CHAPTER 10 THE SO CALLED BUKHARI HADITH IS NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY BUKHARI
CHAPTER 10 THE SO CALLED BUKHARI HADITH IS NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY BUKHARI
The Ahlul Sunnah have been misled into becoming kuffar or disbelievers because they have abandoned the Quran. Today ask any ulema of Ahlul Sunnah simple basic questions about the Quran and they will stare at you blankly. They do not know the Quran. For example in this book so far I have quoted dozens of verses from the Quran. To the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah these verses will appear like Greek because they have never seen these verses or paid any real attention to the meanings of these verses from their own Quran.
Is it a wonder then that the Prophet will one day complain :
Surah 25.30 “And the Apostle will say: O my Lord! surely my people have taken flight away from the Quran”
Arabic : “Wa qaala rasuulu Ya Rabbi Inna kaumi ittakhazu hadha al Quraana mahjuura !! “
This is what the ulema have done. They have totally abandoned the Quran. 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 Quran’. They say that without this fake hadith they cannot understand the Quran - a Book which was revealed by God and which God says is ‘made easy to remember’.
The Quran repeats this particular verse four times :
[Surah 54.17] And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will TAKE HEED ?
This exact same verse is repeated in 54:22, 54:32 and 54:40. To enable mankind to take heed of the Quran, God has made the Quran easy to remember. This is actually simple logic. If the Quran is the Book of Guidance for mankind then it must be user friendly. It is really easy to remember the Quranic teachings. The reader will see how easily the writer can regurgitate appropriate verses throughout this book. Yet the writer has read the Quran 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 Quran. They do not believe that the Quran can be understood easily without their ‘second only to the Quran’ 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 Quran 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 Quran. There are not enough fake Bukhari hadith to explain the whole Quran.
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 Quran. (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 Quran. That is 25 percent of the 114 surahs in the Quran. 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 shore less 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 wrote the so called hadeeth 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 written by Imam Bukhari. There is no such thing. 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” at http://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 by 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 wrote down 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.
But 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 the religion of Ahlul Sunnah. With the Shiah 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 hadeeth. 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 Quran. Now they say without their complex debates you cannot even understand the hadith.
We are expected to believe that the Almighty God 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 - God’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 Quran. Bukhari does not have enough fake hadith to explain the Quran !
The reader is also requested to see the chapter 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.
Lets just call this the Monkey hadith !