Ozymandias

@loves_coding @SalafisLs I am mistaken on this particular example. You mentioned rock where strictness can be applied. I stand corrected here, barakallahu feek

@zcaboah @SalafisLs No doubt it’s Shirk. Calling upon a rock, in such a situation, shows they believe it has some kind of independent power, even if they claim it has none and Allah is disposer of all affairs Why would u make Dua to it otherwise Actions can contradict speech May Allah guide you

• Mass takfir of Muslims • Ignorance leading to your innovated understanding of bid'ah • Slandering scholars • Ridiculing muslims • Being modern day Khawarij • Anthropomorphism • Dividing the muslims

@loves_coding @SalafisLs Stupidity. Shirk too but only if they ascribe divinity. The criterion for shirk has been strict for Ahlus Sunnah (at least until the 18th century) You can't take single ayahs in isolation without considering the totality of what the mushriks did and what they admitted to doing.

@zcaboah @SalafisLs Are you sure? Answer this: if I was drowning at sea, and I called upon a rock on the moon to come and save me, believing that Allah AWJ is the disposer of ALL affairs, would that be Shirk according to you or just stupidity?

@loves_coding @SalafisLs Then we are in agreement alhamdulillah

@zcaboah @SalafisLs Just like “calling someone to help” isn’t shirk itself, “sujud” likewise. Distinguish between "Sujud of Worship" and "Sujud of Greeting/Respect" It’s only Shirk when it’s Sujud of worship. This belongs to Allah alone.

@loves_coding @SalafisLs x.com/i/grok/share/1…

@loves_coding @SalafisLs Then what do you make of Allah commanding the angels to make sujud to Adam. Would you not categorise sujud as an act reserved only for Allah? So did Allah command the angels to commit shirk? Or does this not count as shirk? If it doesn't, then the intent is the driver.

@loves_coding @SalafisLs Circular reasoning. You define du'a as worship, then cite mushrikeen making du'a as proof of that definition. This isn't classical Islam. It's an 18th century Najdi view. The Qur'an says they worshipped - calling upon idols was one form of that worship, not what made it worship.

@zcaboah @SalafisLs They accepted Allah is the disposer of ALL affairs. Just like you guys. They understood that things like calling upon the dead is worship. Unlike you guys. You have no evidence where they clearly say they believed those they called upon had independent power.

@loves_coding @SalafisLs You're supposing as Ibn Abdul Wahab wrongly did that actions alone determine shirk. This is false. What made it worship was their belief and so too their admission that it is an act of uboodiyah as the Quran mentions.

@zcaboah @SalafisLs The question is, what made it worship? It wasn’t them saying they believe those they called upon had independent power Where in the Quran/Sunnah did they CLEARLY SAY that they believed those they directly called upon had divine agency? Their actions where just like your actions

@loves_coding @SalafisLs 39:3 is stating they explicitly worshipped. Muslims don't worship the dead. Intent dictates what the form is in its essence. Otherwise the extreme act of sujood is always shirk but it isn't necessarily unless coupled with intention, take Yusuf's brothers and the angels to Adam.

@zcaboah @SalafisLs Where in the Quran/Sunnah did they CLEARLY SAY that they believed those they directly called upon had divine agency? We can see that they CLEARLY ACCEPTED Allah is the disposer of ALL affairs.

@loves_coding @SalafisLs You're reducing it to the action void of intention. That's an absurdity. They believed the idols had divine agency.

@SalafisLs The Mushriks of old called upon other than Allah directly, for things that only belong to Allah, and so do you guys. What’s the difference?

@othmaanX @cookingtrolls @Adam80494145 @mohammed_hijab @Leafywashere00 My convinced opinion actually is that we cannot say with any certainty it's any particular age. Rather it shouldn't be frowned upon to have a spectrum of opinion on her age just like there is with the age of Khadija Ra.

@zcaboah @cookingtrolls @Adam80494145 @mohammed_hijab @Leafywashere00 Which opinion of them convinced u objectively when u remove ur subjective desires ?

In the broader scholarly discourse concerning the historical details of Sayyidah Aisha radiyallahu anha at the time of her marriage and its consummation the narration appearing in the Sahihayn that places these events at the ages of six and nine respectively remains the position affirmed by the vast majority of classical authorities. Yet the present discussion is strictly methodological in nature and does not endorse any alternative chronological proposal such as the figure of eighteen sometimes advanced in modern academic analyses of the sirah and maghazi literature. The sole purpose here is to illustrate through the words of the ulema themselves that the layman Neo Salafi assertion namely that every single narration contained within Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim must be accepted without the slightest academic reservation is not the nuanced position upheld by the Salaf or by the broader Sunni tradition of hadith scholarship. On matters that are purely historical and biographical rather than constitutive of legal rulings or articles of creed the classical authorities have always permitted a measured degree of critical engagement. The foundational distinction drawn by the early muhaddithun is instructive in this regard. Imam Abd al Rahman ibn Mahdi a towering figure of the second century and teacher of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal articulated the principle with characteristic clarity: “When reports reach us from the Prophet peace be upon him concerning the lawful and the prohibited and the legal rulings we are severe with the chains of transmission and we scrutinise the narrators. But when reports concern the virtues of actions their rewards and punishments or permissible exhortations and invocations we show leniency with the chains.” This statement recorded by al Hakim in al Mustadrak and echoed in al Suyuti’s Tadrib al Rawi reflects a consensus among the Salaf that historical and biographical akhbar precisely the category into which the age of Aisha falls allow greater flexibility than those deployed for deriving ahkam. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal expressed a similar view when he remarked that extreme strictness is reserved for what pertains to halal and haram while leniency befits reports of virtues stories and narratives. On purely historical questions therefore the acceptance or rejection of a particular report after due academic examination has always been far less consequential than on matters touching usul al din or fiqh.Even within the Sahihayn themselves the classical tradition never treated every narration as immune to scholarly discussion. Consider first the muallaqat those suspended reports in which Imam al Bukhari deliberately omits part or all of the opening chain for the sake of brevity. While the overwhelming majority of these are corroborated elsewhere in the Sahih with complete isnads a significant subset approximately one hundred and sixty unique instances stand alone in suspended form. Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar al Asqalani devoted an entire monograph Taghliq al Taliq to tracing their external supports and evaluating their authenticity according to rigorous criteria. He and other luminaries such as Ibn al Salah and al Dhahabi subjected these reports to independent scrutiny demonstrating that their inclusion in the Sahih did not exempt them from further verification. This labour alone refutes any notion that the mere presence of a narration in al Bukhari rendered further academic inquiry impermissible.A still more pointed illustration emerges from the work of Imam al Daraqutni whose Kitab al Tatabbu systematically examined roughly seventy eight narrations in Sahih al Bukhari one hundred in Sahih Muslim and thirty two common to both. His critique focused on subtle ilal hidden defects in precision of transmission inversion of wording or minor interruptions without ever impugning the overall stature of the two collections. Later authorities such as Imam al Nawawi engaged these points directly sometimes accepting and sometimes rebutting them yet always within the framework of legitimate scholarly discourse. Such exchanges were regarded as the natural outworking of the science of hadith not as an assault upon the Sahihayn. Concrete examples of these ilal include his observation concerning a narration in Sahih al Bukhari on the topic of Heaven and Hell complaining to Allah where one particular chain transmitted by Ubaydallah ibn Sad inverts the order of divine destiny in its wording an issue of narrator precision that later critics such as Abu Hasan al Qabisi also highlighted. Another instance involves reports that al Daraqutni judged were not transmitted in fully mawsul form as presented but only through specific limited routes such as those of Makhramah ibn Bukayr or Abu Burdah thereby introducing a subtle discontinuity in the chain that required separate verification.Nor was this critical spirit confined to earlier centuries. Shaykh Nasir al Din al Albani whose methodology is frequently invoked by those who champion an uncompromising view of the Sahihayn himself acknowledged that his own research led him to conclude that certain narrations within these collections fall short of the sahih or even hasan standard. In a recorded statement he explained: “Allah the Exalted has granted me firmness in the study of Hadith I applied this study to some of the Hadiths that appear in Sahih al Bukhari. Thus I found that there are some Hadiths that are not considered to be on the grade of Hasan much less the level of Sahih in Sahih al Bukhari not to mention Sahih Muslim.” He reiterated that “during my knowledge based research I passed over some Hadiths in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and it was revealed to me that there are some Hadiths that are weak.” He reinforced this position by quoting Imam al Shafi'i who stated “Allah didn't want to complete anything except His Book.” Al Albani’s position was not a wholesale rejection of the Sahihayn but a continuation of the classical practice of evaluating individual reports on their merits even when they appear in the most authoritative compilations as heard in his lecture available at youtube.com/watch?v=9VuoM-… same principle of critical engagement is evident when one examines mawquf reports statements attributed to the Companions rather than directly to the Prophet peace be upon him that are nonetheless included in Sahih al Bukhari. A particularly illuminating example concerns Sayyidah Aisha’s declaration that no one should believe the Messenger of Allah urinated while standing for she had never seen him do so except while sitting. Despite the sound chain supporting this mawquf transmission the scholars of the ummah did not accept her testimony as an absolute and unqualified rule. It stands in direct tension with the explicit report of Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman in the same Sahih al Bukhari who personally witnessed the Prophet urinate while standing during a journey at a place of refuse. Rather than discarding one narration or the other the hadith scholars undertook detailed reconciliation concluding that Aisha spoke of the Prophet’s habitual practice in the domestic setting while Hudhayfah recorded a specific concession made under the necessity of travel. Her sentiment though conveyed through a sound chain was therefore qualified and not taken at face value. This case demonstrates that even a soundly transmitted statement from Aisha within the Sahihayn is subjected to scrutiny cross referencing and qualification rather than uncritical endorsement.This pattern of scholarly engagement extends directly to other reports transmitted by Aisha herself in Sahih al Bukhari including the well known narration concerning her age at the time of marriage and consummation. Just as her mawquf testimony on the Prophet’s manner of urination was weighed against parallel evidence rather than accepted at face value so too are her statements about her own early life placed in conversation with additional historical indicators. In one narration she describes herself as a young girl who had not yet committed much of the Qur’an to memory when Surah al Qamar was revealed placing the event in the context of the early Medinan period after the Hijrah. This is juxtaposed by scholars with the chronological data surrounding her sister Asma bint Abi Bakr who was consistently reported to be ten years her senior. Asma’s own death at the advanced age of one hundred in the year seventy three after the Hijrah supplies an independent timeline that some classical and later analysts have brought to bear on the broader question of Aisha’s birth year and the precise dating of the marriage. In yet another narration Sahih al Bukhari 2297 Aisha states that since she reached the age when she could remember things she has seen her parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam and she recounts events from the period of early persecution before the Hijrah including Abu Bakr’s attempted emigration to Ethiopia. This recollection of conscious memory from the pre Hijrah era implies that she must have been well beyond the age of one at the time of those events yet under the strict traditional calculation tied to consummation at nine shortly after the Hijrah she would have been no more than an infant during that persecution. The point is not to reject any single report but to illustrate that the ummah’s hadith scholars have routinely subjected even Aisha’s own transmissions soundly chained as they are to this kind of comparative historical analysis exactly as they did with her statement on the Prophet’s urination. The presence of such ikhtilaf within the pages of the Sahihayn themselves shows that academic discussion of these details has always been part of the Sunni tradition.Comparable caution appears in cases involving transmissions that carry Israelite content. A striking instance is the narration found in Sahih Muslim describing the days of creation land on Saturday mountains on Monday and so forth which certain major authorities including Imam al Bukhari and Yahya ibn Ma’in explicitly identified not as a statement of the Prophet but as originating from Ka’b al Ahbar the learned Jewish convert. Despite an apparently sound chain the content itself prompted its reclassification away from the Prophetic corpus. In Sahih al Bukhari itself hadith 7361 Muawiyah radiyallahu anhu remarks of Ka’b that he was among the most truthful of those who transmit from the People of the Book yet sometimes his words turned out to be false. Such examples underscore that even reports supported by strong chains were not immune to rejection or qualification when historical and biographical scrutiny revealed Israelite influence or internal inconsistencies.It is also important to recognise why many of the classical scholars of the past did not delve more deeply into this particular historical question. In their time there was simply little impetus or external pressure to do so the age of Aisha was not a major point of polemical attack against the Prophet peace be upon him or Islam as it has become in certain modern contexts. Had a scholar of the calibre of al Hafiz Ibn Hajar al Asqalani been aware that this matter would one day constitute one of the primary lines of attack upon the character of the Holy Prophet peace be upon him it is entirely conceivable that he and others would have approached the issue with even greater scrutiny and produced a more exhaustive analysis.In sum the tradition of the Salaf and the classical Sunni muhaddithun has consistently maintained that rigorous academic discussion of individual narrations even those appearing in the Sahihayn remains both permissible and necessary particularly when the material in question belongs to the domain of history and biography. Such discussion in no way undermines the overarching reliability of these collections nor does it constitute rejection of the Sunnah as a whole. Applied to the historical question of Sayyidah Aisha’s age any conclusion reached through sincere evidence based inquiry whatever that conclusion may be carries no implication whatsoever for a Muslim’s aqeedah. It remains a matter of ikhtilaf in the realm of akhbar not a challenge to the foundations of iman. This is not a moral issue the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha fourteen hundred years ago is very much fully defensible within its historical cultural and revelatory context. Rather the discussion serves to show those who disbelieve in Islam that even if they hold a strong view on the perceived immorality of this practice it does not undermine the religion itself. The ummah’s scholars have always distinguished between what touches the core of religion and what pertains to the details of sirah on the latter scholarly difference has been tolerated without the slightest accusation of deviation. May Allah grant us all the guidance to pursue knowledge with integrity and to preserve the unity of the community.

@abdul_now It is protected by demonstrating that honest examination conducted with proper methodology either holds under pressure or self-corrects with integrity. A barrier that cannot survive contact with the tradition's own tools is not intellectual authority. It is enforced credulity. /5

@abdul_now Al-Daraqutni flagged chains he considered defective. This is not revisionism, it is the tradition's own self-correcting mechanism functioning as intended. The authority of the Sahihayn is not protected by insulating specific narrations from scrutiny. /4

There's a narrow but legitimate epistemic point brother Hijab might be trying to make through these couple of posts, but the broader framing and rhetoric goes much further than that. In terms of substance, he might be trying to imply a reasonable point in one very limited sense: that at the level of an individual’s epistemic struggles with the truth, if they already have independent reason to believe Islam is true, then the mere possibility of some unresolved issue around a historical detail can temporarily stop that one issue from functioning as a total defeater. That's a narrow epistemic point, and in that limited sense it's understandable. But overall, that's not really what the post is doing. The problem is that it stretches that narrow point into something much larger than it can actually bear. It gives the impression that this age of Aisha (ra) issue sits quite naturally within a broad classical pattern of ordinary scholarly criticism and re-evaluation, and that's exactly where it becomes misleading. The biggest issue with this kind of framing is that it quietly normalizes a very dangerous rhetorical posture towards the Sahihayn. It can (and does) subtly lower people’s confidence in their authority. The approach relies on technically correct points in principle, but arranges them in a broader rhetorical frame that points in a much less careful direction. Given the very significant influence of modern revisionist narratives around these issues, how do you think repeatedly emphasizing that "even Bukhari can be questioned, even Bukhari can be critiqued, even Bukhari contains reports scholars discussed, even Albani said such and such" comes across? Each individual sentence may have some technical truth to it, but the cumulative rhetorical effect certainly isn't neutral. It trains the reader to relate to Sahih al-Bukhari less as a uniquely authoritative book within Sunni Islam and more as a prestigious but rather negotiable historical archive (even though brother Hijab certainly does not mean that). That's precisely the sort of framing that revisionists exploit. They do not usually begin by saying "throw out Bukhari” or anything of that sort. They begin by saying "let us just be methodologically open..let us just allow academic discussion..let us just distinguish between faith and history..let us just admit that scholars critiqued things too” etc. And once that kind of attitude is normalized in these contexts, the emotional and epistemic barrier protecting the authority of the hadith corpus among the laity is dangerously weakened. The post also keeps moving between different kinds of "criticism" as though they're all equivalent. They are not. There’s a big difference between saying that scholars sometimes examined specific narrations for subtle defects, or reconciled apparently conflicting reports and scrutinized particular transmission routes and wording etc, and saying that therefore one may treat this famous and widely received report as historically "open" because of this new angle of polemical pressure. Apart from the fact that those are very different things, framing it this way in the middle of a modern polemical context quietly trains people to see received reports as more negotiable than they actually are. The same applies to his appeal to classical distinctions between reports tied to law and creed and reports treated more flexibly in history, biography, fada’il etc. Even though such distinctions exist in principle, that does not mean they can simply be invoked in these polemical contexts to create this broad sense of historical fluidity around just any report (let alone a famous and widely accepted one). The fact that a report in al-Bukhari can be critically examined by scholars in principle does not mean every report is equally open to this vague "destabilization" process. The age report is not just some isolated narration floating in a vacuum. It comes with broad classical acceptance and very widespread circulation in the tradition. So the real question is not merely “can a hadith in Bukhari be open to critical scholarly discussions?” Of course some kind of discussion is possible. The real question should be about the evidentiary threshold required to "unsettle" a report of this prominence and level of reception, and in what context that becomes a principled and legitimately justified endeavour. Brother Hijab's post does not really face that question with the seriousness it deserves. Also, when you say things like “if polemical attacks had arisen then scholars like Ibn Hajar might have re-examined this more critically,” you're (unintentionally) planting the idea that whole chunks of presumably stable reports within the tradition may have been accepted only because they were never pressured hard enough. I'm not saying that's what he means or believes, but it's the impression that comes across given the wider climate of modern polemics and the growing revisionist trend in how these issues are discussed. It normalizes a tendency that more and more people are already falling into today: that if enough modernist pressure builds around a certain report, they begin to feel that maybe it too can be softened or renegotiated. So yes, there is a narrow point brother Hijab might be trying to make here, but the broader framing of the post(s) goes well beyond that. Towards the end, he says, “Our faith stands firmly on the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah, not on one historical number.” In one sense, that's true. Islam does not rise and fall on this one issue. But in another sense, that formulation is too "tidy" and misleading for what's actually at stake, because the dispute is not really about “one historical number” in isolation. It's about how Muslims are trained to relate to the Sunnah and react to modern polemical pressures. So reducing the Aisha debate to “one historical number” makes the matter look smaller than it actually is. The deeper concern is the epistemic attitude being cultivated through this kind of framing under modernist pressure.

@othmaanX @cookingtrolls @Adam80494145 @mohammed_hijab @Leafywashere00 Yes, at least read it and then you can comment on it beyond "Claude"

@zcaboah @cookingtrolls @Adam80494145 @mohammed_hijab @Leafywashere00 claude ? dude..

@othmaanX @cookingtrolls @Adam80494145 @mohammed_hijab @Leafywashere00 Check this and you'll see it's so much more grounded than you think claude.ai/share/5e52a072…

@cookingtrolls @Adam80494145 @mohammed_hijab @Leafywashere00 WE ARE ABLE to detect any “mistakes”. Don’t worry, the 9 years old hadith had 0 mistakes :) I’m sorry for ur modernistic god.

@ddkk786 @mohammed_hijab @kafirkounter @s_m_marandi Check my conversation with Claude on this topic. I found it extremely insightful. claude.ai/share/5e52a072…

@mohammed_hijab @kafirkounter @s_m_marandi I take your points but using isolated opinions to reject more authentic evidence in light of weaker evidence isn’t a good road to go down. It has implications in other areas. My question was more around if we accept all these Hadith is there anyway we can reconcile all of them?

Since the Epstein class is insulting the holy Prophet and his wife Aisha in order to hide their crimes, I decided to write this. Historians list Aisha among the first two dozen people to convert to Islam, which would have required her to be at least several years old at the start of the Prophet's mission. The overwhelming consensus among Shia scholars is that she was 18-19 when she married. This is the most frequently cited range, often calculated using the age of her older sister, Asma, who was 10 years older and died at 100 years old.

@kafirkounter @KashmiriHanbali @mohammed_hijab @ddkk786 @s_m_marandi Occams razor would suggest a simple copyist error harmonises all the seemingly conflicting hadith concerning this

- For اضطراب, you must prove equal, irreconcilable variants with no preference. - For ʿillah, you must identify an actual hidden defect in this report by route-comparison and expert evidence. A general note that Hishām declined somewhat in old age is not, by itself, a demonstrated taʿlīl of this hadith. - For خبر آحاد, the strongest thing you can say on the majority view is that it does not produce qat'i certainty like mutawatir. But that still leaves it as binding, probative evidence, and Ibn Hajar explicitly allows some ahad reports to yield العلم النظري through supporting indicators, including what the two sahihs transmitted and the scholars accepted. Your objection does not prove the age hadith is mudtarib. It does not prove it is muʿallal. And calling it ahad does not make it epistemically worthless or historically unusable. ذكر ابن القطان في أثناء كلام له أن هشاما هذا تغير واختلط، وهذا القول لا عبرة به، لعدم المتابع له، بل هو حجة مطلقا، وإن كان وقع شيء ما فهو من القسم الذى لم يؤثر فيه شيء من ذلك (٢). قال ابن حجر: قال أبو الحسن بن القطان: هشام بن عروة تغير قبل موته، ولم نر له في ذلك سلفا (٣). قال المعلمي اليماني معقبا على ما قاله الذهبي في "الميزان": أما النسيان فلا يلزم منه خلل في الضبط، لأن غايته أنه كان أولا يحفظ أحاديث

@SF181_AUS @JonathanACBrown claude.ai/share/5e52a072… check this out

@JonathanACBrown That merely accept the late age because of reverence to western liberal norms and not because they're actually convinced by the evidence.