Sahih hadith criteria: Cannot go against reason | Mufti Abu Layth

Mufti Abu Layth elaborates on reason playing a role in hadith.

[@Johnelhadjmi]

That man deserve a nobel price 👍

[@m-i_]

Mufti is the Final frontier!!

[@justCommando]

As in a price on his head? 😂

[@ImranAli-tm3rq]

Reason? If you say to a left wing liberal that sodomy is unnatural he will say of course it isn't...he will call you unreasonable and may even call you evil. If you say to a right wing conservative the same thing, he will say you are being reasonable. The two sections of society fighting in America at this moment in time are both using their reason. This is why we must follow the reasonable approach of the Quran and the Sunnah the Prophet left us. Every authentic hadith and Quranic verse has a reasonable explanation. However, some people are so overburdened by their desires and agendas that they have no patience to listen!

[@bosbanon3452]

​@@justCommando prizes

[@introspectivex8346]

To support this notion further and show how Mufti is sticking to fundamental principles of Scholars from the past to reach conclusions that are in line with ‘aql for our day and age, I am bringing below other scholars that state the same about rejecting Sahih Hadith (note: most scholars today simply follow the final conclusions made by Scholars from the past rather than use the same methodology & principles they used to arrive at conclusions for our day and age in light of development of ‘aql. This is a sign of a true Scholar. Not just sticking to the furu’ of the past, but using Usul to develop understanding ): Khateeb al-Baghdaadi [d. 463 AH] [Al-Faqih wal Mutafaqqih] [Volume 1, Page 353]: “If a fully connected hadith that is narrated by trustworthy and reliable narrators reaches you, then it can be rejected in the following cases: One - If the narration goes against necessary intellect then you should know that the narration is false because the Shari’ah uses what is accepted by the intellect, not what is contradictory to it.” إِذَا رَوَى الثِّقَةُ الْمَأْمُونُ خَبَرًا مُتَّصِلَ الْإِسْنَادِ رُدَّ بِأُمُورٍ: أَحَدُهَا: أَنْ يُخَالِفَ مُوجِبَاتِ الْعُقُولِ فَيُعْلَمُ بُطْلَانُهُ , لِأَنَّ الشَّرْعَ إِنَّمَا يُرَدُّ بِمُجَوِّزَاتِ الْعُقُولِ , وَأَمَّا بِخِلَافِ الْعُقُولِ , فَلَا ________ al-Jassaas [d. 330 AH] [al-Fusool fil Usool] [Volume 3, Page 121] Other defects for which you can reject solitary narrations is if they are in conflict with necessary rules of reason (‘aql) because ‘aql is an evidence of Allah. So it is not permissible to turn away from what it leads towards or what it necessitates. Every report that contradicts an argument of ‘aql is corrupted and not accepted. An argument of ‘aql is established and saheeh. Unless the report can be interpreted in a way that does not contradict the rules of ‘aql. In which case, it is interpreted in this way. This is what ‘Esa ibn Aban [d. 220 AH] said and according to me, this is the methodology of our companions (Abu Hanifa etc) and this is what their Usool (principles) show.” قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ -: وَمِمَّا يُرَدُّ بِهِ أَخْبَارُ الْآحَادِ مِنْ الْعِلَلِ أَنْ يُنَافِيَ مُوجِبَاتِ أَحْكَامِ الْعُقُولِ، لِأَنَّ الْعُقُولَ حُجَّةٌ لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى. وَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ انْقِلَابُ مَا دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ وَأَوْجَبَتْهُ. وَكُلُّ خَبَرٍ يُضَادُّهُ حُجَّةٌ لِلْعَقْلِ فَهُوَ فَاسِدٌ غَيْرُ مَقْبُولٍ. وَحُجَّةُ الْعَقْلِ ثَابِتَةٌ صَحِيحَةٌ، إلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ الْخَبَرُ مُحْتَمِلًا لِوَجْهٍ لَا يُخَالِفُ بِهِ أَحْكَامَ الْعُقُولِ، فَيَكُونُ مَحْمُولًا عَلَى ذَلِكَ الْوَجْهِ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ -: قَدْ حَكَيْت جُمْلَةَ مَا ذَكَرَهُ عِيسَى فِي هَذَا الْمَعْنَى، وَهُوَ عِنْدِي مَذْهَبُ أَصْحَابِنَا، وَعَلَيْهِ تَدُلُّ أُصُولُهُمْ __________ Samarqandi [d. 539 AH] [Al-Meezaan al-Usul] [Volume 1, Page 433] Any thing that is a Khabar (narration): It is that which is in agreement with intellectual evidence. If it is in disagreement with it then do not accept it. Such as narrations which have anthropomorphism in them and others like it. This is because the intellect is a sound argument from Allah. And He is the Most-Wise and Most-Knowing. So it is not permissible to contradict His argument/evidences. Auditory evidences (from narrations) carry the possibility of metaphors, ellipsis, metonyms and other such things. So it is obligatory to ensure a narration is in compliance with intellect/reason. وأما كل ما يرجع إلى الخبر: [فمنها] أن يكون موافقًا للدليل العقلي، حتى إذا كان مخالفًا لا يقبل، كالأخبار التي وردت في التشبيه، ونحو ذلك، لأن العقل حجة من حجج الله تعالى، وإنه حكيم عالم، فلا يجوز أن تتناقض حججه. والدليل السمعي يحتمل المجاز والإضمار والكناية ونحوها، فيجب تخزيج الأخبار على موافقة العقل على ما مر. ____________ Juwaini [d. 478 AH] [al-Burhan fi Usool al-Fiqh] [Volume 1, Page 223] The types of narrations which are certainly lies are of various types. Amongst them is: whatever contradicts necessary reason or investigative reasoning; which is anything that conflicts with something that is in compliance with reason. فصل: في تقاسيم الأخبار... فأما القسم الثاني من الأقسام الثلاثة [فهو] ما يقطع بكونه كذبا وهو متنوع فمنه ما يخالف المعقول ضرورة أو نظرا وهو مناقض لما يوافق المعقول ________ Sakhaawi [d. 902 AH] [Fath al-Mugheeth] [Volume 1, Page 332] Ibn al-Jawzi [d. 597 AH] said, “Every hadith you find going against intellect or contradicting principles (Usool) then know that it is fabricated. So do not bother yourself with considering it any further; as in do not consider its narrators and what their state is (جرحهم). And similarly if it is amongst those narrations that push away your senses and observations, or is in conflict with the explicit texts from Qur'an or the Mutawaatir Sunnah or is against decisive/complete consensus....” قَالَ ابْنُ الْجَوْزِيِّ: وَكُلُّ حَدِيثٍ رَأَيْتَهُ يُخَالِفُ الْعُقُولَ، أَوْ يُنَاقِضُ الْأُصُولَ، فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ مَوْضُوعٌ، فَلَا تَتَكَلَّفِ اعْتِبَارَهُ، أَيْ: لَا تَعْتَبِرْ رُوَاتَهُ، وَلَا تَنْظُرْ فِي جَرْحِهِمْ. أَوْ يَكُونَ مِمَّا يَدْفَعُهُ الْحِسُّ وَالْمُشَاهَدَةُ، أَوْ مُبَايِنًا لِنَصِّ الْكِتَابِ، أَوِ السُّنَّةِ الْمُتَوَاتِرَةِ، أَوِ الْإِجْمَاعِ الْقَطْعِيِّ ________ And I will end this on sharing what Ibn Taymiyyah, the Salafi’s forefather himself, said about those people who reject Sahih Hadith out of the belief that the Prophet didn’t say them (so he is creating a distinction between those who reject something whilst they know the Prophet said it and those who don’t believe he said it, even if the hadith is Sahih): Ibn Taymiyyah [d. 728 AH] [al-Musawwadah] [Volume 1, 247] What is correct is: the person who rejects an authentic narration in the same way that the Companions rejected it, believing there is a mistake from the narrator or a falsehood, so they are rejecting this narration because they believe the evidence shows that the Prophet could not have said this - then this is not Disbelief or Sin. Even if their beliefs (of why they are rejecting it) are not identical (to the reasons we have mentioned). Indeed, many Companions would reject many narrations that are considered authentic by the Scholars of Hadith.” الصواب أن من رد الخبر الصحيح كما كانت ترده الصحابة اعتقادا لغلط الناقل أو كذبه لاعتقاد الراد أن الدليل قد دل على أن الرسول لا يقول هذا فإن هذا لا يكفر ولا يفسق وإن لم يكن اعتقاده مطابقا فقد رد غير واحد من الصحابة غير واحد من الأخبار التي هى صحيحة عند أهل الحديث

[@nero.unleashed]

Awesome work mate

[@hassanabdaladl]

This is pretty awesome bro lol nice compilation 💪

[@introspectivex8346]

South Auckland You’re right. But question is, if this Shaykh believes in absurdities, is he even a knowledgable person? Can he be trusted with ‘ilm at all? This is why Islamic Scholarship has lost its dignity and virtue nowadays. This is why majority of Scholars of past said you cannot use solitary narrations for Beliefs. This well-discussed in books of Usul al-Fiqh. Because beliefs are crucial and we cannot be sure solitary narrations are accurate, even if they are Sahih. So we only use them for rulings (how to pray etc) because it has to be Mutawaatir like the Qur’an to be sure Prophet said it and for us to use it for belief. So any solitary hadith telling you to believe something which isn’t explicitly stated in the Quran is not to be used according to Majority of Scholars because such narrations have a very low level of certainty in it. An example is, if 3 righteous people came and told you blue dragons exist, would you believe them? But if hundreds of people claimed to have seen them, it gives more credibility to believe them. Only the Salafi/Athari lot believed you can use solitary narrations for beliefs. Who were a minority in the past and many of them were never seen as very intellectual or knowledgable about the world around them. And today, because of Saudi dollar money, this belief is spreading and people are dumbing down ‘aql to yield to Salafi thought.

[@04uali]

LMAO so pick and choose whatever you like. Reject sahih hadith and misinterpret quran ayahs. In this day and age you have to accept homosexuality and evolution etc. There is a saying if you hate your religion so much then leave it not distort it. With that logic how can you trust any hadith or trust any quran ayah meaning. May allah destroy those who try to destory his religion. Fear Allah. What the prophet, sahaba and the first three generations believed is what we should believe. Simple!

[@urdominus]

@@04uali u want dogma, that's fine, there's plenty lol. But no 2 people will connect w/their creator the same & no one else will be responsible for that except the individual. So however an individual can connect w/their creator? So be it. That's between Allah & his creation.

[@khanG-gq9hc]

Loved the follow up part about Farabri 💯

[@hamzaabbas2711]

Thank you for this video very informative brother keep up the good work and highlight the truth of knowing the hadees which is to be accepted and which is to be rejected now and always will be up to individual's to research by themselves without being biased towards any ideology or may I say religion like always all the best to Muslim and Atheism love from Pakistan

[@Andalusian_]

Hadith going against the Quran in spirit and theology or Quran together with the known, mass-transmitted sunna overall in practice/fiqh, we do not accept. Conformity to the Quran is the Number One criterion. That’s more important than the chain. Thus, I reject killing people for adultery or apostasy.

[@phun1901]

If you take that view doesn't it powerfully demonstrate that analysing hadith transmission is proven to be unreliable? How can you trust any hadith when you have accepted that the best isnad scholarship cannot discern truth from fiction?

[@Andalusian_]

@@phun1901 No. strawman

[@phun1901]

@@Andalusian_ a strawman is a misrepresentation of a person's views. So what did I misrepresent? Either you do think isnad scholarship is trustworthy or you don't. Which is it? If you reject certain hadith purely on their content while you cannot fault their isnad, doesn't that show isnad aren't safe to rely on?

[@derpyninjahere5992]

@@phun1901there are phenomena in the Hadith tradition where the entire chain is blagged, some transmitters are dropped out to save the content and sometimes, if you know, Tadlees. That’s why it is important to rely upon Hadith. Hadith is human tradition, not revelation, that’s why we have to follow reason and not become chain-following robots.

[@TheAmateurPhilosopher1407]

Thanks! Louder for the people at the back!! By the way, I like how you said... Chain chain... Haha.

[@cavshub7503]

Great clip Mufti but I have a question. I've never heard you discuss the philosophical side to this but reason and rationality is obviously subjective. The problem is that it leaves the religion on a shaky and flimsy foundation cuz someone might see something as rational and others may not. So you can never OBJECTIVELY say anything is TRUTH cuz that same thing may not make sense to others. I hope I am not confusing this but I love that you talk about the voice of reason. The thing is that it is so much more complex than the way you describe it. Reason and rationality is formed through a plethora of internal and external influences. Therefore the makeup of your reason will obviously not be the same as someone else, let allow as someone from a different time. So how can it ever lead to any objective truth???? I always wanted to have a discussion about this with you. I greatly appreciate and love what you do. You are one of the few people who have separated themselves from sectarianism and dogma and preach about what you are convinced of. May allah bless you and your family forever and ever!!! Lol

[@interqward1]

You are going against the very ancient legacy that runs prior to Islamic Arabic thinking, through the early Islamic era and shortly thereafter. Mathematics and algebra have been given to us in the modern world, at least partly, from the Arabic world. The Quran itself teaches that it has been given to those who USE THEIR MIND. There is nothing at all 'subjective' about logic - and we use reason to get to it. The human mind has the in-built faculty of being able to recognize Universal Truth, mathematical logic, and hence too moral perfection. Yes, it is also true that when human emotions and inclinations are falsely tied to intellectual priorities - such as when people are brainwashed or heavily propagandized to, and suffer from forms of Stockholm Syndrome, such as in the case of Wahabi ideology - then their 'reasoning' is affected and turned away from absolute truth.

[@cavshub7503]

​@@interqward1 Interesting perspective. I don't quite understand how you have come to the conclusion that logic and rationality is not 'subjective'. What data or evidence indicates that logic and reasoning can lead to objective truths? You are actually proposing that every individual from time and memorial would have arrived to the same logical conclusion? You really think that an individual's upbringing, socio-economic situation, culture, past experience and even some aspects of his biology doesn't shape his/her rationality? Of course it does! A man who lived 200 years ago in a desert would logically come to the exact same conclusions as someone today in a fast-paced metropolitan society? You are assuming that human beings are not shaped and molded by external circumstances, which is preposterous with all due respect. However I totally agree with you on the aspect of brainwashing and propagandizing in the case of Wahabi / Salafi ideology. You said that human being have an in-built mechanism to recognize universal truths which I generally agree. But the problem is how can we ascertain that this 'in-built' recognition has not been tainted or corrupted? And who is to say if it is or not? Hence we come back to the same issue. As human beings, our ability to reason is heavily subjective (for all the points I mentioned in the beginning) therefore to proclaim that we can arrive to an objective truth using the voice of reason seems like a fallacy. I would love to further discuss this with anyone. I want to increase my understanding in this area and would love it if someone would provided more compelling arguments.

[@interqward1]

@@cavshub7503 'More compelling arguments?' Okay but right now, what you are doing is re-asserting a proposition whilst ignoring the first objection and pretending to yourself that it wasn't made - namely, that we already do have a crystal clear body of factual knowledge that Mankind arrived at, via is own intellect and nothing else. If geometry and mathematics were not absolutely categorically correct, Al Waleed's 'tallest ever tower' would either hit the 'high flying gharaniq' or fall to the ground! There are no 'straights lines' nor 'perfect triangles' in Nature. And yet by our reasoning we have uncovered that yet they do exist in reality as underlying structures of force and mechanical 'construct' beneath outward visible 'reality.' So, we have discovered them as truth and as part of absolute reality - but they are literally 'unseen;' invisible as actual things in Nature - only vaguely like certain shapes in Nature. In the same way, granted we now have to turn our minds to a different class of invisible thing - namely, moral truth, and moral right and wrong, as well as other things too - but we can still uncover these with our minds reasoning as well. PROVIDED (and your point is valid enough in that we MUST be aware of it when using our minds this way) we remove those biases that come from emotional rewards UNCONNECTED to the cause: for instance, this person might be someone we like, and who gives us material benefits, but this must not interfere with the way we consider intangible propositions accessible only through the intellect and not through sense gratification. No doubt, sense may be gratified AFTER the establishing of moral fact, but not in a way that seeks to feed appetite or submit itself to greed, but only to necessary nourishment for life.

[@cavshub7503]

@@interqward1 I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate the argument. These are my objections: Your claim that 'If geometry and mathematics were not absolutely categorically correct....', that is entirely false because the fact that something works does not make it ABSOLUTE truth. This is an age old fallacy. Throughout scientific history, there have been 'facts' that were over-turn as a result of new data. The fact that human beings were able to get to an advance level technologically, mathematically etc., does not in any way prove the 'categorical' truth of those methods. Your argument on mathematics also seems flawed because, believe it or not, philosophers have also disagreed whether mathematics even provides any kind of real truth value. You can read Bertrand Russell's or Descart's work on this, it will be too lengthy for me to go over it here. I feel like you are making a false analogy by comparing two different realities. This 'clear body of factual knowledge' that you are speaking of, has a tangible manifestation. Aspects of morality are total abstract realities. This is why Ibn Taymiyyah's critique of rationality is so tough to get by. He argued that if we were to come to the same conclusions using our LOGIC and REASONING then why is it that all the greatest thinkers in our history disagreed with one another about 'abstract' truths? And this is indeed a fact. Plato and Aristotle is a prime example. Two unbelievable thinkers of our history (and Aristotle was his teacher by the way) heavily disagreed with one another on moral and philosophical fronts. This has been the same trend every generation (Leibniz, Voltaire, Newton etc.). I agree that human being have come very far through the use of our intellect but the reason why you are able to say that is because you can SEE the tangible manifestation of those methods. Aspects of human morality, purpose of life, universal truth etc. cannot be measured or empirically verified so how can you compare these two things? If you say that we can compare the two, then how do you get around the classic Ibn Taymiyyan argument on rationality?

[@interqward1]

@@cavshub7503 [Quote:you] 'If geometry and mathematics were not absolutely categorically correct....', that is entirely false because the fact that something works does not make it ABSOLUTE truth. This is an age old fallacy. Throughout scientific history, there have been 'facts' that were over-turn as a result of new data. [End Quote]. You have jammed together two different syntax object words here - with entirely different meanings - and in that way make it seem as if a particular conclusion is logical (which it would be if the object words had the same meaning: example - 'trees have barks, dogs have barks, therefore all dogs are trees.' There's your fallacy for you! And you did the same thing here. Like this: 'Science' and 'scientific fact' are not the same as geometrical fact; example: a triangle will NEVER not be a triangle just because of some 'OTHER' 'NEW' fact discovered in general mathematics, and that is because the standard definition of a triangle already exists. Thus even any 'new' element of any potential definition will have the effect of speaking about entirely 'new' kind of triangle (in reality such a thing would BE a triangle at all, of course! ...But I'm just making an example statement here). Thus we can indeed see through your point about reviewing data that 'science' is subject to being updated, and yet even here there is a test of percentage functionality - which distinguishes engineering from theoretical physics. There are degrees of functionality in engineering making it possible to have what are termed 'working absolutes.' Logics concerning obtuse ideas such as 'God' or 'Justice' or 'Absolute Right and Wrong' and so on are predicated on both the definitions of terms and the importance of not juggling their usages in syntax (grammar). It is completely possible both to discover pathways to Absolute Truth and to 'see' such a thing, despite that certainly it is by no means simple and easy. Islam, however, especially in its modern form, is 'Zumba' philosophy, which makes it all the more difficult for Muslims, raised in a culture of continuously messing with standard definitions (and then 'vending them' to followers under various emotional and psychological threats - makes it impossible...) to comprehend the logical structures and processes involved in perceiving either actual 'God' (the idea of it), or absolute Right and Wrong, especially the latter because it involves second order, third order and greater, logic statements (flow diagrams, effectively).

[@asifm7677]

Can you provide the page number for this book pls

[@icysaracen3054]

God if the Post Rashidun Caliphs did their proper job of managing these Hadith scholars rather than focusing on building empire and state affairs then we would have not had these corrupted hadiths.

[@thomasbuxton2648]

The problem is, reason is subjective. What’s resosnalble to one person may not be to another; so how do you make it objective?

[@urdominus]

That's no problem. Every single person will have their unique way of connecting w/their creator. That's between. Allah & his creation. However that connection is made? Will be different for every person, thus how they reason/rationalize their religion.

[@seletarroots3258]

Reason and reasoning are processes, not conclusions. Its all about the process and how well it is executed.

[@seletarroots3258]

@1990m t It is the foundation upon which everything is built as far as human society is concerned. You must first exclude reason and rationality before you can move forward without them or not have them be required. That is also part of the process to which they subject everything. For instance, people trying to use logic, rationality and reason to "prove" God will inevitably fail. Why? Because if we are to believe the same people when they say that God is "Other" as in not of this world, beyond our comprehension, limitless and boundless, the Almighty and the Prime Mover, we are now using rationality, reason and logic to operate on that which defies it. Transcends it. Preceeds it. Overcomes it. We would not know what we actually have determined since the premise given clearly suggests a power or entity so superior and "Other" that we don´t know for certain what we actually have found. Even in science we come across increadible phenomena like electrons existing in directional pairs and other quantum mechanical apparent contradictions. So sure, there are limits to reason and rationality and logic. But first we must find it. And the process by which we do so is that very set of rational, resonable and logical methods. A process that very much will tells what we do have the capacity and capability of capturing and understanding until we hit the limits of reason. Every society that has applied a traditional reading of scripture without hermeneutics of logic, rationality and reason are all places where human life suffers. No matter if it is this or that religion. Only in places where rationality, logic and reason are the main guides of the interpretative efforts, the processes through which we understand, do we see improvement also in the lives of the humans of that place.

[@ahmadrhodes3073]

@@TheOneLogic69 "... more recently against universally accepted ethics (You shouldn't beat a woman)." How do you elevate "universally accepted ethics" to the level of reason? If we consider your example alone of beating a woman, how can you say that this is "universally accepted" when we consider even the laws on the books of dozens of countries concerning this very issue? In addition, even if we accept, for argument's sake that this is "universally accepted", you also qualify this claim by saying it is a recent one. So, then some 200 years ago when such an ethic was not "universally accepted" but its opposite, or some resembling it, nearly was, was it then reasonable to beat a woman? If reason is so variable and unstable, how can anyone who employs its as a standard against which to judge the veracity of anything claiming either divine origin or divine inspiration be even reasonably confident in their resulting judgements?

[@ahmadrhodes3073]

@@TheOneLogic69 "....what is scientifically undeniable" With all due respect, based on your expressing yourself this way, I think it is clear that you have not studied epistemology or the philosophy of science. I suppose you meant to say "where taking the literal meaning would necessitate accepting a claim the falsity of which has been empirically verified by observations to its (the initial claim's) contrary" If this is what you attended to say, then it is, of course, sensible. However, it seems like you do not understand how rare it is for anyone to of any religious or ideological persuasion to deny such things. Furthermore, there is a very long history of science "validating" the "morality of the moment" or of the powers that be. If anyone were to study the origin of modern racism in North America and Western Europe, they would be well aware of how "scientific" racism was considered to be and how credentialed many of its exponents were. Furthermore, the supposed line between "science" and "pseudo-science" is beyond fine. I would encourage you, and anyone else who believes that part of reason is to accept the empirically verified to study and read up on the limitations of this approach (i.e. science).

[@NaqeebAl]

The problem is, what people decide to be reasonable changes according culture, time, and general socio-economic trends.

[@muhammadrayyanfahershahab1510]

yeah but i think it is okay, that doesn't mean we can't use reason. as long it make sense, and objective throughout the arguments or reasons, we can accept that. And people often misinterpreting reason as hawa or nafs. Which means that we reject the hadith because we simply don't like it. That's not what reasoning means. rejecting hadith through reasoning means you bring a strong amount of evidence why this hadith can't be accepted even the sanad is sahih. For example, the hadith of jesus coming back said that jesus will force human choose islam or the sword (a.k.a. death). Now, the sanad is sahih, but can we accept that? big no, because it contradicts with the quran which said you can't force someone to islam. and the reasoning part is that the prophet in his lifetime never had forced anyone to become islam. That's a strong reasoning besides it clashes with the Qur'an. Another example is that there is a hadith in bukhari which said "god created man (human) in his own image". We rejected this hadith. The reason being that god himself said that he is different than his creatures. Also, it turns out that this hadith had the exact same wording with one of the ayat in the bible, in genesis, which said god created man in his own image, so it is possible that along the chain people mistook it as a hadith while it should've been a verse of the bible. That's a strong reasoning. hadith have always been subjective anyway. almost every muhaddith had differences on their understanding regarding asma rijal (who is tsiqah or not), syadz and illat, etc, that's all considered as their reasoning. that's why you see many different oppinions of the muhaddiths. If u count the hadiths being rejected by reasoning which is the matan, it isn't that many, but it is difficult to detect also, that's why scholars considered rejecting hadith by reasoning could be done by a very intelligent scholars such as imam daruquthni which rejected many hadiths in sahih bukhari. most of the hadith being rejected because of the sanad. The core principle of islam is already there in the Qur'an anyway such as monotheism, shalat, zakat, fasting, hajj, etc. All that we obliged to believe also there in the Qur'an such allah, malaikat, all the mesengers, all the scriptures, day of judgment, taqdir (fate), etc.

[@rqsafa]

5:04 who made jarh on him ?

[@marekp8636]

Can someone help me, a Christian attacks me and shows me and other friends David Wood's videos and I don't know how to answer them!?

[@tba6]

Mohammed hijab has alot of videos on how to reply to them

[@tba6]

But what specifically do they say

[@marekp8636]

@@tba6 He keep throw videos TOP FIVE Most Disgusting Facts about Prophet Muhammad! and other from channel Acts17Apologetics this channel must be blocked !!

[@MrIkytv]

Marek P fraud responds refuted this video

[@arthurnouveau573]

If they have a wife just threaten her, or call them racist or an islamophobe, or maybe some doxing. Y'know, the usual, just mix it up a bit.

[@afhamahammed9662]

Whose rationality? Whose justice?

[@fahadalam8322]

If that's the. Case .. why don't you accept the Shia Narrative that Omar killed and kicked fatimah and Ali ra hid inside the room ? It's a Hadith ..so y reject it ? Why not just accept it

[@salmanvlog96]

Investigate them and find out if anyone is giving you good advice

[@truth123more]

We need to then consider the objective of the compilers of these books as well as look back at Bukhari himself, to me it does not suffice to use reason to the extent of accepting and rejecting hadith, reason has to be used to understand the purpose of the text, this is what the Qur'an asks of us, in fact the Qur'an is filled with verses 'do you not reflect, do you not ponder, these are for men of understanding, these are for people who reason' it is clear to the reader of the Qur'an that the call is to use reason, to use reason to believe in God and believe in the Qur'an. The same should be applied to hadith literature, and we then have to question the motives of these narrators and compilers, if at one moment they are showing the messenger of God to be a tyrant and at other times to be a kind, affectionate and embracing man, what is their intent here, and reason would point us in the direction of abandoning something with so many contradictions and portrays the messenger of God in such a light , for those who have objectively read these texts you know what I am referring to.

[@Therock151214]

Shias have been saying this from day one.

[@wt3522]

Reason according to whom? Herein lies the problem.

[@introspectivex8346]

Wiz Tru Sahih hadith according to whom? Quran’s interpretation according to whom? Therein lies a problem too. But do we abandon all these matters just because there’s difference in perspectives? No. We look at evidence. So whosever reason has better evidence and is in coherence with reality and general principles of Qur’an and common sense.

[@ounaogot]

To me

[@Mrcontrolfreak21]

I think he means common sense in general

[@aamenahkhan6108]

But again how can u make these goons understand Thy r alrdy scared of reading quran

[@salmanvlog96]

It is not correct that you have given the name Mufti .... You must convert to Higher Cutting Islam ...

[@urdominus]

Nonsense lol

[@freeman6302]

Is he wearing an ear ring?

[@hbsblkk3842]

So?

[@HamzaTalaat]

​@@Ray-of-Hope720because it's haram lmao

[@zayedahmed9800]

Can men wear silver jewellery like rings, chains etc? As for rings of silver, this is permissible according to the consensus of the imams, for it was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had a ring of silver and that his companions wore rings. This is unlike gold rings, which are forbidden according to the consensus of the four imams. It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade that. As for wearing silver, there is no general statement that it is forbidden, and no one has the right to say that it is forbidden if there is no shar’i evidence (daleel) to that effect. As the Sunnah permits wearing silver rings, this is evidence that wearing silver is permissible…” (Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, 25/63-65). With regard to wearing chains, this is not permissible for men, because this is an imitation of women, and there is no report which says that it is permissible for men to wear chains made of silver. Wearing adornments on the wrist and neck, and on the ears, is an imitation of women, as this is something that is only for women. So it is not permissible for men to wear bracelets, earrings, anklets, or chains. And Allaah knows best.

[@urdominus]

Don't worry about this. Islam is here to help u connect w/ur creator, that's it's objective. The connection between the 2 of u has nothing to do w/jewelry lol. Let it go....it's a non-issue.

[@123dragonvale]

This is a non-issue. If you have read the Quran you would not need to get a headache over all these hadith. The Quran does not forbid wearing jewellery not does it forbid wearing another gender's clothes. Allah says in the Quran that the prophet s.a.w. cannot make something halal or haram, that is something that Allah alone decides. So therefore, no it is not haram.

[@AbiMohammed]

A mufti who is wearing earrings, who is going to take this sirious?

[@urdominus]

People who know connecting w/their creator has zero to do w/what u wear lol

[@mazighislam992]

Me, myself and i and you can go to your own kind

[@affarokurz1486]

We take him seriously

[@seletarroots3258]

I can tell you who isn´t taking your post serious: those who know how to spell. Are all you lot uneducated? Is that the problem? Is that what´s wrong?

[@surjO1710]

Judging by appearances is the way of the people of jahilliyat. Be careful.

[@consultantendeavor709]

how you said yourself “mufti” even your getup and beard is like Hollywood actors

[@Mrcontrolfreak21]

What’s your problem

[@urdominus]

@@Mrcontrolfreak21 his parents were cousins

[@Mrcontrolfreak21]

Are* I’m not sure if ur telling the truth or not but who cares it’s allowed in Islam

[@consultantendeavor709]

@@Mrcontrolfreak21 no fashioning style beard is not allowed in islam it is way of jews to make stylish beard In hadith it is clear من تشبه قوم فهو منهم

[@Mrcontrolfreak21]

Sweet Log Back that Hadith with Quran and was talking to d d not u

[@arthurnouveau573]

Yeah but like, the whole of Islam goes against reason. Like that bit where mo has allah pray on him. Nice one mo, ya doofus.

[@ahmadrhodes3073]

This comment of Arthur Nouveau sums up the problem with using "reason" as a standard against which to judge the veracity of divinely revealed texts and prophetic traditions, namely, the entire concept and idea is so broad, ill-defined and, ultimately, subjective that anyone can claim anything is against "reason" and, therefore, to be rejected when in actual fact it can be something that is either 1) Above their understanding OR 2) Contrary to their DESIRED (hawaa) "truth." I cannot think of a single atheist who does not claim that they are so because (supposedly) reason does not allow the acceptance of an existence of a deity who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-merciful given what we know about the universe. Really, unless "reason" is defined more clearly, strictly, and narrowly, this approach is a building that collapses before it is even raised.

[@notionSlave]

“Voice of reason.” Voice of your own desires more like.