Obviously it’s haram to kill children in general
(On a more speculative note: use of the word “son” might be as a result of the gendered nouns of the Arabic language or just an example)

Are the opinions that stem from this hadith applied to a female child as well?

However, with the case of muamalat I feel that one madhab is not sufficient to run a society. We must benefit from the great legacy of the legal schools without drowning in them.

I think this article drives home this point.

I would like to point out that my comment is actually worded incorrectly, and as Ustaz Abu Majeed says ‘to generalise would be an insult…’

My statement ‘enforced upon us by our predecessors’ should be re-worded as ‘enforced upon us by SOME of our predecessors’. I apologise for this whole heartedly, and I also apologise for my ignorance which is by now is clear for all to see. I hide behind the shield ‘I don’t know’; always.

I would like to put a simple point out there, the authenticating of hadith is a science in itself; but there remains an underlying criterion, aptly named ‘The Criterion’. The Fitra is a beautiful thing, and the Quran is a beautiful thing.

What of the recent discussion in Egypt regarding the suckling of grown men? Must we enter into deep shuura for this? The hearts of (some) scholars were once so in tune with the ‘haqeeqa’.

How is it that certain hadith which are deemed ‘weak’ came into existence? It is certain that some hadith are thrown out (as worthless) by many – how did they come into existence. I am being abstract because subtelty is one of the defining beauties of this deen and escapes the game of ‘labelling’, a favourite pastime of todays muslims.

Who uttered the hadith and why?

And what of the burning of the many ahaadeeth (documented in saheeh books of hadeeth) post rasulullah (saw) – why do we ignore this? Why do we believe what we are told – or as Sh. Yusuf Estes says, why do we take our deen off the back of a cereal packet? Yet do we ever ask ourselves regarding the hands in which ink resides? And in any case, what was the purpose of ink.

Our discussion is good, becuase 50 years ago such discussion was not around. I do not pretend to be of knowledge, so please don’t attack me personally. But I do not wish to bring cement arguments until absolutely necessary as certain things are in front of us yet we do not see.

‘fa innaha la ta3mal abSaaru wa laakin ta3mal-quluub ullati fiSSudoor’.

In conclusion and as mere opinion: somewhere along the line, WE were conned.

Z:

Many thanks for that important point. I’m assuming that the translators intended “Capitol Punishment” when the said “Punishment.” Inshallah, when I go to work I will let them know.

SDW

as-salamu alaikum,

i’d like to clarify an important point: in the Shafi’i madhab, a father is not to be KILLED as punishment if he were to be found guilty of intentionally killing his son, however, there is still punishment for the offense (which is ultimately determined by a governing authority or court).

Though the hadith is weak, it is considered because of the Prophet’s (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) statement “Ward off punishments with the slightest of doubts”, which is fundamental when it comes to hudud.

I do not know about the Hanabila, but I presume it is the same.

Thus, the statement that the Shafi’s and the Hanbali’s hold that there is NO PUNISHMENT for such a crime is false, rather, the case is that the hadd of murder is not applied in this instance.

was-salam.

I agree with Sh. Suhaib’s response to you. I really think that you are on the right track but you yourself need some
more knowledge and balance to properly apply your wreckless statement. Take ibn ‘Uthaymeen (ra) for example who was a
great Hanbali Mujtahid. He looked into what he had been taught as a Hanbali student (before reaching the level of Ijtihad
and then made the following conclusion in explaining the famous Hanbali treatise Zad al-Mustaqna’.

“The author (of Zad) wrote that the father cannot be killed as retribution for killing his son. This is because of
the famous Hadith “A father should not be killed for the (killing) of his son.” (Related by al-Tirmidhī) and the
point of logic where it was the father who is a cause for the existense of his son and th opposite must not be
possible.”

Ibn ‘Uthaymeen commented that although a few great scholars of Hadith such as al-Bayhaqi and Al-Albani considered it’s
transmission as authentic there were many other great scholars who found many factors which weaken the different narrations
of this Hadith. He then said as far as the logic used by the Hanbali scholars about the Father being a cause in the sons
existense and thus the opposite is not possible. He simply said that if the father killed his son then by the general texts
and the lack of proof in the doubtful Hadith it would not be the son who cause the death of his father, but it would be
the father himself who brought upon his own demise by committing such a crime.

That being said Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (ra) is an Usooli as well as a Muhaddith and a Faqeeh and he came to this conclusion by his
and many others rightful opinion. But on the other hand for those who found the Hadith to be authentic and according to their
principles they will find this to be the ruling and they are perfectly justified and correct in having such an opinion as this
is a matter of disagreement.

The point I would like to drive home is that none of these scholars came to their conclusions by just using their head or
doing a little research. Those that hold the Hadith to be sound and thus the ruling are perfectly aware of the others
opinion and it cannot be concluded that they held their own opinion to simply conform to a madhhab. To generalize the tradition
of scholarship fr the last 12 centuries in such a way is an insult to the Ummah of Muhammad (saws), although in some cases it
was probably so.

Wallahu a’lam

M:

I understand your frustration, but find your assumptions flawed and lacking any evidence. Perhaps you could elaborate further?

SDW