Answering Christianity Research Center

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/grammar2.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/gramrefut.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/grammatical_errors_in_the_quran__by_moiz_amjad

Assalam alaikum

Main Principles:

a- Quran and Sunnah must be understood according to Arabic langauge after gathering all narrations together as one narration may explain another.

b- In case a hadeeth or an Ayah is proven authentic then we find it contradicting a fact or a sensible event that is agreed on, we reconsider our understanding of the text because an authentic text cannot contradict a fact or agreed on truth.

Scientific Facts:

a. The egg is always the carrier of the X chromosome (X).

b. The spermcell of a man is the carrier of X and Y chromosomes. [i.e. It carries man and women chromosome].

c. a. Determining the gender of children depends solely on the chromosome of the spermcell of the man.

d. The combination of the "X" chromosome of the woman with the chromosome "Y" of the man creates a boy(xy). However, if the "X" chromosome of the woman combine with the chromosome "X" of the man creates a girl (xx).

e. "Y" is manly while X is womanly.

The hadeeth

" ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر . فإذا اجتمعا، فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة ، أذكرا بإذن الله . وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل ، آنثا بإذن الله
قَالَ الْيَهُودِيُّ لَقَدْ صَدَقْتَ وَإِنَّكَ لَنَبِيٌّ ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ فَذَهَبَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ لَقَدْ سَأَلَنِي هَذَا عَنِ الَّذِي سَأَلَنِي عَنْهُ وَمَا لِي عِلْمٌ بِشَىْءٍ مِنْهُ حَتَّى أَتَانِيَ اللَّهُ بِهِ ‏"‏
http://sunnah.com/muslim/4#38

The True Translation:

The water of the man is white and the water of the woman is yellow. When they get together, if the semen of the man become above the semen of the woman, the child is male, by the permession of Allah, and if the semen of the woman becomes above the semen of the woman, the child is a female by the permession of Allah.
The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that.

Study of the Hadeeth:

a. As we know that women has no role in deciding the gender of the child when fertilization takes place and the text appears to state something that seem to contradict this fact, we need to resort to laid down principles in order to guideline our understanding. This principle state that in such case, we reconsider our understanding to the texts. How? I will explain it in the following point.

b. It is important to pay attention to the used words in the hadeeth. The key words we would like to highlight (I will translate the words of the text litterally to explain it further).

Notes:

a- The word above here means "dominant" as this is one of the known meaning of the word "above" and has been used in Quran to mean "dominant and controlled".

b. The first half of the hadeeth referred to the man and woman liquids as "water" while in the second half he became more specific as referred to it as "semen".

c. We already know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in other hadeeths that the "water" of women is involved in process of fertilization. Then we realized that this water has a description that does not befit ejaculated fuilds since ejaculated fluids are white in color whereas he described the color as yellow and thin.

d. The sound understanding of this text is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring in this hadeeth to the male and female chromosome of the spermcell of the man (X as the female chromosome and Y as the male chromosome). Based on this, the Prophet meant that when the male factor is dominant then it is a boy but when the female factor is domionant then it is a girl. This is what science states and this is the sound understanding that one should have beacuse the text can be understood in various ways and we know that authentic texts must be in agreement with agreed on facts.

e- He didn't know about that except what Allah told him.

what may be the cause of misunderstanding is that it is because when people "understood" it, they assumed that the word "semen " used in this hadeeth refer to man and woman' water mentioned earlier while as a matter of fact, he صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring to the semen of the man only which is always a carrier of male and female chromosomes. This is supported by the fact that the word "semen" is always exclusively for men while women liquid is always called water only.

In short, it seems according to the words and structure of what was stated, that the issue of "dominance" is purely in targeting the dominance of x chromosome (female) and y chromosomes (male), particularly because women are scientifically not classified as having "sperm".

And Allah knows the best !
http://comparativreligion.blogspot.com/2013/02/re-hadeeth-on-sex-determination-genetics.html

The point is they have rebbutals to our answers to things and our claims so can we counter there counter arguments.

Many of their articles have been refuted, so they wrote another articles that claim to refute muslims, so muslims explained that they didn't refute anything, so they reply back.

This happened many times and I think this waste Muslims' time and energy.

Have a look here:
http://amazingreligion.tumblr.com/post/74597355314/topics-related-to-evolution-neo-darwinism

(Start with the introduction and ask about what you can't understand)

It's inconceivable that Allah would do that. يستحيل لله

This question is not valid at all because the power of Allaah is not connected to irrationalities. How can He be a god if He is unable to lift their “rock,” when one of the attributes of Allaah is power?

We ask all of these disbelievers: Can God create another god like Him? If they say yes, we say to them: How can this created being be a god if he is created? How can he be like God when he has a beginning, whereas God exists from eternity? In fact the phrase “creating a god” is a sophism or false argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created means that it cannot be a god.

In the question, we have imaginary omnipotent entity referred to as “god”, which does not have to be actual muslim God. We might call it “Bob”, if you want; what matters for the question is that our imaginary Bob is omnipotent. Then we ask, can Bob create a stone that he will not be able to lift? As long as Bob is omnipotent, he obviously can create it. As soon as he does, however, he loses his omnipotence. There is no logical problem with the question this way.

When you say that Bob was omnipotent and then became not omnipotent, then you are saying that his omnipotence is a possible attribute, not a necessary attribute, as it accepts non-existence. This means that Bob’s claimed omnipotence would have a beginning, because the possible in existence needs a cause to become existent, which means that it would need to be given to him by something else.

This something else would have to be omnipotent without a beginning, or we would end up with another Bob in need of a cause (i.e. someone else to give him the omnipotence), and going down that path we would end up claiming an infinite past series of Bobs, which is impossible, because infinity cannot pass. Since this omnipotent being is necessarily omnipotent, as it is eternal and therefore not in need of preponderance to exist, it cannot end, because whatever ends is only intrinsically possible in existence (one moment it’s here, the next it’s not; so, it is not necessarily existing). This means again that Bob cannot become omnipotent, as you cannot have two omnipotent beings at the same time. After all, that would mean that they would have to agree to bring something into existence, as they are both of equal power, and this is a restricted power, not an absolute power, and would have meant that the necessary omnipotence prior to Bob’s, became restricted and would therefore be intrinsically possible, and not necessary in existence.

Omnipotence cannot be a created attribute, because if we assumed that it had a beginning, then the one that gave it must have been either omnipotent before it, or not. If the one that supposedly gave it was omnipotent, then we have already shown that this means that it must be eternal and necessary in existence, and cannot be given away.

On the other hand, if the one claimed to have given omnipotence was proposed to have power restricted to creating omnipotence, then this is refuted, because if it could create omnipotence, then anything less than that would definitely fall within its power. If not, then this would require someone to specify the restricted power of the proposed creator of omnipotence, which would mean he is not the true creator of omnipotence, and this way we are either ending up saying there is an infinite series of specified creators, or end up at a creator that is omnipotent, thus not in need of specification, and since his power would be necessary, he could not lose this power later, or part of it, or it would have to be intrinsically possible, and not necessary in existence.

If someone argued, on the other hand, that omnipotence was restricted by a hindrance or prerequisite before Bob, then this contradicts the concept of omnipotence. Moreover, this proposed restriction to create anything but omnipotence would either be eternal or having a beginning.

A) If it was proposed eternal, then it would be universal, because it would not be specified, which would make it impossible for anyone to create anything but omnipotence, which is absurd, because omnipotence is not omnipotence if nothing other than omnipotence can be created, such as entities. After all, omnipotence is about creating other than omnipotence. Thus the proposed restriction cannot be eternal.

B) If it was proposed not eternal, then it would need a creator to specify it. This creator would either be proposed omnipotent or not. If he was omnipotent, then we have shown that this omnipotence cannot be given away to Bob. If he was not, then we are dealing with someone with created power, which needs a creator, and he would be either omnipotent or not.  This brings us into the problem of needing an infinite past series of specified creators, and this idea is rejected, because one cannot conclude an infinite series of past creating, or claiming there is a creator who’s necessary omnipotence ceased, which we have shown to be impossible.
https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/382/
https://islamqa.info/en/39679

How has Sahih Bukhari been transmitted to us?

There is no doubt that Imam Bukhari did pen his work al-Sahih with his own hand, however, he [also] recited it to a large number of his students who listened to it from him and copied it in its entirety. Thereafter, they checked it against Bukhari’s personal copy. This way their copies were in accordance with the original one of Bukhari. Afterwards, came another generation who listened to the book from the students of Bukhari and compared their copies to those of Bukhari’s students, and likewise [it happened through subsequent generations] until the book became widely known.[1] If, therefore, the original one written by Bukhari was lost it had no implications, because it had been transmitted among the generations of students of Bukhari and its copies had become widely published each with a chain of transmission back to Bukhari. Commentaries to it were written, and all the copies are, by the grace of Allah, in congruence.  As to the minor differences in the wording, they are in a sense similar to the difference of recitals (qira’at) in Qur’an and are, in fact, a factor confirming the attribution for they establish numerous transmitted links that go back to Imam Bukhari.

Accordingly, even if the reliance is made on a copy much later than that of Bukhari it confirmed to the manuscripts and editions prior to it except for minor marginal differences. See, therefore, how the differences, rare and marginal, increase the authenticity of copying rather than question it. Moreover, whereas the transmission of al-Firabri – a student of Bukhari – became popular, and copies of it were published, it was not because copying was exclusively based on his transmission. Sahih Bukhari was copied through other transmissions as well. This is al-Khattabi (319/931 – 388/998) saying in his commentary to Sahih Bukhari titled ‘Alam al-Hadith that he listened to major part of the book from Khalf b. Muhammad al-Khayyam on the authority of Ibrahim b. Ma’qal al-Nasafi (d. 295/907), a student of Bukhari who listened to the book from him.[2] It is a link other than that of al-Firabri. This is how it was with the early scholars. Among them the oral transmission and reporting of Sahih Bukhari through various links, other than the one popular today, was widespread. Their renderings of the Sahih are in line with the copy common today.

The internal consistence of the transmissions and copies of Sahih Bukhari despite remoteness of the regions, difference of times, and the number of links back to Imam Bukhari are best evidence for the mass narration of Sahih Bukhari and the reliability of its copied transmission.  Thereafter, if one or more of the copies of it became popular among the scholars (as it happens with most of the academic works) it was not because it was the most authentic of the copies or because it included something that other copies did not rather this is simply how it naturally happens. It is similar to a situation wherein a contemporary author writes a book and multiple editions of it come out, however, decades later only one of the editions remains in print and the book becomes popular in that edition because it is the best or, let us say, the most critical of the editions whereas the other editions go out of print and are neglected. This does not mean that the subject matter of the in-vogue edition is different from other editions.

In short, Sahih Bukhari was relayed down from his author through mass transmission. It was not possible for any scribe to make any interpolation or alteration without it being known. Scholars of different schools of thought possessed copies of Sahih Bukhari and knew its content intimately. If any narration were interpolated it would have been known to them immediately through its variance with their own copies of it and their knowledge of narrators and the chains of narrators. Reflect, therefore, on this peculiar and crucial feature of our ummah’s intellectual tradition – the methodology of narration, scrutiny, and comparison of a later copy with the earlier one – the like of which is not found with other nations. This signifies that loss of Bukhari’s own copy makes no difference rather it goes with the natural order of things. It is indeed rare for a manuscript to outlive environmental, historical, military, and political changes and survive for over 1200 years!

What if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari were lost?

If we were to gather all the thousands of copies of Sahih Bukhari, whether manuscripts or printed ones, and put them all to fire and likewise delete whatever of it is available on the internet including what is quoted in the commentaries and books of fiqh etc. If we were to delete them all leaving no trace of Bukhari’s work; even if this were indeed to happen we would not lose anything we know of the sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) today because whatever is narrated in hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari is available and published in other books of hadith and fiqh as well.

These are the facts that those who indulge in the superficial and sentimental speech asking as to where all these sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) came up from are not aware of.  Many great hadith scholars preceded Imam Bukhari whose multivolume tomes were sources of much of the Bukhari’s work. Some of these scholars were Bukhari’s teachers and some were the teachers of his teachers. If you were to carefully study the reports in Sahih Bukhari you would find them attested and narrated through the very chain of narrators with which they are found in books both prior and later to it. Among the books prior to it is Musnad of Bukhari’s teacher al-Humaidi (d. 219/834) which has reports that Bukhari included in his Sahih. Likewise there is Muwatta of Imam Malik (d. 179/795) most of whose reports with connected chains were narrated by Bukhari as well. And similarly there is Musannaf of Imam ‘Abdul Razzaq al-San’ani (d. 211/827) and Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) and others besides. The works of great hadith scholars who preceded Imam Bukhari greatly overlap with Sahih Bukhari. Moreover, if we take into account the works of the contemporaries of Imam Bukhari such as Imam Muslim (d. 261/875) and Ibn Khuzaima (d. 311/923) and those who came after him we would find the reports in Sahih Bukhari repeated and preserved in these works. Such works are not few rather there are scores of them.  Therefore, even if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari – not just original one – were to disappear nothing from the authentic hadith reports would be lost. Our religion is not based only on the works of one individual or Sahih Bukhari alone though it certainly has a great stature due to its academic value and accordingly the scholars give it preference over other works. May Allah bless Imam Bukhari with great reward for his services to the ummah.

These important facts expose to us the weakness of this question raised concerning Sahih Bukhari as if it is the sole foundational source of Islam that any doubt concerning it would make most of the hadith reports appear dubious and render vain bulk of the information about the Sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ). In doing this they refer to the saying, “The most correct book after the Book of Allah” assuming that this statement makes Sahih Bukhari an essential source of Islam to the effect that if it were lost with it would go a part of Islam itself. This is a misconception on their part. In reality this statement simply highlights an academic characteristic of the book for Bukhari was the first and foremost to compile a book of only authentic narrations. He ensured that all the hadith reports in his book were authentic with chains of narrators fulfilling rigorous conditions more stringent than those of other compilers of hadith. He kept it free from weak reports having issues such as disconnection in chains of narrators. He did not collect therein all the authentic reports nor is that there are no authentic reports outside Sahih Bukhari that if we were to doubt it we would lose information on a large number of sunnahs of the Prophet (ﷺ). Neither Bukhari claimed this nor would a student in his maiden hadith class say this. In fact any reasonable person who has skimmed through hadith works for even quarter of an hour would not say this.

As a starter it would suffice for the reader to get know of Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abdul Baqi’s (d. 1388/1968) book Al-Lu’lu’ wa al-Marjan, Fima Ittafaqa ‘alaihi Ash-Shaikhan (wherein he collected hadith reported common between Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) in order to find out that Imam Muslim also narrated 1906 of the reports of Sahih Bukhari. How about going through other hadith works as well? Indeed the reader would find the authentic hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari have been adequately published in other books as well. In fact one would find that most of them have been reported through different chains of reporters which only adds to their authenticity.

Summary

The gist of what we have mentioned above is that the naivety laden doubt, “Where is the original copy of Sahih Bukhari?” comes only from those who view things superficially, give in to shallow trends, and are ignorant of the Islamic intellectual heritage. I believe the spread of such doubts is a good proof of the shallowness of the modern trends and materialistic approach that has hit our Muslim community. Such superficial rationality cannot rescue us from the backwardness that has overcome our people. It is ironic for someone to clamor about with such a ridiculous questions and thinks of him as an ‘enlightened rationalist’ researching the intellectual tradition. Such an individual should first get over with his ignorance of hadith, its major works and sciences; actually he should return to basic lessons in principles of academic discourse and logical thinking before going about with such non sense.
http://icraa.org/sahih-bukharis-original-copy/

http://comparativreligion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/narration-5-i-have-been-made-victorious.html

http://comparativreligion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/i-have-been-ordered-to-fight.html

http://comparativreligion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/narration-3-paradise-is-under-shade-of.html

https://abuaminaelias.com/hadith-of-the-gharqad-tree-is-it-a-good-deed-to-kill-jews-in-islam/

7&8
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/08/muslim-historians-unauthentic-narrations.html

https://muslimmatters.org/2010/02/21/is-islam-a-violent-religion/