@FaqirHaider
The hadith in question DOESNOT deny
a correlation. It affirms a correlation "Who infected
the first?"
The hadith is denying
"that created causes have
intrinsic power" and it is only Allah who creates and everything happens by His Will. Another hadith points to this very fact:
عن أبي هريرة، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” لا يعدي شيء شيئا، لا يعدي شيء شيئا “، ثلاثا، قال: فقام أعرابي، فقال: يا رسول الله، إن النقبة تكون بمشفر البعير، أو بعجبه، فتشتمل الإبل جربا، قال: فسكت ساعة، ثم قال: ” ما أعدى الأول، لا عدوى، ولا صفر، ولا هامة، خلق الله كل نفس، فكتب حياتها وموتها ومصيباتها ورزقها “
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “One thing does not infect another by its own agency,” repeating it three times. So a Bedouin said: “Messenger of Allah! When mange effects a camel it spreads to all the camels around.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) paused for a moment and said: “Who caused the first one to be diseased? There is no contagion (‘adwa), nor is there a serpent in the belly (safar), nor is there any vermin calling for revenge (hamah).
Allah created every soul, determining its span of life, (time and cause of) its death, its afflictions, and its provisions.
Yes, brother that’s what I said, I said it’s not about (accepting or rejecting) correlation, correlation was something the Jahiliya Arabs could even see, it was to clarify the correlation (both in theological and approach to this correlation [Correlation ≠ Causation]. You misjudged my statement yet again.
However, that does not entail denial of correlating factors (an observed phenomena)
Again Agreed.
OR that a person should NOT adopt precautionary measures. The hadith Corpus is full of "precautionary measures."
عن أبي هربرة، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا عدوى، ولا هام، ولا صفر، ولا يحل الممرض على المصح، وليحلل المصح حيث شاء، قال: ولما ذلك، يا رسول الله؟ قال: إنه أذى
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “There is no contagion (‘adwa), nor is there any vermin calling for revenge (hamah), nor is there a serpent in the belly (safar). The owner of sick livestock, however, must not stop at the same place as the owner of healthy livestock, but the owner of healthy livestock may stop wherever he wishes.” They said, “Messenger of Allah, Why is that?” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “(Because) it is harmful.”
Anas bin Malik narrated that a man said:
"O Messenger of Allah! Shall I tie it and rely(upon Allah), or leave it loose and rely(upon Allah)?" He said: "Tie it and rely(upon Allah)."
This is your inference not an implication of the hadith, can be contended, as I will bring forth, at this point it is mubah to either take or not take precaution. The precaution you can suggest is not substantiated in this hadith especially in my case, because the hadith clearly says a healthy owner of the livestock can travel anywhere, which would include sick areas. Of course, one can then infer to the other Hadith corpus and build an argument for either case. The tying the camel hadith in contradiction to the majzoom hadith as I mentioned, so can’t be applied here, because according to the hadith I mentioned in my previous posts, tying the camel would be equivalent to having Tawakkul alone, and no further action is “
wajib/
necessary.” If you wanted to argue it was recommended or suggested, you would not have questioned using “responsibility,” as a scapegoat.
Your ability to cherry pick and provide an interpretation that validates your preconceived notions is quite obvious here. And it will become more obvious below:
Dear brother It isn’t a matter of cherry picking, as much as it is preference, I will post the opinions of the Ulama on this issue, for clarity.
Allah has placed responsibility for the voluntary actions you make. How does that make you a Jabari?
This is one of most ignorant arguments I have ever heard in my life.
Aren't you responsible for the voluntary choices you make in your life despite believing that everything happens in accordance with the decree of Allah?
I said your argument
against me, makes me seem as if I am taking a Jabari approach, particularly in their position absolve themselves of any responsibility for any action they take. You keep “missing the point” Not my intent at all, of course I’m responsible for all the choices I make, just not all of them are blameworthy or reprehensible.
I voluntarily use a car to go to the masjid, with slight rain weather conditions. As its well known that the first few minutes are the most dangerous as either hydroplaning can occur or traction loss. Rain causes more accidents then snow, fog or even sleet, in the US alone nearly 6000 people die yearly, and 450,000 have rain related accidents. Now, this wasn’t heavy (stormy) rain, whose effect and danger is conspicuous and AADI, (90-99%) it impairs vision on the road, or extreme scotching heat which takes immediate effect 90-99% of the time, this was simply light rain, according to your logic, despite it being light rain, even a 0.001%, it puts me at “blameworthy responsibility,” and for what intending to go to the Masjid?
Maybe someone will say, OH you should have known that cars hydroplane and skid during rain, you should have walked (in light rain), safer with an umbrella, its indeed a solution at the expense of practical implementation of the deen (especially for people who DRIVING takes 15-20 minutes to the masjid at the least, that could be 30-45 minutes or more walking).
In regards to general contagion and specifically COVID I don’t have the voluntarily capability to make someone sick (diseased, be they asymptomatic or not). Just because there is correlation with the voluntary action of intermingling and not wearing mask or gloved (in relation to airborne / contagion) is insufficient grounds to hold me responsible (in blameworthy sense).
Faqir : Yes I might digest it because its a low 3% change of dying, there is no harm in someone doing something at 3%.
Still missing the point.
How did you jump from 3% of mortality to No harm at all?
Moreover, when did this issue ever pertained to ONLY "Mortality"? This approach of yours would backfire and i would demonstrate that below.
I don’t think I am missing the point; I just think you don’t want to listen to “my” point, and push “your point. I never said it’s “ONLY,” in relation to the
SUBJECT, it was in relation to your hypothetical question, also to even assume such a thing from my saying “no harm at all” is silly, since that’s clearly a hyperbole, was is meant in case you didn’t assume is that the harm is insignificant and not worthy to mention, especially since ALL your hypothetical question said was a drink with a 3% chance of death, you neither mentioned symptoms leading to death or otherwise, a 3% silent killer drink.
It was my answer to your question, lets give a real practical example, fats food, its reported that in the US , out of 2 million people contract antibiotic resistant infection leading to 23000 deaths from them. So quick maths : 23000/2000000 = 0.0115% chance of death for every 2 million fast food infected patients, but that’s infected, lest look at the odds of infection if we consider 80% of Americans consuming Fats food, 80 % of 324 million = 260 million, potential infection rate = 0.008%.
What this means is that eating a burger at Mcdonalds , you have a 0.008% chance of getting an infection in which case known medicine wont work, which further can lead to a 0.01% chance of Death.
Source :
https://www.partnersforyourhealth.com/fast-food-statistics
I will support an advocate the precaution and steering of junk/fast food, but not on the premise of death or chance of infection, but on “Immediate” effect like high glucose, High Salt , intake of Unhealthy and harmful ingredients taking immediate effect on the body.
Alhamdullilah as Muslims, we have halal restaurants and proper hyenine and ‘Islam’ mandates proper ethical measures of sanitization and slaughtering, so I’m not considering Halal food in the stat,
Are you saying that even to prevent minor harm or simple sickness we should be the impetus for adapt precautionary measures?! Is this THE FACTOR in question when it comes to COVID or any EPIDEMIC, because the second would imply seasonal flu, so that means we should always wear masks because of “unknown” number asymptotic carriers for ANY infection. Are you saying that those who don’t wear masks during pollen season or flue season are RESONSIBLE for all subsequent consequences resulting from their intake and spread of that disease? This responsibility being accountable on the day of Judgment ?!
Are most people aren’t shutting their doors and social distancing out of fear from mild symptoms, the general harm that comes from severe flu and other common diseases doesn’t compel people to lock themselves at home, but at a high mortality rate and severe symptoms does,
so YES it is MORE about Mortality than HARM when it comes to the reason behind people's fears.
Besides the fact , it was in flow of argument, since just previously you conveniently provided statistics centered at the mortality (17%), when you bought out in your statics to highlight the “Dangers,” and “taking responsibility,” and not hiding behind the “excuse of qadr,” additional to the your own initial re-framing of the argument on bases on conclusion and not effect.
The discussion was always around acknowledging the correlation of events which Allah has decreed followed by showing a degree of responsibility something which is something you are not willing to accept.
1)Aren't a great number of patients getting hospitalized when infected with COVID19?
2)Don't they require hospitalization and oxygen supplementation?
3)Isn't the correlation between contact with COVID19 patients and development of symptoms something that is observed?
4) Hasn't this been seen that failure to adopt precautionary measures by the layman was correlated with mounting hospital overburden, lack of beds and facilities in developed countries like italy and developing countries like Iran with patients dying outside the hospitals?
Well that’s makes everything clear, and explains why I was missing the point, this was never my MAWQIF, your Mawqif seems that the
only way to acknowledgment correlation is to show a degree of responsibility.
I had clarified that if by degree of responsibility
if you mean “agency,” then
that was already agreed to and acknowledged, but you clearly continued the discussion beyond that point so clearly that is not what you meant.
You want me to acknowledge a degree on “reprehensible responsibility,” or “accountability,” of my actions.
And this is where things will get difficult as it will “re-backfire from me back to you .”
How does the fact that being infected with COVID19, relates to 20-30% percent urgent hospitalization and case fatality rate is 20% in elderly EQUALS to CONJECTURE?
Which part of this is conjecture according to you?
1) Increased burden on the hospitals and inability to admit the patients who are serious.
2) Financial burdens. Costs of private hospitals are beyond the reach of the common man.
3) Patients unable to receive the urgent hospital care that they require.
4)What that would correlate with is increased number of mortalities due to inavailability of necessary care available to patients suffering from moderate disease (who usually recover with oxygen supplementation).
Which part of this is conjecture according to you?
Straw man, I never said this This is a side-track.
All irrelevant questions, it’s all to push your narrative and frame the argument around responsibility in impact of the virus with patients and their respective environment. Again, you are framing it on basis of subsequent conclusion, whereas my view it to look at immediate effect, if it is consistent it is Aadi. Especially since I didn’t dismiss correlation once symptoms manifest.
When was this about the 20% elderly? You missed my point and proceeded to create a straw man, none of these aforementioned points were denied or considered conjecture. My point was in retaliation to the assumption that not wearing a mask will lead to the acquisition of COVID is conjecture, not the resulting factors. The mere fact that these statistics are not set in stone, that by itself would put it at conjecture. (because as more data is pooled the numbers change) you cannot say for a fact that it’s a 20-30% fatality rate for elders, and we will see what the rate is as of present. Conjecture is by definition a conclusion based on “incomplete” information; it does not mean it’s necessarily a false conclusion. The conjecture is on the first point, not on matters subsequent consequences and effects once someone does have the virus.
So, again what was Conjecture with COVID is
the assumption COVID is asymptomatically in majorty of people in effected areas and is spreading this way, therefore we must wear masks and gloves to prevent infection and death.
That was what I meant as conjecture, since more proof is needed to substantiate this claim. If you think this is generalization, you not living in the same country I same country I am because that’s how the News and Government are going about it. I see three types of people, those who haphazardly are intermingling and not caring for government laws, the other who wont even shake hands out of fear of possibly acquiring a virus, won’t go to the masjid 5 times, but will go “grocery shopping,” will sit in the same car going to the masjid, but will demand 6 ft difference in the saf, and the last who balance between the approach with the understanding that bases more emphasis on the Hadith then “pathology experts.” These are all happening. Yes not in large numbers, but in many cases it’s in direct reaction to the fear and “protocol,” given by the government and “Health organization,” and then ulama who criticize this approach are branded “disappointing.”
The question was, if this Poison is correlated with 3% mortality or 8% mortality, "Knowing" that will you drink it up? AND if it does lead to your death, are you going to be held responsible or not?
The question that you need to answer is "Why would you drink it in the first place?"
Same argument is repeated ten times over, as I said its circumstantial, one will be responsible in agency and action, but “blameworthy accountability,” is not taken for granted.
Now this is a false analogy fallacy. You are comparing apple and oranges.
Although the chances of dying from a car accident is 1 out of 103. That equals to .97%
The case fatality rate of eldery COVID19 patients extends to about 20%. That means 20 people out of 100.
Okay is it a False Analogy now? Interesting there is a research by Medical and PHD professionals who may have missed this point at the Stanford Prevention Research Center
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054361v1.full.pdf (
Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for nonelderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters).
Their Conclusion being:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and
deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.
Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in
managing the pandemic.
What is in blue is what you really have to worry about when you are worried about hospitals being filled up because of naivete of people as myself.
If you still want to dismiss it as a false analogy it doesn’t help your case anyway, as demonstrated prior. Because % of casualties is irrelevant to the issue of responsibility.
I have no inner agenda to skew data in my favour. This is what happens when you speak about things without a qualification. This is unfortunately the case with many people of Pakistan.
They see Jewish conspiracy in many things. And they also like to pose themselves as experts of things which they have not heard of ever before.
Hasty Generalization and
Ad hominem, I am neither Pakistani nor do I pose myself as an expert.
Critiquing or objecting an expert doesn’t not mean that one considers himself too to be an expert.
This is a red-herring and an irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
First lets get down to the numbers:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported an estimated 36,120 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year, down 1.2% from 36,560 in 2018, even as travel rose 0.9% to 3.23 trillion miles.
The number of deaths from COVID in USA Alone are 117000 since 22nd March.
The red-herring here is:
The original discussion pertained to "Your Responsibility". You have shifted the conversation to "mortality" when it is indeed irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
BTW who you that there is no responsibility when accidents happen?
1) If a person is alcohalic and is driving a car, he poses a risk of harm, injury and death to others.
2) He is a rash driver.
3) Does not abide traffic rules.
4) Listening to music.
5) Headphones.
6) Talking on the phone.
Isn't he responsible in the cases listed above?
Well you just said my comparison was a false analogy fallacy and a red herring, but then you affirm that it isn’t not a false analogy fallacy in term of responsibility, this is contradictory, all the 6 reasons you mentioned have completely different statistical outcomes and jumbling them together created a loaded question.
Which one of these 6 are you are comparing not wearing a mask and hand to?
Don’t answer, it’s a red-herring remember?
