Islamic History & Archaeology

[VCheng]

Not Again !!! . You haven`t got anything to discuss . So ja mera bhai sakoon se

As long as you respect others' beliefs just as you respect your own, I have total sakoon.

 

[M. Sarmad]

As long as you respect others' beliefs just as you respect your own, I have total sakoon.

Meray bhai I am not disrespecting (or even discussing) some one`s beliefs . I am discussing "history and archaeology" , so chill mar

 

[VCheng]

Meray bhai I am not disrespecting (or even discussing) some one`s beliefs . I am discussing "history and archaeology" , so chill mar

Of course. According to the history, many authoritative works about the authenticity of the ahadith are believed to be correct by millions of millions of Muslims. The archaeology of the mosque in Sana'a is equally interesting, right?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Of course. According to the history, many authoritative works about the authenticity of the ahadith are believed to be correct by millions of millions of Muslims. The archaeology of the mosque in Sana'a is equally interesting, right?

Because those millions and millions usually don`t bother to read history and trust the "Mullahs" only . About San`a mosque manuscript , bhai bring your evidence (archaeological) , and I am ready to discuss . Aur trolling ka quota pora ho gaya ho , to plz stop spoiling this thread

 

[VCheng]

Because those millions and millions usually don`t bother to read history and trust the "Mullahs" only .

Hey, as long as they are content with their beliefs, who can question that? They are content and satisfied and happy with the history and the archaeology of their beliefs as much as anyone else.

 

[Zarvan]

You should do some research on it first .

Islamic History & Archaeology

You need to do some research Mr Hadith were written and orally passed on in life of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW on his orders and continued to be done in life of Sahabas and in life of students of Sahabas Mr Hadith were both being written and orally learnt in their life time and Mr even the Quran you read you know this is Quran in fact is told you buy RASOOL SAW again Hadees so basically you not only deny Quran but also Hadees and stop posting lies of Kharjis like pervaiz and others who only bark and shit bloody agents of kufr and enemies of RASOOL SAW @Multani

 

[Indos]

Because (In words of Umer r,a) : "The book of Allah(Quran) is enough for us (i.e Muslims)"

This statement was taken during our prophet death, he wanted to write something because he was so worried that we will be in conflict with each other, but Umar prevented it and said that "words". And it made a huge argument among Muslims who was in our prophet room, it made our prophet ask them to leave and never write anything until His death. There is another Hadist said directly from our prophet mouth preventing Muslim to write any hadist, and the hadist is shahih.

I believe that Muslim has to write Quran first, before writing any hadist. Muslim should prioritize the Quran first, it is the way we should thinks. But some Muslim just prioritize Hadist, it is the one that makes some problem since Hadist should be interpreted by someone who has good Quran knowledge and understand the context.

Khawarij, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other fanatics is a group in Muslim who doesn't use context in interpretating Quran and Hadist.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@syedali73 :

Now the Mullahs ( Zarvan ) have started to show their real face . They can never prove the authenticity of so called religious texts , compiled for political gains , centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) and Now they are trying to say that rejecting them is actually rejecting Quran !! So they are ready to question the authenticity of Quran itself ... But these morons have no idea what archaeological and historical evidence means . And that there is enough of evidence to establish the authenticity of our claim about "preservation of original Quranic text" .


And read this , it is worth your time :

'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'

http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

 

[Hakan]

@Azlan Haider Nice Thread .

 

[ajpirzada]

@Jazzbot @jaibi @danish falcon @Alpha1.... no contribution ??

Quran is the only "book" that all Muslims believe is "unchanged" & "perfect" , And as discussed earlier , there are enough reasons to believe in this ....
Now the question arises that despite believing in One Allah , Same Quran & One Prophet (pbuh) , Why do the Muslims kill each other in the name of the same religion (i.e Islam) which they all follow ???

The answer seems to be very simple , They believe in different collections of Ahadith (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh) , often highly contradicting, and they follow different versions of the `same` Islamic History ...

But things might not be that simple , The first Islamic civil war (656-661 CE) , also known as the First Fitna , was fought among the Muslims who did not follow different Ahadith or versions of history , They were mostly companions and relatives of the prophet (pbuh) who had learnt Islam directly from the Messenger of Allah !! They did not challenge each other`s faith , They contested for the leadership of the newly born Ummah .. The divide in the Muslims was purely "political" in the beginning , which became "religious" with the passage of time . Ali (r.a) was a cousin and son in law of Muhammad (pbuh) , who fought against Aisha (r.a) [ the beloved wife of prophet (pbuh)] and Zubair bin Awwam (r.a)[also a cousin of prophet as well as Ali himself] in 656 AD , in the "battle of camel" .. Later Ali r.a had to fight Muaviyyah in "battle of siffeen" , Muaviyyah was brother in law of Muhammad (pbuh) and a distant cousin .. So the participants of the First Fitna were all related to each other , and no one tried to prove his superiority over the other claiming a kinship to Muhammad (pbuh) and "religion" stayed out of politics ..

But in the Second Islamic Civil war (ended 692 AD) , the religion could not stay out of politics . Following the Murder of Imam Hussain and almost all the male members of family of prophet (pbuh) in "battle of kerbala" by the Ummayad troops of Yazid (son of Muaviyyah) in 680 AD(The battle is often cited as the definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam) , Yazid faced a second revolt from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and the son of Asma bint Abu Bakr. Ibn al-Zubayr's rebellion was seen by many as an attempt to return to the pristine values of the early Islamic community, and his revolt was welcomed by a number of parties that were unhappy with the Umayyad rule for various reasons.

This was the first time that the name of "Muhammad" was used for political purposes . As is evident from archaeological record , The name of Muhammad was not minted on coins or other inscriptions before Abdullah Bin Zubair gained control of Hijaz . The oldest coins with shahada of prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) are from his time . His opponent and the Ummayad leader Abdul Malik , followed him and started using the name of prophet on coins and other inscriptions (a practice his predecessors never approved of) . He went on to build a alternative ka`ba in jerusalem as the Ummayads had lost control of Makkah ; The famous Dome Of The Rock , and this was the time when he ordered compiling of Ahadith for political purposes , something forbidden by the messenger of Allah and the Khulfa e Rashideen , ....



al-Ya`qubi writes is in his Tareekh :

`Abd al-Malik prevented the people of Sham from the hajj and this is because Ibn al-Zubayr was taking the pledge of allegience from the pilgrims. When `Abd al-Malik had found out about this, he prevented them from setting out to Makkah. But the people protested and said: "Do you prevent us from doing the pilgrimage to the Sacred House of Allah while it is a duty from Allah upon us ?" He said: "Here is Ibn Shihabuddin al-Zuhri narrating to you that the Messenger of Allah said: "The caravans should not be set out except for three mosques, the Sacred Mosque, my present Mosque and the Mosque of Jerusalem" [which] stands for the Sacred Mosque for you. And here is the Rock on [which] it is narrated that the Prophet set his foot before ascending to the heavens, it stands for the Ka`bah. Then he built a Dome on the Rock, suspended silk curtains on it and appointed servants for it. And told the people to revolve around it like they revolve around the Ka`bah and so it was during the rule of Bani Umayyah( Ahmad b. Abu Ya`qub Ibn Wadih al-Ya`qubi (Ed. M. T. Houtsma), Tarikh, 1883, Volume II, Leiden, p. 311)

Now we have two options
1) Reject this allegation saying that Al Yaqubi was a Shia and this is anti ummayad propaganda , or
2) Try to further investigate into it and see if this claim is backed by other sources or historical records

Going by option number 2 , lets see what some orientalists have to say


In the passage of his Muhammedanische Studien, Goldziher puts forward in detail the theory that Umayyad caliph `Abd al-Malik, by erecting the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outsmart his rival `Abdallah b. al-Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Makkah, his capital, for his own political ends. Goldziher wrote:

When the Umayyad Caliph `Abd al-Malik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival `Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka`ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.(I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.)

Goldziher's theory had been adopted, uncritically or with some criticism, by many early orientalists and a few recent ones; some of them are Creswell ,Rippin , van Ess,and Elad.

Now again these are western sources and most of the Muslims will not be willing to accept them , lets try to find out what Muslims (Only Sunnis) have to say on this ...





Before going into details , One should know that who was Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri as he is the one being accused of writing fabricated Ahadith for the Ummayad rulers ..

Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri(d. 742 AD) is regarded as one of the greatest Sunni authorities on Hadith. The leading critics of Hadith such as Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Hibban, Abu Hatim, Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani are all agreed upon his indisputable authority . He can also be regarded as the first Historian of Islam



Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the first one to compile Ahadees [fath ul bari by ibne hajar]

Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri" [Ibne abi Hatim Al Razi, aljarrah wa altadeel p.20 vol 1]

So Ibn e Shihab Zuhri is actually the founding father of "Hadith Science" and the first one to compile Ahadith ..
Al Zuhri is a main narrator of both , Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari (around 1700 ahadith from him in both)
Challenging his authority is challenging the whole "Science of Hadith" , and Al Yaqubi has accused him of writing fabricated Ahadith , so Al Yaqubi can very well be a Shia...
But Wait ... Is he the only one who has accused Al Zuhri of Tadlees (hadith fabrication) ??
The answer is definitely "No"

Zuhri’s Tadlis is recorded in the following words:
Imam Shaf‘i, Dara Qutani and many others have attributed Tadlis (Hadith Fabrication) to Zuhri. (Ibn Hajar, Tabaqatu’l-Mudallisin, [Cairo: Maktabah Kulliyyat al-Azhar], pps. 32-3)

Imam Malik also did not consider Al Zuhri trustworthy and thats why he does not narrate Zuhri`s solo traditions in his famous hadith collection "Muwatta"


Some of the greatest Sunni scholars of all times did not consider Al Zuhri to be trustworthy

Then why blame Al Yaqubi alone ???

And .....
Al-Zuhri himself is reported to have said: ‘We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.’” (Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II, ii, p. 135)

Ibn e Saad is definitely a Sunni !! This confession by Al Zuhri himself is enough as a evidence when considered alongwith other similar reports


Ibne Shihab al-Zuhri was the first historian who wrote the history of Islam under the direct order and fund of Abdul Malik. He also wrote Hadith collection. The works of al-Zuhri was one of the main source for al-Bukhari. al-Zuhri was attached to the royal family of Abdul Malik, and was the tutor of his sons. (al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah," by Shibli part I, pp.13-17)

Shibli is also a "great" sunni historian

Among the students of al-Zuhri, two persons, namely Musa Ibn Uqbah, and Mohammad Ibn Ishaq became famous historians. The former was a slave of the house of Zubair. Although his history is not available today, it had been the most popular work on history for a long time. You will find its references in many history books on different subjects.

The second student, Mohammad Ibn Ishaq is the most famous historian . His biography of the Prophet, called "Sirah Rasul Allah", is still the accredited authority on the subject in the shape that was given to it by Ibn Hisham, and is known as "al-Sirah of Ibn Hisham".


So Islamic Hadith and History books were first compiled under the direct order of Umayyah Kings for political purposes .............




And for those who think that prophet(pbuh) did not prohibit writing down Ahadith :

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate(orally) from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).


There are other similar hadith reports, e.g., one from Abu Dawud, and another from Taqyid by al-Baghdadi confirming the Prophet’s prohibition on hadith writing and direction for erasure of any hadith.[www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook.]


According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes.[ Rahim, M. Abdur, The History of Hadith Compilation (in Bengali), p. 290, quoted by Jamilul Bashar, “Sangsker” (in Bengali, means Reformation), published by Young Muslim Society, New York, 2002, pp. 11.]


During the caliphate of Umer r.a, “the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.”[ Brown, Daniel W., 1996 (paperback 1999), op. cit., p. 96.]


So one can safely conclude
1) Prophet (pbuh) and Khulfa e Rashideen did not allow writing down of Ahadith
2) Ibn e Shihab was the first one to violate the sunnah of prophet
3) The Ummayad Rulers forced Ibn e Shihab Al Zuhri to write fabricated ahadith , which Zuhri did not want to write down



And Allama Muhammad Iqbal has described this in folowng words :

Iqbal notes in his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, even Abu Hanifah, regarded as “one of the greatest exponents of Muhammedan Law in Sunni Islam … made practically no use of … traditions”, even though there were collections available at that time made by other people no less than thirty years before his death. Nor did he collect any hadith for his use, unlike his peers Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
Thus, according to Iqbal, “if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah].”
[Iqbal, A. M., The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, First Indian Edition 1997, p. 137.]

you directed me to this post. But there is nothing in this post except some criticism of Zuhri who is not alone in being criticised. Almost all the hadith scholars got their fair share of criticism. Majority hadith scholars are agreed upon that Zuhri is Trustworthy. Nonetheless, a single narration (khabar al-wahid) has a different legal status in hanafi Fiqh (and maturudi theology) than mutawatir (more than 10 chains) and mushur (2 or more chains) narration. Likewise, there is the category of 'gharib' narration which means that there might be more than one chains but in all of them there is one common link/narrator at any point. Then there is the category of 'munkar' which is further divided into 'shadh' and others. Each category has different implication with respect to the certainty of knowledge they impart. Then there are weak narrations. and all this is not even the surface of usul al-Hadith (sciences of hadith)

As for contradictions, they either fall under the category of nasikh (abrogated) rulings and mansokh (abrogator) rulings or under the category of permissibility of many ways of doing the same thing suggesting leniency or indifference. If this is not the case then everything comes back to the chain. How did the person reported from the one above him? did he hear directly, read it to him, was potentially told by someone else, or is it unspecified? If the person above in the chain is a teacher, then is there any of his other students reporting the same narration from him? etc etc

as far as prohibition of writing of hadith is concerned, it was even prohibited by the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) initially so that the focus is not diverted away from Quran. And just like many other instances when the fear subsided, Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) himself allowed for such writing. Here is the short answer by the contemporary hadith scholar Gibril Haddad:

A Historical Background of the Proscription of Writing Hadith and the Authenticity of Its Compilation
Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad
Concerning the Prophet’s prohibition of writing hadith, — Allah bless and greet him — it cannot be understood except in conjunction with his order to write it. The prohibition was general while the order was particular, each with several specific reasons. Jamiat’s post mentions most of them.

One correction:

2. In a tradition recorded in Mustadrak-e-Haakim, Hazrat Amr bin Aas (R.A.) reports, [...] I abstained from writing. I mentioned this to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and he indicated towards his tongue and said, ‘Write! By Him in whose hand is my life. Nothing except the truth comes out of it.’ (Mustadrak Vol.1 Page 104)

The name of the Companion in this authentic report is `Abd Allah ibn Amr ibn As, the son of Amr ibn As. May Allah be well-pleased with them.

3. In one Hadith recorded in Mustadrak-Hakim, an explicit and clear order of writing is given. The words are ‘Tie down knowledge’, the Sahaabi enquired, ‘What is tying down knowledge?’ The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) replied, ‘It’s writing.’ (Mustadrak vol. 1 pg. 106)

In his book “The Tethering of Knowledge,” the hadith master al-Khatib al-Baghdadi compiled the numerous narrations on this topic, among other sources.

Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
A Historical Background of the Proscription of Writing Hadith and the Authenticity of Its Compilation — As-Sunnah Foundation of America

Also, Iqbal's quotes are totally out of context. Nowhere does Iqbal reject hadith as source of Law. Iqbal's argument is based on Fiqhi (jurisprudence) considerations rather than usul al-Hadith considerations. However, people are proving from it Iqbal's rejection of hadith which is totally unrelated to the fiqhi discourse which Iqbal is focusing on.

This distinction is not my creation but known to the scholar since the beginning. here is a very useful article if anyone is interested knowing the distinction between the two fields and the superiority of fiqh over hadith: THE SUPERIORITY OF FIQH OVER HADITH

Like i said in this post, Hadith even if of legal nature can or cannot be used as a source of legal ruling in Fiqh. The judgement requires contextualization which will then determine if the ruling is to be applied, deferred, suspended or ignored completely. This was the method of the Fiqh of Abu Hanifa especially in the matters other than worship. And iqbal is saying neither less nor more. With the passage of time the context might change such that hadith no longer remains applicable. That is why instead of rejecting the use of hadith, Iqbal calls for 'not to make any indiscriminate use' and pushes for 'a further intelligent study of the literature of traditions, if used as indicative of the spirit in which the Prophet himself interpreted his revelation, may still be of great help in understanding the life-value of the legal principles enunciated in the Quran.' Instead he makes it conditional that only 'a complete grasp of their life-value alone can eqiup us in our endeavour to reinterpret the foundational principles.'

Despite the fiqhi nature/context of Iqbal's discourse, he praised the traditionalists for their work by saying, "It is, however, impossible to deny the fact that the traditionists, by insisting on the value of the concrete case as against the tendency to abstract thinking in law, have done the greatest service to the Law of Islam." Simple question. Can you at the same time discard the hadith work as inauthenitc and yet call it a 'greatest service to the law of islam' rendered by those who worked on it? Moreover, Iqbal recognised hadith as the 'second great source of Muhammadan Law.'

 

[ajpirzada]

@syedali73 :

Now the Mullahs ( Zarvan ) have started to show their real face . They can never prove the authenticity of so called religious texts , compiled for political gains , centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) and Now they are trying to say that rejecting them is actually rejecting Quran !! So they are ready to question the authenticity of Quran itself ... But these morons have no idea what archaeological and historical evidence means . And that there is enough of evidence to establish the authenticity of our claim about "preservation of original Quranic text" .


And read this , it is worth your time :

'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'

http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

i skimmed through it and found it very superficial.

Firstly, half of the stuff is roughly related to the issue of fabricated ahadith. Well there are hundreds of books written on this subject with scholars discussing which ahadith are fabricated etc. The work by erudite hadith scholar Ibn Jawzi is one of the earlier works but has been criticized for being a careless attempt. I have a book of Mulla Ali Qari on fabricated ahadith with a detailed study by Sh. Gibril Haddad appended to the front. the book discusses more than 3000 potentially fabricated ahadith. And which scholar says what on what basis.

Similarly, the work of Bukhari was criticzed by al-Darqutani (great hadith scholar) for having weak hadith. but latter scholars showed that this was not the case since there are corroborative chains for those questionable ahadith thus raising the level of authenticity to that of sahih. There are other ahadith in Bukhair (in the titles only) which are without any chain but al-Asqalani (great hadith master) showed that these were reported by bukhari in his other works with authentic chains.

Also the reference to al-hakim's mustadrak in the booklet reflects limited knowledge of hadith scholarship. The author probably does not know that al-hakim's grading of hadith in his work is not relied upon by the hadith scholars. It contains many weak and fabricated ahadith which were graded authentic by him.

As for abu hurraira (r.a) is concerned, he was a great hadith complier but he was not the faqih. Therefore, neither the companions nor the scholars rely on legal opinions of abu Hurrayra (r.a). Like wise for many other companions. Only around 10 or may be less than 10 companions were resorted to by the muslim population in the matters of legal verdict. Abu Hurrayra (r.a) was corrected by Umm ul-Mumineen Aisha (r.a.) on saveral occasions with regards to his hadith interpretation. Where then is the problem?

I also mentioned earlier, that the certainty which which knowledge is imparted by any hadith is subjected to lots of qualifications.

And like i mentioned in the post before, hadith and fiqh are totally different. Not every hadith is practised upon despite its autheniticity and this is much more apparent in Abu Hanifa's fiqh than others. Similarly i gave a link in the previous post on the virtues of fiqh over that of hadith. An odd hadith, therefore, is unlikely to creep into the legal rulings. This is a latter period problem in the muslim history with the advent of ahl-e-hadith people who practice on any hadith especially sahih without resorting to any fiqhi methods of evaluation.

Iqbal had a similar issue with the use of hadith in the absence of fiqhi evaluation as reflected by his frequent references to Abu Hanifa's (rha) methodology.

 

[W.11]

there are many old Quranic manuscripts at the biggest library of asia in Karachi by hakeem muhammad saeed, i have seen them

 

[M. Sarmad]

you directed me to this post. But there is nothing in this post except some criticism of Zuhri who is not alone in being criticised. Almost all the hadith scholars got their fair share of criticism. Majority hadith scholars are agreed upon that Zuhri is Trustworthy. Nonetheless, a single narration (khabar al-wahid) has a different legal status in hanafi Fiqh (and maturudi theology) than mutawatir (more than 10 chains) and mushur (2 or more chains) narration. Likewise, there is the category of 'gharib' narration which means that there might be more than one chains but in all of them there is one common link/narrator at any point. Then there is the category of 'munkar' which is further divided into 'shadh' and others. Each category has different implication with respect to the certainty of knowledge they impart. Then there are weak narrations. and all this is not even the surface of usul al-Hadith (sciences of hadith)
As for contradictions, they either fall under the category of nasikh (abrogated) rulings and mansokh (abrogator) rulings or under the category of permissibility of many ways of doing the same thing suggesting leniency or indifference. If this is not the case then everything comes back to the chain. How did the person reported from the one above him? did he hear directly, read it to him, was potentially told by someone else, or is it unspecified? If the person above in the chain is a teacher, then is there any of his other students reporting the same narration from him? etc etc

Sir , I directed you to this post so that you would share your views on "History of Hadith Writing" , before discussing "Hadith Science" itself .. But you have directly jumped to the "Hadith Science" without trying to counter any of my arguments ...

Nothing except some criticism on Zuhri ??? Are you sure sir ? Did you even read my post ? ........ Ibn e Shihab Zuhri was the first one to violate the Sunnah of prophet (by writing down hadith which the prophet pbuh didn`t allow) on orders of Ummayad Kings ....... And I gave multiple references ... Arab historians , Indian historians , Orientalists ..... And two great Muhadithsen , all agree that he was the first one to write Hadith ... (some 70 years after the death of Holy Prophet pbuh) ... no one before him dared to violate the Sunnah of Holy prophet ...........

as far as prohibition of writing of hadith is concerned, it was even prohibited by the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) initially so that the focus is not diverted away from Quran. And just like many other instances when the fear subsided, Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) himself allowed for such writing. Here is the short answer by the contemporary hadith scholar Gibril Haddad:

Yes Sir , this is the answer I get every time ... I read this in Sharh of Imam Nawawi as well ... But this explanation can not be accepted .... This hadith in Sahih Muslim has been related to Abu-Saeed al-Khudri that the Holy Prophet said, 'You must erase anything that has been recorded about me except the Holy QUR'AN.' ........ Now Abu Saeed al Khudri was an ansari ..... he was too young to fight at the Battle of Uhud in 625 ... And the prophet (pbuh) died in 632 ... So essentially Abu Saeed Khudri heard this hadith from the prophet (pbuh) during his last years in Medina .. Saying that "hadith writing was prohibited "initially" only is absolutely wrong ... Furthermore the Quranic verse "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian"[15:9] was revealed in Mecca ... Prophet (pbuh) couldn`t fear that "Quran may get mixed with Hadith" [another lame excuse often repeated] once this Ayah was revealed ...

As far as "permission granted for writing it down on special occasions under special circumstances" is concerned ...those orders were not "general" ... And the prophet said "erase everything that you have written down (previously)" towards the end of his life !!! And this is simply proven by the fact that khulfa e Rashideen didn`t allow writing down of Ahadith during their life times and no one , until the time of Ibn e Shihab Zuhri dared to violate this Sunnah of the prophet ...

And then there is the "last excuse" ... "A consensus among scholars made Hadith writing legitimate" ...... Now there is a serious problem with this one too ..... How can "Ijma" make lawful what the prophet (pbuh) had made unlawful ???

Here is the short answer by the contemporary hadith scholar Gibril Haddad:

You are contradicting yourself here .. You are quoting Gibril Haddad and he has quoted Ahadith from Mustadrak-Hakim .. Hadith from Mustadrak can not be taken over Hadith from Sahih Muslim ..... And here is what you have said while trying to refute an article I posted :

Also the reference to alhakim's mustadrak in the booklet reflects limited knowledge of hadith scholarship. The author probably does not know that alhakim's grading of hadith in his work is not relied upon by the hadith scholars. It contains many weak and fabricated ahadith which were graded authentic by him.

Also, Iqbal's quotes are totally out of context. Nowhere does Iqbal reject hadith as source of Law. Iqbal's argument is based on Fiqhi (jurisprudence) considerations rather than usul al-Hadith considerations. However, people are proving from it Iqbal's rejection of hadith which is totally unrelated to the fiqhi discourse which Iqbal is focusing on.
This distinction is not my creation but known to the scholar since the beginning. here is a very useful article if anyone is interested knowing the distinction between the two fields and the superiority of fiqh over hadith: THE SUPERIORITY OF FIQH OVER HADITH
Like i said in this post, Hadith even if of legal nature can or cannot be used as a source of legal ruling in Fiqh. The judgement requires contextualization which will then determine if the ruling is to be applied, deferred, suspended or ignored completely. This was the method of the Fiqh of Abu Hanifa especially in the matters other than worship. And iqbal is saying neither less nor more. With the passage of time the context might change such that hadith no longer remains applicable. That is why instead of rejecting the use of hadith, Iqbal calls for 'not to make any indiscriminate use' and pushes for 'a further intelligent study of the literature of traditions, if used as indicative of the spirit in which the Prophet himself interpreted his revelation, may still be of great help in understanding the life-value of the legal principles enunciated in the Quran.' Instead he makes it conditional that only 'a complete grasp of their life-value alone can eqiup us in our endeavour to reinterpret the foundational principles.'
Despite the fiqhi nature/context of Iqbal's discourse, he praised the traditionalists for their work by saying, "It is, however, impossible to deny the fact that the traditionists, by insisting on the value of the concrete case as against the tendency to abstract thinking in law, have done the greatest service to the Law of Islam." Simple question. Can you at the same time discard the hadith work as inauthenitc and yet call it a 'greatest service to the law of islam' rendered by those who worked on it? Moreover, Iqbal recognised hadith as the 'second great source of Muhammadan Law.'

I replied to your post in the other thread :

Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ??? | Page 33

 

[ajpirzada]

Sir , I directed you to this post so that you would share your views on "History of Hadith Writing" , before discussing "Hadith Science" itself .. But you have directly jumped to the "Hadith Science" without trying to counter any of my arguments ...

Nothing except some criticism on Zuhri ??? Are you sure sir ? Did you even read my post ? ........ Ibn e Shihab Zuhri was the first one to violate the Sunnah of prophet (by writing down hadith which the prophet pbuh didn`t allow) on orders of Ummayad Kings ....... And I gave multiple references ... Arab historians , Indian historians , Orientalists ..... And two great Muhadithsen , all agree that he was the first one to write Hadith ... (some 70 years after the death of Holy Prophet pbuh) ... no one before him dared to violate the Sunnah of Holy prophet ...........




Yes Sir , this is the answer I get every time ... I read this in Sharh of Imam Nawawi as well ... But this explanation can not be accepted .... This hadith in Sahih Muslim has been related to Abu-Saeed al-Khudri that the Holy Prophet said, 'You must erase anything that has been recorded about me except the Holy QUR'AN.' ........ Now Abu Saeed al Khudri was an ansari ..... he was too young to fight at the Battle of Uhud in 625 ... And the prophet (pbuh) died in 632 ... So essentially Abu Saeed Khudri heard this hadith from the prophet (pbuh) during his last years in Medina .. Saying that "hadith writing was prohibited "initially" only is absolutely wrong ... Furthermore the Quranic verse "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian"[15:9] was revealed in Mecca ... Prophet (pbuh) couldn`t fear that "Quran may get mixed with Hadith" [another lame excuse often repeated] once this Ayah was revealed ...

As far as "permission granted for writing it down on special occasions under special circumstances" is concerned ...those orders were not "general" ... And the prophet said "erase everything that you have written down (previously)" towards the end of his life !!! And this is simply proven by the fact that khulfa e Rashideen didn`t allow writing down of Ahadith during their life times and no one , until the time of Ibn e Shihab Zuhri dared to violate this Sunnah of the prophet ...

And then there is the "last excuse" ... "A consensus among scholars made Hadith writing legitimate" ...... Now there is a serious problem with this one too ..... How can "Ijma" make lawful what the prophet (pbuh) had made unlawful ???




You are contradicting yourself here .. You are quoting Gibril Haddad and he has quoted Ahadith from Mustadrak-Hakim .. Hadith from Mustadrak can not be taken over Hadith from Sahih Muslim ..... And here is what you have said while trying to refute an article I posted :





I replied to your post in the other thread :

Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ??? | Page 33

My apologies if you felt i was inappropriate in my response.

As we have discussing in the other thread, the need for Ijtihad is always there. Suspending one sunnah or leaving it falls under Fiqh and there are conditions when this can be done. This is the point on which Iqbals is basing his narrative - the contextualization of hadith as a source of Sunnah.

the reason of my jumping to the science of hadith was to highlight different levels of authentication and the varying degree of certainty they impart. Since the author in the booklet mentioned the impossibility of knowing who is lying or not. Therefore, the doubt which the author is expressing is already being entertained when it comes to the use of hadith as a source of Fiqh and Creed.

However, it seems that my comment for the author on the use of al-hakim's mustadrak was unfair since he is trying to make a point contrary to what i understood yesterday. apologies to him in his absence. Nonetheless, I havent contradicted myself. A hadith in not authenitic because of which book it is citied in but on the basis of its isnad (chain). Bukhari and Muslim are best compilations because of the autheniticity of their chains not the other way round. My point about Mustadrik was that some of the grading in it done by al-Hakim are wrong and latter scholars have corrected those gradings.

Zuhri was not the first one strictly speaking and was neither alone in writing hadith or compiling a book. writing and taking notes was being encouraged even during the time of latter companions. all of us should read this for better understanding as far as the written history and other issues raised by the Oriantalists are concerned: http://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d/myor_e.pdf

once again, apologies for a crude response in the previous post. i can myself smell some arrogance in my yesterday's post. may Allah forgive me

 

[Fatima Khan0007]

Now as we have almost no inscriptions / original writings that can be dated back to the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the rightly guided caliphs (Khulfa e Rashideen) , All the knowledge of that time and those persons have reached us through 3 different sources(textual) , compiled in later times ;

1) The Holy Quran (word of Allah)
2) The Ahadith (sayings attributed to prophet pbuh)
3) The History Texts (crystallization of popular beliefs)

This led the skeptical scholars like Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo to argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events hence unreliable . They also point out that the earliest account of Muhammad's life by Ibn Ishaq was written about a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text . Also the hadith books were written at least two centuries after the demise of prophet (pbuh) .
These objections from such scholars are somewhat genuine but the conclusions drawn by them are easily refutable . To understand this in detail , one must try to find answers to following questions first :

1) When was the Holy Quran compiled (into a Book form) ? Has the "Original Text" reached us ?
2) When and Why were the Hadith Books written ?
3) Who wrote the Islamic History and for whom ?

1) HISTORY OF THE QURAN :

In the 19th century the Danish scholar Theodor Nöldeke, in his influential Geschichte des Qorans (1860; “History of the Qurʾān”), largely rejected the Islamic understanding of the process whereby the text of the Qurʾān was compiled. Since then others, such as I. Goldziher, Richard Bell, and Jeffrey and W.M. Watt, have challenged the traditional Islamic perspective, while more recently John Wansbrough and John Burton have completely rejected pious traditions concerning the compilation of the Qurʾān. Although Burton believed that Muhammad himself sanctioned a complete text of the Qurʾān before his death, Wansbrough argued that there was no definitive text until the 9th century. The various Western views have all been addressed by contemporary Muslim scholars, who have based their responses on the earliest historical sources and archaeological evidence as well as on oral tradition, but these views still dominate much of the academic study of the Qurʾān in the West.
Qur'an (sacred text) :: Compilation -- Encyclopedia Britannica



Muslim perspective :
Category: The Authenticity and Preservation of the Holy Quran - The Religion of Islam

How Do We Know the Quran is Unchanged? | Lost Islamic History

Examining The Qur'an

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic monument that stands today and certainly one of the most beautiful. It also boasts the oldest surviving mihrab (niche indicating the direction of Mecca) in the world.
The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in fact represent the earliest known dated passages from the Qur'an (72 after the Hijra or 691–692 CE)

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE INNER OCTAGONAL ARCADE

1. S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
2. no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has
3. Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
4. SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
5. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
6. on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
7. E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
8. Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
9. from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
10. NE better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
11. in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
12. sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
13. N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
14. His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
15. Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
16. NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
17. and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
18. the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
19. W When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
20. Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
21. save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
22. SW the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
23. differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
24. disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE OUTER OCTAGONAL ARCADE

1. S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no
2. associate. Say: He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there
3. is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.
4. SW In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God.
5. He is One. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God.
6. Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
7. W O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a
8. worthy salutation. In the name of God, the Merciful
9. the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. Praise be to
10. NW God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath
11. no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend
12. through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence. Muḥammad is the Messenger of
13. N God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be
14. on him, and may God have mercy. In the name of God, the Merciful
15. the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate.
16. NE Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth. And He giveth death; and He has
17. Power over all things. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be
18. on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment on behalf of his people.
19. E In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One.
20. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be
21. on him. The dome was built by servant of God ʿAbd
22. SE [Allah the Imam al-Ma'mun, Commander] of the Faithful, in the year two and seventy. May God accept from him and be content
23. with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God.

INSCRIPTIONS AT THE EASTERN ENTRANCE

1. In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to God other than Whom there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal, the Originator of the heavens and the earth and the Light of the heavens
2. and the earth and the Pillar of the heavens and the earth, the One, the eternally Besought of all; He begotteth not nor was begotten and there is none comparable unto Him, Owner of Sovereignty!
3. Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt, all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory
4. the Merciful, the Compassionate. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, and His mercy embraceth all things; May He be glorified and exalted. As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by
5. Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and
6. through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favour and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence
7. and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muḥammad, Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and ....
8. From the servant of Allah ʿAbdullah al-Ma'mun al-Imam, Commander of the Faithful, may Allah prolongs its duration! In the rule of the brother of Commander of the Faithful Abu Ishaq, son of Commander of the Faithful
9. al-Rashid, that Allah makes it last. And (this work) had place by the hands of Salih b. Yaḥya, the mawali of Commander of the Faithful, in the month of Rabi‘ al-Akhir of year 216.

INSCRIPTIONS AT THE NORTHERN PORTAL

1. In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He. The Living, the Eternal; He has no associate, the One, the eternally Besought of all - He
2. begetteth not nor was begotten, and there is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His messenger whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion
3. however much idolators may be averse. We believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muḥammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him
4. we have surrendered. The blessing of God be upon Muḥammad, His servant and His prophet, and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and His blessing and His forgiveness and His acceptance.

i have keen interest in islamic history and this is agreat post thanks alot for sharing