|
Did the mufassiroon take from Ja'far (ra)?
The mufassiroon took from
Ja'far, the fuqahaa took from him, the Muhaddithoon took from him,
everyone took from him except Shaykh Bukhari.
Inaccurate, not to say false.
(1) The Mufassirūn and Sīra compilers generally had a more encompassing quantity and
less strict rules of narration than the rest so that there is no comparison between them and Sahih al-Bukhari.
(2)
The Fuqahā' did take from Jaʿfar, among other issues, rulings with which the Shiʿa notoriously and adamantly differ,
such as the abolition of Mutʿa, as Ibn Rushd's report in Bidayat al-Mujtahid citing Imam Jaʿfar's assimilation of
mutʿa to zinā!
(3) Imam Malik was stricter than al-Bukhari and he did not take from Imam Jaʿfar unless there was
someone else to confirm it as cited from his student Musʿab by al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-Iʿtidal (1:414).
(4) And
Imam al-Bukhari DOES take from Jaʿfar in his Khalq Afʿal al-ʿIbad, al-Adab al-Mufrad, the Minor and Major
Tarikh, and probably also his Rafʿal-Yadayn although I do not have it to check. And Allah knows best.
Why not in the Sahih? Because it is an abridgment and al-Bukhari specifically said he did not include all that is sahih
in it. Hence he did not, in it, take from Imams Abu Hanifa nor al-Shafiʿi either. Have you seen any Sunni, or even any
Hanafi or Shafiʿi clamor and whine why not or question its reliability for that?
Imam al-Tirmidhi also took from Jaʿfar in his Sunan and he did not come nor go one step without al-Bukhari, his
teacher.
Bukhari admits that he
has something in his heart against Ja'far. Even Dhahabi criticized
Bukhari for that.
Not al-Bukhari. It is Yahya ibn Saʿid al-Qattan who reportedly admitted "having something in his heart against
Jaʿfar" meaning his reliability as a narrator. It might - Allahu aʿlam - have something to do with reports from
Jaʿfar through his son Muhammad, who publicly admitted to forging hadiths as I documented in my recent post on the
hadith of the angel of death asking permission.
Imam al-Bukhari definitely had something in his heart against Imam Abu Hanifa, do you see Hanafis attack the
reliability of the Sahih for it? On the contrary, they and the rest of the Sunnis accept it as the soundest book under
the sky after the Glorious Qur'an, on our head and our eyes.
Bukhari took traditions from clear Nasibis, those that fought and killed
the Prophet's family. How can we fully trust such a source?
Correction: he took a couple of reports from two people who had been *accused* of being, or siding up with Nasibis;
and only reports which had nothing to do with the issues pertaining to their alleged deviation.
In answer to the question: You (individually or as a group) may not have to fully trust that source but a sincere ʿālim
does, as do the true Ahl al-Bayt all over the Sunni world and countless in the Shiʿi world also, in all conscience and
freedom of facile emotions and cultural conditioning.
Yahya ibn Muhammad al-Dhuhli, Abu Hatim and his son, and others did not take from al-Bukhari because of a certain
kalām issue. Al-Dhahabi said: "Whether they care to take from him or not, he is the Imam and Mountain of the world
and the foremost of them."
Allah bless and greet our Prophet and his Family and have mercy on all of the above and grant them the highest
Paradises ﷺ.
Hajj Gibril ©
GF Haddad ©
[2000-11-07]
| 
