> Conditions of a Saheeh Hadeeth

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

Thank you brother for your post. I listened to the second video and Insha Allah I will listen to the other videos when I get sufficient time. I appreciate brother yasir Qadhi's presentation, though I am not convinced of his statement regarding infallibility of each and every recorded hadiths

asalamu alaikum akhee optimist.

al-hamdulillah you have listened to brother Yasir speak on the topic. I have to correct one incorrectly deduced statement of yours. You have claimed that Yasir was pretty much asserting the "infallibility" of each recorded hadeeth. This statement must have been something you have concocted from his speech because this was never explicitly stated in his lecture nor was implied implicitly. Yasir never argued for the infallibility of all hadeeth. Rather, what Yasir was professing is that our methodology of weakening hadeeth has to conform with actual scientific research, and not merely our limited understandings. This is what Yasir was trying to articulate, not that hadeeth are infallible.

in other words, if a hadeeth in bukharee is going to be weakened, then it has to be weakened through a systematic qualified analytical breakdown of the text, and not merely on the basis that "it does not accord to my reason". And this is a fundamental point that has to be understood, which is that when people say that "such and such hadeeth is against the Qur'an", I have found in exactly 100 percent of the times, that these same people have failed to understand the Qur'an in the light it is to be viewed, rather they understand the Qur'an in light of their own intellectual reasoning.

in order to understand the nature of the role of reason and intellect between Islam and western thought, please feel free to broaden your scope of knowledge on this mater by referring to this link

The Role of Reason and Intellect Between Modern Western Paradigm and Islam

which can be accessed here as well
The Role of Reason and Intellect Between the Modern Western Paradigm and Islam

Because we all know Bukhari collected only around 7000 Hadiths out of some 600,000 hadiths that he came across.

this fact has nothing to do with the validity of your viewpoint and inshallah I'll explain why in the following comments

It means he rejected 98% of the hadiths that he came across as not authentic.

this is a common misnomer posited by people who are not acquainted with the science of Hadeeth. This is an argument, that sounds reasonable on the outside, but is an argument that is inherently crippled if other realities are contextualized as part of this historical fact.

there are a number of primal reasons as to why al-Bukharee left out 98 percent of his hadeeth knowledge out of his saheeh

1. firstly, most hadeeth are repetitious. Even in his saheeh, there are many repetitions, more than other books of hadeeth. So repeating a single event in 60 to 70 or even 100 chains is like beating a dead horse for average people. The main reason for utilizing 7 thousand out of 600 thousand is to be concise and forthright to the people and not to be overbearing and excessive.

2. al-Bukharee chose the most primal of all hadeeth, as they say "the cream of the crop" in order for conciseness. Many of his other hadeeths, like between 50 to 80 percent of them are not "weak" or "fabricated" rather they have deficiencies in them that al-Bukharee wanted to leave out. many hadeeth have soundness in them but they may have deficiencies and it takes an expert like himself to decipher which is which, and since his book was for the common man and scholar, it was necessary to exclude many of them.

3. thirdly, since most of hadeeth are repetitious, that explains the reality of their validity because these hadeeth do not come to us by one route, rather they come to us by a plethora of routes signifying that it is impossible to deny stated facts in these narrations

4. Fourthly. this is one of the BIGGEST blunders of those who have not learned ilmul-hadeeth. This blunder is that it is commonly reported that Ahmad memorized 1 million hadeeth, BUkharee memorized 600 thousand, and other Imaams memorizing 500, 800, 300, 400 thousand hadeeth. This is simply wrong and a misunderstanding. WHat they memorize is as an example is "600 thousand NARRATIONS". in Other words, a vast majority of their memory of narrations are a result of memorizing the statements of the sahaba and the Imaams of the second generations and the third generation. In other words out of 600 thousand of bukharees memorizing of narrations, I would say about half of the narrations under his belt are narrations of people who are not the prophet.

In hadeeth terminology, most of the later scholars classified these narrative narrations as "Aathaar" i.e. "reports" particularly of the sahaba and the tabi'een.

so from this point onwards, I will either affirm, negate, or clarifythe remaining comments you have made since the bulk of clarifying this misconception of yours has been amply provided above inshallah

When Bukhari started collecting the hadiths, the vast majority of hadiths (98 %!!) in circulation were not authentic.

needs clarifying. No, but not being authentic does not mean discardable and weak or fabricated. in fact MOST of hadeeth in the world of hadeeth are hasan more so than any other category of hadeeth categorizational rulings. There are very few that are fabricated, there are more that are weak, and there are more that are saheeh, but the majority that takes most of the weight are hasan meaning fair or acceptable.

Bukhari classified around 7000 hadiths as reliable reports based on the criteria he used for acceptance of a hadith and do not forget he is undertaking this laborious effort more than 200 years after the death of the prophet in a land that had neither paper nor the abundance of scribes to write anything down.

correction of a historical misunderstanding.

al-Bukharee, unlike his peers, wrote every hadeeth he heard along with memorizing it.

His dependence was mainly on hearsay evidence alone.

This is a flaw in understanding the nature of hadeeth transmission. when a report is narrated, a list of narrators are given. The preservers (hufaadh) have or investigate the life and reality of these narrators in order to find out how credible he is, both academically and spiritually. It is not hearsay because hearsay is described as the oral narrative of an event with no presentation of the proofs (the transmitters) of that event.

It is like we try to verify the truthfulness of the sayings of a person living during the year 1750-1800. Isn’t there a chance that may be out of this 7000 collected as true by Bukhari 50 to 100 hadiths, or a few hundred hadiths are also likely to be not true (similar like 98% of the hadiths rejected by Bukhari)?

there are two valid scholastic opinions on this
1. some say that there is no weakness in any hadeeth he brings in his saheeh
2. some say that there are couple of narrations that are "hasan" rather than saheeh" and couple of weak hadeeth.

However, judging the accuracy of an event or a report is not based on an argument of "well your research is 250 years after the fact, and therefore it has no credibility". There is not a single scientific knowledge on the face of the planet that judges the authenticity of an event based on this formula. Rather a stringent methodology of deciphering takes place as to explain its accuracy or weakness. Using the "200 years after" argument does not bring credibility or validity to the articulation of this argument.

I will quote for you another authentic hadith, this is collected by Muslim which goes completely against Quran;

Muslim (576), Narrated by Abu Huraira: the Prophet said: “Woman has been created from a rib, and will in no way be straightened for you. Had it not been for the children of Israel, food would not have gone stale or bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have been unfaithful to her husband”.

The Quran is very specific in numerous verses (no need to even quote any verse, because even a child in Islam knows) that no soul will bear the burden of another. It is one of the most important principles repeatedly mentioned in the Quran;

“No soul will earn any wrong except against itself. No one shall bear the burden of another.”

This is a perfect example of a lack of understanding the Qur'anic message which is that there has not been a soul YET who has claimed a contradiction between a textual report in a hadeeth and the Qur'an except that every single time someone has claimed this phenomenon, it has resulted in the exposure of such person's lack of understanding and inability to apply the conglomeration of Islamic thought.

If what you say is true, then why does Cain (the first who murdered) receives the reward of everyone who murders in this world. This is an established Islamic fact.
Likewise, in a pure super ultra authentic hadeeth, I thinks it is qudsi as well, it states that
"whoever initiates a good and others perform it, then he receives the reward for his good and all those who practiced that good, and whoever initiates evil, then he gets the reward of that evil along with everyone who performs that evil because of him"

the meaning of "No soul shall bear the burden of another" is that Im not going to pay for something that you directly do yourself, HOWEVER, if I misguide you and you perform evils because of my misguidance, then all of that evil and the reward thereof is likewise going to be directed at me because the evil that you have spread and the reward you acquire from this evil is likewise given to me because I was the source that laid the path for your misguidance and error.

What did Allah do to Adam.

Adam was in jannah, so was Eve. They were in paradise, and because of their sin, they were thrown down here on this earth. So now, we have to bear the brunt of being on this earth because of the sin that Adam has performed.

As for the Hadeeth in Muslim, all it is narrating is that women who came after Eve were likewise inclined to disobedience due to her. The text does not say anything about Eve acquiring all the evil of disobedient women.

And further more, the Quran says both Adam and his wife learned words of forgiveness from Allah and Allah has forgiven them

of course. Had the hadeeth narrated that they were not forgiven, then you would have a valid point. But the hadeeth does not saying anything like that. This is why I asserted in my first reply that most of the arguments stating that a hadeeth contradicts qur'an, are arguments that are not direct contradictions in the qur'an, but rather give a different perception, and in the world of logic and reason, a different perception does not equate to an utter contradiction, because all that means is that there is additional information in one source that the other source did not provide.

And the issue is finished. And to hold Eve responsible for all the women in the world for being “unfaithful to their husband”, I do not know why Muslim thought it is a genuine hadith (report).

because while the hadeeth may appear to hold her responsible for initiating the action, it never stated that she will pay for the sins of other womans disobedience.

He ought to have rejected this report even without checking any chain of narrators.

there was no need to because the texts does not openly defy the Qur'an. That is merely your faulty perception of the two and an incorrect methodology of contrasting.

It is said that Muslim only accepted around 4000 Hadiths out of some 300,000 hadiths he came across. He should have included the above hadith in the rejected 97% of the Hadiths.

thats fine that you have that opinion, but there is no academic validity to perform this action which is why it was not performed. had the reality been according to what you claim, Muslim would have been the first one to have performed what you would have wished for him to perform. I would especially hold that true, since Muslim is much more understanding of the Qur'an itself more so than you and me combined.

Brother, will you say it as “intellectual defunctness” (I borrow your words) to consider the above hadith as contradicting with Quran.

yes, because there is a lack of contemplative intuitiveness on the part of those who posit such arguments.

In the presentation brother yasir Qadhi addressed only the issue of “prostration” of sun, and actually it is not where I find the contradiction. However, even when Allah says; “To Allah prostrate all things that are in the skies and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees.” [Surah Hajj: 18], here the prostration mentioned in the Quran is a continuous one, all of which submit to Allah all the time. The contradiction in not whether sun prostrates or not. The hadith narrates as if the sun travels and goes down in relation to earth which was the common belief of the people during that time. (even in the modern world a person who has no science knowledge might think in this way looking at the sun). The narrative of sun travels and goes down and gets permission again to rise has no relevance considering our present knowledge of science, may be it has relevance for the common people in those times, who had limitted science knowledge.

even this clarification you brought is problematic because you have failed to grasp that the Quranic narrative is vague (they call it amm in tafseer and fiqh) which means it is unspecified. Whereas the Hadeeth, it merely expands on the "HOW" this prostration takes place whereas the Qur'an did not mention the how.

And in reason and formal logic, when one source is silent on a how, and another source remarks on a how, does not equate or entail a contradiction in no stretch of anyone's imagination between both of these sources.

Moreover, in this hadith it is mentioned that this is the interpretation for verse 36:38. Actually the meaning and the interpretation of this verse is clear for us without this hadith and this hadith only creates confusion to its interpretations.

it has not created any confusion for the trillions of muslims that existed before nor is it a confusion for the hundreds of millions of muslims in current times. So it is either
1. they are all too stupid to identify the contradiction that you miraculously were able to identify or
2. you have simply misunderstood the entire context of the reports along with the stated implications in the Qur'an


anyways, i hope my reply to your inquiries were more than satisfactory and I hope woul will reflect on my words and be able to see past some of these arguments you brought forth inshallah

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

asalamu alaikum akhee optimist.

al-hamdulillah you have listened to brother Yasir speak on the topic. I have to correct one incorrectly deduced statement of yours. You have claimed that Yasir was pretty much asserting the "infallibility" of each recorded hadeeth. This statement must have been something you have concocted from his speech because this was never explicitly stated in his lecture nor was implied implicitly. Yasir never argued for the infallibility of all hadeeth. Rather, what Yasir was professing is that our methodology of weakening hadeeth has to conform with actual scientific research, and not merely our limited understandings. This is what Yasir was trying to articulate, not that hadeeth are infallible.

Wa alaikumussalam,

You have given me lot of things to learn. Insha Allah I will be posting my comments after reading all and watching also the rest of the videos. But quickly I need to state something for the above comments wherein you said brother yasir did not imply all hadiths as infallible. Let me quote some of the comments by brother Yasir; I few lines...not in the order, need not be exact words spoken by him.

Think, be rational, and be logical…think about the validity of the religion of islam and the message of the prophet and once you come to this conclusion now you submit and now you have islam and it makes no sense you take every single Ayat and single hadith and try to analyze it is logic or not.

If there is something which does not appeal to our logic it would only mean that may be our understanding is wrong...............The evil implication to just reject hadith and sunna because it does not make any sense to us will be like we reject islam, once you start with one hadith and then you start reject one by one and.............and finally nothing will be in islam. It would also imply that Allah has revealed to us in the quran and the prophet said statements that contradict reason logic and common sense, which can not be true.

Brother you said brother Yasir did not imply all hadiths infallible. But as far as I understand he clearly implies so.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Wa alaikumussalam,

You have given me lot of things to learn. Insha Allah I will be posting my comments after reading all and watching also the rest of the videos. But quickly I need to state something for the above comments wherein you said brother yasir did not imply all hadiths as infallible. Let me quote some of the comments by brother Yasir; I few lines...not in the order, need not be exact words spoken by him.

Think, be rational, and be logical…think about the validity of the religion of islam and the message of the prophet and once you come to this conclusion now you submit and now you have islam and it makes no sense you take every single Ayat and single hadith and try to analyze it is logic or not.

If there is something which does not appeal to our logic it would only mean that may be our understanding is wrong...............The evil implication to just reject hadith and sunna because it does not make any sense to us will be like we reject islam, once you start with one hadith and then you start reject one by one and.............and finally nothing will be in islam. It would also imply that Allah has revealed to us in the quran and the prophet said statements that contradict reason logic and common sense, which can not be true.

Brother you said brother Yasir did not imply all hadiths infallible. But as far as I understand he clearly implies so.

Wassalam

same thing. none of these statements signifies "hadeeth are infallibile" neither explicitly nor implicitly

what Yasir is attacking is the notion of
"to just reject hadith and sunna because it does not make any sense to us" phenomenon.
This is the methodology he is attacking, NOT that a hadeeth is immune from infallibility.

the manner of rejection of hadeeth if it opposes Qur'an is through qualified legal and explanatory acumen of the jurists and Imaams of sunnah, and is not rejected on the basis of assumptive reasoning of common people with the argument "it opposes the Qur'an". This does not fly or carry any weight in an academic discussion of any kind, nor is it of any use in the field of hadeeth.

part of the reason for this academic rejection of such an argument is due to the fact that there is much confusion, even with some learned individuals, between "naskh" (abrogating) and "takhsees" (specification). Even learned individuals fail to understand the nature between an abrogating text and an specified text.

in the world of naskh, naskh entails that two texts are "completely at a clash with each other". This is the reality of what "opposing the Qur'an" means or "contradicts the Qur'an" means in the shariah.
However, in the issues of what the jurists have called "takhsees" i.e. specification, it is when a textual report comes with additional information or information that "seems" to appear differently than another textual report, however it is a specified and detailed account of an event that has been left general by other textual reports. SOme of the scholars have commented that there has been misunderstandings of even scholars in their lack of ability to identify the difference between a naskh and a takhsees, and on that basis failed to understand the entire issue because they thought that this text clashed with some other texts and is therefore false, when in actuality, this text specifies certain realities of that incident that the other text failed to narrate. If scholars themselves fell into this scholastic pithole, what would be the case of average people who don;t hav the legal and interpretative acumen to combine and analysee the textual reports and the Qur'an.

this is one major reason why claiming that "a hadeth contradicts the qur'an" or "some hadeeth contradicts the qur'an" has been generally put off to the side for the most part by the muhaditheen simply because it takes a higher level of analystical approach to determine the accurateness of a report to the qur'an than merely saying "it does not say what the Quran says".


In conclusion what Im trying to say in a nutshell is that a mere difference in the narrative report does not equal a polar opposite of the same event. And the meaning of "contradiction" is to bring two polar opposites for the same ordeal or thing.

a simple hypothetical example of this is like saying
Source A says- Water is blue
Source B says- Water is Grey

that would be a contradiction

However when the same thing is stated that
Source A says- Water is blue
Source B says- the water has turned gray

then this is called "takhsees" and not "contradiction" because Source B is NOT CLAIMING that it is not blue, but it could be that source B is specifying that in a place or time, it turned gray or that something made it turn gray.

I hope this explains the matter to you inshallah

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

This is a perfect example of a lack of understanding the Qur'anic message which is that there has not been a soul YET who has claimed a contradiction between a textual report in a hadeeth and the Qur'an except that every single time someone has claimed this phenomenon, it has resulted in the exposure of such person's lack of understanding and inability to apply the conglomeration of Islamic thought.

If what you say is true, then why does Cain (the first who murdered) receives the reward of everyone who murders in this world. This is an established Islamic fact.

Likewise, in a pure super ultra authentic hadeeth, I thinks it is qudsi as well, it states that

"whoever initiates a good and others perform it, then he receives the reward for his good and all those who practiced that good, and whoever initiates evil, then he gets the reward of that evil along with everyone who performs that evil because of him"

the meaning of "No soul shall bear the burden of another" is that Im not going to pay for something that you directly do yourself, HOWEVER, if I misguide you and you perform evils because of my misguidance, then all of that evil and the reward thereof is likewise going to be directed at me because the evil that you have spread and the reward you acquire from this evil is likewise given to me because I was the source that laid the path for your misguidance and error.

What did Allah do to Adam.

Adam was in jannah, so was Eve. They were in paradise, and because of their sin, they were thrown down here on this earth. So now, we have to bear the brunt of being on this earth because of the sin that Adam has performed.

As for the Hadeeth in Muslim, all it is narrating is that women who came after Eve were likewise inclined to disobedience due to her. The text does not say anything about Eve acquiring all the evil of disobedient women.

Salam,

As we all know, contrary to popular belief especially among christians, Allah does not hold only Eve as responsible for violating the commands. According to Quran both of them were equally responsible and both Adam and Eve repented for their sins and both of them were forgiven by Allah. Their expulsion from Paradise had a reason of its own. They were to start a whole civilization through their progeny leading to what we see around us today.

This you will find from Quran where Allah mentions what took place between the angels when Allah announced the creation of humans, and from this we see that it was known to Allah and part of His Great and Divine Plan that humans would sin. Allah says:

“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ He (God) said: ‘Indeed I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)

If Eve is responsible for all the women of the world to be unfaithful to their husbands, using the same logic, Adam should be responsible for all the men in the world to be unfaithful to their wives.

In Islam, no person is held accountable for the sin of another. I will refer below the context of double punishment if someone instigates a wrong doing.

The Qur'an states: "Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his own self. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)." (Qur'an 17:15)

“…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…” (Quran 6:164)

“That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Ye shall not be asked about what they did.(2:134)

That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another, And that man will have nothing but what he strives for; And that the result of his striving shall soon be known; Then will he be rewarded for it with the fullest reward; And that with thy Lord is the final judgment; S. 53:38-42

The extra punishment and responsibility for the crimes of others occurs only if the crime or the wrong doing of the people is the resultant of the wrong doing or crime of the person who instigates the same. I can quote for you from Quran

That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. (16:25)

Allah punishes those extra who misled others and who are directly responsible, instigating and encouraging the crimes of others. Adam, Eve, or Cain can not be said to be promoting and instigating the wrong doings of others. They have only violated the commandments of Allah and their violation had nothing to do with someone violating Allah's commandment. No one can come up now with an excuse saying that Adam and Eve inspired me to do the wrong, no one also claim that it is Adam, Eve and Cain who inspired people to do wrong. Allah will not hold Adam and Eve responsible for any wrong doing of others. Such an understanding is completely wrong. Both of them were forgiven by Allah and the issue is completely closed. We can not even in a remotest chance expect our prophet to say it is because of Eve the women in the world unfaithful to their husbands! If it is so, will you say that it is because of Adam men in the world are unfaithful to their wives?

Actually it is not just one contradiction we find in the hadith. The hadith says “Had it not be for the children of Israel, the food would not have gone stale or bad”. Do we expect such a comment from our prophet? Can you tell me, before the children of Israel who was responsible for the food to go stale or bad? Even from the wording of this saying itself it is clear that this is just a concocted saying of some illiterate people forging hadith with 'good intention' to insult Israelis. if you uphold this hadith as true, I do not know how you will be able to counter the Christian arguement of original sin.

the manner of rejection of hadeeth if it opposes Qur'an is through qualified legal and explanatory acumen of the jurists and Imaams of sunnah, and is not rejected on the basis of assumptive reasoning of common people with the argument "it opposes the Qur'an". This does not fly or carry any weight in an academic discussion of any kind, nor is it of any use in the field of hadeeth.

part of the reason for this academic rejection of such an argument is due to the fact that there is much confusion, even with some learned individuals, between "naskh" (abrogating) and "takhsees" (specification). Even learned individuals fail to understand the nature between an abrogating text and an specified text.

in the world of naskh, naskh entails that two texts are "completely at a clash with each other". This is the reality of what "opposing the Qur'an" means or "contradicts the Qur'an" means in the shariah.
However, in the issues of what the jurists have called "takhsees" i.e. specification, it is when a textual report comes with additional information or information that "seems" to appear differently than another textual report, however it is a specified and detailed account of an event that has been left general by other textual reports. Some of the scholars have commented that there has been misunderstandings of even scholars in their lack of ability to identify the difference between a naskh and a takhsees, and on that basis failed to understand the entire issue because they thought that this text clashed with some other texts and is therefore false, when in actuality, this text specifies certain realities of that incident that the other text failed to narrate. If scholars themselves fell into this scholastic pithole, what would be the case of average people who don;t hav the legal and interpretative acumen to combine and analysee the textual reports and the Qur'an.

this is one major reason why claiming that "a hadeth contradicts the qur'an" or "some hadeeth contradicts the qur'an" has been generally put off to the side for the most part by the muhaditheen simply because it takes a higher level of analystical approach to determine the accurateness of a report to the qur'an than merely saying "it does not say what the Quran says".

I appreciate the way you argue. This is is what normally expert Christian people do when we point out apparent contradictions in the Bible. They will tell you, ordinary people can not understand if there is contradiction or not, and ‘it requires higher level of analytical approach to determine the accurateness of a report’. But it is just a fact that NO “qualified legal and explanatory acumen of the jurists and Imaams of sunnah” and NO Body of scholars would dare to touch something which is considered and assumed as something sacred. The assumption is that not even a single Sahih hadith collected by Bukhari could be wrong. Therefore it is meaningless to discuss about naskh and a takhsees. This hadith will not in any way add to my belief and conviction but in fact it is hurting my inner soul. It is just a report collected by Muslim, which should not have included in his authentic collection. Moreover, it is not a divine revelation that we are talking about. It was just a alleged hadith in circulation during his period like many many other reports that Muslim came across.

I accept your reasoning regarding the less number of hadiths included by Bukhari and Muslims. But I hope you will still agree that the majority of hadiths in circulation (even assuming 580,000 could be included in the categories of hadiths that you mentioned out of 600,000 hadiths) while Bukhari collected the hadiths were unreliable.

Wassalam

[salman]

akhee al-habibi boriqee, jazak Allah khayran for this

Originally Posted by optimist

salam,

If I am causing any problems here you may even block me for any further postings. You referred to 'modernist camp'. I am only a muslim and I only fear Allah and I will never ever associate with any camp.

"No human being, even if Allah blessed him with the code of law, administrative powers, and the office of prophethood, has the right to command the people to follow him and not to follow Allah. He can only tell them to follow the Book which they can read, reflect upon and to become the party of Allah." (3:79)

wassalam

wa'alaykum as-salam

brother, you are being very unreasonable and unjust with this comment. If we wanted to block you, we would have done it, we do not need such suggestions from members. The reason I did not want to reply was very well clarified by akhee boriqee.

Secondly, please do not attack me with a straw man. I did not call you a modernist and if I would have seen any hint I would not hesitate to speak the truth because the deen of Allah is clear from what heretics attribute to it and distort it. I simply made a general comment to rest of the brother that did you notice that most of these kinds of arguments come from modernist camp and by no mean it is implying that you are a modernist because I have already clarified your stance in another post - you are confused and lost.

Originally Posted by optimist

It is just a report collected by Muslim, which should not have included in his authentic collection.

it is not just a random report or any other reports. It is the STATEMENT of ALLAH'S MESSENGER (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam). If you say it not the his statement then you need to show that it is not his statement, and not present typical reasoning: "oh X number of hadith were not collected by these Imaams because they deemed them weak" OR "oh this goes against common sense and aql" OR "oh this goes against the Qur'an". These arguments hold no value in the field of knowledge. Are you knowledgeable enough to make your own ijtihad; hence, came up with this understanding which has been alien to Muslim ummah for 14 centuries? Why do people only recently came up with these arguments? Where were they for 14 centuries? If your arguments truly hold then people with your understanding should have been emerged in every century? But why only recently? How dare these people to accuse the Muslim ummah of such heresy!?

Can you please tell us that why did these Imaams included such "forged" ahadith in their books? Or why did people of Sunnah come up with these "frogred" narrations? Please give me some logical and valid evidence other than "they had good intentions". Or are you claiming that they were less knowledgeable than you and could not identify such clear contradictions which a layperson was able to, who appeared after 14 centuries. And for centuries, the Muslim ummah attributed such "forged" ahadith to Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and Islam. You should know that the worst of speech is attributing something Islam and Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam), which they are free from

If we were to use such line of arguments then why do you trust the Qur'an and rest of the ahdith? Did Islam not come through these people!? Were it not the people of Sunnah who preserved it? How do you know that the Islam which came to you is perfectly persevered? Why could these people not have forged it due to their "good intentions"? What evidence do you have?

Do you see what you are left with - doubt about your entire deen and eventually leaving the deen. brother, you do not realize the magnitude of your statements, neither you understand the core reasoning and mythology behind these arguments. You are another Muslim who has been trapped by them.

If you truly want to follow the Qur'an, then follow it completely: the Qur'an says that ask the people of knowledge if you do not have knowledge. And we all certainly do not have knowledge.

and Allah knows best.

I ask Allah Ta'ala that He guides us to haqq and make us die on haqq, ameen

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

akhee al-habibi boriqee, jazak Allah khayran for this

wa'alaykum as-salam

brother, you are being very unreasonable and unjust with this comment. If we wanted to block you, we would have done it, we do not need such suggestions from members. The reason I did not want to reply was very well clarified by akhee boriqee.

Secondly, please do not attack me with a straw man. I did not call you a modernist and if I would have seen any hint I would not hesitate to speak the truth because the deen of Allah is clear from what heretics attribute to it and distort it. I simply made a general comment to rest of the brother that did you notice that most of these kinds of arguments come from modernist camp and by no mean it is implying that you are a modernist because I have already clarified your stance in another post - you are confused and lost.

Salam,

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. You had warned me in a previous post and I thought you do not welcome my post in the forum. When you referred “modernist camp”, I thought you are referring me as a modernist. And to be frank, I happened to read articles from Ahmad Parwez, may be you will call him a modernist. Now I am studying this Hadith and Sunna issue in detail because I need my soul to be convinced about the truth. And I have valid reasons to be on guard. I am still in the learning process. Insha Allah I have to complete this study because it is disturbing my mind all the time. The first incident that made me really shocked about my undersatnding was, a hadith that was so much for me, regarding the last sermon by our prophet, someone send me an article showing that, in the very same collection of Sahih hadiths, this hadith is reported differently. This Hadith has two chains of reporters:

“Jabir ibn Abdullah reported during his farewell sermon the Prophet said, "…I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray. And you would be asked about me (on the Day of Resurrection), (now tell me) what would you say? They (the audience) said: We will bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), discharged (the ministry of Prophethood) and given wise (sincere) counsel. He (the narrator) said: He (the Holy Prophet) then raised his forefinger towards the sky and pointing it at the people (said): "O Allah, be witness. O Allah be witness,"(Muslim, Book 7.2802, 2802A)

The second record of this same event is attributed to Anas ibn Malik (a companion). It records as:

“I have left you two things, so long as you hold tightly to them both, you will never stray – Allah's Holy Qur'an and the Sunna of His Messenger” (Muwatta, 46.3)

Look at another sermon attributed to the prophet in the same context, Hadith No.5920, collected by Muslim:

“Yazid ibn Hayyan reported: I went with Husayn ibn Sabrah and Umar ibn Muslim to Zaid ibn Arqam…………Zyed said: “One day Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) stood up to deliver a sermon at a watering-place known as Khumm, situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him, delivered the sermon, exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose, O people: I am a human being. Perhaps I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord, and I, in response to Allah's call, (shall bid good-bye to you). But I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah, and then said: The second are the members of my household; I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family”.

Every one reporting one incident and now we hear different versions. The first hadith is clear, the prophet is asking us to hold on to Quran only, second hadith says Quran and Hadith and the third Hadith exhorting Muslims to hold on the Qur'an and the members of the Prophet’s family (must be pleasing for Shia people), and it was astonishing for me to see how different hadiths narrate one incident differently, that too, a crucial hadith, wherein, I have been taught from my childhood, the prophet supposedly mentions to hold on the book of Allah and Sunnah.

it is not just a random report or any other reports. It is the STATEMENT of ALLAH'S MESSENGER (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam)

It is not true. It is just a statement attributed to the prophet. When Bukhari rejected vast number of hadiths, did anyone tell him that he is rejecting THE STATEMENT of Allah’s messenger? I am not denying any statement made by the prophet. I am only saying that so and so statement can not be the words of the messenger.

Can you please tell us that why did these Imaams included such "forged" ahadith in their books? Or why did people of Sunnah come up with these "frogred" narrations? Please give me some logical and valid evidence other than "they had good intentions".

I do not know the reason why they included these “forged” hadiths, but I have already given logical evidence from Quran how these hadiths go against the teaching of the Quran. I am not rejecting something prophet has said. I am saying that these words can not be the words of the prophet.

Actually, after coming across some of the hadiths, I am trying to find an answer whether it was even the intention of the prophet to collect the hadiths itself. I am trying to find answer why prophet did not authorize his companions to compile concise records of his hadiths (during his period or within a shorter period of 5 years or so) so that it could be used by all Muslims, all the time, and why this task was postponed to people like Bukhari and Muslim who lived 200-250 years after the death of the prophet.

If we were to use such line of arguments then why do you trust the Qur'an and rest of the ahdith? Did Islam not come through these people!? Were it not the people of Sunnah who preserved it? How do you know that the Islam which came to you is perfectly persevered? Why could these people not have forged it due to their "good intentions"? What evidence do you have?

Allah has undertaken and wowed in the Quran itself to preserve the Quran.

Do you see what you are left with - doubt about your entire deen and eventually leaving the deen. brother, you do not realize the magnitude of your statements, neither you understand the core reasoning and mythology behind these arguments. You are another Muslim who has been trapped by them.

How can I leave Islam and Allah. I will be sincere to Allah till I die and it is my greatest wish to see the whole world ruled by Allah’s laws. I pray to Allah now, with all my heart, at this moment, to destroy me tonight, if I am not sincere to Allah.
Ameen

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

As we all know, contrary to popular belief especially among christians, Allah does not hold only Eve as responsible for violating the commands. According to Quran both of them were equally responsible and both Adam and Eve repented for their sins and both of them were forgiven by Allah. Their expulsion from Paradise had a reason of its own. They were to start a whole civilization through their progeny leading to what we see around us today.

right

This you will find from Quran where Allah mentions what took place between the angels when Allah announced the creation of humans, and from this we see that it was known to Allah and part of His Great and Divine Plan that humans would sin. Allah says:

“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ He (God) said: ‘Indeed I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)

yes, understood

If Eve is responsible for all the women of the world to be unfaithful to their husbands, using the same logic, Adam should be responsible for all the men in the world to be unfaithful to their wives.

2 things
1. That would be true and thus would grant you the ability to have a foundation to stand upon IF Adam was unfaithful to her. There is only one problem. There is nothing narrated in any religion where Adam was unfaithful to her.
2. secondly, the hadeeth stated the unfaithfulness of "the rest of women", and NOT the "unfaithfulness of Eve to her husband", therefore your logic does not apply as well from this angle.
3. and ultimately, we as Muslims have ultimately accepted that Cain shares
in the sin of everyone who murders on the face of this earth. the concept of "No soul shall bear the burdern of others" is telling us that no one is going to pay the price for other peoples sins, BUT it does not mean that people who are responsible for the spread of evil and the practition of evil on account of themselves, will not share in the punishment for enjoining others to evil

It is well accepted in Islam that the soul who initiates a good, will have the reward of everyone who follows in that. So each time a person becomes a Muslim, the Messenger of Allah gets that reward. If we are accepting of this principle in terms of good, how can we logically posit an argument that it does not apply to evil as well. In reality, it applies to evil. If I enjoin others to evil, Im not going to pay FOR others for their evil, BUT I will pay for enjoining others to have evil, of course if I don;t ask for forgiveness and He does not accept it. If He, the Most High accepts it, then that won;t be the case and Allah knows best.

In Islam, no person is held accountable for the sin of another. I will refer below the context of double punishment if someone instigates a wrong doing.

In Islam, no one pays the price of a sin that someone else committed, rather they are punished for being the facilitator of that evil to others. In other words, the initiator will not subtract from the punishment of others who followed him, rather he will get a share of the same punishment for being the facilitator of that evil

The Qur'an states: "Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his own self. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)." (Qur'an 17:15)

the verse is in terms of your "own self". It is not speaking of the consequences of the results. That is because it is not taking into account that whoever brings forth benefit, when others practice such good and uprightness, then he will reap the rewards along with them for being the initiator of that good, and that is ultimately by doing things is ultimately for your own self.

here is another classic case of a Qur'anic ayaah that has revealed something general, and a mass amount of hadeeth that has relayed other meanings.

the ayaah says
"whoever does right, ONLY benefits himself"

yet in many hadeeth, whoever initiates good, he will reap the reward for all those who followed him in that. IS there an apparent contradiction? well, to the average mind, maybe. However, if one knows the aims and objectives of Islam in detail knows that this is not a contraction.

No, I will show you how you loopholed yourself in a contradiction without knowing.

you bring forth the following

“…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…” (Quran 6:164)

“That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Ye shall not be asked about what they did.(2:134)

That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another, And that man will have nothing but what he strives for; And that the result of his striving shall soon be known; Then will he be rewarded for it with the fullest reward; And that with thy Lord is the final judgment; S. 53:38-42

and then you bring this while trying to nullify the most obvious reality with your explanatory comment right before you bring the ayaah

The extra punishment and responsibility for the crimes of others occurs only if the crime or the wrong doing of the people is the resultant of the wrong doing or crime of the person who instigates the same. I can quote for you from Quran

That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. (16:25)

well, there you have it. all discussion has been completed and you have proven my point. and this fact you have stated proving my argument and crumbling yours renders the following as useless in this discussion

Allah punishes those extra who misled others and who are directly responsible, instigating and encouraging the crimes of others. Adam, Eve, or Cain can not be said to be promoting and instigating the wrong doings of others. They have only violated the commandments of Allah and their violation had nothing to do with someone violating Allah's commandment. No one can come up now with an excuse saying that Adam and Eve inspired me to do the wrong, no one also claim that it is Adam, Eve and Cain who inspired people to do wrong. Allah will not hold Adam and Eve responsible for any wrong doing of others. Such an understanding is completely wrong. Both of them were forgiven by Allah and the issue is completely closed. We can not even in a remotest chance expect our prophet to say it is because of Eve the women in the world unfaithful to their husbands! If it is so, will you say that it is because of Adam men in the world are unfaithful to their wives?

introducing evil is NOT limited to the result of physically inspiring others. RATHER, if the concept has been laid down, then that is sufficient in the propagation of good or evil

according to your logic, our becoming Muslim will have absolutely no benefit to Muhammad because he did not inspire us physically to become muslim. All we have are his words. In Islam, the deed that has been laid down and was adopted through vision (eye witness) OR adopted by influence (of any kind, concepts, coming across amterial, etc) is all part of the fruits of that deed.

That is why when the Qadariyyah were the first to innovate the concept that Allah does not know what is going to happen until it actually happens, then anyone who case after them who adopts the same heretical belief, they get the share of that evil because they were the causers who laid the foundation of for the "concept". It does not have to be a direct physical enjoining, rather it can be something metaphysical as well.

Actually it is not just one contradiction we find in the hadith. The hadith says “Had it not be for the children of Israel, the food would not have gone stale or bad”. Do we expect such a comment from our prophet? Can you tell me, before the children of Israel who was responsible for the food to go stale or bad? Even from the wording of this saying itself it is clear that this is just a concocted saying of some illiterate people forging hadith with 'good intention' to insult Israelis. if you uphold this hadith as true, I do not know how you will be able to counter the Christian arguement of original sin.

I will tell you how.
when I was a christian, i was taught that in terms of original sin, we are all damned to destruction on account of their deed. in other words, WE ARE ALL SINFUL for their sin. That is the reason why its called "original sin". the fallacy of original sin is that WE are paying the price as well for their sin, and that Jesus, through atonement, will take away our sin of being sinful because of Adam and Eve, and transfer that sin onto Jesus without any due right except on the mere basis of accepting him as "lord jesus and savior"

That, is fundamentally different than the textual report by Muslim, because the christian doctrine of original sin is a flipped version of this hadeeth with absolutely no basis WHILE the hadeeth of Muslim is a correct and upright position of the matter with an Islamic, solid, and logical basis whcih is supported in the ayaah you quoted which deserves to be stated again

That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.

I appreciate the way you argue. This is is what normally expert Christian people do when we point out apparent contradictions in the Bible.

uh, yes, but when they do it, they pull a scape goat. when it is done in Islam, there is a valid basis for it. The gist of this basis is that with christian theology, contradictions in their doctrine are understood as "polar opposites". In other words they have texts that completely defy the other of the same issue or thing. that is in reality what a contradiction is. In terms of Islam, there is no textual report that is a polar opposite of a qur'anic ayah. In the whole world of hadeeth, I slightly remember coming across one or two narrations whom qualified muhaditheen have deemed that the text is actually against the Qur'an. So we are not negating that a particular hadeeth report CAN"T go against the Qur'an, we are just saying that in order for such a determination to take place, it has to be done on the basis of a qualified academic deciphering of the matter. It is not performed on the basis that someone sees something and his mind assess that it is different than what he read elsewhere in the Qur'an. That, holds no weight in any academic discussion on the planet.

They will tell you, ordinary people can not understand if there is contradiction or not, and ‘it requires higher level of analytical approach to determine the accurateness of a report’. But it is just a fact that NO “qualified legal and explanatory acumen of the jurists and Imaams of sunnah” and NO Body of scholars would dare to touch something which is considered and assumed as something sacred.

yeah, for them, but not for us. We actually have scholars who wrote books of "madu'aat" (fabricated) reports and exposed hadeeth to be against the Qur'an. WIth us, there is a system, with them, there is no system

The assumption is that not even a single Sahih hadith collected by Bukhari could be wrong.

well, as I told you before, there are two scholastic opinions on this
1. that all hadeth in bukharee are saheeh
2. that there are a couple of hadeeth that are not saheeh.

the reason why Bukharee is deemed as not having a single weak hadeeth in it is because it perfectly passed the stringent rules of hadeeth, ONE of these rules being that they all pass to be in congruency with the Qur'an. Had a single hadeeth revealed an open contradiction to the Qur'an, it would have been blasted and exposed for what it was centuries before our existence. But since these reports stood up to be true in the face of such scrutiny, then we all understand why it is saheeh. There is not a single report in the whole of Bukharee that completely contradicts or brings forth a polar opposite of the same event mentioned in the Qur'an, at all. The only thing people can bring in the name of "contradiction" are ambiguities of general vs specific outlines and details of a particular event between it and the Qur'an, which does not qualify as a contradiction in the wolrd of academics and ilmu-hadeeth.

Therefore it is meaningless to discuss about naskh and a takhsees.

uh, maybe that could only be stated if you failed to understand the nature of what was being discussed. therefore, I will try to reiterate it again. When a particular text CLASHES/COLLIDES/ becomes the polar opposite of the other, in the Qur'an or between the hadeeth and Qur'an, or vice versa, then the jurists have classified which one abrogates the other. naskh can only happen in "rulings". it does not happen on historical accounts or aqidah, because the source for both hadeeth and Qur'an is the same- Allah. The one who inspired Muhammad to say words or perform actions reported in Hadeeth is the same One who inspired Muhammad to speak His Word in called the Qur'an.

When something appears different between the two concerning history and beliefs, then it is understood that one is the mukhasis of the other, and therefore falls into the category of takhsees and not a category of contradiction

This hadith will not in any way add to my belief and conviction but in fact it is hurting my inner soul.

then that is a problem with your inner soul, not the hadeeth. Islam did not come to submit and correlate with your soul or my soul, or anyone else for that matter, rather your soul is to make istislaam to Islam, hence the meaning and definition of a Muslim.

It is just a report collected by Muslim,

yes, an Imaam whose knowledge of the Qur'an greatly outweighs your own and my own by a thousand times. That is not an offense, that is merely stating a reality. I fail to see that not only him, but the thousands of people who actually utilized their intellects (in many cases far greater than our own modern intellects) have missed this contradiction that you miraculously have been able to somehow actualize.

which should not have included in his authentic collection.

that is your opinion, but not the opinion of he Muslim masses, an opinion that has no merit to it at all.

Moreover, it is not a divine revelation that we are talking about.

authoring a hadeeth book is not a revelation, encoding the message of Muhammad IS revelation. If we want to know the second source of our revelation i.e. the sunnah, we have only one place on earth to get this sunnah from. That is hadeeth. the sunnah of Muhammad cannot be found in a cave, it cannot be found in hindu scriptures, it cannot be found on Mars, it cannot be found anywhere else save in hadeeth books.

It was just a alleged hadith in circulation during his period like many many other reports that Muslim came across.

hadeeth before scrutiny are classed as "alleged". After scrutiny and the test of the most critical criticism that anyone can initiate, it left the world of being "alleged' and entered the world of being "affirmed". Anythign that comes after in terms of acceptance or criticism is useless in the face of this reality.

I accept your reasoning regarding the less number of hadiths included by Bukhari and Muslims. But I hope you will still agree that the majority of hadiths in circulation (even assuming 580,000 could be included in the categories of hadiths that you mentioned out of 600,000 hadiths) while Bukhari collected the hadiths were unreliable.

Wassalam

no, I think you misunderstood me. When I said he knows 600 000 reports, that means that 300 000 or so are not actual hadeeth, but rather they are statements of the companions and their students. Most of the muhaditheen have called them "aathar" among the later generations.

adding to that, of the remaining 300 00 or so, most of them are repetitions of the same things. That is why in the world of actual hadeeth, it is stated that there is comparatively only about 2500 to 3 thousand different hadeeth. That is why if we were to gather ALL the collections of authentic hadeeth from all the books of hadeeth, and we were to eliminate repetitions, it would only come out to about a few thousand, like 3 or 4 thousand hadeeth. All these hundreds of thousands that were memorized include so many repetitious reports AND sayings of the companions and the successors after the companions and therefor are not considered as hadeeth of the messenger of Allah.

a further example of this is that we can take a hadeeth as an example.
'Indeed actions are but by intentions"

there can be another narration with the exact same wording and the exact same narrators, except for one narrator. instead of "amaash" it could have been "nafi". thats it. Therefore, while we come to know regularly that it basically the same hadeeth, because hadeeth science was so stringent and meticulous, it was classed as two different hadeeth or two different narrations.

even if the chain of narrators were all the same, and the whole hadeeth is the same EXCEPT for one word, then both of these become two different hadeeths even though they convey pretty much the same meaning. And this is why it is understandable why they memorized 5, 6, 7 hundred thousand ahadeeth. So it is not as if the prophet literally narrated or acted out a sum total of 600 thousand sayings or events rather a single event has come by many routes and with slightly different wordings.

When Bukhari rejected vast number of hadiths, did anyone tell him that he is rejecting THE STATEMENT of Allah’s messenger? I am not denying any statement made by the prophet. I am only saying that so and so statement can not be the words of the messenger.

this is an incorrect overview and I remember telling you this before. al-Bukharee didn't "reject" 98 percent of his hadeeth, he simply did not put them in there. NOT putting something in does not entail rejection nor does it give rise to an idea that he regarded them as false. There is not a hadeeth scholar at all who assumed that his non application of his hadeeth in the saheeh equals him regarding them as false and weak.

if you by a computer for your wife, does it mean that you rejected all other computers as not being computers. NO, it just means that this particular computer has the specs that you want. Likewise your not going to buy 30 of the same computers except that each one is in another store. If one or 2 computers does the job, then that is all that is needed, not 50 or 100.

thats how you need to look at his matter.


I hope this is more clearer no inshallah

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

I do not know the reason why they included these “forged” hadiths, but I have already given logical evidence from Quran how these hadiths go against the teaching of the Quran. I am not rejecting something prophet has said. I am saying that these words can not be the words of the prophet.

the reason why the included these hadeeth is quite simple. because they are not forged. it is your faulty reasoning that has concluded them to be forged. You have not given us logical evidence from the Qur'an as to how these hadeeth go against the teaching of the Qur'an and that was demonstratively revealed when you acknowledged your lack of knowledge of hadeeth and hadeeth science along with demonstrating that the fact that you don't have a thorough foresight of the Qur'an. Had your understanding been more thorough, none of your claims would have existed.
Im not attacking you because none of us knows everything. I don;t know many things, but I know enough on these subjects discussed here.

Actually, after coming across some of the hadiths, I am trying to find an answer whether it was even the intention of the prophet to collect the hadiths itself. I am trying to find answer why prophet did not authorize his companions to compile concise records of his hadiths (during his period or within a shorter period of 5 years or so) so that it could be used by all Muslims, all the time, and why this task was postponed to people like Bukhari and Muslim who lived 200-250 years after the death of the prophet.

that is another common misnomer posited by modernist due to their intention of trying to render the second revelation i.e. the sunnah as "apocryphal" rather than a fundamental source of Islam and its understanding.

the reality is is that there is a hadeeth that the messenger prohibited the companions from writing ONLY for the sole reason that he did not wish for it to be merged with the Qur'an. However later on, this prohibition was lifted when the messenger allowed the companions to write, and that is exactly what they did. there were hundreds of hadeeth books from the companions and the second generation

Haafidh Ibn Katheer says in his Ba'ath al-Hatheeth sharh Ikhtisaar Uloomul-Hadeeth

Indeed it is mentioned in Saheeh Muslim from Abee Sa'eed al-Khudree in marfoo' [2] form, 'Whoever writes from me something other than the Qur’aan, then let him erase it.'

Ibnus Salaah said, 'And from what has been narrated to us about it is that it was disliked by: 'Umar, and Ibn Mas'ood, and Zayd Ibn Thaabit, and Abu Moosaa, and Abu Sa'eed in a group of late comers from the Companions, and the following generation.'

He also said, 'And from what has been reported to us regarding the permissibility of that or doing it: 'Alee, and his son al-Hasan, and Anas, and 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Umar Ibnul 'Aas in a group from amongst the Companions and the following generation.'

I say, that it has been established in the two Saheehs that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, 'Write for Abee Shaah.' And indeed we clarified this topic in the introductions of our first books. And for Allaah is the praise.

Al Bayhaqee and Ibnus Salaah and more than one other than them have said: Perhaps the prohibition of that was for when it was feared that it would get mixed in with the Qur’aan, and then afterwards it was secured from that. And Allaah knows best.

Indeed it was related from the scholars of later times that they agreed upon the permissibility of writing the hadeeths, and this matter is exhaustive, widespread, and well known, without disapproval.

Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir said:

The older Companions differed about the writing of hadeeths. Some of them disliked it because of the hadeeth of Abee Sa'eed al-Khudree, that the Messenger of Allaah said, "Do not write from me anything except the Qur’aan, and whoever writes from me something other than the Qur’aan, then let him erase it." Related by Muslim in his Saheeh, and by Ibn Sa'ad (6/63) from 'Ubaydah as-Salmaanee from the older taabi'een, [3] and verily the times of ignorance were realized after being written and erased. Most of the Companions were upon permitting the writing, and this is the correct statement. And indeed the scholars have answered the hadeeth of Abee Sa'eed with many answers. So some of them state that the hadeeth is mawqoof[4] on him, and this is not good, for verily the hadeeth is authentic. And they have answered with other than this, saying that the prohibition was only for writing the hadeeths with the Qur’aan on one piece of paper, fearing that the two would get mixed up by one who was not knowledgeable about the beginning of Islaam.

And other latecomers answered that the prohibition from that was particular to the one who was reliable in memorizing it. It was feared that he would rely on the writing, but if one is not reliable in memorization, then he should write. Indeed none of these answers are decisive.


The Correct Answer:

The prohibition was abrogated by other hadeeths showing its permissibility.

So indeed Bukhaaree, and Muslim relate that circumstances required Abee Shaah to have something written from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), which he heard in his sermon. This was in the year of the victory over Makkah. So he (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "Write for Abee Shaah."

Abu Daawood, and al-Haakim and other than these two relate from 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Umar Ibnul 'Aas who said, "I said, 'O Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), verily I heard something from you, so can I write it?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'In happiness and anger?' He said, 'Yes, for verily I do not speak in these two except truth.'"

Bukhaaree related from Abee Hurayrah that he said, "No one from among the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had more hadeeths than me, except for 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Umar. Verily he used to write, and I did not write."

Tirmidthee related from Abee Hurayrah that he said, "A man from the Ansaar was sitting with the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). So he heard a hadeeth from him, and it amazed him, but he could not memorize it. So he complained to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). So he (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, 'Use your right hand.' And he signaled with his hand to writing."

These hadeeths, along with the affirmation of this action by the majority of the Companions, and the second generation, then the agreement of the Ummah after that upon it's permissibility - all of this proves that the hadeeth of Abee Sa'eed is abrogated, and that was the beginning of the matter when it was feared that it would distract them from the Qur’aan, and when it was feared that other than the Qur’aan would become mixed up with the Qur’aan. And in the Musnad (no. 7276) and in the Tabaqaat of Ibn Sa'ad (5/209) is what proves that a hadeeth was written for a lame man by them, and he read from it.

And the hadeeth of Abee Shaah came in the last stages of the life of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and like that were the narrations of Abee Hurayrah. And it was in Islaam's later stages that 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Umar used to write, and he (Abu Hurayrah) did not write, proving that 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Umar used to write after Abee Hurayrah came to Islaam. If the hadeeth of Abee Sa'eed of prohibition was after these hadeeths of permission and permissibility, then that would have been known by the Companions with unadulterated faith. Instead, there came the decisive agreement of the whole Ummah after the conclusive proof that the permission of the matter was in later times. It is an agreement affirmed by many recurrent actions from every group from amongst the Ummah after the first period. May Allaah have mercy upon them all.

Indeed Ibnus Salaah said: "Then all that differing ceased, and all the Muslims agreed upon writing that being permissible, and were it not for writing them in the books for the lessons..." And indeed he spoke the truth. May Allaah have mercy upon him.

And from what proves that the writing of hadeeths has preceded from the older times of the Companions is what is found in Tahdheeb (1/470) in the biography of Basheer Ibn Nuhayk. Yahyaa Ibnul Qattaan said: "From Imraan Ibn Hadheer: From Abee Majliz: From Basheer Ibn Nuhayk who said: I came to Abee Hurayrah with my book which I used to write in. So I read to him from it and I said: I heard this from you. He said: Yes." And this text is also related by Tirmidthee (4/396), and by al-Khateeb in al-Kifaayah (no. 283), and Ibn Sa'ad (7/1/no. 162)



Footnotes:

[1] The above is taken from al-Baa'ithul Hatheeth Sharh Ikhtisaar 'Uloomul Hadeeth p. 129-130.

[2] "marfoo'" This comes from the Arabic root word, 'rafa'a', which means: to be raised, or to raise. Marfoo' means something which is raised, in this case - a marfoo' narration is one that stops at a Companion in the chain of narration, but the text is such that none other than the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) could have spoken it. It is used when the Companion does not state that he heard the narration from the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), as is the case here.

[3] "taabi'een" This comes from the Arabic root word, 'taba'a' which means 'to follow.' The singular version of taabi'een is taabi'ee, which is a person from the second generation of Muslims.

[4] "mawqoof" This comes from the Arabic root 'waqafa' which means "suspended", technically - what is attributed to the Companions. It is also used for other than the Companions if restricted, e.g. mawqoof from az-Zuhree.

Some of the scholars have stated that this hadeeth by Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree was not a hadeeth at all; rather it was his own opinion. Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir counters this argument by saying that it is authentic, meaning that it is a statement which could not have been said by other than the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) because it contains instruction about the preservation of Islaam.


I will upload a version of Shaykh ABdul-Ghaffar Hasan Rahmanee for you to further your hadeeth studies from reliable sources

it has been uploaded inshallah

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

2 things
1. That would be true and thus would grant you the ability to have a foundation to stand upon IF Adam was unfaithful to her. There is only one problem. There is nothing narrated in any religion where Adam was unfaithful to her.

Salam,

You have actually just now admitted both Adam and eve were euqally responsible for the wrong doing. And now you uphold Christian belief and claim that it was Eve who was unfaithful and mainly responsible for the wrong! Please stand corrected, both of them were unfaithful against each other. Both of them were equally tempted to disobey Allah. Both of them could have avoided disobeying Allah.

2. secondly, the hadeeth stated the unfaithfulness of "the rest of women", and NOT the "unfaithfulness of Eve to her husband", therefore your logic does not apply as well from this angle.

I did not say "unfaithfulness of Eve to her husband". The hadith says because of Eve all the women in the world tempted to be unfaithful to their husbands. Similarly, because of Adam, all the men in the world should be tempted to be unfaithful to their wifes, since both of them were equally unfaithful against each other and both of them were responsible for the wrong.

3. and ultimately, we as Muslims have ultimately accepted that Cain shares in the sin of everyone who murders on the face of this earth. the concept of "No soul shall bear the burdern of others" is telling us that no one is going to pay the price for other peoples sins, BUT it does not mean that people who are responsible for the spread of evil and the practition of evil on account of themselves, will not share in the punishment for enjoining others to evil

It is your assumption that it is Cain who spread the evil of killing, and for such an hypothesis you will not find any support in the Quran. Are you assuming that if Cain had not killed his brother no one would have killed anyone on earth? It is only that he is the first person who committed murder. Allah commands us do not kill any soul and whether someone violated this command first time or second time will not make any difference. For instance, in the Quran Allah says Do not raise your voice over and above the voice of the prophet and suppose someone violated this for the first time and later someone else also violated and acoording to your logic the first person who violated this order will have some additional punishment for the violation of the people who followed him! You are contradicting all the Quranic verse which prescribes equitable punishment.

Brother you kept my words in BOLD letters to say that I contradicted. You did not understand what I was saying. You have to understand when a good deed gives many fold rewards and when a bad deed will be met with many fold punishments. If a good deed directly or indirectly promotes more good it will be rewarded many folds. For instance, I build a resting place for travellers in a desert land for people to take rest. When any person uses this facility i will be rewarded by Allah. Similarly If i sell narcotic drug to the people and make money out of it, I will get punishment when each every person who uses it. I will be also held responsible if someone buys from me and sell the same again to someone else. Because I am directly responsible for speading this evil. It is in this light of this the following verse should be understood.

That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. (16:25)

It is clear. if I lead someone astray through speech, my writings or any actions I will have the punishment for going astray and also the punishment of the people who were led astray because of me. This statement of Allah shows how just he is, the one who mislead others will get extra punished, because he is also responsible for some of the sins of his followers (who he misled), this is justice. The issue is as simple as that. You can not compare a criminal act done by Cain in this way. You are assuming it is because of Cain murders taking place in the world. You may gather a thousand criminals who commited murder and ask them how many of them had thought about Cain killing his brother when they committed the murder. It is absurdity to hold Cain having a role for all the killings that is happening in this world. Cain has violated the command of Allah and he will be punished for it. Thats all. Why don't you take Adam and Eve here as example and say that they have a share of each and every violation taking place in the world? Is it because it is mentioned in the Quran that they were already forgiven?

I will post answers for your other comments later

wassalam

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

the reality is is that there is a hadeeth that the messenger prohibited the companions from writing ONLY for the sole reason that he did not wish for it to be merged with the Qur'an. However later on, this prohibition was lifted when the messenger allowed the companions to write, and that is exactly what they did. there were hundreds of hadeeth books from the companions and the second generation

Salam,

I acknowledge the recording of narrations that you have quoted. Brother can you explain to me then the following two hadiths;

No.1

Sunan of Abu-Dawood under Hadith No.3640:

Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said: "Zaid ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zaid said: The Apostle of Allah ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he erased it."


Even after the Prophet's death and even very much after the Qur'an had been carefully bound into its proper form, why in the above hadith Zaid is telling Muawiyah the prophet ordered them not to write any of this traditions and whatever written was erased.

No.2


Narrated by Ali, Bukhari Vol. 3, book 30, Hadith no. 94 (Also Hadith 8.747 and 4.397)

"We have nothing except the Book of Allah and this written paper from the Prophet (where-in is written:) Medina is a sanctuary from the 'Air Mountain to such and such a place, and whoever innovates in it an heresy or commits a sin, or gives shelter to such an innovator in it will incur the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted. And the asylum (of protection) granted by any Muslim is to be secured (respected) by all the other Muslims; and whoever betrays a Muslim in this respect incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted, and whoever (freed slave) befriends (take as masters) other than his manumitters without their permission incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted.

Wassalam