Refuting Mufti Abu Layth on his Criticism on Sahi Al-Bukhari

Last updated:

4th November 2020


His arguments can be found under these video’s

Link 1: https://youtu.be/RpurmlwMCds
Link 2: https://youtu.be/EH_PvTW98Ks

1st argument:

He argued that, Sahi-Bukhari claims that Musa showed his testicles to the public when he was bathing.


Here is the narration he uses found in Sahi Bukhari:

It was narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allaah, peace and blessing be upon him, said: «(The Prophet) Moosa (i.e. Moses), may Allaah exalt his mention, was a shy person and used to cover his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the children of Israel hurt him by saying, ‘He covers his body in this way only because of some defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other defect.’ Allaah wished to clear Moosa, may Allaah exalt his mention, of what they said about him, so one day while Moosa, may Allaah exalt his mention, was in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone and started taking a bath. When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his clothes so as to take them, but the stone took his clothes and fled; Moosa picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying, ‘O stone! Give me my garment!’ Till he reached a group of Bani Israa’eel who saw him naked then, and found him the best of what Allaah The Almighty had created, and Allaah cleared him of what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moosa took and put his garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allaah, the stone still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks».

Source: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1870176683070475&id=100002344849908

Notice that there isn’t really anything so wrong about this, Mufti Abu Layth makes it sound as though, Moses had his testicles displayed to the whole public society, such as women and children and all these random members of the public, where he would feel such great shame, this is not the case, rather it was only displayed to a group of the children of Israel, it could be just a few Men, in fact they were the same Men who accused him of having bodily defects, and since they were slandering him, since he may have been a young man at the time, like young Men, if the Word of slander of bodily defects goes out this type of slander if it got wide spread may have effected his future, He may not have been able to get married and have children since they were slandering him of having a defect in his “organs of offspring”, therefore to shut them up, God revealled to them He had no defect, in order to safe gaurd his future, again i say what really wrong about that? It wasn’t as though Moses was walking around butt naked, for no reason just enjoying the sun shine of the day taking a naked swim without a care in the world, rather it was just a split second slip of the towel to disprove a small group of slanderers ordained by God. Again i see nothing so grossly wrong about it, since indeed the purpose was to stop the slanderers from making up stuff in order to protect his future. Again this quick display was only to a small group of Men around his age, therefore its not as bad as it looks, i can assure you if any of these critics got caught out by another man seeing his own privart part they won’t loose sleep over it, i can assure you if one of those critics had a medical testicular condition, they would have no issue showing there testicles to another male Doctor. So why all the sudden this “Shock and AWE” when, it happens to be a Prophet? Is he not but a human being? Or perhaps you think his like a Divinely God figure? Than i say perhaps your in the wrong religion, maybe you should consult the Christian faith and find yourself a God Man.

Furthermore, since these Muslim Critics of Hadith are so outraged by a Testicle displayed, are they also outraged with the Quran for describing Womens Breast like so in Heaven;

And full-breasted [companions] of equal age
Quran 78:33 (Sahi international)

Will the same Critics of Hadith accuse the Quran of indecency?

2nd argument:

Ashias house is the devil according to Sahi Bukhari?


You also have to accept that your women are also ordered not to leave house indirectly so it implies to your women so accuse them as well for their matam they do infront of men. Prophet’s wives had different status as you said: Does it mean they were specially chosen women for prophet? Yes.
I want to analyse above hadith on the bases of another Ahadith,
First, the Prophet peace be upon him (اشار الى ناحية بيت) pointed to the direction of the house of Aisha may Allah be pleased with her. He (SAW) (ولم يشر الى بيت) did not refer to the house of Aisha may Allah be pleased with her, there is a difference between the direction and into the house, indeed, the Prophet peace be upon him referring to the direction and not House. Is it conceivable that the house of the Prophet peace be upon him the place of temptation and the devil of a century where now the house of the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him, which is now part of the Masjid.
Narrator Abdullah bin Umer in above Hadith used these words: فأشار نحو مسكن عائشة, which correctly mean “Prophet pointed across Aisha’s place” which is pointing out direction because her house was in the east of pulpit. If prophet to point to Aisha’s place then narrator must have used فأشار الى مسكن عائشة which is “prophet pointed (directly) to Aisha’s place”. Aisha’s place happened to be in the east side of pulpit so prophet pointed towards east and not to her place. We cannot base our argument upon one Hadith only. We have to reconcile other Ahadith to comprehend the right perception. Let us see what other Ahadith say about this matter. All the below Ahadith have used these words الى المشرق “Prophet pointed to east”. If a great affliction was to rise from Aisha’s dwelling place and prophet knew it then prophet would have separated her. How prophet (SAW) kept Fitnah (affliction) in his house while he knew it? Moreover prophet (SAW) grave is inside of Aisha’s dwelling place which is east of pulpit.
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 499
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: I saw Allah’s Apostle pointing towards the east saying, “Lo! Afflictions will verily emerge hence; afflictions will verily emerge hence where the (side of the head of) Satan appears.”
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 63 :: Hadith 217
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: I heard the Prophet saying, “Afflictions will emerge from here,” pointing towards the East.
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 714
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: I heard Allah’s Apostle on the pulpit saying, “Verily, afflictions (will start) from here,” pointing towards the east, “whence the side of the head of Satan comes out.”
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 88 :: Hadith 213
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: I heard Allah’s Apostle while he was facing the East, saying, “Verily! Afflictions are there, from where the side of the head of Satan comes out.”
It is eminent from above Ahadith that prophet of Allah was pointing towards east and not Aisha’s place but Shia or critic’s only narrate first Hadith to prove that Aisha was a great evil person. Let us see another hadith of affliction and try to understand where really prophet (SAW) was pointing to?

3rd argument:

Ashias age not authentic in Bukhari?


The claim Ashia narration not authentic on her age see here:


I know this sounds weird: but the Hadiths people “don’t like” in Sahih Bukhari… they’re in other Hadith collections too. The Hadith of Aisha’s age is in Sahih Muslim, the Sunans of al-Nasa’i (small), al-Darimi, Ibn Majah, and the Musnads of Ahmad and Abu Yal’a al-Mawsili. It’s in the Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq, etc. What problem do you solve by someone taking Sahih al-Bukhari out of the picture (except that pesky problem of having books that can be traced by to their authors… who needs those?!)?

If you want to challenge specific Hadiths, then just own it and challenge them. That’s what Muslim scholars did in past centuries (see my book below p. 303-304). No one ever thought of pulling this nonsensical move of saying that al-Bukhari’s Sahih was not reliably transmitted, because they all knew that it was way more reliably transmitted than whatever book the madhhab they were following was based on.

One last point: the idea that al-Bukhari was someone deviant at the end of his life is utter huey. He was targeted by extremist early Sunnis, who insisted on the insane position that the written pages and recited sounds of the Quran were ETERNAL AND UNCREATED. Al-Bukhari pointed out that this was not the opinion of Imam Ahmad, with whom al-Bukhari had studied at length, which was that these elements were created. Guess which opinion ended up being Sunni orthodoxy? Bukhari’s. See pages 74-81 of my bestselling book (currently being adapted into a film), The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

– Br.Jonathen Brown

4th arguments:

His claim that the hadith says Muhammed forgot certain verses of the Quran?


This is debunked here by Bassam Zawadi, the Quran actually says Allah will make him remember the quran but he will also make some caused to be forgotten, they are according to Tabari, the “Abrogated verses”.

See here: https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_samuel_green_s_article__muhammad_s_perfect_memory___

Thus its not the Quran he forgot but rather the abrogated verses that were not meant to be part of the Quran.

5th arguments:

Prophet Suleyman, visiting and having sex with so many wives? And why would Prophet Suleyman be punished for forgetting say “Inshallah” if indeed he forgot to say it?


This hadeeth is authentic and is even held in the highest level of authenticity as it has been reported by both Al-Bukhari and Muslim may Allaah have mercy upon them. An-Nawawi may Allaah have mercy upon him said, “The authentic ahaadeeth are of different categories; the highest level of authenticity is for those narrated by both Al-Bukhari and Muslim…” [At-Taqreeb]

The ahaadeeth cited in Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim are collectively accepted by Muslims as the most reliable. An-Nawawi may Allaah have mercy upon him said, “Muslim scholars agreed that Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim are the most authentic books after the Noble Quran, and they are collectively accepted by the Muslim broader community.”

There versions of this hadeeth were different with regards to the number mentioned in them. Al-Haafith Ibn Hajar may Allaah have mercy upon him cited all these versions and reconciled between them in his book Fat-h AL-Baari, saying:

“In brief, the different versions mention the number (of the wives of Prophet Sulaymaan [Solomon] may Allaah exalt his mention) as sixty, seventy, ninety, ninety-nine, and one hundred. They can be reconciled in the sense that the wives were sixty free women and the rest were concubines or vice versa. Seventy denotes the large number as a form of exaggeration. Ninety and one hundred; they were less than one hundred and more than ninety. Those who say that they were ninety wives discarded the fraction and those who say they were one hundred rounded up the number.”

Indeed, this is a rational interpretation that appeals to the sound mind. If such people find it not convincing, no extra effort should be exerted in trying to convince them.

It is unbecoming of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) to contradict himself; he is deemed far above such a shortcoming. His words are part of the divine revelation; Allaah, The Exalted, says (what means): {Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination It is not but a revelation revealed.} [Quran 53:3-4]

As for their allegation that the content of this hadeeth is unreasonable and their questioning of the physical ability of a man to have intercourse with this great number of women in one night, it can be refuted by the fact that it is not rationally impossible because Allaah, Who bestowed the physical ability to have intercourse once or twice in one night upon man may grant him greater ability and power to have more intercourse in one night as well. Moreover, even if this is unreasonable as far as laymen are concerned, it is not unlikely with regards to the Prophets of Allaah, whom He endowed with great physical strength that has never been given to others.

Anas ibn Maalik may Allaah be pleased with him said, “The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day or night, and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) the strength for it?” Anas may Allaah be pleased with him replied, “We used to say that the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) was given the strength of thirty (men).” [Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others]

Jaami’ Al-Usool reads, “Prophets of Allaah were endowed with greater sexual potency and virility; when the heart is filled with light (of faith), it overflows into the veins, fueling physical strength and sexual potency and virility, which are enhanced by the piety of the heart and mind; this is the genuine source of strength.”

Finaly, as to why was Suliman punished by Allah by giving him a disabled child because he didnt say “inshallah”?

There is a difference between being punished and be given a trial as shown here read this to better understand:

So Prophet Suleyman was not punished because he was given a disabled Child because he forgot to say “InshAllah, rather if God really wanted to punish him he wouldnt have given him a Son at all, rather he gave him a harder task to look after a son, which is more of a harder trial, but it is taught that if he over comes this harder trial, he will be even more “Rewarded” if he shows patience through it all to “make up” for his forgetfulness or his neglectful behaviour in mentioning “InshAllah” when ever we do a task. This is a valuable teaching to Prophet Suleyman and the rest of the ummah. Given someone a harder trial, does not mean its a punishment it could be a means, where your test becomes greater, and we know that when ever the test becomes greater, the reward becomes Greater as well.

6th argument:

Abu Layth on Farabri.


More responses to his points…coming soon. Wait for update.

7th argument:

Mufti Abu Layth thinks according to Sahi Bukhari, Umar disrespect the Quran when He claimed Sureh Rajem verse regarding the stoneing was meant to be part of the Qur’an when it never was? Is this correct, did Umar really believe it was part of the Quran?


The Answer is Yes, but there is a reason why he first enitially thought that, the verse in Question was Abrogated or lifted from the Quranic reading and was never meant to be part of the Quran rather as a side note (Hadith). See here:

Read these two article replies:

Second reply:

So, one needs to understand that the Compliation of the Quranic verses were being canonized and taking shape, companions would read there Qurans with hadiths attached to them, plus side notes. The Prophet didnt inform them right away what verses where being seperated into hadith collections and what verses where to remain as being the Quran, all these canonization process were taking shape, the Quran even says we replace one ayah by another ayah verse (i.e) abrogations, etc. So Umar may not have been aware until he found out later a certain verse was abrogated as the Quran was taking shape or perhaps reading that verse about stoning as a side note within the Quran, but it wasnt meant to be understood as part of the flow of the text rather like a foot note, notice Umar never questioned the verses of stoning after the final Canonization product of the Quran, rather he was questioning during the formulation process before the process of what exactly was supposed to be the final product of the Quran.

8th Argument:

Abu Layth say’s Sahi Bukhari has a Error in the hadith since the Prophet was taken on a night journey Before He was a Prophet?


9th Arguement:

Abu Layth say’s in Sahi bukhari Muhammed is reported to touch Muslim women without there permission?


Also there are critic’s saying the Hadith in arabic for sahi bukhari does not use the term “gift” and this is a mistranslation. I doubt that this assertion is true. And even if it were, can they then explain this;

Maria bint Sham (Mary the Copt) (died 637), was an Egyptian who, along with her sister Sirin, was sent to the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 628 as a “gift” by Muqawqis,

al-Hakim Abu; ‘Abdullah, al-Mustadrak (1990). hadith nr. 6819 Beirut. Abdullah al-Zubairi related to us and said: Thereafter the Messenger of Allah married Maria bt. Sham‘un. She had been gifted to the Messenger of Allah by Maquqas, the chief of Alexandria.


Is this also a mistranslation?


10th Argument:

Farabri is found in Imam Bukhari Book?



Refuting Abu Layth on other Authentic hadith:


Refuting Abu Layth. On dogs Saliva and hunting animals.

He says how can the dogs saliva be impure if hunting dogs can be used to bite a animal to kill it and puts his fangs into the animal.

Response: there is a hadith that answers this. And the part where it’s been bitten. You don’t eat.

If he shoots at the prey and part of its body is severed from it, but the animal is still alive, it is haraam to eat the severed part. There is no difference of opinion among the fuqaha’ concerning that, because of the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “Whatever is cut from an animal when it is alive is maytah (‘dead meat’).” Narrated by Abu Dawood (2858); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

So the same applies to teeth wounding the beast, you don’t eat from that part. Simple.

Furthermore, when you hunt the animal with a dog. You can take the animal you hunted, skin animal which will remove most of the Dogs saliva. And you can also wash the meat 7 times where the fangs were penetrated, which will then make that part of the meat pure again.

So there are multiple ways to refute Mufti Abu Layth.
This is how easily this guy gets refuted.


Counter Rebuttal Section:

Anti-Bukhari Hadith Critic wrote:

I take it you haven’t watched any other content by the Mufti regarding miracles & magic?

If Allah wanted somebody to be seen, would it not be sufficient for a group to pass by the discreet location & stumble upon whatever they were meant to see? What is the wisdom behind using a rock to draw out a person from their location out into public view?
And yeah I’m sure the locals were exhausted of seeing miracles during the time, that they didn’t blink an eye lid when the rock carrying clothing was running like the gingerbread man.

The only thing I’m wondering is how you managed to escape out of your jumpsuit. Time for your medication.


So tell me before we continue. Do you dispute in the virgin birth of Mary? Jesus bringing clay birds to life? Do you dispute Moses parting the Sea? Do you dispute Jesus as a infant baby spoke from the Cradle?
Tell me do you also deny these miracles of the Quran?

If not lets follow the reasoning in your logic,

Why did Allah not just send Jesus to the earth directly, if indeed he can create a child without the intervention of man.

Why didn’t Allah just put a ship on the shore, for Moses to cross instead he parted the sea?

Why would God make a Child speak? Like do gingerbreads talk? Whats the wisdom in making a child speak and freaking people out, couldn’t God just wait for him to grow up for him to convey his message to the people?

See we can play all day and all night, with your own accepted logic, but you see im not that desperate, you on the other hand are desperate and will find any reason to ridicule it no matter what in order to discredit something just because your not happy that things dont happen the way you would like them to happen, whats next? You will question why God made the grass green and not purple or pink?
And i need to take a tablet?

Abu Layth wrote:

Muhammed Sahin Mustafa. That clip! (Refering to your video Rebuttal on 9th argument)

The guys relying on an English translation!!!! Its ok mate The ‘not so Sahih’ Bukhari has already been exposed.
By all means watch my detailed video and answer the points.
I will till my dying breath defend the Honour of our Prophet agaisnt you and your wahhabi ilk who are promoting hatred agaisnt our beloved Messengers of God.

To all others…
Much love 😉❤


Funny how you rely on urdu, version of Sahi Bukhari when translating the arabic and in fact rely on the English and selectively choose the more provocative english translation in the content of your video, its funny how he calls me a wahabi, as though the collection of Sahi Bukhari is sacred to only Wahabis, the Collection of Sahi Bukhari is sacrad to all the mainstream Sunni Mathhab, but this is your fallacy of what we call “poisoning the Well” which is to try and tie Bukhari to Wahabism in order to tarnish the books reputation, sorry but your illogical fallacy dont work here. Im here defending the Prophet unlike yourself, it is you who is spreading fallacius lies, because your too incompetent to think rationally and answer basic Hadith interpretation, so instead you void a escape root to simply dismiss it because you have no rational thinking skills polluted by Western orientalists. Go on stop running, i requested you to bring the butt sex hadith in Sahi Bukhari print it here on the screen if your not afraid, of course when put on the spot you will start laughing around and carrying on like a 2 year old, even non-Muslims that i spoke to think you have lost your marbles with these excessive laughter, is this the behaviour of Ressulah you follow? To laugh in the face of those he gave dawah too? See you have no real Taqwah, nor ethics on how to preach. All your about is trying to belittle your opponents, but i really cant blame you, these qualities of yours stem from there early enemies of the Prophet who would cry them selves into laughter to take the micky out of people, the brothers have advised you to go get a reading done, i can assure you that one wont be an “illusion”.


Video lists exposing this false Liar.

In this above video. Mufti Abu Layth, shows his “adhab” in making a mockery of the Islamic paradise, saying He would wish it has “brothels”. Heaven and Hell is only “Symbolic”. Also Islam didn’t come to prohibit Homosexuality. And then pretends to snort cocain.


Above is Islam according to Mufti Abu Layth.

Farid Exposes Abu Layth.

Exposing Abu Layth, and Warning Muslims.