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

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

For as long as I can remember, I've heard Shias bring up the Saheehain and attack the concept of having authentic books. I, for one, never understood the argument of that the Qur'an can be the only authentic book, since there is nothing in Islam that dictates such a view. Of course, I do hold the view that the Qur'an is the best book around due to it being the book of Allah, and one who truly understands the language, context, and appeal of the Qur'an will know that this book is the best one around. However, that doesn't mean that every other book out there needs to contain mistakes for the Qur'an to be the best. The Qur'an is the best regardless of how authentic other books are.

Anyways, this argument has been brought up against Ahlul Sunnah so often, I thought of writing a little something in order to put an end to this issue.

- Shias assume that the Saheehain are authentic just because the authors claim that the two books are completely Saheeh. This view is usually held by those that have little to no knowledge regarding the science of hadith. If one were to dig deeper, one would realize that there are other books by Ahlul Sunnah out there in which the authors have claimed are authentic. This is true with the Saheeh of Ibn Khuzaimah, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, and the Mustadrak of Al-Hakim. However, each of these books contain weak hadiths. Hadith scholars, realizing this, have attacked the credibility of these books, and brought them down from the level that was attributed to them originally by their authors. Furthermore, they accepted the authenticity of the Saheehain due to the fact that they truly do not contain weak hadiths, and have arrived at this conclusion after examining the chains of narrations. So, in conclusion, scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that accept the authenticity of the Saheehain do so because it passed the test of authenticty, not only because Bukhari and Muslim claimed that this is the case.

- The authencity of the Saheehain isn't a part of the ideology of Ahlul Sunnah. This is true because some of the most important hadith scholars have criticized a few hadiths that can be found in the Saheehain. This includes old scholars like Al-Daraqutni, who was a master of ilal al-hadith, and even contemporary ones like Al-Albani and Al-Shaikh Muqbil Al-Wadi'ee. These scholars weren't taken out of Ahlul Sunnah for holding these views. Yes, their views have been criticized, but they aren't considered to be innovators or anything like that due to holding such views.

- Akhbari Shias have accepted that everything in the four books are authentic, which means that over 41,000 hadiths are authentic. This claim is a much more dangerous one than the claim that the Saheehain are authentic, because the Saheehain include a far less amount of hadiths, in which much of them are repeated as well. So, why do Shias keep bringing up this topic and keep accusing Ahlul Sunnah of something that they are guilty of?

- A certain Usooli scholar, Mohammed Baqir Al-Bahbudi, released a shortened version of Al-Kafi, which he called Saheeh Al-Kafi, in which he only brought up around 4,500 hadith out of the original 16,000. So, why do Usooli Shias attack Ahlul Sunnah when their own scholars attribute authenticity to their own works?

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

For as long as I can remember, I've heard Shias bring up the Saheehain and attack the concept of having authentic books. I, for one, never understood the argument of that the Qur'an can be the only authentic book, since there is nothing in Islam that dictates such a view. Of course, I do hold the view that the Qur'an is the best book around due to it being the book of Allah, and one who truly understands the language, context, and appeal of the Qur'an will know that this book is the best one around. However, that doesn't mean that every other book out there needs to contain mistakes for the Qur'an to be the best. The Qur'an is the best regardless of how authentic other books are.

Anyways, this argument has been brought up against Ahlul Sunnah so often, I thought of writing a little something in order to put an end to this issue.

- Shias assume that the Saheehain are authentic just because the authors claim that the two books are completely Saheeh. This view is usually held by those that have little to no knowledge regarding the science of hadith. If one were to dig deeper, one would realize that there are other books by Ahlul Sunnah out there in which the authors have claimed are authentic. This is true with the Saheeh of Ibn Khuzaimah, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, and the Mustadrak of Al-Hakim. However, each of these books contain weak hadiths. Hadith scholars, realizing this, have attacked the credibility of these books, and brought them down from the level that was attributed to them originally by their authors. Furthermore, they accepted the authenticity of the Saheehain due to the fact that they truly do not contain weak hadiths, and have arrived at this conclusion after examining the chains of narrations. So, in conclusion, scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that accept the authenticity of the Saheehain do so because it passed the test of authenticty, not only because Bukhari and Muslim claimed that this is the case.

- The authencity of the Saheehain isn't a part of the ideology of Ahlul Sunnah. This is true because some of the most important hadith scholars have criticized a few hadiths that can be found in the Saheehain. This includes old scholars like Al-Daraqutni, who was a master of ilal al-hadith, and even contemporary ones like Al-Albani and Al-Shaikh Muqbil Al-Wadi'ee. These scholars weren't taken out of Ahlul Sunnah for holding these views. Yes, their views have been criticized, but they aren't considered to be innovators or anything like that due to holding such views.

- Akhbari Shias have accepted that everything in the four books are authentic, which means that over 41,000 hadiths are authentic. This claim is a much more dangerous one than the claim that the Saheehain are authentic, because the Saheehain include a far less amount of hadiths, in which much of them are repeated as well. So, why do Shias keep bringing up this topic and keep accusing Ahlul Sunnah of something that they are guilty of?

- A certain Usooli scholar, Mohammed Baqir Al-Bahbudi, released a shortened version of Al-Kafi, which he called Saheeh Al-Kafi, in which he only brought up around 4,500 hadith out of the original 16,000. So, why do Usooli Shias attack Ahlul Sunnah when their own scholars attribute authenticity to their own works?

Any thoughts?

Most of it should be common sense, but I think most Shia’s views are in response to what they see and understand from sunnis regarding these hadiths. Most sunnis I know will insist that the Saheenhain are 100% authentic and rejecting even one hadith is the same as rejecting the Prophet’s (saw) sunnah. It could be ignorance on their part, but if that’s what we come across then what do you expect from Shias?

To sum up the second paragraph, the books contain majority authenticated hadiths but also contain a few questionable ones too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up the second paragraph, the books contain majority authenticated hadiths but also contain a few questionable ones too?

That is one of the opinions, yes. However, the majority of the hadith scholars feel that all the hadiths are authentic.

I mentioned a few names of those that weakened some hadiths to point out that believing in the authenticity of all the hadiths in the Saheehain isn't necessary for one to be a member of Ahlul Sunnah. However, you should be aware that they arrived at those conclusions after examining the chains of the hadiths, and not by simplying rejecting hadiths because they found the text to be hard to swallow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the opinions, yes. However, the majority of the hadith scholars feel that all the hadiths are authentic.

I mentioned a few names of those that weakened some hadiths to point out that believing in the authenticity of all the hadiths in the Saheehain isn't necessary for one to be a member of Ahlul Sunnah. However, you should be aware that they arrived at those conclusions after examining the chains of the hadiths, and not by simplying rejecting hadiths because they found the text to be hard to swallow.

That’s fine, there might be something in the content that objectively could be taken as true or false so you’d need to authenticate the narrators i.e. the hadith regarding Abu Talib’s death.

Just to point out though, even though I accept that there are some sahih narrations in the Saheehain, I’ve been called a deviant because I questioned some others.

It’d be interesting to see the explanations of the hadiths that, at first look, seem odd or questionable e.g. a stone running away with clothes, monkeys being stoned etc. I know that sometimes hadiths are taken out of context or lose their meaning when translated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s fine, there might be something in the content that objectively could be taken as true or false so you’d need to authenticate the narrators i.e. the hadith regarding Abu Talib’s death.

That has been taken care of. I've mentioned a chain of narration in the Abu Talib thread that has no flaws.

Just to point out though, even though I accept that there are some sahih narrations in the Saheehain, I’ve been called a deviant because I questioned some others.

Perhaps someone accused you of being one because you had no reason to assume that the hadith was weak other than it going against your intellect. If that were the case, then chains of narrations would hold no significance, and one's religion would be what he wanted it to be. That's because "I don't like this hadith and I find it to be immoral" or because "this hadith makes sense to me, so I will accept it." Islam will contain a lot of specifics that people will have issues with. I mean, who wouldn't want to smoke up or get involved with usury?! Similarly, we should accept hadiths that condemn certain practices instead of rejecting them because they go against what we find to be "correct".

It’d be interesting to see the explanations of the hadiths that, at first look, seem odd or questionable e.g. a stone running away with clothes, monkeys being stoned etc. I know that sometimes hadiths are taken out of context or lose their meaning when translated.

You will find a sufficient explanation of those hadiths in Fathul Bari. There also are other threads for questions like those. I'd rather avoid discussing anything other than hadith methodology in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That has been taken care of. I've mentioned a chain of narration in the Abu Talib thread that has no flaws.

Thanks, I’ve been a bit busy so haven’t had a chance to go through new posts.

Perhaps someone accused you of being one because you had no reason to assume that the hadith was weak other than it going against your intellect. If that were the case, then chains of narrations would hold no significance, and one's religion would be what he wanted it to be. That's because "I don't like this hadith and I find it to be immoral" or because "this hadith makes sense to me, so I will accept it." Islam will contain a lot of specifics that people will have issues with. I mean, who wouldn't want to smoke up or get involved with usury?! Similarly, we should accept hadiths that condemn certain practices instead of rejecting them because they go against what we find to be "correct".

I agree with you completely. Islam should be followed as it is, not what we want it to be. However, I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking questions about hadiths without automatically rejecting them. We’ve previously discussed the issue around fabricated hadiths so no matter how small, there is still a chance that the books contain weak narrations. The content may not always be at fault though, as it may just be an issue of who the narrator is and how they are seen by different scholars/sects.

You will find a sufficient explanation of those hadiths in Fathul Bari. There also are other threads for questions like those. I'd rather avoid discussing anything other than hadith methodology in this thread.

Thanks, I was just making a point about the lack of understanding hadiths. But I will do my own research as necessary (and PM you when stuck!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Furthermore, they accepted the authenticity of the Saheehain due to the fact that they truly do not contain weak hadiths, and have arrived at this conclusion after examining the chains of narrations. So, in conclusion, scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that accept the authenticity of the Saheehain do so because it passed the test of authenticty, not only because Bukhari and Muslim claimed that this is the case.

please tell us about the views of some great scholars of sunnis regarding saheehain being so as you have described.

i would be obliged if you give the references to.

shokran

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

For as long as I can remember, I've heard Shias bring up the Saheehain and attack the concept of having authentic books. I, for one, never understood the argument of that the Qur'an can be the only authentic book, since there is nothing in Islam that dictates such a view. Of course, I do hold the view that the Qur'an is the best book around due to it being the book of Allah, and one who truly understands the language, context, and appeal of the Qur'an will know that this book is the best one around. However, that doesn't mean that every other book out there needs to contain mistakes for the Qur'an to be the best. The Qur'an is the best regardless of how authentic other books are.

Anyways, this argument has been brought up against Ahlul Sunnah so often, I thought of writing a little something in order to put an end to this issue.

- Shias assume that the Saheehain are authentic just because the authors claim that the two books are completely Saheeh. This view is usually held by those that have little to no knowledge regarding the science of hadith. If one were to dig deeper, one would realize that there are other books by Ahlul Sunnah out there in which the authors have claimed are authentic. This is true with the Saheeh of Ibn Khuzaimah, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, and the Mustadrak of Al-Hakim. However, each of these books contain weak hadiths. Hadith scholars, realizing this, have attacked the credibility of these books, and brought them down from the level that was attributed to them originally by their authors. Furthermore, they accepted the authenticity of the Saheehain due to the fact that they truly do not contain weak hadiths, and have arrived at this conclusion after examining the chains of narrations. So, in conclusion, scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that accept the authenticity of the Saheehain do so because it passed the test of authenticty, not only because Bukhari and Muslim claimed that this is the case.

- The authencity of the Saheehain isn't a part of the ideology of Ahlul Sunnah. This is true because some of the most important hadith scholars have criticized a few hadiths that can be found in the Saheehain. This includes old scholars like Al-Daraqutni, who was a master of ilal al-hadith, and even contemporary ones like Al-Albani and Al-Shaikh Muqbil Al-Wadi'ee. These scholars weren't taken out of Ahlul Sunnah for holding these views. Yes, their views have been criticized, but they aren't considered to be innovators or anything like that due to holding such views.

- Akhbari Shias have accepted that everything in the four books are authentic, which means that over 41,000 hadiths are authentic. This claim is a much more dangerous one than the claim that the Saheehain are authentic, because the Saheehain include a far less amount of hadiths, in which much of them are repeated as well. So, why do Shias keep bringing up this topic and keep accusing Ahlul Sunnah of something that they are guilty of?

- A certain Usooli scholar, Mohammed Baqir Al-Bahbudi, released a shortened version of Al-Kafi, which he called Saheeh Al-Kafi, in which he only brought up around 4,500 hadith out of the original 16,000. So, why do Usooli Shias attack Ahlul Sunnah when their own scholars attribute authenticity to their own works?

Any thoughts?

Assalam Alaikum

Pardon my ignorance but just to confirm, by Saheehain, do you mean the six "Saheeh Sitta"?

One other thing I'm not able to discern is that what are your exact views about these Saheehain? Do you find them ABSOLUTELY flawless (not even a minute mistake)?

Fi Amanillah

Link to post
Share on other sites

please tell us about the views of some great scholars of sunnis regarding saheehain being so as you have described.

I didn't get you. Can you please rephrase that?

Pardon my ignorance but just to confirm, by Saheehain, do you mean the six "Saheeh Sitta"?

No, there is no such thing as "Saheeh Sitta". If you quickly pick up Sunan Abi Dawud or Sunan Al-Tirmithi, you will notice that their authors collect hadiths and state that their hadiths are weak. They will sometimes even specifically state that a hadith is weak due to "this narrator" or because "this narrator didn't hear it from that narrator". Just go through the first few pages and you will realize that these authors didn't intend for their work to be completely authentic.

One other thing I'm not able to discern is that what are your exact views about these Saheehain? Do you find them ABSOLUTELY flawless (not even a minute mistake)?

I'm leaning towards the opinion that they aren't flawless.

Btw, do you have anything else to offer in this thread other than attempting to teach a native Arabic speaker how to transliterate the Basmala in English?

Hahah! Thanks. I needed a good laugh. =)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I didn't get you. Can you please rephrase that?

what i meant is that like you said it is not in aqeeda of sunnis to believe that saheeehin are correct,

it does make logic...... and it should be like that

but

you said that the autheticity of the two have been checked by scholars,

so i wish to know that what do they actually say

like say what are the opinion of ibn hajar or dhabhi or other great scholars................... and i asked for the reference.

i hope now i m clear

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

NOPE, WRONG!

In Arabic we have lam shamsiyya and lam qamariyya. Shamsiyya is when the lam is not pronounced, and Qamariyya is when it is pronounced. Depending on the first letter of the word after "Al" (the), we know when to pronounced the "L" and when not to. In the Bismillah, the words "Rahman" and "Raheem" start with the letter "ra". "Ra" causes the lam in "Al" to be lam shamsiyya. Therefore, it is spelled Al-Rahman, but pronounced "Ar-Rahman".

Edited by Qa'im
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm not familiar with the views of those two scholars.

any other scholars you are aware of?

plus, let me ask you another question, with the hope i m not bothering you

my question is that when there is a hadeeth in sunni sources, like let us say it is there in abi daood, or say tirmidhi, and

it is not there in bokhari or muslim,

does this mean that they have rejected it?

how do we know that what has been rejected by bokhari or muslim?

what do sunni scholars say about this?

same wise when we find say hakim saying

"it is correct as per standard of the two but they did not write it"

what is the status of that hadeeth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam),

- Shias assume that the Saheehain are authentic just because the authors claim that the two books are completely Saheeh. This view is usually held by those that have little to no knowledge regarding the science of hadith. If one were to dig deeper, one would realize that there are other books by Ahlul Sunnah out there in which the authors have claimed are authentic. This is true with the Saheeh of Ibn Khuzaimah, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, and the Mustadrak of Al-Hakim. However, each of these books contain weak hadiths. Hadith scholars, realizing this, have attacked the credibility of these books, and brought them down from the level that was attributed to them originally by their authors. Furthermore, they accepted the authenticity of the Saheehain due to the fact that they truly do not contain weak hadiths, and have arrived at this conclusion after examining the chains of narrations. So, in conclusion, scholars of Ahlul Sunnah that accept the authenticity of the Saheehain do so because it passed the test of authenticty, not only because Bukhari and Muslim claimed that this is the case.

Makes me wonder, is the 'test of authenticity' just testing the chain of narrators, without even seeing whether the matn makes sense? From what I learned in school, there are are comprehensive set of rules for the evaluation of matn and isnad. Hence without matn, the test would be incomplete. And please don't tell me everything in the matn of each hadith in the Saheehain is correct. Bani Israel being the reason for meat rotting, Hawwa being the reason for women sinning (or something similar), monkeys doing adultery, Ali having multiple wives during the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and many more indicate that matn has not been examined very carefully, in the Saheehain.

Just because a group of learned scholars of a particular age have declared every hadith in the Saheehain as Sahih, does not mean when in the future, some other scholars who do not agree with them, are termed as being deficient in faith, and in extreme cases, being a Rafidi. Even though, I understand that accepting the Saheehain is not a part of Sunnism, as you pointed out, it hasn't been put much into practice. We can't debate with average Sunnis today, because there comes a limit when they say they aren't learned enough to debate on such matters and we should consult ulema'. If such problems with the matn have been so often pointed out, why don't these ulema' listen for once what the people are pointing out, and tell them what's wrong in their way of thinking? The lack of this, is causing Shias always to think they are right and that Sunnis have no answer for their questions and vice versa for the Sunnis.

- A certain Usooli scholar, Mohammed Baqir Al-Bahbudi, released a shortened version of Al-Kafi, which he called Saheeh Al-Kafi, in which he only brought up around 4,500 hadith out of the original 16,000. So, why do Usooli Shias attack Ahlul Sunnah when their own scholars attribute authenticity to their own works?

That's because no scholar ever claimed that Al-Kafi, with it's 16,000 ahadith is completely authentic. However, people have realised that they have to save even the inauthentic narrations, and scholars like Allama Majlisi just said which were authentic and which were weak according to him, and did not make an Al-Kafi of his own.

It is however, a problem when the scholars say that so and so books are completely authentic and then scholars from the same sect come up saying so and so ahadith in the very same books are not authentic. Why shouldn't people point fingers at sects as such? And the problem intensifies when there are two extremist groups, those who are not ready to hear a single word against the Saheehain, and just skip any mistakes saying 'We have no comparison to the great scholars who compiled such great books' and those who find mistakes in the same books, belonging to the same sect. :/

Care to explain?

wa (salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

my question is that when there is a hadeeth in sunni sources, like let us say it is there in abi daood, or say tirmidhi, and

it is not there in bokhari or muslim,

does this mean that they have rejected it?

how do we know that what has been rejected by bokhari or muslim?

what do sunni scholars say about this?

Great question. The answer is no, both scholars, didn't include all the authentic hadiths that they were aware of. A good example of this is that Bukhari includes authentic narrations in his other books like Al-Adab Al-Mufrad and Khalq Af'aal Al-Ibaad, which he doesn't include in his Saheeh.

same wise when we find say hakim saying

"it is correct as per standard of the two but they did not write it"

what is the status of that hadeeth?

In this case, the hadith is authentic according to Al-Hakim.

Makes me wonder, is the 'test of authenticity' just testing the chain of narrators, without even seeing whether the matn makes sense? From what I learned in school, there are are comprehensive set of rules for the evaluation of matn and isnad. Hence without matn, the test would be incomplete. And please don't tell me everything in the matn of each hadith in the Saheehain is correct. Bani Israel being the reason for meat rotting, Hawwa being the reason for women sinning (or something similar), monkeys doing adultery, Ali having multiple wives during the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and many more indicate that matn has not been examined very carefully, in the Saheehain.

Just because a group of learned scholars of a particular age have declared every hadith in the Saheehain as Sahih, does not mean when in the future, some other scholars who do not agree with them, are termed as being deficient in faith, and in extreme cases, being a Rafidi. Even though, I understand that accepting the Saheehain is not a part of Sunnism, as you pointed out, it hasn't been put much into practice. We can't debate with average Sunnis today, because there comes a limit when they say they aren't learned enough to debate on such matters and we should consult ulema'. If such problems with the matn have been so often pointed out, why don't these ulema' listen for once what the people are pointing out, and tell them what's wrong in their way of thinking? The lack of this, is causing Shias always to think they are right and that Sunnis have no answer for their questions and vice versa for the Sunnis.

It seems that the issue in this case is that you are using your own value system when you judge a matn. A matn is rejected when it cannot under any circumstances be reconciled with another hadith. In today's day and age, people think that everything that sounds weird is weak because of matn. Anything that has to do with miracles and prophets or just anything that is out of the ordinary is weak because of matn. Scholars in the past have weakened hadiths because of matn as you said. However, this isn't a door that can be opened to everyone. One needs to have memorized thousands of hadiths before they can even start to grade a matn. This is why most scholars say isnaadahu saheeh instead of saheeh. It is because judging that a matn is authentic is a much greater task.

That's because no scholar ever claimed that Al-Kafi, with it's 16,000 ahadith is completely authentic.

Refer to my third point.

Care to explain?

You lost me. Explain what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

A certain Usooli scholar, Mohammed Baqir Al-Bahbudi, released a shortened version of Al-Kafi, which he called Saheeh Al-Kafi, in which he only brought up around 4,500 hadith out of the original 16,000. So, why do Usooli Shias attack Ahlul Sunnah when their own scholars attribute authenticity to their own works?

Nope. The Shias have not started using his shortened "sahih" version of al-kafi. His book didn't become an instant "sahih". Just because someone think their work is sahih, it doesnt mean the book become sahih.

But the case with your sect (Sunnah wal-jamah) is different. You are still classifying your books as sahih when they are proven not to be very accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i would like to ask few questions related to the subject, i hope i get satisfactory ans.

1. cant there be any book on earth which can be considered authentic AFTER QURAN?

2 if a book is considered 100% sahi OTHER THAN QURAN , doest it degrades quran?

3. If suppose all the itna asharis unite on authenticity of 50 ahadees from al kafi, which are considered sahi without any dispute among ithna ashari. And if someone collects those 50 ahadees and compiles a book then will that book be considered sahi/authentic after quran or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

It seems that the issue in this case is that you are using your own value system when you judge a matn. A matn is rejected when it cannot under any circumstances be reconciled with another hadith. In today's day and age, people think that everything that sounds weird is weak because of matn. Anything that has to do with miracles and prophets or just anything that is out of the ordinary is weak because of matn. Scholars in the past have weakened hadiths because of matn as you said. However, this isn't a door that can be opened to everyone. One needs to have memorized thousands of hadiths before they can even start to grade a matn. This is why most scholars say isnaadahu saheeh instead of saheeh. It is because judging that a matn is authentic is a much greater task.

Wait... a matn is only rejected when there are no similar ahadith present? From what I have learned, one of the rules of evaluation of matn, is that it shouldn't be against common sense. It should also not contradict historical facts or the Quran or other accepted ahadith.

It's quite easy to make up fabricate similar ahadith to make a hadith 'stronger'. So any hadith, not making sense, but which has a strong isnad, and has other similar ahadith, is accepted?

Fine, let us believe that people in the olden days didn't quite have the same common sense, as we have today. Why don't the modern scholars point out where we are erring, and tell us why Bani Israel being the reason for meat rotting (an example), is not weird? We would be happy then.

Refer to my third point.

Why do you associate Akhbaris to the Shi'a Ithna Ashari sect? Would you like it, if we associated the Taliban to the Ahlul Sunnah and used it as a point in favour of us, just because they have quite some things in common with the Ahlul Sunnah sect?

You lost me. Explain what?

You might want to read my previous post again. Most, if not all, of those sentences which end with a question mark, demand an answer. :)

- Reasons for scholars choosing to work individually rather than as a committee

- Modern scholars not pointing out (and making it known) why certain ahadith which seem odd, really aren't odd.

wa (salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i would like to ask few questions related to the subject, i hope i get satisfactory ans.

1. cant there be any book on earth which can be considered authentic AFTER QURAN?

2 if a book is considered 100% sahi OTHER THAN QURAN , doest it degrades quran?

3. If suppose all the itna asharis unite on authenticity of 50 ahadees from al kafi, which are considered sahi without any dispute among ithna ashari. And if someone collects those 50 ahadees and compiles a book then will that book be considered sahi/authentic after quran or not?

bump ?

Why do you associate Akhbaris to the Shi'a Ithna Ashari sect? Would you like it, if we associated the Taliban to the Ahlul Sunnah and used it as a point in favour of us, just because they have quite some things in common with the Ahlul Sunnah sect?

1. so arent Akhbaris out of itna ashari sect because of this belief? IS THIS YOUR FATWA OR YOUR SCHOLARS SAY THIS? (ANSWER WITH PROOF).

2. So which ever shia scholar (regardless akhbari/usooli) believed that there can be a book 100% other than quran is out of itna ashari sect? ( because your reasoning gives the same conclusion)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1. cant there be any book on earth which can be considered authentic AFTER QURAN?

2 if a book is considered 100% sahi OTHER THAN QURAN , doest it degrades quran?

3. If suppose all the itna asharis unite on authenticity of 50 ahadees from al kafi, which are considered sahi without any dispute among ithna ashari. And if someone collects those 50 ahadees and compiles a book then will that book be considered sahi/authentic after quran or not?

1. there are many authentic books on earth. my dictionary is quite authentic but what is your point.

In terms of religious authority, Quran is supreme, this is the Shia belief.

2. Quran is the word of God, like Jews created Talmud and ignored the word of God, Sunnis have created sahiheean and consider it supreme. I don't think you are degrading the word of God, just confirming your place in hell.

3. if your sahih were so "sahih" then you would still not be sneaking material out of them.

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

1.the question was not that is quran supreme or not, but that can there be any sahi hadees book or not?

2. its a general question not specific to sahihein of sunnis...... So in general , if one says that there can be a 100% authentic book of hadees , does it degrades quran? (dont act smart by addressing a specific issue of sahihein its general quest)

3. its seems third question was unanswerable for you. So again it remains: If suppose all the itna asharis unite on authenticity of 50 ahadees from al kafi, which are considered sahi without any dispute among ithna ashari. And if someone collects those 50 ahadees and compiles a book then will that book be considered sahi/authentic after quran or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There also are other threads for questions like those. I'd rather avoid discussing anything other than hadith methodology in this thread.

Salam,

I have few questions about sahihain and their methodology of hadiths collection.

1. I have a friend from the tribe of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a. He is a learned scholar of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a and I have learned a lot from him. He is though homosexual. I had a long discussion with him based on the Quran that Islam doesn't allow homosexuality and he kept rebutting me. So, finally I told him that there must be homosexuals in the times of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) and their punishment must have been recorded in the sahihain. His answer: There is nothing on homosexuality in both the sahih Bukhari and the sahih Muslim.

a. Is it true that there is nothing in the sahihain about homosexuality?

b. And, the punishment given to homosexuals by rasool Allah Mohammad (saws)?

2. It is the Shia belief that rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) was born as rasool and died as rasool. He announced his risalat when he reached the age of forty, thus he was rasool for 63 years. The Sunnah believe differntly, some of them believe that he became rasool at the age of forty, thus he was rasool for only 23 years, therefore 13 years before the Hijra and 10 years after the Hijra.

He had only one wife during these 13 years before the Hijra, while he was rasool and most probably 27 years alone only with her as he was rasool. And, he had about 12 to 14 wives plus slaves in his last 10 years as rasool after the Hijra. One of these several wives after Hijra was Aisha.

The Umm al-Mominin Khadijah has family and children. Two of her children she raised were Fatima and Ali.

I understand that about 40% or more hadiths in the sahih Bukhari are narrated by either abu-Hurrariah and Aisha.

a. How do you account for the discrepancy that there are hardly any hadiths narrated in the sahihain by the Umm al-Mominin Khadijah and her two children Fatima and Ali. Keeping in mind that both these children were born in the lap of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) and personally raised by him?

b. Was there any prejudiced against Umm al-Mominin Khadijah and her two children Fatima and Ali by the authors of sahihain?

3. It appears that Aisha is singing her own songs in the sahihain. Most of the hadiths narrated by her are regarding her.

a. Do you agree with the above or not? If not why?

b. How can the authors of sahihain accept any hadiths from Aisha and Hafsa in light of complete sura 66 of the Holy Quran?

c. Hadiths narrated by Aisha in the sahihain in her favor are contradictory to each other. In one hadith she claims that there is no verse in the Quran about her except the verse in sura 24. In other hadith she claims that the verse of tayammum was due to her. In fact, the father of Hafsa claims that the complete sura 66 is about Aisha and Hafsa. How do you account for such contradictory hadiths in the sahihain?

Please give answers in detail for the above 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and 3c questions?

Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1.the question was not that is quran supreme or not, but that can there be any sahi hadees book or not?

2. its a general question not specific to sahihein of sunnis...... So in general , if one says that there can be a 100% authentic book of hadees , does it degrades quran? (dont act smart by addressing a specific issue of sahihein its general quest)

3. its seems third question was unanswerable for you. So again it remains: If suppose all the itna asharis unite on authenticity of 50 ahadees from al kafi, which are considered sahi without any dispute among ithna ashari. And if someone collects those 50 ahadees and compiles a book then will that book be considered sahi/authentic after quran or not?

1. It can be correct unless otherwise proven so.

2. I don't have to act smart, I am.

3. See my point 1. Only Quran cannot be overturned. Any thing else is human and can be challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

bump ?

1. so arent Akhbaris out of itna ashari sect because of this belief? IS THIS YOUR FATWA OR YOUR SCHOLARS SAY THIS? (ANSWER WITH PROOF).

2. So which ever shia scholar (regardless akhbari/usooli) believed that there can be a book 100% other than quran is out of itna ashari sect? ( because your reasoning gives the same conclusion)

Akhbaris do not, I repeat, do not represent the Ithna Ashari view, whatsoever. Hence, using their beliefs to prove your point, is useless. That is all I have to say about your first question.

As for your second question, if anyone deems any book besides the Quran as perfect, let alone Ithna Ashari, he isn't even Muslim, since he dares bringing the work of a fallible human, close (or equal) to the word of Allah, thereby denying the uniqueness of the Quran in it's perfectness, accurateness and correctness.

wa (salam)

Edited by Basim Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Zareen:

Nope. The Shias have not started using his shortened "sahih" version of al-kafi. His book didn't become an instant "sahih". Just because someone think their work is sahih, it doesnt mean the book become sahih.

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.

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

@ Basim:

From what I have learned, one of the rules of evaluation of matn, is that it shouldn't be against common sense.

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".

Why do you associate Akhbaris to the Shi'a Ithna Ashari sect? Would you like it, if we associated the Taliban to the Ahlul Sunnah and used it as a point in favour of us, just because they have quite some things in common with the Ahlul Sunnah sect?

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.

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

@ aladdin:

1. I have a friend from the tribe of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a. He is a learned scholar of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a and I have learned a lot from him. He is though homosexual. I had a long discussion with him based on the Quran that Islam doesn't allow homosexuality and he kept rebutting me. So, finally I told him that there must be homosexuals in the times of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) and their punishment must have been recorded in the sahihain. His answer: There is nothing on homosexuality in both the sahih Bukhari and the sahih Muslim.

a. Is it true that there is nothing in the sahihain about homosexuality?

b. And, the punishment given to homosexuals by rasool Allah Mohammad (saws)?

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).

a. How do you account for the discrepancy that there are hardly any hadiths narrated in the sahihain by the Umm al-Mominin Khadijah and her two children Fatima and Ali. Keeping in mind that both these children were born in the lap of rasool Allah Mohammad (saws) and personally raised by him?

b. Was there any prejudiced against Umm al-Mominin Khadijah and her two children Fatima and Ali by the authors of sahihain?

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.

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.

3. It appears that Aisha is singing her own songs in the sahihain. Most of the hadiths narrated by her are regarding her.

a. Do you agree with the above or not? If not why?

b. How can the authors of sahihain accept any hadiths from Aisha and Hafsa in light of complete sura 66 of the Holy Quran?

c. Hadiths narrated by Aisha in the sahihain in her favor are contradictory to each other. In one hadith she claims that there is no verse in the Quran about her except the verse in sura 24. In other hadith she claims that the verse of tayammum was due to her. In fact, the father of Hafsa claims that the complete sura 66 is about Aisha and Hafsa. How do you account for such contradictory hadiths in 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.

b. What about Surah 66?

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

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

@ Basim:

As for your second question, if anyone deems any book besides the Quran as perfect, let alone Ithna Ashari, he isn't even Muslim, since he dares bringing the work of a fallible human, close (or equal) to the word of Allah, thereby denying the uniqueness of the Quran in it's perfectness, accurateness and correctness.

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?

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...