firedragon
Veteran Member
When and if you have time can you comment on this article by Momen about the "Akka" traditions? I expect there will be some controversy, like the reliability of these hadiths and their sources, but if you could help me out to know a little of what is going on here.
OMG. That's a huge huge topic CG. It's not easy to give such big opinions so quickly. I respect Moojan because he is a prolific writer.
What I can say is that the ahadith that he mentions in his book had false sources but he himself corrected himself that it was false. That's one source. And he takes what Bahaullah said and tries to research the sources of it. If you take a look at the sources he mentions, a lot of them are dated to half a millennia distant from Muhammed. Note this very carefully. He names people who lived long ago, but there are no authentic, dated manuscripts going back to them whatsoever. Forget about dating, there aren't even valid chains of word of mouth narrations going back to them. Bahaullah quotes Malik ibn Anas in his writing that Moojan quotes. But there is no authenticity to it whatsoever. If it comes from somewhere it has to be the Mudawwana al Qubra, and there is nothing in the Mudawwana about a blessed city called Akka. It is not found in the Muwatta. It just does not exist. Malik ibn Anas was a scholar coming from the Medinan school of thought. It's the oldest surviving school of thought in Sunni Islam. There are no traditions reaching to this source about a city called Akka which has some special blessings and those who vouches for God IN THAT CITY HAS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. And, this goes against the Qur'an. There is no indication in the Qur'an that God gives special privileges in salvation to someone because of their race or their country.
I can say that this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Let me tell you something very clearly and directly. If Muhammed said something in the 7th century, at least someone somewhere must have a minimum of a chain of narrators that goes back to him. At least. Lets say someone is writing a story in the 15th century, at least "make up" a chain. It maybe unauthentic, but someone could at least begin a study on it. Otherwise it's just hearsay coming from someone a millennium apart and that too with no proper sources. This hearsay is the worst kind of hearsay you could have and believe.
What I am curious about is, why did you bring this up?