Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The Authenticity Of The Saheehain

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes... it should be no surprise my comprehension skills are poor when it comes to long posts with "big" words :blush:

from what I can understand, are your intentions revolving around exonerating these two scholars?

*Looks up exonerate*

Yes, that is one of my intentions. Another one of my intentions is to point out that Shia scholars themselves have collected authentic hadiths and referred to them as authentic as well, so, attacking Bukhari and Muslim is pretty hypocritical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Looks up exonerate*

Yes, that is one of my intentions. Another one of my intentions is to point out that Shia scholars themselves have collected authentic hadiths and referred to them as authentic as well, so, attacking Bukhari and Muslim is pretty hypocritical.

I don't think many will disagree when I say this but... isn't the "attack" more pronounced from the school of Ahlul Sunnah toward the school of Ahlul Bayt? :o

I mean, sure, we do "attack" Bukhari and Muslim as well as other works of your revered scholars, but isn't this kind of... unnecessary, so to speak?

But I do agree on one thing with you. Assuming our own scholars to have authored works that are free of error and then looking to attack another school of thought for their scholars' dubious authenticity is indeed hypocritical.

(wasalam)

Edited by Legio Invicta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Mate,

Just be glad you're not dealing with folks who go around claiming all of the "Sittah" are Sahih lol.

In anycase, we deal with Salafis who quote Bihar al Anwar and Hayat al Quloob of Majlisi as if they are sahih against us, so just get used to it, some folks are honest, others aren't.

Secondly vis a vis- Sahih al Kafi, and also there is Sahih Man La Yadhuruhu (Picked it up recently) could you enlighten me as to what the criteria used are? Certainly is not isnad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In anycase, we deal with Salafis who quote Bihar al Anwar and Hayat al Quloob of Majlisi as if they are sahih against us, so just get used to it, some folks are honest, others aren't.

Hahah, they just do that because they have such a hard time finding authentic Shia hadiths to stick against you guys in general. =)

Secondly vis a vis- Sahih al Kafi, and also there is Sahih Man La Yadhuruhu (Picked it up recently) could you enlighten me as to what the criteria used are? Certainly is not isnad.

Mind = Blown.

I'd like details regarding that one too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

a and b. Not that I am aware of. However, you can find hadiths that condemn homosexuals caught in the act and that they should be killed according to the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh)

In which book you can find the hadiths. This thread is about sahihain and the methodology used by sahihain and not any other book. Homosexuality is a big issue in Islam and the figh of Islam. Don't tell me in the sahihain and the methodology of sahihain homosexuality is not covered.

The biggest part of the figh is left out. Where as things like how to brush the donkey's teeth and how to wipe the fanny of a horse is covered in great detail.

Of course, one the reasons could be according to rasool Allah Mohammad (saws), the illegitimate children and homosexuals will hate Imam Ali (as)

a. You need to realize that much of what is related by the Sahaba has to do with convenience. If you are aware that Khadijah died before the Prophet (pbuh), then wouldn't it make more sense for the companions to get their hadiths directly from the Prophet (pbuh) than Khadijah? As for Ali, his hadiths were narrated in abundance as well. Fatima died only slightly after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), which is why she doesn't have many hadiths either. This is true for both Sunnis and Shias.

I am not surprised that you gave the typical wahhabi/safalfi answer, and I was expecting this from you.

Were Aisha and the Father of Cats alive when the sahihain were compiled!

The sunnah of Mohammad (saws) was narrated by the sahabas. It is immaterial when and which sahabas died, it is material which sahabas narration were accepted by the sahihain. Neither the Father of Cats nor Aisha were with rasool Allah Mohammad (saws), when he narrated his sunnah to Bibi Khadijah, Bibi Fatima and Imam Ali. Aisha was nowhere in this scenario nor was Father of Cats.

You don't seem to realize that the nabuwat of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) was not only last the ten years of his life, but his nabuwat was whole his life. Thus, his sunnah was whole his life or at least for 23 years of his life.

Again the above doesn't speak well of sahihain and the methodology of the sahihain.

b. No there is no prejudice against Khadijah by the authors of the Saheehain. You can find a bunch of hadiths praising her in Saheeh Al-Bukhari under the chapter called Manaqib Al-Ansaar and Muslim under Manaqib Al-Sahaba. You can find the same for Fatima and Ali as well.

Again, the wahhabi/salafi answer taken out of the book!

Proportionally, rasool Allah Mohammad didn't spend very much time with either the Father of Cats, nor with Aisha. She was one of his umpteen wives out of many in his last 10 years of his life. A very minor wive who kept on scheming and conniving on a regular basis against him. In this last 10 years of his life he fought more than 12 battles and so he didn't have very much time for her.

However, more than 40% of the hadiths in the sahihain are from both of them. Add to the hadiths of Mohammad ibn Omar, it reaches more than 60%. Doesn't say very much for the sahihain nor the methodology used by the sahihain.

a. I haven't look at all her hadiths in specific, but this argument can be turned around. Most of the hadiths that praise Ali are narrated by him as well. Hadith Al-Manzila, Madeenatul ilm, etc, we could make a list to see who quotes hadiths in which they praise themselves more often. However, this doesn't mean that we reject Ali because he narrates hadiths that speak of his status, and we don't.

Count the hadiths in the sahihain and see how many hadiths in the sahihain in which Aisha is singing her songs. These songs are not only singing her praises, but they are on the expense of her father, rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) and other sahabas.

Demeaning rasool Allah, her father, other sahabas to make herself look good!

b. What about Surah 66?

Sura 66 calls her lair. How can the sahihain accepts hadiths from such a person. Again, doesn't speak highly about the methodology of the sahihain.

Also, sahih Bukhari claims that the Father of Cats is a liar, when he is pressed that is this hadith from rasool Allah, he answers no, this hadith is from me.

How many hadiths were from him for which he was not pressed?

Or, when he claims that he has hadiths in his one pocket which will please others and hadiths in the other pocket which will kill him.

Again, a lair whose hadiths compromise more than 20% of the hadiths in sahih Bukhari.

c. I'm not familiar with these arguments. Please elaborate.

I am pretty sure that you are very good with sahihain. Go ahead and open a thread in which you can quote all the hadiths narrated by Aisha, where she mentions this and this Quranic is about her.

You will see how contradictory these hadiths are to each other.

Again, it goes against the methodology of sahihain, where contradictory hadiths are classified as sahih.

Please don't tell me al-Kafi is so and so, as this thread is not about al-Kafi but about sahihain.

Please don't make comparison!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ aladdin:

Thank you for completely demotivating me and causing me to lose any hope in a meaningful discussion.

LOL!

Under the circumstances, you might as well forget the thread about Father of Cats and his so called hadiths! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ aladdin:

Today is a new day. I'm going to start off by responding to your desperate rebuttals.

In response to Question 1a+b, I've pointed out that the condemnation of homosexuality can be found in other books. In response you say the following:

In which book you can find the hadiths.

I would have responded with Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and Musnad Ahmad. However, you aren't interested in the answers. If you were, you wouldn't have said this:

This thread is about sahihain and the methodology used by sahihain and not any other book.

By this, you are implying that you will not accept any answer except if it is from the Saheehain. This is a ridiculous position to hold, because Sunni texts extend beyond the Saheehain and the authors didn't intend to collect ALL the authentic hadiths.

The biggest part of the figh is left out.

Homosexuality isn't the biggest part of fiqh. It only is that important to you because it cannot be found in the Saheehain.

In response to 2a, I've said that the death of Khadijah was pretty early, even before the Prophet (pbuh). Decades and decades before A'isha and Abu Hurairah. In response you've responded with junk like:

I am not surprised that you gave the typical wahhabi/safalfi answer, and I was expecting this from you.

Were Aisha and the Father of Cats alive when the sahihain were compiled!

It is immaterial when and which sahabas died

...and:

Neither the Father of Cats nor Aisha were with rasool Allah Mohammad (saws), when he narrated his sunnah to Bibi Khadijah, Bibi Fatima and Imam Ali. Aisha was nowhere in this scenario nor was Father of Cats.

Well, as you know, the tabi'een are the people responsible for transmitting the hadith of the Sahaba. Now, I ask you this... how many tabi'een met Khadijah? Subhanallah. You know the answers to these questions, but you are so desperate to "win" that you ask stupid questions and make retarded arguments in an attempt to force me to quit.

Again the above doesn't speak well of sahihain and the methodology of the sahihain.

Actually, the above has nothing to do with the methodology of the Saheehain in specific, but with all books of hadith in general. Please quote Shia hadiths in which Khadijah is often quoted without responding with the obligatory, "Durr... This thread is about Saheehain!"

In 2b about A'isha, you said:

She was one of his umpteen wives out of many in his last 10 years of his life.

This is an ignorant statement made by you because you are unaware that most of fiqh was revealed during the Prophet's (pbuh) time in Madinah.

In this last 10 years of his life he fought more than 12 battles and so he didn't have very much time for her.

You are saying this as if each of his battles lasted months, when in reality most of them only lasted a few days. Plus, you are unaware that A'isha accompanied the Prophet (pbuh) in some of his battles, Uhud currently comes to mind.

However, more than 40% of the hadiths in the sahihain are from both of them. Add to the hadiths of Mohammad ibn Omar, it reaches more than 60%. Doesn't say very much for the sahihain nor the methodology used by the sahihain.

Actually, it doesn't say much regarding your competence with the names of narrators.

Then you go on to regurgitate the rest of what you have posted without responding to any of my arguments in hope that other readers assume that what you have stated the second time around is new. Finally, you respond with the obligatory:

Please don't tell me al-Kafi is so and so, as this thread is not about al-Kafi but about sahihain.

Please don't make comparison!

You don't seem to be familiar with your own hypocracy here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Mabrook for a new day. I will not reply you, if I did we will be going into circles. However, I will leave it to the readers of this thread to make their own judgment.

However, how silly is your below comment where you are equating the sahihain to the Holy Quran (astafgurAllah).

According to who's sense? Yours? Mine? This makes things very relative, which is why hadith scholars don't use their own "common sense" to determine the reliability of a hadith. Sure, they do consider a hadith wrong if the hadith contradicts the Qur'an or a Saheeh hadith, if both cannot be reconciled. Similarily, they reject a hadith if it is "impossible". However, most of what you find "impossible" are in reality only "very not likely", which is quite different than "impossible".

According to whose sense, the sense of Bukhari and Muslim?

Their sense doesn't make it relative?

According to the whose common sense, the the common sense of Bukhari and Muslim?

Their common sense doesn't make it relative?

Your comment: "According to who's sense? Yours? Mine? This makes things very relative, which is why hadith scholars don't use their own "common sense" to determine the reliability of a hadith. Sure, they do consider a hadith wrong if the hadith contradicts the Qur'an or a Saheeh hadith, if both cannot be reconciled".

A hadith scholar has to reconcile the hadith to the Quran or a sahih hadith (astafgurAllah).

Or the hadith scholar has to reconcile his hadith to both (astafgurAllah).

(astafgurAllah).

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

SOME HISTORICAL TRUTHS ABOUT AHADIS OF NON SHIA SCHOLERS

Dear all (Shia's),

Please do not point out any objection over the sahihain or any person how believe on those books because no one would beleive you anymore. The reason is that basically the history has been mixed with islam in their books. it will be an honor if i could explain it in detail. please read it completely and try to understand the reason of this conflict.

If you see the histroy of Islam. it starts from the refusal of Iblees. Iblees took an agreement with Allah that he will misguide the people of Allah from Sirat-al-Mustaqim. Butt Allah also told him that there would be some persons to whom he will not be succeeded to misguide them at all. So Iblees knew it better and he prepared some high level personalities to show themselves briliantly in front of the character of Prophet. And in every period of each Prophet he did so. and the same thing he did with Muslims. But the difference is that every nation related to each Prophet/Messanger kept the history seperated from their relegious beleifs for example if you read any history book written by Christians you will see that the relegion is a seperate thing and the Government is the seperate thing. They do not include the Government's actions or deeds into the religion. But when we see the History books of Muslims we always noticed that every ruler (after the death of Prophet) is the part of Islam. This is the basic confusion which confused the muslims too much that if a muslim wants to know about the hadis of Prophet then the scholers say the first you should see that while saying some particular hadis, what was the mood of Prophet or what was the position of Prophet. Someone says that during describing some particular hadis he was not prophet but he was father. sometimes he was grandfather, sometimes he was a simple man. sometimes he makes his own words so we do not have to believe those words.

The basic belief of a true Muslim should be that the real islam is , What Muhammad (pbuh) did, What Muhammad (pbuh) said, and what Muhammad (pbuh) left for his Umma. Butt know the situation changed (other than Shia's). Muslims believe that the islam is, What companions did, what companions said and what companions left for us. Amazing na.....

The proof: The very first action that was taken right after the death of Muhammad (pbuh) without delaying even an hour was to announce the Khilafat at Saqifah while they were saying that Muhammad (pbuh) did not made anyone as successor after him. This was the second thing which was discovered in islam that if we believe that Muhammad (pbuh) did not appoint anyone then this would be called suuna / Deen, then who authorised the companions to do so, while Quraan says that your Deen has been completed and companions say that Deen is incomplete because the major action was omitted by Prophet (pbuh).

If you want to know that the 1st Khalifa was appointed according to the rules of islam then you should read his first speech. if he said that i am appointed through the islamic rules or by Allah or by Muhammad (pbuh) then accept him and if he said that you made me caliph then this is not islamic anymore. He also said that if i would go on right path then obey me otherwise disobey me or take me to the right path. This sentense shows his ignorance towards islam. But the truth is that he was called Caliph of Muslims. so it should be part of history not Islam. now we must see that if he was the oldest and fastest friend of Muhammad (pbuh) (as it is the belief of non shia's), then there should be thousands of Ahadis narrated by him in sahihain. But if you read Sahihain carefully, you will find only single figure Ahadis in them that are narrated by him. Why?. History told us that right after sitting on the Mimber he asked her daughter Ayesha to bring his pages/skins/stones which were used by him for record of Ahadis which he had heard from Muhammad (pbuh). Those were 500 Ahadis written by Abu bakr. When she brought them, he simply discarded them. when she asked him the reason then he said that " i dont want the muslims to read any wrong word from these ahadis, if i wrongly wrote them from my own sence", Therefore for the sake of the authentication of them i tore them. Now look at his sence, The first and biggest siddique of the world denying his truthfulness. So for the sake of islam new and fake ahadis were discovered through the governers. But unfortunately he did'nt found much time to rule and died but he did so many new things in islam such as : he created the Hadis of Tarka/Waris (Fidak), he created the Hadis of Khilafat (Khilafat will remain upto 30 years)....

I ask one thing from Ahle sunna people that they ask for the return of the period of Khulafa-e-Rashideen because it was the golden and peaceful period of islam, how can they call that period peaceful because 3 of 4 Caliphs were attacked and killed by their own people and fourth one did not find any much time to live otherwise he would also be killed by someone. so all of the period finished through terrorism then how can we call it peaceful period.

As i have described above all of the two caliphs did the same thing during their rule thant inventing new things and discarding the actual Deen. And thanks to our history writters who include each and every action in islam. Now this is the great scenario for us that if Muhammad (pbuh) did something then somtimes he was father, grandfather of a simple man and when Caliph did any thing then that was totally islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

That was the thing that made the history the part of islam. Actually Caliphs were the part of History but Muslim believe them as the part of islam. I asked them that what have they done for islam because islam is "What Muhammad (pbuh) did, What Muhammad (pbuh) said, and what Muhammad (pbuh) left for his Umma, and this thing had only two sources to reach us one was Hadis which was demolished by them and the second was Ahl-e-Bait which was omitted and pushed away by them. and only seven or eight ahadis were narrated through them in sahihain. The biggest narrator was Abu Huraira who came to Madina right after the Khyber war. and he spent only nine months under the shadow of Muhammad (pbuh) and he narrated 3500 ahadis in sahihain. the second biggest narrator was Ayesha who did'nt knew the hadis of Tarka (fidak obligation) after the death of prophet even none of Prophet's wife heard that hadis at that time. and third biggest narrator was Ibn-e-Abbas for whom Molana Shibli Naumani described in his book Alfarooq that he was the youngest narrator so we cannot believe him (becuase he was the only narrator of the Hadis Qirtas-o-Qalam). i ask Mr. Shibli Naumani that when he narrated the hadis of Qirtas-o-Qalam, he was only 12 or 13 years old and you are saying that he was so young that he could not understand the position of the event at that time, then what about the rest of the Ahadis which were narrated by him years ago, because it was the last hadis that he narrated.

Even in the start of Bukhari and Muslim you can read that they seprated only 6000 or 8000 Ahadis from hundreds of thousands ahadis. if you calculate the percentage by neglecting the repetition then you will find out that the total ahadis are0.8% or 1% of the total ahadis which were declared as Zaeef or wrong. Now Bukhari and Muslim committed themselves that the wrong Ahadis were invented so they seperated the true ahadis from them. and if you see the position of so called true ahadis you will see that majority of the sunni Ulama refuses them. Now i ask them that if they have made such status of true ahadis then what will be the status of wrong Ahadis. Now if you see the authentication of bukhari and muslim then check it that the famous hadis of Ghadeer-e-Khum which is narrated by 110 Sahaba / companions and 94 Tabaeen, Bukhar and muslim did'nt find it. Then what will be the status of those ahadis that are narrated by those sahaba/companions who were not available during the speach of Prophet (pbuh).

i have much to talk about them but this is some realities that should be kept in mind while objecting them because they believe each and every action of caliphs as the part of islam and they do not believe each and every action of Prophet (pbuh) as the part of Islam, while Quraan says in Sura Najam. Wa ma yantiqu anil hawa........(My Prophet does not obey his own wishes, what he says is WAHI, not else). Even Umal momineen Ayesha (ratu) said about Muhammad (pbuh) that his character is just like Quran, but muslims do not believe her even.

So stop objecting them they dont know anything about islam because they are the follower of history not islam but you (shia's) are the followeres of Islam through Muhammad o Al-e-Muhammad and Quraan

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Yourshamsi:

There are several flaws with what you have included in your posts. Is there anything in there that you consider a strong argument for which you would like me to comment on?

Even in the start of Bukhari and Muslim you can read that they seprated only 6000 or 8000 Ahadis from hundreds of thousands ahadis.

As you've mentioned those six to eight thousands include repetitions. However, the same should be applied to the hundred of thousands, for they include repetitions as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Oh my innocent Lord Bota, the problem is not this that hundred thousands of ahadis contain the repetition but the problem is that who has created those hundred of thousand wrong ahadis even they contain the repetition (This thing proves that in that period the wrong ahadis were invented) and who gave the authority to Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari to choose the such Ahadis as correct from the rest. Because Muhammad Ismail Bukhari born after centuries of Prophet (pbuh) and so called Khulafa-e-rashideen. How could he justify that this Hadis is Sahih and this one is not. On the other hand we can see that there was a great dispute among Sahabas (Companions) regarding wrong and correct hadis, the proof is that you may read in sahihain that Usman (ratu) refuted Abuzar Ghafari (ratu) due to a conflict on one hadis. Then how would we beleive Bukhari that what he provided us is the most corrective version of Ahadis while he never seen any Sahabi except Jabir bin Abdullah ansari (ratu) who lived long after Muhammad (pbuh). But Mr. Bukhari denied the most of the ahadis from him because he was the lover of Ahl-e-Bait (a.s)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@ Zareen:

Then start making threads attacking him. Then start making threads attacking Shia scholars that have praised his effort. My argument is that you should attack your own scholars before attacking Ahlul Sunnah, since people that are closer to home to you are guilty of doing what you find to be blasphemic.

Even though this was for Zareen, I would like to post my two cents about it. Shi'ite motto today is unity. This is perhaps the reason why the most learned scholars do not choose to revolt against figures like Ayatullah Fadhllah, who is one of the most controversial Shi'ites today. In our books the Prophet (pbuh) asked Imam Ali (as) to maintain unity, after his demise within the Ummah. We continue to do that, and if we start revolting against people in our own sects, we won't be following what my grandfather asked us to do. As long as they don't go against the basics of religion, such as Unity of Allah, Finality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), etc. we are not to 'attack' them. Taliban have gone against what Islam teaches us, protection and safeguard of precious and innocent lives. It is necessary that such people be condemned whenever we get the chance, so that Muslims don't start following them, and start thinking they're the right sect.

Akhbaris haven't gone as far as killing people in the name of Islam. They have done what we can not accept, but they, like you said, can not be kicked out of the Ithna Ashari sect. They believe in the Oneness of Allah, Messengership of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Wilayat of Imam Ali (as) and Imamate of the rest of the 11 Imams (as). This is pretty much the reason why when a bomb is blasted in Pakistan in a Shi;ite gathering, the balme does not automatically goes to Sunnis. Infact, the Shi'ite scholars keep emphasizing that it is not the Sunnis. What good does it do to them, for saying that? It is nothing but unity, following the Commander of the Faithful (as).

Keep yourselves in our place, and do you see them as worth-condemnation as much the Talibans are?

@ Basim:

According to who's sense? Yours? Mine? This makes things very relative, which is why hadith scholars don't use their own "common sense" to determine the reliability of a hadith. Sure, they do consider a hadith wrong if the hadith contradicts the Qur'an or a Saheeh hadith, if both cannot be reconciled. Similarily, they reject a hadith if it is "impossible". However, most of what you find "impossible" are in reality only "very not likely", which is quite different than "impossible".

Tell me, how Ali having wives during the life of the Prophet (pbuh) is not 'impossible'? Tell me how blaming Lady Hawwa (as) for the mischief of all the women that have passed, and are to come, is not insane? Aren't all women responsible for their own actions? Is this just, 'not very likely', or completely 'impossible'?

Tell me how this is possible as per your sense and the sense of all those who transmitted the hadith, the one who recorded the hadith and the one who claim the hadith is authentic, and what's wrong with my sense, that I think it's impossible. Tell me, I won't mind. :) It's too early for me to understand everything, and would love to be corrected by an elder. I hope you don't think I'm mocking you or something.

Also I was wondering, whether there is a reason why Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not leave all the ahadith in their books, and just point out which were authentic, like man of the Shi'a scholars did? Why did they want to completely get rid of the 'inauthentic ahadith'? Sorry if I'm offending anyone, but did they think, that future scholars won't be as smart as them, in the evaluation of matn and isnad? Did they think the inauthentic ahadith were so stupid that they would destroy religion?I'm sure you realise that by doing this, they eliminated any need for future scholars to see why some ahadith which they considered wrong, were actually correct.

Hahahah! But you see, this is exactly my point! Ahlul Sunnah do attack the Taliban. They do write books against them. They condemn them in public every chance they get. Your ignorance regarding the actions of the scholars against the Taliban is your own problem. However, Ithna Asharis do NOT condemn Akhbaris for authenticating the four books, but instead only attack Ahlul Sunnah. I hope I am finally making sense.

Sure, individuals of SC may attack Ahlul Sunnah for praising the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as), however, this does not represent Shi'ite view. Sure some scholars like may condemn the Sunni sect, and their beliefs from the mimbar while delivering sermons and lectures, but again, this does not mean all Shi'ites do the same. Have you ever seen or heard of Ayatullah Sistani (the scholar with the most Muqallids) 'attacking', as you put it, the Ahlul Sunnah? Infact, he always seems to highlight the fact that the Sunnis are our brothers, and not enemies. You don't attack your brothers, do you?

However, perhaps you have mistaken debating or correcting or nahiya anil munkar as attacking. Tell me when you see your brothers going astray, do you not tell them what you think they're doing wrong. Do you not see that Shia Sunni forum exists on SC, not so that Shias get a chance to attack Sunnis or Sunnis get a chance to attack Shias, but so that both of them make an effort to establish brotherhood between two sects, by eliminating differences? May Allah's curse be upon those who try to do the opposite! Shias don't attack the Sunnis, who have quite some differences with us, and you want us to attack the Akhbaris, who have very few aspects that differ?

@ Basim:

Basim, you do realize that you are making takfir of major Akhbari scholars, Al-Bahbudi, and Righteous who holds his dictionary in such a high light?

May Allah forgive me if I have done a sin. However, did you not just ask me in the above quote why we do not attack Akhbaris, and now you warn me of the consequences of doing so? Do try and decide what you want to say. :)

(Sorry for any spelling mistakes... my 'y' key of the keyboard is not working very well)

wa (salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me, how Ali having wives during the life of the Prophet (pbuh) is not 'impossible'?

?!

Tell me how blaming Lady Hawwa (as) for the mischief of all the women that have passed, and are to come, is not insane? Aren't all women responsible for their own actions? Is this just, 'not very likely', or completely 'impossible'?

This has to do with your understanding of the hadith. Where do Sunnis claim that Hawwa is going to be judged for every action committed by women? Where does it say in the hadith that women aren't responsible and only Hawwa is responsible?

Also I was wondering, whether there is a reason why Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not leave all the ahadith in their books, and just point out which were authentic, like man of the Shi'a scholars did? Why did they want to completely get rid of the 'inauthentic ahadith'?

That is because there have been those that have previously done so. The Shaikaan aren't the first two that have collected Sunni hadiths and they wanted to do the following generations a favor.

Sorry if I'm offending anyone, but did they think, that future scholars won't be as smart as them, in the evaluation of matn and isnad?

Uhh... no. What makes you arrive at the conclusion?

Did they think the inauthentic ahadith were so stupid that they would destroy religion?I'm sure you realise that by doing this, they eliminated any need for future scholars to see why some ahadith which they considered wrong, were actually correct.

I've mentioned that they didn't intend to collect all Saheeh hadiths and have left a good chunk out, so no, there was still a lot of work to be done by future generations. If you meant something else then please elaborate.

Shias don't attack the Sunnis, who have quite some differences with us, and you want us to attack the Akhbaris, who have very few aspects that differ?

Fine, your whole paragraph was built upon responding to the term "attacked". It is as if you've never seen a Shia mock Ahlul Sunnah for their views regarding the Saheehain. In any case, let's assume that Shias never attack Sunnis. What they do is criticize them, which is perfectly fine... but they don't criticize their own, that have fallen into the same "hole" of believing in fully authentic works.

May Allah forgive me if I have done a sin. However, did you not just ask me in the above quote why we do not attack Akhbaris, and now you warn me of the consequences of doing so? Do try and decide what you want to say.

Yes, and I appreciate your honesty towards yourself and your views. I wasn't warning you about the consequences of doing so, but I was merely confirming that you felt this way. However your statements seem contradictory. You've mentioned a couple of paragraphs ago that the Sunnis are your brothers. Yet, you've also mentioned that those that accept that a book other than the Qur'an is completely authentic is a kaffir. So, which is it really?

@ Yourshamsi:

Then how would we beleive Bukhari that what he provided us is the most corrective version of Ahadis while he never seen any Sahabi except Jabir bin Abdullah ansari (ratu) who lived long after Muhammad (pbuh). But Mr. Bukhari denied the most of the ahadis from him because he was the lover of Ahl-e-Bait (a.s)

How many hadiths by Jabir bin Abdullah are in Saheeh Al-Bukhari then?

Edited by Lord Botta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

If by objective you mean that the Shaikhain would include fabricated hadiths by Jahmiyah, Qadariya, Jabriya, Nawasib, and Rafidha, then no, they aren't objective.

If by objective you mean that the Shaikhain included hadiths that they believed are indeed authentic, then yes, they are objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If by objective you mean that the Shaikhain would include fabricated hadiths by Jahmiyah, Qadariya, Jabriya, Nawasib, and Rafidha, then no, they aren't objective.

If by objective you mean that the Shaikhain included hadiths that they believed are indeed authentic, then yes, they are objective.

This is no great revelation. The Wahhabis believe that hadiths reported in the sahihain about Aisha age are not sahih.

Isn't this the old Wahhabi technique, when it is convenient for them than the hadiths in the sahihain has some fault.

But, if it is not convenient than sahihain are greater than Quran.

Why call them sahihain, if they don't contain all sahih hadiths. Change the title, as the title is misleading!

Call them hadiths collection by two mere mortals!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

If by objective you mean that the Shaikhain would include fabricated hadiths by Jahmiyah, Qadariya, Jabriya, Nawasib, and Rafidha, then no, they aren't objective.

If by objective you mean that the Shaikhain included hadiths that they believed are indeed authentic, then yes, they are objective.

the beliefs of imam muslim and bukhari is based on furthering the orthodox sunni beliefs, now surely they would not include any hadith that would blemish that ?

just like 12ers wud not include any hadith that wud go against their beliefs in their books.

thats why i dont see how one collection of hadith can by itself be considered the most authentic and historically correct

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
the beliefs of imam muslim and bukhari is based on furthering the orthodox sunni beliefs, now surely they would not include any hadith that would blemish that ?

Uhh... I wouldn't be so sure. You see, I believe that these two men based their beliefs on the authentic hadith, and not the other way around, which is basing their collected hadiths on their beliefs. If it is any consolation, other hadith collectors collected hadiths that do hurt orthodox Sunni beliefs, however, they didn't refer to their texts as Saheeh for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Uhh... I wouldn't be so sure. You see, I believe that these two men based their beliefs on the authentic hadith, and not the other way around, which is basing their collected hadiths on their beliefs. If it is any consolation, other hadith collectors collected hadiths that do hurt orthodox Sunni beliefs, however, they didn't refer to their texts as Saheeh for that matter.

What a silly answer.

Didn't we already go through this that the two biggest narrators hardly spent any time with rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh).

Did you already forget about it!

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Uhh... I wouldn't be so sure. You see, I believe that these two men based their beliefs on the authentic hadith, and not the other way around

thats the right way to do it

, which is basing their collected hadiths on their beliefs. If it is any consolation, other hadith collectors collected hadiths that do hurt orthodox Sunni beliefs, however, they didn't refer to their texts as Saheeh for that matter.

or those hadith were considered weak since they didnt conform to the standards of orthodox sunni views. Bro I hope u dont think i am just arguing just for the sake of it.I will be the first to admit that shias have done the same to their hadiths.

Also can you enlighten us about the way the traditionslists gathered information on the narraters in general e.g either tribal affiliation dates of birth and death etc what primary sources did they use ?

Didn't we already go through this that the two biggest narrators hardly spent any time with rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh).

Did you already forget about it!

bro dont forget that when hadith started being gathered most of the senior sahaba were already dead what remaind were younger companions and tabaeen.Thats why they might not have spent so much time with the prophet but they have got hadith from other senior sahaba who were dead by the time these hadith were recorded.

thats why of the 300 or so badri veterans hardly 25 are sources of many hadith even though they have fought in all battles of the prophet.Last badri Ka'b b amr dies in 55 AH.By that time very few hadith are gathered

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

bro dont forget that when hadith started being gathered most of the senior sahaba were already dead what remaind were younger companions and tabaeen.Thats why they might not have spent so much time with the prophet but they have got hadith from other senior sahaba who were dead by the time these hadith were recorded.

thats why of the 300 or so badri veterans hardly 25 are sources of many hadith even though they have fought in all battles of the prophet.Last badri Ka'b b amr dies in 55 AH.By that time very few hadith are gathered

Were Aisha and the Father of Cats alive when the sahihain were compiled!

The sunnah of Mohammad (saws) was narrated by the sahabas. It is immaterial when and which sahabas died, it is material which sahabas narration were accepted by the sahihain. Neither the Father of Cats nor Aisha were with rasool Allah Mohammad (saws), when he narrated his sunnah to Bibi Khadijah, Bibi Fatima and Imam Ali. Aisha was nowhere in this scenario nor was Father of Cats.

You don't seem to realize that the nabuwat of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) was not only last the ten years of his life, but his nabuwat was whole his life. Thus, his sunnah was whole his life or at least for 23 years of his life.

Again the above doesn't speak well of sahihain and the methodology of the sahihain.

Again, the wahhabi/salafi answer taken out of the book!

Proportionally, rasool Allah Mohammad didn't spend very much time with either the Father of Cats, nor with Aisha. She was one of his umpteen wives out of many in his last 10 years of his life. A very minor wive who kept on scheming and conniving on a regular basis against him. In this last 10 years of his life he fought more than 12 battles and so he didn't have very much time for her.

However, more than 40% of the hadiths in the sahihain are from both of them. Add to the hadiths of Mohammad ibn Omar, it reaches more than 60%. Doesn't say very much for the sahihain nor the methodology used by the sahihain.

Count the hadiths in the sahihain and see how many hadiths in the sahihain in which Aisha is singing her songs. These songs are not only singing her praises, but they are on the expense of her father, rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) and other sahabas.

Demeaning rasool Allah, her father, other sahabas to make herself look good!

Sura 66 calls her lair. How can the sahihain accepts hadiths from such a person. Again, doesn't speak highly about the methodology of the sahihain.

Also, sahih Bukhari claims that the Father of Cats is a liar, when he is pressed that is this hadith from rasool Allah, he answers no, this hadith is from me.

How many hadiths were from him for which he was not pressed?

Or, when he claims that he has hadiths in his one pocket which will please others and hadiths in the other pocket which will kill him.

Again, a lair whose hadiths compromise more than 20% of the hadiths in sahih Bukhari.

Go ahead and open a thread in which you can quote all the hadiths narrated by Aisha, where she mentions this and this Quranic is about her.

You will see how contradictory these hadiths are to each other.

Again, it goes against the methodology of sahihain, where contradictory hadiths are classified as sahih.

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ listen bro ur preaching to the choir i dont have a high opinion of either aisha or abu huraira but i disagree with ur methodology of dismissing them out of hand simply because they spent less time with prophet.

also u will realize that not 100 percent sayings of prophet are recorded with uniformity, because a lot of earlier sahaba were dead by the time muslims had time to start recording hadith

btw who is muhammad b umar ? do u mean abdullah b umar

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ listen bro ur preaching to the choir i dont have a high opinion of either aisha or abu huraira but i disagree with ur methodology of dismissing them out of hand simply because they spent less time with prophet.

also u will realize that not 100 percent sayings of prophet are recorded with uniformity, because a lot of earlier sahaba were dead by the time muslims had time to start recording hadith

btw who is muhammad b umar ? do u mean abdullah b umar

Should be Abduallah bin Omar.

The sahihain has compiled books of sahih hadiths. That means they went through the process rejecting hadiths they considered not sahih.

Did the author of sahihain ask the ahlul bayt the imams (as) who were present to narrate the hadiths from bibi Khadijah (as), bibi Fatima (as), bibi Zainab (as), imam Ali (as), imam Hassan (as), imam Hussain (as)............................... ?

No they didn't.

So, we have the two sahih authors who didn't narrates any hadiths from those who were close to rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh).

So, were they objective?

But they narrated hadiths from liars like Aisha and the Father of Cats.

Can their words be trusted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

or those hadith were considered weak since they didnt conform to the standards of orthodox sunni views.

Not at all. The vast majority of hadiths that are rejected are done so because of isnaad not matn. So, it isn't because they didn't conform to the standards of Sunnis views, but more like that they didn't pass the criteria of Saheeh hadiths.

Bro I hope u dont think i am just arguing just for the sake of it.

The thought never crossed my mind.

Also can you enlighten us about the way the traditionslists gathered information on the narraters in general e.g either tribal affiliation dates of birth and death etc what primary sources did they use ?

It depends. Sometimes, information was second hand, for example the dates of the deaths of the Sahaba were recorded by atba'a al-tabi'een who took this information from the tabi'een. You will find a lot of this mentioned a lot in history books. Of course, some of the tabi'een themselves contributed to recording such information. Mohammed bin Ishaaq and Musa bin Uqba come to mind immediately. At other times, those that recorded the information met or even lived with the narrators.

-------------

By the way, akhi, I don't mind elaborating on any of the points that aladdin mentioned if you would like me to. I'm sure that you are familiar with my reasons for avoiding his rants.

Edited by Lord Botta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

By the way, akhi, I don't mind elaborating on any of the points that aladdin mentioned if you would like me to. I'm sure that you are familiar with my reasons for avoiding his rants.

The authors of sahihain did massive cooking of hadith to please the tyrants in power. If a pedophile khalifa needed to marry a baby, why not cook a hadith that rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) married Aisha when she was six years old. Even though, it is against the tenets of Holy Quran.

Now the world calls rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) a pedophile (astafgurAllah).

It was the same Wahhabis who murdered people if they doubted the sahihain. Now the same Wahhabis are caught with their pants down.

Now, they say that Aisha was seventeen when she married rasool Allah (pbuh) and it was Hisham of Iraq, whose memory was failing.

So, suddenly the sahihain are no longer sahih. If they no longer sahih, then why are they called sahihain?

Beats me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also can you enlighten us about the way the traditionslists gathered information on the narraters in general e.g either tribal affiliation dates of birth and death etc what primary sources did they use ?

Don't know if this will help but this is an excerpt from 'Studies in hadith methodology and literature' of Dr. M. M. Azami.

The prevailing spirit is described in a saying of Yahyâ b. Ma’în (d. 223):

“There are four kinds of people who never became mature in their life; among them is he who writes down hadîth in his own town and never makes a journey for this purpose.”

Thus from the second century to a few centuries later a general requirement of a student of hadîth was to make extensive journeys for learning hadîth. As the early scholars mostly learned under the scholars of their own locality, their criticism was confined to the same locality. But when people began to learn hadîth from hundreds and thousands of Shaikhs throughout the Islamic world, their criticisms were not confined to scholars of one centre but they began to scrutinize scholars and their ahâdîth in general. Due to the extent of these activities, some new centres emerged for this purpose. Let us go back once again to the most famous critics of the second century. Among them were:

Sufyân al-Thaurî of Kûfa, (97-161)

Mâlik b. Anas, of al-Madîna (93-179)

Shu’bah of Wâsit (83-100)

Al-Auzâ’î of Beirut (88-158)

Hammâd b. Salamah, of Basrah (d.167)

Al-Laith b. Sa’d, of Egypt (d. 175)

Ibn ‘Uyayanah of Mecca (107-198)

‘Abdullah b. al-Mubârak of Marw (118-181)

Yahyâ b. Sa’îd al-Qattân, of Basra (d. 198)

Wakî’ b. al-Jarrâh of Kufa (d.196)

‘Abdur Rahmân b. Mahdî of Basra (d. 198) and

Al-Shâfi’î of Egypt (d.204)

But the most famous one out of them were Shu’bah, Yahyâ b. Sa’îd and Ibn Mahdî.20 Shu’ba was the teacher of Yahyâ al-Qattân in this field. The above mentioned scholars in turn produced numerous famous scholars in the field of criticism, but the most gifted ones were:

Yahyâ b. Ma’în of Baghdâd (d.233)

‘Ali b. al-Madînî of Basra (d.234)

Ibn Hanbal of Baghdâd (d.241)

Abû Bakr b. Abû Shaibah of Wâsit (d. 235)

Ishâq b. Râhwaih of Marw (d.238)

‘Ubaidullah b. ‘Umar al-Qawârîrî of Basrah (d.235)

Zuhair b. Harb of Baghdâd (d.234)

Out of these the earlier three were the most distinguished scholars in this field.21

Their most famous students were:

Al-Dhuhalî

Al-Dârimî

Al-Bukhâri

Abu Zur’ah al-Râzî

Abu Hâtim al-Râzî

Muslim b. al-Hajjâj al-Nisâpurî

Ahmad b. Shu’aib.22

20. Ibn Hibbân, ibid.,16 b.

21. Ibn Hibbân, ibid., 17 b.

22. For detail and references of history of criticism, see, Al-Azami, Intro. to Tamyîz, 12-18

(Studies in Hadith methodology and literature, Dr. M. M. Azami, p. 50)

Methodology of Hadith criticism

As far as it concerns the criticism of the text or in other words ‘documents’, there were several methods, but almost all of these methods may be brought under the broad heading of ‘comparison’ or cross question and cross reference. By gathering all the related materials or, say, all the ahâdith concerned, comparing them carefully with each other, one judges the accuracy of the scholars. Ayyûb al-Sakhtiyânî, a Successor, (68-131) says: ‘If you wish to know the mistakes of your teacher, then you ought to sit down with others as well.’²³

Another scholar Ibn al-Mubârak (118-181) says: ‘To reach an authentic statement one needs to compare the words of scholars with each other.’ ²4

Most of the classification of hadîth was done through this method. The scholars applied it from the very early day of Islam.

The method of comparison was practised in many ways. The following are some of them:

1. Comparison between the Ahâdith of different students of one scholar.

2. Comparison between the statements of a single scholar at different times.

3. Comparison between oral recitation and written documents.

4. Comparison between the hadîth and the related text of the Qur’ân.

23. Dârimî, Sunan, 1, 152

24. Khatîb, Jâmi`, 5a.

(Studies in Hadith methodology and literature, Dr. M. M. Azami, p. 52)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ thanks bro for the info, what i am particularly interested in is the sources of biographical information available to traditionalists about specific narraters

e.g

information was second hand, for example the dates of the deaths of the Sahaba were recorded by atba'a al-tabi'een who took this information from the tabi'een. You will find a lot of this mentioned a lot in history books. Of course, some of the tabi'een themselves contributed to recording such information

kinda elaborate on what bro botta said here

e.g hisham ibn kalbi he is a geneologist and his jamarut al nasab is a compedium of names of sahaba tabaeen of iraq especially.Now he is not trustworthy as a narrater himself of hadith relating to ahkam e.g did Prophet fold hands in prayers or not

that i understand. But what about his skills and utilizing his information in biographies of narraters e.g which tribe a specific narrater belinged which city he lived or when he died ...isnt that still a useful part of his work esp since he excelled in that ? his works cannot be dismissed merely as fabrication either since being a iraqi and having access to a lot of tribal information which might be lost to later generations if he didnt preserve it

By the way, akhi, I don't mind elaborating on any of the points that aladdin mentioned if you would like me to. I'm sure that you are familiar with my reasons for avoiding his rants.

thats fine bro no worries

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The authors of sahihain did massive cooking of hadith to please the tyrants in power. If a pedophile khalifa needed to marry a baby, why not cook a hadith that rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) married Aisha when she was six years old. Even though, it is against the tenets of Holy Quran.

bro i am sure a lot of hadith were fabricated amongst the sunnis to please banu ummayya and abbas , but when 12ers gained power esp in iran a lot of hadith were cooked up by baqar majalisi as well dont u think ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Did the author of sahihain ask the ahlul bayt the imams who were present to narrate the hadiths from bibi Khadijah , bibi Fatima , bibi Zainab , imam Ali , imam Hassan , imam Hussain

bro here what ur not getting

with khadija she died so early , few narraters from her alive after prophet her son hind b abihalah died in 37AH ,hasan b ali narrated from him

with ali many narrations in sahih books directly and indirectly from his disciples abu juhayfa , ibn abza , ziyad b mutarrif etc

from fatima i dont know of any i admit

from hasan and hussain they were very young at the time of Prophet's death so they quote from other sources

plus many companions and tabaeen very friendly to ali are notable narraters like abu ayyub jabir b abduallh and abu saeed khudri even then i admit bukhari esp seem to a very orthodox sunni twist and may i say bias to the narrations.A full deconstruction of bukhari's sources though is well beyound my level

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

bro i am sure a lot of hadith were fabricated amongst the sunnis to please banu ummayya and abbas , but when 12ers gained power esp in iran a lot of hadith were cooked up by baqar majalisi as well dont u think ?

This is what differentiate the Shia from Sunni.

The Sunni classified their hadiths in sahihain, and anything which is not in sahihain basically doesn't matter. This gave a very high status to sahihain to the extent it made them equal to the Holy Quran (astafgurullah). Therefore, most hadiths rejected by the sahihain are not considered hadiths at all.

On the contrary, al-Kafi collected numerous hadiths, without classifying them. It is left to each and every ulema to classify for his own work. There are some ulemas who have classified some of the hadiths of al-Kafi as sahih hadiths and even printed books too, but it is still up to other ulemas to accept or reject these hadiths either in its entirety or individual hadiths as not sahih, since not only they have the work of al-Kafi but the works of other ulemas.

One cannot have one's cake and eat it. Either all the hadiths in sahihain are sahih or the title is misleading. And, by rejecting the hadiths of alhul bayt the authors of sahihain lost their objectivity.

I am no expert in the science of hadith nor I am expert in ilum al-rijal. However, common sense tells us that if one of the narrator in the chain of the rijal is known to be liar, than the hadith is rubbish. Especially, from the beginning of the chain, a shahabi who is directly quoting rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh).

The top most narrator is abu Hurariah, who is quoted in sahih Bukhari confessing that he makes up hadiths. Or, he has two types of hadiths, one which pleases and the other which will have him killed.

The second top most narrator is Aisha and this is what the Holy Quran says about Aisha.

066.004 If you two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if you back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.

So, the sahihain doesn't give very much confidence, especially what they made out to be!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...