Interesting post regarding Bukhari & Mushrik
-
Samia
Your criticising Bukhari or other Muslim writers just depict your mentality and your dark thoughts accepting west as your masters.
The masters say
If you tell yourself that the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then you also have to tell yourself that only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115 800,000. Comparable figure for whites about 30 millionWhat do you say about this writer who wrote this?? he did proper research, sampling etc. and what he found correct he wrote it down as conclusion, is he a Liar? can you call him a liar, despite you wanting to smay be spank him?
Similarly how can you blame Bukhari for any thing he reports after careful researching tools available at that time.
That shows either black people are stupid or that IQ tests are skewed towards caucasians.
-
Peace Rajah,
One must not indulge in a topic one knows nothing of.
It is better than indulging in hero-worship and idolizing pagan shrines and performing mindless pagan rituals.
- 600,000 stories out of them some two liners and at most of two pages.
Have you even seen the book of Bukhari? The Hadiths that he collected (about 1% of the 600,000) occupy 9 volumes each almost as big as the great reading. Many Hadiths are more than one page long. So you are talking about what would have been at least occupying 900 books the size of the great reading. The author of the book of Bukhari claims that he spent 16 years working on Hadiths. Even if he didn't sleep, drink or eat and di nothing but study Hadiths, it would have taken him about 14 minutes per Hadith. Even today in the age of the Internet and instant information, it is very hard to find, catalogue, study, verify, etc. a Hadith properly in 14 minutes. Keep in mind that Bukhari boasts (apparently the man was an attention seeker who loved to boast) that he traveled allover to verify any Hadith from the supposed source. His name is Bukhari because he lived in Bukhara in Iran. So traveling to Central Arabia, Egypt, etc. would have taken months. For example, he claims to have traveled to Egypt to verify ONE Hadith and he found it false because he didn't like the guy who allegedly transmitted it.
- 200,000 memorized most of them are having the same content just with difference of chain and slight change of words.
Those would have been the size of about 300 great readings. Even if they were all the SAME EXACT Hadith with only small differences. It is still a physical impossibility to memorize 200,000 small differences in 300 large books!
- At that time the most important religous education was to memorize the Quran and Hadith, so he was one of the many who dedicated decades of his life in just memorizing HAdith, by using the following method.
Effectiveness (Priority)
Adherence (Interest)
Efficiency (Process)
Scholars have given the study of hadith a great weight. They argued over how early one can start studying it and how one can perfect it. Some said as early as 10 years, others said 12, 15 or 20.
Typical Sunni nostalgia for the good ol-days. Aah... the days where you could stone people to death and worship your super human hero Bukhari without anyone pointing out your foolishness.
Show me one person today who has memorized 200,000 Hadiths. Of course you can't!
Let me make it even easier. Show me one person today who has memorized any 300 books each the size of the great reading.
- Even today have you ever listened or heared to Dr. Zakir Naik he has an excellent memory.
Yet your Dr. with excellent memory still can't memorize 200,000 Hadiths. As I said, show me one person today who has memorized any 300 books each the size of the great reading. But of course, you will claim that in the good ol-days, not only you could stone people but people were smarter and stronger than people today. Heck, some Hadiths even claim that in the really ol-days people used to be 30 meters tall!!!
- As an example of how early you can begin, Imam Shafii memorized all of Imam Malik?s Muwata? when he was only 10, (offcourse for a materialistic alike of ayman it is a lie)
Apparently all your Imams had inferiority complexes and loved to boast to seek attention. Of course the later boasts have to out do the earlier ones.
- Many Madrassah's I have visited in my country I have seen young boys with memory skills of 5,000 to 7,000 Hadith's along with 6,000 + Ayats of Quran, and hundreds of Duwa's, Duroods etc.
As I said, show me one person today who has memorized the equivalent of 200,000 Hadiths.
- It may be an addition to our brother ayman who is misguided that A scholar who is called a ?Hujjah? of hadith is one who memorizes at least 300,000 ahadith. A Hafiz is one who memorizes 100,000. A Hakim is one who memorizes all of the known ahadith. These titles are not of just today, they are of centuries old, so if no one existed who memorized 300,000 Hadith why then there was a title for him.
I know a title for people who believe such nonsense, hero worshippers. As I said, show me one person today who has memorized the equivalent of 200,000 Hadiths.
- Latest research shows us that a student using some Phoneic system can develop 100,000 words written vocubalary at age of 23 only studying two hours daily, meaning to say by dedication and proper system and enough time provided that is not impossible.
What you develop by 23 is the language that you use your entire lifetime. 100,000 words is nothing compared to 200,000 Hadiths. Many Hadiths have 500 or more words with even the very short Hadiths having about 25 words. The average Hadith probably has about 100 words This plus the chain of transmission for each, which is perhaps 10 words on average. So on average this would be the equivalent of less than 1000 Hadiths in 23 years while using those words constantly in everyday language!!
Thus it has again been proved that Ayman is the LIAR of the century, who is shameless even when playing with word of GOD, telling us to change the HOUSE of Allah and we know Allah did not said us to do so.
Offcourse I am not advocating the memorization of HAdith or Quran senselessly but it is just to prove that not Bukhari is a Liar but AYMAN is!Whoever wrote the book of Bukhari is a proven liar due to physical impossibility. This is indisputable. By defending your lying hero Bukhari against all common sense, you are only parading your typical sectarian hero-worship on this forum.
Peace,
Ayman
-
If you tell yourself that the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then you also have to tell yourself that only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115 800,000. Comparable figure for whites about 30 million
What do you say about this writer who wrote this?? he did proper research, sampling etc. and what he found correct he wrote it down as conclusion, is he a Liar? can you call him a liar, despite you wanting to smay be spank him?
Similarly how can you blame Bukhari for any thing he reports after careful researching tools available at that time.
So, do I understand by analogy that you admit that what Bukhari had sampled was mere lies and he is to be exonerated?
"My master" is biased against blacks. Analogically I can also say that "your master" is biased against the quraan and the prophet.
-
Salam Hussein, all,
OK now I will explain my reasons why I believe the hadiths pertaining to stoning adulterers are pure fabrications to corrupt the true teaching of quran.
- The prophet was gentile.
Since the prophet was gentile, he would not command people to stone adulterers claiming that it is God's command.
- After the prophet received revelations, the revelations do not command to stone adulterers.
The revelations even leave no room for stoning adulterers as can be easily understood by reading 241-3.
- Quran do not abrogate quran.
3- The idea that God abrogates part of the Qur'an or makes it forgotten is not alien to the Qur'an. The Aya that says Ma nansakhu min Ayatin Aw nunisiha nati bikhayrin minha= What we abrogate of sing or make forgotten, we bring better than her.
The aya quoted is from 2106. If one reads carefully from 2105-108, one can easily see that the ayats do not refer to quran.
4- No matter what anyone says, no one can completely be sure that there was such an Aya, nor that there was not.
Actually if I ponder 2106 carefully, I can be sure that quranic verses of stoning were never there and are nothing but pure fabrications by the enemies of Islam to corrupt the true teaching of quran. My reasons are
- Sunnis and shias are still practicing it (or at least intend to implement it once they come to power) => This itself means the ayat God abrogated is not quranic verses of stoning because it is still being practised.
- The stoning ayat is not yet forgotten. Thanks to Bukhari, the ayat that God has made forgotten has been brought back to memory until now. Sister Samia has shown me the ayat.
Hadeeth number 1934 from "sunan ibn Maja", narrated Aisha that "I had both the verses of stonning and suckling the adult ten times (to make him a mahram) written on a paper under my bed, and as we were busy with the funeral of the prophet, a goat (or a domesticated animal) entered and ate the paper up".
The verse of stoning "The old man and the old woman, stone them absolutely if they commit zena, and do not have mercy on them"...Even this fabricated verse does not mention married couples but old ones. So why did the prophet stone young people?!So since stoning verse is not yet forgotten, God must be explaining something else in 2106 when He says He makes the ayat forgotten.
Wassalam,
Ade -
Peace all,
Those discussions about stoning and other Hadith nonsense and in fact the very exitence of Hadiths, serve as a sign that the great reading hasn't been tampered with. If it has, then people wouldn't have had to go through so much trouble and make up such extraordinary stories. We can see the straight path more clearly by contrasting it with the path of the misguided. The god creates everything for a good purpose.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Samia, all
Salaam ade_cool, all
Hadeeth number 1934 from "sunan ibn Maja", narrated Aisha that "I had both the verses of stonning and suckling the adult ten times (to make him a mahram) written on a paper under my bed, and as we were busy with the funeral of the prophet, a goat (or a domesticated animal) entered and ate the paper up".
The verse of stoning "The old man and the old woman, stone them absolutely if they commit zena, and do not have mercy on them"...Even this fabricated verse does not mention married couples but old ones. So why did the prophet stone young people?!Thanks for the reference.
If we analyze the hadiths carefully, we can see how the enemies of Islam tried to corrupt the teaching of quran using the concept well known as abrogation of quran.
Shahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
The thing is in quran we don't find five sucklings which according to hadiths abrogate ten suckling (also in quran). Conclusion The existence of such hadiths is proof that those hadiths are nothing but fabrications.
-
Assuming a hadeeth takes a minute to recite, those people were sitting for 250 hours? The only possible explanation is that at one point in time, there were intelligent rocks (hence the incredible attention span).
"In his early period of acquiring knowledge, he memorised seventy thousand Ah?d?th "
From what I heard, this was by age 10. Still, seventy thousand hadeeth would be remarkable for a human of any age.
Does anyone (only sane people need apply) actually believe these stories?
YES, WE (more than a billion people) believe in it!! What is your problem? It is for bukhari we believe 'coz mentally he was very sound. We all know huzoor tried to commit suicide several times but have you ever heard bukhari tried it even once? NO! Truth prevails elhamdulillah!
-
totally agree with Rasul Hamsa.
Allah gave Bukhari special powers to memorize the hadith. God can do whatever god wants. It's a miracle from god that Bukhari was able to collect all those ahadith and record the true ones, which is proof that we are supposed to follow the hadith.To GOD belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth, and all matters are controlled by GOD.
Irrefutible evidence. God controls ALL matters. If god did not want us to follow hadith, Bukhari would not have collected those hadith. The Quran has spoken.
-
Salaam Raj-ah
So you are saddened by what I said about bukhari, but not saddened by what Bukhari said about the prophet? nope
Why should we saddened by what Bukhari said about huzoor? Bukhari has only recorded the truth about him! Are you saying Bukhari should have not revealed the character of huzoor? I think you are a hero worshipper thats why don't wanna listen truth about your hero! We should be thankful to Bukhari for showing us the true picture of huzoor.
-
Hadeeth number 1934 from "sunan ibn Maja", narrated Aisha that "I had both the verses of stonning and suckling the adult ten times (to make him a mahram) written on a paper under my bed, and as we were busy with the funeral of the prophet, a goat (or a domesticated animal) entered and ate the paper up".
Shahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
What's mindbogging is people reading it and then actually buying this stuff as divine, on the level of the Quran, this crap. Amazing. If someone brought this up, personally I wouldn't be arguing about the number of sucklings, I'd say it's 7.5 and end the debate.
-
Salaam Samia
Salaam Raj-ah
So you are saddened by what I said about bukhari, but not saddened by what Bukhari said about the prophet?Saddened? No! but amazed to see comments of some one who calls herself rational minded.
I repeat; Bukhari reported what he learned through the research tools available then and that is what he did like most of historians do. Today by sceintific methods and advancement in our knowldge we can point several mistakes and blunders in his work, likely in future several mistakes and blunders will be pointed out in the works of today's historians and scientists. This will go on and on we just can't blame them. If Bukhari recorded something in his book, he did thorough research with the tools available then, how good these tools were? we know it now but you just can't blame him for that.
He did a great work, offcourse YOU the Quran Alone owe your existence mostly due to him peace -
Today by sceintific methods and advancement in our knowldge we can point several mistakes and blunders in his work,
Salaam Raj-ah
What scientific methods and advancement in our knowledge are you talking about? Didn't he have access to the quran? It could have been enough reference and knowledge for him, but he nevertheless decided to record all these lies and keep them alive. That's what sinister about him, like it or not.
he did thorough research
Do you even know what research is, let alone "thorough" research!!
He did a great work, offcourse YOU the Quran Alone owe your existence mostly due to him
Just like saying Satan did a great work, of course good people owe their existence mostly due to him! What a lame argument!!
amazed to see comments of some one who calls herself rational minded.
I never called myself rational minded. That's what you think of me... handshake
-
Salaam Ayman
Bukhari spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 hadith (9,082 with repetition).
Can you quote me from the Book of Bukhari that he memorized 300000 Hadith or so, I can't find any such quote in his book. The fact is his book includes the numbers mentioned above and almost all other books of Hadith have Hadiths near to this number.
Infact what I found is "He said, I heard as-Sadani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Ismail said I selected/published this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports".
Therefore it is highly doubtful that Bukhari said or mentioned the number of 600000.
Even though if he said it then we must understand that
that a had?th is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as one had?th but rather as ten had?ths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.Proffessor Mustafa al-Azami adds
Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadith
also
Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission
Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes
... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.
May Allah Guide you to right Path as you have misguided many dear Ayman, that is my pray for you always.
Please try to understand I never asked you to believe in these Hadith until and unless they are not been properly verified and that is a difficult job offcourse, so you choose the easy path by stating all of them as trash and their writrers as Janitors.
What Bukhari reported was according to his times and tools available at that time, he sincierly reported them and that is what a good historian will do, after proper resaerch by the tools available for research at the time.
So your criticisim of Muslim writer is not academic in any sense.
-
Salaam Raj-ah
What scientific methods and advancement in our knowledge are you talking about? Didn't he have access to the quran? It could have been enough reference and knowledge for him, but he nevertheless decided to record all these lies and keep them alive. That's what sinister about him, like it or not.
Waalikum Salaam Samia
Do we not have Quran today? 1200 years later than Bukhari, why then most of us have our own brand of Islam? Yousaf Ali Understands Quran according to his understanding, IQbal according to his, Khalifa and Shakir according to theirs, Irshad Menji according to her's Ghulam Pervez according to his and Muhammad Asad and Maududi according to theirs, FM have their own brand, I cannot call all these liars or criticise them personally, even though if they are wrong but they are contributing
MEnji thinks being LEsbian is allowed in Quran and she brings different Ayats of Quran in her defense, so does OSAMA he thinks suicide attacks on any non muslim is valid and brings the Quranic Ayat for his defense, So SAMIA being a Moderator at a WEB site does not make one have higher IQ.
Bukhari reported what he thought according to his understanding conciled with Quran with his limited knowldge at that time.For example a Hadith reports that the "SUN goes down in murky pond in the west and then passing under the throne of Allah rises from the east the next day"
Now by advanced scientific knowldge I mean is that; if Bukhari had the Knowldge that Sun neither rises nor sets he would have rejected this Hadith, but in absense of this knowldge he checked it with Quran and their is a Ayat in Quran which reconciles exactly with this Hadith, the Ayat regarding "Zulqarnain seein the Sun setting in murky pond".
So what will Bukhari do now he has a HADITH and he has a Quranic Ayat in its support, in absence of sceintific knowldge BUkhari did what he had to do.Now if you realy are a rational mind hope this post clears a lot.
-
Waalikum Salaam Samia
Do we not have Quran today? 1200 years later than Bukhari, why then most of us have our own brand of Islam? Yousaf Ali Understands Quran according to his understanding, IQbal according to his, Khalifa and Shakir according to theirs, Irshad Menji according to her's Ghulam Pervez according to his and Muhammad Asad and Maududi according to theirs, FM have their own brand, I cannot call all these liars or criticise them personally, even though if they are wrong but they are contributing
And who said in the past people did not have their own opinions? How much do you know about Muslim strongly objecting the notion of "abrogation"? How about the mu'tazelites and "Akhwanus-safa", and the thousands of books that have been destroyed? How about the fact that we hardly have any serious books written in the few years after the death of the prophet?
There is a difference between reading the qur'aan and having a different understanding, and collecting hearsay that is contradicting to the qur'aan. Has bukhary even tried to relate any hadith to the quraan and show us that's what he "understood"?
You want to exonerate bukhari by all means, even if you have to contradict yourself. In your recent post, you said he was just "a researcher". Researchers do not have an opinion, but go as their research lead them. bukhari is neither a researcher nor a thinker. He is a sinister man, period.
he checked it with Quran and their is a Ayat in Quran which reconciles exactly with this Hadith, the Ayat regarding "Zulqarnain seein the Sun setting in murky pond".
I think you mean he checked it and "understood" that the globe is carried between "the qarnain of Zulqarnain the two horns of zulqarnain"!!!
What support in the quraan did he find for the thousands of baseless hadiths?
So SAMIA being a Moderator at a WEB site does not make one have higher IQ.
Of course you know that. I debated with you before I was mod ; but I wished being a mod makes one have a higher IQ I would have suggested you be a mod.
-
Peace Ayman, all,
Peace Ade, all,
There is no reason to be hesitant or apologetic when it comes to calling whoever wrote the book of Sahih Bukhari a liar. Whoever wrote this book is certainly a proven liar beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not that I am hesitant as I already said previously that I have big big problem to believe Shahih Bukhari is authentic from Bukhari and at the
same time believe Bukhari is muslim. The thing is I cannot just neglect the possibility that "some" parties changed Shahih Bukhari after Bukhari's death.
I have once read that Shahih Bukhari was not even written by Bukhari. I will try to find the article soon.In the very introduction of the book, the author brags to have studied 600,000 stories and to have memorized 200,000. This is a physical
impossibility. So not only is the author a proven liar, but he also shamelessly and arrogantly boasts with his lies. Of course, only people who suffer from
"hero worship" and have emotional attachment to such lies equally as shamelessly disregard common sense and imagine that the book of the liar provides "checks and balances" for the book of the truth.I think those concocted stories are to convince people "how great Bukhari worked". When I was sunni, I used to be amazed with the history of Bukhari. But after I ponder carefully, it just doesn't add up. The link to the article I posted earlier has explained in details and better why it doesn't add up so I think I needn't add anything here.
You have the higher ground by far so don't be hesitant or apologetic when it comes to demolishing the house of cards called Hadiths. Your typical
Hadith-defenders opponents know that it is a house of cards built on the edge of hell. This is why they will defend even the silliest hadiths (a la "stoning
monkeys" to the death. They know that like a house of cards, take away one and the whole thing comes crashing down.For hadith scholars or those who have studied hadiths (at least know the basic premise of science of hadith) or those who ponder hadith compilations carefully, they will know that rejecting even one shahih hadith has far reaching consequences since it can have the same chain of narrators with other "fine" hadiths. However, ordinary sunnis normally don't know (or don't want to know???) about that.
Wassalam,
Ade -
Salaam Raj-ah
Please give your commentary on this "thorough research" (see link) in which the so called Bukhari demonstrated a personal understanding of the quraan!!
OK guys, here is the article ...
http//www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_debunking.htm
Thank you ade_cool
-
OK guys, here is the article ...
http//www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_debunking.htm
Cool article. I particularly like the choice of hadith and the commentary ;D. Thanks!