| Author | Topic |
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 2:33 PM
Question/Comments:
According to your opinion, Hadiths are not a part of Shariah. Don't you feel that the scope of the verses of Quran 59:7,3:31,4:65,4:80,33:21 etc becomes very much limited if your opinion is taken correct? Even if your opinion is considered correct, why are you then considering Hadiths in your responses, which in your opinion, Prophet never ordered to write? Should we not follow the command of the Prophet?
Regards,
Ameen
Answer:
I really do not remember having said that Hadith is not a part of the Shari`ah or that of the teachings of Islam. What I have stated time and again is that Hadith is not a primary and independent source of the Shari`ah and that of the corpus of Islam.
As I see it, there is a huge difference between not considering something as a primary and independent 'Source' of Islam and not considering something as a 'Part' of Islam.
The fact that the Prophet (pbuh) never ordered the writing of Hadith does not by itself imply the prohibition of writing Hadith. Therefore, I do not consider it incorrect to cite narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). Nevertheless, as far as my own citations of Hadith are concerned, I, generally, do not cite them as "primary evidence" for any given opinion, but normally present them as "substantiating evidence" only.
I hope this would clarify the issue.
Regards,
Moiz Amjad
January 1, 2002
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=300&sscatid=66 |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:00 PM
Usmani wrote, “How come without any prove you keep saying regarding the shortcoming in the ahadith provided by my self.”
Alhamdulillah, I have got all the volumes of Sahi of Bukhari (RA) with me. Not only your references are wrong, also the words of one Hadith (ref: honesty descended from heaven…) that you quoted are very different as presented in Sahi Bukhari.
Usmani wrote, “First you ask me to show a hadith which fulfill the condition of mutawatir when I showed you but now you have some other problem, doubt in it. You need to find out what exactly your problem is. This is only your self can discover. I only can pray for you.”
No no, you can certainly help me with this. Please give me, at least, seventy four names from each generation until a Hadith reaches a particular Muhaddis. I hope you’d do this soon for me.
Usmani wrote, “The point in discussion was Sunni Muslims were always in majority. This is a reality, nothing to think about it. No question of right or wrong arises here.”
Usmani also wrote, “When asked which group will be on the right path, the Beloved Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam) replied, "The group on the right path, which will enter Paradise, will be the group which follows my Sunna and that of my Sahaba and this will be the largest group of Muslims." [Tirmidhi, Imam Ahmad, Abu Daud, Mishkat]
So (deobandi,barelvi,ahl-e-hadtih) follow the what this hadith says including the followers of 4 madhab all around the world.”
You’ve already explained what was the point in discussion and what you meant.
Usmani wrote, “You tries to find out about that and once you know it, lets me know it. I thank to you in advanced.”
Allah is aware that I cannot dare to disintegrate people of the Ummah with the names like Daeobandi, Shafae, Maliki, Shii, Sunii, Baralvi etc etc. I’m not crazy to try and find such names in the Qur’an or Hadith, the one who uses them for Muslims should oneself find them in one’s own Qur’an or Ahadith. |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:37 PM
If you can read and understand urdu read the following book:-
http://www.ghamidi.org/download/Bk_burhan.pdf
It is said in the page 29 and onwards that the fuqaha made mistake in that they declared the punishment of adultery as death.
To Junaid :- Do you think that the fuqaha didn't know that ahadith can't add to the basic corpus of shariah ? Why in their madhab is the punishment for adultery death whereas the Quran is calling for lashes for both fornication and adultery. |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:30 PM
TO SHAAN:
There exists a consensus among Muslim scholars that there are some verses of the Qur’an which do not exist in it yet are operational. In technical parlance, they are called “Mansukhu’l-Tilawah Duna’l-Hukm” (whose reading has been withdrawn but whose ruling still exists.) Writes Amidi:
“Scholars unanimously concede that there are verses which do not exist in the Qur’an whose directive still remains.”1
In this regard, the most striking example is the verse of stoning found in some of the major books of Hadith literature. One of its texts is reported as follows:
“Umar said: ‘Refrain from destroying yourself by denying the verse of stoning. Matters should not reach the stage that people should begin to say: “We do not find mention of two punishments (stripes and stoning) in the Book of Allah.”
No doubt the Prophet (SAW) did Rajam (stonning to death) and so did we. I swear by Him in whose hands is my life that if I were not fearful of the fact that people would say that ‘Umar has made an addition in the book of Allah, I would have written the verse: “Stone to death the old man guilty of fornication and the old woman guilty of fornication” in the Qur’an. The reason is that we ourselves have recited this verse (from the Quran).”2
1 Amidi, Al-Ahkam Fi Usuli’l-Ahkam, VOl. 2, (Beirut: Daru’l-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1980) p.201
2 Mu’atta, Kitab’l-Hudud
(Course: History of the Qur’an, www.studying-islam.org) |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:09 PM
Dear Junaid,
You wrote:-“1. To eat and drink with the right hand after saying ‘Bismillah ir Rahman ir
Rahim’ (In the name of Allah the Beneficent and Merciful). This practice
extends to doing everything that is lawful in Islam. It is meant to remind the
Muslims about the fact that on the Day of Judgment the virtuous would be
given their account of deed in their right hands and would be honored. On the
other hand the non-believers and evildoers would be given their deed account
in their left hands and would be the losers. (Al Inshiqaq 84 and Al Haqqah 69).”
But Mr. Abdullah Rahim has something else to say when I posted him the question:
You have said that eating with right hand is sunnah of the prophet(pbuh).I have heard people say that walking on the right side of the road/path is a sunnah of the prophet(pbuh)?
What is your opinion?
Answer:
The Sunnah contains the religious practices that have been established by the Prophet (PBUH) upon his followers and from there have reached us through the consensus and practical perpetuation of one generation after the other. This "establishment and mass transfer of knowledge" is the very reason that today there is consensus among Muslims about religious practices that we see as Sunnah.
It is narrated that the Prophet used to walk on the right side of the road/path however this practice has not been promoted by the Prophet among his companions as a religious practice. If this were the case, just like eating with right hand, we would have seen that it has enjoyed the consensus of the Muslims or we would have found from sources that while all companions and their followers were adopting this practice as a religious practice, at certain time in the history, Muslims started to leave it. Obviously, none of these are the case and some people calling an act of Sunnah does not change anything. In most of the cases, what people really mean is that this practice was done by the Prophet (PBUH), this however does not necessarily mean that it is Sunnah (as defined here). Not all the practices of the Prophet (PBUH) can be regarded as Sunnah (please refer to numerous answers in this website that elaborate on this).
The preference of the Prophet walking at the right side of the road/path should not be seen as a religious practice (otherwise the Prophet would have established it among his companions as such). Rather, it should be seen as the extreme caring of the Prophet for maintaining discipline and being organized, even in walking. Surely this gives us a very good example of how we should be mindful about discipline.
Abdullah Rahim
March 24, 2006
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=3467
I see contradictions and confusions here. |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:16 PM
quote:
TO SHAAN:
There exists a consensus among Muslim scholars that there are some verses of the Qur’an which do not exist in it yet are operational. In technical parlance, they are called “Mansukhu’l-Tilawah Duna’l-Hukm” (whose reading has been withdrawn but whose ruling still exists.) Writes Amidi:
“Scholars unanimously concede that there are verses which do not exist in the Qur’an whose directive still remains.”1
In this regard, the most striking example is the verse of stoning found in some of the major books of Hadith literature. One of its texts is reported as follows:
“Umar said: ‘Refrain from destroying yourself by denying the verse of stoning. Matters should not reach the stage that people should begin to say: “We do not find mention of two punishments (stripes and stoning) in the Book of Allah.”
No doubt the Prophet (SAW) did Rajam (stonning to death) and so did we. I swear by Him in whose hands is my life that if I were not fearful of the fact that people would say that ‘Umar has made an addition in the book of Allah, I would have written the verse: “Stone to death the old man guilty of fornication and the old woman guilty of fornication” in the Qur’an. The reason is that we ourselves have recited this verse (from the Quran).”2
1 Amidi, Al-Ahkam Fi Usuli’l-Ahkam, VOl. 2, (Beirut: Daru’l-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1980) p.201
2 Mu’atta, Kitab’l-Hudud
(Course: History of the Qur’an, www.studying-islam.org)
Question:
The Book Pertaining to Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) Sahih Muslim
"(4194) 'Abdullah b. Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Kattab 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 if there is pregnancy."
If the above hadith is authentic then the punishment of stoning to death of the married individual in Islam, as you refuted, is prescribed. I have also heard that Umar (ra) had given the punishment of stoning in his time of Khilafat. If our prophet (pbuh) refuted this punishment, which I think he did not, in the last stages of his life then Umar (ra) would not have given it. Comment please.
Jazzakallah khairun
Nauman Ilyas
Answer:
Deriving directives from narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is not as simple as it may apparently seem. We know that the transmission and narration of Hadith is completely dependent upon the accuracy of understanding as well as that of narration of each of the individual narrator in the chain. It is, therefore, extremely important to critically analyze the content narrated in each Hadith in the light of the Qur'an, the Sunnah and, wherever necessary, in the light of the established facts of history and science.
A close look at the content of the referred narrative raises a few important questions in mind. For instance:
1.
The narrative clearly implies that God revealed a few verses in the Qur'an which were acted upon and implemented by the Prophet (pbuh). Subsequently, however, for absolutely unknown reasons, God removed these verses from the Qur'an and yet, according to the narrative, the directives entailed in these removed verses should still be followed.
The idea that there could have been some verses included in the initial revelation of the Qur'an, which may have entailed some directives of a temporary nature and, therefore, these verses may have been removed from the final reading of the Qur'an, seems quite acceptable. However, the idea that God removed a few verses from the final reading of the Qur'an, even though the directives entailed in these verses were of a permanent nature is completely incomprehensible. After all, if the directives entailed in these verses were to be followed for all times to come, then why were these verses removed from the Qur'an?
2.
The statement: "Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women" is clearly against the Qur'an.
3.
The Qur'an has prescribed the punishment of one-hundred lashes for the fornicator. It is quite obvious that if the Prophet (pbuh) implemented a different punishment upon a married fornicator, then the general nature of the directive of the Qur'an was altered by the Prophet (pbuh). In other words, the idea that a married fornicator should be subjected to a punishment of stoning to death seems quite clearly to be against the Qur'an. Can the Prophet (pbuh) alter the directives of the Qur'an?
It is on the basis of such observations that I do not consider the implication of the referred kind of narrations to be acceptable. It seems that one or more of the narrators included in the chain of such narrators has erred in his narration.
If seen in the light of the Qur'an, such severe punishments as stoning to death seem to have been implemented by the Prophet (pbuh) upon such criminals, who were guilty not merely of a simple case of fornication, but were, in fact, guilty of crimes like rape, prostitution and other more abhorrent categories of sexual or other crimes, in accordance with the directives of Surah Al-Maaidah 5: 33 - 34[1].
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Moiz Amjad
February 26, 2002
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1375&sscatid=43 |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:25 PM
Usmani wrote, “Majority call athantic ahadith as Sunnah,but they don’t.”
They do not call it Sunnah. What they say is that Sunnah is found in the Ahadith. Try to understand this difference otherwise you’d lower the authenticity of the Sunnah which is far more reliable than the Hadith.
Usmani wrote, “I have already provided Taqi Usmani Sahib’ definition of Sunnah, see in my opening post.”
I earlier showed that the definition of the respected scholar, Taqi Usmani, is itself in serious contradiction with Sohail Usmani’s understanding of the Sunnah.
Usnamni wrote, “Yes there is diffrence. But how many scholars says that without ahadith deen is complete?.Your own words in favor of this course have no value.
I have already shown here how Maudoodi Sahib see the Sunnah .See it once again carefully.”
The D’in, that is embodied in the Qur’an and Sunnah, is complete without the Hadith. However, the Hadith explains the Qur’an and Sunnah. For example: A textbook of Urdu that we studied in 10th class was a complete book. However, “the guidebook for Urdu (Class 10)” we bought, in addition, was the explanation of the original textbook which didn’t add anything to the contents of the textbook but merely explained it.
If Hadith were an independent source, the Qur’an or Sunnah should have depended upon it too (as the Hadith depends on the Qur’an and Sunnah) for their authenticity. Why are the Quran and Sunnah always preferred over the Hadith?
The jurists have only depended on those Ahadith, for making a rule, which they found in complete harmony with the Qur’an and Sunnah, otherwise, they would all reject a Hadith. For example: A Hadith of Sahi Bukhari says that a nation will perish which will make a woman its leader but the jurists, generally, have not prohibited a woman to be a leader in the light of this Hadith as they consider it weak. Again and again I’m telling that the Ahadith are an explanatory source. Leave the jurists; the Teacher Ghamidi himself extensively uses Ahadith in understanding the Islamic rulings. Of course, the Ahadith help greatly to understand the Islamic rulings but it doesn’t mean that they are independent of the Qur’an and Sunnah. They are not independent but totally dependent. The Quran orders to cut off the hand of the thief but the Ahadith exempt some thieves from this punishment explaining the true meaning of the Quranic words “sariq” and “sariqah” (5:38).
Maulana Maududi (RA) did not see the Sunnah as Usmani sees it. Usmani has to be on one side. On one hand, he quotes Mufti Taqi Usmani, who says that all the acts of the Prophet (SAW) are Sunan, whereas, on the other hand, he also agrees with Maulana Maududi (RA) who regarded a beard of one fist length “a habit of the Prophet (SAW)” and not a Sunnah. |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:33 PM
| I presented to you that the jurists didn’t take the ruling of stoning merely from the words of Ahdith. They, of course, knew that it was a ruling of the Qur’an which they considered to be workable for all times. It is the similar issue in which some scholars think that the directive of veiling for all women (presented in Surah-e-Ehzab) is necessary whereas the others think that it is a directive for a specific situation. |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:40 PM
To Junaid:- What about the punishment of apostasy ? It is totally derived from a hadith whose meaning is whoever leaves the religion kill him.The fuqaha haven't consulted the independent source of shariah, the Quran on this.Or did they ?
Edited by: Shaan on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:41 PM |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:49 PM
| The Hadith from which this ruling is derived is not seen independently but in the light of Surah--e-Tauba. Some scholar like Teacher Ghamidi do not agree to this punishment because he sees the directives of jihad presented in Surah-e-Tauba specific to the time of the Prophet (SAW) after "itmam-e-Hujjat" (the completion of the proof upon the people that the Prophet (SAW) is the true Messenger of Allah.) |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:00 PM
Shaan referred to a question, "You have said that eating with right hand is sunnah of the prophet(pbuh).I have heard people say that walking on the right side of the road/path is a sunnah of the prophet(pbuh)?"
I didn't give my comment on "walking on the right side" but using the "right hand". This point: "using the right hand", however, needs further elaboration. |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:06 PM
1). Why is jizya taken from the men of ahl-e-kitab after itmam-e-hujjat and women exempted from this divine punishment ?
2). The ahadith related to silk and gold specifically forbid men from wearing them and women are allowed.Mr. Ghamidi explains the ahadith as application of forbiddance of arrogance and extravagance .The explaination is erroneous in my view because it fails to answer the following :-
What about women ? Why were women allowed these evils ? why did the prophet(sws) allowed them but not men to wear silk and gold ?
Edited by: Shaan on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:09 PM |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:19 PM
1) Jizya was taken out of the directives of Surah-e-Tauba. I do not know whether the women were exempted. If they were, one reason might be that they do not generally take part in the battles. The other might be that men have the authority in the government and women are often remained secondary in this matter.
2) You have every right to disagree with the Teacher Ghamidi.
To decorate herself is strongly present in the very nature of woman that might be the reason of why she is exempted from this. However, when a woman used heavy bangle in order to preserve the gold, the Prophet (SAW) asked her whether she had given its Zakat.
Edited by: JunaidHasan on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:21 PM |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:36 PM
1) Jizya was taken out of the directives of Surah-e-Tauba. I do not know whether the women were exempted. If they were, one reason might be that they do not generally take part in the battles. The other might be that men have the authority in the government and women are often remained secondary in this matter.
The divine punishment for ahl-e-kitab people was rejecting the truth after itmam hujjat not a punishment for confronting and fighting muslims.There is also no issue of government here.
2) You have every right to disagree with the Teacher Ghamidi.
To decorate herself is strongly present in the very nature of woman that might be the reason of why she is exempted from this. However, when a woman used heavy bangle in order to preserve the gold, the Prophet (SAW) asked her whether she had given its Zakat.
So it means extravagance and arrogance is bearable in case of women for they are inclined towards gold and silk.
Come on.Its totally an unsatisfactory answer.Would you please consult Mr. Ghamidi on this. |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:43 PM
You wrote:-I didn't give my comment on "walking on the right side" but using the "right hand".
Reply:- This is what you said in one of your posts:-
"This practice
extends to doing everything that is lawful in Islam."
walking is lawful in islam and extending the practice of eating and drinking with right concludes that walking on the right side is sunnah.If no,then why ?
You wrote:- This point: "using the right hand", however, needs further elaboration.
Reply:- So kindly please elaborate |
|
JunaidHasan
GERMANY
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:51 PM
Shaan wrote, "The divine punishment for ahl-e-kitab people was rejecting the truth after itmam hujjat not a punishment for confronting and fighting muslims.There is also no issue of government here."
Do not forget the status of woman in the ancient times. She was totally under the control of man in all aspects of life. Also, even if women were exempted, did it happen due to some Hadith?
Shaan wrote, "So it means extravagance and arrogance is bearable in case of women for they are inclined towards gold and silk."
Yes. This is quite satisfactory for me. Why is only woman ordered to cover her chest? And why is it bearable in the case of man? In my opinion, it is because a woman's chest is more attractive by nature and Islam always keeps the nature in mind while giving a directive. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|