Interesting post regarding Bukhari & Mushrik
-
Salam Hussein,
Many ways
1- Belief that they were abrogated.Still you have to reject the hadiths. I will explain soon ...
2- Belief that they applied to particular situations only and therefore not applicable in general.
This second way I disagree completely ...The status of "married" is not that particular situation ...Allah says flog those adulterers ...Allah doesn't say, if they are married stone them and if they are not married flog them ...
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.
After the prophet received the revelations, I can use that as proofs that the prophet never stoned adulterers. If you say I cannot use quran as the proof, then nothing can!
And don't forget, you cannot prove either that the prophet ever stoned. Conjectures and hearsays compiled in hadith books are not proofs.
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
Agree ...but that doesn't make A, B, D, and E trustworthy either, because Bukhari has made mistakes (he considered C as trustworthy while in fact C is a liar) and surely his judgement for trustworthiness is, without doubt, subjective (for example if I were Bukhari, narrator like Abu Zahra will be considered untrusworthy while narrator like Samia I will consider as trustworthy - just examples guys!).
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.
If we examine critically, then we can see clearly that such explanation is inconceivable.
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.'"
The context of the hadith is the prophet already passed away.
Now comes the critical questions which expose the contradiction
If it was abrogated, then why did Umar insist on the implementation of stoning? The insistence of Umar means Umar sees the prophet never ceased stoning adulterers until his death. If the stoning has been abrogated, the prophet must have ceased stoning and Umar must have known that before the prophet passed away. And if Umar already knows the prophet ceased stoning because it was abrogated, he will not insist on the implementation of stoning!I think this is very easy to discern. I really don't understand why you cannot discern it. Even when I was sunni, I can easily see the contradiction.
Interestingly, there are hadiths which mention that those stoning verses were eaten by a hungry goat (Can somebody please help me pointing out the reference?). The existence of such conjectures is itself an indication that the hadiths pertaining to stoning are fabrications.
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.
"Married" doesn't fall into the exceptions. Allah says flog adulterers ...Allah doesn't say if the adulterers are married stone them and if they are not married flog them.
So, yes they can marry.
Allah explains adulterers can marry. Allah doesn't say unmarried adulterers can marry and married adulterers cannot marry. Stoning brings married adulterers to death. Dead people cannot marry.
Take care,
Ade -
Salaam Ade-Cool and thanks for your response,
This second way I disagree completely ...The status of "married" is not that particular situation ...Allah says flog those adulterers ...Allah doesn't say, if they are married stone them and if they are not married flog them ...
I was not talking about marriage, but I will not tell you what I am thinking. I prefer for you to think about it further, and may be study the relevant hadeeths to get some insight.
After the prophet received the revelations, I can use that as proofs that the prophet never stoned adulterers. If you say I cannot use quran as the proof, then nothing can!
You can use the Qur'an, but you cannot use a statement that is indirect or of many possible understandings and then impose it as a rule that Stoning did not happen. That is what you cannot use. If you want to use the Qur'an, then use something direct and to the point.
And don't forget, you cannot prove either that the prophet ever stoned. Conjectures and hearsays compiled in hadith books are not proofs.
My response was to your statement that they lied. If you want to say that they lied, then you have to prove something without a shadow of doubt. Failure to do so will then have to make you retract your statement. A person who insists that the stoning happened has to bring his or her proofs. Whether those proofs are convincing or not will depend on many factors. I am not claiming one way or another. I am putting breaks to a hurried judgement.
Agree ...but that doesn't make A, B, D, and E trustworthy either, because Bukhari has made mistakes (he considered C as trustworthy while in fact C is a liar) and surely his judgement for trustworthiness is, without doubt, subjective (for example if I were Bukhari, narrator like Abu Zahra will be considered untrusworthy while narrator like Samia I will consider as trustworthy - just examples guys!).
If one wants to consider A or B or D or E then each will have to be studied separately and then a decision is made. One can judge Bukhari's or other people of hadeeths decisions on accepting someone or another and one can revise it. Many have actually done that, including Ibn Hazm. The material for the men is available and the hadeeths that they narrated is available. The point is that one judges each person as a one person and cannot claim inauthenticity on the people who narrated from him or to him. Hadeeth has some subjectivity about it. That is true. That is also why you cannot completely reject it. The scholars of hadeeth accept that fact and that is why, they differ in their ruling of certain hadeeths and whether to work with it or not. they also differ on the degree of scrutiny each hadeeth should receive depending on the import of it. However, rejecting it all and outright is an overreaction.
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.'"
The context of the hadith is the prophet already passed away.
Now comes the critical questions which expose the contradiction
If it was abrogated, then why did Umar insist on the implementation of stoning? The insistence of Umar means Umar sees the prophet never ceased stoning adulterers until his death. If the stoning has been abrogated, the prophet must have ceased stoning and Umar must have known that before the prophet passed away. And if Umar already knows the prophet ceased stoning because it was abrogated, he will not insist on the implementation of stoning!It is simple. May be Umar was not aware that the stoning as a ruling was abrogated. The prophet did not stone people every day. It also seems, from the hadeeth, that the implementation of stoning was before the Aya of the flogging and that we do not have reports of it after. Some people may think that it was abrogated while others would say no, just the situation did not occur. That is why Shafii raised the issue in his book Al Risala. That is also that same question was raised by Sheikh Al Zarqa.
"Married" doesn't fall into the exceptions. Allah says flog adulterers ...Allah doesn't say if the adulterers are married stone them and if they are not married flog them.
The possibility of exception is present in any general statement of the Qur'an. Sometimes the reason for exception is mentioned. Sometimes it is not. It is better for the reason for exception to be mentioned in the Qur'an, but it does not have to be there all the time. Would the reason for stoning be acceptable from the hadeeth? you would say no, others would say yes. It is a matter of judgement.
Allah explains adulterers can marry. Allah doesn't say unmarried adulterers can marry and married adulterers cannot marry. Stoning brings married adulterers to death. Dead people cannot marry.
I am sorry. This is interestingly sad. The previous poster pointed out that if they were killed, then they cannot marry and the Aya mentioned marriage. That is true only if all were killed. However, stoning or not stoning, the traditional school means that some will live. Is that difficult to understand?
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
A person who insists that the stoning happened has to bring his or her proofs. Whether those proofs are convincing or not will depend on many factors.
It also seems, from the hadeeth, that the implementation of stoning was before the Aya of the flogging and that we do not have reports of it after. Some people may think that it was abrogated while others would say no, just the situation did not occur.
Would the reason for stoning be acceptable from the hadeeth? you would say no, others would say yes. It is a matter of judgement.
I would definitely believe so, Hussein, given the abundance of narrations and archeological evidence from all religious and non-religious perspectives (not just Muslims) that stoning, crucifixions, hangings, cutting of hands, beheadings, etc., used to justify capital punishments were a norm in those times. People used stones, knifes, swords, fires, etc. as tools for severe punishments and vengenance. The Quran and other ancient books also mentions them. Today we have bullets, bombs, electric chairs and lethal injections inclusive. In some cases the barbaric methods are simply refined for its abruptness without prolonged sufferings. We have witnessed the barbaric stonings to death and beheadings in the Islamic world but are found extremely rare and uncommon. Just presenting facts and no offense intended.Peace!
-
Salaam ade_cool, all
Interestingly, there are hadiths which mention that those stoning verses were eaten by a hungry goat (Can somebody please help me pointing out the reference?). The existence of such conjectures is itself an indication that the hadiths pertaining to stoning are fabrications.
Take care,
AdeHadeeth number 1934 from "sunan ibn Maja", narrated Aisha that "I had both the verses of stonning and suckling the adult ten times (to make him a mahram) written on a paper under my bed, and as we were busy with the funeral of the prophet, a goat (or a domesticated animal) entered and ate the paper up".
The verse of stoning "The old man and the old woman, stone them absolutely if they commit zena, and do not have mercy on them"...Even this fabricated verse does not mention married couples but old ones. So why did the prophet stone young people?! -
Salaam Samia,
As for the hadeeth that is attributed to Aisha, then it is judged as weak by most hadeeth scholars.
As for the harsh and unusual punishments. If you find them in the Qur'an, then you have to have an honest question with yourself
1- Do I believe in the Qur'an?
2- Do I manipulate the Qur'an?
3- Is there some wisdom that I am missing in those issues? Could it be that the Qur'an is better than the recent understandings of the human rights organizations? since human rights is an issue that is in constant evolution?Number two is the main one that most of you guys eventually chose. It is a little better than number one, even though number one is a little more honest with oneself. Unfortunately, few of you consider point number three. This is also what happens when people do not apply consciousness= Taqwa on themselves to question their biases= Hawa.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam Samia,
As for the hadeeth that is attributed to Aisha, then it is judged as weak by most hadeeth scholars.
Salaam Hussein
Then why was it collected in the first place? Why didn't/don't those scholars remove the weak hadiths, or at least put them in another book (if they really can't live without them) and call the book "not sahih hadeeths" for example?
Stoning is a harsh punishment as portrayed in the qur'aan Never performed on humans except by tyrants.
So, my answers
- Yes
- No
- Human rights organizations are not my reference, nor any other organization...
and have a nice day, too
-
Stoning is a harsh punishment as portrayed in the qur'aan Never performed on humans except by tyrants.
Say estaghfirullahi 3atheem for a 1001 times.
Huzoor performed it many a times. Are u saying huzoor was a tyrant then? &
You should be respectful to Huzoor as he loved women the most elhamdulillah.
-
Say estaghfirullahi 3atheem for a 1001 times.
Huzoor performed it many a times. Are u saying huzoor was a tyrant then? &
You should be respectful to Huzoor as he loved women the most elhamdulillah.
Most respectful mulla Hamsa Refresh my memory as where in the qur'aan we were told that the prophet performed stoning?
-
Salaam Samia,
Some scholars collected weak hadeeths for referrence and in order to address some issues of discussion and thought. Also, they took in consideration that while one person may find a hadeeth weak, another may find some wisdom in it despite weakness or may find stronger version of it.
God stoned some people according to the Qur'an, as in the people of Lut and the people of the Elephant. So, God approved this punishment for himself and He is the most just, the most merciful, the most wise. It means that some humans may deserve it.
Take care
Hussein
-
Most respectful mulla Hamsa Refresh my memory as where in the qur'aan we were told that the prophet performed stoning?
So you dont believe in sahih bukhari then? Estaghfirullah, May God forgive you for that.
P.S for your kind information that verse was there in the quran but some jealous people removed that.
-
Salaam Samia,
Some scholars collected weak hadeeths for referrence and in order to address some issues of discussion and thought. Also, they took in consideration that while one person may find a hadeeth weak, another may find some wisdom in it despite weakness or may find stronger version of it.
Salaam Hussein
Then there is no point saying they are weak...for hadithist they are all useful and good
God stoned some people according to the Qur'an, as in the people of Lut and the people of the Elephant. So, God approved this punishment for himself and He is the most just, the most merciful, the most wise. It means that some humans may deserve it.
But He did not even ask Lut to stone them...why would He ask the prophet to stone for much much minor offence, negligible compared to that of the people of Lut?
The prophet is not God. He does not have the mercy nor the wisdom of God. This comparison is not even acceptable.
-
God stoned some people according to the Qur'an, as in the people of Lut and the people of the Elephant. So, God approved this punishment for himself and He is the most just, the most merciful, the most wise. It means that some humans may deserve it.
God is not bound by laws; we are. He does as he pleases. God judges, not us. It is not for us or anyone to decide who 'deserves' it. As we as humans are full of bias, and cannot make a fair judgement.
-
God is not bound by laws; we are. He does as he pleases. God judges, not us. It is not for us or anyone to decide who 'deserves' it. As we as humans are full of bias, and cannot make a fair judgement.
You can! Just think like God..
-
Salaam Samia,
Some scholars collected weak hadeeths for referrence and in order to address some issues of discussion and thought. Also, they took in consideration that while one person may find a hadeeth weak, another may find some wisdom in it despite weakness or may find stronger version of it.
God stoned some people according to the Qur'an, as in the people of Lut and the people of the Elephant. So, God approved this punishment for himself and He is the most just, the most merciful, the most wise. It means that some humans may deserve it.
Take care
Hussein
God is a passive/autonomous panentheistic entity
016.079
YUSUFALI Do they not look at the birds, held poised in the midst of (the air and) the sky? Nothing holds them up but (the power of) Allah. Verily in this are signs for those who believe.
PICKTHAL Have they not seen the birds obedient in mid-air? None holdeth them save Allah. Lo! herein, verily, are portents for a people who believe.
SHAKIR Do they not see the birds, constrained in the middle of the sky? None withholds them but Allah; most surely there are signs in this for a people who believe. -
God has His laws and He applies them. God does as He pleases within justice and mercy and wisdom. He also asks us to uphold them, even if we did not like. God puinshed those people collectively because they needed collective punishment and collective punishment is done by God. Individual punishment isfor people to interpret God's law on humans. The Qur'anic laws can have some harshness, no matter how much you try. That is still part of God's justice, Mercy and Wisdom. Wisdom that escapes us as we try to sound intelligent.
God's law says cut the hand. Oh I forgot, it is a metaphorical cut of a metaphorical hand. God's law says kill the killer. Oh, it is a metaphorical killing. Then you will claim that no, we do not manipulate the Qur'an.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
As for the harsh and unusual punishments. If you find them in the Qur'an, then you have to have an honest question with yourself
1- Do I believe in the Qur'an?
2- Do I manipulate the Qur'an?
3- Is there some wisdom that I am missing in those issues? Could it be that the Qur'an is better than the recent understandings of the human rights organizations? since human rights is an issue that is in constant evolution?Number two is the main one that most of you guys eventually chose. It is a little better than number one, even though number one is a little more honest with oneself. Unfortunately, few of you consider point number three. This is also what happens when people do not apply consciousness= Taqwa on themselves to question their biases= Hawa.
- The belief in Quran is judged by what it states in retrospect.
- It is not possible to manipulate words and verses to fit current views or by solely relying upon "root" to shoot without having any proper knowledge of history, times and events in which the Quran sets its standards.
- Certainly not. People have advanced and evolved to live a "better" life, not to mention the ever grown population since and with it came other dramatic crises. If I had a choice between shooting and stoning to death as in capital punishment, I obviously will choose the former without a wink.
The Quran sets the standards in its given time yet emphasis is made to reflect upon them. There are verses that speak about "signs" in the horizons; to verify everything; to contemplate on stories of the past and the present; to live a righteous life; to egress from the past, progress in present and ingress in future; and above all to use our minds, eyes and ears. If people continued to live the days of ignorance (from our standpoint), then the above statements bear no meaning and we would not be living the times of today.
Peace!
-
God's law says cut the hand. Oh I forgot, it is a metaphorical cut of a metaphorical hand. God's law says kill the killer.
Take care all and have a great day.Hussein
Qur'aan does not talk about amputating the hand, if that's your understanding (Oh yes, in Arabic there IS such a verb, even used in the quraan). The understanding of the verse is returned to the very usage of such an expression in the language AND in the quraan.
Where did God say "kill the killer"?
-
Salaam all,
Because there is another term for cutting, does not mean that Qataa has to mean something else. You cannot prove it. Do you say batar Al shajara or Qataa Al shajara? and both mean the same. making new rules to manipulate the Qur'an is interesting.
As for people who murder, you can look it up.
Hussein