Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
 
 
Page 1 of 1

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 

AuthorTopic
Shahzad

IRELAND
Topic initiated on Wednesday, March 10, 2004  -  9:23 AM Reply with quote
Hadiths.. reliable?


Assalaam-Alaikum,

From where my family comes from (Pakistan - we're presently living in Ireland), most of a child's Islamic education is done by the teachings of local Imaams and close family. Everyone reads the Koran, but very few people go on to interpret it. Hadiths of the prophet (peace be upon him) are used very frequently to teach the child the laws of Islam (as opposed to them being taught straight from the Koran).

But very recently, i was quite surprised to read, in an English translation of the Koran, that the punishment for adultery is NOT being stoned to death (Surah 24:2), as i was led to believe - this after numerous arguments i've had with non-Muslims trying to justify that this is the right punishment for the crime. So i ask myself the question - "Who taught me that stoning to death was the punishment - why is it in Hadiths that death is the punishment for both murder and adultery (as well as being an Infidel - i think it was?)?" And i bet you if i ask any of my cousins tomorrow what the punishment for adultery is, stoning to death would be their answer.

So a doubt enters my mind as to the genuinity and relability of Hadiths, i search the net on the topic and i come across this - http://members.aol.com/masadi/hadith.htm .. i ask my parents (we're Hunafi, by the way, which seems to matter a great deal in forming our identity) about it - and i'm told that the Hadiths were written just as the prophet (peace be upon him) was dying, and immediately after he passed away, compiled by his four companions (sahaba) - Abu baker, Umar, Uthman and Ali (and doubting them is like doubting the earth goes around the sun), but from other sources i read Hadiths were compiled by the likes of Bukhari over a century afterwards... [Dad also had a comment to make about "Those Arabs" - and the way they dont believe in what we do.. "Discussions with them are also useless" .. Now, i dont blame him for his views - it's probably what he was taught when he was my age - but that's thought for another day.. back to the current issue]

I'd like to hear all your opinions on the topic of Hadiths (if i have made mistakes anywhere in the above post, please do correct me) - please try and be open-minded about the whole thing and consider the evidence before replying.. Jazakomullah-kher

Thank you for taking the time to read this message - May Allah have mercy upon all of us, Ameen.
hkhan

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Friday, March 12, 2004  -  11:52 AM Reply with quote
assalamoalaykum/peace and welcome br.
its v. nice indeed to see u on forums
i came across some detailed explanation re: the matter on this page
http://www.studying-islam.org/article_read.asp?id=552
do come back with ur opinion wen u hv read it whether it was a satisfactory explanation
(presently there is also a course running re:hadeeth)
regards


.
hkhan

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Friday, March 12, 2004  -  10:51 PM Reply with quote
note pls from above: the running course is "Understanding the Sunnah", (not re:Hadeeth)

.
aslam

PAKISTAN
Posted - Saturday, March 13, 2004  -  3:00 PM Reply with quote
Salams,Here is another link:-
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/questionsarticles.asp?sscatid=69
Shahzad

IRELAND
Posted - Saturday, March 20, 2004  -  2:38 AM Reply with quote
Ok, the first link above basically states that Hadiths are to be accepted only when they pass the following two tests -

Fann-i-Riwaayat (involving investigation of the complete chain of narrators going back to the original narrator of a particular version of the Hadith in question)

Fann-i-Daraayat (investigates the authenticity of a Hadith by determining whether or not its subject-matter is acceptable)

My response is this, for Fann-i-Riwaayat, fair enough, if one can conclusively determine that the chain of narrators were honest people with good memories, there's a very good chance that information passed on would be reasonably accurate - BUT, as nothing was written down, and information was passed on by word of mouth, it's quite possible that these people may have misunderstood something being said to them (note - their honesty isnt being questioned here, just the simple fact that they were human and liable to make mistakes while communicating - esp when we consider that they would have had to recall things after many many years), and being Muslims, they would have wanted to make prophet Muhammed (pbuh) sound like a wonderful person - not that he already wasnt, but in an attempt to convey this message, it's human nature to slightly exaggerate a story to make it sound more interesting and awe-inspiring (if u get what i mean)

and in response to Fann-i-Daraayat, once again, fair enough, one could eliminate Hadiths that dont make sense according to The Holy Quran, but this, i'm afraid, doesnt stop all those anti-Islamic websites out there from using them as "proof" of Islam's falseness (if that's a word).. and also, even if Hadiths are compatible with the Koran, how do we know that they werent as a result of (unintentionally) exaggerated stories?

In conclusion, yes, i'm sure that a lot of Hadiths out there are most true, but can we - with our far from flawless human minds - distinguish between the ones that have been misinterpretted or exaggerated and the ones that are genuinely true... That said, i dont think we should use that excuse to disregard all Hadiths, but then how do we go about drawing a line?? (and would our position with regards to Hadiths be comparable to the positions Christians are in with respect to their Gospels?)

Oh, thanks for the link aslam - a few very good articles there.. and if i missed anything in this post, please do point it out and i would also love to hear your responses.. Jazakomullah-kher

May Allah Almighty have mercy upon all of us, Ameen
mtarin

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Tuesday, March 23, 2004  -  1:32 AM Reply with quote
dear brother shahzad
i felt sorry to read yours views about the punishment of adultery.first the title you choose is wrong i.e reliability of hadith.it gives impression that you are creating doubts in people mind about the hadiths and its authencity.secondly i refer to tasfir ibne khatir sura Noor first verses.if you read carefully the tafsir you will be clear in yours mind about the punishment for adultery.i must tell you that people like bukhari,muslim,imamahmed were far more familiar with fanni-hadiths than the ulemas of 20th.century.they were more close to the period of prophet.mohammed(peace be upon him) than these so called ulemas.they never ever thought of adding something from their own in islam.umar bin khitab once narrated that he fears that time will come when people will start questioning about the punishment of adultry(tafseer ibn khatir). for your information initially there was full verse about rajm in Quran which was later removed but its hukm remained and Mohammed (peace be upon him) followed that hukm for example rajm of companion maiz aslami and woman called ghamdia.Ali(r.a)also followed that and qazi shreeh also followed that.all the reffernces are from ibnkhatir,and tafseer jalalain.i hope it is now clear to you and please stop writing about something which you do not know much,you can always ask questions but not deleberations.may ALLAH keep all of us on right path.(amen)

ONLINE ISLAMIC FRIEND
Shahzad

IRELAND
Posted - Wednesday, March 24, 2004  -  5:55 AM Reply with quote
Salaam, brother mtarin,

I sincerely appreciate u taking time out to reply to my post - may Allah Almighty reward u for your efforts, Ameen

Ok, it seems u didnt totally grasp the points i was making - allow me to make a few clarifications:

I never accused bukhari and other hadith writers of deliberately making up things - i merely questioned the reliability of the methods these people (and present day Muslims) used in distinguishing genuinely accurate stories from corrupted ones - namely, Fann-i-Riwaayat and Fann-i-Daraayat (my responses to both of these methods are given in my previous post). If i have made any mistakes in my reasoning above, please do point them out - i'm a firm believer in constructive criticism

Moving on, u say that it was wrong of me to question the authenticity of the hadiths - i respect that opinion of yours, but i wouldnt necessarily agree with it - here's why: as a Muslim, i believe that there is absolute truth in Islam and that every aspect of it makes perfect sense. If certain teachings dont make sense, it's usually a question of us humans not fully understanding the true meaning of what is being taught, and when the real meaning does manifest itself - it does nothing but strenghten our Iman (please also note that the only way we'll arrive at the true meaning is by discussing and debating various aspects with one another). Now, the problem i have with SOME (not all) hadiths is that they dont make any logical sense, here's an example:

According to Bukhari 56/152 and Hanbel 3/107, 163; the prophet recommended that people drink camel urine to recuperate after an illness Later on when the same people killed the prophet's shepherd, he commanded that they be seized, their eyes taken out and their hands and feet cut and left them thirsty in the desert. This does not fit in with the personality of the prophet presented in the Koran. The Koran says that the prophet was compassionate. How could the prophet recommend the drinking of camel's urine, considering the importance that the Koran gives to hygiene?

Further examples can be found at http://members.aol.com/masadi/hadith.htm (if u havent already looked at them)

As i said, all i'm looking for is the truth - if these hadiths (the few that dont make sense) are to be accepted as the truth, there should be answers to the point made above and the points that are contained in the link.

And one final point, u say that there was a verse about rajm in the Qur'an which was later removed, i.e. you're saying the our modern version of the Qur'an is incomplete (assuming that u regard this verse to be from Allah Almighty) - well, The Qur'an has many fool-proof mechanisms inside it to determine whether a verse (or even a letter) was added in or removed from it, and any such additions/removals are very obvious - i invite u to read up on Code 19: http://www.submission.org/miracle/

Oh, and please bear in mind that i dont mean to personally offend u with any of the comments i've made above - i'm just trying to have a constructive argument in an attempt to unveil the truth.

May Allah Almighty guide us and have mercy upon us, Ameen.
Asim2

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, June 07, 2005  -  2:19 PM Reply with quote
If any one is really interested to research more and broaden his horizon on Hadith and its relation to the Qur'an and The Sunnah :

visit

www.islamicperspectives.com/HadithProject.htm

www.islamicperspectives.com/SingleNarrator.htm

Note: I am only referring to this particular project by the web site and not referring the web site nor recommending the entire web site . I am only recommending that you read the 2 projects and that's all.

The sacred Hadith Project.
Accepting Hadith from a single Narrator.
ibrahim

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, June 10, 2005  -  6:33 AM Reply with quote
quote:

first the title you choose is wrong i.e reliability of hadith.it gives impression that you are creating doubts in people mind about the hadiths and its authencity.
Brother I agree w u. To me, one MUST know the Boundries & Scope of Hadith.
quote:

i must tell you that people like bukhari, muslim, imamahmed were far more familiar with fanni-hadiths than the ulemas of 20th.century.they were more close to the period of prophet.mohammed(peace be upon him) than these so called ulemas.they never ever thought of adding something from their own in islam.
Sorry Brother, I can't agree w u here.
1stly, It's NOT correct that only the CLOSNESS of those Scholars made them MORE FAMILIAR with Fann e Hadith. INFACT in the chain of Knowledge ALWAYS the CURRENT people have the LATEST knowledge.&
2ndly, WHAT is the PROOF with you that shows you that all Current Sholars are "so called ulemas".
quote:

for your information initially there was full verse about rajm in Quran which was later removed but its hukm remained.
for your information my dear Brother, your above Statement is Chellenging EVEN the Authencity of the Holy Quran. for Details Plz. Ist Go thru our Course "History of the Quran" & then Comment.

may ALLAH keep all of us on right path.(amen)

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

Page 1 of 1


Share |


Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top    





eXTReMe Tracker