WISDOM OF EXPOUNDING HADITH AS "a re-narrated report" - Part II
The Lessons and the Reply :
Of course, many Muslims will indeed find the idea of drinking camel's urine to be repulsive; and, as a result, some of them will reject this hadith right away, even though it is a Sahih and references are many more than to be discarded right away. Others at answering-Christianity website ( No doubt, the site's webmaster has done a commendable task) justify this hadith, and point out that horse urine is the source of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) and available as Premarin®. It is an estrogen treatment for menopausal and premenopausal women. For some Muslim, this is a reason to praise Muhammad(saw) whom, they claim, had miraculous foreknowledge of modern medicine described a 'Tibb Nabwi' at this website. However, there is no specific evidence that those who were ill were menopausal women or that Muhammad(saw) suggested that camel urine would cure a woman who had a low level of estrogen. My own email to Prof Dr Omar Hasan Kasule Sr, the one who has written this paper, lead me believe that no modern medical research on this aspect of employing 'camel urine' has been carried out by his department till this date, "to his knowledge".
But, more recently, while doing a search on the word 'chemotherapy', I hit upon a link of a website portal by the name of Salon.com. In their Health and Body section, it was mentioned that a researcher from a teaching hospital in Sudan presented a study of 30 patients with ascites -- an accumulation of serum in the abdominal cavity that causes distended stomachs -- that found that they responded slightly better to 150 ml of camel urine a day than to a standard medicine, the diuretic frusimide. And a Chinese pharmaceutical company reported that in a clinical study, its camel urine-derived cancer drug CDA-II cured 61 percent of patients, compared with a 30 percent cure rate for chemotherapy.
Coming to the point raised by polemics as to why doesn't Muslims drink it if it's a part of Sunnah, then let's see what some other major scriptures have to say to it's adherents...
|In the Holy
Bible at Jeremiah 2:13 is this:
"My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."
"Living waters" is a euphemism for urine therapy as is "Water of Life."
From Proverbs 5:15 in the
Old Testament comes the biblical term most often heard in urinist circles:
The Damar Tantra is an ancient Sanskrit work of India for the adherents of Hinduism. It contains a detailed description of the system of therapeutics utilizing 'Shivambu', i.e. Auto Urine Therapy, as expounded by Lord Shiva to His Divine Consort the Goddess Parvati. Here, Lord Shiva reveals to his consort, "He who has continued this practice (self urine therapy) for twelve years will live so long as the moon and the stars last. He is not troubled by dangerous animals such as snakes, and no poisons can kill him. He cannot be consumed by fire, and can float on water just like wood. (21)"
So, when some insane asks a Muslim as to why doesn't Muslims drink raw camel's urine based on this hadith, the counter question from a Muslim should be, as to why the polemic doesn't prescribe to the lines we have mentioned above from his/her mainline scriptures? For Muslims, the injunction of Camel urine therapy is not based on Qur'an, moreover, we medically know for sure that horse urine is the source of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) and available as Premarin®. It is an estrogen treatment for menopausal and premenopausal women. Are these women given raw horse urine to drink? Moreover, either the ailment of the people, or the the tell tale signs of their sickness, nothing is obvious from this hadith and Prophet didn't do or ordered all Muslims to do it by setting this as an example.
For the second part of the Hadith which talks about prophet (saw) ordering
the mutilation of the thief's, then it only needs to be seen, as to how
far this hadith has gone to create divisions amongst Muslim ranks and
keeps on doing so, still. The net effect of the damage done can be gauged
from these lines, which I read at a (seemingly) Shia
website trying to answer the authenticity of this Hadith. The Shia
scholar writes: " Can a Muslim believe that the Prophet of Allah (P), who
forbade mutilation, himself mutilates these people, cutting off their
hands and feet, and branding their eyes because they slaughtered his
herder? Had the narrator said that these people had mutilated the herder,
there would have been some justification for the Prophet to punish them in
the same way. That was not the case, so how could the Prophet of Allah (P)
kill and mutilate them in this way without investigation and cross
examination until it became clear who among them was the murderer so that
he could kill him for that? Perhaps some would say that they all
participated in killing him, could the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) not
forgive and pardon them for they were Muslims as proved by their words
"O Prophet of Allah?" Did the Prophet of Allah not hear Allah's
words: "And if you punish them, then punish them the way you were
punished. And if you are patient then that is better for those who are
It all seems to be fine until this part of the answer. Now please read on:
"...It is very easy for anyone who reflects upon the matter to realize that it is a narration forged by the Umayyads and their followers to please the rulers who did not hesitate to kill innocent people based on suspicion and accusation, mutilating them in a hideous manner. The proof of this is what came in the end of the report itself which al-Bukhari reported saying: "Salam said: 'I came to know that Hajjaj said to Anas: 'Tell me the severest punishment the Prophet meted out', and Anas reported this [hadith]'. When al-Hasan came to know this he said: 'I wish he had not told him this'".
As a result, Mu'awiya became an expert in punishment and mutilation of Muslims who were the followers of 'Ali. How many were burnt to death? How many were buried alive? How many were crucified on branches of date palms? One of the arts which his minister 'Amr b. al-'As invented was that he mutilated Muhammad b. Abu Bakr, then clothed him in the skin of an ass and then cast him into the fire."
Is there any lesson to be learnt, when we read such interpretations of these hadiths?
Another hadith from Sahih Bukhari that stand out on it's complete contradiction to the Quranic verse is:
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17: Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
While if the referred directive (regarding the apostate) ascribed to Prophet (pbuh) is taken to be general and not specific for a particular people, the Qur’anic statement: "There is absolutely no compulsion in religion" would lose all its meaning. If a person is to be killed in case he converts to another religion, it would imply that the statement of the Qur’an only means that a person cannot be forced to accept Islam, but he CAN be forced to remain a Muslim throughout his life. It is quite obvious that such is not the case.
Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says:
Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land".
Our main weakness
Our main weakness is that in order to show our reverence and obedience to the Prophet we blindly follow anything that has been quoted as his sayings and practices, without checking against the Qur’an. Unfortunately, our so-called political and religious leaders have taken full advantage of this weakness by fabricating suitable hadiths to keep their own control and influence over us.
We must remember that the Qur’an was revealed as a final revelation because the previous revelations were corrupted by human interference. If we now say in one breath that we cannot accept the previous revelations because they have been corrupted by human interference, how can we then say, in the same breath, that the Hadiths are acceptable even though they are the results of human endeavor and, without doubt, many of which contradict the Qur’an?
Important question: We all have great regard for the extraordinary, in fact legendary, works and efforts of the various scholars of the science of Hadith. Their efforts in determining the authenticity of the sayings that were being ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) in their respective environments, as per my personal exposure of the literature of world religions, indeed stands incomparable. I have yet to come across such vigorous testing and analysis of sayings ascribed to a person of the past times, by persons in a particular time, in any other religion or history, as has been done by these scholars. Also, I am aware that each and every believing Muslim and a scholar would no doubt endorse that if there is a conflict, the Quran should always take precedence over the Hadith or the respective hadith was spoken when the corresponding Quranic Ayah was not yet revealed or even, that this hadith is meant only for that tribe or people of that time and later was abrogated by the Quranic verse.
So, why are these contradictory narrations yet published and circulated?
By Guided Ones