The Prophet's "extra-Qur'anic" authority

Society Religion & Philosophy
101

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Alpha1: *
So instead of blindly following you, I want you to proove to me that there were people from the first three generations that believed like you.

If I just accept what you say for the sake of it then surely I am a lemming. Give me just one instance, the writting of one person, even a paragraph or a sentance will do for me and I'll make that leap of faith!
[/QUOTE]

I'm amazed that you don't get the point! why the need to 'follow' someone from an 'earlier generation' and not read and understand the message yourself? The Qur'an wasn't sent to the first three generations only! What solace will you have in emulating those about whom you don't have any information?

The very literature that tells you about the earlier generations is in question here. A quick example would be the fact that none of the first generations compiled hadith. Didn't they find it necessary to interpret Qur'an?? What more do you need?? Hadith is a much later invention, questioning it's need or authenticity isn't.

[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.

[46:26] And certainly We had established them in what We have not established you in, and We had given-- them ears and eyes and hearts, but neither their ears, nor their eyes, nor their hearts availed them aught, since they denied the communications of Allah, and that which they mocked encompassed them.

[43:23] And thus, We did not send before you any warner in a town, but those who led easy lives in it said: Surely we found our fathers on a course, and surely we are followers of their footsteps

102

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**It's a figure of speech used to denote a person who blindly follows. I hope you (and Alpha) understand the appropriate use of it rather than get confused with it's more literal connotations.*
[/quote]

LOL. I guess we can all justify our insults if we try hard enough. You then compound it by taking verses that refer to disbelievers and unfairly apply them to Muslims.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
*[10:92]......and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications**
[/quote]

Take 10:92 as an example, which you only quoted in part. Here is the full verse:

"This day shall We save thee (Fir'awn) in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Now tell me, who is more likely to reject the sign that Allah refers to in the first part of this verse (namely, Allah's preservation of Fir'awn)? Is it the Muslims or non-Muslims? It is plainly obvious from this verse that criticism is being levelled at the disbelievers, who, despite the many signs that Allah has shown them, continue in their disbelief. They are the ones who reject Allah's signs, not the Muslims. This verse lends no support to a tiny minuscule minority seeking to discredit the beliefs of the massive majority of Muslims.

And whilst you've quoted the verse as saying "majority of the people" a more accurate translation would be "many among mankind" since the Arabic says 'kathir min an nas' and not 'akthar an nas'.

Also, you say "are heedless to Our communications" whereas a more obvious translation would be "are heedless of Our Signs" because the verse says 'ayatina'.

I believe you have followed Shakir's translation.

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

103

Obviously, if you feel that your understanding of the Qur’an is superior to that of the Prophet (s) and his Companions then that is your prerogative.

Yes, the Qur’an wasn’t sent just to the first three generations, but at the same time it wasn’t revealed in a vacuum either. Are you seriously suggesting that we are clueless as to how the first recipient of the Qur’an, the Prophet (s), and thereafter his immediate followers and students, the Companions, understood and implemented the Qur’an? I’m wondering whether this might actually be a first among the world’s religions - that people who claim to follow a given faith believe that the words and actions of that faith’s founder (for want of a better word, though we know Prophet Muhammad [s] didn’t invent Islam) and his immediate followers are not only lost forever but are in fact unnecessary.

In your view.

Why don’t you then give us some examples of people in the first generation who compiled the Qur’an. And it would help if any reports you cite are mutawatir and available in written form as you yourself previously stipulated.

Iqbal

104

Puhleez Alpha, you'd do more justice and less embarrasment to yourself if you made a reference to where I've said that "hadith are not to be followed" or "I have rejected Sunnah". Please stop making up nonsense to get points in the discussion, or to malign any guppie here to make yourself look good.

You've obviously not understood me at all, or else you're twisting my words.

To say one should be doubtful of the authenticity of hadith before following them and should confirm authenticity first, that all hadith are not meant to be stringently followed in terms of haraam and halaal, is VERY DIFFERENT from saying all hadith are not to be ever followed, or we SHOULD not follow the Sunnah, etc.

Maybe your mixing up my comments with those of others, because, yes, there are people here that reject the sunnah in its entirety. You ought to bother them about this, not me.

105

PA - I am not asking you to proove that hadith collections were around at the prophet's time, don't try and evade the question by being childish, what I am asking you is to proove that the first muslims only took the Quran as their guidance and totally disregarded the advice of the Nabi - surely there must be at least one person like you?

PCG - Your words are plain to see for all. You have denied that the sunnah is based on devine revelation, that in turn makes the sunnah nothing more that superficial. Just read your own comments on the three catergories you have broken the sunnah into and then comment on word twisitng. Trying to to slander me like many of you have done to Ibrahim in order to discredit me wont do your cause any good. This is a discussion where people will disagree with you, live with it and learn. You might have taken the slander route, but I most certainly will not go there.

Again, I await in anticipation to be converted.....

106

Alpha, no one is trying to convert you to anything. In the end, whatever degree (notice I am talking of degrees rather than absolutes) of importance you want to give to hadith, you may give it.

The guy who treats the sunnah equivalent to the Quran = the guys who holds it a little below the Quran = the guy who rejects sunnah entirely = muslims

If you dont wish to accept that, then fine. Dont. Fact is, no one is trying to convert you. This discussion we are having has already drawn lines between various scholars. But the religion in the end, is still Islam.

And again, my stance is you dont need to prove extra-Quranic revelation to prove the hadith. One is not necessarily reliant on the other. You could have hadith, but it could all be from the wisdom of the Prophet, which is God-directed, as all human wisdom is. Thus, the hadith can exist and be authentic and true to the orignal sunnah, and the original sunnah can exist and be valid as its according to God's wishes since God usually (except for one circumstance I think) didn't object to any of the Rasul's words or doings. So you see, you dont need extra-quranic revelation to proove the sunnah to be a valid source of information. Need I explain more to prove you wrong in your erroneous accusations alpha?

107

salaam,

i didnot visit GS over the weekend and when i looked this morning it was shocking:

[QUOTE]

Filahal has no replies, just as he failed to give me one shred of proof that his/her way of thinking on Islam is the same of that of the first three generations of Muslims.
Just one instance in history, just one person would make me convert to filhalism, cooldedudism and pcgism.

[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
filhalism??????? now what's that???????????
i think enough has been said by different posters above that nobody (both pro and contra hadith people) is trying to develop an new subsect or a new religion.........we are all trying to see the true face of ISLAM.............

dear alpha1,

*
The farewell Pilgrimage of the Prophet Muhammed is a major event in the Muslim history. The Final Sermon given by the Prophet during this
pilgrimage was witnessed by thousands of Muslims. There are however THREE versions of this sermon in the Hadiths books.

1- First version, " I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, *the book of God and my Family. *

2-Second version, "I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided,** the book of God and my Sunnah" **.

3- Third version, "I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided,** the BOOK OF GOD."**
*

filhaal:
above i have quoted three different accounts of ONE SINGLE event, you will agree that the prophet (saw) could have made just one of these three statement!! the point i want to make here is that from the very first moment people started to interpret the words of the prophet (saw)........

furthermore, even within the books of hadith there are different accounts were the writting of the hadith was prohibited:

*
1) Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry reported that the messenger of God had said,

"Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it."
*

filhaal:
when the prohibition on the writting of the hadith is mentioned people say that this was only true during the lifetime of the prophet (saw) in order not to confuse the words of the prophet with the quranic words........but......

The following historical incident happened **about 30 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammed **and shows that the Prophet never canceled his
order not to write but the Quran.

*
(2) From Ibn Hanbal;

Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told
him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us
NEVER to write anything of his hadith,"

*

filhaal:
now,.......i am sure you can cite hadith in which the writting has been authorized.......but my point here is just that from the very beginning there has been this debate which we are holding on GS!!
alpha you have been asking for historical prove,......are not the above hadith prove that from the very beginning there were different views??

108

Filhaal

Im afraid what you have posted does not prove your point. Why? Because I asked you to prove where the companions expressly followed the Qur'an and nothing else, that they did not consider the sunnah to be divine inspiration. Like I said to PA, I am not talking about hadith compilations. Your talk of hadith compilations is confusing the discussion leading it off track.

The fact that your post includes a companion's adherance to the Nabi's (s) teaching does in fact show that the companions followed to the contrary.

We appear to be inching towards the right way, please provide proofs that the companions did not believe the sunnah to be devinely inspired, only took the Qur'an as their guidance, and did not follow the prophetic teachings. And when I say proof, I would like the source, isnaad or the book from which the proof was taken including the author, Italic or bold quotes will not do.

109

Alpha, I think he just gave some proof. This may not be proof enough to say that the Sunnah has no bearing at all. However, if the Prophet did indeed say not to write anything other than the Quranic verses down, then obviously there was a reason behind it.

Some reasons come to mind:

  1. He did not wish for his words to have more importance or even PERHAPS equal importance to the Quran. Thus, his aim was for the Quran to be a lasting guide, and his words to be a temporary guide for that particular time period and its circumstances.

  2. hmmm...can' think of another reason. Please , if one comes to anyone's mind, do volunteer it. No one person ever sees the entire picture in its entirety on their own.

110

PCG

Again, I reiterate that FIlhaal's post does not constitute to even an iota of evidence to support his claim. Indeed your digression and then ad-hoc statements that try to second guess a hadith he cites that does not even have any references to support its validity will not help this discussion.

If what you are saying is that the companions may have followed the Nabi, but only because the Nabi ordered about the circumstances at that particular time, then you are only digging a deeper hole for yourself. The Nabi (s) has been sent as a mercy to all of mankind till judgement day. Either the Nabi's sunnah is a devine revalation that the muslims followed, or it wasn't, which is it to be?

Rather than to let the vagueness continue let me make things a little clear:

  1. Please provide evidence from the early Muslims - including the source/author/isnad/book on where the Nabi's teaching were his own opinions.

  2. That his (s) sunnah was not devinly inspired.

  3. That the Qur'an was the sole source of al-Islaam that the first three generations of Muslims followed and anything else was disregarded.

That should be simple for you to understand. I want you to prove the above three points which I have summised from your and your other ultra egos' posts. I am not concerned with when the compilations of Hadith started, whether Hadith was written or not, that is not what this discussion is about.

Only then will you have validated your claims. Until then, what you have brought here is an innovation into this perfected religion of Islaam.

111

dont accuse me for digressing when you've started the digression yourself by your insane theory on pcgism.

Secondly, I do not know what the 411 is on the hadith that were posted up there, but given that they're hadith contained in reliable hadith collection, then that is my interpretation, and my humble request for others to provide more information or opinions on it shows that I am only being an amatuer reader when interpreting those words.

Until someone can disprove these hadith to be false propaganda by the poster, you havent convinced me of anything yet either.

your questions, Alpha:

1. Please provide evidence from the early Muslims - including the source/author/isnad/book on where the Nabi's teaching were his own opinions.

The lack of proof that would show divine words, other than what is in the Quran, was given to the Prophet via Angel Gibrail, which if did exist, were not recorded down like the words of the Quran.

People here speak of other types of extra-Quranic communication, like namaaz, etc, and I've already addressed those as viable sources of communication, but not of revelation pertaining to the WHOLE OF MANKIND. Again, if DIRECT communication did take place, it was probably personal, otherwise, if it was REVELATION for ALL OF MANKIND, it would have been recorded like the words of the Quran.

  1. That his (s) sunnah was not devinly inspired.

Direct communication is not the only type of divine inspiration. We're talking about extra-Quranic revelation and communications, not divine inspiration. When I say that God willed for the Prophet to do and say what he did, that is itself divine direction, which to us is divine inspiration. Again, the Quran says the qibla was "appointed" by God, but then your existence was appointed by God too. In essence, all existence is a divine inspiration because it was all "appointed" by God.

3. That the Qur'an was the sole source of al-Islaam that the first three generations of Muslims followed and anything else was disregarded.

Definitely, they did follow the Sunnah, and we have undeniable historical proof of it This discussion isn't about the whether we should discard sunnah from our lives as muslims. Also, the discussion isn't about the validity of hadith, but whether extra-Quranic revelation exists, and if so, does it prove the undoubtable authenticity of each hadith to ever have been recorded? You are putting words in my mouth by saying that I am making such claims and then asking me to refute something I never said.

112

If what you are saying is that the companions may have followed the Nabi, but only because the Nabi ordered about the circumstances at that particular time, then you are only digging a deeper hole for yourself. The Nabi (s) has been sent as a mercy to all of mankind till judgement day. Either the Nabi's sunnah is a devine revalation that the muslims followed, or it wasn't

Certain issues were specific to that race and that time. Such problems may not exist right now, and thus , there was advice given by the Prophet for those problems. Other information was more long lasting. I'm not lumping all Sunnah into one category, but saying that you need to see what still applies and what does not.

For example, testimony of 2 women equals that of one man's. Some say, this is because women were mostly uneducated at the time. Times have changed, so is this rule to be still kept? Was it meant to be kept for all times, or was the rule given for a reason?

113

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by filhaal: *
**The farewell Pilgrimage of the Prophet Muhammed is a major event in the Muslim history. The Final Sermon given by the Prophet during this
pilgrimage was witnessed by thousands of Muslims. There are however THREE versions of this sermon in the Hadiths books.

1- First version, " I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my Family.

2-Second version, "I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my Sunnah" .

3- Third version, "I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, the BOOK OF GOD."

filhaal:
above i have quoted three different accounts of ONE SINGLE event, you will agree that the prophet (saw) could have made just one of these three statement!! the point i want to make here is that from the very first moment people started to interpret the words of the prophet (saw)**
[/quote]

I believe the various hadith you have quoted do not describe "one single event". In commenting on hadith such as the ones you mentioned, ibn Hajar al-Haythami (d. 974H) wrote: "Some of them relate to the utterances made by the Prophet at Arafah in the course of his Farewell Pilgrimage; others to pronouncements made while he was on his deathbed in Madinah, surrounded by the Companions; another to his address at Ghadir Khumm; and yet another to statements made while returning from Ta'if." (ibn Hajar, al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, p. 89)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by filhaal: *
**furthermore, even within the books of hadith there are different accounts were the writting of the hadith was prohibited:

1) Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry reported that the messenger of God had said,

"Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it."**
[/quote]

So tell me filhaal, if writing hadith was prohibited, how did this hadith which you've quoted come to be written down? Let me guess... the writers of hadith wrote down this hadith that prohibits writing hadith so as to inform us that hadith were prohibited from being written down!

If we concede that this report is correct, one has to differentiate between a prohibition on writing hadith and between transmitting hadith in other ways. For example, is there a similar report from the Prophet (s) that forbade anyone from reporting and passing on his hadith orally? So even if there was at one time a prohibition on writing hadith, this in no way downgrades the value and importance of the Prophet's (s) sayings and actions. Abu Saeed al-Khudry, the Companion who narrated the above hadith, himself related a total of 1169 other hadith from the Prophet (s) as mentioned by ibn al-Jawzi (d.579H) in Talkih al-Fuhum Ahlil Athar (p.184). Imam Ahmed (d.241H) recorded 958 of these in a single section of his famous Musnad hadith collection (3/pp.2-98).

But like i said, there is no comparable prohibition on orally transmitting the Prophet's (s) hadith. Consequently, the prohibition mentioned in the hadith was not absolute since why would the Prophet (s) allow non-written transmission and yet at the same time prohibit it in writing? Many of the commentaries on this hadith explain that the prohibition related to writing the Qur'an and hadith on a single parchment. Whoever did that should erase the hadith. Nevertheless, even this prohibition was repealed when the Prophet (s) himself later allowed his hadith to be written. The Companion Abu Shah, for example, heard the sermon of the Prophet at Makkah on the occasion of its conquest and he requested the Prophet (s) to have it written down. The Prophet (s) ordered one of his Companions to write it for him (Sahih al-Bukhari 1:111). Immediately after this report, al-Bukhari records from Abu Hurairah (r) that the Companion Abdullah ibn 'Amr wrote down hadith. There are many other examples like this. So the prohibition was certainly never meant to be permanent.

Interestingly, al-Bukhari (d.256H) held the view that the aforementioned hadith was actually a statement of Abu Saeed al-Khudry himself and that someone erroneously attributed it to the Prophet (s). In other words, Abu Saeed al-Khudry, not the Prophet (s), was against the writing of hadith for reasons best known to him. This appears to be supported by the fact that he personally did not agree with his students who wanted to make written collections of hadith (Khatib al-Baghdadi [d.463H], Taqyid al-Ilm, 36). On the rare occasions that you find scholars prohibiting their students from writing hadith or other religious verdicts, it was usually because they considered books to be bad stores of knowledge and the best store was one which was kept in memory and so could be called upon anywhere and at any time. Ibrahim an-Nakha'i (incidentally, he met Abu Saeed al-Khudry) said: "Whoever writes depends on it." (ibn Sa'd [d.230H], Tabaqat, 7:189).

A small correction. You gave the hadith's narrator as "Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry" whereas it should be "Abu Saeed Al-Khudry".

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by filhaal: *
**The following historical incident happened about 30 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammed and shows that the Prophet never canceled his order not to write but the Quran.

(2) From Ibn Hanbal; Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith,"**
[/quote]

I doubt that this particular report is authentic. A narrator by the name of al-Muttalib ibn Hantab related that Zayd ibn Thabit had said the Prophet (s) prohibited the writing of hadith. However, al-Muttalib never met Zayd ibn Thabit (ibn Hajar al-Asqalani [d.852H], Tahdhib at-Tahdib, 10:179). So the chain of transmission is disconnected and invalid. What further refutes this report is that Zayd ibn Thabit himself allowed his students to write hadith from him (Cf. ibn 'Adi [d.365H], al-Kamil fi ad-Du'afa, 1:208b; al-Khatib, Taqyid al-Ilm, 102). And he also compiled one of the first works on obligatory Islamic duties. Its introductory page is still preserved in at-Tabarani's (d.360H) monumental Mu'jam al-Kabir (3:419).

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

114

Iqbal, interesting comments - that does clear up some confusion in my head.

By the way, where did you get this information from?

I doubt that this particular report is authentic. A narrator by the name of al-Muttalib ibn Hantab related that Zayd ibn Thabit had said the Prophet (s) prohibited the writing of hadith. However, al-Muttalib never met Zayd ibn Thabit (ibn Hajar al-Asqalani [d.852H], Tahdhib at-Tahdib, 10:179). So the chain of transmission is disconnected and invalid. What further refutes this report is that Zayd ibn Thabit himself allowed his students to write hadith from him (Cf. ibn 'Adi [d.365H], al-Kamil fi ad-Du'afa, 1:208b; al-Khatib, Taqyid al-Ilm, 102). And he also compiled one of the first works on obligatory Islamic duties. Its introductory page is still preserved in at-Tabarani's (d.360H) monumental Mu'jam al-Kabir (3:419).

115

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**By the way, where did you get this information from?

I doubt that this particular report is authentic. A narrator by the name of al-Muttalib ibn Hantab related that Zayd ibn Thabit had said the Prophet (s) prohibited the writing of hadith. However, al-Muttalib never met Zayd ibn Thabit (ibn Hajar al-Asqalani [d.852H], Tahdhib at-Tahdib, 10:179). So the chain of transmission is disconnected and invalid. What further refutes this report is that Zayd ibn Thabit himself allowed his students to write hadith from him (Cf. ibn 'Adi [d.365H], al-Kamil fi ad-Du'afa, 1:208b; al-Khatib, Taqyid al-Ilm, 102). And he also compiled one of the first works on obligatory Islamic duties. Its introductory page is still preserved in at-Tabarani's (d.360H) monumental Mu'jam al-Kabir (3:419).**
[/QUOTE]

Part of it is from M. M. Azami's Studies in Early Hadith Literature (American Trust Publications, 1992, pp. 22 & 59). I have the abridgement of the work Tahdhib at-Tahdib that he refers to in his analysis. Among the early scholars who confirmed that al-Muttalib never met Zayd ibn Thabit was Abu Hatim ar-Razi (b.195H). Muhammad 'Awama also has a detailed footnote about this, along with al-Muttalib's reports from other Companions, in his notes to adh-Dhahabi's (d.748H) work al-Kashif (#5483) which i also have, published in 1992 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. At-Tabarani's Mu'jam al-Kabir, which contains the introductory page of Zayd ibn Thabit's work on obligatory Islamic duties is a published hadith collection. One of its manuscripts can be found at the Zahiriyya library in Damascus. A brief description of the manuscript is given in Fihris Makhtutat Dar al-Kutub az-Zahiriyya (Riyadh, 2001, pp.461-462).

Hope that helps.

Iqbal

116

Iqbal, you ought to become a college proffessor. Seriously.

117

the only reason i posted the above mentioned hadith were to show you alpha that this debate is not new, this has been going on from the very beginning.................this was in response to your accusation that some people here are trying to make a new sect or relgion called filhalism, Paism or PcGism...........

[QUOTE]

I believe the various hadith you have quoted do not describe "one single event". In commenting on
hadith such as the ones you mentioned, ibn Hajar al-Haythami (d. 974H) wrote: "Some of them relate
to the utterances made by the Prophet at Arafah in the course of his Farewell Pilgrimage; others to
pronouncements made while he was on his deathbed in Madinah, surrounded by the Companions;
another to his address at Ghadir Khumm; and yet another to statements made while returning from
Ta'if." (ibn Hajar, al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, p. 89)
[/QUOTE]

even if these remarks were made on different occasion, the point still stands, why should the prophet (saw) say three different things?? or these stories have been attributed on a later occasiuon to the prophet (saw)!!

[QUOTE]

So tell me filhaal, if writing hadith was prohibited, how did this hadith which you've quoted come to be
written down? Let me guess... the writers of hadith wrote down this hadith that prohibits writing hadith
so as to inform us that hadith were prohibited from being written down!
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
you see that's the whole problem with the hadith, they even contain contradictions within themselves.........

118

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**even if these remarks were made on different occasion, the point still stands, why should the prophet (saw) say three different things?? or these stories have been attributed on a later occasiuon to the prophet (saw)!!*
[/quote]

A key point in your earlier post was that these reports described "ONE SINGLE event" (your emphasis). But in fact they don't. So why would the Prophet (s) say three different things on three different occasions? Because each of the things he mentioned have their own importance. What is wrong with emphasising the importance of different things on different occasions?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**you see that's the whole problem with the hadith, they even contain contradictions within themselves......... *
[/QUOTE]

This is a very cheap shot. There's no contradiction because the prohibition was never absolute. The only real contradiction is that someone who, on the face of it, denies the validity of hadith is using a written hadith to support his argument that hadith shouldn't be written. And please don't come back and say that you only quoted it for the benefit of those who accept its authenticity. Those people also accept that hadith were and should be written, but you probably couldn't care less about that.

In order to get a better appreciation of any issue, you need to look at it in much broader terms and consider all the evidence and related materials. Only then can you reach a justifiable conclusion. Viewing reports in isolation with no regard for other narratives on the same topic is most unfair. One can even take isolated verses of the Qur'an and get a completely distorted picture as a consequence. Heck, I could even show you verses of the Qur’an that outwardly appear to contradict (you've probably read about some before) but of course we know they don't actually contradict each other. You and I will try our utmost to reconcile those verses. Likewise, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the hadith of Abu Saeed al-Khudry, some of which I’ve discussed above.

Iqbal