Does Hadiths explain Quran ?
The advocates of hadith are fond of saying that the hadith explains the Quran
without which, they say the Quran cannot be understood. In other words
without hadith they will have to reject the Quran or at least ignore it.
The scholars also say that the hadith they call "Sahih Bukhary" is the best
hadith.
It can be easily proved that the hadith does not in any way explain the Quran
and that the "Sahih Bukhari" is not worth the papers it is printed on.
For evidence please refer to, and check all references of "Sahih Al-Bukhary"
by Dr. Muhammed Muhsin Khan, Islamic University, Medina Al-Munawwara.
Publisher "Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, which is the Nine volume encyclopedia.
Vol. 6 of "Sahih Al-Bukhary" is devoted to the explanation of the Quran
(Tafsir). The other eight volumes prescribe things like drinking camels urine
to cure fevers (vol 7, hadith no 590), burning people first and then their
houses if they do not go the mosque on time, (vol.1, hadith no.626), dreaming
of undressing women (vol 9, hadith no.139 and 140), using shoes to garland
camels (Vol 2, hadith no 763), and other such non-sense.
But let us focus on vol. 6: the explanation of the Quran by Imam Bukhary.
Although the Quran has 114 suras or chapters, Bukhari does not explain all
the verses in all the suras. Sura 2, Al Baqarah has 286 verses, but Bukhari
only provides hadith for about 50 verses. This is slightly over 20% of Al
Baqarah. Bukhari has left the Ulamma groping the dark over the remaining 80%.
Sura AL Kauther (Sura 108) is the shortest sura in the Quran, only 3 verses.
However Bukhari "attempts" to explain the meaning of just one word "Kauther"
as sufficient to explain this whole Sura. Bukhari says; "Kauther" is a river
in heaven.
But simply, "Kauther" means "good in abundance". (Translation by President of
Islamic research, IFAT, Saudi Arabia). This also suggests that Imam Bukhari
did not know Arabic. It is a fact that Bukhari was a Persian from Bukhara and
his mother tongue was Farsi. The scholars have no records to show when
Bukhari learned Arabic. More about this later.
The greatest surprise of all is that 28 suras of the Quran are NOT
"explained" at all. The sura numbers are as follows; 23, 27, 29, 35, 51, 57,
58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104,
105, 106, 107, and 109. Bukhari explains this away as follows "no hadith were
mentioned here."
According to the scholars only the Prophet is supposed to be the source of
the hadith. The hadith is supposed to explain the Quran. The BIG question is,
"Who went on un authorized holiday for 28 WHOLE SURAS of the Quran ?!!!
The scholars insist that the hadith explains the Quran. Hence the scholars
have to do away with 28 SURAS of the Quran because Bukhari did not explain
these 28 SURAS..
Therefore the boast by the scholars that those who uphold the QURAN ALONE and
do NOT depend on the hadith at all, cannot understand the Quran, falls FLAT
on its face. The scholars are in a far worse situation. 28 Suras are missing
and none of the other suras are explained in full by Bukhari.
To revert to the earlier point that the Persian Bukhari may not have known
Arabic, this is suggested by the way Bukhari has changed the names of certain
SURAS. By itself this is a strange phenomenon. The scholars themselves do NOT
know why Bukhary did this.
Non-Arabs sometimes refer to a Sura by its first verse. This is because they
may not have known the Arabic name for the SURA because they are not scholars
of the Quran or simply because they are not Arabs. Bukhari displays the same
characteristics.
Sura Al Naba (Sura 68) is labelled as Sura "Amma yatasa'alun", this is
actually part of the first verse of the sura.. Sura Al Baiyina (Sura 98) is
labelled as Sura "Lam Yakun". Again the beginning verses. Sura Al Takwir
(Sura 81) is labelled Sura "Idhash Shamsu Kuwirat". This is the start of
the first verse again. Sura Al Maarij (sura 70) is labelled Sura "Sa'ala
Sa'ilun".
Some SURAS have been given two names. Sura Al Insan (Sura 76) is labelled
Sura "Hal-Ata-insani" or Sura "Dahr".
But this is a revealing point because such labelling is more akin to reciters
who are not Arabs, who do not know the Arabic language. Apart from the fact
that Bukhari was Persian from Bukhara many scholars believe that he was also
blind. The next question is "WHO WROTE the Sahih Bukhari?!" It will also be
pertinent to see how Bukhari handles some of the explanations of the
verses-if and when he cares to explain them.
For example some explanations end with a blank space.:
Vol 6, Hadith number 50 seeks to explain Sura 2:223. After some narration it
continues like this;
Nafi' added regarding the verse: "So go to your tilth when or how you will.
Ibn Umar said; " It means one should approach his wife in........" The
explanation ends with a blank space. But not to worry. A footnote completes
the picture. The footnote says "Al Bukhary left a blank space here because he
was not sure of what Ibn Umar had said !." And yet this called "Sahih Al
Bukhary" Perhaps this is why some scholars have much problems in this
department.
There is also one of the most foolish and incredible explanation by Bukhari
for Sura 11:5. The beautiful meaning of the verse is actually :11:4 "To God
is your return and He has power over all things."
11:5 "Behold ! They fold up their hearts, that they may be hid from him. Ah!
Even when they cover themselves with their garments. He knows what they
conceal, and what they reveal. For He knows well the (innermost secrets) of
the hearts." 11:6 There is no moving creature on earth but its substance
depends on God; He knows its resting place and its temporary deposit. All is
in a clear Record." Translation by Presidency of Islamic Research, IFTA,
Saudi Arabia..
This meaning is crystal clear. We all answer to God. There is nothing we can
conceal from God. Every single thing that we do is in a clear Record.
"Kitaab-un Maubeen". So do not think you can hide anything from God.
NOW, Here is Bukhari's ridiculous explanation of the same verse in 11:5. Vol.
6 Hadith no. 203: Narrated Muhammed bin Abbad bin Jaafar that he heard Ibn
Abbas reciting: " No doubt! they fold up their breasts." 11:5 and asked him
about the explanation. He said, "Some people used to hide themselves while
answering the call of nature in an open space lest they be exposed to the
sky, so the above revelation was sent down regarding them.
According to Bukhari, the whole purpose of this narration was to tell the
Sahaba that God could see them defecating and sleeping in the desert!.
According to Bukhari's logic then, after this verse was revealed, the Sahaba
who travelled with their wives in the desert lost all their inhibitions,
since God could see them anyway. No need to hide anything.
Similarly Bukhari twists sura 5:87. To explain "5:87" Bukhari first quotes it
partially only, not in full, as follows : "O you who believe DO NOT make
unlawful the good things which God has made for you" 5:87
The explanation by Bukhari (Vol.6 Hadith no. 139) is as follows : Narrated
Abdullah "We used to participate in holy wars conducted by the prophet and we
had no women with us. So, we said (to the prophet) "Shall we castrate
ourselves "? But the prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed
us to marry a woman temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then the
prophet recited. "O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful for you...."
There is a footnote "Temporary marriage (Mut'a) was allowed in the early days
of Islam., but later, at the time of the Khaibar Battle, it was prohibited
(God knows it better)."
The uncertainty in the footnote lends support to the fact that this is an
evil lie against God and the prophet by Bukhari.
Sura 5:87 is actually as follows : "O ye who believe, make not unlawful for
you, but commit no excess. For God loveth not those given to excess."
Is prostitution an excess ? Worse than that it is an evil. Which Muslim
scholar will allow his daughter to receive "even a garment" as a payment for
temporarily servicing the lusts of some Sahaba ? Note how the Bukhari has
the sahaba coolly suggesting "Shall we castrate ourselves ?" as though it is
done every morning after breakfast.
In Sura 24:33 God and the messenger told us: "Let those who find not the
means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of
His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing, (for freedom)
give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given you. But
force NOT your girls into prostitution when they desire chastity, in order
that you make a gain in the goods of this life. If anyone compels them, (on
them) God is forgiving, Merciful."
In other words, do not look for sex outside marriage. If you cannot marry, it
is better to keep chaste. Control your lust. The messenger said do not force
anyone into prostitution, but instead Bukhari says the messenger set the
price for hanky panky at merely a piece of garment. This is Bukhari's
malicious lie against the Messenger. In truth the messenger told his men to
control their lusts : Sura 24:30 "Say to the believing men that they should
lower their gaze and guard their modesty, that will be better purity for
them, and God knows all that they do."
If anyone insisted on following their lusts, the Messenger would have told
them " God doth wish to turn to you, but the wish of those who follow their
lusts is that you should turn away from them, far away " Sura 4:27 (All
translation from Presidency of Islamic Research, IFTA- Saudi Arabia).
The Quran is crystal clear. But Bukhari says you can but a woman for a price
of cloth. Perhaps the scholars are gleeful at this suggestion also.
Here is another hadith that has neither head nor tail, It is started under
"The book of the Virtues of the Quran". May God saves us. Vol 6, hadith No
503. Narrated Valium Utham. "I was informed that Gabriel came to the prophet
while Um Salma was with him. Gabriel started talking (to the prophet). Then
the prophet asked Um Salma, "Who is this ? " She replied "He is Dihya (Al
Kalbi). When Gabriel had left Um Salma said; "By God, I did not take him for
anybody other than him ( i.e. Dihya) till I heard the sermon of the prophet
wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel." The subnarrator asked Utham :
From whom have you heard that ? Utham said "From Usama Binzaid".
God sent Gabriel with the revelations to be delivered to Muhammed. Therefore
Gabriel delivered the revelations to Muhammed. But here Bukhari says the
prophet did not know Gabriel had come to him. Instead he asks his wife !!.
Was the prophet's wife a Messenger also, such that she could hear Gabriel ?
And she calls him strange names like Dihya and Al Kalbi.
There is some confusion. Is God that inefficient that His angel Gabriel is
called Dihya and Kalbi, all in the course of duty of delivering revelations
to His messenger Muhammed ?
Let us see 2:97-98: "Say, who is an enemy to Gabriel for he brings the
revelation to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before.
And Guidance and glad tidings for those who believe. Who ever is an enemy to
God and His angels and prophets, to Gabriel and Michael, Lo..! God is an
enemy to those who reject faith. "
Gabriel brings the revelation straight into the prophet's heart (alaiqa
Qalbika bi idhnillah) with God's permission. But Bukhary says Gabriel just
started talking and the Prophet did not know who it was. He had to ask his
wife...!
"Verily this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. With it came the
truthful spirit (Ruhil Kudus) to thy heart that thou mayest admonish, in the
perspicuous Arabic tongue" 26:192-195
Gabriel brought the revelation straight to the Prophet's heart . But Bukhari
says the prophet had to ask his wife of Gabriel : "WHO IS THIS ?"
It is easy to refute the Christian argument by referring to his own Bible. In
a similar way the "muslim" scholar who insists on giving eminence to
fabricated hadith can be countered by referring to his own books written by
the hands of their leaders like Imam Bukhari, without God's permission.
In Sura Al Baqarah, God says : Therefore woe to those who distort the
scripture with their own hands then say; "This is from God" Seeking a cheap
gain. Woe to them for distorting the scripture, and woe to them for their
illicit earnings."
As stated earlier the hadith of Bukhari is not worth the paper it is printed
on. By following such ludicrous hadith which clearly taint the good name of
the Prophet Muhammed, the Muslims have been lost for over 1000 years now.
They can only recall the glorious days of the Prophet. Little do they realize
that during the glorious days there was no hadith. There was only the Quran.
God is Great.
