MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku


Sunday, June 28, 2015

Part 4 (a) : To The Judges Of The Federal Court - "Blackmail by Bukhari"; Salafism and Religion Versus Quran and Islam etc.

This is the fasting month. I wished to highlight some religion versus Quran and Islam things so that you may know more about the difference between the two. 

But there are too many distractions going on in the country. The gomen is not engaged in productive activity. Instead the gomen is wasting time covering up a huge hole it has made in its head (or rather by its head).

I have been addressing the Judges of the Federal Court in a series of posts. There is always some method to the madness. I hope all the Judges and lawyers will read this. I will explain the reason for these series of comments aimed at the Judges later.

First, here are some very barbaric pictures. My apologies to the families of the men in these pictures.  I dont know who they are or what they did but most certainly they do not deserve this type of treatment by the wal retards. 

Perhaps by highlighting how they were killed, it will open the eyes of those who are inclined to this type of kuffur jahil (kafir out of ignorance). Then their deaths might not have been in vain.

This happened somewhere in Syria I think. In the first picture, five men were executed by the ISIS retards by lowering them while inside a cage into a swimming pool until they drowned.

In the second picture below four men were executed by locking them inside a car and blowing it up with an RPG7 rocket.

In the final picture here seven men were killed by setting off  explosive chords tied around their necks.

Why have these 16 men been killed in such a barbaric fashion by their fellow country men, who look like them, speak the same language, eat the same food, enjoy the same music, share the same culture and pray to the same god? The answer is religion. 

This behaviour above is not Islam. This is not Quran. 

This is religion. Religion is different from Islam and the Quran.

The barbaric animals who killed those 16 men above are the Salafis - a quite recent and violent strain of retarded religion that has been conceived, born and bred in the Arabian peninsula aka Saudi Arabia. 

Until the 1970s it was confined to circulating among the camel herders,  the bedouins and their village idiots.  

However to our misfortune, since the 1970s, the Arabian Peninsula has had the good fortune of untold oil wealth, extracted and marketed by the non Muslim Americans and other kafir.  

The Salafis were given a huge financial boost and for the past 40 years the Arabs have been using their oil wealth to spread the Salafi ideology all over the world. Yes they are even here in Malaysia.  The ISIS in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere are a result of oil money being used to spread this Salafi ideology.

To my non Muslim readers, this post is of some length and it is technical and nitty gritty about religion. You may not wish to read all of this because I cannot explain every single religious terminology that may be already familiar to the Muslim reader. 

However if you stick with this, it will be an education. 

I am posting this long academic article, very well articulated by its author. I will try to make it more relevant to us here in Malaysia by adding my comments in blue

The article can be found at this website : 


Big big disclaimer : This is not my article. I did not write this. I may or may not agree with any part of this article.  

The article is titled :  Have You Been Blackmailed With Bukhari Yet?

This article is an academic rebuttal of the Salafi argument. However the way the points are raised (the methodolgy) are relevant to the entire religious argument. 

Note that there is no mention of the Quran at all. I told you folks, Islam and religion are different. The Quran and religion are different.  Ok here goes :

Have You Been Blackmailed With Bukhari Yet?

Many great scholars of Islam have taken a great deal of time and trouble to explain the correct approach towards hadith which are attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as well as the application thereof. Extensive volumes have been written, and in all orthodox schools and seminaries of Islam, the study of ‘Usool (principles) of Hadith’ is mandatory before progressing to higher studies. The subject is so important that the earliest surviving schools (the Hanafi, from the time of the tabaeen – successors to the companions of the Prophet (SAW) and the Malikis, from the generation after that) were at great pains both to collect hadith and regulate and limit their application in the appropriate ways.
Your problem however, most likely, will begin with the above paragraph.
You, if you are a lay Muslim, probably consider the collections of ‘Sahih Bukhari’ and ‘Muslim’ to be the earliest, most authoritative or ‘canonical’ collections of hadith or alleged sayings of the Prophet. In fact, the earliest collection of hadith is by the Hanafis, and then the famous ‘Muwatta’ of Imam Malik

The very first book written after the generation of the Sahabah (companions of the Prophet) was the ‘Kitab Al Athar’ of the Hanafis, containing numerous hadith, and as with the ‘Muwatta’ of Malik, with very short chains as well as their application to jurisprudential considerations.  Hardly anyone today in the UK knows this though.
1. My comments : None of these books exist in their original. In fact none of these books existed in a complete form in history. Later generations said that these books existed. We have no way of being certain. Do read on.

The reason is that today we have a highly heterodox approach to the hadith being expounded by two widespread and well funded groups who would like to claim the field for themselves. 

These people would like to take a hadith and settle a given matter by it alone. For example, there is the eponymous ‘blackmail by Bukhari’, in which an unsuspecting person will be confronted by someone, usually without any kind of Islamic schooling apart from perhaps the ability to read Arabic (often poorly), who nonetheless will try to accost them with the information that; ‘brother/sister, hadith is sahih/in Bukhari, how dare you not act on it!
The necessity for having a grounding in fiqh and Islamic sciences and above all the Quran before one can extract rulings or even the Sunnah itself from the Hadith has been emphasised almost ad nauseum by the notable scholars of Islam past and present.
However, today the situation is acute and the lay people (Muslims and others) need a shield against the misguidance that can result from people being told to follow narrations directly or simply because they are in the canonical collections. 

Further, we are giving an excellent weapon to the enemies of Islam by insisting on traditions which either the scholars of fiqh (law or jurisprudence) or Aqeedah (belief or creed) rejected, despite their being classed as Sahih or in Bukhari, or at the very least did not take literally.

2. My comments : So there were cases where scholars of the past rejected Sahih hadith or those found in Bukhari. Do read on. 
The individuals and organisations spreading this misguidance hide under a false banner of orthodoxyor by accusing their Sunni challengers of ‘hadith rejection’ or sectarianism. The main groups responsible are ‘Ahl al Hadith’ (‘people of hadith’) and the associated Salafi movement. 

It is necessary to highlight at the very outset what the approach of both Sunni Islam and these groups in fact is before going into details – this is because any attempt to rectify these ideas results in a deliberate failure of these mentioned groups to state their actual position towards hadith and the subsequent confusion of the masses and in particular converts to Islam, from whom we receive many correspondences requesting help with this issue.
In summary, the position of Sunni Muslims, as stated by both hadith masters such as Ibn Hajar, Al Nawwawi and more importantly the doctors of law and belief such as Abu Hanifa, Malik and Shafi is that the Quran is certain knowledge because it is mass transmitted (‘muttawatir’) without the possibility of error: essentially, the Quran is narrated by so many different people who did not know each other and could not have collaborated in a lie that it is habitually impossible for it to have been fabricated – and this goes for all of the different recitations too. 

It is logically equivalent to a conspiracy of Medieval English people fabricating the existence of London and this never was exposed. So a good definition of muttawatir is ‘mass transmitted without the possibility of error’. Besides the Quran, there are other muttawatir transmissions, a few in the hadith (such as ‘Whoever lies on behalf of me [The Prophet], let him prepare his place in Hellfire’) and also outside the hadith, such as in the books of fiqh in issues such as how to pray.
Muhaditheen such as Imam Bukhari do not concern themselves with the ‘chains of transmission’ or ‘Isnads’ of Muttawatir narrations – this is because they are certain, profuse and investigating them is of no use.
But besides the Quran and Muttawatir hadith and narrations, there are some 1,000,000 more Hadith (reported sayings or actions of the Prophet (SAW). If we exclude variant chains with the same text, we still have 300,000. If we take those graded as ‘Sahih’ by for example the Shafis, who have a more lenient and inclusive ‘Mustalah of Hadith’ (methodology of Hadith) than the Malikis or Hanafis, then we are left with, say, 20,000 narrations attributed to the Prophet (SAW) which may be ‘sahih’/authentic in chain (isnad).
Virtually none of these 20,000 or so are muttawatir and the vast majority are ‘ahad’ (narrated singly, from a single witness). 

Further, most are narrated by meaning as opposed to verbatim (thus they can contain grammatical errors, which the verbatim speech of the Prophet would not, due to his perfect diction in Arabic).
But the chain (‘isnad’) isn’t everything: we have to look at the content (‘matn’) as well. Once we have found the isnad to be valid, we then examine the text of the narration itself.
Scholars who study the Sunna have laid down many criteria for the study of hadith from the very inclusive (such as the Hanbali school) to the very cautious (Malikis and Hanafis), with the Shafis somewhere in between. 

3. My comments : This means the Hanbali sect (mazhab) were much more easy and flexible in accepting any one hadith, compared to say the Maliki or Hanafi mazhab. Today's Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of Wahhabism / Salafism) largely follows the Hanbali sect. Hence they have more restrictions on anything and everything.

The approach to hadith by experts of the Sunnah is often summarised in five points which are widely recognised:
1) An isnad (chain of narration) comprised of transmitters with good memory and exact recollection
2) An intelligent grasp of what they are narrating as well as unimpeachable morals – and this must be attested to.
3) These two qualities must be applied to each person in the chain – whether it is three people or seven. If anyone is lacking, the hadith becomes less than sound.
Once we have found the Isnad to be valid, we then examine the text of the narration itself:
4) It must not be aberrant (for example, by contradicting the Quran, or a Muttawatir hadith or a more reliable report etc)
5) It must not have a fault rendering it unacceptable
The different usool of hadith then go on to elucidate these matters as well as the types of chains that can be accepted, and many of the differences in practices and creed between the schools of Islam depend on which hadiths they do and do not accept.
4. My comments : Dear reader, you have come thus far. Congrats. Please do read on. Please note that thus far not a single verse of the Quran has been referenced. (Recall I asked earlier 'How relevant is the Quran to Muslims?' It looks like so far it is not relevant.) Bottom line is it is all sectarian.

This is already a huge problem for Ahl al Hadith – since they would like to decide the authenticity of a narration by it’s chain of transmission alone, regardless of the content of the actual narration. 

If, when they tell you a hadith is ‘Sahih’, you ask them ‘Sahih in chain (isnad) or content (matn) or both?’, they will react with anger and confusion, as for them, the content is not even secondary: the chain is king.
There are many different terminologies used in the grading of hadith and they vary according to which method one follows – all of the groups have different methods and variant terms 

  • Malikis do not accept Hadith that are Sahih but clash with the practice of the inhabitants of Medina at the time of Imam Malik
  • Hanafis do not take Sahih hadith if they clash with Quran or rationality
  • Shafi will take them if they meet his ‘five conditions’ which are similar to those of Imam Bukhari 

but an important third ‘grade’ of hadith is ‘Mashoor’ or ‘famous’. This is again another narration typeand has different definitions in the different groups but in short it is more likely than ahad to be true – by being closer to ‘muttawatir’ due to it’s acceptance by early generations or Companions despite not initially being mass narrated.
And now we come to the important part: Muttawatir narrations, be they Quran or hadith are regarded as ‘certain’ by the ijma/consensus of Muslims (not only scholars) and logical, habitual necessity. ‘Mashoor’ are regarded as ‘Ilm ul Tomaneenah’ (or ‘very likely’) and Ahad with an perfect chain are regarded as ‘Ilm ul Zann’ (probable, or a better translation is ‘maybe, maybe not’, or as hadith masterIbn Hajar Al Asqalani puts it in his introduction to his commentary on Sahih Al Bukhari ‘Fath Al Bari’, ’50/50′). 

No one in Sunni Islam says that Ahad hadith are certainly attributable to the Prophet. In fact, to assert this would be a heresy (‘Bid'ah’). 

But Ahl Al Hadith and Salafis, despite their insistence to the contrary do not in fact follow Sunni Islam.
And this last part, namely that ahad narrations (i.e. essentially all of the contents of Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Musnad Imam Ahmad etcare not certain  is what groups such as Ahl Al Hadith and Salafis do not like.

They would, to varying degrees of disagreement amongst themselves, like it if an ahad hadith (single chain narration) that was authentic in chain would be considered as ‘certain knowledge’ i.e. in the same way as the Quran or Muttawatir hadith and thus be acted on.
Some of them will say this openly, but others will deny it by arguing that they (for example Salafis) do have principles or usool of hadith, but in practice, these mean checking the chains of narrations and then comparing them to Bukhari and giving preference to Bukhari over Muslim, Muslim over Tirmidhi etc, and not whether the imams of fiqh took these into account when making rulings. 

Further, these people usually will not check them against Quran and insist that ahad narrations can specify or even abrogate the Quran – and most importantly that they can be taken into belief – i.e. matters which cannot certainly be proved to be part of what the Prophet passed on should be treated as so and taken into creed. There are various glosses and a lot of ‘smoke and mirrors’ with all of this, but that is what their approach amounts to.
It goes without saying, this is not the approach of Sunni Islam.  Nor even Twelver Shi’ism.
Of course, these people, claiming to be ‘Ahl al Hadith’ or the party of hadith claim that they posses the correct methodology and that it is the other groups that are heterodox. 

These people are very hostile to those who do not accept their version of hadith studies (or rather, lack of hadith studies), even if they are from the Salaf such as Abu Hanifa or Malik. However, because of the prestige those leaders or ‘Imams’ enjoy in Muslim communities, their periodic attacks on their scholarship are met with a harsh response. More on this later.
In fact, the dispute is an old one as many converts who were led to serious strife by the question of the correct approach to hadith have realised (for example, Lang in his masterpiece – and I do not use that term lightly – ‘Losing My Religion’). 

There has been a long standing conflict between the people of hadith and the people of fiqh.  

Abu Hanifa was accused of being both ignorant of hadith and of rejecting them. 

Because to these people, rejecting a hadith that is ‘sahih’ in terms of it’s chain is an impossibility (though as we will see, out of necessity, they are often forced to do so, in which case they usually try to pretend that there was some problem with it’s chain, even if the chain was authenticated by Bukhari or Muslim).

  • It is shocking for many Muslims who have been ‘blackmailed by hadith’ to note that many muhadditheen, including some of the most well known such as Imam Bukhari and Imam Ahmad, disparaged the jurists in the strongest terms. 
  • One can see that Bukhari hardly narrates from either Imam Abu Hanifa or Malik
  • And how is it that the earliest book of hadith, by one of the people who set up hadith studies in the first place, Imam Malik’s ‘Muwwata’, is not considered one of the reliable books of hadith and not in the ‘six sahihs’?
The inescapable conclusion is that the imams of fiqh were useless in hadith.  Or that the muhaditheen sometimes went overboard in their zeal, as we shall come to see soon.
One of the tricks used by Salafists to avoid openly insulting the Imams Malik and Abu Hanifa in particular is to insist that the scholars of hadith, despite their limited specialisation and competence (namely in Hadith only) should nonetheless be given priority about what is and is not ‘Islam’ and to imply that people like Abu Hanifa were ‘Imams’ in name only but lacked all competence in Hadith. 

This is a most dangerous method: Imams of hadith sometimes disparaged doctors of creed and law by narrating that some only knew five hadith (i) and other Muhaditheen went so far as to accuse people like Abu Hanifa or Malik of apostasy (ii).

5. My comments : Ok I know it is getting to be very boring but do read on. Please understand that up till now not a single verse of the Quran has been referenced. (I hope the Judges of the Federal Court will read this as well.)  So far this has been an argument about one group of people disagreeing with another group of people. People who may have lived and died a thousand years ago. Yet it is these silly arguments that are being used until today to drown people in a swimming pool in Syria, to chop off peoples' heads, to shoot 38 innocent tourists in Tunisia, to insist that people should not wear shorts, leotards etc. Arguing over 1000 year old arguments of dead people. No reference to the Quran.

Will continue ...Part 4 (b) : To The Judges Of The Federal Court - "Blackmail by Bukhari"; Salafism and Religion Versus Quran and Islam etc. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.