Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Not sure if this topic had been discussed before or not. Tried to search for it but didn’t find it.

It is a known fact that the Hadith was written 200 years after Mohammed’s death, and that Mohammed had forbidden his followers from recording any hadith.

Yet the Hadith has become the basis for most of the Sharia laws and edicts, esp. the strictest ones. Why???????

The following series of 21 parts called Exposing the Hadith shows the total irrelevance of the Hadith in Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7WNuGeN ... re=related

The above link is for Part 1, but you can see the links to the other parts when you open this page.

The Jews use the Torah. The Christians use the Bible. But Moslems base their religion on the Quran plus 6-12 other Books of Hadith, even though Allah says that the Quran is "Perfect and Complete."

What went wrong????

Well, I'm not aware of the Holy Prophet, pbuh, forbidding anyone from following what he told them to do! (Sort of illogical, if you ask me - how would that work 'Hey guys, this is how to follow Islam - but btw don't follow any of my sayings/Hadith')

But you ask a valid question - given the problems with false/contradictory Hadith (problems recognised and highlighted by the compilers of books of Hadith) why shouldn't we do away with them?

There are latter day sects who do subscribe to this belief - a good example are the 'Submitters' who believe Rashid Khalifa was a prophet of God and his translation of the Quran is the 'authorised version'. There are others who say Hadith shouldn't be followed, only their Quran. However, perversely, they also say that people should follow 'so and so's ' interpretation of the Quranic instructions.

So, we need to refer back to the Quran.

God says there that Muslims should obey those in authority and certainly should listen to the Prophets who bring them the message. God says that Abraham prayed for a Messenger who would bring AND TEACH the book (i.e. the Quran). All Muslims therefore believe that the Prophet, pbuh, was a teacher and an exemplar.

This is the verse 2.129:

‘And, our Lord, raise up among them a Messenger from among themselves, who may recite to them Thy Signs and teach them the Book and Wisdom and may purify them; surely, Thou art the Mighty, the Wise.’

I've not met a 'Quran only' person who has been able to explain this verse and reconcile it with their belief that we SHOULDN'T follow what the Prophet, pbuh, taught of the Quran. If you do find one, please invite them here to explain to me how we can ignore Hadith and Sunna given this verse.

All the instances the first video shows are quoting the Quran talking about 'sayings' in general (i.e. 'hadith') and not about what later became known has 'Hadith'. Its a bit like saying Jesus said we should ignore gossip or 'good news' given by charlatans, and then someone using this saying to say we should reject completely the Good News (Gospels) written much later which report what Jesus said, but also contain interpolations and additions.

Therefore, Islam relies on the Quran primarily, then secondarily the Sunnah - 'HOW' the Prophet, pbuh, practiced Islam and then thirdly 'what' the Prophet, pbuh, instructed.

On all the main points of Islamic theology, the Quran and sunnah are quite clear, and Hadith back up all these main points. When you get to the periphery of the theology, we get variations - eg. whether one should move the right forefinger when it is raised in prayer or not.

Therefore people have to rely on either self-study, or choose a group/school of thought which to follow. I follow primarily the Hanafi school of thought, but the theology is shared by pretty much all Muslims (the five pillars, articles of faith etc).

So, should we throw out Hadith? Some people think so, I don't. I do believe they should be used with caution and we should reject any that contradict Quran or Sunnah - but I also think that focusing on Hadith is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic - sort of misses the point about Islam totally.

What do others think?

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

I plan to get back to you a little later. I have to check out a couple of things first.

Cheers!

Shafique,

1- There is a hadith in which Prophet Mohammed prohibited his companions from writing down his sayings. I think this hadith is also quoted in the above series.

2- Suppose there is no such hadith, if the Prophet thought the Hadith was so important, why didn’t he ask his companions to record his sayings. He didn’t do that, nor did all the Caliphs after him for the next 200 hundred years. It was also reported that Caliph Omar had become angry when he saw people trying to write the Hadith, and he stopped them by saying “are you trying to make another Quran???”

3- Yes the Quran asks Moslems to follow Mohammed. But I am told that does not mean to follow him in everything he said or did. Just to follow him insofar as the Quran says with regards to the divine message.

4. We know that Mohammed, as a person, was not perfect. Allah reprimanded him for several wrongs he made, and he used to ask his companions for advice. If he was not perfect, then not everything he said or did was perfect either.

5. There is no way to verify, with 100 % accuracy, what someone said 200 years ago in the absence of reliable authenticated records. This statement holds true today, despite the availability of so many means of keeping and verifying records. Imagine how true this statement is if applied over a century ago. How can people base their faith on hear-say unverifiable accounts??

If you haven't done so, I suggest you view the entire series to appreciate the points I raised above.

Tom Jones wrote:1- There is a hadith in which Prophet Mohammed prohibited his companions from writing down his sayings. I think this hadith is also quoted in the above series.

So, the Prophet did teach Muslims about how to follow Islam and taught them things not in the Quran (the Quran doesn't say 'don't write down what the Prophet says'! The principle is whether the Prophet taught how to follow Islam and elaborated on practices not detailed in the Quran. If the answer is 'yes' (which it seems obvious it is), then the question becomes - should Muslims follow these instructions or not.

Given that God says in the Quran he will teach, and Muslims should obey him (as he is in authority), then the onus is on us to ensure we are following the teachings of God as elaborated by the Prophet, pbuh.

Tom Jones wrote:2- Suppose there is no such hadith, if the Prophet thought the Hadith was so important, why didn’t he ask his companions to record his sayings. He didn’t do that, nor did all the Caliphs after him for the next 200 hundred years. It was also reported that Caliph Omar had become angry when he saw people trying to write the Hadith, and he stopped them by saying “are you trying to make another Quran???”

At the time the Quran was being revealed, there is a logic to not allowing his sayings to be written down. This could be to avoid any confusion over the Quranic revelations (literal revelations from God) and what the Prophet said about these, or general remarks.

The crux is whether the 'hadith' were forbidden from being obeyed/followed. (And this is the Question I'm still waiting for a valid answer from those who state all Hadith should be ignored)

At the time of the compilation of Hadith, this issue was moot - the Quran had been fully revealed, memorised by tens of thousands and written down to faithfully reproduce what had been memorised.

Tom Jones wrote:3- Yes the Quran asks Moslems to follow Mohammed. But I am told that does not mean to follow him in everything he said or did. Just to follow him insofar as the Quran says with regards to the divine message.

Yes. I agree - there are Hadith which state that in secular issues we shouldn't necessarily follow what the Prophet is reported to have said - especially if it contradicts the Quran. There is an example where he gave some advice about how some seedlings should be treated, this was followed and then when the seedlings died - he stated that as he was not a farmer, the others should have corrected his bad advice and pointed out his mistake.

Tom Jones wrote:4. We know that Mohammed, as a person, was not perfect. Allah reprimanded him for several wrongs he made, and he used to ask his companions for advice. If he was not perfect, then not everything he said or did was perfect either.

Agreed. However, everything pertaining to religion we believe was perfect - the errors mentioned in the Quran only amount to him frowning at a blind man in frustration. Asking for advice is a sign of not bein All-Knowing, and we know that no human has this attribute.

That said, given that he did teach how to live one's life according to Islam (and taught things not explicit in the Quran), I can't see how him being a human being means we have to discard all he explained.

Tom Jones wrote:5. There is no way to verify, with 100 % accuracy, what someone said 200 years ago in the absence of reliable authenticated records. This statement holds true today, despite the availability of so many means of keeping and verifying records. Imagine how true this statement is if applied over a century ago. How can people base their faith on hear-say unverifiable accounts??

Agreed - can't verify with 100% accuracy. However, for all the main points of Islam we have the Quran and we have all the Hadith that merely clarify aspects of the Quran and don't contradict it. The main schools of jurisprudence actually agree on over 95% of the issues and the differences are only peripheral (in relation to what Muslims should believe, how they should worship etc).

Muslims base their faith primarily on the Quran, then Sunnah then Hadith. The codification of these has taken place and yet still evolves as society evolves. The 4 main Sunni schools of jurisprudence and the main Shia schools of jurisprudence all follow the Quran and Sunnah and Hadith, and the variation can indeed be traced back to contradicting/variations of the latter two.

No one disputes that the Prophet taught those around him about Islam and the Quran, and for over a millenia it was taken for granted that we need to abide by these instructions - despite the problems with transmission. The 20th century reformist view that all Hadith are to be ignored doesn't stand close scrutiny, I'm afraid.

The question still boils down to the verse of the Quran I quoted - which stated that the Prophet, pbuh, would teach the book as well as reciting it's revelation.


I'm still waiting for a valid argument why we should ignore these teachings in toto. The arguments you've listed above are factual descriptions of issues with Hadith in general, and are well known - indeed the compilers of Hadith themselves highlighted these issues in their compilations.


I personally do not take Hadith references at face value and will not automatically follow a 'Hadith' - and I will absolutely reject any Hadith that contradicts the Quran. This line of reasoning is exactly the principle that is applied to other compilations of sayings/reports written down long after the events - from court transcripts to other books of scripture. We look for internal consistency and then make value judgments about what to reject etc. We don't pick one statement in the pile which says the statements may be unreliable and then reject all the statements.

So, the question still remains for me - given the Prophet did teach details that are not in the Quran, and don't contradict the Quran - what is the argument for ignoring these teachings?

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

1- You said that Moslems also base their faith on the Sunnah. I assume the Sunnah is the Prophet’s deeds, not his sayings. But how did you learn about the Sunnah?

Wasn’t the Sunnah also related in the Hadith books, which means it is part of the Hadith. Meaning it is also subject to the same errors like the Hadith. Correct???

2- You said that the Prophet had to teach his followers details that were not in the Quran. But doesn’t that contradict with what Allah said in the Quran?? Allah said (in the Quran) that the Quran is complete with all the details for everything (Surrah Yousef, Verse 111).

3- You said the Prophet did not forbid anyone from following the Hadith. But that does not logically mean that it has to be followed until eternity. It could have been only pertaining to that era; otherwise, he would’ve made sure it was persevered to future generations. To the contrary, he forbade anyone from preserving it.

4- You said that the Hadith was not recorded for fear it might get confused with the Quran. But that also contradicts with what Allah said in the Quran,. that Allah would make sure the Quran always remained preserved and intact for eternity.

5- You said that the Prophet taught his followers the Book, beside reciting the revelation. So you’re saying his teachings are also part of the revelations, otherwise he would not have dared teach something, on his own, that was not revealed to him. Right?? So if his teachings were part of the revelations, why didn’t he make sure they were also preserved???

Tom Jones wrote:1- You said that Moslems also base their faith on the Sunnah. I assume the Sunnah is the Prophet’s deeds, not his sayings. But how did you learn about the Sunnah?

Wasn’t the Sunnah also related in the Hadith books, which means it is part of the Hadith. Meaning it is also subject to the same errors like the Hadith. Correct???

Not quite.

Whilst Hadith are people's recollections of words said by the Prophet, pbuh - sunnah are what people actually did and they copied/followed. Eg. How he prayed.

And yes, the transmission of the actions is also subject to errors - that is why it is distinct from the Quran (most authentic, no errors) and Hadith (more prone to errors).

Sunnah tells us how the Prophet, pbuh, performed the prayers - in detail. This is not recorded in detail in Hadith, but has been passed on and recorded separately - and commented on/codified by the schools of jurisprudence.

Tom Jones wrote:2- You said that the Prophet had to teach his followers details that were not in the Quran. But doesn’t that contradict with what Allah said in the Quran?? Allah said (in the Quran) that the Quran is complete with all the details for everything (Surrah Yousef, Verse 111).

If one takes this verse to mean that no other teaching outside the Quran is needed, then yes, indeed, God saying that the Prophet will teach things outside the 'book' is indeed a contradiction. The fact that the Quran does say this and the fact that the Prophet, pbuh, did teach things not in the Quran shows that he believed the latter instruction and didn't interpret 12.111 to mean that there is no need for instructions outside the Quran. (One example would be the details of how to pray - what to recite, how many rakaats etc).

Tom Jones wrote:3- You said the Prophet did not forbid anyone from following the Hadith. But that does not logically mean that it has to be followed until eternity. It could have been only pertaining to that era; otherwise, he would’ve made sure it was persevered to future generations. To the contrary, he forbade anyone from preserving it.

If you look back - you were referring to a Hadith which forbade his companions from writing down his Hadith - not from not following them. (that would be illogical - he gives instructions, then forbids people from following them?)

I also don't follow why the instructions should necessarily be viewed as eternal - there are many instances where the Prophet, pbuh, instructed that judgement should be used where there were grey areas. He never asked us to follow anything illogical. Therefore, the instruction contained in a few hadith about not writing down the Hadith could be interepreted in the context of the time that the Quran was being revealed.

However, the crux is not how the Hadith were preserved - but whether there was any instruction to NOT follow the teachings of the Prophet, pbuh.

Tom Jones wrote:4- You said that the Hadith was not recorded for fear it might get confused with the Quran. But that also contradicts with what Allah said in the Quran,. that Allah would make sure the Quran always remained preserved and intact for eternity.

Yes, it was. One of the ways was to not allow Hadith to be written down during the period of revelation.

As I said, once this had taken place, and the Quran was memorised, there was no problem in compiling Hadith.

The incident of the 'satanic verses' is explained by some Muslim historians as an incident where a heckler added some words when the Quran was being recited, and some pagans took this to be part of the Quran. That was just one incident and was quickly corrected, but it showed why the oral revelations of God were jealously and meticulously preserved (by memorisation and several scribes writing it down)

Tom Jones wrote:5- You said that the Prophet taught his followers the Book, beside reciting the revelation. So you’re saying his teachings are also part of the revelations, otherwise he would not have dared teach something, on his own, that was not revealed to him. Right?? So if his teachings were part of the revelations, why didn’t he make sure they were also preserved???

The revelation in this case is the literal words of God in the Quran. Indeed there are Hadith which record revelations from God which do not form part of the Quran, and there are other Hadith which just record the Prophet, pbuh, teaching aspects of Islam (not recounting revelations) - eg his final sermon. Hadith are classified

By teaching the people he did indeed pass on the teachings. The promise of preservation of the Quran, is by God and only applies to the Quran though.

There are hadith which state that Muslims will stray (as all religous followers have done before) and talks of the need for reformers in each age. Indeed it says that at the head of each century there will be 'Mujadids' - teachers who will reform the Muslims.



But we keep coming back to the central point - does God forbid Muslims from following the teachings of Muhammad, pbuh, or not?

Given that the Quran says that the Prophet will teach things outside the Quran, given that the Prophet, pbuh, did indeed teach things outside the Quran - on what basis should we therefore ignore these teachings?

Muslims choose whether to agree with the interpretations of the 20th century 'reformists' who reject all Hadith, or choose to agree with the logic that states we should seek to understand what the Prophet, pbuh, taught and follow that (and not follow anything that contradicts the Quran).


I've looked at the issue in depth, and I'm still to be convinced by the 20th century arguments, I'm afraid.

Cheers,
Shafique

The Hadith, as it is right now, is bad for Islam. A lot of people use the Hadith to serve their own agenda, from those who suppress women, to those who kill in the name of Allah, to those who make Islam too restrictive, …etc.

There are hadiths that encourage intolerance and hatred. There are hadiths that speak of illogical and wrong facts. There are hadiths that degrade women. For exmple there is a hadith in which Mohammed said, "I was ordered by (Allah) to fight (declare war) on those who will not say the Shahada (right word or not??) that All is the only God and Mohammed is his messenger.

Some people will also say that there are verses in the Quran that also encourge intolerenc and degrade women…etc, but that’s another subject.

Anyway, these “bad” hadiths are in the authoritative Hadith books like Sahih Al Bukari which was written by a man over 1000 years ago, with extremely limited resources and tools, using oil lamps…etc. It is reported that this man had only picked a few thousands hadiths out of hundreds of thousands he collected, which he thought were true hadiths.

Other Hadith books include hadiths that were rejected by Al Bukhari and others. And vice versa!

So the whole process was, at best, hap hazardous and highly unreliable.

The Moslems scholars must either reject all hadiths, which is not likely to happen, or update and clean up all the current hadiths books and consolidate them all in one (and only one) Hadith book. Then, fatwas must be decreed by the leaders of all the Moslem Ummah to discard all the old Hadith books and use the newly consolidated book as the only Hadith reference in teaching, issuing fatwas, ..etc

But that's also not likely to happen, and no problem will likely ever be solved.

Tom Jones wrote:The Hadith, as it is right now, is bad for Islam. A lot of people use the Hadith to serve their own agenda, from those who suppress women, to those who kill in the name of Allah, to those who make Islam too restrictive, …etc.

I agree that there is much wrong with the practice of some Muslims today. However, I don't share the conclusion that because some of the justifications are based on Hadith, we should reject all Hadith.

That just doesn't make sense, and there are alternate hypotheses we could/should test.

One of them is examining the Hadith which do say that Muslims will go astray and will need reformation - at least once every century. The reformers bring people back from the edge - from stupid/malicious misinterpretations and back to the original message.

Therefore, I would side with you - but with a slight modification - Muslims should indeed abandon Hadith which contradict the Quran and return to the central, pure and peaceful/tolerant Islam that God revealed.

The rejection of all Hadith discussion is one that I've examined in light of the Quran and am yet to be convinced by those who advocate 'no Hadith' that their belief (some may call it 'innovation') stands the test of logic.

Cheers,
Shafique

masha allah nice topic

Mister tom jones (singer ?)

i advise you to read the Quran & (bukhari-muslim) & tafseer ibn kathir

rasululah salla lahu alayhi wa sallem said:" if you want allah love you (fattabi3unee) follow me"

okay In the quran you will find much ayahs about jihad but not the jihad they are practising now this time.

allah said: "kill the unbelivers " does this mean i have to kill my christian neighbure? NO ....so read the tafseer first and hadeeth saheeh "kitab al jihad" before posting fitnah topic about ower beloved prophet salla lahu alayhi a sallem.

saying that ower prophet was not perfect? how dare you!!!!!!
ower prophet mohammed is the perfect mankind in this world and the next world.!!!!!!



Why Not Completely Do Away With The Hadith???

without the hadeeth saheehs we can not know ower prophet his life in details.how he prayed/his marriage/his life/his manners/ there is a 7ikmah-wisdom behind it.
example
how we know that the prophet used to fast mon/thur? it was not mention in the quran but we follow it bcz ower prophet said so.(hadeeth saheeh)compagnons/sa7abah/abu hurayra saw everything what the prophet did.and according every move.
if you do not belive in mohammed then you do not belive in aghira/allah/his books/prophets/angels/qadar/faith

it is mohammed ho is going to enter paradise first so follow him.he saw things that we even can not imagine in this earth/dirth life.

so you want to completely do away with hadith???? may allah guide you! ameen

Hey, I totally agree with you that Muslims need commentary and Hadith to make sense of the Koran.