Bukhari &Muslim and other scholars at that time had no copy of quran with them

[marifhaq]

  Dear All,
In those days quran was written on animal hides,which were costly and not available in large quantity,ink too was costly to make,skin was costly to make it clean for writing,not many men available as writers,so quran was only written on order of rich people and was not available to general public.Therefore a copy of quran was not with any of famous scholars.Bukhari never ever questioned any of hadith teller that,oh look this is against quran,that is why we now find many hadith going against quran.
Western scholars have investigated and proved ,that most of those scholars of that time became almost blind due to writing at night time in dim light of oil lamps,they developed cataracts in eyes,and the smoke from the lamps destroyed their breathing system,and they all died becoming unable to read and write for the last ten or 15 years of their life.So they left no written material but only verbal knowledge,which was written by their followers out of their memory,which just cannot be accurate and reliable,therefore they left no books written by there own hands,they only could have wished but were unable to do so,due to health reasons.

[Scribbler]

Peace.


What's your evidence?

[SarahY]

Bukhari was born 810, there are Quranic evidence from non muslim sources in late 600's as far as I know.

Blindness isn't caused by night work/dim lights. Smoke can age eyes quicker however he started his studies/search at the age of 16..

Some scholarly "books" have been written down by followers memories such as Hanbali's source of law.

However these hadith scholars are more like hadith researchers, they were out to collect all hadith sources that they could find. If you study hadith their authentication relied almost solely on the chain of narrators not the content. They were more concerned whether a hadith had any validity of it being said.. if you study about them you'll see an immense amount of work and detail in relation to this.

Feel free to show any evidence otherwise,

salam.

[marifhaq]

My dear Sribbler and SarahY   

In reply to my short article about Bukhari amd Muslim,you wrote that what is the evidence? Well there are several points in the article,let me know about what the evidence is required by you?So that I may be specify the evidence.Please feel free,OK.

SarahY  please ask anyone dim light and smoke from oil lamps do cause cataracts which leads to blindness.You I think already be knowing that there is no any book any where in this word written by Bukhari.The Hadith book of Bukhari that we have allover the world is written by his followers.Is it not surprising,but not to me ,most books ,graet books written by great authors were not written by themselves but by there followers.And the copy of quran was not with any of great scholars of that time,it was only with rulers of few very rich persons,because copy was very costly ,not available for sale,people were hired provided with hides or other materials in advance,and it takes many month or more to write a copy of quran,provided you already have a copy,for copy purpose,there are qurans available at certain restricted places which were written after 250 years from prophets time but are in deer hides,like on in Tashquand.Please feel free to ask any question,thanks.M.Arif    karachi   pakistan

[hafeez kazi]

Peace all

The so-called Bukhari Hadith is not even written or compiled by Bukhari

The Ahlul Sunnah have abandoned the Quraan. Today ask any ulema of Ahlul Sunnah simple basic questions about the Quraan and they will stare at you blankly. They do not know the Quraan. For example in this book so far I have quoted dozens of verses from the Quraan. To the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah these verses will appear like Greek because they have never seen these verses nor paid any real attention to the meanings of the verses.

Is it a wonder then that the Prophet will one day complain :

And the messenger saith: O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk took this Quran as an OBSOLETE.  (Al-Furqan 25:30)

Arabic : "Wa qaala rasuulu Ya Rabbi Inna kaumi ittakhazu hadha al Quraana mahjuura !! "

This is what the ulema have done. They have taken the Quraan as an OBSOLETE and replaced with a NEW MODEL HADITH BY BUKHARI. So what do the ulema know ? They will only know some information from their fake hadith literature. But that too only in sketchy bits and pieces. They do not even know their hadith properly.

The Ahlul Sunnah say that in their pantheon of fake hadith, the writings of a fellow by the name of Imam Bukhari 'is second only to the Quraan'. They say that without this fake hadith they cannot understand the Quraan - a Book that was revealed by Allah and which Allah says is "made easy to remember."

The Quraan repeats this particular verse four times :


If the Quraan is the Book of Guidance for mankind then it must be 'user friendly.'  It is really easy to remember the Quraanic teachings. The reader will see how easily the writer can regurgitate appropriate verses throughout this book. Yet the writer has read the Quraan from cover to cover only once in his lifetime - and that too in translation only. It just sticks to your head. But once again the ulema also reject this verse from the Quraan. They do not believe that the Quraan can be understood easily without their 'second only to the Quraan' collection of fake Bukhari hadith.

But the ulema themselves have not read the Bukhari collection of fake hadith from cover to cover. If they had done so they would have discovered that while the Quraan has 6,348 verses, the collection of fake Bukhari hadith tries to explain only one third or less of the 6,348 verses of the Quraan. There are not enough fake Bukhari hadith to explain the whole Quraan.

And the ulema do not realise that in the fake hadith of Bukhari they will come across the following words: "No hadith were recorded here" as Bukhari's 'explanation' for 28 surahs or chapters of the Quraan. (See Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 - Tafsir of the Quran, translation by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan, University Medina Al Munawwara).

In other words Bukhari himself admits that he was not able to record any hadith to explain 28 complete surahs or chapters of the Quraan. That is 25 percent of the 114 surahs in the Quraan. And the remaining hadith are sketchy, ridiculous and do not explain any of the verses of the Quran at all.

And yet the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah say the collection of fake Bukhari hadith is 'second only to the Quran'. Here is a really sick description of Bukhari by an Ahlul Sunnah admirer :

"If the rich literature of Hadith is assumed a splendid collection of pearls, Al-Jami'us Sahih of Imam al-Bukhari is rightfully privileged to be called a gigantic ocean serenely flowing for the providence and safeguard of those precious pieces of magnificence. A vast, yet shoreless ocean having lavishly quenched the thirst of many, it is unanimously held in the high esteem of being 'the most authentic book after the book of Allah' by advocates and adversaries alike."

They speak with pride about "the dazzling level of measures adopted by Imam Bukahri in preserving the credibility of his 'Sanad' ".  But despite all these ridiculous comments there is no evidence that Imam Bukhari even compiled the so-called hadith collection known as 'Sahih Bukhari'.

The ulema themselves say that "Bukhari's text has NOT come down to us in a single uniform version, but exists in several 'narrations' (riwayat), of which the version handed down by al-Kushaymani (d.389) on the authority of Bukhari's pupil al-Firabri is the one most frequently accepted by the ulema".

This is called the "Ulema Shuffle" otherwise known as double talk. They do not have a single, written collection of hadith which they can say with certainty was compiled by Imam Bukhari. There is no such thing, and what they have are bits and pieces that have been sorted and put together over a period of almost 600 years.

The ulema realize that they stand on empty lies. To cover one lie they create a thousand more lies. To divert attention from the fact that Bukhari is not the author of a complete collection of the fake hadith that is attributed to him, the Ahlul Sunnah ulema say that at least seventy full commentaries have been written on Imam al-Bukhari's 'great Sahih'. How this helps prove their case is best left to the ulema to shuffle.

According to the ulema, the most celebrated of these commentaries is "without question the Fath al-Bari ('Victory of the Creator') by Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, a work which was the crown both of its genre and of the Imam's academic career. It is appreciated by the ulema for the doctrinal soundness of its author, for its complete coverage of Bukhari's material, its mastery of the relevant Arabic sciences, the wisdom it shows in drawing lessons (fawa'id) from the hadiths it expounds, and its skill in resolving complex disputes over variant readings. For Bukhari's text has not come down to us in a single uniform version, but exists in several 'narrations' (riwayat), of which the version handed down by al-Kushmayhani (d.389) on the authority of Bukhari's pupil al-Firabri is the one most frequently accepted by the ulema". ( see "Ibn Hajar Asqalani and his Commentary Fath al-Bari"athttp://www.central-mosque.com/biographies/asqalani2.htm and www.thesaurus-islamicus.li).

By the ulema's own admission their collection of fake Bukhari hadith is compiled from a 'commentary' on Bukhari by another fellow with the name of Ibnu Hajar Al Askalani.

But this fellow Ibnu Hajar never met Bukhari because according to the ulema, Ibnu Hajar Askalani lived and died in 852 AH which is 596 years after Bukhari who is supposed to have lived and died in 256 AH. The ulema say Bukhari never compiled a completed book. There were no printing presses or photocopy machines or computers available at that time. And 596 years separated Ibnu Hajar from Bukhari. So how did Ibnu Hajar write a commentary about a book that never existed ?

To overcome gaps like these the ulema say that Ibnu Hajar based his writing on the commentary of another fellow called al-Khushaymani who lived and died in 389 AH. Thus they narrow the yawning gap to 463 years.  463 years separated Ibnu Hajar al Askalani and the commentary of al Khushaymani. But even the commentary of al Khushaymani did not exist in one volume or in one collection.

Khushaymani in turn is still separated from Bukhari by 133 years. Another gap here. To fill this gap the ulema call upon another fellow by the name of al Firabri (Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Matar al Firabri 231 - 320 AH) who they say was the missing link and source of the collection of fake hadith from Bukhari (died 256 AH) to Khushaymani (died 389 AH) to Ibnu Hajar (died 852 AH). The reader must carefully bear in mind that despite all these names and throughout this passage of 596 years between Bukhari and Ibnu Hajar, the ulema's own evidence admits that there never was any complete collection of Bukhari hadith. There was and there is no such thing. The whole thing has been faked by the ulema.

Obviously the claim that Al Askalani wrote his commentary based on Kushaymani is a lie. Askalani never met Kushyamani.  463 years separated them.

The same argument goes for the seventy other commentators.  In fact the number 70 is itself mind boggling. Each of the seventy claims to have his own source. But they are all different (the so called variant readings). The seventy versions (or so they claim) have their own Kushaymanis, Fiabris and Askalanis. They have their own gaps of 400 years, 500 years, 300 years and so on. This guesswork is the basis of Ahlul Sunnah.  With the Shiia it is even worse.

And this is what the ulema say about Ibn Hajar's commentary on Bukhari hadith:

"Ibn Hajar frequently uses the Kushmayhani variant as his standard text, but gives his reasons, often in complex detail, for preferring other readings where these seem to have particular merit. In doing this he makes it clear that he is authorised, through the ijaza-system, for all the riwayat he cites".

In other words Ibnu Hajar Askalani merely patched together his idea of what he thought the Sahih Bukhari should be. This is because there were variances in the available Bukhari hadith. It is just guesswork. This is what they have today which they call the Sahih Bukhari.

And again despite talking so much about the fake Bukhari hadith the ulema still say that " there are few hadith which can be understood adequately without reference to the often complex debates which have taken place concerning them between the scholars. "

According to the ulema few hadith can be understood without referring to the complex debates among the ulema.  This is a lark. The ulema say that the hadith explains the Quraan. Now they say without their complex debates you cannot even understand the hadith.

Are we expected to believe that the Almighty Allah who created the universe, the sky, the animals and the humans will now have to depend on the complex debates between the ulema before the human being can understand the Quran - Allah's guidance for mankind?  Such arrogant boasts by the ulema can only arise from extreme kuffar.

And despite talking so much, the collection of fake Bukhari hadith still says 'No hadith were recorded here' as the explanation for 28 surahs of the Quraan. Bukhari does not have enough fake hadith to explain the Quraan !

The reader is also requested to see the section which lists totally stupid and ridiculous hadith from Bukhari. To conclude this chapter, here is just one example :

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

"During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."


Let's just call it  the MONKEY HADITH !!

Thanks.

[SarahY]

SarahY  please ask anyone dim light and smoke from oil lamps do cause cataracts which leads to blindness.

I have, smoke from oil lamps can quicken the aging of eyes not dim light.

What article did you read?

hafeez kazi

Today ask any ulema of Ahlul Sunnah simple basic questions about the Quraan and they will stare at you blankly. They do not know the Quraan. For example in this book so far I have quoted dozens of verses from the Quraan. To the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah these verses will appear like Greek because they have never seen these verses nor paid any real attention to the meanings of the verses.

Maybe the ulema you talk to but not where I come from. I don't think it is right to make such bold accusations.

Also why dwell so much on Bukhari, he wasn't the first to record hadith.

You don't need to prove to members here that hadith have faults, we all know that.

peace

[marifhaq]

My dear SaraY and Hafeez Qazi,
Just write CATARACTS in google search and see what causes cataracts which leads to blindness,even the energy saver bulbs(white light) and all blue lights,sunlight,and our microwave oven causes cataracts.
About the article I read was quoting western scholars research that most of the famous old books were not written by their authors,but were written much later by their followers.
Mr.H.Qazi I agree with the most points you mention,but you may also write "oldest hadith books" in google search and see for yourself that which oldest books are still surviving today and their location,few pages are in Austria.Any way thanks to both of you for your interest.

[Wakas]

The issue of Firabri being the sole source for Sahih Bukahri has only been mentioned a few times on this forum. Mufti Abu Layth caused some controversy recently bringing this issue up, labelled "Bukhari Gate". There are lots of videos about it on youtube, simply search "mufti abu layth bukhari".

Here is a summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yatp_Kqen0o&feature=youtu.be&t=2170

[Wakas]

Update on Bukhari Gate: apparently Jonathan Brown (well known Traditional scholar, author of the book the canonisation of al-bukhari, who initially tried to discredit Mufti Abu Layth because of what he brought up) has said he is not researched in this area to have a debate with him (after he was repeatedly challenged on his claims).

https://youtu.be/v-1HD1uAMBM?t=104

The main point being no peer of Firabri vouched for him as being reliable/trustworthy etc and the primary source for sahih Bukhari came from Firabri.