Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad al-Bukhari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alihd23 (talk | contribs) at 21:45, 24 March 2023 (→Ethnicity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edits

The discussion of Bukhari's works was inadequate in many ways. I picked up an index to his published works which discusses all of them in detail (along with manuscripts etc) and picked out the info on available published works. I called this Writings. Then I saw that the "Works" section was redundant and no longer matched what I had written--so I deleted it. Then I looked at the section on "School of Thought." The word "blind following" in the first para was surely a translation of "taqlid": I think "adhering to a school" and "not adhering to" one is adequate as a translation for this. I tried to find this quotation from Ibn Taymiyya in the Maktaba al-Shamela database but could not--searched Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya for "Bukhari", and for "mujtahid". Downloaded the Saudi edition of the referenced work: vol 20 page 25 (and a few pages before and after it) have no mention of Bukhari. Perhaps the reference is to another edition? I will wait for clarification of the volume for a few days, otherwise I will assume that this statement is without reference and will delete it. [Lots of work remains on this entry--perhaps I will continue on it. Please guide me if you can...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by UthmanMarwandi (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the entry in accord with the ideas I present on the Muslim Scholars Task Force talk page. Please try to understand what i was trying to do before you meddle with it DKleinecke (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs references for almost everything (and remove all the Brittania material). Perhaps Maujood's biography would supply what is needed. But i don't have a copy. DKleinecke (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey his date of birth is given as 870 and his death in 810!? there's a mistake here somewhere...

You are right. The correct figures were in the article, however it seems to be the fault of browsers. When Arabic is followed by numbers, they are reversed somehow. I fixed it. --KB 18:38, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

"the Prophet"

Well, I don't know about that. When people want to refer to the person who laid down the teachings of Islam, they often refer to "Prophet Muhammad". It's often done on Wikipedia too I think. That's not an endorsement of his prophethood as much as it is a convenient way to refer to a certain individual (the Muhammad who claimed to be a prophet and not the boxer Muhammad Ali). Your argument looks fine to me though so I'm leaving your edit. I'm however removing the "whom Muslims call the prophet". The link to Prophets Of Islam has nothing to do with Imam Bukhari and the wording is likely to provoke an edit war. Do you think it's okay now? --Nkv 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine. I agree it was off-topic. You've brought it back to what it was to begin with. The purpose of the link on Muhammad is precisely to inform those who are curious. People who actually don't know who Muhammad is are unlikely to seek out, or get much out of, this Bukhari article anyhow.Timothy Usher 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly within NPOV guidelines as determined by consensus. BhaiSaab 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not my consensus. Not according to WP style manual for Islam-related articles. And not according to WP:NPOV.Timothy Usher 11:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is collective, not individual. The WP style manual doesn't say anything about it. See Timothy Usher's talk page. BhaiSaab 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think referring to him as Prophet Muhammad is more accurate than just saying Muhammad. It's a widely used way of referring to him and even books that are critical or outright against him refer to him like so. This is not endorsing his prophethood but it's a method of specifying the person (like I mentioned above). However, it's not something that I think is worth arguing over. If Timothy Usher is insistent on removing the term "Prophet", I'm not opposed to it. --Nkv 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a page that has a usage of the term that me might all be happy with. Check out the first paragraph of Al-Muwatta. It refers to him as the "Islamic Prophet Muhammad" which is quite accurate. As far as Islam is concerned, he is a prophet. --Nkv 14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Bukhari

Wouldn't it be better to title this article Muhammad Bukhari?Timothy Usher 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! --Striver 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult one. Most people who have heard of this person know him as "Bukhari." Almost none of them would know him by his first name. Among muslims when you say Bukhari in the context of scholarship there is no need for further specification. If you mean something or someone else you would have to specify.--UthmanMarwandi (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik ibn Anas

Islami, you are right regarding this. --Striver 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Islami was right: Malik ibn Anas died in 179 or so while Bukhari was born in 194. Bukhari usually has to quote Malik via one of his teachers: usually Abdullah ibn Yusuf, Abdullah ibn Maslamah or Ismail ibn Abi Uways. And certainly Malik is an influence on any hadith scholar after him: his Muwatta set the tone for "categorization" ("tasnif") in writing in any hadith works that came after it.UthmanMarwandi (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon

writen by anon, moved from main page:

I do not agree and neither any practising Muslim will agree the way wikipedia presents the Muslim scolars. What is the need of mentioning "sunni sources portray" it creats an unnecessary doubts in a new reader's mind about these pious souls. I would never agree with this style of writning for any other religion's great scholars. You can always find a protestant view of a catholic scholar different from protestant and similarly in Judaism another picture can be seen about any issue between orthodox and libral jews.

--Striver 09:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a

"Hakim however was accused by some of Shi'ism". What is the source for that? I have neverd herd that before.--Striver 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

minor spelling error

It was in Neesaaboor that he meet Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj.[1] i assume it should say: It was in Neesaaboor that he MET Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forid83 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Turk

Per latest edit, on what basis do say he was of Turkish descent? Supertouch (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to consult the main source for just about anything to do with Bukhari: Ibn Hajar's "Fath al-Bari." The introductory volume (placed at the end of the published work), Volume 14 has his biography. Page 477 says that his ancestor Bardadhbah was "a Persian who followed the religion of his people" (I have the edition edited by Muhibb Din Khatib). People really ought to look at this book to settle things: 95% of everything after him copies from him.UthmanMarwandi (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad al-Bukhari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author

Bhukari did not author his book, he compiled the hadith. Hadith are narrations about Muhammad passed down through the generations and collected about two years later. Collected, compiled, but not authored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.235.35 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtahid?

"Al-Dhahabi said that Imam Bukhari was a mujtahid, a scholar capable of making his own ijtihad without following any Islamic school of jurisprudence in particular.[citation needed]"

It would be really good to find the reference for this because the claim is rather astounding, no? If he was a mujtahid (and where has he ever claimed to be?) then what are his original principles of fiqh and aqida so that we can follow him and in which of his books do we find them? And which madhhab conferred this title to him? Has he written one line on fiqh or aqida!? Can someone be a mujtahid if he was unaware of it and did not do ijtihad whatsoever?

I'd say either someone finds the reference for Dhahabi making this claim and manages to explain the meaning and rationale of his statement, or maybe this should be removed, because as things stand this is quite perplexing. --118.173.140.188 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creed

@MirrorDark:

In your latest edit summary here, you stated the following:

Correct the creed of Al-Bukhari from the authentic references and remove Ibn Kullab and Hussayn al-Karabisi from influence because lack of evidence and reference.

— MirrorDark

This is clearly not true as you removed two citations in your edit[1][2], the second of which has a quote embedded into it which is explicit in its purport:

"Disebabkan itu, al- Bukhari dalam kebanyakan perkara berkaitan dengan persoalan akidah dikatakan akan mengambil pendapat Ibn Kullab dan al-Karabisi(al-'Asqalani 2001: 1/293)"

— Wahab, Muhammad Rashidi, and Syed Hadzrullathfi Syed Omar. "Peringkat Pemikiran Imam al-Ash’ari Dalam Akidah." International Journal of Islamic Thought 3 (2013): 62.

The translation is: "al-Bukhari in most matters related to the question of Aqidah (creed) is said to take the opinion of Ibn Kullab and al-Karabisi," I have highlighted certain words to show how explicit the assertion being made is. Thus is on page 62.

The above source is peer-reviewed, being placed in the National University of Malaysia's International Journal of Islamic Thought. Moreover, the primary source quoted before this is a publishing of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's medieval work Fath al-Bari, where he mentions the Bukhari was a follower of Ibn Kullab.

You removed these two sources, which are explicit, and claimed, "lack of evidence of reference". This seems to be either a clear attempt to deceive or a refusal to acknowledge the source.

Instead, you reintroduced the two sources I had criticised previously as examples of original research and editorial synthesis, where you make a claim not found explicitly in the source but is derived by it. An explicit peer-reviewed sources assertion cannot be replaced with what you derive through your own analysis of the sources you have brought. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Your third source does not have a page number and I cannot access it.

One notes that none of the three sources you have brought are peer-reviewed, two are publishings of medieval sources, and the third I am unsure what it is. I invite you to elaborate on this third source and quote from it directly.

Regardless, the two references you have brought do not state your claim explicitly and you have removed sourced material including their citations which back him being a follower of Ibn Kullab in creed, after which you claim there were no references to back the previous version.

Thus the text in the infobox should be changed back to "Kullabi" with the references given.

Otherwise, I implore you to defend the sources you have brought (showing there is no OR involved in bringing them), show my assertions to be false and to defend yourself for removing the explicit source(s).

Sidenote: The above source states regarding Al-Dhahabi's view of Ibn Kullab: "Al-Dhahabidan al-Subkijuga menyatakan perkara yang sama terhadap Ibn Kullab dan mengakui bahawa beliau merupakan seorang tokoh ulama Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah generasi Salaf (al-Dhahabi 1996: 11/174; al-Subkit.th: 2/300)." Meaning Ad-Dhahabi (and another scholar called al-Subki) recognised him as a Sunni scholar. I only state this as you brought Al-Dhahabi as a source to try and say Bukhari is an "Athari". Al-Dhahabi is fine with the scholar Ibn Kullab. Of course I am not bringing this as a point of evidence, the source states he's a follower of Ibn Kullab in creed anyway, I'm merely stating this to show your analysis that "X Athari scholar praises X individual means X individual is Athari" would imply Ibn Kullab is an Athari. Regardless, such analysis and implications are not warranted as evidence on Wikipedia.

I invite GorgeCustersSabre, who has criticised me in the past, to give his view on the matter. ParthikS8 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, in my own view ParthikS8 is correct and I have edited the page back to ParthikS8’s last version. ParthikS8’s reasons are logical and persuasive. Yours sincerely, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani said in his Fath al-Bari: "Al-Bukhari in all he reports in commentary of rare words, he reports it from specialists of this subject like Abu 'Ubayd, al-Nadr ibn Shamil, al-Farra' and others. And concerning matters of Fiqh, he takes most of it from al-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd and their like. AND CONCERNING MATTERS OF KALAM, HE TAKES MOST OF IT FROM AL-KARABISI, IBN KULLAB AND THEIR LIKES".--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Notes

References

  1. ^ Al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajar (2001). Fath al-bari sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Vol. 1. Maktabah Misr. p. 293. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ Wahab, Muhammad Rashidi, and Syed Hadzrullathfi Syed Omar. "Peringkat Pemikiran Imam al-Ash’ari Dalam Akidah." International Journal of Islamic Thought 3 (2013): 58-70. "Disebabkan itu, al- Bukhari dalam kebanyakan perkara berkaitan dengan persoalan akidah dikatakan akan mengambil pendapat Ibn Kullab dan al-Karabisi(al-'Asqalani 2001: 1/293)"

His mother

I just added a new subheading about His mother which was reversed by someone because apparently, I was not neutral.

There is no POV in anything that was written. It's just the story of his mother which has been totally missing from the article.

The subheading needs to stay. It's not a reason to remove the subheading and everything that was written entirely.

--WatABR (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? This wouldn't have been a thing if you just read them. Also, while you're at it do please read WP:SPS as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did read them. Didn't think what I wrote violated any of this. I removed the parts that sounded like opinions.
You seem to have ignored that part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."
So try to rewrite to make it more neutral, not just remove it entirely. --WatABR (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to do your work for you. Also, the sources you used were not reliable, for the third time. He's a historical figure, I'm sure we have plenty of actual reliable sources about him, such as [1], which you can request at [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I'll look for better references. You're right about the sources. They are just website articles, not historical references. --WatABR (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamiat

Imam Al Hajj ke bare mein bataen ke kab aur apni Zindagi mein Kya Kiya kaise kiya kab Kiya aur kyon Kiya yah bataen ki vah kaise the bus 113.203.221.179 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imām alBukhari’s ”Kullabi” creed

Scholars agree that alBukhari’s creed is athari, and that is clear from his works including “alKhalq” and others. Trying to establish his creed from other than his books and/or quoting his contemporaries shows academic dishonesty. And the alBukhari authored his book in Arabic, saying it is an “unknown Arabic book” is disrespectful to his academic contribution to scholarly Islamic works and only displays the level of your ignorance. Alkhaldi1878 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

Bukhari was Persian based on the sources in this article why it doesn't shown in the headline of the article Alihd23 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_al-Bukhari&oldid=1146437415"