Islam and Slavery

Omar del Sur

RETIRED
VIP
anyone who comes along and belittles Sahih al-Bukhari- this is almost like a Quranist. they might not say they're Quranist but it is a very Quranist-like direction they're pushing. they are attacking the most trusted book of hadith. be wary of such people.
 

Given that when Al-Bukhari published his book, some scholars criticized him for containing false hadiths (according to them) in his book.
I agree with the article Rejecting the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when one is aware that it is his hadith constitutes blatant disbelief.

But as far as I know the reaspn why you reject hadiths is because you believe they afe wrongly attributed to the Prophet and not the prophets words. This is different from knowing it's the prophet scw words and rejecting it
 
It was a system that existed, a wrong system. People shouldn't see it in different way than that.
That’s where in which you open a can of worms. Don’t get me wrong, the whole concept of slavery makes me very uncomfortable and Allah knows I struggle with it, especially concubinage and I can go into detail why I find it incredibly confusing and why it requires a lot of cognitive dissonance on my end since it shatters a lot of concepts I believed to be entrenched. But how can you say it’s a wrong system if a the best of man took part in it and didn’t fully stop this system? I agree it isn’t an ideal system even from an Islamic perspective as many reforms were put in place to lessen the overall hardship although unfortunately latter Muslims didn’t take heed and even made it worse by trading eunuchs which is a big evil.
 

Aurelian

Forza Somalia!
VIP
anyone who comes along and belittles Sahih al-Bukhari- this is almost like a Quranist. they might not say they're Quranist but it is a very Quranist-like direction they're pushing. they are attacking the most trusted book of hadith. be wary of such people.
How come, and some scholars of his time disapproved of him including non authentic hadiths?

These scholars include but not limited to
Hafez al-Daraqutni
Abi Al-Fadl bin Ammar, the martyr
My father Ali Al-Hussein bin Muhammad Al-Ghassani Al-Jiani
Hafez Rashid al-Din Abu al-Hussein Yahya bin Ali al-Attar
Abu Masoud Al-Dimashqi
Ibn Hajar
 

Aurelian

Forza Somalia!
VIP
I agree with the article Rejecting the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when one is aware that it is his hadith constitutes blatant disbelief.

But as far as I know the reaspn why you reject hadiths is because you believe they afe wrongly attributed to the Prophet and not the prophets words. This is different from knowing it's the prophet scw words and rejecting it
yes, but Salafis and Wahabis don't have a room for your opinion or belief, you disagree with the authenticity of the hadiths, you aren't a Muslim. Simple as that.
 
yes, but Salafis and Wahabis don't have a room for your opinion or belief, you disagree with the authenticity of the hadiths, you aren't a Muslim. Simple as that.
Not true.

You disagree with the hadiths because their contents make you uncomfortable(this is nifaq and deficiency in iman). This is very different from the methodology of the scholars you listed above who disagreed with the trustworthiness of some of the narrators in the chain of hadith.
 
yes, but Salafis and Wahabis don't have a room for your opinion or belief, you disagree with the authenticity of the hadiths, you aren't a Muslim. Simple as that.
Islamqa does come up with a good point though. If most people of the past who have a scholarly background accepted the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, then who are we modern Muslims who have no such background to reject it? What methods can someone with no such training utilize to reject it and wouldn’t the reason be based on their own desires and thoughts?
 

Aurelian

Forza Somalia!
VIP
Islamqa does come up with a good point though. If most people of the past who have a scholarly background accepted the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, then who are we modern Muslims who have no such background to reject it? What methods can someone with no such training utilize to reject it and wouldn’t the reason be based on their own desires and thoughts?
no everyone accepted, in fact some criticized some of it for being completely false.
 
We can say that for all things marriage was also system that existed so were many things. If Allah does not forbid a system that he acknowledges his existence then it means it's halal and allowed
Yes, but slavery is different as it’s a system that isn’t ideal in the slightest and it’s only done for the punishment of disbelievers and due to the fact that it was the norm of the time. We have a lot of Hadith about freeing slaves ect. That’s the ideal.
 
no everyone accepted, in fact some criticized some of it for being completely false.
Clearly the vast majority did, if not 98% of modern Muslim scholarship and modern Muslims wouldn’t be relying on it. There is a reason why the narrative that Sahih Bukhari and the 6 other books are seen as the most authentic and have been positioned as only second to the Quraan has been the case for centuries.
 

Aurelian

Forza Somalia!
VIP
Not true.

You disagree with the hadiths because their contents make you uncomfortable(this is nifaq and deficiency in iman). This is very different from the methodology of the scholars you listed above who disagreed with the trustworthiness of some of the narrators in the chain of hadith.
the called the hadiths false hadiths, meaning they were made up hadiths which were included in the 'Sahih' Al-Bukhari, a book that is considered the most sound book after the Quran, they put this book in the same bar as Quran, while there are scholars going back and forth of some of the hadiths in it, and going "yeah this hadiths that this scholars discredited is indeed not authentic" and then go and claim anyone not believing in it to be not true Muslim.
 

World

VIP
Not true.

You disagree with the hadiths because their contents make you uncomfortable(this is nifaq and deficiency in iman). This is very different from the methodology of the scholars you listed above who disagreed with the trustworthiness of some of the narrators in the chain of hadith.
Whilst i disagree with @Aurelian, it’s important to accept saheeh hadith.

To say it is nifaq, kufr, and deficiency of imam not to accept bukhari makes no sense. It was written 230 years after the death of the prophet (saw) and 4000 KM away from Makkah. Nobody has the authority to say that it is a component of our faith.
 
the called the hadiths false hadiths, meaning they were made up hadiths which were included in the 'Sahih' Al-Bukhari, a book that is considered the most sound book after the Quran, they put this book in the same bar as Quran, while there are scholars going back and forth of some of the hadiths in it, and going "yeah this hadiths that this scholars discredited is indeed not authentic" and then go and claim anyone not believing in it to be not true Muslim.
You are very low IQ and do not have the slightest of idea of what you are talking about. There are many categories of hadith and these are given based on the state of the hadith both it's main and sand.

Wtf, is even false hadith? Bring evidence where they called the hadiths in sahih bukhari false hadith? Even if they called false hadith this was based on subjective valid criticism of both the sanad and main of the hadith not because they did not like the hadith like you and other heretics do.
 
Whilst i disagree with @Aurelian, it’s important to accept saheeh hadith.

To say it is nifaq, kufr, and deficiency of imam not to accept bukhari makes no sense. It was written 230 years after the death of the prophet (saw) and 4000 KM away from Makkah. Nobody has the authority to say that it is a component of our faith.
Yet why is it, 1200 yrs later, Bukhari and the 6 other books are seen as second to the Quraan, is it a case of scholars throughout the century agreeing? It’s like a bunch of scientists all agreeing with a concept and someone who has barely finished high school having issues with it. That’s the point Islamqa makes and it’s a reasonable one.
 

Aurelian

Forza Somalia!
VIP
You are very low IQ and do not have the slightest of idea of what you are talking about. There are many categories of hadith and these are given based on the state of the hadith both it's main and sand.

Wtf, is even false hadith? Bring evidence where they called the hadiths in sahih bukhari false hadith? Even if they called false hadith this was based on subjective valid criticism of both the sanad and main of the hadith not because they did not like the hadith like you and other heretics do.
what you call a hadith that was completely discredited? A false hadith. They literally called out hadhiths in Sahih and wrote books about them.
 
Whilst i disagree with @Aurelian, it’s important to accept saheeh hadith.

To say it is nifaq, kufr, and deficiency of imam not to accept bukhari makes no sense. It was written 230 years after the death of the prophet (saw) and 4000 KM away from Makkah. Nobody has the authority to say that it is a component of our faith.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I did not say its kufr to reject sahih bukhari. I said rejecting sahih hadith because it's content makes you uncomfortable indicates nifaq and deficiency in Iman. This man even says slavery is not allowed in the quran. Its clear he has no problem rejecting clear verses from the scripture and the prophets words if they don't align with his world views. If that's not lack of Imam what is it then?
 

World

VIP
Yet why is it, 1200 yrs later, Bukhari and the 6 other books are seen as second to the Quraan, is it a case of scholars throughout the century agreeing? It’s like a bunch of scientists all agreeing with a concept and someone who has barely finished high school having issues with it. That’s the point Islamqa makes and it’s a reasonable one.
Because they meet the standards of saheeh, the people in the isnad are considered trustworthy, reliable and with good memory. Still, given the time gap and distance from Makkah nobody can be accused of being a munafiq or kaafir for not considering it authoritative. Later scholars (i.e after 230 years) agreeing isn’t like scientists agreeing because they’re even further removed from the Prophet (saw), are less likely to determine what he said and whether the people in the isnad are reliable and trustworthy.
 
Top