Why does Allah need our worship?

The answer to this question is given in the verse: Worship your Lord, Who created you and those who came before you, that ye may guard (against evil).

There is an outcome of worship: Attaining the degree of guarding (taqwa). Man attains the degree of taqwa, that is, he attains the degree of fearing of Allah, abstaining from his prohibitions, keeping away from what He has forbidden. It means, the benefits of worship pertain to man.

People, who do not attain this degree, spend their lives in sins, disobedience, polytheism and ingratitude. They lead men to go to Hell.


Then, the degree of taqwa, is the position of abstaining from Hell and from every kind of evil that leads to it. Abstaining from Hell leads man to Paradise. It is we who are in the need of Paradise and who will benefit from the boundless bounties there. Then, how can we ask such a question!?

Surah al-Ikhlas teaches us that Allah is the Eternally Besought One. Eternally Besought One means Everything needs Him, but He needs nothing.

In the uterus, feet have been attached to us so that we can walk here. Stomach has been attached to us so that we can be nourished by nutrients. Eyes have been attached to us so that we can see things. It is we who are in need of all of these things. Why should Allah need to bestow on us such bounties!? If we fulfill our duty of giving thanks to Allah through worship, we will go to the land of the thankful ones, Paradise. There, it is again we who will taste the physical and spiritual bounties in such an ultimate degree that the bounties of this world will be in the degree of a shadow in comparison to the bounties there.

Then, in both worlds, we are needy and we are the consumers. Why should Allah need to grant us the bounties of Paradise? Why is such a question asked?!

Another aspect of the issue:

In The Signs of Miraculousness (İşarat-ül İcaz), the following is expressed: What expands that exalted spirit of man is worship. What develops his aptitudes is worship. What broadens his ideas and takes them under arrangement is worship

Every sound mind accepts without any doubt that the expansion and progression of mans spirit is for man himself. Thus, man will be able to benefit more from Paradise that he will attain in the future. Paradise is similar to this world in one aspect. Trees, animals and also men have come to this world. They all benefit from here; but each of them benefit according to its disposition and abilities. That is, just coming to the world is not enough. The way to benefit completely from this world is to be able to enter it with exalted abilities and faculties. The benefits of each person from this world are not the same. The believing servants will enter Paradise by the favor of Allah, but their benefiting degrees from the bounties there will be in comparison with their worship and sincerity.

Worship also has a curative aspect besides its progressive aspect:

Man can avoid from every kinds of evils from makrooh (abominable) acts that turn the stomach, to haram (illicit) acts that poison only through worship. How can a person protecting his heart, spirit and all his faculties from mistakes and wrongs by such a divine treatment ask such a question about worship!?

God Almighty has no need of your worship, nor indeed of anything else. It is you who needs to worship, for in truth you are sick If someone who is ill responds to a compassionate doctor who insists on his taking medicines that are beneficial for his condition by saying: What need do you have of it that you are insisting in this way?, You can understand how absurd it would be. ( Flashes) (Lemalar)

Author:

Alaaddin Başar (Prof.Dr.)

http://questionsonislam.com/article/why-does-allah-need-our-worship

 

Why were we Created?

Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

 

Allah says in the Qur'an: "The creation of the Heavens and the Earth is indeed greater then the creation of mankind; yet, most of mankind know not."

All praise is due to Allah. May His prayers and blessings be upon his Last Messenger and on all those who follow the path of righteousness until the Last Day.
Not just Muslims, but every single human being has to answer the most fundamental question at some point in his or her lifetime:

"Why was I created? Why am I here? What am I doing in this world? Why did God create me?"

The Collection of the Quran - Dr. Joseph. Lumbard

How was the Quran first put together? How did it come assume the form in which we have it today? In this video, Dr. Lumbard discusses the understanding of the collection of the Quran in Islamic sources. This video goes up until the death of the Prophet (SAWS) in 632. Part II focuses upon the collection of the Quran after the death of the Prophet and the creation of the first official collection of the Quran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4QBuV_IGQI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp2kYT1cAcI

Old Manuscripts & Various Reading of Qur'an - Dr. Shabir Ally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh57dmOenh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo_VfxZmjxA

Why did God/Allah create the foreskin which we are ordered to cut ?

This is an extract from an unpublished work called Sources of Spring, in which there was a dialogue between Sheikh Muhammad Amin Sheiko 1890-1964 and Sir John G Bennet.

Sheikh Muhammad Amin Sheiko answered:

It is well known that the human body consists of flesh, bones and nerves. It is also known that the nervous person`s body does not grow well healthy, and he always remains thin, even if he eats such a lot of food, and increases the number of daily diets.
The embryo in the female`s womb remains in a critical stage in the nine months, because it is in the critical vital forming stage. Since the skin of the penis is a gathering place of very sensitive nerves, it is affected by any friction which causes a general alertness of the nerves in the whole body.
As the place of the embryo in the womb is narrow, to suit the embryo`s size, the embryo is always bent and turned up and its movement increases in the last months. This movement excites the nerves of the skin of the penis, thus the growth of the embryo is hampered because the movements destroy the cells, or leads to a weakness in growth.
So this skin protects this sensitive area from being affected by any shock which causes friction when the embryo moves in the womb, and by that the body attains its safety and perfection.
Exactly as a thermos keeps its contents isolated from the outer factors.
After birth, he enters a new type of life different from his previous one. He is now stretched and there is no friction with the nerves of the skin of the penis. This skin becomes extra and it should be cut because it exists in a glandular area where infection can take place and where dirt and germs may gather under the skin causing acute dermatitis, and infection.
God created the foreskin when the embryo was in the womb of its mother because this organ which Almighty God has made, as an exit for the urine, has made it also, because of its other function composed of a tissue of nervous tissue interconnected deliberately.
Since the end of this organ which is called a skin is very sensitive. If it was exposed to a friction with anything, then that friction will lead to a nervous stress leading to a general stress in the nervous system. It is taken for granted that this stress and sensation will result in a decrease in growth.
Because of that, it is necessary, for the growth of the embryo in his mother`s womb and its completeness, to have a membrane which prevents the head of that organ from what might be in touch or in friction with during the consecutive movement of the embryo in his mother`s womb.
Thus growth is natural and the embryo is born with sound health and body.
Let us now speak about circumcision after birth: 
When the embryo is born and his body`s systems begin to function and the urinary passage begins to do its task, there may be some mold scratch or pathological symptoms, therefore, God the Almighty orders circumcision to protect the body from such troubles.
Therefore, the existence of the skin is necessary for the embryo while it is in its mother`s womb, It denotes the perfection of creation and the marvelous divine discipline. It’s cutting after birth and existing in life is necessary and a mercy from God to man.

Pages 66-70 ,75-76

Source

Re: Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) Last words, Jews and Christians !

Claim: Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) last words before he died: “O Lord, kill the Jews and Christians.”

The truth:

Some disbelievers try to attack Prophet Muhammad (p) all in an effort to ignite hate after hate.
They cite a hadith of Prophet Muhammad cursing people who take the graves of Prophets as places of worship and misrepresented it.
"May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets." Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427 
This is obviously out of concern for keeping Monotheism intact. This shows the value the Prophet had for pure Monotheism. He used some of his last words to remind people of the importance of pure Abrahamic Monotheism and help them keep away from shirk (a departure from pure Abrahamic Monotheism) – making places of worship over the graves of Prophets could be seen as leading to shirk. The Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) curse on the Jews and Christians who did this sin was not his last words (just some of his last words)*, it was not done out of hatred or rancor for them (and it was not directed at all of them), but instead he was relating to those around him his utter rejection of people worshiping prophet’s graves. (i.e. indirectly telling them not to worship his grave.)

Imam at-Teebi said: عرف أنه مرتحل ، وخاف من الناس أن يعظموا قبره كما فعل اليهود والنصارى ،
“It is as though the prophet peace be upon him knew that he will depart, so he feared for the people that they will venerate his grave like Jews and christians did (with other prophets) [Mirqaat al Mafateeh hadeeth no. 712] 
 

Mulla Ali Qari commented: ( اتخذوا قبور أنبيائهم مساجد ) : سبب لعنهم إما لأنهم كانوا يسجدون لقبور أنبيائهم تعظيما لهم ، وذلك هو الشرك الجلي ، وإما لأنهم كانوا يتخذون الصلاة لله تعالى في  مدافن الأنبياء ، والسجود على مقابرهم ، والتوجه إلى قبورهم حالة الصلاة ; نظرا منهم بذلك إلى عبادة الله والمبالغة في تعظيم الأنبياء ، وذلك هو الشرك الخفي لتضمنه ما يرجع إلى تعظيم مخلوق فيما لم يؤذن له ، فنهى النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أمته عن ذلك لمشابهة ذلك الفعل سنة اليهود ، أو لتضمنه الشرك الخفي ، كذا قاله بعض الشراح من أئمتنا ،
They have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship) The reason of their being cursed is because they made sajdah to the graves of the Ambiya in veneration, and this is clear shirk. They used to pray to Allah where Prophets were buried, They used to prostrate in the tombs and in the condition of Salaah they used to face the graves. According to them (They thought) they were worshiping Allah and  Exaggerating in veneration of Prophets this is hidden shirk It contains Prophet peace be upon him disallow his Ummah to do this as this is the practice of jews, It contains hidden shirk and this is also said by some of the commentators from our scholars [Mirqat, Sharh al Mishqaat, Volume No. 2, Page No. 202 hadith no 712]

The Jews (and Christians!) are taught about pure Monotheism and its importance in the Bible. First Commandment that all Jews accept:Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me”.

The Prophet, amongst his last words, also reminded people to be spiritual and never forget the prayer: “The prayer, the prayer! And fear Allaah with regard to those whom your right hands possess.”

Christian scholars admit that the Gospel authors are not reliable and the Gospel of John puts words into Jesus’ mouth that he never actually said. Actually, Christians believe Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up in a couple of days and they believe he used and will use violence.

Allah knows best !
----------------
* “The last words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)”, where he quoted the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: When the Prophet was healthy, he used to say, “No soul of a Prophet is taken until he has been shown his place in Paradise and then he is given the choice.” When death approached him while his head was on my thigh, he became unconscious and then recovered consciousness. He then looked at the ceiling of the house and said,  “O Allaah! (with) the highest companion." I said (to myself), “He is not going to choose (to stay with) us.” Then I understood what he meant when he said that to us when he was healthy. The last words he spoke were, "O Allaah! (with) the highest companions.” 

The Miracle of the Quran for non-Arabs !

By karkooshy

One of the proofs for the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ is the Quran, which is an imitable literary miracle of unrivaled eloquence. However, the miraculousness of the Quran is very difficult to realize for someone who is not specialized in Arabic, never mind someone who does not speak Arabic at all! Such a person would not be qualified to judge the literary quality of the Quran, nor be able compare it with other literature in order to determine its imitability. Fortunately, there are ways around this problem.

One can appreciate the miraculousness of the Quran, even if one does not speak Arabic, by considering the following three facts:

First: the Quran challenges Prophet Muhammed’s opponents (the pagan Arabs) to disprove its miraculousness, by getting together and producing a chapter that rivals the eloquence of any of its chapters:

وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
And if you doubt about what We have revealed to Our slave,
roduce a chapter like it, and call upon your supporters other than Allah, if you are truthful^[1].

Second: The pagan Arabs were expert poets. Likely, the best in the Arabic language in all of history. To this day, Arabic linguists use pre-Islamic as a template for grammatical and linguistic rules. This is proof that Prophet Muhammed’s opponents were competent, and that it is nomically necessary for them to have been able to meet the Quranic challenge.

Third: Prophet Muhammed’s opponents were heavily invested in destroying Islam, and disproving his prophethood. The pagan Arabs imprisoned, tortured, and killed many of the early Muslims. They even engaged in wars against Prophet Muhammed ﷺ and his community. Wars where those pagans spent much time, much money, and risked their very lives, in order to stop the spread of Islam.

With the above in mind, we argue:

• • If a claimant to prophethood is aided by a negation of nomic necessity, then he is a true prophet.
  • Muhammed ﷺ is a claimant to prophet who was aided by a negation of nomic necessity.
  • Therefore, Muhammed ﷺ is a true prophet.

As for the first premise, it is true because God is the creator of normalcy. So His aiding a claimant to prophethood by negating normalcy for him, signals His support for this claimant. More on this here.

As for the second premise- Muhammed ﷺ is a claimant to prophethood who was aided by a negation of nomic necessity- this is actualized in the pagan Arabs’ inability to address the Quranic challenge. For if the pagan Arabs were able to fulfill the Quranic challenge, and given their extreme desire to destroy Islam, they would have spared themselves the time, money, and the risks of death in battle, and they would have simply cooperated with one another in order to produce a text which rivaled the Quran literarily. But they did not, and Islam ultimately prevailed^[2]. Thus, the Quran resulted in a negation of nomic necessity. Namely, the inability of the pagans to address its challenge, when they should have been able to do so.

To make the above clearer, Imam Al-Baqilani^[2] compares the failure of the pagans in addressing the Quranic challenge, to a prophet who challenges his opponents to move their hands, when God prevents them from this act for the timeframe of the prophet’s challenge. This is a negation of nomic necessity for those people, and proof for this prophet’s prophethood. Likewise, God preventing the pagans from being able to address the Quranic challenge, is a negation of nomic necessity for them, and proof for Muhammed’s ﷺ prophethood.

Therefore, Muhammed ﷺ is a true prophet.

Source

Bukhari’s Original Copy?

Sahih Bukhari’s Original Copy?

Sharif Muhammad Jabir

Translated by Waqar Akbar Cheema

Translator’s Note: While I had considered translating this write-up ever since I read it on Al-Jazeera Blog

the immediate impetus has been a disastrous article by one Atabek Shukurov whose work “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” I reviewed back in 2015. Although I plan to make a dedicated response to his present article this piece by Sharif Muhammad Jabir, I believe, serves as a principle response to his basic argument. Irony is that Mr. Shukurov himself cites works written hundreds of years ago using editions thereof published within last few decades. How bad he did not give us images from the first copies of the works of al-Bazdawi (d. 482/1089), al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1448) et al. which could be considered authentic according to the criteria laid down by him.

 1. Introduction

Some of the ‘researchers’ and those known with the honorifics indicating their educational qualifications have framed an ‘important’ question regarding the absence of original manuscript copy of (Muhammad b. Isma’il) al-Bukhari’s (hereinafter Bukhari) Sahih that he penned down with his own hands. They ask, “If Bukhari did author this book why do we not find its original manuscript in his own handwriting?” They say; “The oldest extant copy of Sahih Bukhari goes back to the fourth century after Hijrah i.e. decades after the death of Bukhari (d. 256/870); it is the copy of Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Marwazi who was born in the year 301/913 and died in 371/982. He listened to the Sahih from his teacher al-Firabri (d. 320/932) in 318/930 who in turn listened to it from Bukhari in 252/866. How then can we trust a book attributed to its author without there being a manuscript written by him available to us?”

2. Naivety of the Question

It is regrettable that we live in an age in which such naïve and absurd questions prop up [in the guise of academics and research]. Who seeks the original manuscript copies of books in our day? Beginning with the Qur’an; we have absolute confidence in the preservation of Allah’s Book though we neither have with us a copy of Qur’an written in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) nor even an original copy of ‘Uthman’s (d. 35/656) mushaf. In fact a very old copy of Qur’an discovered by the scholars in Germany went back only to the time of Harun al-Rashid (d. 193/809). Though they concluded that it confirmed to the Qur’an we have with us today, it did not add to our trust and conviction regarding the Book of Allah [in terms of preservation.] Even as we turn our attention to books of humans we find that it is the only the naïve who seek an original copy in the handwriting of the author as evidence for rightful attribution to him. How many a book of our day and those of days gone by have you read for which you did not find a copy of it in the handwriting of its author? In fact the availability of author’s handwritten manuscript of a book is no guarantee or reference point to establish the attribution of the book to its author. This has been the human practice for centuries. It has been so because the methods of attribution of the book to its author are related to continuous transmission of the book through multiple channels and not in the existence of the original handwritten copy of the author.

3. 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!

4. Availability of the original copy is no greater proof of authenticity

If we assume that the multi-pronged methodology of preservation and transmission as historically in vogue in the intellectual tradition of the ummah had not existed and we had with us a handwritten copy of Sahih Bukhari attributed to Imam Bukhari, it would not have been a stronger proof of authenticity of Sahih Bukhari compared to what we have today! In fact it would be far weaker in terms of reliability. This is because then you would require proving the reliability of the attribution of the copy to Imam Bukhari and there would be no other way to do it.  How doubtful then would have been the attribution of the Sahih to Imam Bukhari compared to all the ways of attestation that we now have with us? Therefore, the method of transmission that the scholars of this ummah have relied upon is the best possible way.

5. 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.

6. 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.

Notes/References:

[1] Haji Khalifa (d. 1067/1657), for instance, tells us about “Al-Nijāḥ fī Sharḥ Kitāb Akhbār al-Ṣiḥāḥ” by Najm al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar bin Muhammad al-Nasafi al-Hanafi (d. 537/1143):

ذكر في أوله أسانيده عن خمسين طريقاً إلى المصنف

In the beginning Al-Nasafi mentioned fifty chains of narrators back to the author [Al-Bukhari].

See, Khalifa, Haji, Kashf al-Zanun, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.) Vol.1, 553 and Vol.2, 1929

[2] Al-Khattabi, Abu Suleman, ‘Alam al-Hadith, Edited by Muhammad b. Sa’d b. ‘Abdul Rahman Aal Saud (Makkah: Jami’a Umm al-Qura’, 1998) Vol.1, 106

http://icraa.org/sahih-bukharis-original-copy/

Is marriage in Islam "just a contract" ?!

Marriage (nikah) is a solemn and sacred social contract between bride and groom. This contract is a strong covenant (mithaqun ghalithun) as expressed in Quran 4:21. The marriage contract in Islam is not a sacrament. It is revocable.

Muslims don't say it's just a CONTRACT!

Marriage can be reviewed from two different perspectives:
1) A sentimental (or psychological) perspective
2) A legal (or societal) perspective

Form a sentimental (or psychological) perspective, marriage is described in Islam as follows:

"And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect."
----- Qur'an, 30:21

"But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, Take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and manifest wrong? And how could ye take it when ye have gone in unto each other, and they have taken from you most solemn pledge?"

----- Qur'an, 4:20-21

From a legal (or societal) perspective, marriage is described in Islam as follows:

"There is no blame on you if ye make an offer of betrothal or hold it in your hearts. Allah knows that ye cherish them in your hearts: But do not make a secret contract with them except in terms Honourable, nor resolve on marriage contract till the term prescribed is fulfilled. And know that Allah Knoweth what is in your hearts, and take heed of Him; and know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing."
----- Qur'an, 2:235

As you can see, Islam tends to cover all aspect of a marital life, both the psychological and legal aspects. Islam is not just about psychological and spiritual aspect of life rather it supervises the whole aspects of the life of a Muslim.

There is divorce concept in Islam and It's considered the last resort in case of mismatched spouse/Impossiblity of healthy relationship.

In the Quran, the Arabic word “uqdah” is used for marriage, which means “knot” or “tie”. A knot is used to secure a firm connection. knots are also used to provide aesthetic beauty, sturdiness and stability, in addition to securing connections. As all the members “tied” together in this lovely union grow and mature with time. (Source)

Marriage in Islam is (defined as) a source of tranquility, love and mercy for humans and a solid pledge from one given perspective and it is (defined as) a contract from another relevant perspective.
There is divorce in Islam because Islam tends to look at marriage from both perspectives.

There is no divorce in Hinduism because Hinduism tends not to look at marriage from a legal perspective.
And, divorce in Islam is defined as the last solution for an unsuccessful marriage in which life between the wife and husband cannot carry on.

And, if Islam were to look at marriage as a solemn pledge only, there would be no way to terminate an unsuccessful marital life and that would lead to increasing misery and enmity.

Islam always strikes a balance between two or more extremes. Islam is the middle path.