion of the followers of Jesus then what is the religion if Jesus himself. OMG! I hate this kinds of back and forth arguments about Religion but your post reeks of ignorance you keep on contradicting yourself. Go and learn first, because you dont even know what christianity is all about. This is just a piece of advice go and learn and stop embarrassing yourself.

aumeehn:
As for You Albaqir ever since i started reading your posts on this Islam section i have nothing but respect for. But it all ends today! Who the Bleep are you to call the Sahaba of the Prophet (S.A.W) FRAUD!! Calling Abu huraira A fraud! Auzubillah!! If this is what the Shiite are preaching daily to their members, Labeling Some Sahabas as fraud then with all my heart i support Donal Trump! I rather dine with a non muslim than a shiite if this is what you guys truly believe!

Empiree:
This thread was 2016. Perhaps he has a change of mind by now?. Just need to let you know that Shia Ulama have issued fatawa against cursing any sahaba or wives of the prophet. You may need to read on that first. If any shia still cursing some of the sahaba for whatever reason it is between him and Allah

fortran12:
It's not the same thing, ishamal is not Arab his parents were not Arabs so how could be have been the father of the Arab nation?

true2god:
Take it easy bro. Is it not the same sahabas that conspired and killed the household of your prophet? What respect do you have for the sahabas who was responsible for the death of the family of your own prophet? Stop following the sahabas blindly, their ways are not pure. You are just like we christians who are following the Isrealis blindly while their ways are full of dirts.

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.

Empiree:
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 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 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 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.

AlBaqir:
# 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.

sino:
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!

sino:
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.

AlBaqir:
# 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

AlBaqir:
# 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.

Hassanmaye:
Please sir send me the video of albani saying All books are not hundred percent authentic except the Qur'an. 09023945495

Empiree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w46-M1XqsUQ

I can't forward to your phone, sorry.

Empiree:
this is waste of my time. It was already explained to you. Take it or leave it.



this is simple. He learned Arabic from Nomads.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Ishmael-the-progenitor-of-Arabs