Talk:Sahih al-Bukhari

message: I cleaned up the page and added a bit of information. reading this discussion I can see how messed it had gotten to be. But it was in pretty good shape when I arrived.
It seems to me that it should be expanded to at least mention that Shi'ite objections and to explain
Melchert's observations about the history of the Sahih. If anyone feels up to either of these tasks please do it without adding any POV. The relationship between al-Bukhari and Muslim should also be noted.
DKleinecke (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 editing 

message: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text. By the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.
Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points; however, sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom.
Headings help to make an article clearer, and comprise the table of contents; see Wikipedia:Section, which users can choose under 'Preferences' to view (the default) or not to view.
Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style).
Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.
The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgment and of controlling the total length of the article.
Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line.  Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read.</blockquote>
I hope you will now please reconsider your fondness for subdivision in articles whose length does not support it. --AladdinSE 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the article 

message: You've made a list of the hadith that Striver finds notable. This is pure personal opinion. There are many thousands of hadith in Bukhari, and different scholars, and different laypeople, may find different sets of hadith worthy of attention. If someone is notable, and his/her fave hadiths are of interest, we could possibly put a list in the article dedicated to that person. You aren't notable, you don't have an article, and your fave hadiths do not deserve star billing. Zora 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OH, and as for the list 

message: Ok, lets talk about the hadith.
You do the following claims:
*You have given no evidence that the Sunni use those names (or that the Shi'a do; since you always use Shi'a sources, I'm guessing that you got the names there)
Since you refuse to narrow down your allegations, ill do it for you: Lets disscuse the Hadith of the pen and paper. In that article, you will he this link, with this text "The shia claim that Hazrat Omar(R.A) went against the wishes of the Prohpet(saw) when the pen and paper was called for, i am refering to the hadith in Sahih Buhari which you will be familiar with". As you see, the key words are "pen and paper", and they are definitly Sunnis. But for you information i also dug out this: "Regarding Omar's Refusal to Give the Prophet a Pen to Write his Will!!!", again the same key words, and again Sunnis. And look here to: "THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PEN AND PAPER INCIDENT: A REPLY TO ANSWERING-ANSAR'S ARTICLE.", same key words, still Sunnis.
So, three Sunni sources identifying the hadith with "pan and paper". Still calling it a Shi'a centric name?
You continue.
:You have given no reason for picking THOSE hadith out of the thousands in Bukhari.
My motives are irrelevant, anyone is free to pick any hadith he/she wants and creat a article about it, providing its a notable hadith. The list links to all hadith articles in wikipedia, if you feel any particular hadith is lacking, please do wikipedia a favor and add it, instead of complaining.  Now that it is clear, i will tell you why i picked those hadith:
For starters, it was Zereshk that enumerated and quoted a set of Shi'a hadith. Since the Shi'a article was geting a bit large, i broke them out and gave them a article each. Then it was logical to have a "list of hadith". Of course you afd'd it, and it failed. Now that there was a list, i felt that i needed to make the article balanced, so i picked some Sunni hadith that gave merits for the Sunni Caliphs:
* Hadith of Qur'an and Sunnah — Sunni Ahad Sahih
* Hadith of Abu Bakr's superior faith — Sunni Sahih
* Hadith of Umar and prophecy Shi'a Mawdoo and Sunni Sahih
* Hadith of Umar and foretelling  Shi'a Mawdoo and Sunni Sahih
* Hadith of Umar and religion Shi'a´ Mawdoo and Sunni Sahih
* Hadith of Uthman's modesty Shi'a Mawdoo and Sunni Sahih
* Hadith of Learning Qur'an from four people — Sunni Sahih
*Hadith of Abu Bakr leading the prayer
*Hadith of Abu Bakr and Muhammad in the cave
*Hadith of Learning Qur'an from four people
(note: all above hadith are pure pro sunni, Shi'a reject them, created by me to give balance)
And it whent well, now there are both Shi'a and Sunni hadith, the list is balanced. While writing about some other topics, some other hadith came to mind, like the 
* Hadith of seeing God as the clear as the sun — Shi'a Mawdoo and Sunni Sahih
*Hadith of pre-Islamic marriage forms
*Hadith of Persians and knowledge
*Hadith of the Verse of Rajm
*Hadith of Jesus praying behind Mahdi
Those where created since they came to mind while working on other articles. And then, some hadith where in some articles, and i broke them out and gave them their own article, hadith such as:
*Hadith of Najd 
*Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah 
* Hadith of the ten promised paradise 
One was not even created by me
*Dua Sanamain Quraish
Now, if you think some hadith is lacking, then please add it, stop please complaining. I try constantly to include pure pro Sunni hadith, just hoping that one day i wont need to hear "im Shi'a centric", for example, i created Hadith of Abu Bakr's superior faith some days ago.
Then you write:
:You've given no evidence that anyone besides yourself regards those hadith as particularly notable.
well, if you actualy bothered to read the hadith articles, you would understand why that is false. But ill save you some time and ill copy paste the "external link" section of the Hadith of the pen and paper:
Shi'a:
*http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/index.php
*http://www.al-islam.org/guided/16.html
*http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/islam/0000111.php
Sunni:
*http://www.yanabi.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=12&threadid=107&STARTPAGE=1&enterthread=y -Sunni site.
*http://www.ansar.org/english/faq14.htm
*http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=369&sscatid=93
*http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/azarinni/Pen.htm
I hope i wont need to hear "You've given no evidence that anyone besides yourself regards those hadith as particularly notable." anytime soon, and i hope we are done regarding the hadith lists.
Then you wrote:
:Also, some of the material in the Shi'a section is not necessary to understand the Shi'a view of Bukhari; it's just presenting the Shi'a POV in general, and this is NOT the place for it. It's as if I were to insert an essay on why Buddhism is far superior to Sunni Islam.
What line are you refering to, specificaly? --Striver 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: respons

message: I took a look at your edits, and its not bad, we are geting closer to a agreed version, ill coment more later. I dont agree on the hadith, but i wont revert that part yet. --Striver 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: I modified the "view" section, it is rediculous to have a views section when this place is called an encyclopedia so as such it should follow the same format and not a discussion or polemics between differing groups. If shia have an issue with Sahih Bukhari they should mention it in there own pages not on the page solely dedicated to Imam Bukhari ie a sunni page.--Rami.b 08:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: The image: :Image:ArabicSahihBukhari.jpg has been marked for deletion as it is deemed to be replaceable and unless any action is taken will be deleted on Thursday, 16 August 2007.
If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
# Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
# On , write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. → AA (talk) — 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable fair use Image:ArabicSahihBukhari.jpg 

message: Looks like I missed a good deal of argumentation. I would like to say I find perhaps more than half of the External Links unnecessary as they link to hadith-a-day type sites and lectures and what not. This page seems to have become a bulletin board for advertisements. Acceptable links, in my opinion, would be: one link to an on-line translation, another to the original in Arabic, a link to site with in-depth information regarding the Sahih and so on. All in favor say: "Aye!" Supertouch (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What have we learned, from what they say? 

message: so, this entire page is incredibly biased. i thought wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral source...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.106.21 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New topic...

message: It should be explicitly stated that Shias do not consider everything in Bukhari to be authentic. Right now its says "most Muslims" consider it to be authentic, but this seems a bit misleading. It should explicitly state Shias dispute this, as well as a minority group of non-mainstream Sunni intellectuals.
69.235.21.24 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia view 

message: Right now there is *one* external link which links to a website that has been down for a while. I propose putting up a single link http://sunnah.com/bukhari instead, which links to a single website with both the original Arabic and the most popular translation (by Muhammad Muhsin Khan). Incidentally, both sunnah.com and CMJE use the same translation, except that the version on sunnah.com has cleaned up many of the typos, added a lot of missing hadith and has the correct reference numbers for each hadith. In response to Zora who removed the link when I added it, sunnah.com is a site for hadith translations; it is not a "religious" or preaching website.Mansari.uw (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and add an external link to sunnah.com/bukhari. The notice above has been up for over a month with no objections. Additionally, the CMJE website is not just down now, the domain itself fails to resolve and I really don't see the point of having a dead link as the only external resource. To reiterate, the translation source for the new link and old link is the same. As described on sunnah.com, their text has been through iterations of spelling corrections and they've added a few dozen missing translations of hadith. Mansari.uw (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Zora : Thanks for responding. I agree completely about being truthful to the original, and I know you will find the majority of Islamic scholarship to hold that ideal in high regard as well (including, even, the Salafis for the most part). Anyone twisting words for their own purpose has been severely censured historically. I understand your hesitation about an explicitly religious site - perhaps this will allay some of your concerns: there are, as far as I know, only two translations in English of Sahih al-Bukhari. One is Muhammad Muhsin Khan's, which is essentially the de facto translation used everywhere today, so no concerns about sectarianism there, and another one hosted on Sunnipath and translated by Aisha Bewley. This one is not as popular and while I don't know much about this translation, I've found a clear bias in her other translations (e.g. of Al-Adab Al-Mufrad) of twisting words and translations to promote the views of Sunnipath and allied organizations, hence my reluctance to link to that one. Sunnipath, of course, being an explicitly sectarian online university type of website, would be even more unsuitable to link to (being less informational and more preaching). However in the interest of giving WP readers access to more than one translation, I wouldn't mind putting up the second link as well. I will wait to hear back from you. Secondly, Sunnah.com is limited to providing easy access to hadith and their translations and nothing more. They include translations from almost all shades of scholarship, from translators/scholars with a Salafi bent (Muhsin Khan) to Sufis (Bewley, Abu Ghuddah) and Deobandis (Kandahlwi) and others as well (Ahmed Hasan). Finally, they've put in a lot of original work into cleaning up the USC version and finding the missing ahadith, and this will not be found on any other hadith website, academic or otherwise. I'm sorry to hear about your surgery and hope you recover soon! Mansari.uw (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: As a devout Muslim, we should express our outrage against "SHARIA HARAM LAWS", which are based on false/ fabricated hadiths attributed to a fictional character named Bukhari.
Since the spread of false hadiths of Bukhari by Jewish scribes to make Islam become a foolish religion devoid of any characteristics desired by Allah in Quran, Islam has declined in this world.  No more contributions to science and mathematics since past 600 years Muslims led astray by mullahs with fake hadiths.
If being a suicide bomber was way to heaven, the mullah would be knocking over everyone to get to the front of the line to die--- but they brainwash the illiterate fools to die and go straight to hell.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.189.70 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at all unusual, I doubt that we would have original manuscripts for any medieval works, but yes it is important to note earliest extant copies.130.216.234.155 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Manuscript of Sahih al Bukhari 

message: I am wondering if someone could tell me what this contains and if it might be the basis for a section in the Islamic sexual jurisprudence article. If any notable commentators have written about it. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 231 to 233

message: Substituted at 05:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello,
This article is not too bad but I see a few suggestions:
- The second last paragraph of the Overview section states "Each version is named by its narrator." and "The most famous one today is the version narrated by al-Firabri (d. 932 CE/320 AH)" - What does it mean that versions were "narrated"? Does it mean that the volume was not actually written down by Bukhari, but only later by other persons? Please clarify the meaning of this passage.
- We need to include a brief explanation of the Shi'a view of this collection.
- We really, really need some secular historian's / irreligious scholars' views on the reliability of Sahih Bukhari! The article is currently really unbalanced, featuring exclusively the orthodox Sunni view. There should also be a mention of things like the oldest extant manuscript.
- In the "Authenticity" section, there are currently several quotes of praise from names that would be totally obscure to anyone but a fiqh expert. Can we not trim that down in favour of a more general statement along the lines of "Uninterruptedly since medieval times, Sunni scholars of Islamic jurisprudence have held Sahih Bukhari to be the most reliable source after the Qur'an", and back it up by quoting modern academics?
Thank you all!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.72.244 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions: Wording, Shia views, Secular views, Historicity

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sahih 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219053737/http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/hadith/bukhari/imam_bukhari.html to http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/hadith/bukhari/imam_bukhari.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-imj.com/Vol4-No1/Vol4-No1-H5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sahih 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/index.php?word=sahih
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-imj.com/Vol4-No1/Vol4-No1-H5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001062255/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/ to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser, with reference to Mohammad Tawhidi, said "I’m with him, not in condemning it in its entirety, but in condemning the vast majority of the Sahih al-Bukhari, which we believe is the origin of many of the radical interpretations in Sunni Islam."  This article would benefit from a "criticism" section not dealing with criticism of historical sources but of the document itself, especially coming from Muslims.  Just as there is an article "Criticism of the Bible"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.0.251 (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: Assalaam alaikum  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.48.187.10 (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAM BUKHARI 

message: I understand that there's a separate article about the author, but shouldn't there be a brief introductory section about Ismail Bukhari as well. Moughera (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author Details