Islamism ???

[Arabian Legend]

@al-Hasani

This might interest you.

 

[al-Hasani]

@al-Hasani

This might interest you.

7abibi this thread is 331 posts long. I just saw page 30 and discovered who you had discussed with and my advice is to drop it because it will only be a waste of time I am afraid. I have discussed similar issues with the usual suspects here and I came to the conclusion that ignorance is a bliss for some people. So please safe your precious time.

But since I am here can you then please sum up the main discussion parts? This topic is VERY big after all. If this debate concerns some Mullah Shia then count me out automatically. Don't have time for them and their false games. Just annoys me since I know all about their "arguments". Heard and seen it all 1000 times before.

 

[Arabian Legend]

7abibi this thread is 331 post longs. I just saw page 30 and discovered who you had discussed with and my advice is to drop it because it will only be a waste of time I am afraid. I have discussed similar issues with the usual suspects here and I came to the conclusion that ignorance is a bliss for some people. So please safe your precious time.

Yes, That's what I thought too.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Arabian Legend

Brother I have read your post three times , hoping you would have tried to academically disprove my claim , But I was really disappointed . You are repeating your personal POV over and over again , which unfortunately is not supported by Quran or even simple Logic .

Let me try one more time (last time)

Here let me address your two points as well as to add some clarification
Hadith is not needed !
Quran and Hadith are in disagreement !

You are throwing in so many random things and unsupported claims.First you say the Hadith is not needed and in disagreement with the Quran and now you say its mostly conjecture which is all untrue.

These are not random things . They are all inter linked . Hadith is not needed and Quran and Hadith are in disagreement (Quran itself says so , I mentioned clear Quranic verses , also a lot of Ahadith contradict with Quranic teachings) ,
And what was collected two centuries after the demise of prophet pbuh in the name of "hadith" was mostly conjecture . As it was logically impossible to compile what prophet (pbuh) actually said (or did) , two centuries after his death . Hence saying that following any hadith collections is mandatory for Muslims is in fact going against the teachings of Holy Quran

Hadith is the actions and the sayings of the prophet. These actions and sayings came not after the revelation of the Quran but along with it. Whatever the prophet said or done was the demonstration of the message given to him. Every verse revealed to the Prophet was translated by him either orally or physically or both. The translation was recorded during his life time by some of his companions, later collected and classified during the fifth Khalifa in Islam Umar Ibn AbudAlaziz. So For you to understand Quran you must read the Hadith and I have provided some example before like the method of praying, Zakat and Hajj rituals and for you to understand the Hadith you must relate it to the Quran.So, neither the Quran contradict with Hadith nor the opposite because these two are in correspondence with each other. Claiming that the Quran says Hadith is not needed or in disagreement can't be true as per the Quran

As I said earlier . prophet (pbuh) did not say anything wrong (as he could not) . No Muslim doubts that . The point is "Did the prophet (pbuh) actually say or do what was attributed to him two centuries after his death ??" , "Did Allah promise protection of Hadith" , "Is it humanly possible to compile perfect Hadith Books" ??
These question deserve detailed answers . And that is what all this discussion is about .

Allah made no promise to protect Hadith , so how could he make it mandatory to follow Hadith ???
Infact Allah tells us otherwise (in Quran); that Quran is fully detailed and easy to understand and we dont need any Hadith besides Quran !!

If humans can compile perfect books (hadith books) , then how come Quran is special and unique??

And when we study origins of Hadith (compilation) in detail , we find out that there are lot of flaws in its methodologies .

Different Ahadith tend to explain different rulings of Quran . They are often contradicting , hence all the differences among different factions . This itself is enough to prove that Hadith is highly flawed .

The prophet forbade writing down of Ahadith , so did the Khulf a Rashideen , Why would they do so if Hadith was so important and one could not be a Muslim without following Hadith ?? Why did Omer r.a say that "Quran(alone) is enough for us" ??

All this makes a perfect sense ,but only if one tries to understand

We were told in the Quran that: he It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in clear error -
So let us open the English dictionary and find out the meaning of the word ''teach''.
Teach: is to show or explain to (someone) how to do something.
Conclusion is, the teaching of the Quran shown and explained by the prophet is in the Hadith.

Yes , prophet (pbuh) taught Quran to his companions , who were the best of Muslims . But they all are long dead . Then came later generations of Muslims who disputed over what the prophet had said centuries earlier (as there was no written record) , Each faction compiling its own collection of Ahadith which surprisingly supported its religious and political agendas !! It is really that simple !!

Here comes again with the same issue? Do you understand the meaning of un-absolute prohibition that was only made for a specific group in a specific time before the complete revelation of the Quran. Secondly, Hadith was not collected for a political reason this is absurd claim. Dude, believe it or not you don't know what are you saying? First the founder of the science of Hadith is not Al-Zuhri but Imam Ali Al-Madni. Imam Al-Zuhri was well known and reliable scholar among many Sahabh and his authorities in Hadith is beyond dispute as described by many scholars like Ibn Hajar and Al-Dahabi. The only one who accused him of Tadless was a jewish scholar in Islamic studies named Igaz Goldziher. This jewish scholar was politically motived against the Islamic empire during the era of the Umayyad dynasty. So if you wanna take from him go ahead.

Un absolute prohibition that was only made for a specific time ??? Any proof (other than what scholars said centuries later while trying to justify a clear violation of Sunnah by earlier generations)

I quoted what Imam Malik , Imam Shafi , Ibne Hajar Asqalani , Imam Dhahbi and a lot of others (Including neutral Historians) say , and your reply is "It is Absurd" and wrong !!
If you think that your personal opinion carries more weight than any one else , then there is no point in carrying out academic discussions

Now don't tell me the so many who studied Hadith and verified it throughout history till this day are wrong and you are right !

Well this is the last refuge (obviously the only one) of those who defend Hadith

This logic is interesting . let me put it this way : " only 5 % of muslims are Ahl e Hadith , and they originated around 18th century only . If they are right then 95 % of living Muslims , and 100 % of Muslims who had lived for 1000 years (before emergence of Wahabism) were obviously wrong .Now dont tell me Those who studied Islam for 1000 years and verified it throughout history were wrong and M. Ibn e AbdulWahab was right !!

Quran tells us clearly not to worship scholars , which we unknowingly and unintentionally do , hence all the mess in Ummah

 

[RAMPAGE]

@Azlan Haider

How are you brother ???

Can you write your views in a single post regarding the authenticity of Hadith and its compilation so I can give/get you a detailed answer ???

Thank you.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Azlan Haider

How are you brother ???

Can you write your views in a single post regarding the authenticity of Hadith and its compilation so I can give/get you a detailed answer ???

Thank you.

Brother it is a very lengthy discussion , will send you pm IA

I don`t believe in whole sale rejection of Hadith
But I believe that use of Ahadith as a source of Islamic/Sharia laws (either public or private) is the root cause of all the evils in the Islamic world . The idea of using Hadith as a source of law contradicts Quranic teachings .



Allama Muhammad Iqbal notes in his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, even Abu Hanifah, regarded as “one of the greatest exponents of Muhammedan Law in Sunni Islam … made practically no use of … traditions”, even though there were collections available at that time made by other people no less than thirty years before his death. Nor did he collect any hadith for his use, unlike his peers Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
[Iqbal, A. M., The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, First Indian Edition 1997, p. 137.]

Thus, according to Iqbal, “if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah].”

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Some food of thought for those who reject hadits

The Qur'anists have a major dilemma on their hands. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why reforms to Islam are an impossibility. The Qur'an alleges that it is entirely composed of Allah’s commands, not Muhammad’s, yet the Qur'an itself orders Muslims to obey the Messenger.

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
Qur'an 4:80

If you do not know what the Messenger had ordered, then this is impossible. The Qur’an also commands Muslims to follow the Messenger’s example, yet the only place this example is established is in the Sunnah. Without the Hadith, you cannot know Muhammad. Without knowing Muhammad, there is no Uswa Hasana. If you doubt the Hadith you are doubting the entirety of Islam. If you reject the hadiths, then you are in-turn rejecting Islam by going against the orders of the Qur'an and are therefore apostate/murtad/kafir (whichever may apply). Ultimately, to remain faithful to Allah and the Qur'an, the hadiths cannot be rejected.

Islam means submission (contrary to popular belief that it means peace), and more specifically it means submission to the will of Allah. What is the will of Allah, one may ask. Qur'an-only Muslims would have us believe that the Qur'an clearly defines what exactly Allah's will is. But this is not the case.

For one thing, the Qur'an is full of contradictory verses and commands; sometimes commanding believers to seek out and kill pagans (Qur'an 9:5), other times commanding Muslims to leave pagans to practice their polytheistic religions in peace (Qur'an 109:1-6). Without the Hadith there would be no Abrogation, the Qur'an can then be interpreted in multiple ways. The pacifist can decide to take from it a peaceful message by deliberately ignoring or twisting violent verses whereas the sadist can easily interpret a violent message by focusing on such verses as are found in Surah 9. Both Muslims could be selectively justified by the Qur'an because of its contradictory messages from Muhammad-in-Mecca versus Muhammad-in-Medina.

To be a Qur'anist requires a good deal of faith and a considerable lack of theological common sense. If one rejects the Hadith (ie. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud), the Tafsir (ie. Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, al-Jalalayn, Maududi), and the History (ie. al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, al-Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq), then the entire historical context of the Qur'an, along with any proof of Muhammad's existence, is lost. It simply becomes an ancient Arabic document of rambling, repetitive, and often-times confusing, statements and commands. The reader is left with such questions as "Who wrote this and why?" and "Who is Abu Lahab, and why are he and his wife going to be tortured?" and "Why don't these stories match the ones found in the Bible?" and "Who is 'Isa?" The Qur'anist is ultimately a monotheist who creates their own religion based on a 1400-year-old nonsensical Arabic document.

The often-leveled charge by the obscure Qur'an-only sects that "Sunni's and Shi'ite's are following a deviant form of Islam by introducing these man-made books," is laughable and the epitome of hypocrisy, considering most of the narrators of hadith are the very same people who passed down the Qur'an itself. The first Muslims (Sahabah- companions of Muhammad, which include all four Rightly Guided Caliphs) who partook in the Hijra to Medina, were not Qur'an-only Muslims. The generation of Muslims that followed the death of Muhammad (the Tabi'un) were not Qur'an-only Muslims. And the generation of Muslims that followed them (Tabi' al-Tabi'un) were not Qur'an-only Muslims. Recording and sorting through these narrations in written form was little more than codifying and clarifying already existing beliefs. To suggest that adhering to Muhammad's sunnah constitutes a deviation from pure Islam is ludicrous.

These Qur'an only "Muslims" reject the Hadith, a fundamental aspect of Islam, simply due to it highlighting the immoral truths of Muhammad, early Islam and its numerous laws. They may deny this as the reason behind their rejection of Hadith, but this fact is proven by many Qur'anists who alternatively accept Hadith as a historical source but dismiss it as a religious one. Furthermore they reject anything about Muhammad which they claim "contradicts the Qur'anic description of him". This approach is intellectually dishonest and logically unfeasible. Either the Hadith are a valid source of information for Muslims or they are worthless. You cannot pick and choose which bits you want to keep and which bits you want to throw out when the good and the bad all originate from the same sources.


Qur'an Only Islam: Why it is Not Possible - WikiIslam

 

[M. Sarmad]

If you doubt the Hadith you are doubting the entirety of Islam. If you reject the hadiths, then you are in-turn rejecting Islam by going against the orders of the Qur'an and are therefore apostate/murtad/kafir (whichever may apply).

Yes , we know that Iqbal was declared an apostate too by Mullahs (both deoband and barelvi) for his rejection of Hadith as a source of law and challenging of Mullah Islam . But to every educated and rational mind , Iqbal knew more about Islam than Madrassah bred Mullahs

And the article you posted carries no academic significance . Just raw thoughts and opinions (each and every line of it can be easily refuted). Read through the previous posts and share some rational thoughts instead of copy pasting crap , One does not even have the energy to refute such BS articles .
b/w Do You know about the site Wikiislam from where you have posted this ?. and why this site is banned in Pakistan ???

 

[user1]

Lets do a simple thought experiment: suppose that all written literature in the world is destroyed; all literature learned by heart is also written off from the memory. What will remain then? Only Quran because Allah (SWT) guarantees it's protection. A person - in such a situation - will have only Quran to follow, because Hadith would not exist. This is the sole reason - and Quran asks us again and again to use reason - that I am a follower of the Quran. I only accept those Hadith which fulfill the criteria given in Quran, because Quran has been described as Furqan (Criterion) to judge the previous revelation and the conduct of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

As for the contradictions in the Quran are concerned, they are not contradictions. These are the verses cut and paste from different chapters. The simplest method to resolve them is to read a few verses before and after the given verses.

For example, Raja Pakistani has given verses 9:5 - wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post.
Only if we start from the beginning of the Surah, i.e. four verses before the mentioned, we will see the reason because of which Muslims are asked to exhibit that behaviour.

9:1 A release by God and His Messenger from the treaty you [believers] made with the idolaters.

9:2 You [idolaters] may move freely about the land for four months, but you should bear in mind both that you will not escape God, and that God will disgrace those who defy [Him].

9:3 On the Day of the Great Pilgrimage[there will be] a proclamation from God and His Messenger to all people: ‘God and His Messenger are released from [treaty] obligations to the idolaters. It will be better for you [idolaters] if you repent; know that you cannot escape God if you turn away.’ [Prophet], warn those who ignore [God] that they will have a painful punishment.

9:4 As for those who have honoured the treaty you made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfil your agreement with them to the end of their term. God loves those who are mindful of Him.

9:5 When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful.

If you just read the highlighted portions, you will see that a (war) treaty was broken by idolaters of Madina and they had supported the enemies of Muslims - where they were supposed to help the Muslims.

In the end it is also said about them to let them go their way.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Yes , we know that Iqbal was declared an apostate too by Mullahs (both deoband and barelvi) for his rejection of Hadith as a source of law and challenging of Mullah Islam . But to every educated and rational mind , Iqbal knew more about Islam than Madrassah bred Mullahs

IQBAL AND HADITH

And the article you posted carries no academic significance . Just raw thoughts and opinions (each and every line of it can be easily refuted). Read through the previous posts and share some rational thoughts instead of copy pasting crap , One does not even have the energy to refute such BS articles .
b/w Do You know about the site Wikiislam from where you have posted this ?. and why this site is banned in Pakistan ???

Its not about sources but these are some valid points about validity of Hadith. You have used more copy paste stuffs in this thread than anyone else. Hadith-rejectors are actually people who have not studied the sciences of Hadith and the meticulous system of classification behind them. They are laymen who have no education in Islamic sciences. They come across some hadith that they don't understand or that seems problematic to them and consequently they conclude It doesn't make sense to me therefore it must not be true and Hadits are useless so just stick to Quran. What if they find contradiction in Quranic verses because of lack of
understanding? Would they give up Quran as well?

They dont realize that Sahih Bukhari collected the hadith that had already been recorded and transmitted and after authenticating them included them in their collection. Hadith are not authenticated by some randomized process. Their contents as well as the chain of narration for each hadith is studied carefully to determine its authenticity and this isn't done by just one scholar but this is the collective efforts of all the Muslim hadith scholars throughout Islamic history.

It is always amusing to note hadith rejectors says "But some of these hadith contradict the Quran". They forget that one of the requirements for a hadith's authenticity is that it must be in accordance with the Quran, so the scholars of Hadith already checked that before passing their judgement on it. What a hadith rejector really means when they make such a comment is that the hadith contradicts their ill-informed and mistaken understanding of the Quran

 

[M. Sarmad]

IQBAL AND HADITH

Once in a discussion with one Ahl-i-Hadith, he said:

I (Iqbal) rely only on the Quran in matters of faith and regarding the Hadith I and you know, how it has reached us.

On hearing this conversation, one person got emotionally charged and pointed to Iqbal:

If we are careless about the Hadith in such a manner then Mussalmani will come to an end. None of our practice and worship is complete without the Hadith. The Quran does not even elaborate prayer and other daily routine matters and it is for this reason that the Ahl-i-Quran group have prescribed strange types of prayer for us which have no relation with the masses of Ahl-i-Islam. The timings, requirements and Rakats etc. of such prayers are different from the one operating in the whole Islamic world. Would you not treat such persons under these circumstances as unbelievers?

In reply, Iqbal politely said:‑

Don’t say “unbelievers”. Give them any other name. This is extremism. You people fight for the Rakats and the requirements of the prayers but I don’t at all see the existence of “prayers” i.e., Muslims do not offer prayers.[26]

Likewise, in a letter to Mawlana Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, he writes:

“About the authenticity of the Hadith, whatever apprehension I have in my heart, it does not mean that the Hadith are useless completely.”[27]

It means Iqbal had earlier written such views about the Hadith that Nadvi had come to the conclusion that Iqbal absolutely rejects the Hadith. Even in the above letter it is clear that Iqbal does not recognise the Hadith in its entirety on account of susceptibility about its authenticity.

Instead of refuting views of orientalists and coming up with viewpoint whereby the traditional thinking regarding the Hadith would have been recognised and endorsed, Iqbal himself gives prominence to above sort of views while dealing with the Hadith as a source of law.

The fact is that Iqbal does not favour usage of Hadith as a source of law; rather his indifference to it as a legal source is writ large. In order to give weightage to such a view about the Hadith he comes out with the theory of legal and non-legal traditions and attaches too many conditions to legal traditions.70A

And that is Exactly what I am saying !!

Its not about sources but these are some valid points about validity of Hadith. You have used more copy paste stuffs in this thread than anyone else

It is about the sources . Any one can edit the content of Wikiislam (just like wikipedia) . wikiislam is no reliable source at all

And please tell me where did I copy paste stuff from ??

I quoted Quranic and history references basically

They dont realize that Sahih Bukhari collected the hadith that had already been recorded and transmitted and after authenticating them included them in their collection. Hadith are not authenticated by some randomized process. Their contents as well as the chain of narration for each hadith is studied carefully to determine its authenticity and this isn't done by just one scholar but this is the collective efforts of all the Muslim hadith scholars throughout Islamic history.

Well , from your post it is obvious that you know about Hadith and its origins only what Mullahs say and never tried to read a few things on your own . Read this and try to understand that what is actually being said :

Islamic History & Archaeology

 

[halupridol]

You wouldn't find a single Muslim who doesn't agree with that because Quran itself say's that.

???....really??
so u mean to say that all muslims consider other faiths inferior??.....moreover koran,The holy book,,,teaches u that??