Talk:Sahih al-Bukhari

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

Page of Random Fact Compilation?[edit]

Bukhari did not exist. Mullahs made up a fictional character who they claim: had a dream that Muhammad came to him and requested he start compiling his words from 200 years ago. How would he know that it was not just a random dream? Last night, I had a dream that Jennifer Lopez wanted to have my baby. Should I go to her house and impregnate her?

Sharia laws are haram because they have no relevance to Quran, just fabricated hadiths. Why should women have to be draped in a veil, and not be educated? Haram laws.

2008 editing[edit]

I cleaned up the page and added a bit of information. reading this discussion I can see how messed it had gotten to be. But it was in pretty good shape when I arrived.

It seems to me that it should be expanded to at least mention that Shi'ite objections and to explain Melchert's observations about the history of the Sahih. If anyone feels up to either of these tasks please do it without adding any POV. The relationship between al-Bukhari and Muslim should also be noted.

DKleinecke (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add a comment to both Striver and Zora, that while you guys have been fighting for several pages worth of content (I understand some time has past since but this talk page remains still), that you got into an edit war. Think before you write. Lurk before you leap. And please, if you get into a fight, take a step back and let a THIRD PARTY help you. "Islamic" was trying to do so, I wonder if his help was in vain as I haven't seen him write anything after a while. I hope you can resolve your differences for the good of the page, though. -- (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


I am not an expert on Arabic or Islam, but when you wrote "one of the most famous of its commentary", I think you meant "commentaries". I didn't change it because I wasn't sure. Art LaPella 20:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Requested quotation of Style guidelines[edit]

Striver, you said you failed to find anything in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that deals with the criticisms I have made about excessive subdivision of articles due to insufficient material. You also asked for a quote. I am happy to oblige (bold emphasis added):

Structure of the article[edit]

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text. By the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.

Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points; however, sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom.

Headings help to make an article clearer, and comprise the table of contents; see Wikipedia:Section, which users can choose under 'Preferences' to view (the default) or not to view. Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style).

Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.

The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgment and of controlling the total length of the article.

Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read.

I hope you will now please reconsider your fondness for subdivision in articles whose length does not support it. --AladdinSE 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Major revision[edit]

Non-muslimz have to follow the guidelines given here I happened across this article. It was a jumbled mess. I've straightened it out as best I can. I also added some perspective on how much Sahih Bukhari is to be trusted. It is my current understanding that the ulema and the Salafis do not see eye to eye on this. I need to get some references for that.

Probably still needs a lot of work, but this is a good first approximation. Zora 11:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont appreciate you removing the content part. It actualy made me quit upset, since it took me time to do it, it is relevant, it is sourced, and makes me remeber why i vowed to not talk to you. You take maters in your own hand, and just outright delete anything that hapens to not faling in your taste. stop doing that. --Striver 12:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Its "non-Muslim", not "Academic". --Striver 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver, all you did was revert. I think my version treated the Shi'a quite fairly, and explained why they didn't trust many Sunni hadith. Also, if you're going to revert, you need to mark it as a revert. Zora 13:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, respectfully,i did not revert. I looked through both versions, and carefully made a third. I removed
"they were collected and written down 150 to 300 years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE."
since that is not relevant to this particular collection, they can find info about that in the links provided in the intro. Further, it is acctualy innacurate, or at least pov, since Sunni and Shi'a belive some hadith where collect even during the Prophets life. I added a etymology section, and then added the date for the publication of this particular collection, something your version missed. I moved all the glorification of Bukhari, his ablution, his only collection sahih and stuff to the Sunni view, since Shi'a view that as irrelevant or false. I did not touch your text about salafi and stuff, but i dont agree its true. But instead of deleting it, i added a "Fact" tag.It is not "Academic", it is "non-Muslim", to say non-Muslims are Academics is a insult on Muslims. However, i keept your sectioning of the three views. And then i moved the content part to the end, instead of having it where it was. Thank your for not giving rashed judgemnts on my work. --Striver 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver, "collected" means written down. There is NO EVIDENCE that anything was written down before the Abbasids. Something that is passed on orally for 150 years is not considered in any way "fixed" until the date that it is written in a form that can't be altered by later transmitters. (This is actually a problem with the manuscripts too, since later copies of supposedly early manuscripts may have been altered; the Muwatta is supposed to be much later, in places, than the ostensible date of first composition.)

Your take on academics and non-Muslims is bizarre. Only a very few non-Muslims are academics. Some academics are Muslims, but if they participate in the Western academic tradition, they have to play by those rules, which mandate non-supernaturalist explanations. Very few Muslims have been willing to do so. There is a near-total lack of overlap between the Muslim scholarly tradition (which has been effectively moribund for 1000 years) and the Western academic tradition -- which is becoming increasingly international.

I fixed the article. You mangled it again. I will revisit it in a day or so, when I'm less irritated. I can take out the ablutions stuff -- I left it there in deference to other editors. Zora 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I chuckle most insincerely at the very humourous statement above, (taken totally out of context ofcourse - lest I offend any Muslims <-Note word capitalised out of respect): "Only a very few non-Muslims are academics".1812ahill (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you belive there is "no evidence". Shi'a and Sunni do not agree on that. Sunnis belive Abu Bakr wrote down some hadith that are still available, for example. In short, there is a dispute regarding that.
As you formulated yourself "Western academic". "Western academic" is fine with me, we can change it from "non-Muslim" to "Western academic", since "Western academic" does not imply that Muslims are not worthy of being called Academics. There does exist a very long "Muslim Academic" that outdates the "Western academic" with over 1000 years. And no, "Muslim Academic" does not need to play by the "Western academic" rules to be deserved to be called "Academics". If i would object in some way, "Western academic" does imply that there are no Muslims in the west, but never mind, "Western academic" is fine instead of "Non-Musilm".


Zora, stop insulting me by refering to my edits as "You mangled it again". Keep doing that and you will se a fast detoriation of our relationship. And we dont need that.
The ablutions stuff needs to be there in the Sunni view, its important to them. I personaly find it amusing that he could get it so wrong while trying so hard, but that is the Shi'a view. The ablutions stuff is notable and deserves to be included. Peace. --Striver 11:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora's revision[edit]

I removed most of the Shi'a-centric material. It is sufficient to note that Shi'a don't trust Bukhari; it is not necessary to include an exposition of the full Shi'a position on hadith in general. I also reorganized.

Islami, your para was completely unsourced. We can't just state contentious matters as true. However, we can say that "X believes Y" and give a citation. You need to give us the X and the citation. Zora 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My para is a translation from the Arabic version of this page. The source for the dates is also mentioned in a book by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghidda, regarding the name of Sahih Bukhari. The acceptance of his book by major scholars had been narrated by almost every book about this subject, including Abu Ghidda's one.--Islamic 04:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we need either an English language source, OR a quote from a published Arabic source, quote in both Arabic and English, so that other editors can check your translation. 99% of the editors (and users) here don't read Arabic and don't have access to Arabic sources. Just waving your hand in the general direction of some scholar and telling us to find the info isn't all that helpful. It's like doing a science experiment: the experimenter has to describe exactly how he/she set up the experiment, so that it can be re-done, and checked. Well, if you give a quote, someone else should be able to look it up and say, "Yup, that person did say that."
You might be able to do this easily by just googling on Bukhari. I'm busy, and should be doing other things, but it's usually quick to google, find an article on a reputable site, and cut-n-paste both the quote and the link.
I'm well aware that a great many articles on Wikipedia don't cite their sources carefully, but we're responsible for our own behavior and doing the best we can, regardless of others. Just as I'm sure you're doing your best to be a good Muslim despite being surrounded by many people who aren't trying :) Zora 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will work tomorrow on putting these original quotes here. We can ask for a volunteer to check the translation. I don't think to find a lot of material in English, but Google surprise me sometimes :) I will give it a try tomorrow. --Islamic 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unaccaptable. Zora, you included a long rant about " what is a hadith, generaly", but instead removed the more specific details of the Shi'a view of this hadith collection. Then, you also moved the Sunni view of Bukhari into the non-disputed section. Also, you removed the content, and also other issues. This is unaccaptable. You did do some good edits, and some of that should be keept, but im tired of cleaning up after you. Re-insert what you need to do, but stop unitarliy overhauling the article. The last time you did that, i took time to make a third vesion that included both our edits, now im not going to bother, its just a plain revert. You are utterly respectles towards other peoples work when deleting entire sections such as the content section. Stop that. --Striver 09:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver, it's a Sunni hadith collection, and the Shi'a view of it is definitely a minority view. The Shi'a view doesn't get 60% of the article. 10% is more like it. The list of "Hadith from Bukhari that Shi'a like" is grotesquely POV and needs to be axed. Zora 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, there is no such thing as a "Hadith from Bukhari that Shi'a like". Further, If you belive the Shi'a pov is geting undue weight, then to the wiki thing and break it out, dont delete it. --Striver 10:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, 6/31 lines, excluding references, the list, see also and external links is not undue weight. --Striver 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And regarding the list, 6 of the hadith are viewed as objectionable by Shi'as or are used by Sunnis, and many more hadith are neutral, so the list is not a "Shi'a list" --Striver 10:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are all hadith about Shi'a concerns. And as for "breaking out" the Shi'a material here -- it is merely a duplication of the Shi'a section of the Hadith article. The Shi'a don't trust Sunni hadith collections. Period. It's not special to Bukhari, it applies to all of them. The Hadith article is very clear about that. The Shi'a view of Bukhari can be handled in one sentence. Zora 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are correct in one sense, that Shi'a take notice of all Hadith that Sunni use to bolster their claims, but that does not make them "Shi'a hadith", the Umar hadith are never refered to by Shi'as, exept to refute them. Those are explicitly Sunni hadith, Shi'a rejecting them and thuse showing intrest does not make them "Shi'a hadith" and does not make the list a "All Shi'a hadith collection" - Your logic is fundamentaly flawed, using you logic, there exist nothing exept Shi'a hadith.

Again is your Shi'a view of Bukhari hadith flawed. You put in a large chunk from the Hadith article into this article, but refuse to include the parts that are concerned with the Shi'a view. That is totaly unfair, specialy when you remove reference to what Shi'a trust instead and also remove reference to in what particular part was Bukhari biased, specificly the hadith mentioned that are ommited. You can not ommit what Shi'a trust instead and also what we specificaly hold against Bukhari.

Further, it is unacaptable that while you reject the Shi'a the opurtunity to expres their view since "it is already in the Hadith article" (while giving a long duplicate from the "Hadith" article), you put Sunni view of Bukhari in the main space, and only mention what non-Muslims think about that, without event mentioning what the Shi'a view about that! Totaly unaccaptable. Keep the Sunni view in the Sunni view, and let the Shi'a have their six puny lines.--Striver 14:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver, the Shi'a POV is there in my version. It may not be as long as you want; but by the notability rules, Sunni would get 85% of the space and Shi'a would get 15%. Now the Sunni have five lines and the Shi'a have four. You're over-represented as it is. Zora 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont compate the amount of lines in my prefered version to the amount of lines in your prefered version, that is missleading. And you know that. --Striver 16:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OH, and as for the list[edit]

You've made a list of the hadith that Striver finds notable. This is pure personal opinion. There are many thousands of hadith in Bukhari, and different scholars, and different laypeople, may find different sets of hadith worthy of attention. If someone is notable, and his/her fave hadiths are of interest, we could possibly put a list in the article dedicated to that person. You aren't notable, you don't have an article, and your fave hadiths do not deserve star billing. Zora 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop it will you! That is non-sense, according to that logic, we can never link to the hadith untill all hadith have articles, and that is non-sense. If you feel there is a unbalance since a hadith or two is missing, then add them and stop adding non-sense arguements. --Striver 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Islami, I removed the dates you gave -- they didn't mean anything, so far as I could tell. Were they death dates? Moreover, giving dates in Hijri rather than Gregorian is not at all useful to 99% of this encyclopedia's users. One solution is to give two dates, the Gregorian followed by the Hijri. For reliable conversion from Hijri to Gregorian, we need a day and month as well as a year; one Hijri year can span two Gregorian years.

I will also point out that so far as I can tell from reading the Melchert article I referenced, and comparing his references to yours, he's got the right of it. All your references are contemporary pious assessments of Bukhari that seem to be based on tradition rather than sound historical research. Contemporary historical research starts with finding the earliest surviving manuscript, and then checking other works from the same or earlier periods (either published or in manuscript) to see if there are any references to earlier versions of the work that haven't survived. According to Melchert,

Actually, the Sahih of Bukhari seems not to have been widely published until well into the tenth century, for virtually all known transmissions were through a single man, Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Matar al-Firabri (d. 320/932). [6] Somehow, no one else of the many illustrious traditionists who related hadith of Bukhari (al-Mizzi lists over eighty) recognized the value of his collection of sound hadith and transmitted it. Its organization, in particular its chapter headings, seem not to have stabilized until the mid-tenth century. [7] It first attracted commentaries in the later tenth century.

Against your account of crowds gathering to hear Bukhari, and eminent scholars recognizing his worth, we have manuscript evidence showing that he was at first ignored.

I'm not going to put this in the article. Anyone who is interested in pursuing the question would do better to go to the academic sources. But I just want you to consider that you might not know things that you think you know. (Actually that's true of all of us, me too. Who knows how many of the things I think I know are going to be jokes to future generations?) Zora 04:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I think you did not get the main point. Since his teachers such as Ibn Maīn (847 CE/233 AH), and Ibn Madīni (848 CE/234 AH), reviewed and approved his book after it was done, then we know for sure that he finished his book before they died!
By the way, al-Firabri (d. 320) is not the only transmitter of Sahih Bukhari. There were many others such as Ibrahim ibn Ma'qal (d. 295 AH), Hammad ibn Shaker (d. 311 AH), Mansur Burduzi (d. 319 AH), and Husain Mahamili (d. 330). Melchert knows that, and for that reason we never trust oriantalists. --Islamic 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Islami, I don't think you see the problem. Perhaps we have historical references saying that Bukhari wrote a book and his teachers approved it. (Though I doubt that, I really do.) However, the earliest surviving manuscript of the book is dated many years after these references. Since all books were copied by hand we have no way of knowing if the book we're seeing is the same book described in earlier references. What Melchert is saying that using accepted techniques, we can trace ALL the copies of Bukhari back to al-Firabri's version, which is dated well after Bukhari's death. So of course it's possible that the text was altered. In fact, that was common practice at the time.
The person who should be arguing with you here is Melchert, because I'm still learning. I do not have the expertise he has. But I had enough years in graduate school to learn how to recognize expertise.
One of my enthusiasms is creating the universal online library. All books ever made available online. It would be great if all the surviving Islamic manuscripts were filmed, and put online, so that you and I would be able to argue about this on the basis of the earliest manuscripts of the authors we're discussing. (Of course, it would also be great if I were buckling down to learning Arabic, instead of letting my textbook and DVDs gather dust.) Maybe we'd be able to come to some agreement then! Zora 06:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Zora, stop reverting with totaly missleading summaries like "rv to non-Shi'a centric version". --Striver 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver, your "version" is more about Shi'a views than it is about Sunni or Western academic views. Not only that, your list of famous hadith is irretrievably POV. Zora 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

12 neutral rows + 15 Sunni rows + 6 (six!) Shi'a rows + 11 non-Muslim rows does NOT make a Shi'a centric article. You still have not explained H-O-W the list is Shi'a centric, just came with the undefendable notion that this article should not link to article about hadith. --Striver 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is N-O-T fair is your version, it moves the Sunni view to the main space, and then adds a non-Muslim rebutal to it, also in main space. THEN it compares the remaining Sunni view to the entire Shi'a view and concludes that the Shi'a have gotten a good deal. That is not fair. --Striver 23:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, someone explain this to me as if I was a six-year-old... If this is one of the Sunni six major Hadith collections, why does the very intro paragraph prominently introduce the Shi'a view? I'm not going to revert Striver's contributions now because I expect editors more familiar with the topic to do that, but this cannot go on. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is "while Shi'a have the opposite view" to much? Sure, ill remove it, that is not a big issue. My problem with Zora is about mixing the different views, giving lots of space to explain issues one click away, and at the same time deleting information that is not one click away. --Striver 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors more familiar with the topic try to edit Striver, but he reverts, claiming "vandalism". Zora 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "Editors more familiar" here is you, and i did add everything relevant you wanted to add - it is your sectioning (mixing Sunni and non-Muslim pov in main space) and omittions (deleting 4 out of 6 Shi'a lines claiming undue weight, and removing the contents) that i do not find motivated. --Striver 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote, putting in a "Sunni" section. I also vehemently dispute your collection of "famous" hadiths. That's all your creation, and the names attributed to the hadiths seem to be the ones given by Shi'a. You have reverted to a badly-written, POV version. Zora 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you put the Sunni pov in the main article. More specificaly in the "Bukhari's collection today". Then, on top of having the Sunni pov in the main space, you added only a Sunni section, you did'nt even bother to create a "Shi'a" and a "non-Muslim" section, you just bundled them together. You did not even mention that the Shi'a have their own version of "most trusted" hadith, you did not mention that Shi'a hold againt him that he did not add the hadith of thaqalayn, you did not mention that Shi'a hold againt him that he added hadith that are view as directly despicable. And then, on top of that, you maid the non-Muslim part of the "Other views of Bukhari's collection" twice as big. Is that fair? No. Further, not even the Sunni editor was satisfied with your edit: [1]. Do note that the Sunni editor used my words when he corrected your edit, proving that i do not write in a "Shi'a centric" maner, if i did, the Sunni editor would not have used my text.

Regarding "the names attributed to the hadiths seem to be the ones given by Shi'a", what hadith seems to be in that maner? please be specific. --Striver 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets try to be constructive. Except for the hadith links, what else would you like to have in the article now, that is not there already? I belive i added everything you wanted there, did i miss anything? Or is your only complaint that the Shi'a should only get 2 lines and not 6? --Striver 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of hadith by name has to go. That is pure original research on your part, Striver. You have given no evidence that the Sunni use those names (or that the Shi'a do; since you always use Shi'a sources, I'm guessing that you got the names there). You have given no reason for picking THOSE hadith out of the thousands in Bukhari. You've given no evidence that anyone besides yourself regards those hadith as particularly notable.
Also, some of the material in the Shi'a section is not necessary to understand the Shi'a view of Bukhari; it's just presenting the Shi'a POV in general, and this is NOT the place for it. It's as if I were to insert an essay on why Buddhism is far superior to Sunni Islam. Zora 22:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Ok, lets talk about the hadith.

You do the following claims:

  • You have given no evidence that the Sunni use those names (or that the Shi'a do; since you always use Shi'a sources, I'm guessing that you got the names there)

Since you refuse to narrow down your allegations, ill do it for you: Lets disscuse the Hadith of the pen and paper. In that article, you will he this link, with this text "The shia claim that Hazrat Omar(R.A) went against the wishes of the Prohpet(saw) when the pen and paper was called for, i am refering to the hadith in Sahih Buhari which you will be familiar with". As you see, the key words are "pen and paper", and they are definitly Sunnis. But for you information i also dug out this: "Regarding Omar's Refusal to Give the Prophet a Pen to Write his Will!!!", again the same key words, and again Sunnis. And look here to: "THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PEN AND PAPER INCIDENT: A REPLY TO ANSWERING-ANSAR'S ARTICLE.", same key words, still Sunnis.

So, three Sunni sources identifying the hadith with "pan and paper". Still calling it a Shi'a centric name?

You continue.

You have given no reason for picking THOSE hadith out of the thousands in Bukhari.

My motives are irrelevant, anyone is free to pick any hadith he/she wants and creat a article about it, providing its a notable hadith. The list links to all hadith articles in wikipedia, if you feel any particular hadith is lacking, please do wikipedia a favor and add it, instead of complaining. Now that it is clear, i will tell you why i picked those hadith:

For starters, it was Zereshk that enumerated and quoted a set of Shi'a hadith. Since the Shi'a article was geting a bit large, i broke them out and gave them a article each. Then it was logical to have a "list of hadith". Of course you afd'd it, and it failed. Now that there was a list, i felt that i needed to make the article balanced, so i picked some Sunni hadith that gave merits for the Sunni Caliphs:

(note: all above hadith are pure pro sunni, Shi'a reject them, created by me to give balance)

And it whent well, now there are both Shi'a and Sunni hadith, the list is balanced. While writing about some other topics, some other hadith came to mind, like the

Those where created since they came to mind while working on other articles. And then, some hadith where in some articles, and i broke them out and gave them their own article, hadith such as:

One was not even created by me

Now, if you think some hadith is lacking, then please add it, stop please complaining. I try constantly to include pure pro Sunni hadith, just hoping that one day i wont need to hear "im Shi'a centric", for example, i created Hadith of Abu Bakr's superior faith some days ago.

Then you write:

You've given no evidence that anyone besides yourself regards those hadith as particularly notable.

well, if you actualy bothered to read the hadith articles, you would understand why that is false. But ill save you some time and ill copy paste the "external link" section of the Hadith of the pen and paper:



I hope i wont need to hear "You've given no evidence that anyone besides yourself regards those hadith as particularly notable." anytime soon, and i hope we are done regarding the hadith lists.

Then you wrote:

Also, some of the material in the Shi'a section is not necessary to understand the Shi'a view of Bukhari; it's just presenting the Shi'a POV in general, and this is NOT the place for it. It's as if I were to insert an essay on why Buddhism is far superior to Sunni Islam.

What line are you refering to, specificaly? --Striver 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver's hadith project[edit]

Striver, you are the one who decided to make articles for separate hadith and you are the one working on those articles. No one else thinks that this is a good idea. Both you and Zereshk chose to highlight hadith cited by Shi'a when arguing with Sunnis. Your choices had a polemic purpose. By linking to those hadith, you are propagandizing for your POV. Why those? Why not hadith about salat? Wudu? Hijab? Wife-beating? Dogs?

The only sane way to treat hadith is to cite specific hadith when it's necessary. Several translations should be given if possible, as the MSA was translated by Salafis. Zora 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, i see no other option than repeating myself: If you see that a hadith is lacking, creat it. Go and creat a hadith about wife-beating and dogs. I was about to creat one about dogs some days ago. But *please* stop complaining! I *do* add notes about conflicting translations when it happes. "Why those?"? Did you just miss everything i wrote up there? Because they are controversial! Some are pro-Sunni, some are pro-Shi'a. I dont understand your obsetion of labeling everything controversial as "hadith cited by Shi'a when arguing with Sunnis", no matter whose side they support. Please stop that, its like citing both tax-increase and tax-cuts as "Issues raised by Republicans when arguing with Democrats", its ridiculuous. --Striver 07:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As for "No one else thinks that this is a good idea", its just typical of your complaining nature. Ill site a AFD:
Keep, needs a bit of a re-write, but this is verifiable, and Striver has given it context beyond Wikisource. -- Samir
Keep Current article could use more references, but stands by itself as adequate. And interesting. Georgewilliamherbert
And here is another AFD:
Comment I am kinda starting to see Strivers argument about these hadith articles. I believe that if we can have hundreds of entries for Bible chapters and verses (not to mention hundreds of Pokemon cruft articles), then we should have ALL the hadith entries as well. (I don't care if it's 10 or 10000 articles, we've already set a precedent with Bible entries) Just for the record, I currently consider myself agnostic, I believe that God is unknowable and everything written about ALL religions is pure speculation, but that is strictly my POV.
Zora, stop complaining, and stop pretending im the only one supporting the hadith's, if i where the only one, the afd's would have failed. --Striver 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I took a look at your edits, and its not bad, we are geting closer to a agreed version, ill coment more later. I dont agree on the hadith, but i wont revert that part yet. --Striver 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit more, added a specific hadith to the SHi'a view, but i endore your other trimings of it, i also added a Sunni view comment, and then re-added the content section. --Striver 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"at least seventy full commentaries have been written on Imam al-Bukhari’s great Sahih" [5] --Striver 21:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


I modified the "view" section, it is rediculous to have a views section when this place is called an encyclopedia so as such it should follow the same format and not a discussion or polemics between differing groups. If shia have an issue with Sahih Bukhari they should mention it in there own pages not on the page solely dedicated to Imam Bukhari ie a sunni page.--Rami.b 08:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From my discussion with many shia it is clear that a word has one meaning in sunni islam but may mean something different in shia islam, it is only after 1900's that the two worlds have mixed and this mix up in vocabulary and knowing what the other really means has only come up now, prior to that both lived in different worlds almost.--Rami.b 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

just added an article about him, i know what wiki says about articles and such but it is better than what is there at present, so until a real scholar comes along and directly quotes material from what he has read i dont see anything wrong with this for the time being. to many muslims come to this site and read the fitnah that is present here and believe it as true simply becouse it is a popular site. if i can edit this page so can anyone else and that is saying a lot!--Rami.b 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:ArabicSahihBukhari.jpg[edit]

The image: Image:ArabicSahihBukhari.jpg has been marked for deletion as it is deemed to be replaceable and unless any action is taken will be deleted on Thursday, 16 August 2007.

If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. → AA (talk) — 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What have we learned, from what they say?[edit]

Looks like I missed a good deal of argumentation. I would like to say I find perhaps more than half of the External Links unnecessary as they link to hadith-a-day type sites and lectures and what not. This page seems to have become a bulletin board for advertisements. Acceptable links, in my opinion, would be: one link to an on-line translation, another to the original in Arabic, a link to site with in-depth information regarding the Sahih and so on. All in favor say: "Aye!" Supertouch (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New topic...[edit]

so, this entire page is incredibly biased. i thought wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Shia view[edit]

It should be explicitly stated that Shias do not consider everything in Bukhari to be authentic. Right now its says "most Muslims" consider it to be authentic, but this seems a bit misleading. It should explicitly state Shias dispute this, as well as a minority group of non-mainstream Sunni intellectuals. (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Textual distortion section[edit]

I have removed the section regarding textual distortion yet again. My rationale for doing so is supported by a number of Wikipedia policies. First, wp:sources: the website cited as the basis for this section, [] is clearly a Shia propaganda site which even devoid of this bias would hardly be reliable. Second, wp:undue: this article is about the book Sahih al-Bukhari itself not its translation which had not been mentioned prior to the addition of this section. This section would at most be worthy of a sentence in the event that it followed mention of the translation (and was based upon sound sources). Third, wp:neutrality: this section clearly violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Please do not re-add this section.--Supertouch (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The text shouldn't be removed from this article. All the sources are reliable, including [] (See here). Please read wp:reliable sources; you can not expect that distortion be reported by a Sunni source. The important point is that the text is verifiable. Please also see Wikipedia:When to cite. This text is written in English wikipedia as it discusses the mutilation in English translation, and the external link of this translation exists in the article, so the best place for the text is here, however I prefer that a separate detailed article be written in this case (if someone interested just write me). I gave an example of deletion and wrong translation which are two types of Mutilation, and to be more sure I am going to add addition of a non-existing sentence as well. Please don't remove this section and try ti improve it instead of deleting the facts.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
About the reliability of the sources: Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which is used as a source here,has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I found something more: The famous Sunni scholar Amin Ahsan Islahi has the following view about distortion::[1]

  1. To deliberately interpret something in a manner that is totally opposite to the intention of the author. To distort the pronunciation of a word to such an extent that the word changes completely. For example, the word ‘مروه’ was changed to ‘موره’ or ‘موريا’.
  2. To add to or delete a sentence or discourse in a manner that completely distorts the original meaning. For example, according to Islam, the Jews altered the incident of the migration of the Prophet Abraham in a manner that no one could prove that Abraham had any relationship with the Ka‘bah.
  3. To translate a word that has two meanings in the meaning that is totally against the context. For example the Hebrew word that is equivalent to the Arabic ‘ابن’ was translated as ‘son’ whereas it also meant ‘servant’ and ‘slave’.
  4. To raise questions about something that is absolutely clear in order to create uncertainty about it, or to change it completely.

As it can be seen, the situation of my text is in agreement with this great Sunni scholar idea.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The two websites, and, which you have cited are clearly Shiite propaganda sites. The former says this on its homepage:

Kindly send any comments or suggestions about this site, or any factual information on cases of tahrif known to you, to the Shi'a Encyclopedia team of the Ahlul Bayt DILP.

And the later:

...I am a new revert. I converted around a year ago. recently i have chosen to follow the shia imamate sect... As far as if helped me? Ofcourse it did.

In addition to the the sites' POV nature, they are simply not reliable to begin with. To quote the relevant guideline, WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
This clearly includes these two sites are being unreliable. Your choice of words, "mutilation", hardly makes the addition of this section seem unbiased. Supertouch (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
All can send any comments, suggestion, information and ... to that website, but it doesn't mean they will publish it. I remind you that Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress, so it can not be considered as an unreliable souce.--Aliwiki (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the text added by Aliwiki from this article for a number of reasons. I explained why over on the RSN thread, but I'll explain it here as well, with a bit more detail. The issue here is a combination of verifiability and original research. For example, consider this line: "Comparison of this hadith with original Arabic text[15] proves that the Arabic text of the hadith and the English equivalent are completely different and its last sentence". The reference given (the al-islam link) doesn't say anything about the comparison of the text; all it does is show the two sides. It's original research to say, "well, the two sides are clearly different and this is the right translation". To add text like that, you would need a separate reliable source that does the comparison and points out that the two are different.
Honestly I'm not sure why this section even exists. I don't get the sense that the English version shown on is all that important; it's just another translation out there. There are plenty of other versions out there, aren't there? Wikipedia isn't meant to be a battleground, and this isn't the place to point out that all English translations of the text are wrong - especially without any source of reliable sourcing to back that up. If you want this text, I recommend starting your own website and posting about it there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
to User:HelloAnnyong: You didn't read's article completely. this is what is written there: "Those with even a rudimentary understanding of Arabic text will be able to see that the underlined arabic text of the hadith (wa imaamukum minkum) and the English equivalent are completely different!"; Neglecting this, if a sentence has a problem you should rewrite it or asking citation, instead of deleting the whole text. Fortunatelly the online translation of Bukhari is available here so you can verify the text. That why there is distortion in translation is another topic; If you are interested we can discuss on my talk page.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
First, we'll discuss it here, as this is the appropriate place to talk about topics for this article. Second, I did look at the source ( ) given, and nowhere on there does it say that the two are completely different. Having any knowledge of Arabic is irrelevant; the fact is that you're taking a primary source and making a judgment on it - in this case, that one part of the source does not match the other - and that is original research and cannot be allowed into the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It is written in English see. What you saw is a link of that article. I kindly ask you to read the article, as a detailed description is provided there. But the answer to the question why Sunnis are mutilating their books is obvious; There are things in those books which are against their beliefs. here there is list of other distortion Sunnis made in their books (gradually I will add all of them in their articles in Wikipedia). Please also read the idea of the famous Sunni scholar Amin Ahsan Islahi about distortion I have provided above. There are many articles in Wikipedia about criticism of religious books such as Bible and Qur'an, but I don't understand why there shouldn't be criticism about Sahih Bukhari or other Sunnis book? We can't expect that Sunnis themselves report distortion of their books. --Aliwiki (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Okay, here's another problem then: the text you added to this article was copied word for word from that source, which violates our copyright violation rules. I'm not going to get into the question of them "mutilating" their books because they're against their beliefs; that's unencyclopedic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Again, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we're not going to engage in ideological battles, particularly between Shiite and Sunni. If you want to have those battles, take it elsewhere; Wikipedia is not the place for it.
I will say this: you are right that we have plenty of pages that have criticism sections, and one on here would be acceptable. The question, though, is how to go about it. If you look at the criticism articles you linked to, you'll see that nearly every line has a reliable source. The text is written in a neutral way that accurately represents the text in the source. Now compare that to what you were added. Yours was, more or less, a screed about how this one version is mistranslated, and that somehow means that they're mutilating their books and so on. If I were going to attempt to use that page as a source, this is what I would write:

A translation of al-Bukhari into English written by Muhammad Muhsin Khan has been criticized for its inaccuracies.[1]

That's all. If people want more clarification, they can click through to the reference. There is absolutely no reason to use this page as a place to state, "well here are all the things that are wrong with the translation", and to do so would be skewing the text in the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your guide. I am going to rewrite it.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to try, at least. Before you insert it into the article, though, post the text here (or somewhere else) so myself and other editors can review it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see you added it anyway. It doesn't belong in the lead of the article, so I made it its own section. And again, per the discussion on RSN, Answering Ansar is not a reliable source. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Inserting the text in a new section as you did is a better idea. Thank you again. is a reliable source, but I won't emphasize to put it here now as I am busy. (Maybe later)--Aliwiki (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not reliable. It's just a website run by some random person, and is therefore a self published source - and cannot be used. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, 2nd ed., vol. 1, (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1986), p. 252

External Links[edit]

Right now there is *one* external link which links to a website that has been down for a while. I propose putting up a single link instead, which links to a single website with both the original Arabic and the most popular translation (by Muhammad Muhsin Khan). Incidentally, both and CMJE use the same translation, except that the version on has cleaned up many of the typos, added a lot of missing hadith and has the correct reference numbers for each hadith. In response to Zora who removed the link when I added it, is a site for hadith translations; it is not a "religious" or preaching website.Mansari.uw (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add an external link to The notice above has been up for over a month with no objections. Additionally, the CMJE website is not just down now, the domain itself fails to resolve and I really don't see the point of having a dead link as the only external resource. To reiterate, the translation source for the new link and old link is the same. As described on, their text has been through iterations of spelling corrections and they've added a few dozen missing translations of hadith. Mansari.uw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been distracted by major surgery. I accept your arguments. Your link will do until someone finds a link to a hadith site that is academic and non-sectarian. That's important to me, as a scholar. If someone is translating an old Islamic text, I want to trust the translator. I want to know that he or she is being as truthful as possible to the original, rather than twisting the words so that they support a current sect or political party or whatever. The site you're linking is an explicitly religious site, and that makes me, a non-Muslim, uncomfortable. I don't completely trust it. I should do some research on alternative hadith sites, but at the moment -- not only recovering from surgery, but editing a paper for a Chinese scientist. So, busy. Zora (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Zora : Thanks for responding. I agree completely about being truthful to the original, and I know you will find the majority of Islamic scholarship to hold that ideal in high regard as well (including, even, the Salafis for the most part). Anyone twisting words for their own purpose has been severely censured historically. I understand your hesitation about an explicitly religious site - perhaps this will allay some of your concerns: there are, as far as I know, only two translations in English of Sahih al-Bukhari. One is Muhammad Muhsin Khan's, which is essentially the de facto translation used everywhere today, so no concerns about sectarianism there, and another one hosted on Sunnipath and translated by Aisha Bewley. This one is not as popular and while I don't know much about this translation, I've found a clear bias in her other translations (e.g. of Al-Adab Al-Mufrad) of twisting words and translations to promote the views of Sunnipath and allied organizations, hence my reluctance to link to that one. Sunnipath, of course, being an explicitly sectarian online university type of website, would be even more unsuitable to link to (being less informational and more preaching). However in the interest of giving WP readers access to more than one translation, I wouldn't mind putting up the second link as well. I will wait to hear back from you. Secondly, is limited to providing easy access to hadith and their translations and nothing more. They include translations from almost all shades of scholarship, from translators/scholars with a Salafi bent (Muhsin Khan) to Sufis (Bewley, Abu Ghuddah) and Deobandis (Kandahlwi) and others as well (Ahmed Hasan). Finally, they've put in a lot of original work into cleaning up the USC version and finding the missing ahadith, and this will not be found on any other hadith website, academic or otherwise. I'm sorry to hear about your surgery and hope you recover soon! Mansari.uw (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Original Manuscript of Sahih al Bukhari[edit]

As a devout Muslim, we should express our outrage against "SHARIA HARAM LAWS", which are based on false/ fabricated hadiths attributed to a fictional character named Bukhari.

Since the spread of false hadiths of Bukhari by Jewish scribes to make Islam become a foolish religion devoid of any characteristics desired by Allah in Quran, Islam has declined in this world. No more contributions to science and mathematics since past 600 years Muslims led astray by mullahs with fake hadiths.

If being a suicide bomber was way to heaven, the mullah would be knocking over everyone to get to the front of the line to die--- but they brainwash the illiterate fools to die and go straight to hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the original manuscript of Sahih al Bukhari DOES NOT EXIST, and that the compilation we have today is from the 14th century Mamluk imam al Yunini.

The German Wikipedia article about al Bukhari DOES mention this, and I think this is very, very, very (I can't stress it even more), VERY important information which should be stated, especially on the English version of the article. It could be placed under the heading 'authenticity'.

Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axatoramus (talkcontribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all unusual, I doubt that we would have original manuscripts for any medieval works, but yes it is important to note earliest extant copies. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

231 to 233[edit]

I am wondering if someone could tell me what this contains and if it might be the basis for a section in the Islamic sexual jurisprudence article. If any notable commentators have written about it. -- (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sahih al-Bukhari/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It doesn't make any sense to have the article rated as low on the importance scale. This is about the most important text of Hadith for a huge section of Muslims, it is of very high importance. Aslamt 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 05:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)