DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Soypopetype** · 03-09-2008, 12:03 PM

No, the Muwatta is not merely a book of hadith. It is a formulation of law derived from both hadith and other sources. It merely contains a lot of hadith

The attahiyat is definitely mentioned in there, it contains the supplication read by Aisha ra and also that of Umar ibn al Khattab ra, if I remember correctly.

It seems that somebody hasn't been following this thread too well!

Our discussion here isn't about whether the tashahhud is mentioned in ahadith, no fool would even deny that, as it is mentioned in dozens of ahadith, in nearly every hadith colelction.

If you had read properly, you would have realised that the discussion is concerning a narration that claims the origin of tashahhud as being a dialogue that ensued between Allah Ta'ala, Nabi

and Jibra'il

.

This is definitely not mentioned in the Muatta, nor has any trace been found for it in any other book of hadith.

Hope it is clear now.

As for:

NO, why do people keep repeating this half-understanding? It has ahadith but more importantly it has fiqh. It is a formulation of law. The Imam's intention in compiling it was not to present a book of ahadith.

No, the Muwatta is not merely a book of hadith. It is a formulation of law derived from both hadith and other sources. It merely contains a lot of hadith

Well I know the Muwatta isn't strictly speaking a book of hadith, but it's in there, isn't it?

It seems that you haven't understood this properly, as well.

The Muatta is definitely a book of hadith.
It is primarily a collection of ahadith, from which law has been formulated, with additional sprinklings of law from other sources.
Due to it being a collection of ahadith, it is classified as such, thus you will find the great masters when discussing the various books of hadith, placing the Muatta amongst them.
Similarly, if one goes to any library, where will he find the Muatta? In the fiqh section? No, in the hadith one.

If containing other sources prevents it from being a book of hadith, then I wonder what you would classify Sahih Bukhari as. It contains much more material from other sources when compared to the Muatta, in addition to being full to the brim with istidlal and fiqh.

Yes, the Muatta is not merely a hadith collection, however if you made an attempt to read our posts clearly, you will find that no-one ever claimed that it is "merely a book of hadith".
It is definitely a book of fiqh as well, however primarily it is a hadith book, just as Sahih Bukhari is a hadith book primarily, not a fiqhi one.
Similarly Jami' at-Tirmidhi isn't classified as a book on al-fiqh al-muqarin - inspite of being full of that- due to it being primarily classfied as a hadith collection.

03-09-2008, 12:03 PM	#21
Soypopetype Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 382 Senior Member	No, the Muwatta is not merely a book of hadith. It is a formulation of law derived from both hadith and other sources. It merely contains a lot of hadith The attahiyat is definitely mentioned in there, it contains the supplication read by Aisha ra and also that of Umar ibn al Khattab ra, if I remember correctly. It seems that somebody hasn't been following this thread too well! Our discussion here isn't about whether the tashahhud is mentioned in ahadith, no fool would even deny that, as it is mentioned in dozens of ahadith, in nearly every hadith colelction. If you had read properly, you would have realised that the discussion is concerning a narration that claims the origin of tashahhud as being a dialogue that ensued between Allah Ta'ala, Nabi and Jibra'il . This is definitely not mentioned in the Muatta, nor has any trace been found for it in any other book of hadith. Hope it is clear now. As for: NO, why do people keep repeating this half-understanding? It has ahadith but more importantly it has fiqh. It is a formulation of law. The Imam's intention in compiling it was not to present a book of ahadith. No, the Muwatta is not merely a book of hadith. It is a formulation of law derived from both hadith and other sources. It merely contains a lot of hadith Well I know the Muwatta isn't strictly speaking a book of hadith, but it's in there, isn't it? It seems that you haven't understood this properly, as well. The Muatta is definitely a book of hadith. It is primarily a collection of ahadith, from which law has been formulated, with additional sprinklings of law from other sources. Due to it being a collection of ahadith, it is classified as such, thus you will find the great masters when discussing the various books of hadith, placing the Muatta amongst them. Similarly, if one goes to any library, where will he find the Muatta? In the fiqh section? No, in the hadith one. If containing other sources prevents it from being a book of hadith, then I wonder what you would classify Sahih Bukhari as. It contains much more material from other sources when compared to the Muatta, in addition to being full to the brim with istidlal and fiqh. Yes, the Muatta is not merely a hadith collection, however if you made an attempt to read our posts clearly, you will find that no-one ever claimed that it is "merely a book of hadith". It is definitely a book of fiqh as well, however primarily it is a hadith book, just as Sahih Bukhari is a hadith book primarily, not a fiqhi one. Similarly Jami' at-Tirmidhi isn't classified as a book on al-fiqh al-muqarin - inspite of being full of that- due to it being primarily classfied as a hadith collection.
	Quote