''Islamic'' Schizophrenia or ٍHallucinating Muslim ''scholars''.
Written by © Atabek Shukurov
I am, already, used to present my arguments with tonnes of rational and textual proofs and in response to get tonnes of insults, emotional comments and claims based on assumptions. For example I have released 3 hours lecture about rebellion in Islam where I gave a lot of proofs on prohibition of rebellion. You can watch it here:
In response I have got a lot of insults, accusations and labels. After long time they have presented only one proof, where they said;
''We have received a message from Hidden Awlia (saints) that Rebellion is permissible''.
Also, I have written an article about mortgage in Islam.
Then another one:
Also, I have written many other articles. In response I got only semantics and insults which prove that my arguments are correct and proofs are untouchable. So, I want to thank everyone who has written a ''response'' to my articles. Thanks for demonstrating to the people that my points have no counter-argument.
Over twenty days ago, I have announced that I am willing to give 10 000 GBP to anyone who will present any authentic hadeeth collection. The only condition was that the copy has to be authentic according to Principles of Hadeeth of the classic Ahl Sunnah scholars.
As a usual no one came forward with a response. People only tried to implement their high talent in semantics and word-playing-game. My question was very specific "Show me a copy of hadeeth collection which is authentic according to your own scholars of hadeeth!". I made it easy for them to know what are the conditions of the authentic collection of hadeeth by quoting from the scholars of four Sunni Schools. Anyway till today no one presented any copy.
Isn't it strange that Muslim ''Scholars'' are obsessed with labelling the people as ''Hadeeth Rejector'' but in the reality they by themselves do not believe in existence of any Authentic collection of Hadeeth?! So why are they insulting the others for rejecting only couple of Hadeeths, when they by themselves reject the authenticity of all of the collections of hadeeth?!
Then I have increased the prise upto 100 000 GBP. However, no one brought any single authentic hadeeth collection. It proves two things:
- Contemporary Muslim Scholars know that there is no any authentic copy of any hadeeth book (incuding Bukhari and Muslim).
- A lot of oppression and bloodshed was committed based on some Arabic sentences which are attributed to the Prophet PBUH without any evidence which proves that it is actually from the Prophet PBUH.
However, recently three people tried to respond to my article. I was really shocked! The hadeeth is second source of Islam. So, you expect to get hundreds of proofs and evidences of authenticity of the 'Second Main Foundation of Islam'. That is because we are talking about such an important issue as the second major source of Islam. Because of the importance of and the seriousness of the issue I gave a lot of proofs from the top scholars of all four schools of Sunni Islam, in my short article. However, these three guys who tried to ''tackle'' my point were unable to give any proof to back up their claims. (I will comment on the claim of two of them in this article, but the third one will be tackled in a separate article).
One of them has written a long article and filled it with personal attack and claims about many things without giving any proof for his claims except two references. In the article he made tens of claims and gave only two references. It shows that he is not up to the standard to hold any academic discussion. I was not surprised by it, because I know the academic level of this person. I have already exposed his dishonest games twice;
Second time here:
The shocking thing for me was the number of people who were liking and sharing his piece of ''Bollywood story''.
I am sure about one thing; If some random white non Muslim guy writes an article in the refutation of a very important scientific issue such as a ''gravity'' by giving only two references and filling his article by emotional insults and baseless claims, non of the non-Muslim white people will like nor share this article on their Facebook pages. Some of the Da'wa carriers and Muslim ''Scholars'' have commented by saying a ''Brilliant Article''! It shows the depressing low academic level of Muslims in general and scholars in specific.
The most silliest part of this game was that some of the people even have tagged me to this article!!! So, they indirectly said ''Your point is refuted!''. It is just hallucination! How an academic article which is filled by loads of proofs from classical books can be refuted by Bollywood emotional story which is filled by hate-comments, insults and claims based on assumption?!
Just read my article and see the proofs which I have presented from the authentic books of four Sunni schools and contemplate it. Then read the emotional response of the other guy and compare it to mine...
If argument needs only a claim for it to be accepted, then I am surprised why Muslims are Muslims?! Why they do not apostate?! There are many emotional articles have been written which is calling the believers to apostate.
What is the difference?
Actually, the articles of apostasy have much more proofs than this joke which has only two reference! Or maybe, Muslims actually prefer the articles which have less proofs and references? In that case why they do not just pick up any random story book such as ''Harry Potter''? It is 300 pages with no any reference or proof. It is just emotions, semantics, stories and claims.
The second person is slightly different. I do not think that he is deceptive as the first person. However, his main problem is that he has very poor skill in reading Islamic Academic books.
When I saw this depressing situation I have decided to write this long article (10 000 words). I am not writing it to entertain these two ''Muslim academics''. I do not think they deserve a second my precious time.
I am willing to address a core issue and demonstrate the fundamental problems in this case only for the genuine people who are following my articles and freeing their minds from the mental cancer and the ancient cultural garbage which is presented as the ''Religion of God''. The genuine people are all the time very small in number but big in their hearts and noble character. I prefer the quality over the quantity. So, my advise to these genuine people is to bare reading my long article and read it several times over several weeks. This article should not be read as a Bollywood love story. It is very important but very-very complicated article too. By understanding this article you will be able to see the politics, games and agendas played by ''Muslim'' scholars.
I wish you a Very Good Luck!!!
I want to express my deep condolences to the contemporary students of knowledge for loosing the Islamic scholarship which was initiated by the Prophet PBUH himself and carried out by his Noble followers such as Zaid, Abu Hanifa, Uwais, Ali, Salman, Abu Bakr, Abu Mansur, Ghazali, Razi, Naqshband, Jurjani, Sakkaki, Dabbusi, Zufar, Lu'lu'iy, Gulsarkhi, Afshani and others.
After writing my last article I have got a good number of private messages from the people who found the article to be very useful. Also, I had some private and some public messages which required further clarification. Below the main confusions;
- If there is no any authentic copy of any hadeeth collection because Wijadah is not valid, then how we can trust Quran which is also Wijadah?
- How I can use ''Wijadah'' to quote the opinions of the scholars such as Bazdawi, Ghazali and others in order to prove that ''Wijadah'' is not valid and there is no any authentic copy of Hadeeth collection?
- Wijadah is authentic according to Juwaini, Ibn Salah, Ibn Kathir and some others.
Now, let's get rid of these confusions one by one;
Using Wijadah to disprove Wijadah
and Quran is Wijadah too!
When I was reading the confusion of the people about my article I was not surprised, because they only know what their ''scholars'' tell them. As I have proven many times that most of the contemporary Muslim ''scholars'' have really poor level of knowledge. Based on what ''scholars'' said, the people thought that I am contradicting myself because I am using Wijadah to prove the Wijadah to be wrong.
Just a question to the same people:
- Is ''Qalqalah'' one of the conditions of Sahih (Authentic) Hadeth?
- Is recitation of Surah Fatiha one of the conditions of Mutawatir (Mass transmitted) narration?
- Is Sunset one of the conditions of permessibility of transmitting Sahih Bukhari?
- Is Wijadah valid during slaughtering an animal in Halal way?
Let me give the correct answers because some of the contemporary Muslim ''scholars'' may actually think that all of the above are important conditions...
- ''Qalqalah'' is one of the issues related to the subject of Tajweed. So, it is applied on five Arabic letters (Qaf, To, Ba, Jim, Dal) while reading Quran. However Sahih Hadeeth, is not related to the subject of Tajweed but it is related to the subject of Mustalah (science) of Hadeeth.
- Recitation of Surah Fatiha is related to the subject of Fiqh. So, in Shafei Fiqh it is Fard and in Hanafi it is Wajib. Mutawatir narration is related to the Mustalah of Hadeeth.
- Sunset is not related to Mustalah at all, but it is related Fiqh with regards to the issues of praying and fasting.
- Wijadah is related to Mustalah, and slaughtering an animal is related to Fiqh.
Now, let's try to understand.
We have three separate things:
- Quran - it is a word of God.
- Hadeeth - it is the words of the Prophet PBUH, his acts, his attributes and his silent affirmations (also related to Sahaba and Tabein).
- Fiqh - it a subject which is created by the scholars based on their opinions and Ijtihad (understandings).
Each of the above three has its own principles and terms which specifically has to be used in its own field. Let me give an examples;
- Quran has the principles of Tajweed such as Idgham, Ikhfa, Hams etc... Also, it has got certain way of acting for example you should not touch it in the status of Major and Minor impurity (considering the disagreement about it). You cannot act with it as you act with Hadeeth. So, you do not ask something like; ''Did Bukhari and Muslim narrate Surah Baqarah?'' or ''Is Surah Fatihah authentic?'' or ''Which Surah is Shadh?''. Also, when you read the Huruf Muqatta'a you do not say ''Alam'' rather '' Alif, La-a-am-me-e-em''. However, you do not do the same in Hadeeth unless there is a Quranic verse in the text of Hadeeth! On the same way, Quran has its own conditions of authenticity which are totally different to Hadeeth! (I will explain it in a separate long article).
- Hadeeth has its own terms and principles such as Mu'all, Munkar, Mudabbaj, Mursal, Munqate'.
- Fiqh has its own principles. For example; (in the Fatwa level) Fardh, Wajib, Haram, Mubah, Mustakrah, Mandub etc. (In fundamental level it has different terms such as;) Dhahir al-Riwayah, Nawadir, Nawazil, Mu'tamad, Shadh, Sahih, Asahh etc. (In foundation level it has further different terms such as;) Masaleh, Dharuriyat, Hajiyat, Tahseenat, Dharae' etc...
Some times there could be one term which is used in two different subjects such as Shadh. It is used in Fiqh and Hadeeth, but each subject has its own definition to the same term.
- So, Shadh in Hadeeth it is the narration of reliable narrator which opposes the narration of someone who is more reliable. For example, the narration of Abu Saleh opposing to the narration of Malik.
- In Fiqh the term Shadh refers to the opinion which does not accord the principle. For example, permessibility of reciting behind the Imam in the silent prayers in Hanafi school.
Coming back to my article I have posed two questions:
- Provide a Sahih (authentic) chain to any collection of Hadeeth
- Wijadah is considered as a weak in the narration by consensus. Even then show me any collection of Hadeeth by valid Wijadah to the author of the copy (not necessarily the author of the book).
Now my is question;
- Which subject has the term of ''Sahih transmitted hadeeth''?
- Which subject has the term of ''Wijadah''?
Let me help out;
Both of the terms are in the subject of swimming according to contemporary Muslim ''scholars''. Actually, ''Wijadah'' is also used in the subject of Medicine, Marketing, and Astrophysics! ))
On serious note;
Both of the terms are from the subject of Mustalah (science) of Hadeeth. Based on that, I have a right to question the chain of a hadeeth which you narrate or ask you if the Hadeeth collection which you are using based on a ''Wijadah''. However, you have no right to ask me if the fatwa which I am mentioning has an authentic chain back to its author. Hadeeth is authentic for it reaching back to the Prophet PBUH through an authentic chain. But the Fatwa is authentic for it according the principles of the school. Also, if you want to know the authenticity of an opinion of certain scholar you do not apply the Hadeethi conditions of authenticity, but we have fiqhiy conditions of authenticity.
So, now I want to ask a question;
- If I want to quote the opinion of Bazdawi or Qadhikhan or some other scholar, what is the condition of authenticity?
- The answer is; It has to be Mashhoor (popular) among the people of knowledge or in a popular book. You can see it in the below quotation from Al-Halwani:
- So, the condition of transmitting the opinion of the scholars is that it should be a popular book which is accepted in the school such as Fatawa Qadhikhan. It shows that I do not have to apply 5 conditions of authenticity of Hadeeth which Ibn Hajar and Ibn Salah mentioned in their books.
- Also, Shafies have the same position as Hanafis as Imam Izzuddin has confirmed. Only Qarafi claimed that in Maliki school they initially needed a chain to narrate the opinion of the scholars, but in the latter generations they supported the Hanafi and Shafei positions;
Based on that the weak opinion is the one which is solely mentioned in a rare books for example the opinion which says ''If you burp you should say 'Thanks to God'!''. You cannot attribute it to Hanafi school because it is mentioned in non-popular book ''Sharh Qadhizadeh'' It is also a weak opinion because it is Shadh for it contradicting the Hanafi Usuli principles. In the contrast, the authentic opinion is the one which is mentioned in the popular and widely spread books such as Hidaya, Mukhtasar Quduri, Wiqaya etc...
Coming back to my challenge I say;
- I have a full right to quote the opinion of Bazdawi, Nasafi, Ghazali, and others which say that ''Wijadah'' is weak and not accepted in the narration. I can quote their opinion because these opinions are very popular and mentioned in the widely spread books.
- But you cannot say to me ''This hadeeth is authentic because it is in the widely spread collections''! If you want to prove some hadeeth to be authentic you have to prove that it meets all conditions of authenticity according to Mustalah (science) of Hadeeth) such as:
- Each narrator is reliable
- High level of accuracy of the each narrator
- The chain is connected
- It is not Shadh
- It is not Mu'all
Now I want to repeat my challenge;
Show me any authentic copy of any collection of Hadeeth and get 10 000£ cash from me!
I think now you can understand why I have expressed my deep condolences for losing the Islamic Academia?!
I had a quick conversation on my public page (https://en-gb.facebook.com/ShaykhAtabek/) with someone. I am not sure, but he seemed to me either Deobandi or Berlawi because of the level of his reading skills and the way of interpretation of the texts. Anyway, he thought that Juwaini, Ibn Salah and Ibn Hajar stated that ''Wijadah'' is an authentic narration in the latter generations.
Here is what this person said;
So he is saying:
The article is very flawed!
Challenge cannot be met because Ibn Kathir, Juwaini, and Ibn Salah confirmed that in the latter generations it is classed as an ''authentic narration''!
I could see his poor reading skill therefore I gave him a chance to correct his error by himself, because if I would correct him he may not accept or he may loose his reputation in front of his followers for making such a silly mistake. So, I asked him to read the texts once more. However, he came back and insisted that he is right. That is why I have decided to comment on his confusion publicly. Here you can see it;
So, he is claiming that it was my mistake and not his. I will clarify the issue.
So, it is very clear that I am saying that Ibn Salah, Ibn Kathir and Juwaini confirmed that Wijadah is a weak narration, but this person is insisting that all three confirmed that it is an authentic narration according to them.
Let me clarify the issue. There
are two things with regards to Wijadah:
- Authenticity of the narration by Wijadah
- Validity of acting according to Wijadah
Here are the legal rules;
- In terms of authenticity of
the narration, it is agreed by consensus that it is not authentic. Actually Ibn
Kathir has explicitly confirmed that it is not even a narration never mind it to
be an ''authentic'' narration!
Here is Ibn Kathir saying that Wijadah is not even a narration;
After confirming that, Wijadah is not even a narration he spoke about acting upon it. He said;
- ''Wijadah is not even a narration. Further, there is a disagreement about acting upon it;
- Big group or the vast majority of Jurists and Experts of Hadeeth said it is not permitted to act upon Wijadah.
- According to Shafei and some other scholars it is Jaiz (permissible) to act upon it.
- Ibn Salah said; Some of the high levelled Shafei scholars confirmed that it is compulsory to act upon it. Ibn Salah said; In the latest generations we have no other option than this because CONDITIONS OF NARRATION IMPOSSIBLE TO BE APPLIED!!! WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT WIJADAHS!!!''
- Here is the actual text of Ibn Salah from his own book confirming that it is a weak narration:
Ibn Salah is confirming that it is a weak narration. Further he is saying; There is a disagreement about acting upon it. Some said it is permissible which is narrated from Imam Shafei...
Let me give a short explanation about this issue too;
In terms of acting upon it
we have three opinions;
- Not permissible to act upon Wijadah. It is the opinion of the vast majority of Sunni scholars such as Ghazali, Abu Ya'la Hanbali, Amidi Hanbali, Abyari Maliki.
- It is permissible to act upon Wijadah but not compulsory. It is the opinion of some scholars such as Imam Shafei RA and Nawawi.
- It is compulsory to act upon Wijadah. It is the opinion of some scholars such as Juwaini and Ahmad Shakir who died in the last century.
I will write a separate article related to acting upon Wijadah. I do not want to confuse the weak academic level of ''scholars'' by writing an article on more than one issue. We already saw, how these contemporary Muslim academics were badly confused even when the article was about one issue. So, let's sort out one issue a time.
Let me clarify my challenge;
I did not challenge the issue of acting upon Wijadah!
My challenge was directed towards one specific issue;
- Show me any authentically narrated collection of Hadeeth!
Since I have released my article I have got only three ''responses'';
- First one did not even talk about my article. Instead he tried to convince the reader that no one should not trust me. I think that is sufficient proof to say that he is admitting my point to be true. I will revise this article later in a separate article.
- The second one is a person who have already tried to decieve the reader while back. I gave my two article above to expose his lies. Actually, what he is doing is classed as a Major sin in Islam. For example I gave hundreds of references in my book on Hanafi principles of testing hadeeth. The book is about 250 pages and the references are 55 pages. However, this person has grabbed two references which are missed out by me and lied by saying that it is ''poor'' referencing. Here is what he said;
Referencing is also sometimes faulty. A couple of examples from those cross examined include the citation simply "Abu Bakr Al-Rāzi Al-Jassās, "Al-Fusul fi Al-Usul", Volume 2" without the publisher's name or a page number (p.286), and for the hadith of Aisha "narrated by Tirmidhi" related to marriage (p.186) the reference is a report from Sunan Abu Dawud, from the chapters on purification.
The index is equally as poor.
Now, just look at the level of deception. He has written a review on the book of "Answer to Modernism" by Ashraf Ali Thanwi.
This is the book:
The book is 117 pages with no any reference at all except the references of the Quranic Verses.
So, for my book of 250 page I gave 55 pages (over 1000 references) he said ''Poor referencing and poor indexing''.
For the book of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanwi 117 pages with no any single reference and no any single index he said the following:
Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi penned this treatise to respond to the queries and questions of such segments of the Muslim society who gave in to modernism. The book is well organized.
Also, I have responded to his arguments about my book and disposed the false accusations in two separate articles (the links are in the introduction). Please read it to see the level of honesty.
The same person has written a new "response" to my challenge. I hope this time he keep an academic discussion.
- I know that lying in Hanbali/Salafi school is acceptable act as long as it benefits your school which they believe to be the only truth. ( I will tackle this issue in a separate article)
- In contrast to that Hanafi/Maturidi school which I follow. Lying in the issues of knowledge, religion and guidance is classed as a Kufr (disbelief).
Second main foundation of Islam has no reference!
Let's see what is he willing to share with us this time. In his article you can see that he has only mentioned two references. The issue of existence of authentic copies of Hadeeth is very important. It is the same as someone writes an article about Maths and gives only two references to the second most important foundation of Maths (such as a numbers). Besides these two references he presented only his assumptions, claims without proofs and personal attack on me.
Is it classed as an academic response?
For my short article I gave a lot of references and in "response" I got this puzzle with two references and tonnes of personal comments.
Is it some type of hallucinating?!
So, before even reading his ''response'' we can see that it does not reach any academic standard! That is why I want to apologise to the noble academics who are reading my article for going low to the level of this guy and using some of the tone and language which this guy uses.
Irony is that Mr. Shukurov himself cites works written hundreds of years ago using editions thereof published within last few decades. How bad he did not give us images from the first copies of the works of al-Bazdawi (d. 482/1089), al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), al-'Asqalani (d. 852/1448) et al. which could be considered authentic according to the criteria laid down by him.
Ok, so he is saying;
- Shukurov is using Wijadah to transmit the opinion of Bazdawi, Ghazali and Asqallani to disprove the Wijadah of Hadeeth collections
- Is that authentic according to the criteria laid down by Shukurov?!
I don't think I have to go through this point again. But I want to answer to him on his own level.
The example of that would be to perform the Indian Yoga by making sure that you do the followings:
- During the each motion of the Yoga make sure you make the Qalqalah (Tajweed) properly.
- Towards the end of the act make a Split (Aerobic).
Some of the 'researchers' and those known with the honorifics indicating their educational qualifications have framed an 'important' question regarding the absence of original manuscript copy of (Muhammad b. Isma'il) al-Bukhari's (hereinafter Bukhari) Sahih that he penned down with his own hands. They ask, "If Bukhari did author this book why do we not find its original manuscript in his own handwriting?" They say; "The oldest extant copy of Sahih Bukhari goes back to the fourth century after Hijrah i.e. decades after the death of Bukhari (d. 256/870); it is the copy of Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Marwazi who was born in the year 301/913 and died in 371/982. He listened to the Sahih from his teacher al-Firabri (d. 320/932) in 318/930 who in turn listened to it from Bukhari in 252/866. How then can we trust a book attributed to its author without there being a manuscript written by him available to us?"
Oh, pity. He did not improve but still bringing a falsehood in to the academic discussion!
I never said that the copy of Sahih Bukhari which is written by himself is lost therefore it is not authentic no more.
Here is what I said;
Besides, now I want to challenge these 'Scholars! Ulema! And Shuyuk ul-Hadith' and those who want to accept it. The challenge is: "I am willing to give £10,000 in cash to anybody who will bring a single authentic copy, of any of the collection of hadith books! Be it the copy of Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Muwatta, Musnad Ahmad or any other collection of hadith!"
I also said;
The other question that arises is, is 'Wijadah' on hadith an authentic method of transmission? In another word, if someone finds a copy of Sahih Bukhari which is written by Imam Bukhari himself (or at least by one of his students as explained above) is it permissible for him to narrate this copy of Sahih Bukhari? Unfortunately, the simple answer is, NO! It is not permissible to narrate the hadith through wijadah. Below are all the evidence opposing the permission to narrate by wijadah:
In two words I said; For the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari we do not need only his handwritten copy, but it could be the copy of his students. If that is established then it is called Wijadah. Further, Wijadah is not authentic narration. Then I have presented proofs for what I said.
I appreciate that people follow Hanbali/Salafi school which gives permission to lie during the academic discussions in order to win. However, I would advise them to remind the people that they are following Hanbali/Salafi school according to which lying is permitted. That how we avoid confusing the people.
2. Naivety of the Question
It is regrettable that we live in an age in which such naïve and absurd questions prop up [in the guise of academics and research]. Who seeks the original manuscript copies of books in our day? Beginning with the Qur'an; we have absolute confidence in the preservation of Allah's Book though we neither have with us a copy of Qur'an written in the presence of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) nor even an original copy of 'Uthman's (d. 35/656) mushaf.
As we saw the question is very serious and based on the principles of science of hadeeth which is supported by consensus. In contrast we see the response to my question in a strange way by presenting a false arguments. These people, for some reason, tend to give incorrect impression.
Giving an "incorrect impression" is as following;
1. Quran is persevered because God has promised. (They use it to convince that it is the "same God" even when it comes to Hadeeth collections).
2. Question is silly. (they use it, to divert the attention of the people.) If question is silly then why he was unable to present a valid proof but was just presenting his claims and insults?
Also, as we see they are still confusing the Mustalah Hadeeth with subject of Mus'haf Uthmani!
I see an obsession with inconsistent arguments in the articles of this person and his colleagues. They say; we have to test the authenticity of the narrations only on the narrators who are between the author of the book (Bukhari for example) and the Prophet PBUH. However, we do not have to apply these principles of testing hadeeth between us and the author of the book."
In another word they are saying:
Hadeeth could be weak and fabricated only in the first three blessed centuries that is why we have to apply the principles only on that period. However, there is no any possibility of weakness and fabrication in the latest centuries which is over 1100 years.
Absurd point in here is only to claim that fabrication was possible only in the first three blessed generations of living angels. However, after the first three generations of Salaf Salihin we are safe from fabrications therefore just go to any shop and buy any collection of hadeeth and that will be mass-transmitted and authentic copy.
Then let me ask a question; Why do you call the first three generations as a "blessed" and "salihin" (righteous) when only they used to fabricate hadeeth but do not call the thirty four generations after them "Salihin" if none of them have even thought fabricating a hadeeth?!
Let's be consistent!
Either apply the principles of testing hadeeth on them and call them "liars" because, fabrication was practised only in their time. Or call them "righteous" and do not apply the principles.
Further, do the same with the generations between the author and us!
However, they do the opposite. They accept any copy which is written in any century between us up to the author, but then they become very strict in accepting the narrations of the narrators between the author up to the Prophet PBUH.
Hiding the actual point
In the next paragraph, I see him trying to hide my point and convincing the people that I am looking for the "original copy in the handwriting of the author". Just read my initial article to see that I am asking one of two:
1. Authentic chain if you are transmitting verbally
2. Authentic transmission of the book if you are narrating a book. I have even specified it by saying "Wijadah".
Therefore, the next paragraph is just semantics;
Even as we turn our attention to books of humans we find that it is the only the naïve who seek an original copy in the handwriting of the author as evidence for rightful attribution to him. Even as we turn our attention to books of humans we find that it is the only the naïve who seek an original copy in the handwriting of the author as evidence for rightful attribution to him. How many a book of our day and those of days gone by have you read for which you did not find a copy of it in the handwriting of its author? In fact the availability of author's handwritten manuscript of a book is no guarantee or reference point to establish the attribution of the book to its author. This has been the human practice for centuries.
Ok, so it is the "human practice for centuries".
Now, please can we ask him to show us a proof that these two principles are accepted in the subject of Mustalah Hadeeth;
- No importance for the original copy of the author. Means, you can just buy any copy of Hadeeth collection (including the English copies), and that will be "authentic" even if it is not verified according to Mustalah principles. ( Keep in your mind that according the consensus of Mustalah scholars, the copy is classed as a weak if it is not compared to the original copy of the author by his permission!)
- "Human Practice" is one of the ways of authenticating the Prophetic narrations! Did Bukhari say this? Or maybe Ibn Kathir?! Further, if books are accepted and classed as authentic based on the "Human Practice" then why do we have a problem for Jews and Christians who are accepting their own gospels? They are also Humans and doing according to the same "Human Practice"!
3. How has Sahih Bukhari
been transmitted to us?
There is no doubt that Imam Bukhari did pen his work al-Sahih with his own hand, however, he [also] recited it to a large number of his students who listened to it from him and copied it in its entirety. Thereafter, they checked it against Bukhari's personal copy. This way their copies were in accordance with the original one of Bukhari
We see the following points;
- Imam Bukhari has written his book by his own hand
- His students have written his dictation
- Then they have checked their copies against Bukhari's copy
- Their copies were in accordance with the original copy of Bukhari
Before commenting on these points let me ask;
Where are the references for this claim?
Who said the above points?
How do we know it is right?
Why should we believe in what he is saying?
I have already demonstrated that he does not have a problem with presenting a false information!
- Therefore, how do we know that he is not presenting another falsehood?
- Where laymen have to go to get the above points confirmed?
- Why he is not giving any single proof for his claims?
So, as we see he has totally diverted the attention of the readers from my points to whatever he wants to talk about. Why he does not answer the question directly? Is it because he knows that I am right so he is diverting the discussion to something which he thinks can handle?
The answer to my point is very simple.
I asked; Do you verbally narrated any book through authentic way according to the scholars of Ahl Sunnah?
Or do you have a copy of a book which is authentic according to the scholars of Ahl Sunnah?
So, Answer is;
Either, yes I verbally narrate and here is the chain or here is the copy which is authentic according to scholars.
Or, no I don't narrate nor I have an authentic copy.
However, from what I can see, firstly he has diverted my point and secondly he is filling the ears of the people with a lot of emotional claims without giving a single piece of evidence. This is just amazing game to avoid my point. It is good enough proof to say that he is admitting practically that he has no answer to my point. Anyway, I want to comment on the issues he brought but in a bit.
Let me comment on his points briefly;
- So, is original copy important or not! In the previous chapter he totally disregarded the importance of looking for the original copy! Why is he being inconsistent? So, is it important or not? If yes, then why did he insult the people who are looking for the original copy? If not then why is he glorifying the students of Bukhari for comparing their copy to the original copy of Bukhari?
- Also, copies of his students were not exactly in accordance with his copy! Actually, I have several comments on this issue. I will mentioned it in a separate chapter.
Afterwards, came another generation who listened to the book from the students of Bukhari and compared their copies to those of Bukhari's students, and likewise [it happened through subsequent generations] until the book became widely known. If, therefore, the original one written by Bukhari was lost it had no implications, because it had been transmitted among the generations of students of Bukhari and its copies had become widely published each with a chain of transmission back to Bukhari. Commentaries to it were written, and all the copies are, by the grace of Allah, in congruence. As to the minor differences in the wording, they are in a sense similar to the difference of recitals (qira'at) in Qur'an and are, in fact, a factor confirming the attribution for they establish numerous transmitted links that go back to Imam Bukhari.
[Footnote;  Haji Khalifa (d. 1067/1657), for instance, tells us about "Al-Nijāḥ fī Sharḥ Kitāb Akhbār al-Ṣiḥāḥ" by Najm al-Din Abu Hafs 'Umar bin Muhammad al-Nasafi al-Hanafi (d. 537/1143):
ذكر في أوله أسانيده عن خمسين طريقاً إلى المصنف
In the beginning Al-Nasafi mentioned fifty chains of narrators back to the author [Al-Bukhari].]
Finally after loads of claims he gave one reference!
So he made the following points;
- Each generation have compared their book with the "original copy' of their teachers.
- Later it became widely spread book
- Minor differences in the wording are similar to the recitals of Quran
- Numerous transmitted links go back to Imam Bukhari
- Imam Nasafi who died 537 AD had 50 chains back to Bukhari.
We all can see that he is avoiding my main question and trying to take the people through the puzzles of copies of Bukhari. Obviously, it is Hanbali/Salafi way of discussing. They do not answer to the question directly even if the question is very direct. Rather they take the people through long way of semantics by giving them tonnes of falsehood.
Anyway, my comments on the above points;
- If "each generation compared their copies to the original copy" then what about the direct students of Bukhari who compared their copies to Bukharis copy?
- Copy of Nasafi is shorter than the copy of Firabri for 200 hadeeth without repeating. The copy of Hammad is shorter than Nasafi's copy for one hundred hadeeth without repeating.
- Further, the copies of the narrators who have copied from Firabri is not identical.
- Further, the people who copied after them till the time of Ibn Hajar have added and removed quite bit of the book. (I will speak about these issues in a bit).
- Later, Ibn Hajar tried his best to re-write the book. After Ibn Hajar, was it preserved as Ibn Hajar left?!
- Based on that all can anyone be sure that the original copy of Bukhari would be identical with the copy that we have in the bookshelves?
- Keep in your mind that Bukhari has left his "original" copy as draft. Later first and second generations of his students have tried to bring it to the final version, but as you saw the changes and alterations have carried on happening till the time of Ibn Hajar.
- Also, no doubt that changes happen even today when a publisher finds a manuscript then makes changes based on their own understanding. For example the copies which are published by Dar Kutub Ilmiyyah. This publisher is well known to damage the original texts of any books and not only hadeeth collections (it's mainly based on spelling mistakes but also because their aim is a commercial profit).
- The most painful thing is that "Muslims" sacrifice the glorious level of Quran in any available chance. So, according to this person the differences of the copies of Bukhari are similar to the different way of reciting Quran. Well between the copies there is a difference of 300 full hadeeth (according to what is known not even talking about unknown differences). If you believe that differences of the copies of Bukhari are similar to different way reciting Quran then you have to keep Madd and Qalqalah for the length of 300 hadeeth!
- As for the 50 chains of Nasafi who died 281 years after Imam Bukhari. I am glad that he finally has decided to bless his followers by giving a proof for his baseless claims. Now, let's see if he has actually blessed them or something else:
- First of all Umar bin Muhammad Nasafi is not reliable in hadeeth according to Muhaddiths and his narrations are classed as Dhaeef (weak)! Here is the proof;
Sam'ani is saying; I read a lot of his books and saw a lot of errors. So, I understood that he loved Hadeeth but did not have its understanding!
So, Nasafi is weak in Hadeeth because of two reasons; 1. He has a lot of errors, 2. He does not have an understanding of this subject!
2. Further, let's try to understand the meaning of having a multiple chains; for example, Ibn Baz has a chain to Bukhari. Then I meet 50 of his students and learn Sahih Bukhari from them. So, according to Hadeethi principles I will have 50 chains of Sahih Bukhari. It is possible that Nasafi had this type of 50 chains. How do we know if he had totally separate chains? Can anyone show us his 50 chains so that we can see?
3. Even if it was 50 separate, are these 50 separate chains still available in our time? If not then what is the point of mentioning the 50 chains of Nasafi?! Keep in your mind that over 95% of the chains of Sahih Bukhari in our time go through Ibn Hajar and his student Zakaria Al-Ansari RA. So, it is single chain narration!
Its so pity! I was hoping that he finally gave one reference to give a confidence to his followers.
So, quoting the Arabic text does not give his claim any extra weight!
Further he says;
Among them the oral transmission and reporting of Sahih Bukhari through various links, other than the one popular today, was widespread.
Ok, can we see only one authentic chain of oral narration of Bukhari or any other collection of Hadeeth?
Also, can he show us "various links" of Sahih Bukhari?
Also, there is no any single chain which is connected by Sima', but it is only Ijazah upon Ijazah which is not valid according Mustalah principles!
Then he says;
Their renderings of the Sahih are in line with the copy common today.
Huh, so many claims with no any single proof!
Now, my comment on his semantics;
Current version of Sahih Bukhari does not accord the copy of Bukhari himself. The copy of Bukhari has evolved several times;
The first alteration; By his direct student.
Mustamli is saying; I have copied the book of Bukhari from its original copy which was held by its author Muhammad bin Yusuf Firabri and saw that there are many things which were not completed and some other things which is left without comment such as indexes without any further comment and such as Hadeeths without indexes. So, we have added that to each other''.
So, the copy which was drafted by Bukhari was edited and altered in the copy of his direct student Firabri and grand-student Mustamli!
So these two copies are not identical!
The second alteration; is by the students of Firabri;
Baji is saying that four students of Firabri (Mustamli, Abu Muhammad, Abu Haitham and Abu Zaid) have copied the Sahih Bukhari from the same very copy of their teacher Firabri. However, they are not identical but there are differences between them. Then Baji tried to explain the reason why and said; That is because each of them did according to what they could. They had a pieces of paper and have added them to where they thought it should be added!
However, the fact is that four copies are not identical but the reason which is presented is just an assumption of Baji. Here is Qastallani quotes the same differences between the copies of Firabris students and rejects the reasoning of Baji;
The third alteration. The book has further evolved in the period between the students of Firabri and between Ibn Hajar;
Saghani Lughawi who has detected this change and inserted this extra died in 650 AH i.e. after 395 years after the death of Bukhari and 202 years before Ibn Hajar who died 852 AH.
Here is another confirmation from Ibn Hajar that people before him have introduced changes to Sahih Bukhari
Fourth alteration; Ibn Hajar also took his turn to shape the book according to his own understanding. He has clearly confirmed that he has picked and chosen the copy which is the most authentic among the ones that he has.
Based on that all I have some questions;
- Is it compulsory to follow the choice of Ibn Hajar?
- I am as a Hanafi, have to follow Hanafi Mujtahids!
- If Ibn Hajar has chosen one copy as the most authentic, what about Hanafi Mujtahids? Keep in your mind that Ibn Hajar is not mujtahid by himself!
- So, is it permissible to follow the muqallids?
Add to all of above, that Bukhari did not write the final version of his book "Sahih Bukhari".
Ibn Hajar is saying; As I have confirmed multiple times that Bukhari left the book in the draft version!
Let me explain the meaning of ''Draft copy'' and ''Final copy'';
If a scholar wants to write a book he, first, pens down his thoughts as an initial points. Then he carries on adding, removing and adjusting the information which is in this copy. It is not allowed, under any circumstance, to take an information from the draft copy of any scholar and attribute it to him because he may adjust any point which is mentioned in it.
After adjusting and when he is happy with everything in the draft copy, he will re-write the book on its final format. You can only attribute the information to an author which is in the final version of his book. Otherwise, any information which is in the draft copy can be removed or adjusted by the author.
Its example; If we take some artist, he will first draft some picture. You, however, cannot judge on the colours which he has used in the draft copy. You cannot say ''He does not distinguish between the colours'' by looking at the draft copy. You have to wait until he finishes the work then you can judge on the painting skills of the artist.
Coming back to the draft copy of Bukhari, there are two other copies of Bukhari that we know. The copy of Ahmad Shakir which is lesser than the copy of Firabri for 200 full hadeeths and the copy of Ibrahim bin Ma'qil which is lesser than Firabris copy for 300 hadeeths.
Some scholars tried to justify this big differences by saying that these changes happened for the reason that each of these three scholars have narrated from Bukhari in different time. Bukhari all the time used to adjust his book that is why they have narrated different copies of the same book which was adjusted by Bukhari himself.
Then I should ask some questions;
- Is "assumption" also valid proof in Islam?
- Why is it not possible that that the changes occurred for some other reason?
- Especially we saw that four people who have copied from the same very copy of Firabry have got a lot of mismatches between their copies.
Furthermore questions on the initial issue:
1. Does it mean that Bukhari was dictating a book which is not yet finalised? Is it acceptable for a scholar who is given super-high level by the latter scholars to dictate his work which yet will be adjusted by him?
2. If Bukhari did not finalise his book then who did? Was this person who has written the final copy righteous or even a Muslim? Who can prove it?
3. Further, can we trust that the person who has written the final copy of the book has done it exactly as Bukhari was planning to do? If not then is it permissible to attribute this work to Bukhari?
4. What are the differences between the copy which Bukhari has left as a draft and the final copy which is written by unknown "Finalizer"?
5. Also, is it also one of the issue which Muslim has to accept blindly that "any copy of Bukhari to be authentic" without questioning? Why "Scholars" (especially Hanbali/Salafi) insult the people for following Abu Hanifa in such a small issue as praying in certain way but in the serious issues such as a details about the second major foundation of the religion (Hadeeth) they force the laymen to follow the unknown people blindly? Is it also one of the attribute of God which have to accept and never question?
From the above issues I think it became apparent that the copies which are available today have many issues by which it cannot be classed as authentic. For example, no one knows which copy that you have in your bookshelf. You cannot even guarantee that the copy that you bought from the book shop is the copy of Firabri or Nasafi, or could be some unknown and weak narrator of Bukhari.
That is why it is important to apply the principles of Science of Hadeeth in order to be sure that you have an authentic copy! That what I have asked from the start. However, this person brought a new topic for the discussion and gave impression that it is the topic that I have initiated. Anyway, the topic they have brought was even more humiliating point for them. If he would stick to my article we would avoid all of these issues which, I believe, really displeasing for them.
Instead of using the Hanbali/Salafi way, these people supposed to be testing the copies of hadeeth collections and trying to present to us some authentic copy!
The internal consistence of the transmissions and copies of Sahih Bukhari despite remoteness of the regions, difference of times, and the number of links back to Imam Bukhari are best evidence for the mass narration of Sahih Bukhari and the reliability of its copied transmission.
I never knew that Deobandi scholars consider the Schizophrenia as one of the types of academia!!!
In short, Sahih Bukhari was relayed down from his author through mass transmission. It was not possible for any scribe to make any interpolation or alteration without it being known. Scholars of different schools of thought possessed copies of Sahih Bukhari and knew its content intimately. If any narration were interpolated it would have been known to them immediately through its variance with their own copies of it and their knowledge of narrators and the chains of narrators.
It's just another hallucination!
Again just a random claim with no any piece of evidence!
Which copy was mass-transmitted?
Is it the copy of Nasafi or ibn Shakir, or Mustamli?
Or maybe the copy of some hypocrite who was trying to damage the message of the Prophet PBUH as they have damaged the messages of the prophets before him?! How do you know?
We need a proof for this claim about mass-transmission. The proof is not someones opinion but it is hundreds of separate chains from, as a minimum, 40-50 direct students of Bukhari. As for the single chains which go back to 4 students of Firabri and through Firabry to Bukhari, we call that single chain!
The "interpolation" happened many times and no one knew for centuries and only Baji and Ibn Hajar and few others have spotted some of the "interpolations". How do we know if further alterations happened or not? If yes, then what exactly alterations?
5. What if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari were lost?
If we were to gather all the thousands of copies of Sahih Bukhari, whether manuscripts or printed ones, and put them all to fire and likewise delete whatever of it is available on the internet including what is quoted in the commentaries and books of fiqh etc. If we were to delete them all leaving no trace of Bukhari's work; even if this were indeed to happen we would not lose anything we know of the sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) today because whatever is narrated in hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari is available and published in other books of hadith and fiqh as well.
He is trying to give an impression that the Fiqh books are independent source of Hadeeth! Even the beginner student of knowledge knows that authors of the Fiqh books take the hadeeth from the hadeeth collection. Because of that the fiqh books have been referenced by the latter scholars back to the collections of hadeeth. For example "Nasb Ra'yah" of Zayla'i referenced the hadeeths of "Hidaya" back to its original sources. Or "Takhreej" of Ibn Qutlubgha did the same with "Mukhtar" etc.. When you use the weak arguments and you know it is weak then it proves that you know that you are wrong!
Actually, it is well known fact that the fiqh books are filled with the weak and fabricated narrations;
Top scholars of Lajnah have confirmed that the hadeeth has to be taken only from its original source and not from any other book!
Even the book of the top Hanafi Mujtahid Faqeeh (Jurist) Abu Layth Samarqandi is not reliable in narrating hadeeth!
Here is the head of Deobandi school Zafar Thanvi is confirming that Fiqh books are filled with the weak and fabricated narrations. Furhter, he is explaining that the hadeeths of fiqh books were referenced by the latter scholars to its original sources such as Bukhari etc...
I think now, the reader can see what this person is doing. He is trying to give an impression that Fiqh books are independent source of authentic hadeeth. Therefore, even if all copies of Bukhari would vanish then he can recreate the words of the Prophet PBUH based on weak and fabricated hadeeth which are mentioned in Fiqh books! Yes, I know that in Bollywood movies Amit Bachan can kill the entire army just by burping. Unfortunately, the Islamic Academia is different to the Bollywood stories!
So, is it permissible to narrate hadeeth just from a random book of Fiqh?!
I only feel sorry for a laymen who follows this type of "scholars". The naïve reader does not assume that all of this is happening. BTW I am not joking!!! I am not sure if lying is permitted in the rest of the schools of Islam, but I know in two it is permitted Hanbali/Salafi and Ja'fari schools. Each of them call the blunt lie by different names thinking that names change the Hukm of lying.
The gist of what we have mentioned above is that the naivety laden doubt, "Where is the original copy of Sahih Bukhari?" comes only from those who view things superficially, give in to shallow trends, and are ignorant of the Islamic intellectual heritage. I believe the spread of such doubts is a good proof of the shallowness of the modern trends and materialistic approach that has hit our Muslim community. Such superficial rationality cannot rescue us from the backwardness that has overcome our people. It is ironic for someone to clamor about with such a ridiculous questions and thinks of him as an 'enlightened rationalist' researching the intellectual tradition. Such an individual should first get over with his ignorance of hadith, its major works and sciences; actually he should return to basic lessons in principles of academic discourse and logical thinking before going about with such non sense.
I want to thank this deobandi alim for summarising what I should say about him and his Bollywood story.
My advice to the readers; Open your eyes!
Now, I want to summarise everything;
There is no any hadeeth collection copy which would be considered as authentic according the principles of Hadeeth which was established by the scholars of classical four schools of thought.
However, modern Muslims suggested a new principles of testing hadeeth. Below, I will mention the principles directly from its sources;
1. Any hadeeth which is mentioned in any Fiqh book proves it to be mass-transmitted or authentic.
2. Any book which is claimed to be authentic by some scholars who lived hundreds of years ago is authentic. Just make sure that the name should match. For example, Nasafi who died 900 years ago narrated Sahih Bukhari through 50 chains. So it proves the authenticity of any book which has the name of "Sahih Bukhari" on the front cover.
3. As long as you have some random statement from scholars such as Juwaini, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Salah you can believe that the book you buy in the local bookshop is authentic. The statements of the scholars does not have to mean that the book is authentic. It could something like "Juwaini said that praying in the night is rewarded". Based on this statement of Juwaini you can prove any book to be authentic (it, potentially, includes the books such as "The Decameron" and "Jack the ripper".
4. If you have some manuscript you can use it as a proof for any published book which has similar name. Further, the authenticity of the manuscript is not important. And the place where this manuscript was kept is also not important.
5. Any book accords the "Human practice" is authentic.
Based on above I want to make judgement based on Hanafi/Maturidi school of thought;
(Liberlims and Moderlims)
According to the mainstream Muslim scholars, the people such as Amina Wadood are modernists. These poor labelled people are publicly humiliated by the Da'wa carriers and scholars. They show no mercy towards them, because they are "Modernists" and "Liberals". If you question the reason of this labelling you see that it is because they disagreed with them in couple of minor Fiqhiy issues. I am not sure about others, but in Hanafi school of thought it is absolutely not permissible to offend anyone for the disagreements over the Fiqhiy issues!
So let me take a turn to clarify; I say the scholars of the Main stream Islam are Mega -Super Liberal-Modernists. That is because they did not change only couple of fiqiy issues, but they have totally changed the principles of second main foundation of Islam which is called Sunnah.
So, according to them we have to reject the principles of testing hadeeth which is established by thousands of giants such as Ibn Hibban, Bazdawi, Razi, Juwaini, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Salah, Ghazali, Imam Malik, Shafei, Abyari, Ahmad, and thousands of others and accept their principles which have presented above.
Let me show the difference between the principles of Giants and the modernests;
For the authenticity of the hadeeth according to Classical scholars it has to have some conditions as following;
1. Righteousness of the narrator
2. Accuracy in the transmission
3. Connected chain
4. Not Shadh
5. Should not have a hidden defect.
Conditions of the authenticity according to Liberlims and Moderlims;
1. Hadeeth should be mentioned in any random fiqh book
2. Some weak or even unknown guy from the past should claim that he has 50 chains.
3. There should be some random manuscript.
4. It should accord the common practice of Humas (for example, smoking in the toilet).
5. Its name should accord the name of the book which Ibn Firabri claimed to transmit.
Watch they are critiquing Modernist Muslims because of couple of Fiqiy issues but they by themselves have modernised the second foundation of Islam;
Here is another one critiquing some Muslims who took a lenient position in couple of fiqhy issues;
Here is another example where people are labelled as modernist (such as Amina Wadud) but the people who modernise the entire institution of Sunnah which is the second Major source of Islam (such as this guy in video) they are classed as ''Telling the truth'';
Here is another critique against ''Modernist Islam'';
Here is another Modernist-Muslim who is critiquing Abbas Aqqad for denying that Aisha RA married the Prophet PBUH at the age of 6. According to him, Abbas was trying to match the Modern life style of Egypt which was influenced by the West. Then let me pose the question of "Modernism" on behalf of Abbas Aqqad; "Why are you modernising the entire concept of the authentic Sunnah?
Here is the refutation of the issue of Age of Aisha. This guy is saying that he finds the proofs of the people who believe that Aisha was not 6 when she married the Prophet PBUH weak and not convincing at all! Unfortunately, he did not clarify what is the meaning of ''not convincing proofs at all!''. Is it not convincing according to classical scholarship of Islam or according to the principles which were modernised by Mega-Moderlim scholars!
But I find him a very handsome young man!
Here is another Da'wa carrier speaks about Liberal Islam;
Well, I can only say the Super-Mega-Liberlims and Moderlims are ruling!
I think based on the same principles they declared the Mortage haram, and the rebellion permissible.
Christian Muslims (Christlims)
When the Christslim "scholars" debate with Christian scholars about authenticity of the Bible, the Christians use some principles to back up the authenticity of the Bible. However, the same Cristslim "academics" try their best to disprove these evidences and convince everyone that it cannot prove the authenticity of the Gospels. On the other hand when they are asked to present a single copy of an authentic collection of Hadeeth they are using the same Christian proofs.
So, what is that?
Actually, these Christslim ''scholars'' have only five above mentioned proofs, but Christian have ten. Read it here:
Now look at these schizophrenic Christlims;
38.40 minutes; He is saying ''If we do not know who wrote this book and what he wrote....
Also, in the same place he challenges Christians for the original copy of the gospels.
Here is he is refuting the Bible based on the principles which his friend has used to prove the ''authenticity'' of collections of hadeeth:
So, I said exactly the same thing!
Just watch it please. It is only 9 minutes long. He says;
- We do not know who has written the copies of New Testament [I say; Sahih Bukhari too].
- Copies of New Testament do not match [I say; Sahih Bukhari too] !
- The final copy of New testament was created after 300 years after Jesus [I say; Sahih Bukhari being evolving too] .
- If Rawi (narrator) is unknown then you do not accept the hadeeth! [unknown in both]
- If you apply the principles of the Hadeeth on the Gospels, then Gospels would not make it on the table! [I say; collections of hadeeth too]
I think we should ask this person in the video to debate with the author of Bollywood story.
Here is another one who is using the same very arguments to ''refute'' the Bible.
Actually, just go to his ''Da'wa website'' and you will see him doing it a lot;
Here is another. Listen to what he says from 01.45, it is exactly what I am saying;
Also, listen to these comments;
As you see, these guys are hallucinating as Imam Abu Hanifa perfectly said!
I think these people should stop debating the Christian and Jewish scholars.
Just compare the above five principles of Christlims for the authenticity of any hadeeth collection to the ten proofs of Christians for the authenticity of the Bible;
1. Manuscript Evidence
2. Archaeological Evidence.
3. Eyewitness Accounts.
4. Corroborating Accounts.
5. Literary Consistency.
6. Prophetic Consistency.
7. Expert Scrutiny.
8. Leader Acceptance.
9. Global Influence.
10. Changed Lives.
I do not doubt that we need a better and more honest scholars to present the message of Islam.
God says about the people with the two scales:
Woe to those who give less [than due],
Who, when they take a measure from people, take in full.
But if they give by measure or by weight to them, they cause loss.
Do they not think that they will be resurrected
For a tremendous Day -
The Day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds? 83;1-6
Hypocrite Muslims (Hypoclims)
The above point leads me to the next issue. Person who has two faces is a hypocrite. The person who proves someone is wrong because of certain reason, then uses the same reason to prove that he is right!
God says; Indeed the Hypocrites are in the lowest level of the Hell, and they won't find anyone who helps them!!! 4;145
- Why do you use two scales? When Jews and Christians give you some proofs for the authenticity of their Gospels you humiliate them. However, when you are questioned about the authenticity of your own sources, you use the same arguments for which you have humiliated your Jewish or Christian opponent.
- Is it correct thing to do?
- Further, you do not have an academic level which qualifies you to get engaged into the debate but you insist to debate. For the reason that you have no knowledge, you only use semantics and personal attack on your opponent.
- Is it also correct thing to do?
- Also, you label the poor people like Amina Wadud who disagree with you in couple of Fiqhiy issues as a "Modernist" and "Liberal". However, you by yourself introduce totally new concept to the entire Sunnah institution.
- What do you think, who deserves the label of "Modernist" and "Liberal"?
- Do you think you should review your morals and ethics?
Forget about the labels and names. Just compare the proofs and weigh them in your brain.
God gave you the life only once. When you finish it, only you will be responsible.
So, just choose for yourself!
Do not gamble your life for the opinions of the people who do not even mind lying to you!
Keep in your mind, when you go you never come back!
Peace belongs to God and you won't take it from the others!