Interesting post regarding Bukhari & Mushrik
-
Salaam Siki, Samia, all,
1- Thank you for calling me a rational man.
2- I mentioned the story from more angles, rather than snippets that agree with the tone and bias of this site.
3- Whether I agree with this hadeeth or not is another matter and will require different discussions on my way of authenticating or not certain hadeeths.
4- I do reject hadeeth on objective criteria. That is when there is a ckear proof that they are wrong. I am afraid that you guys are using subjective and emotional criteria. If there is no objective criterion to prove the hadeeth false, then I have to at least keep the possibility that the hadeeth is possible.
5- Stoning was mentioned in the Torah. So, it is possible that it was part of God's system. One can claim that the Torah was manipulated in that area, but cannot prove it. So, one has to accept the possibility that stoning was part of God's system. If we cannot see the wisdom of it, then it may be because of our lack of wisdom rather than otherwise. We have to accept the limitation of our wisdom and that is what makes us open minded vs close minded.
6- The Qur'an talks about repentance by geting killed. It is in Baqara after the Israelites took the calf for worship. Moses asked them to get themselves killed so that they have full repentance in the eye of God. The hadeeth of the man and the woman who insisted on stoning is about people who wanted to have the best repentance possible for their sins. So, the Qur'an is not totally against this principle.
7- This point is for Samia. The woman was sent back several times. She came after she delivered her baby, the prophet said come back in two years and it was only when she came with her baby eating a piece of bread that the prophet ordered the stoning. She did not try to run away like that man, but was steadfast. That is why the prophet had the most respect for those two people and especially this woman. He prayed on them when they died.Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace,
Salaam Siki, Samia, all,
2- I mentioned the story from more angles, rather than snippets that agree with the tone and bias of this site.
3- Whether I agree with this hadeeth or not is another matter and will require different discussions on my way of authenticating or not certain hadeeths.
4- I do reject hadeeth on objective criteria. That is when there is a ckear proof that they are wrong. I am afraid that you guys are using subjective and emotional criteria. If there is no objective criterion to prove the hadeeth false, then I have to at least keep the possibility that the hadeeth is possible.A lot of us agree that not all hadeeths are bad, just the ones that blatantly contradict the Quran (which is a lot if not most). Also, why should we even listen to hadeeth if we have a book that is fully detailed, Quran. Not saying we cant learn a thing or two, but it needs to be backed up by Quran.
I like many hadiths myself, most of the ones on animals. I like this one on mothers
A man came to the Prophet and said, O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship? The Prophet said Your mother. The man said, Then who?' The Prophet said Then your mother. The man further asked, Then who?' The Prophet said Then your mother. The man asked again, Then who?' The Prophet said Then your father. (Bukhari, Muslim).
5- Stoning was mentioned in the Torah. So, it is possible that it was part of God's system. One can claim that the Torah was manipulated in that area, but cannot prove it. So, one has to accept the possibility that stoning was part of God's system. If we cannot see the wisdom of it, then it may be because of our lack of wisdom rather than otherwise. We have to accept the limitation of our wisdom and that is what makes us open minded vs close minded.
6- The Qur'an talks about repentance by geting killed. It is in Baqara after the Israelites took the calf for worship. Moses asked them to get themselves killed so that they have full repentance in the eye of God. The hadeeth of the man and the woman who insisted on stoning is about people who wanted to have the best repentance possible for their sins. So, the Qur'an is not totally against this principle.Take care all and have a great day.
HusseinSo are we Jews or Muslims? Do we follow a book that came before the Quran or the Quran itself? If you want to go by that idea, do Sabbath also, which the Quran says is not for the Muslims but for those who debate it (Jews and Christians).
Peace
-
Salam Hussein,
3- Whether I agree with this hadeeth or not is another matter and will require different discussions on my way of authenticating or not certain hadeeths.
I become curious now ...Do you believe we are commanded to implement stoning?
4- I do reject hadeeth on objective criteria. That is when there is a ckear proof that they are wrong. I am afraid that you guys are using subjective and emotional criteria.
I also do reject hadiths on objective criteria and I don't deny the possibility that some sayings of the prophet might have survived through hadiths.
If there is no objective criterion to prove the hadeeth false, then I have to at least keep the possibility that the hadeeth is possible.
I agree. But don't forget also that just because hadiths do not contradict quran or cannot be proven to be false, doesn't make them automatically from the prophet either. For objective people this should be easy to understand.
In other words what I disagree with you is it seems to me that those "some" false hadiths mean nothing to you. The thing is not like that bro. I will give an illustration
Suppose I am getting to know someone. As time passes I become convinced that he is a good guy so I trust him. One day, he lies to me INTENTIONALLY for some purposes. OK, it is fine. Another day, he lies again to me INTENTIONALLY for his benefits. Well, this time it is not so OK coz he has lied to me two times but I still give him chance. Yet another day, he lies again to me INTENTIONALLY. Now Hussein, let me ask you If I don't trust that guy any more, do you think I am not objective? What is the normal reaction for the people who have been betrayed? Will they keep firmly trusting the betrayer? YES, this guy doesn't always lie because if he always lies, I will not even ever trust him and hence he won't be able to deceive me for his benefits. The story continues ...this guy tells me INFORMATION which I cannot prove whether it is fact or fiction. Do you say I am subjective if I choose not to accept the INFORMATION? My point is Keep trusting hadiths after knowing their deceit so many times is itself BIASED and SUBJECTIVE.6- The Qur'an talks about repentance by geting killed. It is in Baqara after the Israelites took the calf for worship. Moses asked them to get themselves killed so that they have full repentance in the eye of God. The hadeeth of the man and the woman who insisted on stoning is about people who wanted to have the best repentance possible for their sins. So, the Qur'an is not totally against this principle.
Why not? In quran, we are commanded to flog, right? If we kill, then at least it is a kind of disobeying the command, right?
Take care,
Ade -
Salaam all,
So are we Jews or Muslims? Do we follow a book that came before the Quran or the Quran itself? If you want to go by that idea, do Sabbath also, which the Quran says is not for the Muslims but for those who debate it (Jews and Christians).
The people that followed the Torah before the advent of Islam fall under the general and wide umbrella of Islam. So, when and if they implemented stoning, then it was part of God's order and part of the long history of Islam. It means that you have to face the possibility that there may be a place for it in the vision of God and within God's wisdom. God does not order things for nothing or for play.
As for the killing themselves, then it is mentioned in the Qur'an. If a matter of the people of the book is mentioned in the Qur'an, then it means that it applies to us, unless something was mentioned that releives us of it. The Sabat was relieved by Jumaa. The food was relieved by halal food. That order of Moses to kill themselves was not relieved, as far as I can see, but was left open. This means that some puishments of death may be part of repentance.
I become curious now ...Do you believe we are commanded to implement stoning?
I beleive that probably not, but not through rejecting hadeeth nor all hadeeth.
In other words what I disagree with you is it seems to me that those "some" false hadiths mean nothing to you. The thing is not like that bro. I will give an illustration
Suppose I am getting to know someone. As time passes I become convinced that he is a good guy so I trust him. One day, he lies to me INTENTIONALLY for some purposes. OK, it is fine. Another day, he lies again to me INTENTIONALLY for his benefits. Well, this time it is not so OK coz he has lied to me two times but I still give him chance. Yet another day, he lies again to me INTENTIONALLY. Now Hussein, let me ask you If I don't trust that guy any more, do you think I am not objective? What is the normal reaction for the people who have been betrayed? Will they keep firmly trusting the betrayer? YES, this guy doesn't always lie because if he always lies, I will not even ever trust him and hence he won't be able to deceive me for his benefits. The story continues ...this guy tells me INFORMATION which I cannot prove whether it is fact or fiction. Do you say I am subjective if I choose not to accept the INFORMATION? My point is Keep trusting hadiths after knowing their deceit so many times is itself BIASED and SUBJECTIVE.You have a huge problem with your example. If a person lied in hadeeth repeatedly then he is labeled a lier and his hadeeths are rejected. However, the people who narrated the hadeeth are not one person. Each hadeeth has it's chain of narration has it's own people that need to be judged, each on his or her own. If you are trying to say that Bukhari lied in all his hadeeths, then you have two problems
1- Will you make any error of any person a lie? How can you prove that he lied and not erred. If he erred, then are you going to throw everything away.
2- You will still have to face some of the hadeeths that he narrated somewhere else. So, it is not that you can run away with it.Bukhari was a collector of what he could find. He merely collected and then he said, I believe that those came from the prophet. The decency of humanity means that we take what people say at face value. If we see any evidence that he lied intentially, then come back to me. However, looking at some errors and then making them lies is unfortunate and assumes that one has a holier than thou attitude, something that I see commonly on this forum, unfortunately.
Why not? In quran, we are commanded to flog, right? If we kill, then at least it is a kind of disobeying the command, right?
Not necessarily. The Aya does not say that you cannot go beyond flogging or add to it.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace to all,
I usually dont get involved in these detailed discussions over hadeeth. I have only been a "Muslim" for about 2 years but I do not thinkit i s necessary for us to follow hadeeth in order to be rewarded by God someday. For those who keep arguing it is required that to be a Muslim we must follow hadeeth, shouldnt the first question be, what about the hadeeth of Mohammad that said to not write anything down except the Quran, didnt he supposedly say that, if he did , doesnt that pretty much end the entire debate. I have no problem with anyone reading hadeeth for historical purposes, to help them understand things about life and faith, etc, but it is not required to be a muslim. It should be no different than reading stories about other prophets such as moses, jesus, noah, david,, etc. If we are told to not make a distinction between any of the prophets then why do we only have to foloow Mohammads example,, doesnt the Quran say that every Prophet was a good example and that they are to be obeyed also, so why not make up new hadeeth about them, for example, in the new testament it says that Jesus drew a picture in the dirt with his finger, so should we take from this to mean that we can only draw pictures in the dirt with our fingers?
Also, doesnt the Quran say repeatedly that its basically a pretty simple message we must folow to be rewarded with heave, To believe in God only, to worship him only, to pray to him only, to do good deeds , to have good intentions, to help the poor and needy, and to not foloow satan,,?? Doesnt that pretty much sum it up for what we should believe and do inorder to be rewarded by God? Why is it essential for us to eat only with our left hand and use toilet paper with our left hand, etc, just because thats what Mohammad supposedly did,, who cares, Its not important, its not required, to each their own as long as they follow the basics. I heard that Muslims are supoosed to grow a beard also because of hadeeth or sunnah, but its not in the Quran,, yet, i dont see the majority of Muslims wearing a beard, why not?
Anyways, just my quick opinion,
Peace,
Kurt
-
Peace hlatif,
A quick question which you and abu either missed or avoided in another thread.
Do you believe this hadith? That verse on stoning is missing thus contradicting 159?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817"In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him..."
IF TRUE, explain contradiction and why this verse was not added back to Qur?an?
IF NOT TRUE, then why knowingly propagate a LIE?
Peace
-
Salaam Nun,
1- This is not a hadeeth. This is a speech from Umar.
2- Only two people narrated it, even though it was a speech. That puts weakness in this issue.
3- The idea that God abrogates part of the Qur'an or makes it forgotten is not alien to the Qur'an. The Aya that says Ma nansakhu min Ayatin Aw nunisiha nati bikhayrin minha= What we abrogate of sing or make forgotten, we bring better than her.
So, it is not impossible. In fact believing this hadeeth makes the case against stoning stronger, because one will say. God made it abrogated for a reason and the reason is that God did not necessarily want stoning to persist.
4- No matter what anyone says, no one can completely be sure that there was such an Aya, nor that there was not. So spending too much energy on such an issue is of not much help. What matters is the end conclusion regarding how one looks at stoning and how one can justify it or not justify it.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
The people that followed the Torah before the advent of Islam fall under the general and wide umbrella of Islam. So, when and if they implemented stoning, then it was part of God's order and part of the long history of Islam. It means that you have to face the possibility that there may be a place for it in the vision of God and within God's wisdom. God does not order things for nothing or for play.As for the killing themselves, then it is mentioned in the Qur'an. If a matter of the people of the book is mentioned in the Qur'an, then it means that it applies to us, unless something was mentioned that releives us of it. The Sabat was relieved by Jumaa. The food was relieved by halal food. That order of Moses to kill themselves was not relieved, as far as I can see, but was left open. This means that some puishments of death may be part of repentance.
Brother ! Do you not think that stoning ( if at all it was part of the system) was relived by 100 lashes?
Killing one's self as repentance ? No one can stop anyone if one feels guilty and adopts this out dated procedure for repentance, But i guess there are easier ways recommended in Quran, like Tobba etc
Not necessarily. The Aya does not say that you cannot go beyond flogging or add to it.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
At least , I, did not expect this from you! This proves to me that people would go to any lenght, to defend some thing , they think is right, no matter how rational they are, no matter , how silly is the argument they can hang on to , for defence.
Brother! I am very sorry to say , that after this argument , there is no use of any discussion , because You will never learn ,or get convinced, until and unless , HE removes the shield from your heart.
This is the end of it from my side, Good Bye, May God Help you.
siki
-
Salaam Siki,
Brother ! Do you not think that stoning ( if at all it was part of the system) was relived by 100 lashes?
Good question. I will answer in points
1- The point that I made was that stoning was part of God's system. We cannot go back and say, well God was unjust to the Israelites and he is just to us now. God is always just and stoning for the Israelites had a place in God's system. So, ridiculing stoning, which was God's order at some point, is not wise necessarily.2- Sure, the 100 lashes could have abrogated the Torah rule or at least part of it. If one is to believe that, then one can extend and say, well then the hadeeths are not necessarily false, but were abrogated by the Aya. That is feasible. In fact many Sunnis would use this argument. Imam Shafii touched on this issue in his book "Al risala". He decided that if the Sunna= practice was abrogated then there would be evidence of abrogation somewhere in the actions and speech of the prophet. This point can be debated and one can easily disagree with it. The fact that Shafii mentioned this in his book suggests that some people suggested such a point. In the end, if you are to believe in this abrogation, then you do not need to refuse the hadeeths of stoning.
Killing one's self as repentance ? No one can stop anyone if one feels guilty and adopts this out dated procedure for repentance, But i guess there are easier ways recommended in Quran, like Tobba etc
Of course, one can do Tawba without killing oneself or submitting oneself to be killed. The hadeeths of the two who were stoned is about people who wanted to be stoned in order to have a fail proof Tawba. The prophet was not able to convince them otherwise and He gave them what they asked for. The prophet did not drag them into it and gave them many chances to change their opinions. Here again, many scholars accept that the ruler may chose not to implement stoning in the face of repentance.
However, calling something outdated without proof, is unwise.
At least , I, did not expect this from you! This proves to me that people would go to any lenght, to defend some thing , they think is right, no matter how rational they are, no matter , how silly is the argument they can hang on to , for defence.
1- This statement can apply to both of us.
2- It may be that you are unaware of the rule of general and particular. The rule says that general statements are subject to particular exceptions. This rule may be applied to cancel the 100 lashes, or halve them in some circumstances. If you accept that, then you have to accept that same rule may make the punishment more severe.
If one does not accept the rule of general and particular, then one is going to fall into many traps that he or she set for himself.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
6- The Qur'an talks about repentance by geting killed. It is in Baqara after the Israelites took the calf for worship. Moses asked them to get themselves killed so that they have full repentance in the eye of God. The hadeeth of the man and the woman who insisted on stoning is about people who wanted to have the best repentance possible for their sins. So, the Qur'an is not totally against this principle.
7- This point is for Samia. The woman was sent back several times. She came after she delivered her baby, the prophet said come back in two years and it was only when she came with her baby eating a piece of bread that the prophet ordered the stoning. She did not try to run away like that man, but was steadfast. That is why the prophet had the most respect for those two people and especially this woman. He prayed on them when they died.Peace hlatif
point 6 so in a way you authorize suicide ? As long as it is "in the course of justice" or for repentance ? Finally one can generalize the authorization for suicide, because somewhere in quran, it is said, that if god punished us immediately for our sins, not a single soul would be left on earth...so ?
point 7 He prayed on them when they died... well how very humane ! Nevertheless he left a child orphaned And also if someone truly repents, shouldn't he be forgiven ?
lk
-
It is not suicide, but you can go to the relevant Aya and read it for yourself. Uqtulo Anfusakum= get yourselves killed, has many potential meanings and the one that is intended is have the punishment of death applied on you by the one in authority. Why not suicide? because there is clear ruling from the Qur'an against suicide.
hussein
-
Salam hussein,
I beleive that probably not, but not through rejecting hadeeth nor all hadeeth.
But how can you believe we are not to implement stoning without rejecting hadiths which command stoning???
You have a huge problem with your example.
Actually, when I gave the illustration I was not talking about one individual narrator in hadith books. My illustration was talking about the general normal reaction of people if they find out they have been betrayed/lied. Just forget about the hadith books first and try to understand my illustration. Try to imagine if you a businessman and you are betrayed, or if you have girlfriend and your girlfriend cheated you, and soon and soon.
Now, if we apply the illustration to hadith books, then it will be just the same if people find out that they have been betrayed/deceived/lied by hadith books, of course normal objective people won't trust hadith books again.
If a person lied in hadeeth repeatedly then he is labeled a lier and his hadeeths are rejected.
Yes, that is exactly the basic premise of science of hadith. If the narrators are considered liars, their reports are rejected. On the other hand, if the narrators are considered trustworthy, their reports are accepted.
What is the consequence? If nowadays we find out those "trustworthy" narrators have been narrating lies, then Bukhari must have made mistakes considering them trustworthy.
However, the people who narrated the hadeeth are not one person.
Whether it is narrated by one, two, three, one hundred, and soon, a lie is lie.
Each hadeeth has it's chain of narration has it's own people that need to be judged, each on his or her own.
Agree.
If you are trying to say that Bukhari lied in all his hadeeths, then you have two problems
I didn't say that.
1- Will you make any error of any person a lie? How can you prove that he lied and not erred. If he erred, then are you going to throw everything away.
No, I won't. Erring is completely different from lying.
How can I prove? Well, common sense will help. Let me just give illustration.
If I go from my home to the university at 0830 am with three of my friends, and then a narrator reports that I go at 9 am, then he is erring (maybe he forgot the exact time). If another narrator reports I go with five of my friends, then he is erring (maybe he saw me with five persons and thought all are my friends).
If I never stone adulterers and then a narrator reports that I stone adulterers, then this can no longer be erring. This must be intentional lying!
2- You will still have to face some of the hadeeths that he narrated somewhere else. So, it is not that you can run away with it.
Yes, this is why the more we find false hadiths, the more we cannot trust hadith books. Why? Simply because the same liars have been narrating hadiths in the same hadith books even though we know liars do not always lie. This reasoning is valid if we consider chain of narrators is true. Are there other possibilities? Yes, for example
- the chain of narrators itself is fake
written the prophet -> A -> B > C -> D -> E -> Bukhari
fact satan -> C -> D -> E -> Bukhari (in this example, C is the liar while D and E and Bukhari are the victims) - the chain of narrators never exists
Parties which are able to corrupt Bukhari's book add to Bukhari's book something to suit their goals
Bukhari wrote - (nothing)
Added by enemies of Islam the prophet -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> Bukhari
Bukhari was a collector of what he could find. He merely collected and then he said, I believe that those came from the prophet. The decency of humanity means that we take what people say at face value. If we see any evidence that he lied intentially, then come back to me.
I never said that Bukhari is the liar himself who wrote Shahih Bukhari out of nothing. In this thread I also already said that I don't deny the possibility that some sayings of the prophet might have survived through hadiths. And I repeat again what I already said in another thread I have big big problem to believe the book Shahih Bukhari we have nowadays is authentic from Bukhari and at the same time believe that Bukhari is muslim. Why? Because Bukhari believed in the hadiths which say quran is not authentic. Bukhari didn't reject this hadith for example
Shahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."
Take a look also in the hadith below ...
Shahih Malik Muwatta Book 41, Number 41.1.10
Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, "When Umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, 'O Allah! I have become old and my strength has weakened. My flock is scattered. Take me to You with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.' Then he went to Madina and addressed the people. He said, 'People! Sunan have been laid down for you. Obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.' He struck one of his hands on the other and then said, 'Take care lest you destroy the ayat of stoning so that one will say, "We do not find two hadds in the Book of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, "The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely." We have certainly recited that.'"
Malik said, "Yahya ibn Said said Said ibn al-Musayyab said, 'Dhu'l-Hijja had not passed before Umar was murdered, may Allah have mercy on him.' "
Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "As for his words 'The full-grown man and the full-grown woman' he meant, 'The man and the woman who have been married, stone them absolutely.' "
Hussein, do you believe Umar didn't write the verse of stoning in quran because he feared people more than Allah? Do you believe the true companions of the prophet did nothing seeing quran is being corrupted because they fear people more than Allah?
This is not erring Hussein ...This is clear and plain fabrications!!!
However, looking at some errors and then making them lies is unfortunate and assumes that one has a holier than thou attitude, something that I see commonly on this forum, unfortunately.
Stoning is not small error bro.
Not necessarily. The Aya does not say that you cannot go beyond flogging or add to it.
Read further and you will find out that you cannot go beyond flogging. Have you read 243? From that verse, it is clear and plain that adulterers CAN MARRY. Dead people cannot marry, right?
Wassalam,
Ade - the chain of narrators itself is fake
-
Read further and you will find out that you cannot go beyond flogging. Have you read 243? From that verse, it is clear and plain that adulterers CAN MARRY. Dead people cannot marry, right?
Peace ade_cool,
Very Nice! bravo
-
Salaam Ade,
Good post by the way.
But how can you believe we are not to implement stoning without rejecting hadiths which command stoning???
Many ways
1- Belief that they were abrogated.
2- Belief that they applied to particular situations only and therefore not applicable in general.If I never stone adulterers and then a narrator reports that I stone adulterers, then this can no longer be erring. This must be intentional lying!
If you cannot prove that the prophet never stoned anyone then you cannot yet accuse someone of lying. You cannot prove that the prophet never stoned anyone.
Yes, this is why the more we find false hadiths, the more we cannot trust hadith books. Why? Simply because the same liars have been narrating hadiths in the same hadith books even though we know liars do not always lie. This reasoning is valid if we consider chain of narrators is true. Are there other possibilities? Yes, for example
- the chain of narrators itself is fake
written the prophet -> A -> B > C -> D -> E -> Bukhari
fact satan -> C -> D -> E -> Bukhari (in this example, C is the liar while D and E and Bukhari are the victims) - the chain of narrators never exists
Parties which are able to corrupt Bukhari's book add to Bukhari's book something to suit their goals
Bukhari wrote - (nothing)
Added by enemies of Islam the prophet -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> Bukhari
If C is the liar, then there are enough hadeeths that can make a case that whenever C is in the chain, then that hadeeth should be rejected. We have enough hadeeths to be able to track that. Now, this does not make A or B or D or E untrustworthy. So, when they have hadeeths without C, you cannot throw it away that easily. The narrators of hadeeth are in the hundreds and each chain has it's own life and judgement
Shahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."
Take a look also in the hadith below ...
Shahih Malik Muwatta Book 41, Number 41.1.10
Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, "When Umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, 'O Allah! I have become old and my strength has weakened. My flock is scattered. Take me to You with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.' Then he went to Madina and addressed the people. He said, 'People! Sunan have been laid down for you. Obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.' He struck one of his hands on the other and then said, 'Take care lest you destroy the ayat of stoning so that one will say, "We do not find two hadds in the Book of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, "The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely." We have certainly recited that.'"
I addressed this hadeeth in a previous post. As for the boldened part. Did it occur to you that this is a figure of speech commonly used in Arabic to indicate strong feeling, but not necessarily indicate intent to make up something as you like to believe. Arabic is full of expression like this. The Qur'an was mainly known by heart. So, Umar could have added it easily, if he or Uthman wanted to. However, they did not because it was abrogated by decree and not by being lost. This is acording to scholars.
Read further and you will find out that you cannot go beyond flogging. Have you read 243? From that verse, it is clear and plain that adulterers CAN MARRY. Dead people cannot marry, right?
I did respond to that in my previous response to Siki. A general statement that allows exceptions means that there will be many people who will live. The death was never for all adulterers according to those who believe in stoning. So, yes they can marry.
take care and have a great day.
Hussein
- the chain of narrators itself is fake
-
Peace hlatif,
"By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, "The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely." We have certainly recited that.'"
I addressed this hadeeth in a previous post. As for the boldened part. Did it occur to you that this is a figure of speech commonly used in Arabic to indicate strong feeling, but not necessarily indicate intent to make up something as you like to believe. Arabic is full of expression like this. The Qur'an was mainly known by heart. So, Umar could have added it easily, if he or Uthman wanted to. However, they did not because it was abrogated by decree and not by being lost. This is acording to scholars.
Let?s triangulate with another Sahih (sound) version of that hadith...
Book 017, Number 4194
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.If verse was abrogated then why is stoning still a duty?
Are you abandoning this duty to ?obey the messenger? or is that hadith a LIE?
Lastly, if people confess and repent before being caught (4 witnesses, etc.) why punish them?
539 But if the THIEF repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
-
Stoning, or lapidation, refers to a form of capital punishment execution method carried out by an organized group throwing stones or rocks at the person they mean to execute.
Stoning has been used throughout history in a number of places as a form of capital punishment, both in the form of community justice and also as a judicial form of capital punishment. The practice is referred to in Greek history, as well as Christian, Jewish, and Islamic texts.
Stoning has been condemned by every human rights organization. Some groups, such Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, oppose all capital punishment, including stoning. Other groups, such as NCRI (the National Council of Resistance in Iran), and RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan), oppose stoning per se as an especially "cruel" and "sexist" practice.
Specific sentences of stoning, such as the Amina Lawal case, have often generated international protest. Groups like Human Rights Watch , while in sympathy with these protests, have raised a concern that the Western focus on stoning as an especially "exotic" or "barbaric" act distracts from what they view as the larger problems of capital punishment. They argue that the "more fundamental human rights issue in Nigeria is the dysfunctional justice system."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
History and practises
http//civilliberty.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/ig/Types-of-Executions/Death-by-Stoning.htm -
Peace hussein
i know it is not suicide, but the result is the same. And except for the god, who knows our intentions, may be better than ourselves, it could often be very difficult to make the difference between killing oneself and organizing your killing by others.
lk
-
I was glancing through a few hadith and found these two interesting...
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806
Narrated Abu Huraira
A man came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.'" The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, "Are you mad?" The man said, "No." The Prophet said, "Are you married?" The man said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said, 'Take him away and stone him to death." Jabir bin 'Abdullah said I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we over took him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death.Volume 8, Book 82, Number 812
Narrated Anas bin Malik
While I was with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the legal punishment on me'.' The Prophet did not ask him what he had done. Then the time for the prayer became due and the man offered prayer along with the Prophet , and when the Prophet had finished his prayer, the man again got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the punishment on me according to Allah's Laws." The Prophet said, "Haven't you prayed with us?' He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Allah has forgiven your sin." or said, "....your legally punishable sin."Easy to see which hadith above echoes Qur'an and which is the distorted version.
Who knows they could both be fake; although that last one sort of makes sense to me.
Sunni clerics will tell you the first was about adultery the second about fornification. These people got it all planned out after all this is what the hadiths were there for. To create a legal doctrine or somebody tried to find a way out of the first to give more wiggle room. Who knows, damn, what i will do to know the truth. Damn!
-
Salam amuslim,
I also think the post/article is very good ...It gives me a new perspective that I have never thought before ...And btw, I like the video clip embedded in the first post D
By the way i posted the whole episode in another post about the Quranites in Egypt. It had a 2 hour video debate with Dr. Ahmad Mansour and the former Egyptian interior minister and other Quranites debating why the Quranist were arrested recently and still are in Egypt. You can find it in this forum somewhere. Its called "Dream TV has a video about the Quranist of Egypt and their recent problem "
Unfortunantly its in Arabic, sorry. brickwall
-
Salaam all,
Book 017, Number 4194
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.If verse was abrogated then why is stoning still a duty?
Are you abandoning this duty to ?obey the messenger? or is that hadith a LIE?
Lastly, if people confess and repent before being caught (4 witnesses, etc.) why punish them?
539 But if the THIEF repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
May be you did not read my previous post on this. The above is a speech attributed to Umar. It is not a hadeeth. A hadeeth is something attributed to the prophet. Whereas the opinion and orders of the prophet are binding, Umar's orders are not binding, although they are worthy of great study. So, this speech may reflect Umar's opinion that can be right or wrong. So, if I disagree with Umar, I am not abandoning "obey the messenger". Actually, scholars have disagreed with Umar in this speech. For example he considered pregnancy as proof of adultery while the majority opinion is that pregnancy cannot be used as proof of adultery.
If people confess and repent then they do not have to undergo the punishment and I wrote that earlier as well. However, in the case of the hadeeths of those people who confessed, they themselves insisted on the punishment because they wanted a sure proof way of God accepting their repentance. The prophet tried to turn them down, but they insisted.
As for the Aya, then it does not mention thief. It is a general statement. Further answer for it is coming up.
Elke, It is not the same. The reason is that a person who commits a sin that requires death, which is only adultery in case of marriage or killing another person, then he or she has to go to the ruler who is the only one to implement the ruling. The ruler may implement it or not depending on his thought process and how convinced or not of the evidence. No one in an Islamic system is to implement the law on his or her own. So, the end result is not necessarily the same.
Returning to the two hadeeths that Bigmo touched on. The big difference is that whereas the first hadeeth, the sin was mentioned and therefore the ruler was forced to deal with it. In the second, the sin was not mentioned and one gets the feeling that the prophet discouraged the person from mentioning it. So, here the ruler did not have to implement a ruling. The ruler is obligated to implement the ruling only when he or she is properly informed of the crime and it's nature. So, the Islamic rule is that if a person was caught doing a crime and he or she repents, then he or she does not have to be taken to the ruler and can be left alone. This is added to the fact that vigilante justice is strictly prohibited, so the people cannot implement law on him on their own.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein