Islam (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I can't find a contrary view anywhere on the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hadith

 

[snobby airlines]

I can't find a contrary view anywhere on the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hadith

There is a difference between recording/writing down a hadith and to collect hadith. Indeed, collections did occur many years after the death of the Prophet whereas the recording happened throughout the later stages of his life.
And many of the hadith we have today are from what he did and said in the later stages. ie after Hijra.

What they are claiming is not backed up by any sources.
If the Qur'an was written down exactly the way it was revealed to the Prophet, then why is it so hard to believe that the hadith was recorded at the time of the Prophet also?

If a companion was to recall something the Prophet said or did, from memory, then they were required to find a witness who was also present when it was said. I think you're really underestimating the memory these men had.

Anyway, this is all I will say on the topic as I still have much to learn. I also don't want to fall into the trap of seeking knowledge just to argue.
You seem to be stuck on what you have researched, so i'll leave you to your conclusions.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There is a difference between recording/writing down a hadith and to collect hadith. Indeed, collections did occur many years after the death of the Prophet whereas the recording happened throughout the later stages of his life.

Well it states there that the hadith which we have today are dated to 130 years after his death.

What they are claiming is not backed up by any sources.

Maybe, find my some muslim website/book that disagrees.

If the Qur'an was written down exactly the way it was revealed to the Prophet, then why is it so hard to believe that the hadith was recorded at the time of the Prophet also?

Well for starters I'd disagree with your first claim there, but that's something I don't think I can even begin to collect evidence on. Also, the wikipedia article explains that during muhammad's life he didn't want people to write about him.

If a companion was to recall something the Prophet said or did, from memory, then they were required to find a witness who was also present when it was said. I think you're really underestimating the memory these men had.

Which sect of Islam do you follow? Chances are if you're a sunni that the shia disagree with much of the hadith you base your belief around, if you're a shia then the sunni's disagree with much of the hadith you base your belief around...

You seem to be stuck on what you have researched, so i'll leave you to your conclusions.

You seem to be stuck on what you've been told.

 

[snobby airlines]

Intro to the Sciene of Hadith -
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2610&CATE=120

Also, the wikipedia article explains that during muhammad's life he didn't want people to write about him.

Which is what I said. But was permissable later on. (It doesn't really explain anything - merely a statement).

You seem to be stuck on what you've been told.

I go to people who have spent decades studying it. I don't go to online sites or secular 'historians' to learn my religion. If I wanted to seriously learn about something - for example the belief of Christians in a certain area of the world - i'd consider going there and learning off them. I wouldn't be fully convinced if I read some wikipedia article though, that's for sure.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Which is what I said. But was permissable later on. (It doesn't really explain anything - merely a statement).

You must be confused, you asked why we can't believe hadith was recorded during muhammad's life (I'd take recorded to mean written and not 'recorded' orally/mentally). I pointed out that we know muhammad did not want that done (if you are a sunni you'll accept that) at that time...

Honestly snobby, doesn't the contradictions between various hadith which various muslim sects all equally proclaim as valid worry you? Doesn't the fact that none of the hadith which have survived to today come from <130 years after the life of muhammad worry you?

Which sect of Islam do you follow? Chances are if you're a sunni that the shia disagree with much of the hadith you base your belief around, if you're a shia then the sunni's disagree with much of the hadith you base your belief around...

I'd like this question answered.

I go to people who have spent decades studying it.

You can spend your entire life studying something vigorously and with a brilliant mind, but if you have a confirmation bias none of that will matter.

I don't go to online sites or secular 'historians' to learn my religion.

Don't go to them to learn your religion, go to them to learn the truth. If you believe the truth is your religion then they can be an asset to you, if you believe your religion supercedes any truth then they're useless.

If I wanted to seriously learn about something - for example the belief of Christians in a certain area of the world

But then what if you wanted to challenge their belief?

I wouldn't be fully convinced if I read some wikipedia article though, that's for sure.

Neither am I, I have longer articles / books: Ibn Warraq's "Quest for the Historical Muhammad" is a good example. I got my copy from Abbeys, http://www.abbeys.com.au/

 

[sam04u]

Honestly snobby, doesn't the contradictions between various hadith which various muslim sects all equally proclaim as valid worry you? Doesn't the fact that none of the hadith which have survived to today come from <130 years after the life of muhammad worry you?

I'll admit that it concerns me. I just don't base the entire religion on the 'Hadith', I take them for what they are though. 'Stories', of Islam. Also, I believe most of it is based upon truth, but for anything regarding the religion, the Quran should be used as a guideline.

I just wanted to say, that I'm fascinated by what you're doing N-T-B. I just hope you strike with the same wit, intelligence and integrity at some of those half-assed scientific theory's. It's a two-sided war.

 

[bashbousha]

Theres alot more to islam than just praying five times a day and completing the rest of the five pillars of islam.

Islam's a way of life, and the quraan is a prescription to humanity.

i guess, since im bored and ive been wanting to say sumfing for a while, ill answer a few q's ppl ask me...

The "muslims" who perpetrated the 9/11 terror attacks did something that is totally un-muslim. they killed innocent people for a cause that does not in anyway please god. (thats if you believe the taliban really did 9/11. go to reopen911.org and u might just see it differently).

WARNING: POLITICS FOLLOW

the taliban are just a bunch of peasants who are sick of a life of poverty in a country controlled according to US interests. osama bin laden was given military and monetary aid from the cia back in the cold war to wage a second front on russia. bin laden, somehow, believes that he is the re-incarnation of the holy prophet P.B.U.H. confused and hes sore about the saudi kingdom (and hence mecca) being protected by USA troops. So he takes these peasants, brainwashes them into hating the US (which i suppose they should since they have to live with their faces in shit while americans sit with 3 cars in each garage powered by gas stolen from afghan gasfields). its absolutely wrong for the taliban to do shit like that to innocent civillians, and in the name of islam too.

JIHAD

ok, now jihads one of those keywords that get ppl hot and bothered. ppl think jihad means holy war. ok, if u wanna translate like a gorilla...but seriously jihad is comprised 90% of jihad al nafs, which means struggle of the soul, which means fighting your base animal insticts and desires (and no, not the mein kampf sort of struggle). for example, i see some hot chick walking down the street, looking good. u kno wat i meen. any guy would want to check out her ass when she walks past, or smile at her/giv her a look with sexually motivated intentions. my jihad is to not perv at her, cos god told us that perving at women is bad for u, and god did make us, so that must mean he knows exactly whats good/bad for you. even if you dont think theres any harm in checking out chicks, there actually is, because say if youre exposed to porn every day (hey these days its quite common), sooner or later, u get sick of just young women. lust is insatiable, keeps asking for more, and so soon u start to like teenies (18 and 19). a bit more of that and u start to go towards other things that are cause for worry (e.g. little kids, men, animals ...). but hang on, b4 u start thinking its a crazy idea, keep in mind that these shifts in sexual orientation are subconscious shifts. and its very bad for your state of mind. so that one of billions of examples of why god forbids certain things and for good reasons. but note that some things god forbids might take years and years before science confirms a clear reason for its being forbidden.

LEBO'S

ok as a lebo myself, i feel ive gotta address a major misconception. people think that lebo hoons thats do things like rape women or bash people at beaches are muslim. they are not. why? cos they dont practise the ethics of the holy prophet of mohamed PBUH. simple as that. and by the way, the media will only highlight the specifics of what muslim lebs do, so straight away theres a stigmatism against lebs when rape is mentioned. other races do shit just as bad as that. too bad the lebs have to do it in front of cameras . anyway, and not all lebs are like that. im not. my cousins arent. most of my leb friends arent. but some of them are a bit like that. but the important thing is its not a religious issue, just cultural/socio-economic issue.

ok i think nuff said.

Sunni brothers, and shia brothers, chuck aside ur differences and stand together as muslims.

peace out

b a s h

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'll admit that it concerns me. I just don't base the entire religion on the 'Hadith', I take them for what they are though. 'Stories', of Islam. Also, I believe most of it is based upon truth, but for anything regarding the religion, the Quran should be used as a guideline.

Yep, that I'd actually be fine with. Fazlur Rahman, perhaps the greatest link between Islamic and western philosophies (not someone who's views I support from my short reading..) put forward the idea that the core message(s) of the hadith still come through, despite the difficulties that arose in its transmission.

 

[mr EaZy]

with the sunni shia thing, i think we will disagree on which narrators to accept. They wouldnt accept any narrations from anyone who opposed their beliefs and politics in the early islamic period. The Sunnis wont regard the sayings of scholars as "hadiths", and the shiite classification system as i understand it is different to what the sunnis evolved.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2610&CATE=120
This was a good site

the highest level of hadith is mutawatir- like the prophet's last sermon attended by 1500 people who memorised it and passed it on to a greater number of persons- some would have made mistakes, others wouldnt

i think that as we're living in the C21st we cant imagine how people can memorise things they heard once... i was trying to find this link- it was a website selling memory products talking about how creativity and memory is a greater challenge for us as we are not accostommed to memorising the way of the greeks and romans

anyways: heres 2 more links:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/atit.html

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/brief1/ (flow chart)

Sahih
Al-Shafi'i states the following requirement in order for a hadith which is not mutawatir to be acceptable:

"Each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthful in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning. This is because if he does not know how a different expression can change the whole meaning, he will not know if he has changed what is lawful into what is prohibited. Hence, if he reports the hadith according to its wording, no change of meaning will be found at all. Moreover, he should be a good memoriser if he happens to report from his memory, or a good preserver of his writings if he happens to report from them. He should agree with the narrations of the huffaz (leading authorities in Hadith), if he reports something which they do also. He should not be a mudallis, who narrates from someone he met something he did not hear, nor should he report from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) contrary to what reliable sources have reported from him. In addition, the one who is above him (in the isnad) should be of the same quality, [and so on,] until the hadith goes back uninterrupted to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or any authority below him."66

Ibn al-Salah, however, defines a sahih hadith more precisely by saying:

"A sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad)."

By the above definition, no room is left for any weak hadith, whether, for example, it is munqati', mu'dal, mudtarib, maqlub, shadhdh, munkar, ma'lul, or contains a mudallis. The definition also excludes hasan ahadith, as will be discussed under that heading.

Of all the collectors of hadith, al-Bukhari and Muslim were greatly admired because of their tireless attempts to collect sahih ahadith only. It is generally understood that the more trustworthy and of good memory the reporters, the more authentic the hadith. The isnad: al- Shafi'i --- Malik --- Nafi' --- 'Abdullah b. 'Umar --- The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), is called a "golden isnad" because of its renowned reporters.67

But the important thing to remember is that hadiths are not always to be taken literally, it can depend on context and it can depend on interpretation- suppose the narrator interpreted the event incorrectly.... so the science involves asking what was the consensus of the companions on an issue

a high authority hadith will be well known- like it will be a part of islamic law for sure, but the others- it is up to the islamic judges how they deem it fit for incorporation into the law.

The golden sanad referred to above is as follows:

(1)Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)---->(2) companion (Abdullah bin Umar- a scholar of hadiths and their interpretation)---------> (3)his slave Nafi (a student of his and a later appointed governor of egypt-------->(4)imam Malik (who wrote his hadiths down in a book: Al-muatta; a student of Nafi) -------- (5) Imam shafiee- another scholar who also wrote his hadiths in a book and a student of Malik

so there are many levels of hadiths- some deserve cirticism, some have been over or under valued, it depends on your understanding of what makes a hadith and how do we implement them in our lives and in society

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Thanks for that (really more sensible) response. This is all that I wanted to hear:

But the important thing to remember is that hadiths are not always to be taken literally, it can depend on context and it can depend on interpretation- suppose the narrator interpreted the event incorrectly.... so the science involves asking what was the consensus of the companions on an issue

Alot of muslims seem to challenge vigorously the idea that like all texts their koran/hadith are susceptible to interpretation.

 

[mr EaZy]

you probably read more about hadiths than myself

the school of thought in saudi arabia is more extreme in that they can pick out a single hadith which is known for its strenghts and apply it as long as they know where to apply it

now the mainstream muslims following the schools of islamic law will also follow the principles that come with that school when applying hadith

so in one school- a hadith is incorporated into the law if it has 4 or 5 or6 -12 chains all of whom would be authenticated- not sure if i got that right and i cant rem which school that is

in the maliki school; it doesnt matter how authentic a hadith is, it will only be incorporated into the law if imam malik (i referred to him earlier) had found the grandchildren's generation of the early companions following that practice. So he codified what the people of madinah were doing at his time.

But some hadiths you may argue will contradict each other. but that is what it is on the surface. So if two people ask the messenger (peace be upon him) the same question, he may answer differently, and then one will ask him why that was so, and then the reasons will be given. Or sometimes its a question of what did he mean by a certain word that he used here, but didnt use there. Sometimes its a question of whether both are acceptable.

Above all, in mainstream islam there is consensus that as long as a knowledgeable person genuinely uses his/her reason to work out what is the law, then it will be accepted as long as it doesnt go contrary to established precepts.

so imam malik and his student imam shafiee would have developed different schools- they both agreed that each was correct although they didnt agree with the reasoning used.

Islamic law differs from place to place and time to time. IT can depend on the local situation, although things like the fundamentals are pretty consistent- but even there the messenger peace be upon him and told us to pray or make abolution in different ways thus showing that its not just my way or the highway.

 

[mr EaZy]

Islamic law differs from place to place and time to time. IT can depend on the local situation, although things like the fundamentals are pretty consistent- but even there the messenger peace be upon him and told us to pray or make abolution in different ways thus showing that its not just my way or the highway.

By fundamentals i mean what has already been established. Other things that
have been established may change if the environment makes it necessary and the scholars agree that it is necessary.

regarding hadiths in the 1st century:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html

many of your issues regarding hadiths are answered here:

http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vih_e.html (Q&A)


heres another link: http://sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000918.aspx
Why are there differently-worded narrations to one hadith?

a hadith has been relating by Ibn Manda in his Ma'rifat al-Sahaba and Tabarani in his al-Mu'jam al-Kabir on the authority of Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibn Aktam al-Laythi that he asked, "O Messenger of Allah, I hear a hadith from you but am not able to convey it in the same manner I hear it from you: one word is sometimes added or left out? The Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) replied, " If you do not make the unlawful lawful and the lawful unlawful and you are able to articulate the true purport then there is no problem [with that]. Imam Shafi'i has used the hadith on the Qur'an being revealed in seven letters as evidence of the permissibility of this practice.

Note that the reason for the existence of this hadith is that people were meticulous about transmitting hadiths verbatim and they were knowledgeable of the chinese whispers syndrome as a weakness in the person's mind.

there are classes of hadith that exclude such a weakness:

http://sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002867.aspx

Frequency of narration:

a) Mutawatir: A mutawatir hadith is one that is narrated by a group of people in each level of its chain. An example of “tawatur” is the fact that Antarctica exists. It is something that a large group of people saw (either in real life or satellite photos) and then reported to a greater host of people who then wrote it in books to the rest of us. Mutawatir comes in two types:

1. Literally: Meaning that we have many copies of the hadith narrated by different people but all the exact same words. Those are very few among the collection of prophetic tradition.

2. Contextually: This means that the hadith is narrated by many people in each level of the chain but not in the exact same words. There are many such ahadith and most of them form the fundamental of Islamic beliefs and jurisprudence.

back to this link:
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vih_e.html

Bukhari's meticulousness:
Now the first four are generally called Sahih, because their authors have been the most meticulous in collecting Hadith. They relied on the method of chain of narration "Isnad" which means that say Bukhari heard Mr. A saying he heard Mr. B saying he heard Mr. C .... who heard the prophet say it. Bukhari would investigate the life of each of these people, establish that they actually lived at the same times AND met each other and talked about this Hadith. He would establish that ALL of them were people of good repute and honesty. Only then would he include the Hadith in his collection.

So in other words the science involved a historical study of history- the early islamic history and involved knowing who the transmitters were. And because of that later scholars can understand these people and if say a transmitter was found by historians to be, say a spy, then that will call into disrepute what he had transmitted.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/historyandhadeeth/azzamcomparison.html (Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology)

now the mutawatir hadiths i described earlier are such that there is no reasonable doubt of their authenticity. there are other classes being weaker than this one. Being weak doesnt mean it is to be negated- the question is how to prop it up ( by using additional chains to back it up etc- i havent read up on this yet)

http://www.livingislam.org/n/vwh_e.html

but there is no point in proping up a hadith if it is found to be forged. (pretty good link that one)

im loving this

 

[irumazu]

cool....probably a better muslim than many born muslims and she is white australian

Everybody is born a muslim (person who sumits to god, and who was created by god). Some are fortunate enough to be born into 'muslim' families while others face a harder test...discovering islam and the true way of life without help from immediate family, however both are exactly the same, both muslim are they not?

 

[jb_nc]

Everybody is born a muslim (person who sumits to god, and who was created by god). Some are fortunate enough to be born into 'muslim' families while others face a harder test...discovering islam and the true way of life without help from immediate family, however both are exactly the same, both muslim are they not?

yes, yes, praise be to allah