Revising hadiths in Turkey

maitri

Hi!

I just came across this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401381.html

To me this revision seems very good.
What are your opinions of the hadiths and of revising them?

Medina

I found this link on a site called DigitalHalal.

I can't tell what type of Muslim wrote this.

I'm not going to comment on its correctness/error, as I'm not a Muslim, but he appears to have a lot to say on the topic.

http://www.submission.org/had-corruption.html

I would be very interested to hear what Muslims think of this.

Medina

And also this

http://www.quran-islam.org/238.html

Medina

On the other hand there are sites which support Hadith like this:

http://www.islamicvoice.com/2001-07/hadith.htm

babyvaio

Medina wrote:

I found this link on a site called DigitalHalal.

I can't tell what type of Muslim wrote this, but maybe all Muslims should read it so they can make an informed decision about what they believe.

I'm not going to comment on its correctness/error, as I'm not a Muslim, but he appears to have a lot to say on the topic.

http://www.submission.org/had-corruption.html

I would be very interested to hear what Muslims think of this.

This text obviously talks about not even considering the Hadiths - but only the Qur'an although there is a statement from Allah swt to obey His Final Messenger saws and to follow him. Those who think so are not Sunni Muslims.

BTW, this thread seems as an open attack on Islam. I can't accept that I'm the only once accused of attacking others.

I would ask the moderators to close this thread because it's offensive.

Hobbes

If you have an issue about a particular post or thread use the Report Posts option and detail exactly what it is that you find offensive.

babyvaio

Hobbes wrote:

If you have an issue about a particular post or thread use the Report Posts option and detail exactly what it is that you find offensive.

I'm sorry Hobbes, but double standards again. I just can't agree.

One of the posts above is saying this - Muslims read both sides and re-think your religious belief (cos probably its wrong!).

This is an attempt or an invitation to leave Islam, isn't that forbidden?

No please don't say you don't see it like that?

BTW, can I open a new thread on Christianity and openly name if Christians, you're all wrong, re-think your belief?

No, I can't and I wouldn't. And if I tried such a thing, somebody here would imprison me pronto.

Medina

I'll remove the part you find offensive Babyvaio and maybe we can get back to what I was asking.

What do you think of the information that is on the link?

babyvaio

Medina wrote:

I'll remove the part you find offensive Babyvaio and maybe we can get back to what I was asking.

What do you think of the information that is on the link?

I'm not discussing anything in this thread, 'cos your intention was not a good one.
If you were really interested in why this & that in Islam, you would ask that in a different way, but you were leading people to leave Islam based on some text, which I might call heretic. Allah swt knows best.

over & out

Medina

babyvaio wrote:

I'm not discussing anything in this thread, 'cos your intention was not a good one.
If you were really interested in why this & that in Islam, you would ask that in a different way, but you were leading people to leave Islam based on some text, which I might call heretic. Allah swt knows best.

over & out

This is ridiculous. I didn't try and lead anyone out of Islam. The people who wrote the information on those links are all Muslims. All I'm showing is the two sides of the argument.

Everyone should always consider both sides of an argument before they take a side. That is my opinion.

Moderators please?

Talliesin

babyvaio wrote:

this thread seems as an open attack on Islam

This thread clearly links to an article written to be someone who identifies as muslim and asks what other people think of it.

babyvaio wrote:

although there is a statement from Allah swt to obey His Final Messenger saws and to follow him.

A perfectly valid counter-argument, which you are free to use in discussing the article.

babyvaio wrote:

One of the posts above is saying this - Muslims read both sides and re-think your religious belief (cos probably its wrong!).

No it's not.

babyvaio wrote:

This is an attempt or an invitation to leave Islam, isn't that forbidden?

It is forbidden to proselytise in any direction. It is not forbidden to ask how Muslims reconcile what a poster sees as a contradiction, how Muslims think about the views another Muslim has of the faith, or anything along those lines.

You seem to be implying that the religious culture from which we get the expression "show us the proofs" cannot handle such discussion.

babyvaio wrote:

BTW, can I open a new thread on Christianity and openly name if Christians, you're all wrong, re-think your belief?

No, but you can ask Christians what they think of the writings of a Christian that most of them would find heretical.

babyvaio wrote:

I'm not discussing anything in this thread, 'cos your intention was not a good one.

I see no evidence to support that. Show us the proofs.

babyvaio wrote:

If you were really interested in why this & that in Islam, you would ask that in a different way, but you were leading people to leave Islam based on some text, which I might call heretic.

Heretic Muslims are not off-topic here.

Hobbes

Look I am going to say this one more time and one more time only.

If there is anything you find offensive in a particular post use the report post function on the left hand side of the post. This flags the post to the moderators, cat-mods and admins and also makes a back up copy of the post to stop people from editing/deleting them at a later point.

Complaining on the thread itself derails the thread in question.

Not following the charter rules or how to report posts can lead to delays or moderators getting annoyed with the people who took the post to be offensive to begin with.

In regards to this comment...

BTW, can I open a new thread on Christianity and openly name if Christians, you're all wrong, re-think your belief?

Based on a thread in feedback I have already been cross checking people and I have noticed you have in fact done that to some extent in that forum.

Be aware that open offensiveness TO ANY RELIGON in this forum is not tolarated, and as I said doing the same thing in other forums is the most likely thing to get you cat-banned from the religon forums.

That said I can't do anything until you point out exactly what you deemed offensive and USED THE REPORT POST FEATURE to report it

I do not see anything offensive in the comments, if anything I see the request for Muslims to point out the inaccuracties of the documentation cited, which is partly why this forum was set up (to point out mis-conceptions).

**** NOW STAY ON TOPIC FOR THE THREAD ****
If you wish to discuss this forums moderation you should do so in the thread below and not the current thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=290205

Anyone who continues on the moderation in this thread gets a weeks holiday after this post.

Hobbes

Babyviao has been banned for one week for posting about moderation when asked not to on this thread.

Medina banned for one week for the smarmy last post. I was in two minds to warn or ban but seeing as it was a dig at babyviao they get a weeks holiday too.

(note both posts deleted, so no comments on this thread about them)

NOW REMAIN ON TOPIC.

Wibbs

maitri wrote:

Hi!

I just came across this:/...etc

Interesting links(on both sides). I suppose a vaguely similar debate could be thought of in Christianity. The gospels containing Jesus' words(or Isa's. You see I'm learning ) plus/minus the letters of Paul and other later writers.

Purely from the outside it looks to me that no Muslim doubts the authenticity of the Quran. Full stop. End of story. Many Hadeeth on the other hand seem(at least to me) to be open to interpretation of authenticity, even from the very beginning of the faith(even with Sunni's the debate is/was there on some of them certainly).

This text obviously talks about not even considering the Hadiths - but only the Qur'an although there is a statement from Allah swt to obey His Final Messenger saws and to follow him. Those who think so are not Sunni Muslims.

Equally there appears to be statements from the Quran that suggests that it's the only source of divine wisdom for Muslims. Interesting to hear a measured response from a Sunni perspective.

Maybe this debate gets one sided because the Muslims here are of the majority Sunni not Shia branch of Islam(correct me if I'm wrong). If the Christians on their forum were all Catholics or the Buddhists were all Tibetan I'm sure you find a slant in that direction(naturally). Hey even the Atheist/agnostics get all sweaty about definitions.

the_new_mr

Well, this thread got a little bit crazy. Sorry I couldn't respond sooner but I was a little busy with real life and such

I have to say that I was a little shocked by this statement:

babyvaio wrote:

I'm not discussing anything in this thread, 'cos your intention was not a good one.

This made me cringle a little. It's not okay to question someone's intention as only God knows a person's intention. It appeared to me that Medina was only posting links with differing opinions. It's clear that babyvaio was responing to something that medina had said in post #2 before it was edited (which we can't see since the post was not reported) but it's still not okay to question someone's intention. Even if you think that someone's intention is not pure, it's best to assume it is until you can be sure it isn't. And even if you are sure it's not, there's really no point saying it since it can't be proved.

Likewise, Medina's statement in the deleted post was an obvious dig at babyvaio and is not okay.

I don't think this thread is an attack on Islam. It was originally posted by maitri and it seemed to be an honest question.

With respect to babyvaio, I personally would have given a warning on the questioning intention post. I think the ban is justified since Hobbes had warned to stay on topic and not discuss moderation issues in the thread.

With respect to medina, as I already said that I don't know what was originally said in post #2, I can't be sure whether the comment in post #13 -1 was a second negative statement or just the first one. However, I agree with Hobbes' decision. Digs at other posters are not okay (the same goes for babyvaio's intention dig).

So although I think that Medina's reason for being banned was weaker than babyvaio's, both bans are still justified. I hope that everybody comes back with a new understanding that attacking another individual is not okay. The classic "attack the post, not the poster". I would even say "attack the post nicely and calmly, not the poster". Can't we all just get along?

Now, to get back on topic. There are a few things to be said on it.

First of all, I understand that the hadith mentioned in the washington post article are not authentic. I wasn't able to read the other links at the moment. Just had the chance to skim through them (read them some other time maybe). I have to say though that I noticed a glaring error in the submission.org article. The guy said that "Islam (Submission) was founded by Abraham." and then went on to give the numbers of some verses in the Quran to support such a statement. What a thing to say!!! May God forgive him for such a statement. Islam was founded by God and nobody else. The verses in question.

Al-Imran:67-68:
"Abraham was neither a "Jew" nor a "Christian", but was one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto God; and he was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him.; Behold, the people who have the best claim to Abraham are surely those who follow him - as does this Prophet and all who believe [in him] - and God is near unto the believers."

Al-Hajj:78
"And strive hard in God’s cause with all the striving that is due to Him: it is He who has elected you [to carry His message], and has laid no hardship on you in [anything that pertains to religion, [and made you follow] the creed of your forefather Abraham. It is He who has named you in bygone times as well as in this [divine writ] – “those who have surrendered themselves to God”, so that the Apostle might bear witness to the truth before you, and that you might bear witness to it before all mankind. Thus, be constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and hold fast unto God. He is your Lord Supreme: and how excellent is this Lord Supreme, and how excellent this Giver of Succour!"

An-Nahl:123
"And lastly, We have inspired thee, [O Muhammad, with this message:] "Follow the creed of Abraham, who turned away from all that is false, and was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God;"

These verses show how Abaraham (peace be upon him) was following Islam but not the starter of it. Adam (peace be upon him) was the first Muslim on earth so to say that Abraham (peace be upon him) founded Islam is chronologically incorrect as well as theologically incorrect.

So, this false statement alone already has me questioning the knowledge of the author of that article. I'll still read it though but just wanted to give that warning.

The idea that hadith are to be completely rejected is a little off. As babyvaio pointed out, God says in the Quran to obey Him and His messenger. For example, God says (what means):

Al-Anfal:46
"And pay heed unto God and His Apostle, and do not [allow yourselves to] be at variance with one another, lest you lose heart and your moral strength desert you. And be patient in adversity: for, verily, God is with those who are patient in adversity."

I guess it could be argued that that was an instruction to the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) during his life but, on the other hand, we learn many parts of Islam (like how to pray and other vital things) from hadith so the idea of rejecting hadith point blank like that seems very out of the question.

The truth is that there are many hadith which are understood as authentic which aren't. As I said in another thread, not all hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are authentic and there are many fabricated haidth (whether a hadith was mis-communicated or purposefully corrupted or fabricated).

But I don't think it's okay to reject hadith altogether. So, I wouldn't say it's okay to remove hadith but rather, a stronger review should be carried out on what is authentic and what's not. However, the washington post seems to imply that these hadith are authentic and Turkey are removing them from religious texts which is not correct. The hadith mentioned by the washington post are not authentic and therefore should not be considered as authentic and I guess that's what Turkey is trying to do. To eradicate false hadith.

I read on the net somewhere that someone said that if it was up to them, they would burn every hadith not agreed upon by Muslims.

I know there are some people who call themselves "Quranic" and reject all hadith without thinking about it. I'd like to ask them how it is that they know how to pray etc. Just because the hadith are not infallible (like Muslims believe the Quran to be) doesn't mean that they should all be rejected.

Wibbs wrote:

Maybe this debate gets one sided because the Muslims here are of the majority Sunni not Shia branch of Islam(correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, I'm Sunni but I prefer to just call myself Muslim. Also, although Sunni and Shia may disagree on some hadith, Shia still accept the principle of hadith in the first place which is not what some of these links are talking about since they are talking about rejecting hadith simply because they're not Quran.

I also want to say that the Washington Post is very anti-Islam. I have it on very good authority from an honest friend that, a few years ago, they launched article after article accusing a Muslim community in Washington of having anti-semitic literature. When one of the community (the guy who actually related this story to me) provided a response letter clearly negating and refuting this claim against the Muslim community, the editor "decided" not to include the response in the paper. So, beware of the Washington Post and the media in general!

maitri

Just to make it clear: My intention with this thread was not to attack Islam, but just to hear your opinion on the question of revising hadiths like those in the article.

As I understand it, Babyvaio thinks that all hadiths are sacred (and infallible?) and can not be revised. Is that right Babyvaio? Does that also include the hadiths in the article, by the way? Or do you, too, think they are unauthentic? (If you think they are unauthentic, I guess you must think it ok to remove them?) Is hadith in your opinion just as sacred as the Qu’ran? (I know, and I am sorry, that you are not here to answer right now, but maybe you will when you come back?)

the_new_mr wrote:

First of all, I understand that the hadith mentioned in the washington post article are not authentic.
The idea that hadith are to be completely rejected is a little off. As babyvaio pointed out, God says in the Quran to obey Him and his messenger.
(…)
I guess it could be argued that that was an instruction to the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) during his life but, on the other hand, we learn many parts of Islam (like how to pray and other vital things) from hadith so the idea of rejecting hadith point blank like that seems very out of the question.
(…)
The truth is that there are many hadith which are understood as authentic which aren't. As I said in another thread, not all hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are authentic and there are many fabricated haidth (whether a hadith was mis-communicated or purposefully corrupted or fabricated).
(…)
But I don't think it's okay to reject hadith altogether. So, I wouldn't say it's okay to remove hadith but rather, a stronger review should be carried out on what is authentic and what's not. However, the washington post seems to imply that these hadith are authentic and Turkey are removing them from religious texts which is not correct. The hadith mentioned by the washington post are not authentic and therefore should not be considered as authentic and I guess that's what Turkey is trying to do. To eradicate false hadith.

As I understand it, you think that unauthentic hadiths might be removed but that authentic hadiths are sacred (just as sacred as the Qu’ran?). But how do you know if a hadith is authentic or unauthentic? How do you evaluate that? Is the criteria for excemple that a hadith if it shall be viewed as autenthic must be compatible with the teachings of the Qu’ran and with common sense and moral feeling? (I think 7:28 says something about this). Or are there other criteria that have to do with for instance when they were written? And who is to decide?

the_new_mr wrote:

I also want to say that the Washington Post is very anti-Islam.

I didn’t know. The article didn’t seem anti-Islamic to me. But since most of my Muslim acquaintances and friends are reform Muslims, I might just have another view of what is anti-Islamic than some of you have. I don’t know.

I looked up some hadiths and I think this must be my favourite, I think it is very lovely:

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 538:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that."

But what does the following hadiths mean? Are they authentic, as you see them?

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night."

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."

And who is to decide?

Mustafa

Hello
I wouldnt be able to say better than what has been said already.
Respect!

Although, but one thing.
Babyvaio is not totally wrong. ... He seems to me like more sensitive about things. I see that medina didnt, at all, mean to be attacking in any way. ... But it is a tiny little offending.
Due to midunderstandings?
Seemingly you intention was good, but your action was not perfect. Neither did it need to be. Perfection is to God.
However that article, is just what it takes to trigger this.

Rewarding bad with bad is bad. Depending on what bad is of course.
maitri: And who is to decide?

Altough: my peronal opinion (when i am not familiar with all hadith)
The hadiths quoted should be revised.

maitri

Hello Mustafa,

Thanks for interesting post, and welcome to boards.ie!

You say you think the hadiths quoted in the article should be revised. What are your criteria for deciding which hadiths should be revised?

Regards,

Maitri (Leetah from reflekterselv.com)

Wibbs

maitri wrote:

You say you think the hadiths quoted in the article should be revised. What are your criteria for deciding which hadiths should be revised?

That's a big debate among Islamic scholars. The authenticity depends on a few factors AFAIK. The reliable chain of transmission and whether or not the hadiths in question contradict something in the Quran(or other more reliable hadiths) would be two factors. For some it seems the idea that Allah will protect the texts from corruption makes the problem harder as if you say one hadith is wrong then others are open to question.

Mustafa

You say you think the hadiths quoted in the article should be revised. What are your criteria for deciding which hadiths should be revised?

Who is it to decide like you said?
That is not up to me to decide.
My crierias? I wouldnt have anohter person acting upong what i think. Of course i think that what i think is right, but how can i know that i am thinking right?
Sorry the misutake.

the_new_mr

Sorry for my late reply. Just been so busy lately. Better late than never I guess.

Welcome Mustafa! Nice to have you here and I hope that you come back often

maitri wrote:

Just to make it clear: My intention with this thread was not to attack Islam, but just to hear your opinion on the question of revising hadiths like those in the article.

Yeah, as I said in my previous post, that's how it appeared to me.

Anyway, finally got down to reading the submission.org article. It certainly does have a few more errors than the one I already mentioned. Nothing as big as the Abraham (peace be upon him) blunder I mentioned before but just small ones here and there. I see that it is from a group of people who believe only in the Quran. That's fair enough and they're entitled to their own opinion I guess. I have to say, despite the article's errors, it did have a lot of interesting information and made me think a good bit.

I understand that their argument that the Quran specifically uses the word hadith expressly forbidding the use of any other hadith for religious guideance is a little weak on the basis that hadith just means "speech" or "saying". Indeed, hadith is used in other places in the Quran in different context referring to speech or sayings in this way.

I think it is a general misconception (even amongst Muslims) that all hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are considered Sahih (correct). Indeed, I used to think this myself until about 4 or 5 years ago. This is somewhat confusing considering the names of the books are called Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Al-Muslim. I have known for quite a while now that there are indeed some fabricated haidths in the books of hadith (I think I already mentioned this in the music thread). However, something that that article brought my attention to was the possible large volume of hadith that are likely to be unauthentic. The article makes Abu Hurrayra out to be a liar. That's a possibility. Another possibility that occurred to me was that the hadith that are fabricated used Abu Hurrayra's name for whatever reason. Only God knows.

Anyway, whatever is the truth, Muslims should never see the hadith in the same light as the Quran. I personally believe that there are authentic hadith in the books of hadith and that they made it through either unchanged or changed only slightly. This is mainly supported by the presence of hadith backed up scientifically.

However, the hadith can never and should never be considered infallible and they were never intended to be. Indeed, the fact that some hadith contradict eachother shows this. One scholar named Al-Tabari who collected the first collection of hadith criticised his own collection. Usually, the scholars included nearly everything they heard even if they contradicted themselves in case they may accidently leave something authentic out.

Wibbs wrote:

For some it seems the idea that Allah will protect the texts from corruption

This honour is reserved only for the Quran. All Muslim scholars accept that the hadith have been corrupted and fabricated in some shape or form. The difference between scholars is which hadith are fabricated/corrupted and which ones aren't.

maitri wrote:

And who is to decide?

Well, traditionally, it's scholars. Still, scholars are only human beings suceptable to making mistakes. The truth is that you can never be sure if a certain hadith is authentic or not. Only God knows for sure. After reading the article, I've decided to be even more wary of hadith and will probably look at them in a different light from now on.

I have to say, the suggestion by that article that anyone who considers hadith a valid source of religious knowledge is committing shirk (association in worship) is a frightening one!!! That really got my mind going I can tell you!! Anyway, as I said earlier, I do believe that some hadith are authentic but of course it's impossible to know which ones are authentic. I pray that God guides us all as to what is right. Amen.

As for the hadith you mentioned maitri. I too also like the first one (as do most people).

As for the other two. I'm not sure on the authenticity of either of them. I have heard both of them explained before though whatever about their authenticity.

In the case of the third one, I heard that the reason was for being ungrateful to their fathers/husbands for providing for them.

In the case of the second one, a medical doctor very knowledgeable in religion and specialised in al tibb al-nabawy (the Prophetic medicine) which uses some hadith for medical advice put forward the theory that the Prophet was trying to explain the idea of bacteria to people who wouldn't have been able to understand and so used the term satan to refer to this bacteria. This doctor gives medical advice to people with certain types (not all types) of nasal infections to perform as recommended by the Prophet by washing the nose by blowing aggressively during ablution.

Another explanation by another scholar was that it is indeed satan. Doesn't quite rest with myself there to be quite honest.

As I said, I can't comment on the authenticity of either hadith. Of course, only God knows.

And by the way, the washington post article is clearly anti-Islamic in my opinion since they:
1) make no mention of the fact that the hadith are considered unauthentic and therefore try to alienate Islam from its readers by implying that this is part of the Islamic faith in the first place
2) place the hadith at the very top to get the attention of the readers and make a bad first impression on the reader concerning the subject.

Medina

Hi everyone, I'm back

Well I hope Maitri you don't feel I'm going off topic here but something I've been wondering is this:

Islam says (to the best of my knowledge) that the message revealed by Jesus was corrupted, that the Bible which was put together 300 or so years after Jesus was not the true message, it was decided upon what to put in and what to leave out. It says that the Bible is not accurate in it's description of what Jesus said / did etc.

The problem I have is that the Hadith were also compiled long after the life of Muhammed and came down through various generations. Also the compilers decided what to put in and what to leave out. Also that large portions of the details of how to be a good Muslim are taken from the Hadith. Hadith are given as examples to back up many rules about how to act. Also when I asked a Muslim I know how the information about how Muhammed acted could have stayed accurate through generations, he says that is because they memorized these things.

Now, I was under the impression that Muslims only tried to memorize the Qur'an?

How Islam denies that the Bible could be correct on the basis of the amount of time between its compilation and the life of Jesus, when the Hadith was formed in relatively the same time and manner?

Why when some Hadith are not authentic, Islam places any weight on the Hadith at all...why once trust in its complete accuracy is gone, is it still used? And being told to 'follow the sunnah/way of the Messenger' is not good enough here for me because to me I would have thought that otherwise:

1) Muhammed would have been aware that people depended upon his actions/decisions/judgements and would have learned to read and write and recorded these things himself

2)Muhammed lived out the principles in the Qur'an, so to me the Hadith is not the Sunnah, the Qur'an is and shouldn't Muslims live by the Qur'an alone..as Muhammed did?

maitri

Hi Everybody!

Mustafa wrote:

My crierias? I wouldnt have another person acting upon what I think. Of course I think that what I think is right, but how can I know that I am thinking right?

Good question. That’s one of the things that make life so complicated. And so interesting!

The_New_Mister wrote:

And by the way, the washington post article is clearly anti-Islamic in my opinion since they:
1) make no mention of the fact that the hadith are considered unauthentic and therefore try to alienate Islam from its readers by implying that this is part of the Islamic faith in the first place
Of course I think that what I think is right, but how can I know that I am thinking right?

Thanks for interesting posts, New Mister!
I can absolutely understand that you found it offending that the newspaper made it seem like most traditional Muslims consider these hadiths as authentic if, in fact, they don’t. Its true that western newspapers are often very negative towards Islam (though not always!), and that, I guess, must really be a burden for Muslims sometimes.

Medina wrote:

Hi everyone, I'm back

Why when some Hadith are not authentic, Islam places any weight on the Hadith at all...why once trust in its complete accuracy is gone, is it still used? And being told to 'follow the sunnah/way of the Messenger' is not good enough here for me because to me I would have thought that otherwise:

1) Muhammed would have been aware that people depended upon his actions/decisions/judgements and would have learned to read and write and recorded these things himself

2)Muhammed lived out the principles in the Qur'an, so to me the Hadith is not the Sunnah, the Qur'an is and shouldn't Muslims live by the Qur'an alone..as Muhammed did?

Hi!
I do not have enough knowledge on the topic to answer these questions, so I'll leave them to the Muslims on the forum.

By the way, here's a hadith database with four different hadith collections, if somebody's interested:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

Regards,

M.

Wibbs

Medina wrote:

2)Muhammed lived out the principles in the Qur'an, so to me the Hadith is not the Sunnah, the Qur'an is and shouldn't Muslims live by the Qur'an alone..as Muhammed did?

Good questions all. One thing though on your last point. IIRC did Mohammed not recieve revelations/devine instructions in some of the Hadeeth? This would make some of them more binding as they're like extensions to the Quran(for want of a better word).

Medina

As far as I understand it, the Hadith are accounts of what Muhammed said /did based on the narration of a companion of his, and as these companions were not alive when the Hadith were compiled then whoever heard it from the companion, told either the compile or someone else who told the compiler.

So you have a chain

Muhammed>>Companion>>Someone else>>Someone else?>>Compiler.

Now I'm just not sure if I can believe that so much detail was 'memorized' and accurately passed down thru so many generations.

Maybe I'm being inaccurate here I'm not fully sure how long after his death they were compiled but I read somewhere it was in the region of 300 years.

the_new_mr

Medina wrote:

Islam says (to the best of my knowledge) that the message revealed by Jesus was corrupted, that the Bible which was put together 300 or so years after Jesus was not the true message, it was decided upon what to put in and what to leave out. It says that the Bible is not accurate in it's description of what Jesus said / did etc.

Actually, strictly speaking, Islam believes the following:

The Islamic belief on the matter agrees with the opinion of Bible scholars themselves and that is that the Bible contains:
The words of God
+
The words of the Bible authors
+
The words of the Bible translators
+
The words of historians

The Quran talks about revealing the injeel to Jesus (peace be upon him) which is the Gospel, not the Bible.

This is shown in Al-Imran, verse 48 when God is talking to Mary (peace be upon her) through the Angel Gabriel

Al-Imran:48
"And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel."

The word in Arabic here is injeel.

The Bible itself was translated from one langauge to another and, as said on other threads already, translation also means some interpretation. You can't translate something without first interpreting it. This goes for the Quran as well by the way. You can have an English translation of the Quran but there's no such thing as an English Quran.

There's also the idea of intentional corruption. I won't comment on this though.

Also, God says that He has taken it upon Himself to preserve the Quran.

Al-Hijr:9
"Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian."

whereas preserving the Torah was the responsibility of its people.

Al-Ma'ida:44
"It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers."

Now, getting back to the hadith.

It's very important to underline the fact Muslims do not believe the books of hadith to be infallible or perfect. The first book of hadith was compiled by Al-Tabari in the first century after the death of Mohamed (peace be upon him). As I said in a previous post, Al-Tabari himself criticised his own collection. If anyone takes hadith at face value just because they are in the books of Bukhari, Muslim or whoever then they are leading themselves well astray.

As I've said in my previous post, my view of hadith has changed over the years. That knowledge that a lot of hadith are potentially unauthentic means that a person should not just take them as truth and leave it at that.

However, I don't believe that all hadith are unauthentic or corrupt and this is because some hadith have made it through which are backed up by scientific opinion so I use the logic that if these hadith made it through then it's likely that others made it through too. I feel this especially when I read or hear a hadith that says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said something like:
"None of your faith is complete until he wishes for his brother (in faith) what he wishes for himself" or "There is a mercy from God to be obtained from being merciful to any living thing".

I'll never take hadith that conflict with a ruling from the Quran. Such hadith can never be authentic. Any Muslim accepts that. This is the reason for the argument in the Muslim world that is going on concerning stoning adulterers and adulteresses. Having said that, the argument for that particular ruling is that the Quran states that we should accept what the Prophet accepted and forbid what the Prophet forbade. And so the discussion continues on.

So, I think that if a hadith gives advice or guidance on how to comply with the rules laid down in the Quran then there can't be any harm in that. God forgive me if I'm saying anything wrong here. Even if it's not authentic, if it's good advice and works then we won't be held responsible for taking the advice of a hadith if we are ignorant of the fact.

Also, on comparing the hadith to the Bible, there is a bit of a difference in that Muslims use the Quran as the core to their belief.

Medina wrote:

why once trust in its complete accuracy is gone, is it still used?

If trust in its accuracy is gone then it should definitely not be used anymore.

Medina wrote:

1) Muhammed would have been aware that people depended upon his actions/decisions/judgements and would have learned to read and write and recorded these things himself

I'm sure that had this been necessary, it would have been done. I think that the Prophet would not want to risk such a thing as there's the danger of that kind of scripture being taken in too high esteem.

Medina wrote:

2)Muhammed lived out the principles in the Qur'an, so to me the Hadith is not the Sunnah, the Qur'an is and shouldn't Muslims live by the Qur'an alone..as Muhammed did?

Well, again this goes back to the principle of God telling us to obey God and His messenger.

maitri wrote:

I can absolutely understand that you found it offending that the newspaper made it seem like most traditional Muslims consider these hadiths as authentic if, in fact, they don’t. Its true that western newspapers are often very negative towards Islam (though not always!), and that, I guess, must really be a burden for Muslims sometimes.

You said it!

Wibbs wrote:

IIRC did Mohammed not recieve revelations/devine instructions in some of the Hadeeth?

The type of hadith you are referring to are called hadith Qudsi or "Sacred hadith". The idea behind a sacred hadith is that the meaning was revealed to the messenger but that the words are the Prophet's. This is different to the Quran where both the meaning and the words are God's.

An example of a hadith qudsi:
The Prophet (saw) also said: "Allah s.w.t. says: 'Indeed I am as My servant presumes Me to be, and I am with him when he remembers Me, so if he remembers Me to himself I remember him to Myself, and if he remembers Me amongst a company I remember him amongst a company greater than it, and if he draws near to Me the span of a hand I draw near to him the span of two outstretched arms, and if he takes a step towards Me I hastily step towards him"

Like other hadith, I guess that these hadith's authenticity may also have a question mark on them purely because of the fact that it is a hadith and not part of the Quran. Still, I understand (and I could be wrong on this) that hadtih qudsi usually have a very high level of authenticity.

Anyway, to sum up once again, hadith are not meant to be taken as 100% accurate but there are authentic ones in there. God knows best.

maitri

Thanks, everybody, for all your interesting posts!

the_new_mr wrote:

An example of a hadith qudsi:
The Prophet (saw) also said: "Allah s.w.t. says: 'Indeed I am as My servant presumes Me to be, and I am with him when he remembers Me, so if he remembers Me to himself I remember him to Myself, and if he remembers Me amongst a company I remember him amongst a company greater than it, and if he draws near to Me the span of a hand I draw near to him the span of two outstretched arms, and if he takes a step towards Me I hastily step towards him"

These are beautiful words.

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, to sum up once again, hadith are not meant to be taken as 100% accurate but there are authentic ones in there. God knows best.

I have some more questions about hadiths:

1) I understand that you base the tradition of following the hadiths on the words from the Qu’ran that a good example has been set for you by the Prophet. But the Qu’ran says the same about Abraham (see quote), and as I understand it (and I have been told) you don’t have any book with Abraham hadiths that Muslims must follow?

[60:4] A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him. They said to their people, "We disown you and the idols that you worship besides GOD. We denounce you, and you will see nothing from us except animosity and hatred until you believe in GOD ALONE." However, a mistake was committed by Abraham when he said to his father, "I will pray for your forgiveness, but I possess no power to protect you from GOD." "Our Lord, we trust in You, and submit to You; to You is the final destiny.

2) Also it seems to me that some Muslims (not all!) think that one should copy every known word and act of the Prophet ( even when it comes to little things like how to drink a glass of water or with which foot first to get out of bed in the morning) as written in the hadiths – at least if they are believed to be authentic hadiths - but isn’t this implying that the Prophet Mohammad was infallible? And that everything he has said or done must be right - for all people in all times? But according to the Qu’ran it seems to be quite clear that the Prophet Muhammad, though chosen as worthy to get the revelations, is not an infallible person:

[33:37] Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, "Keep your wife and reverence GOD," and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD's commands shall be done.

And:

[80:1] He (Muhammad) frowned and turned away.
[80:2] When the blind man came to him.
[80:3] How do you know? He may purify himself.
[80:4] Or he may take heed, and benefit from the message.
[80:5] As for the rich man.
[80:6] You gave him your attention.
[80:7] Even though you could not guarantee his salvation.
[80:8] The one who came to you eagerly.
[80:9] And is really reverent.
[80:10] You ignored him.
[80:11] Indeed, this is a reminder.
[80:12] Whoever wills shall take heed.

I hope you don’t find me disrespectful for pointing out this, for it is not my intention to be disrespectful, and I am sure that Muhammad was a very good and very special person. But even so the Qu’ran doesn’t say he is infallible. It states that he is not.

No human beings are innfallible, I think. What do you think?
Isn't the tradition of following the hadiths as rules not to be questioned based on the thought that the Prophet Mohammed was infallible, or is it not?


Regards,

M.

babyvaio

maitri wrote:

Thanks, everybody, for all your interesting posts!



These are beautiful words.



I have some more questions about hadiths:

1) I understand that you base the tradition of following the hadiths on the words from the Qu’ran that a good example has been set for you by the Prophet. But the Qu’ran says the same about Abraham (see quote), and as I understand it (and I have been told) you don’t have any book with Abraham hadiths that Muslims must follow?

[60:4] A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him. They said to their people, "We disown you and the idols that you worship besides GOD. We denounce you, and you will see nothing from us except animosity and hatred until you believe in GOD ALONE." However, a mistake was committed by Abraham when he said to his father, "I will pray for your forgiveness, but I possess no power to protect you from GOD." "Our Lord, we trust in You, and submit to You; to You is the final destiny.

2) Also it seems to me that some Muslims (not all!) think that one should copy every known word and act of the Prophet ( even when it comes to little things like how to drink a glass of water or with which foot first to get out of bed in the morning) as written in the hadiths – at least if they are believed to be authentic hadiths - but isn’t this implying that the Prophet Mohammad was infallible? And that everything he has said or done must be right - for all people in all times? But according to the Qu’ran it seems to be quite clear that the Prophet Muhammad, though chosen as worthy to get the revelations, is not an infallible person:

[33:37] Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, "Keep your wife and reverence GOD," and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD's commands shall be done.

And:

[80:1] He (Muhammad) frowned and turned away.
[80:2] When the blind man came to him.
[80:3] How do you know? He may purify himself.
[80:4] Or he may take heed, and benefit from the message.
[80:5] As for the rich man.
[80:6] You gave him your attention.
[80:7] Even though you could not guarantee his salvation.
[80:8] The one who came to you eagerly.
[80:9] And is really reverent.
[80:10] You ignored him.
[80:11] Indeed, this is a reminder.
[80:12] Whoever wills shall take heed.

I hope you don’t find me disrespectful for pointing out this, for it is not my intention to be disrespectful, and I am sure that Muhammad was a very good and very special person. But even so the Qu’ran doesn’t say he is infallible. It states that he is not.

No human beings are innfallible, I think. What do you think?
Isn't the tradition of following the hadiths as rules not to be questioned based on the thought that the Prophet Mohammed was infallible, or is it not?


Regards,

M.

1) It is not an obligation for Muslims to follow Abraham, peace upon him, in such a sense, who (thru Muslim eyes) was a Muslim himself (meaning that he totally surrendered to One True God, The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, therefore Abraham was a Muslim). It is to share the same belief - that is than there are no gods except Allah, that there is afterlife after this, that Allah swt had created angels, this universe, that Paradise is the truth, that Hell is the truth, that Judgement Day is the truth, etc. That is what also Abraham believed.
But the actual Law or Allah's Code was a bit different throught out the history - not that He swt didn't know what is good or bad for people - but for instance alcohold became completely forbidden in the 7th century. There were some verses revealed before saying how alcohol is a bad thing (not in these very words of course), etc. but later on it became forbidden. See, this is Allah's Wisdom - people then were heavily drinking and that is one bad habit, and He knew people would need time to get rid of it, etc. (that is my personal opinion, but you will find very similar statements to this one regarding alcohol prohibition). And this prohibition is valid until the end of this world.
So the code was a bit different, but always accurate, precise and always the right one for Allah knows what is good for us and what is not good for us.

2) The fact that some Muslims (may Allah swt reward them for doing so) immitate their/our Prophet saws, is becose Allah swt said that he is the best example. But that does not mean that he is infallible. Only Allah swt is infallible. Simple as that. That is Muslim belief. Regarding the character and life of Muhammad saws, there are many books on this and even the comparisons were made (100 most influential people of known history) and Muhammad saws was put on the 1st place even by Christian historians.

So bottom line, every Muslim wants to follow his example, 'cos every single one of them has a direct proof in the Qur'an (who has the best character and who is the best person, etc.).

The proof that Muhammad saws was not infallible can also be found in the Qur'an in the actual chapter you yourself quoted.

About the actual words - the words of Muhammad saws are not his own words, but this is yet another revelation on how to life this life, etc. The words are put in his mouth by the Lord swt.

And they actually are valid until the Judgement Day. Islam can be applied to any situation, any past, present, future time, etc. for it is universal and comprehensive system of life as sent down by Allaw swt.

the_new_mr

Just as a quick note, I thought some people might be wondering what babyvaio means by "swt" and "saws". The first one is used after mentioning Allah (God): swt means Subhanahu wa ta'ala and means (roughly) praised and exalted is He.

The second one is used after mentioning the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him): saws means "Sall Allahu 'allahi wa sallim" which means peace and God's blessings be on him.

maitri wrote:

1) I understand that you base the tradition of following the hadiths on the words from the Qu’ran that a good example has been set for you by the Prophet. But the Qu’ran says the same about Abraham (see quote), and as I understand it (and I have been told) you don’t have any book with Abraham hadiths that Muslims must follow?

The Quran does indeed set forward Abraham (peace be upon him) as an example but I think it's as an example of how to go about pure monotheism.

The verse you mentioned concerning Mohamed (peace be upon him) is:

Al-Ahzab:21
"Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much."

And a verse showing that we should obey what God tells us and God tells us that we should obey Mohamed (peace be upon him).

Al-Nour:54
"Say: “Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle.” And if you turn away [from the Apostle, know that] he will have to answer only for whatever he has been charged with, and you, for what you have been charged with; but if you pay heed unto him, you will be on the right way. Withal, the Apostle is not bound to do more than clearly deliver the message [entrust*ed to him]."

And a verse showing that the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) is entrused with explaining the verses of the Quran.

An-Nahl:44
"With clear proofs and writings; and We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them, and that haply they may reflect."

maitri wrote:

2) Also it seems to me that some Muslims (not all!) think that one should copy every known word and act of the Prophet ( even when it comes to little things like how to drink a glass of water or with which foot first to get out of bed in the morning) as written in the hadiths – at least if they are believed to be authentic hadiths - but isn’t this implying that the Prophet Mohammad was infallible? And that everything he has said or done must be right - for all people in all times? But according to the Qu’ran it seems to be quite clear that the Prophet Muhammad, though chosen as worthy to get the revelations, is not an infallible person:

Certainly, Mohamed (peace be upon him) was not infallible. As you showed in the verses you quoted, he's prone to error. Of course, these are never big errors, just small ones here and there (such as a bad judgement on priorities in the case of the blind man). God points out Mohamed's (peace be upon him) mortality and humanity in the Quran.

Al-Kahf:110
"Say [O Prophet]: "I am but a mortal man like all of you. It has been revealed unto me that your God is the One and Only God. Hence, whoever looks forward [with hope and awe] to meeting his Sustainer [on Judgment Day], let him do righteous deeds, and let him not ascribe unto anyone or anything a share in the worship due to his Sustainer!" "

Fussilat:6
"Say thou, [O Prophet:] “I am but a mortal like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is the One God: go, then, straight towards Him and seek His forgiveness!” And woe unto those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him,"

You raise a good point on the thing about following hadith. Certainly, the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) wasn't infalliable and, as I've said, I personally am more aware of hadith and the possibility that they're not authentic. Some of the hadith on advice on life have been later proved correct using medical research so some of it must be true. Hard to know which ones though. I can't tell that. I only wish that God guides us to what is right.

maitri

Thanks for interesting and informative posts, babyvaio and the_new_mr. It has been very interesting to learn about your thoughts on these matters.

the_new_mr wrote:

You raise a good point on the thing about following hadith. Certainly, the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) wasn't infallible and, as I've said, I personally am more aware of hadith and the possibility that they're not authentic. Some of the hadith on advice on life have been later proved correct using medical research so some of it must be true. Hard to know which ones though. I can't tell that. I only wish that God guides us to what is right.

I guess it must be like it is with everything else in life that we are not absolutely sure about. We'll just have to use our common sense and our hearts as best as we can, and leave the rest to "the Providence" (if we believe in one). This, as I understand it, is the Koranic advice as well.

the_new_mr

Exactly!

You are most welcome maitri I pray that we haven't mentioned anything incorrect and that God forgives us if we have.