It’s a matter of time before the Ummah will realize that Bukhari never existed . Insha’Allah. Ameen ‘ Ya Rabb
Debunking the Bukhari hadith myth
By True Muslim
It is plainly obvious that the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah and Shiah have abandoned the Quran. This is a true statement. So where do these beliefs of majority muslims come from? One great source is from the collection of Hadith Bukhari, allegedly a collection of writings by a fellow named Bukhari.
Today, I would like to show you that this fake Hadith Bukhari was not even written by Bukhari.
They uphold these false hadith instead - hence, disaster the world over. Today, ask any ulema basic questions about the Quran and they will stare at you blankly. They do not know the Quran. Is it any wonder then that the Prophet will one day complain:
Surah 25.30: “And the Apostle will say: O my Lord! surely my people have run away from the Quran.”
The ulema only know some information from their fake hadith literature, and that too only in bits and pieces. The ulema say that in their pantheon of fake hadith, the writings of Imam Bukhari ‘is second only to the Quran’. They say that without Bukhari they cannot understand the Quran - a Book which was revealed by God and which God says is ‘made easy to remember’.
Surah 54.17: And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will TAKE HEED?
This 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. And it is really easy to remember the Quranic teachings. It just sticks to your head.
But the ulema insist the Quran cannot be understood without their ‘second only to the Quran’ collection of fake Bukhari hadith. If the ulema have read the Bukhari hadith they would have discovered that there are only enough hadith to cover one-third or less of the Quran. And the ulema do not realise that in the hadith of Bukhari they will come across the following phrase, “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 there is no 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.
A famous question that remains unanswered by the ulema is this: ‘Pick any hadith and then point out which verse of the Quran is explained by that hadith, such that the verse cannot be understood without that hadith?’ This is what I have repeated above, which verse of the Quran is explained by that stupid hadith? The ulema don’t know. And yet the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah say the collection of fake Bukhari hadith is ‘second only to the Quran’. Here is one 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 wrote the so-called '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. In other words, they admit 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 of information that have been sorted and put together over a period of almost 600 years. And to them this has become 'the most authentic book after the book of Allah'.
The fact is, according to the ulema, Bukhari died in 256H, 245 years after the Prophet. Yet we are to believe that Bukhari was able to determine what the Prophet ate for buka puasa 245 years before? That is impossible. Here is a simple test. This is 2007. 245 years ago was 1762. How many people today even know their own great grandfather’s name who may have died less than 100 years ago? Do you know what your great grandfather ate for buka puasa - other than rice and sambal of course? Do you know your forefather’s name 245 years ago in 1762? This is impossible. The Bukhari collection is just 245 year old hearsay fake.
There was 245 years between the Prophet and Bukhari. Then there is another 596 years after the death of Bukhari during which time no complete collection of Bukhari hadith existed. The first compilation of the Bukhari hadith took place 596 years after the death of Imam Bukhari - during the time period of the Sultans of Melaka in 852 AH (1430 AD) by another fellow called Ibnu Hajar Al Askalani.
The ulema know this. They realize that they stand on 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 ulema say that at least seventy full commentaries, other than by Askalani, 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-Kushaymani (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”).
So, by the ulema’s own admission, their collection of fake Bukhari hadith is compiled from a ‘commentary’ on the subject by another fellow by the name of Ibnu Hajar Al Askalani. The real author of the Sahih Bukhari collection that is sold in the bookshops today is Ibnu Hajar Al Askalani, not Imam Bukhari.
But this fellow Ibnu Hajar Askalani died in 852 AH, which is 596 years after Bukhari who died in 256 AH. The ulema confess that Bukhari never wrote down a complete book. There were no printing presses or photocopy machines or computers available in his time. And 596 years separated Ibnu Hajar from Bukhari. So how did Ibnu Hajar write a commentary about a book that never existed in one complete volume?
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. So now it is actually a commentary of another commentary. By this trick they narrow the yawning gap to 463 years. 463 years separated Ibnu Hajar’s commentary and the commentary by al Khushaymani. But even the commentary of al Khushaymani did not exist in one volume or in one collection.
And 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 and no one knows the authenticity of the records over 463 years.
Here is a timeline. ‘H’ refers to the Hijrah year in the Arab calendar:
11 H : Death of Prophet
256 H : Bukhari : Vikings raid England (835 AD)
320 H : Firabri : Abbasids in Baghdad / Cordoba (910 AD)
389 H : Khushaymani : Sung Dynasty (960 AD)
852 H : Askalani : Cheng Ho / Melaka Sultans 1430 AD
The same argument goes for the seventy other commentators besides Al Askalani. In fact, the number 70 is itself mind-boggling. Each of the seventy will 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.
And let’s listen to what the ulema say about Ibn Hajar Askalani’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. After 596 years it was just guesswork by Askalani. This is what they have today which they call the Sahih Bukhari which we can buy in the bookshops.
And despite talking so much about the Bukhari Hadith, the ulema still have to admit 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."
So now even the hadith cannot be understood without referring to the complex debates among the ulema. This must be a joke. The ulema say that without hadith you cannot understand the Quran. Now they say without their complex debates you cannot even understand their 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 their hadith before they can understand His Quran - God’s guidance for mankind. Such arrogant boasts by the ulema can only arise from extreme kuffar. They are kaffir or rejectors.
And despite talking so much, the collection of 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!