> Conditions of a Saheeh Hadeeth

[salman]

^I am not going to explain this to you brother because akh boriqee already clarified that for you and the people of knowledge know the actual reasons unlike those who use them to serve their agendas (i.e., hadith rejectors). Why are you appealing to these traditions? How do you know that these ahadith are sahih and not forged? Because they do not go against the Qur'an? If that is your only criteria then why discard the munkar batil, mudhu', and da'eef ahadith which do not go against the Qur'an!?

Originally Posted by optimist

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.

show me through science of hadith (ilum rijal, tahqeeq and takhrij) that this is attributed to Prophet (sal-allhau 'alayhi wa sallam). No one is going to buy the statement of a laymen whose understanding of these ayaat and thus contradiction between the Qur'an and Sunnah is alien to those who have knowledge. When the people of knowledge rejected munkr and batil ahadith, etc., they did not relay only on the criteria you have specified or holding onto.

Originally Posted by optimist

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

how that is an evidence that Qur'an is preserved? Anyone can write a book and make such a claim! How can you turst it when the same people, who compiled and transmitted the ahadith, transmitted and compiled the Qur'an? Why trust one but reject the other one!?

It is true that Allah Ta'ala has promised that He will guard and preserve this deen. However, it were people of Sunnah who came forward and bite onto this deen with everything they got and preserved it.

I am still waiting for you reply to these:

Originally Posted by salman

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!?

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

I feel bad for you brother; may Allah Ta'ala guide you to haqq and keep us all on haqq. May Allah Ta'ala destroy this progressive modernist cult and all the cults out there, ameen.

PS: I want everyone to know that do not think as if we know nothing about these people, the modernist and hadith rejectors, and where they come from. Many members on this board have had come from many groups before they were allhamdulillah guided to haqq.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

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.

thats fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with the hadeeth of Muslim, particularly, being antithetical (polar opposite/colliding with).

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.

the reasoning that I have found for this hadeeth by Imaam an-Nawawee in his sharh of Saheeh Muslim, although I will attempt to get a better and more accurate conveyance of his speech, however, the line of reasoning is that Eve was the one that lured Adam to the act, and not the other way around. Had Adam lured Eve to the act, then the hadeeth would have openly stated that had it not been for Adam, then all the men of the world would not have .......

so Its not one of both of them equally doing a sin, but more of one luring the other to the sin. They were both equally reprimanded and both were equally punished for it, however, we all can't hide the ultimate fact that Eve lured Adam to the act. Iblees, having full knowledge of human beings due to other reports about him going inside of Adam befroe Allah gave spirit to him, knew full and well how to initiate disobediance within humanity, and he did it from the avenue of Eve, not Adam. Of course IBLESS, will definately have a share in ALL of that and all the sins that occurred on account of his initial temptation to Eve.

It is your assumption that it is Cain who spread the evil of killing

my methodology prevents me from assuming. I don't assume, I "affirm" plain and simple. secondly, no one assumed Cain spread the evil of killing, rather it is stated that Cain gets a share in the punishment of all those who murder because he was the initial causer (meaning he introduced the practice into the world and not that he encouraged others to do it)

and for such an hypothesis you will not find any support in the Quran.

the ayaah that you quoted to me in complete contradistinction with your arguments is ample proof for it.

Are you assuming that if Cain had not killed his brother no one would have killed anyone on earth?

NO. Im sayin that if he did not do it, then whoever would have enacted the deed, would be the one to receive a share of all those who commit murder simpy because they would be the one who have introduced the practice of murder to humanity

Likewise, the people of Noah, they introduced "shirk" i.e. polytheism to humanity for the first time, and they will receive a share of all those who committed shirk in this world for introducing the practice. Likewise, the people of Lut, the first fagets of all time, they will receive the share of the punishment for all those who committed this crime against Allah and humanity without diminishing the punishment for those people who subsequently came later and performed the act. WHy, becuase they laid the groundwork for evil.

plain and simple

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.

Yeah, because i you are the first one to initiate a kufr or an oppression that was ultimately non existent in your time, then no doubt about it, you will be the recipient and receive the share of all those who come after you modeling you in the act even if they don't know you or you know them.

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.

that is humorous. if someone violated this rule by being loud, and it forms a trend, then there is no doubt about it, he will receive a share in what they receive without diminishing their own punishment.

this reality has nothing to do with equatable punishment. the opposite of equatable punishment is when someone subtractsfrom the punishment of someone else. BUT YOU, being the recipient of your own deed, if your deed has caused havoc by others performing it, will definately be the recipient of the fruits of your deeds which entails receiving the same as those who followed you in your deed.

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)

that verse is understood in light of your speech along with whoever initiates a crime that was NEVER DONE BEFORE. that is why in Islam, the innovator will reap the punishment of all who follow him over something as simple as inventing the celebration of the prophet's birthday. WHat I was trying to tell you before is that the fruits of the action will be reaped, good or bad, and if the fruit of Eve's luring Adam resulted in other women's disobedience, then the case is closed. Of course Allah forgave them which is why the Hadeeth says nothing about Eve carrying the sins of those who do it, rather it merely states the origin of those who do it - a huge difference.

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.

its applied to every crime whether it be selling drugs, misleading others, or murder, crimes and crimes and when people have found a new way of doing something based on your deed, then make no doubt about it, you will be the sharer of the punishment of all those who do it, no matter what the crime is. Your attempt to separate the crime under different types to affirm one and nullify the same reality for the other is baseless and holds no weight.

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.

that does not matter. When the people of innovation celebrate the birthday of the prophet, they are not thinking about the Fatimid Shi'ite kaafirs in Egypt who initiated this pagan worship, did they? the Answer is no. Does their lack of knowledge concerning the origin of the act as a means to perform it exempt the initiator from the punishment? NO

your argument holds no weight because the consequence of initiating something new lays the groundwork for humanity to build upon that evil REGARDLESS if they know or not about your deed, the fact that it was introduced into the thought of men is enough reason for the implementation of the verse of Allah which you seem bent on applying to one crime to the exclusion of another, without any logical or academic reason for this exclusion.

It is absurdity to hold Cain having a role for all the killings that is happening in this world.

thank you for your concern, but no one said that.

Cain has violated the command of Allah and he will be punished for it.

right. and because his punishment introduced the practice into the mind of humans, then the continual or perpetual implementation of this act will always have its punishment upon the one who does it ALONG WITH the one who introduced 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?

yes, they were already forgiven, which is why your beating a dead horse here because no one here is saying Eve reaping the punishment of the women of the world, thats not what the text says, and therefore it is not what we as Muslims say. You attempt to link that with christian original sin is one of the most awkward non connectional links I have ever seen.

[al-boriqee]

This hadeeth should be understood based on the Arabic language and not the English translation. Therefore, the meaning of the hadeeth goes beyond its apparent wording besides the fact that the translation is incorrect.

To understand the hadeeth, lets see the story of Adam and Hawaa about the tree first.

Imaam an-Nawawi (رحمه الله) says commenting on this hadeeth:
" when the shaytaan decorated the tree in the eyes of Hawa, she went and told Adam about the tree. Then later on, when the shaytaan decorated the tree for Adam and swore by Allah that he is honest and sincere in his advice, they both ate from it."

The meaning of the hadeeth is as stated by Nawawi:
"It means that Hawaa is the mother of the daughters of Adam, therefore her daughters inherited from their mother some of her traits."

Al-Haafidh bin Hajar said:
"The meaning of the "Khyaana of Hawa" is that she accepted what Iblees decorated in her eyes until she was convinced with it, then she started decorating what she thought to be good in his eyes......The Khayanaa here does not refer to unfaithful acts, cheating or betraying but actually since the nafs of Hawa liked eating from the tree therefore she complimented that act to decorate it in his eyes, that was considered a Khyanaa."

This is what we actually see today, when wives or sisters like to do something then they start beautify it in your eyes to get it for them or to convince you with it.

Actually, how many brother wanted to marry and when he wanted to have his wedding the wife insisted on having music or mixed wedding or whatever wrong cultural practices given all excuses and arguing it is the night she always dreamed of and etc etc... (smile)

The Benefit of the Hadeeth
In addition, this hadeeth is actually addressing men rather than women. It is to teach men to be patient with their wives and excuse their mistakes when they are unintentional and rare to happen as mistakes happen and it did happen to their mother; hawaa. Furthermore, it shows women that they need to observe themselves and control themselves in moments when they feel drawn into somthing.


This would seem to be the most reasonable and logical reality of this hadeeth which would explain why Imaam Muslim, with his immense wisdom, placed this hadeeth under the book of "marriage" in the chapter 38: Advice in regards to the Women". If other hadeeth are reviewed in that chapter, it was an encouragement and offers exceptional insight for the men to be easy and forbearing on their women spouses. Lets take a glance at these Hadeeth in this chapter in Saheeh Muslim

Book 008, Number 3467:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Woman has been created from a rib and will in no way be straightened for you; so if you wish to benefit by her, benefit by her while crookedness remains in her. And if you attempt to straighten her, you will break her, and breaking her is divorcing her.

Book 008, Number 3468:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women.

Book 008, Number 3469:

Ab Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A believing man should not hate a believing woman; if he dislikes one of her characteristics, he will be pleased with another.

So there we have it. this hadeeth has nothing to do with the "intellectual deduction" that our brother optimist deduced for himself while reading the hadeeth

that is why there is a principle among the hadeeth scholars which states that
"the hadeeths by themselves is a path that leads one to go astray"

the meaning used by the scholars of hadeeth on this important principle is that when average people read such reports, because they have no academic usool that they follow, the hadeeth will lead them astray since reading the material will not land the person to arrive at the intended meaning of the reports, rather he will have to solely rely on his own reasoning, and the reasoning of man, as usual, is weak.

I would also encourage others as a footnote in order not to fall into this trap, which is that whenever you wish to synchronize your understanding of a hadeeth more correctly, always look up under what book, and specifically what chapter such a hadeeth is placed under. Doing this act alone will save you from embarrassment and will ultimately expand the scope of your reasoning and as well help you apply a specific hadeeth in a more proper manner.

That is how the hadeeth is viewed which is why it is an oppression against yourselves and against Islam when we utilize english or any other language in the interpretative realm of hadeeth.

the discussion is over

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

that verse is understood in light of your speech along with whoever initiates a crime that was NEVER DONE BEFORE. that is why in Islam, the innovator will reap the punishment of all who follow him over something as simple as inventing the celebration of the prophet's birthday. WHat I was trying to tell you before is that the fruits of the action will be reaped, good or bad, and if the fruit of Eve's luring Adam resulted in other women's disobedience, then the case is closed. Of course Allah forgave them which is why the Hadeeth says nothing about Eve carrying the sins of those who do it, rather it merely states the origin of those who do it - a huge difference.

Salam,

I appreciate the way you argue. Actually this Cain issue is not the subject matter in our original discussion. And the hadith in question has nothing to do with Cain and his actions, rather the hadith is specific about Eve and her sin and the effect of her sin on all the women in the world. There is a story of a boy when asked to write a paragraph about Cow, the boy tied the cow to a coconut tree first and then started discussing about coconut tree. I believe that it is not fair to say Cain as “innovator” of killing and therefore a share in all the subsequent killings. According to Quran, it was known to Cain that killing is a criminal offense. His brother Adil had given sufficient warning to Cain and even pleaded him not to commit any such crime.

“Even if thou lay thy hand on me to slay me, I shall not lay my hand on thee to slay thee: behold, I fear God, the Sustainer of all the worlds.”(5:28)

“thou would be destined for the fire, since that is the requital of evildoers!"(5:29)

Cain was not 'innovating' any crime here. He was just doing a criminal act known and specifically classified as a crime. There is a difference between someone innovating a new crime and people imitating the same and some one doing a crime already known and classified a crime. The Quran says;

“Those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards”

How can we say that the person who first did the offense mentioned in the above verse after the revelation of this verse will share all the subsequent violation of the people till the end of the world? I hope you are able to understand the difference I am pointing out. Don’t just ignore what I am saying as rubbish. The thing is that you are only highlighting that the first doer of any crime will share the subsequent crimes. I am saying yes, only if he innovates a crime/wrong doing/ belief/wrong custom which is already not known and others start to follow him. If the crime/wrong doing is already known to all as a crime and punishments are prescribed, the first doer can not be classified as an innovator of the crime. Anyhow, I will study this issue in detail.

Thank you for your comments

Brother salman, I will post my comments for the question, Insha Allah.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

okay akhee optimist

I will end the discussion here. your right, the cain issue has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand, which is mainly hadeth against qur'an, which you have utilized specifically a hadeeth of Muslim to be against the Qur'an, According to the information that was provided above, everything was put in its proper place and the hadeth can be benefitd from and it further shows that merely reading hadeeth on your own personal basis is destruction. It turned out that the hadeeth has nothing to do with your deductional clause before, and it turns out that it was properly put in a reasonable chapter in the saheeh of Muslim i.e. the chapter of advice regarding women. Menaing it was an advise for men to be easy and merciful to them.

at any rate, Im not going to continue the cain issue. However, I will leav one final proof for the validity of what Im talking about and the invalidity of what your talking about since the ayaa you brought is not really the essence of what Im talking about

I want you to listen to this video

YouTube - AlJazeeraEnglish's Channel

Now, here is the issue

some criminal somehow decided in his mind to pour acid on a women who did not consent to have sex with him. whoever this criminal is, because he was the first to do what nobody before has ever done, now, it has become a widespread phenomenon which is that each time a man tries to have sexual relations with a women, they are inspired to perform this act because the first criminal laid the groundwork i.e. brought forth the concept into human society, all thanks to this criminal (whoever he is) who initiated the act.

do you get my drift now. this should be sufficient to explain what Im talking about

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

I want you to listen to this video

YouTube - AlJazeeraEnglish's Channel

Now, here is the issue

some criminal somehow decided in his mind to pour acid on a women who did not consent to have sex with him. whoever this criminal is, because he was the first to do what nobody before has ever done, now, it has become a widespread phenomenon which is that each time a man tries to have sexual relations with a women, they are inspired to perform this act because the first criminal laid the groundwork i.e. brought forth the concept into human society, all thanks to this criminal (whoever he is) who initiated the act.

do you get my drift now. this should be sufficient to explain what Im talking about

Salam,

I watched this video...oh..so terrible! The perpetrators fo such crimes should be caught and either killed or cut off their hands and feet on alternate sides for spreading 'mischief on the land' (5:33). The main problem is that the criminals are not adequately punished for such henious crimes as mentioned in the video itself.

I understand the point you are trying to prove (smile). As you know, here there is an element of 'innovation' of a crime. I agree with you if you are telling me thatif someone uses an innovative method in a crime and if others start to follow him, then the innovator of this crime will have a share in the subsequent crimes (but only if we can link the original innovator directly or indirectly to the subsequent crimes. It could be possible that a subsequent criminal was not at all aware about anyone using the method before, in that case the originator can not be held responsible).

Now I have to go back to Cain again! lol I will tell you the area where we differ. You will get this point from following question.

Assume that a person innovated an acid that could kill someone instantly and he used the same to kill someone. And later other criminals learned from this innovator (directly or indirectly) and started using the same method in killings. Now my question. Who will have a share in the subsequent killings? is it Cain or the first Acid attacker? Is it both Cain and the first Acid attacker. According to me, only the first Acid attacker will have a share in the subsequent killings.

Wassalam