Question for Muslims - About beliving the Hadiths.

[IlyaFurman]

Is it necessary for muslims to belive in the Hadiths, does it tell you in the Koran that you are supposed to follow the hadiths. Who told people to belive in the sayings of the Hadiths? Mohammed? If you dont belive in the Hadiths are you muslim?

Cause I know Khadafi and his government dont follow the hadiths, all they follow is the Koran they dont reconize the hadiths.

Just curious to find out,

[andak01]

The Hadiths and the Qur'an reinforce each other. The Sunni Muslims take the most authenticated Hadith as equal to the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself is not sufficient to complete Islam. It tells us to pray, but not when or how for example.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Is it necessary for muslims to belive in the Hadiths, does it tell you in the Koran that you are supposed to follow the hadiths. Who told people to belive in the sayings of the Hadiths? Mohammed? If you dont belive in the Hadiths are you muslim?

Cause I know Khadafi and his government dont follow the hadiths, all they follow is the Koran they dont reconize the hadiths.

Just curious to find out,

You cannot be a Muslim if you do not believe in the ahadith. period.

[Ger Tsedek]

So the Hadiths are to the Quran, like the Mesorah min Shamayim is to the Torah. You cannot have one without the other. Strange how I always see Moslems claiming that Jews have corrupted the Torah through the likes of the Gemara and other Rabbinic Writings. Hypocrites.

Michael

[andak01]

Originally posted by Ger Tsedek
So the Hadiths are to the Quran, like the Mesorah min Shamayim is to the Torah. You cannot have one without the other. Strange how I always see Moslems claiming that Jews have corrupted the Torah through the likes of the Gemara and other Rabbinic Writings. Hypocrites.

Michael

And Christians believe Jews and Muslims are going to Hell because we don't worship Jesus. Each of our religions finds fault with the other. Yet, we worship the same God and have many similarities. I would say, let's focus on our similarities. As for the specifics of the Gemara, I'm not sure. Would you be so kind as to list a few of these Rabbinic Writings? Are there any that have become vital to becoming or remaining a Jew? Thanks.

[reason]

Originally posted by ayesha
You cannot be a Muslim if you do not believe in the ahadith. period.

Here we go again, so shiites are not muslims ayesha?There is a difference between the quran and the sunna. One was written by god the other was the life story of a man, written 200-300 years after his death. One is accurate the other is not. I take the sunnah as a second source of reference , only after I have not found my answer in the Quran. Even then im very sceptical of it, and it has to make complete sense to me.

As an example Abu Hurayra has more than 40,000 hadith in his book, only 4000 were considered. I dont know about you but that number is scary to me.

Here is a hadith for you:

Abi Said al Khudri reported that the Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever writes down anything other than the Quran must erase it."

Hmmm strange the prophet said dont write down anything else but the Quran.I believe in the sunnah but I question its accuracy and the credibility of its collectors.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by andak01
Are there any that have become vital to becoming or remaining a Jew? Thanks.


The Torah is the 5 books of Moses. In addition to that are the minor books including prophets, and psalms. That total is more or less the Tanakh. Rabbinic writings include importantly the Talmud which itself is made up of Mishnah and Gemara. These generally are the oral law and the commentary of which there are several subparts.

There are many other non Talmudic books and sources as well including aprocrypha, kabbalah, Rambam (Maimonides) and many other medievel authors. Then there is the 'modern' period which starts around the 16th century or so. And then there are the common works like Pirkey Avoth (the wisdom of the elders) which is I guess a kind of summary or horn book that uses short stories to highlight specific ethical concepts.

And so on.

There are 2 primary demarcs for Talmud - the Babylonian school and the Alexandria school. There are subtle differences between them. Morever there are different compilations of each. In many cases the Babylonian school was considered the primary source.

To 'be' a Jew is to be a Jew, one must be Jewish. One does not have to be scholar in order to be Jewish. Amos could not read until he was 40. But most of the Great European Rabbis are described as geniuses, prodigies and immensely learned men.

One must have a grounding in those laws, obligations, responsibilities and practices. But there is neither a requirement to be a scholar nor is there a notion that a tzaddik ('holy man') is a 'better' Jew in the sense that everyone else is not.

Those sources build upon one another they don't exclude one another nor are you precluded from knowing some of one or many out of sequence as it were.

They are not additional liturgies, laws or requirements so much as finer debates and explanations of them. In the final analysis Talmudic writing is a debate where the final answer is not known or least not observed. If you for example are 'breaking' a law in the Talmud then it would be same law you are breaking in Torah - the difference being that Torah has the law in one line and Talmud explains it in pages of detail. (A Soncino, one of the published varieties of the Talmud, runs to 30,000 primary pages and 12,000 secondary or minor pages)

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
They are not additional liturgies, laws or requirements so much as finer debates and explanations of them. In the final analysis Talmudic writing is a debate where the final answer is not known or least not observed. If you for example are 'breaking' a law in the Talmud then it would be same law you are breaking in Torah - the difference being that Torah has the law in one line and Talmud explains it in pages of detail. (A Soncino, one of the published varieties of the Talmud, runs to 30,000 primary pages and 12,000 secondary or minor pages)

This sounds similar to the difference between the authenticated Hadith colections versus the books of Fiqh for each Medhab or school of thought. There are four schools within Sunni Islam, but belonging to one doesn't preclude you from moving to another. All four have been taught under one roof at various times.

Like you say, a single Hadith may prescribe a behavior while the book of Fiqh has pages of detail.

[ayesha]

Aakh, aakh, aakh. My friend reason, I thought you'd reappear when there was something to disagree with me on again.

IMO shiites are not muslims no.
Q: Are muslims required to beat themselves for the suffering of certain imams?
Q: When muslims pray is it not true that our foreheads, nose, hands, knees and the backs of our toes should be touching the floor? Why then do shiites put their heads on circular pieces of pottery? Did the Prophet do this?? Does the Qur'an say to do this?
Q: Why it is that shiites believe Angel Gabriel (as) made a mistake and went to Muhammed (saw) instead of his cousin Ali?? and Ali should have been the Prophet?
Q: Why do they believe in elevating Ali's status?
Q: Why do they believe in editing the Qur'an??
Q: Why do they take their Imams as being divine?? astaghfirAllah.
I need not continue, i do not believe shiites are muslims, no. Louis Farakhan is about as good a muslim as they are. Most of the above are followed by the most prominent Shiite sect, Zaydis, Fivers, Teners.

reason, the Quran illustrates points that arose in times of the Prophet. To understand one, you must understand the other. For example when Ayesha's (ra) chastity was in question, a part of Surat Al-Noor I think it is was attributed to show that she was telling the truth. Also when the Prophet was asked about Dhil Qarnayn his (saw) reply was 'I will tell u tomorrow' assuming Allah would give him wahi straight away, and imposing this on Allah. To teach him a lesson the Prophet did not receive wahi staright away, the quran then illustrated the answers and tells the Prophet not to act in this manner again. Another eg, when the prophet forbade himself from a certain thing (I cannot remember what it was) then Allah revealed to him Surah Al-Tahrim (Bismillah) "Ya ayuhal nabi, lima tuharimu ma ahal Allahu lak?" the ahadith and the qur'an are hand in hand. period. We have gone over this ground before reason, we arent going to agree.

From what you have said u do not understand the relationship of sunnah and Qur'an, do u realise the seriousness of what you are saying?? I think not, I hope not.


Originally posted by reason
Here we go again, so shiites are not muslims ayesha?There is a difference between the quran and the sunna. One was written by god the other was the life story of a man, written 200-300 years after his death. One is accurate the other is not. I take the sunnah as a second source of reference , only after I have not found my answer in the Quran. Even then im very sceptical of it, and it has to make complete sense to me.

As an example Abu Hurayra has more than 40,000 hadith in his book, only 4000 were considered. I dont know about you but that number is scary to me.

Here is a hadith for you:

Abi Said al Khudri reported that the Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever writes down anything other than the Quran must erase it."

Hmmm strange the prophet said dont write down anything else but the Quran.I believe in the sunnah but I question its accuracy and the credibility of its collectors.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Cause I know Khadafi and his government dont follow the hadiths, all they follow is the Koran they dont reconize the hadiths.

Just curious to find out,

What on earth you mean by this?? Gaddaffi doesnt follow anything. He wanted to edit the "Qul" Surahs of the Qur'an a few years back. Could you elaborate a little?

[andak01]

Ayesha, IMO you are making the same mistake with Shiites that we don't wish Christians and Jews to make with us. Shiites are not only people of the Book, they are people of the Qur'an. And they say 'La illaha illa allah.' For that reason, it was wrong for Saddam to go to battle with them.

We certainly do not share their beliefs. Particularly, their understanding of jihad is very different from our own. But more importantly than that, their reverence for Imams constitutes shirk.

It is important for non-believers to understand that our beliefs are much more different than say Catholics and Protestants, or even Catholics and Mormons (since Shiite Hadiths, but not the Qur'an are different). It is also instructive to note that even the rift between Sunnis and Shias (the single greatest in Islam) was not great enough to change a syllable of the Holy Qur'an.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by andak01
Ayesha, IMO you are making the same mistake with Shiites that we don't wish Christians and Jews to make with us. Shiites are not only people of the Book, they are people of the Qur'an. And they say 'La illaha illa allah.' For that reason, it was wrong for Saddam to go to battle with them.

We certainly do not share their beliefs. Particularly, their understanding of jihad is very different from our own. But more importantly than that, their reverence for Imams constitutes shirk.

It is important for non-believers to understand that our beliefs are much more different than say Catholics and Protestants, or even Catholics and Mormons (since Shiite Hadiths, but not the Qur'an are different). It is also instructive to note that even the rift between Sunnis and Shias (the single greatest in Islam) was not great enough to change a syllable of the Holy Qur'an.

andak, respectively if someone insults the Prophet in this way I do not think they can put in the same group as authentic Muslims. You cannot say La illaha ill Allah and pick and choose what you like and dont like of Allah's commands. You said it yourself, they commit shirk, therefore that makes them........??
Exactly.

[andak01]

Originally posted by reason
Here we go again, so shiites are not muslims ayesha?There is a difference between the quran and the sunna. One was written by god the other was the life story of a man, written 200-300 years after his death. One is accurate the other is not. I take the sunnah as a second source of reference , only after I have not found my answer in the Quran. Even then im very sceptical of it, and it has to make complete sense to me.

You have obviously entered into a subject you know nothing about. Even the Orientalists are not able to push the compilation of the Hadiths as far as 200 years after the death of the Prophet (SAW). Notice I said compilation. They were already written. For example, Abu Huraira was asked towards the end of his life about a Hadith and, fearing his memory, he referred his pupil to a preexisting written collection.

http://www.fleurislam.net/media/doc/hadiths/txt_hishadith.html
The first number in the list below is the date of death of a Hadith narrator from the year of Hijrah, followed by the Christian era for the same date (AD). The last number is the number of Hadith related by this person. These are only ones who related many Hadith, there are more. So we see that, from the death of the Prophet (SAW) in 632, the longest span to death of a narrator is seventy-nine years. Given that humans can live to over 100 years, we see that it is plausable that even Anas ibn Malik was alive in the last years of the Prophet's life. Some of these people were literate and in addition there were scribes.

Here is a list of the dates of death of those who related Hadiths.
Abû Huraira ( mort en 59 / 678 ) 5374
Abdallâh ibn Abbas ( m. 68 / 687 ) 2660
Aïsha ( m. 58 / 677 ) 2220
Abdallâh ibn Omar ( m. 73 / 692 ) 1630
Jâbir ibn Abdallâh ( m. 78 / 697 ) 1560
Anas ibn Malik ( m. 93 / 711 ) 1266
Aboû Saïd Al Khudri ( m. 74 / 693 ) 1170

The subject of Hadith authentication is one that requires ignorance of Arabic scholarship to doubt. The Orientalists are dependant upon their audiences ignorance for their proofs. They choose the worst scholarship and pull it apart in order to disprove the finest scholarship. That is akin to disproving Einstein by finding typos in the 'Idiots Guide to Physics'.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by andak01
Ayesha, IMO you are making the same mistake with Shiites that we don't wish Christians and Jews to make with us. Shiites are not only people of the Book, they are people of the Qur'an. And they say 'La illaha illa allah.' For that reason, it was wrong for Saddam to go to battle with them.


'La illaha illa allah.' - that is the statement about there only being one God, correct?

I'm trying to parse out what you are saying. It was wrong for Saddam to go to war with Iran because the residents are people of the Qur'an? It would also have been wrong if the residents had been Sunni Muslims? Do I understand it would have been perfectly OK if they had another religion - e.g. if they were Hindus, would it be OK, if they were Jews would it be OK, if they were Christians would it be OK, if they were Zoroastrians it would be OK?

[andak01]

Originally posted by cerulean
'La illaha illa allah.' - that is the statement about there only being one God, correct?

I'm trying to parse out what you are saying. It was wrong for Saddam to go to war with Iran because the residents are people of the Qur'an? It would also have been wrong if the residents had been Sunni Muslims? Do I understand it would have been perfectly OK if they had another religion - e.g. if they were Hindus, would it be OK, if they were Jews would it be OK, if they were Christians would it be OK, if they were Zoroastrians it would be OK?

No. Understand, I am talking in terms of Islam, not in terms of how Muslims often act. By Islam, Muslims are not supposed to break treaties, we are supposed to accept treaties in defference to war, we are not supposed to attack until attacked. For Muslims to go to war with other Muslims and to kill other Muslims is really bad. And the definition in that case is the one above referring to one God.

So the answer is if Muslims are attacked, going to war with the attackers is permissable as a last resort. Starting an offensive war is bad and starting an offensive war against other Muslims is worse.

[reason]

I dont post just to disagree with you ayesha but it irritates me when someone calls me a kafir.

Shiites have sects who say ali was supposed to be the prophet, they are a minority and infact they are given the name alawyeen.The majority of the shiites dont go to that extreme, and are infact very similiar to sunnis, except how the pray and how they follow the sunnah.

They fast, do pilgrimage, give alms, they believe in Allah and Mohammed his prophet (SAW), and they pray 5 times a day.The prayers are similiar except for the fact that they pray on a piece of stone.Is that reason enough to call them kofaar?

Ayesha the sunnah unlike the Quran has been changed , tampered with and fabricated. Thats why they have categories, Sahih, hasan and da-if.So you cant say for sure the sunnah wasnt tampered with at any one time until its collection 200 years after the prophets death.Otherwise , they wouldnt need these categorizes for them, if they were all irrefutable.What Im trying to say is, the sunnah is not 100% accurate, thats why we should take each hadith with caution. Is there something wrong with that?

Anadak01, claiming I dont know my religion is insulting, why dont you come up with an argument to my statments instead of insulting the writer?

[andak01]

I apologize. I am acustomed to seeing the arguement that the Hadith were invented 200-300 years after the death of the Prophet (SAW) coming from people who have read the Orientalists. In the case of the Shiites, if I understand correctly, they do accept some Hadith as legitimate. I believe they discount those by Aisha and some others among the Sahaba. Can you tell me which of the Sahaba the Shiites accept as legitimate?

Personally, I accept Shiites as my brothers and as Muslims, although I could not entertain some of their practices.

[IlyaFurman]

This doesnt make sense to me, did Allah in the Koran ever say "you must follow the hadiths" Didnt he only say to follow the Koran?

Did Mohammed ever say to follow the hadiths?

Or is this done mainly for tradition? I dont understand where it says that if you dont belive in the hadith your not muslim, im not attacking you Ayesha, I just want to know.

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
...I would say, let's focus on our similarities. As for the specifics of the Gemara, I'm not sure. Would you be so kind as to list a few of these Rabbinic Writings? Are there any that have become vital to becoming or remaining a Jew? Thanks.

One day, I'm going to come on this board and you will have flipped out from all this, andak. Until then, I appreciate your tolerance.

[andak01]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
This doesnt make sense to me, did Allah in the Koran ever say "you must follow the hadiths" Didnt he only say to follow the Koran?

Did Mohammed ever say to follow the hadiths?

Or is this done mainly for tradition? I dont understand where it says that if you dont belive in the hadith your not muslim, im not attacking you Ayesha, I just want to know.

Pardon me for not having the quote exactly in my head. It doesn't mention the Hadiths. Prophet Mohammed (SAW) forbid people to write his own words until after he had received the entire revelation of the Qur'an. This was in order so that there would be no confusion between the Qur'an and his own words. What the Qur'an says is follow the example of the messenger of Allah (Christians say, what would Jesus do). The Hadith are the written document of that example. Conversely, the Hadith enjoin us to follow the words of Allah (the Qur'an). So they compliment each other.

Alright, having opened that can of worms, let me say that we do not follow the example of Muhammed (SAW) in every respect. We do not have the Qur'an revealed to us. We do not fight the battle of Badr. We do not do the things that were permitted to him and to his followers prior to revelations containing prohibitions. And we are not required to do anything that he didn't specifically enjoin us to do. And these are all matters pertaining to religion. In matters of non-religious Fiqh, for example whether cloning is permitted or not, the ullemah has the right to ijtihad or religious decision. So, anyone who says that Islam doesn't have a tool for adapting to new technologies is wrong. It is only in matters such as prayer or the requirements of Hadj that we are unable to make changes, because they are strictly religious in nature.

[andak01]

Originally posted by reason
Here is a hadith for you:

Abi Said al Khudri reported that the Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever writes down anything other than the Quran must erase it."

Hmmm strange the prophet said dont write down anything else but the Quran.I believe in the sunnah but I question its accuracy and the credibility of its collectors.

This is not a disproof of the Hadith, even if it is authentic. The Prophet (SAW) did not wish there to be any confusion between the Qur'an and his own words until such time as the revelation was complete. If this Hadith was never abrogated, how does one even explain its existence? Presumably it would be the last Hadith ever and even its existence would be a contradiction of the wishes of the Prophet.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
This doesnt make sense to me, did Allah in the Koran ever say "you must follow the hadiths" Didnt he only say to follow the Koran?

Did Mohammed ever say to follow the hadiths?

Or is this done mainly for tradition? I dont understand where it says that if you dont belive in the hadith your not muslim, im not attacking you Ayesha, I just want to know.
Let's stir the pot


Identifying Assumptions in the
HADITH/SUNNAH DEBATE
Richard Steven Voss

Too often we become embroiled in arguments over hadith and sunnah with their advocates before considering the disparate assumptions underlying our opposing viewpoints. The debate that ensues often becomes little more than a game, debate for the sake of debate, or a contest to determine the better debater rather than the truth. This complicates discussions. Perhaps while we are occupied in pointless debate, there are others who sincerely wish to know the truth but who are currently deprived of our insight because our time and energy are being consumed by people who have no interest in the truth.

The assumptions that underlie the respective positions of proponents and opponents of hadith and sunnah generally revolve around what is meant by "discarding" them. The opponents of hadith and sunnah are concerned only with the question of sanctity [of upholding God’s word], their proponents, on the other hand, are concerned with the prescriptive vacuum that they fear would be created if all the world's Muslims suddenly do away with their volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and the rest of the transcribers of the oral traditions of the early Islamic era. In a given debate, therefore, the Submitter [the advocate of following the Quran alone] may think that "discarding" hadith and sunnah means merely resisting the belief that they could serve as a source of divine guidance, while the advocate of hadith and sunnah may think it means doing away with information valuable for providing insight into certain aspects of early Islamic history. In such a debate, the debaters could reach a consensus if each realizes what the other assumes is understood from the outset. ..""

http://www.19.org/english/articles/voss1.htm


AND

"Does Hadiths explain Quran ?

In the name of God, the Beneficient, the Merciful

Bukhari Explains the Quran.

The advocates of hadith are fond of saying that the hadith explains the Quran without which, they say the Quran cannot be understood. In other words without hadith they will have to reject the Quran or at least ignore it. The scholars also say that the hadith they call "Sahih Bukhary" is the best hadith.

It can be easily proved that the hadith does not in any way explain the Quran and that the "Sahih Bukhari" is not worth the papers it is printed on...""

http://www.submission.org/hadith/bhadith.html


AND

"THE HADITH CONSPIRACY
&
The Distortion of Islam

THE DILEMMA:

Hadith doctors have traditionally evaluated Hadith on its chain of narrators and its body text, according to their own criteria of what should be correct. However even according to their own standards, they fell into a dilemma. Some Hadith exist which have according to them a "sound" chain of narrators i.e. it was truthfully narrated but they dispute the text of the Hadith. One example of this and their whole system collapses. The Koran gives us the standard for judging anything that is presented. If the Koran confirms it in total its true. If the material adds to or contradicts the Koran, its source is not God or his messenger.

HISTORY OF COMPILATION OF HADITH:

Out of the books that the majority of Muslims believe in as being authentic, Sahih Bukhari is presented as being the MOST authentic. However a analysis of the history of the books shows that it is anything but authentic....""


http://members.aol.com/masadi/hadith.htm

[andak01]

There really isn't such a thing as a 'discarded' Hadith. If discredited Hadith were indeed discarded, then the same efforts to validate them would have to be repeated again and again. Each Hadith is saved with its classification of authenticity regardless of whether it is considered weak or not.

In fact if four people narrated that the same words were spoken syllable for syllable the same, each of these narrations would be listed as a separate Hadith. So all details of the Hadith are maintained regardless of whether the Hadith is considered authentic or not. Then, if new evidence were to be produced, that could be added to what is already known. In addition, for each narrator of each chain, there is a detailed biography of that person that establishes whether or not they were reliable.

It is actually fairly simple to discredit the Hadiths to non-believers. They do not have any of the supporting evidence at their disposal and must go on the word of a Christian or Jewish or Atheist scholar. These scholars in turn were only ever exposed to Islamic learning from the outside. And they attack that learning as outsiders searching for proofs for their presuppositions. They are very quick to poke holes in the shoddiest Islamic scholarship and to hold that forth as proof that they have disproved Islam at its core. This is akin to proclaiming Einstein an imbecile because of finding a typo in 'The Idiots Guide to Physics'. I have never seen an Orientalist quote from Ibn Taymiyah or Ibn Al Qaym.

Bukhari, though he travelled widely did not claim to have collected ALL the Hadiths. So a claim of ommission as a proof of incompleteness is based on an assumption made by the author, not by Bukhari. The author sets his own test and Islam passes or fails according to his test. This is very similar to the posts I was getting a few months ago to the effect 'Islam has failed if they don't send one million people to Washington to march against terrorism'. Now it's, 'the Hadiths are false if they don't meet this criteria of authenticity'. Well, anyone who believes fully in the authenticity of the Hadith is very close to becoming a Muslim themselves, and the majority of Muslims believe in the authenticity at least of some Hadiths. The proof we have of their authenticity is good enough for us, and it really doesn't have to meet any other criteria.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by andak01
Prophet Mohammed (SAW) forbid people to write his own words until after he had received the entire revelation of the Qur'an. This was in order so that there would be no confusion between the Qur'an and his own words. What the Qur'an says is follow the example of the messenger of Allah (Christians say, what would Jesus do). The Hadith are the written document of that example. Conversely, the Hadith enjoin us to follow the words of Allah (the Qur'an). So they compliment each other.


So the Hadiths are the way Mohammed dealt with life? And muslims should follow that? I see.

But I dont understand Ayesha's statment, that says if you dont belive in the Hadiths your not muslim, Is that true?

[andak01]

Well you certainly wouldn't be Sunni if you didn't follow the authenticated Hadith, and you would have to make up quite a bit in order to do simple things such as praying. You will find that the Qur'an enjoins us to pray, but doesn't specify when or how.

The Hadith are the sayings of Muhammad (SAW) as well as some description of his actions. Each Hadith is classified by authenticity and by subject. Then we have the parts of the Hadith. First you see the chain of narrators followed by the text or body.

[andak01]

I really apologize if I am being a little cagey on this subject. Hadith study has been used as a focal point for attacks on Islam for over a century, perhaps centuries. One thing should be noted. We do not live or die on the validity of any particular Hadith. The focus has been to say, 'There exists such and such Hadith that says so and so, therefore Islam is invalid.' If any non-believer thought that Islam was a valid religion, they would have to at least consider converting. Therefore it is normal that people who don't believe in the first place think that there is a mountain of evidence to prove themselves correct, while people like myself who already believe, think there is sufficient evidence to continue in that conviction. What is being thrown my way is stuff that I have already seen before. I researched it and found what was actually being said and am now stronger in my conviction than before.

But if one were to take any particular Hadith to be the core of Islamic teaching, he could become an extremist.

For example, the Bible says: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Ex. 22:17

If a group were to focus on that to the exclusion of the kind words of Prophet Jesus (SAW), they could start a witch burning cult. The obsession with witches could cause them to begin to see them everywhere.

And when one filters life through a single phrase, there is no moderating influence. Whereas, if one takes the Qur'an and the Sunnah as a whole, there are a wide range of prescriptions to choose from. Some make sense in a certain circumstance and others in another set of conditions.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by reason
I dont post just to disagree with you ayesha but it irritates me when someone calls me a kafir.

Shiites have sects who say ali was supposed to be the prophet, they are a minority and infact they are given the name alawyeen.The majority of the shiites dont go to that extreme, and are infact very similiar to sunnis, except how the pray and how they follow the sunnah.

They fast, do pilgrimage, give alms, they believe in Allah and Mohammed his prophet (SAW), and they pray 5 times a day.The prayers are similiar except for the fact that they pray on a piece of stone.Is that reason enough to call them kofaar?

Ayesha the sunnah unlike the Quran has been changed , tampered with and fabricated. Thats why they have categories, Sahih, hasan and da-if.

i suggest u reread the thread 'muslims debate islam'. we have droned on and on about this before. you cannot reject sunnah, it is an act of kufr. i dont say so, the Qur'an does.
"Ate' Allah wa ate' al-Rasool". The 'wa' is powerful in itself, for Allah to put a 'wa' with His name shows you how important it is. Are you saying Allah is not All-Wise and didnt know chains of narration on some may be weak? This is why we have mujtahids reason.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
This doesnt make sense to me, did Allah in the Koran ever say "you must follow the hadiths" Didnt he only say to follow the Koran?

Did Mohammed ever say to follow the hadiths?

Or is this done mainly for tradition? I dont understand where it says that if you dont belive in the hadith your not muslim, im not attacking you Ayesha, I just want to know.

Allah says "Obey me and obey the Prophet". Tradition has nothing to do with it, it is an act of worship. How on earth can someone believe in the Qur'an but not the Sunnah? This is the daftest thing I've heard yet. For eg, the Qur'an says pray, but iot doesnt explain how therefore we watch how the prophet performed prayer in order to know how. and the prophet performed this in accordance with wahi (divine revelation) meaning, Angel Gabriel (pbuh) taught him. Look, dont take my word, go and ask a mufti or sheikh of islam or an imam in any good masjid near you. nobody will tell u its ok to reject sunnah. nobody.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by andak01
I really apologize if I am being a little cagey on this subject.

u dont need to. reason and i have debated this back and forth before, the same statements are being regurgitated. i suggest to ilya as i ahev suggested to reason, that is to reread the thread 'muslims and others debate islam'. you'll find the same Qs & As but in much more detail.

[reason]

Originally posted by ayesha
i suggest u reread the thread 'muslims debate islam'. we have droned on and on about this before. you cannot reject sunnah, it is an act of kufr. i dont say so, the Qur'an does.
"Ate' Allah wa ate' al-Rasool". The 'wa' is powerful in itself, for Allah to put a 'wa' with His name shows you how important it is. Are you saying Allah is not All-Wise and didnt know chains of narration on some may be weak? This is why we have mujtahids reason.

I agree I would obey the prophet , IF THE CURRENT HADITH IS THE ACTUAL ORDERS OF THE PROPHET!!!!Until you answer my question of why, if the hadith was 100% accurate do we have da'if, hasan and sahih (weak, good and correct), and why arent they all just categorized as sahih. I will assume you dont know.


Are you saying Allah is not All-Wise and didnt know chains of narration on some may be weak? This is why we have mujtahids reason

Mujtahids, cant do anything if the actual text is wrong, and fatwa will be incorrect as long as the hadith is in itself faulty. You can have Mujtahids in the Quran because the text is perfect, error proof, but the case isnt so with the hadith.And no, I didnt say Allah is not All-WIse infact you were the one to say it.