The most sahih hadith is Malik on Naf'i on Ibn 'Umar -- the golden chain.
Then the hadith in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Then the hadith in Sahih Bukhari only.
Then the hadith in Sahih Muslim ony.
You should take the class -- Hadith Methodology on Sunnipath with SH. Hamza Karamali.
i am not talking about specific isnad as sidi omar is. i am talking about the overal status of the book.
there is no doubt that the muwatta is authentic.
however, as stated by shaykh gibril haddad:
"The "six major hadith collections" are, in order of strength:
- Al-Bukhari's Sahih
- Muslim's Sahih
- al-Nasa'i's Sunan
- Abu Dawud's Sunan
- Al-Tirmidhi's Sunan
- Ibn Majah's Sunan
Notes:
1. Malik's Muwatta' comes right after the two Sahihs in strength but is not generally included among the Six Books.
2. Ahmad's Musnad is a comprehensive collection that is not included among the Six Books although it is reliable.
3. Al-Darimi's Sunan are deemed more reliable than Ibn Majah according to a number of Scholars"
...of course, why we are debating this, i don't really know.
many of those quotes are open to interpretation, and are there to exhonerate the muwatta, but not put in superority over bukhari and muslim.
for example, quoting shafi'i is really a little pointless, as the sahihayn were not around.
As-salamu alaikum,Originally Posted by sufisticated
i am not talking about specific isnad as sidi omar is. i am talking about the overal status of the book.
there is no doubt that the muwatta is authentic.
however, as stated by shaykh gibril haddad:
"The "six major hadith collections" are, in order of strength:
- Al-Bukhari's Sahih
- Muslim's Sahih
- al-Nasa'i's Sunan
- Abu Dawud's Sunan
- Al-Tirmidhi's Sunan
- Ibn Majah's Sunan
Notes:
1. Malik's Muwatta' comes right after the two Sahihs in strength but is not generally included among the Six Books.
2. Ahmad's Musnad is a comprehensive collection that is not included among the Six Books although it is reliable.
3. Al-Darimi's Sunan are deemed more reliable than Ibn Majah according to a number of Scholars"
...of course, why we are debating this, i don't really know.
many of those quotes are open to interpretation, and are there to exhonerate the muwatta, but not put in superority over bukhari and muslim.
for example, quoting shafi'i is really a little pointless, as the sahihayn were not around.
I must remark that what Sidi Haddad says is just one opinion, and certainly not the strongest. There are many ulama who prefer Sahih Muslim over al-Bukhari, for example. And as I said, the reason that the Muwatta is not included with the six is because it is not exclusively a work of hadith, but as far as its hadith are concerned it is unrivalled in its authenticity. How could that not be when Malik, part from his other qualities as narrator, scholar and man of taqwa, was much closer than any other compiler to the city where it happened and to the time in which it all happened?
And the reason I included the quotes from Hafidh Ibn Hajar, as-Suyuti, Shah Waliullah et al, was because somebody would quite rightly point out that he made his remarks before the compilation of the Sahihayn.
But the truth is that the 'ulama have a kind of awe of the Muwatta, and this is for a number of reasons: first, its chronological priority, that it was composed in Madinah, because Malik was simply more stringent than anyone who came after him in his choice of narrators, etc., and because consequently everything in it is sahih without exception. But the shortness of the isnads, for example, Malik from Nafi' from 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar give the work a 'tasting' of Madinah that is unequalled.
Originally, I set this thread going because I wanted to emphasise that we do not lay so much stress on the 'amal that we abandon the hadith. We do, however, and in this we are affected by Malik's impeccable adab, refuse to throw hadith around in the prodigal and ill-mannered way that modern Muslims do, proving everything with a text, because as we have seen it is possible to prove almost anything you want with texts. The Christians say that the devil is well able to quote scripture.
Abdassamad
The clue to this matter of dress can be seen in the universal characteristic of women right across the world and in different cultures to leap to the defence of tradition when the men abandon it.
So in the Highlands of Scotland, women sometimes now wear the kilt (a man's dress) and play the bagpipes (properly a military instrument which the piper had to play for his clansmen in the thick of the battle).
As men abandon tradition and deen, women over-compensate and take it on all the more. So the take up of modern Muslim women of more and more aspects of the deen such as the more extreme details of clothing and niqab is simply a reflection of her desperation at her menfolk's abandonment of it.
So it is interesting that this thread began with the inclusion of challenging elements such as men pledging to obey a man from among them in order to establish the deen in the land, and the vexing question of the destruction of the pillar of zakat, and yet very quickly the questions focussed in on this issue of women's dress.
Let me say about amirate, that a man is not properly a man before he can work in a real way with other men and obey someone else, even and especially when he disagrees with that person. Until then, the male remains a boy playing in the dunya. And this age is designed so that men remain boys.
This is something that the modern Muslim man will never understand about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his noble companions, may Allah be pleased with all of them, if he is not himself living in some way like them.
But if he is simply on the dole, or a doctor, or an IT consultant, or all careered up and earning a packet, then Islam is often just a hobby. He has become simply a capitalist or a capitalist wage-slave, and when the others go to the night-club or the bar or the church he goes to the mosque and feels smug. That is not the deen of Islam.
The sad thing is that some of the Muslims in these lands, with honourable exceptions, have done more to drive people away from Islam than the media and the politicians. They actually hate the kafirun, rather than earnestly desiring for them to come away from the path to the Fire and come on to the path to Garden.
So the choice is whether to become men or remain boys. If we are boys then all the Islamic learning and scholarship is basically on a par with stamp-collecting or train-spotting while the earth goes to Hell in a hurtling torrent.
There is work to do. Whether we like it or not, and whether we are part of it or not, Islam has taken root in these lands. We can either take part in the beginning of something historical and quite beautiful or we can wake up one day, and realise that Allah has replaced us with someone else, because we did not do what He wanted us to do.
As-salamu alaikum,
Abdassamad Clarke
Hajj `Abda's-Samad, you mentioned earlier in the thread that you had a lot of proofs/information about the shari`a being over the tariqa (there is no tariqa without shari`a). Would you have the time to post some of this information in a new thread with some of your notes/observations about the significance of this 'way'?
Thanks in expectation.
`Umar Ja`far
What judgement? I'm only asking a question from someone who would surely know more about the matter than me even if it is only "hearsay", than it is closer to the truth than the "hearsay" of the media. Why shouldn't it be important when barring people from a Musjd is specificlly condemned by Allah (swt). How can I than settle my heart when I'm reading from Aisha Bewley or your own website when the organization you are attached to is responsible of this and has issued no clarification to ease the hearts of the Muslims? Imam Ahmed Ibn Hannbal (rahimallah) would even avoid those people who were around fasiqeen...
This attitude of ignorance is bliss is the gateway to forgetting tarikh.
Sidi,
So far I have only received evasions from you in response to my questions. You attempt to turn the spotlight onto others, or onto me, when my question was about the motivations for a bizarre and unprecedented action by the Murabitun: barring an entire community of Muslims from their local mosque for several months with no explanation whatsoever.
At least the other Muslims could explain why they were doing what they were doing, even if we disagree with it: they wanted to pray in their local mosque. What is the Murabitun explanation for starting this whole idiotic episode in the first place? That is what I wanted to know. All I got was some evasion from you, and when I got frustrated with that, you accused me of having an "inquisitorial" and "self-righteous" tone.
I do not "only want to talk of this event": it is far from the only puzzling feature of this group I would like to talk about. It is just the most spectacularly nutty action of the Murabitun that I have come across, and it is really not that long ago. Please show me some kind of rationale behind it, even if it is only partial.
If the Murabitun cannot even do that, then I have to be extremely cautious about them. Extremely. And I will recommend that stance to anyone who asks me about them.
The Tablighi Jamaat at least could never be imagined barring worshippers from a mosque.
Last edited by Sad ibn Abu Waqqas; 05-06-2007 at 06:18 AM. Reason: spelling
If you had read, and understood, the article of the Shaykh then you would have understood that when men are reduced to spending their time discussing the subtleties of womens dress then this is an obvious sign of a dereliction of their real duties. Hajj `Abda's-Samad's desire not to continue this discussion is a sign that he has understood this. Your desire to get into it is a sign that you have not. And with all due respect this is my final word on the matter of womens' dress.
You say your teachers have declared the as sahihayn are sounder books than al-muwatta, what is the basis for this, what are their criterion for such a judgement?
with peace
Why does this feel like just another evasion?Just kidding, Sidi laughinglion.
Women's dress is a part of the shariah. We are allowed to discuss all aspects of the shariah.
Really, the issue is not women's dress per se, but whether or not one particular shaykh has made statements about it that contradict the Shariah. I take no posiiton on this, but would like to clarify what we are interested in: what Shaykh Abdalqadir's opinion actually is. Did he actually ban niqab, and if so on what grounds?
That is all. Simple, straightforward answers would be much appreciated.
Last edited by Sad ibn Abu Waqqas; 05-06-2007 at 05:26 AM.
Brother, in all honesty: do you really think this is just another mosque dispute?
A group takes over a mosque, and bars an entire community from entering and worshipping there, with no explanation. Is this not sufficiently psychotic to be worthy of some attention, even if it happened some years ago? Especially when it is done by a group that invites others to accept their leadership in implementing Islam?
As for fistfights etc. They happen, but usually people can explain why they happen. Not so here.
I don't have the time, at this moment, to respond to what laughinglion and brother Abdus Samad Clarke have said, however, I would like it if straight answers were given to questions.
I've requested this before on another thread related to the Murabitun.
Sometimes, I read a passage that is supposed to be an "answer" to a question posed and I have no idea what was said at the end. No straight forward answers.
Please do "dumb things down" for some of us. Not all of us enjoy reading things written in a style characteristic of western philosophers.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks