/islam/ - 8kun Masjid

If you're suffering, you're doin' it wrong.

Life is filled with seductions and nothing said everyone will enjoy it.

>>29794

It's enjoyment that deceives you and makes you forget the remembrance of God. A balance would be remembering God and enjoying worldy blessings. That is allowed in Islam.

>>29794

people who mistreat and dislike dogs are really sad.

>>29824

Agreed. Not sure what that has to do with the thread, though.

>>29825

I guess dogs can suffer to, at the hands of people who think they are unclean

>>29826

Well, yeah, and some cultures eat them … it's a crazy world.

>>29794

You only amplify my pain, brother.

>>29826

Hurting animals is a serious sin. Taking care of animals and being good to them is rewarded by Allah.

Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “A prostitute had once been forgiven. She passed by a dog panting near a well. Thirst had nearly killed him, so she took off her sock, tied it to her veil, and drew up some water. Allah forgave her for that.”

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “A man suffered from thirst while he was walking on a journey. When he found a well, he climbed down into it and drank from it. Then he came out and saw a dog lolling its tongue from thirst and licking the ground. The man said: This dog has suffered thirst just as I have suffered from it. He climbed down into the well, filled his shoe with water, and caught it in his mouth as he climbed up. Then he gave the dog a drink. Allah appreciated this deed, so he forgave him.” They said, “O Messenger of Allah, is there a reward for charity even for the animals?” The Prophet said, “Yes, in every creature with a moist liver is a reward for charity.”

>>29833

Excellent post

>>29870

>Tells people not to cherrypick

>Cherrypicks

>>29870

I challenge you to find a single hadith that promotes hurting animals. I can think of several that say exactly the opposite. If you want to try to pull the “slicing animals throats is barbaric” argument, there are several scientific studies that have proven that it is a very painless and humane way to kill an animal. Killing animals with electric shock, which is widely practiced today, is much more painful to the animal. Do you think that those Muslims hurting dogs are scholars? People that do things like that are most likely very ignorant about most aspects about Islam.

Jabir told that God's Messenger(s) forbade striking the face or branding on the face of animals.The same companion of the Holy Prophet(s) reported him as saying, when an ass which had been branded in its face passed him by: 'God curse the one who branded it.'

To make sure that no injury was inflicted on the animal while there was even a flicker of life in it, it was forbidden by the Holy Prophet(s) to molest the carcass in any way, such as: by breaking its neck, skinning, or slicing off any of its parts, until the body is dead cold. One of his sayings on this theme is: "Do not deal hastily with a 'being' before it is stone dead."

Not only physical but also emotional care of animals was so much emphasized by the Holy Prophet(s) that he once reprimanded his wife, A'ishah, for treating a camel a bit offhandedly. Hazrat A'ishah herself narrates: "I was riding a restive camel and turned it rather roughly. The Prophet(s) said to me: 'it behooves you to treat the animals gently'.

Abu Huraira reported the Prophet(s) as telling of an incident that happened to another prophet in the past. This prophet was stung by an ant and, in anger, he ordered the whole of the ants' nest to be burned. At this, God reprimanded this prophet in these words: 'because one ant stung you, you have burned a whole community which glorified Me'.

>>29870

I can sympathize with them, this bulldog is clearly dangerous and aggressive. I'm not really a fan of dogs who sneak up or lounge on you. You just can't expect it since they look friendly, but can eat your face at any moment.

>>29893

The woman's erratic behavior towards his master is what is making the dog protective/agitated.

>>29897

The dog tried to jump her kid before. I would be angry too.

>>29953

where in the video is that

>>29956

She says it, and her kid is crying out of fear also. The owner knows, that's why he's holding the leash.

>>29957

>she says it

She's acting as if the dog already ate her kid, I'm not buying her hysterics.

The owner is flabbergasted at her antics. That's about it.

>>29958

If the dog attacked my child, there would be a very dead dog. I love dogs, but I protect my children like a wild baboon.

>>29958

the mom and the kid are not reacting this way for no reason

>>29871

Is this really allowed in Islam? Genuine question. From my imams, they say it's only allowed as hunting/herding animals. But not as house pets.

>>29989

>From my imams

How many imams do you have? Also, imams aren't always right.

>>29989

You can, but their saliva will cancel your wuduu.

>>29990

Muftis and every imam and islamic teacher/ustaaz in my country uses the quite strict Syafii school. I know that certain school are more lenient regarding this. But what is the general consensus within the ummah?

>>29991

And wouldn't it be better for dogs to not be used as house pets?

>>30039

The general consensus is that there's nothing wrong with dogs. A few fringe dog haters don't represent the entire ummah.

>>30043

Al-Bukhaari (2145) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, a qiraat from his good deeds will be deducted every day, except a dog for farming or herding livestock.”

Also mentioned in Muslim 2978 narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.”

Ibn Maajah (3640) narrated from ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.

>>30043

There is nothing wrong dogs. No one here is arguing that. It's that, under fiqh, muslims are asked to perform ablution if they are in contact with a wet dog and/or the dog's saliva. Honestly, I don't own a dog so I don't know how muslims that do, handles/manage this.

>>30050

According to which madhab is that?

>>30050

Honestly, dogs are cleaner than children. If you have kids, you're washing your hands and stuff constantly. You just kind of get used to it. Also, dogs can be trained not to lick you.

>>30051

Muslim (280): “If a dog licks the vessel of one of you, let him wash it seven times and rub it with soil the eighth time.”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

With regard to dogs, there are three views among the scholars:

1 – That they are taahir (pure), even their saliva. This is the view of Maalik.

2 – That they are naajis (impure), even their hair. This is the view of al-Shaafa’i and is one of the two views narrated from Ahmad.

3 – Their hair is taahir but their saliva is naajis. This is the view of Abu Haneefah and of Ahmad in the other report narrated from him.

This is the most correct view. So if the wetness of the dog’s hair gets onto one’s garment or body, that does not make it naajis. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 21/530.

>>30055

Isolated anecdotes aren't evidence. However, I can assure you from experience that human children are some of the filthiest creatures on the planet.

>>30056

The hadith “If a dog licks the vessel of one of you, let him wash it seven times and rub it with soil the eighth time.” supports the fact that a dogs saliva is harmful. There is scientific evidence that shows that dog saliva is dangerous, it isn’t just a one time-rare case kind of situation.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/30/the-deadly-reason-why-you-shouldnt-let-dogs-lick-your-face/

>>30057

Dogs can be trained not to lick you.

>>30054

Doesn't say anything about breaking wudhu.

>>30058

Even if you train your dog not to lick you, that still doesn’t prevent you from coming into contact with the negative effects caused by a dog’s uncleanliness. As was prescribed by the Prophet PBUH it is better to not keep dogs in your home.

What if a dog was in the home or even out in your yard and it liked the smell of something, so it rubbed its nose all over and licked that thing. Then your young child comes along and comes into contact with that object. Training dogs not to lick you could prevent a lot of the negative effects, but not all of them. The article I linked said that children are at a greater risk from infections caused by dogs.

There isn’t anything wrong with dogs. The bacteria they have in their saliva helps to keep them healthy, since they are generally involved in lots of unclean things. But those same bacteria are harmful to people, as well as the viruses and things that come along with the dirty activities dogs are involved in.

>>30059

No, it doesn’t. I was just providing some background information.

>>30060

Well, that's fine. Now … explain cats. Muslims love cats, but cats are even worse than dogs for spreading disease, not to mention the litter box. I mean, if we want to get scientific about it, keeping cats as pets is far more unsanitary than dogs.

Maybe - just maybe - it really comes down to the fact that Muhammad(pbuh) liked cats and didn't like dogs. The hadith are an emotional response. There's no harm in it.

>>30061

cats clean themselves

dogs are filthy and full of disease

>>30062

No, cats really don't clean themselves. Bartonella henselae. Look it up. If you don't like dogs, fine; but you can't impose your emotional hadith on the rest of us.

And, before you ask, no I don't reject hadith. I take a common sense approach to hadith rather than blindly following them.

>>30064

You aren't from ahlul sunnah then, just trying to westernize islam.

>>30061

>>30064

>Maybe - just maybe - it really comes down to the fact that Muhammad(pbuh) liked cats and didn't like dogs.

>I take a common sense approach to hadith rather than blindly following them.

The Prophet PBUH did not make up the religion according to his whims and desires. Saying something like that is very serious and it isn’t a good attitude to take about hadith. Everything that is in the Quran and hadith is there because it enjoins what is good for people and forbids or advises against things that are wrong. Even the hadith about how the Prophet PBUH advises people to sleep. He said one should sleep on their side, with their knees bent and shouldn’t sleep on their stomach. Recent studies have shown that sleeping on your stomach isn’t healthy because it puts your spine in an unnatural position and the heavy weight of your spine pushes down on your internal organs, which can cause back and other problems. The people that did the study said that for optimal back health, one should sleep on their side with their knees bent.

The Prophet wasn’t just making these recommendations up according to his own personal inclinations. Everything that we are advised to do, is because that is what is better for us.

Notice how the Prophet PBUH didn’t say the keeping dogs as pets is haram in the hadith about dogs. He said that you would have an amount of your good deeds removed. Keep dogs as pets if you want. Even though it is disliked, you cannot tell someone that they cannot keep dogs because it is not labeled as haram. As for implying that the Prophet PBUH didn’t like dogs, there are hadith to the contrary.

And narrated Hamza bin 'Abdullah – My father said: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog)."

The Prophet PBUH used to let dogs come and go through the masjid. The hadith about killing the black dog was referring to a type of dangerous wild dog that was in that area of Arabia, not just a color of any kind of dog.

>>30065

People have been taking a common sense approach to hadith since before Sunni/Shi'a existed. Were those early Muslims also "trying to westernize" Islam?

>>30071

Confirmed for not knowing anything about islamic history.

>>30073

So, before the Sunni/Shi'a split, there weren't any Muslims? Abraham was Muslim, but he wasn't Sunni. Explain.

>>30074

What you are doing is speaking without knowledge, which is very dangerous.

“And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned (by Allâh)” [al-Israa’ 17:36]

And We sent not before you except men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know. 16:43

22:3 And yet, among men there is many a one who argues about God without having any knowledge [of Him], and follows every rebellious satanic force

During the political turmoil of the first fitnas, there were no 'hadith' collections as we know them today, the sunnah was just known, everyone practiced islam the same way. That is what the scholars are seeking, to follow the path of the first generation. So if they find that a hadith, like the one about dogs is sahih, then you can't give your own opinion since you have almost no islamic knowledge background. You are simply cherry picking what suits you, and that is not allowed.

>>30061

>Maybe - just maybe - it really comes down to the fact that Muhammad(pbuh) liked cats and didn't like dogs.

Quran 53 2-3

Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.

>>30076

>cherry picking not allowed

That doesn't make much sense since all hadith are "cherry picked" in a way or all hadith would be sahih. It is better to take an objective approach otherwise it sounds like Muhammad worship.

>>30077

That's about Qur'an itself, not hadith.

>>30079

You do not understand how hadith are graded. They are based on the chain of narrators, not on their content. If everyone in the chain of narrators was proven to not only be honest, but were proven to not make errors in narrating hadith, and did not have any other character faults, they are graded higher. There are several factors contributing to what grade a hadith gets. People like Imam Bukhari, who it could be argued to have one of the best memories of anyone to have lived, spent their entire lives collecting and authenticating hadith. If a hadith is graded Sahih, that is the highest grade and it can be accepted as fact. Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari contain only Sahih hadiths. That hadith about dogs is in both of them.

Do you seriously believe that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH would make something up and tell people that they would have some of their good deeds taken away for keeping dogs, just because he didn’t like dogs? How do you know what that Quranic verse means? Have you studied Tafseer? Are you a scholar? Because you are talking about the religion without knowledge as >>30076 pointed out.

>>30079

Quran 33-36

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

Taking your version of an objective approach sounds like you are doing what this verse warns against, not entering into Muhammad worship.

>>30080

>>30080

>You do not understand how hadith are graded. They are based on the chain of narrators, not on their content.

Not according to Shaykh Abu 'Ali al-Jubba'i (rh)

>If a hadith is graded Sahih, that is the highest grade and it can be accepted as fact.

Except scholars disagree in gradings. So sahih according to whom? If it's fact then how can scholars possibly disagree?!

>Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari contain only Sahih hadiths

According to the two compilers yes…

>>30082

There is an entire science of hadith and it is very complicated. It is the study of how the original collectors of the hadith graded hadith. Every part of it is based upon the narrators. It goes into extreme intricate detail about things like if someone was proven to be honest, but was known to make mistakes in narrating from time to time, they could still collect some daif or weak hadith from him if he had some other narrations that completely coincided with another honest, reliable narrators version of those same hadith. There are tons of different methods like that that are used, all based upon who is doing the narrating, not what is being narrated.

Yes some scholars had minor disagreements about what grades some of the hadith should be. But their disagreements were entirely based upon their own personal opinion of how reliable and trustworthy the narrators were. Again, this is entirely based on the chain of narrators.

Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are considered to be the foundation of the Sunnah. There are other reputable books of hadith that have some weaker narrations that are used, but Sunni scholars are in agreement that if a hadith is in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, it is accepted as fact.

Imam Bukhari was very strict about who he took narrations from.

He (Alayhir Rahmah) once went to see a man in order to hear a Hadith. The man’s horse had run away from him and stood at a distance. To make the horse walk towards him he lifted his shirt and acted as if he had barley inside it and began to tempt the animal, this made the animal come back to him allowing the man to catch it. Sayyiduna Imam Bukhari (Alayhir Rahmah) asked the man if he really did have barley in his shirt, to which the reply was, “No, I only did it to bring the horse back.” The Imam said, “How can I take a blessed Hadith of the Holy Prophet (SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam) from a man who lies to animals!” [Nuzhat al-Majaalis, Vol. 1, Page 191]

>>30083

>There is an entire science of hadith and it is very complicated.

Sure but with all due respect, you don't seem as knowledgeable about it as you think.

>all based upon who is doing the narrating, not what is being narrated.

That's not entirely true. Sunni muhaddiths do consider the contents as well. But yes the grading could technically be on the isnad alone, which means that a hadith could be "sahih" yet still be rejected based on its content. That is actually a reason why you should NOT just randomly pick a hadith from the "sahihs" and take it as fact.

>Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are considered to be the foundation of the Sunnah.

What does that mean? And by whom? According to Imam Malik the practice of Madinah was probably the foundation of the sunnah, not two books that had yet to be written.

>Sunni scholars are in agreement that if a hadith is in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, it is accepted as fact.

No that's not true. Sunni scholars have criticized hadiths found in these collections, eg al-Daraqutni. Even Ibn Hajar expressed doubts about the hadith about Adam's height, simply because of its contents to him contradicting archeological evidence.

>>30086

Imam Malik ruled dogs to be completely pure yet he had access to the hadiths about dogs. Same with sadl vs folding arms in prayer. I personally doubt that Imam Bukhari had access to any substantial amount of relevant hadiths that Imam Malik never heard of.

>What is an example of a sahih hadith in those books that can be rejected based on its content?

You'll probably not agree with any examples I provide…

But who are the sunnis according to you anyway?

>As for the hadith about Adam’s height and how the height of humans has been decreasing over time, there is archeological evidence that supports this.

That wasn't the point. The point was that a sunni scholar criticized the content. Whether or not he was correct is a different issue.

>>30087

Imam Bukhari was born about 100 years after Imam Malik and travelled all over collecting hadith. If there is a Sahih hadith that is in Bukhari or Muslim regarding how someone should act, it should be followed.

A Sunni is someone who isn’t a Shia or Quranist.

The point I was trying to make is that if someone says that the Prophet PBUH created the hadith about someone who keeps a dog for reasons other than for guarding or farming will have a portion of their good deeds taken away, because he didn’t like dogs and that someone can ignore it, based on a reason like that, it causes problems. The Prophet’s PBUH Sunnah was based on revelation, not his own personal inclinations. They are trying to explain away an accepted hadith solely by their own judgement, to suit their own desires, and that is a dangerous attitude to take regarding hadith, which can cause all kinds of problems.

>>30086

>The Smithsonian bought this skeleton and then it “disappeared”. If someone makes an archeological discovery that contradicts what the set narrative is, it is often ignored, suppressed, or put on the history channel as evidence of “aliens”.

Ok, that's just /pol/-tier paranoid nonsense. There have always been people who are way taller or way shorter than other people. There's no conspiracy to hide that people "used to be way taller". Mostly because it simply isn't true, but otherwise because that is just stupid.

Are you calling Sahih Muslim /pol/ tier nonsense? Are you calling Imam Muslim and everyone who narrated hadith like this stupid as well?

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty cubits, and as He created him He told him to greet that group, and that was a party of angels sitting there, and listen to the response that they give him, for it would form his greeting and that of his offspring. He then went away and said: Peace be upon you! They (the angels) said: May there be peace upon you and the Mercy of Allah, and they made an addition of" Mercy of Allah". So he who would get into Paradise would get in the form of Adam, his length being sixty cubits, then the people who followed him continued to diminish in size up to this day. (Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6809; cf. Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 246)

That is a generalization of what a Sunni is. It wasn’t meant to be a detailed answer. I wasn’t accusing you of ignorance, I said you were speaking without knowledge. You are saying that the Prophet PBUH related the hadith about dogs because he dislikes dogs.

Even if you say you want to take a practical approach to hadith, does it seem practical for The Prophet PBUH to say that someone will have his good deeds removed for keeping dogs as pets when it isn’t the truth and the will of Allah? The weighing of deeds of the day of resurrection is probably the most important matter, after that of ones belief.

>>30094

Are you saying all hadith in Sahih Muslim are actually sahih? do you think all hadith in bukhari are sahih?

"Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His own image"

Many scholars dispute this, this is shirk.

>>30095

There are multiple similar narrations about the height of Adam in Both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. The fact that they bother certain groups of rationalists is not a reason for all of them to be discredited.

The Prophet’s words, “Adam was created in His image” means that Allaah created Adam in His image, for He has a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot, and Adam had a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot… but that does not mean that these things are exactly the same. There is some similarity, but it is not exactly the same. Similarly the first group to enter Paradise are likened to the moon, but they are not exactly the same. This confirms the view of Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaa'ah, who say that none of the attributes of Allaah can be likened to the attributes of created beings, without distorting or misinterpreting, or discussing how or likening Him to His creation.

The full explanation given is here.

https://islamqa.info/en/20652

>>30087

I am interested as to what Sahih hadith in Bukhari and Muslim can be rejected based on their content

>>30098

For example the hadith saying that the Prophet(saw) supposedly was bewitched and hallucinated.

>>30094

>Are you calling Sahih Muslim /pol/ tier nonsense?

No, I'm calling the idea that the Smithsonian is conspiring to cover up human shrinkage to be "/pol/-tier paranoid nonsense". If it were true, then how come I'm 6'4 but I know a man who is 5'3? How can there be men who are over 7' tall in the same world that there are pygmys? There's no conspiratorial cover-up.

>You are saying that the Prophet PBUH related the hadith about dogs because he dislikes dogs.

Actually, if you would read what I said, you'd see that I said "Maybe - just maybe". I stated a possibility, not a fact. I see no practical reason why dogs cannot be kept as pets. They're the best alarm system and home defense mankind has ever known.

>>30103

The hadith about the height of Adam and how people have been decreasing in size really isn’t that important, since it has no bearing on how someone should govern their behavior. I just find it interesting. It isn’t a foreign concept for people in the archeological community who go against the common narrative to be vehemently opposed and discredited. Like when a geologist suggested that the sphinx was way older than the agreed upon age, because there was weathering from large amounts of rain, no one in the Egyptology community would even consider his evidence, because it went against what they have been taught. The idea that human civilization is much older and that they used to actually be technologically advanced is far more likely than the ridiculous ideas presented on the “history channel” about everything that cannot be easily explained being “aliens”. There are many inconsistencies within the historical narrative that is taught in schools and accepted as unquestionable.

>I said "Maybe - just maybe".

But you shouldn’t even consider that as being a possibility. There is no way the Prophet PBUH would say something like that, having a consequence of having a portion of your good deeds removed, if it was just from himself. It would have had to be revelation. And the hadith about angels not entering into a house where there is a dog or picture…that implies that the angels take that matter seriously. Nowadays you can’t easily tell people that they shouldn’t display pictures of animate beings in their homes without them looking at you like you are a crazy person.

>They're the best alarm system and home defense mankind has ever known.

Hence the exception for using dogs for guarding in the hadith. Keeping a dog with the primary purpose of protecting your property is different from keeping them for the primary purpose of being a pet. I am not saying it is haram, but having some of your good deeds taken away and having angels not want to come into your home because of it isn’t good.

>>30101

Are you talking about the hadith where the Prophet PBUH was taught Surah Falaq and Surah Nas when sihr was performed on him by someone using a comb with his hair on it?

>>30107

You do realize that the History Channel has exactly one show that talks about "ancient aliens", right? Nobody rational takes it seriously and it's not what is taught in schools. The general consensus at this point among archaeologists is that humans as we know them have been around ~200,000 years and that "modern society" has been around for ~50,000 years. If you have proof otherwise, then by all means present it.

I'm of the mindset that if an angel doesn't want to enter my home due to a dog or a picture, then they're being childish and I don't want 'em in my home anyway.

>>30097

>The Prophet’s words, “Adam was created in His image” means that Allaah created Adam in His image, for He has a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot, and Adam had a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot… but that does not mean that these things are exactly the same. There is some similarity, but it is not exactly the same

> There is some similarity, but

Stop right there friend.

Are we Christian now? Are you gonna tell me that God dwells within our spirits too and "moves" us and inspires us? Please.

There is nothing like unto Him (42:11). "like" i.e "similar" i.e "comparable". Please realize what you are saying. Only Christians are made in the image of God. We are not, and never will be.

>>30118

*believe they are made*

oops

>>30109

Yes I am aware that they do not teach students about aliens in school. However the general consensus in the archeological community is that the first real civilization was that in ancient Egypt, and before that Sumeria. Egyptologists believe that most of the work that was done to construct the Pyramids and other ruins was done by simple stone tools. When the actual constructions themselves are looked at, the theory of simple people using stone tools looks ridiculous. It appears to be that the ancient Egyptians were living on ruins of an older civilization. Egyptologists will not even consider this claim. When an Archeologist is presented with something that he cannot dismiss for one reason or another, even Archeologists will sometimes fall back on “I don’t know, so probably aliens.” They won’t consider the possibility of an unheard of civilization that came before and then disapeared. Even when undeniable proof of an older civilization is found, they claim that it was hunter-gatherers that build it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

The city of Iram, from the people of ‘Ad that are mentioned in the Quran, was a legend, similar to Atlantis. No one knew where it was. Then later people took satellite images of Oman and found ancient camel paths converging to one location. They did excavating there, and found the ruins of the city. Sometimes ancient ruins get buried. Considering that sea levels used to be much lower during the Ice Age, and that most human settlements are along the coast, would mean that a lot of them are underwater. A few unexplainable ruins have been found underwater, but there is almost no marine archeology performed, with the exception of looking for shipwrecks.

A good documentary that covers ancient constructions is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fS9ixfQ_no

>I'm of the mindset that if an angel doesn't want to enter my home due to a dog or a picture, then they're being childish and I don't want 'em in my home anyway.

The Prophet PBUH didn’t want people to make images because it could lead to shirk. If trying to prevent shirk is childish, then a lot more people should be acting like complete babies, considering how much shirk is going on even in Muslim majority countries.

>>30118

It is not referring to it in the way that the Christians do. Did you read the explanation in the link? There are many hadith that use that wording. There was no dispute among the salaf of the first three generations that the pronoun in the hadeeth refers to Allaah. Why would the salaf of the first three generations be wrong about something that serious? Nothing can be comparable to Allah, and that is not what was being said.

These two hadeeth indicate that the pronoun in the phrase “in His image” refers to Allaah, may He be glorified.

Al-Tirmidhi (3234) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “My Lord came to me in the most beautiful image and said, ‘O Muhammad.’ I said, ‘Here I am at Your service, my Lord.’ He said, ‘What are the chiefs (angels) on high disputing about…’” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

According to the lengthy hadeeth about intercession, it says, “… then the Compeller (al-Jabbaar) will come to then in an image different than the image in which they saw Him the first time…” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 7440; Muslim, 182.

From these ahaadeeth we learn that it is proven that Allaah has an image (soorah in Arabic), in a manner that befits Him, may He be glorified and exalted. His image is one of His attributes which cannot be likened to the attributes of created beings, just as His essence cannot be likened to their essence.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “The word soorah (image) in this hadeeth is like all the other names and attributes narrated (in the texts) where the words used may also be applied to created beings, in a limited manner. When these words are applied to Allaah, they carry a unique meaning, such as al-‘Aleem (All Knowing), al-Qadeer (All-Powerful), al-Raheem (Most Merciful), al-Samee’ (All Hearing), al-Baseer (All-Seeing), and such as His creating with His hands, rising above the Throne, etc.” Naqd al-Ta’sees, 3/396

Everything that exists must inevitably have a form or image. Shaykh al-Islam said: “Just as everything that exists must have attributes that, so too everything that exists by itself must have a form or image. It is impossible for something that exists by itself not to have a form or image.”

And he said: “There was no dispute among the salaf of the first three generations that the pronoun in the hadeeth refers to Allaah, and it is narrated through many isnaads from many of the Sahaabah. The contexts of the ahaadeeth all indicate that… but when al-Jahamiyyah became widespread in the third century AH, a group began to say that the pronoun refers to something other than Allaah, and this was transmitted from a group of scholars who are known to have knowledge and to follow the Sunnah in most of their affairs, such as Abu Thawr, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu’l-Shaykh al-Asfahaani and others. Hence they were denounced by the imams of Islam and other Sunni scholars.”

>>30130

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: There is a hadeeth narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in which he forbids saying “May Allaah deform your face”, and says that Allaah created Adam in His image. What is the correct belief with regard to this hadeeth?

He replied:

This hadeeth is proven from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), in which he said: “If any one of you strikes (another), let him avoid the face, for Allaah created Adam in His image.” According to another version: “In the image of the Most Merciful.” This does not imply resemblance or likeness.

What is meant, according to the scholars, is that Allaah created Adam with the ability to hear and see, and to speak when he wants. These are also attributes of Allaah, for He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and He speaks when He wants, and He has a Face, may He be glorified and exalted.

But it does not mean that there is any resemblance or likeness. Rather the image of Allaah is different from that of created beings. What is meant is that He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and He speaks when He wants, and He created Adam also able to hear and see, with a face and hands and feet. But man’s hearing is not like Allaah’s hearing, his seeing is not like Allaah’s seeing, his speaking is not like Allaah’s speaking. Rather Allaah has attributes that befit His majesty and might, and man has attributes that befit him, attributes that are finite and imperfect, whereas the attributes of Allaah are perfect, with no shortcomings, infinite and without end. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“There is nothing like Him, and He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Seer”

[al-Shoora 42:11]

“And there is none co‑equal or comparable unto Him”

[al-Ikhlaas 112:4]

So it is not permissible to strike the face or say “May Allaah deform your face”.

End quote. Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh, 4/226

>>30130

>Allaah created Adam in His image

>This does not imply resemblance or likeness.

That is such an absurd statement. The entire point of the "hadith" is literally to say that the image of Adam is like the image of God. But then you say there's no likeness. That is making a mockery of the language and, ironically enough, the "hadith" itself that you're trying to defend. Saying that Allah has a surah NOT LIKE the surah of Adam is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement. And among those who pointed this out was none other than Ibn al-Jawzi.

And please be a little critical, you say the salaf said this definitely but at the end of they day you're just blindly following al-albaani and Ibn Taymiyya…neither of whom were from the salaf(the three first generations)…

>>30129

>>30130

>>30131

You're very long winded, but it's all copy/paste. Do you read what you post? Where I'm from we call that "all sizzle and no steak".

>>30135

Yes I read what I wrote. If you want to do justify how there are no negative effects by keeping dogs by doing things like calling angels childish and suggesting that maybe the Prophet PBUH just didn’t like dogs, there is clearly something wrong with your thinking. I would like to see you justify what you are doing without attacking another person's intentions or their actions.

>>30132

That was copy pasted from IslamQA. Read the article there and judge for yourself. Just don’t say well “so and so scholar say different.” There are more than one hadith about the likeness of Allah, not just the height of Adam.

>>30132

https://islamqa.info/en/20652

That is where it is. Are you are saying that Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Ibn Taymiyah, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, and everyone that narrated and accepted that those hadith are Sahih are commiting shirk by relating those hadith? A very large number of scholars accept that Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are reputable sources. You want to cherry pick a scholar that disagrees, in a dispute among people who are far more knowledgeable than both of us, and say that I am just blindly following someone? If I see reasonable evidence as to what Sahih hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are not accurate I will consider it…but I haven’t as of yet.

>>30139

>Just don’t say well “so and so scholar say different.”

All you've done so far is copy paste what some 20th century scholar says and told people to follow it blindly or they're rejecting the "salaf".

So we moved from dogs to hadiths to God's image, nice job guys.

>>30142

The amusing part is that OP said nothing about dogs. He just used a pic of a dog and, well, people don't read posts, but instead reply to the image.

>>29824

First to mention dogs, much to my >>29825 confusion.

>>30144

This verse answers OP's question.

11:3 Ask your Sustainer to forgive you your sins, and then turn towards Him in repentance - [whereupon] He will grant you a goodly enjoyment of life [in this world] until a term set [by Him is fulfilled]; and [in the life to come] He will bestow upon everyone possessed of merit [a full reward for] his merit. But if you turn away, then, verily, I dread for you the suffering [which is bound to befall you] on that awesome Day.

>>30169

That's pretty much what I said, only Qur'an uses better words. >>29795

>>30140

Imam Bukhari memorized over 100,000 authentic hadith. For Sahih Bukhari he chose the best of the best, the hadith that there was a consensus among all the scholars of the time that they are Sahih. There are about 4000 unique hadith in Sahih Bukhari. He gave the book to many scholars of that time and asked them if there were any hadith that they had issues with, at that time a couple people had issues with maybe 2 or 3 hadith. All of the multitudes of scholars of that time period were in agreement that the hadith in his collection were Sahih, with few exceptions.

I do not consider criticisms from the Muʿtazila and from modern day people that follow that way of thinking to be legitimate criticisms. If someone chooses to dismiss hadith just because it conflicts with what they consider to be rational thinking, that can cause proplems.

>All you've done so far is copy paste what some 20th century scholar says

The scholars from among the first generations did not have a problem with that hadith.

>>30260

>I do not consider criticisms from the Muʿtazila

Mu'tazila were actually from the salaf though, unlike the people you're quoting lol.

>The scholars from among the first generations did not have a problem with that hadith.

Yeah because Islam qa said so. The fact is that many rejected it and even those that did not reject that hadith instead interpreted it away by saying that the word "image" refers back to Adam, ie rejecting that Allah has an image. And even al-Albaani went with this opinion. So is he a mu'tazili or a modernist?

Another thing is that the Quran says:

>In whatever Form(surah) He wills, does He put thee together.[82:8]

But never is it mentioned that we have the surah of Allah.

>>30260

You also have not commented on the fact that the statement

>>This does not imply resemblance or likeness.

is a rejection of the hadith since the hadith says the exact opposite.

>>29870

I could not find a hadith, nor a verse promoting the behaviour of these individuals.

May god forgive them.

>>30267

>Mu'tazila were actually from the salaf though, unlike the people you're quoting lol.

The people I am quoting from Islam QA know, just as every muhaddith knows, that the earliest scholars of hadith came to the consensus that the hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and Sahih, with few disagreements.

The Mu'tazila came along later and decided that the method used by the early generations of vertifying the authenticity of hadith by the quality of the narrators and other methods wasn’t good enough. If something in the hadith did not agree with their own rational assessments and scientific theory at that time, they dismissed it solely on that basis.

The majority of science is based on theory. Some rationalists denied the hadith about “if a fly falls in your drink, dunk it before removing it, because there is a disease on one wing and the cure on the other”. They said how ridiculous and stupid it was, it couldn’t be true and they didn’t have to accept that hadith. Later a scientific study in Britain proved the statement in that hadith to be the truth.

>>30276

Out of the 4000 unique hadith in Sahih Bukhari, around 80 came under criticism. That is 2%. That means that there was a consensus that the other 98% are Sahih and are accurate. I am sure that later the Mu'tazila found many more hadith to criticize than those 80.

>>30276

>>30277

>thinking the mutazila came after sahih bukhari

You have no idea what you're talking about and aren't even responding to anything I'm writing. This isn't a discussion since all you do and can do is copy-paste regardless of how irrelevant it is. I don't feel like wasting more time on your nonsense.

>>30278

You have a problem with the hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. You say that you can’t randomly select hadith from them because many of them are not accurate and can be dismissed based on their content, not because of the chain of narration, and what the earliest scholars considered to be methods of authentication.

Choosing what parts of the Sunnah can be accepted by using ones reason alone, is not appropriate. That is what the rationalists and Mu'tazila do.

>>30269

The dog jumped the kid, he got scared and cried, this stressed out his mother. Completely normal reaction. Dogs are wild animals in the end.

>>30286

This, cherry picking the sunnah a is the same as creating your own madhab as layman.