The Sharing Group Discussion: Discussing the Hadits on Rotten Meat & Infidelity

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

Brother Yousuf Muhammed posted, on The Sharing Group, on the 14^th August 2019: “We need to study ahadits and deeply analyse what it means for ahadits to be swahih.  The following, I just cannot understand how this could have come from the Prophet (s.a.w.).  Husbands also betray their wives and the part about Israelis being responsible for meat rotting is just too ridiculous.” 

The hadits in question was translated by the Wahhabi, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, from Swahih al-Bukhari, hadits 3330: Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sakhr ad-Dawsi az-Zahrani al-Azdi (r.a.) narrated, that the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, “But for the Israelis, meat would not decay and but for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.” 

حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَحْوَهُ يَعْنِي ‏

"‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ، وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا ‏" 

Sister Naomi Green: Why would it say Israelis when Israel did not exist 1400 years ago? 

Brother Talib Rasul: Sister Naomi Green, “Israel” is referred to as the sons of Jacob (a.s.), not the nation state that we have today. 

Sister Naomi Green: Yes, I know what they mean, but “Bani Isra’il” cannot be just translated “Israelis”.  In English, it is the “Hebrews” or “Israelites”.  “Israelis” refers solely to the modern nation state. 

Brother Talib Rasul: Who says that “Israelis” only refers to the nation state?  Where did you get this from?  And why can they not use “Israeli” instead of “Hebrew” or “Israelites”?  And is not “Israelites” the plural form of “Israeli”? 

Sister Naomi Green: Brother Talib Rasul, not really.  This is the general rule, certainly, in biblical theology.  You do not use the term “Israeli” for ancient times.  And generally, “Israelites” is not used for modern Israel   I am just noting it is strange use of term given the convention.

Sister Maida Mohammed-Brown: “Israeli” is a modern term, and I do believe, in this instance, it is being used to confuse and insert this term into the translation.  It all looks rather fake. 

Brother Richard Van Heeswyk: Sister Naomi Green, we have to be aware that many ahadits are translated through an Islamophobic lens.  Translation of this word into “Israeli” would fit into this, in my opinion. 

Sister Naomi Green: My immediate thought too, Brother Richard, hence my question. 

Brother William James: It is the subject of the clause, hence “banu” not “bani”; a proper noun.  For example, literally, “The Children / Descendants / Tribe of Israel.”  From “The Etymology Dictionary”, “Israeli”, a noun, means “citizen of the state of Israel,” 1948, from Israel and Hebrew national designation suffix -i.  Also used in English as the adjective, from 1948.  It distinguishes the citizens of the modern state from the ancient people who had been known in English since the 14^th century, as Israelites.  You were right to raise this point, Sister Naomi Green.  “Banu Isra’il” can only refer to the ancient people of Israel; Israelites in English is correct. 

The website, Sunnah.com has Wahhabi tampered translations.  This fits their agenda: hate women and Jews.  Blatant misrepresentation of God’s Messenger (s.a.w.), and most certainly kufr. 

Sister Maida Mohammed-Brown: With absolutely no knowledge myself I can say this does not look right.  Blaming Eve for the “original sin” is a Catholic concept.  And “Israel” is 70 years old, like the corruption of the Bible where “once upon a time in Israel” seems to have been added; this looks equally fake. 

Brother William James: Brother Yousuf Muhammed, this hadits cannot be understood literally, hence your concern, since that would contradict many verses, such as Surah al-An’am:164: 

سُوۡرَةُ الاٴنعَام

قُلۡ أَغَيۡرَ ٱللَّهِ أَبۡغِى رَبًّ۬ا وَهُوَ رَبُّ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬‌ۚ وَلَا تَكۡسِبُ ڪُلُّ نَفۡسٍ إِلَّا عَلَيۡہَا‌ۚ وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ۬ وِزۡرَ أُخۡرَىٰ‌ۚ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُم مَّرۡجِعُكُمۡ فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمۡ فِيهِ تَخۡتَلِفُونَ (١٦٤) 

Say: “Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)?”  Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.  Your goal in the end is toward Allah: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein you disputed. (Surah al-An’am:164) 

It is in a poetic figure of speech as was common in the tongue of the Arabs; the Prophet (s.a.w.) was the most elegant of speech.  The beauty of ahadits like this prove it so, and of his prophethood, truly beautiful language.  It has been some time, I forget what this form is called.  The first part often is interpreted as the rich would hoard meat, as mentioned in Fatḥ al-Bari fi Sharh Swahih al-Bukhari, combine this with this hadits, from Sunan ibn Majah: Sayyidina Abu Hafsw ‘Umar ibn al-Khaththab al-Faruq (r.a.) narrated that the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, “Whoever hoards food, and keeps it, from the Muslims, Allah (s.w.t.) will Afflict him with leprosy and bankruptcy.” 

The latter is perhaps somewhat similar to some conceptions of original sin, man by his nature has base desires that are destructive.  It is rather saying people follow patterns of old, sin is not new.  Compare this with this hadits, from Swahih al-Bukhari: Sayyidina Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (r.a.) narrated that the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, “No soul is wrongfully killed but that some responsibility for its blood is upon the first son of Adam, for he was the first to set the precedent of murder.” 

Notice how the two statements beautifully combine one “evil” and link it to the historical narrative of man and even makes a case against “the problem of evil”, so relevant to us all; this “evil” that exists within us all.  We need to be careful with ahadits, as the above shows, but it does not mean we should deny Swahih al-Bukhari deemed this ahadits swahih. 

Also never understand any hadits Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) narrated ahadits as literal; he is known for repeating without understanding.  Sayyidina Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Tsabit (r.a.) would immediately reject his narration unless corroborated elsewhere. 

Brother Rashad Ali: This is an utter violation of the Qur’an and basic reason.  Such narrations should either be discarded, or we should try to find what other meaning could have been intended, especially as it is in conflict with Islamic creed, values, and concepts of justice, the creation story as understood in Islam.  It is plainly in conflict with the Islamic narrative.  Far-fetched interpretations may help but there are plenty of narrations which are absurd even if sound by sanad and khabar; they are ahad or single narrations.  Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari (r.a.) was a legend but there are many narrations rejected in the Swahih by almost all scholars. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: There is clearly a political angle to the way the word was translated.  Only someone with zero credibility, or zero knowledge, or both, could do this.  Here is the website it is from: Sahih al-Bukhari.  The “translation”, if you could call it that, is by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, who along with Muhammad Taqi’ ad-Din ibn ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Hilali, produced the sometimes sickening translation of the Qur’an used and promoted by the Wahhabis.  That says it all. 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: Imam Abu Muhammad Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (r.a.) said that the ahadits are misguidance, except to the scholars.  This post is proof of that. 

“Swahih” simply means that the scholar who graded it is satisfied that the hadits is reliably traced to the Prophet (s.a.w.).  In this case, it is Imam al-Bukhari (r.a.).  This means that the matn, the text, is correct; the silsilah, chains, have been verified to have been more than 25, in this case; the sanad, the transmission, is verified in that all the transmitters and conditions of transmission are met; and that the manaqib, the veracity and reliability of the transmitters is established.  That is all. 

Swahih al-Bukhari is a jami’, a compilation of narrations, nothing more.  It is like a phone book, except that in this case, it lists transmitters and the text.  If you want to know the circumstances and context of the saying, you have to avail yourself to a book of sharh.  In this case, it would be a book such as Fatḥ al-Bari fi Sharh Swahih al-Bukhari, by Imam Shihab ad-Din Abu al-Fadhl Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani (r.a.). 

The exegesis of a narration itself, is a distinct field of study, and it requires a mastery of Arabic literature, so that the exegete understands all the literary and rhetorical devices, including the idiomatic phrases.  This is before we even consider translating.  Most translators are competent in Arabic, but not Arabic literature.  As such, phrases are translated literally.  An example, would be someone translating “Let the cat out of the bag”, a popular contemporary English idiom, a thousand years later into a different language.  People might think we are all barbarians, putting cats in bags. 

Finally, most narrations, even those that are muttafaq ‘alayh, or akhraju’ fi ash-Shaykhayn, not just swahih, may not be used as a basis for a fatwa.  This is because ifta’ is done on the basis of interpreting the Divine Intent, and prophetic intent.  We do not formulate fatawa simply by cutting and pasting a narration or ayat, and regurgitating an old ruling.  It has to be with recognition of the conditions now, the zaman wa makan. 

In light of this, this is another storm in a teacup.  Instead of resorting to righteous outrage, it would be better to seek clarification from those who are learned in these religious sciences.  That is where learning begins. 

Brother Amer Mahmood: In the vein that Brother Terence stated above, this hadith is quite clear to me in its meaning.  It is satirical - a statement made probably in response to an ignorant belief.  I believe it is to be translated as: Wives betray their husbands on account of Eve is about as accurate it is to say meat rots on account of the Israelites.  This seems to be a retort against the belief of original sin and the blame against womankind found in earlier Abrahamic peoples.  By using the idea of rotting meat and blaming it on Israelites using a similar disconnected analogy - the former is not so obvious for them to realise, but the latter formula, which is presented first in the Arabic) is much more evident in its inaccuracy.  This is what I think is going on here anyway.  That is, since we know Israelites are not responsible for rotting meat likewise we should know Eve is not responsible for wives betraying husbands. 

Brother William James: That is a really interesting observation.  I doth my cap, sir, not that I am sure I fully agree, but certainly an interesting and faithful interpretation. 

Brother Amer Mahmood: Well it would be quite boring and artificial if more rhetoric was not found in ahadits.  Given that we know Arabic was at its height in those days.  To reject a swahih hadits without doing this type of ta’wil will mean we end up reducing the sunnah down drastically, and we passively admit the swahih transmission process is not perfect enough to preserve the tradition.  I am more apologetic to the process of transmission, which means I try harder to get a meaning that works. 

Brother Abdulkareem C Stone: There is this: False Hadits: “If it Was Not for Eve, No Woman Would Ever Betray Her Husband” 

Brother William James: I am a little unnerved by Brother Abu Layth’s argument, especially: “It is a clear blasphamy.”  It seems more like he has rejected the hadits simply because it does not make sense to him; his argument is a priori.  Essentially he argues the first part is unscientific and the second is a Judeo Christian heresy.  It upsets me, and it is also dangerous, that it is so common to be overly literal, and have no appreciation of myth and poetry.  The implication of a scientific mistake in the first part is an anachronistic falsehood crowbarred into the hadits.  No, it can never mean that!  As is obvious from the oft repeated poetic “were it not for ...”.  Surely the more important question is what does this mean?  If food did not spoil the rich would hoard it, would they not?  What like what is happening now with advancements in preservatives where there are food mountains to ensure market value whilst one in seven starve?  Maybe if we actually engaged and reflected we might change our ways, because this hadits is warning us this behaviour brings God’s Wrath. 

Brother Abu Layth seems to write off any Judeo Christian ideas, and he also misrepresents them, as blatantly false and easily deflected, which I find unsettling.  But the problem with his argument is that if it is from Judeo Christian sources, which is speculation, then why does the first part criticise those sources?  It makes little sense.  What is wrong with how Imam al-‘Asqalani (r.a.) understood this hadits or the generality of ‘ulama?  Does this new approach of rejecting everything ambiguous, beautiful and mythological really enrich our lives? 

Sure it cannot be literal, but no one used to think that anyway, interpreting things only in a literal way is a strange modern trend.  The scholars of the past accepted it because there is more than one way to understand something; there are many linguistic styles such as metaphor, analogy, hyperbole, ellipsis, and so forth, that are used for poetic effect.  It is prophesied that we will become like the Israelites.  Far from being anti-Semitic, it is a warning that we will become too literal and legalistic like the Pharisees of old.  Can we truly say we are worthy of God’s poetry? 

The brother does go onto to discuss the isnad, and identifies some weaknesses.  Sure, not everyone agrees, but doubt is not proving fabrication.  If the hadits is so obviously weak, then why is the hadits so well-known, with commentaries and so on?  If you go down that line then you must be consistent and before long no hadith will be safe.  God knows best. 

Brother Abdulkareem C Stone: Regardless of whether myth or poetry, the effect of Old Testament and rabbinical work have formed a male anthropocentric worldview that has bolstered the degradation of non-male, non-lighter-skinned human, and non-human life.  Revelation aside, there was a great enthusiasm to gather knowledge from the Ahl al-Kitab, and the fact is that many teachings from Jews and Christians are presented as if they are Islamic teachings, and even some are mistakenly attributed to the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself.  The blame attributed to Eve is not just a poetic exercise and whether it was understood literally or not that fact remains that it has repeatedly been used to enforce a tyrannical patriarchy. 

The position of Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Malik ibn Anas (r.a.) was to not relate the majority of ahadits.  Traditionally, if a hadits did not make rational sense, then it was not related or if it contradicted with the Qur’an, or really sound ahadits.  This was the position of the early Hanafi and Maliki schools. 

The Qur’an is respectful to Adam (a.s.) and his wife.  The Qur’an Says, about our parents, that Satan deceives them.  This abrogates the biblical narrative where Eve takes blames, but ultimately it is Adam (a.s.) who errs.  The main point that is to be made that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) would not have made this error and lay such accusation and disrespect at our mother.  To say this would really be in contradiction to the Qur’anic insistence of respect for parents.  It is well known as the brother said that Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) spent considerable time learning Israelite history.  There have been many misunderstanding, mixing the sayings of Sayyidina Abu Hurayah (r.a.). 

Brother William James: Eve is a lengthy discussion, Brother Abdulkareem C Stone.  I would think any reference to the Bible has been put onto this hadits, and likewise the claim that the hadits is disrespectful.  The Prophet (s.a.w.) said something witty and clever in the style of the Arabs, which was understood, and then 1,500 years later, people reject it because they take offence.  My main point is we are not trying to understand what was said in his context, but misinterpreting it in ours. 

You are right that no fiqhi ruling can be made from this, which no one has done, so the points you made remain intact, completely unscathed by this hadits.  So, in some ways, it is purely academic, rejecting it has the same result as accepting it, just I have concerns with rejecting it so effortlessly. 

Brother Abdulkareem C Stone: It seems that you have implicitly accepted the Prophet (s.a.w.) has said this.  You speak about us fifteen centuries later as if this was accepted during all periods of Islamic history.  Imam al-Bukhari (r.a.) has been overemphasised in the modern period as infallible in a way is was not previously.  Earlier periods than Imam al-Bukhari (r.a.) would not have accepted as many as he did.  Imam Malik (r.a.) probably knew this but did not relate it.  Attitudes towards Sayyidina Abu Hurayah (r.a.) were far more critical than they were today.  The modern attitude is to desire abundance of the novel so we are inclined to be less stringent.  My point is we should return to early attitudes that assume a hadits is false, and really prove it genuine rather than just say that since it is in Swahih al-Bukhari, it is genuine. 

Brother William James: You have made a fair point with regards modern attitudes to Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) and Imam al-Bukhari (r.a.); on that I agree.  This may be a hadits, it may not, some people accepted it and have always done and some have not and never have.  The science of hadits and ascertaining its validity is far beyond me.  We have not looked for alternate readings, to whom it was said, and in what capacity was it said and all sorts.  All I can say is I am not convinced by Brother Abu Layth’s arguments and I have no clear reason to outright reject it.  I certainly agree that this is not law or theology and in that sense, yes it is rejected no question.  However, there is more to religion and to life and this hadits may offer meaning. 

Brother Abdulkareem C Stone: You say this is not law or theology but the clear fact is that is used for something far more innocuous than reflecting upon signs or pursuits for wisdom.  It supports tyranny of women and certainly disparages them.  There are times when Brother Abu Layth is too modernist for my liking, and overstates the reach of reason, but his essential work is trying to reform the societal hurt that these ancient attitudes have on modern society.  He is trying to disarm religious bullying where ahadits are used by men to prove their correctness.  Modern society certainly improves the status of women, to believe that women in traditionally Muslim societies have more status simply because they are “virtuous”.

As these ahadits hurt Muslim society if there is the slightest doubt or their authenticity it should be made known.  And as these books are used in a totally inappropriate manner by the masses including Islamophobes it has to be made clear.  The fact that Imam Malik (r.a.) hid so many ahadits, and told others to reject them shows this is a traditional attitude predating the times of Imam al-Bukhari (r.a.). 

Brother William James: So you mean because some people misuse it we should deny it or at the very least hide it? 

Brother William James: At least that was error not deliberate manipulation.  Consider these: 

Sayyidina Anas ibn Malik (r.a.) related that they Quraysh were asked, “What kind of man is ‘Abdullah ibn Salam among you?” 

They said, “The most knowledgeable of us, and the son of the most knowledgeable of us, and the best of us and the son of the best of us.” 

The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) said, "What would you think if ‘Abdullah were to become Muslim?” 

They said, “We seek Refuge with Allah from that!” 

Sayyidina ‘Abdullah (r.a.) came out to them and said, “I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” 

They said, “The worst of us and the son of the worst of us,” and began to disparage him. 

The like of it is related from Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) from the Prophet (s.a.w.), who said, “Were it not for the tribe of Israel, meat would not decay, and where it not for Hawa’, wives would not betray their husbands.” 

“The like of it ...”  The hadits we have been discussing is clearly a summary aphorism.  Sounds like it concludes the one before. 

Brother Aamir Ibrahim Al-Ash’ari: This hadits makes perfect sense to me. 

Brother William James: You might need to expand on what you mean.  I understand it as they were the first to hoard it so it became rotten.  Yes, it certainly does not negate men are also capable of betrayal, neither is it about infidelity; just simply pointing to the first betrayal.  They are the first of these incidences, but also they are linked, why?  Food related?  Being deceived by riches? 

Brother Abdulkareem C Stone: So do you think that Babylonians prior to Abraham (a.s.) and his sons did not store meat?  Right throughout the Bronze Age preserved sausages would not have needed to made.  Why go through all that effort if not necessary?  These types of food have been found.  All societies have hoarded and preserved food.  The hoarding of food by the Banu Isra’il is praised in the Qur’an. 

One of the things that I have learnt from Brother Abu Layth is that there have been scholars that even by other Muslims have been accused of anti-Jewish bias.  Too often, ahadits were falsely attributed to the Prophet (s.a.w.) that were anti-Jewish, and Pro-Christian.  Early Muslims were not immune from the corruptions of the age.  There is no wisdom or khayr in this hadits no matter how hard you try.  It cannot be metaphorical no matter how hard you think it. 

Brother Aamir Ibrahim Al-Ash’ari: Brother Abdulkareem C Stone, the kuffar accuse the Qur’an of being anti-Semitic too, so should we accept that?  The Qur’an has Mentioned Special Blessings upon Bani Isra’il.  Regarding Eve, Islam does accept both Adam (a.s.) and Eve were deceived but it was Eve who was deceived first, and she convinced Adam (a.s.). 

Brother Abdulkareem C Stone: This is where religious dogmatism gets its bad name.  To suppose that some fundamental change in bacterial activity occurs because of the misdeed of God’s Chosen People is on par with the belief carnivorous animals will become vegetarian due to the second coming of Jesus (a.s.), or a total flood of the entire world.  Here, we should see the figurative and metaphoric but far too many do not and they insist these are or will be actual physical events. 

Brother William James: You are right, Brother Abdulkareem C Stone, food hoarding is an ancient practice.  Hoarding: I may have overemphasised.  The phrase uses an ellipsis so it is a brief reference to something known, but what?  The Arabs would not have known of ancient history since it's in reference to the Israelites then it is a Biblical story, most likely the manna from Heaven, which is also referenced in the Qur’an: 

Exodus 16:4

⁴ But the Lord said to Moses, I mean to rain down bread upon you from heaven. It will be for the people to go out and gather enough for their needs day by day; and so I shall have a test, whether they are ready to follow my orders or not. 

⁴ εἶπεν δὲ κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ὕω ὑμῖν ἄρτους ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ὁ λαὸς καὶ συλλέξουσιν τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας εἰς ἡμέραν ὅπως πειράσω αὐτοὺς εἰ πορεύσονται τῷ νόμῳ μου ἢ οὔ 

⁴ Dixit autem Dominus ad Moysen: Ecce ego pluam vobis panes de cælo: egrediatur populus, et colligat quæ sufficiunt per singulos dies: ut tentem eum utrum ambulet in lege mea, an non. 

The food would spoil after a day.  It was a test of character.  Would the Israelites grow spiritually whilst sustenance is in abundance.  Which links to the tale of Eve also.  To say there is no wisdom is disingenuous; our attention is drawn to two incidents that are linked that we can reflect upon, such as our ancestors were tested - not only in times of little but also in times of plenty - with their faith obedience and character.  We can also look what happened to them.  Corruption is of course possible, but Brother Abu Layth’s argument is speculative.  I think it indicative of the times that our first thoughts are anti-Semitism and misogyny, could it not just be an objective reference? 

In the same way there were black Roman Centurions, at the time they were referred to as Roman Centurions.  Race did not really exist in the sense we understand it today.  So can it not just be saying reflect on the story of manna from Heaven and the Garden of Eden and find the link?  No implied anti-Semitism or misogyny; that is a modern anachronistic misinterpretation.  The hadits is clearly part of a longer speech, such as a summary conclusion.  Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) just quoted the aphorism, as he used to do.