to bite his father's genitals

[کیش]

whats the **** are you talking about ?

Theirs a abu Dawud hadith about having sex with a livestock animal.

Bang, found it. I posted this one a while, and got no answers


What's up with these Abu Dawud hadiths. This is the reason why I deny hadiths of people after Imam Muslim

Book 38, Number 4449:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.

Book 38, Number 4450:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.



You see how Abu Dawud, Ibn Ahmed really didn't do their research on the people they were recording their narration from. This makes their books invalid. It contradicted itself on the next hadith.

[کیش]

The Problem here is that people are cant accept this hadith because of their own personal predefined boundaries and understandings they impose on Muhammad(saw).

certain people here are idealizing their own Hang-Ups and anxieties from their culture and imposing it on the Prophet

the context in which the Hadith makes such a statement has no moral or behavioral problem; It's telling off people who are pompous about their ancestry as such things stir fitnah. The rules of adab deal with people who don't engage in behaviors out of such hubris. Thereby there is really nothing wrong with the hadith

what's wrong is how you see the hadith, instead of running away from it; grow up, take it as is.

That's not the problem. I trust Bukhari and Muslim hadiths. Why hasn't this Hadith been up in those books? It's because they felt it was not a authentic narration so they left it out. Ibn Ahmed must have picked it up somewhere decades later.

[afghan]

this is an authentic hadith....it isn't made up I have seen it in many known collections.

the prophet has set example by his words and acts, i still cannot believe he could have used this sorta language.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's not the problem. I trust Bukhari and Muslim hadiths. Why hasn't this Hadith been up in those books? It's because they felt it was not a authentic narration so they left it out. Ibn Ahmed must have picked it up somewhere decades later.

Well I'm not claiming to be a hadith expert, but I have taken some courses on hadith compilation history; Bukhari and Muslim did not know every single ahadith, they knew many many ahadith, but it would have been impossible for either to keep track of them all. Hence other ahadith collections by other compilers are there.

The Sahih Sitta are known primarily because of their size/volume and proportion of ahadith which are Sahih

Musnad, while being a much smaller collection, is known for its authenticity, albeit may have a higher number ahadith that are hasan (strong) but aren't (sahih) because of the narrators maybe secondary narrators yet still of commendable integrity. It doesn'y diminish their authenticity just their grading. It's like the difference between an A+ and an A

[کیش]

Bukhari recorded thousands of hadiths, but written then just a fraction of that. He would write don't the Hadith from a narrator who he felt like he could trust, judging by his character. He would stay three days so he can see his actions, then hear what he heard about the Prophet.

If you read Muslim, you will see how similar the hadiths look like. Pay attention on what they have compared to Abu Dawud, and Ahmed. Abu Dawud has sleeping with animals, write before the Hadith which banned it. In Ibn Ahmed you have this dads genitals on their, which is outrageous.

If you read Bukhari hadiths, you feel like the Prophet is their as you read it from Hadith to Hadith. In these other books, it has this unreliable feeling to it. I am also not saying all their hadiths are fabricated, but one messes up the bunch.

[Yaggi]

************************************

[Yaggi]

************************************

[Mujib]

Before rushing to far-fetched judgments about hadith scholars and entire hadith collections we should verify the grade of the hadith, the accuracy of the translation, and the proper explanation and interpretation. Like the Qur'an, hadiths cannot be interpreted by non-scholars. The scholars of hadith have written volumes and volumes of commentaries on hadith collections.

If someone has some issue with a particular hadith they can easily ask a scholar for an explanation. As to this particular hadith, a brother elsewhere mentioned that "bite" here means "stick to" and that "genitals" refers to "semen." The meaning then, according to this explanation, is that the one who is proud of his descent in the Jahili manner should remember that his origin is his father's fluid.

The hadith sciences are vast and the Imams and scholars of hadith have meticulously worked to collect, grade, and transmit hadiths. Judging hadiths based on our personal opinions or understandings of the translations we read is amateurish and it is a disservice to ourselves and others.

As for Imams Ahmad (there is no "Ibn Ahmed"), Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud, they lived in the same era. Imam Muslim (ra) was a student of Imam Ahmad (ra) and Imam Bukhari (ra). Imam Abu Dawud (ra) was also a student of Imam Ahmad (ra).

Lastly, let us watch our language and the way we speak about the hadiths of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).

[کیش]

^^^

I didn't now "scholars" are prophets, and only they can interpret hadiths. They mist haven't read the Hadith that near the day of judgement, the scholars would be corrupt. Like today.


I have shown how Abu Dawud hadiths contradicted themselves, and Bukhari hadiths. If no one wants to respect my hard work, because am not a Sheik Arab; **** yourself. I don't need a Sheik to teach me about god, maybe all you people do.

[ScimitarXEdge]

we didn't know you were a Prophet.....and could determine which are the words of Rasul(saw) and which are forged, without doing an extensive study on the matter.

[کیش]

^^^

I should have made myself clear on that issue.


Not my fault "Muslims" don't do any research. The only time their exposed through hadiths is through imams and scholars. Have they ever read the collection on their own? I doubt it.

[ScimitarXEdge]

the prophet has set example by his words and acts, i still cannot believe he could have used this sorta language.

Well believe it

the Prophet used to discuss sexual positions and other very personal private topics

examine


'If he likes he may (have intercourse) being on the back or in front of her, but it should be through one opening (vagina).' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3365)"

NOW I realize this is not the same subject, BUT it demonstrates a point; here is something that Nabi(saw) mentions which is considered Taboo and "be-adab" for us.

Would you be horrified at the idea that the Nabi(saw) would discuss sex, If he was any other man you may immediate rise up in anger and yell BEGHAIRAT BEGHAIRAT. What this shows is how we have been taught Islam is wrong and it's not actually Nabi(saw)'s way.

We're looking at the hadith from the wrong lense, seeing it from the point of view of our cultural hang ups rather than reality.

[کیش]

^^^

If you read the hadith collection, he mentions a lot about sex as it is a big part of life. But some hadiths from Abu Dawud and Ahmed are out of Character.

I'm also still waiting for this. Theirs hadiths in Sahih Bukhari/Muslim which are the same, but are worded different, and from different narrators. Why didn't Abu Dawud do some more research before pasting this in his book?

Book 38, Number 4449:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.

Book 38, Number 4450:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.



You see how Abu Dawud, Ibn Ahmed really didn't do their research on the people they were recording their narration from. This makes their books invalid. It contradicted itself on the next hadith.

[ScimitarXEdge]

^^^

I should have made myself clear on that issue.


Not my fault "Muslims" don't do any research. The only time their exposed through hadiths is through imams and scholars. Have they ever read the collection on their own? I doubt it.

Well Bukhari and Muslim were Imams and Scholars, so I don't understand how you can endorse them and then claim scholars are passing around falsified information.

I do agree that we shouldn't blindly follow scholars, but we also should not blindly follow our own Emotional reactions and weak reasonings to discredit scholarship. We should debate scholarship, with scholarship and concrete analysis.

I'm not saying you're doing so merely out of your emotions or cultural motives, but your reasonings is that it is forged because it's not in Bukhari or Muslim, that's not sound reasoning. Both Scholars going through thousands and thousands of ahadith, doesn't mean they have gone through each and every ahadith.

[ScimitarXEdge]

^^^

If you read the hadith collection, he mentions a lot about sex as it is a big part of life. But some hadiths from Abu Dawud and Ahmed are out of Character.

Out of character? How? Nabi(saw) was a human being like we are...he was just as dynamic and broad in character if not more so than most humans.

and you have to admit, back home if we heard a man talk about sex the way Nabi(saw) he would immediately be called names and sneared at.