yes I question the methods employed in declaring something ‘Sahih’.. IMO it’s too weak and utterly unscientific.. My intellect would not allow me to accept something that flimsy as a basis of my religion..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
yes I question the methods employed in declaring something 'Sahih'.. IMO it's too weak and utterly unscientific.. My intellect would not allow me to accept something that flimsy as a basis of my religion..
[/QUOTE]
Moderators
Is this sentence not secterianism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rehman1: *
Moderators
Is this sentence not secterianism.
[/QUOTE]
it isnt, unless you consider PA a sect.
Sincerely
Masoom Ur Rehman
the 8th
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by saby: *
Okay this question might be out of scope but what approach do you think is the best for declaring somethign 'sahi' ?
[/QUOTE]
A more rigorous critiriea should be employed where the textual integrity should come before supposed narrator veracity. In all matters of dispute The Qur'an's verdict should be upheld.
For starters anything without at least two originating witnesses in the transmission chain should be discarded. Similar controls should be used throughout the chain.. Allah has instructed us to appoint witnesses in matters he ordains.. why should this matter be any different?
The moment one narration is found to be 'unsound' the entire chain of narrators should be discarded for ALL other narrations to stay on the safe side. Who knows what has been transmitted using the names of respected personalities close to the Prophet.
Next a true consensus should be built; today.. each scholar or group of scholars opines and then a section of the population start following their opinion which leads to sects within sects.. like AQ following Ahsan hadiths and considering all others as 'munkareen-e-hadith' .. by that token he's calling Bukhari, Muslim etc Munkareen-e-hadith cuz they too used to discard more hadith than they used to accept.
Let all sects come together and come up with one volume of accepted narrations that all scholars can agree on.
It's a tedious procedure and the only reason Muslim scholars do not tighten the critieria of soundness of hadith is that they would be left with next to nothing in terms of 'historical perspective' of their own religion.. This fear has led them to accept narrations left right and center and create categories of 'unsoundness' .. only giving rise to the acceptance of so many dubious stories that could NEVER be attributed to an honorable prophet. but alas.. people will not respect the Prophet by refusing to believe in lies.. but will smear others who stand up to defend their Prophet against these lies.
Thanks for addressing the issue PA unlike others who were just fighting to defend their own statements and support them with baseless arguments and accusations.:k:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
A more rigorous critiriea should be employed where the textual integrity should come before supposed narrator veracity. In all matters of dispute The Qur'an's verdict should be upheld.
For starters anything without at least two originating witnesses in the transmission chain should be discarded. Similar controls should be used throughout the chain.. Allah has instructed us to appoint witnesses in matters he ordains.. why should this matter be any different?
The moment one narration is found to be 'unsound' the entire chain of narrators should be discarded for ALL other narrations to stay on the safe side. Who knows what has been transmitted using the names of respected personalities close to the Prophet.
Next a true consensus should be built; today.. each scholar or group of scholars opines and then a section of the population start following their opinion which leads to sects within sects.. like AQ following Ahsan hadiths and considering all others as 'munkareen-e-hadith' .. by that token he's calling Bukhari, Muslim etc Munkareen-e-hadith cuz they too used to discard more hadith than they used to accept.
Let all sects come together and come up with one volume of accepted narrations that all scholars can agree on.
It's a tedious procedure and the only reason Muslim scholars do not tighten the critieria of soundness of hadith is that they would be left with next to nothing in terms of 'historical perspective' of their own religion.. This fear has led them to accept narrations left right and center and create categories of 'unsoundness' .. only giving rise to the acceptance of so many dubious stories that could NEVER be attributed to an honorable prophet. but alas.. people will not respect the Prophet by refusing to believe in lies.. but will smear others who stand up to defend their Prophet against these lies.
[/QUOTE]
well said.
had u taken the trouble of learning something about “ilm-al-hadith” (which is a complete science in itself) u wud not be spilling useless things like this… 
actually what he says is exactly what parvez Ahmad (the pioneer of Quranist in indo-pak) has said in his speeches..
PA: ur argument that i am calling Bukhari and Muslim etc. munkireen-e-hadeeth is totally ridiculous cuz the ahaadeeth they rejected were not even the saying of Rasoolulah :saw: after the reasearch so they dun come under the word “hadeeth” and thus they are not munkireen-e-hadeeth…
however, whoever does not even beleive in ay type of hadith at this time, is considered a rejecter of hadeeth, it being correct…
For more detailed version of it, read this:
http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137692
**Anas related that a man came to the Holy Prophet and said:
Your emissary came to us, and said that you claim that Allah has sent you.'' The Holy Prophet replied: He spoke the truth.‘’ He said: The emissary asserted that five daily prayers have been made obligatory for us.'' The Holy Prophet replied: He spoke the truth.‘’ The man said: Has Allah commanded you this?'' The Holy Prophet said Yes.‘’ [The man then questioned the Holy Prophet about charity, fasting and Pilgrimage, in the same way]. The man then turned to go, saying: By Him Who sent you, I shall do no more or less than this.'' The Holy Prophet said: If he spoke the truth, he shall enter paradise.‘’
(Sahih Muslim, vol. i, pp. 86,–,87)
The Holy Prophet said:
``Whoever says prayers as we do, and faces our Qibla, and eats the meat slaughtered by us, he is a Muslim, for whom is the covenant of God and the covenant of the messenger of God, so violate not the covenant of God.‘’
(Bukhari, Book of Prayer; Book 8, ch. 28; vol. i, p. 222)**
According to these Ahadith, if PA simply follows the Quran, he might not be that far off from being a Muslim…If the Quran instructs us to follow the commands of Allah :swt: and the Prophet :saw:, these Ahadith tell us that if he simply does what is written in the Quran and not in the Ahadith, he will be a Muslim…
But the problem will still arise, how will he do these things? Will he follow a code written in the Quran which instructs people how to pray? How to pay Zakat? And a hundred other things related to the Deen…
From what I gather about Quraneen and Pervaizis is that they are pretty much lost about a lot of issues. No doubt, they are Muslims, as they believe in Allah :swt: and the finality of the Prophet :saw:, but not having clear ideas and rulings about a lot of things. As a result they would make up a lot a things as they see fit from the Quran and without Ahadith to simplify or explain an issue in Quran, these folks would resort to Bidaah.
The Quran is a book of divine Laws about what to do and what no to do. Allah :swt: manifested the Quran with numerous Ayahs telling why and how to follow the Prophet :saw:. If the Quran were the only criteria, I have not yet come across a single verse saying that just the Quran is enough. Everywhere it’s ‘Follow Allah and His Messenger’. Again and again.
Since the Quran is a book of Divine Laws by Allah :swt:, naturally there must be an explanation as to how best to do and not to do things. That’s where Ahadith come in. To encase the Divine Laws with rulings from Allah :swt: as explained to the Prophet :saw: and carried out by him through the Prophet (saw)'s Sunnah…Without the Sunnah, all you have is the Quran, a book of Laws, with no clear rulings on how to implement its Laws, so basically according to Pervaizis, you can simply do whatever you like by reading the Quran, according to your own understanding, without a clear and distinct path to follow…And since there is no criteria for anyone to follow regarding implementing Allah :swt:'s Laws in daily life, everyone can do what they feel like doing according to their own interpretation of the Quran…
I think this Pervaiziat is a dangerous trend and way of thinking…Without the Sunnah and Ahadith to bind the uniformity of the Ummah in implementing Divine Laws of the Quran, and everyone interpreting their own version of Quran, it would cause nothing more than disruption and chaos…
If the Quran is the book of Divine Laws, the Sunnah is the practical usage and execution of those Divine Laws in our lives…To take out the Ahadith and Sunnah from Islam is akin to leaving half of Islam…
To take out the Ahadith and Sunnah from Islam is akin to leaving half of Islam...
Nope.Non-Muslims....
so you're going against the ahadith lajo posted rehman1?
why is it so important for you to classify others as non-muslims? especially when that is no ****ing way your prerogative?
humm
what’s useless is butting into conversations assuming a lot.. I do know the methods applied and one needs to be totally illeterate to consider it a ‘science’..
For the entertainment of the audience, do share in your own words how ‘ilm-ul-hadith’ is ‘scientific’ when it relies on "Rija-al-Hadith’ which itself hasn’t been verified..
Talk about circular arguments and an eagerness to embrace everything.