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  
SLAVE_OF_ALLAH

BUKHARI GOING TO FAR

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

:angry: :angry:

salam

a hadith from Bukhari :Hijabi:

In "The Book of Eclipse" in "The Chapter on the Encouraging by the Prophet (S.A.W.) of the Night Prayer and the Prophet's (S.A.W.) knocking [on the door of] Fatima and 'Ali (A.S.) at Night for Prayer", al-Bukhari reported in volume 2, p. 43 of his Sahih: Abu'l-Yaman said to us that Shu'ayb reported from al-Zuhri who said: "'Ali b. al-Husayn informed me that al-Husayn b. 'Ali informed him that 'Ali b. Abi Talib informed him that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) knocked on the door of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet (S.A.W.) one night and said: 'Do you not pray?' I said: 'O Apostle of Allah, our souls are in the hands of Allah. When he wishes to awaken us, He does so'. He went away when we said this without replying anything to me. Then I heard him when he turned away, striking his thigh saying: 'Surely man argues in most things'".

Fear Allah, O Bukhari! This is 'Ali b. Abi Talib historians record that he would observe the night prayer growling, (in the battle of Siffin) having spread a mat and praying between the lines of battle while the archers and arrows fell around him, yet he was not frightened nor did he discontinue his night prayer.

seriously sunnis come on, this is disgusting, how obvious is this fabrication? this is enough proof that Bukhari fabricated to degrade ahul-bayt(as) , do you sunnis seriously accept this hadith? :angry:

i know its ur dear book but seriously :angry: have some common sense

shias feel free to have ur comments :P

wa salam

Edited by SLAVE_OF_ALLAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i also would like to see the view of brother Tahasyed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

Trust me, if you find this tradition regarding the ahlul-bayt (as) to be disturbing, there are more. :squeez:

Anyway, the thing I find interesting about this hadith is the chain of narration:

the Prophet (pbuh) --> Ali (as) --> Husain (as) --> Zain al-Abidin (as) --> al-Zuhri --> Shu'ayb --> Abu'l-Yaman --> al-Bukhari.

The majority of people in this chain are trustworthy according to shia standards.

Who do you think fabricated this report, Shu'ayb, Abu-'l-Yaman or al-Bukhari?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

Trust me, if you find this tradition regarding the ahlul-bayt (as) to be disturbing, there are more. :squeez:

Anyway, the thing I find interesting about this hadith is the chain of narration:

the Prophet (pbuh) --> Ali (as) --> Husain (as) --> Zain al-Abidin (as) --> al-Zuhri --> Shu'ayb --> Abu'l-Yaman --> al-Bukhari.

The majority of people in this chain are trustworthy according to shia standards.

Who do you think fabricated this report, Shu'ayb, Abu-'l-Yaman or al-Bukhari?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam

obviously bukhari as i said above, by doing this he is showing that Ali(as) and Fatima(as) were fallible and not sinless and thus trying to destroy the beliefs of the shia

wa salam

Edited by SLAVE_OF_ALLAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who do you think fabricated this report, Shu'ayb, Abu-'l-Yaman or al-Bukhari?

Actually none of them could. Coz this report has been narrated through other chains:

1) Qutayaba & Abu Umair -> Al-Layth -> Al-Zuhri [ref: Sahih Muslim, Sunan Al-Nasai , Musnad Ahmad , Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah]

2)Al-Nasai -> Ubaidullah -> his uncle ->Ibrahim -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

3) Abdullah Ibn Ahmad -> Ismail -> Muhammad Ibn Salamah -> Abi Abdil Raheem -> Zayd -> Al-Zuhri

4) Ahmad Ibn Hanbal & Abu Khaythamah -> Yaqob -> his father -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

5) Abu Nuaim -> Muhammad -> Ubaidillah -> Ismail -> his brother -> Sulayman -> Muhammad Ibn Abi Atiq & Muhammad Ibn Ahmad & Abu Amr -> Al-Zuhri

As for my opinion about the report, then we Sunnis do not think that Ali (Raa) is infallible. He is a human being. He was under the influence of sleep. He could say things he would not say if he was fully awake. Sometimes this could happen to me, when my mother would wake me up and I am tired , I could say things that I do not mean or I would not dream of saying when I am fully awake.

We do not reject hadiths just because we think they are demeaning of the beloved companions -Radia Allahu Anhu-, otherwise we would be rejecting hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim that Shia use to demean Abu Bakr and Umar -Radia Allahu Anhum- :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, the thing I find interesting about this hadith is the chain of narration:

the Prophet  --> Ali  --> Husain  --> Zain al-Abidin  --> al-Zuhri --> Shu'ayb --> Abu'l-Yaman --> al-Bukhari.

exactly what i was thinking,,,

Actually none of them could. Coz this report has been narrated through other chains:

1) Qutayaba & Abu Umair -> Al-Layth -> Al-Zuhri [ref: Sahih Muslim, Sunan Al-Nasai , Musnad Ahmad , Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah]

2)Al-Nasai -> Ubaidullah -> his uncle ->Ibrahim -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

3) Abdullah Ibn Ahmad -> Ismail -> Muhammad Ibn Salamah -> Abi Abdil Raheem -> Zayd -> Al-Zuhri

4) Ahmad Ibn Hanbal & Abu Khaythamah -> Yaqob -> his father -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

5) Abu Nuaim -> Muhammad -> Ubaidillah -> Ismail -> his brother -> Sulayman -> Muhammad Ibn Abi Atiq & Muhammad Ibn Ahmad & Abu Amr -> Al-Zuhri

As for my opinion about the report, then we Sunnis do not think that Ali (Raa) is infallible. He is a human being. He was under the influence of sleep. He could say things he would not say if he was fully awake. Sometimes this could happen to me, when my mother would wake me up and I am tired , I could say things that I do not mean or I would not dream of saying when I am fully awake.

We do not reject hadiths just because we think they are demeaning of the beloved companions -Radia Allahu Anhu-, otherwise we would be rejecting hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim that Shia use to demean Abu Bakr and Umar -Radia Allahu Anhum-

interesting stuff sis.

Need to look carefully at the chain of narrators here. Maybe it is sahih lads, ever thought abt that? anyone got the shia grading on this hadith of a mujtehid, and also of the isnad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually none of them could. Coz this report has been narrated through other chains:

1) Qutayaba & Abu Umair -> Al-Layth -> Al-Zuhri [ref: Sahih Muslim, Sunan Al-Nasai , Musnad Ahmad , Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah]

2)Al-Nasai -> Ubaidullah -> his uncle ->Ibrahim -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

3) Abdullah Ibn Ahmad -> Ismail -> Muhammad Ibn Salamah -> Abi Abdil Raheem -> Zayd -> Al-Zuhri

4) Ahmad Ibn Hanbal & Abu Khaythamah -> Yaqob -> his father -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

5) Abu Nuaim -> Muhammad -> Ubaidillah -> Ismail -> his brother -> Sulayman -> Muhammad Ibn Abi Atiq & Muhammad Ibn Ahmad & Abu Amr -> Al-Zuhri

and sis. can you post the exact hadith narrated by these men plz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Certainly, I belong to the group of people who care not for the reproach of anybody in matters concerning Allah. Their countenance is the countenance of the truthful and their speech is the speech of the virtuous. They are wakeful during the nights (in devotion to Allah), and over beacons (of guidance) in the day. They hold fast to the rope of the Qur'an. revive the traditions of Allah and of His Prophet. They do not boast nor indulge in self conceit, nor misappropriate, nor create mischief. Their hearts are in Paradise while their bodies are busy in (good) acts.

part of the sermon of disparagement, nahjul balagha, Sermon 192

other sources:

(1) Ibn Tawus, Kitab al-yaqin, 196;

(2) al-Kulayni, Furu` al-Kafi, IV, 168;

(3) al-Saduq, al-Faqih, I, 152;

(4) al-Zamakhshari, Rabi`, I, 113;

(5) al-Mawardi, A`lam, 97;

(6) See al-Tehrani, al-Dhari`ah, VII, 204.

no believer can believe such a hadith, Imam Ali (as) was well-known for his piousness, the people who fabricated these hadiths have no shame

Edited by Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and sis. can you post the exact hadith narrated by these men plz?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

النسائي و مسلم: أخبرنا ‏ ‏قتيبة ‏ ‏قال حدثنا ‏ ‏الليث ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عقيل ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏علي بن حسين ‏ ‏أن ‏ ‏الحسين بن علي ‏ ‏حدثه عن ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب ‏ أن النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏طرقه ‏ ‏وفاطمة ‏ ‏فقال ألا تصلون قلت يا رسول الله إنما أنفسنا بيد الله فإذا شاء أن يبعثها بعثها فانصرف رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏حين قلت له ذلك ثم سمعته وهو مدبر يضرب فخذه ويقول ‏ ‏وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا ‏

النسائي ‏أخبرنا ‏ ‏عبيد الله بن سعد بن إبراهيم بن سعد ‏ ‏قال حدثنا ‏ ‏عمي ‏ ‏قال حدثنا ‏ ‏أبي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن إسحق ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏حكيم بن حكيم بن عباد بن حنيف ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن مسلم بن شهاب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏علي بن حسين ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبيه ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏جده ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب ‏ ‏قال ‏ دخل علي رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وعلى ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏من الليل فأيقظنا للصلاة ثم رجع إلى بيته فصلى ‏ ‏هويا ‏ ‏من الليل فلم يسمع لنا حسا فرجع إلينا فأيقظنا فقال قوما فصليا قال فجلست وأنا ‏ ‏أعرك ‏ ‏عيني وأقول إنا والله ما نصلي إلا ما كتب الله لنا إنما أنفسنا بيد الله فإن شاء أن يبعثنا بعثنا قال فولى رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وهو يقول ويضرب بيده على فخذه ما نصلي إلا ما كتب الله لنا ‏

‏وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا ‏

أحمد: ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏يعقوب ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن إسحاق ‏ ‏حدثني ‏ ‏حكيم بن حكيم بن عباد بن حنيف ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن مسلم بن عبيد الله بن شهاب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏علي بن حسين ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبيه ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏جده ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه ‏ ‏قال ‏

‏دخل علي رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وعلى ‏ ‏فاطمة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏ ‏من الليل فأيقظنا للصلاة قال ثم رجع إلى بيته فصلى ‏ ‏هويا ‏ ‏من الليل قال فلم يسمع لنا ‏ ‏حسا ‏ ‏قال فرجع إلينا فأيقظنا وقال قوما فصليا قال فجلست وأنا ‏ ‏أعرك ‏ ‏عيني وأقول إنا والله ما نصلي إلا ما ‏ ‏كتب ‏ ‏لنا إنما أنفسنا بيد الله فإذا شاء أن يبعثنا بعثنا قال فولى رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وهو يقول ويضرب بيده على فخذه ما نصلي إلا ما ‏ ‏كتب ‏ ‏لنا ما نصلي إلا ما ‏ ‏كتب ‏ ‏لنا ‏

‏وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا ‏

‏عبد الله بن أحمد‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إسماعيل بن عبيد بن أبي كريمة الحراني ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن سلمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي عبد الرحيم ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏زيد بن أبي أنيسة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏علي بن حسين ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبيه ‏ ‏قال سمعت ‏ ‏عليا ‏ ‏يقول ‏

‏أتاني رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وأنا نائم ‏ ‏وفاطمة ‏ ‏وذلك من ‏ ‏السحر ‏ ‏حتى قام على الباب فقال ألا تصلون فقلت مجيبا له يا رسول الله إنما نفوسنا بيد الله فإذا شاء أن يبعثنا قال فرجع رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ولم يرجع إلى الكلام فسمعته حين ولى يقول وضرب بيده على فخذه ‏

‏وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء ‏‏ جدلا ‏

أبو نعيم : محمد بن أحمد بن إبراهيم، حدثنا عبيد الله بن محمد العمري، حدثنا إسماعيل بن أبي أويس، حدثني أخي، عن سليمان بن أبي بلال، عن محمد بن أبي عتيق. وحدثنا محمد بن أحمد الغطريفي وأبو عمرو بن حمدان، قالا: عن ابن شهاب، عن علي بن الحسين: أن الحسن بن علي أخبره أن علي بن طالب رضى الله عنهم أخبره أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طرقه وفاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال لهما: "ألا تصليان" قال علي: فقلت: يا رسول الله إنما أنفسنا بيد الله عز وجل، فإن شاء أن يبعثنا بعثنا. فانصرف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين قلت ذلك له ولم يرجع إلي شيئاً، ثم سمعته وهو مدبر يضرب فخذه، ويقول: "وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلاً"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam

this is disgusting, this fabrication is not only saying that Imam Ali(as) and Fatima(as) missed thier night prayer, but also that they didnt really care about it

may Allah(swt) curse the enemies of Ahul-Bayt(as)

wa salam

Edited by SLAVE_OF_ALLAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat my question to shias: who do you think fabricated the report? There are various chains of narration, and each one leads up to Zuhri, who is accepted as a companion of Imam Sajjad (as).

And don't say Bukhari, because he just recorded it, he didn't make it up.

ws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll repeat my question to shias: who do you think fabricated the report? There are various chains of narration, and each one leads up to Zuhri, who is accepted as a companion of Imam Sajjad .

And don't say Bukhari, because he just recorded it, he didn't make it up.

interesting.... Whats the full name of al zuhri who was the sahabi of imam ali ibn husayn?

and also, whats the full name of al zuhri reported in the isnad?

trust me, this sometimes makes alot of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

So shia believe Iman Ali(ra) never sleep or nevered missed a prayer due to sleep or other issues that may have come up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope.. he never missed a prayer.. his character relates this idea.. ask an alim what it feels like to miss a prayer.. maybe they will be able to explain it better :)

Wassalaam (Peace be upon you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting.... Whats the full name of al zuhri who was the sahabi of imam ali ibn husayn?

and also, whats the full name of al zuhri reported in the isnad?

trust me, this sometimes makes alot of difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His full name is Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Muslim Ibn ‘Abdullah Ibn Shihab Zuhri. He died in 124 AH. He is the only Zuhri who was contemporary to Imam Sajjad (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most early scholars wrote in the way which suited the umayyad and abbasid rulers who were well known for their opposition to Ahul Al bayt and their followers so this hadith dose not surprise me really i just hope sunni ppl can realize this :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
most early scholars wrote in the way which suited the umayyad and abbasid rulers who were well known for their opposition to Ahul Al bayt and their followers so this hadith dose not surprise me really i just hope sunni ppl can realize this :(

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Possible... but probable? Would a companion of the imam really sink to such a low level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

The problem isn’t just with the chain of Narration, but also with the Matn of the tradition since it goes against the testimony of Wilaya to the Imam in the Qur'an, hence making the report a fabrication and void since it goes against the testimony of the divine.

In other words, why would Allah praise the sleep of a man who was murmuring to the point Allah calls his actions “Sukr”? This sounds like a contradiction to me, and Hasha lil-Allah from such a thing. But what can I say, if the followers of Abu Bakr and Umar claim that Rasoulaalh use to forget verses from the Holy Qur’an, why wouldn’t Imam Ali “do” the above as “reported”.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll repeat my question to shias: who do you think fabricated the report? There are various chains of narration, and each one leads up to Zuhri, who is accepted as a companion of Imam Sajjad (as).

And don't say Bukhari, because he just recorded it, he didn't make it up.

ws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another question that arises also, is why would Al-Nasai report it twice in his book if he undrestood that this is a disparagement of Ali (ra). In another topic, Syed Fared called Al-Nasai's death at the hands of Nasibis in Damascus mosque a martydom. He was attacked because of his book that was dedicated to the merits of Ameer-ul-Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra). Would a person who died for his love and respect for Ameer-ul-Momineen (ra) insist on relating a disparagement of Ameer-ul-Momineen twice?

What did he understand from this hadith?

The two hadiths were narrated in the chapter "Encouragement of Qiyam-ul-Layl (i.e Night Prayer)"

Who was encouraging who in this incident?

This hadith shows us the love the Prophet (SAW) had for Ali and Fatimah -Radia Alahu Anhum- such that he would repeatedly try to wake them up. Other than them ,he was only reported to have waken his wives for night prayer. This illustrates how the Prophet (SAW) considered Ali and Fatimah -Radia Allahu Anhuma- part of his own house.

Ibn Hajar -rahimahu Allah- also considered the narration of such a hadith by Ali (ra) himself a merit, because he preferred spreading knowledge over maintaining his ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

What our respected brothers fail to see is that what the Six “Sihah” prefer, or prefer not, to narrate does not really hold water within Shia clerical circles since the books in question were not written by Shia Scholars or openly “Sunni" scholars with “Shia” tendencies. In respect to Sheikh Al-Nisaei, who we all agree wasn’t a Shia, and his death at the hands of Mu3aweya’s zealous followers does not really illustrate his "devotion" to Ahlul Albayte, but illustrates the level of hate, prejudice and jealousy of Mo3aweya and those who loved him display openly towards Imam Ali. They went on murdering their own people just for mentioning him (Imam Ali); also, since when did Al-Nisaei become a Hujja on both Sunnis and Shias respectively so we may bind by his narrations?

As I also mentioned above, the hadeeth clearly goes against the Holy Qur’an since Imam Ali is the Mawla after God and the Holy Prophet, so how could this Mowla, who is suppose to be better than all Muslims, lean towards the pleasures of life (Sleep is a pleasure) over prayer?

Like I said above, Ahlul Sunna narrate that the Prophet can’t even pray properly, he needs Abu Bakr and Umar to “remind” him how to pray; sadly if the Prophet can’t even tell the difference between Salat Al-dhuhr and Fajr (according to Ahlul-AlSunna), how can not Imam Ali? It seems to me that Ibn Sahak and His master are the only true Muslims while their Prophet and Imam are not.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also, since when did Al-Nisaei become a Hujja on both Sunnis and Shias respectively so we may bind by his narrations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salam,

As you know akhi, the ahadith in sunni books can be muwathhaq according to shia standards, hence compulsory to act upon as part of shari'a. It is all too easy to just wave away ahadith, but what is needed is to take a closer look.

As you can see, the hadith is mutawatir according to the standards of some ulema, and that means something. After all, didn't Sayyid al-Khui consider Ali's (as) hadith banning mut'a in Sahih Bukhari to be sahih? Yep, he did. However, he said that Ali (as) just did it in taqiyyah.

Similarly, I would urge we look at this narration more closely and not just wave it away by saying its in sunni books.

ws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Al-Salam Alikum Akhi Al-Kareem,

As you know akhi, the ahadith in sunni books can be muwathhaq according to shia standards, hence compulsory to act upon as part of shari'a.

I understand what you’re saying Akhi Al-Kareem in regards to the Tradition being “Mutawatir” / “Circulated” and hence meets certain obligations within the Shari3a criteria. However, there are certain reasons why some traditions that are narrated by some historians to be investigated closely, not to built the correctness of the tradition on the fact that it’s “circulated” or has a correct and reliable chain of transmitters, but also looking at the merit of the Tradition and whether it goes against the divine words of the Holy Qur’an.

The Tradition that it narrated above goes against the testimony of the divine, it does not make the tradition correct just because the fallible decided to narrate it as true.

As you can see, the hadith is mutawatir according to the standards of some ulema, and that means something. After all, didn't Sayyid al-Khui consider Ali's  hadith banning mut'a in Sahih Bukhari to be sahih? Yep, he did. However, he said that Ali  just did it in taqiyyah.

I cannot speak for Ayatollah Al-Khoei, nor can I submit to the fact that Imam Ali “prohibited” Mut’a on the bases of “Taqiyah”, I feel that the Imam fears no one for the sake of truth; after all, people in his time were engaged in Mut’a and during the life times of the Holy Imams yet no declines were reported. I’m not sure under what pretexts did Ayatollah Al-Khoei accept the hadeeth as Saheeh, but I will look into this matter personally for clarifications.

I would like to ask this question; how did this Tradition meet the Mutawatir standards of some Scholars? I know for a fact that many of our scholars have rejected this hadeeth in Bukhari because it goes against the testimony of God and character of both the Imam and our Lady of Light.

Like I said before, if Imam Ali misses prayers because he enjoys the pleasures of life, then so does the Prophet because the Prophet has equated his Nafs with Imam Ali’s in Ayat Al-Mubahala (and as you know, some Sunni scholars agree to this fact, like Ibn Katheer and Al-Fakhr-Alrazi).

Similarly, I would urge we look at this narration more closely and not just wave it away by saying its in sunni books.

As I have said my Brother, I did not waive this Narration because it was narrated in a Sunni book, but because its merits are lacking both substance and logic. Tell me this, why don't we have similar ahadeeth of Abu Bkar and Umar messing up in Prayer and mixing up the number of Rak'3as, yet we have similar ahadeeths above insulting Imam Ali and Lady Fatima?

Not only that, but the Prophet is insulted when we have Traditions narrated by Ahlul Al-Sunna claiming that the Prophet couldn't tell the difference between Salat Al-Dhuhr and Salat Al-Fajr, he prayed Salat Al-Dhuhr with two Rak'3as, is this logical? And who notices he made the mistake?? Abu bakr and Umar, Ajeeb Ghareeb, maybe God should have sent Abu bakr as his Prophet instead of Sayedna Muhammad.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

The problem isn’t just with the chain of Narration, but also with the Matn of the tradition since it goes against the testimony of Wilaya to the Imam in the Qur'an, hence making the report a fabrication and void since it goes against the testimony of the divine.

In other words, why would Allah praise the sleep of a man who was murmuring to the point Allah calls his actions “Sukr”? This sounds like a contradiction to me, and Hasha lil-Allah from such a thing. But what can I say, if the followers of Abu Bakr and Umar claim that Rasoulaalh use to forget verses from the Holy Qur’an, why wouldn’t Imam Ali “do” the above as “reported”.

(salam)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam

sister it doesnt matta if it contradicts the quran, it's in bukhari so sunnis have to believe it, just look at Umar's divorce law bidah, the contradiction of the quran in that didn't stop sunnis :lol: hmm lucky we dont have sahih hadith, look wat it does to the ppl, makes them choose hadith over the quran :huh:

YA Allah MADAD

WA SALAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Lets start by saying, Hadiths are ................... just hadiths, they really dont have very much value if you dont study them and check the chain and authenticity, wether they be a shia or a sunni hadith their just hadiths at the end of the day. None of us here personally know bukhari nobody can say they do and we all know its not possible either, who knows he could have been a very decent guy just working on collecting the hadiths.

Bukhari himself never claimed to have anything Sahih it was a term used after his death later on. if you read some of the shia hadith texts you would also be just as disgusted, lets keep our minds open and stop the cursing please. :) ... only difference between us and the sunnis are that we dont claim anything but the quran to be sahih, otherwise our books can have things just as bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, the difference lies in FOLLOWING the disgusting hadith and claiming them to be sahih. Let's face it, there would not be "bidah talaq" allowed today if it weren't for people following hadith over Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, the difference lies in FOLLOWING the disgusting hadith and claiming them to be sahih. Let's face it, there would not be "bidah talaq" allowed today if it weren't for people following hadith over Qur'an.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sis my point was bukhari didnt say this was something sahih nor something to be followed and there is no proof for it.. so therefore we shouldnt curse him its the so called scholars that tell people these things are sahih

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I don't think I ever said to curse Bukhari. You're absolutely right, the ones to be cursed (as if they aren't already) are the ones who labeled it sahih, and who defend and follow such hadith while they know full well they are contradicting Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

As you can see, the hadith is mutawatir according to the standards of some ulema, and that means something. After all, didn't Sayyid al-Khui consider Ali's  hadith banning mut'a in Sahih Bukhari to be sahih? Yep, he did. However, he said that Ali  just did it in taqiyyah.

I don't understand how u say that this hadith is mutawatir, when they all go back to al-Zuhri. Here is the sanads one sister kindly provided:

1) Qutayaba & Abu Umair -> Al-Layth -> Al-Zuhri [ref: Sahih Muslim, Sunan Al-Nasai , Musnad Ahmad , Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah]

2)Al-Nasai -> Ubaidullah -> his uncle ->Ibrahim -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

3) Abdullah Ibn Ahmad -> Ismail -> Muhammad Ibn Salamah -> Abi Abdil Raheem -> Zayd -> Al-Zuhri

4) Ahmad Ibn Hanbal & Abu Khaythamah -> Yaqob -> his father -> Ibn Ishaq ->Hakeem -> Al-Zuhri

5) Abu Nuaim -> Muhammad -> Ubaidillah -> Ismail -> his brother -> Sulayman -> Muhammad Ibn Abi Atiq & Muhammad Ibn Ahmad & Abu Amr -> Al-Zuhri

Zuhri is one of the key figures in islamic history, if you guys want to be good in uloom-hadith/ history u need to know who this bad boy is.

Originally he was a companion of Imam Sajjad (as). He would sit with him frequently. In Medina he was the authority on the life of the Prophet (pbuh) (during does days the hot topic was the battles of the Prophet (pbuh).) Later on Zuhri was brought to work officially by Ummayyed Caliphs, so he could teach their children. Ummayyed Caliphs saw that Zuhri is a master in the battles of the Prophet (pbuh), but unfortunately Ummayyeds were either fighting the Prophet (pbuh), or running away from the battlefield. So they made him change history. This is when he becomes sour with Imam Sajjad (as). And the Imam (as) writes him a letter to repent. Then Ummayyed’s saw that they need to boost the popularity of Zuhri, so they pay the authors of “jarh wa tadeel” books (books on the topic of reliability of a narrator) to write good things about Zuhri. So if you look at the authors of “jarh wa tadeel” that support Zuhri, they are either lined to the Ummayyeds or paid by them.

In short, Zuhri is a paid liar. It's not a good idea to believe the words of a paid liar. :Hijabi:

Sorry this post is so brief, I don’t have my notes handy, but I wanted to post before this topic dies down.

Edited by amaar9000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ yeh, I read that stuff too in Mahmood Ali Riyya's book. however, he doesn't provide reference for that.

Also, it still doesn't say anything about the shia version of his trustwothiness.

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...