₦airaland Forum

Adultery is sexual relashionship with another mans wife.( Defrauding him)If a man takes another wife, it's not adultery.
In polygamy, they are all legal wives.( I don't like this discussion again) but it's the truth.

Matthew 5:32
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It is still the same, the adultery has to do with the married woman.

Jo, according to Matthew 5:3, your definition of Adultery as quoted above is wrong! Adultery is not a 'man-only' sin. That verse clearly says that when a man puts his wife away, He causes her to commit Adultery. How did you read that verse a second time to now mean 'it only has to do with the married woman? There is really no need to answer these questsions and the ones you ignored to answer.

I will leave it at your admission that the original plan was one man + one woman!   . . . .  and anything ouside that plan is a deviation.  God could have created more than one adam and more than one eve at the time, but he made just one + one. IT IS ONE WIFE/ONE HUSBAND AT A TIME!

Adultery is sexual relashionship with another mans wife.( Defrauding him)If a man takes another wife, it's not adultery.
In polygamy, they are all legal wives.( I don't like this discussion again) but it's the truth.

Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

It seems you have been so clouded with this POLYGAMY/ADULTERY thing (sorry)that you are missing the point o. Was David repentance based on polygamy or murder plus adultery. He already had many wives that he didn't repent of. And God said if he wanted more wives , he, God will give him more!

This is not fair, I don't like it when we bring unrealistic sentiments into scriptures. I could have used any other person as illustration. The fact that I experience the polygamy home is one reason I will not recommend it for any one. I believe my stand has been clear on polygamy. So it's not fair. The issue still remains . It is not adultery . It is not sin.it is a legal system of marriage.

Marriage is not all about sex. So leave this bed thing out. There will always be polygamy. It's a system for those who don't mind. The population of the world is more of women. Apart from the fact that more female are born. With several families looking for a son. Other issue come that reduce men's population. Over 4,000 American soldiers died in Iraq alone. Many women are looking for husbands today. Marriage is not all about sex. It's about. . . . How do I put it self?. Well let's forget it.  . But marriage goes beyond sex.

Several people have reasons for polygamy. They are numerous. Wearing blue stocking and red stocking together is wrong ,but it is not sin. We have churches that have separated homes . Because a man gets saved and brought his wives, and the pastor says he should divorce one. And send away the other. The institution itself is not the sin. Some women recommended their husband to take another wife . On the ground of child birth. She had lived a rough life, have womb is story story, he is the only son of his parent. There are several reasons. But the issue is . We should not condemn those into it. Because God has not condemn them. They are not living in sin.

InesQor:
Is having HIV a sin?

Joagbaje:
You keep giving impression of polygamy as adultery. It is wrong. We are not discussing adultery but polygamy. A man legally been married to two women. It is not adultery issue . I know you are a woman and somehow it may be touchy for you. But polygamy is a system. Some churches practice it . African tradition allows it. You can not call those who are involved with it as adulterer . it's an insult. My Dad got another wife because my mum wasn't From his village. He was pressured by family because it was like taboo in those days. He and my mum agreed who he should bring in as next wife. Do you call that adultery. Was abraham an adulterer? It was by consent. Was jacob an adulterer ? No , it was by consent. Several polygamists have their reasons. The Church of The latter rain practice polygamy. Is polygamy a sin . No! . Can it be a sin? yes. Based on the circumstance. If it's born out of selfishness and against love. But that's another matter.

And where did you get the idea that Moses lost the wife before taking another? You should brought out such scripture. Moses had two wives simultaneously. Jacob had several. For different reasons. Polygamy is a system of marriage. God himself helped out by giving some men more wives . Is God an author of confusion? He even brought the messiah through the "unclean " line according to you.

I Condemn polygamy as I will condemn alcoholism but is it a sin? NOPE!

Polygamy is not a good thing. It creates atmosphere of evil, divisions, party,war, distrust, children grow up in strife and division. Tension and distraction. Favoouritism and bitterness and so on. That's why Paul says a polygamist should not be accepted in leadership. 

But is it a sin ? No! It's a matter of being spared from trouble. Polygamy is trouble .

Jesus promised the disciples and that generation of followers the Another Comforter, and he never promised any generation, since you want us to be specific. Your generation is not that generation. Read it and get hold of yourself. This is reality. According to the Bible, it is a one time thing; day of penticost.

Who is the speaker her? WHo is the Giver? Are they one and the same? Are they Jesus? Where is Jesus here, in James 1;5? Is he the speaker or is he the Giver? There is Jesus somewhere there and I say he is the speaker, talking about the Giver. There is God somewhere there and I say He is the Giver being spoken about by the speaker of the Gospel according to John.

May Allah give me wisom, knowledge, understanding and much more, forgiveness and strength to struggle against evil. Amin.

What did he teach them? Let me see; paul is there, as the teacher now as I think you will quoting Paul's writing below. And Paul was not there, so he may actually qualify as the Comforter since he said he heard "Its me Jesus who you persecute." This is a better argument by the christians instead of ignoring the verses describing the Another Comforter, and clutching to the "Holy Spirit", a formless and almost holographic in appearance, who is not usually seen, or always audibly heard by human, except prophets and some crucial situations, which can include such a qualification of teaching, glorification, etc as it is proper if it has been Paul or another human being.

Let me ask you; when Jesus said the another comforter will correct, and will also teach, what do you think correct is if it is not a guiding someone to the right, instead of the wrong that he is pursuing before the act of correction begins? Yet it is the disciples that Jesus was telling that they will go astray and the another comforter will correct them. Where did they go wrong and so soon? Give me examples, please. Then contrast that to teaching new things or leading to new things. Are they the same, since new things is just new and correction is occurring because a person went astray from what is a known correct knowledge. Please explain the two, correct and teach new things. How did the speechless accomplish these?

No where did I say that the point where a person who commits sin is forgiven is at death because he cant commit sin, since he is dead. Let me say it again; forgiveness is available for person who is alive and seeks forgiveness. Even if he were a disbeliever before, hence his method of forgiveness is the declaration of shahadah which enters him into islam. A muslim who dies can also benefit in sadaqah jariah, good deeds that are done on behalf of or left behind by the deceased. The best forgiveness is on the day of Judgment, from the Rahim of Allah.

Allah is Akbar. Above, we see that even Deborah, a woman just like Mary experience something of the holy spirit. She and the men, above had the same experience; {Holy Spirit}came upon and manifest through them and spoke to people through them. In each and all of them, point out one of them that now not a human being, made/created by God, and you can say is now God or sonor daughter or had some other relationship with God by these contacts, many times on each person except that he/she is human, servant slave, take your choice? Why is not the same with Jesus and his mother, who suddenly become son of God, even God himself, while the mother by such a title on her son is called Mother of God by the catholic?

The two bold prove that even men who had the same qualification as Jesus, before Jesus arrived on heart were mere human beings. Children of their parents, from their mother's wombs. Why a slant when it comes to Jesus that he suddenly became God and son of God? Adam was reported to have received the breath of the spirit of God, and made in the Image of God, yet you never called him God or son of God? He didnt have a father not a mother, earthly for that matter, a step higher than that of earthly mothered and born Jesus. Now tell me why Jesus is God and or begotten son of God, while these others are not?

WHile the above verses from the mouth of Ezekiel are recorded, very similar indeedare they to what jesus was recorded to say in the NT. But Ezekiel is not God or even less His son, but Jesus who said the same is God and even that His son, still looking for glorification, elevation from the third part, The Holy Spirit. What height is Jesus looking for or what height shall the Holy spirit put him, which shall be classified to "he shall glorify me", so that we have the fulfillment of tat verse?

Based on your argument that the holy spirit, son and father are one, so I will want you to lead me with direct answer to the followings as the holy spirit appears in his three forms, with their proper names;
Holy spirit as God the Father is called Yahweh and other names. Correct so far.
Holy spirit as God the son is called Jesus, Messiah. He was supposed to be called Immanuel, but not even his mother ever called him that. Correct
Holy spirit as God the Spirit is called (. . . . . . . .). Give a name just like the above, otherwise it is not correct, this time around like the 2 above.

Angels, Gabriel, Michael, etc all specific names. Whats the name of the Ghost? I will leave Jesus alone for now who you do pray to in addition to your praying to another God in his name, too. I have heard many christians do it, including thanking him. Ebenezer Obey asked not to forget him on the day of resurrection.

Mo ti gbo. Mo ri eni ti mo fi jo; Jesus. Read above. he will acquire them according to Isaiah, unless you are going to say Isaiah is incorrect? What is so profound is what I bold; Fear of God. How can one God fear another God, especially if they are one and the same, or part of the same in some different manifestation? Take your choice and explain to us.

From this I am taking it that there is more that is missing, so the comforter who would hear the words from God and shall repeat it and not adding anything to what he hears which is what he repeats, will correct and remind, adding new information and then glorifying Jesus. Glorification does not entail such a person is worship, but put in proper and correct honoring platform. Now how can the holy spirit who you said he is God and knows the mind of God, is now put in the position of listening which is the act of hearing to what God has to say first and then merely repeating it to the disciples? Are the disciples so daft that they have to be corrected so quickly? Were they on the wrong path that they have to be lead to all truth and corrected? These are big problems in the supposition that the Jesus you said knew everything chose dummies for companions, needing corrections, and greater guidance than what he left them with so quickly, since you said it was delivered on the day of penticost.

Iwonder why the Corinthians from Paul is appropriate in Seyi's summation here? Jesus heard and repeated, the same thing a prophet will do; Moses heard from God to go to Pharaoh with exact words, commands, protocols, as he delivered it to Pharaoh. So based on this alone, Moses was a Comforter in his time. Moses was also a prophet whose birth and life are miraculous. There is no place that I have said that a holy spirit that delivers messages and orders and commandments of God, as they heard it, reads it from a book, since they hear it first and the mouth piece for it among their expected audiences, their people. If a man has just read the Bible, unless he has stones for brain, why does he need a spirit be reminding him so soon? Why does a need to correct the disciples do soon? Why does a spirit need to glorify Jesus whom the disciples as you have claimed called him God and son of God, worshiping him? Is there a higher plateau that he can reach, than being God and son of God, all roll up in 1 person? Please seyi, if you cant answer it, dont put up all these stories, thinking that we will fall for any of the many.

reproof; to correct. Clarification; make clear. Guidance; steering to a specific destination, direction, etc. All acts of Comforters. We see man writing them. Maybe man, Paul is best suited in the argument, instead of Holy Spirit as "Another Comforter"?

The accurate behavior of a comforter, just like Moses was and so was Muhammad (All being comforters (AS)), messegers, having no authority of their own, except what they were given.

All of the above is similar to hadith and sirah of the messenger, since you said it is life history (SIRAH),and what was recorded that he said God said (Hadith explaining the Quran), and hadith Qursi. Quran is separate and different, being PURELY WORD OF GOD heard and repeated by Muhammad (AS).

@Seyibrown: Before I try to respond to any of your statements, above, about God, etc, please what do you know about gradations of Purity, and also gradations of contamination? Let me direct you what I want you to tell me, instead of you giving me what you think I was saying: We have the purest grade of water, when we can detect any impurity from it. Let say that 100% pure.

But if we have another bottle of water that we see some amount of milk poured in it. Though, it has not changed its color, we cant say this water is 100% as the one above.

If another bottle contains more amount of milk than the second, then the grade of its purity decreases.

Lets just now assume that the fourth bottle of water is half way full and some body pore Rose flower juice in it. Though having the same color as water, can we then say this bottle is 100% pure water like the first, since we can smell rose flower juice in it, and it has a sweet taste which is what you get from many things, but not from 100% pure water.


Now, about the grades of contamination: If I tell you that I left 100% for you in a jar, but when you tasted the liquid with your eyes close, since you trust me that much, so you did not have to doubt me, the taste is 100% freshly squeezed Orange from  Florida. Not concentrate. But freshly squeezed. If you are to scientifically report the orange, based of the absence of 100% pure water, will you not say it is 100% contaminant, since there was no water jar waiting for you?

Now lets continue to have many jars with varied amount of Orange juice instead of water. and we add water into each to fill in the empty space to make each a full jar. Lets have the fifth jar as 50% orange juice, the contaminant and now 50% water.


Could you tell me which one of the above is the Bible, as related to "THE WORD OF GOD"? Is the Bible like the 100% Pure water, which is what it should be if it is the WORD of God. Or does it contain less than 100% pure word of God, in whatever degree you wish to choose? At least it not 100% pure?


On the flip side, is it like 100% contaminated already; Instead of 100% water, its 100% Orange juice, though sweet, but none the less, it is not water of 100% purity as expected?

You can choose the grade of contaminant you wish to put in there, so that after we look at it from your own evaluation, I will respond, or the thread will lead you or me to a different direction, altogether.

The above connotes no true reality of "WORD OF GOD". Word of God should be exactly what God said. Exactly. This is not the case about the Bible since it has many different versions not only by accents whcich some will say about the Quran. But the Bible in varied generations from its beginning added and subtracted verses an even chapters and books as it sees fit. I mean the generational author, which you now call the holy spirit. Take a look at the Catholic and Protestant Bibles for example. We have to agree that the author if he is a single God, or the holy spirit of Him, must have dual personalities at work or they are different Gods or Holy spirits. This is reality.

@Seyibrown: 2. The Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim.The bold does not imply that if they disagree with the Quran and also does not start with "The Messenger of Allah said such and such", that it will accepted. It is because these two were the best among the many, and it does not mean that there is no good in the others, too.

God must have been the first offender for giving David several wives and Jesus came through an illegal concubine!.

Let me ask you a question, if you're a pastor , and someone comes to join your church, having 2 or 3 wives, what will do?  Send him out?  And what do you say about women who consented to their husband taking another wife for whatever reason, like sarah. Childbirth problem.  Pls respond to this.

Sweetnecta:
@Seyibrown: 2. The Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim.The bold does not imply that if they disagree with the Quran and also does not start with "The Messenger of Allah said such and such", that it will accepted. It is because these two were the best among the many, and it does not mean that there is no good in the others, too.

luv2talk:
[b] THE MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE.

-The Six Accredited Collections and the Muwatta.

After numerous collections of Hadith had been made during the third century of Islam six works became recognised as authoritative. Two of them are believed to be completely authentic, namely the Sahih al-Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim. The other four are also highly esteemed but it is allowed by the Muslims that some of the Hadith in them are suspect and may not be genuine. We shall outline these works in more detail shortly but a general reference to them will serve to show what status they enjoy in this field today. The following outline summarises the general Muslim attitude towards these six major works:


It does not mean that all the ahadith recorded in these six books are authentic, it means that majority of them are authentic, with exception of the Sahih of Bukhari and that of Muslim in which all are. (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, p. 105).
The importance of these six major collections for the heritage of Islam can hardly be overestimated. They have become highly regarded throughout the Muslim world and are second only to the Qur'an itself as sources of authority for the laws and customs of Islam.


The veneration of Muslims extends, in addition to the two Sahihs, also to the above-mentioned four Sunan books. Under the name al-kutub al-sitta, 'the six books', they comprise the canonical hadith literature and as such form the main sources for traditional law. (Goldziber, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.237).
There is another work, however, which should be mentioned in this context and that is the Muwatta of Imam Malik. It is a group of traditions of chiefly legal import put together by the founder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. Because it is chiefly a corpus juris rather than a corpus traditionum, a collection of legal traditions rather than a general historical work, a veritable Hadith al-Akham (body of juristic hadith assembled as a foundation for the fiqh, the jurisprudence of Islam), it has not been as highly regarded as the two Sahihs. Its contents are also largely repeated in them and it has therefore been overlooked and is not included with the six major works.


The Muwatta may be treated as a good collection of Ahadith in the sense of the legal traditions. Some Muslim authorities like 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and 'Abd al-Haq of Delhi include it instead of the Sunan of Ibn Maja in the six canonical collections. Of course the majority of them do not count it as one of the six books because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.13).
Furthermore this great jurist of Islam, the Imam Malik did not adopt the same dogmatic approach that his colleague Shafi'i took towards the Sunnah, declaring that the only true sunnah was found in the Hadith and not in the ijma of Muslim scholars, no matter how unanimous it might be, when it could not produce relevant traditions to support it. A Western writer comment's on Malik's Muwatta:


Its intention is not to sift and collect the 'healthy' elements of traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice by the ijma recognised in Medinian Islam, by the sunna current in Medina, and to create a theoretical corrective, from the point of view of ijma and sunna, for things still in a state of flux. Inasmuch as the book has anything in common with a collection of traditions it lies in the sunna rather than the hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.198).
He adds: "Consideration of the Medinian ijma was so much the predominating point of view for Malik that he does not even hesitate to give it preference when it is in conflict to traditions incorporated as correct in his corpus" (p.199). For Malik the value of the tradition literature lay not in supplying a foundation for the laws of Islam but rather in illustrating the application of the legal maxims obtained through the ijma of the scholars of Islam. To Shafi'i each tradition was a ratio decidendi, the root and foundation on which any question of law was to be based or decided. To Malik the illustrative use of each tradition counted more than anything else. For him each tradition took the form of an obiter dictum, a passing reference which could help to elucidate a legal principle rather than become the authority on which such principles were to be based. Nonetheless, as his Muwatta is one of the earliest collections of traditions and as most of them were approved by Bukhari and Muslim, his work has an important place in the field of Hadith literature studies even to this day.

2. The Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim.

Of all the works of Hadith the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are regarded as the most authentic and authoritative. Indeed the very word sahih means "accredited". Of these two the collection of Abu Abdallah Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari has pride of place as the most highly regarded work of Hadith literature.


He devoted more than one-fourth of his life to the actual compilation of his work, and at the end produced his epoch-making book which is accepted by most of the traditionists as the most authentic work in Hadith literature, and which is considered by the Muslims in general as an authority next only to the Qur'an. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.89).
Bukhari's complete collection was only recently translated into English for the first time by one Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University at Medina. His most welcome contribution has increased the English-speaking student's access to the historical records of Islam. The whole collection has been published in an interlinear Arabic-English form in nine volumes.

Although Bukhari's work is chiefly a general compilation of all known traditions of Muhammad's life considered to be authentic (it contains 7275 individual hadith, many of which are duplications, selected out of 600,000 allegedly known to him), he also concentrated in many cases on the juristic side of the tradition literature, except that in his case he grouped the traditions under various headings dealing with specific points of Islamic law. In his time the schools of law had been generally established and his objective was to catalogue the traditions he regarded as authentic in relation to their respective topics of jurisprudence. The final work significantly has many headings unsupported by any hadith. He either could not obtain the relevant hadith for these points or, more likely, he sought to demonstrate that there were no known traditions relating to them which he considered authentic. He clearly chose his headings first and thereafter grouped the various traditions under them.


It was therefore justly said , the fiqh of Bukhari is in his paragraph headings. This tendency of the book also explains the fact that B. occasionally gives paragraph headings without being able to provide an appropriate hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.217).
The other great collector, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also sought not so much to complement the issues at stake in the fiqh, the lslamic jurisprudence, but rather to produce a collection of sound traditions, an authentic record, on which future studies of Hadith could be based.


We may therefore deduce that Muslim was not primarily concerned with the practical application of his collection in a particular direction but intended, as he says in his preface, to purify the existing hadith material of all dross: the unreliable and untrustworthy elements which had attached themselves to this material in the course of time. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.227).
Like Bukhari he sought chiefly to provide a reference work for authoritative decisions of Muhammad rather than a direct statutory foundation. The legal emphasis and objective of these works nevertheless resulted in each one being considered one of the Musannaf, the collections in which the traditions were grouped under specific topical headings (as opposed to the Musnad works which concentrated on grouping them under their isnads going back to their earliest transmitters). Muslim records most of the hadith found in Bukhari's collection but, whereas the former placed parallel versions of the same tradition under various headings relating to various points of law, Muslim put them all together under their own topical headings. The former made the traditions fit his subject-titles, the latter made his subject-headings fit the subject-matter of the traditions.


The principal difference is the absence of the paragraph headings characteristic of Bukhari. Muslim's work is arranged according to Fiqh, but he does not follow his plan so scrupulously: thus, while Bukhari often arranges the same tradition with a different isnad under different paragraphs when it is suitable to support more than one point of law and custom, Muslim places the parallel versions together. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p.31).
While Bukhari's compilation is considered the more reliable of the two, Muslim's arrangement of his material has been recognised as superior, and rightly so. While Bukhari made the traditions in his collection testify to his own schedule of various points of law, Muslim left them to speak for themselves. His work has also recently been translated for the first time into English in a four-volume edition.

3. The Sunan Works of Abu Dawud and Others.

The remaining four works are called sunan (the word has the meaning "path" or "way" because they concentrate on the example of Muhammad's actions and decrees insofar as these provide the ultimate foundation of all Islamic law. The work recognised as the best of these collections is the Sunan of Abu Dawud which contains many of the hadith in the two Sahihs but which also includes traditions not found there. He likewise was a scrupulous collector and although some of his traditions are regarded as weak and suspect, he was aware of the problem and was careful to distinguish between sound and weak hadith in his work.


Abu Dawud did his best to deal faithfully with the material at his disposal. Unlike al-Bukhari and Muslim, he includes material which is not very reliable, or even considered actually unsound, but he does not fall to draw attention to it. (Robson, "The Material of Tradition", The Muslim World, Vol.41, p.168).
His work has also very recently been published in English (so, incidentally, has the Muwatta of Imam Malik. One can only commend and sincerely appreciate the efforts of Muslim scholars to make the great works of Hadith accessible to the English-speaking world at this time. Hopefully the remaining three Sunan works, which can very easily be published in a few volumes like the other three, will also soon be available in English).

Two collections very similar to Abu Dawud's are the Sunan works of at-Tirmithi and an-Nasai. The former is called a Jami ("collection" because it covers not only legal traditions but also, like Bukhari and Muslim, historical and other hadith as well. Nevertheless Tirmithi confined himself to traditions on which the principles of Islamic law had already been based and did not venture to record such as might lead to new interpretations. His collection is therefore primarily a reference work as well.

The Sunan of an-Nasai is more comprehensive than the former two insofar as he deals with the legal material available to him. Unlike Tirmithi he did not limit himself to recording individual hadith as a resource work for issues concerning the jurists of his day but sought to catalogue all the variant editions of each hadith known to him as Muslim had done before him. His work accordingly has a place of its own in the heritage of the tradition literature.


Al-Nasai's main object was only to establish the texts of traditions and the differences between their various versions - almost all of which he quotes in extenso, instead of only referring to them as Abu Da'ud and al-Tirmidhi had done. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.113).
The last work, the Sunan of Ibn Maja, is regarded as the weakest of all the six major works of Hadith literature and some traditionists prefer the Sunan of ad-Darimi to it. Nonetheless, although a great many authorities have openly declared some of the traditions found in this collection to be forged, it has established itself among the approved works.


The other scholars, such as Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi also recorded weak ahadith, but they mostly noted them in their book, but Ibn Maja, even when he recorded a false hadith, went on silently. Therefore a lot of discussion has gone on among scholars about this book to the effect that some other books deserve to be mentioned in Six Principle works instead of that by Ibn Maja. (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, p. 106).
Doubts were maintained longest about Ibn Maja because of the many weak (da'if) traditions which he incorporated into his corpus traditionum. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.240).

In the eighth century after Muhammad's death a fine combination of the major hadith found in all six works, the two Sahihs and the four Sunans, was put together by one Shaikh Wali ud-Din and entitled Mishkat ul-Masabih, the "niche of lights . Various editions of this collection have appeared in English and it serves as a most useful guide to practically all the truly relevant hadith preserved in the kutub as-sitta the "six books", though most of the traditions recorded in it are purely juristic. It therefore serves as the Islamic equivalent of the Rabbinical Mishnah in Talmudic Judaism[/b]