The difference between the Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex starts as soon as a female is born. For example the Bible states that the period of the mother's ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible does state explicitly that "The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3) In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise, "A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3) A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father "Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she doesn't make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame."(Ecclesiasticus 42:11)

It was this very same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame that ed the pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Quran severely condemned this heinous practice "When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens
and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil they decide on?"(16:59) It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia if it were not to the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the
female birth first," To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what he wills. He bestows female children to whomever he wills and bestows male children to whomever he wills"(42:49)

========================

Where is women rights if they are considered shameful since birth?

Let us be just.

This is the whole verse which talks about both daughter and son if they are raised wrongly:

"22:3. A son ill taught is the confusion of the father: and a foolish daughter shall be to his loss"

Why she is called foolish?

Any logical reason for this "the period of the mother's ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5)?

Hmmmm..considering I have only one child and is a daughter I see her as the ultimate gain....blessing from God irregardless of whatever is said. If a verse is taken out of context a person can make it mean anything. I believe it is how we raise our children which is what the Bible is speaking of.

Ciao

Hmmmm..considering I have only one child and is a daughter I see her as the ultimate gain....blessing from God irregardless of whatever is said. If a verse is taken out of context a person can make it mean anything. I believe it is how we raise our children which is what the Bible is speaking of.

Ciao
marianna imagine how shameful i am..or doubly sinned or whatever ice tea wants to call me......
i have two daughters!!!! :XD:

I'm confused.

You see.. if daughters are so shameful... how comes we don't have the "culture" of honor killings? I would have thought that some honourable daddies would be slicing off at least a few shameful teenager's heads by now. :hmm:

Hmmmm..considering I have only one child and is a daughter I see her as the ultimate gain....blessing from God irregardless of whatever is said. If a verse is taken out of context a person can make it mean anything. I believe it is how we raise our children which is what the Bible is speaking of.

Ciao

Here are the quotes from your Bible:

2"Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, (A)as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.

3'On (B)the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

4'Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.

5'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.


It is interesting that the male child to be cirumcised.

marianna imagine how shameful i am..or doubly sinned or whatever ice tea wants to call me......
i have two daughters!!!! :XD:

I didn't call you anything, the topic is discussing what the Bible says about female childs. :)

I'm sure Mohammed must have read Leviticus when he said this as well.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri

On 'Id ul Fitr or 'Id ul Adha Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, "O people! Give alms." Then he went towards the women and said. "O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women)." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He replied, "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray." Then he left. And when he reached his house, Zainab, the wife of Ibn Masud, came and asked permission to enter It was said, "O Allah's Apostle! It is Zainab." He asked, 'Which Zainab?" The reply was that she was the wife of Ibn Mas'ub. He said, "Yes, allow her to enter." And she was admitted. Then she said, "O Prophet of Allah! Today you ordered people to give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Masud said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else." The Prophet replied, "Ibn Masud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had more right to it than anybody else."

Not to forget :

Book 004, Number 1034:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an *** and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.1034

Book 2, Number 0704:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ***, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/002.sat.html#002.0704

wudjab, as usual off topic.

No it's not.

Because the very first line in your opening salvo went thusly :

The difference between the Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex ...

Therefore since you are comparing Biblical and Quranic attitudes to women..

Off topics have been deleted. This is not about the OT and the NT. This is about what the bible says about "daughters", so please discuss that and only that. Thank you :cute:

darn we got reported....man i'm gonna get so maaaaaaaaaaaad.
it's ok lym. we'll try and talk about the bible and daughters. guess i'll leave it up to jeff to compose an article for ice tea.

No Lym, this is about how Islam and Christianity look at daughters and women in general.

Actually Tea lifted his opening post from this article :

Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition - The Myth and The Reality

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/shdaut.htm

(without a link to the source or credit to the original author, which in itself is a voilation of sabla rules).

Then this needs to be handled properly. :(

Since the Bible AND the Quran is being compared becauses verses means just that....people can look up the meaning...then I see no problem with discussing both. Also, if no link is provided for the source then the topic needs to be either closed or a link provided so that the members can constructively argue their points.

Off topics have been deleted. This is not about the OT and the NT. This is about what the bible says about "daughters", so please discuss that and only that. Thank you :cute:
But lym.. the part Icetea quotes is from the OT..

Would it be off topic to point that out? To explain why it's irrelevant to us since Jesus?

But lym.. the part Icetea quotes is from the OT..

Would it be off topic to point that out? To explain why it's irrelevant to us since Jesus?

He already knows that. And he started asking about circumcision and questioning OT and NT when you've already explained it a 100 times before.

So this thread is about the OT and daughters, not the way the NT fits with the OT. I would have left his questions and your answers if I didn't read it all before as an "extra" educational post, but that is not the case since it has all been off topic since he started questioning you guys since the "circumcision" post.

And Wudjab what are you on about? I did not delete any of your posts about Islam. So yes, you can compare :rolleyes:

Thanks for that.

What about the rule requiring you to post the source of your topic when it's not your own work ?

Thanks for brining that to our attention, for a sec I thought he might have written that. So Ice Tea can you please post the source or at least mention where you read it?

Thanks :)

Let us be just.

This is the whole verse which talks about both daughter and son if they are raised wrongly:

"22:3. A son ill taught is the confusion of the father: and a foolish daughter shall be to his loss"

Thank you, UmK! :)

You see, Ice Tea? It's not impossible to have an HONEST discussion...

Whether you are right or wrong, if you don't present the whole picture, you end up convincing people that you are a shady character and they can't trust you! :p

Christians who want to be negative will respond to your negativity by quoting Quran verses and complaining about them.

Then everybody can start a fight and begin beating each over the head and calling each other "Liar!"

This happens all the time on the net, doesn't it?

Just to increase UmK's justice, let's throw in another quote, this time from the New Testament, which is where we go in the Bible for a full understanding of the way to live and think:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3: 28.

Where is women rights if they are considered shameful since birth?


Women's rights are written in MAN MADE laws. You know the ones that can adapt and change to fit the times?

I am not sure who considers the birth of a daughter to be shameful. That sounds like one of those old school sexist-culture beliefs.

FYI- We live in modern times.

Ecclesiasticus-- What is that? (just curious)

Impure doesn't mean shameful. Its just a designation. Anyway, to me, it means the baby girl gets to stay with her Mummy a bit longer without interference.

at least speaking of now, none of that applies. you are talking about phenomenons, theories that are not practiced now a days. I hear the bible is updated every now and then...and in today's world we can all agree that christians treat both sexes equally.
to me that is a lot more progress than people who used to make their wives and daughters cover up to the rim and even used to not have their own IDs. and that has been changed recently... the ID part. (speaking of KSA)... i'm not putting anyone down. but if anyone wishes to make a comparison between holy books, that does not reflect more than what actually is happening today. only wanted to point that out.

as for what was written in the bible... is it valid now? still there?

Ecclesiasticus-- What is that? (just curious)

Impure doesn't mean shameful. Its just a designation. Anyway, to me, it means the baby girl gets to stay with her Mummy a bit longer without interference.

You're a sharp one! :p

Ecclesiasticus mean "the Church's book." In the early centuries of Christianity, the Romans who were becoming Christians were so messed up and corrupt in their lifestyles that it was felt they should begin by studying simple rules for sensible moral living. This books seemed just the manual to begin with, so it picked up that title since the Church would sort of hand it to you at the beginning of your studies.

Remember the Synod of Jamnia in which the Jewish Rabbis fixed the canon for the Jews? Some books of the Septuagint that they couldn't find in Hebrew were left out.

One such book contained in the Septuagint was called "The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach." It's a collection of sayings written by a Jewish sage, similar in style to what is called the Book of Proverbs in the Tanach.

That's Ecclesiasticus. In some modern Bibles, it's called Sirach.

And you won't find it in Protestant Bibles, unless they have an appendix called "Apocrypha". They follow the Jewish canon.

So Tea, how do you explain away Mohammed's apparently rather negative view of women ?

You're a sharp one! :p

Ecclesiasticus mean "the Church's book." In the early centuries of Christianity, the Romans who were becoming Christians were so messed up and corrupt in their lifestyles that it was felt they should begin by studying simple rules for sensible moral living. This books seemed just the manual to begin with, so it picked up that title since the Church would sort of hand it to you at the beginning of your studies.

Remember the Synod of Jamnia in which the Jewish Rabbis fixed the canon for the Jews? Some books of the Septuagint that they couldn't find in Hebrew were left out.

One such book contained in the Septuagint was called "The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach." It's a collection of sayings written by a Jewish sage, similar in style to what is called the Book of Proverbs in the Tanach.

That's Ecclesiasticus. In some modern Bibles, it's called Sirach.

And you won't find it in Protestant Bibles, unless they have an appendix called "Apocrypha". They follow the Jewish canon.

Thanks. At first I thought it was different spelling to Ecclesiastes and went to look up the verses and couldn't find them. Then I looked at the index of one of the Bibles (NIV) and it wasn't there. So I was a little confused.

So Tea, how do you explain away Mohammed's apparently rather negative view of women ?

Actually, Wudjub, the following hadith is a fabrication.

Not to forget :

Book 004, Number 1034:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an *** and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen....html#004.1034

Book 2, Number 0704:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ***, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen....html#002.0704

When Aisha (radiyah allah 3anha), the wife of the Prophet :PBUH:, heard these statements circulating around she was outraged and declared, "By God Who revealed the Qur'an to (Muhammed), whoever attributes this to the Prophet has lied."

Aisha (ra) used to sleep and sit in front and next to the Prophet [PBUH] during her mensus, while he was praying.

(taken from Al-Zari, Abu Hurayra, p. 65 Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, 10:159)

As for the other hadiths you mentioned, they are also under suspicion. That's why there is that hadith project going on in Turkey, since they want to remove the fabricated hadiths that unfortunately had seeped in the hadith books. :cute:

The Prophet of Islam was an amazing man and was always kind and just with women. That's why so many of his coverts were women, including the first convert, the first martyr and the first protector of the Qur'an. :cute:

Actually, Wudjub, the following hadith is a fabrication.



When Aisha (radiyah allah 3anha), the wife of the Prophet :PBUH:, heard these statements circulating around she was outraged and declared, "By God Who revealed the Qur'an to (Muhammed), whoever attributes this to the Prophet has lied."

Aisha (ra) used to sleep and sit in front and next to the Prophet [PBUH] during her mensus, while he was praying.

(taken from Al-Zari, Abu Hurayra, p. 65 Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, 10:159)

As for the other hadiths you mentioned, they are also under suspicion. That's why there is that hadith project going on in Turkey, since they want to remove the fabricated hadiths that unfortunately had seeped in the hadith books. :cute:

The Prophet of Islam was an amazing man and was always kind and just with women. That's why so many of his coverts were women, including the first convert, the first martyr and the first protector of the Qur'an. :cute:

Don't you have to go by the chain of witnesses on a hadith?

If you challenge the way of determining hadith strength, doesn't that create a problem for the whole thing?

Don't you have to go by the chain of witnesses on a hadith?

If you challenge the way of determining hadith strength, doesn't that create a problem for the whole thing?

Not really. There are some hadiths that have had question marks on them for so long or even known to be fabrications, but they have entered the books of hadith due to error.

Actually, IceTea himself is Ibadhi, when he comes he can confirm. The Ibadhis don't believe that all the hadiths in the Sunni strong books are true, they have a lot of reservations and believe some are fabricated. The same thing with the Shia, they also have a lot of reservations on some of the hadith in the strong books.

Anyway, it doesn't create confusion really, these things are quite well known when someone studies Islam at university level. What I am saying isn't something that is so new and novel. Aish'a refutation is very well-known, that she corrected the sahaba when they got a hadith wrong, such as the one I mentioned on a woman passing a man while he is praying.

^^

Well, that's very interesting! :)

So, those chains of witness things used by the great hadith collectors are actually questionable?

Bukhari, Muslim, etc. are filled with questionable hadiths?

And EVERYONE acknowledges this? Or just some?

If I ask the scholars at al-Azhar or I ask Qaradawi, they will tell me, "Sure, the hadith collections are full of bum hadiths?"

I'm just curious...you guys have to decide what you believe, not me! :)

Anyway, the Mohammed who didn't say that is certainly a nicer one for us outsiders that the one who did...

^^

Anyway, Sophis, I think I'm sounding too "challenging".

I'm not trying to disprove you; I'm just trying to get it straight in my mind.

Sometimes, when I do that, I end up sounding caustic by mistake.

But really my attitude is positive and I'm fascinated by what you are saying...

Post more and more! :)

I would not say filled with questionable hadiths, that is simply not true. These books by Bukhari and Muslim are volumes of thousands of strong hadith. But some few are questionable and outright fabrications. The hadith collectors tried very hard to remove and distinguish between the fake and true hadiths, but obviously they were human and their scrutinizing eyes did miss some.

There is a whole area of knowledge in Islam, called the science of hadith, "3ilm Al-Hadith", so the fabricated hadiths that entered the strong books of hadiths are well-known to those who study this area, although they have not been removed out of the books of hadith. However, some Muslim scholars compiled other books of hadith due to this, which they consider as strong. For example, the Ibadhis, such as IceTea, take after the hadith book of Misnad Imam Ibn Rabee', whom they consider to be the authoritative and strong collection, due to the reservations they have on Bukhari. For example, they say that some of the Jewish traditions, or Israeliat, had entered into the Sunni books, so the Ibadhi hadith books on the other hand removes them (IceTea, correct me if I am wrong).

Here is another excellent example, similar to the demeaning women, but are the "racist" ones. :D



A variety of reports have been attributed to the Prophet that explicitly demean Abyssinians, Sudanese, or Blacks in general. These reports claism that Aisha, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Abu Huraira, or Anas heard that the Prophet said something deregatory towards blacks. For example, that the Prophet said, "Choose suitable [marriage partners] for your children, but avoid marrying blacks for they are deformed race" and "Blacks live guided by their private parts and stomachs". Furthermore, that Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad [6:496] narrated a report that, in effect states, God created the white race from Adam's left shoulder, then decreed that those on the right will enter heaven, and those on the left will enter hell".

Now, despite the authencity of these reports were accepted by some, the overwhelming majority of the classical traditions, rejected them declaring them them to be contrary to Islamic norms.

For example, Shaykh Al-Albani, who is a Wahabi scholar, well-known for being from Ahl-Al-Hadith (or very strong hadith followers) says the following when commenting on one of the classical authorities who accepted the authenticity of some of the racist reports. He writes:

This is because [the classical scholar who authenticated the report] stubbornly focused on the chain of transmission (al-sanad) without carefully scrutinizing the substance (matn). This substance (matn) conveys a message that can never be endorsed by the Shariah. How could a rational person say that this fair and just Shariah would condemn all the Sudanese nation, with all its people, while there are pious and pure people in it, as in the case with all other nations! (from Al-Albani, Silsilat, 2:158)

Hope that his commentary explains your question Jeff on the chain of transmission. :D

On women, the one Wudjub posted on women passing by a man praying is a well-known fabrication, another hadith that is also in the strong books but is is mawdhoo3 (or fabricated as well) is the one on "if a woman leads a nation they will not prosper". People who want to demean women will relish these errors that entered the hadith books, but people who study this area and are truthful will know that these are fabricated.

Here is another excellent example, similar to the demeaning women, but are the "racist" ones. :D



Hope that his commentary explains your question Jeff on the chain of transmission. :D

On women, the one Wudjub posted on women passing by a man praying is a well-known fabrication, another hadith that is also in the strong books but is is mawdhoo3 (or fabricated as well) is the one on "if a woman leads a nation they will not prosper". People who want to demean women will relish these errors that entered the hadith books, but people who study this area and are truthful will know that these are fabricated.

This is very helpful indeed! :)

Do we have a link or is it from printed material?

This is very helpful indeed! :)

Do we have a link or is it from printed material?

I copied it off one of my law books called "Speaking in God's name, Islamic law, Authority and Women" by Khaled Abou Fadl.

Anyway, I'm sure this stuff is being discussed by Muslims in other forums or published in newspapers if you do a quick search. ;)

I copied it off one of my law books called "Speaking in God's name, Islamic law, Authority and Women" by Khaled Abou Fadl.

Anyway, I'm sure this stuff is being discussed by Muslims in other forums or published in newspapers if you do a quick search. ;)

Search terms! Search terms! :p

That's the problem for people like me. I'm just taking baby steps here, so I don't come up with what I want.

But I hope you didn't get the impression that I doubted your word...

I certainly didn't.

It's just that it's helpful when discussing this issue with others to be able to give a citation.

Think with me. Suppose I am talking to someone--Muslim or not--and trying to persuade them that it is a respectable position among Muslim jurists that even ahadith reliably classed as strong can be reevaluated using substantive ideas of Islamic prinicples as a standard, i.e., "this is just too unIslamic despite its pedigree!"

And then they say, "Nonsense! I've never heard any such thing!"

If I reply, "Sophis told me so on Sabla" they won't be very impressed.

But if I reply, "It's in 'Speaking in God's name, Islamic law, Authority and Women' by Khaled Abou Fadl," well, I've said something.

***

It DOES seem that Fadl is a highly controversial figure from my poor attempts at googling. For example, he seems to deny that Islamic Law should be the province of the state at all! Now you can't say everyone agrees with him on that!

"It is not the job of the state to regulate the relationship between God and the faithful."

I remember your distinction about classifications of law, but I wonder if it's only Wahhabis who disagree with it, as the article below seems to suggest:

http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/pokhabelfagd.html

Anyway, all fascinating stuff.

And now I think I'll quite niggling about all this and let you have the last word.

^^^

Except! Except! Except!

This is too good not to cite.

I occasionally hear that the question of hijab is foreclosed and all agree that it is an open and shut question.

Well, if you can quote el Fadl to me, I can paraphrase him back to you and you can be sure that in the future I will do so in hijab discussions,

"The question of women’s hijab (headscarf and modest dress) is a settled issue with almost all Muslims agreeing that it is mandatory. Fadl disagrees. He claims that it is an issue that is still open to debate."

http://www.islamonline.net/english/ArtCulture/2002/09/article07.shtml

Sophis,

Thanks for that.

But after 1600 years wouldn't you think that all the 'false' hadith would have been weeded out ?

Also why would people make up false hadith in the first place ?

If they are well know to be false, why are the included in the hadith collection at all ?

Jeff, I was not taking El Fadl's opinion on the matter. If you notice I had given Shaykh Albanee's opinion on the racist hadiths, which was cited in El Fadl's book. The only reason why I cited El Fadl's book is that the majority of books on Islamic studies are arabic! If you want me to cite the original Arabic books I will happily do so, they are below. :D

The reason why we know the hadith on women spoiling a man's prayer is false is because of Aish'a refutation, not someone's opinion. Aisha's refutation is well documentated in Imam Zarkashi's book, Al-Ijaba (Collection of Aisha's Corrections to the Statements of the Companions). Also, from the Seera, or the life of the Prophet :PBUH:, when Aisha used to be sit and lie next to him when he was praying.

The hadiths on women being bad omens were also refuted by Aisha, in the book of Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Fath Al-Bari - this is considerably the most prominent and reliable commentory on al-Bukhari's Jami` al-Sahih. BTW, Al-Asqalani was a medieval Shafiite Sunni scholar of Islam who represents the entire realm of the Sunni world in the field of Hadith.

Actually, you will read on there are some Muslims discussing amongst themselves on the reliability of these hadiths http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-29515.html.

About the disctinctions in the classification of law, as I said before it isn't someone's opinion. These are very well-established within Islamic law, way back since the medieval scholars. That was how they classified the different laws. Plus, I did give you some links of some the Muslims talking about it as well.

I am sorry that Sheikh google isn't very helpful, the main problem is generally the advanced material on Islamic studies are in arabic, and the english journals that translate this are restricted to the university databases.

Sophis,

Thanks for that.

But after 1600 years wouldn't you think that all the 'false' hadith would have been weeded out ?

Also why would people make up false hadith in the first place ?

If they are well know to be false, why are the included in the hadith collection at all ?

Wudjub, there were several hundred thousands hadiths that had been floating around since the Prophet's :PBUH: death. The hadith collectors had narrowed this down immensly. However, there were a few that they did miss, that the Muslims that came after them discovered.

They are still in the hadith collections, because people have not updated Bukhari and Muslim, and kept them in their original form. However, some scholars like those that the Ibadhis follow composed their own books of hadith, such as Misnad Ibn Rabee', which they felt was closer to the truth.

Most importantly, Muslims who study the Islamic studies do know which hadiths are fabricated, those that are suspicious, etc even though the Bukhari, etc books are not updated. At a basic level, one learns that all hadiths in the strong books are true and authentic. When someone moves up the ladder at university level and studies the different Islamic sciences and disciplines, then they are much more advanced in their knowledge and know that this is not true. The Islamic sciences is something one studies as a whole degree, all the way to getting a doctorate, or a PhD in Islamic studies. The Islamic studies, are a science. The same way that you study engineering, or business or law university level, until you can get degrees, that is the same with Islam. As Imam Malik said, "This religion is a science". So it isn't just memorizing the Quran and Bukhari and Muslim, there are volumes of books on Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), the life of the Prophet (Seera), hadith, etc that all need to be studied and compared.

sophis, thanks for your enlightened posts. can i suggest one day when you have some time, open a thread stating which hadiths are 'fabricated' and which hadiths one should read and follow. i have read online about the women crossing a man when praying rendering his prayer invalid....and was mildly shocked and bemused...(was thinking in the lines of *if a woman wants to test a man's patience she'd wait at the end of his prayers, pass in front of him so he'd have to start over again...and do it again and again, he'd spend his day praying* lol..)..glad you made that clear.

Thanks sophis:

I am bookmarking this thread and I will refer back to it as I continue to delve into these questions....

Lastly, Umar ibn Hasan probably gives the best explanation on why some of the hadiths are incorrect,

"If I wanted to, I could recite traditions about the Prophet for two days without stopping. What keeps me from doing it is that I have seen some of the Companions of the Prophet who heard exactly what I myself heard, who saw what I saw, and those men recounted hadith. Those traditions are not exactly what we heard. And I am afraid of hallucinating, as they hallucinate". (Muhammed Abu Zahra, Malik [Malik ibn Anas, 10-796] Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi)

The number one reason is the fallibility of memory. Actually, Umar Ibn Khattab, who was an incredibly close companion of the Prophet, preferred to rely on his own judgement rather than trust his memory, which he considered to be dangerously fallible. Umar had remarked, "We have many things to say, but we are afraid to say them".

(from Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani's Al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-sahaba (A Biographical Dictionary of the Companions of the Prophet) , vol. 7, p. 440)

Secondly, some people did fabricate hadiths for their own agendas. People who were racist would make up racist hadiths so that people would not question their racism. I think the most prominent example are some of the political hadiths that had been fabricated by the Ummayads to legitmize their rule.

If you want to read more on the science of hadith, which is a whole discipline within the Islamic sciences, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

Thanks again. I feel I'd best keep my promise and not comment substantively.

But the whole issue raises all sorts of questions in my mind that I will mull over and try to read more on.

I have to say, it's very exciting and interesting to see the ferment in Islamic thinking going on under the surface (or what looks like the surface to all too many casual observers).

Thanks again. I feel I'd best keep my promise and not comment substantively.

But the whole issue raises all sorts of questions in my mind that I will mull over and try to read more on.

I have to say, it's very exciting and interesting to see the ferment in Islamic thinking going on under the surface (or what looks like the surface to all too many casual observers).

Jeff, if you check the wikipedia entries, it explains how advanced this area of Islamic science is. It isn't just one or two books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

I think that the main problem, which is disappointing for non-Arabic speakers, is that these volumes of Islamic sciences remain still in the arabic, and not translated into english. But I suppose, because in general, it's really people who go to the arabic universities, or learn arabic first, who study the religious sciences.

Yes, I'm reading, I'm reading!

But I can't take it in all at once.

And what I read makes me think of more questions, and that leads me to googling...

But I'm paying attention and digesting and thinking...!

And bookmarking all these posts...

Fair enough? :p

sophis, thanks for your enlightened posts. can i suggest one day when you have some time, open a thread stating which hadiths are 'fabricated' and which hadiths one should read and follow. i have read online about the women crossing a man when praying rendering his prayer invalid....and was mildly shocked and bemused...(was thinking in the lines of *if a woman wants to test a man's patience she'd wait at the end of his prayers, pass in front of him so he'd have to start over again...and do it again and again, he'd spend his day praying* lol..)..glad you made that clear.

I'd think that'd be a little too much work for sophis :hyper:
Correct me if I'm wrong, sophis, but mostly the fabricated hadiths are not collected in books etcetra but when the matter at hand happens to be based around a hadith that seems controversial, the first step most scholars seem to take is to check the authenticity of the hadith in the books of Bukhari and Muslim and other authenticated hadith compilations through (as far as I know) the matn and isnad tests which determine the degree of authenticity of the hadith through the various degrees of Saheeh, daa'eef, mawdoo', etc.

As sophis has said, the science of hadith is immense in its nature and quite complex...I have read that Immam Bukhari had spent over sixteen years collecting hadiths from all the places he could reach, ensuring as much as he could on their accuracy. So it's very probable that some hadiths simply didn't turn out right with him along the line...

Last of all, sophis: Your posts are always a pleasure to read and to learn and I'm really proud as a Muslim of a Muslim member here with that kind of knowledge. Keep on posting please!

After all that explanation, point is ...

The emancipation of women was a project very dear to the Prophet's :PBUH: heart, this is confirmed by the Qur'an where there is nothing that is demeaning or degarding to women, but rather elevated the legal status of women. :)

Back to the topic. :D

After all that explanation, point is ...

The emancipation of women was a project very dear to the Prophet's :PBUH: heart, this is confirmed by the Qur'an where there is nothing that is demeaning or degarding to women, but rather elevated the legal status of women. :)

Back to the topic. :D

Well, you make an interesting case!

And dear to someone else's heart, I see! ;)