Hi. As a muslim, I would like to provide feedback to your statements: - I wouldn't argue that bukhari was the single most important authority after the quran in that exact phraseology as you can find other previous hadith scholars and collections which have the same narrations in bukhari like musnad ahmed and musanaf of ibn Abu shaybah. 1. Your argument that bukhari is late therfore falls flat. Even if he was the only collection, there is still a chain of narration strictly evaluated 2. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the definition of hadith according to you. 600 000 hadith aren't 600 000 independent traditions but rather also includes the chains of narration. So it's much less. 3. I don't understand what is logically incoherent about Adam being 60 cubits tall! Again 99 percent of fossil records aren't accessible or discovered. God can do anything he wishes. Same thing with moses Even the Bible has supernatural claims. Having strange narrations in few numbers don't undermine the entire science of hadith though as people can rarely transmit wrong forms.
Those 3 reasons you listed are pathetic. For starters Imam al bukhari was not the first nor the "most important muslim", and he was not a persian but an arab whose family migrated to the city of Buchara in modern day Uzbekistan. He did not single handedly "canonize" the words of the prophet. Many before him wrote down hadiths like his teacher Al Humaydi who wrote Musnad Al Humaydi ( late 2nd century AH around 180 A.H Earlier ones include: Sahifa Hammam (around 60-80 A.H) Muwatta imam malik ( early to mid 2nd century A.H) Mussanaf Abd razzaq ( mid 2nd century A.H) Mussanaf ibn abi chaybah (late 2nd century) Musnad At Tayalassi (2nd century AH) Musnad ahmed ibn hanbal (written around 30 years before bukhari completed his) These are some of the books that collect hadiths just like Al bukhari. Musnad Ahmad ibn hanbal and Ibn Abi Chaybah each contain around 40 000 hadiths. The thing that sets Bukhari apart from earlier and contemporary hadith collectors is his rigorous criteria for collecting AND grading hadiths. Most earlier writers did not bother to grade their hadiths, they did not label each hadith as "sahih" (authentic), "da'if" (weak) and "mawdu" (fabrication). But Bukhari graded each hadith he wrote down. His criteria included accepting hadiths from righteous people, like the muhadithon (people who are hadith memorisers), people who are known to have good memory, who are not accused of wrongdoing or lying, people that are well known like imams. The chain has to go back to the source, the people in the chain of narration must have met each other, the matn should not contradict other matn or established beliefs in the orthodoxy. These are just some of his criterias Some of the earlier hadith collectors like Imam Ahmad ibn hanbal were less strict as some accepted hadiths from laymen, traders, local imams, farmers basically people who had a hadith of the prophet they claimed to have memorized. Your 2nd point about the 600 000 hadiths that he supposedly went through i have heard people throw that around, but from what i have read of his writings he never said any of that plus you did not give your source for that claim But assuming he really did go through 600 000 hadiths, and assuming each hadith is 250 words (which is reasonable), and that the average human can read 250 words in 1 minute we can calculate how long it would take (Calculating total number of words) 250 x 600 000 = 150 000 000 Calculating how minutes it would take to read 150 000 000 words) 150 000 000 / 250 = 600 000 600 000 minutes / 60 = 10 000 hours So 10 000 hours = 416 days or a little over 1 year. This assuming he reads 24 hours a day but even if he dedicated 6 hours it would take him 4-5 years, 4-5 hours is also being geneorous as he was a master muhadith (memoriser of hadith) which they dedicated their life to. Also you don't understand how bukhari graded his hadiths, he graded them based on the cirterias he set up and so the analogy of George Washington you brought up falls flat. Because he was not just collecting random local oral stories of the prophet and then just decide which one he would deem authentic. 3rd reason is weird because its not really a critique of the reliability of the tradition The point of a hadith is to transmit what the prophet said, so your point about the height of Adam is not a criticism of the reliability of our tradition but the specific saying of the prophet. And since when did cross worshipers care about science when you believe the son of Mary, Jesus (pbuh) died and then came back to life, or angels, heaven and hell. Those are the supernatural that god and those he reveals to like his prophet muhammad (pbuh) know of. Also to add most of the hadiths found in sahih al bukhari are reported in other hadith books by his contemporaries that never met him like ibn majah who is also considered one of the most authentic hadith collector and his book is one of the 6 canonical books of ahadith alongside sahih al bukhari. They were alive at the same time, yet never met each other or even mention each other but collect the same hadiths with different chains of narrations going back to different eyewitnesses. Here is an example Sahih al bukhari Book 16, Hadith 1 “We were with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) when the sun eclipsed. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) stood up dragging his cloak till he entered the Mosque. He led us in a two-rak`at prayer till the sun (eclipse) had cleared. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of someone's death. So whenever you see these eclipses pray and invoke (Allah) till the eclipse is over.” The person speaking and who is the eyewitness is Abu bakra al thaqafi→ Al Hassan al basri → Khalid Bin abdullah al tahan → Yonus bin yazid → Al bazar → Imam Bukhari (author) Ibn majah Book 5, Hadith 459 The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The sun and the moon do not become eclipsed for the death of anyone among mankind. If you see that, then stand and perform prayer.” Chain of narration: Abu masud (eyewtiness) → Qayzbin abi hazim → Ismail bin abi khalid → Abdullah bik numayr → Muhammad bin abdullah bin numayr → Ibn Majah (author) So here we can see the same hadith, going back to 2 eyewitnesses, one has more context. I don't wanna analyse the differences in these hadiths and how muslim hadith students go about to investigate which version is the right one the point is to show that hadiths that are in bukhari are found elsewhere. This same hadith is also found in Sunan an nasa'i, sahih al muslim and sunan abu dawud all written around the same time as bukhari, its also found in the ones that predate bukhari like musnad ahmad, musannaf of abi chaybah and mussanaf abd razzaq. The last point you made is muslims can't deny a hadith in Bukhari, this is not true. Sahih al bukhari is 99% authentic but that doesn't mean it contains weak hadiths. Secondly even if a hadith is graded authentic that doesn't mean the matn is 100% as the prophet said it. This is where matn criticism comes in and its long and i don't wanna explain it all. That's it, do better kid.
Hi. As a muslim, I would like to provide feedback to your statements:
- I wouldn't argue that bukhari was the single most important authority after the quran in that exact phraseology as you can find other previous hadith scholars and collections which have the same narrations in bukhari like musnad ahmed and musanaf of ibn Abu shaybah.
1. Your argument that bukhari is late therfore falls flat. Even if he was the only collection, there is still a chain of narration strictly evaluated
2. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the definition of hadith according to you. 600 000 hadith aren't 600 000 independent traditions but rather also includes the chains of narration. So it's much less.
3. I don't understand what is logically incoherent about Adam being 60 cubits tall! Again 99 percent of fossil records aren't accessible or discovered.
God can do anything he wishes.
Same thing with moses
Even the Bible has supernatural claims.
Having strange narrations in few numbers don't undermine the entire science of hadith though as people can rarely transmit wrong forms.
Those 3 reasons you listed are pathetic.
For starters Imam al bukhari was not the first nor the "most important muslim", and he was not a persian but an arab whose family migrated to the city of Buchara in modern day Uzbekistan.
He did not single handedly "canonize" the words of the prophet.
Many before him wrote down hadiths like his teacher Al Humaydi who wrote Musnad Al Humaydi ( late 2nd century AH around 180 A.H
Earlier ones include:
Sahifa Hammam (around 60-80 A.H)
Muwatta imam malik ( early to mid 2nd century A.H)
Mussanaf Abd razzaq ( mid 2nd century A.H)
Mussanaf ibn abi chaybah (late 2nd century)
Musnad At Tayalassi (2nd century AH)
Musnad ahmed ibn hanbal (written around 30 years before bukhari completed his)
These are some of the books that collect hadiths just like Al bukhari. Musnad Ahmad ibn hanbal and Ibn Abi Chaybah each contain around 40 000 hadiths.
The thing that sets Bukhari apart from earlier and contemporary hadith collectors is his rigorous criteria for collecting AND grading hadiths. Most earlier writers did not bother to grade their hadiths, they did not label each hadith as "sahih" (authentic), "da'if" (weak) and "mawdu" (fabrication). But Bukhari graded each hadith he wrote down.
His criteria included accepting hadiths from righteous people, like the muhadithon (people who are hadith memorisers), people who are known to have good memory, who are not accused of wrongdoing or lying, people that are well known like imams. The chain has to go back to the source, the people in the chain of narration must have met each other, the matn should not contradict other matn or established beliefs in the orthodoxy. These are just some of his criterias
Some of the earlier hadith collectors like Imam Ahmad ibn hanbal were less strict as some accepted hadiths from laymen, traders, local imams, farmers basically people who had a hadith of the prophet they claimed to have memorized.
Your 2nd point about the 600 000 hadiths that he supposedly went through i have heard people throw that around, but from what i have read of his writings he never said any of that plus you did not give your source for that claim
But assuming he really did go through 600 000 hadiths, and assuming each hadith is 250 words (which is reasonable), and that the average human can read 250 words in 1 minute we can calculate how long it would take
(Calculating total number of words)
250 x 600 000 = 150 000 000
Calculating how minutes it would take to read 150 000 000 words)
150 000 000 / 250 = 600 000
600 000 minutes / 60 = 10 000 hours
So 10 000 hours = 416 days or a little over 1 year. This assuming he reads 24 hours a day but even if he dedicated 6 hours it would take him 4-5 years, 4-5 hours is also being geneorous as he was a master muhadith (memoriser of hadith) which they dedicated their life to.
Also you don't understand how bukhari graded his hadiths, he graded them based on the cirterias he set up and so the analogy of George Washington you brought up falls flat. Because he was not just collecting random local oral stories of the prophet and then just decide which one he would deem authentic.
3rd reason is weird because its not really a critique of the reliability of the tradition
The point of a hadith is to transmit what the prophet said, so your point about the height of Adam is not a criticism of the reliability of our tradition but the specific saying of the prophet. And since when did cross worshipers care about science when you believe the son of Mary, Jesus (pbuh) died and then came back to life, or angels, heaven and hell. Those are the supernatural that god and those he reveals to like his prophet muhammad (pbuh) know of.
Also to add most of the hadiths found in sahih al bukhari are reported in other hadith books by his contemporaries that never met him like ibn majah who is also considered one of the most authentic hadith collector and his book is one of the 6 canonical books of ahadith alongside sahih al bukhari. They were alive at the same time, yet never met each other or even mention each other but collect the same hadiths with different chains of narrations going back to different eyewitnesses. Here is an example
Sahih al bukhari Book 16, Hadith 1
“We were with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) when the sun eclipsed. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) stood up dragging his cloak till he entered the Mosque. He led us in a two-rak`at prayer till the sun (eclipse) had cleared. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of someone's death. So whenever you see these eclipses pray and invoke (Allah) till the eclipse is over.”
The person speaking and who is the eyewitness is Abu bakra al thaqafi→ Al Hassan al basri → Khalid Bin abdullah al tahan → Yonus bin yazid → Al bazar → Imam Bukhari (author)
Ibn majah Book 5, Hadith 459
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The sun and the moon do not become eclipsed for the death of anyone among mankind. If you see that, then stand and perform prayer.”
Chain of narration:
Abu masud (eyewtiness) → Qayzbin abi hazim → Ismail bin abi khalid → Abdullah bik numayr → Muhammad bin abdullah bin numayr → Ibn Majah (author)
So here we can see the same hadith, going back to 2 eyewitnesses, one has more context. I don't wanna analyse the differences in these hadiths and how muslim hadith students go about to investigate which version is the right one the point is to show that hadiths that are in bukhari are found elsewhere. This same hadith is also found in Sunan an nasa'i, sahih al muslim and sunan abu dawud all written around the same time as bukhari, its also found in the ones that predate bukhari like musnad ahmad, musannaf of abi chaybah and mussanaf abd razzaq.
The last point you made is muslims can't deny a hadith in Bukhari, this is not true. Sahih al bukhari is 99% authentic but that doesn't mean it contains weak hadiths. Secondly even if a hadith is graded authentic that doesn't mean the matn is 100% as the prophet said it. This is where matn criticism comes in and its long and i don't wanna explain it all. That's it, do better kid.