Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī : The Unknown Man On Whose Shoulders Traditional Islam Stands On.

[Citizen X]

Even the most criticial of hadith followers will agree that according to traditional Sunni Islam Sahih Al Bukhari is the most authentic book after the Quran. So naturally we can trace back Sahih Bukhari back to the person accredited for collecting and compling this authrotative and definite hadith complilation and if not complete copies at least manuscripts written by Imam Bukhari, right. Well not really,

No copy or manuscript written by Imam Bukhari exists today. Well thats hardly a problem when Imam Bukhari had 100s if not 1000s of students and his compilation reached us my numerous mass transmissions by his students, right? But unfortunately that is not the case either. The farthest we can go back with the Sahih Bukhari is to this one alleged student of Imam Bukhari.

Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī. Why alleged? Because outside of him himself saying that Bukhari had 70,000 students, all have died and I am the only one who remains there is very little evidence he actually even was a student of Bukhari. And we actually don't even have copies or manuscripts by Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī himself, the closet being within one to two generations after his passing but scholars claim they follow his tranmission line and recension. Anyways lets put that aside for now.
None of this would really an issue, until you start to examine the Sahih Bukhari according to the criteria set by mudhaitseen ( hadith scholars ) in their hadith sciences. For a hadith to be declared, every narrator in a chain must have been vouched for as Thiqa i.e trustworthy, of sane mind and good memory. So obviously people only who know a certain someone can vouch for him or her. If you have never met a person, that person died before you were born, can you give a personal gurantee that person was as thiqa? And even if you do, what real value does your vouching for him really have?

So every narrator in a chain has to be vouched for and if he isn't then that hadith according to hadith sciences cannot be classified as Sahih. So whats the problem here you ask?

The problem is no one ever really vouched for Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī in his lifetime, he is an unknown. So any hadith that has a narrator that is unknow i,e unvouched for can at best be classified as majhul. A majhul hadith falls under Dhaif ( weak ) hadith classification. There are even sub catagories of Majuhul hadith but lets not get too technical here.

And since the entire complilation of Sahih Bukhari goes back to this one unvouched for person Mr Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī meaning the 7,563 narrations contained in all the 9 volumes of Sahih Bukhari are transmitted by this one unvouched for narrator majhul, the most ( as per sunnies ) authentic book after the Quran cannot be with all sincerity according to sunnis own sciences cannot be labeled Sahih.

So the Sahih is not so Sahih after all.

The hadith followers and scholars realized this and 242 years after Firabri died posthumously declared him Thiqa, then Al Dahabi in 748AH and then Al Hajar as late as 852AH.

Now this also created another problem with their great Ilm Al Rijjal the scholars had put out, showing how all the narrators in every chain was Thiqa with stories and biographies. So they made up new rules to cover up such huge gaping holes and discrepencies.

So the new was posthumous tawthīq (endorsement) was allowed if the narrator’s work was judged "reliable", their students were "trustworthy" and there was no "real criticism". All artibarty and open ended subjective vague standards.

So in the end. No real copies or manuscripts of the Bukhari exist, all of them are traced back to this one alleged self proclaimed student of his Al Firabari. Who no one in his lifetime vouched for that he was a trustworthy man.

And this is what majority of the traditional Islam is based on today, majority of what is followed and believed in comes from this one collection, the so called most authentic book after the Quran. Which fails miserably to call itself authentic according to the traditionalists own sciences and scholars.

 

[Wake up Pak]

Let me pose a straightforward question to all followers of the Hadith: if the Hadith were so significant, why did the Prophet Mohammad not write the Ahadith during his lifetime in the same manner as the Quran?

 

[Wake up Pak]

Islam and stoning to death?

Sahih al Bukhari, volume 7, book 63, number 196

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the prophet) saying: “O Allah’s apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.” On that the prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the prophet had turned his face, and said: “O Allah’s apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.” The prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The prophet turned his face to the other side again. The man moved again [and repeated his statement] for the fourth time. So when the man had given testimony against himself for the fourth time, the prophet called him and said: “Are you insane?” He replied: “No”. The prophet then said to his companions: “Go and stone him to death.” The man was a married one. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said; “I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the musalla (the place of prayer) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra, and stoned him till he died”.

 

[عؔلی خان]

Can We Trust Hadith Literature? Understanding the Processes of Transmission and Preservation​

Published: October 30, 2018 • Updated: July 22, 2024

Author: Mufti Muntasir Zaman

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pa...-the-process-of-transmission-and-preservation

 

[2kamatka]

I think, you guys are clever enough to decide between right and wrong

 

[Citizen X]

Can We Trust Hadith Literature? Understanding the Processes of Transmission and Preservation​

Published: October 30, 2018 • Updated: July 22, 2024

Author: Mufti Muntasir Zaman

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pa...-the-process-of-transmission-and-preservation

Yup pretty much comfirms what I wrote, Sahih Bukhari stands on this one unvouched for self proclaimed student of Al Firabi's shoulders.

You take out Mr Firabri from this equation, the entire Sahih Bukhari falls like a house of cards

The three lesser knows mentioned are virtually insignificant and have even more issues and no full printed editions of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī entirely based on Ibrāhīm ibn Ma‘qal’s or Ḥammād ibn Shākir’s version exist today. So these guys don't even come into play. Every single print of you have of Sahih Bukhari today is attributed to Al Firabi.

In conclussion this most authentic book after the Quran is not so authentic afterall. And yet the Islam we see being practiced all around is 95% based on this book.

 

[2kamatka]

fucking qadiyani mentality

 

[Citizen X]

fucking qadiyani mentality

Yes thank you for your very detailed, logical and intellectual argument.

But FYI Qadiyanis are firm believers of the hadith. And also Qaidianis outwardly practices and rituals are 100% exactly the same as traditional Muslims. In fact so much so I had a friend from Maurtius and for about 2 to 3 years I had no clue he was a Qaidiani. Because he did his namaz exactly like traditional muslims, fasted like traditional muslims etc etc.

So before you start disseminating your pearls of wisdom, do a little bit of research because you know google is free and just might stop you looking like a fool, eventhough that is an extremely hard task

 

[2kamatka]

explains it

 

[عؔلی خان]

A Muslim, by definition, is someone who submits to Allah and His Messenger (Qur'an 4:59, 33:36).​

• The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is not just a mailman who delivered the Qur’an.
• He is the explainer (Qur'an 16:44), judge (4:65), and living embodiment of the Qur’an (33:21).
• The Qur’an commands Muslims to obey the Messenger repeatedly — not just the message.

So rejecting the Prophet’s teachings — his Sunnah — is a direct rejection of Qur'anic command.
​

Without Hadith/Sunnah, you can’t even pray.

Let’s test this claim of “Qur’an-only Islam.” Try practicing Islam with just the Qur’an:

Pillar	Mentioned in Qur'an	Details in Qur'an?	Who provides them?
Salah (Prayer)	Yes (e.g., 2:3, 29:45)	No times, no rak'ahs, no method	Prophet Muhammad (Sunnah)
Sawm (Fasting)	Yes (2:183-185)	No details on what breaks fast, Suhoor, Iftar	Sunnah
Zakat (Charity)	Yes (9:60, etc.)	No percentages, no nisab (minimum)	Sunnah
Hajj (Pilgrimage)	Yes (2:196-203)	No step-by-step ritual details	Sunnah
Kalima	Implied	Shahada wording not explicitly mentioned	Sunnah

Even Qur’an-only Muslims use Hadith in practice — whether they admit it or not.
​

The Attack on Imam al-Firabrī is Historically Weak.

Let’s deal with this “Firabrī myth” directly:

a. While al-Firabrī was a major transmitter of Sahih al-Bukhari, he was not the only one.​

• Other transmitters include:
  • Ibrahim ibn Ma‘qal
  • Hammad ibn Shakir
  • Abu Ishaq al-Mustamli
  • Abu al-Walid al-Baji
• Firabrī’s recension is the most widespread, but comparison between all transmissions shows high consistency, proving mass preservation.

b. Firabrī was not majhul. He was well-known in his time, and leading scholars like al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani accepted him.​

• Historical authentication does not require live vouching from contemporaries. Later generations verified reliability based on established criteria, including:
  • His narrations’ consistency.
  • Known students.
  • Alignment with other transmitters.

Saying the entire Bukhari collection is invalid because one narrator wasn’t “vouched for live on Instagram” is intellectually dishonest.
​

Hadith Authentication Was Rigorous – Far Beyond Modern Standards.

The science of ‘Ilm al-Rijāl (biographical evaluation) and Jarh wa Ta‘dil (criticism and validation) is one of the most sophisticated historical methodologies ever developed.

Hadith scholars developed criteria centuries before modern historiography:

• Memory accuracy
• Moral uprightness
• Transmission consistency
• Chain connectivity (isnad)
• Cross-verification between scholars across cities and eras

If the Qur’an-only crowd applied this same scrutiny to their own historical claims, their entire worldview would collapse.
​

“Why Didn’t the Prophet Write the Hadith Himself?”

Simple.

a. “We have sent among you a messenger… to recite Our verses, purify you, and teach you the Book and wisdom.” (Qur’an 2:151)​

• The Prophet taught, modeled, and lived Islam. His actions and speech were preserved by companions — that’s Hadith.
• He specifically discouraged writing Hadith early on, to avoid confusing it with Qur'an — once the Qur'an was established, Hadith were collected, written, and authenticated.
• That is wisdom, not weakness.

The Argument About Stoning is a Red Herring.​

• Stoning (rajm) is not from Hadith alone. It has deep roots in Islamic jurisprudence, and even early Qur’an verses (abrogated in recitation but not ruling) that are well-documented in scholarly literature.
• The Hadith quoted is consistent with the Prophet’s practice and Shari’ah as understood and applied for 1,400 years by every school of thought.

To say Islam is “unjust” because it has punishments is like saying medicine is bad because surgery hurts.​

Your Real Issue is Authority — Not Manuscripts.

Let’s be honest: The problem isn’t Firabrī. The problem is you don’t want to follow anything outside your own interpretation of the Qur’an.

• You say Hadith isn't preserved — yet your own Qur’an is preserved through the same oral transmission system, by the same people, in the same time period.
• You accept Qur’anic preservation but reject Hadith using identical methods. That’s inconsistent logic.

You don’t have a manuscript issue. You have an ego issue.
​

Conclusion

You can’t claim to follow the Qur’an and ignore what it says over a dozen times:

• “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger.”
• “Take what the Messenger gives you, and leave what he forbids you.” (Qur’an 59:7)

If you truly believe the Prophet (PBUH) was a Messenger — then you must believe his example, commands, and teachings are part of the message.

If not, then you are inventing a new religion under the label of Islam.​

 

[observer-x]

Even the most criticial of hadith followers will agree that according to traditional Sunni Islam Sahih Al Bukhari is the most authentic book after the Quran. So naturally we can trace back Sahih Bukhari back to the person accredited for collecting and compling this authrotative and definite hadith complilation and if not complete copies at least manuscripts written by Imam Bukhari, right. Well not really,

No copy or manuscript written by Imam Bukhari exists today. Well thats hardly a problem when Imam Bukhari had 100s if not 1000s of students and his compilation reached us my numerous mass transmissions by his students, right? But unfortunately that is not the case either. The farthest we can go back with the Sahih Bukhari is to this one alleged student of Imam Bukhari.

Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī. Why alleged? Because outside of him himself saying that Bukhari had 70,000 students, all have died and I am the only one who remains there is very little evidence he actually even was a student of Bukhari. And we actually don't even have copies or manuscripts by Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī himself, the closet being within one to two generations after his passing but scholars claim they follow his tranmission line and recension. Anyways lets put that aside for now.
None of this would really an issue, until you start to examine the Sahih Bukhari according to the criteria set by mudhaitseen ( hadith scholars ) in their hadith sciences. For a hadith to be declared, every narrator in a chain must have been vouched for as Thiqa i.e trustworthy, of sane mind and good memory. So obviously people only who know a certain someone can vouch for him or her. If you have never met a person, that person died before you were born, can you give a personal gurantee that person was as thiqa? And even if you do, what real value does your vouching for him really have?

So every narrator in a chain has to be vouched for and if he isn't then that hadith according to hadith sciences cannot be classified as Sahih. So whats the problem here you ask?

The problem is no one ever really vouched for Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī in his lifetime, he is an unknown. So any hadith that has a narrator that is unknow i,e unvouched for can at best be classified as majhul. A majhul hadith falls under Dhaif ( weak ) hadith classification. There are even sub catagories of Majuhul hadith but lets not get too technical here.

And since the entire complilation of Sahih Bukhari goes back to this one unvouched for person Mr Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī meaning the 7,563 narrations contained in all the 9 volumes of Sahih Bukhari are transmitted by this one unvouched for narrator majhul, the most ( as per sunnies ) authentic book after the Quran cannot be with all sincerity according to sunnis own sciences cannot be labeled Sahih.

So the Sahih is not so Sahih after all.

The hadith followers and scholars realized this and 242 years after Firabri died posthumously declared him Thiqa, then Al Dahabi in 748AH and then Al Hajar as late as 852AH.

Now this also created another problem with their great Ilm Al Rijjal the scholars had put out, showing how all the narrators in every chain was Thiqa with stories and biographies. So they made up new rules to cover up such huge gaping holes and discrepencies.

So the new was posthumous tawthīq (endorsement) was allowed if the narrator’s work was judged "reliable", their students were "trustworthy" and there was no "real criticism". All artibarty and open ended subjective vague standards.

So in the end. No real copies or manuscripts of the Bukhari exist, all of them are traced back to this one alleged self proclaimed student of his Al Firabari. Who no one in his lifetime vouched for that he was a trustworthy man.

And this is what majority of the traditional Islam is based on today, majority of what is followed and believed in comes from this one collection, the so called most authentic book after the Quran. Which fails miserably to call itself authentic according to the traditionalists own sciences and scholars.

Another Parwezi fitna post.

 

[Citizen X]

A Muslim, by definition, is someone who submits to Allah and His Messenger (Qur'an 4:59, 33:36).​

• The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is not just a mailman who delivered the Qur’an.
• He is the explainer (Qur'an 16:44), judge (4:65), and living embodiment of the Qur’an (33:21).
• The Qur’an commands Muslims to obey the Messenger repeatedly — not just the message.

This is the typical traditionalist narrative of conflating the role of the messenger and the prophet, please refer to my post #54 in this thread explaining the difference

F

Thread 'People who only follow Quran and reject hadiths & sunnah - Apostates?'

Thursday at 8:48 PM

• FORCE
• Replies: 58
• Forum: Islamic Corner

• 

The Quran clearly says it is a complete and detailed book which has completed "today" the deen for you, and the Quran explains it self, even your beiggest tafsir scholars Ibn Taymiya and Tabari agree with this.

6:55 And thus do We detail the verses, and [thus] the way of the criminals will become evident.

6:105 And thus do We diversify the verses so they [i.e., the disbelievers] will say, "You have studied,"1 and so We may make it [i.e., the Qur’ān] clear for a people who know.

6.114 [Say], "Then is it other than Allāh I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book [i.e., the Qur’ān] explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

7:52 And We had certainly brought them a Book which We detailed by knowledge - as guidance and mercy to a people who believe.

12:111 There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was it [i.e., the Qur’ān] a narration invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

16:89 And [mention] the Day when We will resurrect among every nation a witness over them from themselves [i.e., their prophet]. And We will bring you, [O Muḥammad], as a witness over these [i.e., your nation]. And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things and as guidance and mercy and good tidings for the Muslims.

25:33 And they do not come to you with an example [i.e., argument] except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation.

75:19 Then upon Us is its clarification

When Allah says he has brought you a detailed book and the best explanation for it within it. Why do you need external sources? Are Allah's details and explanations not sufficient for you?

So rejecting the Prophet’s teachings — his Sunnah — is a direct rejection of Qur'anic command.

Which is an absolute false statement, a huge mental leap to even make that connection and most of all against the Quran itself.

77:50 So in which hadith after it will they believe ?

6:114 Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?* Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.

45:6 These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

31:6 Among the people there are those who uphold baseless hadith, and this diverts others (from the Way of Allah, and make a mockery of it. For such people there is a disgraceful punishment.

Allah warns us again and again not to follow any baseless hadith and not to follow anything outside the Quran. So using this external source i.e hadith is going against the Quran.

Without Hadith/Sunnah, you can’t even pray.

5.3 .....Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way.

Allah clearly says he has completed the deen, and all details and explanations are in the Quran as show above. So if its not mentioned in the Quran then clearly its not from the deen. If Allah had wanted us to do 5 daily rituals prayers he would hace said so and given us details on how to perform them.

Same goes for these alleged pillars of Islam. The phrase "pillars of Islam" never appears in the Quran and is just an innovation.

Let’s test this claim of “Qur’an-only Islam.” Try practicing Islam with just the Qur’an:

And that is the biggest problem that traditionalists have reduced Islam to mere superficial selfish rituals.

If you want to see how to worship Allah by practicing Islam please refer to this thread of mine

Thread 'How The Quran Itself Defines Ibadah.'

Wednesday at 10:43 PM

For those that find the video too long to watch here is a short read: Looking at what Ibadah means in the Quran, does it mean what we are told it means or is translated as worship. Lets see what the Quran says about it, because the Quran is its own best tafsir. Even the traditional scholars like Ibn Taymiyya and Al Tabari say this.

This is a chart produced from all the ayahs that explain what Ibadah is, the one circled in green deals with how our social interactions should be, how to deal with our parents, neighbours...

• Citizen X
• Replies: 10
• Forum: Islamic Corner

a. While​

• Other transmitters include:
  • Ibrahim ibn Ma‘qal
  • Hammad ibn Shakir
  • Abu Ishaq al-Mustamli
  • Abu al-Walid al-Baji
• Firabrī’s recension is the most widespread, but comparison between all transmissions shows high consistency, proving mass preservation.

But the fact remains no full complete editions of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī entirely based on their versions exist today. So these guys don't even come into play. Every single print of you have of Sahih Bukhari today is attributed to/from Al Firabi. So what you and everyone has today is Al Firabi's Bukhari.

Firabrī was not majhul. He was well-known in his time, and leading scholars like al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani accepted him​

Yeah only problem is there is 0 proof that Firabri was known in his time, these people weren't even born when Firabri died and wouldn' be for another 3 centuries.
Al Firabri died 370AH
Al Dahabi Born 673 AH
AL Asqalani Born 773 Ah

So how are these people vouching for someone who died more than 300 centuries before they were even born?

• Historical authentication does not require live vouching from contemporaries. Later generations verified reliability based on established criteria, including:
  • His narrations’ consistency.
  • Known students.
  • Alignment with other transmitters.

Yeah I already mentioned that if you would have read what I wrote in OP and not just cut and paste from chatgpt. The hadith scholars had to bend their own rules in order to save their most authentic book after the Quran. And not to mention 1000s of other hadith in other collections.

Saying the entire Bukhari collection is invalid because one narrator wasn’t “vouched for live on Instagram” is intellectually dishonest.

Live on instagram???? WTF!!! Brother atleast read and edit what you are copying and pasting, don't just do it blindly.

And yes thats how your own hadith sciences work. Even if a single narrator in a chain, anywhere in the chain has an issue than that cannot be called sahih. And since your entire Sahih Bukhari the last narrator is Al Firabri an unvouched for narrator the entire collection has to be classified like it or not as mahjul.

“Why Didn’t the Prophet Write the Hadith Himself?”

Simple.

• The Prophet taught, modeled, and lived Islam. His actions and speech were preserved by companions — that’s Hadith.
• He specifically discouraged writing Hadith early on, to avoid confusing it with Qur'an — once the Qur'an was established, Hadith were collected, written, and authenticated.
• That is wisdom, not weakness.

Ok then lets accept that just for the sake of argument. If this is indeed true then where are the hadith books written by Abu Bakr where are the hadith book written Omar Ibn Khattab? These were his best companions and people who spent the most time with the Prophet, so where are their vast hadith collections? I can show you from hadith itself as well a books from Islamic historians that they were totally against the collection and writing down of hadith. Why is it so? This subject is handled in detail in my thread here

Thread 'History Of Hadith : Why The Prophet Forbade It And Khulafa Burnt It'

Oct 4, 2023

The Prophet did not want any documents circulating other than the words of Allah, including documents attributed to him. So how was Hadith recorded? And what is the history of this documentation?

What does hadith say about hadith? In Sahih Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Said Al Khudri, the prophet said “Don’t write about me and anything written about me other than in the Quran should be erased” and in the Sunnan of Al Tirmidhi also on the authority of Abu Said Al Khudri “We asked the Propher permission to write and he declined” and Ahmed Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad...

• Citizen X
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Islamic Corner

• 
• 

Rest of the post is just garbage, assumptions and ad hominem attacks which I won't bother to address in an effort to keep the discussion civilized.

 

[عؔلی خان]

This is the typical traditionalist narrative of conflating the role of the messenger and the prophet, please refer to my post #54 in this thread explaining the difference

F

Thread 'People who only follow Quran and reject hadiths & sunnah - Apostates?'

Thursday at 8:48 PM

• FORCE
• Replies: 58
• Forum: Islamic Corner

• 

The Quran clearly says it is a complete and detailed book which has completed "today" the deen for you, and the Quran explains it self, even your beiggest tafsir scholars Ibn Taymiya and Tabari agree with this.

6:55 And thus do We detail the verses, and [thus] the way of the criminals will become evident.

6:105 And thus do We diversify the verses so they [i.e., the disbelievers] will say, "You have studied,"1 and so We may make it [i.e., the Qur’ān] clear for a people who know.

6.114 [Say], "Then is it other than Allāh I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book [i.e., the Qur’ān] explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

7:52 And We had certainly brought them a Book which We detailed by knowledge - as guidance and mercy to a people who believe.

12:111 There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was it [i.e., the Qur’ān] a narration invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

16:89 And [mention] the Day when We will resurrect among every nation a witness over them from themselves [i.e., their prophet]. And We will bring you, [O Muḥammad], as a witness over these [i.e., your nation]. And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things and as guidance and mercy and good tidings for the Muslims.

25:33 And they do not come to you with an example [i.e., argument] except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation.

75:19 Then upon Us is its clarification

When Allah says he has brought you a detailed book and the best explanation for it within it. Why do you need external sources? Are Allah's details and explanations not sufficient for you?


Which is an absolute false statement, a huge mental leap to even make that connection and most of all against the Quran itself.

77:50 So in which hadith after it will they believe ?

6:114 Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?* Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.

45:6 These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

31:6 Among the people there are those who uphold baseless hadith, and this diverts others (from the Way of Allah, and make a mockery of it. For such people there is a disgraceful punishment.

Allah warns us again and again not to follow any baseless hadith and not to follow anything outside the Quran. So using this external source i.e hadith is going against the Quran.



5.3 .....Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way.

Allah clearly says he has completed the deen, and all details and explanations are in the Quran as show above. So if its not mentioned in the Quran then clearly its not from the deen. If Allah had wanted us to do 5 daily rituals prayers he would hace said so and given us details on how to perform them.

Same goes for these alleged pillars of Islam. The phrase "pillars of Islam" never appears in the Quran and is just an innovation.


And that is the biggest problem that traditionalists have reduced Islam to mere superficial selfish rituals.

If you want to see how to worship Allah by practicing Islam please refer to this thread of mine

Thread 'How The Quran Itself Defines Ibadah.'

Wednesday at 10:43 PM

For those that find the video too long to watch here is a short read: Looking at what Ibadah means in the Quran, does it mean what we are told it means or is translated as worship. Lets see what the Quran says about it, because the Quran is its own best tafsir. Even the traditional scholars like Ibn Taymiyya and Al Tabari say this.

This is a chart produced from all the ayahs that explain what Ibadah is, the one circled in green deals with how our social interactions should be, how to deal with our parents, neighbours...

• Citizen X
• Replies: 10
• Forum: Islamic Corner

But the fact remains no full complete editions of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī entirely based on their versions exist today. So these guys don't even come into play. Every single print of you have of Sahih Bukhari today is attributed to/from Al Firabi. So what you and everyone has today is Al Firabi's Bukhari.


Yeah only problem is there is 0 proof that Firabri was known in his time, these people weren't even born when Firabri died and wouldn' be for another 3 centuries.
Al Firabri died 370AH
Al Dahabi Born 673 AH
AL Asqalani Born 773 Ah

So how are these people vouching for someone who died more than 300 centuries before they were even born?


Yeah I already mentioned that if you would have read what I wrote in OP and not just cut and paste from chatgpt. The hadith scholars had to bend their own rules in order to save their most authentic book after the Quran. And not to mention 1000s of other hadith in other collections.


Live on instagram???? WTF!!! Brother atleast read and edit what you are copying and pasting, don't just do it blindly.

And yes thats how your own hadith sciences work. Even if a single narrator in a chain, anywhere in the chain has an issue than that cannot be called sahih. And since your entire Sahih Bukhari the last narrator is Al Firabri an unvouched for narrator the entire collection has to be classified like it or not as mahjul.


Ok then lets accept that just for the sake of argument. If this is indeed true then where are the hadith books written by Abu Bakr where are the hadith book written Omar Ibn Khattab? These were his best companions and people who spent the most time with the Prophet, so where are their vast hadith collections? I can show you from hadith itself as well a books from Islamic historians that they were totally against the collection and writing down of hadith. Why is it so? This subject is handled in detail in my thread here

Thread 'History Of Hadith : Why The Prophet Forbade It And Khulafa Burnt It'

Oct 4, 2023

The Prophet did not want any documents circulating other than the words of Allah, including documents attributed to him. So how was Hadith recorded? And what is the history of this documentation?

What does hadith say about hadith? In Sahih Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Said Al Khudri, the prophet said “Don’t write about me and anything written about me other than in the Quran should be erased” and in the Sunnan of Al Tirmidhi also on the authority of Abu Said Al Khudri “We asked the Propher permission to write and he declined” and Ahmed Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad...

• Citizen X
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Islamic Corner

• 
• 

Rest of the post is just garbage, assumptions and ad hominem attacks which I won't bother to address in an effort to keep the discussion civilized.

Qur’an Alone, or Islam Alone?

Thank you for the reply, but it unfortunately suffers from the same issue that characterizes most “Qur’an-only” arguments: superficial readings, selective citation, and contradiction. Let’s walk through the key claims one by one.

“The Qur’an is complete and detailed — we don’t need Hadith.”​

Yes, the Qur’an is a complete and perfect Book for its intended role: as a divine source of guidance, principles, laws, and spiritual insight.

But that does not mean it contains detailed instructions for every action in Islam — because that’s the Prophet’s job, as the Qur’an itself affirms:

• “He teaches them the Book and wisdom.” (2:129, 2:151)
• “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it. Whatever he forbids, leave it.” (59:7)
• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me.” (3:31)

The Qur’an never says it is the only source. It says it is the primary source, and that you must follow the Prophet to live it.

The idea that “complete = only” is a linguistic fallacy. The Prophet taught, explained, and modeled Islam — that was his entire mission. Denying that is denying the Messenger aspect of his role.​

“The Hadith is weak because it relies on Firabrī.”​

This argument has been debunked by actual Hadith scholars, not keyboard historians:

a.​

• He has biographical data, a known student circle, and mass transmission of his version.
• Just because you haven’t read a vouching doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Read al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī’s Tārīkh Baghdād, Ibn Ḥajar’s Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, and al-Dhahabī’s Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ.

b.​

• Ibrāhīm ibn Ma‘qal, Hammād ibn Shākir, Mustamlī, and others also transmitted Sahih al-Bukhari.
• The fact that Firabrī’s recension became most widespread is due to preservation quality, not exclusivity.

If the same content is found across multiple students with minor copyist variations, that’s not “relying on one man.” That’s mass corroboration — the gold standard of historical reliability.​

​

“The Prophet forbade writing Hadith.”​

Half-true = still false.

Yes, he initially forbade writing Hadith — to prevent confusion with Qur’an in the early phase of revelation.

But later, he allowed it and even encouraged it:

• Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As wrote the famous Sahifah al-Sadiqah, with over 1,000 hadiths.
• The Prophet said:
  “Write, for by the One in Whose hand is my soul, nothing comes out of this mouth except truth.” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 3646)

After his death:​

• Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (Caliph, d. 720 CE) commissioned official Hadith compilation.
• Scholars like Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri began systematic documentation, and the major Hadith collections followed shortly after.

Saying Hadith were “burned” or “forbidden” is a half-told historical narrative used to mislead the uninformed.​

​

“Why no Hadith books from Abu Bakr or ‘Umar?”​

Because:

• The companions were concerned with preserving the Qur’an first.
• They transmitted Hadith orally, consistent with Arab culture and prophetic instruction at the time.
• Books did exist, like the writings of Abdullah ibn Amr, Ali ibn Abi Talib, and others — but weren’t compiled into volumes like later scholars did.

Preservation doesn’t mean “book from day one.” It means authentic, verified memory and record, just like the Qur’an itself was preserved.​

​

“In which Hadith after it will they believe?” (77:50, 45:6, etc.)​

This is one of the most misused verses by Qur’anists. Let’s clarify:

These verses refer to:​

• False stories, poetry, and human philosophy — not the authentic sayings of the Prophet.
• The word “hadith” in Arabic simply means “narrative” or “speech.” It doesn’t automatically refer to the Hadith sciences or collections.

So to take “hadith” in these verses to mean all Prophetic Hadith is linguistic manipulation. It would mean you're rejecting the Prophet's own speech — which contradicts your claim that you believe in him.​

​

“Where does the Qur’an say to pray five times?”​

Let’s play your game.

Show me:

• The exact number of daily prayers in the Qur’an.
• The method of how to pray.
• What is rukū‘, sujūd, tashahhud, etc. from the Qur’an alone.
• What breaks the fast.
• What amount to give for zakat.

You can’t — and that’s by design.

The Qur’an gives foundations, the Prophet gives form.

Rejecting Hadith leaves you with a skeletal religion, stripped of its practical essence — and that’s not Islam. It’s Qur’an-ism, a new ideology.​

​

“Following Hadith is shirk / making other than Allah a judge.”​

No, it’s following Allah's appointed messenger, who was instructed by Allah to teach the Book:

• “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger...” (Qur’an 4:59)
• “He does not speak from desire. It is but revelation revealed.” (53:3–4)

Saying that obeying the Prophet is making him a rival to Allah is kufr logic, not Qur’anic logic.​

​

Conclusion​

If you’re going to accept the preservation of the Qur’an, then you must accept:

• The people who preserved it (Sahaba, Tabi‘un),
• The oral culture of Hadith,
• The same isnād (chain-based) methodology.

Otherwise, you're inconsistently accepting one thing while rejecting another — based not on evidence, but on personal preference.

Islam is submission — not selective skepticism.

The Messenger (Rasul) didn’t just deliver a book. He built a community, taught the law, and lived the Book.

Rejecting his example is not Qur’an-only Islam — it’s Prophet-less Islam, and that’s not Islam at all.​

 

[observer-x]

Parwezi hackel and jackels don't need any proof. They're only here to say:

• don't offer salah
• don't fast
• don't do nikah
• don't do hajj
• don't give zakah
• don't say shahadah
• don't read janazah of a dead muslim
• don't read and understand Quran in Arabic
• don't follow sunnah
• ...

 

[Citizen X]

The Qur’an never says it is the only source.

First of all it would be much better if you actually answered instead of just copying and pasting from chatgpt.

And Quran says exactly that as I have proved from the many verses I have quoted in my previous reply. Bring me a clear and concise verse backing up your point that Quran says you need an external source, other scripture.

18:27 You shall recite what is revealed to you of your Lord's scripture. Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.

2:129, 2:151 : Hikmah DOES NOT mean hadith
59:7 : Traditionalist trickery of partial qoutes, the full verse in context deals with distribution of warbooty and has nothing to do with hadith.
3:31 : Yes a prophet his people were suppose to follow him while he was alive and with them.

The Prophet taught, explained, and modeled Islam — that was his entire mission Denying that is denying the Messenger aspect of his role.

Yes that was his job as a Prophet, to his people of his time.

So where is the tafseer un nabi or rasool? If you say hadith explains the Quran. There are so many verses which cannot be found in the entire hadith corous, so what the great explainer forgot to explain those?

His duty as a prophet and the duty of messengers are in explained in the Quran once again I refer you back to my previous post about the difference in duties in his role as a prophet and a messenger.

The Hadith is weak because it relies on Firabrī.​

I don't say that, hadith sciences say that.

This argument has been debunked by actual Hadith scholars

Yeah after they bent and twisted their own rules to accomodate him because if they didn't the entire traditionalist version of Islam would literally collapse

• Just because you haven’t read a vouching doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Read al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī’s Tārīkh Baghdād, Ibn Ḥajar’s Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, and al-Dhahabī’s Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ.

AGAIN people vouching for Frabri who were born after he died.

• Ibrāhīm ibn Ma‘qal, Hammād ibn Shākir, Mustamlī, and others also transmitted Sahih al-Bukhari.

AGAIN no complete versions from these people exist today only Al Frabri's does

Yes, he initially forbade writing Hadith — to prevent confusion with Qur’an in the early phase of revelation.

Another traditional apologist excuse.

• Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (Caliph, d. 720 CE) commissioned official Hadith compilation.
• Scholars like Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri began systematic documentation, and the major Hadith collections followed shortly after

Again why wait for almost a century after the Prophets death. If this was guidance this should have been instantly preserved by the first companions and Khalifahs, they had the entire Muslim kingdom at their disposal and yet couldn't assign a small team to carry out such an important and crucial task.

“Why Didn’t the Prophet Write the Hadith Himself?”

• The Prophet taught, modeled, and lived Islam. His actions and speech were preserved by companions — that’s Hadith.
• He specifically discouraged writing Hadith early on, to avoid confusing it with Qur'an — once the Qur'an was established, Hadith were collected, written, and authenticated.
• That is wisdom, not weakness.

These are the lamest apologist excuses ever. If following him or what traditionalists ascribe what it means to follow him, then surely he would have done so, just like he made sure the Quran was complete, widespread and mass transmitted.

Also 95% or more hadith are Khabar wahid, i,e told by the prophet to one person or in a small group of gathering. So we are to believe the Prophet left cruicial aspects of Islam in tiny bits and pieces in the hands of 1000s of people hoping someday someone centuries from now would be able to extract that information through heresay and rumours and complile it for the ummah to believe and follow. Rather than announce it and teach it to as many people as he could and then order them to spread it across the Muslim nation.

This is actually a blaphemous allegation against the Prophet that he slacked off at the one job he was give

• Stoning (rajm) is not from Hadith alone. It has deep roots in Islamic jurisprudence, and even early Qur’an verses (abrogated in recitation but not ruling) that are well-documented in scholarly literature.

Quranic abroggation is another fairytale the hadith sells us which is totally against the Quran.

18:27 You shall recite what is revealed to you of your Lord's scripture. Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.

“In which Hadith after it will they believe?” (77:50, 45:6, etc.)​

This is one of the most misused verses by Qur’anists. Let’s clarify:

• False stories, poetry, and human philosophy — not the authentic sayings of the Prophet.

And hadith is exactly that, false stories falsely attributed to the Prophet

So to take “hadith” in these verses to mean all Prophetic Hadith is linguistic manipulation.

And try to take words like hikmah, partially quoting verses, doing all sorts of verbal gymnastics trying to justify hadith from the Quran is down right linguistic deception.

“Where does the Qur’an say to pray five times?”​

Let’s play your game.

Show me:

• The exact number of daily prayers in the Qur’an.
• The method of how to pray.
• What is rukū‘, sujūd, tashahhud, etc. from the Qur’an alone.
• What breaks the fast.
• What amount to give for zakat.

You can’t — and that’s by design.

Yes I can't, because Salah does not mean your 5 daily ritual prayers. Saum does not mean to stay hungry from dawn till dusk and zakat is not somekind of annual tax one has to pay.

And yes its by design, by the people who corrupted Islam, the same people who made hadith the Quran of Islam. Mistranslated and misguided people through these manmade hadith to believe in all these rituals as Islam. Now majority of Muslims think Islam is these just these rituals. You do these rituals and you can practically do whatever else and you are still good to go. You have well known scholars saying a murdering child molesting rapist who performs this ritual prayer is better than a decent human being of good character and actions but doesn't perform this ritual prayer.

Islam has been relegated into this religion of rituals and once you do these rituals you're golden.

Rejecting Hadith leaves you with a skeletal religion, stripped of its practical essence

On the contrary it leaves you with the deen of Allah that he has ordained for in his only book for us The Quran. You can refer back to my post/tread about Ibadah where it shows from the Quran how to be a good Muslim and worship his lord. Rather than running around after fantastical, nonsensecial, contradictory and downright blasphemous tales falsely attributed to the Prophet.

Quran 39:45 And when Allāh is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion, but when those [worshipped] other than Him are mentioned, immediately they rejoice.

12:106 And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others with Him ˹in worship˺

6:116 If you were to obey most of those on earth, they would lead you away from Allah’s Way. They follow nothing but assumptions and do nothing but lie

So yes following hadith is shrik because you are worshipping and following something that is not from Allah. And ascribing lies to Allah is a big enough sin on its own accord without it being shirk too.

 

[Wake up Pak]

“Where does the Qur’an say to pray five times?”​

Let’s play your game.

Show me:

• The exact number of daily prayers in the Qur’an.
• The method of how to pray.
• What is rukū‘, sujūd, tashahhud, etc. from the Qur’an alone.
• What breaks the fast.
• What amount to give for zakat.

You can’t — and that’s by design.

The Qur’an gives foundations, the Prophet gives form.

Let's play your game one at a time. What is the meaning of Salat? Is it a ritual Namaz?
If you think the details of the Namaz are in the Ahadith books, please provide all the Ahadith that give the complete method on how to perform the Namaz.

 

[Wake up Pak]

Rejecting Hadith leaves you with a skeletal religion, stripped of its practical essence — and that’s not Islam. It’s Qur’an-ism, a new ideology.

Mention one Quranic verse that says to follow the sayings of the Messenger.

 

[عؔلی خان]

What is the meaning of Salat? Is it a ritual Namaz?

This is a perfect example of Qur’anist redefinition: take a word that has 1,400 years of agreed meaning and rebrand it.

The Qur’an uses Salat in dozens of verses. What does it say?

• “O you who believe, bow and prostrate and worship your Lord…” (22:77)
• “Maintain your prayers and the middle prayer, and stand before Allah devoutly.” (2:238)
• “And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand with you…” (4:102)

Question: What exactly are you “bowing” and “prostrating” in — a metaphor? Salat includes Qiyam (standing), Ruku (bowing), Sujood (prostration), and Tashahhud (testimony) — clearly physical actions, not abstract morality.

You don’t need Hadith to know Salat is ritual. The Qur’an itself makes it clear. Hadith provides the details, not the definition.

If you think the details of the Namaz are in the Ahadith books, please provide all the Ahadith that give the complete method on how to perform the Namaz.

This is like asking for one single verse of the Qur’an that gives every detail of Islam — wording of the Shahada, steps of Hajj, full penal code, inheritance breakdown, zakat percentages, all in one verse. You won’t find it.

Knowledge in Islam was preserved collectively, not through single documents. That's why scholars compiled Hadith from hundreds of narrators into full guides.

But yes — Hadith gives us the complete structure of prayer through multiple narrations:

• Number of prayers: Jibreel showed the Prophet the times (Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud)
• Raka’at structure: Found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
• Actions in each part: Described in multiple Hadith across Sahih collections
• Exact words: From takbir to taslim are found spread throughout Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and others.

The Prophet explicitly said:

“Pray as you have seen me praying.” (Sahih Bukhari)

So yes, the complete method of Salat is found in Hadith, just like the Qur’an was compiled surah by surah, verse by verse.

Mention one Quranic verse that says to follow the sayings of the Messenger.

Here are several:

4:59 – “O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger…”
59:7 – “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it.”
3:31 – “Say: If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you…”
33:21 – “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a beautiful example…”
24:63 – “Let those beware who oppose his command, lest a trial afflict them or a painful punishment.”

None of these verses say “only follow the message he brings”. They speak of his commands, his judgment, and his example. You can’t divorce the Messenger from his message — unless you want to rewrite the very purpose of his Prophethood.

--------

Islam isn’t a slogan. It’s a composite tradition — Qur’an and Sunnah together. The Qur’an gives the command. The Sunnah gives the how. Together, they form a complete Deen.

Rejecting Hadith doesn’t purify Islam. It guts it. It turns a complete, living religion into an abstract, symbolic shell.

That’s not Qur’an-based Islam. That’s you-based Islam — and no matter how many team up to defend it, it remains exactly what it is:

An invented ideology trying to wear the face of revelation.

 

[Wake up Pak]

This is a perfect example of Qur’anist redefinition: take a word that has 1,400 years of agreed meaning and rebrand it.

The Qur’an uses Salat in dozens of verses. What does it say?

• “O you who believe, bow and prostrate and worship your Lord…” (22:77)
• “Maintain your prayers and the middle prayer, and stand before Allah devoutly.” (2:238)
• “And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand with you…” (4:102)

Question: What exactly are you “bowing” and “prostrating” in — a metaphor? Salat includes Qiyam (standing), Ruku (bowing), Sujood (prostration), and Tashahhud (testimony) — clearly physical actions, not abstract morality.

You don’t need Hadith to know Salat is ritual. The Qur’an itself makes it clear. Hadith provides the details, not the definition.

Bowing means humbly submissive, and prostrating means to submit completely to the laws of Allah.
Even if I take it physically, bowing and protesting, can you give the details of Namaz from the Quran? Why do you bow and protest to a man-made cube structure made of rocks, cement, and iron? Isn't it a Shirk?
The Quran has mentioned in several verses that it is detailed and complete.

 

[عؔلی خان]

“Bowing and prostrating mean humble submission, not physical actions.”​

Then what do you make of verses like:

• “O you who believe, bow and prostrate and worship your Lord, and do good so that you may succeed.” (22:77)
• “And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand with you…” (4:102)

These commands are not vague metaphors. They are specific ritual instructions being practiced by a physical group of people, led by the Prophet in real time.

Furthermore, 2:125 says:
“...take the standing place of Ibrahim as a place of prayer.”

So now even Ibrahim's standing place is just symbolic? You don’t get to reduce centuries of living, documented Islamic practice to metaphors because it fits your ideology.

“Why do you bow to a man-made cube? Isn’t that shirk?”​

Let’s be precise: No Muslim worships the Kaaba.

• Muslims face it as a unifying Qiblah — a direction for prayer, not an object of worship.
• The Qur’an itself commands us to face the Kaaba:
  
  “So turn your face toward Al-Masjid Al-Haram. And wherever you are, turn your faces toward it.” (2:144)

Calling this shirk is not only incorrect — it’s a dangerous accusation against Allah Himself, who issued the command.

“The Qur’an is detailed and complete — why look elsewhere?”​

It is detailed for its purpose: spiritual guidance, law, and principles. But it nowhere claims to be a step-by-step manual for every practice.

If “detailed” means every action is self-contained, then show from the Qur’an alone:

• The number of daily prayers
• The number of units (rak’ahs)
• The exact words of taslim, tashahhud, sujood, and du’a
• What breaks or invalidates the prayer

You can’t. And that’s the point.

The Qur’an tells you to establish prayer. The Prophet showed you how to do it. Rejecting that prophetic teaching means rejecting the very command to establish it.

---

Calling the Qiblah shirk, turning prostration into metaphor, and redefining centuries of ritual Islam into vague symbolism isn’t deep spirituality — it’s theological disfigurement.


You’re not defending the Qur’an. You’re using it selectively while discarding everything the Qur’an itself points to: the Messenger’s guidance.

• “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (Qur’an 4:80)
• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me. Allah will love you...” (3:31)

Islam is submission — not reinvention.​