TwelverShia.net Forum

The dogs of haw'ab

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

The dogs of haw'ab
« on: November 05, 2017, 12:23:32 PM »
Did A'isha do ijtihaad on nass when she procedeed in war after she was barked at by the dogs of haw'aab? She knew what as going to happen, didn't she? Fitna and killing while she comes out saved.

So why did she proceed?
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Abu Muhammad

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2017, 02:26:29 PM »
Did A'isha do ijtihaad on nass when she procedeed in war after she was barked at by the dogs of haw'aab? She knew what as going to happen, didn't she? Fitna and killing while she comes out saved.

So why did she proceed?

You said Aisha knew that fitna and killing would happen? What are your basis of saying that?

Farid

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2017, 02:46:09 PM »
Quote
So why did she proceed?

To avenge Uthman and to restore order.

The authentic report says: "Which of you is going to be the one that the dogs of Haw'ab bark at?"

This is the Saheeh report that was narrated in Ahmad, Abu Ya'ala, and Al Hakim.

You seem to be thinking about the one that specifically prophecizes that there will be those killed on her right and her left and that she would be saved in the end. That is the hadith of Al Bazzar and it was declared as munkar by Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah.


Link

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2017, 04:40:56 PM »
I don't believe future is fixed. 

Even Quran when it talks about it was written bani-Israel would do corruption in the earth twice, it was the promise if they failed to uphold the covenant, and when they did, what was written was destined to happen.

In the same tone and same flow, the Quran says it is written that all cities will be destroyed or punished a great punishing before the day of rising, this also is a conditional promise,  if people keep going with the attitude of disbelief.

If people believe and change what is in themselves, just like the punishment promised by Yonus was averted, the same is true of this punishment in Quran promised to all the cities in the world.

Let us hope we spark sincerity in humans, and fear of God, that they obey the last of those who are vested with authority from humans.

Aisha fate was not written.  In Suratal Tahreem, we can see God trying to win her over and not be like the wife of Nuh or wife of Lut, and to be like Asiya who abandoned the Pharaoh despite her closeness to him (serious hints of who Abu Baker and Umar were), and similarly, believers are emphasized to try to save their families from the hellfire.

It was never destined that Adam eats from the tree, but a plan is always written, in case the worse happens. In fact, it was highly unexpected by all beings, and God expected Adam to obey (of course he knew the small chance of disobedience, but it was highly unlikely)....Iblis lucked out, to say the least.

Don't look at the problems of the world and think it was destined. Messengers were sent so people rise up for justice and that people obey the Messengers who are a way to God who guide by the truth and by it they establish justice, split into ways themselves, each is a way and all together they are the way.

It was meant to be prepared for Mohammad, but people treated the Messengers badly. Still God sent Mohammad only as a mercy, but the wrath outcome might come about, although it is not the purpose.

Similary a threat like that of Thamood's destruction was even given to his people but it was averted from them.

Hussain was expected to be victorious at one point, and this hindsight 20/20 that people did the unexpected and betrayed him and make it all fufilled prophecy, is to blind us to the fact we humans are here to determine our fate.

There are two outcomes, either we gratefully recognize God's favor through his chosen ones and holy books, and particularly love the family of Mohammad thereby accepting his favor in the past before them to the present and to the future, or we be ungrateful and rebel, by which we only rebel against ourselves.

Everything in the Sunnah is in Quran, in some form, but we have to reflect.   Don't look upon anyone but those who are appointed to guide us through it to the destiny we always meant to be on.

As long as we look and go thirsty to springs that are mixed with impurity and knowledge with ignorance, and truth with falsehood, we will miss out on the most essential things of life, and be forbidden it by people who take a false mantle of authority and leadership...."it is written whoever takes him/her as an authority, he/she will guide them to the punishment of the burning..."


Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2017, 05:27:33 PM »
Quote
So why did she proceed?

To avenge Uthman and to restore order.

The authentic report says: "Which of you is going to be the one that the dogs of Haw'ab bark at?"

This is the Saheeh report that was narrated in Ahmad, Abu Ya'ala, and Al Hakim.

You seem to be thinking about the one that specifically prophecizes that there will be those killed on her right and her left and that she would be saved in the end. That is the hadith of Al Bazzar and it was declared as munkar by Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah.


Did A'isha do ijtihaad on nass when she procedeed in war after she was barked at by the dogs of haw'aab? She knew what as going to happen, didn't she? Fitna and killing while she comes out saved.

So why did she proceed?

You said Aisha knew that fitna and killing would happen? What are your basis of saying that?

Why is the hadith Munkar, Farid? As far as I believe Al-Albani, Hafidh and Al-Haythami declared it authentic. Is there a particular reason why it is munkar?

At least according to this link:

https://islamqa.info/ar/240359
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Farid

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2017, 10:45:04 PM »
Quote
Is there a particular reason why it is munkar?

Tafarrud of a sub-par narrator (Isam bin Qudama) from a major narrator with many students (Ikrimah). I believe that Al Albani wouldn't have declared it authentic if he knew Abu Zur'ah called it munkar too.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2017, 06:46:52 AM »
Quote
Is there a particular reason why it is munkar?

Tafarrud of a sub-par narrator (Isam bin Qudama) from a major narrator with many students (Ikrimah). I believe that Al Albani wouldn't have declared it authentic if he knew Abu Zur'ah called it munkar too.

It would seem, after some research, that there is a difference of opinion amongst Sunni rijalists.

And I also saw many Sunni rijalists decalre it sahih with the exception of Abu Zur'ah and Abu Hatim.

This is what Al-Albani said in his Silsilah:

فلا وجه عندي لقول أبي حاتم " حديث منكر " ، إلا إن كان يعني به أنه حديث غريب فرد ، و يؤيده قوله عقبه :
" لا يروى من طريق غيره " . فإن كان أراد هذا فلا إشكال ، و إن أراد التضعيف فلا وجه له ، لاسيما و هو موافق لحديث عائشة الصحيح ، فأين النكارة ؟ !
و جملة القول أن الحديث صحيح الإسناد ، و لا إشكال في متنه

I also ask, where is the nakira?

Also: you called him subpar, but he is thiqa at the end of the day, and so I ask, does the tafarrud of a thiqa narrator mean the hadith is munkar?
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2017, 06:53:51 AM »
Also another hadith which contains A'isha's intention to return has been narrated by another narrator, even though it does not contain the part about the death of people on her left and right.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Farid

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2017, 07:44:27 AM »
@Zlatan:

Quote
Also: you called him subpar, but he is thiqa at the end of the day, and so I ask, does the tafarrud of a thiqa narrator mean the hadith is munkar?

There are things that you need to keep in mind in regards to Al-Albani's decision to accept this narration. First of all, there is no doubt that he would have not authenticated it if he knew that Abu Zur'ah called it munkar as well. Abu Hatim is sometimes  known for being harsh, while Abu Zur'ah was considered balanced. Al-Albani (rahimahu Allah) was very aware that he is bound the opinions of the mutaqadimeen.

Secondly, he accepted the hadith due to the narration of A'isha, which comes through Qais bin Abi Hazim. This narration is Saheeh, but it does not include the ziyada of the specifics of the narration about people being killed around her and her being saved in the end.

The ziyada of the hadith is very specific when it comes to the details of the events and would be considered as a great daleel from da'ail al-nubuwwa. The narration only comes from Ibn Abbas, which is not an issue, since he is one of the biggest hadith narrators from the companions. From him, his close student and mawla Ikrimah, who is the only narrator, which is understandable as well. However, the only narrator from Ikrimah is Isam bin Qudama. How is it possible that only Isam narrated this hadith? What happened to all the other students of Ikrimah? Why didn't other students of Ibn Abbas narrate this hadith from him too?

These are questions that Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah asked themselves before rejecting the narration.

Also, keep in mind that tafarrud from a major narrator by Ikrimah would be accepted if it came from Ayoub Al-Sakhtiyani or Khalid Al-Hathaa', or Qatada. These were major thiqaat that were close companions of Ikrimah that narrated many of his hadiths. It is possible for them to hear things that nobody has heard.

Furthermore, when I said that Isam is sub-par, I meant that he is not given the level of tawtheeq often received by thiqaat. Most of them referred to him in a satisfactory manner. They would say, "La ba'sa bihi". It was only Al-Nasa'ee that referred to him as a thiqa, while Yahya, Abu Zur'ah, Abu Hatim, and Abu Dawud, all placed him in that sub-par level. Al-Daraqutni's "tawtheeq" is even less reassuring. He says, "Yu'tabaru bihi," suggesting that his narrations are only acceptable when complimented by others.

In any case, the above analysis is an explanation of why Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah rejected the addition.

Quote
Also another hadith which contains A'isha's intention to return has been narrated by another narrator, even though it does not contain the part about the death of people on her left and right.

Indeed. This is through the narration of Qais and it is authentic.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 07:46:30 AM by Farid »

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2017, 08:51:03 AM »
@Zlatan:

Quote
Also: you called him subpar, but he is thiqa at the end of the day, and so I ask, does the tafarrud of a thiqa narrator mean the hadith is munkar?

There are things that you need to keep in mind in regards to Al-Albani's decision to accept this narration. First of all, there is no doubt that he would have not authenticated it if he knew that Abu Zur'ah called it munkar as well. Abu Hatim is sometimes  known for being harsh, while Abu Zur'ah was considered balanced. Al-Albani (rahimahu Allah) was very aware that he is bound the opinions of the mutaqadimeen.

Secondly, he accepted the hadith due to the narration of A'isha, which comes through Qais bin Abi Hazim. This narration is Saheeh, but it does not include the ziyada of the specifics of the narration about people being killed around her and her being saved in the end.

The ziyada of the hadith is very specific when it comes to the details of the events and would be considered as a great daleel from da'ail al-nubuwwa. The narration only comes from Ibn Abbas, which is not an issue, since he is one of the biggest hadith narrators from the companions. From him, his close student and mawla Ikrimah, who is the only narrator, which is understandable as well. However, the only narrator from Ikrimah is Isam bin Qudama. How is it possible that only Isam narrated this hadith? What happened to all the other students of Ikrimah? Why didn't other students of Ibn Abbas narrate this hadith from him too?

These are questions that Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah asked themselves before rejecting the narration.

Also, keep in mind that tafarrud from a major narrator by Ikrimah would be accepted if it came from Ayoub Al-Sakhtiyani or Khalid Al-Hathaa', or Qatada. These were major thiqaat that were close companions of Ikrimah that narrated many of his hadiths. It is possible for them to hear things that nobody has heard.

Furthermore, when I said that Isam is sub-par, I meant that he is not given the level of tawtheeq often received by thiqaat. Most of them referred to him in a satisfactory manner. They would say, "La ba'sa bihi". It was only Al-Nasa'ee that referred to him as a thiqa, while Yahya, Abu Zur'ah, Abu Hatim, and Abu Dawud, all placed him in that sub-par level. Al-Daraqutni's "tawtheeq" is even less reassuring. He says, "Yu'tabaru bihi," suggesting that his narrations are only acceptable when complimented by others.

In any case, the above analysis is an explanation of why Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah rejected the addition.

Quote
Also another hadith which contains A'isha's intention to return has been narrated by another narrator, even though it does not contain the part about the death of people on her left and right.

Indeed. This is through the narration of Qais and it is authentic.

I have seen long debates on this hadith between both knowledge Shi'a and Sunnis. I will not comment further since rijal (especially Sunni) is not my expertise, and I will concede to your argument on this particular hadith.

However, what is the authenticity of this hadith then?

ذكر رسول الله خروج بعض امهات المؤمنين فضحكت عائشه فقال .انظري ياحميراء ان لاتكوني انت)ثم التفت الى علي وقال (ان وليت من امرها شيئا فارفق بها)

محور المقاومة والممانعة


Najamsethii484

Re: The dogs of haw'ab
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2017, 03:22:07 PM »
Did A'isha do ijtihaad on nass when she procedeed in war after she was barked at by the dogs of haw'aab? She knew what as going to happen, didn't she? Fitna and killing while she comes out saved.

So why did she proceed?
brother they have no logic whatsoever if someone would have foughten abu bakr omar uthman they would have stood up and yelled that how someone dare to fight caliph of Islam and when someone fights Imam Ali As then they try to defend that everytime real Nasibis if someone fights abu bakr omar uthman they are kafirs in their views and if someone fights Imam Ali AS he stays Muslim. how foolish is that of thinking? and how hypocrite can someone be ? Prophet Muhammad Saww said im with peace who Imam Ali AS is peace with and im war with who war against Imam Ali AS i think they forget that Hadith also. liars liars liars thats what i can say about this people munafiqeen at high level.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic