Interesting post regarding Bukhari & Mushrik
-
Salaam lk,
As for God changing His laws, then there are laws that God does not change and laws where he changes them. I also did not really point to the alcohol law when I answered you. You may want to read the Qur'an again and you will find many examples. Why does God change some of his laws? because some laws are applicable for certain times and situations and when they change, God can change His laws.
I will not post to you those examples. Since you mention that you read the Qur'an, then you will find them.
As for Samia, and my tone with her. When she acts self righteous and accuse a dead scholar or dead scholars of lying and of being dishonest without giving them a benefist of the doubt, then one has to point to her her own faults and use the same language on her that she applies to others. Her defense is even worse than her guilt. If the whole point of this site against hadeeth is that one cannot verify if God said it, then postng false information without verification should be considered a fatal sin in this self righteous site. Or, do you guys want to be hypocritical and say that your rules apply only to Bukhari but not to you?!
Take care and peace.
Hussein
-
Imam Bukhari for example in his Jami is not only collecting Hadiths but at the same time he is trying to prove his opinions on fiqh which is known as fiqhul bukhari fi tarajimihi. Therefore, Imam bukhari might bring the same Hadith a number of times to prove different things from it, however, in doing this he does not bring the full Hadith, but chops the irrelevant bits off so that it doesnt drag and goes straight to the point. This in hadith terminology is known as taqteeul hadith
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone MORE DEFICIENT IN INTELLIGENCE and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301)
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because OF THE DEFICIENTCY OF A WOMAN?S MIND." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826)
A Scholar writes
If we look closely at the different versions of the referred narrative, we see that the chance of a mistake by one or more of the narratives cannot be ruled out. For instance, in the narrative reported in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Haydh), the Prophet delivered the complete sermon in a gathering of women. In Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, however, the narrative has been reported in a slightly different manner. According Musnad's reporting, the clarification of the statement ascribed to the Prophet regarding women being deficient in responsibilities relating to religion and intellect was not sought by the women in the gathering. On the contrary, it was only the wife of Abd Allah ibn Masood, who sought this clarification, sometime after the gathering had dispersed. In yet another reporting, as it appears in Daarmiy, the words relating to the deficiency in the two responsibilities were not even spoken by the Prophet. They were spoken later, by Abd Allah ibn Masood, without ascribing these words to the Prophet. Thus, it seems quite possible, keeping the narrative of Daarmiy in perspective, that some of the later narrators may have ascribed the words actually spoken by Abdullah ibn Masood to the Prophet by mistake. If this be the case, then the Prophet did not even mention any reduction in the responsibilities of women.
In this narrative of the Prophet, according to a normal principle of the classical Arabic language, some words have been suppressed. The words "Naqisa'tul-
aql wal-deen" translated as "deficient in intellect and religion" have the noun "umu'r" suppressed. The complete phrase is "Naqisa'tu umu'ril-aql wal-di'n" or "Naqisa't fi' umu'ril-`aql wal-di'n" i.e. "deficient in responsibility in matters pertaining to intellect and religion.According to the narrative, the Prophet is ascribed to have advised the women on two things
They should try to provide a serene and a tranquil household for their husbands and avoid, unduly, objecting to all their decisions and making a feud out of every difference of opinion; and
They should try to excel in giving charity.Now common sense tells us that if majority of women are destined for hell, then why the Prophet is asking them to do above mentioned deeds to go to Jannah?, it clearly explains that Prophet meant that if they would not give charity and always make a feud out of difference of opnion then they will be bounded to hell, it is a way of convincing them for having lesser love for GOLD and Jewelery and living in harmony at home.
hLatif
As for Samia, and my tone with her. When she acts self righteous and accuse a dead scholar or dead scholars of lying and of being dishonest without giving them a benefist of the doubt, then one has to point to her her own faults and use the same language on her that she applies to others. Her defense is even worse than her guilt. If the whole point of this site against hadeeth is that one cannot verify if God said it, then postng false information without verification should be considered a fatal sin in this self righteous site. Or, do you guys want to be hypocritical and say that your rules apply only to Bukhari but not to you?!
Very Well Said.
-
Salam hussein,
1- I did in one of my previous posts mention a certain weakness in that hadeeth and whether Omar said it or not. You can refer to it. the point again is that only two people narrated this hadeeth from Omar, while it was a speech. This puts a question that may weaken this hadeeth because you would expect more people to narrate from a speech.
For every shahih hadith (shahih according to its compilers), we can always find hadith scholars who say that the hadith is weak. So in order to objectively judge hadiths, we should stick to the fact that according to their compilers they are shahih. Now that we know they are shahih according to the compilers, the question is what does that mean? Weak hadiths regarded shahih means they are shahih lies.
2- However, the answer to your question is in the hadeeth itself.
You said the answer to my question is in the hadith itself. Well, I really cannot find the answer therein. See below.
Her are the statements about the abrogation
1- This suggests that the Aya was not forgotten and that others knew it.See, remember my previous post regarding verse 2106? In 2106 God mentions He caused the aya be forgotten. How can you argue that 2106 includes the stoning aya while it is clear and plain the aya is not yet forgotten until NOW? Can you grasp this very simple logic or not?
2- The statement of "People will say Omar added to the book of Allah" gives the impression that Omar acknowledged that those Ayat are not anymore in the book nor should they be. Since forgetting is not an option, then the only way for him to state that he cannot add to the book is through acknowledging some form of decree or obligation, although not mentioned directly in the text of the hadeeth.
See, this is why I say above that I cannot find the answer of my question here. You only mention that Umar acknowledged some form of decree or obligation. You argue that the prophet didn't say anything to his companions. So I repeat again If it is not the prophet's decree then whose decree? Whose obligation?
The statement of the practice and whether it is abrogated or not
3- The statement of the "the prophet stoned and we stoned after him". This suggests that Omar and others understood that the abrogation of the Aya does not abrogate the ruling.That is really inconceiveable. First of all, it is still a mystery how Umar and others knew the aya is abrogated since the prophet didn't say anything. Second, to say the aya is abrogated but the ruling remains, doesn't make sense at all. I really don't understand how sunni scholars could have ever bought that idea
However, it does not exclude that the ruling was abrogated. Omar does not say that the prophet continued to stone after the abrogation of the text, nor say that the prophet ordered us to continue. That part is then left to the conclusion of those who read and analyze the hadeeth.
For those who truly analyze the hadiths, we can see that the stoning hadiths equipped with theory of abrogation of quran are clear and plain fabrications of the enemies of Islam. How can you fail to see that by proposing "the abrogation of quranic ayats doesn't exclude the ruling", they can invent any divine laws they like? Just fabricate hadiths mentioning the prophet did this and this, fabricate other hadiths mentioning those were quranic ayats, and that is it!
Most of those who analyzed the hadeeth concluded that there was no abrogation for the ruling.
So for the alleged abrogated quranic ayats based on hearsays and conjectures, they conclude no abrogation for the ruling. And by concluding so, they are abrogating the ruling of quranic ayats, which they believe divine revelations.
216 These are they who have bartered Guidance for error But their traffic is profitless, and they have lost true direction,
This still does not make that conclusion the correct one and it can be challenged by others because the text allows it.
OK I agree here that the belief of majority doesn't make the belief correct.
However, this is one of the hadeeths about stoning. It is not the strongest and the supporters of stoning will not fight for it, but for others.
Of course that is one of the hadiths about stoning. I know there are many and indeed the stoning hadiths reach the degree of shahih mutawatir according to science of hadith.
Wassalam,
Ade -
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya
'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."
002.190
YUSUFALI Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.Who to believe...
Also, where in the Quran will I find how to deal with dhimmis?
-
Salaam all,
Ade, I am going to respond to one part of your post, because the rest of the post is the same old circular thing.
For every shahih hadith (shahih according to its compilers), we can always find hadith scholars who say that the hadith is weak. So in order to objectively judge hadiths, we should stick to the fact that according to their compilers they are shahih. Now that we know they are shahih according to the compilers, the question is what does that mean? Weak hadiths regarded shahih means they are shahih lies.
1- Your beginning of the sentence is correct and it proves to you and others here that Sunni scholars are not a herd that does not question any hadeeth that comes from Bukhari or otherwise.
2- Each one judges the hadeeth according to his resources or according the judgement of people whom he or she considers knowledgeable as well as trustworthy.
3- One can also read the different points that each scholar made in order to present a more educated judgement.
4- Scholars can differ with each other on why and when to accept or reject hadeeth depending on many factors. Here are a fewA) Some may know some of the people of the chain of isnad better and therefore are more accepting of them.
B) Some may have more stringent criteria than others in the strength or weaknesses of the people in the isnad.
C) Some may see contradictions between the hadeeth and another or between a particular hadeeth and his understanding of the Qur'an. Whereas another does not.
D) There may be more reasons. However, limiting it to lies reveals a narrow vision of the person who jumps to claim it. True scholars do not accuse each other of lying despite their disagreements. That is mostly the business of individuals with an agenda that they want to push.OPF, If you find this hadeeth contradicting that Aya of the Qur'an, then you will find many ayat of the Qur'an that will contradict this Aya as well. You can go to the following site
http//www.islamicity.com/quransearchThen write qatiloo in the phonetic search section and pick and chose many Ayat that can be understood as that hadeeth. Here is one
929 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
It happens to be the Aya you were asking for anyway.
Now, you will have two options
1- Claim that those Ayat are not part of the Qur'an.
2- Work with the interpretations and widen your horizons. If you can do that with the Ayat of the Qur'an, then you can do that with the qouted hadeeth. The hadeeth however, is not a hadeeth, but the employment of one of the Sahaba of a hadeeth attributed to the prophet to support his decision in waging that particular battle. One can agree with that interpretation of the hadeeth or disagree.Take care all.
Hussein
hussein
-
Salam Hussein,
Ade, I am going to respond to one part of your post, because the rest of the post is the same old circular thing.
LOL ...you have not answered my questions.
You have not answered
- Whose decree followed by Umar so that he didn't add stoning verse?
- You refuse to see the clear and plain evidences that 2106 doesn't talk about abrogation of quran especially when we focus on stoning verse.
I already said previously if you need more time to think, just tell ...if you cannot give explanations just tell ...but don't act as if you had answered when in fact you didn't. But it is OK Hussein, I have been asking those questions to myself ever since I am exposed to it. I had also been trying how to reconcile those hadiths with quran. The result is I really have no good explanations except that those stoning hadiths are fabrications by the enemies of Islam. The fact that knowledgeable one like you cannot give good explanations convinces me even more that I am already on the right track.
Just take your time and ponder ...
1- Your beginning of the sentence is correct and it proves to you and others here that Sunni scholars are not a herd that does not question any hadeeth that comes from Bukhari or otherwise.
Actually, when I mentioned hadith scholars I did not limit it to sunni hadith scholars. I did mean hadith scholars in general (sunni hadith scholars, shia hadith scholars, ahmadiyya hadith scholars, quranist hadith scholars, etc).
2- Each one judges the hadeeth according to his resources or according the judgement of people whom he or she considers knowledgeable as well as trustworthy.
3- One can also read the different points that each scholar made in order to present a more educated judgement.
4- Scholars can differ with each other on why and when to accept or reject hadeeth depending on many factors. Here are a fewA) Some may know some of the people of the chain of isnad better and therefore are more accepting of them.
B) Some may have more stringent criteria than others in the strength or weaknesses of the people in the isnad.
C) Some may see contradictions between the hadeeth and another or between a particular hadeeth and his understanding of the Qur'an. Whereas another does not.
D) There may be more reasons. However, limiting it to lies reveals a narrow vision of the person who jumps to claim it.And saying that lie is not a possibility is biased at best and concealing the truth at worst. No matter how much you dislike it, lie is a possibility. I accept all possibilities and when something indicates clear and plain lies, I don't want to conceal the truth.
True scholars do not accuse each other of lying despite their disagreements.
First of all, I was not talking about hadith scholars accusing each other as liars. I really don't understand how you can understand my posting that way o
Second, hadith scholars do accuse the narrators of other hadith scholars to be liars. I know this because in the past I was learning shia in my conquest to discover true Islam. Shia hadith scholars consider Abu Huraira as a liar while sunni hadith scholars regard Abu Huraira as reliable trustworthy narrator.
-
Salaam Ade,
You have not answered
- Whose decree followed by Umar so that he didn't add stoning verse?
- You refuse to see the clear and plain evidences that 2106 doesn't talk about abrogation of quran especially when we focus on stoning verse.
Well, I did, but in case you cannot grasp it, then that will not be my problem. I will go over things for you one last time and add more information. Here they go
1- Umar said that he read the Aya in the Qur'an in the past with others.
2- Umar then said that he cannot add it at the time of the hadeeth.
3- This means that it was Qur'an at one point in the past and now it is not. It did not become out of the Qur'an through forgetfulness, then it must have been something from above Umar declaring that it does not enter the Qur'an.
4- So, if you cannot connect the dots, then I cannot really help you.
5- Yes there are hadeeths but not in Bukhari that mention that the prophet made the Aya abrogated from the text of the Qur'an. Those hadeeths are alluded to in the book of Ibn Hajr Asqalani who wrote the commentary on Bukhari.
5- No matter how much you try with 2106, you cannot make an Aya that says "if We abrogate a sign" into "We never abrogate Qur'an". All your evidence at best will add up to expectation but never certainty nor absolutism and at worse, to wrong assumption.And saying that lie is not a possibility is biased at best and concealing the truth at worst. No matter how much you dislike it, lie is a possibility. I accept all possibilities and when something indicates clear and plain lies, I don't want to conceal the truth.
If you read my post carefully, you will find that I did not remove lying as a possibility. However, thinking of lying as the only possibility is a sign of either immaturity, pushing an agenda or ignorance. Yes scholars did label some narrators as liers with great hesitation and with very very strong evidence of it.
As for the thinking business or taking time. It is that that made me not be a Qur'an only anymore. I was one of you guys until I saw the light that you guys cannot or will not allow yourselves see.
Take care and have a nice evening.
Hussein
-
It is that that made me not be a Qur'an only anymore. I was one of you guys until I saw the light that you guys cannot or will not allow yourselves see.
Greetings.....
Aw, come on! Do you truly feel that you were EVER a Qur'an only person? hmm
Sorry, but as per your posts, I would beg to differ. nope
A person who has come to the point of understanding at a deeper level, will not go back to living life as it was under a lesser form of understanding. E.g. once people realized that the world was indeed round (ish), they would never go back to their ill conceived belief that it was not, unless they had vested interest in their denial of evidence to the contrary.
Have a good day!
-
Ilisa, you are right. I would never go to a world of lesser understanding. "lesser understanding" was my case when I was Qur'an only. Idefinitely had lesser understanding. You can read my old posts. Yes, I was one of you guys. I even defended the position. However, I also was able to see the circus that many of you are turning Islam into, in the name of searching for truth. If you open your eyes, you will see the circus all around you. It is a painful sight.
Hussein
-
Salam Hussein,
Well, I did, but in case you cannot grasp it, then that will not be my problem. I will go over things for you one last time and add more information. Here they go
If you had answered I would have already read your answer. Since you bring NEW information then let's not mix with all your previous "answers" because your new information is really new and contradicts your previous "answers".
1- Umar said that he read the Aya in the Qur'an in the past with others.
2- Umar then said that he cannot add it at the time of the hadeeth.
3- This means that it was Qur'an at one point in the past and now it is not. It did not become out of the Qur'an through forgetfulness, then it must have been something from above Umar declaring that it does not enter the Qur'an.
4- So, if you cannot connect the dots, then I cannot really help you.In the beginning of your post you said I cannot grasp and that is my problem. Now, you want to demonstrate that by expecting me to connect the dots. Let me remind you what you posted in PAGE 8 so that other readers can see whether it is really my problem or not.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14899.msg140215#msg140215
"However, if there was no occasion to stone, then the prophet did not go about announcing this is abrogated or this is not. Abrogation is generally deduced from his practice. There were no cases of adultery and no punishment happened. It leaves the judgement open."
My question Whose decree followed by Umar so that he didn't add the stoning verse?
Here are the complete dots
DOT 1 The prophet did not say anything whether some verses are abrogated or not.
DOT 2 Umar said that he read the Aya in the Qur'an in the past with others.
DOT 3 Umar then said that he cannot add it at the time of the hadeeth.
DOT 4 This means that it was Qur'an at one point in the past and now it is not. It did not become out of the Qur'an through forgetfulness, then it must have been something from above Umar declaring that it does not enter the Qur'an.How do you expect me to connect the dots? Explain please coz I really cannot )
-
For this new information bring the hadith please otherwise I cannot comment ...
5- Yes there are hadeeths but not in Bukhari that mention that the prophet made the Aya abrogated from the text of the Qur'an. Those hadeeths are alluded to in the book of Ibn Hajr Asqalani who wrote the commentary on Bukhari.
-
It actually does not matter whether you are able to connect the dots or not. It matters that I can or other people who read the posts can or can see my point. As for the people who cannot, then that is ok. They are free to have their own method of thinking and of deriving results. This is where people agree to disagree. However, going on and on in circles makes the discussion tedious and tasteless and immature.
However, you missed point number 5 in my response to you. A point that gives you a glimpse on the order.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salam Hussein,
It actually does not matter whether you are able to connect the dots or not.
Why don't you connect the dots if it is that simple and very easy to grasp? WHY? Just connect the dots so that I and all members here can see!
It matters that I can or other people who read the posts can or can see my point.
To other members can you guys see Hussein's points? Can you guys connect the dots?
As for the people who cannot, then that is ok. They are free to have their own method of thinking and of deriving results. This is where people agree to disagree.
Listen man ...The thing is it is not me who cannot grasp ...It is not me who cannot connect the dots ...It is your defending LIES which make the dots cannot be connected!
However, going on and on in circles makes the discussion tedious and tasteless and immature.
You are the one who is going on circles ...Had you had the answer, you would have "connected the dots" for me instead of playing words for simple question "Whose decree followed by Umar?"
However, you missed point number 5 in my response to you. A point that gives you a glimpse on the order.
I didn't miss any point including the number 5. Read again my corresponding reply.