There are many friends on GS who believe that Quran is all we need for the guidance and Hadees/Sunnat is not required. I totally understand their POV, however I dont agree.
My question is that what is their take about Hadees-e-Qudsi? Is that something they consider more closer to Quran (as they are words of Allah) or part of Hadees (as they were spoken by Nabi 
)?
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
[QUOTE]
There are many friends on GS who believe that Quran is all we need for the guidance and Hadees/Sunnat is not required.
[/QUOTE]
Ask them to prove from Quran if donkey is halal or haram to eat.
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
Han yeh bat muje bhi preshan karti hai..
Coz there are so many things which we learnt from Hadees.
For example...method of ghusul..and how wadu and ghusul become invalid...
Then why so many people say things about Hadees ?
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
Good questions RAW and Kinzz. I dont know the answers. Maybe some Ahl-e-Quran can help us understand.
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
now you won’t find anyone stepping forward to refute hadees… 
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
i don't know there are many people who summarily reject hadith.....
although there is difference about questioning the 'authenticity' of hadith.........
there are people........ who refer to zaeef,weak or even fabricated ones......... and then if someone questions tht........... they say what you said in the OP..that the person is rejecting hadith....
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
i don't know there are many people who summarily reject hadith.....
although there is difference about questioning the 'authenticity' of hadith.........
there are people........ who refer to zaeef,weak or even fabricated ones......... and then if someone questions tht........... they say what you said in the OP..that the person is rejecting hadith....
No Nomica, there is a misconception that Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamat (Hanafi in short), consider even fabricated hadith.
For Zaeef hadith, they dont consider it for Fiqh (Massa'il), but they do consider it for Fazaail. Zaeef Hadith is not a false hadith, its a hadith whose authentication cannot be proved.
Its like I know that you are a nice guy, but if I cant prove it in the court of law, my claim about you would not be accepted by the judge, however it will remain true.
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
i know what you are saying.......... but there are many molvies who keep referring to zaeef hadith and deriving whatever they want........and then shoot the gun at anyone who questions.....
but i really don't like it when some discussion starts.....and within few minutes.......people get into their 'sect'/'fiqh' seat....get all defensive about their own party....and the discussion takes turn of defending one's own school of thought......and refuting others.......
this sort of argumentative debates don't help anyone.....just my opinion .
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
but i really don't like it when some discussion starts.....and within few minutes.......people get into their 'sect'/'fiqh' seat....get all defensive about their own party.....
I can only speak of the faith I belong to. That is the reason I started this thread. Its not beong defensive, its my lack of knowledge about other school of thoughts/
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
Where is Ahmed bhai .
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
I accept hadith associated with Prophet (SAW) that are logical and agrees with Quran … though my acceptance is to extend that …I do not mind quoting them and saying that such sayings are associated with Prophet (SAW). On the other hand, I reject hadith that to me is doubtful, are obviously illogical or is contradictory to Quran. So, even though I do not reject hadith outright, I believe I am qualified to answer your question. 
Whoever believes that Quran is words of Allah believes on hadith of Prophet (SAW). Reason is simple: …
Accepting Quran as words of Allah without doubt shows that the person accepts words of Prophet (SAW). No Muslim saw angels bringing wahi to Prophet (SAW), neither Allah told Muslims that Quran is his words. It is Prophet (SAW) who told us that ‘Quran is words of Allah’ and whoever believes that believe words (hadith) of Prophet (SAW).
Similarly, rituals Muslim follow (way Muslim do ‘Salaat’, ‘Wadu’, ‘Hajj’, ‘Burial of dead’, etc) are Sunnah of prophet (SAW) that one generation of Muslim passed to next generation from time of Prophet (SAW), and almost all Muslims accept that.
That means, there are no Munkir-ane-hadith and anyone calling someone Munkir-ane-hadith will be answerable to Allah for their wrong accusation (one should be wary about that, as this simple statement could lead a person to hell). So, where is the problem?
Problem is not in rejecting hadith of Prophet (SAW), as that would automatically mean rejecting Quran as words of Allah, but problem is in rejecting hadith with believe that they are not words of Prophet (SAW).
In other words, those who reject hadith do not reject them believing that they are words of Prophet (SAW) but reject them believing that they are concocted (made-up or fabricated) stories of later generations. Thus, one can accuse them of doubting later generations who transmitted something claiming to be hadith of Prophet (SAW), but one cannot accuse them of rejecting words of Prophet (SAW).
Actually, these people are safer than those who believe on hadiths without questioning. Because on judgment day they could defend themselves by saying that since they did not wanted to do ‘bohtan’ on prophet (SAW), they rejected all that they could not accept as words of Prophet (SAW), for whatever honest reasons.
[And they would have to defend themselves on judgement day for everything they believe, heard or seen. Here is Quran where Allah told Muslims not to follow what they have no knowledge … that mean, not to follow something they consider doubtful (cannot confirm with certainty).
17: 36 … And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
Where heart means … what a person believes.
In above ayah, Allah is not saying that follow not what is incorrect, but follow not of which one have no knowledge … that means, even if something maybe correct but if one have no knowledge, then one should not follow]
Bohtan on Prophet (SAW) is associating something (acts or words) with Prophet (SAW) even though Prophet (SAW) did not do or said. So when someone associate something with Prophet (SAW), they should not have doubt or reason to doubt.
[Note: Rejecting what one cannot confirm with certainty (thus have doubt about it) is wiser than accepting what one cannot confirm with certainty, as there is no sin in rejecting what one is doubtful about and there is sin in accepting what one is doubtful about (Ayah 17:36).
As for accepting what is ‘obviously illogical’ or ‘contradictory to Quran’ is even worse than accepting doubtful, especially when associating them with Prophet (SAW), because accepting such means a person believes that Prophet (SAW) use to say things ‘contradictory to Quran’ or use to say things that are ‘obviously illogical’. Such is not just ‘bohtan’ on Prophet (SAW) but it is abusing personality of Prophet (SAW), and that could certainly lead a person to hell].
On the other hand, those who accept hadiths blindly (regardless of hadith being ‘obviously illogical’ or ‘contradictory to Quran’), they can only defend themselves on judgment day by saying that since many ‘so-called scholars’ accepted such as words of Prophet (SAW) they accepted. … There defence would be similar to defence of Christians who would claim that they accepted ‘Isa (AS) as son of God’ because their so-called scholars told them so.
Note: Actually, all Muslims reject one hadith or another as concocted (fabricated), though they give fancy names to hadith as ‘Sahi (true)’, ‘Zaeef (weak)’, ‘Mawdu (fabricated)’, etc, etc. That has to happen as many hadiths are contradictory to each other, so accepting all of them as ‘true’ is impossible. Worse is that, ‘Sahi’ hadith for one group of so-called scholars could be ‘Mawdu’ for another group, vice versa.
For instance, many hadith accepted by Shias are rejected by Sunnis (vice versa), similarly many hadith accepted by Wahabis are rejected by Sunnis as well as Shias (vice versa), and so on. Well, worse is that, there are many hadith accepted by one group of Sunnis are rejected by another group of Sunnis.
That means, rejecting hadith is not a problem for most people, but problem is rejecting hadith that they want to get accepted as true.
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
^even before reading your last two paras it was obvious your grasp on this subject is not what it should be.
ahle 'sunnat' have put a great emphasis on the the position of 'sahi' hadiths of the prophet SAW.
as for "..many hadith accepted by Shias are rejected by Sunnis (vice versa),.." this is an abhorent falsification on so many levels. it would be better for you to say "many hadith accepted by qadianis from mirza are rejected by Sunnis (vice versa).."
we take zero hadiths from shias (rafidhite) especially not since its foundation 500 years ago(safavid), and before that 900 years ago . our deen at this stage was moulded recognisably as the one you see today
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
The basic fact is that no text can be understood without having sense of its context and purpose and having knowledge of things it is talking about ie the terminology and its application in practice or theoretical understanding and its practical application. There is a difference between medical doctors and use of their language between themselves and the engineers or the lawyers etc. They understand each other ok when they belong to same field but not when people belong to different fields.
There is a big difference between training for a battle and actual battle. Each has its own purpose and context and so all instructions are interpreted that way.
If one interprets training context instruction as in real battle or vice versa then you can think of what is going to happen.
This is very important point to understand that the quran is a message of God for mankind but it has an over all purpose and an over all context. So only if we know this that we will be able to interpret the quranic message correctly.
The quran talks about various things eg ideologies and practices regarding politics, society, culture, economics etc. It brings in matters relating science and history etc. So a person who interprets the quran no matter how knowledgeable is going to make plenty of mistakes because one person can only do so much. This is why almost all interpretations of the quran lack here and there and are full of mistakes. All this because it is not task for an individual but that people from various fields should join and work on the quran as a group to ensure as much as they can that the text is interpreted properly. This has never been done. It was always an individual effort here and there. The main problem remained that the divine message was fought against always by rulers and their priests and so masses were always misled from the right path just like today.
It is because muslim have failed to interpret the quran properly that they have become confused about hadith as well. If we do not know what the quran is talking about then obviously we do not know which hadith is to be interpreted in which way. The day we manage to understand the quran properly we will see all things will be fine.
The problem is that we read the quranic verses just for sake of it to get some strange kind of sawaab without realising that sawaab is reward and that it is a real thing ie after reading the quran for understanding it properly we should benefit from the knowledge we have received from the quran. This is not at all in our minds. This has to change and we need to read the quran for getting from it what it has to offer us ie guidance for living properly in this world so that we have peace and stability for making progress and be prosperous so that we are awarded in hereafter for making that effort.
The quran talks about real world that is right in front of us so we must learn about it before the quran makes sense to us when it talks about real world related things likewise it talks about history so we need to know historical facts before those things make real sense to us. Likewise when the quran talks about politics we need to know about politics so that the quran makes sense to us. We do not learn quran related things yet we think that quran is easy to understand.
Just tell some one make some tea who never done this before, soon you will see the person has no idea what to do. You do speak the same language yet the person fails to carry out your instructions because the person did not learn the meanings of what you were telling him to do. This is why even arabs failed very badly to understand the quran because they did not educate themselves about quran related fields of knowledge. A person cannot understanding even cooking instructions let alone carry out cooking instructions unless one knows everything about cooking, so to understand the quran one has to learn everything that is needed to make sense of te quranic text. This needs people who are highly educated and not people who lack in knowledge. It is because even our educated people have followed ignorant mullahs that ummah is in the state that we find it in. It is like grown ups following children to lead them. No wonder people take us for a laugh.
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
we take zero hadiths from shias (rafidhite) especially not since its foundation 500 years ago(safavid), and before that 900 years ago . our deen at this stage was moulded recognisably as the one you see today
The numbers of "Rafidi" narrators in the six Sunni Sahi book of hadith exceeds hundereds. This number includes both proto-twelvers and proto-Ismaili and among Zaydis the Jarudi Zaydis were also Rafidhi for refusing to accept the happy-happy version of history. Take a look at the book on isnaad or rijaal or ask any man who is learned in the field of narrations.
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
This thread turned into Shia/Sunni thread 
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
awwww…meri post dekhain dobara 
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
A:
Praise be to Allaah. If what is meant by Raafidi is one who regards the two Shaykhs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs and disavows them, and believes in the tenets of kufr that are to be found in many of the books of the Raafidi Ithna ‘Asharis, then the reports of such a person cannot be accepted and there are no reports from such people in al-Saheehayn at all.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Shi’ism as known in the early days of Islam is the belief that ‘Ali was superior to ‘Uthmaan, and that ‘Ali was in the right in his wars and that those who differed with him were wrong, whilst giving precedence to the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] over ‘Ali and regarding them as superior. Some of them may have believed that ‘Ali was the best of creation after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). If a person was like that but was pious, religious and sincere, and based his view on what he thought was right, then his narrations are not to be rejected for that reason, especially if he did not propagate these ideas.
**As for Shi’ism as it was known later on, it is pure rafd (rafd is the idea that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are to be disavowed and are not Muslims), and the reports narrated by an extreme raafidi are definitely not to be accepted. Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (1/81) Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Bid’ah is of two types: minor bid’ah such as Shi’ism without exaggeration or deviation. This was the case with many of the Taabi’een and the generation that followed them, although they were religiously committed, pious and sincere. If the ahaadeeth of these people were rejected, many reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would be lost, and that is obviously a bad thing.
Then there is major bid’ah, such as complete rafd and exaggeration therein, and undermining the position of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them), and promoting such ideas. Reports narrated by such people are definitely not to be accepted. Moreover, I do not know of anyone among that type of Shi’ah nowadays who is sincere or trustworthy. Rather lying is their slogan and taqiyah (dissimulation) and hypocrisy are their shield. How can the narration of such a one be accepted? No, definitely not.
*The extreme Shi’i at the time of the salaf, as known to them, was one who spoke against ‘Uthmaan, al-Zubayr, Talhah, Mu’aawiyah and some of those who fought against ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), and reviled them. The extreme Shi’i in our time, as known to us, is the one who regards these leaders as kaafirs and also disavows the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar]. Such a one is misguided and lost. Mizaan al-I’tidaal (1/5-6)
But if what is meant is Shi’i narrators who preferred ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib to ‘Uthmaan, or to the two Shaykhs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them), without reviling them or disavowing them, or holding other beliefs of kufr which are stated in many of the books of Ithna ‘Ashari Shi’ah, then there are reports from such narrators in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere, and the muhaddithoon accept their hadeeth if they are known to be truthful, to have good memories and to be trustworthy. Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar collected in Hadyi al-Saari the names of all those who were known as Shi’ah among the narrators of al-Bukhaari, and a number of contemporary scholars have written about the methodology of the authors of al-Saheehayn * in dealing with the Shi’ah narrators. Among these references are the following: 1 – Manhaj al-Imam al-Bukhaari fi’l-Riwaayah ‘an al-Mubtadi’ah min Khilaal al-Jaami’ al-Saheeh: al-Shee’ah Unmoodhajan. By Kareemah Sudani. Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh. 2 – Manhaj al-Imamayn al-Bukhaari wa Muslim fi’l-Riwaayah ‘an Rijaal al-Shee’ah fi Saheehayhima by Muhammad Khaleefah al-Shara’, Jaami’at Aal al-Bayt, 2000 CE. 3 – Diraasaat fi Manhaj al-Naqd ‘an al-Muhadditheen by Muhammad al-‘Umari, Dar al-Nafaa’is, ‘Ammaan, 2000 CE. This contains a discussion of al-Bukhaari and his narration from innovators, pp. 105-109 4 –Manhaj al-Naqd ‘inda al-Muhadditheen, by Akram al-‘Umari, p. 39 And Allaah knows best.
Are there any ahaadeeth in al-Bukhaari and Muslim from Raafidi narrators? - Islam Question & Answer
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
aap kee kya baat hai. I did not know that Nomi is short for Nostradamus 
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
the way this page has turned out lets ask a more absurd question if belief in Quran itself is from the neccesities of the shiite religion or its madhab? NO its not and you can find ample rabbis taking the opportunity to exercise their pov
Re: Hadees-e-Qudsi
The numbers of "Rafidi" narrators in the six Sunni Sahi book of hadith exceeds hundereds. This number includes both proto-twelvers and proto-Ismaili and among Zaydis the Jarudi Zaydis were also Rafidhi for refusing to accept the happy-happy version of history. Take a look at the book on isnaad or rijaal or ask any man who is learned in the field of narrations.
as usual someone has been giving you information on steroids
i think you are confused about the mainstream position regards to your lot
*Imam Bukhari *(may Allah have mercy on him) writes in his book,
“I don’t see any difference between praying Salat behind a Jahmi or a Rafidi and a Christian or a Jew [because these two sects are kafir like Jews and Christians, even if they refer to themselves as Muslim]. They [Jahmis/Rawfid] are not to be greeted, nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married*, nor is their testimony to be accepted,* nor are their sacrifices (zabiha) to be eaten.”
(Khalq Af'al al-Ibad, p.13)
"Imam Muhammad bin Yusuf Faryabi was asked about the individual that abuses Abu Bakr? He replied, 'Kafir'. He was asked, 'should we read his janazah Salat?' He replied, 'no'. He was asked 'what should be done with him because he declares 'laa ilaha il Allahu'? He replied, 'Don’t touch him with your hands, and push him into his grave with a pole'."
(Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 2:566)
"I asked the soul of the Holy Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) [in a dream/kashaf/ilham] about the Shias, so he revealed to me that their religion is false and the falsity of their religion is known by the word imam. When I came to my senses [from dream/kashaf/ilham], I concluded that the term imam, according to them, is just like ‘ma’sum’ (infallible person) who receives inner wahy (revelation) from Allah and whose obedience is compulsory (muftaridut ta’at), and this is the meaning of ‘nabi’ as well, so their belief entails to denying Khatm Nubuwwat (finality of the Prophethood). May Allah uglify them!" (ameen)
(Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah, 2:250)
"It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with* kufr* while some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifa regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference. As it is clear that the reason of declaring him as kafir is his opposition to the* ijma* (consensus) based upon the ruling that one who denies a unanimous matter (of religion) will be called kafir. This is a general rule among the theologians. The caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is a unanimous matter from the time when Sayyiduna Umar came forward for his bayah (solemn pledge of obedience), but it cannot be contradicted with the delay made by some Sahabah; since those who delayed in bayah they did not delay due to any disagreement about his eligibility of caliphate, therefore they used to take his bestowals and used to take their issues to him. So, bayah is something and* ijma* is something else, and one is not necessary for the other. You should understand this point, as some people commit mistake therein. If you object that calling anyone with kafir is conditioned with the rejection of a matter categorized as ‘necessary in religion’. I will say that the matter of his caliphate falls in the same category; since it is proved from widely reported traditions to the extent of ‘being necessary’ that the Sahabah took oath of allegiance (bayah) with him, so this matter turned like a unanimous matter known ‘necessarily’. And there is no doubt in the matter and there was no Rafidhi in the period of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, neither in the reign of Sayyiduna Umar nor Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) rather they emerged later on."
Imam Ash-Shafi'i: On one occasion Imam Shafi'ee said concerning the Shia, "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the Raafidi* Shia, because** they invent ahaadeeth **and adopt them as part of their religion." (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah)
(Some shia at the time of the Alid Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali **demanded that he make a declaration of innocence (tabarra) from whoever disagreed with 'Ali's right to be Imaam. When Zayd refused, they rejected him, and **became known as the "Raafida" or rejectors. Those who followed Imaam Zayd became known as Zaydis, and have very little difference from mainstream Islam. The Raafidi evolved into the the various Imaami shia sects, the largest of which is the Ithna 'Ashari.)
Imam Abu Haneefah: It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the Raafidi Shia; "Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief."
Imam Malik: Once when asked about the Raafidi Shia, Imam Malik said; "Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars." During one of Imam Malik's classes, it was mentioned that the raafidi Shia curse the sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." (48:29) He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sah⢡h are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks." (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)
Ibn Hazm al-Andaloosee
One day during the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imaam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm was having a debate with some Spanish Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out to him Shiite claims also being distorted, Ibn Hazm informed them that "Shiite could not be used as evidence against the Quraan or against Muslims because they are not themselves Muslims." [Ibn Hazm, al-Fisaal fee al-Milal wa an-Nihal, 2/78 and 4/182]