TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 02:12:50 PM
-
This thread is of a sensitive nature, and i hope you brothers know me enough by now to know i would not attempt to write posts that were offensive, derogatory, or callous. Because this topic is sensitive, anyone who posts must show restraint and maturity.
I am also not intending to abuse Umulmumineen Aisha. i swear by Allah i do not believe she committed adultery or any indecency near to this, and the fools tho besmirch her character in this way are only abusing the honour of the Prophet ﷺ. Her honour and chastity is more important to me than the honour of my own mother, because insulting her chastity is an even bigger insult to the Prophet ﷺ. Furthermore, i do not believe she [nauzubillah] ever allowed or permitted this for her own self, and i would rather a discussion of this nature not be applied to her , and i will desist from this because of her honour and position. I will only quote what she herself permitted, and what Shaykh-al-Albani said.
Many of our Sunni brothers are not aware that one of the thing the mother of the believers, Aisha, had done was permit grown men who wished to be Mahram to another woman to drink the woman breast milk. Opinion is divided into if this should be done actively, or if it is done indirectly through filling cups. Nevertheless, this is an error of enormous proportions.
We read:
…A’isha took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered daughters of her sisters and brothers to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her.The rest of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, ‘No! By Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No! By Allah! No one will come in upon us by such nursing!’
Reference: Saheeh Muslim
“It was related that Umm Salama, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said “All the wives of the Messenger of Allah (saw) refuted the idea that someone who had been fostered in such a way should be permitted to enter their houses, and they told ‘A’isha: “By God we see that this was only a conession which the Messenger of Allah (pbu) gave to Salim, but no one will be permitted to enter our houses through such a fosterage and we do not support such a opinion”.
Reference: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, page 192, hadithnumber 26208.
"Hence ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) used to ask the daughters of her sisters and the daughters of her brethren to give him breast feed five times whom ‘A’ishah wanted to see and who wanted to visit her, though he might be of age: he then visited her. But Umm Salamah and still other wives of the Prophet (may peace be upon him) refused to allow anyone to visit them on the basis OF SUCH BREAST-FEEDING UNLESS ONE WAS GIVEN BREAST-FEEDING DURING INFANCY…”
Reference: Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume II, Book V, Number 2056
This is the opinion of Shaykh al-Abani: “Do you want to say if he is nursed directly from the breast or by a cup? I say we don’t have any thing that I know of telling us the way that the wife of Abu Hudhaifa breast-fed Salim; we don’t know the way. And I personally say I don’t see any objection to his being nursed directly from the nipple .”
The video where he clearly says the above [for anyone who can understand Arabic]:
Points based on the above:
1. The mother of the believers, Aisha, a lady regarded to have transmitted a large number of traditions, a number of which are sometimes only transmitted by her, or her understanding of the Sunnah, here makes an enormous error in allowing grown men to be breastfed or given the breastmilk of women related to her, so that those men are Mahram to her. This is not a minor Ijtihad error, it is an enormous mistake , and while we must give respect to the mother of the believers, it shows that there was a great weakness in her understanding of Fiqh and understanding the Prophet.
2. She went against the Ijmah of all of the other mother of the believers, who had empathically told her she was in error and they would never allow such a thing. She went against the Ijmah of most of the companions.
3. What is worse is that claiming this was not done directly does not remove the graveness of the situation. This allows men who are not Mahram to you to gaze upon your beauty. It is also fairly grotesque to allow grown men to drink the breastmilk of your sisters daughters. Furthermore al-Albani has no problem in assuming the original hadith which was of a specific context could have been performed directly. For the honour of the muslims here, i won't even go into detail.
What do you have to say in your defence? I know that the Sahaba are not 'infallible' and no-one is claiming they are. There is a difference between not being infallible, and making an error on this scale, and ignoring the Ijmah of your community.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/07/20/response-to-open-challenge-to-the-sons-of-aisha/
This was responded to four years ago. Please use search feature.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/07/20/response-to-open-challenge-to-the-sons-of-aisha/
This was responded to four years ago. Please use search feature.
This was a very weak response, with due respect brother Farid. I am responding to someone else on another issue, but inshAllah i will return to this.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/07/20/response-to-open-challenge-to-the-sons-of-aisha/
This was responded to four years ago. Please use search feature.
One thing i have to enquire about is by what basis did you decide to weaken Muhammad bin 'Abdullah bin Muslim [Abu 'Abdullah]? The references you bring to weaken him are Ibn Hiban (which you declare as someone who is not given that high a weighting and oft quotes by Shias). You then bring Yahya and Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Neesaboori. The reality is, these pale in comparison to the Tawhiq he has been given by others, as well as what Ibn Hajar has said. I sometimes feel that finding one or two people who weaken an individual when it suits our own motives is not the most honest way of engaging in these debates. I know Asrar Rashid is not an authority to you, but even he observed this in his debate with Abdurahman Hassan. The whole Jarh and Tadil game between both the Sunni and also the Shia makes debates and discussions sometimes not so intellectually honest.
Muhammad bin 'Abdullah bin Muslim
Ibn Hajar says: محمد بن عبد الله بن مسلم بن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن شهاب الزهري المدني بن أخي الزهري صدوق له أوهام من السابعة مات سنة اثنتين وخمسين وقيل بعدها ع [Taqrib al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr - تقريب التهذيب - ابن حجر العسقلاني]
Dhahabi says: الإمام العالم الثقة أبو عبد الله محمد بن عبد الله بن مسلم بن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن شهاب الزهري المدني
and he also cites: وثقه أبو داود
And many others give him Tawhiq.
A less relevant point, but Darusallam grade traditions with this individual as Saheeh. He is also a narrator of Bukhari and Muslim (and i know this itself is not enough, but in conjunction with all the other praise he has been given it means something that Bukhari and Muslim rely on him).
And all you write on the refutation is "There is some weakness in this narration, which is that it has arrived us through the path of the nephew of Al-Zuhri, Muhammad bin Abdullah. Even though he is not completely weak, he has been weakened by Yahya, Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Neesaboori, and Ibn Hibban."
It actually doesn't matter if these individuals weakened him, that is not - and you know this more than most - how Rijal works. You can not reject the tradition in Musnad of Imam Ahmad, and that Isnaad has been graded Saheeh by a number of people. I do not claim it should be regarded as Saheeh by the way, but definitely in the range of a reliable tradition by your own Rijal standards. It would have been better strategy to accept it, and just use the argument she later evolved and changed her position which i would say can also be challenged but maybe when i get time inshAllah.
The tradition in Saheeh Muslim is enough to suggest Umulmumineen Aisha at some point in her her life allowed this practise. The reliable tradition from Musnad Ahmad only confirms this, and the many other chains from other sources which may be disputed in strength of their chains simply corrborates what is clear.
Now, did she originally have another position? I would like you , if you could go help me locate the
PDFS for Musnad Ali bin Al-Ja’ad and Musannaf Abdul-Razaaq #13928: are difficult to find online. Any idea where i can possible get them, or if you can provide the full Arabic with the chain of narrators?
-
What do you have to say in your defence?
In response to your original question: The link to the article provides enough reason to doubt that she held this view in the first place. If you are not convinced by the arguments within, then you may assume what you like about her fiqhi capabilities.
I would like you , if you could go help me locate the
PDFS for Musnad Ali bin Al-Ja’ad and Musannaf Abdul-Razaaq #13928: are difficult to find online.
Nope. Good luck.
-
In response to your original question: The link to the article provides enough reason to doubt that she held this view in the first place. If you are not convinced by the arguments within, then you may assume what you like about her fiqhi capabilities.
Akhi, i have not been like some of the others and claimed she breastfed grown men - nauzubillah, or any such things. I just want you guys to be honest about her Ijtihad in this issue. You claim the article has enough to doubt she held this view in the first place, but the reality is, you weaken a hadith on the basis of a narrator Ibn Hiban and two others of medium/low influence have weakened compared to giants in the field giving them Tawhiq, or grading them Thiqah, or one of the ranks of truthfulness.
That is not how Rijal works. Your whole argument depends on weakening that hadith, and then claiming Zuhri is quoting a Mursal-as-Sahaba in another variant of his. You can't dismiss that and not address my argument here.
I would like you , if you could go help me locate the
PDFS for Musnad Ali bin Al-Ja’ad and Musannaf Abdul-Razaaq #13928: are difficult to find online.
Nope. Good luck.
Could you at least provide the Arabic and the chains? Any decent article will not omit the chains. You can't claim your centre-piece evidence is the correct one, and then not provide any chain of narrators brother.
This also something worthy of note:
”اخراس شٛخ ا س و اتٍ ذًّٛٛ سحًّ انرفصٛم ٔقال إرا دػد انحاخح إنٗ إسضاع انكثٛش ٔأسضغ ثثد انرحشٚى
Ibn Uthaymeen said: Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taimiyah chose to explain in detail and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established."[Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb by Ibn Uthaimeen, Volume 10 page 204]
This view was shared by Ibn al-Qayim, Ibn Hazm, Shawkani , and a few other big names, though i concede it is not the dominant position and which is that it is not permissible. Nevertheless, these are some big names.
-
Could you at least provide the Arabic and the chains? Any decent article will not omit the chains. You can't claim your centre-piece evidence is the correct one, and then not provide any chain of narrators brother.
Brother, you are a researcher. Please do not expect me to google up a book when you have the ability to do it yourself.
My question to you is: Is making such a fatwa proof that these people are ignorant or weak in fiqh?
-
Could you at least provide the Arabic and the chains? Any decent article will not omit the chains. You can't claim your centre-piece evidence is the correct one, and then not provide any chain of narrators brother.
Brother, you are a researcher. Please do not expect me to google up a book when you have the ability to do it yourself.
My question to you is: Is making such a fatwa proof that these people are ignorant or weak in fiqh?
The books you have cited are rare, and hard to find. Among one of them there is news circulating some people have interpolated it with a fake chapter. I would just like to know where to find reliable copies, because things like this can be problematic. If not, i would appreciate the chains for each of the traditions.
Let us ignore that for now, could you tell me by what Rijal standards did you decide that Ibn Hiban and two other middle/lower tier Rijal scholars (relatively speaking) justify a legitimate weakening, when it goes against the opinions of many others, especially those like ibn Hajar who came later and had the chance to review everything said about a narrator and pass final judgement?
One of the great Azhari scholars, Sheikh Musa Shahin Lasin has a famous commentary on Sahih Muslim and stated [Volume 5, p622] : "A young man entered upon her, and Aisha found that breastfeeding an adult makes an individual Mahram" (of course, Nauzubillah i do not claim she is the one who did it, but she had asked her family to do so).
Your opinion that she later changed her mind is not shared by most of your scholars. Your opinion she never had the view in the first place is not shared by many at all in fact. And i can now see why, there are no convincing points on these sides.
-
The books you have cited are rare, and hard to find.
So they don't turn up in the first result if one does a google search?
Your opinion she never had the view in the first place is not shared by many at all in fact.
It doesn't need to be for it to be the correct one. Put the evidences side by side and judge the matter yourself.
-
So they don't turn up in the first result if one does a google search?
Sadly, i have run into problems before when it comes to these rare texts that sometimes are tampered with. I would like the chains that you used, if you could give them to me, or even cite the full Arabic. I do research, but i would like these books in form you deem to be the reliable one.
It doesn't need to be for it to be the correct one. Put the evidences side by side and judge the matter yourself.
I agree with you on this. However you would be going against the majority of your scholars, who many would claim to have been more knowledgable and had better judgement. I have put the evidences side by side, your weakening of the tradition in Musnad Ahmad is not excusable and i have continued to ask on what basis did you make that judgement. Your argument relies on that as a key piece of evidence to dismiss, and so it is pertinent you address that, inshAllah.
I think what is more serious than the Ijtihad error of Umulmumineen Aisha, is the Ijtihad error of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayim, Shawkani, Ibn Hazm and others, who are incredibly influential scholars, particularly for the Salafi-Athari, with the exception of Ibn Hazm, who was said to be brilliant but deviant in Aqeedah.
-
Sadly, i have run into problems before when it comes to these rare texts that sometimes are tampered with.
Do you assume that Musnad Ibn Al-Ja'ad has been tampered with?
I think what is more serious than the Ijtihad error of Umulmumineen Aisha, is the Ijtihad error of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayim, Shawkani, Ibn Hazm and others, who are incredibly influential scholars, particularly for the Salafi-Athari, with the exception of Ibn Hazm, who was said to be brilliant but deviant in Aqeedah.
Every faqeeh makes errors in ijtihad, even your infallibles. So no worries, there is no sleep lost on this.
-
Every faqeeh makes errors in ijtihad, even your infallibles. So no worries, there is no sleep lost on this.
Shia believe imam could not err, in other words imam intentionally gave incorrect fatwa to confuse people due to taqiyya. Imam of misguidance 😀
-
Summary:
1. TSN did not respond to why they had weakened a narrator. When i called them out on this, demonstrated the evidence against this, and persisted several times in questioning and asking for a response, readers can see that this was evaded and none was given.
2. When i demonstrated the majority of scholars do not agree with TSN and their view, and readers should be aware a common habit is grading the way they see fit, or picking up isolated opinions and then passing of the article as if it is something proven and agreed on, is intellectual dishonesty.
3. The problems do not end with Ummulmumineen Aisha. Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Shawkani, Hazm and a few others have said it is permissible for an adult to be suckled in order to make him a Mahram.
4. The same diversions and distractions about 'infallible imams' are used when there is no honest attempt as responding to posts.
5. After persistently asking for TSN to quote the Arabic in full, with the chains - only common courtesy and practise - this was refused. After asking for a reliable version, because one of these books has been tampered with online and there have been warnings about it, again this was refused.
6. I respect brother Farid, but i really was hoping for any kind of fair academic response. I am the kind of person who will submit and accept if you can prove something to me. I am not here to blindly preach. I'm open to debate and discussion on most topics on fundamental issues.
7. I ask the readers to objectively read our posts and replies to each other on this thread, and ask yourself who is trying to be fair and analyse the evidence and who is perhaps being evasive here.
-
Salim was the special case. Now its not permissible.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/shamoun-nursing.htm
-
Also refer this.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235041666-actions-of-umm-aisha/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-2958059
-
@whoaretheshia
5. After persistently asking for TSN to quote the Arabic in full, with the chains - only common courtesy and practise - this was refused. After asking for a reliable version, because one of these books has been tampered with online and there have been warnings about it, again this was refused.
Brother, a reference was provided. You have two options. You can either accuse me of forging a narration (which will only cause you embarassment) or you can run a google search like everyone else. I am not here to hold your hand for you.
Take care.
-
Salim was the special case. Now its not permissible.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/shamoun-nursing.htm
Brother, i would not make an error like this. It is well established that the dominant position of the wives, and the Sunni scholars today is that this was a one off special case for Salim. However, what my thread is about is that Umulmumineen Aisha did not understand it to be a one-off special position. This might surprise you, but the ahadith are referring to Aisha practising and stating that long after the passing away of the Prophet, it still applied. The other wives rebuked her and absolutely condemned this practise.
Furthermore, i am not sure if you aware, by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Shawkani, Ibn Hazm all believed it was permissible to suckle an adult to make him mahram.
This isn't even slander, everything i have said is agreed upon as true by most of your scholars, brother.
What i have been asking brother Farid is in the response , he argues that the Hadith from Musnad Ahmad is weak/not reliable for evidence. Despite the fact many scholars have even graded it Saheeh. I asked him on what basis did he weaken the nephew of al-Zuhri? In his article, or the article he uses on TSN,he claims Ibn Hiban and two other medium/lower tear scholars have weakened him. This is not how Rijal works and Farid knows that well. I have pressed him on what basis did he weaken him, when ibn Hajar classed him as one of he levels of Saduq, Dhaba classed him as Thiqah and a scholar, Abu Dawud classed him Thiqah, and many others have followed suit in doing so or at least considering him reliable in the field of hadith.
The article is also against the dominant opinion of the Sunni scholars, in that Aisha actually did hold this belief, and that she erred in her Ijtihad.
-
This is not how Rijal works and Farid knows that well.
It seems that I am either being deceptive or that you don't know as much about hadith sciences than you think you do.
Maybe the fact that you need me to look up readily available PDFs for you is a hint that you don't know as much as you think you do.
-
It is quite astonishing that people from a sect that teaches that you can enter into a temporary marriage in order to talk to or travel with a non-mahram, can bring an issue like this up. I mean, there are scholars that condemn Umar for allegedly forbidding these kind of marriages and praise their sect for having the solution of women who want to travel and have no mahram. Instead of establishing a mahram relationship, they have something far better as a solution. Establish a relationship (just to travel). This allows those people to travel and quite conveniently, do more than just suckle one's breast. Have these people no shame? How can people who believe this to be permissible complain about such an issue?
-
It seems that I am either being deceptive or that you don't know as much about hadith sciences than you think you do.
Maybe the fact that you need me to look up readily available PDFs for you is a hint that you don't know as much as you think you do.
Farid, if i am able to look into a number of books by classical scholars and if i have read a number of books on Hadith sciences, and if i have questioned why you weakened a narrator on very soft and unacceptable terms (which you did not accept) by what grounds do you think it would be difficult for me to look up a hadith in a book which i know a PDF exists?
Not being able to look up the tradition would say more about my Arabic than my knowledge of Rijal. However even i concede i have a lot to learn as you do, and in this case you have weakened a narration for your benefit when there are absolutely no grounds for doing so. I just would like to know why you will not explain, my dear brother, your rationale for weakening him?
I have also made it clear there are a number of books, some of the ones in the OP being one, which have been known to include distortions. Nevertheless, i had only asked for something simple - bring me the chain in Arabic and i will analyse it. However i will just go ahead and download the first claimed copy of this rare book.
-
.
Farid , i was about to do a lengthy investigation on the following tradition, however upon closer examination there may not be a need to.
The first narration is from Musnad Ali bin Al-Ja’ad #152:
أنا شعبة ، عن الحكم قال : سمعت قيس بن أبي حازم ، وأبا الشعثاء ، عن عائشة قالت : يحرم من الرضاع ما أنبت اللحم والدم
Shu’ba told us, from Al-Hakam: I heard Qais bin Abi Haazim and Aba Al-Sha’thaa’, from A’isha (ra) say, “Only what causes the growth of the flesh and blood is what causes a foster-relationship through breastfeeding.”
This is a clear narration that A’isha (ra) does not believe that breastfeeding adults causes a foster-relationship with them.
Dear brother are you aware that our debate is weaning after two years? This is not a clear narration at all, because breastfeeding can make a two year old grow rapidly. It can make a ten year old grow. It can even make a Baligh boy grow upon drinking the milk during puberty. This does not prove that you can not give milk to an individual who has reached puberty. This was the massive flaw here. How can this be used for evidence?
What Aisha may mean is that the breastmilk should not be spat out by the child, but he needs to take it in and swallow it, so that he digests it and it goes into his make up:
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 3173 Narrated by Umm Salamah
Allah's Messenger (saws) said, "The only suckling which makes marriage unlawful is that which is taken from the breast and enters the bowels, and is taken before the time of weaning."
Muwatta Malik: Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "Suckling, however little or much when it is in the first two years, makes haram. As for what is after the first two years, little or much, it does not make anything haram. It is like food."
Al-Muwatta Hadith Hadith 30.14
Yahya related from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abdullah ibn Masud said, "There is only kinship by suckling in the first two years."
"Breastfeeding a grown-up has no effect, because the breastfeeding which has an effect (of creating the relationship of mahram) is that which consists of five feedings or more within the first two years, before weaning. On this basis, if it happened that someone breastfed from his wife or drank her milk, he does not become her son. Fataawa Islamiyah, 3/338.
-
Summary,
1. The rebuttal you wrote, with respect dear brother was weak. It is against the view of the majority of Sunni Ulema who believe Aisha permitted breastfeeding after the two year period, but erred.
2. You weakened a hadith in Musnad Ahmad , but you never answered my post (repeatedly asked) about why you had weakened a narrator who was accepted by the majority of scholars in Hadith, and only really weakened by ibn Hiban and others who do not have the same weighting as the others? For this reasons many scholars have graded the hadith in Musnad as 'Saheeh'
3. Your first tradition about breastfeeding to make Mahram being only what which causes growth of flesh and bones is a weak argument, and as been addressed in the post above. This means it is of no evidence.
4. A number of major Sunni Ulema, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayim, Shawkani, and ibn Hazm (amongst others) believed that a grown man who was suckled could be made Mahram.
5. Your remaining tradition will be addressed, but i am confident when i analyse the chains and examine the content more closely that will also fall - or at least not be sufficient evidence.
-
Brother Farid i would appreciate if you could address my key points, or even better, admit that the position held by TSN and youpuncturedtheark are weak. I would respect you for that. I really do not feel going against most of your own Ulema , grading a tradition as weak when it can not be graded as such in any case , and then presenting traditions which do not prove your claim constitutes to a refutation.
-
No responses?
-
Brother Farid,
I see you are creating new threads , but still no response to some very basic questions? With due respect, i am the only regular Shia Poster in direct contact with you and Hani, i would have thought basic points i have raised here would be addressed?
Furthermore, apart from a comment that you would reject as being of the Ashari/Maturidi made by Hani, no-one has seriously made any reply to the Allah/Two feet/ Kursiy thread.
-
I see you are creating new threads , but still no response to some very basic questions?
Brother, both of us have the right to not answer questions when asked. I cannot force you to participate in my threads either.
-
Brother, both of us have the right to not answer questions when asked. I cannot force you to participate in my threads either.
Brother Farid,
You entered this thread and posting your refutation article, or one maybe written by Hani. I refuted it, and did the following:
1. Demonstrated your weakening of the tradition in Musnad Ahmad was not based on any proper Rijal standards, and asked you to justify how you weakened it. There has been no reply.
2. I have proven that the tradition you quoted regarding Umul Mumineen Aisha about growth of flesh is wholly irrelevant, and i have demonstrated at the top of this page why.
3. Once more, i have also verified and relayed to you that the vast majority of your scholars would disagree with your view. Some of them include men who even believed it was permissible to do what Aisha permitted, such as: Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Shawkani, Ibn Hazm and others.
4. The article by all objective accounts has almost no leg to stand on. We have to be objective. You would have come across far stronger if you had been intellectually honest brother, with all due respect, and just admitted she erred in her Ijtihad rather than the Jarh and T'adil we see erroneously used.
-
I see you are creating new threads , but still no response to some very basic questions?
This is in fact what you yourself are doing. You are creating a new thread almost everyday but not answering your very first thread.
It also seems like you are only interested in discussing ahlul sunnah ahadith and concepts instead of your own.
Can you tell us whats the ruling on this same issue from your own sources or marjas?
-
I feel if someone post a refutation article they or their colleague wrote, to refute what i have said, it is only fair they address my response to that refutation.
-
What is shia marjas ruling on this?