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
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