Some Comments to the Neo-Dhahiris as Sunnis

Posted: July 30, 2015 by millatibraheem in Current Affairs, Ulum ul Hadeeth

Let’s start with the famous smart quote from Ibn Hazm that represents the foundation of whatever is being developed after, both on the matter of jurisprudence or creeds:

“I looked up all the arguments that Shafi’i used to deny Istihsaan and I’ve found them useful to deny Qiyas also”
Well, what are they left with as a sunni sub group is Qur’an and “Sunnah”, but what’s sunnah?
Here, hadeeth comes along as the biggest, if not the only, source of sunnah with all its classes, grading, and various sources, with an estimated one million narrations, and a mighty arsenal of 1,400 books or more, and an army of over 50,000 narrators. What is the way to know what’s sunnah and whats not, a chain of questions pop up in ones mind (if the intellect is even being used)…
Did the Prophet really say this? Was it for all Muslims? Was it for a specific case? Am I included here? etc.
In defense of hadeeth, the infamous man-made remedy appears as the savior, the “science” of hadeeth. The “science”? Let’s look it up.

– If a critique is agreed upon, it’s not debatable to propose another criteria for that narrator even if the path of his narrations propose otherwise.

– If some ahadeeth are contradicted, we simply follow the conclusion of a muhaddith who attacked the issue; if muhadditheen disagree about it at one point, we see a closer generation and hope that one solved the issue.
– The categorization of “hassan,” is a cloud of thousands of narrations that can be used or not depending on…what you want.  It is a free-zone.
– If two narrators lived in the same city and coexisted for some time, than surely they met each other.
– If two narrators contradicted one another we choose the narration of the one with “better creed.”
So isn’t hadeeth science a mix of qiyas , istihsaan, and taqleed after all. What makes you better or closer to the truth than any hanafi or maliki? After all, these at least show a more developed legislation structure compared to a “newbie”.
  1. Abu Ubayd says:

    /// So isn’t hadeeth science a mix of qiyas , istihsaan, and taqleed after all. What makes you better or closer to the truth than any hanafi or maliki? After all, these at least show a more developed legislation structure compared to a “newbie”. \\\\

    with that statement – are you trying to say hanafis and malikis have better structure hence they’re better and that qiyas, taqleed etc are valid?

    I see most of your posts are non-conclusive in a way. You leave the reader confused after finishing. That last statement only raised more questions than it answered. It would be appreciated if you pointed out clearly what the right way or the right view is, instead of keeping us hanging with that kind of ending.

    So, is Qiyas acceptable or not besides Quran & Sunnah? Is Taqleed allowed or not?

    • Admin says:

      asalaam alaykum,

      The person who wrote it isn’t here, so I will try to clarify their opinion. I think the post intended to raise more questions as people do not seem to question anything espoused as ‘religious’ and only blindly follow.

      The author is implying that the entire issue of Hadith, the ‘sciences,’ critique of narrators etc. all is redundant. The Zahiris still use Hadith as evidence despite the rules of Ahadith being inconsistent, changeable, and not a science found in the Quran. The ‘science of Hadith’ still involves uncertainty and doubt and these are things that Zahiris claim to reject.

      How can something called ‘Deen’ or ‘revelation’ from Allah have its reliability upon people that we have never met? We are simply receiving secondary sources and not first hand accounts. The entire ‘science’ of Jarh wa Tadil is problematic and a broken chain. Jarh is not revelation from Allah, hence, it is not something under the unchangeable.

      The word of Allah does not need human intervention to be proven. The proof of its uniqueness is intrinsic. Men cannot decide to throw away alleged sayings of the Prophet based upon a unstable ‘science’ that has been evolved throughout time. The true word of God cannot have a difference of opinion on its authenticity.

      Therefore, in conclusion, nothing is 100% reliable except the Quran itself and not more. It should be the primary source of Deen and taken without doubt. The rest is secondary and has no value except in historical context. Taqlid and Qiyas are forbidden in the Quran.

  2. malawakh says:

    many thanks for the admin for his clear answer, and concerning the ending part, lets say we agree that quran supports clearly the frequent fallibility of these approaches ” qias and istihsaan ) thou stating they are haram might require chaining the statement with some contexts

    • Admin says:

      It is problematic issuse since terms like ‘qiyas’, ‘taqlid’, ‘istihsaan’ etc. are all relative to a person. Their definitions are not Quranic original, and instead muscled within the scope of popularity. You will find them being defined in different ways. What is best to do is not even dwell on them; read, understand, and follow the Deen without verbal gymnastics.

      Allah obligates us to follow with knowledge and avoid conjecture/assumptions/doubts. ‘Taqlid’ contradicts this order. Allah tells us to obey, not legislate, revelation is complete; ‘Qiyas’ is additional rules and legislation through analogies. Allah tells us He does not want hardship for us but ease; so whatever Allah tells us is in our best interest. “istihsan’ is personal preference.

      • malawakh says:

        exactly, absolutely agree, we left the orders to be covered with dust within the forgotten book, and we went theorizing chasing the tale of endless logical loopbacks, I mean if we are able to produce holy laws, why would Allah even reveal books, messengers with signs would be enough to rectify the deviation, even in Quran nation are just supposed to go back on the old eternal track as its said to us and the people of Moses ” and remind them of the days of Allah “, ” so that he guides you to the “sunnah”s of those before u

  3. mk ultra says:

    If we consider all the material that has been attributed to the Prophet, regarding what he said and what he did, we can only arrive at 3 conclusions:

    1. it is definitely true
    2. it is definitely false
    3. we do not know, it may be true or false

    What we know to be definitely true, is what is in the Qur’an. What we know to be false is what contradicts the Qur’an. Everything else is in the realm of what we do not know. The only difference being that some narrations are more doubtful than others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s