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

I really love this lecture, because it truly teaches us terminologies in Islamic Jurisprudence and Theology. Alhamduillah, it makes it very clear, of the authority and knowledge of our scholars versus those who have no authority but go about quoting and grading hadiths online. Sheed Sadr's theory on examining hadith through not only the literal verses of the quran but its spirit as well, has very made me happy, because alhamduillah I have been going about with this reasoning as well, regarding certain subjects. This lecture is filled with knowledge.

Edited by Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 7:08 AM, Ethics said:

I really love this lecture, because it truly teaches us terminologies in Islamic Jurisprudence and Theology. Alhamduillah, it makes it very clear, of the authority and knowledge of our scholars versus those who have no authority but go about quoting and grading hadiths online. Sheed Sadr's theory on examining hadith through not only the literal verses of the quran but its spirit as well, has very made me happy, because alhamduillah I have been going about with this reasoning as well, regarding certain subjects. This lecture is filled with knowledge.

I'm halfway through the lecture, but I get the impression that he is talking about scholarly conflict with each other rather than between the laymen and the scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 7:18 AM, Ali_Hussain said:

I'm halfway through the lecture, but I get the impression that he is talking about scholarly conflict with each other rather than between the laymen and the scholars.

No, he is speaking about how to discuss and approach others when sharing different opinions and beliefs. Doesnt matter if you are a scholar or not, or whether you are in the same school of thought or not. The etiquette of speaking and convincing in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone summarise what his main points are concerning this hadith, particularly what he considers to be the correct, or most correct, interpretation(s), and the incorrect ones?

Credit to Nader for translating the hadith and providing numerous authentications of the hadith (link). The Habib guys seized upon this and popularised it, until it seems to have caused Qazwini to feel the need to reply to the use of it. I wonder if Qazwini made use of Nader's list of who authenticated it.

Thanks, ws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 4:03 PM, Cake said:

Can someone summarise what his main points are concerning this hadith, particularly what he considers to be the correct, or most correct, interpretation(s), and the incorrect ones?

Credit to Nader for translating the hadith and providing numerous authentications of the hadith. The Habib guys seized upon this and popularised it, until it seems to have caused Qazwini to feel the need to reply to the use of it. I wonder if Qazwini made use of Nader's list of who authenticated it.

Thanks, ws.

As far as I got, his main points were that only al-Kulayni narrated, all the other major muhhadithun left it out of their books, possibly meaning that they didn't find it authentic. Other points were that it conflicts with the Qur'an, so we should discard it, I think there were also a couple of point of the words having multiple meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

On 7/13/2015 at 4:03 PM, Cake said:

Can someone summarise what his main points are concerning this hadith, particularly what he considers to be the correct, or most correct, interpretation(s), and the incorrect ones?

Credit to Nader for translating the hadith and providing numerous authentications of the hadith (link). The Habib guys seized upon this and popularised it, until it seems to have caused Qazwini to feel the need to reply to the use of it. I wonder if Qazwini made use of Nader's list of who authenticated it.

I haven't fully heard the whole lecture, so I don't have a formal list of points. There are many things you and I would disagree with for sure.

I could tell from hearing it, that he used the list of scholars who authenticated it from my site. He was not only reading down the list of names and their books, but also reading in the same order. The YH guys did the same thing years back. 

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[al-Kafi] Muhammad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr from Dawud b. Sirhan from Abi Abdillah who said: the messenger of Allah said: if you see the people of doubt and innovation after me – then - disassociate from them openly, and increase in insulting them and speaking [negatively] about them and slandering (back-biting) them and accusing (defaming) them – so that they do not feel hopeful in [spreading] corruption in Islam, and the people become warned of them, and they [the people] do not learn from their innovations, Allah shall write for you by that the good deeds and raise you by that in stations in the hereafter.

The list of scholars brought by brother Nader is impressive Ma sha Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 4:35 PM, Nader Zaveri said:

(salam)

(bismillah)

I haven't fully heard the whole lecture, so I don't have a formal list of points. There are many things you and I would disagree with for sure.

I could tell from hearing it, that he used the list of scholars who authenticated it from my site. He was not only reading down the list of names and their books, but also reading in the same order. The YH guys did the same thing years back. 

(salam)

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

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

Br Nader's list:

1.    al-FaaDil al-Kaadhimi (d. 1065), Masaalik al-Afhaam 'ila Ayaat al-Ahkaam, vol. 2, pg. 397
2.    Shaheed al-Thaani (d. 966), Masaalik al-Afhaam ila TanqeeH Sharaa'i` al-Islaam, vol. 14, pg. 434
3.    al-Majlisi I (al-Majlisi's father), RawDah al-Muttaqeen, vol. 9, pg. 327
4.    Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawaaree (d. 1090), Kifaayah al-Ahkaam, vol. 1, pg. 437
5.    `Abd al-`Ala (d. 1414), Mahdhab al-Ahkaam, vol. 16, pg. 134
6.    `Abd Allaah al-Jazaa'iree (d. 1173), al-TuHfah al-Suniyyah, pg. 83
7.    Yoosuf al-Bahraani, al-Hadaa'iq al-NaaDirah, vol. 18, pg. 164
8.    al-Hussayn bin Aal `Asfoor al-Bahraani, Sadaad al-`Ibaad, pg. 446
9.    Muhammad Mujaahid al-Tabataba'i (d. 1242), al-Munaahil, pg. 259
10.  Ahmad al-Naraaqi (d. 1245), Mustanad al-Shee`ah fee Ahkaam al-Sharee`ah, vol. 14, pg. 162
11.  Murtada al-Ansaari (d. 1281), Kitaab al-Makaasib, vol. 1, pg. 353
12.  al-Khoei, MisbaaH al-Fuqaahah, vol. 1, pg. 354
13.  Jawad al-Tabrizi, Irshaad al-Taalib 'ila al-Ta`leeq `ala al-Makaasib, vol. 1, pg. 162
14.  Jawad al-Tabrizi, Asad al-Hadood, pg. 235
15.  Abu Talib al-Tabrizi, al-Ta`leeqah al-Istidilaaliyyah, pg. 430
16.  al-Sayfa al-Mazandaraani, Daleel Tahreer al-Waseelah, vol. 2, pg. 174

17. al-RooHaani, Fiqh al-Saadiq, vol. 14, pg. 296

18. al-RooHaani, MisbaaH al-Fuqaahah, vol. 1, pg. 379

19. Muhammad Sa`eed al-Hakeem, MisbaaH al-Minhaaj, pg. 359

20. `Alee al-Namaazee al-Shahroodi, Mustadarak Safeenah al-Bihaar, vol. 1, pg. 303 & vol. 8, pg. 202

21. Haadi al-Najafi, Mawsoo`ah aHaadeeth Ahl al-Bayt, vol. 2, pg. 25

22. al-Turayhi, Majma` al-BaHrayn, vol. 3, pg. 343

23. Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani, Mikyaal al-Makaarim, vol. 2, pg. 259

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/12/exposing-bidah-reward-for-doing-so.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ 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.

Edited by Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 5:26 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

Sayyid Qazwini spends most of his lecture arguing against a particular interpretation of the hadith, which is fine. I doubt anyone here thinks it's ok to use profane language or to make false accusations against someone, even if they are an innovator. It's a little strange to reject the hadith just because you've rejected one interpretation of it though. I'm also sure that many of the arguments he brings against the hadith could also be used against many hadiths he would use to back up his beliefs. For example, he takes issue with the only classical scholar to include it in his books being Shaykh Kulayni, the fact that it contradicts the Qur'an (in word and spirit), and that it contradicts the Sunnah of the Prophet SA and the Imams [a]. 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 must say though, having never being a fan of anyone from his family, his overall message in this lecture was a good one (for the most part).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 5:37 PM, Ali_Hussain said:

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

I must say though, having never being a fan of anyone from his family, his overall message in this lecture was a good one (for the most part).

Yeah, there were a lot of things that I said that I could agree with, at least in principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good thing to explain is:

 

1. In Hawzah, how much Rijal are our to-be sheikhs and speakers taught?

 

2. Why then, do we still have them narrating extremely dai'f hadiths, such as the twelfth imams mother being a roman princess, owas al qarani, and (perhaps not this speaker as i have now double checked) but lady zainab hitting her head?

 

3. Even scholars can make mistakes when grading - such as Alama Majlisi r.a

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2015 at 4:03 PM, Cake said:

Can someone summarise what his main points are concerning this hadith, particularly what he considers to be the correct, or most correct, interpretation(s), and the incorrect ones?

Credit to Nader for translating the hadith and providing numerous authentications of the hadith (link). The Habib guys seized upon this and popularised it, until it seems to have caused Qazwini to feel the need to reply to the use of it. I wonder if Qazwini made use of Nader's list of who authenticated it.

Thanks, ws.

He mainly tries to prove that the part of the narration dealing with "increased Sabb (insults/foul language) is not compatible with the Quran and the narrations of the AhlulBait (as) and the way of the AhlulBait (as) ..

He says that it is best to oppose by bringing forth the truth using Quran and Ahadith. 

He makes a distinction between La'an and Sabb.

He also makes a distinction between speaking Haqaaiq (truth) [like in Sura Masad about Abu Lahab] and Sabb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone here thinks it's ok to use profane language or to make false accusations against someone, even if they are an innovator. 

 

Sayyed al-Khoei would disagree, he said, in some instances its allowed. He even said lying is allowed to stop an innovation.

 

Want references?

Edited by The Batman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 3:07 AM, The Batman said:

Sayyed al-Khoei would disagree, he said, in some instances its allowed. He even said lying is allowed to stop an innovation.

Want references?

It's ok, I know of the quote, but I would respectfully disagree, and I think Sayyid Qazwini makes some valid points against that point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 3:07 AM, The Batman said:

Sayyed al-Khoei would disagree, he said, in some instances its allowed. He even said lying is allowed to stop an innovation.

Want references?

Can you please share?

On 7/14/2015 at 4:38 AM, Al-Afasy said:

What if Syed al-Khoei's quote was proven by narrations? 

Can you please share those narrations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 5:03 AM, muhibb-ali said:

Can you please share?

As for lying - 

http://www.al-khoei.us/fatawa1/?id=1803

Question 1245: Is it permissible to lie upon the innovator or (person) who spreads misguidance when raising proofs against him, if the lie refutes his proofs and nullifies his claims of falsehood?

Answer: If the reply to him makes him stop his falsehood, it is permissible.

Source: al-Khoei, Siraat al-Najaah, ed. Moosa Mufeed al-Deen `AaSi al-`Aalimi, 3 vols, (Qum: Maktab Nashr al-Muntakhab, 1st ed., 1416), vol. 1, pg. 557, question # 1245 

(translation by Nader Zaveri)

_______________________________________

As for insulting (in some cases, remember)

http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=4956

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2015 at 7:11 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided. [16:125]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe his arguments are quite strong, about why only Kulayni narrating it (it is a very valid question), and clear quranic contradictions, refute that specific interpretation of that hadith. I believe he was clear on explaining that the hadith in itself can have a different meaning, as he gives definitions, but generally it is taken as an excuse to swear and insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
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

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...