Zaydi criteria in accepting or rejecting ahadith

More
2 years 7 months ago - 2 years 7 months ago #155 by Anwar
wa alaykum as salaam wa rahma!

"Thank you for your questions! As for the word 'hadith' in the aforementioned ayaat, we say that the immediate context of the verses does not indicate that it refers to narrations or reports because, as we said, narrations or reports are not being distinguished or differentiated from the Quran in the verses. If the immediate context of the verses indicated that in the future there will be reported traditions but there is nothing other than the Quran that should be believed in, the verse and its context would have stated thus. Therefore, to assume that Allah is prohibiting the narration of ahadith by these verses would necessitate a more substantial proof."

Thanks. I understand your point.


"As we also previously said, the immediate context does not even indicate that the Quran is meant by the word 'hadith.' To justify such interpretation, one would have to rely on riwayaat. However, such would pose a problem and a paradox because according to the Quranist interpretation, nothing is to be relied upon other than the Quran which of course nullifies the riwayaat that the say that these verses refer to the Quran."

I have never referred to riwayaat for that interpretation. But I understand what you have said about its alternative interpretation. Thank you.

"As for your mistrust of the akhbaar ahaadi and relying upon them for an obligation or hadd, we cited the examples of the Sahaba who accepted the solitary testimonies of witnesses to establish an act of worship and the hadd. If the Quranist favours his/her view over that of the people to whom the Quran was first revealed and who knew the Arabic language without consulting Classical Arabic lexicons and the like, then there is nothing more that can be said. Despite the revelation of verses such as 7:185, 45:6, 77:50 and 6:38, the Companions knew that they needed to implement those things which werent explicitly mentioned in the Quran. Even when one of them claimed to the Prophet "The Quran is enough for us," he nonetheless had to rely on 'extra-canonical' sources of law in his own judgements."

Thank you for this opinion. I am still considering it. I have no response.

"As for your claim of 'making obligatory what Allah has not made obligatory,' this assumes that those iterations and manifestations of the Quran's commands through the life and practice of the Prophet are extra and superfluous. This of course ignores the Prophet's role as the teacher of the Quran in verses such as 2:129, 3:164 and 62:2. One cannot interpret {teach the Book} in these verses to refer to teaching them how to recite it because the verses already say {recite to them the verses}. Also, the conjunction {teach them the Book and wisdom} does not mean that he was sent to teach them how to recite wisdom. Such is nonsensical. Therefore we say that the role of the Prophet is to teach how one is to act upon the Quran and wisdom through his own actions and statements."

I am a bit confused by this yet I think I understand your perspective here. From my perspective teaching the book is making known what is not known of it in the simplest of terms. Then there is comparing its verses and elucidating with God's verse. However, I do understand that the prophet could have used other words that were different yet redundant to the Qur'an in order to clarify it. There are many verses that teach that al-balaagh is the mission of the messenger. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the term balaagh. I know that prophetic actions and statements can clarify the Quran by being redundant manifestations of it. However, I doubt that ahady narrations can be a valid sources of this. And for every prophetic statement or action, a redundant manifestation within the Quran that justifies it should be apparent. Wouldn't you agree? But that still does not take away the issue of ahady vs. mutawaatir and how we can actually believe that something can have authority on how we act but not have authority with what we believe. I know you spoke on this earlier, but I am still wrestling with it. Please forgive me if you feel I am lacking in intelligence on this issue. It is that I see a contradiction in how on one hand we accept what a sahaaby did and then reject it and show how he was being hypocritical to justify the use of ahady narrations one one hand and reject the idea of only using the Quran as our sole religious authority on the other hand.


"As for your claim that the Quran says that it has not left anything out, we mentioned a couple posts ago, that the verse to which you are referring (6:38) does not refer to the Quran by the word {Book}. The context of the verse does not lend itself to this interpretation. Instead, the word {Book} refers to Decree or Lawh al-Mahfuuz. The word and its derivatives are similarly used in 21:94, 6:59 and 35:11. Even when the alif and laam are used before the word kitaab, it does not always mean the Quran. Please refer to 2:235, 7:37, 17:58, 18:49, 24:33, 33:66 and 39:69."

Interesting. I agree with your premise that al-kitaab doesn't have to mean the Qur'an although it can have a meaning of 'the book' in the sense of 'this book'' which implies the Quran. I believe linguistically this is called 'al-3ahd' which is when what you are talking about is known and is the most apparent thing at the time. However, I know more than one interpretation is possible for Al-Kitaab. Thank you.


"As for your reference to the wudu, sure, washing the hands before the wudu is a recommendation. I don't know of any extra obligations in the wudu other than those mentioned in the Quran. Our imams (as) state that rinsing the mouth and and nose are obligations because they are included in the command to wash the face. Similarly, the wiping of the ears are included in the command to wipe the head."

Thank you for this explanation. I did not know that linguistically in Classical Arabic the inside of the mouth and the nose were considered part of the face, and the ears part of the head. I had thought of this at one point. So your confirming this is great news!
I will now incorporate this once again. Thank you!


"As for the 'established Sunnah', it is noteworthy that the reference I made to Umar and Fatima bint Qays emphasises that the early Muslims understood that there is a difference between Sunnah and hadith. Remember he said "We will not reject the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet for the statement of a woman whom we do not know if she lied or told the truth." This is after she quoted an ahaadi hadith. To our imams (as) and scholars, the established Sunnah refers to that in which there is no disagreement. One of our great imams, Imam al-Qaasim bin Ibrahim ar-Rassi (as) established a very clear methodology when it comes to the narrations from the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. He said in his Usuul al-Adl wa at-Tawheed that the root is the narrations in which there is no disagreement and the branches are those narrations in which there is disagreement. One is to return to the root when there is disagreement in the branches. Therefore, we act upon that in which there is no disagreement. So this is in line with what you said. A practical example is the basmala. All Muslims hold to the validity of the prayer with recitation of Bismillah ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, yet they differ on whether the prayer is valid with its omission. Applying this principle, we say that one acts upon reciting it and not omitting it."

I understand the 'no disagreement' principle, but like I said with Zakaah and taqwaa, what if people don't disagree on what is wrong? There still has to be proof of certainty. Correct? It seems that many Muslims assume that much of their 'amal is mutawaatir or agreed upon and then if we look at other madh-habs we find that these things are not agreed upon. Or we see that some of their 'amal SEEMS to disagree with the Quran and they have no sensible answer for why that is. It seems so far that the Zaydis are better at this. So I am really grateful for our conversation.


"As for some books you can refer to on this topic, we posted a link in our last post. Just click on the blue text."

Thanks. I see them now. I will go through them. I noticed a few of them on the site. Given our discussion so far which do you think would be most appropriate? Al-Kashif and mabaahith fee usoolul-fiqh struck my eye at first. But none of them seem to mention narrations in the titles. Also Ijaabatus-saa'il seemed like it might deal with the questions I am looking to answer.


"As for the application of linguistic principles to the science of hadith, sciences have different rules and methodologies. For example, waajib has a different meaning when it comes to the science of fiqh and the science of aqeeda. One cannot readily apply the principles of one science to another without a valid reason. So I would reverse the question and ask "Why can we apply linguistic principles to those of ilm al-hadith?""

I understand your perspective. However, the two things I would say is, 'Doesn't the science of knowledge also deal with narrations?' Secondly, 'Is not the methodology for obtaining truth consistent?' I am open to the fact that I may be wrong, but it is hard to see how the standards for linguistic integrity cannot be applied to narrative integrity.

"And Allah knows best!"

Yes Indeed!

Thank you for your help with these issues and your being willing to discuss them.

Anwar
Last edit: 2 years 7 months ago by Anwar.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 7 months ago #167 by Imam Rassi Society
as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah!

Thank you for your questions! I also find our discussions to be fruitful and beneficial.

You said:

Thanks. I see them now. I will go through them. I noticed a few of them on the site. Given our discussion so far which do you think would be most appropriate? Al-Kashif and mabaahith fee usoolul-fiqh struck my eye at first. But none of them seem to mention narrations in the titles. Also Ijaabatus-saa'il seemed like it might deal with the questions I am looking to answer.


Any of the aforementioned texts would be beneficial for you. Safwat al-Ikhtiyaar mentions the subject at hand. I would also recommend the Zaydi encyclopaedia I mentioned Al-Bahr az-Zakhkhaar. Even though it discusses aqeeda, usul, fiqh and other sciences, the first volume is dedicated to aqeeda and usul al-fiqh. So you would have to sift through the usul al-fiqh section to find the relevant topic.

You said:

I understand your perspective. However, the two things I would say is, 'Doesn't the science of knowledge also deal with narrations?' Secondly, 'Is not the methodology for obtaining truth consistent?' I am open to the fact that I may be wrong, but it is hard to see how the standards for linguistic integrity cannot be applied to narrative integrity.


Yes. The methodology might be considered consistent but the terminology and the application of such are different. You can refer to the example I mentioned before about waajib in the sciences of aqeeda and fiqh. Similarly, the difference between ahaad in language doesn't necessarily imply the ahaad in the sciences of hadith. The issue is not one of consistency of truth but rather difference in the meaning of terminology.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.210 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum