Attributing Lies In Hadiths

[Vigilare]

(salam)

Why is it that if a hadith is attributed to the Prophet pbuh in one of the sahih Sunni collections that goes against shia beliefs it’s labelled as a fabrication, but if it’s from a sahabi such as Abu Bakr, Umar etc regarding something that portrays them in a negative or critical way then it’s definitely true?

For example –

Prophet says “the best after me is Abu Bakr” – fabrication attributed to the Holy Prophet (pbuh)

Ibn Umar says “keep your pledge with Yazid” – clear nasibi, etc.

If they are in the same book, why is it impossible to consider that this was a lie attributed to ibn Umar? (the historical aspects are irrelevant because other notable personalities also gave bayah to Yazid). I also appreciate that there may be a number of narrations relating a particular hadith, but that would mean we should also accept all mutawatir narrations from sunni sources.

I’ve put this here because I’d like to know if people here think sahabas are guilty of everything they’re accused of, since there’s two sides to every story (actually three sides; your side, their side, and the truth).

Any thoughts?

[aladdin]

Abu Bakr started the system of hadith, narrated by one person only.

He was the Caliph, the Judge, the Jury, the Witness, the One Man Hadith Narrator, the Truthful Companion, when he tried to make Imam Ali (as) and his family (as) penniless, so that he can have his Caliphate.

Thus, the hadith narration become one person only passing the hadith. Where as, the Holy Quran requires at least two witnesses for everything. But the hadith narration requires just one person only, thanks to abu Bakr.

[Vigilare]

Abu Bakr started the system of hadith, narrated by one person only.

He was the Caliph, the Judge, the Jury, the Witness, the One Man Hadith Narrator, the Truthful Companion, when he tried to make Imam Ali (as) and his family (as) penniless, so that he can have his Caliphate.

Thus, the hadith narration become one person only passing the hadith. Where as, the Holy Quran requires at least two witnesses for everything. But the hadith narration requires just one person only, thanks to abu Bakr.

That's a side point which isn't what I'm getting at, and I purposely didn't mention the issue of fadak and gave other examples with another sahabi.

[Gypsy]

Why is it that if a hadith is attributed to the Prophet pbuh in one of the sahih Sunni collections that goes against shia beliefs it’s labelled as a fabrication, but if it’s from a sahabi such as Abu Bakr, Umar etc regarding something that portrays them in a negative or critical way then it’s definitely true?

The reason why the example given by you is a fabrication because at lease one of the hadith that praised Abu Bakr was narrated by his own daughter Ayesha (in one of the Sunni books). The hadith version stated that Ayesha claimed that the Prophet loved the most among all the man his father Abu Bakr and among all the women herself.

But this hadith completely contradict the other hadith that stated The most beloved man in the Ummah was Ali and the most precious woman was Fatima.

If you look more in the hadith book you will find many examples of Ayesha fighting the Ahl al Bayt. For e.g

- She brought many Muslims to death in the Jamal war because she hated Ali (as)

- She caused a scene when they brought the body of Imam Hassan (as) to visit his grandfather.

- She spoke ill of the dead when she called Khadijah a toothless old woman! And this really made the Prophet angry because no one had done more for Islam than Khadijah and Ali (this is from the Prophet himself).

- She supported her father's illegal claim to the caliphate despite being present at Ghadeer.

- She supported her father's treatment towards Fatima. In fact someone even narrated that Ayesha knew Fatima stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and Umar until the day Fatima died.

And you can even look to other personality that oppressed the Ahl al Bayt. They started implementing their own ejtehad then people started to follow them without questioning because these famous personalities used to live in the time of the Prophet.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Zareen

[Vigilare]

Actually this proves my point, how do you know Aisha did this/said this? The usual response, perhaps not from you, is that 'it says so in sunni books', but at the same time we deny what the Prophet pbuh said from the same books.

It's also interesting to see that you went straight for the attack. What about ibn Umar?

[aladdin]

Actually this proves my point, how do you know Aisha did this/said this? The usual response, perhaps not from you, is that 'it says so in sunni books', but at the same time we deny what the Prophet pbuh said from the same books.

It's also interesting to see that you went straight for the attack. What about ibn Umar?

Here are some questions to answer:

1. Who are the major narrator in sahih Bukhari?

2. How many major narrators are there in sahih Bukhari?

3. What is the background of these major narrators?

4. Why Bukhari chose the above narrators over others.

5. Why didn't Bukhari widen his field of major narrators so that he will have more represenation.

6. Are all hadiths in sahih Bukhari considered sahih by Sunnis?

7. What about the sahih hadiths about tareef in the Holy Quan?

That's a side point which isn't what I'm getting at, and I purposely didn't mention the issue of fadak and gave other examples with another sahabi.

No, I am not talking about Fadak and you missed the point. I am talking about that the Holy Quran requires two witnesses for everything, but the science of hadith requires only one witness, and for this reason the hadith books are full of garbage.

Edited September 13, 2011 by aladdin

[Lanatin]

but the science of hadith requires only one witness, and for this reason the hadith books are full of garbage.

That's rarely the case as many hadiths have been reported by a number of companions, giving more or less the same text. It's a deep science, and you don't seem to grasp it fully yet.

[aladdin]

That's rarely the case as many hadiths have been reported by a number of companions, giving more or less the same text. It's a deep science, and you don't seem to grasp it fully yet.

It all depends if you are talking about Shia books of hadiths or Sunni books of hadiths. Look at Sahih Bukhari, you will find four or five major narrotors, so even one hadith is told by a number of companions, it goes back to one major narrator, i.e. Aisha or abu Hurairah.

Then Mr. Bukhari doesn't consider matn (text) of the hadith at all, he is only interested in the sanad.

[Vigilare]

This isn't about criticism of sunni hadith science or their hadith compilers, it's more about how we understand certain events and how we are likely to accept that person A said something but then deny the Prophet said something even though it's using the same authentication process.

How can we be sure it was the individual in question, and not one of the later narrators? Another example - a sahih shia narration will say "the Imam said ...." while a sunni hadith says something opposite from another Imam. We in response say that's it's a lie ascribed to the Imam...well in that case why can't a lie be ascribed to another sahabi?

[aladdin]

According to Sunnis, any companion (sahabi) who met the Prophet (pbuh) cannot lie when narrating the hadith.

He or she cannot lie when quoting the Prophet.

[ktmnabi]

Actually this proves my point, how do you know Aisha did this/said this? The usual response, perhaps not from you, is that 'it says so in sunni books', but at the same time we deny what the Prophet pbuh said from the same books.

It's also interesting to see that you went straight for the attack. What about ibn Umar?

taking Prophetic hadiths from sunni books would be usurping the rights of the masumeen, who were sent to explain the religion, to carry on where Nabuwa left

where as shias taking a historic prospective from sunni hadiths is only an infringement of their (imams) rights

Edited September 14, 2011 by ktmnabi

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

The tendency you are talking about is mostly from malangs and ignorants.

The way we look at Sunni narrations are like this:

1 - True

2 - Misunderstood, out of context, abrogated

3 - fabrication

4 - Allahu a`lam

And the litmus test for these are what our ahadeeth say. There are barely any thing narrated in a mutawatir fashion in Sunni books as it is (aside from what is already obviously mentioned in Qur'an like tawheed and such). One of them is Ghadeer, by the way.

And no, not all bad things narrated about the companions is automatically true and not all good things said about them are automatically false. However, whatever's narrated "good" about them are largely unimportant because it is without doubt they failed the test of eemaan at the end of the day (the specific few, not all the Companions).

True hadeeth they narrate are probably already obvious to you, so you can keep whatever example you want in mind. Misunderstood narration would, for example, be the narration what Abu Bakr used to steal fadak for Sayyida Fatima (sa) or the ahaadeeth about wiping on socks (this act was abrogated). Fabrication may have been at the companionate level, but also lower and later proto-Sunnis. Though a big question would be, why are proto-Sunnis with no motivations to hate (but in fact do the opposite) narrate ugly/bad things about X or Y companion if it wasn't true? The discussion of what is and isn't true goes beyond this rigid man-made system of rijal and requires a historian's critical mind to sift through things. These things are really unimportant, to be honest. I don't care if `Umar is reported to have done X or Y that isn't super reliable. Me choosing to believe it or not is unimportant cause the origin of my tabarra is from things that are without doubt, with yaqeen.

Lies were ascribed to the companions and the Prophet (pbuh) as well as the Imams (as), no one is denying that. The point is that Sunni hadith are overall unimportant to us aside from polemical argument tools and discussions of taqiyya within our own collections. Perhaps some history, as well. But remember, hadeeth book =/= history book.

Clear your mind. It's muddled with lounging in the nawasib's den.

في أمان الله

[Vigilare]

The tendency you are talking about is mostly from malangs and ignorants.

Unfortunately the masses are ignorant.

The way we look at Sunni narrations are like this:

1 - True

2 - Misunderstood, out of context, abrogated

3 - fabrication

4 - Allahu a`lam

And the litmus test for these are what our ahadeeth say. There are barely any thing narrated in a mutawatir fashion in Sunni books as it is (aside from what is already obviously mentioned in Qur'an like tawheed and such). One of them is Ghadeer, by the way.

And no, not all bad things narrated about the companions is automatically true and not all good things said about them are automatically false. However, whatever's narrated "good" about them are largely unimportant because it is without doubt they failed the test of eemaan at the end of the day (the specific few, not all the Companions).

True hadeeth they narrate are probably already obvious to you, so you can keep whatever example you want in mind. Misunderstood narration would, for example, be the narration what Abu Bakr used to steal fadak for Sayyida Fatima (sa) or the ahaadeeth about wiping on socks (this act was abrogated). Fabrication may have been at the companionate level, but also lower and later proto-Sunnis. Though a big question would be, why are proto-Sunnis with no motivations to hate (but in fact do the opposite) narrate ugly/bad things about X or Y companion if it wasn't true? The discussion of what is and isn't true goes beyond this rigid man-made system of rijal and requires a historian's critical mind to sift through things. These things are really unimportant, to be honest. I don't care if `Umar is reported to have done X or Y that isn't super reliable. Me choosing to believe it or not is unimportant cause the origin of my tabarra is from things that are without doubt, with yaqeen.

Lies were ascribed to the companions and the Prophet as well as the Imams , no one is denying that. The point is that Sunni hadith are overall unimportant to us aside from polemical argument tools and discussions of taqiyya within our own collections. Perhaps some history, as well. But remember, hadeeth book =/= history book.

I mostly agree, and you should realise that I’m more interested in [islamic] history than hadiths, but they do go together. The only issue is the bias, which all sides add. What I’ve highlighted is exactly why we need to study history objectively. Where you have no doubt that Umar did X, others have the opposite view.

Clear your mind. It's muddled with lounging in the nawasib's den.

Interesting comment.