We are not talking about a random man in Mexico in 1811. We are talking about the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and collections of hadith that drew on already existing compilations and transmissions. I am a student of history, I know how hard it is to keep historical records intact over long periods of time, but when you have so many people, and so many chains of transmissions it becomes inconceivable that those authentic and mutawattir hadith were fabricated.
Yes you are right. He was a well known person of him time and I don't doubt that there are hadith which are somewhat accurate or completely accurate, the mutawatir hadith being good candidates. However, the vast majority of hadith do not fall into this category. Further, any hadith that contradicts the Quran is unacceptable. The major problem is that even within the sahih hadith, there is doubt. They are
probably accurate, but probably doesn't cut it especially when God is so clear about telling us not to take any other scripture as a source of law. You keep equating the hadith to Muhammad, but the hadith are reported sayings of Muhammad, but they are not his substitute. At most they give us a good glimpse of who he was, but to accept them as being a 100% correct and then basing practices on them even when they contradict the Quran is wrong.
If the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) says something, and it is remembered by a group of people, who then seperate, to Yemen, to Syria, to Falastin and to Iraq, and then they keep that tradition, that saying, as something they guard, then, one man goes to all those places, and finds the same thing said, in the same words? How does that get fabricated?
Within 30 years of Jesus absence, he was considered divine throughout the Roman empire.
How did this happen? I would put trust in the mutawatir, but I don't hold them as equal to the Quran if they contradict or add to it.
You talk about the separation and travel of the Muslims, as though it degrades the reliability of the traditions... why? It reinforces it! The companions of the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) spread far and wide, and took the words of the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) with them. When you have 20 people, with 20 separate ways of receiving information, none of whom have crossed paths, yet say the same thing, reciting the same situation in the same words? What mechanism can you present that that is false? Other than coincidence? In which case what a massive coincidence!
200 years. Words get around
The hadith were remembered by heart also, and were also written down by scribes throughout the years following the Caliphat Rashidun.
Too bad none of these survive as well as Umar ibn al-Khattab putting a ban on writing down the hadith. If I was a collector of hadith, I would also make sure to collect hadith claiming that hadith have always been written down.
If your father told you of something that the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) had told you, would you not remember it? Would you not take steps to preserve it? What makes you think that the Salaf were so flippant with his memory, with his tradition?
I have a terrible memory actually. I don't remember much of anything besides the Quran.
What of the Mutawattir hadith? The mutawattir hadith have the same classification as the Qur'an. How (sorry if I sound like a broken record) do you reject these?
Nothing has the same classification as the Quran as the Quran is the only book accepted by all Muslims regardless of school of thought or sect.
Mutawatir is a term which is misapplied and misunderstood. You say that mutawatir are so well founded that they can't be disputed, but this isn't true. For example, Raf'ul yadein(raising hands in prayer) is considered as mutawator by Imam Al-Bukhari, but the Hanafis deny its tawatur. Similarly the hadith of fatiha khalf al-imam is considered mutawatir by Bukhari, but not everyone agrees. It's case specific. What gives sure knowledge to one may not give it to others. Mutawatir give the same "sure" knowledge if they are rigorously authenticated. Anyone compiling the mutawatir would be using his ijtihad, which may be contested. However there are only a few which everyone would agree on. That is why the definition of mutawatir is also disparate. Some say 10 narrators at every level is the bare minimum and some 100 and some decrease it to less than 10.
Those that are transmitted to us specifically from those of the community that Allah has affirmed his pleasure with(Surah at-Tawbah). So He is pleased with them, yet they are fabricating all these hadith, lying about Allah and His Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam)?
Ottoman, if hadith came directly from the Prophet or any of his companions, I would have no problem accepting them, but they don't.
What evidence do you have that this command is only to his contemporaries? Obeying the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is not merely obeying the Qur'an, that is why there is a distinction made. In order to make the assertion that the command to obey the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is only for his contemporaries, you have to give a reason.
1) Commands which were specific to his contemporaries are obviously only applicable to them, such as how to split spoils of war among each other, or not to marry his wives, etc.
1) Muhammad did not invent Islam. He did not make the rules. God did. God says Obey the Prophet because what the Prophet is saying is from God, ie the Quran. If I follow the Quran, I follow the Prophet and God. Think of it like this, if I send a messenger to you carrying a letter and tell him dictate it to you and in it I say, listen and obey to whatever this man has to say. When that messenger reads the letter to you and then you obey him, who and what are you obeying? You are obeying him as I asked you to, but you are only obeying him by obeying the message I sent with him. That is why God says "if you obey the messenger you have obeyed Me."
Is this messengers message distinct from mine? No, the message is my message. You are just obeying him. Now what if in that letter I said, btw messenger don't invent anything on your own or else I'll kill you. That'd be a pretty serious threat no? So why do you think he would invent his own laws?
How does a Qur'an alone Muslim decide how much Zakat to pay (it is not mentioned) how does the Qur'an alone Muslim decide how to pray, if not by the Prophet's (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) example?
And they ask"What ought we to spend "? Say "Spend whatever you can spare." Thus Allah makes His commands clear to you so that you may think about the good of both this world and the Hereafter.
If God didn't tell you to give to charity 2.5%, why are you giving 2.5%? Give more. Give less. Give what you can, give with every chance you get, that is what Muhammad did, that is what Jesus did, and that is what all the prophets have done.
How do they know that that infamous verse does not mean 'beat your wife to a bloody pulp'?
Because if you read the Quran you would know that you can not kill another Muslim unless it is for murder, that the punishment can not exceed the crime, that God does not love aggressors, and also the fact that the word translated as “beat” also has different uses in the Quran, but that is another topic.
How do they know in which order the Qur'an was revealed, in order to know which revelation gains precedence?
Muhammad arranged the Quran as it is today, this command is given to him in the Quran itself. The current format of the Quran has been like this since it's compilation.
How do they know how to recite the Qur'an at all?
Go buy a copy of the Quran. As far as the ahruf go, they have been around since the time of Muhammad.
Why does the Qur'an constantly refer to the role of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) as not merely a mute conveyor, but a teacher and a lawgiver?
All prophets are law givers, they deliver the laws God commands them.
What is the point of that if his only job is to give the Qur'an?
Subhan'Allah! Isn't the a point enough? How else would we know what God wants?? You can ask God yourself when you meet Him I suppose. He is the One who told his messenger that he is only a deliverer of the message and nothing else. (4:80, 6:107, 10:108, 39:41, 88:22,
When Surah al-A'raf tells the believers that the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the way that the believers know 'what is just and what is evil' and to 'follow him that ye be guided',
That's right, if God had not send a prophet, we wouldn't know what was right or wrong because we wouldn't have God's message.
what are we to take from this if there is no way for modern Muslims to follow that command?
Muhammad was sent for all the worlds. Why did he die if had to be around for all beings for the rest of eternity have to follow him?? Why didn't God make him immortal? Because he was not the message. He recited the message and it has been preserved by God. When you obey the message, you obey the messenger.
If following the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is merely following the Qur'an, then why is the emphasis upon the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) in this verse?
Because he is the
only one with the message. If God spoke to everyone individually, he probably wouldn't ask us to follow anyone.
How many Qur'an alone people have their been in history? The further back there go, surely the more there must be?
Prophet Muhammad being the greatest one.
Since the Qur'anic cosmology is that of one of continual decay, punctuated by the coming of Prophets (alayhis salaam) then logically, the further back you go, the more Qur'an alone people there must be. Muslim history must be brimming with them, pious individuals and great scholars...
Religion always becomes corrupt and divides into sects. This is nothing new. It happened with Judaism, it happened with Jesus (I won't even call Christianity his religion). Why do you think Islam is so special? Has God taken some oath that he will protect it from change or people who invent or divide it?
Yet that is not what I see. The Qur'an alone people I see are all from the West, and few are learned, and, most importantly, they are all my contemporaries. The argument that Allah would lead the community astray so utterly, until some gentleman in 2011 discovers the fact that everyone has been misled, is a strange argument indeed.
God does not lead people astray, people lead abandon God's words and lead themselves to doom. Look at the state of the Muslims today. You say you have a hard time believing “God would lead a community astray”, then why did the companions of the Prophet wage war against each other and kill each other? Why did they fracture into sects so soon afterwards? Why have Muslims killed each other through out history? To kill another Muslim is unforgivable in the Quran, yet it has happened since the beginning. God never promised to protect people from themselves or protect the ummah, rather it is the working towards good that is almost the whole message of the Quran. To each is their works. We can't say to God, “but I was only following what I found my scholars doing”, this is what the people entering hell will say according to the Quran.
You must believe they are misguided, because Allah guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills.
I believe Bukhari wasted his time yes. There is enough knowledge and wonderment in the Quran that we can all spend our lives studying it and still not know it fully.
You cannot believe that the entirety of Muslim history, all the Muslims essentially since the passing of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) are in error, without believing that this was the deliberate misguidance of God.
I don't. Anyone who believes in the One God, his angels, his books, his prophets, the last day, and does good will have nothing to fear, that is Allah's promise.
If someone believes in commands of the hadith as being commands of God, then they should follow them because that is what God will judge them by. God gives an example of this by telling us that he didn't command monks to be hermits, but they invented it themselves, but after that they didn't even follow it properly. So if you believe in it, follow it.
How can you not view your own beliefs as being against Allah's command not to 'create sects'?
The sects already exist. I follow God's scripture, in it is clear guidance. The sects follow what God never authorized. I am not calling anyone to abandon their beliefs, to each their own. My wife believes in the hadith, so does my mom, I don't give them trouble about it. There is no compulsion in religion.
When you are so clearly divergent from the vast majority of the Ummah?
The ummah is divergent amongst itself.
Amin. I make dua that he who is right is shown the correct way.
I pray for everyone to be guided. No one knows if they are on the right path. We all have to constantly strive to be in God's mercy and be in fear of his abandonment. The moment one believes he is righteous, he has lost.
I respect your views Ottoman, and some of what you have said has inspired me to look deeper into the hadith, and who knows maybe someday I'll agree with you, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence that the hadith should be treated as equal to the God's words or Muhammad's own words. When the faultyness of the human memory is considered, and Jesus can become divine in 30 years, and the ummah plunge into civil war within the first generation, it's difficult to believe sayings of the Prophet could survive unaltered for 200 years.
