Originally Posted by Companion
And your position is weightless since you have not studied the sciences of hadith and you are completely ignorant of insnad system and the meticulous procedure which scholars go through in order to verify the authenticity of the hadith. On what basis do I make this seemingly unjust accusation against you? On a comment that you made concerning the typical number of narrators in a hadith in Bukhari, which I will respond to now, inshaa'Allah.
Originally Posted by Companion
SubhanAllah brother, this has surpassed blatant ignorance. Even someone who knows nothing about Islam can pick up an arabic copy of Sahih Bukhari and count the names and they will find that the typical length of a chain is 5 to 6 narrators. And how can it be otherwise when Bukhari came only 5 generations after the Prophet Muhammad pbuh?! People don't narrate from their contemporaries, they narrate from people who are either from the previous generation, or from two generations before them. I'll give you the example of what is known as the GOLDEN chain, which is considered to be the most authentic chain of transmission. This occurs in Sahih Bukhari when Imam Bukhari narrates from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal from Imam Shafi'i from Imam Malik from Imam Nafi' from Abdullah ibn Umar rd from the Prophet Muhammad saws himself. This chain of transmission includes 5 people between Imam Bukhari and the Prophet saws; 5 people who are renowned leaders of the Ummah in hadith, such that this chain of transmission is considered to be the most authentic chain.
As for what you have heard from someone who supposedly studied years under guidance, frankly I coudn't care less about the hearsay and rumours upon which hadith rejectors construct their conjecture.
Verify this for your self.
In this case you should have said "falsify
this for your self" - which I have just done. Hadith scholars scrutinise every chain of transmission for a hadith before passing judgement on its authenticity.
This is why one cannot say everything in Bukhari or any hadith book written is the infallible truth. Is it not possible he may have included something that is a lie during his process of filtering the forged from the authentic? Is he incapable of making mistakes? Only Allah is infallible.
Realize that we are not just talking about Bukhari here. Bukhari's efforts were part of the fourth stage in the development of hadith compilations. His efforts were built upon the efforts of thousands hadith scholars before him and his efforts have been verified by millions of hadith scholars after him.
You wanted proof, I am giving you them. Here is a hadith I find difficult to believe:
I know I have been very critical earlier in this post, but in this regard I must congratulate you. You, unlike Ameen, actually brought forward an example of a hadith, which is something that I and other members have been repeatedly asking Ameen to do (although you still
did not bring a hadith about women, despite the fact that that is the topic of this thread!).
Now that you have an example, alhamdulilah, we can discuss it and clarify the confusion.
The Hadith Regarding the Stoning of the She-Monkey
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated ‘Amru bin Maimun: "During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."
This hadith was already inquired about on the forum and we pointed out that it is not a statement of the Prophet pbuh; 'Amru bin Maimun, from the tabi'in, is merely stating his perception of an incident in the pre-islamic era. First, let us examine a more detailed description of this incident in an alternative narration. In a narration related by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, 'Amr bin Maimun gives more detail on what he saw before the monkeys began to throw stones:
I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out. Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand (Fath al-Bârî 7/184)
Now let us summarize what this hadith states. It describes an incident and 'Amr bin Maimun's perception of that incident.
1- 'Amr bin Maimun saw some monkeys in the pre-islamic period
2- 'Amr bin Maimun saw a female monkey leave her male 'partner' and mate with another monkey
3- 'Amr bin Maimun saw the other monkeys gather around and throw stones at that monkey
4- 'Amr bin Maimun inferred that they were stoning it because it had violated its relationship with its male partner
Shaykh Ibn Qutaiba explains this narration very well:
They said: You narrated that some monkeys stoned a she-monkey for fornication. If the monkeys stoned her while she is married, the hadith would be funnier. According to this example, you cannot be sure for perhaps monkeys implement many rulings of the Torah! Or probably they embrace Judaism! So, if the monkeys are Jews, then perhaps the pigs are Christians!
Abu Muhammad ['Abdullah Ibn Qutaiba, d. 276 A.H.] said: In response to this sneer we state that the narrative of monkeys is neither on authority of Allah's Messneger (peace be upon him) nor any of his Companions; it is merely something mentioned by 'Amr Ibn Maimon. Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ibn Khadash told me that Muslim Ibn Qutaiba said on authority of Hashim on authority of Hasin on authority of 'Amr Ibn Maimon that he said, "A she-monkey had committed fornication during Jahiliyyah, so the monkeys stoned her and I stoned her with them".
Abu Muhammad said: He could have seen the monkeys stoning a she-monkey, so he imagined that they were stoning her because she commited fornication, this cannot be known except by supposition because monkeys do not express themselves and the one who sees them gathering cannot tell whether they fornicate or not. This is a supposition. Perhaps, the old man knew she had fornicated for some reason we do not know for monkeys are the most fornicating animals. Arabs refer to them as examples of (exaggerated) fornication and say: "fornicating more than a monkey". Unless fornication is common among them, they would not be used as an example. There is none closer to man in marriage and jealousy than them. The animals get hostile with one another, jump over and punish one another. Some bite, some scratch, some break and some smash. Monkeys stone with their hands whom Allah created as man stones. If they stoned one another for a cause rather than fornication and the old man thought it is fornication, it would not be far. If the old man knew about fornication by some evidence and that stoning was for it, it would not be far either because - as I have informed you - they are the most jealous among animals and the closest to man regarding understanding. (Ta'wil Mukhtalaf Al-Hadith, pp. 255-256, emphasis added)
So the scholars of IslamToday.com rightly point out:
These are not hadîth from the Prophet (peace be upon him). They are just some behaviors `Amr b. Maymûn witnessed being exhibited by some animals. It is merely his interpretation that the animals were stoning one another as a punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse. There is no way that he could have known their true motives.
And Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani writes in his commentary on this hadith:
It is not necessary from an event resembling unlawful sexual intercourse and stoning that it was really a case of unlawful sexual intercourse and a prescribed punishment. He merely described it the way he did since it resembled these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals. (Fath al-Bârî 7/185)
Having analysed this narration, we can now ask, is there anything in this narration that is unreasonable? The hadith describes an incident and 'Amr bin Maimun's perception of that incident. Let us examine whether or not the incident is plausible.
Do Monkeys behave in the manner narrated?
If you doubt the event narrated in the hadith because you think monkeys don't throw stones at eachother, then let me answer you with a quote from Dr. Otto Adang PhD (which took me only a few seconds to find):
Young chimpanzees in the Arnhem Zoo chimpanzee colony are frequently observed throwing sticks and stones
at adult groupmembers, slapping or punching them. (SOURCE
, emphasis added)
I find the following quote from a reference site on chimpanzees especially relevant:
Chimpanzees, like nearly all social animals, may act out disputes with threatening gestures or sounds. This behavior prevents direct combat and possible injury. Males, and occasionally females, may "display" by charging across the ground or through the trees while swinging or dragging branches, throwing stones
or sticks, and stomping about. Such displays are important to males in attaining a position of high rank (Goodall/Grzimek 475).
Conflict may occasionally arise between a male and female if the female is "unwilling to follow them in the early phase of courtship". Females are sometimes attacked violently for "reasons not clear to us"
(Goodall/Grzimek 475). (SOURCE
, emphasis added)
Again, this only took me a few seconds to find on the internet. If I spent more time, I'm sure I would find lots of information about how primate males are very protective over their females and will punish any male that tries to interfere in that relationship, or any female that betrays that relationship. What do you think "unwilling to follow them in the early phase of courtship" means?
How would they punish them? If the manner described above - by hitting with sticks and throwing stones. This is just common sense.
So to conclude, it is quite clear that the incident narrated in this hadith is certainly believable, given the nature of primates. It is just as plausible that based on his observations, 'Amr bin Maimun believed that the monkey was being stoned for her unlawful intercourse. Since both aspects of this hadith are plausible and likely, there is no basis to reject this narration.
Now that we've discussed this hadith, inshaa'Allah we can continue to discuss other ahadith until we have removed the doubts and clarified the narrations.
:sl: br. Ameen,
Originally Posted by Ameen-
It is overwhelmingly clear that you have no education on the process you are passing a judgement on.
The people here, including the moderators, obviously would not at all find offensive or troubling any of the hadith I would be able to show them
regarding the roles, characteristics, duties and nature of women.
SubhanAllah! You 'would be able to show' us some hadith, yet you refuse to show us any!
This comment is off-target for many reasons.
This is clear in the fact that the following thread is classed as an important 'Sticky' thread - by the moderator/s themselves - making it permanently stick to the top of the forum, despite it disgracefully misinterpreting Allah's Words (verse 4:34), quoting many such hadith, AND ending the article with a quote from the very book we have been discussing in this thread - 'Major Sins'
- which reflects the misogynistic attitudes exhibited by the husband of the user 'Sweet Pea' :
"...The woman must also know that she is like a slave to her husband..."
1. We are discussing AHADITH, not the statements of scholars. If you wanted to find statements of scholars that were not very favourable to women, I'm sure you could find a good number. But if you wanted to find authentic hadith that were not favourable to women, you would not find a single one. Prove me wrong. Bring one.
2. As far as the comment from Imam Adh-Dhahabi is concerned, I still would not agree with the notion that his book is mysognistic. In his book he does not say that the woman is the 'abd
(slave) of man, but rather he states that the woman is one who is under the authority (malk) of her husband. Call it a poor translation, if you will. At any rate, he devotes quite a large section of his book immediately after that to refute mysognistic views towards women. Have you forgotten the part of the book I'm referring to? Let me remined you:
Lest one should suppose that all the responsibilities are on the wife and all the rights belong to the husband, we mention that the husband is obliged to be gentle, kind, and loving to his wife. He must show forbearance and patience toward her in case she is occasionally abusive or ill-tempered. It is his duty to feed and clothe her and to provide for her needs well, within his means, according to the command of Allah Most High: Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity (4:19) and the advice of the Prophet: Consult with women. Indeed, you have some rights over your women and they have some rights over you. It is their right on you that you provide for their food and clothing generously, and your right on them is that they do not let anyone whom you dislike in the house, walking upon your floor. (Related by Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi who declared it Hasan Saheeh)
He said: "The best among you is the one who is best to his wife" (Related by Ibn Hibban) in another version it is the one who is most kind to his wife. The Prophet himself was very gentle and kind in dealing with women.
The Prophet saws also said: "If any man shows patience with his wife's bad temper, Allah will give him a reward similar to the reward of Ayyub (Job) for his patience, and if any woman shows patience with her husband's bad temper, Allah will give her a reward similar to the reward of Asiyah daughter of Muzahim, the wife of Pharoah (Cf. Qur'an 66:11)."
It is reported that a man came to 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab raa to complain about his wife's ill-temper. While he was waiting for 'Umar to come out of his house, he heard 'Umar's wife scolding him and 'Umar quietly listening to her, and not answering her back. The man turned around and started walking away, muttering to himself: "If that is the case with 'Umar, the leader of the believers, who is famous for his uprighteness and toughness, then what about poor me?!" At that moment, 'Umar came out of his house and saw the man walking away. He called him and said, "What is it you want of me, O man?" The man replied: "O leader of the believers, I came to complain to you about my wife's bad-temper and how she nags me. Then I heard your wife doing the same to you, so I turned around, muttering to myself, 'If that is the situation of the leader of the believers, then what about me?'" 'Umar replied, "O my brother, I bear with her because of her rights over me. She cooks my food, bakes my bread, washes my clothes, breast-feeds my child...and yet none of these are her duty;* and then she is a comfort to my heart and keeps me away from forbidden deeds. Consequently, I bear with her." The man said, "It is the same with me, O leader of the believers." 'Umar said: "Then, O my brother, be patient with her, indeed this life is short. (Adh-Dhahabi, Al-Kabâ'ir 194)
So at any rate, someone who reads his book will not have a negative view towards women at all.
3. As for the making of a thread sticky, I honestly never read that thread before now. The decision to make a thread sticky is a decision of an individual staff member because of some beneficial content that he/she may see in that thread. This must not be misinterpreted as a sign that Load-Islam officially endorses all content within that thread
4. As for your baseless assertions about the attitudes of some bad Muslims, I have pointed out to you before that there is no basis for your connecting them with the hadith or books of knowledge unless
it can be objectively shown that such an attitude is preached by these sources.
I encourage all brothers and sisters to educate themselves about the sciences of hadith. Please see the following links:
:w: and sorry for the delayed response