The advocates of hadith are fond of saying that the hadith explains the Quran without which, they say, the Quran cannot be understood. In other words without the hadith they will have to reject the Quran or at the very least they will ignore the Quran.

The scholars also say that the hadith they call 'Sahih Bukhari' (Authentic Bukhari) is the best hadith. In other words without the "Sahih" of Bukhari these people will be at a total loss. They will have to reject the Quran.

It can easily be proved that the hadith does not in any way explain the Quran and that the "Sahih" Bukhari is not worth the paper it is printed on.

For evidence please refer to, and check all references, of "Sahih AI-Bukhari" by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Islamic University, Medina AI-Munawwara. Publisher: Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, which is the nine-volume encyclopedia.

Volume 6 of "Sahih" AI Bukhari is devoted to the explanation or "Tafsir" of the Quran. The other eight volumes prescribe things like drinking camels urine to cure fevers (volume 7, Hadith no 590), burning people first and then their houses if they do not go to the mosque on time, (volume 1, Hadith no 626), dreaming of undressing women (volume 9, Hadith no 139 and 140), using shoes to garland camels (volume 2,Hadith no 763) and other such nonsense.

But let us focus on volume 6: the explanation of the Quran by Imam Bukhari.

Although the Quran has 114 surahs or chapters, Bukhari does not explain all the verses in all the surahs. Surah AI Baqarah has 286 verses -the longest surah in the Quran. But Bukhari only provides hadith for about 50 verses. This is slightly over 20% of AI Baqarah. Bukhari has left the ulema groping in the dark over the remaining 80% :

Surah AI Kausar (Surah 108) is the shortest Surah in the Quran with only 3 verses. However Bukhari "attempts" to explain the meaning of just one word "Kausar" as sufficient to explain this whole Surah. Bukhari says "Kausar" is a river in heaven.

But Kausar simply means "good in abundance". (Translation by Presidency of Islamic research, FTA, Saudi Arabia). This also suggests that Imam Bukhari did not know Arabic. It is a fact that Bukhari was a Persian from Bokhara and his mother tongue was Parsi. The scholars have no
records to show when Bukhari learned Arabic. More of this later. The greatest surprise of all is that 28 Surahs of the Quran are not "explained" at all. The Surah numbers are as follows:
23, 27, 29, 35, 51, 57, 58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 109.

Bukhari explains this away as follows "No hadith were mentioned here".

According to the scholars only the Prophet is supposed to be the source of the hadith. The hadith is supposed to explain the Quran. The big question is, "Who went on an unauthorised holiday for 28 WHOLE SURAHS of the Quran"...?

The scholars insist the hadith explain the Quran. Hence the scholar have to do away with 28 SURAHS of the Quran because Bukhari did not explain these 28 SURAHS.

Therefore the boast by the scholars that those who uphold the Quran ALONE and do not depend on the hadith at all cannot understand the Quran, falls flat on it's face. The scholars are in a far worse situation. 28 SURAHS are missing and none of the other Surahs are explained in full by Bukhari

To revert to the earlier point that the Persian Bukhari may not have known Arabic, this is suggested by the way Bukhari has changed the names of certain Surahs. By itself this is a strange phenomenon. The scholar themselves do not know why Bukhari did this.

Non-Arabs sometimes refer to a Surah by its first verse. This is because they may not have known the Arabic name for the Surah because they are not scholars of the Quran or simply because they are not Arabs. Bukhari displays the same characteristics.

Surah AI Naba (Surah 78) is labelled as Surah 'amma yatasa'alun'. This is actually part of the first verse of this Surah.

Surah AI Baiyina (Surah 98) is labelled as Surah 'Lam Yakun'. Again the beginning verse.
Surah AI Takwir (Surah 81 ) is labelled Surah 'Idhash Shamsu Kuwirat'. This is the start of the first verse again. Surah AI Maarij (Surah 70) is labelled Surah 'Sa'ala Sa'ilun.'

Some Surahs have been given two names. Surah AI Insan (Surah 76) is labelled Surah 'Hal-Ata-insani or Surah 'Dahr.' But this is a revealing point because such labelling is more akin to reciters who are non-Arabs, Who do not know the Arabic language. Apart from the fact that Bukhari was Persian from Bokhara many scholar believe that he was also blind. The next question is "Who wrote the Sahih Bukhari?". It will also be pertinent to see how Bukhari handles some of the explanations of the verses-if and when he cares to explain them.

For example some explanations end with a blank space:-
Volume 6, Hadith No 50 seeks to explain Surah 2:223. After some narration it continues like this, Nafi' added regarding the verse:- "So go to your tilth when or how you will. Ibn Umar said, "It means one should approach his wife in...." The explanation ends with a blank space. But not to worry. A footnote completes the picture. The footnote says "AI Bukhari left a blank space here because he was not sure of what Ibn Umar had said!" And yet this is called "Sahih AI Bukhari!" Perhaps this is why some scholar has many problems in this department.

There is also one of the most foolish and incredible explanation by Bukahri for Surah 11:5. The beautiful meaning of the verse is actually: 1 1:4 "To God is your return and he has power over all things". 11: 5 "Behold! They fold up their hearts, that they may be hid from him. Ah! Even when they cover themselves with their garments. He knows what the conceal and what they reveal. For he knows well the (innermost secrets) of the hearts". 11:6 "There is no moving creature on earth but its substance depends on God; He knows its resting place and its temporary deposit. All is in a clear Record'. Translation by Presidency of Islamic Research, IFTA, Saudi Arabia.

The meaning is crystal clear. We all answer to God. There is nothing we can conceal from God, Every single thing that we do is in a clear Record "Kitaab-un Maubeen". So don't think you can hide anything from God.

Now here is Bukhari's ridiculous explanation of the same verse in Surah 11:5 Volume 6, hadith No 203: Narrated Muhammad bin abbad bin Jaafar that he heard Ibn Abbas reciting " No doubt! They fold up their breasts". (11:5) and asked him about the explanation. He said, " Some people used to hide themselves while answering the call of nature in an open space lest they be exposed to the sky, so the above revelation was sent down regarding them.

According to Bukhari, the whole purpose of this revelation was to tell the sahaba that God could see them defecating and sleeping in the desert!
According to Bukhari’s logic then, after this verse was revealed, the sahaba who traveled with their wives in the desert lost their inhibitions. Since God could see them anyway – they answered the call of nature or had their wives anywhere and anytime they felt like it. No need to hide anything!

Similarly Bukhari twists surah 5:87. To explain "Surah 5:87 Bukhari first quotes it partially only not in full as follows: " O you who believe Do not make unlawful the good things which God has made lawful for you (5:87).

The explanation by Bukhari ( Volume 6. Hadith No 139 is as follows : Narrated Abdullah " We used to participate in holy wars conducted by the prophet and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves"? But the prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily  ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.
" O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you. There is a footnote(1): " Temporarily marriage ( Mut’a ) was allowed in the early days of Islam but later, at the time of Khaibar Battle, it was prohibited ( God knows it better ) ".

The uncertainly in the footnote lends support to the facts that this is an evil lie against God and the Prophet by Bukhari. Certainly Imam Bukhari may burn in Hell just for this lie alone.

Surah 5:87 is actually as follows; " O ye who believe, make not unlawful for you, but commit no excess. For God loveth not those given to excess". Is prostitution an excess? Worse than that is an evil. Which Muslim scholar will allow his daughter to receive " even a garment as payment for temporarily servicing the lusts of some sahaba? Note how the Bukhari has the sahaba cooly suggesting " Shall we castrate ourselves?" as though it is done every morning after breakfast.

In Surah 24:33 God and Messenger told us : " Let those who find not the means for marriage, keep themselves chaste, until God gives them mean out of his grace. And if any of your slaves ask for deed in writing, ( for freedom) give them something yourselves out of the means which God has give you. But force not your girls into prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that you make gain in the goods of this life. If anyone compels them,
(on them)  God is forgiving, Merciful."

In other words, do not look for sex outside marriage. If you cannot marry, it is better to keep chaste. Control your lust. The messenger said do not force anyone into prostitution, but instead Bukhari says the Messenger set the price for hanky panky at merely a piece of garment. This is Bukhari’s malicious lie against the Messenger. In truth the Messenger told his men to control their lusts. Surah 24:30 "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty, that will be better purity for them, and God knows all that they do".

If anyone insisted on following their lusts, the Messenger  would told them , "God doth wish to turn to you, but the wish of those who follow their lusts is that you should turn away from them, far away" Surah 4:27 ( All translations from Presidency of Islamic Research, IFTA – Saudi Arabia )

The Quran is crystal clear. But Bukhari says you can buy a women for a price of cloth. Perhaps the scholar are gleeful at this suggestion also.

Here is another hadith that has neither head nor tail. It is stated under " The Book of the Virtues of the Quran". May God save us. Volume 6, Hadith No 503. Narrated Valium Uthman. " I was informed that Gabriel came to the prophet while Um Salama was with him, Gabriel started talking (to the prophet) , then the prophet asked Um Salama, " Who is this?", She replied " He is Dihya (Al Kalbi). When Gabriel  had left Um Salama said, " By God, I did not take him for anybody other than him (i.e. Dihya) till I heard the sermon of the prophet wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel".
The sub narrator asked Uthman : From whom have you heard that? Uthman said, " From Usama Bin Zaid ".

God sent Gabriel with the revelations to be delivered to Muhammad. Therefore Gabriel delivered the revelations to Muhammad. But here Bukhari says the prophet did not know Gabriel had come to him. Instead he asks his wife! – Such that she could hear Gabriel? And she calls him strange names like Dihya and Al Kalbi.

There is some confusion. Is God that inefficient that his angel Gabriel is called Dihya and Kalbi  - all in the course of duty of delivering revelations to His messenger Muhammad?

Let us see 2:97-98: " Say, who is an enemy to Gabriel for he brings the revelation to thy heart by God’s will, a confirmation of what went before. And guidance and glad tidings for those who believe. Who ever is an enemy to god and his angels and prophets, to Gabriel and Michael, Lo…! God is an enemy to those who reject faith".

Gabriel brings the revelation straight into the prophet’s heart (alaika kalbika bi idhnillah) with God’s permission. But Bukhari says Gabriel just started talking and the prophet did not know who it was. He had to ask his wife….!

" Verily this a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. With it came the truthful spirit ( Ruhil Kudus), to thy heart that thou mayest admonish, in the perspicuous Arabic tongue"- Surah 26:192-195

Gabriel brought the revelation straight to the prophet’s heart. But Bukhari says the prophet had to ask his wife of Gabriel: " Who is this ".

It is easy to refute the Christian argument by referring to his own Bible. In a similar way the ‘Muslim’ scholar who insists on giving eminence to fabricated hadith can be countered by referring to his own book – written by hands of their leaders like Imam Bukhari, without God’s permission.
In Surah al-Baqarah God says: " Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands then say ‘This is from God’. Seeking a cheap gain. Woe to them for distorting the scripture, and woe to them for their illicit earnings".

As stated earlier the hadith of Bukhari is not worth the paper it is printed on. By following such ludicrous hadith, which clearly taint the good name of the prophet Mohammed, the Muslims have been lost for over 1000 years now. They can only recall the glorious days of the prophet. Little do they realise that during the glorious days there was no hadith. There was only the Quran.