@
Oscar
I never said that we should never 'read' the Hadith or never consult them altogether ! We should to get an idea of the culture, people & the events of those times to make a 'conjecture' about History without attributing them to God or His Prophet (PBUH) ! But at the same time one can remember that History isn't immune to the influences of the ruling classes & the desires of the prevailing clergy of that time - Hence why even the History, forget about the religious traditions, of Sunnis & Shias are so different about those times !
At any rate if the Prophet (PBUH) & His Companions thought that the Hadith were needed to understand the Koran because the Book is ambiguous in its meaning than surely they would've started this Hadhith Collection back then as it eventually happened with the Koran as opposed to the Hadith taking a codified form nearly 200 years later when the land was soaked in sectarian wars & the Caliphate had devolved into a shameless monarchy !
Surely one might even be justified in asking what is the purpose of separating the 'Koran' from the 'Hadith' if one needs the latter to understand the former ? Surely either the Prophet (PBUH) would've impressed upon his companions to be Hafiz-ul-Hadith as well as being Hafiz-ul-Koran, surely one of the Caliphs would've compiled the Book of Hadiths when they thought about compiling the Book of Koran or perhaps even God Himself would've talked about the need to consult the Hadith to understand the Koran within the Koran itself ?
Is all of that purely coincidental ?
And then theres the very nature of Hadith which has been discussed ad nauseam ! You continue to be fixated on a few 'weak Hadith' whereas I'm talking about not the Hadhith that go against the Koran but the Hadhith who add to the Koran - The one on adultery being the clearest example of it !
If the punishment for adultery was anything more than the one prescribed in the Koran than one of two things follow :
(i) the Koran is incomplete because it didn't mention the whole process of stoning for adultery nor did it talk about a differentiation between the married & the unmarried individuals accused of adultery !
(ii) the Hadith are part of the religious tradition thereby implying that it wasn't One Scripture that Our Prophet (PBUH) came with but Multiple Scriptures including those of the Hadith which incidentally are not only fraught with inconsistencies, hearsay & were compiled over a 150 years after our Prophet 's (PBUH) death but also have glaring similarities with what the Jews & the Christians did where Oral Traditions cropped up to support the Scriptures that were sent to them with the end result being as evident as it is in theirs & our case !
Furthermore the Ace-Analogy would imply that each generation would need 'someone' to tell us what the heck was the previous generation talking about ! That the words of Boyd (or whatever his name was) were actually meant to be 'thus' instead of the meaning that you're taking them to be.
That sounds remarkably similar to the concept of Immamate on one hand or that of the Ahmedi concept of another prophet on the other !
What we could also argue is that we need the Hadith to understand the Koran than what about needing 'something' or 'someone' to understand the Hadith ? Surely something that was written 1200 or so years ago suffers from the same inadequacies in being self-explanatory as that which is written 1400 years ago. One might even argue that whereas there is a consensus on what the Koran is there is next to no consensus on what the so-called Sahih Hadith are with one huge faction of the Muslim Community even refusing to recognize Hadiths attributed to a certain group of people & even when it comes to the so-called Sahih Hadith there are different wordings to the same Sahih Hadith with minor omissions & additions to them - None of which is present in the Koran !
Which means essentially we're trying to understand the Koran through the prism of a source fraught with problems without even asking ourselves whether we need another source to understand the aforementioned source to beginwith ?
Maybe an ecclesiastical order or maybe another prophet ?
But because I find no justification in the Koran for :
(i) Using the Hadith to understand the Koran
(ii) There being an ecclesiastical order in Islam
(iii) Another prophet coming after our Prophet (PBUH)
(iv) Any commandment in the Koran to the effect of relating to the People the Hadith as opposed to it being mentioned numerous times the need to relate the Koran to the People !
I don't know where or how this web is being weaved ?
Because it certainly isn't supported by the Koran nor by human logic !
' @
Hyperion @
LoveIcon