ANTI ANTI-HADEETH

The entire Anti Hadeeth ideology is destroyed with this one verse from the Quran:
"16:44. (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have
sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men
what is sent for them, and that they may give thought."

FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2009

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2009

On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari &

Muslim

On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari & Muslim

Khalid al-Khazraji, Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 3rd September 1999
Last Modified: 24th August 2005

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction
Over the years, Christian missionaries have solidified their reputation for embracing
zealous new recruits. One fresh addition to this delegation of holy servicemen is the
neophyte, Andrew Vargo. More often than not, the missionaries have overlooked the
academic backgrounds of these fresh recruits, apparently intoxicated by their
impassioned hatred for Islam. Mr. Vargo has recently tried his hand as a student of
comparative religion, introducing some of the most fantastic ideas yet to the
discourse. Among these ideas is a rather boastful claim concerning the collection of
ahadith by the great Muslim scholar, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH). The highlight of
Vargo's claim lies in the following:
In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which
traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports,
but kept only 7,397 as true!
This is one of the most popular claims concerning the vast collection of ahadith of al-
Bukhari in the Christian missionary literature and comes with fanciful explanations.
For example, Anis Shorrosh, a well-known Arab missionary, says:
... Bukhari, collected twenty thousand of them, of which he rejected ten thousand,
accounting them untrue. Of the remaining ten thousand he accepted only 7,275,
declaring the rest to be untrustworthy. Abu Da'ud accepted as authentic only 4,800
rules out 50,000.[1]
Similarly we find Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb claiming that:
...Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admitted that of the 300,000
hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 might be true. He then narrowed
this number down to 7,275, many of which are repetitions so that the total number is
in fact near 3,000. That means that even he admitted there were errors in over
295,000 of them![2]
Nearly a similar statement is repeated by Geisler in his Baker Encyclopedia Of
Christian Apologetics to cast doubts on the miracles performed by the Prophet
Muhammad.[3] Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, on the other hand, labels what al-
Bukhari did not include in his collection as "apocryphal".
As to the abundance of the apocryphal traditions, we learn that the famous authority
al-Bukhari choose only 7,000 out of a host of 600,000 traditions that were current in
his on time.[4]
Similar statements were made by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, who quoted a
"Muslim scholar".[5]
Not surprising is the case of Rand Corporation, who have published an interesting
report on Islam entitled "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and
Strategies". The report has two fold agenda: firstly, to try to create a version of Islam
that suits the post-9/11 Western agenda and secondly encouraging creation of
divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad. The Rand Report's recipe to
achieve this aim is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and
play one section of the society against another to split the Muslim society. A small
example of it can be seen when the report uses the material from the hadith-rejectors
(not surprisingly!) to claim "objectively" that:
Even if that were not the case, objectively speaking, there is little doubt that hadith is
at best a dubious, flawed instrument. Consider that Al-Bukhari is the compiler of
what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and reliable collections of
hadith. He collected 600,000 hadith, examined them for their authenticity,
eliminated all but 7,600 of them, deleted some for redundancy, and was left with a
collection of about 4,000.[6]
As we shall see, feisty statements such as the above only prove to be self-defeating in
the end. This article intends to examine missionaries' thesis in light of the
scholarship of Imam al-Bukhari, and thereby ascertain the actual worth of their
claim.
To appreciate the broader perspective, we will also include a discussion of Imam
Muslim's ahadith collection, insha'allah.
2. Imam Bukhari & The Nature Of His Collection
Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Abdul-Haqq and Benard have practically
begged the question for us already - where exactly did Imam al-Bukhari mention that
among the 600,000 ahadith in his collection, only 7,397 are to be accepted as 'true'?
They maintains the missionary tradition of conveniently omitting any references that
would not support their thesis; the mark of a true academicians, indeed! Once again,
it is left to the Muslims to enlighten the ill-informed missionaries on this matter.
Imam al-Bukhari's actual words have been reproduced below:
* The two sahih collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahadith as
proved by al-Bukhari's testimony: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what
is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.
(Footnote 2)"
Footnote 2 says:
He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of
transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]
To reiterate this in elementary English, Imam al-Bukhari selected only a few
authentic ahadith from his vast collection. However, he left out certain traditions,
despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition in his Al-
Jami` (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make
such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions.
In another tradition, Imam al-Bukhari is also reported to have said:

He said, I heard as-Sa`dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad
Ibn Isma`il said: I selected/published [the content of] this book - meaning the Sahih
book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports. Abu Sa`d al-Malini informed us that
`Abdullah Ibn `Udayy informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhari say:
"I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among
the authentic what I could not get hold of."[8]
The above quotation reflects Imam al-Bukhari's gallant honesty to admit that he was
not able to collect each and every authentic tradition that existed in his day. Rather,
his Al-Jami` is only a partial collection of authentic traditions, despite its massive
volume. Furthermore, it should be clarified for the missionaries that the notion of a
partial collection of authentic material is quite different from the notion of a partially
authentic collection of material. However, it is not our aim to offer a course on
propositional reasoning. Thus, we leave the point with the hope that they will
eventually comprehend this piece of preschool logic.
Professor Mustafa al-Azami, who offered a devastating critique of Joseph Schacht's
work, again clarifies the misunderstanding of many orientalists on this issue:
Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were
no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, "I only
included in my book al-Jami` those that were authentic, and I left out many more
authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." He had no intention of
collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of hadith,
according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih, and his function is quite
clear from the title of his book al-Jami` al-Musnad al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min
umur Rasul Allah wa Sunanhi wa ayyamih. The word al-Mukhtasar, 'epitome', itself
explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.[9]
Yet, the missionaries seem to be living under the delusion that the 600,000 ahadith
of Imam al-Bukhari's collection somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or
bodies of text. His sloppy study of this issue becomes clear when one learns that a
hadith is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the
science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as
one hadith but rather as ten hadiths, despite the fact that the text attached to each
chain is the same in every case.
Professor Mustafa al-Azami adds:
Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions,
they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real
numbers of hadith.[10]
Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith
literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not
due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple
chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:
... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their
Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission,
and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third
centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of
Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely
the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.[11]
Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from
the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again
to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his
contemporaries. We will find that in al-Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals
will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual
chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single
narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of
time to 16 ahadith; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being
far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater
number of narrations to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in
which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of
transmission. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia
Abbott concludes:
... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and
senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within
the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of
the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain
reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge
numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic
after all.[12]
The implications of explosive increase in of the isnad is dealt with here.
3. Imam Muslim & The Nature Of His Collection
Imam Muslim along the similar lines to that of Imam al-Bukhari , is reported to have
said:

The translation of which is:

[...]. Imam Muslim said: "I have not included in my present book any thing but with
proof [regarding authenticity] , and I have not left out anything but with proof". He
also said: I did not include everything that I judge authentic/Sahih, I only included
what received a unanimous agreement, i.e., what fulfilled all the criteria of
authenticity agreed upon [by the scholars].
And Muslim has presented [his collection] to the scholars of his time, like Imam Abu
Zar`ah, and retained what was void of defect, and left out what had some defect.[13]
From the above quotation, it is clear that Imam Muslim's collection is also a partial
collection of authentic material and not a partially authentic collection of material.
He followed a certain set of criteria that demanded a proof for the inclusion of each
and every hadith in his collection.
4. Conclusions
Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account
of his authority, and it has been maintained as authentic ever since. The
missionaries' assertion, that Imam al-Bukhari regarded almost 99% of his own
collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared
by Christian missionaries. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadiths
that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami` and left out many authentic
narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.
Again, according to the Vargo:
In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which
traditions are strong or weak!
We should wonder whether the neophyte is as quick to demonstrate the same puerile
enthusiasm over the question of his own religious texts. Regardless, we will quote the
famous trial of Imam al-Bukhari to show how maqlub[14] (changed, reversed)
ahadith can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadith:
The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example
of a Maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari,
appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten
people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of
the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every
hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in
turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial
earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.[15]
Finally, it is worth citing a significant trend in modern Western scholarship of the
Prophetic traditions of Islam. For the past several decades, criticism of these
traditions has been the Orientalist's whipping post, an opportunity to invalidate the
traditions of Islam, which culminated in the work of Joseph Schacht, mentioned
earlier. However, this position has practically been reversed in recent times, with the
advent of academic honesty on the part of Western scholars. Professor John Esposito
of Georgetown University has made the following counter-criticism of Schacht's
traditional position:
Accepting Schacht's conclusion regarding the many traditions he did examine does
not warrant its automatic extension to all the traditions. To consider all Prophetic
traditions apocryphal until proven otherwise is to reverse the burden of proof.
Moreover, even where differences of opinion exist regarding the authenticity of the
chain of narrators, they need not detract from the authenticity of a tradition's content
and common acceptance of the importance of tradition literature as a record of the
early history and development of Islamic belief and practice.[16]
The position of Esposito perhaps reflects the growing attitude among Western
educational institutions that entertain any study of Islam and its traditions. This is
simply evidenced by the fact that Professor Esposito has become one of the reigning
authorities on Islam in the West, whose textbooks are considered university
standards for courses on Islam.
Considering the missionaries' abuse of hadiths to denigrate the Prophet(P) of Islam, it
would be too generous to assume that Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler and Abdul Saleeb
"misunderstood" the nature of the collection of Imam al-Bukhari. As for the Rand
Corporation's report, their "objectivity" lies in the unverified use of source material.
An honest misunderstanding entails at least some understanding of the issue, which
doesn't even seem to be their case. Perhaps the Christian missionaries might
consider beginning a genuine study of the science of hadith before they embarrasses
themselves further.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Abu Hudhayfah for providing us necessary help and allowing
us to use his material.
And Allah knows best!

References
[1] Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988,
Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 22.
[2] N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The
Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 165.
[3] "Muhammad, Alleged Miracles Of", in N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of
Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 512.
[4] A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim, 1980, Bethany House
Publications: Minneapolis, p. 45.
[5] J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam, 2001, Harvest House Publishers:
Eugene (OR), pp. 50-51.
[6] C. Benard, "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies", 2003,
Rand Corporation, p. 67.
[7] Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib, Al-Mukhtasar al-Wajiz fi `Ulum al-Hadith, 1991,
Mu'assasat al-Risalah, p. 135.
[8] Abi Bakr Ahmad Ibn `Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad Aw Madinah
as-Salam, 1931 (1349 AH), Volume II, Maktabat al-Khanji, Cairo & Al-Maktabah al-
`Arabiyyah, Baghdad and Matba'at as-S'adah near the State Department, Cairo, pp.
8-9.
[9] M. M. al-Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust
Publications: Indianapolis (USA), pp. 305-306.
[10] ibid., p. 306.
[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary &
Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.
[12] ibid., p. 72.
[13] Al-Imam Muhyee ad-Din Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih
Muslim Bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi, Volume I, 1994/1414, Dar al-Khair, p. 1.
[14] A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a
different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence
in the text.
[15] S. Hasan, An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith, 1995, Darussalam
Publishers: Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) available online, quote taken from here.
[16] J. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, Oxford University Press, p. 81.
. Read more!

POSTED BY TULANG BESI AT 12:18 AM 3 COMMENTS

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008

Q&A with Anti Hadeeth

Here are a few common questions raised by Anti Hadeeth and the answers for our
good reference
Question 1
I must give credit to this Rahman guy from celcom. He is a very smart. I'm not talking about
his interpretation/understanding of the religion, but his cunning move of leading this whole
polemic into linguistic issue.I find this very interesting, and can't wait what the other party
has to say.
The Arabic language is the language of the Quran. It is said so in the Quran 10 times. If one
where to try to interpret the Quran, one must be able to understand it in it’s original language.
To interpret the Quran in it’s translated form is a sure way of introducing mistakes and
misunderstanding of the true meanings of the quran.
Question 2
Why muslims are divided?
2.1 Madzhab
2.2 Syiah – Sunnah
Muslims are divided because they are also humans.
Question 3
Dear Ali Cordoba:

Can you kindly clarify a point? Are the hadith what the prophet s.a.w actually said, or are
those statements are what some people (like Muslim, Bukhari, etc) said the prophet was
presumed to have uttered?
Al hadeeth are reports of what the prophet actually said, done or agreed upon.

I am of course excepting the hadith qudzi, that is, those referenced in the Quran.

Incidentally the collections of Bukhari are widely viewed to be the most sahih "authentic,"
but the poor soul was not even born till about 200 years after the prophet's death.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
The collection of Al Hadeeth is done since the time the Prophet was still alive. Refer to book
from MM Azami.
Al Imam Al Bukhari came up with the As Sahih to fit the requirement at that time

Further, is it true that in the preamble to his extensive collections, Bukhkari humbly declared
that he may have omitted some valid hadiths and incldued some false ones?
This may be true but it is not applicable to his book As Sahih. Al Bukhari has also other
collections i.e. At Tarikh Al Kabeer, Al Adabul Mufrad and many more.
Question 4
There are many scientific and logical errors and contradictions in the Book of Bukhari, as
well as the other books. Some examples:
a.The prophet according to Bukhari in one of the narration tells his companion Abu- Dharr
Ghafari that the sun goes around the earth, in the apparent description that he gives (Hadith
421, pg. 283, vol. 4 of M.Muhsin Khan's translation of Sahih Bukhari).
This erroneous view was very popular at the time Bukhari compiled his collection. However
this is absurd, we know today that the earth rotates around the sun, proven by scientific
evidence. The Koran not only corrected this erroneous notion but also gave an accurate
description of a round earth centuries before scientists discovered it.
Isn’t it a scientific fact that the sun has it’s own orbit and revolves around the center of the
universe? Anyways the wording of the hadeeth does not say outrightly that the “sun revolves
around the earth”
b. According to Hadith no disease is contagious [Adwa]. This as we all know is inaccurate.
What about the common cold and viruses like Ebola etc. [Hadith 649, page 435, volume7]
This is why it is important to understand Arabic before interpreting the hadeeth. When the
Prophet SAW says “no disease is contagious” he was referring to a specific disease plaguing
the people of Makkah at that time. He did not speak of it in general terms.
But since he is speaking in Arabic, everyone understood it in it’s right context.

c. Books of Hadith contain many home-remedies, according to ideas prevalent at that time,
which are scientifically absurd. The Hadith mentions there being a cure for every ailment in
black cumin seed [Hadith 591, pg.400, vol 7]. This is evidently not true. Can it cure cancer or
AIDS, not to mention even the common cold?
Please bear in mind that the list of diseases known to the people of Mekkah and Madinah at
that time is NOT THE SAME as list of diseases known to us. The Hadeeth was meant for the
consumption of the people of makkah and madinah of that time.
All this was before we discovered antibiotics.
d. Hadith suggests that we drink "camel-urine" to recuperate after an illness [Hadith 590,
pg.399, vol.7]. This is disgusting, naturally speaking. Urine is toxic stuff. The Koran places
extreme importance on cleanliness and clean eating (tayyab).
If any it only exhibits the miracle of the Prophet Mohd SAW. The hadeeth DOES NOT
suggest anyone to drink camel-urine to cure illness. The camel urine drinking incident only
happens that one time.
e. The Hadith mentions that "fever" is from the "heat of hell" [Hadith 621,622, page 417, vol
7]. Atrocious!
That’s because it was a common saying at that time that when someone is having a high
fever, he is having a “heat from hell”. It was just a local saying at that time. Nothing to be
taken in literal.

f.The Hadith books insult the prophet by giving him a contradictory personality. In one
instance it mentions that the prophet ate with a leper and in another it mentions that he
refused to meet with a leper who had come to take allegiance at his hand and accept Islam.
He told the man to leave and accepted his allegiance in absentia.
I have not seen this hadeeth yet. Can u quote me please

g. The famous Hadith about the fly: "If a fly falls into the vessel of any of you, let him dip all
of it (in the vessel) and then throw it away [and use the material in the vessel], for in one of
its wings there is a disease and in the other there is a healing [Bukhari, Hadith 673, pg. 452,
vol 7]
Beware world, there is going to be an outbreak of typhoid and cholera if people take the
above as "Hadith-truth", just like "gospel truth" made some people get castrated just because
it reports Jesus saying, "....and there are some who make themselves eunuchs for the
Kingdom of God." Beware these myths can harm you!
Sheikh Yusuf Qardhawi in his famous book “Al fatawa al maasirah” has explained this
hadeeth. He quoted a research from a Professor in University of Alexandria on extraction of
antidote from flies. Please read his answer cause it’s very interesting

h. According to Hanbel 6/136, 192,213, the prophet "Never urinated in a standing position."
However Bukhari in his "authentic" book of Hadith says that the prophet indeed urinated in a
standing position. (Bukhari 4/60-64)
I will have to get back to you on this cause I’ve never met this contradiction of the hadeeth
yet.
Question 5
bananaeel wrote:
Menurut sebuah hadith, (kononnya) Nabi Muhammad bersabda, "Umatku akan berpecah
kepada 73 kumpulan dan kesemua kumpulan ini akan masuk neraka kecuali satu kumpulan".

Hadith translation : "My community will be divided into 73 sects and each of them will end
up in Hell save one".
Again another confusion caused by ignorance of the Arabic language. Arabs uses the word
“seventy” to mean “numerous”.
Question 6:
Various accusations from Rentap against Abu Hurairah, unsubstantiated, of course.
All of the issues raised by Rentap are based on lies and hearsay, including the incident where
Umar was allegedly to beat up Abu Hurairah.
Refer to this url for more explanation
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm
Suffice to say that scholars who studies the classical texts in it’s original language have a
completely good opinion of Abu Hurairah. Scholars such as:
(a)Dr. Mustafa al-Siba'i (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis,
al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fi l-Tashri' al-Islami, (Cairo: 1380/1961);
(b) 'Abd al-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Dar al-Ahaadeeth in Makka and Imam of
Masjid al-Haram),Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa' al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya, (Cairo:
n.d.); and
(c) the definitive response by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu'allami al-Yamani (the
Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwar al-Kashifa lima fi Kitab Adwa' 'ala al-Sunna
min al-Zallal wa l-Tadlil wa l-Mujazafa, (Cairo: 1378) - may Allah have mercy with
them all.
Wallahualam bissawab
. Read more!

POSTED BY TULANG BESI AT 5:52 AM 1 COMMENTS

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts

The article is taken from Times Online. Despite many cynics and nay sayers, the plan
is still proceeding.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008 Abul Taher
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers
to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases
ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power
of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and
depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London,
Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in
Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and
Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts,
said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of
arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute
agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which
can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved
using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution,
which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months
after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting
that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked
controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial
disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007.
They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and
inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence
between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal
cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. "All we are doing is
regulating community affairs in these cases," said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing
council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and
resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in
Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the
act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the
beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals
are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to
know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action
unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "I think it's
appalling. I don't think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or
enforced by the British state."
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse
deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton,
the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance
with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have
got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to
take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was
no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with
the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages
were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said:
"The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so
must the sharia ones."
Additional reporting: Helen Brooks
. Read more!

POSTED BY TULANG BESI AT 1:40 AM 0 COMMENTS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Zaharuddin Rahman Response to Raja Petra's Article on Tudung

Debat Tudung Wanita : Jawapan Kepada Artikel Raja Petra (Malaysia today) The
Great Tudung Debate : A Respond to Raja Petra's Article Zaharuddin Abd
RahmanThis writing is a response to Raja Petra Kamaruddin about muslim women's
aurat in his popular blog (Malaysia today). Source

RAJA PETRA WROTE :In the article there was a sentence stating: "Apparently, the
tudung was 'decreed' for only the Prophet's wives and not for all women..." So I've
have looked into the Quran and found some things.

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw
their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they
may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful." Surah Al-
Ahzab (33), verse 59. Comment : Firstly, see the words 'so that they may be recognised and not
annoyed'. This means at least the face must be visible. It is wrong to say that other women at that
time (non Muslim Arabs, Jews, Christians) did not wear the tudung. The truth is that the Jewish
and Christian women wore far more conservative tudung than the Muslim women.
Covering the body is also required of men and women in the desert. It has nothing to do with any
religion. So when the verse says 'so that they may be recognised' it actually means the women
should not cover their face or head in such a way that the people cannot differentiate them from
other Christian and Jewish women who also wear tudung and veils. This means there is no such
thing as a tudung to cover your head and face.
The verse 33:59 says the following in Arabic:
Ya ayyuhan nabi : O you prophet
qul li-azwajika wabanaatika : tell your wives, your daughters
wa nisaa i mu'mineena : and the believing women
yudneena : to lengthen
Alayhinna : over them
min jalabeebihinna : from their garments/cloaks.
There is absolutely NO mention of head or hair or face in this verse. There is no reference to
tudung. The reference is to lengthen your garments over your body. This means women must dress
decently.
UZAR'S COMMENT
Unfortunately, you have misinterpret the verse and understanding it out of its context, i assumed
that's because you are not examining the whole structure of the verse, besides i think you did not
posses adequate knowledges to do so, or maybe you are also very busy with your sumpah
declaration and malaysian politic issues.
In reality, as a servant of Allah SWT and the follower of Rasulullah SAW, we are taught to always
come back to Al-Quran and Al-Hadith to obtain assurance about the permissibility of a matter.
Regarding this, Allah SWT said:-

‫ك َأْدَنى َأن‬
َ ‫ن َذِل‬
ّ ‫لِبيِبِه‬
َ‫ج‬َ ‫ن ِمن‬
ّ ‫عَلْيِه‬
َ ‫ن‬
َ ‫ن ُيْدِني‬
َ ‫ساء اْلُمْؤِمِني‬ َ ‫ك َوِن‬َ ‫ك َوَبَناِت‬
َ‫ج‬ِ ‫لْزَوا‬
َّ ‫ي ُقل‬
ّ ‫َيا َأّيَها الّنِب‬
‫حيًما‬
ِ ‫غُفوًرا ّر‬َ ‫ل‬ ُّ ‫ن ا‬
َ ‫ن َوَكا‬ َ ‫ل ُيْؤَذْي‬َ ‫ن َف‬
َ ‫ُيْعَرْف‬
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their
cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as a free
respectable MUSLIM women) so as not to be molested. "(Al-Ahzab: 59)
It is agreed unanimously by ulama that every verse that is revealed to our prophet Muhammad
s.a.w is also intended to Muslim except defined otherwise by our Prophet either in his hadis or by
other quranic verses. For example: our prophet has more than four wives at a time, it is called
"Khususiyat anbiya" which we are not allowed to follow due to Allah's will and many other logical
reasons.
Therefore, in this case, covering aurat including head, hair, neck and chest is strongly commanded
not only for prophet's wives but also to all muslim women. It is not just an Arab's custom due to the
sandy desert, but it is indeed a religious commandment. It is also very obvious stated in the above
verse where it is mentioned :

َ ‫ساء اْلُمْؤِمِني‬
‫ن‬ َ ‫َوِن‬
Meaning : "the women of the believers"
Therefore whoever claims they are muslim, they are obliged to uphold and stick to the decree in
the verse.
Jilbab is a dress (of similar width to ‘baju kurung') worn by women to cover their bodies. Syeikh Dr
Yusof Al-Qaradawi explained that when some women during the Jahiliah period left their houses,
they loved to display some parts of their beauty such as the chest, neck and hair until they were
being harassed by those wicked men who like to commit zina.
Then, the verse above is revealed to command Muslim women to EXTEND (and not only) their jilbab
so that the parts that could lead to fitnah will be covered. In this way, they would be identified as
women who are protected (‘afifah) and a true MUSLIM WOMEN. As a consequence, they would not
be molested.

The above verse elucidates that covering the aurat is an emblem of a Muslim. Allah SWT also said:

ِ ‫ل َفِإّنَها ِمن َتْقَوى اْلُقُلو‬

‫ب‬ ِّ ‫شَعاِئَر ا‬
َ ‫ظْم‬
ّ ‫َوَمن ُيَع‬
"And anyone who honours the symbols set up by God [shall know that] verily, these [symbols derive
their value] from the God-consciousness in the [believers'] hearts " ( Al-Haj : 32 )
Therefore, the main reason (‘illah) for the above ruling is to prevent Muslim women from being
molested by wicked men. Attires that display women's beauty or women walking and talking in a
seducing manner could arouse a man's sexual desire. Such behavior is an indirect invitation to the
male for teasing and molestation. (Adapted from kitab Al-Halal wal Haram fil Islam with slight
modification)
It's also WRONG to say that "so that they may be recognised and not annoyed' mean face must be
visible in order to be recognized.
Firstly : Is it acceptable to say that we can only recognised a women by looking at her face? Of
course not, we can easily recognized them by many other ways, either by listening to her voice or
many other things besides her face.
Secondly : Most of the Jahiliyyah womens are not wearing tudung at all and some of them wearing
improper veils.( Refer Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 3/285). It is also stated clearly in the hadith narrated by
Abu Hurairah, Rasulullah s.a.w. said:
"Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: (1) people having flogs like the
tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people (unjust rulers); (2) the women who
would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make others
incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the bukht camel inclined to one side.
They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be
smelt from such and such distance" (Narrated by Muslim, Sohih).
The JAHILIYYAH womens are said to wear attire but is still naked because they do have cloth on
their body but it does not cover the aurat because it is transparent and exposes their skin; like the
wearing of many women today. (Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam, Dr Yusof Al-Qaradawi)
‘Bukhtun' in the hadith is a type of camel that has a big hump. Women's hair looks like the hump of
a camel when it is pulled and tangled over their head. This shows that Jahiliyyah womens are not
covering their head and hair. As for Christian and jews womens who you said wore tudung also at
the time of prophet Muhammad s.a.w, you have to provide evidences on that. Besides, do you sure
how Christian women exact attire in Mekkah and medina at that time?, Jewish people are too small
to take into account and yet we don't know what are their tudung types. The most important,
whatever types of thier tudung, we msulim has our own tudung with certain standards and
conditions and it is a religious commandment.
Although the hadith was revealed thousand years ago, the Prophet s.a.w. was able to warn us of
what would happen now. Today there are various saloons that set hair for women with million types
of fashion and sadly men are the hair setter at most of these saloons.
RAJA PETRA WROTE :
2) "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their
adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to
reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or
their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or
their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's
nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed." Surah An-Nur (24), verse
31.
Raja Petra Comment : Again there is no mention of head (ru'usa) in this verse or face
(wujuh/wajh). Please note the words 'draw their veils over the bosoms'. The arabic is as follows:
walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments
Ala : over / upon
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts
Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier
verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is
absolutely no mention of head (ru'usa), face (wujuh) or hair.
UZAR'S COMMENT FOR NUMBER 1 & 2 :
Raja Pete, it is very obvious that you are not analyzing the verse properly. Your simplistic
interpretation is incorrect again, Almighty Allah has said :-

ّ ‫ن ِزيَنَتُه‬
‫ن‬ َ ‫ل ُيْبِدي‬
َ ‫ن َو‬
ّ ‫جُيوِبِه‬
ُ ‫عَلى‬
َ ‫ن‬
ّ ‫خُمِرِه‬
ُ ‫ن ِب‬
َ ‫ضِرْب‬
ْ ‫َوْلَي‬
Meaning : And tell the believing women to lower their veil and to be mindful of their chastity, and
not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof..
So you look Pete, why are you only focusing on some words of the verse and didn't give proper
attention to the others. You have translated ‘Al-Khumur' wrongly, as that because of your harfiah
(word by word)translation and harfiah understanding also, that kind of translation cannot help you
in understanding the word correctly. The "al-Khumur" word will provide you the answer on your own
created question and false assumption which you said : "There is absolutely NO mention of head or
hair".
The true meaning of khumur (veil) is anything that is used to cover the head. Meanwhile ‘juyub'
(the plural form of jaibun) is the curvature of the breast that is not covered with cloth. Therefore
every woman must cover not only their head but also their chest including their neck and ears and
all other parts that may lure a male.
In order to understand Quranic text correctly, he/she must comprehend and find the exact usage of
terminologies and words in Arabic language. A person should also know how a term or word is being
used in the Arabic community because Quran is using Arabic language. Therefore it is good to have
knowledge on conservative Arab's (especially at the time of prophet s.a.w) way of life before
he/she can get the true intended meaning; For this reason, we must refer to the tafseer book by
great Muslim scholars to avoid ourselves from false impression.
That's also why it's better for those who wish to learn Islam in depth to pay a visit to Arabic
countries in order to get some feels and get used to the usage of certain word by contemporary
Arabs, it can give you some more clue in order to understand Arabic language in the Quran.
When Allah swt said "Khumurihinna" , so we must know, in a standard Arabic language what does it
mean by "khumur", so the answer is veil which cover their head, hair, ear etc and then, when a
person said "khumur" in front of knowledgable arab person, what he will understand?. Of course, it
s a veil also. This fact has been told by many great classic Muslim scholar like Imam At-Tabarii
( died 301 H) in his famous tafseer book Jami al-Bayan and also Imam Ibn Katheer . (Tafsir At-
Tabari, 18/120 ; Tafsir AL-Quran Al-'Azim, 3/285))
Besides the khumur which is a veil which covers the women head, and juyub which covers womens'
neck, breast and chest, the verse also stress on :-

ّ ‫ن ِزيَنَتُه‬
‫ن‬ َ ‫ل ُيْبِدي‬
َ ‫َو‬
Meaning : that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily)
appear thereof"..
Do you understand what ‘beauty and ornaments' means in this verse?
According to Syeikh Dr Yusof Al-Qaradawi, the adornment mentioned in the above verse refers to
anything that is worn to beautify oneself; either natural beauty like face, hair and body; or
manmade beautification like dress, embellishment, make-up and others.
In the above verse, Allah commanded women to conceal the adornment without any exemption.
However, the exemption was "what is apparent". The scholars therefore have differences in opinion
about the meaning and extent of "what is apparent" but all of them agreed unanimously that hair
and head are included.
That is due to the following hadith :-
Saidatina Aisyah r.a narrated that her sister Asma' binti Abu Bakar entered the house of the Prophet
s.a.w wearing attire made of transparent material that showed her skin. The Prophet s.a.w turned
away from her and said:
"Hai Asma'! Verily when a woman has achieved puberty, she should not reveal her body except for
this and this - showing the face and the palms (hands)." (Narrated by Abu Daud)
Although there is a discussion about narrators of this hadith, it is strengthen by many other hadith
that allows revealing of the face and the palms if it does not bring any harm (fitnah). (Al-Halal Wal
Haram Fil Islam)
This hadis also supporting the fact that women head and hair are ‘aurat and must be covered by
muslim womens, only the face and palm or hand can be seen by the public.
Yes, there is discussion on what is the meaning of "what is apparent" which ALLOWED TO BE SEEN
but it is not about hair, neck and head. Ibnu Abbas r.a, one of the great companions of the Prophet
(s.a.w.) interpreted "what is apparent" is eyeliner and ring. Anas Bin Malik r.a is also of the same
opinion.
Therefore, the body parts where the eyeliner and the ring are worn (i.e. the face and the palms)
would also be considered as apparent. This also the opinon of the Tabien like Said bin Jubair,
'Atha', Auza'i and others.
However, Ummul Mukminin Aisyah r.a, Qatadah and a few others considered bracelet as something
apparent. Therefore, the wrist (place of wearing a bracelet) is also considered as apparent if it
does not cause any harm (fitnah). Regarding the limit from the wrist to the elbow, it is still under
discussion among the scholars; therefore it is better to cover parts between the wrist and the
elbow.
RAJA PETRA SAID
3) In order to interpret the Quran, we have to go to people who have knowledge about it. In what
circumstance the verse was revealed, etc. But not just any scholar who says that they know.
Comment : We DO NOT interpret the Quran. May I suggest something much simpler? Why not we
just read it? If we look at the Quran in its arabic and then look at the translated words just a little
carefully, we will understand it. You DONT EVEN have to know Arabic. For example the arabic
word for HEAD (kepala) is NEVER mentioned in any of the verses quoted above. Neither are the
arabic words for face and hair. So how do the translators include head, face and hair? Someone
must explain this.
UZAR'S COMMENT
I have responded to this false statement and it's no longer concern us.
Do you think that Allah will only use ru'asa to express head and sya'run as hair?.. no you are wrong
Mr Pete, for example Allah s.w.t forbids us from saying ‘Ah' to our parents. So it is permissible to
say ‘uh' and bull shit to your parent only because it is not mentioned in the Quran?.
When Allah forbids ‘ah' so its include all thing that has similar effect and covering not only bad
words but also bad behaviour and actions towrd your parent. It is called in Usul Fiqh as Qiyas al-
Awla or also can be considered as ‘umum al-lafz will carry all meaning under it.
So, women's head and hair falls under the words "al-khumur"in the verse. As simple as that.
As for the last part of Raja Petra's article, some of the hadith has been misquoted so i don't need to
respond.
‘DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER' MYTH
I always come across with this expression and I believe you are the same. The following are the
words of those women who do not cover their aurat who always claim to posess pure and kind
hearts although they are wearing indecent outfits which reveal their aurat.
"Even women who put on hijaab commit crime nowadays, indulging in adultery, free-mixing and a
lot more" A woman share her thought.
"In fact, we too are well-behaved, we do not bother others, we do not backbite and we stay away
from bad things" The woman added.
Is it a sound argument? Is it true that the external appearance does not matter in Islam? Some of
them are even one step ahead in their arguments that they reason with the meaning of an
authentic hadith of the Prophet, which is:
"Verily Allah does not look at your physical being, your outer appearance nor your wealth,
but He looks at your heart and your deeds" (Narrated by Muslim).
I feel sorry and dishearten looking at those who when arguing, easily throw out hadith in supporting
their whims; indeed, they only utilize Islam in the matter that bring benefits to them.
An employee was caught playing game during working hours by his employer while he has yet to
prepare the document requested by him. The employer thus said, "How are you going to excel in
your carreer if this is your attitude towards work."
The employee responded, "You may see me outwardly as playing games but my heart is sincere and
I performed my duty excellently."
Do you think that the employer believe in what his employee had said? Does Allah consider one's
heart as pure and good through disobeying His commandments?
Indeed, something is only regarded as pure and good by measuring it with the scale of Allah and His
Rasul, and not merely with the scale of our minds. If we refer to the scale of Islam, the Prophet
SAW had said which means:
"Beware, in the body there is a piece of flesh; if it is sound, the whole body is sound and if it is
corrupt the whole body is corrupt, and hearken it is the heart" (Narrated by Muslim)
Based on this hadith, Islamic scale necessitates that the purity of one's heart is apparent in its first
stage, which is one's actions. It means that when one's actions always transgress against the
commandments prescribed in Islam, it signifies the filth of one's heart. On the other hand, if the
external actions submit to the commandment of Islam, thus it should be considered as good in the
first stage, which is the external scale of lay people. Nevertheless, the second stage, which is
whether one's intention is for seeking Allah's pleasure or for things such as showing off, we should
leave the judgment only to Allah.
Therefore, we can judge a book by its cover in certain cases, such as in the case when the
fundamentals of Islam are being transgressed; the cover is consequently reflecting what is inside
the heart of a person.
Judging based on that which is apparent, does go along with the hadith:

‫ فأقضي‬, ‫ل بعضكم أن يكون ألحن بحجته من بعض‬ ّ ‫ ولع‬, ‫ى‬

ّ ‫ وإنكم تختصمون إل‬, ‫إنما أنا بشر‬
‫ فإنما أقطع له قطعة من النار‬, ‫ فمن قضيت له من حق أخيه شيئَا فل يأخذه‬, ‫بنحو ما أسمع‬
Which means: "Verily I am only a human being, and you always presented arguments for me to
solve. It may be that some of you are better in presenting argument than others. Therefore, I give
out rulings based on what I have heard only. He, for whom I have made a ruling that violates the
rights of the other party (due to the lack of skill of the person in presenting argument), does not
take it. For verily, it will be for him a slice from the slices of hellfire" (Narrated by Abu Dawood,
At-Tirmidzi and others; Refer Naylul Awtar, 8/632, no 3920).
This hadith clearly shows that a judge in Islam will give a ruling based on the information and the
evident proofs presented to him. Similarly, in the case of covering aurat, if one reveals the aurat, it
is a sign of transgression against Allah's commands. Thus, how would it be possible for this kind of
heart to be perceived as a sound heart in Islam?
Women should realize that when the aurat is not covered properly, every single man who looks at it
will be held accountable for every single gaze. The woman, on the other hand, is not going to be
held accountable for that one sin merely; rather she will be held accountable for all the gazes from
men that fell on her aurat. Just imagine how sinful she is for revealing the aurat only in one day.
This is based on the Prophet's word:

‫من سن في السلم سنة سيئة فعليه وزرها ووزر من عمل بها من غير أن ينقص شيئًا‬
Which means: "Whosoever initiates a wrongdoing, upon him are a sin and the sin of every single
person who does it without his sin being reduced even a little..." (Narrated by Ahmad and others-
Authentic)
Included in the meaning of intiating is that someone intiates the revealing of her aurat in that day
causing the man who looks at her to be held accountable. In fact, the woman herself is sinful for
every single eye that sets on her aurat. Would this type of heart be considered as pure? After
mountains of sins had rusted it?
Verily Allah is All Just and the Most Merciful. Rush towards Allah's love and mercy by obeying Him.
For those who are hardhearted, no words can be shared except; be certain that Allah is true, His
Rasul is true, and Paradise and Hellfire are true. If believe in them, why are the actions speak
otherwise?
Thanks for you time.
Regards,. Read more!

POSTED BY TULANG BESI AT 6:24 PM 3 COMMENTS

Reply to Observer in Malaysia Today pt 2

Continuation of my reply to the article "Replying ANTI ANTI Hadeeth ".

This Observer dude is also trying to confuse the Arabic behind the verse An-Nur 31.
Observer says:

“You say that the 'khumur' is a cloth used to cover the head. Then you say that this same
cloth must be pulled over the chest. If the women are required to do this, then along the way
there is someting called their 'face' which is located between the head and the chest.”
The way I see it, human face IS located between their heads and chest. What are u ranting
about here, Observer?
Observer is trying to change the meaning of the Quran as well. He says:

“Since you talk about grammar and arabic language, the subject of this statement is
covering over the breasts (ala juyubihinna) or 'tutup dada'. Dont twist the grammar ok.”
Noticed that he wants to deny COMPLETELY the fact that An Nur:31 INSTRUCTS the
covering of “Juyub”(cleavages) with “Khumur/Khimar” (head cover). After trying to cloud
and confuse the explanation by going ring around the rosy, Observer finally comes to this
conclusion. And how does he do it? He denies the part “Walyadrib bikhumur” in An Nur:31
Observer depicts the trait of a classic loser. When cornered, change the rule of the game. In
short, the man is as confused as a monkey in a library.
And the explanation provided by Quinary is much more elegant and steeped in intellectual
tradition. Observe:

“My response :
This depends largely on what is the interpretation of the word khumur. I am not sure whether
this friend of Raja Petra speaks Arabic (which I am quite sure this anonymous friend of his
has no arabic knowledge), but one thing not highlighted is the fact that khumur (the plural
word of khimar) means something to cover, and what was normally referred to as head cover
(tudung). The classical arabic dictionary, aqrib al-mawarid defines khimar as :
"all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used
by a woman to cover her head."

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir said: "Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something
that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as
a khimar."
So linguistically, khimar does not only mean something to cover, it is commonly used at that
time to refer to head cover (tudung). So now we can see that khimar can be used as :
1. A piece that covers
2. Something specifically used to cover the head / head cover / tudung”
Observer also demonstrate his confusion about Al Hadeeth. He asks:
“Secondly you are accusing people of being anti hadeeth. Can you please explain exactly
what you mean by 'anti hadeeth' ? Which hadeeth are you talking about? Do you have a
complete collection of all the hadeeth? Is there such a thing as a complete collection of
hadeeth in the first place? Please be honest. My friends at IKIM are still resolving that the
hadeeth collections of Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah are incomplete. Tell me how can anyone
reject something that is incomplete?”
Anyone and their uncle knows the meaning of Al Hadeeth and Anti Hadeeth. Go back to
Sekolah Rendah Agama and learn the meaning. You must’ve missed that part way back when
you were in Sekolah Agama.

As for IKIM collection of Abu Dawud and Ibnu Majah, it’s really weird as the collection has
been confirmed a long time ago and there is hardly any issue. Maybe the IKIM people are not
really competent OR Observer just don’t understand what the IKIM people are doing. I
would bet on the latter.
Next, Observer asks about the meaning of “Jumhur Ulama”. He says;
“About khimar you say "Jumhur ulama' picked the second definition as the correct one."
What do you mean by jumhur ulama? Please tell us EXACTLY (I really mean EXACTLY)
how many ulama were involved in deciding on this particular jumhur. What were their
names? Who classified them as ulama? What were the names (EXACTLY) of the people who
classified these ulama as ulama? ont simply say 'Jumhur ulama' to mislead the people. Give
us the EXACT details of the ulama as well as their jumhur”.
The reason why Observer ask stupid question like this is because he doesn’t know what
Jumhur Ulama is but he’s already rejecting it.
The simple explanation is “jumhur” means “majority” or “most”. In other words, in a specific
issue, scholars or ulama will comment on the issue or problem and majority of them supports
a specific outcome.
It’s been in existence for a long time. And we refer to the books or opinions expressed orally.
It’s not a big problem at all except for ignoramus like Observer.
. Read more!

POSTED BY TULANG BESI AT 7:20 AM 0 COMMENTS

LABELS: ANTI ISLAM, RAJA PETRA

An Observer that is not so Observant: A Reply to Article in

MalaysiaToday (pt 1)
A person by the name of “An Observer” commented on an article I posted entitled
“Answer on MTODAY Article on Tudung from Quinary". An apparently, it is
published in the anti Islam website, MalaysiaToday. Why I say he is not observant is
because the writer thinks that the article is written by me. He says:
“Dear Anti Anti Hadeeth,
Firstly you are NOT a woman. You are lying. You are Abdul Rahman aka Cabearth aka
Tulang Besi. You are the owner of the website ANTI ANTI HADEETH
http://antiantihadeeth.blogspot.com/. I do not know why the people like you who claim to be Muslims
like to tell so many lies. “
In truth, it is written by a blogger name Quinary. She wrote her response
entitled “Raja Petra's The Great Tudung Debate - My Response”. But,
because the observer is not so observant, he missed out this fact. I, in
fact, mention the name Quinary in the title and at the bottom of the
article.
Second point, the Observer says that :
“I believe that you have outdone Imam Ghazali, Imam Syafie, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam
Hambali, Imam Maliki, Imam Jabar al Karuti and all the other Imams and ulama because
none of them has said that whether a woman covers her head or does not cover her head is
her personal choice and 'does not affect our aqidah'.”
My problem with this statement is that it is a lie. If one were to open Imam Syafiee’s book
“Al Umm”, clearly he stated the “compulsion” of wearing “hijab” for women. In fact, all of
the Al Imam Al Arbaah ( the four Imam) says states the same fact? It’s funny where u get this
nonsense from?
Then he went on rambling:
“For your information, the ulama say that the hair on the head is considered part of the
woman's aurat. And it is part of the aqidah for a woman to cover her aurat. Since her hair is
aurat, then she must cover her hair. And since her hair grows on her head, she must
therefore cover the head. Covering the aurat is definitely part of aqidah. How can you say
that it does not affect our aqidah?”
It’s clear that Observer don’t know the difference between Aqidah and Ibadah. The entire
subject of Aurah is not an issue related to Aqidah(creed) but it reflect Observer’s level of
knowledge of Islam.
Third, Observer also says refered to an Orientalist from Oxford name Patricia Crone.
Observer says that Patrica claims there is not proof of existence of Prophet Mohd Saw
because there is no coin showing the Prophet’s name. Also, she claims that the people of
Kufah prays in the Western direction. Observer also claim that Patricia Crone referred to
books written by
It’s either Particia is making a false claim or Observer is not very observant. But, it’s the trait
of people like Observer and Raja Petra. Their main reference is Western, Christian and
Jewish Orientalist. They rely upon these people blindly for their source in understanding
Islam. The fact that people like Observer have no ability to understand Arabic confirms the
fact that he doesn’t refer to scholars of Islam at all except through Western, Christian and
Jewish Orientalists eyes.
Little does people like Observer know, Orientalist contradicts each other. If Patricia Crone
says that Prophet Mohd’s existence cannot be confirmed, another Orientalist name Nabia
Abbott confirms the existence of Al Hadeeth and even linked directly to the Prophet. Nabia
says:
[quote]
... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were,
as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called
phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily
growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are
concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of
transmission.[11]
[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary &
Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.
[/quote]
A reference to the article by Patricia Crone shows that she relies heavily on PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE to support her work But, at the same time she didn’t study the “papyrus” or
“manuscripts” plus various oral traditions that is abundance and great in numbers. It is
probably because Patricia Crone is not trained enough to read and understand Classical
Arabic and as such she is unable to appreciate the massive and abundance evidence
Now Nabia Abbot chooses to study the abundance of evidence and she confirms the existence
of Prophet Mohd SAW thus making Particia looking like an idiot. In addition, another
orientalist, J Robson, wrote a book entitled “The Isnad of Muslim Tradition” actually proving
the soundness of the Isnad system.
(End of Part 1)
Read more!

POSTED BY TULANG BESI AT 6:43 AM 2 COMMENTS

LABELS: ANTI ISLAM, RAJA PETRA

Older Posts

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

SOME USEFUL LINKS FOR FIGHTING ANTI HADEETH

• Problematic hadiths and various questions

• There are other Sahih Hadeeth other then in Sahih Bukhari
• http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=285
• A Book By Albani on Anti Hadeeth
• A Forum Discussing Anti Hadeeth
• http://e-iqra.com/v2/pages/booksCat.php?id=38
• Hadeeth Rejecters

ABOUT ME

TULANG BESI

My name is Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib. I am from Malaysia, born and bred. I
travel a lot as well but never am i severed from the going-ons in Malaysia. My
education background is very technical so my writings will appear to be very
much slanting towards facts rather than opinions.
VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE

BLOG ARCHIVE

• ▼ 2009 (2)
○ ▼ June (1)
 KAJIAN SANAD HADIS, ANTARA JOSEPH SCHACHT DAN
M.M....
○ ► February (1)
  On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Buk...
• ► 2008 (37)
○ ► November (1)
 Q&A with Anti Hadeeth
○ ► September (5)
 Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts
 Zaharuddin Rahman Response to Raja Petra's Article...
 Reply to Observer in Malaysia Today pt 2
 An Observer that is not so Observant: A Reply to A...
 Answer on MTODAY Article on Tudung from Quinary
○ ► August (3)
 Hadeeth Must Be Understood in the Correct Context
 Clearing Some Misguided Understanding Of Al Hadeet...
 As Sunnah Is Revelations From God
○ ► June (8)
 Article 11 Movement is About Secular Liberalism, ...
 Hadeeth on Flies
 Haris Ibrahim and his Band of Misfits Committed to...
 The Lina Joy Case -- An 'Easy' Version
 Official Stand On Position of Ahmadiyya/Qadyani
 Haris’es Verses Don’t Negate Death Penalty for Apo...
 Problems With Anti Hadeeth Methods When Interpreti...
 Respond to Some Blogger's Comments on Al Hadeeth A...
○ ► May (20)
 The Myth Of Arab Influence In Islam
 Why Shariah: An Article Refuting Those Who Doubt T...
 Anti Hadeeth Must Renounce Prophet Musa AS for Pun...
 Refuting mostmerciful.com: Bukhari Rejecting Thous...
 Refuting mostmerciful.com: Abu Hurairah
 Refuting mostmerciful.com: Prayers
 Refuting mostmerciful.com: Hadeeth
 ANTI HADEETH DILEMMA WITH THE QURAN PT 1
 First Anti Hadeeth, then Anti Quran
 Defending Imam Syafiee From Anti Hadeeth Lies
 Exposing Anti Hadeeth Lies On Imam Bukhari
 A Short Guide When Facing Anti Hadeeth
 Hadeeth Rejectors Are Hypocrites
  Defending Imam Bukhari from Anti Hadeeth Lies
 Anti Hadeeth latest trick is to try to show that s...
 Latest trick by Anti Hadeeth
 Defending Imam Bukhari from Anti Hadeeth lies.
 Dialogue with Anti Hadeeth- Defending Imam Syafiee...
 A Look At Anti Hadeeth Blogspot
 Developement of Hadeeth:A consice Introduction to ...
• ► 2007 (13)
○ ► August (1)
 Clearing Some Misguided Understanding Of Al Hadeet...
○ ► July (4)
 More Issues On Anti Hadeeth Methodology
 Anti Hadeeth’s Quran is From The Planet Uranus
 Another Attack on Anti Hadeeth Character Named Tru...
 Debate With An Anti Hadeeth On The Issue Of Aposta...
○ ► June (8)
 WHY HADEETH ARE CURRENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD (PLUS
Resp...
 What’s Good For The Goose Is Not Good For The Gend...
 Debate WIth Anti Hadeeth in Malaysia-Today PArt 2
 A debate with Anti Hadeeth in Malaysia Today Part ...
 How Stupid These Moderate Muslims Are
 Taliban, the most feminist power in Afghanistan

MOON PHASES

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

M
o
o
n

P
h
a
s
e
G
a
d
g
e
t
s

p
o
w
e
r
e
d

b
y

G
o
o
g
l
e

WORLD CLOCK

C
l
o
c
k
s

o
f

t
h
e

W
o
r
l
d

G
a
d
g
e
t
s

p
o
w
e
r
e
d

b
y

G
o
o
g
l
e

CURRENCY CONVERTER

C
u
r
r
e
n
c
y

C
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
r

G
a
d
g
e
t
s

p
o
w
e
r
e
d

b
y

G
o
o
g
l
e

LIVE FEED

Live Traffic Feed

Birmingham arrived from google.co.uk on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH"
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania arrived from search.yahoo.com on "ANTI ANTI-
HADEETH: First Anti Hadeeth, then Anti Quran"
Lemon Grove, California arrived from us.yhs.search.yahoo.com on "ANTI ANTI-
HADEETH: July 2007"
 Bolton arrived from google.co.uk on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH: Refuting
mostmerciful.com: Hadeeth"
Kuwait arrived from google.com.kw on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH: Exposing Anti
Hadeeth Lies On Imam Bukhari"
Pasay City, Pasay arrived from google.com.ph on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH: The
Myth Of Arab Influence In Islam"
Bekasi, Jawa Barat arrived from google.co.id on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH: First
Anti Hadeeth, then Anti Quran"
Jakarta, Jakarta Raya arrived from 74.125.95.132 on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH:
KAJIAN SANAD HADIS, ANTARA JOSEPH SCHACHT DAN M.M. AZAMI"
Shah Alam, Selangor arrived from malaysiawaves.com on "ANTI ANTI-
HADEETH"
Mississauga, Ontario arrived from google.ca on "ANTI ANTI-HADEETH:
Hadeeth Must Be Understood in the Correct Context"
Watch in Real-Time
Options>>
∙ Change your Location
∙ Ignore my browser
∙ Live Traffic Map
∙ Popular Pages Today