Hadith's of Bukhari

[alibaba]

I am under the understanding that Bukhari hadith are considered the most authentic in regards to his (Imam Bukhari) meticulousness in authenticating them....however since it is not the work of God it cannot be perfect and free from all errors....my question is how far do we take it??
how do we know if this hadith is authentic or in acutality fabricated but yet passed Imam Bukhari's test. How much faith are we supposed to put in these hadith...........if anyone bothers to answer ...plz plz...keep it short
thanks.

[alibaba]

how is that possible?? the word of the quran is the word of God and God has promised to protect it from errors till the day of qiyamah....but no such promise has been given for the hadith which the prophet narrated..the quran was written down and organized albeit not compiled though in the time of the prophet...but the majority of the ahadith were recalled after the death of the prophet and went through many people and may or may not have been subject to error

[alibaba]

"
in fact mutawatir sahih hadith have the same rank as the Quran, as far as their authenticity is concerned...".....


whoa...that seems like a far fetched claim because the hadith were open to human imperfection while the quran was sent down pure was written down w/ the authority of the prophet and Allah has promised to protect it!!!

[Mossy]

The relevant Qu'ranic ayat to protection does not refer to the Qu'ran, but to the dhikr, which sunni scholars take to include the rigorous hadith as tools for explanation of the Qu'ran (eg how to pray etc).

It's practical authenticity we're talking about here - the Qu'ran was mass transmitted orally initially, so were mutwatir hadith.

[Omar HH]

I heard Shaykh Hamza say something like "every single book other than the Qur'an has errors in it."

Never the less it is obligatory to believe that the Sahih collections are in fact Sahih.

And the Prophet :saw: said "My Ummah will never agree upon an error" so the fact that this is agreed upon by valid traditional Sunni scholarship as ijma' (as Sidi Ahsan has said) shows that it is correct.

[Omar HH]

I have read that people with knowledge realize that one cannot reject sahih hadith
without rejecting the Qur'an because the meanings in sahih hadith are but further explanations of the words in the Qur'an.

[alibaba]

i understand everything....but all i am saying is that the hadith carries imperfections while the quran doesnt....its irrelevant if the hadith was preserved the way the quran was because the quran could never have been compiled till 10 years ago......and i would still belive it because Allah has promised to protect it but no such promise has been given for anything else!!!

[Omar HH]

http://www.albalagh.net/prophethood/response_rejecters.shtml

[alibaba]

To accept one and reject the other source on the basis of reliability (statement #2) also defies reason


hmm...interesting....so what i would like to know is do we accept all the books of hadith written by different people other than the 6 accepted ones?..........in accordance w/ that statement?

but there are no verses of the quran that are deemed "sahih" or "not sahih" while the hadith are, then there must be some difference on how the hadith and the quran were compiled!!!

[Omar HH]

Go read that article I posted.

[alibaba]

umm.....if you read my post...i quoted from the article!!!

[Omar HH]

I apologize Sidi I did not notice.

[Omar HH]

Well if you don't want to get into complex arguments at the current moment it is noteworthy that all of the following accepted the hadith:

Imam Nawawi
Imam as-Souyuti
Imam al-Ghazali
Imam Abu Hanifa
Imam Malik
Imam Shafii
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Imam at-Tahawi
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah
Imam ibn Kathir
Imam ibn Qayyim al-Jawzi
Imam Juzay al-Kalbi
Imam Ja'far as-Sidiq


All of whom were some of the most pious people in our Ummah's existence.

Modern scholars:
Shaykh al-Albani
Shaykh Bin Baz
Shaykh Ramadan al-Bouti
Shaykh Nuh Keller
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Shaykh Murabit al-Hajj
Ayatollah Khomeini
Ayatollah Sistani
Shaykh al-Qaradawi
Amr Khaled
Shaykh al-Shar'awi
Shaykh al-Azhar al-Tantawi
Maybe the best Mufassir alive - Ustadh Ahmad Zweetan of al-Qarawayin
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Shaykh Ahmad Rida Khan
Even Muslim Wake Up Progressive Muslims use hadith

(Note I do not agree with the views of all of the above)

It's just to show you that Sunnis, Shi'a, Salafis, Barlewis, Deobandis, even some Modernists accept hadith. And Sunnis, Salafis, Barlewis and Deobandis at least agree to the completeness of the Sahih collections.

It's just noteworthy.

May Allah (SWT) bless you Sidi,
Omar.

[alibaba]

no..i mean the compilers of the hadith...

ie. the sahih sitta

abu daud
bukhari
muslim
ibn majah
tirmidhi..
and last one can't remember!

is this where we draw the line?...any other books of hadith are not given any credibility after that?

[salman]

no..i mean the compilers of the hadith...

ie. the sahih sitta

abu daud
bukhari
muslim
ibn majah
tirmidhi..
and last one can't remember!

is this where we draw the line?...any other books of hadith are not given any credibility after that?

Salamu Alaikum

Sunni Islam has loads of hadith books apart from the above six. Among them are the Muwatta of Imam Malik, the hadith books of Imam Tabarani, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, the Musnad of Siraj, the Musnad of Ibn Ja'd, the Musnad of Shafi, the Musnad of Ishaq, the Sunan of Darimi, the Sunan of Daraqtuni, The Sahih of Ibn Hibban, the Sahih of Ibn Khuzayma, the Musanaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, the Musanafa of Abdur Razzaq, Mishkat al MAsabih of Tabrizi, the Mustadrak of Al Hakim and so forth.

Then you have the books of many later scholars such as Imam Tahawi, Imam NAwawi and Ibn Hajar etc.

[alibaba]

yeah...but how many of those are considered authentic??......you cannot just blindly accept all the books of hadith to be true......

[Usman]

yeah...but how many of those are considered authentic??......you cannot just blindly accept all the books of hadith to be true......

There is this thing called "usool hadith". Learn them, to differentiate.

[salman]

yeah...but how many of those are considered authentic??......you cannot just blindly accept all the books of hadith to be true......

Alot of them are considered authentic sources, but none of them are as authentic as Bukhari or Muslim.

One should not assume that we have accepted Bukhari and Muslims hadith "blindly". Rather, they were accepted as all Sahih after rigorous investigiation. Below is something I typed up on SF a while back:

For a student of hadith, it is necessary to know the different Tabaqats (layers) of the hadith collections as stated by Shah Abdul Aziz in his "Hifzuha linnaazir":

1. The first Tabaqat consists of those hadith books about whom the author himself said that he would not collect any hadith accept authentic (sahih) ones. Therefore, it can be said that every hadith in this Tabaqat is sahih according to the criteria of the specific author.

Among the books in this Tabaqat are Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Mustadrak al Hakim, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sahih ibn Khuzaima, Al Muntaqi Abi Abdullah ibn Jarud, Sahih ibn As sakan, Sahih ibn Awana and so forth.

However, it is not necessary that the hadith present in these book are Sahih according to the criteria of others or the later hadith masters. As an example, i would present the Mustadrak of Imam Hakim, who although set his criteria to gather those hadith that matched the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim that Bukhari and Muslim themselves did not place in their Sahihs, due to certain reasons that i wont go into, Imam Hakim failed to do this and even placed forged and weak hadith in his Mustadrak and therefore his book was relegated to the third Tabaqat.

Similarly, Imam Ibn Hibbans Sahih is also questionedby vast Ulema due to the fact that Ibn Hibban did not differentiate between "Hasan" and "Sahih" and therefore many hadith Ulema considered non-Sahih were considered Sahih by him. Further, he authenticated hadith fairly easily even accepting unknown narrators if there teachers were known.

The only books in this Tabqat that are Sahih according to the criteria of the majority of others (the hadith experts) are the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. One should not think that it was only according to Bukhari and Muslims criteria that the hadith in their books were Sahih but also the later day specialists.

2. As for the second Tabaqat, it consists of hadith the author has stated will not go below the rank of Hasan. Although there are weak hadith present, the author always points them out. In this Tabaqat you have Imam Nasais, Tirmidhis and Abu Dawuds Sunan, although Imam Abu Dawud sometimes overlooks slight weakness. Some have placed Imam darimis Sunan in this and some in the third Tabaqat. Shah Waliullah also places Imam Ahmads Musnad - but this is incorrect.

3. As for the third Tabaqat, it consists of all types of hadith, from Sahih to forged. The Sunan of Ibn Majah is included in this as are the Sunan of Daraqtuni. This is the reason why some have placed the Muwatta of Imam Malik in place of Ibn Majah in the Sahih Sitta - yet this was not endorsed by the majority.

Insha'Allah that is sufficient for now.

Wallahu A'lam

[roh33n]

salaam

Not all Hadiths are Authentic.
They have been changed

[quran_alone]

Bukhari relied on the narrators reputaion of piety and memory. These are highly subjective criterias. The verse in the koran that talks about protecting the zikr, is the koran and not hadith. The koran has been compiled when the companions were around, and there were many verses written down and memorised. Bukhari was compiled 230 years after the prophet's death, very few from written sources, the vast majority are orally transmitted and very few were muwathir hadith.

[quran_alone]

I have read that article about hadith rejectors. Its funny how they use the term rejectors. But anyways, there has been better articles i read concerning authenticity of hadith, his was pretty weak, but anyways i will comment.

First of all we are to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Many times i notice people who defend the hadith will speak the truth but not the whole truth. This is because they have decided to defend it then look for facts to prove that.

First of all we did not get salaat from bukhari, muslim, malik or any other. By the time these men began their compilation, millions of muslims were performing prayers and fasting and pilgrimage. This is because people learned it from the prophet and companions, practiced it and performed it regularly. These are practices that people can easily pass down. There were thousand who saw the prophet pray. Thousands saw the companions pray, and since prayers was public anybody can easily see the uniformity of it. Its was observed by many.

Hadith meanwhile often was witnessed by a few if not one, never again repeated, and not always in public. It can not be practiced but needs to be memorised. We learn salaat from our parents, to learn hadith we need to read the hadith books. Our parents to teach us hadith need to memorise it themselves. So the salaat argument is not valid since salaat is what they call a muwatir hadith or practice.

The other argument that if the koran was complete, why did it not get into specifics. Maybe we care too much about those specifics. If something was crucial, the koran would have mentioned it. How to pray may not be as important as actually praying. We assume that body movements is what makes prayers, its not.

The argument that what is the use of preserving the koran and not the hadith if the prophet was sent to guide us and teach us wisdom. Well God sent many prophets whose teachings were not only lost, but distorted. He decided not to protect their scriptures, so then why did He send them to humans, if their teachings would be lost. He decided to preserve the koran, something He has not given other scriptures, thats His will. And looking at the hadith evolution, if it wasn't for God's decision to protect the koran, we would have had the bukhari sahih verses of the koran , the muslim sahih verses of the koran and the shias would have their own verses of the koran.

The argument about were hadith recorded during the times of the prophet. On some specific situations yes, but in the general sense no. Most companions did not record the hadith but spoke against it. Some will say this was only during the koran compilation, and after it was compiled then the prohibition was lifted. But this assumes that people can see the future, that they can know that once its compiled its free from threats. Now the companions knew that God said He will protect the zikr, so what made them not record hadith. Obviously it was under the instruction of the prophet himself. The prophet might have given certain people authority, but its obvious most did not. Second, the Anas hadith, where he said that he showed it to the prophet and that the prophet even corrected some of the hadith, shows even when recorded, hadith can have error. And i don't know if everyone who has written some hadith down actually checked it with the prophet to correct them. Imagine if it was memorised and not written, you can see how much errors it can have.

But the bottom line is bukhari's authenticity depended on these criterias :


The reporter should be trustworthy.

He must have a sense of preserving the text of the Hadith. i.e. memorisation with understanding.

The Sanad (chain of narrators) should go back to the prophet (PBUH) without a break.

His report must agree with other reliable reporters (absence of Shudhudh {singular Shaz}).

There should be no hidden ailment.


The Sahih could be Mutawater or Ahad,

Mutawater is the Hadith of highest degree of authenticity and could be defined as:

The Hadith that has been reported by a group that is impossible for them to agree to a lie, and each link of the Sanad is similarly reported.

Ahad Hadith is a Sahih Hadith but the number of narrators in one or more links is not large enough to be considered as Mutawater.
Ahad Hadith is sub divided again according to number of narrators in each link. If that number is 3 or more then the Hadith is Mashour (famous) while if that number drops down to 2 in any one link then the Hadith is Aziz (rare or reinforced) on the other hand if that number drops further to one, then the Hadith is called Ghareeb (Strange).

Examples of mutawatir practices are the five daily prayers, fasting, zakat, the Hajj and recitation of the Qur'an. Among the verbal mutawatir ahadith, the following has been reported by more than sixty-two Companions and has been widely known among the Muslims throughout the ages:

"Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him reserve his seat in the Fire."


Ahadith related to the description of the Haud Kauthar (the Basin of Abundance) in the Hereafter, raising the hands at certain postures during prayer, rubbing wet hands on the leather socks during ablution, revelation of the Qur'an in seven modes, and the prohibition of every intoxicant are further examples of verbal mutawatir ahadith.

[Sadiq]

Interesting article...

Importance of Following the Sunnah (http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000880.aspx)

[Mossy]

You're forgetting about amal and the Medinan divergence.

quran_alone would like amal.

[quran_alone]

Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an
Adapted from an article in Perspectives, Vol 3, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the life of the Prophet (saas) (570-632 CE)
The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur'an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.
Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.
The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.
Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.
Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.
During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-634 CE)
Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an.
Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur'an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur'an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).
Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.
During the caliphate of Uthman (644-656 CE)
Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.
Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.
Three stages of dotting and diacritization
Dots were put as syntactical marks by Abu Al-Aswad Al Doaly, during the time of Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufian (661-680 CE).
The letters were marked with different dotting by Nasr Ibn Asem and Hayy ibn Ya'amor, during the time of Abd Al-Malek Ibn Marawan (685-705 CE).
A complete system of diacritical marks (damma, fataha, kasra) was invented by Al Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al Faraheedy (d. 786 CE).



Now compare that with the first hadith compilation by Malik 170 years after the prophet's death.

Second yes the crucifiction was witnessed but God made it appear to them that it was Jesus. Second the bible is really a hadith and not the divine scriptures, it has testimony of companions and the koran says they were distorted by others, mainly jews.

The koran has no chain of narrators, since it was compiled by the original sources, the sahabas themselves. It was compiled under the nose of hundreds of sahabas who memorised the koran and could check its validity. Then it was spread around so as not to keep it in one place, this way it can always be double checked form copies from different regions.

Yes the koran was memorised, but it was written and could be double checked with people had access to it, thats why there is only one copy. . Hadith can be in the presence of only one person or a few, not heard by anybody else, and most hadith were never recorded. Once you record something, you can easily memorise it, but hearing it once and then telling others and then they tell others without it being written is bound to produce error. Next time you hear someone say something, see if you can remember what he said.

Plus the koran is rythmic, its literature unique, it can not be manipulated like the hadith.

[Yahya]

Once you record something, you can easily memorise it, but hearing it once and then telling others and then they tell others without it being written is bound to produce error. Next time you hear someone say something, see if you can remember what he said.
This is a misleading analogy. You have negated the effect of practice.

I can remember when my 1st grade teacher corrected my spelling of "thay" to "they." I can remember when my third grade teacher informed my that "eighteen" has only one "t" in it. I can remember all of the steps for multiplication, long division, addition and subtraction (even with re-grouping!). All of these teachings I received YEARS ago! Yet I remember them very well because I have been ACTING upon them ever since!

So, even if a hadith narrator did not convey the EXACT wording of what the Prophet :saw: said, it is ENTIRELY reasonable to believe that he conveyed a statement which bears the same meaning as what the Prophet :saw: said. After all, he had probably been practicing that hadith for quite some time. For this reason, the hadith are still very reliable.

And bear in mind, that no one is claiming that the hadith are the equal of the Qur'an, only that a mutawaatir hadith is equally authentic. ie. we do not doubt it. But we all agree that it is NOT the word of Allah, subhanahu wata3aalaa.

[quran_alone]

You said that the koran was passed down exactly the same way as the hadith. Now tell me how is that. You said that if you do not beleieve that the hadith was reliable then the koran could not be reliable also, now how is that.

[quran_alone]

Now thats better, its good to know now you at least moved to mutawatir hadith, and not saheeh.