Talk:Muhammad al-Bukhari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The discussion of Bukhari's works was inadequate in many ways. I picked up an index to his published works which discusses all of them in detail (along with manuscripts etc) and picked out the info on available published works. I called this Writings. Then I saw that the "Works" section was redundant and no longer matched what I had written--so I deleted it. Then I looked at the section on "School of Thought." The word "blind following" in the first para was surely a translation of "taqlid": I think "adhering to a school" and "not adhering to" one is adequate as a translation for this. I tried to find this quotation from Ibn Taymiyya in the Maktaba al-Shamela database but could not--searched Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya for "Bukhari", and for "mujtahid". Downloaded the Saudi edition of the referenced work: vol 20 page 25 (and a few pages before and after it) have no mention of Bukhari. Perhaps the reference is to another edition? I will wait for clarification of the volume for a few days, otherwise I will assume that this statement is without reference and will delete it. [Lots of work remains on this entry--perhaps I will continue on it. Please guide me if you can...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by UthmanMarwandi (talkcontribs) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the entry in accord with the ideas I present on the Muslim Scholars Task Force talk page. Please try to understand what i was trying to do before you meddle with it DKleinecke (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This still needs references for almost everything (and remove all the Brittania material). Perhaps Maujood's biography would supply what is needed. But i don't have a copy. DKleinecke (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey his date of birth is given as 870 and his death in 810!? there's a mistake here somewhere...

You are right. The correct figures were in the article, however it seems to be the fault of browsers. When Arabic is followed by numbers, they are reversed somehow. I fixed it. --KB 18:38, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

"the Prophet"[edit]

Well, I don't know about that. When people want to refer to the person who laid down the teachings of Islam, they often refer to "Prophet Muhammad". It's often done on Wikipedia too I think. That's not an endorsement of his prophethood as much as it is a convenient way to refer to a certain individual (the Muhammad who claimed to be a prophet and not the boxer Muhammad Ali). Your argument looks fine to me though so I'm leaving your edit. I'm however removing the "whom Muslims call the prophet". The link to Prophets Of Islam has nothing to do with Imam Bukhari and the wording is likely to provoke an edit war. Do you think it's okay now? --Nkv 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine. I agree it was off-topic. You've brought it back to what it was to begin with. The purpose of the link on Muhammad is precisely to inform those who are curious. People who actually don't know who Muhammad is are unlikely to seek out, or get much out of, this Bukhari article anyhow.Timothy Usher 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It's perfectly within NPOV guidelines as determined by consensus. BhaiSaab 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Not my consensus. Not according to WP style manual for Islam-related articles. And not according to WP:NPOV.Timothy Usher 11:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is collective, not individual. The WP style manual doesn't say anything about it. See Timothy Usher's talk page. BhaiSaab 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think referring to him as Prophet Muhammad is more accurate than just saying Muhammad. It's a widely used way of referring to him and even books that are critical or outright against him refer to him like so. This is not endorsing his prophethood but it's a method of specifying the person (like I mentioned above). However, it's not something that I think is worth arguing over. If Timothy Usher is insistent on removing the term "Prophet", I'm not opposed to it. --Nkv 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a page that has a usage of the term that me might all be happy with. Check out the first paragraph of Al-Muwatta. It refers to him as the "Islamic Prophet Muhammad" which is quite accurate. As far as Islam is concerned, he is a prophet. --Nkv 14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Bukhari[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to title this article Muhammad Bukhari?Timothy Usher 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! --Striver 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a difficult one. Most people who have heard of this person know him as "Bukhari." Almost none of them would know him by his first name. Among muslims when you say Bukhari in the context of scholarship there is no need for further specification. If you mean something or someone else you would have to specify.--UthmanMarwandi (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Malik ibn Anas[edit]

Islami, you are right regarding this. --Striver 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Islami was right: Malik ibn Anas died in 179 or so while Bukhari was born in 194. Bukhari usually has to quote Malik via one of his teachers: usually Abdullah ibn Yusuf, Abdullah ibn Maslamah or Ismail ibn Abi Uways. And certainly Malik is an influence on any hadith scholar after him: his Muwatta set the tone for "categorization" ("tasnif") in writing in any hadith works that came after it.UthmanMarwandi (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


writen by anon, moved from main page:

I do not agree and neither any practising Muslim will agree the way wikipedia presents the Muslim scolars. What is the need of mentioning "sunni sources portray" it creats an unnecessary doubts in a new reader's mind about these pious souls. I would never agree with this style of writning for any other religion's great scholars. You can always find a protestant view of a catholic scholar different from protestant and similarly in Judaism another picture can be seen about any issue between orthodox and libral jews.

--Striver 09:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


"Hakim however was accused by some of Shi'ism". What is the source for that? I have neverd herd that before.--Striver 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

minor spelling error[edit]

It was in Neesaaboor that he meet Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj.[1] i assume it should say: It was in Neesaaboor that he MET Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forid83 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


Per latest edit, on what basis do say he was of Turkish descent? Supertouch (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody seems to consult the main source for just about anything to do with Bukhari: Ibn Hajar's "Fath al-Bari." The introductory volume (placed at the end of the published work), Volume 14 has his biography. Page 477 says that his ancestor Bardadhbah was "a Persian who followed the religion of his people" (I have the edition edited by Muhibb Din Khatib). People really ought to look at this book to settle things: 95% of everything after him copies from him.UthmanMarwandi (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)