There are few on this forum and millions around the world who love labeling other muslims as ‘munkir-e-hadees’ who don’t necessarily agree to some of the narrations.
Now here is my dilemma. There are many weak hadees that contradict Quran. I won’t be giving any examples because it narrows the discussion to that particular hadees. But most of you reading this have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. So, if you do not reject a narration in the fear of being labeled a ‘munkir-e-hadees’ you are running the risk of becoming a (naoozobillah) munkir-e-Quran.
It's ok to question the authenticity of a hadeeth based on a weak narration chain and contradiction with another stronger hadeeth or the Qur'an. However, people often get carried away and decide on the authenticity based on their convenience.
Bottom line: It's good to be critical, but the intention should be pure.
Funguy--What is the criteria of rejecting / questining a hadith- I mean in broad terms..Like is it that what appears to you as contraditory to quran --
How many more centuries will it take to determine which of these should be followed as if they were the word of God and which are just plain false? Would some type of clerical hierachy help in this determination instead of leaving individual interpretations to any and all who claim to be 'scholars'?
No- i am just suggesting that you may have misinterpreted the hadith- Or may have not understood the related quranic teachings…i am by no means suggessting that all hadiths are authentic or otherwise. But you have to have profound knowledge to judge that
Authenticating a hadith and understanding it are two different things which should not be mixed up.
Authenticating a hadith is the job of the scholars of hadith whereas it could be understood properly by Muslims with reasonably good knowledge to scholars. There maybe some hadith that appear to contradict Quran that even have a Sahih isnad. You don't outright reject it but its better to understand the context of it or there is an underlying principle. The principle of a hadith never changes but its application changes from time to time.
If it is not in clear violation of the Quran then there is no reason to reject it but rather really understand what it meant in the context 1400 years ago.
Most people tend to follow hadith in a very literal sense and sometimes misinterpret allegorical meanings of it or fail to understand the principle in the hadith. They rather focus on the action without understanding why such an action was performed.
You know no one would ever accept a hadith only because of the fear that others might label him/her as munkar-e-hadith. To you it may seem that many ahadith contradict the Quran, while to many others those very same ahadith don't seem to be contradicting the Quran, especially when analyzed using history and tafsir. Some prefer to follow only that which is written in the Quran, while others prefer to follow that which is in Quran and Sunnah, so long as it's authentic. Further, many of us feel perfectly alright about getting assistance from scholars where needed.
As many as took the Christians to decide which bible to follow…lets see Old testament, King James Bible, may be Book of Mormon…which one is it seminole? How long will it take for the enlightened ones to correct this problem?
I say you question each and every hadith and see if its message in agreement with Quran. If not, you can safely ignore it. Trust me Allah is not going to throw you in Hell for following his Word (Quran)
I don’t speak for Christianity, I don’t pretend to be an advocate for their tenants. Although I do think you have you are confusing the the scripture they reference. Only a Mormon would read from that book, and the Old Testament and King James Bible are not mutually exclusive.
But if you are advocating the “perfect” religion with the “perfect” message, why are hadith so darn confusing and left open to different interpretations? My suggestion of some sort of hierachy within Islam was a serious question - why not? Have these things as part of the official religion instead of leaving it up to individual interpretation.
What worries me most is the trend to “not question” anything that scholars wrote about centuries ago. If we weren’t supposed to question, then these scholars wouldn’t have accumulated the hadith and thrown out false ones in the first place…
So exactly where did God say to follow only Al-muslim and Al-bukhari without doing any research into what their background was and their influences, in the case they may be influenced by politics of the time?
The facts are in front of you - you have various hadith collectors who each have a separate collection. This is within sunni faith alone. Then you have hadith collectors from Shia scholars. Those are a separate collection.
Many hadith’s overlap in these collections, and many don’t…so if Al-muslim and Al-bukhari themselves can’t agree on the authenticity of a particular hadith (granted many do overlap, I can’t stress enough), then exactly how…scientific and unquestionable are these hadith collections?
Again, when it comes to Tafsir, I keep asking people and no one knows - where does Tafsir come from? When was Tafsir recorded? Was it in oral tradition and then recorded? Who recorded it? Are there different Tafsir versions? Is there a shia tafsir and a sunni tafsir?
Fact is that the Quran itself says the religion is very understandable and the the Quran itself is very understandable.
I came across a research article that once said that the word “hadith” is acutally mentioned in the Quran numerous times, and that there is even a verse that is roughly translated in mixed arabic/english as - “The Quran is the greatest hadith there is”. So maybe God even knew about this hadith literature and how it would bog down everyone.
There are over hundred ayats in Quran telling Muslims to follow Prophet saw, so how do you follow him unless you know what he said.
Discussing strength of Hadeeth and to see if its compatible with Quranic doctrines is different from what the Munkar-e-Hadeeth people try to do. They want to axe the Prophet saw life from Quran, which can then be interpreted in whatever way they want.
I even came across these "researchers" who cliam that there is no prayer in the way like muslims do , coz its not mentioned in Quran how to pray.
A saying and/or action classified to be from the mouth or the deed of Rasoolulah:saw:
Implication:
Hence, anything that is PROVED to be not told by the prophet:saw: is NOT a hadeeth hence must be rejected.
On the contrary, if ANY authentic saying of Prophet:saw: is rejected with an excuse of ‘oh Quran is enough’ and that ‘hadeeth is nothing but a fairytale’ then such a remark warrants to be labeled as Rejecting of hadeeth of which the definition is in writtings in the opening.
Rasoolulah:saw: said and he:saw: was the Sadiq and Masdooq:
**‘There will be a man with full stomach, reclining on his pillow, who will hear a command from me and say, ‘Let the judge between us (in this matter) be Allah’s Book: we obey whatever we find in it.’ [Know that] indeed, I have been given the Book and, with it, that which is similar to it (the Sunnah).’ **
That is hilarious to say the least for the researcher made a mockery of him/herself by showing the ignorance from the Arabic diction while describing an arabic word
I think it’s time to research on the meaning of the word “Hadeeth” … Really. It will be an easy finding if a person with a good urdu or farsi background ponders upon all the other derived words of Hadeeth in those languages as well.
Please share your analysis on the use of the word "hadith" by the Quran. I found the argument on that site somewhat interesting. Anything contrary is welcome.
