| Author | Topic |
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:44 AM 
Brother Oosman,
Quote: -Does it makes sense to implement part of sharia that we like and part of it that we don't like? You agree with me that the Quran clearly says to flog him 80 stripes and reject his testimony. So we flog him, but since we like what he says, we accept his hadith! What hypocrisy is this?
Reply: -You and me can not interpret the Quran perfectly. See what I understood from this ruling of Quran that Allah wants to make the things so difficult that peoples don’t make play and think twice before involving in it. The evidence shows that Abu Bakra(ra) were not lying. He was the Governor of Bursa that time.
The person was accused was famous in the involvement with the women. He has carried out more than 100 marriages but at one time he don’t keep more than four. The lady was involved in this incident was not his wife. His house was near to incident place and three of his companions were there with him at that time. Being the Governor he might felt that he must go for that, but the things goes against him.
If Bukhari have given place to his narration in his work so there must some good reasons for that. If his work were given the status of second to Quran so fosure he would be very careful in given any place to any hadith in his work.
Quote: - Please explain to me how accepting his testimony is not a clear violation of the Quran?
Reply: -Before this incident I think noting wrong with that but after that I am not sure.
Quote: - Why should we hold the word of Ibn-Kathir or Bukhari or anyone else over the word of Quran? From what I understand, the Quran comes first, and humans make mistakes.
Reply:-Allah says that your eyes, ears and heart would be questioned at the Day of Judgment so we should use them not be (Lakeer kay Faqeer).
I already have explained but to me yours chances of making mistake are more obvious than Ibn-Kathir and Bukhari unless you proved them wronged.Do you think that they were not aware of this verse? |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:07 PM
I am sure they were aware of the verse. That is why it is more serious, we should know why they did something so contradictory to the holy Quran.
I do not know why Ibn-Kathir, and Imam Bukhari accepted his hadith, but I cannot accept something so against the directives of the holy Quran. I also do not think we should use such hadith to make sharia laws that conflict the Quran.
Allah has given us intellect. We should use it instead of blindly following the sayings of the mideaval scholars. |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 7:08 AM
Brother Ibrahim and Brother Tariq Hashmi
I am very confuse in the concept of Sunnah of Prophet(pbuh).Below is some information I have collected from Molana Maudoodi Sahib work, which goes agaisnt your definition of Sunnah of Prophet(pbuh).Please help me to understand the right concept of sunnah by commenting on the below statement.
Jazak Allah Khair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were known sunnah which were implemented from the Masjid to homes, in the market places, in the courts of law, at the Government level, international politics all the departments of public affairs have been implemented in the life of Prophet (pbuh). Later on from the time of Kulfa-e-Rashadeen till this era, there is no gape
Besides these known Sunnah there were another kind of Sunnah, which were not famous and not familiar in the society in the Prophet life. Which in various time periods and which were based on, like the known sunnah on rulings, sayings, speeches, approvals and to witness the actions were known by some individuals and these sunnah were unknown commonly in the society. These Sunnah were spread within various peoples. The ummah has started to collect these Sunnah from those individual right after the death of Prophet (pbuh).
People from all walks of life were very keen to know the Sunnah of Prophet before deciding and before taking any action of their routine problems by their own in their circle. Before deciding their own they wanted to know that there may be some commands already given by Prophet (pbuh) so they must follow them.
Looking at this need, they search all those, whom have some knowledge of Sunnah has begun.Those who have this knowledge, they also felt the to convey this knowledge of Sunnah to others is essential.
This is the starting point of Ahadiths, which started from 11 Hijra to third and forth century to provide these unknown Sunnah to the ummah. Almost all the efforts to corrupt them were made unsuccessful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the above information By Molana Maudoodi Sahib,don't you think that the Ahadiths also play a key role in Sunnah of Prophet(pbuh)? |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 1:35 PM
IF you begin to believe such a statement quote:
Almost all the efforts to corrupt them were made unsuccessful.
, then you have stopped the thinking process that questions everything, the process that leads to knowledge and makes sure things are checked and balanced, in essence you have come to a full stop intellectually. |
|
AbuJamiylah
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 3:19 PM
Bismillaah
was salaamu alaykum
I was enjoying reading this discussion of this important subject. jazaakum Allaahu khayran for the benefit to me.
I was concerned about a few things that maybe can be clarified for me.
I know that in a nutshell Sunnah applies without a doubt to Prophet Muhammad salla llaahu alayhi was sallam. I think everyone agrees with that. There is the Qur'aan (Allaah) Sunnah (Prophet).
The subject of "Hadith" is being used to cloud something very important. It is not really important (in defining sunnah) whether some hadith are valid and others invalid. We know that the ones that are invalid are false and the ones that are valid are - well valid.
the ones that are valid contain in them the authentic sayings, doings and approvals of Prophet Muhammad and that is his Sunnah.
By using "vague" terms like "practical aspects of the religion" leaves it wide open for people to say the sunnah is whatever is comfortable for them.
If a hadith is authentic such as the Prophet Muhammad saying that my Lord Commands me to trim the Mustache and keep the beard, a person who does not want to keep his beard can say he goes with Sunnah as "practical aspects of the religion". and since McDonald's won't let him have a job with a beard, the beard must not be considered from the sunnah of Allaah's Messenger.
I wanted to say to this. The following statement was used in reference to making a distinction between Qur'aan (and Sunnah) in transmission and Hadith in transmission.
(That leave Some DOUBT in it). That's why the 1st transmission is Known as "Khaber-e-Twatur" & the 2nd transmission is Called "Khabr-eWahid" technically.
This is not true. This distinction in Islaam has been used between different types of ahaadith themselves.
And the truth is that the same people who preserved and assured that we have the same Qur'aan that Prophet Muhammad salla llaahu alayhi was sallam and his companions had are the same people who passed down the ahaadith.
It is incredible how people can believe the Qur'aan is really what the people had in those times and it made it safely through all those hands and can not see the ahaadith likewise.
The ahaadith were being described as "person to person" instead of "generation to generation". One would imagine that every hadith you read was Person A talking to Person B. this is not true. many were Person A talking to a group of people B's. The ahaadith were taught to the people, etc.
But as to this statement:
Does it make sense to implement part of sharia that we like and part of it that we don't like? You agree with me that the Quran clearly says to flog him 80 stripes and reject his testimony. So we flog him, but since we like what he says, we accept his hadith! What hypocrisy is this?
Allaah did not rule out the validity of Abu Bakra as a narrator by this ayah. It is easy and plain to see that in this place Allaah is saying to us to not accept the testimony of the person in this case that they are bringing. The punishment for not being able to provide four witnesses addresses the person. And it that case is is more for the purpose of seeing to it that people are very hesitant about exposing such a matter if it is true, as well as fabricating such a matter if it is not true. So in truth, it was not PROVEN that he lied in that instance. What was proven, if you research the matter is that he fell short of the number of witnesses. That is different from proving someone a "liar". He was not proven a liar, he just was not exempt (which shows the justice of the khalif) from the rule to have four witnesses. Did anyone from among the Sahaaba brand him a liar? So how can we precede them and take it upon ourselves to do that? This is brave.
I hope that addresses this:
Please explain to me how accepting his testimony is not a clear violation of the Quran?
I believe the following statements are clearly from following our desire:
Why should we hold the word of Ibn-Kathir or Bukhari or anyone else over the word of Quran? From what I understand, the Quran comes first, and humans make mistakes.
If you had a portion of their knowledge and taqwaa you would know what they know about this verse and you would know that they feared Allaah enough to not willingly contradict him.
What you said next is your own evidence:
I am sure they were aware of the verse. That is why it is more serious, we should know why they did something so contradictory to the holy Quran.
Do you think you could write tafsir of Qur'aan? You are right. They were well aware of the verse, but you left one thing out: "AND ITS MEANING".
Then you said:
I do not know why Ibn-Kathir, and Imam Bukhari accepted his hadith, but I cannot accept something so against the directives of the holy Quran.
So why not ask them? Why not read their work that they put so much real time into and see what they came up with?
I see a great deal of talk about relying upon the intellect. Like when you said:
Allah has given us intellect. We should use it instead of blindly following the sayings of the mideaval scholars.
First we should know that the 'asl (principle) in methodology at getting at what is correct in Islaam is to follow the rule that the Nakhl (transmissions of information in revelation - Qur'aan and Sunnah) takes precedence over the 'aql (intellect). It would be very oppressive to cut the people loose in the world relying on their intellects.
And it seems there is some "issue" with the Scholars being from "older" days. You dare call them "midieval". subaan Allaah.
No, rather, they were closer to the time you are trying to sort out today then you are.
And Allaah knows best.
May Allaah's Prayers and peace be upon His Messenger, his family and companions Ameen.
Was Salaamu Alaykum
Abu Jamiylah |
|
ibrahim
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, April 3, 2006 - 9:27 AM
Well Dear Readers & Participants Plz NOTE the Following THINGS v Carefully & TRY to "DIGEST" them 1st:
1) The version of Islam presented by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the LAST & FINAL version & is VALID for ALL Human beings TILL the LAST day of THIS World.
2) The WAY of GOD (Islam) shud be CRYSTLE CLEAR (i.e. there SHUD be NO DOUBT in it) for His All Human Beings.
3) This DEFINITE "Way of Salvation" is now PRESENT in the FORM of "Quran & Sunnah" ONLY (as only THESE TWO sources FULLFIL the above Condition (in no.2) by VIRTUE of Generation to Generation Transmission (Known as TWaaTuR) so ONLY these TWO are BINDING & Compulsory for THOSE who want to EARN God's Heaven in the LIFE Hereafter.
4) All Other things; Hadith, Sayings of Sahaba, Tab'een, 4 Famous Jurists & Opinions of ALL Islamic Scholors will become CONSIDERABLE only WHEN they'll be in the LIMITS of Quran & Sunnah. NOTHING can Rule OVER these TWO.
Plzzzzz for God Sake, GUIDE me & TELL me that WHERE I'm WRONG bcoz I do NOT want to GO to HELL. Jazakumullah khairun |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, April 3, 2006 - 2:07 PM
Assalam alaikum
Mr Ibrahim
You keep saying the saying thing, but how do we know if something is what the prophet said or not? How can we be sure?
Mr Abu Jamiylah
quote:
It is incredible how people can believe the Qur'aan is really what the people had in those times and it made it safely through all those hands and can not see the ahaadith likewise.
Brother, it is not incredible. There is a guarantee in the Quran that it is in a lock, that no one can change it ever. This guarantee is from God. There is no such guarantee in the Hadith which is not even from God!
We do not believe in the integrity of the Quran since it was first revealed because of the way it was handed down to us, but because of God's guarantee that it will never be changed!
quote:
The ahaadith were being described as "person to person" instead of "generation to generation....many were Person A talking to a group of people B's"
But it was not group of people showing it to another group of people in next generation - that is how Sunnah and holy Quran have come down to us, it was not one individual to spread the knowledge (except for in the beginning with the prophet himself). And when you have one person telling something to a group, and then people in the group pass that knowledge to others, there is a very high chance the message will get distorted, as is evident if you study hadith literature.
quote:
So in truth, it was not PROVEN that he lied in that instance. What was proven, if you research the matter is that he fell short of the number of witnesses
My case is not if he lied or said the truth. It is a simple matter of implementing the Sharia. Sharia says to reject his testimony. Even if he said the truth, we should reject it becasue Sharia says so.
quote:
If you had a portion of their knowledge and taqwaa you would know what they know about this verse and you would know that they feared Allaah enough to not willingly contradict him
Brother you have fallen into the trap of believing that every famous scholar behind you did not make any mistake. They were human beings, and if you read their testimonials, they say themselves that their work can have errors.
quote:
So why not ask them? Why not read their work that they put so much real time into and see what they came up with?
Good idea!
quote:
You dare call them "midieval".
What is wrong with that, they were from mideaval times, were they not? There is nothing deoragatory about it at all.
I think many Muslims today believe that the early scholars were perfect human beings and their work has no errors at all. Then we start accepting their work and do no question anything. We then don't use our intellect. Tell me, is there anything wrong in questioning the early scholars to better understand what and why they did something? Is that a crime?
May Allah (swt) guide us!!! |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, April 3, 2006 - 5:34 PM
Assalam-o-alaikum,
quote:
4) All Other things; Hadith, Sayings of Sahaba, Tab'een, 4 Famous Jurists & Opinions of ALL Islamic Scholors will become CONSIDERABLE only WHEN they'll be in the LIMITS of Quran & Sunnah. NOTHING can Rule OVER these TWO.
If you look at the methodology of the 4 famous jurists,you'll realise that their principle was to reject any narrative which was against the Quran and Sunnah BUT they accepted other narratives as part of shariah if they weren't against Quran and Sunnah.The narratives need not have any basis in Quran and Sunnah.
Example is the prohibition of wearing silk and gold for men.Everybody knows that this directive has no basis in Quran.And no it isn't related to israaf because if it were than women wouldn't be exempted from it.
As for methodology of determining which narratives were ascribed to the prophet(pbuh) or not, the jurists differed in it.As you know Imam Malik checked the narratives ascribed to the prophet(pbuh) through the practice of the people of madina and other variables.
The point is that the jurists accepted the narratives and formed fiqh on it even if it didn't have any link or basis in Quran.(Iam not referring to the narratives related to the established practical sunnah but other narratives especially prohibitive narratives like prohibition of music,silk,etc..) |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, April 3, 2006 - 7:51 PM
quote:
BUT they accepted other narratives as part of shariah if they weren't against Quran and Sunnah
This sounds like innovation or bidda. Are you sure this is what they did, add more stuff to religion that was not part of it?
If it is true, it is even more disturbing than I thought, and we should scrutinize their work more carefully! |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 9:24 AM
Dear All
Below is some very useful information regarding the Four Madhhabs,The link is also there at the bottom if some one wish to see the complete article.If you will read this carefully,it would help to understand the work carried out by Great Imams of old time.
From here we also can see that hadith has played its part in the evolution of all four Madhhabs.It seems to me that all the work was based on Quran and Hadiths.
By Abdul Hakim Murad
It hardly needs remarking that although the Four Imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, al-Shafi'i and Ibn Hanbal, are regarded as the founders of these four great traditions, which, if we were asked to define them, we might sum up as sophisticated techniques for avoiding innovation, their traditions were fully systematised only by later generations of scholars. The Sunni ulama rapidly recognised the brilliance of the Four Imams, and after the late third century of Islam we find that hardly any scholars adhered to any other approach. The great hadith specialists, including al-Bukhari and Muslim, were all loyal adherents of one or another of the madhhabs, particularly that of Imam al-Shafi'i. But within each madhhab, leading scholars continued to improve and refine the roots and branches of their school. In some cases, historical conditions made this not only possible, but necessary. For instance, scholars of the school of Imam Abu Hanifah, which was built on the foundations of the early legal schools of Kufa and Basra, were wary of some hadiths in circulation in Iraq because of the prevalence of forgery engendered by the strong sectarian influences there. Later, however, once the canonical collections of Bukhari, Muslim and others became available, subsequent generations of Hanafi scholars took the entire corpus of hadiths into account in formulating and revising their madhhab. This type of process continued for two centuries, until the Schools reached a condition of maturity in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Hijra.
It was at that time, too, that the attitude of toleration and good opinion between the Schools became universally accepted. This was formulated by Imam al-Ghazali, himself the author of four textbooks of Shafi'i fiqh, and also of Al-Mustasfa, widely acclaimed as the most advanced and careful of all works on usulusul al-fiqh fil madhhab (Ihya Ulum al-Din, III, 65) While it was
necessary for the Muslim to follow a recognised madhhab in order to avert the lethal danger of misinterpreting the sources, he must never fall into the trap of considering his own school categorically superior to the others. With a few insignificant exceptions, the great scholars of Sunni Islam have followed the ethos outlined by Imam al-Ghazali, and have been conspicuously respectful of each others madhhab. Anyone who has studied under traditional ulama will be well-aware of this fact.
The evolution of the Four Schools did not stifle, as some Orientalists have suggested, the capacity for the refinement or extension of positive law. On the contrary, sophisticated mechanisms were available which not only permitted qualified individuals to derive the Shariah from the Quran and Sunnah on their own authority, but actually obliged them to do this. According to most scholars, an expert who has fully mastered the sources and fulfilled a variety of necessary scholarly conditions is not permitted to follow the prevalent rulings of his School, but must derive the rulings himself from the revealed sources. Such an individual is known as a mujtahid, a term derived from the famous hadith of Muadh ibn Jabal.
In order to protect the Shariah from the danger of innovation and distortion, the great scholars of usul laid down rigorous conditions which must be fulfilled by anyone wishing to claim the right of ijtihad for himself. These conditions include:
(a) mastery of the Arabic language, to minimise the possibility of misinterpreting Revelation on purely linguistic grounds;
(b) a profound knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah and the circumstances surrounding the revelation of each verse and hadith, together with a full knowledge of the Quranic and hadith commentaries, and a control of all the interpretative techniques discussed above;
(c) knowledge of the specialised disciplines of hadith, such as the assessment of narrators and of the matn [text];
(d) knowledge of the views of the Companions, Followers and the great imams, and of the positions and reasoning expounded in the textbooks of fiqh, combined with the knowledge of cases where a consensus (ijma) has been reached;
(e) knowledge of the science of juridical analogy (qiyas), its types and conditions;
(f) knowledge of ones own society and of public interest (maslahah);
(g) knowing the general objectives (maqasid) of the Shariah;
(h) a high degree of intelligence and personal piety, combined with the Islamic virtues of compassion, courtesy, and modesty.
A scholar who has fulfilled these conditions can be considered a mujtahid fil-shar, and is not obliged, or even permitted, to follow an existing authoritative madhhab. This is what some of the Imams were saying when they forbade their great disciples from imitating them uncritically. But for the much greater number of scholars whose expertise has not reached such dizzying heights, it may be possible to become a mujtahid fil-madhhab, that is, a scholar who remains broadly convinced of the doctrines of his school, but is qualified to differ from received opinion within it. There have been a number of examples of such men, for instance Imam al-Nawawi among the Shafi'is, Qadi Ibn Abd al-Barr among the Malikis, Ibn Abidin among the Hanafis, and Ibn Qudama among the Hanbalis. All of these scholars considered themselves followers of the fundamental interpretative principles of their own madhhabs, but are on record as having exercised their own gifts of scholarship and judgement in reaching many new verdicts within them. It is to these experts that the Mujtahid Imams directed their advice concerning ijtihad, such as Imam al-Shafi'i's instruction that if you find a hadith that contradicts my verdict, then follow the hadith. It is obvious that whatever some writers nowadays like to believe, such counsels were never intended for use by the Islamically-uneducated masses.
In a Western-influenced global culture in which people are urged from early childhood to think for themselves and to challenge established authority, it can sometimes be difficult to muster enough humility to recognise ones own limitations. We are all a little like Pharaoh: our egos are by nature resistant to the idea that anyone else might be much more intelligent or learned than ourselves. The belief that ordinary Muslims, even if they know Arabic, are qualified to derive rulings of the Shariah for themselves, is an example of this egotism running wild. To young people proud of their own judgement, and unfamiliar with the complexity of the sources and the brilliance of authentic scholarship, this can be an effective trap, which ends by luring them away from the orthodox path of Islam and into an unintentional agenda of provoking deep divisions among the Muslims. The fact that all the great scholars of the religion, including the hadith experts, themselves belonged to madhhabs, and required their students to belong to madhhabs, seems to have been forgotten. Self-esteem has won a major victory here over common sense and Islamic responsibility.
The Holy Quran commands Muslims to use their minds and reflective capacities; and the issue of following qualified scholarship is an area in which this faculty must be very carefully deployed. The basic point should be appreciated that no categoric difference exists between usul al-fiqh and any other specialised science requiring lengthy training. Shaykh Said Ramadan al-Buti, who has articulated the orthodox response to the anti-Madhhab trend in his book: Non-Madhhabism: The Greatest Bida Threatening the Islamic Sharia, likes to compare the science of deriving rulings to that of medicine. "If ones child is seriously ill", he asks, "does one look for oneself in the medical textbooks for the proper diagnosis and cure, or should one go to a trained medical practitioner?" Clearly, sanity dictates the latter option. And so it is in matters of religion, which are in reality even more important and potentially hazardous: we would be both foolish and irresponsible to try to look through the sources ourselves, and become our own muftis. Instead, we should recognise that those who have spent their entire lives studying the Sunnah and the principles of law are far less likely to be mistaken than we are.
There is a real danger that Sunni Islam is being treated in a similar fashion. The edifice has stood for centuries, withstanding the most bitter blows of its enemies. Only from within can it be weakened. No doubt, Islam has its intelligent foes among whom this fact is well-known. The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islams enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised.
Source:-
http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/madhab/madhab-murad.htm |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:33 AM
Dear brother Ibrahim
The difination of Sunnah, where I felt that you are wrong.Once you will know the right definition, every thing will be very clear to you.
I am quoting Imam Shafi here.
such as Imam al-Shafi'i's instruction that if you find a hadith that contradicts my verdict, then follow the hadith. |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:21 PM
Dear Oosman
My Quote: -Almost all the efforts to corrupt them were made unsuccessful.
Your Quote: -then you have stopped the thinking process that questions everything, the process that leads to knowledge and makes sure things are checked and balanced, in essence you have come to a full stop intellectually.
Reply: -The level of intellect Allah has given me, its tell me that for me its impossible to go into the revelation of Quran and Sunnah and do my own research. I prefer to follow the advise of righteous scholar of our era, which tell me that the work of old great scholars is wonder full and reliable. My level of research also gives me the same answer.
Followings also according to my views, have a look please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly it is recommended for the muqallid to learn as much as he or she is able of the formal proofs of the madhhab. But it is equally clear that not every Muslim can be a scholar. Scholarship takes a lot of time, and for the ummah to function properly most people must have other employment: as accountants, soldiers, butchers, and so forth. As such, they cannot reasonably be expected to become great ulama as well, even if we suppose that all of them have the requisite intelligence. The Holy Quran itself states that less well-informed believers should have recourse to qualified experts: So ask the people of remembrance, if you do not know (16:43). (According to the tafsir experts, the people of remembrance are the ulama.) And in another verse, the Muslims are enjoined to create and maintain a group of specialists who provide authoritative guidance for non-specialists: A band from each community should stay behind to gain instruction in religion and to warn the people when they return to them, so that they may take heed (9:122). Given the depth of scholarship needed to understand the revealed texts accurately, and the extreme warnings we have been given against distorting the Revelation, it is obvious that ordinary Muslims are duty bound to follow expert opinion, rather than rely on their own reasoning and limited knowledge. This obvious duty was well-known to the early Muslims: the Caliph Umar (r.a.) followed certain rulings of Abu Bakr (r.a.), saying I would be ashamed before God to differ from the view of Abu Bakr. And Ibn Masud (r.a.), in turn, despite being a mujtahid in the fullest sense, used in certain issues to follow Umar (r.a.). According to al-Shabi: Six of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used to give fatwas to the people: Ibn Masud, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ali, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ubayy ibn Kab, and Abu Musa (al-Ashari). And out of these, three would abandon their own judgements in favour of the judgements of three others: Abdallah (ibn Masud) would abandon his own judgement for the judgement of Umar, Abu Musa would abandon his own judgement for the judgement of Ali, and Zayd would abandon his own judgement for the judgement of Ubayy ibn Kab.
This verdict, namely that one is well-advised to follow a great Imam as ones guide to the Sunnah, rather than relying on oneself, is particularly binding upon Muslims in countries such as Britain, among whom only a small percentage is even entitled to have a choice in this matter. This is for the simple reason that unless one knows Arabic, then even if one wishes to read all the hadith determining a particular issue, one cannot. For various reasons, including their great length, no more than ten of the basic hadith collections have been translated into English. There remain well over three hundred others, including such seminal works as the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, the Sahih of Ibn Khuzayma, the Mustadrak of al-Hakim, and many other multi-volume collections, which contain large numbers of sound hadiths which cannot be found in Bukhari, Muslim, and the other works that have so far been translated. Even if we assume that the existing translations are entirely accurate, it is obvious that a policy of trying to derive the Shariah directly from the Book and the Sunnah cannot be attempted by those who have no access to the Arabic. To attempt to discern the Shariah merely on the basis of the hadiths which have been translated will be to ignore and amputate much of the Sunnah, hence leading to serious distortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May Allah guide us onto the straight path. |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:14 PM
We are discussing the concept of sunnah and wether ahadith are the primary source of sunnah and hence part of shariah or not ?
quote:
Imam al-Shafi'i's instruction that if you find a hadith that contradicts my verdict, then follow the hadith.
You can clearly see that what the great Imam said was about verdict not shariah.Example,the sunnah is that there is no prayer for the one who doesn't recite surah fatiha.All the muslims from the sahaba till now agree on that.But the difference comes down to wether everyone should recite behind Imam in congregational prayer or the imam's recitation is enough.Only that verdict will be accepted which is in accordance with sahih ahadith.
Also we are not discussing about layman deriving rulings from Quran and Sunnah on his own limited knowledge. |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 7:32 AM
Quote: -We are discussing the concept of sunnah and wether ahadith are the primary source of sunnah and hence part of shariah or not ?
Quote: - You can clearly see that what the great Imam said was about verdict not shariah
Reply:- Prophet (pbuh) have said,I am leaving two things for you Quran and Sunnah.So the Shari'ah is derived from {1} The Holy Quran {2} Sunnah {3} Ij'ma {consensus} of the Companions {Sahabah} may Allah be pleased with them all. {4} Qiyas {Analogical deduction}.The verdict of Great Imams formed the Shariah .So they all are interrelated. So what actually I wanted to point out here that The verdict s of Great Imams which formed the Shariah were also based on the hadiths And sahih Hadith on which ummah has Ij’ma is called Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh)
Quote:- Also we are not discussing about layman deriving rulings from Quran and Sunnah on his own limited knowledge.
Brother this was just to give my response to brother oosman on this.
Your Quote:- The point is that the jurists accepted the narratives and formed fiqh on it even if it didn't have any link or basis in Quran.(Iam not referring to the narratives related to the established practical sunnah but other narratives especially prohibitive narratives like prohibition of music,silk,etc..)
My response: - What your self discussing here the fiqh. Are we discussing fiqh here?.But you are right,we all should keep our focus on Sunnah.
Edited by: usmani790 on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM |
|
Shaan
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:59 AM
quote:
Prophet (pbuh) have said,I am leaving two things for you Quran and Sunnah.So the Shari'ah is derived from {1} The Holy Quran {2} Sunnah {3} Ij'ma {consensus} of the Companions {Sahabah} may Allah be pleased with them all. {4} Qiyas {Analogical deduction}.The verdict of Great Imams formed the Shariah .So they all are interrelated. So what actually I wanted to point out here that The verdict s of Great Imams which formed the Shariah were also based on the hadiths And sahih Hadith on which ummah has Ij’ma is called Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh)
The shariah consists of only two things i.e. Quran and Sunnah.Muslims all over the golbe from the prophet's era till now are unanimous on shairah.
Interpreation and application of the two sources is not shariah.
Ahadith are also not included in shariah because neither the prophet nor his sahaba made any special arrangement for it like you see in Quran and Sunnah.Ahadith are related to Quran and Sunnah but are not the shariah in itself. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 1:11 PM
| Then how come we have so many mullahs and so called muftis giving fatwas based on hadith. Recently the grand mullah of Egypt gave a fatwa that all statues (for decoration) used any where were haram. (He did not specifically say the statues of Pharoas and ancient Egyptians in museums were haram too, but the reference is obvious.) His fatwa is based on Hadith. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|