-
Tawatur Not Recorded
How can we claim that somethign was tawatur in the past from the time of the prophet SAWS himself? Especially close to the time of the prophet SAWS where we don’t have recorded history? How do we know that there weren’t disagreements but they were simply just erased from the records?
How could we know that all people beleived that salah was fard? Disagreements could’ve been erased…
-
36 Replies
-
Tawatur Not Recorded
updated 3 years, 2 months ago
4 Members
·
36
Replies
-
For example when we have a language we can trace back from dictionaries to see if this word meant this etc. But what if we don’t have the dictionary. We don’t have any fiqh books from the time of the prophet Muhammad SAWS.
-
Also- the first generation believes that the prayer doesn’t have to be prayed in a specific way. They just prayed this way to respect the prophet SAWS. Now as time went on- people just assumed that this was the fard way to pray.
-
‘People assuming something‘ is exactly what ijma and tawatur negates (or doesn’t let that happen).
We are so used to books and information in recorded form now a days, that we prefer written akhbar-i-ahad over ijma and tawatur.
In the absence of dictionaries, we would still be speaking the same language as we do today, at least I and people I know of never learned language through dictionaries, rather we all learnt language through the same tawatur transmitted by one generation to another. Same is the case with religious tawatur.
The definition of ijma incorporates two things: (which in this current time is very difficult to grab onto)
1) The number of people transmitting it so large that it doesn’t depend on any written form and the possibility that all of them would gather on a single lie is minimal.
2) Information transmitted through akhbar-i-ahad is dependent on ijma and tawatur and not the other way round.
Rest assured, if even after all these measures, something was erased by some magical means through this ijma and tawatur, we will not be held accountable for that.
-
But an unclear belief could be held. For example the prayer in this way was never fard. The sahabah just prayed this way out of respect. But as generations wen ton it degenerated into becoming fard. We think the ijma and tawatur was that it’s alway fard but the not fard ruling is simply not present. I remember that on one of the discussions here it was said that we rule out bidahs like adhan in child’s ear by consulting fiqh books. If there was no fiqh books what do we do?
-
‘If there were no fiqh books‘ is the same kind of assumption if there was no dictionary. These assumptions are against reality and human nature and how humans incorporate their knowledge of one generation. Fiqh books support ijma, just like dictionary supports the language being spoken, they do not become a primary source of knowledge themselves. However, if ever any doubt arises in the current ijma or tawatur, we refer fiqh (just like we refer to dictionary) to analyse and study whether those doubts are genuine and if yes, then what was the primary cause for that (one cannot name more than one or two honestly).
-
There is no credible history of the first hundred years after death of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم if I’m not wrong.
-
What difference would that make?
This is why Ijma and Tawatur exist to negate the risk associated with written form.
-
Because we can’t check if any bidahs were introduced within that period
-
Because we can’t check there was tawatur in that period
-
and how do you verify authenticity of Quran?
-
That would also come into question then surely?
-
Only once someone disproves ijma and tawatur as a non-reliable mean of transmission of knowledge.
-
But we don’t know that the ijma and tawattur was there in the first century- we have no way to prove that
-
Why going through the effort of calling it ijma and tawatur if you have to rely on written books?
Ijma and Tawatur are a medium themselves, they don’t need an inferior written medium.
-
It doesn’t make sense. Am I wrong in saying that the ijma and tawatur is checked through fiqh books. Not dependant on in any given time or space- but checked through fiqh books. If it is only checked through these books then we can’t be sure that the ijma and tawatur in that time in that space existed
-
Doesn’t depend on books but checked the same way language is checked through dictionary; none of this activity challenges the independent existence of language itself or makes it dependable on dictionary.
-
But for us living today how do we know that tawatur existed in that time and space? It doesn’t depend on the books but how do we know that in the non recorded era there weren’t differences and one just became dominant?
-
We don’t, but at the same time we have the best possible mode of transmission that could’ve had been made available for transmission of religion (especially when seen in comparison to other modes of transmission).
-
But what does it really prove? It just proves that some time in the past someone said that this way to pray is fard. Doesn’t have to be Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said so or commanded so.
If we could check any possible records of that time we could know who started it- but it’s just speculation if we don’t have those records
-
And how would you prove authenticity of that written record written by just someone?
-
It would be difficult but better than nothing
-
The ijma and tawatur starts from today’s time by seeing current ijma of Muslims ilm and how common muslims are practicing it and from where they derived it from (their tawatur). It is itself an independent source of knowledge and most of the times, is free of any doubt. But if someone wants to trace ijma of Muslims back, then fiqh books can be consulted which would be documenting ijma of Muslims ilm of their time. On the same basis, let’s say that we have established the same ijma and tawatur to the nearest of the times possible (e.g. 100 years till the time of Prophet(sws)), and it all checks out, then there is no reason to believe based on estimation, probability and all the available evidence, that someone in those 100 years would’ve initiated something of his own that no one else could do for the rest of 1300 years moving forward (the chances are negligible).
-
So it’s just a reasonable claim right. It can’t be shown like here look at this book etc. Because for people in later times like us a book or some evidence would be ideal. But a reasonable claim could also be enough.
-
Like we can say that the word gay meant happy (assume it doesn’t mean that anymore) because we have records of people using it that way. If we didn’t have those records we would assume that it always just meant homosexual
-
We don’t have just records of people using it this way, we have a recorded consensus of people using it that way in one particular time. (but in case of religion no such breaking of chain has ever happened)
Does that make the perpetual transmission of language a reasonable claim too?
Despite the fact It is one of the most real and authentic thing people can be certain about.
-
Where is this consensus recorded? Like if we take a word of English that means something completely different and has lost it’s old meaning. Now if we don’t have any records for it’s old meaning we will simply would simply assume that the way we are using it now is the way it was used before.
-
You’re assuming when there is a break in the chain, even when this happens, those words and their old usage can be traced back. We not just know the archaic words, we also know the obsolete words. Because humans always find a way to preserve and transmit their knowledge (that is why it is called historic era and differentiated from pre-historic era) especially for something as perpetual and important as language.
This is all assuming there was a break of chain in transmission, but no such break of chain ever happened in religious tawatur and all the evidence of tracing back, tawatur, Ijma of 1300 years (for your satisfaction) proves no such break. Therefore, scientifically speaking, all this evidence takes us to the level of almost virtual certainty that this has all been intact, preserved and being practiced since the first day. To disprove this, something more concrete and more convincing than this evidence needs to be presented by critics.
-
You’re assuming there was no break… They can be traced back how? With books. Now we only have ‘ijma’ of 1300 years. This ijma itself is suspect. Because how do we know there weren’t disagreements that were simply not mentioned or wiped out? This tawatur of 1300 years is great and all. But 100 years is no short period of time in which many things could’ve happened
-
-
In this day in age it’s impossible to prove the authenticity of any written record that came into existence a hundred years ago, let alone what happened fifteen hundred years ago.
Written history is not a chronologically written record of events. It is only a record of events that help the author prove his pre-conceived conclusion.
Written history is a only single person’s statement, while in tawatur such a significant number of people are relating something that their conspiring about an event is simply inconceivable.
There are a lot of books of history still available today that are completely biased. In the past, the history was only written by the conquerors – bias was inevitable.
Ijma and tawatur is best humanly possible way that knowledge can be transmitted through history, bar none. It doesn’t guarantee that the knowledge being transmitted is correct, but it gives us a way to easily spot corruptions if they ever occurred. For further details see my comments in the following discussion:
-
How can we then prove that this ijma and tawatur we are seeing in front of our eyes TODAY was there 1400 years ago? We can’t even use the fiqh books then to eliminate bidah like adhan in the ears of newborn (if the authenticity of such texts, as you said, is not credible or able to be proved as such)
-
Faisal Bhai Than why do you Believe the Quran(Written recorded Book) to be Authentic if you cant prove authenticity of a written word 1400 years ago? Nowhere does the Quran mention that it was transmitted through ijma and Tawattur of Sahaba. The Quran only mentions that The Prophet himself collected the Quran and himself was responsible for its preservation. (albeit through God & Angel Gabriel).
-
The Quran shouldn’t have to mention that. Rather an analysis of the texts surrounding it lead us to believe it was transmitted in that way. I vaguely remember reports of the ‘qiratul aamah’ being the same between a few named sahabah like Abu bakr and Ali رضي الله عنهم أجمين
-
-
If a view has survived and we do not know of anyone to have disagreed thay doesnt mean no one has disagreed and now we can attribute this view to the whole group
-
I have already responded to this kind of questions in the discussion I referenced above.
-
Discussion 43801
After this discussion it seems that if the ijma and tawattur cannot be seen and placed in a particular point in history it is not worth anything. So how can we rely on ijma and tawatur not being ruined in the first 100 years? From what was mentioned it seems adhan in newborn’s ear was invented in 4 Hijra. So something like salah would come under question too since we don’t have records of that ijma and tawattur from the first 100 years-
I have already explained it in the discussion you referenced above.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
