Surah 2:238 of the ZSE (Zaid Standard Edition of the Qur'an) reads as follows: "Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah."
So we have (1) "prayers," and (2) "the middle prayer."
According to Aisha, something is missing from this Ayah in the ZSEQ.
Jami At-Tirmidhi 2982--Abu Yunus, the freed slave of Aishah, said: "Aisha ordered me to write a Mushaf for her, and she said: 'When you get to this Ayah then tell me: Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat.' So when I reached it, I told her and she dictated to me: 'Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.' She said: 'I heard that from the Messenger of Allah.'"
Thus, according to the Mother of the Faithful, when Muhammad recited this Ayah, it referred to (1) "prayers," (2) "the middle prayer," and (3) "Salat Al-Asr." The Ayah we have in the Zaid Standard Edition, then, is not the same as the Ayah that Muhammad recited. And yet, somehow, the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved!
I'll flip a coin.
Number: "Yeah, so what?"
Head: "Weak source."
Let's see if the coin got it right.
What Nabeel and David should do is to mention the classification of the hadith which is provided in these very books that they are quoting from. If it says Sahih then it is sound, if it says Hasan then this means it is good, if it is listed Daif then that means it's weak.
So Nabeel and Wood please list the classification for this hadith as well as the one regarding Ibn Masud.
Well, when I examine reports like this, I'm thinking in terms of actual historical principles such as the Principle of Embarrassment (i.e. Muslims wouldn't invent stories about the Qur'an being flawed; thus, these reports are probably true).
However, if we'd like to follow the backwards, 9th century Muslim methodology on this one, both reports are classified as Sahih.
I am going to have a look at these narrations, however I just thought I should point out a few errors:
1) When a narration is classified as Dha'if, or weak, that does not mean that it is Mawdhoo', or fabricated.
The reason for that, is in a weak narration, the weak link, i.e. the weak narrator who has been disparaged, did not fully remember the Hadith when he was narrating it, so he made a mistake.
That has nothing to do with fabrication things against Prophet Muhammad, it is a mere error in narration, which is why it is Dha'if.
I should not be hearing anything from a Christian about discrepancies.
I am not likening the Bible to the Sunnah, as what is Dha'if was not said by the Prophet, in comparison to you, who believe that God made errors in transmitting the information, that he said all those dates.
2) A Mawdhoo' Hadith, is one that has a fabricator in the narration, or it goes against the tons of the most reliable Asanid.
Most of the time, the fabricator is an innovator, a deviant, or a straight up hypocrite.
The reason is that they came up with beliefs and wanted to justify them, so he made up a Hadith and ascribed it to Allah's Messenger, when he never said that, to justify their beliefs.
So if we were to follow the backwards Historical Method, the Principle of Embarrassment plays no effect in Dha'if and Mawdhoo' Hadiths.
Another thing I just noticed, it was not 300 years after Prophet Muhammad that the Isnad was setup, it was more like 35-60 years.
Was that discussion just for our personal benefit? As I said, both ahadith are classified as Sahih, so a discussion of weak narrations is out of place (unless, again, it was just for our personal benefit).
You said: "Another thing I just noticed, it was not 300 years after Prophet Muhammad that the Isnad was setup, it was more like 35-60 years."
I said "9th Century," which runs from 801-900. This is the period when hadith methodology was solidified. Before that, things were quite different. Indeed, Muslim scholar Shahab Ahmed even suggests that complete isnads are more likely to be fabricated, since people in the early centuries weren't obsessed with isnads!
I was speaking in general terms, since I see all the time on here the underplaying the Isnaad Methodology of authentication.
Which scholar said it is authentic, please?
Also, regarding "9th Century", Hadith methodology was first put to use at the appearance of the Khawarij, and Qadari sects, which appeared during the Caliphate of Caliph 'Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, during 644 and 656 C.E.
Imam ath-Thahabi said in his book, al-Muqidha fee Ilm Mustalah al-Hadith, which translates as, The Awakening in Knowledge of the Science of Hadith", says this, "The most authentic Asanid are: Mansur, from Ibrahim, from 'Alqama, from Ibn Mas'ud, Malik, from Nafi', from Ibn 'Umar..."
These are the likes of when the narrating began, note that Nafi' died in 735 C.E.
There is something called Marasil as-Sahaba, where the Companion narrates something which he did not hear directly from Allah's Messenger, but rather from another companion, so where then is the claim that Isnad system was not setup until the 9th Century?
As for Shahab Ahmed, firstly, show me where he said that, secondly, since he contradicted over 1400 years of Islamic Scholarship which affirms authentic Asanid, his view is totally null and void, and he has no proof to what he is saying.
Actually, I proved how this Professor is so ignorant to now know the basics of Hadith Sciences, namely with the Marasil al-Sahaba.
Muhammid saide: «Actually, I proved how this Professor is so ignorant to now know the basics of Hadith Sciences, namely with the Marasil al-Sahaba»...
really? Your're the onlie onne to thinke so... poor sold... I'll be praying for you...
"really? Your're the onlie onne to thinke so... poor sold... I'll be praying for you..."
No, no. I can bring you tons of scholars who refute exactly what he is claiming absurdly.
Have you read a single classic text on Mustalah al-Hadith? Or seen a dictionary by any chance?
I think most people will agree with you David, when you say that the principle of embarassment is the strongest criteria for examining historicity.
Looks like my coin got it right. I find it quite amusing of accusing someone who uses the principle of embarassment of not knowing enough about hadith science.
Muhammid saide: «I can bring you tons of scholars who refute exactly what he is claiming absurdly»...
you don't neede to presente a ton... just one gram... We all be waitingue...
"you don't neede to presente a ton... just one gram... We all be waitingue..."
Don't worry I will. Just wait like you said you are.
Imam ath-Thahabi said in al-Muqidhah, edition of Maktabat Ibn Taimiyyah, in Dammaj Yemen, pg. 19, with verification of ar-Razihi, “The highest level of Isnad that are agreed upon are, Malik, from Nafi’, from Ibn ‘Umar, and Mansur from Ibraheem, from ‘Alqama, from Ibn Mas’ud, and az-Zuhri, from Salim, from Ibn ‘Umar.”
The author, ar-Razihi says in the footnote (number 3), “Therefore, this is one of the most authentic chains to al-Bukhari, as al-Hakim said in Ma’rifat Ulum al-Hadith, pg. 53, and the 6 Books of Hadith have collected it (Malik from Nafi’ from Ibn ‘Umar), 80 times altogether.”
This thoroughly proves the absurdness of the claim of Shahab, the ignoramus. Again, like I said before, to look at any classical book on Mustalah, would clear this up, but since you barely speak English, I doubt that you speak Arabic.
Matthew said: "I find it quite amusing of accusing someone who uses the principle of embarassment of not knowing enough about hadith science."
I find it quite amusing that Muslim claim something about how they read their Hadiths is scientific in ANY way!
"Hadith science" is a joke phrase concocted to make what they do sound important and reliable. I guess Muslims found a way to make a "science" out of a very old game of Chinese Whispers :-)
El-Cid wrote : "I find it quite amusing that Muslim claim something about how they read their Hadiths is scientific in ANY way!
"Hadith science" is a joke phrase concocted to make what they do sound important and reliable. I guess Muslims found a way to make a "science" out of a very old game of Chinese Whispers :-)"
One time I visited the Muslim Christian Monologue chatroom on Paltalk.
In response to being questioned about Mohammed's suicide attempts recorded in Bukhari, one of the admins said "It didn't really happen. They were rumours."
I pressed the admin "I thought that Bukhari is Sahih and reliable"
He responded "But the section dealing with the suicide can be found under the title 'Rumours' "
He gave me the arabic word, I can't even remember it now because I don't speak Arabic. So I asked some coptic friends, they said "The word means NEWS not RUMOURS"
I went back to the admin of the MC Monologue room and was told, "Well yes it really means news not rumours, but you have to understand that when you turn on the news, a lot of the time it is propaganda and lies"
So I said "Ok, so news contained in the most trusted, most reliable source of Hadith, Bukhari, is just complete falsehood. So please explain to me the science of Hadith"
People told me to go to a Mosque.
We live in a day were Sahih no longer means what it used to. A day in which Mohammed never spoke of the bible being corrupted, but Modern apologists know better. A day in which anything and I mean ANYTHING that exposes Mohammed's true character is weak, fabricated, lies from the infidels.
They twist their own sources. They throw out their own sources. They twist our bible. They claim our bible is corrupted just like their hadiths concerning Mohammed, and yet the bible prophesies Mohammed, who I might add was a fine and perfect model for ALL HUMANITY.
So just stop using silly arguments people, take the Shahada, and CLOSE THIS SITE DOWN ALREADY !!!
Post a Comment