Transitive disease ?
Jochen Katz
I was reading the hadith collection of Muslim on the
web and came accross this one:
Muslim, Book 25, Number 5514:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
Question: What is a "transitive" disease?
I asked one of my Arabic friends, but he doesn't have access to
the hadith at this time, so he said he would need to know the
Arabic word for it.
So, my questions:
Could somebody transliterate the above hadith for me,
the part "There is no transitive disease, no ill omen, no
ghoul." would be enough, or even only the words translated
with "transitive disease".
And second, after the information about the arabic word behind
it, could you also explain what it means. I know what transitivity
is in group theory and other mathematical disciplines, but what
is mean by this hadith?
Thank you.
Jochen Katz
Moustafa Mounir Elqabbany
Jochen Katz wrote:
[stuff deleted]
> Could somebody transliterate the above hadith for me,
> And second, after the information about the arabic word behind
> it, could you also explain what it means.
Assalaamu alaa man ittaba' al-huda:
My advice to fellow Muslims: do not reply to any requests for
information/explanation from missionaries such as Jochen. They expend
their time and money to push people away from guidance light and into
darkness. Would you want to be an accomplice to their works?
And Allah knows best.
Allahumma `alayka bi'a`daa'ika fa'innahum laa yu`jizoonak.
Salaam,
Moustafa
Thomas Crescenzi
Jochen Katz wrote in message <65704u$c...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
> Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
> disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
cut and paste from merriam-webster dictionary:
transitive \tran-se-tiv, -ze-\ adj 1 : having or containing an object
required to complete the meaning 2 : transitional transitively adv
transitiveness n transitivity \tran-se-ti-ve-te, -ze-\ n
i have a feeling that this was simply poorly translated.. the best meaning i
can come up with is a disease which comes between two others.. in german,
the best i can do is "transitiv," which is probably not too helpful ;)
but i did want to note that most books translated from arabic into english
are done by arabs, not by native english speakers, and so they tend to be
unreadable at times.. the problem is that an arab would have a good idea of
the intended meaning of the original, and hence would be very accurate in
trying to present it, but then perhaps doesn't have the feel for english
which is required to make it sound natural and comprehensible.. the problem
is the same with a native english-speaker trying to translate arabic into
english.. it would surely be very readable, but it might not be as
accurate.. maybe in the future we'll see collaborations where an
arabic-speaker and an english-speaker get together and discuss a text as
they translate it to maximize both accuracy and readability.. *shrug*
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I was reading the hadith collection of Muslim on the
>web and came accross this one:
>Muslim, Book 25, Number 5514:
> Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
> Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
> disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
>Question: What is a "transitive" disease?
A really atrocious translation. "Transitive disease" is found in
Lane's lexicon as a translation of @adwaa (root @dw). I'm pretty
familiar with English, and I have never before seen "transitive" used
as a synonym for "contagious." Perhaps Lane meant "transmissible." Or
perhaps this is an archaic meaning: I don't have the Oxford or other
unabridged dictionary.
I don't have the Arabic of Sahih Muslim, but Siddiqi's note here would
imply that the Arabic of the first phrase is laa @udwaa, which would
read, literally, there is no "contagious disease." Lane cites a
tradition, "laa yu@diy shay'u~ shay'a~." "A thing does not pass [by
its own agency] to a thing."
Or course, understood strictly, this is the case. The agents of
contagious disease were, at the time of our Prophet, invisible; the
"disease" is the visible or otherwise perceptible response of the body
to disease, not the disease itself. Since it appears that he did
advise measures to be taken with outbreaks of communicable disease, it
would be obtuse and offensive to construe the tradition to be in
contradiction to what is well-understood.
But it is also true that some diseases are completely not contagious,
and that others involve factors other than simple contagion: there is
also the susceptibility of the body to be considered.
Essentially, I would take the tradition to indicate that disease is
not transmitted simply by nearness, and this negates a rather deep
intuition that we may have about disease, that we can catch it merely
be associating with a person who has it. This is not true; there must
be an actual transmission of a disease agent from body to body for the
disease to be transmitted, *and* the new host must also be
susceptible.
For a few, very few, diseases, tranmission is very easy. These
diseases are either relatively harmless or relatively rare, for
obvious reasons.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA
Saif Al-Bustany
Assalamu Alaikum:
Will anyone please post the Arabic form of the Hadith? I lack the
source right now.
I want to look at it and see what the real context is.
Thank you very much.
Assalamu Alaikum
AltWay
In article <65cd16$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, mar...@vom.com (AbdulraHman
Lomax) wrote:
Re: Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
In the absence of firm knowledge, may I present a possible explanation.
Though it is speculation, you might find it reasonable :-
The three notions - transitive disease, ill omen and ghoul - should be
understood together. They refer to superstitions about causes.
Transitive in Logic means that if two things are identical then what applies
to one also applies to the other. the whole of science is based on this
assumption. In fact, this is an error in logic owing to the fact that things
are never identical and the difference depends on our capacity for
discrimation. Time and again, therefore, science finds it necessary to
modify its theories because small differences have been found.
Disease, in this verse, may not refer to physical disease, but as in the
Quran, to a disease of the "heart".
There are three kinds of diseases :-
Psycho-somatic ones where psychological or spiritual factors cause physical
changes.
Organic ones where wrong ways of life or external environmental conditions
cause changes in the various organs.
Infectious diseases caused by bacteria. It is generally believed that a
physical disease is caused by bacteria. The fact of the matter is that
disease germs always exist. It is only when the conditions are ripe then
they multiply. Their function is to breakdown already malfunctioning organs.
The body normally has resistence to disease and no study has been made as to
why some people surrounded by epidemics do not becomes victims. But it is
known that the immune system becomes debilitated owing to stresses and
strains and that to various degrees, the cause of this may be inner
conflicts or maladjustment to the social or physical environment. Therefore,
susceptibility to disease depends on these factors.
We can, therefore, reduce all diseases ultimately to psychological factors,
and these are not directly transferrable. it is, of course true that human
beings react to one another psychologically, but the fact is that such
reactions depend not so much on the events in the environment but on how
they are interpreted by the individual. This interpretation can be changed
by suitable teachings and psychological exercises.
It is probable that this is what meant by
" O ye who believe : Ye have charge of your own souls....." 5:105
But Allah knows best.
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" for more info
_______________________/ ha...@argonet.co.uk - www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
Thomas Crescenzi
AbdulraHman Lomax wrote in message <65cd16$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
>> Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
>> disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
>read, literally, there is no "contagious disease." Lane cites a
[... very obtuse effort to justify the validity of this hadees omitted ...]
why is it that people have to insult the prophet and insist that he spoke
about things he didn't know about (i.e., saying that he gave medical advice
and didn't know what he was talking about)? nothing was hidden from prophet
muhammad (SAAWAWS); allah even took him in mir'aj to heavens which angels
who are hidden could not see.. so why therefore would he not know about
diseases, and then make a statement about it if he didn't know? isn't this
the same prophet from whose mouth was uttered "ask those who know if you do
not know"? this is probably a perfect example of why we reject any hadees
as an obvious fabrication if it contradicts basic common sense or humiliates
the prophet (SAAWA) in some way.. everyone knows that contagious diseases
exist.. even the stupidest person in arabia during the time of al-mustafa
(SAAWA) knew this.. this is a fabricated hadees..
Jochen Katz
Peace to you,
Thank you to the various people who responded to my request.
Sadly most with reactions without actually having seen the
Arabic original, but the effort that was put in is appreciated.
I also got a private response, and the information from that
I will relate below, as I comments on a few of the public ones.
In article <65cd16$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mar...@vom.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:
} >I was reading the hadith collection of Muslim on the
} >web and came accross this one:
}
} >Muslim, Book 25, Number 5514:
}
} > Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
}
} > Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
} > disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
}
} >Question: What is a "transitive" disease?
}
} A really atrocious translation.
Not my fault. :-) Translator: Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
But if it had been translated more consistently
I would not even have had to ask. The same word is used
in hadith number 5507, which is sadly missing in the
partial selection available on the web at, as it should
be shortly before the one quoted above that I stumbled
upon at:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/025.smt.html#025.5514
} "Transitive disease" is found in
} Lane's lexicon as a translation of @adwaa (root @dw). I'm pretty
} familiar with English, and I have never before seen "transitive" used
} as a synonym for "contagious." Perhaps Lane meant "transmissible." Or
} perhaps this is an archaic meaning: I don't have the Oxford or other
} unabridged dictionary.
In any case, your guess was correct, both 5514 and 5507 use the
word @adwaa. But in 5507 the same translator uses the English word
"infection". I have no clue why he prefers this strange variation
in 5514.
} I don't have the Arabic of Sahih Muslim, but Siddiqi's note here would
} imply that the Arabic of the first phrase is laa @udwaa, which would
} read, literally, there is no "contagious disease."
Absolutely correct. This is the Arabic phrase.
} Or course, understood strictly, this is the case. The agents of
} contagious disease were, at the time of our Prophet, invisible;
There is a huge difference though between visibility
and existence.
} But it is also true that some diseases are completely not contagious,
The statement was not "there are some non-contagious diseases"
but "there are no contagious diseases". That is a big difference.
Anyway, I did not intend to make this a debate, I primarily wanted
to understand what it actually says.
Let me continue with a AltWay's response to Mr. Lomax.
In article <65fll7$pe3$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
...
} Though it is speculation, you might find it reasonable :-
...
} Disease, in this verse, may not refer to physical disease, but as in the
} Quran, to a disease of the "heart".
...
} We can, therefore, reduce all diseases ultimately to psychological factors,
} and these are not directly transferrable.
Well, receiving the other hadith I was already mentioning above
makes it quite clear that this is not talking about psychology,
or else you have to extend your theory to the psychosomatics of
camels... and have to explain how those camels suddenly get
psychotic when sick camels come near them...
Let me quote what the private response made available to me:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim, Book 25, #5507
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
There is no infection, no safar, no hama.
A desert Arab said: Allah's Messenger, how is it that when the camel
is in the sand it is like a deer - then a camel afflicted with scab
mixes with it and it is affected by scab? He (the Holy Prophet) said:
Who infected the first one?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no infection" in Arabic says "la 'adwa" and this is the
same term in both hadiths. Both hadith(translations) are from the
same edition and translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui.
The above used idiomatic expression "like a deer" means "healthy".
This sums up the findings/responses I have received so far.
But obviously, everybody is invited to contribute further
insight.
Thank you again to all with the kindness to reply
and all provided information.
Jochen Katz
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
A great deal of difficulty arises in the study of hadith by an attempt
to reduce what may have been casual conversations to universal and
logically-precise statements of principle.
It is clear from some traditions that the Prophet, SAS, did accept the
danger of infection, that is, of transmission of disease from one
person to another. However, we also have traditions in which he
appears to deny the concept. How can these be reconciled?
It is really not so difficult if one considers the possibility that he
was talking about different things in the apparently contradictory
hadith.
One does *not* contract a disease merely by being close to one who has
the disease. Mr. Katz appears to have discounted this observation.
When the Prophet denied "infection," he may have been denying a
transmission of "disease" as a thing in itself.
It is obvious that if a tree is on fire, the fire may be transmitted
from one tree to another. Is not fire a disease which afflicts trees?
But there is a transmissive mode; it is not mere proximity which
mystically transmits the fire; rather it is transmitted by radiation
or convection (that is, by heat) or by actual passage of burning
material. With human infectious diseases, proximity alone does not
result in transmission: there must be physical transmission of
infective material.
So there are two major possibilities: one is that the Prophet was
simply mistaken when he made his statement about infectious disease,
and it is not impossible that a Prophet would make an error in a
matter like this; the other, which I consider more likely given the
evidence we have, is that he was denying not what we know as
infection, but a certain concept, a concept which finds many
expressions, such as the "evil eye."
And all this points out to the hazard of attempting to derive science
from either the hadith or the Qur'an. If one knows the truth, one
finds it in these texts; if one does not, or if one has a hostile
intention, one may find error in them. The Qur'an is a *reminder*, not
an encyclopedia, and we do not expect *more* than this from the hadith
of our prophet, SAS.
Jochen Katz
In article <65o2ok$585$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
mar...@vom.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:
} So there are two major possibilities: one is that the Prophet was
} simply mistaken when he made his statement about infectious disease,
} and it is not impossible that a Prophet would make an error in a
} matter like this; the other, which I consider more likely given the
} evidence we have, is that he was denying not what we know as
} infection, but a certain concept, a concept which finds many
} expressions, such as the "evil eye."
It is interesting that exactly THIS concept, is not denied.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 636:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The effect of an evil eye is a fact."
And he prohibited tattooing.
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
Shyma MOHAISEN
I would like to express my extreme disagreement with what Mr Lomax has
said about he Quran , and its relation to the scientific realm , THERE
ARE NO AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION THAT WILL EVER
CONTRADICT WHAT THE QURAN CONTAINS, the book is so in keeping with modern
day scientific information , that it leaves no room for dispute as to
whether or not it can keep up with the modern day breakthroughs, as a
matterof fact , not only is it keeping with modern day science ,
it is
AHEAD, and if there is anything that science supposedly disproves about
the Quran , then the SCIENCE IS WRONGE AND in time this would be shown
when scientists make more descoveries.... the Quran challanges humans to
disprove the Quran by any means they can so that in the end they can
revert back to islam when they realize that they cannot disprove it , so
Allah in his almighty knowledge would never give anyone the chance , not
scientists to ever disprove the Quran , because it is the eternal message
from Allah with great miraculous character , the scientific of which is a
big part,
I dont belive that Quran is a book of science , even though it is filled
with scientific modern day information, it is not a book of history even
though it relates the stories of the past .....IT IS THE BOOK THAT TELLS
US how God almighty wants us to live our lives on this planet.
The hadith however is not a divine revelation and I really have to read
more to discuss whether the hadith could contain misinformation from a
scientific perspective , however , I as a human being who really doesn't
add up to a fraction of the prophets person , should never ever make
judgements about whether or not his hadiths a scientifically valid or not.
Thank you for reading , I hope you can benefit from this .
Basem Mesbah Temraz
AbdulraHman Lomax (mar...@vom.com) wrote:
: as-salamu 'alaykum.
Waalikum assalam brother AbdulraHman,
: So there are two major possibilities: one is that the Prophet was
: simply mistaken when he made his statement about infectious disease,
: and it is not impossible that a Prophet would make an error in a
: matter like this; the other, which I consider more likely given the
A third possibility is that the report itself is faulty. There is
always a danger that comes from studying the Hadith, which comes
from the fact that the person who narrates might not have
understood the meaning of the prophet (PBUH&HF). That of course
does not mean to discount all Hadiths, but rather being careful
about them.
: evidence we have, is that he was denying not what we know as
: infection, but a certain concept, a concept which finds many
: expressions, such as the "evil eye."
As for the concept of an evil eye. I do not see why this would
be wrong. With my very little knowledge I know that the universe
complicated beyond our comprehension, and even though we might
not understand certain things, that does not mean that they do
not exist.
Wassalam,
Your brother Basem.
: AbdulraHman Lomax
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 636:
> Narrated Abu Huraira:
> The Prophet said, "The effect of an evil eye is a fact."
> And he prohibited tattooing.
I cannot fail to admire the persistence and growing knowledge of
critics like Mr. Katz.
He was quick to find a hadith which directly contradicts my assertion
of "the evil eye" as an example of the *kind* of influence the Prophet
might have been negating when he denied "infectious disease."
Since this was merely an example, and it goes farther than the passive
influence I was thinking of with regard to infectious disease, his
citation does not negate my central argument, that the Prophet's
comment regarding infectious disease was in relation to a certain kind
of superstition.
Now, I do not have ready access to the Arabic of the "evil eye"
hadith, such that I can comment directly on it. Nor do I necessarily
accept as an historical necessity a hadith merely on the grounds that
it is found in Sahih Bukhari, though I will not readily reject such a
hadith. Rather, my wont is to find ways to interpret these hadith in
harmony with the Qur'an, with other hadith, and with what is
well-known.
In this case, the Prophet was asserting that there is an "effect" to
"the evil eye." Exactly what that effect is and who is affected is not
stated. Certainly one who tries to inflict evil on others -- in this
way or in others -- is affected by it. And we also know that such a
one can harm no one except by the permission of Allah. The hadith
cited does not establish that an "evil eye" affects those on whom it
gazes, without the operation of any other agency. For example, one who
knows that another is looking at one with "an evil eye" can certainly
suffer effects, it is well-known. This can happen even if the victim
believes, or thinks he believes, that the whole thing is superstitious
nonsense. But it is not the evil eye itself which is the immediately
active agent, rather it is the subconcious mind of the victim.
Again, the principle I assert, in general, is to interpret the
evidences in harmony with each other. I extend this to the Gospel and
the Torah and the other writings held sacred by the Jews and
Christians. Where possible, I interpret them in harmony....
Jochen Katz
In article <65qtfi$828$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Shyma MOHAISEN <moha...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> writes two things:
} about he Quran , and its relation to the scientific realm , THERE
} ARE NO AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION THAT WILL EVER
} CONTRADICT WHAT THE QURAN CONTAINS,
i.e. today there are none, and there will never be any scientific
insight contradicting the Qur'an.
But then, just a few lines down, he says:
} and if there is anything that science supposedly disproves about
} the Quran , then the SCIENCE IS WRONGE AND in time this would be shown
} when scientists make more descoveries....
The question that arises for me is the following:
Do you actually care if the Qur'an is in harmony with science?
Obviously, you declare that if not, it doesn't matter, the
Qur'an is right anyway. So what is the whole discussion about?
You just declared that you don't accept the evaluation of the
Qur'an by science [if it is negative], so be intellectually
honest and don't use it for propaganda either. If the Qur'an is
beyond science, then don't try to lure people into Islam by
speaking of the scientific miracle.
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
http://answering-islam.org/Science/
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum. Br. (?) Mohaisen has omitted the greeting in his
post; perhaps it is deliberate, perhaps an oversight.
Shyma MOHAISEN <moha...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> I would like to express my extreme disagreement with what Mr Lomax has
>said about he Quran , and its relation to the scientific realm , THERE
>ARE NO AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION THAT WILL EVER
>CONTRADICT WHAT THE QURAN CONTAINS,
This comment comes in a thread which has been discussing a particular
hadith, not the Qur'an. I might suggest that if Mohaisen is ready to
express "extreme disagreement" without even knowing what subject is
being discussed, well, this is a characteristic of kufr from which we
should stay as far as possible.... Agreed?
As to the content of what Mohaisen so aggressively asserts, I would
agree. But it is entirely possible that genuine and true information
-- which might be "scientific" in nature -- might contradict what some
individual *thinks* the Qur'an contains.
Or would Mohaisen assert that it is impossible for any individual to
misinterpret the Qur'an?
Thomas Crescenzi
Jochen Katz wrote in message <65hp0o$k98$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>Muslim, Book 25, #5507
>
>Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
>
> There is no infection, no safar, no hama.
> A desert Arab said: Allah's Messenger, how is it that when the camel
> is in the sand it is like a deer - then a camel afflicted with scab
> mixes with it and it is affected by scab? He (the Holy Prophet) said:
> Who infected the first one?
ok.. i get it now.. the prophet (saawaws) is supposed to have said that
there is no such thing as a communicable infection and when the badawi asked
him why it is that if two camels lie next to each other and one is
originally healthy and one has an infection, why the originally healthy one
becomes infected, the prophet (saawa) is supposed to have suggested by his
response that it is coincidental, since there was no other camel to infect
the first one with the disease..
it is amazing that people could attribute such ignorance to our prophet
(saawa).. but it's not surprising when you consider that if you were to
collect all the ahadees related by abu hurayrah, that it would read
something like a book of tasteless jokes about al-mustafa (saawa)..
isn't it amazing that someone who was muslim for only two years and some
months relates 60% of the ahadees in the sunni sihah, whereas there are
virtually none related by people who spent even more time with him, such as
`ali ibn abi taleb (saawa)? and 99% of abu hurayrah's ahadees are fantastic
or exaggerative in nature or even downright insulting to the intelligence or
honor of the prophet (saawa)..
reza
http://www.concentric.net/~Wis
Thomas Crescenzi
AbdulraHman Lomax wrote in message <65o2ok$585$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>It is clear from some traditions that the Prophet, SAS, did accept the
>danger of infection, that is, of transmission of disease from one
>person to another. However, we also have traditions in which he
>appears to deny the concept. How can these be reconciled?
salamun aleikum
i hate to quote even more lies attributed to the prophet (saawaws), but in
the sihah sittah there is mentioned a hadees where the prophet (saawa) is
supposed to have said that if a fly falls into your water to make sure that
both wings are submerged because one wing contains disease and the other
wing contains the cure.
the validity of ahadees _have to_ be judged based on not only sanad, but
also the character of the transmitter (and the letting go of the assumption
that _all_ of the sahaba were righteous and none of them lied or attributed
false sayings to the prophet [saawa]) as well as whether or not it
contradicts better ahadees or the qur'an itself, and naturally if it is
contradictory to the laws of nature or science or very basic common sense,
which are all regulated by allah [swt].
it is also best if they can be found in parallel chains.
Thomas Crescenzi
Jochen Katz wrote in message <65qmiq$adv$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 636:
>
> Narrated Abu Huraira:
>
> The Prophet said, "The effect of an evil eye is a fact."
again, notice the narrator.
if you want to read insults to the prophet's (saawaws) intelligence, you can
search for all ahadees related by abu hurayrah; if you want to read insults
to the prophet's (saawa) character and morals, you can search for ahadees
related by `a'isha binte abi bakr. the two of them account for about 95% of
all the ahadees accepted as canon by ahl-e sunna wal-jamaat.. it is amazing
that they can say that the prophet (saawa) lied or insulted people
undeservingly at times, but it is inconceivable for them that a lowly sahabi
could do so. i find it a joke that the concept of `ismah of the prophets
and a'imma is attacked so vehemently by the sunnis, yet they hold the sahaba
up to a virtual `ismah.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Salaams,
If Muslims would get with the program and place the hadith within the
cultural context of the times things discussing issues like
disease and fly wings just MIGHT make some sense.
To say that someone living in the Arabian desert 1400 years ago is
"ignorant" because he does not know the germ theory of infectious
disease is just plain absurd.
Always Something New!
Jeremiah McAuliffe/ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Philosophy, Psychology, Religious Studies.
Original Music & Images. Streaming Shockwave.
Unique and Thought-Provoking!
Jochen Katz
As for me this topic could be buried. I don't think much new
is going to come forward.
But ...
In article <663pi3$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
"Thomas Crescenzi" <w...@cris.com> writes:
} the validity of ahadees _have to_ be judged based on not only sanad, but
} also the character of the transmitter (and the letting go of the assumption
} that _all_ of the sahaba were righteous and none of them lied or attributed
} false sayings to the prophet [saawa]) as well as whether or not it
} contradicts better ahadees or the qur'an itself, and naturally if it is
} contradictory to the laws of nature or science or very basic common sense,
} which are all regulated by allah [swt].
So, is revelation now to be judged by common sense?
Is Tom going to declare that Jesus didn't make clay birds and made
them alive? That is very much against nature and science.
} it is also best if they can be found in parallel chains.
This comment is the reason I bothered to reply again. Tom has responded
several times in this thread, but he seems not really to have followed
it well, or read carefully what he responded to.
This basically same statement is narrated in two sayings of Muhammad,
coming from two different narrators. I have posted them both before.
Here they are again:
Muslim, Book 25, #5507
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no infection, no safar, no hama.
A desert Arab said: Allah's Messenger, how is it that when the camel
is in the sand it is like a deer - then a camel afflicted with scab
mixes with it and it is affected by scab? He (the Holy Prophet) said:
Who infected the first one?
Muslim, Book 25, Number 5514:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no transitive
disease, no ill omen, no ghoul.
In both the above ahadith, the phrase translated first as "no infection"
and then as "no transitive disease" is the same in the Arabic original:
"la 'adwa".
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Is Tom going to declare that Jesus didn't make clay birds and made
>them alive?
Uh, made them alive by God's leave, permission and power.
Let's just make sure we are clear on that.
Not that Jochen doesn't already know.....
Thomas Crescenzi
Jochen Katz wrote:
> So, is revelation now to be judged by common sense?
> Is Tom going to declare that Jesus didn't make clay birds and made
> them alive? That is very much against nature and science.
but the difference is that the qur'an is mutawatir, there is no dispute
of its authenticity because the ayaat were memorized by so many people
independently of one another; whereas a hadees has to be judged by
whence it came, who said it, how it was transmitted, and whether or not
it is an obvious fabrication by holding it up against the qur'an and
reason.. btw, the qur'an is known as "al-forqan", the "criterion".. it
is what we are supposed to use to judge everything else by, including
ahadees.. the forqan cannot be held up to reason, but the ahadees
certainly can, as there is often doubt as to their authenticity..
> This basically same statement is narrated in two sayings of Muhammad,
> coming from two different narrators. I have posted them both before.
> Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
> Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
two narrators does not necessarily imply tawatur.. for instance, how do
we know that jabir wasn't repeating what he heard from abu horeira? and
again, character and trustworthiness comes into play.. you quoted two
people who are known hypocrites.. akb
reza
w...@cris.com