more questionable hadiths

Achtung,
I can understand your dilemma regarding some of the ahadith sounding too far-out to digest. As for the idea to re-examine the ahadith to verify their authenticity, this would amount to redundancy since it has already been done in the past. There are two things that I would like to point out. Bukhari and Mulsim were excellent Muhadditheen (hadith compilers) in their own right. They were both pious and knowledgeable. And this is not to say that others weren't, however they were quite extraordinary in some respects. They employed every possible method available in their time to verify the authenticity of ahadith. For instance, Imam Bukhari possessed marvelous retention, so much so that during the hadith lesson he used to sit without a pen and would simply memorize the whole lecture. Once when his classmates tested him, he narrated the entire hadith lesson from start to finish. When they tested him by telling him some ahadith with the wrong chain of narrators, he pointed out all of their mistakes and narrated the hadiths in their perfect form. He himself is quoted as saying that he compiled Bukhari out of more or less 6 hundred thousand ahadith at his disposal. And each time that he would sit to copy a hadith, he took ghusl, and prayed 2 rakaat of nafl salaat and made du'a to Allah to help him with this task. All the scholars of ahadith agree that after the Quran, the most authentic source of information that the muslims have are these two hadith collections. And like you said if they have stood the test of time for so long, imagine how daring it would be for any scholar to even attempt to criticize their authenticity much less question it.

As for the question of ahadith not being used so frequently during the times of the caliphate is not entirely true. Even during the times of prophet (salalaho alaihe wasalam) there was a panel of sahaba who used to answer the questions of general bedouins who came to learn certain masa'il.
Hazrat Aisha (radhi Allah anha) is reported to have narrated many ahadith to the general muslims after the death of prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasalam). Even other numerous sahaba, such as Ibn-e-Masoo'd, Ubay bin Ka'ab were famous for giving hadith lessons to the people after the death of prophet (sallalahi alaihe wasalam). When prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasalam) deputed Ma'az bin Jabal as the governer of Yemen, and asked him how he would dispense justice among the people, he replied by the Book of Allah and the sunnat of prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasalam). Upon being asked that if he did not find anything there, he replied then I would do ijtihaad (deriving the truth under the light of Quran and Sunnah when there are no explicit instructions in either on how to deal with the matter on hand).

Personally, I don't see any hadith as degrading (nauzibillah). As I have mentioned earlier that if something has already been established as a genuine tradition from prophet (salalaho alaihe wasalam) then we should, if possible, try to follow it. If it sounds unreasonable to us, although you may disagree with me here, but we must question our own self in lacking enough wisdom to understand the true meaning of the hadith rather than saying that such a thing cannot be associated with prophet (salalaho alaihe wasalam). On a last note, there is a verse in the Quran in Chapter Nahal, I believe, that mentions the extraordinary healing power of honey. It more or less says that honey has cure for everything in it. Therefore, there is a tradition, and I believe its authentic, that a man came to prophet (salalaho alaihe wasalam) and told him that his brother was suffering from diarhhea. Prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasalam) told him to give honey to his brother. He did so but it only increased his ailment. He came back and once again prophet told him to do the same. Again his ailment grew as a result. And the third time, prophet told him the same and also, more or less that Allah's word is true and your brother's stomach is lying. He went back and quite amazingly the third time it cured him. If you ask a medical doctor that if he would do the same thing as the prophet did, what would be his reply? And the Quran clearly states that honey has cure in it. Therefore, my brother we need to have faith in what Allah and the prophet have said and not question the wisdom of their orders. And Allah knows best.

[This message has been edited by iqadeer (edited September 19, 1999).]

For anyone interested in learning about the subject of hadith, there is an audio site with a lecture in urdu by mufti Taqi Usmani sahib. Mufti sahib has served as a judge in the shariat court of Pakistan, and is a renowned alim throughout the muslim world. He has numerous publications by his name and can be personally reached at Darul-Ulum, Karachi, Pakistan. The address is www.albalagh.net/audio . There is also a tranlation of this in english for those who don’t understand urdu. Jazakum Allah khair.

Iqadeer said:
"Or even during the times of Abu-Bakar (radhi Allah anho) such law should have been imposed against narrating the ahadith (which the history shows was not done)."

Just because a law was passed against something doesn't mean that people will follow the law. The Prophet did not want people to write down his words except for the Quran. The temptation, however, was too great for his followers and they did it anyway. Please see the following Hadith correctly cited by Yaseeny in another thread, which actually prohibits the compilation of Hadith:

Sahih Muslim Book 41(Zuhud), Number 7147:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me - and Hammam said: I think he also said: "deliberately" - he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.

What could be more clear than "don't write anything down from me except for the Quran, and if you have, erase it?" When he says "narrate from me, for there is no harm in it" he must mean "narrate from my revelations of the Quran," since he just said "don't take down anything from me except the Quran." Narrating a falsehood is very dangerous, as you can see from this very Hadith (if you believe in Hadith).

Zara

Iqadeer: "Bukhari and Mulsim were excellent Muhadditheen (hadith compilers) in their own right. They were both pious and knowledgeable."

Their piety is not in question here. What is in question is the authenticity of ** some ** of the hadith (not all, many are in line with the teachings of the Qur'an and obviously authentic). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never instructed his ummah to await for pious men who would come and compile a collection of narrations, attributing them to him and it would be through these collections that Muslims would have to conduct their lives because these men would have the power to know without a doubt the manner in which the Prophet lived his life. The Prophet did indeed leave his example for us to follow - but is it necessarily the same example that we find in these hadith collections - ie are they totally authentic without a doubt? Thats questionable.

Iqadeer wrote: "And like you said if they have stood the test of time for so long, imagine how daring it would be for any scholar to even attempt to criticize their authenticity much less question it."

Bukhari and Muslim utilized their own logical reasoning to sift through hadiths and reject hadiths which seemed skeptical and unreliable. The process they employed is known as ijtehad. Ijtehad is a process which is a given right for all Muslims. In Islam man (and women) can exercise the creative power he/she shares with God. And then unprecedented things may happen. Because, in the words of the Koran, man’s limit is not in the direction of the stars: ‘and verily toward God is thy limit’ (Koran 53/42).

One of the reasons Shia doctrines have been able to progress over the years is because they have openly employed ijtehad - they have mujtahid's well versed in Islam who use ijtehad everyday. Sunni's would rather rely on taqlid - closing the door to a God given right. Hence you have so much diversity in views amongst the Sunni - because while the Quran is unquestionably one, hadiths contradict one another and cause confusion amongst the Ummah.

Iqadeer wrote: "Personally, I don't see any hadith as degrading (nauzibillah)."

I could easily post a few - would you like me to? I'd rather not.

Iqadeer wrote: "As I have mentioned earlier that if something has already been established as a genuine tradition from prophet (salalaho alaihe wasalam) then we should, if possible, try to follow it."

Following the example of great men, especially the Prophet is something worthy of respect. The Prophets though derived everything they know, every piece of knowledge they had about life and living it in an acceptable and righteous path from Allah. Allah sent his message "complete" to various messengers to propagate. For the Muslims this message is incorporated in the pages of the Qur'an - a revelation which is "complete".

  • "And the idolaters say: Had Allah willed, we had not worshipped aught beside Him, we and our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught without (command from) Him. Even so did those before them. Are the messengers charged with aught save plain conveyance of the ** complete message ** ? (QS. 16:35) *

I believe that those who totally reject hadith are out of the fold of Islam. Hadith's are necessary constituents of Islam, they piece together our history and provide a basis for understanding the actions of our Prophet, his companions and wives. However, I also believe Hadith or any writings about the Holy Prophet (PBUH) which are in conflict with the Holy Quran; or which blemish his character; or which censure the heroic lives of his faithful companions; or which contradict facts, are doubtful and therefore cannot be relied upon. Such Hadith should neither be attributed, nor be referred, to the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) or his companions. And I'm not alone in these beliefs. I think this issue we're discussing here is the biggest issue in Islamic discourse today and is getting even more attention. And rightfully so.

Achtung

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness to ** believe in Allah ** , and the ** Last Day and the Angels and the Book and the Messengers ** ; to ** spend of your substance out of love for Him for your kin for orphans for the needy for the wayfarer for those who ask and for the ransom of slaves ** ; to be steadfast in ** prayer and practice regular charity ** ; to ** fulfil the contracts ** which ye have made; and ** to be firm and patient in pain (or suffering) and adversity and throughout all periods of panic ** . Such are the people of truth the Allah-fearing." (2:177)

[This message has been edited by Achtung (edited September 19, 1999).]

Very Good Discussion.

Achtung,

Good discussion points in your previous message. Your thinking is exactly what I have been saying in my previous messages.

I think if we keep blind faithness (if such a word)and emotions aside for a minute, we can easily see how some of these hadiths are so down degrading for the Pious personalities of Islam.

Achtung,
You said that you could post some degrading ahadith. If they are authentic and none of the scholars of ahadith consider them 'weak', by all means do so. I am not challenging you but merely trying to see what you consider as degrading. Perhaps your understanding of degrading might differ from some others.

asalaam o alaykum

Achtung said....>>Bukhari and Muslim utilized their own logical reasoning to sift through hadiths and reject hadiths which seemed skeptical and unreliable. The process they employed is known as ijtehad. Ijtehad is a process which is a given right for all Muslims. In Islam man (and women) can exercise the creative power he/she shares with God. And then unprecedented things may happen. Because, in the words of the Koran, man’s limit is not in the direction of the stars: ‘and verily toward God is thy limit’ (Koran 53/42).<<

While I must confess, that I have more to agree with your post. But Ijtihad or "jurisprudence" is fourth source of Islamic legislation and this is employed where Qura~nic verses and the Sunna makes no provisions, and the unanimous verdict of al-Ijma (the third source of Islamic doctrine) is lacking. This is the most exhaustible source of Law and usualy helps filling in gaps and blanks. How is Ijtihad used in sifting hadith? You will have to explain to me, please.

Achtung.....>>One of the reasons Shia doctrines have been able to progress over the years is because they have openly employed ijtehad - they have mujtahid's well versed in Islam who use ijtehad everyday. Sunni's would rather rely on taqlid - closing the door to a God given right. Hence you have so much diversity in views amongst the Sunni - because while the Quran is unquestionably one, hadiths contradict one another and cause confusion amongst the Ummah.<<

True, Shias do employ more Ijtihad. But so do the Sunnis. As a matter of fact Islamic University in Al-Azhar is everyday issuing framworks for various situations confronting the Umma now a days. The most recent one, was about transvestines having sexual alteration of themselves thru medical means. The jurist rules that such practice is permisable.

Ijtihad has nothing to do with certifying a true hadith or labeling another as dhaeef.

:)

Salam,

Iqadeer: I think that the hadith's that I would find questionable would be considered weak. So I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile to quote some questionable hadith here, than have a response saying - "well those are weak", because I already agree they are weak. The point is, if there exist weak hadith, why not completely nullify them, disempowering them of any damage they could do? I will pull out some hadith, I just have to get a hold of some collections, to ensure I quote properly.

Baykhater wrote: "But Ijtihad or "jurisprudence" is fourth source of Islamic legislation..."

Thanks for pointing that out - I think sometimes I seem to confuse hadith collections for jurisprudence, but I still think there is some merit to what I'm saying. For those who don't know, there are four sources for Islamic legislation and they are utilized in this order - 1) Qur'an, 2) The Sunnah, 3) The Ijma (or community/scholarly consensus), 4) Ijtehad (logical reasoning).

Baykhater: "How is Ijtihad used in sifting hadith? You will have to explain to me, please."

Above we have four sources from which our Islamic legislation and jurisprudence is derived. If the second source is flawed (ie. contains unreliable information or 'weak' information), shouldn't we move to the 3rd or 4th source? Or even better, shouldn't we utilize the third and fourth source to help remove some of the flaws so we have a stronger second source? In the abscence of the Prophet, after his passing, scholars utilized both Ijma (consensus) and ijtehad to piece together a viable Sunnah. Perhaps the terms I used are not the best, but I think you would agree that these compilers of Hadith, used both their intellect to strive for the truth (which can be defined as ijtehad - a word from which we derive Jihad - or striving - using logical reasoning) and ijma (consensus amongst themselves on the reliability of Hadith transmitters). The battle between Ijtehad and Taqlid is a real one in Islamic circles. Taqlid is the reliance on past sources of Islamic jurisprudence. Many Muslims would rather leave the past juristic interpretations in their pristine state, without questioning the fallibility of the jurists themselves.

Baykhater: "True, Shias do employ more Ijtihad. But so do the Sunnis."

But diversity of opinion doesn't allow for such utilization to be known. What some clergy in Egypt may consider lawful, others in Saudi would consider unlawful. This of course is the reason many vote against the use of ijtehad - because the diversity of opinion would become far to great. This is a real challenge - difficult if not impossible to achieve.

Baykhater: :The most recent one, was about transvestines having sexual alteration of themselves thru medical means. The jurist rules that such practice is permisable."

See this is one case which I know would be objected to by other jurists. I personally might even object - I'd like to see the reasoning behind the decision. Interesting - goes to show those who say Islam is not progressive. Actually I think this is even a bit too progressive for my own liking.

Baykhater: "Ijtihad has nothing to do with certifying a true hadith or labeling another as dhaeef."

I agree with you. Thanks for correcting me. I don't know what term to use to describe the almost scientific approach used by Hadith collecters. But whether you want to call it ijtihad or any other word - it would involve a re-examination of the hadith collections and possible reform.

Achtung ;)

PS: I have some crazy virus on my computer which is giving me problems!! I've written this response twice now. Inshallah, this time it goes through fine

Achtung, I will get back to you soon inshaAllah. I am busy for the rest of today and your questions require a detailed response.