At Tabarani Hadith

[Desiderato Merriwether]

AlMu'jam al-Kabir (Arabic: المُعجَم الْكَبِير, romanized: Al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr) is a hadith collection compiled by al-Tabarani. It is part of his hadith book series by name of Mu'ajim Al-Tabarani. The other two books of the series are al-Mu'jam al-Awsat & al-Mu'jam as-Saghir.[1][2]

Let us see the opposite opinion. I feel like the first post, while persuasive it doesn't paint the whole picture. I unfortunately don't have answers so I'll have to search the Quran application and see what comes up:

(لَا يَمَسُّهُمْ فِيهَا نَصَبٌ وَمَا هُمْ مِنْهَا بِمُخْرَجِينَ)

[Surat Al-Hijr 48]

"No sense of fatigue shall touch them, nor shall they (ever) be asked to leave it."

(فَانْقَلَبُوا بِنِعْمَةٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَفَضْلٍ لَمْ يَمْسَسْهُمْ سُوءٌ وَاتَّبَعُوا رِضْوَانَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ ذُو فَضْلٍ عَظِيمٍ)

[Surat Aal-E-Imran 174]

(وَيُنَجِّي اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ اتَّقَوْا بِمَفَازَتِهِمْ لَا يَمَسُّهُمُ السُّوءُ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ)

[Surat Az-Zumar 61]

And come not near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a Fahishah [i.e. anything that transgresses its limits (a great sin)], and an evil way (that leads one to Hell unless Allah forgives him).

Allah uses the term "near" rather than refrain, because with illegal sexual intercourse it starts with just a touch and it can escalate quickly, therefore not being near it completely would make it impossible for you to commit the act.

There are different of opinions of what the word touch is meant to mean in this hadith. Many say it means touch, in its literal sense, while other say it means touch, as in intercourse (zina). I will try to show the evidences used to prove it to mean intercourse in this hadith and context.

رواه الطبراني والبيهقي عن معقل بن يسار عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:

" لأن يطعن في رأس أحدكم بمخيط من حديد خير له من أن يمس امرأة لا تحل له "

وصححه الألباني

Even the first translation "touch" could be argued to mean "sexual harassment" or "intercourse", even in English. For instance, imagine looking at a court, a man is accused of rape. To his defense, he says to the prosecutor: "I swear I didn't touch her!".

قَالَتْ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ وَلَمْ أَكُ بَغِيًّا

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا ۖ فَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ وَسَرِّحُوهُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا

O You who have believed, when you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, then there is not for you any waiting period to count concerning them. So provide for them and give them a gracious release.

We now know that there are two possibilities to interpret the word "يمس" in that hadith. So which word will it be? The conclusion of the hadith will differ incredibly according to which of the words we will use when interpreting the hadith.

In my view, the second translation is the right translation. Clearly it is an attempt to show with a parable, the seriousness of having illegal sexual activities (intercourse) and that it is worse than getting stabbed in the head with an iron needle. This sounds much more logical than just touching a womens hand (with no sexual intention at all).

Some might say that she was a slave or an old woman therefore the rule doesn't apply on her. Where is that mentioned in the hadith? The only reason they explain away this is to not contradict their explanation of the hadith.

By everything given above, my conclusion (and even scholars hold this conclusion of course) is that the hadith is clearly speaking about intercourse, and not just touch in its most literal sense. If it was speaking to touch as in hold hands, shake hands, the Prophet would not let the slave woman hold his hand, due to the serious warning in the hadith. Therefore the hadith is speaking about intercourse, which the other verses in the Quran shows about the word in many places.

if there is any conflict let says both are correct conditions areIf Prophet Peace be upon him ever touched hand of a lady it might be before the revelation or may be not but if Prophet Peace be upon him did touch the hand he got the permission because Prophet Peace be upon him said "I am like father to you. When any of you goes to privy, he should not face or turn his back towards the qiblah. He should not cleanse with his right hand. He (the Prophet, sal Allaahu alayhi wa sallam) also commanded the Muslims to use three stones and forbade them to use dung or decayed bone. Sunan Abi Dawud 8In-book reference : Book 1, Hadith 8English translation : Book 1, Hadith 8

This hadeeth was transmitted by at-Tabarani (2658,12615) and Mujma az-Zawaie'd is a secondary source quoting from it. at-Tabarani weakened the hadeeth because of a weak narrator Qaboos ibn Abi Dhibyan. Interestingly, the chain is all Kufan narrators.

Interesting, never seen this one before. Will try to look into it further. It seems the narration exists in one of the Shi'i books as well (Kitab al-Nawadir of Rawandi - 6th century Hijri scholar). It might be worthwhile to see what the word زبيبة actually means here.

The ه at the end is just the pronoun. The actual word is زبيبة, whose root word is ز-ب-ب. The word raisins (zabib) comes from this root-word as well, and zabiba would technically mean "one raisin". We would have to determine if this word was used figuratively to refer to a penis or testicles historically speaking.

Interestingly, so far the discussions I'm coming across up on these narrations (there are more than one) by the predecessor scholars all have to do with its chain of narrators and whether your Wudhu is invalidated by this act or not. No one seems remotely concerned with the text/act. Either they weren't understanding it the way we are, or they actually had no issue with this act. I'll have to look more into it though, of course.

Just as a general good-practice, members should not get so worked up over these sort of reports and then resort to emotional arguments and attacks, especially before anyone has even researched or looked into the matter sufficiently. Discarding these things with our 21st century perception of morality and understanding of what constitutes disgusting may not be the most correct method to use as a stand alone argument (I just searched up some things and came across this practice of the mothers from the Manchu tribe...).

Im guessing the intention of ijazlinorAhmad is to demonstrate to us, that Hadiths are source of corruption and fabrication and goes against the Quran, Hence him posting the most vile hadith that has that shock impact on us, And him belonging to a Quranist cult.

Besides, their are narration in the Sunni Hadith corpus, That Nauzabillah Prophet (pbuh@hf) had slept with all his wives in one night. And also those who remember Satanic verses by Salman Rushdie, the references for his book was Sunni books. So, this hadith that is posted by the O-P is nothing new because such vile narration do exit whether it be it Sunni or Shia books.

Hmm.. So I'm really dissapointed! I just asked a question whether this hadith was saheeh or not, since there are many ahadith that insults the Prophet (s.a.w.). I just wanted a little bit of help, however, I succeeded to do a wide study on this hadith and some scholars classified this as da'if, laysa bil qawi and mawdoo3. But, some scholars also said that the isnad is hasan. This hadith has been narrated through different narrators / chains.

I simply asked a quesiton, that could be answered with ease, however the people in this community used dirty strategy by throwing slurs, such as I'm a Jew or perhaps a non-Muslim trying to deceive Muslims... Perhaps, before going after me and claiming that I'm a Jew or a Christian, you could had made takfir on your scholars for writing down such disgusting, vile ahadith about the Prophet (s.a.w.). If these people were in front of me, I'd whip them a thousand times for insulting the beloved of Allaah (s.w.t.). May peace be upon him and may the curse of Allaah (s.w.t.) be upon those who wrote filth about him, whether that person was a shi'i or sunni.

You can be angry over it, however these are not from my books, just highlighting the filth that some believe and how they cling to these additional books and in the same stroke insult the Prophet (s.a.w.). If you feel offended then that's not my problem. Even your secondary sources has such filth. Sunnis can blame their scholars and not me, their scholars wrote such filth. I'm just highlighting it from their books.

3a8082e126