Another misleading Hadith of Bukhari (on Battle of Camel)

[abbottonian]

We know from history that there had been battles between Muslims ie. Ali(RA) & Aisha(RA), Ali(RA) and Muawiya(RA) so according to these narrations all of them are people of hell fire (Ma’azAllah)
Bukhari:: Book 1 :: Volume 2 :: Hadith 30
Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais:
While I was going to help this man ('Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I am going to help that person." He said, "Go back for I have heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.' I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?' Allah's Apostle replied, "He surely had the intention to kill his companion."
Vol.:9, Book: 88 Number: 204
Narrated Al-Hasan: (Al-Ahnaf said I went out carrying my arms during the nights of the affliction (i.e. the war between `Ali and `Aisha) and Abu Bakra met me and asked, “Where are you going?” I replied, “I intend to help the cousin of Allah’s Apostle (i.e., `Ali).” Abu Bakra said, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘If two Muslims take out their swords to fight each other, then both of them will be from amongst the people of the Hell- Fire.’ It was said to the Prophet, ‘It is alright for the killer but what about the killed one?’ He replied, ‘The killed one had the intention to kill his companion.”
The fabricators of Hadith the so called Imams and their associates have suggested to the simple and ignorant people that there are so many problems of life where the Holy Qur'aan gives no guidance or is silent or it does not clearly mention and Hadith describes such problems and gives guidance.The fabricators of Hadith have an agenda based on disregarding Qur'aan, the Prophet and animosity towards his companions.
The matter to ponder is when two Muslims or group of Muslims take up their weapons against each other,does Qur'aan give any guidance in this regards or not?if yes then whether it is clearly describes or is ambiguous so that people have to refer to Qum,Bukhara,Tirmiz,Nishapur or Deoband for its clarification?
Those Hadith lovers should spare some time to read Qur'aan: 49/9
Pickthal:
And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.   
And Qur'aan 49/10
Pickthal:
The believers are naught else than brothers. Therefore make peace between your brethren and observe your duty to Allah that haply ye may obtain mercy.
When this was spoken to a Hadith lover his simple answer was “it is a weak narration” then why you call Bukhari SAHIH? Why don’t you throw it out? He was simply silent and blushed.
May Allah guide us all through Qur'aan

[Heba E. Husseyn]

As-salam Alaikum.  Yes brother, you caught the blunder very well.  This is a very corrupt Hadith.  The Noble Quran has already given a clear answer for it as you already quoted the Verses.  These 2 Quranic Verses are always on my mind .. V:49:9-10.

By the way, is Abu Bakr same as Abu Bakra?  Even if they aren't the same, this hadith is still unjustifiable.  But just wondering whether or not they were different individuals.

[N. Truth Seeker]

Salam and thank you brother Abbotonian.  This is an accurate exposure of a serious mistake by hadith as usual.  Another proof how little the hadith narrators knew of the Quran.

The hadith also belittles Imam Ali by one of the narrators referring to him as "this man."    Of course, many ahadith have also insulted the Prophet (pbuh) by using demeaning language so how can anyone expect it to respect others?

Sister Heba, that's also a good question. Though Abu Bakra and Abu Bakr are often presumed as the same persons, they weren't the same.  While the former is the well-known Abu Bakr Siddiq, the first righteious Caliph, the latter is little known or not known at all;  even biographies of medieval personalities carries almost no information regarding "Abu Bakr."  This also explains the reason for confusion of the mix-up. Not unlikely, a concocted name with a motive. 

Brother Abbotonian, can you please comment on this?

[abbottonian]

Wa Alaikum Salam  Sis Heba and Bro Thinker
That is what how Bukhari manipulates the minds of simple Muslims and believe that what ever is narrated in Hadith books is authentic.The Battle of the Camel (also known as the Battle of Jamal) was a battle that took place at Basra, Iraq in 656 CE and Abu Bakr(RA) died in 634 CE.This is another fabrication,ignorance of Islamic history.Even to this date our Imams in Masjid are narrating Hadith in such a way that ordinary Muslim will listen and keep silent because the poor guys are themselves ignorant of Qur'aan and history of Islam.Imam will simply put a Hadith saying "It is in Hadith of the Prophet (SW) without mentioning the 5,6 or 7 persons in between.
May Allah open their hearts towards understanding the Holy Qur'aan.
Asif Raza

[Zainab_M]

Salaam and thanks.  The contents clash with the Noble Quran as is the problem with just about every hadith. 

From what I know, Abu Bakra is not the same person as the well known Abu Bakr Siddiq.  The former is little known and he reportedly narrated approximately 125 ahadith.  His full name is listed in his very short biography as Abu Bakra al-Thaqafi and he's supposed to have died in 672 AD, nearly 40 years after Abu Bakr Siddiq.  However, no hadith ever mentions his full name.  They only mention "Abu Bakra," the name "Thaqafi" is never added with it.  The hadith narrators or the compilers may have hastily heard the name "Abu Bakra" not knowing who he is and simply used his name in narrations. 

In any case, regardless of who Abu Bakra was, that hadith just does not sound rational, as usual.

[Heba E. Husseyn]

..

From what I know, Abu Bakra is not the same person as the well known Abu Bakr Siddiq.  The former is little known and he reportedly narrated approximately 125 ahadith.  His full name is listed in his very short biography as Abu Bakra al-Thaqafi and he's supposed to have died in 672 AD, nearly 40 years after Abu Bakr Siddiq.  However, no hadith ever mentions his full name.  They only mention "Abu Bakra," the name "Thaqafi" is never added with it.  The hadith narrators or the compilers may have hastily heard the name "Abu Bakra" not knowing who he is and simply used his name in narrations. 

In any case, regardless of who Abu Bakra was, that hadith just does not sound rational, as usual.

Thanks for this info Sister Zainab.  Sounds spot on.   Actually Bukhari & co. hadn't even ever heard the names of several people they picked as narrators and 'sahabas.'  They mentioned quite a few narrators they didn't know who they were or whether they really existed. 

[N. Truth Seeker]

Thanks Sisters Zainab and Heba.  Unfortunately that's always the case in the world of Hadith.