Salah

[ZeeshanParvez]

And you deliberately forgot to accept the fact.

If you're honest then download it and read

http://www.darultahqiq.com/differences-in-salah-between-men-and-women-according-to-evidences/

I don't read in English or Urdu. If you have an Arabic book you can recommend go ahead.

I didn't forget to accept the fact. I just pointed out its based on weak narrations which you cannot deny.

You can argue some classical scholars acted on weak hadith for caution.

But you cannot argue the hadith are not weak becasue even the ones who recorded them said they were, like al-BayhaQi.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

And you deliberately forgot to accept the fact.

If you're honest then download it and read

http://www.darultahqiq.com/differences-in-salah-between-men-and-women-according-to-evidences/

Here you should read what IslamQA says and how it quotes the Madhabs. You are okay with them quoting the Madhabs.

https://islamqa.info/en/1106

 

[azc]

I don't read in English or Urdu. If you have an Arabic book you can recommend go ahead.

I didn't forget to accept the fact. I just pointed out its based on weak narrations which you cannot deny.

You can argue some classical scholars acted on weak hadith for caution.

But you cannot argue the hadith are not weak becasue even the ones who recorded them said they were, like al-BayhaQi.

It's a small booklet in English delineated the position of 4 madhab regarding this topic.
If you dislike English books then why you are here?

If any hadith declared weak by muhaddidsin it doesn't mean to be outright rejected. In this case you're partially hadith rejectors.

Moreover, if a hadith is weak in eyes of muhaddidsin its very much possible that the same hadith to fuqha imams is as sahih hadith.

It's unfair of you to accept the sayings of muhaddidsin and rejecting the fuqha' s opinion based on same hadith

Is it not taqllid of muhaddidsin?

 

[azc]

Here you should read what IslamQA says and how it quotes the Madhabs. You are okay with them quoting the Madhabs.

https://islamqa.info/en/1106

O.k. move on what you want to say?

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

It's a small booklet in English delineated the position of 4 madhab regarding this topic.
If you dislike English books then why you are here?

If any hadith declared weak by muhaddidsin it doesn't mean to be outright rejected. In this case you're partially hadith rejectors.

Moreover, if a hadith is weak in eyes of muhaddidsin its very much possible that the same hadith to fuqha imams is as sahih hadith.

It's unfair of you to accept the sayings of muhaddidsin and rejecting the fuqha' s opinion based on same hadith

Is it not taqllid of muhaddidsin?

There is a principle in Diin. You take knowledge regarding a subject from those who are experts in the subject.

You take knowledge of hadith authenticity from the scholars of hadith and not the Jurists.

You take knowledge of Fiqh from the Jurists and not the scholars of hadiith.

You can take both Fiqh and knowledge of hadith from a person who is a master in both.

Did you not know this?

This is why in one of the Fiqh matters al-Shaafi'i said in his book al-Umm regarding a hadith that if this hadith comes to be known to be authentic then my verdict regarding the matter will stand otherwise not. He admitted his lack of knowledge about a hadith on the subject and said that if it is authentic then what I say on the matter is valid.

It is best to first study and then formulate opinions.

 

[Zafran]

There is a principle in Diin. You take knowledge regarding a subject from those who are experts in the subject.

is this in the Quran or the hadiths - stick to the mujthaids.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

is this in the Quran or the hadiths - stick to the mujthaids.

Did you know Ibn Taymiyyah said that Imaam al-Bukhaari was an independent Mujtahid. He was also a giant in Hadith knowledge. : )

 

[Zafran]

Did you know Ibn Taymiyyah said that Imaam al-Bukhaari was an independent Mujtahid. He was also a giant in Hadith knowledge. : )

Did you know alot of people criticized Ibn Taymiyya because of some of his views . Last time I checked Ibn Taymiyya (ra) was a Hanbali.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

Did you know alot of people criticized Ibn Taymiyya because of some of his views . Last time I checked Ibn Taymiyya (ra) was a Hanbali and Bukhari (ra) was a shafi.

You need to check again.

A lot of the Salaf criticized Abu Hanifah. Your point?

 

[Zafran]

You need to check again.

A lot of the Salaf criticized Abu Hanifah. Your point?

Lets end it here are you a Mujtahid? If not then Taqlid of one of the main schools of the Mujthaids is the way. Clearly me and you are no Abu Hanifa or Imam Bukhari or malik or shafi or al gahzzali or shah dhelvi etc etc. Unless you are a mujthaid.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

Lets end it here are you a Mujtahid? If not then Taqlid of one of the main schools of the Mujthaids is the way. Clearly me and you are no Abu Hanifa or Imam Bukhari or malik or shafi or al gahzzali or shah dhelvi etc etc.

Now you are avoiding the topic.

You said al-Bukhaari was a Shaafi'i. I told you he was not. Now you are on to a tangent to avoid the subject.

Let me help you out as you need lots of it

هذا ولا ينكر أن بعض الأئمة المتقدمين نسبوا البخاري إلى مذاهبهم ، فذكره القاضي ابن أبي يعلى الفراء في " طبقات الحنابلة " (1/271)، والسبكي في " طبقات الشافعية " (2/3)

There is no doubt that some of the earlier Imaams tried to ascribe Imaam al-Bukhaari to their Madahb.

Al-Qaadi Ibn Abu Ya'laa mentioned him in TabaQaat al-Hanaabilah while al-Subki mentioned him in TabaaQaat al-Shaafi'iyah.

Did you know this or did you just read an article by Nuh Ha Miim Keller who propagated the false view that al-Bukhaari was a Shaafi'i?

So which was he a Hanbali or Shaafi'i : )

 

[Zafran]

Now you are avoiding the topic.

You said al-Bukhaari was a Shaafi'i. I told you he was not. Now you are on to a tangent to avoid the subject.

Let me help you out as you need lots of it

هذا ولا ينكر أن بعض الأئمة المتقدمين نسبوا البخاري إلى مذاهبهم ، فذكره القاضي ابن أبي يعلى الفراء في " طبقات الحنابلة " (1/271)، والسبكي في " طبقات الشافعية " (2/3)

There is no doubt that some of the earlier Imaams tried to ascribe Imaam al-Bukhaari to their Madahb.

Al-Qaadi Ibn Abu Ya'laah mentioned him in TabaQaat al-Hanaabilah while al-Subki mentioned him in TabaaQaat al-Shaafiyah.

Did you know this or did you just read an article by Nuh Ha Miim Keller who propagated the false view that al-Bukhaari was a Shaafi'i?

Lets say your right although there is clearly a difference of opinion because Ibn Subki had the opinion that he was shafi. However lets accept your conclusion. Are a mujthaid like Bukhari? if not you have to do taqleed of a mujtahid as they are the people that can do ijthaid.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

Lets say your right although there is clearly a difference of opinion because Ibn Subki had the opinion that he was shafi. However lets accept your conclusion. Are a mujthaid like Bukhari? if not you have to do taqleed of a mujtahid as they are the people that can do ijthaid.

You do not seem to read the threads do you?

We aren't discussing who is a Mujtahid or who is not.

The discussion started about differences in prayer between men and women. He asked me if I did not know the opinions of the classical scholars and I told him I did and they derived rulings from hadith even they new were weak.

Why are you so obsessed with Mujtahid Imaams and who is one and who is not. You seem to talk about the same thing in both threads though the issue being discussed is totally something else?

 

[Zafran]

You do not seem to read the threads do you?

We aren't discussing who is a Mujtahid or who is not.

The discussion started about differences in prayer between men and women. He asked me if I did not know the opinions of the classical scholars and I told him I did and they derived rulings from hadith even they new were weak.

Why are you so obsessed with Mujtahid Imaams and who is one and who is not. You seem to talk about the same thing in both threads though the issue being discussed is totally something else?

Because your doing what a mujtahaid is meant to do - you trying to be a hadith scholar by telling him that his hadiths are weak - your no Bukhari or Ibn Tayimayya or Abu hanifa? so why not tell him to ask his scholars or mujtahaids when your not one as your doing taqleed just like anyone else.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

Because your doing what a mujtahaid is meant to do - you trying to be a hadith scholar by telling him that his hadiths are weak - your no Bukhari or Ibn Tayimayya or Abu hanifa? so why not tell him to ask his scholars or mujtahaids when your not one as your doing taqleed just like anyone else.

I will once again have to remind you that you do not read the threads. Let me show you why:

You say

you trying to be hadith scholar by telling him that this hadiths is weak

My friend it is always good to read carefully. Read twice or even three times. Otherwise, you will fall in the sin of slander and then will have to pay for it in front of the King of kings.

I quote al-BayhaQi who said it was weak. I quote classical scholars who say a hadith is weak. I have all right to do that. I do not need to be a Mujtahid Imaam to do that.

So, first you will have to read carefully. Once you have done that then I would like to remind you what the definition of taqliid is as al-Subki points out

فعرفه ابن السبكي في جمع الجوامع بأنه: أخذ القول من غير معرفة دليله


It is taking what someone ways without recognizing his evidence.

As you can see if you follow an opinion based on the evidence provided by the Madhab you are not a Muqallid.

You may be incapable of understanding evidences but not everyone is you.

 

[Zafran]

I will once again have to remind you that you do not read the threads. Let me show you why:

You say



My friend it is always good to read carefully. Read twice or even three times. Otherwise, you will fall in the sin of slander and then will have to pay for it in front of the King of kings.

I quote al-BayhaQi who said it was weak. I quote classical scholars who say a hadith is weak. I have all right to do that. I do not need to be a Mujtahid Imaam to do that.

So, first you will have to read carefully. Once you have done that then I would like to remind you what the definition of taqliid is as al-Subki points out

فعرفه ابن السبكي في جمع الجوامع بأنه: أخذ القول من غير معرفة دليله


It is taking what someone ways without recognizing his evidence.

As you can see if you follow an opinion based on the evidence provided by the Madhab you are not a Muqallid.

You just did taqleed of Imam Baqhi and Al Subki dude - your no Mujtaid leave it to the scholars - very simple.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

You just did taqleed of Imam Baqhi and Al Subki dude - your no Mujtaid leave it to the scholars - very simple.

That is not Taqliid. That is a definition coined by the Jurists.

You are now playing with the lexical meaning of the word. It is like those who argue Jihaad means to strive as it does lexically but not according to the legislative meaning.

The truth is that you have found yourself in a predicament and would like me to stop because your ego is preventing you from accepting you did not know what the thread was about but you jumped thinking in you know all.

 

[Zafran]

That is not Taqliid. That is a definition coined by the Jurists.

You are now playing with the lexical meaning of the word. It is like those who argue Jihaad means to strive as it does lexically but not according to the legislative meaning.

The truth is that you have found yourself in a predicament and would like me to stop because your ego is preventing you from accepting you did not know what the thread was about but you jumped thinking in you know all.

dude your not a mujtahid - therefore you are a muqalid - like me.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

dude your not a mujtahid - therefore you are a muqalid - like me.

I am nothing like you.

I understand the evidences of the different Madhabs so by definition of Taqliid I am not making Taqliid.

I can see you are feeling hurt now and getting angry so I will stop because I do not wish there be any ill feelings between us.

But if you would like to continue an academic discussion I can continue. But you will have to provide evidence and understand it. Can you do that?

 

[azc]

There is a principle in Diin. You take knowledge regarding a subject from those who are experts in the subject.

You take knowledge of hadith authenticity from the scholars of hadith and not the Jurists.

You take knowledge of Fiqh from the Jurists and not the scholars of hadiith.

You can take both Fiqh and knowledge of hadith from a person who is a master in both.

Did you not know this?

This is why in one of the Fiqh matters al-Shaafi'i said in his book al-Umm regarding a hadith that if this hadith comes to be known to be authentic then my verdict regarding the matter will stand otherwise not. He admitted his lack of knowledge about a hadith on the subject and said that if it is authentic then what I say on the matter is valid.

It is best to first study and then formulate opinions.

Fuqhas should be given preference when any disputed issue comes concerning hadith but the muqallidin of muhaddidsin create fitnah.
Every sane person understands that a faqih gave rulings based on a particular hadith/ahadith and people/scholars accepted.After a century/several decades a muhaddis is born, declared the the same hadith as weak but people kept on following fuqha. Ummah was united till last century when a few groups raised to invalidate the established rulings by resorting the pretext of research of muhaddidsin.

e.g.
4 imams agreed on some differences in salah between men and women.
and after2 centuries imam Baihiqi shafi'i declared the hadith as weak but neither scholars nor people left following fuqha concerning this matter.
centuries passed, ummah faced no dispute in this matter.

but some scholars of this modern age searched the opinion of muhaddidsin regarding the same hadith . They started fitnah by spreading the wrong msg "there is no difference in salah between men and women"