Early Islamic Legal Theories on Hadith | Part 5 | Dr. Shabir Ally
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- In the first centuries of Islam, four significant schools developed and established legal precedents among Muslims. The four major schools that took hold were the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, and Hanbali schools, with each having different principles of making use of hadith. The two earliest schools, the Maliki and Hanafi were more focused on observing the practices of the early Muslims and using reason. However, as more and more hadith came to be collected and compiled, the Shafi school placed more emphasis on using hadith to understand the legal statements of the Quran. With the Hanbali school, this methodology was taken to its logical conclusion-that hadith should take priority over reason whenever there seems to be any new question arising among the growing Muslim population. Watch as Dr. Shabir Ally describes how this evolution occurred.
If you enjoy this video, please support our work financially by:
Visiting our website www.QuranSpeaks... OR
Sending an etransfer to iGive@QuranSpeaks.com OR
Subscribing monthly at Patreon.com/QuranSpeaks
► DONATE: www.quranspeaks...
► SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
Facebook: / letthequranspeak
Instagram: / quranspeaks.tv
Twitter: / quran_speaks
Love the explanation... I have the same conclusion but am keeping it to myself as letting other people know will only invite troubles.
Subah Allah !
I know there are many that would shout down “Quranism” as apostasy, but it really is the only true way to know the word of God. Trusting anything else is to put our trust in the infallibility and and imperfections of humans, rather than the grace of God.
You do realise that the Qur'an was transmitted by humans right? If you trust them to transmit the Qur'an perfectly why do you doubt them about Hadith?
@@mohamedsheikhmohamed5411when if comes to the quran it was passed from God to Angle to prophet then his followers.
Hadith was done different based on human understanding . Two different things done differently. 1 is word of God other is understanding by human.
@@A.D.540 That's a grave misunderstanding. The Messenger pbuh was inspired by Allah SWT to teach Islam. He didn't need to use his personal understanding or in some cases he couldn't. For example the famous Hadith where the angel Jibril appearing as a man in front of the companions was asking him questions. All the answers the Messenger pbuh gave were highly specific and can't be things someone just deduced by themselves. Also things like what happens after death, on the day of judgement, things that the prophet described that weren't within his proximity, things to happen in the future. All these things couldn't have come from his understanding as they're beyond human understanding and are from Allah SWT.
One can't accept the Qur'an is the word of Allah SWT then deny the Messenger's words. They're either all from Allah SWT or neither is. If you doubt the chain of narration after the Prophet PBUH then you're doubting the same people who transmitted the Qur'an.
Islam is either the truth or it's another false religion like Christianity, Hinduism, etc.
Also I'm must ask. Do you hold the same position as Shabir that the Qur'an isn't perfectly preserved and it contains mistakes?
@@mohamedsheikhmohamed5411
That is an incorrect statement. The Quran was transmitted via Allah azzawajjal to Jibreel then via Wahi to Prophet Muhammed s a w. From the Prophets recitation it was written down on FINE PARCHMENT, as we are told in the Quran. Then when it was completed, the order of the verses were given by Jibreel to Rasool.
The hadith are man-made and were NOT authorised by Rasool, nor Abu Bakr Siddique nor by Hazrat Umar.
@@user-k229 Show me the verse in the Qur'an that says that the revelation was written down in fine parchment.
Furthermore the prophet Muhammad pbuh couldn't read or write according to the Qur'an. So he was entirely dependent on his companions to transmit the Qur'an correctly. Our position is that did that successfully alongside transmission of the Hadith.
Assalamualaikum all and team Let the Qur'an speak.
Much appreciated.
I clearly see a slow-gradual yet definite inclination towards The Quran day by day. Scholars have a greater liability and I feel despite huge risk, Dr Alley is moving in the correct direction. Thank you for exposing Imam Shafii. Appreciate the ending with Islam is in The Quran - not in the hadith or sunnah. Alhamdulillah.
He did not say that Islam is not in the sunnah, and he was not talking about sunnah at all, he was talking about the books of hadith.
@@nekitamo6307 After Imam Shafi there is not a single Sunnah which is not supported by a written Hadith. That's the ruling he gave and later all the imams wrote multiple books of hadiths containing Sunnah. Literally, today, there is no distinction between Hadith and Sunnah from content perspective.
@@nekitamo6307 Help me understand the difference I'm so confused as to the difference.
It might sounds empty but it's very important. Allah is Great.
POWERFUL REALISATION AND A TRUE STATEMENT FROM YOU DR ALLY WHEN YOU SAID:.
YOU CAN HAVE ISLAM WITH THE HADITH BOOKS BUT.......
YOU CANNOT HAVE ISLAM WITHOUT THE QURAN.
So we need to think, Did Allah azzawajjal send Rasool to Deliver the man made hadith or did Allah Send him to Deliver the Quran alone? ( The answer is in the Quran for those readers who wish to know ).
✨️✨️✨️✨️✨️✨️✨️✨️
Thank you, Dr. Ally, I learned a lot. It fascinates me how the hadith developed almost in an opposite manner to the gospels. I draw different dates from the internet:
661 Muawiyah starts Umayyad caliphate
691 abd al Malik erects Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, first overtly Islamic coinage, quotes from Quran
752 al Mansur begins the Abbasid caliphate
767 Abu Hanifa dies
795 Malik ibn Anas dies
820 al Shafii dies
855 Ahmad ibn Hanbal dies
870 al Bukhari dies
These dates that you have given are true. Shabir has confused the birth year of these Imams as their death year. Should be a slip of the tongue coz this is way huge a blunder for student of history to make.
Yes indeed, the hadith are akin to the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John!
@@user-k229 do you have a reading comprehension problem? The Christian you responded to said that the gospel is collected in an opposite manner of the hadith, implying his texts are more authentic that Hadiths. You're saying the complete opposite thing but replying that you're agreeing with them 🤔
From a historical point of view, the Hadiths are often considered more reliable than the New Testament texts for the following reasons:
- **Chronological Proximity**: The Hadiths were recorded closer to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad compared to the New Testament texts, which were written decades after Jesus' time.
- **Isnad (Chain of Transmission)**: The Hadiths have an isnad system that meticulously traces the chain of narrators back to the Prophet Muhammad, providing a means to verify authenticity.
- **Verification of Narrators**: The narrators of Hadiths were subject to rigorous scrutiny regarding their reliability, character, and memory, which was less formalized in the transmission of New Testament texts.
- **Volume of Documentation**: There is a larger volume of Hadiths with extensive cross-referencing between different collections, enabling greater verification and comparison of reports.
- **Methodology of Compilation**: Islamic scholars developed systematic methods for the collection, classification, and evaluation of Hadiths, whereas the New Testament texts were compiled over a longer period without a similarly rigorous method.
- **Consistency and Preservation**: The Hadiths have been preserved with a high degree of consistency and care, whereas the New Testament texts have variations and discrepancies among different manuscripts.
- **Role of Oral Tradition**: The early Islamic community placed significant emphasis on oral tradition with strict memorization practices, helping to maintain the accuracy of Hadiths.
- **Historical Context and Authentication**: The Hadiths include detailed historical context and specific events, which can be cross-verified with other historical sources.
Finally !! The Hadiths are like a silent killer in Islam, rotting it without us knowing.
Always mention Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him
We do not need to say this everytime we utter the word prophet. If he was present today he would have felt irritated and mocked by this. Moreover, there is no such proof from Allah to utter so each time we utter the word prophet. Uttering once in a speech should be good enough. Even if we have it done silently it should be ok.
@@Conscious_and_Inspiredhow do you know he would have felt irritated or mocked?
@@Zaid26127 Rational thinking. How would you feel if the same is done to you by your community? We all are humans, so he was.
@@Conscious_and_Inspired rational thinking based on what evidence?
@@Conscious_and_Inspired human beings differ in their likes and dislikes. I want to know what evidence you based this on
Dr Shabir Ally, please embark on doing your own PRINTED Quran translation. I am very sure that you would do a far better job than the one's we currently have.
Thank you.
The issues I have are that the hadith are man made, put together over 200yrs after the passing of the Prophet.
Bukhari was from Persia, his mother was a Zoroastrian! A fire worshipper! So why do Sunni muslims put so much emphasis on hadith?
Many even believe the hadith to be wahi!! Astaqfirrullah.
In Islam it should be the Quran that is the PRIMARY SOURCE and taken from the Quran should be the books of FIRQ!
The man-made hadith should not even be part of our DEEN.
20 minutes of pure pleasure
Beautifully explained. Thanks a lot.
WOW! Dr Ally, you hit the nail on the head when you said that THE WISDOM IS THE QURAN!! It is NOT the Quran and the wisdom being hadith!! This is just blasphemy.
In the English language we have ONE WORD FOR THE WORD "AND" BUT IN ARABIC THERE ARE 22 WORDS FOR "And."
JazakAllah MashAllah
May the peace and blessings of Allah be with us all. I need a live interview I have something very important to say InshaAllah if the opportunity is giving.
Its kinda brings into light the average intellect of the submitting believers, stop thinking and copy the person before you, if he bends you bend, dont ask why he did that, "thinking is forbidden". calling this a Science is kinda funny.
What you didn't mention in the 20 minutes you spoke is the consensus of the four schools of jurisprudence on that Sahih Hadiths trump any opinions.
70% of Islamic law is from the Hadiths. You wouldn't know how to pay zakat, pray, fast or do any act of worship if it weren't for the Hadith.
You're underlying assumption is that the six books of Hadiths are fabricated. At least that's what you hint to. You have to prove that this is the case before building suppositions on top of shaky ground.
The consensus of Christians is that Jesus is son of God. The Quran is clear that "consensus" means nothing. You look at arguments based on their merit, not based on how many people believe in them.
@@Zulfiqar32 It's very alarming and also telling how can so casually equate the consensus of Christians to the consensus of Muslims. Do you also equate the Qur'an with the Bible? The few early scattered, persecuted nameless Christians to the 100k+ triumphant powerful self-ruled Companions of Prophet Muhammad pbuh? Do you compare the best Ummah to the people of the book? It's a very incompatible comparison. You need to revise your faith in Islam if you think these are comparable.
You need to study history too cause early Christians didn't have a consensus on Jesus being son of God. Look up Ebonites. A late possibly starting from 4th century consensus of Christians on Jesus is not equal to 1300 years of consensus starting from the prophet Muhammad's pbuh time among Muslims on Hadith.
Even if we ignored the 100s of years of consensus we'd find strong evidence of Hadith being binding. The Qur'an clearly states to obey the prophet Muhammad pbuh and follow his example. Logically there's no reason to believe in a prophet of God and then refuse their orders. Shabir's main problem with Hadith is it hasn't been written down early. He's 💯 wrong about that. There's extant 1st and 2nd century Hadith manuscripts. In fact a narrator of Hadith who'd lost his manuscripts and wasn't known for memorising them would be downgraded in reliability. This is a known 'illa or flaw that Hadith scholars know but shabir doesn't. Hadith was not written down is a myth propagated by Christian missionaries and Hadith rejectors. There's evidence against that claim that isn't very hard to find.
@@mohamedsheikhmohamed5411 The Quran's preservation holds up to to historical scrutiny. The apparent morality of the first generations as a whole does not, thus the concept of hadiths being "authentic" without rigorous historical scrutiny is a not a intellectual sound way of going about it.
For example, we know for sure that the first or second generation of Muslims were involved in the murder of the Muhammad(saw) grandson, Imam Hussein along with his his family, his infant son etc, and the remaining captives(family of Muhammad(saw)) were put in chains and taken to the Caliph Yazid as a prize.
That my friend is what happened while the first/second generation of Muslims were still around.
Does that sound similar to the Israelites betraying Moses(as) and Aaron(as) and worshipping the golden calf, while the Prophet was away?
Or does it sound similar to the betrayal of Jesus(as) by his community?
Sounds a lot like the communities Allah(swt) condemns in the Holy Quran.
We also know Muhammad(saw) family was cursed from the pulpit in mosques for 100 years during the Umayyad dynasty.
Did you absorb that? Muhammad(saw) own family was cursed from the pulpit for a century not soon after the religion was revealed.
My point is the the assumption that the first generation or the second generation were somehow morally superior is a false one that does not hold up to scrutiny.
Our faith should remain with Allah(swt), his messenger(saw) and those whom he pointed out as pious, who also hold up to historical scrutiny.
Hadith being written down early means nothing regards to their authenticity when we know the Umayyads and Abbasids fabricated hadith en masse.
A character like Muawayih, who was Machiavellian in nature, can not and logically should not be praised in anyway, yet we find hadith saying he is among those that will enter heaven.
Once you understand history, you see how absurd some of these fake hadith really are.
Read early Islamic history my friend. The hadith can be a great source to derive our religion, but one must understand the social, political climate from where certain hadith came out of first before determining their truth or falsehood.
Well I couldn't hear in this Video, that Dr. Shabir Ally said that the whole of ahadith were fabricated. I think what he is trying to say is, that a muslim should concentrate on the quran (which is the word of God) and study the ahadith (which are transmissions by human beings that are making faults) with a certain sense of criticism. Not to abandon the hadith per se but to be more cautious when reading them.
@@TheEstateOfHoHu He's not flat out saying that Hadith is fabricated. He's throwing doubts about the reliability of it by falsely claiming that Hadith was never written down prior to the prophet's death.
Your seperation of Hadith and Qur'an doesn't make sense. Both are transmitted by humans. Both are from Allah as prophet Muhammad pbuh was inspired and didn't preach his own opinion.
The same people who remitted the Qur'an remitted the Hadith. You can't say they're completely reliable in narrating one but not the other. The Hadith isn't an accessory to Islam it's part of it's core.
Rejecting one Sahih Hadith is a rejection of all Hadiths.
The importance of hadith seems to increase more and more as time progresses, accompanied by a proliferation of hadith. Hanifa seems to have a lot of skepticism towards them, Malik has his own small collection (I'm not sure why his earlier collection doesn't take precedence over al Bukhari though), al Shafii relies heavily on them, then Hanbali considers them inviolable, then we get massive collection after collection of hadith.
This is opposite of the 4 gospels. Written decades after the death of Jesus. They don't split the Church into 4 different schools but they are universally acknowledged. There is a proliferation of stories in later centuries but these are dismissed and only the original 4 are maintained.
Hadith forgery and weakness in human memory are all acknowledged by Muslims themselves from the beginning. And scholars were free to employ their skills in grading them, and thus many hadiths are not unanimously accepted to be of a particular grade. This is unlike Gospel's history were Daeef (weakly attested) Gospels were done away with and its followers were persecuted, leaving the later generations no opportunity to revisit them to understand Christ's word better.
If Muslim Muhaddithoon had existed to collect the Gospels in accordance with the Hadith methodology, they would be deem not necessary that if you include a particular Gospel in a canon, that all of its content should be authentic. Rather all the 20 or so Gospels would have been included, and verses would be categorised as Sahih (authentic) or Daeef (weak) based on investigative criteria (like the overlap between these Gospels, deviant theology etc.). Any unique verses would be tagged as "Ahaad", which could be optionally acted upon, but would not be considered to form the creed of the Religion.
But today, if we put the Gospels through the Hadith filter, all the Gospels would straightway be classified as Daeef (which means 'weak' or 'uncertain') as there are no Isnaads attached to the Gospels in the first place, and they are found in a language totally different from the one spoken by Jesus.
That said, I do not believe that all the hadiths that are classified as authentic in the hadith books are actually authentic. This grading is done by scholars who criticize the isnaad (chains of narration) based on the character & skills of the narrators. This alone is not a foolproof method for authentication, and hard to apply to people who are long gone. Matn (textual) criticism is also necessary.
When we do textual criticism of the Gospels, we can see the Gospels falling apart on lot of accounts: we find more propaganda in the Gospels about Jesus than his actual teachings (especially in John); Their style of writing resembles so much to the Greek Epics, and it's unthinkable that Jesus used such a style; Gospels seem to have been influenced by Pauline theology (which is a literal interpretation of Isaiah 53), and it is noteworthy that Paul precedes the Gospels as he doesn't seem to quote any of the Gospels; Johanine theology is starkingly similar of the Greek Logos theology that existed just before Jesus' era; Trinitarian doctrine is not found in the Gospels; etc. etc. etc.
@@isa-atm Time. Time is not on your side. The hadith just get bigger and more elaborate as the centuries go along. There is nothing you can do about that.
Good talk👍🏾
Mashallah
Well explained
So exactly where does the part saying it’s ok to beat your wife come together?
I would like you to read 4:34-35, 4:127-130, 25:68-71, 9:71, 2:187, 30:21, 4:19 bounce back and forth between them and do not rely solely on English translation. Your answer will be solved inside the Quran itself. Have a good day.
Hints:
-The word rahma comes from rahm which is mother’s womb and it denotes being kind to others like a mother with her child and being compassionate and understanding. The english translation only gives one facet, mercy.
-Ma’ruf. The word ma’ruf does not blandly mean “doing good to others” it means doing good to them in a way that they recognize or accept, so you have to understand them and become familiar with them.
Better yet, read the book No Truth Without Beauty or listen to Abou El Fadl.
Assalamu Alaikum.
@@thepizzashaverisen5631ur great
Without the Hadith where are you getting the story of how the Qur'an was compiled? The Qur'an itself doesn't describe it's textual history. Since you've established that the Hadith is riddled with narratives. The compilation of the Qur'an is one of those narratives.
Without Hadith books we have no idea how the Qur'an came to be or why it has so many readings. In fact without Hadith the multiple readings are proof of the corruption of the text.
The standard narrative in the Hadith corpus is problematic and there’s other ways of authenticating the texts of the Quran without Hadith, such as the memorisers and manuscripts and the content of the Quran, itself.
@@Nazam44 The Hadith gives us the history of the Qur'an. Without Hadith it's a book with an unknown history. The memorisers can't testify to the history only for the text. Shabir argued against memorisation being an infallible thing. Look up his video on the most authentic Islamic text timestamp 4:45. It would be unfair to apply that standard only for Hadith and not the Qur'an. Oddly enough shabir does exactly that when accepting Abu Bakr and Uthman RA compiled the Qur'an, the narration is found in Hadith books, while simultaneously not accepting the Hadith. He seems very inconsistent with that.
Regarding the manuscripts there are 1st century Hadith manuscripts also. So you have to either accept both or reject both you can't cherry pick like shabir.
Also you haven't addressed my question regarding the Qiraa'at. Without Hadith you must concede that these are corruptions in the Qur'an. Therefore accepting Shabir's position on the memorisation's fallibility. Furthermore you're going to have early manuscripts that contain these "corruptions" compounding your difficulty to show a single original qiraa'a. This brings into question then whether the Qur'an is preserved.
Rejecting Hadith for weak narrations is like seeing a spider in your house then deciding to burn the entire house. Sure you've killed the spider but now you're homeless.
I like shabby ...
🙏👍