Dogs

[Abdillah]

Whenever Allah reveals a scripture, He also sends a prophet to teach and explain it. The Quran is no exception. If we only need the Quran and nothing else for our guidance, Allah would not have sent Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) as our prophet. He would have just dropped the Quran from the sky if that's all we needed. But clearly that's not how it works.

O mankind! Now has a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light (Holy Quran 4:174)

According to Imam Sayuti, burhanun min rabbikum (a proof from your Lord) is referring to Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam), while nooran mubeena (a manifest light) is referring to the holy Quran. Thus Allah has sent these two things for the guidance of mankind according to this ayah.

He who obeys the Messenger obeys Allah (Holy Quran 4:80)

Obedience to Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) is nothing but obedience to Allah, because Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) has been given divine authority to teach the Sunnah to mankind. Therefore, following the ahadith, the sayings of the Prophet, is in fact obedience to Allah. If we were only meant to obey Allah directly, than He would not have commanded us to obey the Messenger. The Quran is the words of Allah, so how can we obey the Messenger if we only accept the Quran and reject the Sunnah?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

There are history books which state that Abu hurayra was companying the prophet Muhamed (pbuh) more than others companions (May God be blessed with them) because they were busy in other affairs, while Abu horayra was all the day with the prophet. Also, there are history documents, and testimonies that Abu hurayra had a strong memory. Furthermore, It is Abu hurayra who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever tells lies about me, let him take his place in Hell.”
(narrated by al-Bukhari, 110; Muslim, 3). Who can he lie about the Prophet after all?

and surely all those history books also point out that his amazing memory for hadith was also questioned by the other companions. The hadith that says he was given special powers of memory in order to remember hadith was also narrated by him!! Yet as I pointed out a number of hadith narrated by Aisha (pbuh) corrected the his sayings ..... how does that fit with a miraculous memory?

He reportedly spent 3-4 years with the Prophet but during that time the Prophet was rather a busy man, when he went to war in defence of the Muslims abu harayra did not accompany him.

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

It is for sure, sister that weak or gharib hadith should not be worked by as Muslim scholars had stated.

Do you mean that we can live as Muslims without referring to the Prophet's sunnah, Amica???!!!! Is that possible??!!

And this is the real issue. As you have done with Amica, as soon as we say we should analyze all hadith before accepting them you suggest that is the equivalent of rejecting the whole sunnah .... yet you accept here that weak or gharib hadith do exist as shown by the scholars opinions I quoted.

This is something I am faced with often, I accept a majority of the hadith without question but when I am bold enough to question a narrator or an issue in hadith everyone suggests I am rejecting the sunnah, even though hadith scholars point to hadith that should not be used.

sorry I dont know how to multiquote in this new system.

Abdillah it is all very well pointing out our need to be obedient to the Messenger but if hadith scholars accept that some hadith cannot be relied on then clearly that is an indication that they do not believe them to come from the Messenger and we are therefore under no obligation to be obedient to them.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

I meant YOU, Alex.... you are the forum's Oscar Wilde.

Your comments are short (though they say a lot), ironical,witty, and of a humour sense.

*takes a bow*

[islamis4u]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

and surely all those history books also point out that his amazing memory for hadith was also questioned by the other companions. The hadith that says he was given special powers of memory in order to remember hadith was also narrated by him!! Yet as I pointed out a number of hadith narrated by Aisha (pbuh) corrected the his sayings ..... how does that fit with a miraculous memory?

He reportedly spent 3-4 years with the Prophet but during that time the Prophet was rather a busy man, when he went to war in defence of the Muslims abu harayra did not accompany him.



And this is the real issue. As you have done with Amica, as soon as we say we should analyze all hadith before accepting them you suggest that is the equivalent of rejecting the whole sunnah .... yet you accept here that weak or gharib hadith do exist as shown by the scholars opinions I quoted.

This is something I am faced with often, I accept a majority of the hadith without question but when I am bold enough to question a narrator or an issue in hadith everyone suggests I am rejecting the sunnah, even though hadith scholars point to hadith that should not be used.

sorry I dont know how to multiquote in this new system.

Abdillah it is all very well pointing out our need to be obedient to the Messenger but if hadith scholars accept that some hadith cannot be relied on then clearly that is an indication that they do not believe them to come from the Messenger and we are therefore under no obligation to be obedient to them.

Abu Anas Malik bin Abi A’amir says: “Once a man came to Talha bin Ubaydillah and said: “O’ father of Muhammad! Do you know this Yamani – Abu Hurayrah –? Is he more knowledgeable about the Prophet’s hadeeth than you? Because we hear things from him that we do not hear from you. Or does he narrate what the Prophet did not really say?” Ibn Ubaydillah answered: “That Abu Hurayrah heard from the Prophet peace be upon him what we did not hear then there is no doubt about it. Let me tell you about it. We always had to take care of our houses, goats and works. We used to visit the messenger of Allah peace be upon him at the two folds of daylight and Abu Hurayrah was there and poor. He was a guest at the Prophet’s house, and had nothing in his hands. Therefore we do not doubt it that he heard from the Prophet what we did not hear, and you would never find a man who has goodness in his self that he would say what the messenger of Allah did not say.” [2/605-606]

Ash’ath bin Saleem narrated from his father who says: “When I came to the Medina, I saw Abu Ayyub narrates from Hurayrah who narrated from the Prophet peace be upon him. I asked him how he could do that and he is the companion of the Prophet? He answered: “To hear and narrate from Abu Hurayrah who narrated from the Prophet peace be upon him is more beloved to me than to narrate directly from the Prophet peace be upon him.”[2/606 ]

Mu’awiyah bin Abi A’aysh Al-Ansari narrates that once he was sitting with Ibn Al-Zubair when Muhammad ben Eyas ben Al-Bakee came and asked about the religious verdict of a man who divorced his wife three times before sexual intercourse. So Ibn Abi Ayash sent the man to Abu Hurayrah and Ibn Abbas who both were with Aysha. The man left and asked Abu Hurayrah and Ibn Abbas the same question. Ibn Abbas asked Abu Huraryah: “Here you got an enigma, give him an answer Abu Hurayrah.” Abu Hurayrah answered: “The first divorce makes your wife a Bayyinah divorcee, and the third one makes her forbidden on you.” Ibn Abbas said the same thing. [2/607]

It was said to Ibn Omar: “Do you deny anything that is said by Abu Hurayrah? Ibn Omar answered: “No, but he had the courage and we lacked it.”[2/608]

i will reply more about this topic soon when i get more time sister....

[Muslimwoman]

Thank you for supplying these, however I do not feel it addresses the issue of how we have hadith narrated by him that are opposed by other narrators. I am doing some studying about him at the moment and shall post when I come to any conclusions.

[dailogue is the best]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

And this is the real issue. As you have done with Amica, as soon as we say we should analyze all hadith before accepting them you suggest that is the equivalent of rejecting the whole sunnah .... yet you accept here that weak or gharib hadith do exist as shown by the scholars opinions I quoted.

This is something I am faced with often, I accept a majority of the hadith without question but when I am bold enough to question a narrator or an issue in hadith everyone suggests I am rejecting the sunnah, even though hadith scholars point to hadith that should not be used.

sorry I dont know how to multiquote in this new system.

Abdillah it is all very well pointing out our need to be obedient to the Messenger but if hadith scholars accept that some hadith cannot be relied on then clearly that is an indication that they do not believe them to come from the Messenger and we are therefore under no obligation to be obedient to them.

Salam Muslimwoman,

I m not against questioning the Sunnah. No, at all, Muslimwoman. I am against rejecting the Sunnah as a whole. you know that there are some people who depend only on the Quran, and they call themselves " the people of the Quran". But this situation isnt right because God sent us the prophet to calrify what is in the Quran. God asked us to do what our Prphet did, and to leave what he left.

Muslims scholars state that weak and gharib hadith shouldnt be followed by Muslims, esp in matters of law and "ibadat".

That's what I wanted to say.

Salam alaykom warahmato Allah wa barakatoh

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

Salam Muslimwoman,

I m not against questioning the Sunnah. No, at all, Muslimwoman. I am against rejecting the Sunnah as a whole. you know that there are some people who depend only on the Quran, and they call themselves " the people of the Quran". But this situation isnt right because God sent us the prophet to calrify what is in the Quran. God asked us to do what our Prphet did, and to leave what he left.

Muslims scholars state that weak and gharib hadith shouldnt be followed by Muslims, esp in matters of law and "ibadat".

That's what I wanted to say.

Salam alaykom warahmato Allah wa barakatoh

wa aleykom salam wr wb sister

Thank you for explaining your opinion. Without the Sunnah we wouldn't know how to pray or how often, so how could I possibly reject it completely?! In fairness though I do not blindly accept anything in the Sunnah that I cannot relate back to the Quran in any way.

I just do not agree with people that say I must blindly accept everything written or even the interpretations, which often have traditional and cultural spin on them. I like to explore and question ... an example would be my opinion of Umar ibn al-khattab who I had thought to be quite anti-women because of some things I had read, that led me to study him and in time I changed my views of him quite drastically.

I am currently studying Abu Harayra and have yet to change my conclusions about him .... time will tell. But when we have repsected scholars stating even a single narration by anyone be rejected then of course it brings all other narrations by that person into question ... well in my opinion it does anyway.

Salaam

[dailogue is the best]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

wa aleykom salam wr wb sister

Thank you for explaining your opinion. Without the Sunnah we wouldn't know how to pray or how often, so how could I possibly reject it completely?! In fairness though I do not blindly accept anything in the Sunnah that I cannot relate back to the Quran in any way.

Yes, sister. I do agree with you. The Quran all the time asks us to use our minds, think and reflect.

I just do not agree with people that say I must blindly accept everything written or even the interpretations, which often have traditional and cultural spin on them. I like to explore and question ... an example would be my opinion of Umar ibn al-khattab who I had thought to be quite anti-women because of some things I had read, that led me to study him and in time I changed my views of him quite drastically.

Amazing. Islam grows up inside us by the light of understanding, and not by the darkness of ignorance.

I like to explore and question, too, MW..(though sometimes I find it too hard for my brain to be absorbed in a lot of questions)

I am currently studying Abu Harayra and have yet to change my conclusions about him .... time will tell. But when we have repsected scholars stating even a single narration by anyone be rejected then of course it brings all other narrations by that person into question ... well in my opinion it does anyway.

I will be waiting for your findings, MW. For me, at least at the present moment, I dont assume any weak hadith to a sahabi being lying or distorting the Prophet's words. But, I rather attribute it to those who narrated from sahaba. Allah knows best

Fi amani Allah (in the protection of God)

Salaam

[Mirko]

Originally Posted by Amica

Salaam/peace,

I wanted to post something about these wonderful God's creatures: dogs. No where in the Holy Qur'an did I find that dogs are evil, dirty, etc. Depending of a culture, people do treat them differently. In America and some other western countries, people absolutley love dogs and keep them in their homes, almost like members of the family. In other western cultures, they are pets but live outside, in the backyard dog houses. Yet, in some other cultures, they are considered impure and, almost, evil.

As a young kid I had a dog pet. The culture I grew up in did not support/encourage dogs as house pets, so we kept him outside. Yet, I loved my dog and played with him whenever I could. I did not like some the stuff he did which physically made him dirty but I liked him a lot.
Anyway, as a Muslim, I never heard of such a thing that we Muslims cannot pray to God if we touched a dog! The first time I ever heard that was when I came to the U.S. (from other Muslims from ME countries and Africa). Some of them say that if you touch a dog, you must take a full bath/ablution, change all your clothes and then you are allowed to pray. They claim that it is the islamic belief and that it must be done like that.

Well, no where in the Holy Qur'an did I find such a claim. Plus, it is amazing to note that a dog was mentioned in the Holy Qur'an (he was one among the group of the sleepers in the cave). Imagine that! True believers, protected by God, and their dog with them! If a dog is such a 'bad' creature for Muslims, wouldn't God ensure that it is clear in the Holy Qur'an? Why would he allow a dog to sleep with the sleeper sin the cave?

A hadith supposedly states that any dog is susceptible to an attack by shaitan/a jinn because a dog is very close to human. Well, so is a cow, a sheep, a dunkey, any domestic animal that humans keep close contact with. So does that mean that a Muslim farmer who milks his cow every day needs to take a full bath, ablution, change all his clothing before he starts his prayer?

We Muslims need to seriously take a look at the Holy Qur'an and those hadiths that simply appear to contradict the Holy Qur'an.

this is obviously a cultural bias, even if it is helped by religious mentality
now that standards of living have somewhat improved in relatively developed nations and urbanised areas, it is normal for humans to live with dogs
before that it was normal for dogs to be kept as guard dogs, war dogs or shepherds, so called work dogs, maybe an ocasional rich family might have had some pets
other dogs were mostly strais, vich generally are not of the best health and look dirty, even if they are often not that "unclean", unless seriously ill or contaminated, and can sometimes be dangerous

but more important than that is the general religious sentiment, a thing of mentality not scripture, that causes such species of animals to be given negative connotations and all kinds of negative beliefs connected to them
similarly there is nothing in the bible that says anything relevant about cats
still cats were traditionally considered undesirable, unclean, even dangerously satanic, in many christian cultures, all the more idiotic as in those times cats were the only practical pest control
similarly some strains of hindu thought consider dogs, cats, pigs etc... to be unclean, as opposed to say cows, or rats, wich are sacred
in general the "spiritualy undesirable" animals are usually ones living close by, such as cats, dogs, pigs, or rabbits, also wolves, bears, and large cats are sometimes considered as personification of natural evil, or even devil himself, and vultures in general and hienas in particular are specifically detested
this folows a couple of standard asumptions or observations;
that such animals and animals in general are suceptible to attacs of believed evil spirits and or demonic possesion and so should be considered unvanted, big time paranoia in most pre-industrial cultures

that such animals are considered unclean as these beliefs formed in times when little was known of how disease works and what makes people ill, so people were paranoid, and strais being dirty did not help

that such animals do things that religious people are told to consider disgusting, improper or sinful, such as copulate in public, eat excrement(dogs), eat carrion, behave "wildly", lick their private parts, eat their babies, etc...

from a psyhoanalitic point of view, an animal of any kind, especially a dog, cat, or pig, can be seen not just unclean or unsafe for rational reasons of hygiene, but as personifications of the id, or even shadow, but at the same time these animals show a kind of life and vigour, and freedom, making them impossible to control, and so are even more demonised, and feared, as irrational as that might sound, and draw on themselves all kinds of irrational condemnation and superstition

or in the basic example in the question, a religious person will consider himself unclean in a percieved spiritual sence, if he has touched an animal he is taught by his culture, not necessarily his religion, to be low, unclean, perverted etc... again in a percieved spiritual sence, weather the dog is clean or not is not important, it is the idea of a dog that is percieved as "unclean"

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

I will be waiting for your findings, MW. For me, at least at the present moment, I dont assume any weak hadith to a sahabi being lying or distorting the Prophet's words. But, I rather attribute it to those who narrated from sahaba. Allah knows best

An excellent point and clearly we have no knowledge at which stage in history any distortions took place, my concern is only that these distortions exist and where they are attributed to the same original narrator I begin to question all narrations by that person until I find them sound.


Mirko, great post thank you. The historical context of animal husbandry is often forgotten and you still see the cultural attitudes toward certain animals over here in Egypt. People are mainly terrified of dogs and freak out when I play with them and even put my hand in their mouths. I have also seen people throwing stones at a small puppy to stop it coming near them, it was a sad thing to see. You also see the other side of the coin with dogs too afraid to approach you to be touched because they simply never get any human contact. It would be interesting to find out if any diseases like rabbi's was ever an issue in the Middle East region.

[Amica]

Salaam,
Someone asked me how can we be Muslims and not follow the Prophet's sunnah. First, I want to apologize for not coming to the forum in a while (been busy).
Anyway, we can be Muslims and not follow that that is believed to be coming from the Prophet pbuh (other than the Holy Qur'an, of course).

We must know by now that during the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, he did not want people writing down anything from him but the Revelation (Qur'an). Also, Allah Almighty states in the Qur'an that the Holy Book is the best Hadith, that it is detailed. A lot of things forbidden to us are detailed clearly in the Book. At other times, we are instructed to use our reason and common sense.

A dog, like many other animals, is a gift to us. This animal has helped humans in many ways through our lives. Dogs protect homes and other domestic animals. They help the blind and police officers. And of course, they are wonderful pets. Like many other animals, they can get physically dirty and smelly But so can we humans, no?

Common sense instructs us to ensure that if we are to prepare for salat, we should be clean regardless of touching a dog or not. If we play with the animal and get dirty clothes in the process, then by all means, wash up--change clothes, do whatever before you proceed with prayer. But to think that somehow dogs are evil, that just touchign them causes us to be totally unclean and therefore we must take full bath, change clothes completely, sounds just apsurd.

Allah Almighty instructs us to take full bath after certain actions, such as sex. If He meant that touching dogs is just as unclean, I am pretty sure He would have mentioned something like that in the Holy Qur'an. If according to the hadith collections angel Gabriel refused to enter Prophet's pbuh home because of a dog, I am sure Allah Almighty would mention it in the Holy Qur'an. After all, Allah Almighty often seems to answer back people regarding certain issues (i.e. telling us to ask the People of the Book about the End Time signs, mentions Prophet's wives' demands/disatisfactions of some sort, reveals thoughts of the unbelievers/their hidden actions and many other examples).

Angel Gabriel pbuh is a Messanger. He often came to Prophet pbuh with Revelations. Anything blocking the flow of the Revelation delivery would not be left out of the Qur'an as it would be something very important to be memorized for the rest of us (in this case that the dogs are dirty/evil and should not come in contact with us, since they would be preventing angels to surround us).

I hope we Muslims really analyze our sources before we brand them as sunnah.
Peace/salaam.