re: #120 NelsFreeSorry for my delay.

Here is the isnad I promised: Bukhari got it from Hisham b ‘Ammar < Sadiqa b Khalid < ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Yazid b. Jabir < ‘Atiyya b. Qays al-Kilabi < Abd al-Rahman b. Ghanm al-Ash’ari < Abu ‘Amir or Abu Malik al-Ash’ari.

It is in a chapter heading, and is not one of the “real” ahadith in Bukhari. That is why the translator enumerated it “494v” instead of just “494”. Also the “it could be ‘Amir or it could be Malik, I dunno” at the base of the chain is not inspiring me with great confidence. But that may be Bukhari’s aim here.

However,…
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanuti stated: “The Hadith referred to in saying that it is haram as narrated by al Bukhari is not fulfilling the requirements of the Sahih in al Bukhari’s collection. 1) Al Bukhari in Hadith al Ma’azif himself narrated the Hadith to be of a broken chain of narrators in which there is a gap between al Bukhari and the second narrator, so he drops the first narrator in his chain. That is called Mu’allaq.

I am taking their word for this. Also possible that Bukhari, who as I mentioned is not a fan of apocalyptic, deliberately suppressed some of the narrators.

Some scholars tried to connect the chain through other means like whan ibn Hajar did in his dissertation (connecting what is disconnected) in which he connected the Isnad of this Hadith. But still, one of the main narrators whose name is Hisham ibn Ammar as profiled in Tahthib at-Tahthib by ibn Hajar is not reliable enough for some scholars to be a source of a narration that depends on somebody like him.

Yeah, a “Hisham ibn Ammar” is indeed in that chain. I don’t know enough about him.

2) Even when we said the Hadith is Sahih ed: this means “authentic”, there are questions that would emerge when we study the version of the Hadith when it says, “People will make adultery, pure silk, liquor and Ma’azif into Halal.” We know that adultery is Haram by another proof and it is a unanimous Hukum.

“Hukm” is “wisdom” and further has the connotation the Ten Commandments would have in Judaism. Q. 17:22-39 with its parallel to Q. 6:151-3 are called “hukm” and they are very like to the Commandments.

Pure silk is not of consensus Hukum. If a Muslim says Zina is Halal deliberately, then they are considered a kafir. However, if a Muslim says pure silk is not Haram, he is not a kafir. We know that liquor is Haram as it is in the Qur’an, but where do we find an authentic hadith or Qur’an to tell us that Ma’azif are Haram other than this source. The last point is to get the clear meaning of Ma’azif in arabic dictionaries because there are more than one meaning for Ma’azif. It is acceptable for a Muslim to hear somebody says Makruh but not Haram because Haram is in need of clear-cut meaning and certain narration.”

I wonder if the word “Hokum” has an Arabic origination.

(It’s actually Latin from the word “hoc”… it was peasants mocking the Latin Mass that gave us “hocus dominocus”. But that is even further off topic)