Why do Shias hate Bukhari so much

[anajmi]

I think this problem needs to be analysed in the light of the quran.

Why do some of us hate the writing of Bukhari and Muslim so much?

[professor]

When one goes through Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, one gets stunned to find how those two so called scholars paint the life of Prophet Mohahammed. As one goes through, one finds Salman Rushdie thousand times better than those two.
They depict the sexual life of prophet in unsacred way. Do you think the wives of Mohammed disclosed how he sexed with them to others? They bring those ahadis from Aisha. Surprisingly Sunni Muslims don't react to that but react to Salman Rushdie.
In one hadis, Bukhari writes: Propehet was with women and Omar came and as he came prophet stood up in respect of Omar (GRORIFYING OMAR).
It is they who wrote about Mohammed's love marriage with Zaed's wife Zainab(His adopted son).
These are few. Go through and you will find many sacriligous points against Mohammed. How can Shias tolerate that?

[anajmi]

professor,

I am sorry my friend, but you will need to give me the hadith number to verify it. Besides, remember the time when the prophet let Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Hussein sit on his back and pretended to be a horse for them? Does that actually mean that Hazrat Hassan and Hussein deserve more respect than the prophet? or does it just demonstrate his love for them?

[anajmi]

Comparing Salman Rushdie with Bukhari simply shows your ignorance of both.

[professor]

SAHIH BUKHARI 3:33:247 ,9:93:506 , 1:5:270, 7:62:06, 1:6:298, 5:59:637, 7:72:715, 4:53:388, 1:5:268 , 4:52:74 , 7:62:24 , 7:62:53, 7:71:760,

SAHIH MUSLIM 8:3371 , 8:3240, 2:572, 4:2127

They all talk about his sex orgy. Were such ahadis needed? Never. They rather defame prophet presenting him as a man of sex. Still those books are next to Quran for you. We shias condemn them and believe in what has come to us from ahl- albait. Not from IBN OMAR, AISHA, ABU HURAIRA.

[anajmi]

I will be posting these hadiths.

Here is the first one

3:33:247

Volume 3, Book 33, Number 247:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet used to embrace me during my menses. He also used to put his head out of the mosque while he was in Itikaf, and I would wash it during my menses.

Here is the second one
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

I will be back with the remaining.

Now I seriously doubt if you even know what a sex orgy is.

[professor]

I beg your pardon for the wrong term i used.

But what my point is and what i stress is those ahadis were not at all needed. Specially the one in which
AISHA mentions the fondling of her breast,

Seeing of Zainab (Zaid's wife) half nacked by prophet and then falling in love with her,

His being omnisexual with 30 men's sexual power

And many other. And many other.
And many other contradictory ahadis. As i have time compulsion to mention them. I request you to go through.

I visualise it as conspiracy to defame prophet and give a picture of a prophet who was sexually pervert and demented. NAUZZOBILLAH.

Why very ahadis were recorded from Ali? And whatever recorded from him never present rasul
in bad picture.

Whatever he says in Nahjalbalagha which is verily a compile of his khutba as confirmed by many experts is not accepted by Sunnies. And what he says in his khutba is a true continuation of what prophet had left behind and not those false ahadis.

[anajmi]

Sorry, Here goes again.

Volume 3, Book 33, Number 247:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet used to embrace me during my menses. He also used to put his head out of the mosque while he was in Itikaf, and I would wash it during my menses.

The message that I get from this is that it is ok for a husband to embrace his wife even during her menses. She does not become an untouchable.

The message that you got was He was having a sex orgy

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

The message that I get is pretty clear in the hadith itself. Do not have sexual relations with the women that you have captured. If you do then even if you try not to impregnate them, if Allah wills a soul will be created.

The message that you got was He was having a sex orgy

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 270:
Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

on the authority of his father that he had asked 'Aisha about the saying of Ibn 'Umar. 'Aisha said, "I scented Allah's Apostle and he went round all his wives, and in the morning he was Muhrim."

The message I get from this hadith is about cleaning yourself after having sex.

The message that you got was He was having a sex orgy

Besides even if he did have sex with all his wives in the same night (quite improbable), they were all his wives!! I am sure you aren't ashamed of having sex with your wife are you? (That is for those who are married).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6:
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet I used to go round all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.

What it demonstrates is not the bad character of the prophet. It just shows that the prophet treated all his wives the same way.

The message that you got was He was having a sex orgy

It is the same with all the other hadiths. There is no depiction of the prophet as a sex crazed lover. That is only your impression.

The fact remains that the prophet had 13 wives. Mention of his sexual life in some way or another was necessary for the muslims to learn from it.

It is pretty sickening though that the shias concentrate only on these hadiths of Bukhari.

Here is what the quran says about the wives of the prophet

033.006
YUSUFALI: The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah).

Even though Sunnis consider these hadiths to be authentic, they have never ever disrespected the wives of the prophet. What have the shias done though? They curse Hazrat Aisha every opportunity they get. Is that how they treat their mothers? Is that how they follow the quran?

[professor]

I see Islam's two phases during prophet's time.

One phase is that of Mecca, The period full of atrocities.
This is the most glorious period of spiritualism. During this era, revelation of surras full of spiritualism took place.

Though it was the worst period for the muslims, it was the best period of real Islam.
It is because matters such as treatment to the poor, to the orphan, to the fellow humans, to the enemies, to the neighbours and so on was very delicately dealt with by Quran and the prophet. Islam of the time was
so humane that a hardcore anti-islamist will even agree to it.

The Medina phase is the second phase.
Here in the beginning things went quite smoothly as the prophet was welcomed by one and all except the jews. Things were rosy in the beginning but as time went on people (Munafiqs) began to doubt the prophet. And hence he had to take some hard decisions such as killing of some recalcitrant jews.
Islam here becomes aggressive. And more unpleasant was to come now in form of different wars with the Meccans. Willingly or unwillingly Islam was no more as spiritual as it was in Mecca. And as time went on, it had to accomodate the greed and wishes of the people or in other words it compromised on some aspects such as the share of booty, property, women. Had ISLAM been without the danger of Munafiqins, it wouldn't have yielded to the rules such as the rules related to booty, using of slave girls, capturing the properties of jews and so on.
How could Islam where prophet went to the garbage throwing woman to ask her health turn into one saying even not to talk to jews? All were compulsions.

The previous phase(Mecca phase), I call it a spiritual phase and the latter phase( Medina phase) a political phase.

And personally I believe Mecca Phase should always be highlighted during the time of crisis so that we get proper way to get out of morass as it didn't involve a bit politics in its affairs.

Alas after the death of the prophet, Islam went in the hands of political leaders such as Abu baker, Omar, Othman, Muawia. The representative of Meccan Islam was no doubt Moula Ali. Had Islam gone in his hands after the prophet, Islam would have seen the spiritual period again as Islam had politically established. There was no need to capture more territories of the nations. Now was the time to become strong within to control ANNAFS(SOUL). As Ali was a symbol of that he would have easily done that. What was proud in capturing Rome, Andalus(Spain), Hind?
They were not needed even.
They spread Islam which outwardly changed the natives and not inwardly. Inwardly they were same as there forefathers were.
What was the need of the hour was to become perfect yourselves and making others perfect. Moula Ali was the perfect one to do that.

Instead came the three, known for their worldly greed.

[anajmi]

professor,

Maybe we should stop worrying about those three and start thinking how good a muslim we ourselves are.

It doesn't matter who ruled when and how. The basics of Islam do not change. Salah, roza, zakat, Hajj and the quran are the same.

And remember, I am not asking you to verbally abuse anybody.

[professor]

Then every Muslim does that. In a way they interpret best.

But there are people who want them to do the way they do.

And the fight is for that.

[professor]

Then every Muslim does that. Roza, namaz, zakat, haj. In a way they interpret best.

But there are people who want them to do the way they do.

And the fight is for that.

[seeker110]

Br. Anajmi rest assured Bohras NEVER spend any TIME worrying about the three.We just dont say anything about them.Anything

[humble_servant_us]

Was just scanning Wikipedia and came across the following.

Shi'a view of Bukhari

Shia Muslims accept some of Bukhari's hadith and reject others . They trust only those traditions transmitted through Muhammad's descendants through Fatima and Ali, or by those early Muslims who supported Ali after Muhammad's death. All other narrators are regarded as untrustworthy.

In fact, Shi'a view some of the narrations in the collection as created entirly to defame Muhammad and his "pure household" (Arabic: Ahl al Bayt). They hold the collector to be biased to the point of not including the most heavily sourced hadith in Islam, the mutawatir Hadith of the two weighty things.

The Shias' most important hadith collection is Usul al-Kafi; but even this collection is not considered to be wholly authentic by Shias themselves. Some Shia books are considered largely authentic such as Nahj al Balagha and Sahifa-e-Kamila.

Non-Muslim view of Bukhari

Academic historians in the Western tradition are much less likely to trust the hadith, or the process by which they were sifted for accuracy. For a fuller discussion of academic views of Muslim scholarship, see Historiography of early Islam.

[anajmi]

seeker,

Br. Anajmi rest assured Bohras NEVER spend any TIME worrying about the three.We just dont say anything about them.Anything

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, it is not. Even on this thread, as soon as the discussion on Bukhari started, the greed of the three came into the picture.

professor,

Please do not interpret it the best you can, otherwise you will be heading to the beach. There is no need for interpretation. It is crystal clear.

[professor]

When I was a child, we used to play in the evening.

Whenever I used to see moon, I would say to my friends, "Here is the moon."

Then they would say, "No, how could you see the moon from that side? while moon is here on our side."

It used to pester me a lot.

I would strongly think that I could only see the moon and my friends' claims were baseless. And I would call them liars. I felt it's so crystal clear that moon is on my side.

They would think I was a liar.

But in that age we never realised that moon was so big that both of us could see.

Now when we grew up, we realised how foolish we were.

Brother Najami, are you at the children's stage in my story or at the mature stage?

[anajmi]

Actually when I was a child, neither I nor my friends were that foolish.

[anajmi]

Besides, the more appropriate analogy would be looking not at a big moon, but looking at the same moon.

[kabeer19922001]

Professor writes:

"Alas after the death of the prophet, Islam went in the hands of political leaders such as Abu baker, Omar, Othman, Muawia. The representative of Meccan Islam was no doubt Moula Ali. Had Islam gone in his hands after the prophet, Islam would have seen the spiritual period again as Islam had politically established. There was no need to capture more territories of the nations. Now was the time to become strong within to control ANNAFS(SOUL). As Ali was a symbol of that he would have easily done that. What was proud in capturing Rome, Andalus(Spain), Hind?"

Hmmm. Interesting. Dear Professor, firstly you cannot and should not make assumptions of what would have happened or not happened if HAzrat Ali became the first Caliph. Secondly, and more importantly if the Caliphs did not come to Hind you and I would still be Hindus and worshipping idols.

Regards

[Humsafar]

... more importantly if the Caliphs did not come to Hind you and I would still be Hindus and worshipping idols.

So what's wrong with that? Look at the bright side, you would still be following the "original" religion of your forefathers and not a "foreign" religion rooted in alien culture and values. Actually, Islam looks quite ridiculous on non-arabs, and Arabs know this only too well and treat us - the upstart converts - with contempt and ridicule we deserve.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

You aren't following the religion of your forefathers either. Forget about forefathers - that is too far away, I am sure you aren't following even the religion of your father!!

And considering how the Arabs are getting treated right now by their own masters, I wouldn't worry too much about how they treat us. If the Arabs had even half the brains that the rest of us have, they would've been ruling the earth.

[anajmi]

Besides, whatever happened to the reginal flavour and cultural variations of Islam?

[seeker110]

You aren't following the religion of your forefathers either. Forget about forefathers - that is too far away, I am sure you aren't following even the religion of your father!!Anamji

Are you foolowing your fathers religion? Put your money where your --- is.

[Average Bohra]

Originally posted by anajmi:
Humsafar,

Forget about forefathers - that is too far away

The Hadiths you live by are even more distant, ancient and foreign, unlike your forefathers.

Originally posted by anajmi:
And considering how the Arabs are getting treated right now by their own masters, I wouldn't worry too much about how they treat us.

Spoken like a faithful slave. How about working on some self-respect and caring about how <u>you</u> are treated and stop putting Arabs first.

Originally posted by anajmi:
If the Arabs had even half the brains that the rest of us have, they would've been ruling the earth.

Well, they don't. Why then rely on the writings of these dimwits and let them lead your religion ?

[kabeer19922001]

So Humsafar, whats stopping from going back to the religion of your forefathers and stop looking stupid.

Regards

[kabeer19922001]

Sorry

Please read "what's stopping you"

[Humsafar]

Kabeer,

I'm beyond religion, so the question of my going back to the religion of my forefathers does not arise.

But you must understand why I made that comment. Your statement about Hindus and idol worshipping implied unspoken and unthinking resentment which is so typical of Muslims from the sub-continent. Underlying this resentment is the notion that Muslims are superior to Hindus; that by becoming Muslims they have somehow escaped a terrible fate. All this of course is a result of brainwashing, and denial of history and culture of one's land. The obliteration of non-Islamic past in Pakistan and the destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban are more egregious examples of this.

That said, I'm not advocating that we all go back to the religion of our forefathers. That would be unnecessary and quite pointless. What we should do is (a) understand and accept that we are "colonised Muslims" and have come into this religion by fate and not by choice, and as such (b) temper our faith with the knowledge of history our land, and (c) - anajmi, pay attention - allow a variety of histories and cultures to influence it in ways that makes it more vibrant and alive. What this means is that it is okay for Muslims to be Sunnies, shias, Islmailis, Druze, Bohras, Sulemanies and what have you; and it's okay if they indulge in rituals such as marsihas, whadhavu etc. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong and unacceptable is to impose a purist, wahabi, Arab and fossilized form of Islam on Muslims everywhere and insist that this is the true Islam and no other.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

Please do not try to force your understanding on others. You are trying to do exactly what you are preaching against.

According to your stupid philosophy, if I were to buy a Japanese car because it is better, I would be under the influence of Japanese imperialism.

There is nothing wrong with following Islam if you agree with it's philosophy. The problem isn't with Islam, it's with you.

[anajmi]

And there is no such thing as a wahabi form of Islam. Again that is just in your head. There is only one form of Islam - the quran and the sunnah and it does not matter how much regional flavour you add to it, the message does not change.

If it did, you would've produced the new translation/interpretation of the ayahs I asked elsewhere.

[spot]

br. anajmi,
bukhari and muslim are considered to have in their books the most authentic hadiths. most sunni scholars consider them after the quran in authenticity. that is a critical place for a book of tranmissions to be at. so when in the pages you find statements that defile the prophet...you would tend to throw the bathtub out with the bath water.

part of this ignorance must be placed in the method of what classifies a hadith as sahih (which means correct). buhari and muslim consider any transmission from an "ashab" or companion of the prophet as acceptable. they define a companion of the prophet as any muslim who saw the prophet. now by normal standards...this is very loose in terms of an authentic opinion. abu harayra was with the prophet a total of three years prior to the prophet's demise.

shias do not regard any specific book has "authetic" though najhul balagha and sahifa kamila are consider more authentic than any other. each hadith is regarded on its own merit..with a higher grade coming from the ahlul bayt.