no, not really. i have read it once and once is more than enough. i used the word shriek and something clicked in and i stretched it a bit.
--
concerning the guy i banned and edited the post: i regret it now that deleted it; i shouldn't have. however here is a recap:
1. he congratulates me for conceding that imam bukhari can also make errors and wonders at/slams people who think imam bukhari is some demigod (ma'adhAllah). he used THAT word.
2. he proffers his excuse for the 'mistake' he made when he questioned why imam baqir's report was not found in bukhari; 'humans are full of error and forgetfulness..', he says.
3. he insists imam bukhari's animosity towards imam ja'afar as-sadiq and talks about sunni authorities saying this too.
----
a red herring is a fallacy where, a totally unrelated topic is raised to derail the argument. the charge was imam bukhari had animosity with ahl al-bayt, so he did not include any reports coming from them. this is absurd and false like almost all their other arguments.
IMPORTANT: i have absolutely no faith in anything they quote - some might be unreliable because of their incompetence but many are outright liars and frauds. this has been proved earlier too in the imam ghazzali slanders.
----
notice that the word 'demigod' was used in the imam ghazali thread. first, they slander imams and when we refute on their behalf, the preach to us that they [imams] were not 'demigods' and they too can make mistakes and we ought not to revere them like so.
this is slander upon slander. we respect our ulama and acknowledge that they are susceptible to errors and mistakes. however, we do not attribute their errors to malcontent or deliberate crimes. we should have a good opinion about them and consider that their mistake/error was due to human fallibility. may Allah ta'ala forgive us and them.
the slips of great men are far greater than our good deeds.
shame on the albalagh poster who has an ostentatious excuse for himself when he said imam baqir's riwayah is not found in bukhari, but still without any proof - except their own feverish imagination - libel imam bukhari that he hated ahl al-bayt.
---
another issue is that of context. imam bukhari did not set out to compile a collection/book that would be considered the most important after the qur'an. it just became so, due to the immense barakah and its acceptance near Allah ta'ala.
14 centuries later, if we look at it retrospectively and ask, how could he miss certain narrators in his most important book, it might sound a valid question but is still silly because of the age-context.
---
we ought to respect our elders and if we don't, Allah ta'ala will make those younger to us to humiliate us. kama tadinu tudaan. as you sow, so you reap.
---
indeed, muhaddithin have noted that imam bukhari did not take imam ja'afar as an authority [vide al-dhahabi's
tazkiratu'l huffaz, entry on imam ja'afar; 162: "bukhari did not take him as an authority though the whole world reveres the imam as a leader and hujjah"]
that should be attributed to his erring on the side of caution rather than hate. because imam bukhari has indeed narrated with imam ja'afar in the chain in his other celebrated book: adab al-mufrad (already noted below by a brother; i will look up his other books, inshaAllah).
---
the problem with these incompetent dunces is that they have begun to talk even before learning to read. like a high school student struggling with basic trigonometry attempting to comment on the limitation of riemann integration in fourier analysis or the merit of lebesgue integration.
what else explains such ignorance?
---
i do not wish to waste time flogging the dead horse any more. and i wish brothers would not respond to provocations here. let us learn about these few hadith [of umm Haram] and read their explanation, inshaAllah. let us not read them to refute the objections of morons on yn-forum; rather, we must read to enrich our own knowledge.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
