3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Dogs the hadith and Iran and more evidence is anachronistic

Reader comment on item: Rooting for Ahmadinejad
in response to reader comment: Re: Hostility to Dogs

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 16, 2009 at 07:50

Aymenn wrote

>There are numerous ahadith (sayings of Mohammed) that are hostile to dogs. For example, this one about their being unclean and consequently annulling prayer:

You are very correct that the source of these traditions is the hadith

>"Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

Notice that the source of such tradition is ibn Abbas which sould raise many alarms. The turth is more likely than not if he even existed he really did not know Muhammad as we are told that he either died in 693CE or 687CE (see Henri Lammens) or 55-61 years after the death of Muhammad at a time when the life span was no more than 30-35 years which means that either he was not even born or he was too young when Muhammad died in 632CE which makes any hadith attributed to him to be suspect

What is even most damaging to the credibility of ibn Abbas as a source of any hadith is and in the words of Patricia Crone:

"of ibn hanbal's traditions 1710 including repetitions are transmitted by the comanion ibn abbas yet less than 50 years earlier one scholar had estimated that ibn abbas had only heard 9 traditions from the prophet while another thought that the correct number might be 10. If ibn Abbas had heard 10 traditions from the prophet in the years around 800CE but over a thousand by 850CE how many had he heard in 700CE or 632CE? even if we accept that 10 of ibn abbas' traditions are authentic how do we identify them in a pool of 1710? we do not even know whether they are to be found in this pool as opposed to that of 530,000 traditions dismissed on the ground that their chains of authorities were faulty uner such circumstances it is scarcely justified to persume hadith to be authentic until the contrary has been proven"

So much for the credibility of any hadith attributed to Ibn Abbas

So you can see that the name of Ibn Abbas as the source of such hadith should raise the alarm

>Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, a pig, a Jew, a Magian (Zoroastrian), and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw".(Abu Dawud 0704).

I did not read the hadith in Arabic so I'm not really sure what the word "sutrah" really means but the above hadith is one among many about Islam and dogs and as far as we have from the historical record assuming that Mecca even existed and was such a great mercantile city (see Meccan Trade) the information we have about both Jews and Zoroastrians in the Hijaz is no more than literary evidence composed by the Muslim ulama living in distant Iran and Mesopotamia in the 2nd and 3rd century of Islam. The the aim of such traditions in the words of Wansbrough is to tell us that Islam really comes from the Hijaz but most important the ulama we trying to explain what the opaque revelation called al-Qur'an is really saying. The turth is there is no extant historical record be it papyri, ostraca, monuments etc...that would attest to the existence of Jews or Zoroastrains in the Hijaz prior to 632CE (see Hoyland's Arabia from the bronze age)

Which should make us wonder that such hadith was composed where Jews and Zoroastrians and Muslims lived together and that place must be Iran which means that the above hadith is anachronistic

>As you may know, many ahadith were created in the late 8th and 9th centuries C.E. to reflect the attitudes of the Muslim community.

Very true (see Ignaz Goldziher)

>The Muslim hostility to dogs arose from the fact that the Zoroastrians, who were regarded as infidels, dhimmis and unclean, kept them as companions. The hadith above was possibly created in light of this contemporary attitude,

And this is why the above hadith is anachronistic

> but there is also the possibility that the hadith, along with others regarding dogs, is indeed rooted in Mohammed's teachings.

If the hadith is suspect which it is then we really do not know what the teachings of Muhammad (if he even existed) were really all about

>It is interesting to note that a Zoroastrian is also regarded as one who would annul a prayer.

That does not surpise me and more evidence that the above hadith is anachronistic and that it was made up by the ulama

Now to paraphrase the words of Goldziher the hadith must be regarded as the product of the emerging Muslim community in the late 2-3 centuries of islam and it reflects the religious, economic, legal and spritual aspirations such community and it has nothing to do with the historical Muhammad if he even existed

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (45) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
The Propaganda Value [120 words]John PetersonJun 22, 2009 21:21157797
Obama [38 words]charlesJun 17, 2009 15:03157539
Iranian Hoopla [135 words]Lou from Queens, NYC,USAJun 16, 2009 13:53157482
Finding Truth by reading Between the Lines [180 words]FolklightJun 15, 2009 02:12157385
The real Mousavi [310 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Pamela MorganJun 14, 2009 17:54157358
Russia and China using Iran. [171 words]Spaceman SpiffJun 14, 2009 06:09157321
Intelligent Minds Make Hard Choices [48 words]Jim MiddaghJun 13, 2009 21:42157308
The 'Perversity' of Realism [225 words]Ron ThompsonJun 13, 2009 21:20157307
from Iran [117 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
HJun 13, 2009 17:52157304
U.S. interests [18 words]Ole HolstiJun 13, 2009 17:42157303
Two wrongs making Right? [82 words]JeffJun 13, 2009 16:54157302
Rooting for Ahmadinejad [139 words]AnneJun 13, 2009 11:08157285
Pipes Wins Again! [43 words]Mark PrestonJun 13, 2009 10:46157284
Dr.Pipes got whom he rooted for, and so did Obama. [21 words]M.D'SouzaJun 15, 2009 16:31157284
You may not be very wrong! [105 words]B.N.GururajJun 12, 2009 22:57157263
This misses the point ... [157 words]Nahman UmaniJun 12, 2009 22:48157261
Iranian elections [107 words]Janusz KowalikJun 12, 2009 21:03157259
The lesser of two evils? [96 words]Rebecca MouldsJun 12, 2009 18:58157252
The lesser of two evils... [8 words]jonahJun 28, 2009 22:55157252
I agree completely with you Dr. Pipes [723 words]Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D.Jun 12, 2009 17:48157246
Character Assassination of our President [30 words]TeapotdomeJun 12, 2009 20:00157246
Dr. Pipes is right! Let us have no problems identifying the evil! [50 words]DebbieJun 13, 2009 11:17157246
That's a Good Point, Carmen. [65 words]SvetlanaJun 13, 2009 13:36157246
Dare to voice inner feelings [135 words]B.N.GururajJun 14, 2009 23:33157246
response to Teapotdome (Rooting for Ahmadinejad) [90 words]Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D.Jun 16, 2009 10:52157246
response to "Character Assassination of our President" [87 words]Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D.Jun 16, 2009 11:30157246
Yes, I understand - I thought it would be better if the "honest" hamas won vs fatah, so the world would see what Israel is dealing with [38 words]Mark GoldJun 12, 2009 17:42157244
Better the true face of evil [9 words]Joseph L KleinJun 12, 2009 17:18157243
PREFERING AHMEDINEJAD [176 words]JACQUES HADIDAJun 12, 2009 16:26157241
Personally... [65 words]orange yonasonJun 12, 2009 17:47157241
Rachel Maddow's Opression. [160 words]YnnatchkahJun 12, 2009 16:23157240
No one will stop the nuclear industry in Iran. [139 words]batya daganJun 12, 2009 16:17157239
Amazed at yout real politik [160 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Fay VoshellJun 12, 2009 16:06157238
No, I don't think I missed your point... [213 words]Fay VoshellJun 13, 2009 12:39157238
The point is... [242 words]JeffJun 20, 2009 17:23157238
Maddow vs. Pipes [49 words]Vic RosenthalJun 12, 2009 15:59157237
nuclear weapons [50 words]Micahel L. FineJun 12, 2009 15:46157235
Re: Questions for Dr. Pipes [114 words]Aymenn JawadJun 12, 2009 15:34157234
Islam's (Mohammed's?) hostility to dogs [64 words]Ron ThompsonJun 13, 2009 12:04157234
Re: Hostility to Dogs [194 words]Aymenn JawadJun 14, 2009 04:25157234
About mohammedan hostility to dogs [81 words]G.VishvasJun 14, 2009 05:54157234
Iran, dogs and Islam [644 words]dhimmi no moreJun 14, 2009 18:15157234
Dogs the hadith and Iran and more evidence is anachronistic [824 words]dhimmi no moreJun 16, 2009 07:50157234
1islam, persia, dogs [20 words]zahraSep 5, 2009 15:36157234
Persia Dogs and islam and another victim of the imperialism of the Arabs [279 words]dhimmi no moreSep 7, 2009 07:11157234

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Dogs the hadith and Iran and more evidence is anachronistic by dhimmi no more

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2019 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)