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
Sign in to follow this  
Ethics

The Controversial Hadith Of Dawood Bin Sarhan

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

On 7/14/2015 at 7:49 AM, Ethics said:

about why only Kulayni narrating it (it is a very valid question)

It would have been a valid question if the expectation was such that everything Kulayni narrates in his al-Kafi, has to be re-narrated by other scholars in their books as well. I don't know what the basis of such an expectation is. There are a large number of narrations Kulayni narrates that others don't narrate in their own books (books which we term as primary texts). Furthermore, even if there was such an expectation, Kulayni is not some unknown dubious individual (like for example Sulaym bin Qays) whose being a sole reporter of a tradition would be a reason for us to be cautious when accepting reports only found in his book. The man has provided a complete chain of narrators (a very decent one to say the least).

It was probably his weakest argument in the lecture - I don't even consider it an argument. Also when you look at the chain, there is a strong possibility that Ibn Waleed or Ibn Babuwayh knew about this narration, they may have even had this narration in their works which we don't have today. Furthermore, who knows, maybe Saduq put it in his Madinatul Ilm (larger work than his al-Faqih) which we don't have today either.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayed mentions that clearly this narration must have been seen by our past scholars who did not narrate this hadith in their books. The argument doesnt have to do with whether others have Kulayni's hadiths. But why did Kulayni took this hadith where as others did not. The Sayed mentions an Islamic legal theory called "khaber al mawthuq Behi" where you take a hadith where you are certain the ahlulbayt has taken, which is used with the argument. The argument of "who knows" or whether the hadith may have or not have been in the lost books holds no weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 9:36 AM, Ethics said:

Sayed mentions that clearly this narration must have been seen by our past scholars who did not narrate this hadith in their books. The argument doesnt have to do with whether others have Kulayni's hadiths. But why did Kulayni took this hadith where as others did not. The Sayed mentions an Islamic legal theory called "khaber al mawthuq Behi" where you take a hadith where you are certain the ahlulbayt has taken, which is used with the argument. The argument of "who knows" or whether the hadith may have or not have been in the lost books holds no weight.

The question would then be as to how was the Sayed so sure that the others did not (intentionally) include the narration into their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 8:48 AM, Al-Englisi said:

Both accepting and rejecting require proof. 

Also, there are other ways to draw conclusions. Especially in academic discussions. You don't have to 'hear' it from the persons mouth.

I don't know the scholar, nor have i played the video, so i am not aware of his abilities or knowledge or of his previous history in academic discourse (to compare if this is his own work or not). I do want to mention though, a lot of people have blind hate and dislike towards brother Nader. Just because he does research and posts up his results (showing us how he reached them). Some of you do the same thing. Read a title from Al-Islam and build an argument on that. Many haven't even read about the topics they debate from real scholarly works (written for academic purposes and not just for general public in a wishy-washy manner). 

He deserves respect for his efforts even if you disagree with his views (although a lot of the time the disagreeing is irrelevant because it's based on ignorance and uneducated opinios - not speaking about the quoted poster in particular). 

Some of the speakers who people post about and link their videos to this site have actually approached brothers like Nader and others on this site for help with research and sciences of Hadith or even history. Just because they don't announce it, and neither do the speakers, don't think that just because we can't appreciate the research and effort (not necessarily the conclusions) that more intelligent people act in the same way. 

To me, the reason why I even care whether or not Qazwini took his research is because I felt Nader's ego come out when he claimed others use his research. Like so what? What are you trying to get at? I would have given him respect, if he was quiet about the matter. Heck I wouldnt have even cared. If you are trying to say I have blind hate towards Nader because of his "research" well thats honestly pathetic. Why the heck would anyone care about who researches what? Thats not the point. Honestly though, you all need to settle down, with all this defend nader attitude. I always find it funny, the first thing you try and degrade is Al-Islam and our Scholars and Public Speakers, not realizing Al-islam sources scholarly works and research in itself, hence when you use them as such, it is research as well.

On 7/14/2015 at 9:41 AM, muhibb-ali said:

The question would then be as to how was the Sayed so sure that the others did not (intentionally) include the narration into their books.

Because the books that have made it to us, do not also include the hadith. Would you not agree that such books hold no relevance to this hadith and its like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more fundemintal issue is to teach western audience who has limited exposure and access to narrations, to teach them a methodology that can encompass a number of problem of hadiths including apparent contradictions with Quran, with other narrations or with common sense.

To teach them with proper example how the religion is vast and deep that our perceptions may fail us.

Brother Ibn alhussain said he is wondering about the sayyid attempt to discard the Hadith altogether (I did not watch the video )

But I'm asking brother Ibn alhussain , what's the difference between what's alqazwini is doing and what alhadith is saying?

Isn't that Hadith being propagated amongst the extreme Shia ?

Is it in our terminology that we restrict the term people of innovation to ahlusunna only? Or can it include some who are counted as Shia ?

I might be wrong but it is my observation that those in west who rely heavily on online sources to learn religion tend to end up as extremists.

So instead of working on the harmony of the small and largely ignorant and confused Muslim society in the west, there are those who want to turn ignorant Shia to fuel of fire , fighting a battle that isn't theirs (not necessarily a military battle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 9:47 AM, Ethics said:

To me, the reason why I even care whether or not Qazwini took his research is because I felt Nader's ego come out when he claimed others use his research. Like so what? What are you trying to get at? I would have given him respect, if he was quiet about the matter. Heck I wouldnt have even cared. If you are trying to say I have blind hate towards Nader because of his "research" well thats honestly pathetic. Why the heck would anyone care about who researches what? Thats not the point. Honestly though, you all need to settle down, with all this defend nader attitude. I always find it funny, the first thing you try and degrade is Al-Islam and our Scholars and Public Speakers, not realizing Al-islam sources scholarly works and research in itself, hence when you use them as such, it is research as well.

Bismillah

One thing you need to do first off, is to stop judging peoples intentions (applying the same principle you did for Qazwini - can't say anything until it comes from the persons mouth).

You wouldn't have give

n him respect if had stayed quite on the matter, because you would never have known?!

It's not because of his research, if you read my post you can tell it's about the conclusions he reaches. My emphasise was that he reaches his conclusions (right or wrong) through research.

We should all care about who researches what. Research is an important part of furthering any science, movement and thought. The researcher and topic play a role in how we will approach that research. Out of the  many books or articles that are written in history or hadith studies, I only read those from the authors I recognise and enjoy the works of (at times it means experiencing a large number initially). Even when it comes to books on usul or fiqh (especially fiqh), when i'm buying my books on fiqh studies/research, I usually check who the scholar is and how strong I have found there work to be in other studies they have done.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'defend Nader attitude' or who 'you all' is. I don't remember another instance where I have defended Nader (although I will happily do so for him and any other member I know if I see the need to), at least not recently. I have however seen you on numerous occasions attack Nader, so maybe you should 'settle down with all this attack Nader attitude'.

I don't degrade al-Islam. I make a point out of highlighting that it is the only source some people use even when trying to refute someone who has done original research. I know more about what goes on in al-Islam and what type of books are accepted there than yourself since my friend is one of the founders and runners of the site. I hence reserve the right to not accept something copied and pasted just because it is from al-Islam, because not all the works are scholarly.

I do not degrade our scholars, I seek refuge in Allah from such.

Al-Islam has a lot of good works, and I think we should read books from there as much as possible - especially those who don't know Arabic or Farsi. My point is that not everything on al-Islam can be used in academic discussions, especially at higher levels. Not all the authors who have books on the site are credible, nor are all of them 'strong' scholars. In fact some of the books were written by scholars who have a reputation today, but they wrote the book featured when they were 20 and in the beginning of their academic career. A lot of the books on al-Islam are ones that were written for the general public and they do not include strong proofs all the time. The goal in some of those books was more to explain things as simply as possible or answer certain questions using the technique of 'jadl' (i'm not sure of the English equivalent). Those same authors would not dare to use those arguments had they written the book for a scholarly circle. This is generally why those books get translated into English. They aren't meant for scholarly circles, except a few.

There is a lot to say, but it is unrelated to your thread and its topic, so I shall leave it at that.

Although I quoted you, and you are an example of some of the things I mentioned in my FIRST post, I was referring to a larger sentiment found among some of the posters here and not limiting or even entirely directing it at you in all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One thing you need to do first off, is to stop judging peoples intentions (applying the same principle you did for Qazwini - can't say anything until it comes from the persons mouth).

You wouldn't have give

n him respect if had stayed quite on the matter, because you would never have known?!

You know what is so ridiculous, is that I never ever speak about Nader, it is others who come around and pin, "you have hate against nader" on me. Then I have to respond back to their false accusations. Please tell me, when have I attacked Nader personally? If anything I have always CRITICIZED the E-Rijalists, in general, and I have made it very clear every single time. For example, in this scenario, he claims Qazwini took his research, I say no, and then you come up with something that has nothing to do with proving Qazwini took it, and go straight to accusing me or others of hating nader like wth?? and when I explain why I objected Naders claim in the first place and my proof for it, then all of a sudden "you hate nader, you only copy from Al-Islam and public speakers" and you go on about something that has nothing to do with the first issue in the first place.. Like it was never about how Nader researches or himself. It was simply showing how Qawini's list of scholars were not in the order of naders research. That was it. Yall are always making tiny issues so dramatically. Oh and how you tell me to apply the same principle as I did with qazwini, I did in fact do that. Nader made a claim, and I responded back. When someone claims, someone (more knowledgeable, a scholar) used their research it comes off as egotistical. This is an online forum, and if there was no bad intention behind it, then I say sorry, but you cannot blame me, reading off a forum can come off any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

There are many issues with his lecture. I will address just a few.

1.) He says it is only mentioned by al-Kulayni in al-Kafi. And he attempts to cast aspersions on the narration based off of that, stating that al-Tusi and al-Saduq never narrated this hadith. (20:35 - 22:00) Throughout my years of researching hadith and reading books on hadith science, never once have I came across a scholar saying "well this was only mentioned by al-Kulayni in al-Kafi". This is not a principle in the science of hadith. I would've respected his statement more if he would've said the narration is a khabar al-waahid, therefore this should cast doubt on the narration, instead of playing the "it's only found in al-Kafi" card.

What is the difference? Because there could be a narration with 5 different chains found just in al-Kafi, and no other book, and based off of this made-up principle he created, he should cast doubt on the narration, due to other scholars not narrating this. As you can tell, this supposed principle he concocted doesn't make sense and is not a real principle.

2.) He admits that all these scholars have said this hadith is Saheeh, but then goes on with the lecture trying to prove its weakness. What he slickly does is make a false claim that the scholars who authenticate this hadith, state the "isnad is Saheeh" (See: 20:15 - 20:20). This is incorrect, scholars who label a hadith Saheeh mean that the narration is Saheeh by both isnad and matn. If the chain of narrators is authentic, but the matn is problematic, the scholars would make a distinction.

3.) He incorrectly states that a scholar accepts a hadith that he feels "certain" it is from the Ahl al-Bayt. (22:05 - 22:45) This is incorrect. When it comes to hadith, if the ihtimal of the its sihha is above the ihtimal of its ghayr-sihha due to some qarina (i.e. sanad), then it is considered mu`tabar and is used as hujjah. It does not need to be qat` (certain), because having itmin'an in the sihha is considered mu`tabar dhann.

There are many other issues with this lecture that I could address.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
x

Wassalam

 

 

Walaykumsalam,

 

JazakAllah brother for the insightful answers, i thank you for this and also for the post on the wahdat al wujud thread.

 

On another note, the quality and insight into a number of posts on this thread are quite amazing.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some of our past scholars believed using fowl language against those who commit indecent acts openly is okay? In that he must be an innovator of laws? The scholar uses narrations to prove his stance.

I say, what does that solve other then, the person sticking to his indecent behavior and possibly even further upholding to bid'ha? I find that rationally incomprehensible. Instead of fronting the being with utmost aqlaaq and attitude and gently explaining to him how his behavior is wrong, you would put more fire into his injury. A public sinner, knows his wrong doings, be it he/she is doing it intentionally or not. We see this today with Muslims of different sects doing the same to their own within their schools. What has it done other then further the sinner away from Islam, and give him an excuse to create and spread their own agenda. You can be held responsible for not bringing the person back on the straight path. What if through your behavior they amend their ways? I think both psychologically and rational this ideology is flawed.

We have not addressed the quranic argument (which I believe is very strong), both in spirit and in the literal sense, of justifying such behavior. I think the quran is very strong on how we must act and approach and manner. After all the quran is a book of morals.

The sayed did address the notion of for example, calling someone by the name of the sin they have committed isnt an insult but a reality, which therefore does not fall under the category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout my years of researching hadith and reading books on hadith science, never once have I came across a scholar saying "well this was only mentioned by al-Kulayni in al-Kafi". This is not a principle in the science of hadith. 

 

Pardon my ignorance, I know very little about the science of hadith.

 

The sayyid may have used a principle that you have never encountered before, but if he finds good reason to employ that principle, is it not within his rights to employ it? The man is not devoid of intelligence and may have good reasons. I am sure you have sometimes disagreed with scholars. If he invents a principle that is not generally used, then should it not be assessed on its own merits?

 

I would've respected his statement more if he would've said the narration is a khabar al-waahid, therefore this should cast doubt on the narration, instead of playing the "it's only found in al-Kafi" card.
 
What is the difference? Because there could be a narration with 5 different chains found just in al-Kafi, and no other book, and based off of this made-up principle he created, he should cast doubt on the narration, due to other scholars not narrating this. As you can tell, this supposed principle he concocted doesn't make sense and is not a real principle.

 

 

If having only one chain makes a narration weaker than one having many chains, then can't the same principles (that weaken a singular chain) be used to consider a narration in single book to be weaker than one in many books? If this was not considered, then isn't the writing being treated as almost being infallible? The documenting scholar is a part of the chain and acts as a bottleneck to even a hadith with many chains?

 

Being weaker does of course not mean it is rejected, but that would be determined by his own science.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Sadiq al-Shirazi, it does not contradict the Holy Qur'an, as the verse regarding sabb is not mutlaq. I only listened to the first minute, basically (what I understood) the verse is prohibiting sabb to idols if they will retaliate by doing sabb to Allah.

 

I didn't listen to the rest of the video.

 

 

He also used this verse as proof for sabb:

 

Ignoble, besides all that, base-born; 68:13

 
Edited by The Batman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

According to Sadiq al-Shirazi, it does not contradict the Holy Qur'an, as the verse regarding sabb is not mutlaq. I only listened to the first minute, basically (what I understood) the verse is prohibiting sabb to idols if they will retaliate by doing sabb to Allah.

 

He also used this verse as proof for sabb:

 

Ignoble, besides all that, base-born; 68:13

 

 

 

The argument of  Sayed Hossein Qazwini was that the verse preventing Sabb was unconditional and the retaliation resulting in Sabb upon Allah was not the reason behind preventing the Sabb. 

 

The below narration seems to indicate that the reason for preventing the Sabb was because of the retaliation..

 

 فقال كان المؤمنون يسبون ما يعبد المشركون من دون الله وكان المشركون يسبون ما يعبد المؤمنون فنهى الله المؤمنين عن سب آلهتم لكيلا يسب الكفار إله المؤمنين فيكونوا المؤمنون قد اشركوا بالله من حيث لا يعلمون فقال: " ولا تسبوا الذين يدعون من دون الله فيسبوا الله عدوا بغير علم " 

 

[Tafseer al-Qummi, Vol. 1, Pg. 213]

 

As for the verse "Ignoble, besides all that, base-born" (68:13) - Sayed Hossein Qazwini called this out as 'Speaking the truth' and did not include this as Sabb. 

 

So it might be that if you are speaking the truth to expose an enemy or innovators then it would be fine even if it would sound insulting or be regarded as using foul language and this would not be classified as Sabb and hence both the above verses would be acted upon?

Edited by muhibb-ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument was refuted by the sayed https://youtu.be/zGjXoIEr_xs?t=34m5s. Even still, think about it. God is denying us to use sabb against the disbelievers because they might curse our lord and personalities? They are already rejecting God in the first place. Whether they curse our God or personalities is irrelevant to the prohibition of sabb commanded by the verse. It is not the reason (alaa) of the verse, but it is a wisdom. Allah is forbidding profanity period. Think about the logic of such an argument. Do all disbelievers curse Allah if we swear at them? Clearly not. Therefore, can we swear at a disbeliever if we know he wont swear at our lord? This logic is inconsistent. Therefore, saying that the verse is applied only to disbelievers is flawed. Besides, who says a believer wont curse Allah swt or personalities within his own faith? It is not an certain statement. Are there not Shias who do not accept all of our Imams A.S? Are there not shias who do not accept all of the companions? Clearly there is, therefore to assume such a verse is only applied to disbelievers is a weak argument. Besides, the quran is universal. Allah swt, when speaking about morality doesnt pick and chose certain cases. They are all generalities. In Islam, morality isnt hypocritical. This is neither just nor merciful, of God to command us to be good with some and bad with others. This is what you would call double standards. Finally, in the holy quran, we see a vile creature who is almost as low as satan, Firawn, who would claim to be the God of all Gods, and would clearly condemn and curse all other God's and faiths, Allah swt told his prophet, to go to him since he has exceeded his boundaries, but commanded the prophet of God who could clearly wipe him or any enemy of God out with a mere command of Allah swt, to speak with him with a soft tongue, lest he should change his ways. SubhanAllah, now this is deen ul haq! Not only do we see another clear example of how we should approach even the worst enemies of God, but there is a clear example of a disbeliever who already swears and abuses our Lord (which again refutes the idea that using profanity is only not allowed against disbelievers because they might curse our lord, well they already can be cursing our lord), yet a prophet of God is commanded to be gentle with him.

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 فقال كان المؤمنون يسبون ما يعبد المشركون من دون الله وكان المشركون يسبون ما يعبد المؤمنون فنهى الله المؤمنين عن سب آلهتم لكيلا يسب الكفار إله المؤمنين فيكونوا المؤمنون قد اشركوا بالله من حيث لا يعلمون فقال: " ولا تسبوا الذين يدعون من دون الله فيسبوا الله عدوا بغير علم "

 

 

He said: The believers used to insult that which the polytheists used to worship besides Allah, and the polytheists would insult what the believers were worshipping, so Allah prohibited the believers from insulting their gods so that the disbelievers do not insult The God of the believers and (thus) the believers would have committed polytheism (?) from where they do not know, so He said: And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. 

 

Please correct any problems in my translation.

Edited by The Batman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2015 at 7:02 AM, Ethics said:

That argument was refuted by the sayed https://youtu.be/zGjXoIEr_xs?t=34m5s. Even still, think about it. God is denying us to use sabb against the disbelievers because they might curse our lord and personalities? They are already rejecting God in the first place. Whether they curse our God or personalities is irrelevant to the prohibition of sabb commanded by the verse. It is not the reason (alaa) of the verse, but it is a wisdom. Allah is forbidding profanity period. Think about the logic of such an argument. Do all disbelievers curse Allah if we swear at them? Clearly not. Therefore, can we swear at a disbeliever if we know he wont swear at our lord? This logic is inconsistent. Therefore, saying that the verse is applied only to disbelievers is flawed. Besides, who says a believer wont curse Allah swt or personalities within his own faith? It is not an certain statement. Are there not Shias who do not accept all of our Imams A.S? Are there not shias who do not accept all of the companions? Clearly there is, therefore to assume such a verse is only applied to disbelievers is a weak argument. Besides, the quran is universal. Allah swt, when speaking about morality doesnt pick and chose certain cases. They are all generalities. In Islam, morality isnt hypocritical. This is neither just nor merciful, of God to command us to be good with some and bad with others. This is what you would call double standards. Finally, in the holy quran, we see a vile creature who is almost as low as satan, Firawn, who would claim to be the God of all Gods, and would clearly condemn and curse all other God's and faiths, Allah swt told his prophet, to go to him since he has exceeded his boundaries, but commanded the prophet of God who could clearly wipe him or any enemy of God out with a mere command of Allah swt, to speak with him with a soft tongue, lest he should change his ways. SubhanAllah, now this is deen ul haq! Not only do we see another clear example of how we should approach even the worst enemies of God, but there is a clear example of a disbeliever who already swears and abuses our Lord (which again refutes the idea that using profanity is only not allowed against disbelievers because they might curse our lord, well they already can be cursing our lord), yet a prophet of God is commanded to be gentle with him.

(wasalam)

Insha Allah I will read Shirazi's arguements for it and mention them, so that you can respond to them point by point. But in the end he is a marja'... as you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I responded to the crux of the argument people tend to hold according to that verse. What do you mean "he is a marja as you say"? I respectfully disagree with this reasoning. I personally, have come to the conclusion, and the answer has become evident for me. The quran contradicts such an ideology, therefore if a hadith is to be interpreted as such, then I reject the hadith on the basis of contradiction.

Edited by Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2015 at 7:42 AM, Ethics said:

I think I responded to the crux of the argument people tend to hold according to that verse. What do you mean "he is a marja as you say"? I respectfully disagree with this reasoning. I personally, have come to the conclusion, and the answer has become evident for me. The hadith contradicts such an ideology, therefore if a hadith is to be interpreted as such, then I reject the hadith on the basis of contradiction.

I didn't mean it rudely, I meant perhaps his arguements as a marja may be interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also takes care that a hadith have a strong chain of narrators before being accepted. Now, applying these standards, you really have to wonder how much of his own beliefs he would be able to defend, while remaining consistent.

 

I was thinking the same, from listening to the lecture, you would believe that he has quite strict standards about what he accepts.

 

I think, in this case we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is giving a lecture to a group of youth, you can tell that he has to slow down to explain things. It is easy in such a scenario not to explain everything and all the conditions and exceptions. It may also be easy to make mistakes. Especially mistakes of omission.

 

If you were to ask him, if he would follow other ahadith with a weaker chain or with a strong chain but reported in a solitary book, it is very likely that he wouldn't say absolutely not.

 

He may only have these standards for ahadith which have the characteristics of the hadith being discussed.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...