Turban: Some mind boggling madness from Imam Dailami

[Ruhi_Rose]

As-Salam Alaykum everyone 

This is something I needed to share.   I really don't understand why these loons aren't locked up in a mental asylum.  At a discussion recently some Hadithist dolt quoted a hadith from one of the two Dailami guys - father or son - who said wearing a turban is "sunnah" for Muslim men and to boycott those who wear the kufiya or male scarf.

Illustrations of turban and kufiya (or male scarf) :





Quoting Dailami which he claims is a hadith:

"The turban is the honour of a mu'min and represents the dignity of the Arabs. When the Arabs will stop wearing the turban, their respect will be lost.  Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said, 'Wear the turban as it is a sign of Islam and it distinguishes between a Muslim and a Kafir.' "

Another one supposedly narrated by Hazrat Jaabir whose father was said to have participated in the Battle of Uhad:

"Two rakaats of namaaz performed while wearing the turban are superior to seventy rakaats performed without a turban."

My question is serious .. was this man really in his right mind when he said this?

I responded to the Hadithist mentioning that turbans, scarves, beards are a bunch of superficial gestures. The important and indispensable aspects upon which Allah judges are the sincerity and depth of one's iman, the good intent and good deeds that follow. Without that, one can wear a dozen turbans or a dozen kufiyas, all of that would amount to 0+0+0+0=0.

To my response, the lunatic Hadithist retorted:  "Turbans, scarves, beards are not superficial gestures, it is the sunnah of our prophet s.a.w - without which your imaan is weak. Good deeds are secondary, the first and most important thing is love for our prophet s.a.w and with his love comes all along without any doubt."

Excuse me??  "Good deeds are secondary" to turbans, scarves and beards?   He didn't respond to my utter shock that almost made me faint!  Usually Shiias support turbans and Sunnis are for kufiyas or male scarves.  But when a Quran-alone follower questions a Hadithist's rickety argument, whether that person is a Shiia or Sunni, they group up to defend their madness.  I've observed this mindset time and again, and it's once again visible in this man's rejoinder.  Although this Shiia guy was defending the turban and rejecting the kufiya, when I dismissed both, he defended both. 

So, their sweeping presumption carries the notion that anyone who doesn't wear a turban, scarf or beard is a kaffir and doesn't love the Prophet and is therefore branded a deviant.   

When will these reprobates ever grow up and learn to fear Allah?

By the way, this time I collided with a Shiia Hadithist who are just as depraved as their Sunni rivals.   Their violations, lack of logic, superficiality and idiocy being ditto, I don't know why at all they are rivals.  They should be the best of pals.

[Heba E. Husseyn]

Wa'salam sis.  Ya Allah!  These people are getting from bad to worse.   Actually this 'battle' between turban and scarf is a Shiia/Sunni thing.  Because sunni imams usually cover their head with a cloth so the shiias want to do something different - they wear turbans.  As sectarian differences have deepened, this thoroughly insignificant issue has developed into a hot debate.

Concerning that obnoxious Hadith:  "Two rak‘ahs (units of prayer) offered in a turban are better than seventy rak‘ahs without a turban?"

Sunnis imams have rejected it.  The following are the views of a few of them.

Shiekh Muhammad al Munajid says:

Quote:
"This hadeeth was narrated from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) and says that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Two rak‘ahs offered in a turban are better than seventy rak‘ahs without a turban.” It was narrated by ad-Daylami in Musnad al-Firdaws, 2/265, no. 3233. In al-Jami‘ al-Kabeer (no. 14441), as-Suyooti attributed it to Abu Na‘eem. But we could not find it."
Unquote: 

Al-Mannawi said:

Quote:
"Abu Na‘eem also narrated it from him – and it is through him and from him ad-Daylami received it – moreover its isnad (chain of narrators) includes Tariq ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman, whom ath-Thahabi listed among the da‘eef (weak) narrators and said: an-Nasai said: He is not strong. It was narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlan, whom al-Bukhari listed among the da‘eef narrators. Al-Hakim said: He has a poor memory."
Unquote:

Daeef means weak, or simply false.

Sheikh Jibril Haddad says:

Quote:
"The hadiths that are found only in these two works are at best of questionable authenticity as these are late works and it is highly unlikely that a hadith stayed under the radar for five centuries only to be “discovered” by the later, lesser hadith scholars."
Unquote:

However, don't get me wrong.  These sheikhs who have rejected this awful Hadith are no truth seekers themselves.  They've rejected this one alright but they uphold many more just as terrible ones of Bukhari & co. collections.  A case in point is Jibril Haddad.  It's true that if a hadith stays "under the radar" for 500 years and suddenly pops up, it's suspicious to say the least.  But Dailami's nonsense isn't the only hadith in this category.  There are many more ahadith which the so-called ulemas suddenly start trumpeting to suit the political climate or their personal ends, both among sunnis and shiias.  Furthermore, if a hadith is observed as suspicious being circulated after 500 years, then why shouldn't those hadiths circulated after 150 or 200 0r 300 years merit the same suspicion?  Having said that, the entire hadith literature began being compiled a good 200 years after the Prophet's (pbuh) death.  That too is a long enough period to stay "under the radar" and be rife with manipulations and fabrications from scratch which is precisely the reason for the deplorable condition of the Hadith culture at present.  But Jibril Haddad is conveniently looking at only one side of the story, as is common with both sunnis and shiias.

The blatant fact is that 200 years after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh) when the Hadith violation began, it gradually became a periodical ritual - medieval imams from the 10th century until now have been coming up outrageously forged orders and phrases in the name of Hadith and Islam.  This is a Shiia as well as a Sunni problem.  Neither of the two can be exonerated. It really appears very funny, rather hilarious, when Sunnis and Shiias hurl rejoinders at each other over the unauthenticity of their different bunches of ahadith.  No better example of the pot calling the kettle black from both sides.

[Ruhi_Rose]

Extremely informative and interesting feedback, sis.  I wish these imams quoted above were just as analytical of the entire Hadith institution.   I've heard and read of Jibril Hadad before.  He is a diehard Hadithist.  He is rejecting this one only to play the sectarian card.

[Zainab_M]

I recall I also read one of Jibril Hadad's refutations on the article of Dr. Shanawas regarding the big hoax of Aisha's underage marriage.  Hadad's arguments to defend that lie were shaky, stupid and pathetic.  On top of that, he doesn't have the best manners either that's 'garnished' with loads of arrogance .... and arrogance especially looks ugly when it comes from a partisan dumb-wit like Hadad. 

Btw, this black n white notion of Shiias wearing turbans and Sunnis donning the kufiya is only in the Middle-East, not everywhere.  In Pakistan, for example, many of those firebrand Salafist groups also wear turbans. 

[Ruhi_Rose]

I too haven't come across any evidences of Sh. Hadad's humility. 

Btw, this black n white notion of Shiias wearing turbans and Sunnis donning the kufiya is only in the Middle-East, not everywhere.  In Pakistan, for example, many of those firebrand Salafist groups also wear turbans. 

Exactly.  There are several of them, hardline Sunni groups out there, that wear black, white or green turbans.  Actually this person who brought up the turban issue in the recent discussion is a Shiia from India.  He knows little or nothing of what's happening in Pakistan and only talks from his observation of the Middle-East.

[Heba E. Husseyn]

Exactly sisters Ruhi and Zeynab.  I too read his refutation.  He threw into quite a shit-fit and defended Aisha's child marriage with arguments from the pagan era.

From what I've heard and read, this turban / kufiya tug of war goes into still greater depths of ludicrousness.  The turban issue is further sub-divided into black and white.  Black turban imams claim to be from the tribe of Banu Hashim (Prophet's tribe) and symbolize the "sayyids."  White turbans are not supposed to be from Banu Hashim tribe and symbolize non-sayyids.  This silly story arose after someone at some point concocted a story that the Prophet (pbuh) wore a black turban .. a complete guess of course.  That's why if you cricitise Ali Khamanei or any of those black turban guys, the Shiias will pounce on you accusing you of being against the Prophet's family.

[Ruhi_Rose]

LOL, so you wear a black turban tomorrow and you become a Hashmite and a relative of the Prophet (pbuh).   Deceiving, misleading and fabricating are serious diseases.  They create ambitions and desires in peoples' hearts and to claim those desires & ambitions, the ones suffering with this disease hardly know what a laughing stock they make of themselves.

How superficially they make connections with the Prophet's family!  For the Shiias every ayatollah is from the Prophet's family and for the Sunnis, the  Saudi family, Jordan's monarchy, Morocco's monarchy and few more .. all claim lineage with the Prophet's family.  Is the Prophet's family on auction to the lowest bidder, or what?

[Heba E. Husseyn]

.. all claim lineage with the Prophet's family.  Is the Prophet's family on auction to the lowest bidder, or what?

Hummm, I asked myself this question many times too.

[Heba E. Husseyn]

This Dailami is another one of those buggers who lied with a straight face.  He also said "The turban is something that distinguishes a believer from a disbeliever."

Actually all of these Shiia and Sunni hadiths are the fatwas from the clowns who narrated them and then edited by another bunch of clowns  known as compilers.  Sometimes the compilers themselves issued their fatwas with fictitious narrators' names and forging the substance of the fatwa with the name of the Prophet (pbuh) tagged on it.  It's a lengthy gimmick with plenty of bungling, counterfeits and imitations.  That's what happens to the human heart and mind when it loses every shred of decency and shame.  A Quran alone following brother who is an old friend of my husband's family said that every hadith we see today which popped up hundreds of years ago have been edited and changed periodically at least half a dozen times or more.  So, it's impossible to know even what an unedited hadith might have contained.  Some were edited for the better, some for the worse.  But all were edited over and over again and NONE were spoken by the Prophet (pbuh).

[Ruhi_Rose]

Unspeakably heartbreaking      Btw, who the heck is Dailami anyway?  A 'hero' of the shiias?

[Heba E. Husseyn]

From what I've observed, he didn't exactly start off as "hero" only of the Shiias.  Some of the narrators in Dailami's hadiths are just as much upheld by sunnis.  But around the 20th century when Shiias and Sunnis began differentiating their spiritual leaders on the basis of outward appearances and not caring a damn about their intentions nor conduct, that's when the turban and male scarf became an issue.  Shiias began taking up for the turban and sunnis for male scarf.  Since Dailami had fabricated some hadiths in favor of the turban so the Shiias going gaga about him while the Sunnis are frowning over those hadiths.

The guy's full name is Abu Shuja Dailami al-Hamdani was most likely a 12th or 13th century imam and a small-time hadith narrator.  His son, Abu Mansur Dailami, followed his father's footsteps to reinforce his myths.  He apparently doesn't have much of a biography online.  However, somehow it seems the Shiias have taken a greater liking for him, though the sunnis also play around with Dailami's nonsense. 

[Heba E. Husseyn]

Usually Shiias support turbans and Sunnis are for kufiyas or male scarves.  But when a Quran-alone follower questions a Hadithist's rickety argument, whether that person is a Shiia or Sunni, they group up to defend their madness.  I've observed this mindset time and again, and it's once again visible in this man's rejoinder.  Although this Shiia guy was defending the turban and rejecting the kufiya, when I dismissed both, he defended both.

Absolutely.  This mentality is so common that it really took me just one day to notice it.  I first observed it in Islam Online.net forum several years ago.  That forum is no more running.  That's where I initially began putting up my Hadith criticism about 8 or 9 years ago.  Since I had read many more of Sunni ahadith than the Shiia ones back then, my criticism was mainly based on Sunni hadiths.  Yet the Shiias also ganged up against me along with the Sunnis.  Not just that, but some Christians also jumped in and began supporting the Hadith, and those buggers too joined the Hadithist Sunnis and Shiias.

You will always notice Islamophobe Christians supporting Hadith mainly because the outrageous nature of Hadith provides them with the ammunition they need to attack Islam.  And also because, Hadith being largely borrowed from the altered Christian and Jewish bibles, both Christians and Jews are very familiar with the rotten Hadith style.  It doesn't shock them as it shocks us.  That's because we're readers of the Quran only, which strictly and only contains the Divine words and is completely different from the Hadith and altered bibles.

In accordance with that mentality, you rightly pointed out that if you tell a shiia or a sunni that you don't accept Dailami's bull crap because you reject the absurdity of Hadith as a source of information, they will both gang up together and fight with you.  As my husband says on shiias and sunnis .. 'both are two rumps of the same ass.'

[Ruhi_Rose]

Marvelously articulated sis.  I truly feel a lot better informed after reading your stuff.  Thanks in plenty.  Allah Almighty bless you, your family and all sincere believers. Ameen.

[N. Truth Seeker]

Thoroughly enjoyed this great thread.  Another sad and devastating story of dark clouds over the Ummah's sky.  Frankly never heard of this man before, Dailami.  The only thing obvious is that he's a crook like the rest - big time!

'both are two rumps of the same ass.'

Hahaaha haha     perfectly said!

[Zainab_M]

What a pathetic state of affairs, honestly   Even identifying them as butt cheeks sounds complimentary.

The best response to idiots like Dailami, Haddad etc. would be a quote I came across recently in Tumblr which I post below: