The chain of authentication for that "hadith" is laughable and its legal suppositions aren't present in the early Medina legal code
The only reason the hadith hasn't been discarded centuries ago is because it's present in Bukhari's collection which some treat as gospel, it's a fabrication invented by 8th century squabbling sectarians and technically isn't even a hadith since it's attributed to Aisha and not the Prophet himself
isn't even a hadith since it's attributed to Aisha and not the Prophet himself
i'm not sure what you mean by this, hadith reported by others about the behavior of the prophet are valid hadith (if the isnad is reliable ofc), it's not just literally what the prophet was alleged to say. aisha and his other wives are the sources of a huge number of hadith.
e: to be clear i'm not defending that particular one, but undermining its legitimacy by way of it coming from aisha strikes me as extremely strange
It's an old critique, the difference between prophetic and non-prophetic hadiths is notable (silent approval vs declarative statements) and the acceptance of non-prophetic hadiths is a fraught subject and something traditionalists currently possess a strangle-hold over, despite them stretching the concept of a chain of narration far beyond the breaking point to incorporate these non-prophetic reports into higher tiers of acceptance
Basically the point is if an obvious fabrication like the Aisha hadith can pass muster, what does that say about the other non-prophetic anecdotes
shouldn't a 'silent approval' be held in higher esteem with a more reliable isnad--we're more sure it actually happened--than judging via the alleged content? this feels like putting characteristics of hadith before the reliability. what use is a direct word from the prophet if one cannot as honestly be sure it came from him?
Silent approval relies on the character of the transmitters themselves, it's far more open to "interpretation" than declarative narratives with multiple "eyewitnesses" and multiple chains of narration
characteristics of hadith before the reliability
Characteristics of hadith can be used to determine reliability (internal contradictions in the hadith) tho this pisses off modern revivalists to no end, despite the fact it was accepted practice thru out Islamic history
what use is a direct word from the prophet if one cannot as honestly be sure it came from him?
That is the million dollar 1400 year question lmao, and I think the answer is obvious
it seems we're talking past each other because "Silent approval relies on the character of the transmitters themselves" seems like we're both prioritizing isnad but saying it differently, lol. all i was saying is that the allegation something was relayed from aisha is not helpful for establishing paucity of hadith, because she's the source of uncontroversial hadith too; which incidentally makes her a good spot to source a fabrication from, if you wanted to
Sorry I should've been more clear, when I said "attributed to Aisha" I didn't mean that she was the original transmitter of the hadith and that alone somehow puts its isnad in question, I meant she was the subject of the hadith and the transmitters (inauthentic as they were) are supposedly sourcing the contents of the hadith (it's matn) from her life and not the prophet, which does beg the question in what respect could that be considered a hadith and not simply an historical assertion about someone the prophet knew
Basically, if the prophet is not the main subject nor the original speaker of the content (isnad notwithstanding), then is it really a hadith in essence
I'm pretty sure the opposite is true.
The chain of authentication for that "hadith" is laughable and its legal suppositions aren't present in the early Medina legal code
The only reason the hadith hasn't been discarded centuries ago is because it's present in Bukhari's collection which some treat as gospel, it's a fabrication invented by 8th century squabbling sectarians and technically isn't even a hadith since it's attributed to Aisha and not the Prophet himself
i'm not sure what you mean by this, hadith reported by others about the behavior of the prophet are valid hadith (if the isnad is reliable ofc), it's not just literally what the prophet was alleged to say. aisha and his other wives are the sources of a huge number of hadith.
e: to be clear i'm not defending that particular one, but undermining its legitimacy by way of it coming from aisha strikes me as extremely strange
It's an old critique, the difference between prophetic and non-prophetic hadiths is notable (silent approval vs declarative statements) and the acceptance of non-prophetic hadiths is a fraught subject and something traditionalists currently possess a strangle-hold over, despite them stretching the concept of a chain of narration far beyond the breaking point to incorporate these non-prophetic reports into higher tiers of acceptance
Basically the point is if an obvious fabrication like the Aisha hadith can pass muster, what does that say about the other non-prophetic anecdotes
shouldn't a 'silent approval' be held in higher esteem with a more reliable isnad--we're more sure it actually happened--than judging via the alleged content? this feels like putting characteristics of hadith before the reliability. what use is a direct word from the prophet if one cannot as honestly be sure it came from him?
Silent approval relies on the character of the transmitters themselves, it's far more open to "interpretation" than declarative narratives with multiple "eyewitnesses" and multiple chains of narration
Characteristics of hadith can be used to determine reliability (internal contradictions in the hadith) tho this pisses off modern revivalists to no end, despite the fact it was accepted practice thru out Islamic history
That is the million dollar 1400 year question lmao, and I think the answer is obvious
it seems we're talking past each other because "Silent approval relies on the character of the transmitters themselves" seems like we're both prioritizing isnad but saying it differently, lol. all i was saying is that the allegation something was relayed from aisha is not helpful for establishing paucity of hadith, because she's the source of uncontroversial hadith too; which incidentally makes her a good spot to source a fabrication from, if you wanted to
Sorry I should've been more clear, when I said "attributed to Aisha" I didn't mean that she was the original transmitter of the hadith and that alone somehow puts its isnad in question, I meant she was the subject of the hadith and the transmitters (inauthentic as they were) are supposedly sourcing the contents of the hadith (it's matn) from her life and not the prophet, which does beg the question in what respect could that be considered a hadith and not simply an historical assertion about someone the prophet knew
Basically, if the prophet is not the main subject nor the original speaker of the content (isnad notwithstanding), then is it really a hadith in essence
He was also married to Khadija who was 3 to 15 years older