I see this word is quite IN these days, just like Mullah and some other words. Identifying one is not that difficult and dissing him/her is even easier. What I’d like to know is how do you get a munkir-e-hadeeth to change his/her views about ahadeeth? We have a little handful members who’ve been put into that category and those who’ve put them there are also active posters, so it’d be nice to know whether the erm ‘jihadis’ (?) think our munkir-e-hadeeth Muslim members are worth the time, and should be guided back on the right path or do you think you get better rewards if you keep pushing them into a corner? Can one person be more munkir-e-hadeeth than the other?
Those who’ve been declared munkir-e-hadeeth, you like the title :p, nah seriously, what’d work on you? What’ll make you ‘believe’ the hadeeth etc again?
it's shamefull for us that words like "mullah" and "jahadis" are now being taken in a negative sense, who are we to blame ? no one else but our selves,
I said that four years ago, lekin meri sunta hi kon hai. When every other person who prayers once in a blue moon is allowed to pass judgments, refer to ppl as being munkir-e-hadeeth etc and takes pride in calling others kafir and is allowed to get away with that by rest of the Ummah, it's okay to refer to them as mullah in negative term, IMHO. And we deserve what is being given to us today. If only they knew what they're doing to Islam.
One can not compare the terms 'jihadi and mullah' and 'munkir-e-hadees'. They are quite the opposite. Calling somebody munkir-e-hadees means the person does not believe in ANY hadees. That is not true. There are many Muslims who follow ALL the ahaadees EXCEPT those that clearly contradict Quran.
The most authentic of compilations of Ahadees, The Bukhari, has numerous ahaadees in it that CLEARLY contradict the teachings in the Quran. As a true believer one should NOT follow those false sayings.
I’ve often wondered about this question myself, and actually posed this question to some ppl. Only answer I get is that they draw certain conclusions from someone’s posts, and based on these conclusions they cannot but call someone Munkir-e-Hadeeth: his or her posts don’t allow any other name.
Conversely, when someone calls them by a certain name, it backfires: they defend themselves by asking whether that person could see into their hearts and minds, and how s/he could possibly call someone by that name if s/he didn’t even look into their hearts/minds…i guess this heart/mind restriction doesn’t apply to them
funguy : Which ahadeeth in Bukhari shareef are you talking about. Please list the volume and the hadith number. Without the volume and the hadith number I cant verify anything and therefore will have to assume your claim as baseless.
zman, I can list all of them here but I don't think the GS audience is ready for it. Since most of us here haven't read the Quran fully yet. It will only confuse the gullible minds. But since you asked, I will post a few that are not TOO OFFENSIVE. there are some that would put your head to shame. This is clearly NOT something the Exalted Rasul would have said or done. It has been mutilated by the enemies of Islam and it is unfortunate that it still exists in the books. The Bukhari has many authentic ahaadess in it that do not contradict the Quran. But there are many that are insult to the great book.
Here it goes and the mod may edit it if this is too offensive...
Most of the references given here belong to Bukhari published by Madina Publishing Company, Karachi, 1982, Printer Hamid & Co. The translator is “Maulana” Abdul Hakim Khan Shahjahan Puri.
The Prophet said that the best man amongst his followers is the one who has the greatest number of wives (Bukhari, Book of Nikah 3:52). The Qur'an (49:13) tells us that the best person is the one who is best in conduct.
After the fall of Khyber, people described the beauty of Safia Bint Hui, the new bride of a slain enemy soldier. The Prophet chose her for himself. [Edited: the language is too crude and I just don't want to propagate this fake narration.]
The Qur'an (47:4) ordains that prisoners of war are to be freed either for ransom or as an act of kindness. There is no third option. How could the Prophet and his holy companions enslave human beings?
sabah, guidance is from Allah subhanahu wata'ala alone, other than that dawah can and should be extended to everyone who deviates from the current path so I dont understand the question of being "worth the time".
Personally, i think if a term correctly identifies a group its quite ok, as long as it isn't insulting in any way. Maulana means helper.. that doesn't identify a muslim who keeps a beard etc.. Maulvi/Mullah are desi terms i think and even they dont identify what these ppl believe in.. munkireen-e-hadith is more accurate as it is correctly defines that these ppl reject ahadith.
These people, in my opinion and from my observation, are those that are unwilling to give up their current lifestyles, hence they decide to get rid of the sunnah, and essentially do away with what the quran explicity states (the purpose of the messenger is to explain the verses).. hence they can and do distort the quran to their liking. their problems and fallacies in their claims are too many to talk about really..
.. before getting off track again, what was the original question?? about this "term" or what?
funguy,
cool claim.. it really is quite in to decide without an iota of study that authentic ahadith contradict the quran. Any islam-hater could give you two ayahs from the quran that apparently contradict each other and you'd be left scratching your head. If you feel ahadiths contradict the quran, pls open a new thread outlining them, and/or discuss them with us/any religious scholar but the belief is dangerous as it essentialy means that the authentic conduct of the messenger and the quran differ, which is, at its very least, an insult to the messenger.
ofcourse they cant funguy, i'm just saying that there are enough ppl out there who can say that and show you two ayahs which in their view contradict the quran, but since you know better you would be able to point out their mistake. Thats what i'm saying.. i can, in no way believe, that the conduct of the messenger and the quran are contradictry.
Regarding the hadith you posted, this is the wording:
Book of Marriage: Hadeeth No. 4737 Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas asked me, "Are you married?" I replied, "No." He said, "Marry, for the best person of this (Muslim) nation (i.e., Muhammad) of all other Muslims, had the largest number of wives."
Does this imply the meaning you said in any way? It simply means that marrying more than once is the sunnah of the messenger who, in fact, is the best person of the nation.
If you meant some other hadith, please point it out, thanks.
In this forum, the term is generally coined by those who consider all Sahih Hadiths to be authentic, against those who claim to give Quran precedence over Hadiths. The term itself isn’t a curse but has been used in a derogatory manner.
And BTW, even Imam Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) didn't consider his compilation authentic. Thus the word Sahih. He would pray for forgiveness after including every Hadiths that he did it with best of his intentions & may Allah forgive his errors.
Ammar, without getting into an argument over the structure of words...the meaning is exactly what I quoted above. You can sit here defend all day. I know you and I as a muslim might interpret it in the best possible ways but what do you tell to the Non Muslims who read this and laugh at us?. Let's not switch the topic now to non-muslims behavior. The simple fact is that there are narrations in the books that clearly contradict the Quran. The Exalted Rasul did not write the The Bukhari. But he definitely did bring the Quran revealed to him by Allah.
Actually funguy, i dont think we should go ahead without actually discussing it. Kindly let me know how the hadith i posted says this: >>best man amongst his followers is the one who has the greatest number of wives<<
Thanks.
The Quran was not published by the Prophet himself either, it was collected and compiled later and by the same individuals. There are way too many fallacies in the belief that you uphold (or atleast seem to..). If you wish we can go through those one by one...
ammar, the compilation of Quran was done by the Holy Prophet himself dictated to the Sahaba in his lifetime. Even though written on leaves and stones, it was all there. The preservation was done by Khulafa-e-Rashdeen (not more than 20 years after the Holy Prophet saw passed away)
Though Bukhari Shareef was written at least 200 years later in an effort to compile a reasonably sound collection of Hadiths from the various different words of mouth. Also, Allah swt gave assurances to keep the Quran safe in its actual text form though no such assurances were given for Hadiths. So, the two are totally beyond comparison.
slaves are a gift that allah has allowed to muslims when they engage in jihad. if you deny it, you are denying allah's blessings.
that crap "humanist" thinking OMG that how can any one have "slaves" is unislamic, yes the prisoners can be released, but if the leader wants them, they can be made slaves. but people who reject the sunnah will never believe as guidance is from allah only.
Expected a little something more solid from you, but anyway, the Prophet saww dictated the Quran.. some questions
1) how do you know that? relying on hadith? if so, sounds like circular logic to me..
2) and the stuff that Prophet Muhammad saww said (and asked his followers to "tell to the one who is not present") was that not a form of guidance/dictation?
Also, why do you focus on Sahih al-Bukhari? And why the figure 200? I think it was earlier than that, especially other collections such as Imaam Malik's muwatta was around 150, or even sooner. Even before then, there is a sound record of smaller collections. Not all cultures/generations were as insistant on written data recording as we are now, and oral transmission was much more common. There are many other factors, but I think two topics are being mixed here.. 1) The authenticity of the text... and 2) the NEED of the text and if it contradicts the Quran.
As far as I know, munkireen e hadith have hardly been able to put up a solid rebuttal to any of the two.
anyways funguy i don't believe the hadiths that u posted..I would never believe that in million years..I have too much Love and respect for my Holy Prophet (pbuh&up)..hadiths like these create *******s like salman rushdie
Mate, Munkarin-e-Hadith Simply means ** ’ He who denies Hadiath’ ** or ** He who doesnt accept hadiath’**
Now here is your one of own posts, in which you have opennly denied to accept hadeeth just because its some history writing.
Nescio Writes :
**I’m not willing to accept that the Hadith is anything more that merely HISTORY WRITING, just like any other history book I read on school! After all it has been compiled the same way history books are compiled: by asking people what they know and what they heard, by visitng certain places to find out what happened, by examining certain events etc. **
Now, from your above mentioned post if I call you Someone who doesnt accept hadeeth how different it is than me saying that ** Nescio is a Munakarin-e-Hadeeth** ?
