-
کیا اونٹ کا پیشاب جائز ہے ؟
صحیح بخاری و مسلم میں جو اونٹ کا پیشانی پینے کی روایت ہے تو کیا اسلام میں اونٹ کا پیشاب پینا جائز ہے ؟
-
4 Replies
-
کیا اونٹ کا پیشاب جائز ہے ؟
updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago
3 Members
·
4
Replies
-
Please refer to the following video
-
This is another explanation
-
I watched Hassan Ilyas sahib’s explanation, but I still find the proposed distinction between drinking the milk and applying the urine externally difficult to derive from the actual wording of the narration.
The Arabic says:
فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا
“…that they should drink from their milk and their urine.”
And later:
فَشَرِبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا
“So they drank from their milk and their urine.”
The same verb, shariba to drink, governs both nouns. Therefore, purely as a matter of Arabic, “drink the milk but apply the urine as a paste” does not seem to me the natural reading. This is also why classical scholars generally understood the narration literally.
For me, however, accepting that this is what the narration says does not force us into defending camel urine as an eternal medical teaching of Islam.
That is where I would make a distinction between the Prophet and a narration about the Prophet .
A sahih classification gives a report significant historical weight based on the methodology of Hadith scholars. But it does not give it the same certainty as the Quran, about which Allah Himself says:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
“Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder, and surely We are its Guardian.”
(15:9)So perhaps there is no need either to reject the entire Hadith tradition or to force an unnatural meaning upon a difficult narration.
We can simply say: this is how the report has reached us; its chain has been judged reliable according to Hadith methodology; but whether every detail was transmitted exactly as the Prophet said or intended remains a historical question.
Hadith is enormously valuable in understanding the Prophet and his times, but sahih does not mean wahy, nor does it mean that Allah has guaranteed every wording in a Hadith collection in the way He has guaranteed His Book.
That, at least, is how I would approach this narration.
As an aside, I recently came across a video by Edip Yuksel discussing this same narration. I should make it clear that I do not subscribe to many of his wider views on Hadith or to the rather polemical manner in which he presents them.
Nevertheless, this particular video caught my attention because, on this narrow point, he reads the Arabic in the straightforward way in which it was historically understood: that the narration says they drank both the milk and the urine.
That is really my concern with the alternative explanation(By Ilyas) that the milk was drunk while the urine was applied externally. I do not think we should feel compelled to manufacture an unusual meaning simply because the natural meaning of a narration creates a difficulty.
We can acknowledge honestly what the narration appears to say and then ask the separate question: how much certainty and religious authority should we attach to a transmitted report?
To me, that is intellectually safer than changing the apparent meaning of the Arabic in order to defend the narration (with all due respect to Ilyas)
-
Watch Hafiz Zubair’s research cited above.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
