Citizen X
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
In Sunni Islam, there is a collection of six major hadith compilations that are considered highly authoritative by Sunni scholars. Called the Sahih Sitta or the Authentic Six
The first one is the oh not so Sahih Bukhari. We have already looked at that in detail and proved that it is not sahih by any stretch of the imagination and dependent on one unvouched for self proclaimed student of his. Al Frabri.
Now lets look at the second. The Sahih Muslim. The third most authentic book after the Quran and Bukhari in Sunni Islam. Compiled by Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, another Irani from Nishapur, born 193 years after the Prophet left this earth. And what do you know, once again no copies or manuscripts written by Imam Muslim himself remain to this day, not even partial copies or even half a page or just a sentence of this huge collection.
Infact Sahih Muslim also suffers from the very same problem Bukhari suffers from. Everything narrows down and traces back to one student of Muslim. A person by the name of Yaqub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi, again someone who wasn't vouched for by even Imam Muslim himself, the first person to vouch for him was Al Dahabi who was born almost 500yrs after Ibn Sufyan died.
And again we do not have even have copies by Ibn Sufyan of the Sahih Muslim. The earliest complete copy of Sahih Muslim is to be found in an Israeli library by Al-Jandī al-Qirimi which is 420 years after Ibn Sufyan and even then scholars assume this to be a copy of Abu Sufyan's work there is no actual historical evidence for it.
There are other alleged student of Imam Muslim but no complete copy or at least full copy that is associated to them like Ibn Sufyan exist and the partial works that do exists have big differences in them. Now sunni scholars say the differences are "minor" but when you have narrators missings or even half a chain of narrators missing thats a pretty big difference not according to me but according to the "Hadith Sciences"
And guess who else makes an appearance and plays a big role in transmission of Sahih Muslim, why its our old friend Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firābri from the Sahih Bukhari debacle. Some how miraculously he is also a student of Imam Muslim and has said to have transmitted the Sahih Muslim vehemently so much so that Ibn Sufyan copy could have been intermixed with Frabris
The thinking minds among you might be thinking how can Al Firabri be a student of both Imam Muslim who lived in Nishapur in modern day Iran and Bukhari in Bukhara in modern day Uzbekistan. Its not like for he could be taking weekly flights between the two cities so don't ask me, sunni scholars have made up some hodgepodge story to justify how that was possible that for the life of me I cannot begin to understand that somehow they had overlapping associate circles or he could be a student of students of both of the Imams but Frabri himself said he was a student of Bukhari and not just that, the last surviving student and hence transmitted the Sahih Bukhari, just like the hodgepodge of stories and bending of the rules done to declare Frabri thiqa even though none of his contemporaries ever vouched for him.
And now the Sahih Muslim too. So the deeper one digs the more layers of deception of this so called unquestionable "preservation of the sunnah" unravels.
And I leave you with another fun fact, guess who was also said to be a transmitter of the Sahih Muslim. Why its none other than Abu Isa al Tirmidhi, yes that same Tirmidhi who has his very own collection which also just happens to be part of the Sahih Sitta, the Jami Al Tirmidhi.
Hmmm all starting to smell very conspiratorial and nexus like here!
So the first two "Sahihs" of the Sahih Sittah are not so Sahih. We'll see later about the other reaming ones in another thread.
The first one is the oh not so Sahih Bukhari. We have already looked at that in detail and proved that it is not sahih by any stretch of the imagination and dependent on one unvouched for self proclaimed student of his. Al Frabri.
Now lets look at the second. The Sahih Muslim. The third most authentic book after the Quran and Bukhari in Sunni Islam. Compiled by Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, another Irani from Nishapur, born 193 years after the Prophet left this earth. And what do you know, once again no copies or manuscripts written by Imam Muslim himself remain to this day, not even partial copies or even half a page or just a sentence of this huge collection.
Infact Sahih Muslim also suffers from the very same problem Bukhari suffers from. Everything narrows down and traces back to one student of Muslim. A person by the name of Yaqub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi, again someone who wasn't vouched for by even Imam Muslim himself, the first person to vouch for him was Al Dahabi who was born almost 500yrs after Ibn Sufyan died.
And again we do not have even have copies by Ibn Sufyan of the Sahih Muslim. The earliest complete copy of Sahih Muslim is to be found in an Israeli library by Al-Jandī al-Qirimi which is 420 years after Ibn Sufyan and even then scholars assume this to be a copy of Abu Sufyan's work there is no actual historical evidence for it.
There are other alleged student of Imam Muslim but no complete copy or at least full copy that is associated to them like Ibn Sufyan exist and the partial works that do exists have big differences in them. Now sunni scholars say the differences are "minor" but when you have narrators missings or even half a chain of narrators missing thats a pretty big difference not according to me but according to the "Hadith Sciences"
And guess who else makes an appearance and plays a big role in transmission of Sahih Muslim, why its our old friend Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firābri from the Sahih Bukhari debacle. Some how miraculously he is also a student of Imam Muslim and has said to have transmitted the Sahih Muslim vehemently so much so that Ibn Sufyan copy could have been intermixed with Frabris
The thinking minds among you might be thinking how can Al Firabri be a student of both Imam Muslim who lived in Nishapur in modern day Iran and Bukhari in Bukhara in modern day Uzbekistan. Its not like for he could be taking weekly flights between the two cities so don't ask me, sunni scholars have made up some hodgepodge story to justify how that was possible that for the life of me I cannot begin to understand that somehow they had overlapping associate circles or he could be a student of students of both of the Imams but Frabri himself said he was a student of Bukhari and not just that, the last surviving student and hence transmitted the Sahih Bukhari, just like the hodgepodge of stories and bending of the rules done to declare Frabri thiqa even though none of his contemporaries ever vouched for him.
And now the Sahih Muslim too. So the deeper one digs the more layers of deception of this so called unquestionable "preservation of the sunnah" unravels.
And I leave you with another fun fact, guess who was also said to be a transmitter of the Sahih Muslim. Why its none other than Abu Isa al Tirmidhi, yes that same Tirmidhi who has his very own collection which also just happens to be part of the Sahih Sitta, the Jami Al Tirmidhi.
Hmmm all starting to smell very conspiratorial and nexus like here!
So the first two "Sahihs" of the Sahih Sittah are not so Sahih. We'll see later about the other reaming ones in another thread.
