Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
It's me hello

Bukhari?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What is special about Bukhari?  Why don't we accept bukhari? How important is he to Sunni Muslims. I saw [this] "And compare this with all that they say about Imam Bukhari" which made me wonder.

Finally, do Sunnis not believe that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was infallible, and if so why?

I don't know Islamic terms very well, so I'm going to need a proper explanation. Thanks!

 

(Salaam)

Edited by It's me hello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Bukhari -  Imam Ali spent all 23 years of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad with him and yet Abu Huraira who spent at most 2 years with the Prophet has more hadith narrated than Imam Ali. So we think Bukhari is a tad bit biased...just a tad.

Some Sunni believe the Prophet is infallible while a lot don't. There are a variety of reasons but IMHO a fallible Prophet gives them the perfect excuse for all the errors of the Caliphs and some sahaba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

About Bukhari -  Imam Ali spent all 23 years of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad with him and yet Abu Huraira who spent at most 2 years with the Prophet has more hadith narrated than Imam Ali. So we think Bukhari is a tad bit biased...just a tad.

And also less hadith from other prominent companions like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Zubaiyr etc all those counted amongst ashra mubashira by ahlus Sunnah. One wonders why were they dealt in a similar fashion by Imam Bukhari? It is also confusing that Bukhari goes on to praise all those, while not taking "more" hadith from them? was it bias?

Is it not it possible that Imam Bukhari, who collected ahadith some 200 years after their death, only collected ahadith from those narrators who were able to record or preserve ahadith or isnad of their narrations properly or as per the conditions/criteria set by Imam Bukhari? As we know that time is cruel and many precious books and data got lost during the course. Many books attributed to Aima Ahly Bayt do not exist. Therefore, it seems likely that many of the students from the circle of many companions could not properly preserve the knowledge, unfortuantely. And it seems the reason why we see very little narrations from many of the prominent companions.

7 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Some Sunni believe the Prophet is infallible while a lot don't. There are a variety of reasons but IMHO a fallible Prophet gives them the perfect excuse for all the errors of the Caliphs and some sahaba.

All Sunnis believe that Prophet (saw) was infallible that he (saw) could never make any mistake in his mission i.e. propagation of Islam. However, there is a difference of opinion on worldly matters, like if you are doing some calculations while doing grocery and miscalculate for some reason like may be you are tired or distracted etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, It's me hello said:

What is special about Bukhari?  Why don't we accept bukhari? How important is he to Sunni Muslims. I saw [this] "And compare this with all that they say about Imam Bukhari" which made me wonder.

Finally, do Sunnis not believe that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was infallible, and if so why?

I don't know Islamic terms very well, so I'm going to need a proper explanation. Thanks!

(Salaam)

The most special thing about Bukhari is that it primarily contains traditions of/on Rasool Allah (saw) and revolves around his personality and mission.

Yes, Ahlus Sunnah unanimously consider Prophet (saw) as infallible... infact, every other prophet (peace be upon them all) is also infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2016 at 3:55 AM, It's me hello said:

What is special about Bukhari?  Why don't we accept bukhari? How important is he to Sunni Muslims. I saw [this] "And compare this with all that they say about Imam Bukhari" which made me wonder.

Finally, do Sunnis not believe that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was infallible, and if so why?

I don't know Islamic terms very well, so I'm going to need a proper explanation. Thanks!

 

(Salaam)

Importance of bukhari to sunnies is in the sense that it is most authentic collection of ahadith, whose sanad (chain of narrators) goes back to Rasoolullah without any discontinuity, such ahadith are called Marfu. All such marfu narrations of bukhari are correct. But in bukhari there are also sayings and opinions of companions (Sahabah) and their followers (Tabi’in and Taba tabi’in), which may or may not be correct, as they are based on their knowledge about Quran and Hadith. We (sunnies) accept those opinions on which there is consensus among the sahabah. This is one of the misconception among most sunnies about bukhari that whatever it is in between the two covers in 100% true and correct. This concept is wrong. Same is true for Muslim (second most authentic hadith book).  

Shias do not accept this book except those narrations that are in their favor (which are very few). They better answer about their excuse.

We (sunnies) do believe that Prophets are infallible as for as deliverance of divine message (Book or Wahi) is concerned, they do not make any mistake in conveying the message. They are under protection of Allah for this task. Also they are infallible in the sense that they do not commit major or minor sins. But they can make mistakes. Mistake is not a sin. Its human nature. Only Allah is free from doing mistakes. All humans can make mistakes. But the difference between prophets and other people in this aspect is that, prophets do not make mistake deliberately, it happen accidently. But Allah even don’t like this about them. There are many evidences for this in Quran, Prophet Adam a.s made a mistake and was removed from paradise, Prophet Yunus a.s made a mistake and was swallowed by a whale etc. Prophets made mistakes then repented and Allah forgave. Only Allah cannot make mistakes.

Similarly, Imams from Ahlebait are infallible in similar manner. But can make mistakes and there are several examples on this in bukhari and shia books as well. Shaikh Sadooq (top most shia scholar of hadith) also had the same belief as sunnies have. See his book Uyun akhbar reza, vol-1, ch: 19, narration no. 2 and author’s comments on it.

He (Sadooq) was also the first scholar among shias, as of my knowledge, who cursed and criticized those among shia scholars and followers who were of the opinion that even Imams cannot make mistakes. Sadooq called them Ghullat (exaggerators). It is the attribute of Allah alone that he cannot make mistakes. Same way there is an attribute of Allah that he cannot sleep. Now can anyone will say that Prophets and Imams also cannot sleep. This is wrong interpretation of verses of Quran.

Point is that don’t follow the concepts and ideas which are famous and well known but follow those who are true and correct in accordance to explicit verses of Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

About Bukhari -  Imam Ali spent all 23 years of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad with him and yet Abu Huraira who spent at most 2 years with the Prophet has more hadith narrated than Imam Ali. So we think Bukhari is a tad bit biased...just a tad.

Some Sunni believe the Prophet is infallible while a lot don't. There are a variety of reasons but IMHO a fallible Prophet gives them the perfect excuse for all the errors of the Caliphs and some sahaba.

This is most popular argument shias use against Imam Bukhari and his book. Which in fact is based on their emotions and lack of knowledge (with due respect).

Imam Bukhari and all other hadith scholars had collected ahadith from next generations, few centuries later, not from the companions & ahlebait directly. The main reason (there are in fact many) why Imam Bukhari not collected ahadith available on the names of other companions and ahlebait in particular, as much as he collected from Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Umar, Ibn Abbas and others is that (1) either they have not narrated a lot to other generations, although they lived long. (2) or they have lived not long so that they can narrate to others. (3) Also so many lies have been said and propagated among new generations in the name of ahlebait. So Imam Bukhari rejected all such doubtful narrations and collected only those which appear to him most authentic. That’s why there are just fews narrations in bukhari which are doubtful. But narrations of Prophet i.e marfu ahadith in bukhari are all correct. Doubts are only in the opinions of companions and their next generation followers.

Lets now apply the same shia argument to their famous hadith collection Kitab Al-kafi of Shaikh kulayni (d. 329 AH). Who compiled this collection after 20 years of hard work. This book contains 16,000+ narrations, all from ahlebait, more than narrations of both bukhari and muslim combined. How many of them are from Maula Ali (a.s), Maula Hassan (a.s), Maula Hussain (a.s), Maula Ali bin Hussain (a.s) and from Syeda Fatima (s.a). And how many are from Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w) himself.

Also remember the fact that out of 16,000+ narrations only 38% are correct according to baqir majlisi, 27.9% are correct according to Baqir Bahbudi and 41% are correct according to Fakhrudin turayhi. Then how many narrations are correct which are from Maula Ali (a.s), Maula Hassan (a.s), Maula Hussain (a.s), Maula Ali bin Hussain (a.s) and from Syeda Fatima (s.a) and from Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w).

About 80% narrations in Kafi are from Imam Baqir a.s and Imam Jafar a.s. What about other Imams? These all narrations Kulayni took from next generations, not from the Imams directly, same thing Bukhari did. Also Kulayni lived during the time of greater occultation and died in year 329 AH, why he had not taken narrations from 12th Imam directly or from his four deputies.

Now, using the same argument, compare work of bukhari and kulayni. Who had done better job. Kulayni after spending 20 years of hard work collected 16000+ narrations out which more 50% are wrong. while bukhari who collected just 7000+ narrations, only few are doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, aansoogas said:

Is it not it possible that Imam Bukhari, who collected ahadith some 200 years after their death, only collected ahadith from those narrators who were able to record or preserve ahadith or isnad of their narrations properly or as per the conditions/criteria set by Imam Bukhari? .

While it is obvious that Bukhari had some criteria for giving preference to some narrators over others, I am questioning the criteria itself. After all if Abu Huraira fits the criteria then something it is not right as Caliph Umar himself beat up Abu Huraira for narrating false hadith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, aansoogas said:

All Sunnis believe that Prophet (saw) was infallible that he (saw) could never make any mistake in his mission i.e. propagation of Islam. However, there is a difference of opinion on worldly matters, like if you are doing some calculations while doing grocery and miscalculate for some reason like may be you are tired or distracted etc.

Sorry brother - plenty of Sunnis don't believe the Prophet was infallible. I have debated with a few on ShiaChat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

This is most popular argument shias use against Imam Bukhari and his book. Which in fact is based on their emotions and lack of knowledge (with due respect).

Imam Bukhari and all other hadith scholars had collected ahadith from next generations, few centuries later, not from the companions & ahlebait directly. The main reason (there are in fact many) why Imam Bukhari not collected ahadith available on the names of other companions and ahlebait in particular, as much as he collected from Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Umar, Ibn Abbas and others is that (1) either they have not narrated a lot to other generations, although they lived long. (2) or they have lived not long so that they can narrate to others. (3) Also so many lies have been said and propagated among new generations in the name of ahlebait. So Imam Bukhari rejected all such doubtful narrations and collected only those which appear to him most authentic. That’s why there are just fews narrations in bukhari which are doubtful. But narrations of Prophet i.e marfu ahadith in bukhari are all correct. Doubts are only in the opinions of companions and their next generation followers.

Were any members of the AhlulBayt alive when Bukhari compiled the Sahih? If so, I would think the majority of narrations would have come from them and not the likes of Abu Huraira who was beaten up by Caliph Umar for lying.

3 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Lets now apply the same shia argument to their famous hadith collection Kitab Al-kafi of Shaikh kulayni (d. 329 AH). Who compiled this collection after 20 years of hard work. This book contains 16,000+ narrations, all from ahlebait, more than narrations of both bukhari and muslim combined. How many of them are from Maula Ali (a.s), Maula Hassan (a.s), Maula Hussain (a.s), Maula Ali bin Hussain (a.s) and from Syeda Fatima (s.a). And how many are from Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w) himself.

Also remember the fact that out of 16,000+ narrations only 38% are correct according to baqir majlisi, 27.9% are correct according to Baqir Bahbudi and 41% are correct according to Fakhrudin turayhi. Then how many narrations are correct which are from Maula Ali (a.s), Maula Hassan (a.s), Maula Hussain (a.s), Maula Ali bin Hussain (a.s) and from Syeda Fatima (s.a) and from Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w).

About 80% narrations in Kafi are from Imam Baqir a.s and Imam Jafar a.s. What about other Imams? These all narrations Kulayni took from next generations, not from the Imams directly, same thing Bukhari did. Also Kulayni lived during the time of greater occultation and died in year 329 AH, why he had not taken narrations from 12th Imam directly or from his four deputies.

Now, using the same argument, compare work of bukhari and kulayni. Who had done better job. Kulayni after spending 20 years of hard work collected 16000+ narrations out which more 50% are wrong. while bukhari who collected just 7000+ narrations, only few are doubtful.

1. We do not have Sahih books. Each narration has to be vetted for authenticity.

2. I believe Kulayni himself said his job was to compile everything he could find and it would be up to future generations to verify each hadith - that is what Majlisi and the rest did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

While it is obvious that Bukhari had some criteria for giving preference to some narrators over others, I am questioning the criteria itself. After all if Abu Huraira fits the criteria then something it is not right as Caliph Umar himself beat up Abu Huraira for narrating false hadith.

The criteria of the muhaditheen at that time mainly circled around the soundness with which a narration has reached to them. We don't accept the account of Umar beating Abu Hurayra on any such basis. We don't have a reliable account on that.

42 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Sorry brother - plenty of Sunnis don't believe the Prophet was infallible. I have debated with a few on ShiaChat.

Let me assure you that if there is one (although i never came across one) with such a view, then he has already lost the right to be called a Sunni because that is a fundamental deviation from a unanimous verdict of the Jamat on infallibility of the prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, aansoogas said:

All Sunnis believe that Prophet (saw) was infallible that he (saw) could never make any mistake in his mission i.e. propagation of Islam.

If as per your understanding the prophet is infallible then how a  fallible like Abu bakr can be his caliph / successor?

Allah swt has himself  chosen the infallible prophet then how the fallible people can chose a fallible as his successor after him?

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, skamran110 said:

If as per your understanding the prophet is infallible then how a  fallible like Abu bakr can be his caliph / successor?

Allah swt has himself  chosen the infallible prophet then how the fallible people can chose a fallible as his successor after him?

and the ummah cannot be led by a fallible.. what is the basis of this claim?

Edited by aansoogas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Were any members of the AhlulBayt alive when Bukhari compiled the Sahih? If so, I would think the majority of narrations would have come from them and not the likes of Abu Huraira who was beaten up by Caliph Umar for lying.

1. We do not have Sahih books. Each narration has to be vetted for authenticity.

2. I believe Kulayni himself said his job was to compile everything he could find and it would be up to future generations to verify each hadith - that is what Majlisi and the rest did.

I have already given answer of your every doubt in my previous replys. Read carefully.

That Imam Bukhari had not taken from abu hurraira narrations directly. he had taken from people of his time. The reason why he had not taken more from Imams i have answered that before. As for beaten up by Hz. umar is concerned you are half quoting the story. Later the matter was solved and confirmed by Prophet himself that i have said abu huraira to tell the people. also Prophet agreed with hz. umar views. read entire nrration. answer is there itself.

You said we do not have sahih books. but your scholars must have verified narrations. so why not there are separate books on sahih narrations and separate books on false narrations. like ahlul sunnah has done. why they are still mixed even in today's era of internet. people read those books mostly with false and true narrations combined.

Whatever kulayni has said i agree with him. and whatever majlisi an others have done i appreciate. but problem is that which scholar should be followed in this matter.

majlisi said: 38% of kafi is sahih.

behbudi said: 27.9% is sahih.

Murtaza askari said: 27.4% is sahih

May be after few years one more shia scholar will say only 15 or 20 % is sahih

Also kulayni lived during the minor occultation of 12th imam. why did not he narrated from him directly. or from his four reputed deputies. Whatever will be your answer consider the same from my side on why Imam bukhari has not taken many narrations from Imams of halebait.

20 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

S.M.H.A, why not you give your opnion why you are just copy pasting links and long articles. what are your personal remarks. Dont follow others in everything all the time.

17 hours ago, skamran110 said:

If as per your understanding the prophet is infallible then how a  fallible like Abu bakr can be his caliph / successor?

Allah swt has himself  chosen the infallible prophet then how the fallible people can chose a fallible as his successor after him?

Topic is not about prophets. Its about caliphate. also comparison b/w the two is very inappropiate. Allah has chosen the prophets and all those prophets were actually prophets practically not in theory. While as per your theory of caliphate they should be appointed by Allah. If they were realy appointed by Allah then they should have be the calpihs practically, not just in theory or texts. see surah maida 54. Also the same was true true for bani israel. Their caliphs were also falliables except the two Prophet david a.s and solomon a.s. other prophets of bani isreal were not caliphs. same is the case with ahlebait. only Imam ali and Imam haasan were the caliphs in reality and Imam mahdi will be the 3rd. but all other imams did not get caliphate in reality. In theory you can assume anything for anyone. all theories are not real. even science do not accept theories only those which are proven by real experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Topic is not about prophets. Its about caliphate. also comparison b/w the two is very inappropiate. Allah has chosen the prophets and all those prophets were actually prophets practically not in theory. While as per your theory of caliphate they should be appointed by Allah. If they were realy appointed by Allah then they should have be the calpihs practically, not just in theory or texts. see surah maida 54. Also the same was true true for bani israel. Their caliphs were also falliables except the two Prophet david a.s and solomon a.s. other prophets of bani isreal were not caliphs. same is the case with ahlebait. only Imam ali and Imam haasan were the caliphs in reality and Imam mahdi will be the 3rd. but all other imams did not get caliphate in reality. In theory you can assume anything for anyone. all theories are not real. even science do not accept theories only those which are proven by real experiments.

Without understanding the process of selection of prophets you can never understand the selection of their successors or caliphs. so your assumption is null and void.

All the prophets were not given authority and government by Allah swt except some selected one by Alah swt since the duty of messengers is not to establish a government but to guide the ummah to true path. So caliph does not mean to be a ruler but he is vicegerent of Allah swt and successor of the prophets appointed by Allah swt. 

Our prophet is the  chief of all the prophet, he is infallible as per sunni as well, so  his successors should be infallible.

I would like you to please quote the verses of quran mentioning that people can choose the prophet by shura or his caliph or successor after  him by shura. as evidence of your understanding/ claim.

Thanks

 

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2016 at 5:17 AM, aansoogas said:

Let me assure you that if there is one (although i never came across one) with such a view, then he has already lost the right to be called a Sunni because that is a fundamental deviation from a unanimous verdict of the Jamat on infallibility of the prophets.

 

10 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

I have already given answer of your every doubt in my previous replys. Read carefully.

You said, "(1) either they have not narrated a lot to other generations, although they lived long. (2) or they have lived not long so that they can narrate to others. (3) Also so many lies have been said and propagated among new generations in the name of ahlebait. So Imam Bukhari rejected all such doubtful narrations and collected only those which appear to him most authentic."

Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain, Imam Sajjad, Imam Baqir, Imam Jafar - all lived more than 50 years. Are you really saying they chose to not narrate any prophetic traditions? And if lies are spread in the name of the Ahlebait, then couldnt lies be spread in the name of sahaba? Think carefully.

10 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

That Imam Bukhari had not taken from abu hurraira narrations directly. he had taken from people of his time. The reason why he had not taken more from Imams i have answered that before. As for beaten up by Hz. umar is concerned you are half quoting the story. Later the matter was solved and confirmed by Prophet himself that i have said abu huraira to tell the people. also Prophet agreed with hz. umar views. read entire nrration. answer is there itself.

This makes your case even weaker. Not only is Abu Huraira not reliable, then we have to worry about the chain that leads to him. According to you, lies could have been propagated in his name since they were propagated in the Ahlebayt's name.

10 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

You said we do not have sahih books. but your scholars must have verified narrations. so why not there are separate books on sahih narrations and separate books on false narrations. like ahlul sunnah has done. why they are still mixed even in today's era of internet. people read those books mostly with false and true narrations combined.

That is actually a fantastic idea. I will inform the powers to be to come up with Sahih Kulayni because tagging the narrations as sahih, da'if, etc is too confusing.

10 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Whatever kulayni has said i agree with him. and whatever majlisi an others have done i appreciate. but problem is that which scholar should be followed in this matter.

majlisi said: 38% of kafi is sahih.

behbudi said: 27.9% is sahih.

Murtaza askari said: 27.4% is sahih

May be after few years one more shia scholar will say only 15 or 20 % is sahih

Perhaps, that may be so. But is that not better than simply saying Sahih Bukhari and Muslim are 100% authentic and never investigate the veracity of this claim? There are plenty of books out there that have discredited this claim so really you are in denial while we accept that hadith are not all true and need to be examined.

10 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Also kulayni lived during the minor occultation of 12th imam. why did not he narrated from him directly. or from his four reputed deputies. Whatever will be your answer consider the same from my side on why Imam bukhari has not taken many narrations from Imams of halebait.

Kulayni is said to have benefited from the 4 deputies greatly. I will find some narrations from them and provide.

10 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Topic is not about prophets. Its about caliphate. also comparison b/w the two is very inappropiate. Allah has chosen the prophets and all those prophets were actually prophets practically not in theory. While as per your theory of caliphate they should be appointed by Allah. If they were realy appointed by Allah then they should have be the calpihs practically, not just in theory or texts. see surah maida 54. Also the same was true true for bani israel. Their caliphs were also falliables except the two Prophet david a.s and solomon a.s. other prophets of bani isreal were not caliphs. same is the case with ahlebait. only Imam ali and Imam haasan were the caliphs in reality and Imam mahdi will be the 3rd. but all other imams did not get caliphate in reality. In theory you can assume anything for anyone. all theories are not real. even science do not accept theories only those which are proven by real experiments.

This topic is about Bukhari and not about Prophets nor Caliphs.

Bukhari being sahih - is that a theory or a law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

 

S.M.H.A, why not you give your opnion why you are just copy pasting links and long articles. what are your personal remarks. Dont follow others in everything all the time.

 

This is the link that was posted. You need my opinion? on the quality of  Hadiths narrated by Abu hurayra

Open the link and read all the Hadith mentioned. and decide for yourself. 

https://www.al-islam.org/abu-hurayra-abdul-hussayn-sharafiddeen-al-musawi/quality-his-traditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2016 at 7:08 PM, aansoogas said:

The most special thing about Bukhari is that it primarily contains traditions of/on Rasool Allah (saw) and revolves around his personality and mission.

 

NOT TRUE

90% of the hadiths in Sahih Bukhari are not about the Prophet. They are about Tom, Richard and Harry.

When Umm al-Moumeen Aisha says she married Prophet when she was 6 years old, Then the hadith is not Prophet's hadiths.

Or, when it is said that the Prophet was under extreme magic for 6 months, then the hadith is not Prophet's hadiths.

I hope that you catch my drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2016 at 2:17 PM, aansoogas said:

Let me assure you that if there is one (although i never came across one) with such a view, then he has already lost the right to be called a Sunni because that is a fundamental deviation from a unanimous verdict of the Jamat on infallibility of the prophets.

According to Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet was under extreme magic for 6 complete months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2016 at 10:58 PM, BornShia said:

NOT TRUE

90% of the hadiths in Sahih Bukhari are not about the Prophet. They are about Tom, Richard and Harry.

When Umm al-Moumeen Aisha says she married Prophet when she was 6 years old, Then the hadith is not Prophet's hadiths.

Or, when it is said that the Prophet was under extreme magic for 6 months, then the hadith is not Prophet's hadiths.

I hope that you catch my drift.

Very wrong. Ahadith regarding prophet (saw) are of two types. Either Muttasil or Marfu.

When recorded the statements of the prophet (saw) himself (Mutassil). His actions (sunnah) recorded by others (Marfu).  There is no reason why anybody would say marfu are not about the Prophet.?? And al-Bukhari is filled with both.

Okay so you say that Mutassil are 10% in al Bukhari. Tell us, how many hadith on prophet (saw) are there in the four Shia authetic hadith books? To help you calculate it is 644 out of approx 44,000 narrations.

What percent do 92 prophetic hadith in Al-kafi make?

And having effects of Magic or being wounded by something else does not affect his infallibility as long as he (saw) does not err in his mission or conveyance of the message of Islam. Such things would only hinder his worldly matters. Did not Yaqub (as) lost his eyeside because of the weeping but it did not affect his infallibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aansoogas said:

Very wrong. Ahadith regarding prophet (saw) are of two types. Either Muttasil or Marfu.

When recorded the statements of the prophet (saw) himself (Mutassil). His actions (sunnah) recorded by others (Marfu).  There is no reason why anybody would say marfu are not about the Prophet.?? And al-Bukhari is filled with both.

Okay so you say that Mutassil are 10% in al Bukhari. Tell us, how many hadith on prophet (saw) are there in the four Shia authetic hadith books? To help you calculate it is 644 out of approx 44,000 narrations.

What percent do 92 prophetic hadith in Al-kafi make?

And having effects of Magic or being wounded by something else does not affect his infallibility as long as he (saw) does not err in his mission or conveyance of the message of Islam. Such things would only hinder his worldly matters. Did not Yaqub (as) lost his eyeside because of the weeping but it did not affect his infallibility.

I am not sure if you understand English or not. The thread is about Sahih Bukhari and not about Sahih Muslim and/or Kafi.

Each book has a methodology of collecting hadiths. Comparing Sunni method of collecting hadiths versus Shia method of collecting hadiths, is like comparing oranges with apples.

The Sunni method is Sahih : Sahih Sitta where is Kafi is a collection of bunch of hadiths, and when the author got tired of collecting, he named his book, "Enough" and not "Sahih"

Even, the collection of methodology differs between the Sahih Sitta. If you want to discuss Kafi, open a thread. However, I am very allergic to hadiths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, aansoogas said:

And having effects of Magic or being wounded by something else does not affect his infallibility as long as he (saw) does not err in his mission or conveyance of the message of Islam. Such things would only hinder his worldly matters. Did not Yaqub (as) lost his eyeside because of the weeping but it did not affect his infallibility.

You are not serious? Are you?

Do you consider a person under extreme magic to be same as a blind person?

When Allah takes away one sense, the other senses are amplified. Science has proven this.

And, you still consider the this trash hadith of Bukhari to be Sahih? OMG.

Bukhari doesn't know the Holy Quran. WHY?

Read his hadith about the second incident of loosing her necklace. BTW, the Holy Quran is not in chronological order and to help you out, Chapter 5 of the Holy Quran is in reality Chapter 112.

Now, you know that Bukhari doesn't know the Holy Quran?

Or shall I bring his Sahih Hadith to prove it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2016 at 3:55 AM, It's me hello said:

What is special about Bukhari?  Why don't we accept bukhari? How important is he to Sunni Muslims. I saw [this] "And compare this with all that they say about Imam Bukhari" which made me wonder.

Finally, do Sunnis not believe that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was infallible, and if so why?

I don't know Islamic terms very well, so I'm going to need a proper explanation. Thanks!

 

(Salaam)

I think now you might have understood what you have asked about bukhari. Read all replys. specially what I  and aansoogas have posted.

 

On 7/5/2016 at 11:31 PM, shiaman14 said:

This topic is about Bukhari and not about Prophets nor Caliphs.

Bukhari being sahih - is that a theory or a law?

True and correct concept about book of Imam Bukhari is as follows.

1. Whatever is in b/w the two covers of bukhari is not correct.

2. This book is called sahih because most of the narrations are sahih.

3. It not only contain ahadith of Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w) but also sayings and opinions of sahabah, tabi'in and taba tabi'in.

4. All ahadith of Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w) are sahih/correct. They are called marfu hadith.

5. Among sayings of others there are weak narrations as well. Also some contradictions.

6. Sahih narration is only that whose sanad (chain of narrators) is sahih as per rules of ilm e rijal and whose matan (content) is not against the Quran. Both these rules must apply.

Same concept for Sahih Muslim.

I highly recommend, you should read introduction of Kafi which is written by Kulayni himself. Then read introduction of Sahih Muslim. This will clear most of your doubts. In Sha Allah.

 

45 minutes ago, BornShia said:

You are not serious? Are you?

Do you consider a person under extreme magic to be same as a blind person?

When Allah takes away one sense, the other senses are amplified. Science has proven this.

And, you still consider the this trash hadith of Bukhari to be Sahih? OMG.

Bukhari doesn't know the Holy Quran. WHY?

Read his hadith about the second incident of loosing her necklace. BTW, the Holy Quran is not in chronological order and to help you out, Chapter 5 of the Holy Quran is in reality Chapter 112.

Now, you know that Bukhari doesn't know the Holy Quran?

Or shall I bring his Sahih Hadith to prove it?

 

@aansoogas is right. It seems you (bornshia) are following your emotions more rather than facts and evidences.

Before attacking bukhari, compare it with your fundamental hadith book Al-Kafi of Kulayni. Who after spending 20 years of hard work collected 16000+ narrations. About 70% are wrong (ITS TOO MUCH). Is there any book which contain only sahih narrations from Kafi? Or still truth and falsehood is mixed in Kafi? Is there not any single shia scholar who could do this? Or who has done this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fahad Sani said:

True and correct concept about book of Imam Bukhari is as follows.

1. Whatever is in b/w the two covers of bukhari is not correct.

2. This book is called sahih because most of the narrations are sahih.

3. It not only contain ahadith of Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w) but also sayings and opinions of sahabah, tabi'in and taba tabi'in.

4. All ahadith of Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w) are sahih/correct. They are called marfu hadith.

5. Among sayings of others there are weak narrations as well. Also some contradictions.

6. Sahih narration is only that whose sanad (chain of narrators) is sahih as per rules of ilm e rijal and whose matan (content) is not against the Quran. Both these rules must apply.

Same concept for Sahih Muslim.

So let me get this right - the hadith below of the Prophet is sahih:

Narrated Anas:
The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 76, Hadith 9

Even though there is a clear edict to never mutilate the body of anyone including dogs, but this is in Sahih Bukhari so it must be right. What happened to the Rehmat-al-alameen? I suppose this is what ISIS and Taliban use to justify chopping people up.

Narrated Jarir:
We were sitting with the Prophet (ﷺ) and he looked at the moon on the night of the full-moon and said, "You people will see your Lord as you see this full moon, and you will have no trouble in seeing Him, so if you can avoid missing (through sleep or business, etc.) a prayer before sunrise (Fajr) and a prayer before sunset (`Asr) you must do so." 
Sahih al-Bukhari
Vol. 9, Book 93, Hadith 529

Narrated Jarir bin `Abdullah:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You will definitely see your Lord with your own eyes."
Sahih al-Bukhari
Vol. 9, Book 93, Hadith 530

The Quran clearly says no one can see Allah and yet here we another 'sahih' hadith where Allah will be seen like we see the full moon. But it must be right because it is in Bukhari.

2 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

I highly recommend, you should read introduction of Kafi which is written by Kulayni himself. Then read introduction of Sahih Muslim. This will clear most of your doubts. In Sha Allah.

I highly recommend actually reading what is in Sahih Bukhair and Sahih Muslim before claiming all hadith about the Prophet are sahih. I find it highly offensive that you are willing to violate the sanctity of the Holy Prophet to protect the sanctity of Bukhari.

Bottomline brother is that you blindly follow Bukhari where Kulayni is honest enough to tell us that his job was to compile the hadith and it would be up to future generations to confirm the veracity of each hadith. And if it turns out that 99.99% of Kulayni's Al-Kafi is wrong, we will gladly accept. You can't even accept 1 wrong hadith from Bukhari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I highly recommend actually reading what is in Sahih Bukhair and Sahih Muslim before claiming all hadith about the Prophet are sahih. I find it highly offensive that you are willing to violate the sanctity of the Holy Prophet to protect the sanctity of Bukhari.

I find it highly offensive that you are willing to violate the sanctity of the Holy Prophet to protect the sanctity of Bukhari. Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Bottomline brother is that you blindly follow Bukhari where Kulayni is honest enough to tell us that his job was to compile the hadith and it would be up to future generations to confirm the veracity of each hadith. And if it turns out that 99.99% of Kulayni's Al-Kafi is wrong, we will gladly accept. You can't even accept 1 wrong hadith from Bukhari.

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

@aansoogas is right. It seems you (bornshia) are following your emotions more rather than facts and evidences.

Before attacking bukhari, compare it with your fundamental hadith book Al-Kafi of Kulayni. Who after spending 20 years of hard work collected 16000+ narrations. About 70% are wrong (ITS TOO MUCH). Is there any book which contain only sahih narrations from Kafi? Or still truth and falsehood is mixed in Kafi? Is there not any single shia scholar who could do this? Or who has done this?

Brother @Fahad Sani it is you who are emotional about Bukhari. SAHIH BUKHARI, do you know what does it mean?

And, I made a claim that Bukhari don't know the Holy Quran, and gave the reference to the hadith. No use to abuse me. Bring the hadith from your Sahih Bukhari and quote it here. See, if he knows the Holy Quran.

If you can't find the hadith in your book, then I will bring it for you. No use to get emotional about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BornShia said:

I find it highly offensive that you are willing to violate the sanctity of the Holy Prophet to protect the sanctity of Bukhari. Well said!

well, lets think about it for a second. Per the hadith, the Prophet himself cut the hands and feet and branded their eyes with heated iron.

Now, let's say Denmark newspapers decide to hold another cartoon contest depicting this incident. What do you think will happen? Muslims the world over will hold rallies and protests, burn Danish flags (US flags too as default), probably kill a few of each other, set fire to tires and buses and who knows perhaps a suicide bombing or two (1 western location and token Shia location with it). All of this happened after the last contest.

Not a single Muslim will blame Sahih Bukhari though nor burn it nor call for banning it. The hypocrisy of the Muslim is such that he will accept a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Muhammad because Bukhari said so but reject a cartoon/painting of it because THAT would be offensive.

Edited by shiaman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BornShia said:

I am not sure if you understand English or not. The thread is about Sahih Bukhari and not about Sahih Muslim and/or Kafi.

well... i did not mention sahih Muslim, did i?

8 hours ago, BornShia said:

Each book has a methodology of collecting hadiths. Comparing Sunni method of collecting hadiths versus Shia method of collecting hadiths, is like comparing oranges with apples.

The Sunni method is Sahih : Sahih Sitta where is Kafi is a collection of bunch of hadiths, and when the author got tired of collecting, he named his book, "Enough" and not "Sahih"

hahahah that was the best one so far :D When Sh Kulayni got tired of collecting he said "enough is enough"! Even the shaykh must be scratching his head by now ;)

Whereas Kulayni actually said in the introduction

وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it... [al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran] ]

And then you yourself say that the sunni method is sahih... so is not sahih method sahih?

8 hours ago, BornShia said:

The Sunni method is Sahih : Sahih Sitta where is Kafi is a collection of bunch of hadiths

 

8 hours ago, BornShia said:

Even, the collection of methodology differs between the Sahih Sitta. If you want to discuss Kafi, open a thread. However, I am very allergic to hadiths.

so lets not discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BornShia said:

You are not serious? Are you?

Do you consider a person under extreme magic to be same as a blind person?

When Allah takes away one sense, the other senses are amplified. Science has proven this.

The infallibility of the prophets is protected by Allah and cannot be assessed through science... because  in the end, its a miracle.

8 hours ago, BornShia said:

And, you still consider the this trash hadith of Bukhari to be Sahih? OMG.

Bukhari doesn't know the Holy Quran. WHY?

Read his hadith about the second incident of loosing her necklace. BTW, the Holy Quran is not in chronological order and to help you out, Chapter 5 of the Holy Quran is in reality Chapter 112.

Now, you know that Bukhari doesn't know the Holy Quran?

Or shall I bring his Sahih Hadith to prove it?

yes you can bring evidence to prove what ever point you are trying to make because its not clear to me what you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

well, lets think about it for a second. Per the hadith, the Prophet himself cut the hands and feet and branded their eyes with heated iron.

Now, let's say Denmark newspapers decide to hold another cartoon contest depicting this incident. What do you think will happen? Muslims the world over will hold rallies and protests, burn Danish flags (US flags too as default), probably kill a few of each other, set fire to tires and buses and who knows perhaps a suicide bombing or two (1 western location and token Shia location with it). All of this happened after the last contest.

Not a single Muslim will blame Sahih Bukhari though nor burn it nor call for banning it. The hypocrisy of the Muslim is such that he will accept a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Muhammad because Bukhari said so but reject a cartoon/painting of it because THAT would be offensive.

BEST POST OF THIS MONTH. WELL SAID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

yes you can bring evidence to prove what ever point you are trying to make because its not clear to me what you are talking about?

If I bring the evidence, you would then argue with me, just like you are arguing that the Prophet being under extreme magic doesn't matter. WHY?

Because, Bukhari has to be Sahih.

Bring the hadith of the second incidence of the necklace. Hint: not hadith al ifk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...