Zaydi criteria in accepting or rejecting ahadith

IRS,

Thank you for your answers. In essence it seems that you have essentially equated mutawaatir hadeeth with saheeh hadeeth as the Shafi'ee's do. With this you have annulled the difference between mutawaatir hadeeth being qat'iyyu-d-dalaah, giving certainty and ahaad hadeeeth being dhanniyyu-d-dalaalah, being conjectural and probably/possibly false and you give both equal authority. Would you agree?

Also what do you think of what the Quran says about hadeeth other than it. This includes information about actions as well as we have in 79:15: هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَىٰ and his actions with Pharoah.

7:185 فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ
45:6 فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَ اللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ
77:50 فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ

As a source of the Sunnah/uswah what of when the Quran says:

6:38 مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ

What you said about accepting single, trustworthy, witnesses for the hudud of our religion reminds me of minute 2:25 in this video:



What of the fact that most of the narrators had passed on long before anyone started investigating their reputations?

Salaam

As-salaamu 'Alaykum

If an aahadie narration is strong enough to establish a hadd or an obligation in disregard to the Qur'an than who is there really any difference between the a mutawaatir and an ahadie narration? Don't we have to believe in something in order to enact it in our religion?

Doesn't your stance defy what has been written about the ahaad narrations being conjectural?

Imam Al-Razi states in Tajul-Arous that he did not accept them as a proof for the language of Arabic because of the fact they are conjectural. So why are they accepted as apart of our deen in disregard to whether they are directly and clearly linked to a verse in the Qur'an or not. Why are they given religious authority regardless of redundancy to the Qur'an?

"The famous lexicon by Murtada Al-Zabidi (1732-1790 CE) called Taj Al-'Arous is an authoritive work on the Classical Arabic language. However it still does not rank by far with the Lisanul-Arab by Ibn Mandhur (1233 -1312), a work which must be given more authority than Taj-Al'Arous seeing that it preceded it by 500 years. Even with that said Taj Al-Arous is still authoritative and must necessarily have used Lisanul-Arab as a source. As it concerns lexicons, these books are not books of hadeeth, nor are they dedicated to give religious edification. They are books on the Classical Arabic language of the early Arabs and compile what they can of the language so that all can know how the Classical Arabs used their languge, so that we can know how to understand the Arabic words found in the Quran. These works supercede by leaps and bounds the works we find in English, like Lane's Lexicon. Unfortunatly these works continue to be in Arabic only, and I ask myself often why Lane did not just directly translate these lexicons into English. In Taj Al-'Arous there is a section called 'What is Successive of the Arabic language, and what is Anomalous.' Successive is tawaatur or mutawaatir in Arabic and is the most authoritative when it comes to narrations. 10 readings out of the 14 readings in total of the Quran that i an aware of are successive, or mutawaatir. Anomalous is also known as Aaahad. All hadeeth labelled as Sahih, including those found in Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc. etc are all Aahad or anomalous hadeeths.
In this section of Taj Al-Arous it says: "The scholar Abu Al-Fadl said: relating from the luminous proofs of Ibn Al-Anbari, "Know that there are two parts to transmission: successive (Tawaatur) and anomylous (Aahaad). What is successive is the language of the Quran, as well as what is successive of the prophetic practices and the speech of the Arabs. This part (all that is tawaatur) is definitive proof among the proofs for grammar and syntax. It conveys knowledge, necessarily. The majority have relied on it, in theory, and others have leaned towards it." It has been said: "What does not have the condition of successivness-successiveness being a fully acceptable proof- what is weak and what is unique in transmission (aahaad) does not lead to a definitive knowledge and most have concluded that it conveys conjecture." It has also been said: "Knowledge is not in what is labelled as saheeh, because it is open to the potential of being false." Abu Al-Fadl then said: The condition of successivness (Tawaatur) is that the number of narrators reach a number where it is not possible for them to have coordinated and agreed on a lie concerning the language in the Quran, as well as the dialects of the Arabs. It has been said: "The condition of successiveness is that the number of narrators reaches 5." The first (condition) is what is correct. Some of the legists have said: They have accepted proofs from anomalous reports as an authority in legislation. But they have not accepted these proofs as it concerns the Arabic language. This was the most appropriate." And Imam Fakhruddeen Al-Razi said, (his follower Imam Tajuddeen Al-Armawi having said the same), "Language and syntax and declensions and conjugations are divided into two sections. One of the two is successiveness, it is is necessarily to be taken as knowledge if it qualifies as having been used in the past as it concerns particular meanings. Hence, we find ourselves thoroughly convinced that the words for sky and earth were used in the time of the prophet Muhammad (saas) in their known meaning. This also applies to the words for water, fire, air and the like. Additionally, the subject of a phrase is still put into nominative case, the object into accusative case and the possessive into genitive case." Imam Al-Razi also said, "And whatever is known by way of anomalous reports (aahaad), being strange articulations, are doubtful and suspicious. Most of the articulations of the Quran, its syntax and its declensions and conjugations are from the first (the successive) category. Those in the second category (the anomalous category) are very few, they are not to be taken as decisive, rather they are to be taken as conjectural."

Read more: quranists.proboards.com/thread/44/proof-...ecture#ixzz43UCOa0UL"

I can understand if these hadeeth are encouraged because they COULD be true, but I cannot understand how they can be taken as an authority on their own.

Comments?

Thank you.

As-salaamu 'Alaykum,

Your responses are in quotes. Mine are not.

"Before I address your question, I would like to get your opinion on what I have written and cited. It doesn't seem as if you have addressed or acknowledged any of the points that we have made about the ayaat you quoted and their relation to the topic at hand. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? Also, you have not addressed the proofs that we used to establish that one can use an ahaadi hadith in worship or establish the hadd. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? An academic dialogue takes into consideration everything that was said before moving on to an additional point."

I understood your points about the word hadeeth in the ayaat being able to be seen in other ways. However, I do not see how it anulled its use as 'narration' in general. I also understood your point about what was more likely and what was less likely when it comes to taking hadeeth for use in obligation and hadd. To me this seemed like looking at the glass half full instead of half empty. I disagree in the sense that I don't see how we can take something that does not have certainty and make it an obligation or the basis of a hadd. musta7abb or highly encourageable sure...hadd and obligation...I think that may be taking things too far and making obligatory what Allah has not made obligatory.

"As for the ahaadi narrations and their authority, it is quite deceptive to assume that such is "in disregard to the Qur'an" when we have repeatedly stated that we do not accept any narration contrary to the Qur'an. It is an agreed upon principle in our Usul that we do not accept any report which contradicts the Qur'an. Could you please cite an example of an authentic Zaydi hadith that is "in disregard to the Qur'an"?"

I understand your perspective here. Of course I am skeptical because every Muslim who uses hadeeth claims that their hadeeth are in accordance with the Quran and then they disagree among themselves on these things. My skepticism falls under the facts that 1. The Quran says that it has not left anything out of the book 2. hadeeth that contain superflous information/actions to the Quran and make that information/action obligatory seem to be exceeding the bounds of the Quran. I could be wrong but that is how I am seeing it. Take wudu for instance. The Quran tells us how to make wudu. Anything extra may be recommendable because it encourages good hygiene and cleanliness which are also Quranic principles but it seems wrong to make those extra steps obligatory. The same goes for Salaah and any part of the deen. If the action is beneficial and protects ourselves from evil and harm (taqwaa) then it makes sense and is recommendable but can we really say it is an obligation or a hadd?

"As we previously mentioned, there are differences between akhbaar mutawaatira and ahaadi. Mutawaatira definitely has more authority than the ahaadi. For example, one of our imams, Imam Mansuur Billah 'Abdullah bin Hamza (as) stated in his text Safwata al-Ikhtiyaar that the ahaadi can be nullified by the Qur'an and Mutawaatir traditions but otherwise is not the case. The evidence he cited was the famous incident of Fatima bint Qays and Umar. She quoted a hadith on the authority of the Prophet and Umar responded by saying "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." None of the Ahl al-Bayt objected to his action so it is taken as a proof and an Usuli principle that an ahaadi narration cannot nullify the Book and established Sunnah. It also proves that the ahaadi and mutawaatir are not the same."

Thank you for that. I guess what we need to establish here is "What is the established Sunnah?" How can we attain certaintly of the 'established Sunnah' with differences in the Ummah? Proving tawaatur of this sunnah becomes essential to call it established doesn't it? Otherwise how do we know that a mistake or an innovation (no judgement on whether the innovation is good or not) didn't take hold and become established? Look at the word Zakaah which means purity, betterment and growth and taqwaa which means protection from evil and harm. Most Muslims take these words to mean things that are NOT its original meanings but paths to its original meanings (i.e. charity brings us to purity, betterment and growth and being pious and concious of God bring us to protect ourselves from the evil and harm that is the wrath of God). But here we have two widely spread opinions that we know cannot be authentically established meanings of these two words. How much more can this apply to many of the practices we engage in. The only thing I can think of is taking what is common among the Muslims
and making null and void what they differ on was it concerns practices to get to something that we may be able to consider it similar to mutawaatirul-ma3aany. Am I incorrect in this assessment?

"Regarding the statements you quoted, they are through a Sunni lens. It is also noteworthy that they are examining the meanings of tawaatur and ahaad in relation to language/linguistics and Qur'an recitations. Although some principles can be applied to 'ilm al-hadith, it is not absolutely applicable. Some of our imams have differed from the Sunnis in Usuli principles. I would suggest that you consult some of our books on Usul al-Fiqh to gain some elucidation on the matter."

Thank you for this. Can you point out some of those books to me? Also why is it that these principles of knowledge of Classical Arabic linguistics do not apply to the knowledge of narration?

Thank you for your openness and help in this matter.

As-salaamu 'Alaykum