“There is nothing like marriage for two who love one another.” [Ibn Majah 1847, (sahih al albani in sahih sunan ibn majah)]

The greatest means of protecting one’s chastity is by directing one's desire in the way in which Allaah has permitted, which is by getting married if possible.

If a person is attracted to a specific individual, then he can marry that person, as it was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is nothing like marriage for two who love one another.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah (1847) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah.


IslamQA
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Pr1d8ptOJs0J:www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/7323/doc+but+I+know+that+this+love+is+haraam+according+to+Islam,+and+I+know+that+he+does+not+love+me,+but+there+is+no+point+in+trying+to+forget+this+sickness,&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

"Women are unfaithful because of Eve"?

As salaamu alaikum

Does this hadith have any explanations?

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3471:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Had it not been for Eve, woman would have never acted unfaithfully towards her husband.


Answer;

This hadeeth should be understood based on the Arabic language and not the English translation. Therefore, the meaning of the hadeeth goes beyond its appearent wording besides the fact that the translation is incorrect.


To understand the hadeeth, lets see the story of Adam and Hawaa about the tree first.

Sh. Al-Nawawi (رحمه الله) says commenting on this hadeeth: " when the shaytaan decorated the tree in the eyes of Hawa, she went and told Adam about the tree. Then later on, when the shaytaan decorated the tree for Adam and swore by Allah that he is honest and sincere in his advice, they both ate from it."

The meaning of the hadeeth as sais by Sh. Al-Nawawi: "It means that Hawaa is the mother of the daughters of Adam, therefore her daughters inherited from their mother some of her traits."

Alhafith bin Hajar said: "The meaning of the "Khyaana of Hawa" is that she accepted what Ablees decorated in here eyes until she was convinced with then she started decorating what she thought to be good in his eyes......The Khayanaa here does not refer to unfaithful acts, chaeting or betraying but actually since the nafs ogf Hawa liked eating from the tree therefore she complimented that act to decorate it in his eyes, that was considered a Khyanaa.

This is what we actually see today, when wives or sisters like to do something then they start beautify it in your eyes to get it for them or to convince you with it.

Actaully, how many brother wanted to marry and when he wanted to have his wedding the wife insisted on having music or mixed wedding or whatever wrong cultural practices given all excuses and arguing it is the night she always dreamt of and etc etc... (smile)

In addition, this hadeeth is actually addressing men rather women. It is to teach men to be patient with their wives and excuse their mistakes when they are unintentional and rare to happen as mistakes happen and it did happen to their mother; hawaa. Furthermore, it shows women that they need to observe themselves and control themselves in moments when they feel drawn into somthing.

Wallahu A'lam

http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=5409

Establishing the Narration of 'Amr ibn Yahya

http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/41417-establishing-narration-amr-ibn-yahya.html

Regarding the following narration which explicitly refutes the innovation of group dhikrs, a certain Shaykh had deemed it inauthentic. The narration follows, and an analysis of the Isnaad follows the narration:

'Amr ibn Yahya said:

"I heard my father narrating from his father who said: 'We were at the door of 'Abd-Allaah ibn Mas'ood before the early morning prayer. When he came out we walked with him to the mosque. Abu Moosa al-Ash'ari came up to us and said, "Did Abu 'Abd al-Rahmaan come out to you yet?" We said, "No." He sat down with us until [Abu 'Abd al-Rahmaan] came out.

When he came out, we all stood up to greet him, and Abu Moosa said to him: "O Abu 'Abd al-Rahmaan, earlier I saw in the mosque something that I have never seen before, but it seems good, al-hamdu Lillaah." He said, "And what was it?" He said, "if you live, you will see it. I saw people in the mosque sitting in circles waiting for the prayer. In every circle there was a man, and they had pebbles in their hands. He would say, 'Say Allaahu akbar one hundred times,' and they would say Allaahu akbar one hundred times; then he would say, 'Say Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah one hundred times,' and they would say Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah one hundred times; then he would say, 'Say Subhaan Allaah one hundred times,' and they would say Subhaan Allaah one hundred times.'

He asked, 'What did you say to them?' He said, 'I did not say anything to them; I was waiting to see what your opinion would be and what you would tell me to do.' He said, 'Why did you not tell them to count their bad deeds and guarantee them that nothing of their good deeds would be wasted?' Then he left, and we went with him, until he reached one of those circles. He stood over them and said, 'What is this I see you doing?'

They said, 'O Abu 'Abd al-Rahmaan, these are pebbles we are using to count our takbeer, tahleel and tasbeeh.'

He said, 'Count your bad deeds, and I guarantee that nothing of your good deeds will be wasted. Woe to you, O ummah of Muhammad, how quickly you are getting destroyed! The Companions of your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are still alive, his garment is not yet worn out and his vessels are not yet broken. By the One in Whose hand is my soul, either you are following a way that is more guided than that of Muhammad or you have opened the door of misguidance!'

They said, 'By Allaah, O Abu 'Abd al-Rahmaan, we only wanted to do good.'

He said, 'How many of those who wanted to do good failed to achieve it! The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that people recite Qur'aan and it does not go any further than their throats. By Allaah, I do not know, maybe most of them are people like you.'

Then he turned away from them. 'Amr ibn Salamah said, 'I saw most of the members of those circles fighting alongside the Khawaarij on the day of Nahrawaan.'"

[Reported by al-Daarimi, al-Sunan, no. 210, ed. by 'Abd-Allaah Haashim al-Yamaani. Al-Albaani classed its isnaad as saheeh in al-Silsilat al-Saheehah under hadeeth no. 2005. See Majma' al-Zawaa'id by al-Haythami, 1/181]

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says refuting the notion that this narration is inauthentic:

Salaam Alaikum

Ya ikhwa, this topic is outside our class - it is related to Aqeedah Four which will insha Allah discuss the concept of bid`ah in more detail.

But, the topic is important, so I'll digress slightly:

1- A certain shaykh is quoted as claiming that Amr b. Yahya is weak, based on Ibn Ma`een's saying 'his narrations are worth nothing'. This shaykh cannot be faulted for linguistically translating Ibn Ma`een's phrase as he did, for 'laysa hadeethuhu bi-shay`in' would indeed typically translate as 'his narrations are not worth anything'.

More knowledge is required in the science of mustalah, and specifically the very exact and demanding science of jarh wa ta`deel, to properly understand Ibn Ma`een's statement. As Ibn Hajar pointed out in his Introduction to Fath al-Bari entitled Hady al-Sari (p. 421), when Ibn Ma`een uses this term, he typically means that the quantity of ahadeeth that this narrator narrated was very small. Thus, the proper translation of this phrase should be, 'His ahadeeth are not that numerous', and what proves this point rather conclusively in this case is that Ibn Abi Hatim reports, with a direct and authentic chain, that Ibn Ma`een himself said of Amr b. Yahya, this very same narrator, that he is 'thiqah' or 'trustworhty' (See his al-Jarh wa al-Ta`deel v. 6, p. 269).

So, Ibn Ma`een's actual verdict on him (putting both the narrations together, and understanding each one as was intended) is that he is trustworthy, but has few narrations. Based on this others also considered him to be trustworthy, including al-Fasawi, al-Ijli and Ibn Hibban. But, yes, it is true that some, such as al-Dhahabi, considered him to be weak, even if the greater and stronger authorities were of the opposite opinion.
In any case, it is not that important what his specific status is because:

2- There is another isnaad for this narration, which does not contain Amr b. Yahya, and is hasan; hence it can be used to strengthen the first chain (this narration only has the outline of the story, and not all of the details).

Abd al-Razzaaq reportes in his Musannaf, vol 3, p. 221, hadeeth 5408, from Sufyan b. Uyaynah, from Bayan b. Qays, from Abu Hazim, that someone mentioned to Ibn Mas`ud that a Qaas ('story-teller') would sit at night and tell the people, 'Say such-and-such, say such-and-such'. So he said, 'When you see him [next], inform me.' So they informed him. He then went to them, covering his face, and said, 'Whoever knows me knows me, and whoever does not, I am Abdullah b. Masud. Realize that, either you are more knowledgeable than Muhammad and his Companions, or else you are holding on to the tail of misguidance.'

This version, albeit not as detailed as the previous one, has the same story, and is with an authentic isnaad, as al-Haythami himself stated in his Majma al-Zawaa`id (1/181).

3- If there is any doubt left, one may also refer to the yet other versions of this incident, with yet other isnaads, in the Mu`jam al-Kabeer of al-Tabarani (9/125-128). Hence, put together, there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of this narration.

Now, from an usooli point of view, even if this narration is not authentic, the basic principle mentioned in it is undoubtedly true, and there are numerous evidences to substantiate it. No act of worship is acceptable, in form or substance, unless in conforms with the Sunnah. How beautiful is the statement of Ibn Ma`ud: "Realize that, either you are more knowledgeable than Muhammad and his Companions, or else you are holding on to the tail of misguidance." Succint, precise, water-proof, solid.

The same should be said to each and every group that introduces new acts of worship; it is even more ironic if these groups claim to be 'traditionalists'. Once again, the actual tradition appears to be on one side, while those who appropriate the term for themselves appear to be on the other.

More insha Allah on this topic in the future aqeedah class....

Yasir

Ephasis mine. Original post here: http://forums.almaghrib.org/showpost...88&postcount=8





Every Innovation is Misguidance, Even if the People Think it is Good
By Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee
[al-Istiqaamah Issue No.3]

The people of knowledge, from the Companions, the taabi’een (their followers) and the Imaams of the Muslim who followed in their footsteps; whose excellence has been testified to, are all agreed upon the blameworthiness of bid’ah (innovations) and their evil, and that one should be free from innovations and those connected to it. There was no doubt about this from any of them, nor any withholding from that. So here are some authentic sayings reported from them, as examples of their living and clear actions. So if we take some examples from the level of the Companions, we find that which brings delight to the heart of one who seeks to follow his Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), whilst also refuting the opinion of the innovators:

’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood (radiyallaahu ’anhu) said, ‘‘Follow and do not innovate, for you have been given that which is sufficient [and every innovation is misguidance.]’’ [2] ’Abdullaah Ibn ’Umar (radiyallaahu ’anhu) said, ‘‘Every innovation is misguidance, even if the people consider it to be something good.’’ [3]

And if we look at their actions we will see that they were in total agreement with their sayings:

So ’Amr Ibn Salamah narrated: We used to sit at the door of ’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood before the morning Prayer, so that when he would come out we would walk with him to the mosque. One day Aboo Moosaa al-Ash’aree came to us and said: Has Aboo ’Abdur-Rahmaan (i.e. Ibn Mas’ood) come out yet? We replied: No! So he sat down with us until he came out. When he came out we all stood along with him, so Aboo Moosaa said to him: O Aboo ’Abdur-Rahmaan! I have just seen something in the mosque which I deemed to be evil, but - and all praise is for Allaah - I did not see anything except good. Ibn Mas’ood inquired, ‘‘What did you see?’’ Aboo Moosaa replied: ‘If you live, you too will see it. In the mosque I saw people sitting in circles awaiting the Prayer. In each circle they had pebbles in their hands and a man would say: repeat Allaahu Akbar (Allaah is greater) a hundred times. So they would repeat it a hundred times. Then he would say: repeat Laa ilaaha illallaah (There is none worthy of worship besides Allaah) a hundred times. So they would repeat it a hundred times. Then he would say: repeat Subhaanallaah (How free is Allaah from all imperfection) a hundred times. So they would say it a hundred times.’ Ibn Mas’ood then asked, ‘‘What did you say to them?’’ Aboo Moosaa said, ‘I did not say anything to them. Instead I waited to hear your view, or what you declared.’ Then we went along with him, until he came to one of these circles and stood up and said: ‘‘What is this I see you doing?’’ They replied, ‘O Aboo ’Abdur-Rahmaan! These are pebbles upon which we are counting takbeer, tahleel and tasbeeh.’ He said to them, ‘‘Rather, count up your evil deeds. For I assure you that none of your good deeds will be lost. Woe be to you O Ummah of Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)! How quickly you head into destruction! These are the Companions of your Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and who are widespread. There are his clothes which have not yet decayed, and his bowl which is unbroken. By Him in whose Hand is my soul! Either you are upon a religion better guided than the Religion of Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), or you are opening the doors of misguidance.’’ They said, ‘O Aboo ’Abdur-Rahmaan! By Allaah! We only intend good.’ He said to them, ‘‘How many there are who intend good, but do not achieve it. Indeed Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said to us, ‘‘A people will recite the Qur‘aan, but it will not pass beyond their throats.’’ By Allaah I do not know, but perhaps most of them are from you.’’ Then he left. ’Amr Ibn Salamah said, ‘We saw most of those people fighting against us on the day of Nahrawaan, alongside the Khawaarij.’ [4]

So this excellent narration encompasses many great principles, which are not known except to those who follow the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), those who do not put anything before Allaah and His Messenger, but rather say, ‘We hear and we obey.’ So from the principles are:

Firstly: That the One who prescribed the ends, did not Forget to prescribe the means. So when Allaah prescribed For His servants the dhikr (remembrance of Allaah), He did not forget to prescribe the means and the way to do this. So Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) used to count the tasbeeh (glorification of Allaah) upon his right hand [5] and he said that they (i.e., the fingers) will he questioned and would speak. [6]

Secondly: That al-bid’atul-idhaafiyyah is misguidance. And al-bid’ayul-idhaafiyyah is that type of innovation which is based upon a proof with regards to its foundation, but it has no proof with regards to the manner or the form. That is why it is called idhaafiyyah (something added on). And this type of innovation is, from one angle, directly against correct guidance, and from another angle, it is in agreement with it. So these people did not say something which is kufr (disbelief), nor did they do something which was in itself evil, rather they were remembering Allaah - and this is something which is prescribed by Revelation. However, the manner in which they performed this action went against the guidance laid down by Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), and so the Companions opposed them and told them to count this amongst their evil actions instead.

Thirdly: Allaah - the Most Perfect, the Most High - is not to be worshipped, except by what He prescribes. So He is not to be worshipped according to desires, customs or innovations.

Fourthly: That innovations kill off the Sunnah. So this group of people innovated a new way of performing dhikr (remembering Allaah), which was not reported from Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). So in doing this, they killed off the guidance of Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). And this is a principle which, the Salafus-Saalih (Pious Predecessors) understood well, and they knew for certain that innovations and the Sunnah cannot unite together: Hassaan Ibn ’Atiyyah (d.120H) - rahimahullaah – said, ‘‘No people introduce an innovation into their religion, except that its like from the Sunnah is ripped away from them.’’ [7]

Fifthly: That innovations are the cause for destruction, since it leads to abandoning the Sunnah, and this causes tremendous misguidance. The noble Companion ’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood (radiyallaahu ’anhu) said, ‘‘If you were to abandon the Sunnah of your Prophet then you would go astray.’’ [8] So if the Ummah goes astray then it is destroyed. Therefore ’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood said to that group, ‘‘O Ummah of Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)! How quickly you head into destruction.’’ So the particular relevance of Ibn Mas’ood’s understanding is reflected in the context of the above narration. So Aboo Moosaa al-Ash’aree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) did not criticize them, rather he waited for the view or the order of ’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood (radiyallaahu ’anhu). And this stance was not merely taken out of love or out of displaying false affection to Ibn Umm ’Abd (i.e. to Ibn Mas’ood). Rather, Aboo Moosaa was pleased for himself with what Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) was pleased with for his Ummah, since he (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘‘I am pleased for my Ummah with what Ibn Umm ’Abd is pleased with for it.’’ [9] Also in the narration is a proof that all of the Companions were agreed in opposing this action, since ’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood (radiyallaahu ’anhu) used as a proof the fact that the Companions (radiyallaahu ’anhum) were wide spread (and therefore could easily be asked).

Sixthly: Innovations quickly lead to kufr (disbelief). This is because the innovator has set himself up as one who is able to legislate and prescribe things; and thus set himself up as a partner to Allaah, adding things to the rulings laid down by Allaah, thinking that he is on a religion of better guidance than the Religion of Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam).

Seventhly: That innovations open the doors widely for disagreements to occur, and this is a door to misguidance. So whosoever lays down an evil way in Islaam, then he bears the sin of it and the sin of those who act upon it, until the Day of Judgement, without their sin being reduced by anything. And this is because the one who guides to an evil action is like the one who does it.

Eighthly: Not giving importance to the matter of shunning innovations, leads to evil and sins. Do you not see that these people came to be amongst the ranks of the deviated group called the Khawaarij on the day of Nahrawaan, fighting against the Companions (radiyallaahu ’anhum), who were led by the Leader of the Believers ’Alee (radiyallaahu ’anhu), who cut-off this deviated group, on that memorable day. Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d.329H) - rahimahullaah – said, ‘‘Beware of small innovations, because they grow and become large. This was the case with every innovation introduced into this Ummah. It started as something small, bearing a resemblance to the truth, which is why those who entered into it were misled, and then were unable to leave it. So it grew and it became the religion which, they followed, so they deviated from the Straight Path and thus left Islaam. May Allaah have mercy upon you! Examine carefully the speech of everyone you hear from, in your time particularly. So do not act in haste, nor enter into anything from it, until you ask and see: Did any of the Companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) speak about it, or any of the (early) Scholars? So if you find a narration from them about it, cling to it and do not go beyond it for anything, nor give precedence to anything over it and thus fall into the Fire.’’ [10]

Ninthly: Righteous actions are only according to righteous intentions, and a good intention does not make something which is futile correct. This is because intentions alone cannot make an action correct, but rather complying with the Sharee’ah (Prescribed Laws) must be added to that. [11]

Finally: Adding to something good is not good, because addition in good is evil, and this is something that is witnessed in everything. Thus, a matter, when it goes beyond its limits, changes to its opposite. So bravery, when it is added to, turns into rashness, and if it is decreased from, then it becomes cowardice. And generosity, if its limits are exceeded, then it becomes wastefulness, and if it is fallen short of, then it becomes miserliness. So the best of the affairs are the justly-balanced ones. And ’Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ood (radiyallaahu ’anhu) was not alone amongst the Companions in condemning innovations. So here we find ’Abdullaah Ibn ’Umar (radiyallaahu ’anhu), who was one of severest from the Companions in condemning innovations and abandoning the innovators. So once he heard a man sneezing and saying, ‘Praise be to Allaah and may the salaah and salaam (the praises of Allaah and blessings of peace) be upon Allaah's Messenger.’ So he said to him, ‘What is this? This is not what Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) taught us, rather he said, ‘‘When one of you sneezes then let him praise Allaah.’’ And he did not say: And also send salaah (blessings of peace) upon Allaah’s Messenger.’’ [12] Likewise was the practice of the taabi’een (those who met the Companions and clung to their way). So in this regard there is what is reported from Sa’eed Ibnul-Musayyib (d.90H) – rahimahullaah - that he saw a man praying after the appearance of dawn, more than two rak’ahs, making many rukoos (bowings) and sajdahs (prostrations), so he forbade him from this. So the man said, ‘O Aboo Muhammad (i.e. Ibn al-Musayyib)! Will Allaah punish me for my Prayer?’ So he said, ‘‘No! But He will punish you for opposing the Sunnah (Prophetic guidance).’’ [13] And these narrations contain many good points of benefit, so from them:

[i] The Companions rebutting everyone who went against the authentic Sunnah, sometimes being very severe in their rebuttal, even if it was against their own fathers and sons.

[ii] That bid’ayut-tarkiyyah is misguidance: And this type of bid’ah (innovation) is one for which there is a proof to establish the action, except that the people deliberately leave the action, thinking that it is a part of the Religion, or something similar to it. For example, some of the Soofees who abandon marriage in order to emasculate themselves. The proof for this being misguidance is from Allaah - the Most High’s - saying:

‘‘O you who Believe! Do not make haraam (unlawful) the good things that Allaah has made halaal (lawful) to you, and do not transgress. Indeed Allaah does not love the transgressors. And eat of the things that Allaah has provided for you, lawful and good, and have taqwaa (fear and obedience) of Allaah in Whom you believe.’’[Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:87-88]

So this aayah (verse) is concerned with a single meaning, which is: making forbidden that which Allaah has allowed from the good and pure things, and doing so as a matter of Religion. And Allaah has forbidden this, and considered it as going beyond the limits, since it is transgressing upon Allaah’s right, in that He alone has the right to prescribe and legislate. And Allaah does not love those who transgress the limits. Then Allaah affirmed the allowance of these things with an even greater emphasis by His saying,

‘‘And eat of the things that Allaah has provided for you, lawful and good, and have taqwaa (fear and obedience) of Allaah in Whom you believe.’’ [Sooratul-Maa'idah 5:87-88]

Then he ordered them to have taqwaa (piety and obedience to Him). So this shows that the forbiddance of what Allaah has made lawful, in any form, is outside the bounds of taqwaa. Therefore, the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said to those three men who came to the houses of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), asking about his worship and then on being informed about it, considered their own worship to be very little, so they said, ‘What a great difference there is between us and the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), whose previous and latter sins have been forgiven by Allaah.’ So one of them said, ‘I will always Pray during the night.’ The other one said, ‘I will always fast during the day and not break my fast.’ And the third of them said, ‘I will keep away from women and never get married.’ Then Allaah’s Messenger came to them and said, ‘‘Are you the people who said such and such? By Allaah! I am the one who is the most knowledgeable about Allaah amongst you, and the one who has the most taqwaa of Him. Yet I fast and break my fast, I pray and I sleep, and I marry women. So whosoever turns away from my Sunnah (guidance) is not from me.’’ [14]

So if the Companions (radiallaahu ’anhum) left for us words of deep insight and which clearly enlighten the hearts, then men after them, who likewise attained the truth from this light, have also left for us words which are almost like the words of the Companions. And this is because they were those who very closely followed in the footsteps of the Companions - and the likes of their sayings have already preceded. However we add here a final example of their stance of truth:

Thus, a man came to Imaam Maalik (d.179H) - rahimahullaah - and said, ‘O Aboo ’Abdullaah! Where shall I enter the state of ihraam (the dress for one intending to do Pilgrimage)?’ So Imaam Maalik replied, ‘‘From Dhul-Hulayfah, where Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) entered the state of ihraam.’’ The man then said, ‘But I wish to enter the state of ihraam at the mosque by his grave.’ So Imaam Maalik said, ‘‘Do not do that, for I fear for you the fitnah (trial).’’ So the man said, ‘What fitnah are you referring to, since it is only a few extra miles.’ So Imaam Maalik said, ‘‘And what fitnah can be greater than for you to think that you have attained some virtue, which Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) fell short of. Have you not heard the saying of Allaah,


‘‘Let those beware who oppose the command of the Prophet, lest they are afflicted with fitnah (trial),or lest they are afflicted with a painful punishment.’’ [Sooratun-Noor 24:63].’’ [15]

Footnotes:

[1] al-Bid’ah wa Atharuhas-Sayyi‘ah fil-Ummah (pp.22-36)
[2] Related by Wakee’ in az-Zuhd (no. 315) and Aboo Khaythamah in Kitaabul-’Ilm (no. 54), where al- Albaanee authenticated it. The addition is related by at-Tabaraanee in al-Kabeer (9/154) and it is authentic.
[3] Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no. 191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p. 24). Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun!
[4] Related by ad-Daarimee in his Sunan (1/79), at-Tabaraanee in al-Kabeer (9/126) and Aboo Nu’aym in Hilyatul-Awliyaa (4/381). It was authenticated by al-Haythamee in Majma’uz-Zawaa‘id (1/181).
[5] Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood in his Sunan (no. 1502), from ’Abdullaah Ibn ’Amr (radiyallaahu ’anhu). It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in Saheeh Sunan Abee Daawood (1/280).
[6] Hasan: Related by Aboo Daawood in his Sunan (no.1501), from Yusayrah (radiyallaahu ’anhaa). It was authenticated by Shaykh al-Albaanee in Saheeh Sunan Abee Daawood (1/280).
[7] Related by ad-Daarimee (1/45) and it is authentic.
[8] Related by Muslim (5/156).
[9] Saheeh: Related by al-Haakim (3/317-318) and Ibn ’Asaakir in al-Majlis (no. 350). It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (no.1225).
[10] Sharhus-Sunnah (no. 8)
[11] Refer to Madaarijus-Saalikeen (1/85) of Ibn al-Qayyim
[12] Related by at-Tirmidhee (no. 2738) and al-Mizzee in Tahdheebul-Kamaal (no. 552-553). The isnaad is good.
[13] Related by al-Bayhaqee is as-Sunanul-Kubraa (2/466) and the isnaad is authentic.
[14] Related by al-Bukhaaree (9/104) and Muslim (9/175)
[15] Related by Imaam ash-Shaatibee in al-I’tisaam (1/132)

The Pact of Umar

Also see; http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state


Thomas Arnold writes in his book the spread of Islam in the world:

A later generation attributed to 'Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje [3] and Caetani [4] have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age; as, however, Muslim theologians of less tolerant periods accepted these ordinaces as genuine, they are of the importance for forming a judgement as to the condition of the Christian Churches under Muslim rule. This so-called ordinace of 'Umar runs as follows: "In the name of God………. you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels". [5]

[1] Baladhuri, p. 129 [Liber Expugnationis Regionum]
[2] Ibn S'ad, Vol. III, p. 246 [Al-Tabaqat]
[3]Memoire sur la conquete de la Syrie, p. 143
[4] Annali dell' Islam, Vol. III, p. 957.
[5] Gottheil pp. 382-4 [Dhimmis and Moslems in Egypt]

Abdulaziz Sachedina writes in his book The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism:The discriminatory regulations in exchange for protection are usually traced back to a document known as the Pact (pahd) of 'Umar. The contents of this document suggest that its attribution to Umar b. al-Khattab, who ruled from 634 to 644, is doubtful. The discriminatory stipulations—a non-Muslim's word was not to be accepted against a Muslim in the qadi's court; the murder of a non-Muslim was not to be treated as quite so heinous a crime as the murder of a Muslim—not only run completely counter to the spirit of justice in the Koran, but they also contravene the practice of the early community. The tendency among later jurists, in the eighth and ninth centuries, was to seek justification for the eighth-century rulings by ascribing the documentary evidence in support of these rulings to the early community, whose prestige in such matters was a source of authentication for the later jurists' extrapolations. Thus, for instance, the prohibition against building new churches or repairing old ones, which was instituted under some Umayyad and 'Abbasid caliphs, did not prevail in the early decades, because it is well documented that non Muslims erected such places of worship following the conquest. When Muslims took Jerusalem in 638, the caliph 'Umar b. al-Khattab, on his visit to that city from Damascus, sent the inhabitants of the city the following written message:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is a written document from 'Umar b. al-Khattab to the inhabitants of the Sacred House (bayt al-maqdis). You are guaranteed (aminun) your life, your goods, and your churches, which will be neither occupied nor destroyed, as long as you do not initiate anything [to endanger] the general security

It is difficult to see how the same caliph could have instituted the discriminatory laws against the protected people, as later sources report.


http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...a-dhimmis.html

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=2115



Some points regarding the pacts:

1. The pact of Jerusalem was originally suggested by Christians. So, the one who actually set such conditions are the Christians themselves although Umar - May Allah be pleased with him - added another two conditions.

2. The pact itself is just and it is a contract like any other contract if both sides agree to it then it is valid. No one was forced to accept such pact esp. knowing it was suggested by people of the book themselves.

3. The author in that website argue that the notion of the "Dhimmi" was due necessity which is flase. Dhimmi contracts are established contracts in History and it occures in every country. It is a simple contract between the state authority and its residents who are not citizens!! Think of it as : Country X has citzens ( Muslims) and residents ( people of the book). In any country both are treated differently and rights and obligations differ so it should not be even criticized!!!!

4. Poeple of the book has never been forced to pay extra Tax, which is something i often hear by orintalist. Once, My prof. at university suggested this and i argued him and he could not find an answer and as he disliked it but i placed him in his right position where he should belong, down to earth!!

5. Jizyaa is a normal tax which is looked at as a fee or even a normal tax that people of the book need to pay. it is mesaured based on their ability to pay. IN some cases they are exempted if they are poor and are included in the welfare system of the Muslims!! which never exist in any democratic country, as they claim!!! [ where do they include students or non-citizens as benefiaries from their welfare system].

6. The comparasion between Umar Pact and Christain Europe is out of the place!!! non-christians were killed at Europe and even christians were killed as well if they do not follow specific sect!!! Besides, the whole system there differ completly .

The pact is accepted by scholars and upon it darw conditions that differ from one time to another and it is not obligatory to follow. It just sets a guideline depends on the situation.

(1) If you read, at least, the link you have offered or even any book that mention this pact you will notice a three words said in its begining [We made a condition on ourselves ] It was the Christian's choice so I think if you are not Ok with it then you need to criticze Christians not Muslims. smile

(2) I would like you, kindly to answer the follwoing and to be objective:

If Islam advocates monotheism and call for it while denying the actions of polytheism then would it make sense to allow what contradict and oppose the core pillar of the religion to be in public!? Yet, Islam is fair enough to guarantee the safety and the protection of christians and the alreday established churches

(3) If such pact was a humilation, as you claim, why have not we found writings of christians who lived that era under that pact saying what you have said!!

(4) How would you match humilation as you have prescribed with what is said in post Number 10 by my beloved brother: Mahmoud Al-Misri ( May Allah preserve him).


(5) I highly suggest before discussing such details to focus on the head and the pillar of the details. You need to prioritize your questions. What is the use of knowing that justice of Umar's pact or even to prove its injustice ( which you won't be able to) if the concept of God is opposite to us!!!

The reason I suggest this because whatever we discuss is derived from commands of God, so is not it better and more important to know who the one who derived these commands before we examine the commands. Let's be sure at least who is the One who command us. smile [ Allah (the one and only God, Trinity ( Father, Jesusu and the holy spirity) or YHWH ( Jews God)]

I suggest you comapre the concepts of god between the three religions and you will realize what concept is the correct one. smile

You said:

What is the only Muslim response to this? "OH WELL, WE ARE NOT HUMILIATING AND DISGRACING YOU AS MUCH AS THE OTHERS HAVE DONE" Give me a break.


The answer that Muslims give, and you offer, is not a response but rather a wake up call for you.

the response is: The pact is Just and fair for those who lived under it. Your thoughts that took a place after 1400 years do not represent the Christians Views at that time, which is something I hope you can understand. smile

They were happy and feel being treated fairly so it does not make sense and it is not proper to talk on their behalf in such way, especially knowing they say opposite to what you say and they have not assigned you to do so anyhow.

As I said, do not waste your time on such matters, focus now on concept of God then discuss other matters. We are more happy to dicuss the concept of God in the three religions not to refute but to find the truth that we all love more than ourselves. smile

I hope this can give you a break inshallah to think. ( just to soften the air as I feel words are plain and cold sometimes).

Thank you

And Allah knows Best.



Most what is below was taken from referenced sources in wikipedia, and the reference used mentioned:

[1] In the Siege of Jerusalem (614), after 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem was captured and the Persian victory resulted in the territorial annexation of Jerusalem. After the Sassanid army entered Jerusalem, the holy "True Cross" was stolen and sent back to the Sassanian capital as a battle-captured holy relic, and the Jewish rebels joined the Persians. General Shahrbaraz ordered a swift razing and looting of Jerusalem. Having recognized the assistance of the Jews in the significant capture, he even gave them the opportunity to personally massacre their Christian enemies. The conquered city and the Holy Cross would remain in Sassanid hands for some fifteen years until the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius recovered them in 629. [43]

Source: [43] Conybeare, Frederick C. (1910). The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 AD, English Historical Review 25, 502-517

[2] In 638, the Islamic empire extended its dominion to Jerusalem.


The Rashidun army were engaged by a Byzantine army composed of Imperial troops as well as local levies.[1] The Roman Emperor Heraclius had fallen ill and was unable to lead his armies to resist the Arab conquests of Syria and Palestine in 634. Rashidun Caliphate forces conquered Damascus in 634 A.D under the command of Khalid ibn Walid.[5] Monophysites and Jews throughout Syria welcomed the Arab conquerors, as they were discontented with Byzantine persecution and taxation, and receptive to the lower taxes offered under the new regime.[2] The Arabian tribes also had significant economic, cultural and familial ties with predominantly Arab citizens of the fertile crescent.

When Heraclius massed his troops against the Moslems and the Moslems heard that they were coming to meet them at al-Yarmuk, the Moslems refunded to the inhabitants of Hims the karaj [tribute] they had taken from them saying, "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied, "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your 'amil's' help, repulse from the city." The Jews rose and said, "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanquished and exhausted!" Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of the other cities - Christian and Jew - that had capitulated to the Moslems, did the same, saying, "If Heraclius and his followers win over the Moslems we would return to our previous condition, otherwise we shall retain our present state so long as numbers are with the Moslems." When by Allah's help the "unbelievers" were defeated and the Moslems won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and music players who began to play, and paid the kharaj."[6]

Sources of above:
[1] The Empire's levies included Christian Armenians, Slavs, and Arab Ghassanids "Ghassan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2006 [1]
[2] Piers Paul Read, The Templars
[3] Europe: A History, p 245. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996. ISBN 0-19-820171-0
[4] Islam From The Beginning To 1300. history-world.org. Retrieved on 2007-09-02.
[5] "Syria." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Oct. 2006 [2]
[6] P. K. Hitti and F. C. Murgotten, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law LXVIII (New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924), I, 207-211 [3]


Following the Byzantine defeat in 636 at the Battle of Yarmouk, Heraclius, while departing Antioch for Constantinople, is recorded by Baladhuri as saying as he passed ad-D'arb: "Peace unto thee, O Syria, and what an excellent country this is for the enemy!"[7] In Constantinople, the Emperor began to array his remaining forces for a defence of Egypt. In 638, the Arabs conquered Jerusalem. The local population of Jerusalem welcomed the conquerors into the city, which was surrendered by Patriarch Sophronius in the same year.


[3] The reasons I underlined what I underline from your quote:

1. "It is not like the Christians had a choice": You will find in the quotes above that when the Muslims were pre-occupied and were not able to defend the people (non-Muslims) of a certain city they refunded the money the recieved from them. No tax reciepts or anything ... This shows the justice of the Muslims, and that is not surprising since one of the reason they left their homes is to free people from the injustice of the regimes they were under, into the justice of Islam. You would see this proven, by the aid the Muslims recieved in many cases from the local population, and that they open their gates by themselves to the Muslims (as you can see in the quotes above and in several other references.
2. "It was either the harsh pact or death": I do not know were you got this from. Brothers Bassam and Ayman had dealt with it. Maybe you can mention the source, although I hope what was quoted would be enough.
3. "sources that I read": This is something important to discuss. How do you know that the source you read is reliable i.e. how do you know ... rather how did they know that what they said happened actually happened ... what is your methodolagy in believing what you believe. Magic ball? Time travel machine? Found the diaries of a resident of the city at the time? The Muslims Ahl Al Sunnah have their methadology, and has been stated in their books. What is it that you base what you believe on?

I think that is all I had for now.




Wallahu A'lam



i am reading the pact of Umar now and I don't see anything harsh about it.

look at what it says:

This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims): ‘The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya’ (Jersusalem).

(Tarikh At-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 609, ed. Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt)

On the contrary, it is uplifting. Anyone else would have executed them.

The monkey stoning hadith in sahih al bukhari?

Asalaam alaikum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh


i've read this hadith but i've never really understood why it was recorded by imam Al Bukhari in his Sahih.


`Amr b. Maymûn – a Companion – in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3849):

I had seen in the days of ignorance before Islam, some monkeys who surrounded a she-monkey who had committed unlawful sexual intercourse and they stoned it, so I stoned it along with them.

explanation:
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/sh...main_cat_id=34

Chapter of the Merits of the Ansaar [in Medinah]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#005.058.188



So i wondered, why did this hadith be recorded by Imam Al Bukhari, and why specifically in this chapter?



Question: I read in Sahîh al-Bukhârî that some monkeys stoned another one for adultery. Does this mean that adultery is sinful for animals? This sounds really silly to me. Can you explain this?

Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
The account in question is narrated from `Amr b. Maymûn – a Companion – in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3849):

I had seen in the days of ignorance before Islam, some monkeys who surrounded a she-monkey who had committed unlawful sexual intercourse and they stoned it, so I stoned it along with them.

In Fath al-Bârî, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî gives a more detailed narration of this event from `Amr b. Maymûn:

I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.

Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam’s descendants.

This is not a hadîth of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is not even something that `Amr claims he told to the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is just `Amr’s personal account of some things `Amr b. Maymûn saw some animals doing. It is merely his interpretation that those monkeys were stoning the other one as a punishment for adultery. There is no way that he could have known their true motives.

There is no Islamic teaching to be gleaned from this account.

Ibn Hajar writes inFath al-Bârî :

It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals.

And Allah knows best

http://204.187.100.80/english/show_d...main_cat_id=52 __________________






asalaam alaikum

Hesham Azmy & Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi


An amusing little polemic regarding a hadith that is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari has recently surfaced and is being circulated by some apostates from Islam. Naturally, the Christian missionaries too had decided to jump on the bandwagon of smearing Islam through a misinterpretation of this hadith as well. The hadith is recorded as follows:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated ‘Amru bin Maimun: “During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.”

The basic premise of their “charge” is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a she-monkey, and that lapidation for zina (fornication) is extended to animals as well.

Back to Basics: The Issue of Isnad and Matn


The full citation of the hadith as recorded by al-Bukhari is as follows:
1
On closer scrutiny of the above-recorded hadith, anyone proficient in the sciences of the Hadith (ulum al-hadith) would immediately see the fallacy of such a claim when the matn (text) and isnad (chain of transmission) of the hadith is studied.


Firstly, the person who uttered the above words was not the Prophet Muhammad (P) himself, but by one of his Companions by name of ‘Amru bin Maimun (R).


The following is the chain of transmission for this hadith:

• 

The hadith is categorized as mauquf (lit. “stopped”), meaning that it is a saying traced to that of a Companion(R). Therefore, since it is clear that this hadith is not a saying of the Prophet (P), much less ascribed to him, it cannot be a basis for a ruling in Islam.
Secondly, the key phrase in the above hadith is “During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance”, which the critics had obviously overlooked. While we concede that above hadith is indeed accepted as authentic, we would also argue that according to the principles of criticism of the hadith, the matn of the hadith above would be rejected even if it had been ascribed to the Prophet (P). ‘Abdur Rahman I. Doi has outlined this principle by stating that:

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:
(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur’an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.2

Interestingly, Ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Bari had discussed at length the exegesis of the above hadith. He quotes from Ibn Abd al-Barr as follows:

• 

Ibn Abd al-Barr has denounced this report of ‘Amru Ibn Maimun and said: “It includes attributing adultery to a creature not assigned (with distinction between lawful and unlawful) and implementation of legal punishment on animals. This is denounced before scholars”.3
Then Ibn Hajar responds to the above argument of Ibn Abd al-Barr:

• 

…I answer that the event being similar to that of adultery and stoning does not necessitate that it is really adultery or legal punishment. It is called so because it is similar to it, so it does not necessitate assignment of animals (with distinction between lawful and unlawful).4
In other words, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that the claims of the apostates are true and the above hadith is indeed ascribed to the Prophet(P), the critics will still not be able to make the charge that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a she-monkey.
Ibn Qutaiba makes further commentary on the above hadith as follows:

• 
  

They said: You narrated that some monkeys stoned a she-monkey for fornication. If the monkeys stoned her while she is married, the hadith would be funnier. According to this example, you cannot be sure for perhaps monkeys implement many rulings of the Torah! Or probably they embrace Judaism! So, if the monkeys are Jews, then perhaps the pigs are Christians!
Abu Muhammad ['Abdullah Ibn Qutaiba, d. 276 A.H.] said: In response to this sneer we state that the narrative of monkeys is neither on authority of Allah’s Messneger (peace be upon him) nor any of his Companions; it is merely something mentioned by ‘Amr Ibn Maimon. Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ibn Khadash told me that Muslim Ibn Qutaiba said on authority of Hashim on authority of Hasin on authority of ‘Amr Ibn Maimon that he said, “A she-monkey had committed fornication during Jahiliyyah, so the monkeys stoned her and I stoned her with them”.
Abu Muhammad said: He could have seen the monkeys stoning a she-monkey, so he imagined that they were stoning her because she committed fornication, this cannot be known except by supposition because monkeys do not express themselves and the one who sees them gathering cannot tell whether they fornicate or not. This is a supposition. Perhaps, the old man knew she had fornicated for some reason we do not know for monkeys are the most fornicating animals. Arabs refer to them as examples of (exaggerated) fornication and say: “fornicating more than a monkey”. Unless fornication is common among them, they would not be used as an example. There is none closer to man in marriage and jealousy than them. The animals get hostile with one another, jump over and punish one another. Some bite, some scratch, some break and some smash. Monkeys stone with their hands whom Allah created as man stones. If they stoned one another for a cause rather than fornication and the old man thought it is fornication, it would not be far. If the old man knew about fornication by some evidence and that stoning was for it, it would not be far either because - as I have informed you - they are the most jealous among animals and the closest to man regarding understanding.5

The points we have made should make it clear that ‘Amru bin Maimun was relating his thinking or perception prior to the advent of Islam - how he had foolishly believed that even monkeys had committed adultery! It happened during a period whereby the pre-Islamic Arabs would indulge in the most detestable acts such as burying their daughters alive and doing the tawaf while they were naked. Thus this means that Islam has elevated the status of mankind by making them more rational and mindful of their actions, a conclusion that the haters and enemies of Islam would certainly not like to admit.
If the above hadith is used to condemn Islam with regards to treatment towards animals, then the Bible has the following to say:

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.6

window.google_render_ad();
In other words, an animal that has committed its sin of adultery is liable to be punished for a “crime” it is unaware of in the first place, according to the Bible.


Conclusions
It is clear that where the hadith regarding the stoning of a she-monkey for adultery is concerned, it is simply a recollection of a Companion (R) of the Prophet (P) regarding this maltreatment of animals during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah, which is in total contradiction to Islamic principles and norms. Thus, the claim that this hadith is the basis from which the lapidation for married adulterers in Islam came about is nothing more than a damp firecracker hurled by the haters and enemies of Islam. That their view of Islam had been tainted by deep ignorance, hatred, paranoia and xenophobia is no big secret, and this latest polemic is ipso facto a confirmation of their current condition.
And only God knows best.

1. Muhammad bin Isma’il ‘Abdallah al-Ja’far (Imam al-Bukhari), Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 58, No. 188 [back]
2. ‘Abdur Rahman I. Doi, Introduction to the Hadith (A.S. Nordeen, 2001), p. 15 [back]
3. Ahmed Ibn `Ali Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari [back]
4. ibid. [back]
5. Ibn Qutaiba, Ta’wil Mukhtalaf Al-Hadith, pp. 255-256 [back]
6. Leviticus, 20:15-16 [back]

"There are omens in a house, in a woman and a horse."

Shaykh Albani (May Allah have mercy on him) says:

The people of Jahileeyah [times of ignorance before islam] used to say: "There are omens in a house, in a woman and a horse." The origins of the hadeeth: Two men from Bani 'Aamir entered upon 'Ayesha, they told her that Abu Huraira narrates on the authority of the Prophet-sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - that he said: 'There are omens in a house, in a woman and a horse.' She became very angry; half of her flew to the sky, and half to the earth. She said : "I swear by the One Who sent down the Furqaan to Muhammad, that the Messenger never ever said this, rather what he said was: "the people of jahileeyah used to seek omens from that." And in the narration of Ahmad: "But the Prophet of Allaah -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - used to say: the people of jahileeyah used to say: Omens are in a woman, a house and a riding animal. Then Ayesha read to the end of the Ayaah." And it was narrated by al-Hakim [2/479] and he said: "authentic Isnaad" and ad-Dhahabi agreed with him, it is as they said it was, rather it is upon the conditions of Muslim. What supports this narration is what at-Tayaalisee narrated in his 'Musnad' [1537 ]: Muhammad bin Raashid narrated to us on the authority of Makhool, it was said to 'Ayesha : that Abu Huraira says: that the Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - said; "Pessimism is found in three things: in a house, a woman and a horse." Ayesha said: "Abu Huraira did not memorize this, because when he entered, the Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - was saying: May Allaah curse the Jews; they say: 'Without doubt pessimism is in a house, a woman and a horse,' so he heard the end of the hadeeth, and he never heard the beginning of it."

To sum up, the narrators had differed in the wording of the hadeeth, some of them narrated it as in the chapter heading. There are narrators who mentioned this saying with an extra wording in the beginning of the hadeeth. This indicates that there are no omens or pessimism [and they have the same meaning like the scholars have said]. This is what the majority of narrators were upon. Therefore their narration is the stronger opinion, since they have more information/knowledge, so it is obligatory to accept it. Certainly what supports this opinion is the hadeeth of 'Ayesha, which is the one where the people of jahileeyah are those who said that Omens are in a woman, a house and a riding animal.

Zarkashee said in 'al-Ejabah' [ p.128 ] : "Some of the scholars have said: The narration of 'Ayesha regarding this matter resembles the truth InshAllaah [ i.e. More than the hadeeth of Abu Huraira ] due to it being in agreement with the prohibition of the Messenger of Allaah - alayhi as-Sallat wa sallam of believing in omens, which is a general prohibition, disliking them and persuasion in leaving them, due to the saying of the Messenger : "Seventy thousand people will enter Paradise without being taken into account. They are those who don't seek cauterization,(and in the original text: do not hoard up wealth) do not request Ruqya, nor do they believe in omens, and they rely upon their Lord.''

I say: he indicates by his saying: "Some of the scholars" to Imaam at-Tahawee -may Allaah have mercy upon him. At-Tahawee favours the previously mentioned hadeeth of Ayesha in "Mushkil al-Athaar", and similarly in "Sharh al-Ma'aani" and he ended his research about this subject with this hadeeth. He said regarding the hadeeth of Sa'ad, and about those which are similar in meaning: "What is indicated in this hadeeth is different to what is indicated before it in other hadeeth, [ I mean, the hadeeth of Ibn Umar, narrated by 'Utbah bin Muslim and that which has the same meaning on the authority of Ibn Umar ], that is due to Sa'ad scolding Sa'eed when he mentioned to him about omens, he informed him on the authority of the Prophet -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - that he said : 'There are no omens," then he said: "If there were omens in anything, it would be in a woman, a horse and in a house." However he did not say that omens are in these things. Rather what he said was if there were omens in things they would be in those, i.e. if there were to be in anything they would be in those things. So if they were not in these things, then they would not be in anything.' All Praise belongs to Allaah, may His peace and blessings be upon our final Prophet Muhammad, his family, his companions and all those who follow his guidance.

Silsilah Ahadeeth As-Saheehah [993]



http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134265912-refutatiion-needed-intercourse-hadith-genetics.html#post931522

Refutation the RNA World Theory

The discovery in the 1970s that the gases originally existing in the primitive atmosphere of the earth would have rendered amino acid synthesis impossible was a serious blow to the theory of molecular evolution. Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitive atmosphere experiments" by Stanley Miller, Sydney Fox, Cyril Ponnamperuma and others were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s the evolutionists tried again. As a result, the "RNA World" hypothesis was advanced. This scenario proposed that, not proteins, but rather the RNA molecules that contained the information for proteins, were formed first.

According to this scenario, advanced by Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986, inspired by the discovery about "ribozymes" by Thomas Cech, billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itself formed somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that.

Made up as it is of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this scarcely credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of the origin of life, only magnified the problem, and raised many unanswerable questions:

1. Since it is impossible to accept the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA;

As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones.274

2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA, consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate, and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World:

This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.275

3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint; in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA.

Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes, and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, therefore, to another unreasonable supposition-that ribosomes, too, should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution-and atheism-explained that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:

The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.276

How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions. One article in the preeminent scientific journal Nature makes it clear that the concept of "self-replicating RNA" is a complete product of fantasy, and that actually this kind of RNA has not been produced in any experiment:

DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. "Catch-22" say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: "In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves." Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10²⁴) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.277

Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from the University of California at San Diego, uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA World." Orgel described what kind of features this RNA would have had to have and how impossible these would have been in his article "The Origin of Life," published in Scientific American in October 1994:

This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.278

As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is againt scientific thought. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, makes it explicit that the RNA World hypothesis, which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.

John Horgan, in his book The End of Science, reports that Stanley Miller viewed the theories subsequently put forward regarding the origin of life as quite meaningless (It will be recalled that Miller was the originator of the famous Miller Experiment, which was later revealed to be invalid.):

In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned… Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as "nonsense" or "paper chemistry." He was so contemptuous of some hypotheses that, when I asked his opinion of them, he merely shook his head, sighed deeply, and snickered-as if overcome by the folly of humanity. Stuart Kauffman's theory of autocatalysis fell into this category. "Running equations through a computer does not constitute an experiment," Miller sniffed. Miller acknowledged that scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged.279

This statement, by a pioneer of the struggle to find an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life, clearly reflects the despair felt by evolutionist scientists over the cul-de-sac they find themselves in.

274 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.
275 G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1993, p. 13.
276 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York, 1971, p. 143. (emphasis added)
277 Dover, Gabby L., "Looping the Evolutionary loop, review of the origin of life from the birth of life to the origin of language," Nature, 1999, vol. 399, p. 218. (emphasis added)
278 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994, vol. 271, p. 78.
279 Horgan, John, The End of Science, MA Addison-Wesley, 1996, p. 139.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_16.html

Ahadith

asalaam alaikum


Hadith/Sunnah



Allaah (Exalted is He) says:

He [Muhammad, peace be upon him] does not speak from his desires, Verily it is inspiration (unrecited revelation) which has been revealed.

(Qur'an Soorah an-Najm:3-4)



The definition is eloquently explained by Imaam Shaaf’ee (may Allaah have mercy on him) who comments on the ayaat regarding the Kitaab (Qur’aan) and the Hikmaah (Sunnah):

Allaah (Exalted is He) mentioned the Kitaab, and that is the Qur'aan; He also mentioned Hikmaah. I have heard those whose opinion I trust among the people of knowledge of the Qur'aan say that Hikmaah means the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This supports what Allaah (Exalted is He) said - and Allaah knows best - because the Qur'aan is a reminder (dhikr) and hikmaah follows it, and Allaah mentioned that He lavished favour on His creatures by teaching them the Kitaab and Hikmaah. It is therefore impermissible - and Allaah knows best - to say that Hikmaah here is anything other than the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). That is because it is coupled (maqruna) with the Kitaab, and that Allaah has made obedience to His Prophet a strict obligation, imposing upon people the absolute duty to follow his commands. Thus it is not permissible to say about anything that it is a strict obligation (fard) except about Allaah's Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) due to what we just said, namely, that Allaah has coupled belief in His Messenger with belief in Him. (al-Risala (p. 78))

Allaah (Exalted is He) mentions the Hikmaah in several ayaat:

Here Hikmaah is followed straight after the mentioning of Kitaab (Book). According to the Quraniyyah, it should read as:

He (Allaah) is the One who raised up, among the unlettered, a Messenger from among themselves who recites the verses of Allaah, and makes them pure, and teaches them the Book (Qur'aan) and the Wisdom (Qur'aan) (Soorah al-Joomooa:2)

According to the methodology of the Hadith rejectors, This is grammatically incorrect since according to the Qur'aanic principle of mooghayaraa (differentiation), coupled words do not mean the same thing and indeed the Glorious Qur’aan is far above such mistakes.


Allaah (Exalted is He) says: Do they not then consider the Qur'aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction. (Soorah An Nisaa: 82)

Ahadith used to disprove Hadith

Some of the Hadith rejectors quote this hadith to prove that the ahadith are not reliable;

It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Do not write anything from me; whoever has written anything from me other than the Qur’aan, let him erase it and narrate from me, for there is nothing wrong with that. (Narrated by Muslim, al-Zuhd wa’l-Raqaa’iq, 5326)

But Later ahadith WERE written down by the companions


But we see from other ahadith that Allah's Messenger later allowed the companions to write his sayings. He temporary prohibition was meant as a precautionary step to ensure the correctness of the word of Allaah as distinguished from the words of the Prophet himself, as both came from the lips of the Prophet. This is one view and several other views are mentioned in the commentary on Saheeh Muslim by Imaam Al-Nawawi (May Allaah have mercy on him);



Al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:

Al-Qaadi said: there were many disputes among the Sahaabah and Taabi’een concerning the writing down of knowledge. Many of them regarded this as being makrooh, but most of them regarded it as permissible. This dispute is no longer an issue.

They differed as to the meaning of this hadeeth which says that it is forbidden. It was said that this pertained to one who was sure of his memory, and there was the fear that he may rely upon what he had written if he wrote it down; the ahaadeeth which say that it is permissible to write things down is to be interpreted as referring to the one whose memory is not reliable, such as the hadeeth, “Write it down for Abu Shaah”; or the hadeeth of the saheefah of ‘Alee (may Allaah be pleased with him); the hadeeth of the book of ‘Amr ibn Hazm, which contains laws on inheritance, sunnahs and diyaat (blood money); the hadeeth about writing down charity, and the minimum amounts at which zakaah becomes obligatory (nisaab), with which Abu Bakr sent Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) to Bahrain; the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah which says that Ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas used to ; write things down but he (Abu Hurayrah) did not write things down, and other ahaadeeth. And it was said that the hadeeth forbidding writing down ahaadeeth was abrogated by these ahaadeeth.

The prohibition was in effect when there was the fear that (the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) might be mixed with the Qur’aan. When that danger was no longer present, permission was given to write down (ahaadeeth). And it was said that the prohibition mentioned in the hadeeth referred to writing ahaadeeth on the same page as Qur’aan, lest they become mixed and thus the reader would be confused when looking at this page. And Allaah knows best.

The hadeeth of Abu Shaah was narrated by al-Bukhaari from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said:

‘When Allaah granted His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) victory over Makkah, he stood before the people and praised and glorified Allaah, then he said: “Allaah protected Makkah from the elephant and has given authority to His Messenger and the believers over it, so fighting was forbidden for anyone before me, and was made permissible for me for part of a day, and it will not be permissible for anyone after me. Its game should not be chased, its thorny bushes should not be uprooted, and picking up its fallen things is not allowed except for one who makes public announcement for it, and he whose relative is murdered has the option either to accept a compensation for it or to retaliate.” Al-‘Abbas said, “Except Al-Idhkhir (a kind of plant), for we use it in our graves and houses.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Except Al-Idhkhir.” Abu Shaah, a Yemeni, stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah! Get it written for me.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Write it for Abu Shaah.” (al-Luqatah, 2254)

Ibn Hajar said: What may be understood from the story of Abu Shaah (“Write it for Abu Shaah”) is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave permission for hadeeth to be written down from him.

This contradicts the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, which says that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘Do not write down anything from me except the Qur’aan.’ (Narrated by Muslim).

The two may be reconciled by noting that the prohibition applied only to the time when the Qur’aan was being revealed, lest it be confused with something else, and that permission was given at other times; or that the prohibition applied only to writing down things other than Qur’aan with the Qur’aan on one thing, and that permission was given to write them separately; of that the prohibition came first and the permission abrogated that, when there was no longer any fear of confusion. This is most likely to be the case.

It was said that the prohibition applied only to those whom it was feared would depend on the writing and not memorize things, and that permission was given for those from whom such a thing was not feared.

The scholars said: a group of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een regarded it as makrooh to write down the hadeeth and they regarded it as mustahabb to learn it from them by heart, as they had learned it. But when people were no longer able to strive so hard (in memorizing) and the scholars feared that knowledge might be lost, they compiled it in books.”
There are countless instructions from the Prophet instructing his companions to write down some ahadeeth.

Proof of Ahadith which the companions of Prophet Muhammad did right;

One of the Ansaar (The Helpers) asked the Prophet if there was another way to preserve ahadeeth as he sometimes forgets them. The Prophet replied:

Seek help from your right hand, and pointed out to a writing. (Tirmidhi)

Raafi ibn Khadij (May Allaah be pleased with him) said:

I said to the Prophet that we hear from you many things, should we write them down?” He replied: You may write. There is no harm. (Tadreeb ar Raawi)

Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) narrates that the Prophet said:

Preserve knowledge by writing. (At-Tabari Jaami ul Bayaan)

Abu Raafi (may Allaah be pleased with him) sought permission from the Prophet to write ahadeeth and the Prophet granted him that permission (Tirmidhi)

Salma (student of Ibn Abbaas) says:

I saw some small wooden boards with Abdullaah Ibn Abbaas. He was writing on them some reports of the acts of the Prophet which he acquired from Abu Raafi’. (Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d)

Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas (May Allaah be pleased with him) reports that the Prophet said to him:

Preserve Knowledge

Abdullaah then asked,

how should it be preserved?

The Prophet replied,

by writing it.
(Mustadrik Haakim; Jaami ul Bayaan)

In another report, he says,

I came to the Prophet and told him, I want to narrate your ahadeeth. So, I want to take assistance of my handwriting besides my heart. Do you deem it fit for me?’

The Prophet replied,

If it is my hadeeth you may seek help from your hand besides your heart. (Daarimi)

He also says:

I used to write whatever I heard from the Prophet and wanted to learn it by heart. Some people of the Quraysh dissuaded me and said,
Do you write everything you hear from the Prophet, while he is a human being and sometimes he may be in anger as any other human beings may be? (Abu Dawood)

After Abdullaah ibn Amr conveyed their opinion to the Prophet, the Prophet replied by pointing to his lips and said:

I swear by the One in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad: nothing comes out from these two (lips) except truth(haqq). So, do write. (Abu Dawood; Tabaqaat ibn Sa’d; Mustadrik ul Haakim)

These narrations attest that ahadeeth were written during the era of the Prophet.

I will list here the prominent compilations written in the first and second century, some written by the sahabas (the Prophet’s companions), their students (taabi’een), and the students of the taabi’een (tabaa'at-taabi'een).

Some of the compilations during the era of the Prophet:

The Scripts of Abu Hurairah

Hasan ibn Amr reports that once:

Abu Hurairah took him to his home and showed him “many books” containing the ahadeeth of the Prophet. (Jaami’ Bayaan-ul-‘Ilm; Fath-ul-Baari)

The Script of Abdullaahi ibn Amr

Mujahid, his student, said

I went to Abdullaah ibn Amr and took in hand a script placed beneath his cushion. He stopped me. I said, You never save anything from me. He replied:

This is the Saadiqah (the Script of Truth). It is what I heard from the Prophet. No other narrator intervenes between him and myself. If this script, the Book of Allaah, and wahaz (his agricultural land) are secured for me, I would never care about the rest of the world. (Jaami’ Bayaan-ul-‘Ilm)

The Script of Anas

Sa’eed ibn Hilal, one of his students, says:

When we insisted upon Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) he would bring to us some notebooks and say, These are what I have heard and written from the Prophet, after which I have presented them to the Prophet for confirmation. (Mustadrik Haakim)

The Script of Alee

Alee said:

I have not written anything from the Prophet except the Qur’aan and what is contained in this script. (Saheeh Bukhaaree- Book of Jihaad)

Ibn Sa'd reports that Alee stood in the mosque and delivered a lecture then he asked the people:

Who will purchase ‘knowledge’ for one dirham only?

meaning, who wants to learn ahadeeth should buy writing paper for one dirham and come to him for dictation.

It is reported that Haarith al-A’war bought some paper and came to him:

So, Alee wrote for him a lot of knowledge. (Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d)

Scripts of Jaabir

Qataadah, one of Jaabir’s students, says,

I remember the script of Jaabir more than I remember Surah al-Baqarah (Qur’aan). (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb)

Scripts of Ibn Abbaas

Musa ibn Uqbah says:

Kuraib left with us a camel load of Ibn Abbaas’s books. When Alee ibn Abdullaah ibn Abbaas would need any book from them, he wrote to Kuraib, ‘Send to me such and such books.’ He would then transcribe the book and send to him one of the two copies. (Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d)

The pupils of Ibn Abbaas would copy these scripts and read them over to him to confirm the correctness of the copies. (Tirmidhi)

Sometimes Ibn Abbaas would narrate the ahadeeth to his pupils while they would record them. (Daarimi)

The compilations of Ahadith in the First Century Hijrah:

1. Book of Khalid ibn Ma’dan (d. 104)
2. Books of Abu Qilabah (d. 104). He bequeathed his books to his pupil, Ayyub Saktiyan (68-131 A.H.), who paid more than ten dirhams as a fare for them being loaded on a camel.
3. The script of Hammam ibn Munabbih,
4. Books of Hasan al-Basri (21-110 A.H.)
5. Books of Muhammad al-Baqir (56-114 A.H.)
6. Books of Makhul from Syria
7. Book of Hakam ibn ‘Utaibah
8. Book of Bukair ibn Abdullaah ibn al-Ashajj (d. 117)
9. Book of Qais ibn Sa’d (d. 117). This book later belonged to Hammad ibn Salamah.
10. Book of Sulaiman al-Yashkuri
11. Al-Abwaab of Sha’bi,
12. Books of Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhri
13. Book of Abul-Aliyah
14. Book of Sa’id ibn Jubair (d. 95)
15. Books of Umar ibn ‘Abdul Aziz (61-101 A.H.)
16. Books of Mujahid ibn Jabr (d. 103)
17. Book of Raja ibn Hywah (d. 112)
18. Book of Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Haq
19. Book of Bashir ibn Nahik.

The compilations of the second century (note that only the prominent ones are listed due length) :

1. Book of Abdul Malik ibn Juraij (d. 150)
2. Muwatta of Maalik ibn Anas (93-179)
3. Muwatta of Ibn Abi Zi’b (80-158)
4. Maghaazi of Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 151)
5. Musnad of Rabi’ ibn Sabih (d. 160)
6. Book of Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah (d. 156)
7. Book of Hammad ibn Salmah (d. 167)
8. Jami’ Sufyan ath-Thauri (97-161)
9. Jami’ Ma’mar ibn Rashid (95-153)
10. Book of ‘Abdur-Rahman al-Awzaa’I (88-157)
11. Kitaab az-Zuhd by Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak (118-181)
12. Book of Hushaim ibn Bashir (104-183)
13. Book of Jarir ibn ‘Abdul-Hamid (110-188)
14. Book of Abdullaah ibn Wahb (125-197)
15. Book of Yahya ibn Abi Kathîr (d. 129)
16. Book of Muhammad ibn Suqah (d. 135)
17. Tafsîr of Zaid ibn Aslam (d. 136)
18. Book of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah (d. 141)
19. Book of Ash’ath ibn ‘Abdul-Malik (d. 142)
20. Book of Aqil ibn Khalid (d. 142)
21. Book of Yahya ibn Sa’id Ansari (d. 143)
22. Book of Awf ibn Abi Jamilah (d. 146)
23. Books of Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (d. 148)
24. Books of Yunus ibn Yazid (d. 152)
25. Book of ‘Abdur-Rahman al-Mas’udi (d. 160)
26. Books of Zaidah ibn Qudamah (d. 161)
27. Books of Ibrahim al-Tahman (d. 163)
28. Books of Abu Hamzah al-Sukri (d. 167)
29. Al-Gharaaib by Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 160)
30. Books of Abdul-Aziz ibn ‘Abdullaah al-Majishun (d. 164)
31. Books of Abdullaah ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn Abi Uwais (d. 169)
32. Books of Sulaiman ibn Bilal (d. 172)
33. Books of Abdullaah ibn Lahi’ah (d. 147)
34. Jami’ Sufyan ibn ‘Uyainah (d. 198)
35. Kitaab-ul-AAthaar by Imaam Abu Haneefah (d. 150)
36. Maghaazi of Mu’tamir ibn Sulaiman (d. 187)
37. Musannaf of Waki’ ibn Jarrah (d. 196)
38. Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaaq ibn Hammam (136-221)
39. Musnad of Zaid ibn Alee (76-122)
40. Books of Imaam Shaafi’i (150-204)

The following are available today in printed form:

1. Al-Muwatta by Imaam Maalik.
2. Kitaab-ul-AAthaar by Imaam Abu Haneefah.
3. Musannaf by ‘Abdur-Razzaaq. This book has been published in eleven big volumes.
4. As-Seerah by Muhammad ibn Ishaq.
5. Kitaab az-Zuhd by ‘Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak.
6. Kitaab az-Zuhd by Waki’ ibn Jarraah (3 volumes).
7. Al-Musnad by Zaid ibn Alee (76-122).
8. Sunan of Imaam Shaafi’i.
9. Musnad of Shaafi’i.
10. Siyar of Awzaa’i (88-157).
11. Musnad of ‘Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak.
12. Musnad of Abu Daawood Tayalisi (d. 204).
13. Ar-Radd ‘ala Siyaril-Awzaa’i by Imaam Abu Yoosuf.
14. Al-Hujjah ‘ala Ahlil-Madeenah by Imaam Muhammad ibn Hasan Shaibaani.
15. Kitaabul-Umm by Imaam Shaafi’i.
16. Al-Maghaazi by Waqidi (130-206) (4 volumes).

Full Article;
Ahadeeth myths :: load-islam


Useful Links;
http://islamtoday.com/discover_islam.cfm?cat_id=6&sub_cat_id=46
http://www.islamreligion.com/category/81/
Questions that the Quranites Have No Good Logical Responses To