A lot of factors, from rulers trying to cement their rule over the population many being written at the insistence of these rulers , to majority of these hadith compilers like bhukari were persians who had a major axe to grind against Islam and the Arabs who brought down their "glorious empire" How dare this rag tag army of bediouns defeat and empire like ours. And trust me they are still sore about this till day, and since they cannot mess with the Quran, since its already out there in the general public and any attempts to alter it would have massively backfired, they came up with the next best thing, make up fake stories and attribute them to the prophet and convince people to believe and follow them

@@DjJay - I agree. But it has happened across history with every path / way of life which they turned into a false religion. There's more going on than just how arabs highjacked islam. As above so below. There's more going on than just politics as these ppl ARE inspired and will defend their belief system to death regardless of facts.

I agree with that assessment. That's why this guy says Hadith corrupted Islam. Trinity corrupted God concept in the bible

Yes. Is the Devil and his people. It may be seem simplistic but its true. I can prove it

​@@DjJayPersians? Better say pharesians or Pharisees

I would think twice about calling him Imam. And tadlis is a very minor problem in the so called sahih bhukari, search youtube for Bhukhari gate part 1 and 2

I've seen them. The mufti made some great videos even tho I don't agree with him on other issues.

@@trappedinexistence I disagree with him on most things, because at the end of the day he is still a traditionalist. But that doesn't mean his research on the subject is wrong or incorrect

The hadiths narrated by abu huraira have been narated by dozens of other narrators. Abu Huraira's chain is just the preffered chain

@@AliTanoli-cq3js Have you even read my comments fully!

Peace - yes, the recension of Sahih Bukhari comes from one source al-Farabri, and the oldest full manuscript is a version narrated by Abu Dharr al-Heravi (d. 1043CE), kept at the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul, and dated 1155CE / 550 AH

@@QuranTalk thanks

That means u don't know any thing about ilm ar rijal

@@shaikaleemuddin1255 That means, you are a shameless liar, who, instead of coming with any rational argument, is distributing licenses of scholarship!

"science of hadith" is a direct translation of "ilm al hadith", science used to mean knowledge. you are mistaken

The earliest Hadith manuscript we have currently is a single, fragmented page from Imam Malik’s al-Muwatta, dating to approximately 179 AH(795 AD). Still more than 150 years after the Prophet’s death(11 AH). The oldest discovered manuscript of Sahih al-Bukhari is dated 407 AH (1017 AD). Where do you draw the line? Trust me bro, I would choose Malik's Muwatta any day over Bukhari's Sahih. But I doubt you would do that. The later the Hadith collection, the more fabricated BS narrations it contains.

@@TheAmateurPhilosopher1407 I completely disagree. Most books in history are not preserved in manuscript form- there were even earlier books of Hadith that we have from the time of the tabieen like the musnaf of hamaa ibn munaba- we have it available today too. It was compiled sometime in the first century although the earliest manuscript we have is probably 5th century. In any case, if you look at the earlier sources, such as the above work, you realize that Bukhari and Muslim actually did the best work in preserving the words of the Hadith from these earliest sources. So this question of dating that you are positing is incorrect.

There is no expectation that you should have a manuscript of a book and the earliest dating of the manuscript ought to be taken as when the book was written. Most books in history are probably written when they are claimed, but the manuscripts which are copies of copies show up much later.

Literalists & Hadith-Centric Muslims will throw the entirety of Qur'anic ethos under the bus only to defend a few Hadith narrations. No matter how much evidence is provided to the likes of you, you will deny it, and spend all your time and energy defending the Hadith narrators and Hadith compilers. I know that you believe in the infallibility of Hadith scholars and jurists. "They take their scholars and monks as lords besides God"-Quran 9:31.

Salam brother. This is what I like 'dissent.' Since I'm at the cross road of which path to follow, may I know some details of Ilm al hadit and rijal - the other perspective. Thank you. Please don't think I'm trying to be sarcastic rather I really want to know. Jazak Allah Khair

​@muhammadhaq7773 assalamualaikum akhi do you know about ilm ar rijal

@@shaikaleemuddin1255 No thats why I want to learn. Thank you

@@muhammadhaq7773 are u using insta

Okay... could you please quote one of your hadiths about the Salat/Namaz/ritual prayer that is in conformity with the Quran? _peace_ *The Quran is its own dictionary, and it explains itself.*

@@shukriyusof2104 Yes we have, in the book Al-Kafi by Al-kulyni and in in the book Mn la yhadarho Al-faqih by As-Sadoq, a hadith narrated from Imam As-Sadeq that shows the exact salat and it's rituals in detail, sunnis don't have such hadiths What is meant "in conformity with the Quran" is that a hadith can't go against the Quran, for example the Quran says that the prophet is with greatest manners, if a hadith even if it's sahih chained says that he was rude or something like how sunni interpret the verse of frowning to the blind man saying the prophet did so, we don't accept it, also for example their are hadiths that say Quran was tempered with which goes against the Quran being preserved thus we throw such narrations The Quran itself has clear verses and ambiguous verses and each verse and each word can have different meanings and it's important to know why it was revealed and so, it doesn't just explain itself, that's why Allah sent the prophet to teach us the true meanings of it instead of every person start interpreting it as he wish

No you don’t. Your books like Kafi, Istibsar, Man La Yahdhur, Tahdib, Nahjul Balagha, Uyoon Akhbar Reza, etc. are full of nonsense. You believe in them rather than the Quran. You don’t know what you are talking about. Moreover, the Sahah also contain the Shia hadith. You worship your supposed imams and hold them above the prophets based on your silly shia hadith. Just see al-Kafi, hadith no. 27, Book 1, chapter111, for instance. What could be more silly than that?

@@syedasimali1946 Why you resort to lyi.ng to support your beliefs are your beliefs that weak that you can't use but such pat.hetic tactic ? Our only sahih book is the Quran were every other book must confirm to it, unlike you having sahih bukhari and sahih Muslim that in many cases overpower the Quran, yes we have none sense in our books the thing is we don't accept such narrations unlike you, you accept thr now sense in yours blindly Another l.ie saying we worship our Imams, let me tell you a fact that you worship a god who is beardless with 2 right hands that comes down and go up, bring the narration mention it's wordings so I can search for it properly but judging by the 2 li.es you said above i have no doubt that you are ly.ing and tw.isting it too, oh Allah just one truthful bakri all I ask

@@shukriyusof2104 Yes in al-kafi and in Mn la yhdarhu Al-faqih, a hadith from Imam As-Sadeq goes in detail how prayers must be done, it's long I can't bring it all here, just search detailed prayers by Imam As-Sadeq

You’re confusing justice system “innocent until proven guilty “ with scholarship and the reliability of historical narrations

@@homer1273 how is it, then, can "reliability" be "proven" in "scholarship"?

You don’t have anything. As mufti Abu layth has shown in bukhari gate where he has shown that the only source is unreliable character called farabri

@@homer1273 How can anyone *prove* a narration is reliable, if the events happened so long ago? The only way to discriminate between narrations is to, then, look for contraditiction and lack of corroboration in order to declare a certain narrator to be unreliable. This is what we have

@@ezzy2254 ​​⁠ in scholarship the one who makes the claims has to bring proof, and not the other way around as you claimed with “innocent until proven guilty”

I understand and I agree however I am wondering what if someone applies this to the Quran? We obviously believe it's miraculous and a self-evident proof

@@cldn2 Firstly the Quran is not the same as hadiths so that would be fallacious logic. Produce something like the Quran. Predict crazy future, insert mathematical comprehensive structure inside while not straying from the topic, tell us amazing new knowledge that nobody knows already. Or find contradictions in the Quran Prove the Quran is not reliable for example bring manuscripts of the quran that differ from the one we have today which have been accepted before as the quran.

@@cldn2 You cannot, the Quran was mass transmitted in the life time of the Prophet and he confirmed and approved it, hence the Quranic ayahs or Surahs have no isnads. And most of all Allah himself says he will protect it.

how do you establish that about the quran? that it was mass transmitted or that it was protected. if you reject hadith you have basically eliminated history about arabia from that time no?

@@trappedinexistence No you haven't because historians write history not "narrators" and historian can be right and they can be wrong, but it really doesn't matter too much, because we don't base our deen, duniya and akhira on history. As to how it was protected, Allah says so in the Quran it self, if Allah's word is not good enough for you then I really can't help you there. And not to mention that in a way mass transmitting the Quran was one of the most important jobs given to the Prophet, so in a nutshell you don't believe in Allah's word and you're saying the Prophet failed in one of if not THE most important job he was given. And personally I could care less about the history of Arabia, it has nothing to with Islam, Allah says the deen is complete and this is detailed and clear book. That is sufficient. What happened after that make 0 difference to the deen of Allah, who became Khalifa, who fought who, what war took place, who won who lost. None of that can change even a single iota of the deen or his message.

What? Can you explain more please??

@@KORAN-ALONE we Muslims are so slippery when it comes to hadith that there's no way one could find the truth about hadits until the whites came with thier historical critical method

@@KORAN-ALONE he thinks whites invented logic.

Western researchers are often more unbiased than the Arab scholars