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
Ethics

The Controversial Hadith Of Dawood Bin Sarhan

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If I remember correctly, the Ayah, according to a hadith I read, means by the Holy Qur'an.

That would obviously be one way of doing what the Qur'an says here, but it seems doubtful that this would be the only meaning. First of all Allah could have said it much more directly had that been the only meaning, and secondly a little reflection would make it obvious that limiting ourselves to the Quran when debating with Christians for example wouldn't always be sufficient. The Quran itself tells them to bring their proofs, and to read their scriptures. How is that going to work if we can't then respond to what they say outside of quoting the Quran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

On 7/14/2015 at 7:43 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

In those over cases, it is hardly likely to rebound in your face in the same way as lying against opponents in a theological dispute. It's also not as clear why lying would even be necessary. Can anyone think of a good example?

In all the other cases you listed, it is clear in what circumstances you would lie, and what the motive would be. There is also not likely to be any comeback in the event of being caught out.

I think there are two issues being mixed. One is the permissibility of such a thing, second is the wisdom behind using this tactic everywhere. My point was regarding its permissibility, and that I did not see why it can't fit as another case of an exception where lying against an Ahl ul-Biddah is allowed. As for its consequences, such as being caught or not, I think one's own wisdom should dictate when you would need to use this tactic. Because, lying to your spouse, or to reconcile ties between two people can also have similar results (the spouse can figure out you had a false promise, or the two individuals can figure out that you lied to them etc.). Also, I'm not sure how we ended up speaking about lying to the person. The definition of the word implies, slandering and falsely accusing them - this is different than lying to them in say a theological dispute by using some untrue premises for example. The narration is talking about lying and slandering the person themselves (as per the definition of باهتو understood by the second set of scholars).

But the first set of scholars, who took the meaning of باهتو  as "bring strong evidence against them", I have another feeling telling me that these so called evidences could also encompass using logical fallacies to overcome your opponents. This also falls in line with the interpretation of some of these scholars who say that the narration means to say things with which you can do iqna' (اقناع) of your opponent. You don't necessarily need to bring some sort of burhan all the time to do that. In fact, most of the times you don't (since most of the times you won't be using burhan in these arguments anyways).

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For "Buht" specifically al-Majlisi says in al-Bihar:

والظاهر أن المراد بالمباهتة إلزامهم بالحجج القاطعة ، وجعلهم متحيرين لا يحيرون جوابا كما قال تعالى : " فبهت الذي كفر " ( 1 ) ويحتمل أن يكون من البهتان للمصلحة فان كثيرا من المساوي يعدها أكثر الناس محاسن خصوصا العقائد الباطلة ، والاول أظهر قال الجوهري بهته بهتا أخذه بغتة وبهت الرجل بالكسر إذا دهش وتحير

And what is evident is that: what is meant by “Mubahita” is to impose (bind) them by (with) irrefutable proofs (arguments), and cause them to remain confused and perplexed, hesitant to produce a reply, as Allah the Elevated had said: “so the disbeliever was confounded” (2:258) [فبهت الذي كفر], and it is possible to interpret it as false accusation (defamatory charge) for a common benefit - for a lot of defective evils are deemed by the masses to be good, especially in regards false beliefs; but the former is more evident, al-Jawhari says: بهته بهتا he took him by surprise (astonished him). And the the man was بهت with a Kasra - if he is staggered and dazed.

And for "Sabb" as noted by brother Ibn al-Hussain, some scholars have interpreted it to mean "Istikhfaf", al-Majlisi and whence al-Mazandarani say:


والمراد بسبهم الاتيان بكلام يوجب الاستخفاف بهم ، قال الشهيد الثاني رفع الله درجته : يصح مواجهتهم بما يكون نسبته إليهم حقا لا بالكذب

And the meaning of Sabb is to use words that will result in people trivializing them (to make people think lowly of them), and al-Shahid II said: “it is required to face (oppose) them with that which is attributed to them correctly and not by falsities”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 4:45 PM, Ethics said:

UGH... no actually your wrong. Did you even listen to the lecture? He defintely did not get it from your site, nor did he read from its order. Listen to 19:26, the first scholar he stated was Shaheed Thani - subzawari - naraqi - rohani - haqim - etc

 

On 7/13/2015 at 4:52 PM, Ethics said:

^^ Yea, and again, Qazwini's list although it some the same scholars and more that Nader did not include, because obviously why wouldnt it (???), some that were both on Qazwini's list and naders was not the exact same order. Even if he did have the exact same order, you would need proof form his own mouth.  Lets settle down please.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 7:26 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

(salam)

^What do you say about the other places where lying is allowed? For example, lying to rebuild ties between two people, lying to your enemies during war, lying to your spouse in certain cases etc. I think if one see the Ahl ul-Biddah as an enemy, who is causing damage and harm to the society and religious faith of people, I am not seeing why lying against them (as one option, albeit the last option) can't be fitted in the list of other places where lying is allowed.

Wassalam

While I generally don't disagree with where you're coming from, I still need to emphasize on the fact that there is a borderline that still would need to be drawn on lying in general(depending on the scenario that it's applied in) - as it can be be beneficial with the examples you gave also just as harmful when applied in the wrong scenario.

For example, the outcome of lying in public - such as on public television(i.e attributing something to a certain individual or a particular sect when there is no basis for it) could result in causing damage like this:

On 7/14/2015 at 7:11 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

....you put yourself at risk being exposed as a liar(to the general public), and losing your credibility(to those who initially considered to give value to what you say and and try to see your perspective)  , as well as casting doubt on anything else you say. If you get caught lying once, then why should anyone believe anything else you have to say? And why lie when you are on the side of truth anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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)

 

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. 

So you are basically forming a principle here that suggests that any hadith that scholars like Tusi and Saduq didn't "take" and add to their books which Kulayni "took" and added to his, was because they had issues with it and they did not consider the report to be موثوق به?

Kulayni took this hadith because Muhammad ibn Yahya (his teacher) narrated it to him and its sanad is exceptional (not even the speaker in the video casts doubt on the chain). Muhammad ibn Yahya was not the teacher of Saduq or Tusi, so the only way for them to have "taken" this narration would have been from them quoting it from al-Kafi or someone else comes and narrates it to them. The first case, I already questioned you as to why is there an expectation from them to quote every narration from al-Kafi since there are tons of narrations which they don't quote and there is no need to assume that just because they didn't quote it, that it meant they didn't consider it to be reliable.

Whereas the second case could very well be that no one narrated this narration to them (which really isn't a big deal). It doesn't take the value of the hadith from al-Kafi away. Kulayni also does not put this narration in his Furu' al-Kafi, rather in volume 2, which is the Usul work and it has dozens of chapters that have to do with ethical narrations. Literally hundreds of narrations from this volume don't exist in any other primary work that we have today. This hadith is in one of those chapters. So therefore, the third case is that, even if someone narrated this hadith to them, we shouldn't have the expectation from Sheikh Tusi to include this report in his two main works (al-Tahdheeb and al-Istibsar), because those two works deal with ahadith on topics that Kulayni would term as "Furu", such as Salat, Sawm, Hajj, Zakat, Jihad etc. - minus the chapters he has on the historical details of the Ma'sumeen. Tusi actually has no chapter in either of the books that pertain to innovations and innovators at all and thus had no reason to add this narration to any of these two books. Talking about the nature of innovations and the state of the innovators doesn't seem to have a place in the purpose of him writing these two books.

Same applies to Shaykh Saduq in his al-Faqih. The only few narrations that he brings regarding Bid'ah, are in the very last section of his volume 3, that has to do with recognizing the greater sins for which Allah [swt] has promised hell-fire. In it, he brings a couple dozen narrations ranging from one subject to another, and out of them, he brings like four short one-liner ahadith about the nature of Bida'h it self. He doesn't bring any narration that has to do with how to deal with someone who creates a Bida'h - it clearly isn't his purpose in the chapter to showcase that.

So I hope it is clear that this hadith only existing in Kulayni's work of Usul al-Kafi is not something that is problematic, rather it is natural, as a lot of narrations in the book exist whose source today for us is only al-Kafi (particularly volume 1 and 2 and 8 - I haven't read through Furu' so can't comment on it).

--

On a side note, regarding what I said previously about using logical fallacies, I just found Mulla Sadra saying something similar in his Sharh of al-Kafi [although he is writing this under a completely different narration, but refers to Ahl al-Bida' in it]:

فهذه عقائد تجب على كل عاقل بالغ ان يعتقدها، اذ يصعب على كلّ احد منهم دركه و لا حاجة الى تقرير الادلة الكلامية، بل الغرائز مجبولة على الاذعان بها و القبول عند القاء الملقى اياها عليهم و تلقينهم بها لو لا بدع المبتدعين و وساوس المضلّين، فيقع الاحتياج عند ذلك الى من يحرس هذه العقائد و يحفظها عليهم عن تحليل اهل‏ البدع‏ و لو بمقدّمات جدليّة و مسلمات عند الخصم، اذ الغرض من صنعة الكلام دفع شرّهم عن عقائد القلوب و لو باستعمال الحيل الكلامية، كما ان الغرض من الجهاد و المحاربة مع الكفار دفع شرهم عن الابدان و لو بالخدع، و الحرب خدعة

 

Wassalam

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

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...