Support NeoGAF

[Ikael]

The whole Qur'an VS hadith debate is fascinating to a non muslim like me. Thing is, from my (admitedly uneducated) point of view, most of the fugly things about islam steams from hadiths, and the more fundamentalist version of the Islam always tends to give hadiths and customs the same value (or even more so I would dare to say) to hadiths.

I don't see how you believe that the compilation of the Qur'an and hadith were different. It isn't like the Qur'an fell down from the sky and is today guarded by angels in Makkah. It was collected and compiled after the death of the Prophet by fallible humans.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Mohammad suppousedly wrote the Qur'an in one single sitting, directly inspired by God itself? As bumpy and humane its transmission might have been, Qur'an was suppousedly written by God while hadiths were just transcriptions of the life of the prophet made by humans. Yep, both Qur'an and hadiths were transmitted trough falible humans, yet one was originally written by the prophet, while the other was written by humans, not to mention that many scholars also tends to agree with the notion that the Qur'an is one of the best preserved religious texts (as in, it suffered less modifications over time than, say, the Bible or the Torah). Is it incorrect to admit that the Qur'an is more faithful to the faith than the hadiths? if so, why?

 

[crazy monkey]

The whole Qur'an VS hadith debate is fascinating to a non muslim like me. Thing is, from my (admitedly uneducated) point of view, most of the fugly things about islam steams from hadiths, and the more fundamentalist version of the Islam always tends to give hadiths and customs the same value (or even more so I would dare to say) to hadiths.



Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Mohammad suppousedly wrote the Qur'an in one single sitting, directly inspired by God itself? As bumpy and humane its transmission might have been, Qur'an was suppousedly written by God while hadiths were just transcriptions of the life of the prophet made by humans. Yep, both Qur'an and hadiths were transmitted trough falible humans, yet one was originally written by the prophet, while the other was written by humans, not to mention that many scholars also tends to agree with the notion that the Qur'an is one of the best preserved religious texts (as in, it suffered less modifications over time than, say, the Bible or the Torah). Is it incorrect to admit that the Qur'an is more faithful to the faith than the hadiths? if so, why?

Prophet Mohammad could not write. sheandues abortion is allowed in most of the cases. wiki has better explanation.

 

[Azih]

The whole Qur'an VS hadith debate is fascinating to a non muslim like me. Thing is, from my (admitedly uneducated) point of view, most of the fugly things about islam steams from hadiths, and the more fundamentalist version of the Islam always tends to give hadiths and customs the same value (or even more so I would dare to say) to hadiths.

It is beyond dispute that the most authentic collections of Hadith we have include a whole lot that is obviously junk as they contradict the Quran itself. Plus they include a lot of incredibly odd other statments some of which are way more extreme than anything in the Quran.

Edit: For example the weird hate on some Muslims have for Music comes from the Hadith, not from the Quran.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Mohammad suppousedly wrote the Qur'an in one single sitting, directly inspired by God itself?

No, the Prophet had revelations throughout the course of twenty years. It was collected and written down by his followers and the final version of the collection was complied into the form of the Quran we have today around 18 years after the Prophet died.

 

[effzee]

But what about when the hadith brings up something that the Qu'ran doesn't even cover vaguely?

Then you don't follow it. If something you read in the hadith contradicts the Quran you don't follow it, you question it, and reject it.

But doesn't cover in what sense? I think what you might be referring to then is called "sunnah" which is basically how the Prophet (pbuh) lived his life. So a lot of hadiths might make reference to how he lived, how he did certain things, and how we should emulate it to the best of our abilities. A lot of questions can then arise about who is saying what he did and how he did it, and since its not in the Quran, you (or rather the scholars) are left to judge on those hadiths. I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Seems to me that it's up to each individual follower of the religion to decide whether or not they should follow a hadith and to claim that they are less of a muslim by not following them seems a bit unfounded in my opinion.

Oh I never get into the whole "you are less of a Muslim" game. Everyone has their own opinion, just as long as its not picking and choosing, what do I care?

But as far as hadiths go, whether you follow them or not, there is a science to it. Its up the individual if that individual has done the proper research. Studied where the hadith was derived from, by whom, how strong the chain is, what the hadith says, and if it is in line with the Quran. Its not as simple as saying "I am not going to follow this hadith because I don't want to". And of course there are so many different points of views on hadiths, the valid hadiths, the validity of those valid hadiths, and then different interpretations of those accepted hadiths thats its rather short sided for any one individual to say I'll follow hadith a but not b.

Of course you could avoid hadiths in totality and there is a school of thought that follows that.

 

[Kinitari]

I remember talking to my older cousin about the Hadith once, when I was like... 10. I asked her which was older, the bible or the quran - she told me the Bible, she saw that this sort of disappointed me (I was looking for reasons to believe at this point) so she told me that even though the bible is older, it has changed much much more, the Qu'ran seems almost entirely unchanged, that they were the direct revelations from God to the prophet, and unlike the Bible, it was begun during his lifetime and finished only shortly after - where the Bible took hundreds of years. In this she mentioned the hadith (which I actually had NEVER heard of until then, imagine that - Saturday School was wasted on me) - so I asked her, were the Hadith direct scripture from the prophet too? She said no, that his followers, years after his death wrote about the things he said and did, and put it to writing. I asked her how long they were written after, she said some were written even hundreds of years after, his influence was so powerful past his death. I asked her "Isn't that the same as the Bible though, written hundreds of years after?" She said "no" and that conversation was -over-. That was the only time I got to ask about the Hadith, or at least, tried too.

 

[RiZ III]

Also I'd say that whether you believe in the hadith or not, I don't think it really matters as long as you have the basics down which the Quran specifies, ie. belief in One God, belief in the judgement, prayer, and contributing towards good and forbidding bad.

Even if growing out your beard or not listening to music is forbidden in the Hadith, if you believe those to be actual laws, then I think you should do them and there is an example of this kind of situation mentioned in the Quran. In Surah 57 verse 27, God says that he did not ordain Monsticism on the Christians but that they invented it themselves seeking to please God, but even then they didn't follow it properly implying that if you're going to invent something yourself, the at least live up to it. Same thing with the food restrictions that the Quran says the Jews put on themselves.

 

[Alucrid]

Tattoos are forbidden by Islam, right?

 

[Azih]

Tattoos are forbidden by Islam, right?

Nothing about it in the Quran, there are some Hadith that forbid it.

 

[Ikael]

Thanks for the answers guys, quite illustrating. I am quite interested into Islam since well, if you want to understand the world you really ought to understand one of its major, more rapidly growing religions.

No, the Prophet had revelations throughout the course of twenty years. It was collected and written down by his followers and the final version of the collection was complied into the form of the Quran we have today around 18 years after the Prophet died.

Still, it is logical to think that it is far more reliable than hadiths. But the prophet himself didn't write it? I thought that one of the miracles that the prophet made was to write the Qur'an even if he was one illiterate man.

 

[Shanadeus]

Are the moral lessons of My little pony compatible with the teachings of Islam?

 

[Darackutny]

That we must explain the verses found in the Qu'ran, but not by supplementing it with material found outside of the Qu'ran.

Nah bro, the word "thuma" in the verses I quoted imply that the "explanation of the Qur'an" is separate from the Qur'an.

Well, my instinctual answer is that it's a reason not to accept both works.

Hahah, well done. I didn't expect that. =)

Also, the idea that the hadith have always been around and been accepted is patently false. It wasn't until Idris al-Shafi'i's wrote his books in around 800 CE that the concept of duality of revelation came to be held as a standard. In his books, he argued against those who held that the hadith were not valid or should considered a source of law.

The musannafat of hadith have been accepted as a primary source of Islam before Mohammed bin Idrees. The reason why he argued for it in Al-Risala was because the Mu'atazilites had took hold of major position in the Abbasid government and they believed otherwise.

To me it's seems a bit strange to accept these writings being authentic sayings of Muhammad simply because they were written down so much later. I mean this during a time when information moved at a camels pace over hundreds of years spanning thousands of miles. A simple game of telephone will show you how quickly words get transfigured into something else.

Not this again. You can't compare a group of ten year olds playing Chinese whispers with a society of adults that were doing it to preserve their religion. We've also discussed the documentation of hadith during the time of the Prophet, so you could scroll upwards and the previous pages for that.

Now, I'm not saying that the hadith are ALL made up. There are thousands of hadith and I am sure that some of them do record in some form or another the words of Muhammad, but anytime they deviate from the message of the Quran, I can't accept it.

Fair enough.

You bring up Salat and Hajj and other rituals and why they aren't detailed in the Quran. For this I point you to the story of the heifer that the children of Israel were asked to sacrifice in Surah Baqarah. God asked them to sacrifice a heifer, so they asked which one it is. He described it. Then they asked what color it is. He answered. They asked for further description. He described it further and then they finally sacrificed it. One of the points this story makes is that the people took a simple command and made it complicated themselves. They could have sacrificed any heifer! Same it is with prayer. God told Muhammad to pray. He told him to bow down with those who bow down, so Muhammad did that. He most likely followed whatever method of prayer he knew of. Either from how the Arabs already did it, or how the Jew's did it as it is very similar to how Muslim's pray (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aHWASyMjwg).

YET, there are so many hadiths that specifically describe how a Muslim should pray. Above, you said that you are aware that some of these hadiths do record what Mohammed said.

How do these specific hadiths about prayer deviate from the message of the Qur'an and cause you to reject them?

If God cared for the exact details of prayers, he would have laid them out. He gave some simple outlines. Recite the Quran, bow down, and the timings. The rest was left up to Muhammad and so he did what he thought was best.

Nothing is from Mohammed alone.

وما ينطق عن الهوى

عجيب أمرك يا قرآني لا تفقه كتاب الله وتتكلم في الحديث

Word's are much easier to be lost, and 200 years is more than enough time for them to have been lost, misconstrued, and invented.

I don't see why people keep repeating 200 years. It is like hadith compilations didn't exist before Saheeh Al-Bukhari.

Will all due respect to both you and Ottoman, this is the only point that you two have raised that I think is a good one. The Quran was after all compiled 18 years after the death of the Prophet under the guidance of Uthman.

According to authentic hadiths, the Qur'an was actually compiled by Abu Bakr, one year after the death of the Prophet.

Why don't I extend my belief to the Hadith/Sunnah as well? Because there is nothing in the Quran that requires it. And that includes the verses you mentioned Darucktuny. They don't require taking as gospel the hadith and Sunnah as compiled by the Saheehain.

I'm not asking you to believe in the Saheehain. I'm asking you to be open to hadiths and not reject all of them just because you don't feel like it.

I remember talking to my older cousin about the Hadith once, when I was like... 10. I asked her which was older, the bible or the quran - she told me the Bible, she saw that this sort of disappointed me (I was looking for reasons to believe at this point) so she told me that even though the bible is older, it has changed much much more, the Qu'ran seems almost entirely unchanged, that they were the direct revelations from God to the prophet, and unlike the Bible, it was begun during his lifetime and finished only shortly after - where the Bible took hundreds of years. In this she mentioned the hadith (which I actually had NEVER heard of until then, imagine that - Saturday School was wasted on me) - so I asked her, were the Hadith direct scripture from the prophet too? She said no, that his followers, years after his death wrote about the things he said and did, and put it to writing. I asked her how long they were written after, she said some were written even hundreds of years after, his influence was so powerful past his death. I asked her "Isn't that the same as the Bible though, written hundreds of years after?" She said "no" and that conversation was -over-. That was the only time I got to ask about the Hadith, or at least, tried too.

Your cousin could learn something from this thread then.

 

[Azih]

Not this again. You can't compare a group of ten year olds playing Chinese whispers with a society of adults that were doing it to preserve their religion.

The only reasons you can't is because at least with the 10 year olds the source is right there to correct whatever the rest of the kids playing the game got wrong. The society of adults had nothing like that at all unfortunately.

We've also discussed the documentation of hadith during the time of the Prophet,

Sure and the rejoinder was that since we don't have said documentation we can't judge it for accuracy or not. They are lost and so can't be judged as reliable or not and can't be just accepted.

I don't see why people keep repeating 200 years. It is like hadith compilations didn't exist before Saheeh Al-Bukhari.

But we don't have them so we can't refer to them to authenticate the later works.

For example. The Book of Zohar, a foundational work for the Kabblah mystic Jewish school of thought was written by a Spanish Rabbi in the thirteenth century. He claimed that he had a copy of the writings of a Rabbi from the first century from which he wrote the Book of Zohar. Did he? Who knows, we don't have the original first century work to check the claim.

That's exactly what you are doing with Saheeh Bukhari. Is it an accurate copy of the earlier hadith compilations? Who knows. Were the earlier hadith compilations any good in the first place? Again nobody knows. We don't have the original works to check against.

I'm not asking you to believe in the Saheehain. I'm asking you to be open to hadiths and not reject all of them just because you don't feel like it.

I gave you my reasons for rejecting them and none of it has anything to do with 'because I feel like it'. Why do you keep repeating that?

 

[RiZ III]

The musannafat of hadith have been accepted as a primary source of Islam before Mohammed bin Idrees. The reason why he argued for it in Al-Risala was because the Mu'atazilites had took hold of major position in the Abbasid government and they believed otherwise.

I'm not sure why you italicized 'for', I was saying the same thing and I know why he was arguing against it, but the point was not why, simply that he was which obviously means that the hadith haven't always been taken for granted which is what one of the posters seemed to have been implying. There has been debate about them from the beginning.

Not this again. You can't compare a group of ten year olds playing Chinese whispers with a society of adults that were doing it to preserve their religion. We've also discussed the documentation of hadith during the time of the Prophet, so you could scroll upwards and the previous pages for that.

It's not the same, but the fact that information is lost, construed, and added is a given. To deny that would be just closing your eyes to the obvious. Perhaps a better example would be the fact that we don't even know the exact words Abraham Lincoln spoke in his most famous speech, the Gettysburg address. This despite the fact that there were journalists and hundreds of other people present! The Muslim community went through several civil wars and two major changes in government right after Muhammad so it should be expected that there would be words put in his mouth to justify each side. It's what happened with the Old Testament, it happened with the Gospels, and it happened with the Hadith.

YET, there are so many hadiths that specifically describe how a Muslim should pray. Above, you said that you are aware that some of these hadiths do record what Mohammed said.

How do these specific hadiths about prayer deviate from the message of the Qur'an and cause you to reject them?

I didn't say they do or that I reject every hadith. I just think that whatever is added on to religion after God's word should be taken with caution and that we shouldn't add onto religion that which wasn't revealed. I believe the way we pray does come from Muhammad himself even it wasn't in the hadith because the basic description of it is found in the Quran. Even if the way we pray now isn't exactly like the way Muhammad prayed, I don't think it matters. If God cared, he would have mentioned it.

Nothing is from Mohammed alone.
وما ينطق عن الهوى
عجيب أمرك يا قرآني لا تفقه كتاب الله وتتكلم في الحديث

If you are saying that everything Muhammad ever said after becoming a prophet was the word of God, I have to say I don't agree. Recall there was a period when he didn't receive any revelation, and he got worried that God had forsaken him. Also when he turned away the old man. Or the time he tried to forbid that which was not forbidden. The verses above are just saying that "Muhammad isn't wrong about what he is telling you guys, this stuff is true".

I don't see why people keep repeating 200 years. It is like hadith compilations didn't exist before Saheeh Al-Bukhari.

That majority of it didn't. Of course his sayings and memories didn't vanish with him the day he died, but what we have today is much more than that.

 

[Darackutny]

The only reasons you can't is because at least with the 10 year olds the source is right there to correct whatever the rest of the kids playing the game got wrong. The society of adults had nothing like that at all unfortunately.

Really?!

You are comparing adults that are attempting to preserve their religion, by writing down dictated hadiths by a scholar to children playing a game?!

Sure and the rejoinder was that since we don't have said documentation we can't judge it for accuracy or not. They are lost and so can't be judged as reliable or not and can't be just accepted.

But we do have several sources that were compiled later on that relate the contents of those hadiths without any conflicting content.

But we don't have them so we can't refer to them to authenticate the later works.

For example. The Book of Zohar, a foundational work for the Kabblah mystic Jewish school of thought was written by a Spanish Rabbi in the thirteenth century. He claimed that he had a copy of the writings of a Rabbi from the first century from which he wrote the Book of Zohar. Did he? Who knows, we don't have the original first century work to check the claim.

That's exactly what you are doing with Saheeh Bukhari. Is it an accurate copy of the earlier hadith compilations? Who knows. Were the earlier hadith compilations any good in the first place? Again nobody knows. We don't have the original works to check against.

This is what you are assuming because you aren't aware of what we have preserved from our history. There are hundreds of manuscripts if not thousands that can be found in all the private and public libraries around the world, from Princeton in the US to Al-Thahiriyah in Syria to the Chester Beatty Public Library in Ireland. These documents together destroy any doubt in our minds that Saheeh Al-Bukhari has been tampered with.

We also have tons of books that are referred to as the Ma'ajim and Mashyakhaat in which scholars would include specific hadiths back to Saheeh Al-Bukhari. A scholar would include the list of scholars that he studied under and their teachers up until Bukhari. There are a good amount of these as well, off the top of my mind, Ibn Asakir and Al-Khaleeli included hadiths up to Al-Bukhari through books like these. These books were written in order to preserve earlier works and to defend them from statements like yours, that "the sunnah wasn't preserved".

This is why if you go to any learned scholar that spent even a couple of years studying hadith sciences and you told him that there are doubts concerning the reliability of hadith compilations he would laugh his head off, because he knows that you haven't done any research at all, and that it is only ignorance that led you to your conclusion.

Similarly, the amount of effort put into preserving the late hadith compilations like Saheeh Al-Bukhari can be found in the efforts to preseve the early hadith compilations. There is not a hadith compilation that doesn't include the hadiths of the Saheefah of Ali bin Abi Talib, or the Saheefah of Hammam, or the Saheefah of Abdullah bin Amr. These hadith can be found in hadith compilations in tens to hundreds of hadith compilations and they would agree on the content as well. It is important to note that many of those compilers lived really far away from each other, from Egypt to India so there are no reasons to believe that this is a conspiracy. I can provide a hadith from twenty different sources with scholars from different backgrounds that lived in different countries and there is no reason for you to assume that it is a fabrication other than your own desires.

I asked you a question a while ago that I'd like you to answer. What is your view regarding different recitations of the Qur'an?

 

[RiZ III]

Really?!

You are comparing adults that are attempting to preserve their religion, by writing down dictated hadiths by a scholar to children playing a game?!

Unfortunately there have been a number of studies that show that until there is a written source to a story, the oral version of it will change over time. Dominic Crossan actually goes into it in good detail in his book "The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus." I have it at home, so perhaps I will refresh my memory when I get home. He was showing why the Gospels contradict each other and contain other errors withing each other, but the same thing applies to the hadith. I mean, if someone 2000 years ago would have sat down and taken the hundreds of gospels floating around and then taken what he found to be common in all of them, would that really guarantee that we would have accurate sayings of Jesus?

 

[Darackutny]

It's not the same, but the fact that information is lost, construed, and added is a given. To deny that would be just closing your eyes to the obvious. Perhaps a better example would be the fact that we don't even know the exact words Abraham Lincoln spoke in his most famous speech, the Gettysburg address. This despite the fact that there were journalists and hundreds of other people present! The Muslim community went through several civil wars and two major changes in government right after Muhammad so it should be expected that there would be words put in his mouth to justify each side. It's what happened with the Old Testament, it happened with the Gospels, and it happened with the Hadith.

Riz, you are attacking hadith forgers as if you are a pioneer. You have obviously not read the introduction of Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban or Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi or Saheeh Muslim even. Get in line, forgers have been denounced since day one. The difference between you and them is that they put an effort into dividing the authentic from the weak.

If you are saying that everything Muhammad ever said after becoming a prophet was the word of God, I have to say I don't agree. Recall there was a period when he didn't receive any revelation, and he got worried that God had forsaken him. Also when he turned away the old man. Or the time he tried to forbid that which was not forbidden. The verses above are just saying that "Muhammad isn't wrong about what he is telling you guys, this stuff is true".

Forbade as a law? Or forbade upon himself?

That majority of it didn't.

I beg to differ. Saheeh Al-Bukhari was compiled after everything has already been compiled into musanafaat, which is why he saw the need for a "Saheeh" compilation. There were no other regular musanafaat after him. Before him compilations were written in no particular fashion in order to simply collect everything. After the year 200, scholars focused on ordering their collections in alphabetical order, or according to fiqh chapters, etc, because the primary act of "collecting" hadiths was already done.

 

[Darackutny]

Unfortunately there have been a number of studies that show that until there is a written source to a story, the oral version of it will change over time. Dominic Crossan actually goes into it in good detail in his book "The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus." I have it at home, so perhaps I will refresh my memory when I get home. He was showing why the Gospels contradict each other and contain other errors withing each other, but the same thing applies to the hadith. I mean, if someone 2000 years ago would have sat down and taken the hundreds of gospels floating around and then taken what he found to be common in all of them, would that really guarantee that we would have accurate sayings of Jesus?

One of the major strength of hadiths are the accessibility of a good amount of chains of narrators per hadith which proves that a particular hadith is solid. Many sources narrating a particular text implies that there were no mistakes.

Contradictions are referred to as shaath or munkar. Hadiths like those are considered weak.

That and the fact that many hadith scholars never narrated anything from memory. Take Ahmad bin Hanbal for example. He was known for going back home whenever he was asked a question to look into what he has written.

 

[Azih]

Really?!

You are comparing adults that are attempting to preserve their religion, by writing down dictated hadiths by a scholar to children playing a game?!

Yup and I gave an example of how the adults have it worse. Care to respond? You seem to be bringing up an incredibly weak argument from authority here.

But we do have several sources that were compiled later on that relate the contents of those hadiths without any conflicting content.

Wait, we have sources that were compiled later that relate the contents of the Hadith from the originals... how do we check for conflicts in the content if we don't have the original content in the first place?

This is what you are assuming because you aren't aware of what we have preserved from our history.

Educate me.

There are hundreds of manuscripts if not thousands that can be found in all the private and public libraries around the world, from Princeton in the US to Al-Thahiriyah in Syria to the Chester Beatty Public Library in Ireland. These documents together destroy any doubt in our minds that Saheeh Al-Bukhari has been tampered with.

Who's claiming that Bukhari has been tampered with. I'm claiming that there is no way to authenticate Bukhari against older works as we don't have the older works anymore which is why the 200 years later critique is perfectly valid. Plus you can't just bring up sources that you don't cite to buttress your argument.

We also have tons of books that are referred to as the Ma'ajim and Mashyakhaat in which scholars would include specific hadiths back to Saheeh Al-Bukhari. A scholar would include the list of scholars that he studied under and their teachers up until Bukhari. There are a good amount of these as well, off the top of my mind, Ibn Asakir and Al-Khaleeli included hadiths up to Al-Bukhari through books like these. These books were written in order to preserve earlier works and to defend them from statements like yours, that "the sunnah wasn't preserved".

Wait you are referring to works that came AFTER Bukhari to claim that Bukhari was accurate to the original sources that we don't have anymore? How do you know that these works that were written down EVEN LATER THAN BUKHARI recounted the original works faithfully? How do you know that the original works were any good in the first place?

This is why if you go to any learned scholar that spent even a couple of years studying hadith sciences and you told him that there are doubts concerning the reliability of hadith compilations he would laugh his head off, because he knows that you haven't done any research at all, and that it is only ignorance that led you to your conclusion.

You aren't doing a good job yourself. You're referring to hundreds and thousands of manuscripts and documents that you don't cite. You are bringing up works that were written EVEN LATER than Bukhari to somehow answer the criticism that Bukhari was too far removed from the source (the later works were even further removed from the source man).

Similarly, the amount of effort put into preserving the late hadith compilations like Saheeh Al-Bukhari can be found in the efforts to preseve the early hadith compilations.

Then where are the early hadith compilations?

There is not a hadith compilation that doesn't include the hadiths of the Saheefah of Ali bin Abi Talib, or the Saheefah of Hammam, or the Saheefah of Abdullah bin Amr. These hadith can be found in hadith compilations in tens to hundreds of hadith compilations and they would agree on the content as well.

And these were all later than Muslim and Bukhari. They have the same weaknesses that Muslim and Bukhari do.

It is important to note that many of those compilers lived really far away from each other, from Egypt to India so there are no reasons to believe that this is a conspiracy.

I am not and have never claimed a conspiracy so you can put that thought right out of your head.

I can provide a hadith from twenty different sources with scholars from different backgrounds that lived in different countries and there is no reason for you to assume that it is a fabrication other than your own desires

Bullshit.

First I didn't assume they were 'fabrications' or any form of maliciousness. I'm stating that

1) What we have of the Hadith and the Sunnah were written a very long time after the Prophet died
2) there is no way to authenticate that what we do have is accurate
3) There are tons of reasons to believe that they aren't (Upheavels and political clashes as soon as the Prophet died).
4) You can't cite earlier works that don't exist anymore because... they don't exist anymore!
5) You can't use sources that you don't cite to validate your claims
6) You can't refer to works written later than Bukhari to answer the critique that Bukhari was too far removed from the time of the Prophet. They're even later than Bukhari himself.

Note there is no mention of conspiracy or fabrication or anything of that nature.

I asked you a question a while ago that I'd like you to answer. What is your view regarding different recitations of the Qur'an?

No view one way or the other.

 

[RiZ III]

Bullshit.

Easy now, we are all Muslims =)

 

[Azih]

Easy now, we are all Muslims =)

Yeah well, he should stop saying that only reason I think what I do is 'because of my desires'. That *is* bullshit and an idiotic statement on many levels besides.

 

[RiZ III]

Yeah well, he should stop saying that only reason I think what I do is 'because of my desires'. That *is* bullshit and an idiotic statement on many levels besides.

Yea, it isn't nice. I was saying that to all of us. Best to debate with cool heads. No one knows anything for sure but God, so let's not act arrogant to each other. We all believe in the Quran, God, and the last day.

 

[Darackutny]

Who's claiming that Bukhari has been tampered with. I'm claiming that there is no way to authenticate Bukhari against older works as we don't have the older works anymore which is why the 200 years later critique is perfectly valid. Plus you can't just bring up sources that you don't cite to buttress your argument.

Wait you are referring to works that came AFTER Bukhari to claim that Bukhari was accurate to the original sources that we don't have anymore? How do you know that these works that were written down EVEN LATER THAN BUKHARI recounted the original works faithfully? How do you know that the original works were any good in the first place?

You aren't doing a good job yourself. You're referring to hundreds and thousands of manuscripts and documents that you don't cite. You are bringing up works that were written EVEN LATER than Bukhari to somehow answer the criticism that Bukhari was too far removed from the source (the later works were even further removed from the source man).

I don't see why you are having trouble grasping this simple idea.

I am simply arguing that hadith compilations that we have access to today aren't based on a single manuscript, but are based on multiple manuscripts. The differences between manuscripts are as minimal as the dropping of letters like "wa" which translates to "and". Publishers make note of this in the footnotes by saying things like: Manuscript C doesn't include "wa".

I am arguing that those hadith compilations put in as much effort into collecting earlier hadiths. They relied on multiple sources that had the exact same text.

Then where are the early hadith compilations?

The really early ones have been sucked into the later ones. The Jami' of Ma'amar is now a part of Musanaf Abdul Razaq. The Saheefah of Hamam is now a part of Musnad Ahmad.

And these were all later than Muslim and Bukhari.

lol?

Bullshit.

Oh, you'd be surprised. If you can read Arabic, I suggest you download this short work by Al-Tabarani, the author of the Ma'ajim. He collects over a hundred and fifty sources that narrate a single hadith. Sixty different companions of Mohammed narrated this specific one.

http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=2066&cat=32

5) You can't use sources that you don't cite to validate your claims

You are now making it dead obvious that you've never opened a scholarly book in your life. Bro, just buy a copy of any religious book in Arabic that was not published by Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah (since they are too lazy to scan images of manuscripts), and refer to the intro in which they include a list of manuscripts that they used to produce the published version of the book. Did you seriously assume that Saheeh Al-Bukhari is based on a single manuscript?

No view one way or the other.

Thank you. I just hope you don't jump off a bridge the moment you realize that the very Qur'an that you read today is based on a hadith chain that leads upto Hafs bin Sulaiman that died in 180 AH.

 

[crazy monkey]

Jumma prayer at egypt. It is old but still moving.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

What is the logic behind some believing that - outside financial transactions - a female testimony is not equal to that of a male where the Quran makes no distinction?

I've come across two articles that disagree with it and they seem reasonable. But can anyone try to explain the opposing view?

http://www.islamlaws.com/why-two-femalewomen-witnesses-equal-to-one-male-witness-in-islam/
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/

 

[OttomanScribe]

According to my Sheikh, the standard is that what determines a witness is almost wholly based upon their knowledge of the Sha'riah, hence Lady Aisha (radiAllahu ana) being so trustworthy. A woman who knows the law is a trustworthy witness, a man who does not, is not.

 

[Yasir]

According to my Sheikh, the standard is that what determines a witness is almost wholly based upon their knowledge of the Sha'riah, hence Lady Aisha (radiAllahu ana) being so trustworthy. A woman who knows the law is a trustworthy witness, a man who does not, is not.

Your Sheikh wouldn't happen to be out in Cyprus (the North)? In any case, salaam brothers.

 

[Shanadeus]

According to my Sheikh, the standard is that what determines a witness is almost wholly based upon their knowledge of the Sha'riah, hence Lady Aisha (radiAllahu ana) being so trustworthy. A woman who knows the law is a trustworthy witness, a man who does not, is not.

I hate to squabble over details but "almost wholly"?
And is a woman who knows the law an equally as trustworthy witness as a man who does know the law?

 

[Ashes]

I hate to squabble over details but "almost wholly"?
And is a woman who knows the law an equally as trustworthy witness as a man who does know the law?

I think it is only in the case of financial transactions, thus setting the context for the argument. Perhaps the argument is that in a typical scenario, it was the men who were breadwinners, in that day and age, and so made for better witnesses finances wise, and that is what the allegory is really about; further to this, iirc there are other places, where in the case of just being witnesses for witnesses sake, men and woman are stated to be equal.

 

[Azih]

I am simply arguing that hadith compilations that we have access to today aren't based on a single manuscript, but are based on multiple manuscripts

Of course that only means that the compilation has gotten to us in more or less the form it was originally written in. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the content of the compilations is accurate or not.

I am arguing that those hadith compilations put in as much effort into collecting earlier hadiths.

How do we ascertain that if we don't have the earlier hadith compilations? Are we supposed to take that on faith?

The really early ones have been sucked into the later ones. The Jami' of Ma'amar is now a part of Musanaf Abdul Razaq. The Saheefah of Hamam is now a part of Musnad Ahmad.

Yes, and? Is there a reason for you to assume the early ones were reliable?

You are now making it dead obvious that you've never opened a scholarly book in your life. Bro, just buy a copy of any religious book in Arabic...

No, you are making it obvious that you're not reading what I wrote. You are making an argument so you should cite your sources that back it up.

Did you seriously assume that Saheeh Al-Bukhari is based on a single manuscript?

No, I made no reference to the number of manuscripts Bukhari was based on as that only makes a difference to how well preserved Bukhari's compilation is. It makes absolutely no difference to how accurate Bukhari's compilation is. Which is the whole point.

Thank you. I just hope you don't jump off a bridge the moment you realize that the very Qur'an that you read today is based on a hadith chain that leads upto Hafs bin Sulaiman that died in 180 AH.

*sigh* I've already talked about this in post #3597. I'll requote.

And the answer is that I, of course, do not *know* that the Quran is the word of God as that is something that is impossible to prove or disprove one way or the other. I *believe* it is though and that is why I am a Muslim.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Your Sheikh wouldn't happen to be out in Cyprus (the North)? In any case, salaam brothers.

Walaykum Salaam Wa Rahmetullah,

My Sheikh is an American convert who studied in Turkey. Why would you think Cyprus?

I hate to squabble over details but "almost wholly"?
And is a woman who knows the law an equally as trustworthy witness as a man who does know the law?

Yes, equally trustworthy, in fact the individual that is considered the most reliable witness in history is a woman.

The almost wholly refers to financial transactions, which are an exception.

 

[Darackutny]

*sigh* I've already talked about this in post #3597. I'll requote.

And the answer is that I, of course, do not *know* that the Quran is the word of God as that is something that is impossible to prove or disprove one way or the other. I *believe* it is though and that is why I am a Muslim.

Okaaaaay... I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You don't seem to have an idea of what is going on here and this is the first time I've seen a Muslim claim that one cannot prove that the Qur'an is the book of Allah.


In any case, I do owe it to Muslim-GAF to shed some light on why one cannot simply reject hadiths due to late collection.

1) Qur'an-only Muslims accept the qira'ah of Hafs bin Sulaiman (d. 180 AH).
2) Yet they reject the Muwatta of Malik (179 AH), a hadith compilation.
3) They hold the opinion that hadith compilations are not reliable because there were collected late, while they accept the qira'ah of Hafs which is as late as many hadith compilations.
4) Between Hafs and the Prophet were three narrators, while Malik narrated many hadiths with only two middle men in between, making the latter "more" reliable according to Qur'an-only standards.
5) Qur'an-only Muslims don't have a stance regarding the different Qur'anic readings.

Conclusion: Qur'an-only Muslims are Muslims that want to follow their desires but interpreting verses in their own favor. Hadiths are problematic to them because of the high amount of orders and prohibitions in comparison to the Qur'an.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Conclusion: Qur'an-only Muslims are Muslims that want to follow their desires but interpreting verses in their own favor. Hadiths are problematic to them because of the high amount of orders and prohibitions in comparison to the Qur'an.

I agree with the logic of your post and the points in it, however I don't know if we can make these conclusions. It is enough that their beliefs don't make sense, without assuming why they believe such things.

 

[Azih]

I agree with the logic of your post and the points in it, however I don't know if we can make these conclusions.

That's because you can't. It's actually incredibly insulting. Darucktuny is not a mind reader and is not my personal shrink. The fact that he continues to make this absurd accusation of his (which attacks my moral character directly in fact) brings into question his ability to reason. His points 1 through 5 IN NO WAY support his 'conclusion'

It is enough that their beliefs don't make sense

Well that's another matter entirely. I don't mind my arguments being attacked at all. Darucktuny's "conclusion" on the other hand has nothing to do with what I say and is absolute and complete and utter junk, and having said that I'm going to be ignoring it in my response to it.

 

[Azih]

this is the first time I've seen a Muslim claim that one cannot prove that the Qur'an is the book of Allah.

First time for everything. Um, how do you 'prove' that the Quran is Allah's words? We might be using the word proof differently.

1) Qur'an-only Muslims accept the qira'ah of Hafs bin Sulaiman (d. 180 AH).
2) Yet they reject the Muwatta of Malik (179 AH), a hadith compilation.
3) They hold the opinion that hadith compilations are not reliable because there were collected late, while they accept the qira'ah of Hafs which is as late as many hadith compilations.
4) Between Hafs and the Prophet were three narrators, while Malik narrated many hadiths with only two middle men in between, making the latter "more" reliable according to Qur'an-only standards.
5) Qur'an-only Muslims don't have a stance regarding the different Qur'anic readings.

I think you ignored my response that

I'm not relying on chains on transmissions at all for my belief in the Quran. I'm taking it on faith that the Quran is of a divine source. That is in response to your points 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Plus your point 5 is
a)Ridiculous: different Quran only Muslims will have different stances regarding different Quranic readings. How the heck are you generalising your conversation with me to a whole lot of other people? That is nonsense.

b)Irrelevant : what is my not having a stance regarding different Quranic readings have to do with anything?

 

[Your Excellency]

I just found out that Islam forbids listening to music, having photographs, watching TV shows and films. Is this correct?


Do the muslims on this thread not do any of the above?

 

[hxa155]

I just found out that Islam forbids listening to music, having photographs, watching TV shows and films. Is this correct?


Do the muslims on this thread not do any of the above?

Which Islam? There are multiple sects of Islam and they all have different opinions on those things. Wahhabis generally are the most extreme of the bunch, forbidding photography, music and TV. There were a lot of protests in Saudi Arabia when the government decided to allow for TV stations to be built.

Also, Sufis and Shia have their own religious music, even if they call it a different name. But many Muslims do listen to music and do 'forbidden' things, you can't expect them to follow every little rule in the religion.

 

[Darackutny]

I'm not relying on chains on transmissions at all for my belief in the Quran.

This actual shows how disconnected you are from the book itself. Do you have a copy of the Qur'an in front of you? It should include something in the first couple of pages like:

القرآن الكريم
برواية حفص عن عاصم

 

[Azih]

This actual shows how disassociated you are from the book itself.

How so?

 

[Darackutny]

You do read Arabic right? Go pick up your copy.

 

[Kinitari]

What about people who don't read Arabic and are curious about your point.

From what I can tell, Azih's point is, the only reason he believes in the Quran is because of his personal faith, and that personal faith does not extend itself to the Hadith. I sort of understand that, even if there is just as much empirical evidence of both some Hadith and the Quran being valid (which is to say, very little empirical evidence, if any).

 

[Azih]

You do read Arabic right?

Nope. Plus I'm at work, so don't have access to a Quran right now.

 

[Azih]

I just found out that Islam forbids listening to music, having photographs, watching TV shows and films. Is this correct?

Nothing in the Quran about any of that.. well of course nothing about photos or TV or films, but there's nothing against music. There are plenty of Hadiths against music though and that's expanded to not allowing TV shows and films in some views now. Same for drawing pictures (which encompasses taking photographs in modern times). Really a whole lot of the draconian stuff you see in muslim majority countries today come from the Hadith, not the Quran.

Edit: Plus yeah Kinitari, you're right about what my position is.

 

[Your Excellency]

Hey guys, is there anything in the Quran (not the Hadith) which would be looked at as unethical or immoral in modern times?

And likewise, is there anything requested or banned in the Quran (not the Hadith) but which many muslim youth nowadays tend to ignore?



This is all incredibly interesting. I had no idea about the distinction between the Quran / Hadith.

 

[Ashes]

Hey guys, is there anything in the Quran (not the Hadith) which would be looked at as unethical or immoral in modern times?

And likewise, is there anything requested or banned in the Quran (not the Hadith) but which many muslim youth nowadays tend to ignore?



This is all incredibly interesting. I had no idea about the distinction between the Quran / Hadith.

The first question, you really ought to just google it.

The second is a very open ended question. I guess pornography (soft or hard), would be the obvious non-contestable issue that is widely transgressed by the muslim youth.

 

[Darackutny]

And likewise, is there anything requested or banned in the Quran (not the Hadith) but which many muslim youth nowadays tend to ignore?

17:23 Thy Lord hath decreed, that ye worship none save Him, and (that ye show) kindness to parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age with thee, say not "Fie" unto them nor repulse them, but speak unto them a gracious word.

This is one that is usually overlooked.

 

[Zapages]

One of my good college friends was on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42326315

Enjoy guys.

Zapages

 

[Your Excellency]

Respectedly edited as it is potentially the wrong tone for the thread.

 

[Nemo]

You know the Hadith says that music is bad because it gives you the sort of enjoyment that you should only get from god...


...does that mean that a bit of the Ludwig van is more Satanic than, say, Beiber's first symphony, on account of the former providing far more enjoyment - bordering on the 'heavenly' - than the latter? Essentially, if we accept that the more heavenly the music is, the worse it becomes in Islam, is there an argument to be made that the less heavenly the music is - ie the shitter it is - the closer it is to being acceptable? And so following that, could we argue that there is some music which is objectively so bad that listening to it is not Haraam.

What I'm getting at is this: what is Muhammad's opinion on Rebecca Black's Friday?



* For now, lets ignore the fact that he also provided a second criteria when it came to the hellishness of music, that being that it leads you to do immoral things.

Holy shit, like a millisecond before I read that I knew it was coming :lol

Well played

 

[Ashes]

You know the Hadith says that music is bad because it gives you the sort of enjoyment that you should only get from god...


...does that mean that a bit of the Ludwig van is more Satanic than, say, Beiber's first symphony, on account of the former providing far more enjoyment - bordering on the 'heavenly' - than the latter? Essentially, if we accept that the more heavenly the music is, the worse it becomes in Islam, is there an argument to be made that the less heavenly the music is - ie the shitter it is - the closer it is to being acceptable? And so following that, could we argue that there is some music which is objectively so bad that listening to it is not Haraam.

What I'm getting at is this: what is Muhammad's opinion on Rebecca Black's Friday?



* For now, lets ignore the fact that he also provided a second criteria when it came to the hellishness of music, that being that it leads you to do immoral things.

Seriously?

This thread doesn't have the best record for trolls. Just look back through the thread, and you'll see the casualties on both side of the divide. And you being a jnr and all...

 

[Your Excellency]

Seriously?

This thread doesn't have the best record for trolls. Just look back through the thread, and you'll see the casualties on both side of the divide. And you being a jnr and all...

Hmm. The point I was making was surrounding the issue as to what your opinions were as regards sinful, less sinful, and REALLY sinful music. Is all music the same? If we agree that songs about anal sex are worse in Islam than songs which express a love of Allah, then does that same heirarchy/quantification of sin apply to the enjoyment it provides?

But I wasn't aware of the no-jokey-comments nature of this thread so I'll respectfully edit my post. Thanks for letting me know, regardless.