Not necessarily. Ahadith were compiled at least 50+ (correct me if I’m wrong) years after departure of Prophet Mohammed PBUH and no one had “memorized” ahadith on purpose while Quran was “memorized” and copies were available before Prophet Mohammed PBUH’s departure. Only it was “compiled” in different chapter order by Hazrat Usman RA, verses were in same order in a chapters (IMO).
1-Can u give me some links…or example…? regarding this..any prominenet sunni scholar ???
2-Hadiths and quran both reached us through sahabah 
… I find it confusing ..that we believe sahbahs narration as far as quran is concerned and then question the same sahbah on thier narrations regarding hadiths…
Quran and hadith are unseparable source of islamic rules…neither can be interpretated alone…that is why quran mentions importance of iswa of :saw: and to follow :saw: at many places…so in my opinion …safety of quran also includes safety of hadiths…
wallah o aalum…
Assalamu Alaykum,
I think it has been accepted without a doubt that Qur'an forms the foremost source of knowledge in Islam. Qur'an itself has always placed itself as the first source of knowledge in Islam.
The second source of Islam is the Sunnah, followed by Hadith.
Hadith literature itself has been written down at the time of Muhammad (sws) as well, and Abu Bakr siddiq for instance had a collection of Hadith. Moreover, scholars who search for the explanation and understanding of Arabic idiom have placed Hadith in an important place because the language of Prophet (sws) and his companions explains the use of the dialect of Quraysh. Many scholars are of the opinion that Hadith which has been correctly reported, has also been quite accurately reported so much so that the exact original words of the Prophet are available to us. For instance, usually accurate words of Prophet (sws) are known to us in his duas and in his letters sent to other places and so forth. Therefore, I think one can easily conclude that Hadith cannot be ignored because that would then result in loss of immense knowledge which has no parallel otherwise. Furthermore, the explanation of the Qur'anic directives contained therein is also of immense importance.
However, I think it is also not quite wise to blindly take the Hadith literature so much so that it is practically made the first knowledge of Islam. Many a times, Hadith is taken to actually change the meaning of Qur'anic verse despite its clear and concise verdict to a different effect. No matter what, Hadith is not fool proof. It is work of humans and prone to errors. No human after Muhammad (sws) can claim to be fool-proof, and neither should we accept anyone to be.
Therefore, Hadith has to always go through a process of interpretation, at the end of which one may not be able to resolve the Hadith and may have to place it away until it can really be understood. For instance, in Sahih Bukhari it is narrated by Umar that Prophet (sws) forbade praying after Asr prayer (Book 10, Number 555), and it is also narrated by Aisha that the Holy Prophet (sws) used to pray two rakats after Asr in her chamber (Book 10, Number 564). Obviously, one then has to investigate and it is not really possible to accept both of these Ahadith.
Therefore, I think we should try to always resolve Hadith and accept its verdict unless it does not meet some of the criteria that has been put forth by Hadith scholars; including but not limited to, compliance with Qur'an and Sunnah, and a fair resolution with other Ahadith.
Feel free to post your comments.
Best Regards
As a Muslim, obviously I believe that Allah has promised Qur'an to be in its original form, therefore it is not possible for it to have been altered.
However, from a rational point of view, consider the following explanation between the difference in Qur'an and Hadith.
Qur'an has reached us through generation-to-generation transfer, meaning that so many people had memorized it with exact recitation and passed to an entire next generation in such a large number that it is impossible for Qur'an to have been altered. Moreover, Qur'an had also been recorded on leaves, leather and other things at the time of the Prophet (sws) and its conveyance to us in 'tawatur' form assures its integrity.
Hadith could also be blindly accepted if it was narrated by such a large number of people. However, most Hadith (and this it is disputed whether most or all) has reached to us in a state which cannot be declared 'tawatur'. Moreover, Hadith is a saying ascribed to Prophet Muhammad (sws) by people and not proven as such. If we were sure that the saying is that by Muhammad (sws) himself, there is no reason why we wouldnt accept it. However, the fallibility of narrators, the recorders, the scribe and so forth, puts a responsibility on us to investigate it further to our satisfaction.
some very good issues raised here :k:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding the Qur'an
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
pray tell, how you know which type of question I'm asking?
[/QUOTE]
I was not punting at you, you said:
is it prohibited to ask questions? what if I'm asking them to gain insight in people's thinking? **Why wud it be a bad things to ask questions?* Isn't it better to ask questions than to walk around with doubt only cuz people expect you to believe them blindly?*
Thats why I said:
as someone said it... there are different categories of "Questions". One is is asked to show how intelligent you are, how much knowledge you have. One question is asked to put down others. One is asked to gain knowledge.
I didn't mean to suggest that your questions are always for proving ur intelligence/knowledge or putting down others, I merely provided explaination on why not all the questions asked are really good.
Re: Re: Re: Understanding the Qur'an
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by inuit: *
Qur'an states:
"Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in your tongue, in order that they may give heed." (Ad-Dakhan 44:58)
The following Aya came to make you understand that you must have to use your mind to understand the basics of religion. If you are intelligent and using your Aqal, then you will decide that Quran and the guide comes together.
"They will say: 'Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!'" (Al-Mulk 67:10)
Okay! My question to you? in the above verse, where it is said that we have to follow only the teachings of quran. First of all you have to prove this. These verses are simply saying listen or use intelligence.
Without a teacher, what is the value of book?
[/QUOTE]
Assalamu Alaykum,
For us to accept the fact that Qur'an and the guide come together, it must be supplemented by the Qur'an itself. In absence of such a commandment how can we accept something as from God?
From this verse, one can only conclude that intelligence must be used in all issues, if it cannot be used in understanding Qur'an, the exception must have been made by Allah. Qur'an has further explained this in other places in the Qur'an:
"Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an?" (An-Nisa 4:82)
"Alif. Lam. Ra. These are the verses of a clear Book. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you may understand." (Yousuf 12:1-2)
"Do they not then ponder on the Qur'an, or are there locks on the hearts?" (Muhammad 47:24)
How is it possible for someone who knew Arabic at that time to listen to Qur'an and then not know what it was saying? Qur'an was sent in their language so they could understand it first hand. And obviously, the hypocrites who did not want to accept what was in Qur'an and rather continued to believe their own religion recited Qur'an without really understanding its meaning. It is for these people that it was said that on the Day of Judgment when they will be in Hell, they will say:
"He did lead me astray from the Message (of Allah) after it had come to me! Ah! The Satan is but a traitor to man!" And the Messenger will say: 'O my Lord! Truly my people took this Qur'an for just foolish nonsense.' " (Al-Furqan 25:29-30)
How else can one take Qur'an as foolish non-sense except that they not understand it and live by it? In presence of all these commandments from Allah, and fate of those who do not use their intelligence and blindly accept the faith, how can it be accepted that Qur'an is not for understanding?
As for the claim that Qur'an can only be understood by a 'particular' teacher, there has to be a verdict from the Qur'an. In any case, one is required to not accept anything blindly, rather investigate unbiasedly, look at the arguments honestly and objectively, and accept what seems to be higher on merit of the arguments, and not what they have accepted all their lives. God has a way of showing the right path to everyone, but for that there are a few requirements, intellect being one of them.
Our aim in the life is not to prove and live according to what we were born with, and bring all sorts of arguments to prove that that is right, rather our aim in this world is to find what Allah wants from us and accept that. For me, I do not care what scholars of my faith, my fathers, friends or family believe in and lives with, I have to make sure I honestly find and accept what Allah wants from me and live by it. That is what my Hereafter will be based on.
Best Regards
Re: Re: Re: Understanding the Qur'an
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by inuit: *
Without a teacher, what is the value of book?
[/QUOTE]
if u believe its the word of God, then i'm sure ude value it quite alot
secondly if u need a teacher, u have the prophet (saw)
The Holy Quran states:
Okay…These are the verses from the Quran which tell you to follow and obey what has been revealed by Allah :swt: and follow and obey the Prophet :saw:.
Now we know how to follow the Quran, but how do we follow the Prophet :saw:? It’s through Ahadith of course. Through his Sunnah and through whatever he had spoken…
What I can’t understand is, if the same people who were commanded to obey Allah :swt: and the Prophet :saw:, why would they preserve one thing and not the other? Doesn’t the Quran say to obey the Messenger :saw:? What is to be obeyed if there is nothing to be obeyed? No Ahadith.
Let’s assume that all Ahadith are fabricated and made-up…Then why is the Quran telling us to obey something which obviously isn’t part of Islam? How do we obey the Prophet as commanded by Allah :swt: in the Quran if we have nothing to obey? If Ahadith aren’t meant to be obeyed, why does the Quran mention “obey the Prophet” again and again?
Answer is, the Ahadith are just as valuable as the Quran itself. After all, we wouldn’t be praying if through Sunnah we had never known how to pray, give Zakat and so on.
If you disregard the Sunnah and Ahadith, you leave out half of Islam. How? By not obeying the prophet :saw: as commanded by Allah :swt: through the Holy Quran.
But Lajawab, the Quran tells us to obey the Prophet (SAW). The Hadith are man's attempt to preserve our knowledge of the Prophet (SAW). They're the best we've got. That doesn't mean they're infallible, right?
Assalamu Alaykum,
Qur'an has still no where suggested that it can only be understood by the Prophet (sws). I do not disagree, he was the best teacher, but that cannot be accepted given the Hadith literature we have today. For instance:
"In Sahih Bukhari it is narrated by Umar that Prophet (sws) forbade praying after Asr prayer (Book 10, Number 555), and it is also narrated by Aisha that the Holy Prophet (sws) used to pray two rakats after Asr in her chamber (Book 10, Number 564). Obviously, one then has to investigate and it is not really possible to accept both of these Ahadith."
Obviously, something is not quite right here and all we are saying is that we need to resolve these Ahadith before these can be accepted. We cannot blindly accept these Ahadith.
There is no disagreement that Hadith or Sunnah should be followed. But by looking at the example above, and if someone is well-versed with Hadith there are numerous other examples, how can one blindly accept the Hadith?
In fact, most of the verses quoted above are clear, "obey Allah and then Muhammad (sws)", not "obey Allah as Muhammad (sws) says", or "obey Muhammad (sws) and then Allah". Interestingly, no where does it say that Qur'an can only be understood only through Muhammad (sws).
We agree to the fact that Qur'an has to be followed as well as the Rasool, and in fact that very strongly implies that Qur'an must be understood as well. And so is clear from most of the verses quoted by user Lajawab.
Regards
When the Qur'an says obey the Prophet, we have to be sure that Hadith is from the Prophet. Remember, Hadith is a saying ascribed to Muhammad (sws), and not proven as such. If someone came today and said Prophet (sws) required us to take bath everyday after zuhr, should we just accept it? Or find out if Prophet (sws) really said that, and meant it?
While we should follow the Prophet (sws), we should also find what is it that Prophet (sws) himself said, and what it is that people have forged against our beloved Rasool and are trying to take him down through their act.
Best
Aren’t you ignoring the possibility that to follow the Prophet means to Follow what he brought down… The Qur’an!! Remember the message in the Qur’an came not as one big chunk.. So following the prophet would make a reasonable statement within the Qur’an demanding the audience pay heed to the Prophet..Why wouldn’t God just send a Prophet with a statement of “follow him and obey him” and leave it at that.. why go through the torture of sending down piece by piece of a huge book explained in detail with examples and history and consistently challenging the audience to exercise their intellect and reasoning and accept the message.. all the time reminding that the Prophet was only the warner.. the messenger..
How do you ‘obey or follow’ the messenger? by obeying and following The Message.
are you asserting there are no ahadiths that were fabricated? the mission of all compilers of ahadith is only to separate fact from truth.. and find verifiable narrations from a plethora of fabrications flying out there.. so u see there were people unafraid of telling lies in the name of the Prophet and calling them hadith.. and there were simpletons and gullible folk who in the name of piety and ‘obeying the prophet’ just accepted everything that was alluded to the Prophet..
NOW think about it. would the Qur’an leave you in such a quandry to understand it by means of such an unregulated source of information?? Wouldn’t that mean you’d understand the Qur’an incorrectly if you chose to follow something incorrect till some later scholar found it to be fabricated?? or more scholars contended it was a lie than those who considered it true??
I hope u do realize that all practices are a result of ‘scholarly consensus’ and not direct knowledge.. which is why sects pray differently and some don’t even pay Zakat.. wouldn’t we rather have ONE source of information and all sects try and agree amongst each other on how to interpret and follow it.. the moment we bring in spurious documents into play is the moment we divide ourselves into sects.. something frowned upon in the Qur’an.
From the above verses we can see that the Quran is talking about two things…Two separate things: 1) Obey Allah and 2) Obey the Messenger.
What means do we have of obeying Allah :swt:? The Quran. And what means do we have of following the Messenger? The Ahadith.
This verse particularly is of important note:
What is the difference between referring back to Allah :swt: and referring back to the Messenger :saw:? The Holy Prophet :saw: is not alive today, is he? And obviously this verse doesn’s just apply to people of that time only…
In the verses that I quoted earlier, you can see that obeying Allah :swt: and the Prophet :saw: are mentioned separately…Why not just Allah :swt: and the Quran, or the Quran since it is the word of Allah :swt: undoubtedly…
Mr. OIqbal, as for not praying after Asr is concerned, maybe it was meant solely for the believers, because we know that the Prophets’ :as: actions were different than the followers…Like Hazrat Musa :as: talking to Allah :swt: or Hazrat Ibrahim (as) being thrown in the fire and the fire cooling down or the ascension of Hazrat Eesa (as)…It is evident by this Hadith:
As for their infallibility, Allah :swt: knows. But we should also know the care taken by the early generations of Muslims to be wiling to lay down their very lives for Islam not keeping the sanctity of the words of the Holy prophet :saw: in their entirety…
We should also know, that there has been no piece of literature, actions or words on Earth that have been more preserved with blood and toil and held with more esteem and purity than those of Islam and of its Messenger :saw:…It would be unwise to assume that Muslims, even after reading the penalty of attributing words to Allah :swt: or His Messenger would indulge in such a heinous practice…
May Allah :swt: guide as He knows what is best…Always…
Lajawab, the very first remark in ur post is far-fetched. How can you clearly argument the bold part of the quote. How can you say that ‘following the Prophet’ automatically means ‘follow hadith’. So you are saying that the what the Prophet did is unmistaknely written in the man-made document called Hadith? Won’t it be more logical to think that whatever the Prophet did, AND what is important to us is also written without error in the Qir’an?
Enjoy the copy-paste which when I read did clearify many things to me too :~)
*Summary of Hadith Rejecters' Claims *
No 1.
We, Quranists (Ahle Quran), do not make a distinction between obeying Allah and obeying His Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Anyone who obeys the Qur'an has no other option but to obey the Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, too. Had we been living with him, we would have no hesitation in blindly following his orders. We do make a distinction but that is between Allah and Hadith collectors like Bukhari, Muslim, Nisai, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud. We accept Allah's Word that He has protected the Quran from corruption, but why should we accept the words of these hadith collectors? Are they as infallible as Allah?
No 2.
Qur'an is sufficient and does not need any further explanation.
No 3.
Hadith is the same as the gospels of Christianity. Indeed the time span between death of Messenger Muhammad, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and the compilation of the Sahihs was almost the same as that between the departure of Jesus, Alayhis salam, and compilation of the Bible. How can Muslims reject one but accept the other?
No 4.
Dr. Maurice Bucaille finds that the Saheeh is as unscientific as the Bible.
No 5.
The Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, may have elaborated on items like mode of salaah. Such hadith is probably from the Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and should be obeyed. But what about the hadith that contradict the Qur'an.
No 6.
The root cause of Muslim decay is their reverence for the hadith.
No 7.
Allah has protected only the Qur'an -- not Islam -- from corruption.
No 8.
Allah expects from His slaves exclusive servitude. When Sunnis talk of Quran and Sunnah, the Qur'an is undermined for its exclusivity is lost.
"If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." [Al-Ahzab, 33:36]
*"He that obeys Allah and His Messenger has already attained the great victory." * [Al-Ahzab, 33:71].
*For the past fourteen centuries Qur´an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims. In every generation, the Muslims devoted the best of their minds and talents to this study. They learned both the words and meanings of the Glorious Qur´an through the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and made an unprecedented effort in preserving them for the next generation. The result: The development of the marvellous -- and unparalleled -- science of Hadith, one of the brightest aspects of Muslim history. *
What does it mean to believe in a Prophet except to pledge to follow him? And so the teachings of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, have always guided this Ummah. Nobody, in his right mind, could or did question this practice. Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some "scholars" arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Parwez), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of Hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the Hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for more than fourteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target.
Another factor helped them. Today most Muslims, including the vast majority of the western-educated Muslims, have meagre knowledge of Hadith, having spent no time in studying even the fundamentals of this vast subject. How many know the difference between Sahih and Hasan, or between Maudou’ and Dhaif? The certification process used in Hadith transmission? Names of any Hadith book produced in the first century of Hijrah, or the number of such books? A majority probably would not be able to name even the six principal Hadith books (Sihah Sittah) or know anything about the history of their compilation. Obviously such atmosphere provides a fertile ground for sowing suspicions and doubts.
They call themselves as ahle-Qur'an or Quranists. This is misleading. For their distinction is not in affirming the Qur'an, but in rejecting the Hadith. The ideas of munkireen-e-hadith evolve into three mutually contradictory strains.
The first group holds that the task of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was only to deliver the Qur'an. We are to follow only the Qur'an and nothing else, as were the Companions. Further, Hadith is not needed to understand the Qur'an, which is sufficient for providing guidance.
The second group holds that the Companions were required to follow the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, but we are not.
The third group holds that, in theory, we also have to follow the Hadith but we did not receive Ahaadith through authentic sources and therefore we have to reject all Ahaadith collections!
Internal contradictions are a hallmark of false ideologies. How can anyone hold the first position yet profess belief in Qur'an while it says: "And We have sent down unto You the Message so that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them." *[An-Nahal, 16:44]. And this: *"Allah did confer a great favour on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs (Verses) of Allah, purifying them, instructing them in Scripture, and teaching them Wisdom. While before that they were in manifest error." [A'ale Imran 3:164].
How can anyone hold the second position (limiting the Prophethood to 23 years) yet profess belief in Qur'an, while it says: "We did not send you except as Mercy for all creatures." [Al-Anbia, 21:107] And, "We have not sent you except as a Messenger to all mankind, giving them glad tidings and warning them against sin." [Saba, 34:28]
The third position seems to have avoided these obvious pitfalls, yet in reality it is no different. Consider claim Nos 1, 2, 5, and 8 above in the summary of Hadith rejecters' claims. So Hadith undermines Qur'an's exclusivity, yet would have been followed blindly at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Ahaadith cannot be followed because they are not reliable, yet can be followed for ritual prayers.
*Salaah And Hadith Rejecters: *
But we don't need a favour for Hadith about salaah (coming from the same books and the same narrators who are declared as unreliable). We need an answer to this question: If the Qur'an is the only authentic source of Guidance, why did it never explain how to offer salaah, although it repeatedly talks about its importance, associating it with eternal success and failure? What would we think of a communication that repeatedly emphasizes a certain act but never explains how to perform it? There are only two possibilities. Either it is a terrible omission (and in that case it cannot be from Allah) or another source for the how-to information is provided and it is a terrible mistake for any recipient to ignore that.
(Recently some Hadith rejecters have realized the difficulty of their position on salaah. But they have made a claim that is even more ludicrous, namely that the Qur'an gives details on how to offer salaah.** "A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid-el Haraam [the continuous practice at Mecca since the time of Abraham]," says one proponent, "specifically the 'place of Abraham (maqaam e Ibraheem).'" ** Let us leave aside all the practical questions about such a fluid answer. Whose Salaah? When? Are we to follow anyone and everyone we find praying at Maqame Ibrahim? How are those offering salaah there are to determine proper way of offering Salaah? How do you resolve their differences? In his enthusiasm in proposing this innovative solution, this proponent even forgot that the Qur'an says the following about the salaah of mushrikeen at the Masjid-el Haraam: "Their prayer at the House of Allah is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. (Its only answer can be), 'Taste the chastisement because you blasphemed.'" [Al-Anfal 8:35] )
*The Reliability of Resources: *
To accept one and reject the other source on the basis of reliability (statement No 3) also defies reason, unless we received the Qur'an directly from Allah. But we have received both Qur'an and Hadith through the same channels. Same people transmitted this as the Word of Allah, and that as the word of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi was sallam. Even the verse claiming that Qur'an will be protected came to us through the same people. Through what logic can anyone declare that the channels are reliable for Qur'an and unreliable for Hadith? On the contrary the Quranic promise of protection must apply to Hadith as well for there is no point in protecting the words but not the meanings of the Qur'an.
--
contd.
*Protection of Qur'an: *
To say that Allah promised to protect only Qur'an but not Islam (Claim No 7) is being as ridiculous as one can get. Let's ignore the obvious question regarding the point of this Heavenly act. The question is if Islam has been corrupted and its true teachings have been lost, how can anyone claim to be its follower? Moreover, Qur'an says: *"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" * [A'al-e-Imran, 3:85]. How are we to follow the religion acceptable to Allah if it was not to be protected?
*Were Ahaadith Written Down for the First Time in the Third Century of Hijrah? *
The above proves that Ahaadith must have been protected. Were they? The very existence of a huge library of Hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (claim No 2 and 3) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were Ahaadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijrah? Not at all. Actually Hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth." He produced Sahifah Sadiqah, which contained more than six thousand Ahaadith. Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the Ahaadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijrah many hundred booklets of Hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, *"by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands." *
Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopaedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the Ahaadith of this Sahifah had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmad and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the Ahaadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmad that were thought to have come from that Sahifah. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sittah. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most sceptical into the fold of believers.
Saheeh and the Gospels:
Regarding comparison of Saheeh with Gospels (claim No 3), let's listen to Dr. Hamidullah. *"The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith... We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?" *
The Comments of Dr. Maurice Bucaille:
Dr. Maurice Bucaille earned the admiration of many Muslims because of his study of some scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur'an and his testimony based on that study that Qur'an must be the Book of Allah. However he is not a Hadith scholar and it is unfair to drag him into this discussion. His account of history of Hadith compilation contains many errors, for example the claim that the first gathering of Hadith was performed roughly forty years after Hijrah or that no instructions were given regarding Hadith collection. He questions about a dozen or so entries in Bukhari that he thinks deal with scientific matters. Even if all that criticism were valid, would it be sufficient ground to throw away the 9082 total entries (2602 unique Ahaadith) in Bukhari? He himself does not think so, for he writes:** "The truth of Hadith, from a religious point of view, is beyond question." **
The Hadith Regarding the Sun:
But even his criticism is of questionable value. Consider the Hadith about the sun: "At sunset the sun prostrates itself underneath the Throne and takes permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then a time will come when it will be about to prostrate itself... it will seek permission to go on its course... it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the West." His criticism: **"This implies the notion of a course the sun runs in relation to the Earth." **Bucaille fails to understand the real message of this Hadith. It was not meant to teach astronomy. Its clear message is that sun is a slave of Allah, moving always through His Will. The Hadith brings out that message very powerfully so that even the most illiterate Bedouin would understand it fully. Moreover Bucaille should know better than to criticize the implied notion of sun's rotation around earth. Even today the astronomers, when calculating the time of sunrise and sunset, use a mathematical model in which the sun revolves around the earth. If that is acceptable for scientific work as it makes calculations easier, why is it questionable, when it makes communication easier?
Also there are other Ahaadith which clearly demonstrate a scientific fact beyond the knowledge of the times but Bucaille has failed to take notice. For example the Hadith about solar eclipse: "The sun and moon are two signs of Allah. They are not eclipsed on account of anyone's death or on account of anyone's birth." (Muslim, Hadith No 1966]. The eclipse had coincided with the death of Prophet's son. A false prophet would have tried to exploit the occasion. A fabricated Hadith would require scientific knowledge that did not exist then.
The munkareen-e-hadith think that their beliefs are built on solid rock. Well, it is as solid as wax: The religion based on this idea can be fitted into any mold. For some Hadith rejecters that was the motivation. For everyone, that is the inevitable result. But the good news is that their arguments are the same way. On the surface they appear to be solid. But faced with the light of truth, they melt away like wax.
Khalid Baig
c/o Mufti Taqi Usmani
**
It’s not only logical but as a Muslim it is your unshaking belief that whatever is written in the Quran is without error.
And the most importance given to anything in the Quran is Salat. Answer yourself this: How many Muslims do you see unwaveringly praying five times a day? If they can’t follow the Quran in its most important and undebatable point, is it any wonder that the Ahadith are left without merit?
And if the importance of Salat becomes evident upon a Muslim, how does one go about performing it? Where does one get the actions required by it? Do you know of any other place except the Sunnah and the Ahadith? I bet people would be willing to argue over whether even the way we perform Salat is authentic.
Thing is, today we have the Quran and Sunnah. We stick to it in any way that it is, we shall be amongst the victorious. I am not saying that those who reject the Ahadith are Kafirs, as that is for Allah :swt: to decide. All I am saying that it is the Quran which tells us to follow Prophet :saw: and the reward of actions depends upon the intentions.
But coming back to Salat, we have Muslims who do not pray it, yet are most vocal and critical about Islam. Like Irshad Manji. She claims to be a Lesbian and yet wants changes in the Quran. How stupid is that? Same goes for Muslims. Don’t pray most vocal. That to me is hypocrisy.
NesCio - ** I have quoted a few Ayahs of Qur'an; could you please explain as to how you understand the parts i have put in **Bold ?
Allah says: And we have revealed unto you the Remembrance (the Qur'an) so that you may explain to mankind that which has been revealed for them, and that perhaps they may reflect. (Qur'an 16:44)
Allah showed great kindness to the believers whom He sent a Messenger to them from among themselves to recite His Signs to them and purify them and teach ** them the Book **and Wisdom , even though before that they were clearly misguided. (Surat al- Imran, 164)
But no, by thy Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make thee judge in all disputes ** between them, and find in their souls **no resistance against thy decisions , but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Qur'an 4:65)
Do agree that apart from just delivering the Qur'an; Prophet (saw) taught it too, as was required?
In the second Ayah quoted above, Prophet (saw) apart from teaching the Book is instructed to teach WISDOM; now please tell me what do you understand by Wisdom that the Prophet (saw) taught besides the Quran? Where is this Wisdom recorded?
In the third Ayah quoted above, are we not commanded by Allah (swt) to offer no resistance to the decisions of the Prophet (saw)? Where are the decisions record?
BTW, I don't think you have fully answered brother Lajawab .
About rejection of hadith and Sunnah the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, himself was well-aware that such ill-natured opinions would arise and hence gave a clear warning of this as reported by Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'di Karib, one of his Companions: "I have indeed been given the Qur'an and something similar to it besides it. Yet, the time will come when a man leaning on his couch will say, 'Follow the Qur'an only; what you find in it as halaal, take it as halaal, and what you find in it as haraam, take it as haraam.' But truly, what the Messenger of God has forbidden is like what God has forbidden." (Reported by Abu Dawud and Darimi.)
So, apart from Halal and Haraam, we are bound to follow the other instructions (Sunnah & Hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.