The Hadeeth Rejecters

[Cake]

(salam)

Introduction

I thought others may find it useful if I share with them some words on the group of Hadeeth Rejecters, who are also called the “quranists”. The followers of this group are often fresh converts or “born”-Muslims who have suddenly gained an interest in Islam. The main ways that people join this group, in my experience, are:

Sometimes they stumble across quranist websites and, without any knowledge of `ilm al-hadeeth, fall prey to the quranist ideology that hadeeths are effectively a conspiracy theory, untrustworthy, and unauthorised. Some other times, the new convert or newly-awakened Muslim may go through “convertitis” (google it). Some other times, the new Muslim realises that Islam is not a wishy-washy, hippie religion, but rather a religion requiring self-discipline, such as praying five times a day, etc. and so reject these “strict” practices by rejecting the main basis for them, which is the Sunnah.

Is the Prophet just a postman?

As far as I can see it, the group base their ideology partly on verses which seem to be saying that the Quran is fully-detailed. This is merely their interpretation of that verse. In contrast to their interpretation of that verse, the Quran also tells us to obey the Messenger.

All mainstream Muslim sects throughout history have been in agreement that Islam has two primary sources: the Quran and the Sunnah (i.e. the examples set by, and the teachings of,) of the Prophet. If we have an authentic hadeeth (narration) in which the Prophet tells us how to pray, should we not follow the Prophet's advice? Isn't it likely that he knew the scripture best? Or would he and the Muslims in his time have been bickering with each other over how to perform prayer, without he having any authority in this regard?

When the Quran told people to pray, or to draw their head-scarves over their bosoms, or to do anything else, don't you think the companions and the family of the Prophet wondered what this all meant? And don't you think they would have wondered - because the Quran can be, for us, vague or lacking in detail - how to perform these actions? Now when they were confused, don't you think the Prophet would have had an opinion? Wouldn't it be quite possible that the man chosen by the almighty and knowing God to deliver a message - an entire religion to a group of desert folk - might understand how to perform and obey these commands and instructions better than everyone else?

An example: the Quran tells us to perform fajr salat; yet the Quran does not have a manual for salat. At most, quranists resort to selectively taking parts of verses from different places in the Quran, and placing them in any order, so as to construct a ritual prayer. But there is very little information to work with and few clues as to know how to construct it. Ironically some draw from the ritual prayer performed by Muslims today in order to construct a quranist ritual prayer. Others realise the futility of this entire attempt and end up arguing, against the consensus of all mainstream sects since Islam's inception, against there being any ritual prayer and they effectively advocate praying however one sees fit. (I say mainstream because there were some minor heretical groups that popped up and claimed that the Shari`ah and laws had been abrogated in order to justify fornication, sodomy, injustice, and other acts. However if we think about it, even these heretical groups tended to say that there was a ritual form of salat even if it had been abrogated).

There is a consensus by Muslims that salat, in the Islamic context, means a ritual form of prayer. How can it be that all Muslim scholars and groups for 1400 years, since the time of the companions of the Prophet and since the time of the Family of the Prophet, were all mistaken but a group that originated in the last century or two know better? How does the quranist group know better than all Muslim scholars and better than all mainstream Muslim sects for 1400 years? Are to we say that Allah let the Muslims, with the last religion to be revealed until the end of time, remain in misguidance for so long - centuries - from the Prophet’s time until the quranist group’s inceptions?

Is the Quran sufficient?

They assert that the Quran is fully detailed that Muhammed (s) had no role except as a postman. Yet the Quran tells us to follow the Messenger. Here's a question for them to consider if the Quran is fully-detailed: what is the punishment for rape in the Quran? Certainly the Quran is not "fully detailed". This is a mistaken interpretation. And a simple example is the absence of a punishment for rape. If the Quran were enough for a complete religion to be constructed, then one would to expect the Quran to lay down a punishment for rape that could be implemented by believers, just as it lays down a punishment for adultery. However since we cannot find a punishment for rape, we are forced to turn to the Sunnah and so the Quran is not fully detailed. Any excuse of the quranists should be met with, "really, so inheritance laws had to be laid out in full detail but rape laws should be up to us?" or something similar. The Quran is only complete and detailed for the Prophet and Imams who have total understanding of the Book. For example, see

http://www.revivinga...ns-of-rass.html

If you actually read our hadeeths, you will realise how frequently the Imams quoted the Quran, how well they understood it, how they were able to explain and simplify what others struggled to interpret, etc. Compare that to this silly "study" of Surat al-Fatiha by a quranist:

Heck, forget the Imams, even any significant scholar of the Shia or the Sunnis could have, and did, come up with a better tafseer than that.

Isn't it more likely that they are misinterpreting verses like 16:89: What does it even mean that the Quran is a tibyaan "clarification" for every thing? Surely it cannot be literal considering it hasn't clarified alot of things in my daily life, not has it clarified the ahkaam (laws) such as how rape should be punished, etc.

The exact same thing applies to 6:114; "kitab mufassila" really is quite vague. They might translate it as "fully detailed" if they wish, but what it actually means cannot be inferred from the verse alone. It cannot be literal since it is not literally true.

And as for:

Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.-(6:114)

Yes, God is the only source of Law. Where do think the Prophet Muhammed (S) was getting the information for the Hikmah and Teachings of the Book that he was giving to the people? himself? God gave him that knowledge.

Isn't it more likely that they are misinterpreting those verses when the Quran has verses such as:

The authority of the Sunnah

3:164 Certainly did Allah confer [great] favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom (hikmah), although they had been before in manifest error.

Teaching the book...Notice the distinction between reciting verses and teaching the book in 3:164

and the hikmah. So the Messenger, i.e. Muhammed (S), recites the verses of the Quran, teaches us the Book (notice how it is listed separately to reciting the veses), and teaches us the Hikmah (translated here as wisdom though this meaning clearly falls short). Thus the verse says that the Messenger was sent to recite verses and teach us the Book (it's not a stretch to say that probably means explaining what the Book says) and teach us "Hikmah". Thus, the Quran says the Prophet was more than just a postman.

Here is another verse:

59:7 [...]And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from[...]

Here the Quran records the command of God to take what he gives us (i.e. commands and perhaps also advice) and refrain from what he has forbidden.

Perhaps we might take the verse of wudhu as an example. The verse lists the wajib (obligatory) rituals in wudhu. But the Prophet told of us some extra rituals in wudhu which are mustahhab (desirable but not obligatory).

And another verse:

8:20-21 O you who have believed, obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn from him while you hear [his order]. And do not be like those who say, "We have heard," while they do not hear.

We are told to obey Muhammed (s) repeatedly in the Quran. If he only had the role of a postman and not also a role of explaining Islam to us, then it would arbitrary for God to say that we should obey the Messenger. Notice the verses go on to mention those who ignore the commands of the Messenger.

I don't think it necessarily matters to this discussion what the correct interpretation of the verses, such as 6:114 and 16:89, which the quranists use, as long as we rule out the wrong interpretation used by quranists to justify going against the practice of the companions and family of the Prophet as well as all mainstream sects.

The point is the Quran says the Messenger has a role other than being a postman.

Did the Prophet forbid the people from hadeeths?

As for the claim that the Prophet himself prohibited the writing of hadeeths, it is a rather ironic argument to be making considering this is only reported in the hadeeths and not in the Quran. Furthermore, such hadeeths have been mostly identified as forgeries. The remainder were reportedly issued by the Prophet when the Quran was being recorded, as he was anxious that the hadeeths and Quran not become mixed up.

Did hadeeths appear 200 hundred years after the Prophet? Did Bukhari say that 95+% of hadeeths are fabricated?

This is dishonest. Bukhari compiled his selection of some authentic hadeeths 200 years after the death of the Prophet. However as I've pointed out to already, there were compilations before Bukhari as well as plentiful oral transmission. Some of these still survive. For example, there is a surviving compilation attributed to a student of a companion of the Prophet. See http://www.islamic-a...ith/hadith.html . That's certainly not 200 years later.

Bukhari's has become the most popular because he was the first amongst proto-Sunni circles to collect a "saheeh-only" collection that was comprehensive in its topics. It has remained the most popular for Sunnis oartly because he also used the strictest conditions in testing each hadeeth.

Some claim that Bukhari chose 6000 out of hundreds of thousands and so rejected all the others as fabricated. This is rubbish. If you look at the actual title of his book, it indicates that it is a selection. Bukhari only selected SOME of the authentic hadeeth out there. He himself says so.This idea that the hadeeths popped up out of nowhere 200 years afte the Prophet's death is nonsense. The Quran and hadeeths were both transmitted orally and textually by the family and the companions of the Prophet to the next generation. Recording of the Quran and hadeeths was done by the companions themselves, and these were passed on along with their oral narrations. The succeeding generation also narrated hadeeths textually and orally. The number 200 has come because Muslim bin Ismail al-Bukhari compiled his book approximately 200 years after the Prophet. The book was compiled because no single collection survived as an authentic-only collection of narrations that were comprehensive in terms of the Islamic subjects addressed. There were books long before Bukhari and these still survive.

As for the Shia hadeeths, many of these were recorded from the Imams by the very companions of the Imams themselves and who passed on their books down the generations. That is not 200 years after the Imams. Many of these were then compiled into the Four Books of the Shia.

Are hadeeths reliable?

Some people compared hadeeths to Chinese whispers. As a previous user on this forum put it, “How about a game of Chinese Whispers where you get to actually transmit information out loud, use pencils to write down what you've heard, transmit information in public in front of a large amount of students that consider it to be a religion, and include referees in the game that would kick you out if they find you screwing around?! Terrible analogy.”

It is interesting to hear the quranists say that the hadeeths are unreliable while the Quran is reliable. Do you know how the Quran has reached us? We get the Quran from books recording the text of the Quran and books recording the rules that explain how to recite the Quran AND the oral memory of those who, in every generation, have memorised part, or even the whole, Quran. Where do you think the authors of the books, and the reciters, got this information from? The previous generation of scholars and reciters. And they got it from the generation previous to them. Etc. All the way until it reached the generation of the companions and family of the Prophet who got it from the Prophet. There are thus chains of narrators who pass down the Quran. How do you think hadeeths are passed down? Through chains of narrators, i.e. pretty much the same way. Thus to reject all hadeeths in principle because of arguments regarding their tranmission is to reject the Quran since the transmission is the same: oral and textual narration.

There were versions of the Quran, and likewise hadeeths, that were rejected because the narrators were noted to be dishonest in narrating, or who were noted to be inaccurate in transmission, or even because there were not enough chains for that version.

The quranists may say “but Allah has promised to protect the Quran!” Yes, but where does He say this? In the Quran. How did the Quran get to us? Through chains of narrations. The same people reporting the Quran down the generations via textual and oral transmission, were also reporting the hadeeths. Now, if we assert that the hadeeths are unreliable, the Quran must be too.

Since the Quran is protected by Allah's words, and it came through chains of transmission, wouldn't it also make sense to accept hadeeths (though not all of them)?

Hadeeth scholars are very aware of the possibility of poor memory or dishonesty in narrating. That's why they compiled books listing trustworthy and untrustworthy narrators. The hadeeth scholars would examine the accuracy, honesty, and beliefs of narrators. They would also compare the narrations of reporters, even the trustworthy reporters, against other narrations. In this way they were able to identify transmitters who were changing the hadeeths or who were narrating too many unknown hadeeths. Some of them went further and recorded the time period in which narrators lived so that they could identify any subtle disconnections in the chain. Some went further and recorded the teachers and students of narrators so that they could identify a fabricated chain because "narrator A has never been known to have narrated hadeeths to narrator B therefore a hadeeth reported by narrator B from narrator A is fabricated".

Actually, lol, some people were kicked out from cities because even they narrated too much from "weak" narrators; (the famous case of Ahmed bin Muhammed bin Khalid al-Barqi comes to mind).

In addition to this, some scholars stipulated that only hadeeths that have reached us through sufficient routes of transmission are certain in authenticity. An application of this is that some say that points of aqeeda are only proven with widely-known and accepted narrations, whether amongst the Shia or amongst all Muslims.

I apologise for any mistakes. Anything correct and good has come from Allah, azza wa jalla, and anything incorrect or wrong has come from myself. May Allah guide us to the straight path.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Cake

[DoubleAgent4]

Maybe they're following umar's sunnah..after all he did say 'the book of Allah is sufficient for us'

[The Green Knight]

I believe:

- Ahadith and the Quran are two entirely different and mutually incomparable resources of Islam. Its undeniable that the Quran is weightier than any hadith any day. Why? Partly because

- All ahadith are not reliable or even understandable. There is simply enough forgery and manipulation in existence (Ref., Abu Huraira and at least about 150 fake sahabis, for example). This is the overlooked part of the problem that gives birth to and warrants the Quranist thought.

- Simultaneously, disregard and rejection of all ahadith is illogical and wrong.

- There is a need to locate a rational middle ground between Quranism and Rijalism. Both are illogical and wrong extremes imo. The reason I mention the latter is because it is obscure and both serve each other and help each other to exist in a weird synergy.

- And that such extremes are products of abandonment of the guidance of the representatives of Prophets, saints and the most learned and renowned religious scholars or Ulema who are or rather should be the exclusive authority over religious affairs.

- By virtue of the above, "e-scholarism" should not only be taken with a grain of salt but also discouraged. Real life known scholars should be given heed instead and closeness to them should be encouraged. Seriously, there is no need of Hensel and Gretel reinventing an entirely new abominable religion on the internet with their misadventures and abuse of these resources while they have no actual grasp or authority over the message and spirit of Islam.

[MAFHHM]

Allamah Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai's preface of Tafsir al Mizan is an excellent medium over this issue.

[Gypsy]

Very timely article. Nicely written too.

The Quranists are just a bunch of ignorants who think they can understand Islam without doing all the grunt work like learning and studying Islamic literature.

[Haydar Husayn]

Very nice post.

[s8s8]

"The Quranists are just a bunch of ignorants who think they can understand Islam without doing all the grunt work like learning and studying Islamic literature"

"Quranists" usually identify as just muslim, unlike their sectarian counterparts. We don't care about your precious Islamic literature. I, for one, do not give two hoots about spending time studying something I KNOW is fraudulent and not authorized by Him.

Hasbuna KitabuAllah.

Salaam.

[Al Hadi]

Gypsy, on 04 Nov 2012 - 1:46 PM, said:

Very timely article. Nicely written too.

The Quranists are just a bunch of ignorants who think they can understand Islam without doing all the grunt work like learning and studying Islamic literature.

 

True I know some Quranists unfortunately.

 

They think they are smarter than the entire Islamic world who follows quran and the prophet(S)

[Al Hadi]

"The Quranists are just a bunch of ignorants who think they can understand Islam without doing all the grunt work like learning and studying Islamic literature"

"Quranists" usually identify as just muslim, unlike their sectarian counterparts. We don't care about your precious Islamic literature. I, for one, do not give two hoots about spending time studying something I KNOW is fraudulent and not authorized by Him.

Hasbuna KitabuAllah.

Salam

 

You yourself are a sect for believing only in the Quran.

 

That itself is following a set of beliefs different from everyone else which sounds like a sect to me.

 

"Hasbuna kitabuAllah"

 

funny I wonder what would happen if you got 2 quranists and ask them to interpret one verse of the Quran they would probably argue amongst themselves(that sounds like a good punch line for a joke).

[Gaius I. Caesar]

I was a Qur'anist once, but they cannot agree on anything and I got frustrated with their ignorance. They said some stupid things like saying Ya Allah was blasphemy and disrespectful. I don't look back, you know?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Gaius I. Caesar

[Muslimthought97]

I was a Qur'anist once, but they cannot agree on anything and I got frustrated with their ignorance. They said some stupid things like saying Ya Allah was blasphemy and disrespectful. I don't look back, you know?

 

maybe because im young and i dont have info and experience but im a part Quranist id say, anything that sounds illogical in hadiths i disregard it so instead i rely on Quranic verses for evidence as a primary source, how did you escape this way of thought and what convinced you enough that hadiths can and are infact true?

[Gaius I. Caesar]

maybe because im young and i dont have info and experience but im a part Quranist id say, anything that sounds illogical in hadiths i disregard it so instead i rely on Quranic verses for evidence as a primary source, how did you escape this way of thought and what convinced you enough that hadiths can and are infact true?

I looked at Shia hadiths that quoted and supported the Quran, that was when I started to reconsider, plus the way how the Qur'anists drew some people to atheism in their forum played a part in realizing that Qur'an alone is not true Islam. Plus, they could not tell me who Abu Lahab is without not referring to hadiths. (I knew who Abu Lahab was, I was curious because they do not refer hadith and I wanted to know their interpretation.) I was still new to Islam and fell for the lie that the hadiths were a conspiracy, that's how I was unfortunate enough to meet them. Now, I am more wary of what people say and post on the Internet.

Plus, they called themselves the true Islam but were divided into three groups, the Qur'anists, the 19ers and the Submitters. There cannot be more than one version of the truth. I also read English translations of the Qur'anists and I don't think any of them have any legit Arabic understanding. There is something terribly amiss with their understanding and I agree with Darth Vader, there is no reason for Hansel and Gretel to make a new religion with their limited understanding of their own religion. You catch my drift, HayderM?

I wouldn't say that you are a Qur'anist, if anything, you are following the instructions in the prologue to Al-Kafi: Any hadiths that confirms what is the Qur'an, accept it; Any hadith which contradicts the Qur'an, reject it.

[StrugglingForTheLight]

The Quran calls to Ahlulbayt and emphasizes on Harun being better at speech at conveying to what Musa felt like he had knot with respect to conveying in so many Surahs, in different paraphrases lest we interpret one verse without light of the other. All this is to emphasize on the need of hadiths. God too has a knot on his tongue believe it or not, or lest 99.9% will disbelieve in Quran and it would not have been passed. The knot is due to our hearts having veils and us accusing the people who guide by the truth of teaching non-sense and absolute rubish with respect to the station of humanity and face of God/Ismal atham.

 

The Quran whispers silently, while Ahlulbayt (as) speak eloquently, and Urufa sacrifice themselves to make people understand hadiths.

 

Whoever doesn't want to enter through Ali will never know the city of knowledge and place of light.

[Panzerwaffe]

The hadith is a great resource about muslim history and heritage but the problem also is that the grading of narraters is based on their ideological beliefs and that leads to them being strenghtned or weakened depending on who you ask

 

This causes an inherit bias in interpreting "authentic" hadith vs "weak " hadith

 

I think ALL hadith weak or strong should be used as an importance resource as long as it is just a historical report and does not base our core beliefs on them , as God alone knows which narrater was truly trustworthy.

[StrugglingForTheLight]

I think ALL hadith weak or strong should be used as an importance resource as long as it is just a historical report and does not base our core beliefs on them , as God alone knows which narrater was truly trustworthy.

The way I look at it with respect to the hadiths that name the twelve Imams, is that, the final Messenger should give detail clarification to the commands in Quran. For example Ulil-Amr obviously are Imams of guidance that are appointed by God given the context with emphasis on the great authority of the family of Ibrahim before, and it be coupled with obedience to the Messenger, and after emphasizing all Messengers were sent to be obeyed by God's permission, so it's all in context of the divine authority that is obligatory for people to recognize the holders of. So hadiths would clarify their number (7 or 12 or 15 or whatever) and that their names would be also given. 

 

Given reason and Quran, these hadiths should be a basis by which we make our beliefs upon.

 

Therefore there being only one number by hadiths (not withstanding copyist errors with respect to 13 by stating 12 Imams in offspring) and one set of names, they stand as a proof by which we can form our beliefs upon.

[Ijaz Ahmad Al-Swedi]

(salam)

Is the Prophet just a postman

 

---

 

Here is another verse:

59:7 [...]And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from[...]

Here the Quran records the command of God to take what he gives us (i.e. commands and perhaps also advice) and refrain from what he has forbidden.

Perhaps we might take the verse of wudhu as an example. The verse lists the wajib (obligatory) rituals in wudhu. But the Prophet told of us some extra rituals in wudhu which are mustahhab (desirable but not obligatory).

 

 

I will not touch all points, a few... 

 

WAS THE PROPHET OF GOD AKIN TO A POSTMAN WHO SIMPLY DELIVERS A MESSAGE?

 

In discussions and in what is written, it is often implied that the Quran-centric approach renders the Prophet into merely a 'postman' who is tasked to simply deliver a message. Such an attribution seems to be in part, a result of the limiting reading of verses such as 42:48, 13:40 and 5:99, in which the Prophetic role to deliver the message is emphasised without giving due appreciation to context and wider Quranic narratives.

If one studies such verses, one would note that such an emphasis to deliver the message is hedged with the underlying proviso that the Prophet would not be a warden over his people or be responsible for 'converting' others to the true religion. Rather, it would remain God’s responsibility as to whom to ultimately guide. Hence, it is in this context that once notes the emphasis of the Prophetic role to primarily deliver the message. 

Prophet Muhammad had TWO major roles during his ministry. His task was to deliver the revelations inspired in him by way of the Quran to mankind and in the same stroke, to IMPLEMENT ITS guidance in the complete sphere of his life during his Prophetic ministry. The Prophet made use of the Quran as a clarification (tibiana lekulli shaye 16:89) and a guide to apply to his particular circumstances where:

 

(1) He made judgments by making use of the Quran's guidance. (24:48)

(2) He was an arbitrator and settled disputes (24:51; 8:46)

(3) He was a counsellor / consultant (58:12) 

(4) He was a military leader and made use of the Quran's guidance to conduct his affairs during war (8:1; 8:7)

(5) He was a community leader (60:12) and consulted with his contemporaries to make best decisions for the community (3:159)

(6) He was the state leader of a chain of commands (4:59)

(7) He was the community's treasurer (8:41)

[8] He was a spiritual leader and was tasked to proclaim the message and deliver warnings (38:70) 

(9) He was a spiritual guide in his personal sphere (e.g. with his wives 33:33)

 

In all that he did engulfing his ministry and in dealing with his wider circumstances, the Prophet made use of God's guidance as revealed to him by the Quran. If one were alive during His ministry and took ‘BAYA'A’ (oath of allegiance) with him (60:12; 48:18), then as a believer, one would be expected to follow / obey the Prophet's commands. A 'baya'a' with the Prophet would be akin to making an oath with God Himself (48:10).

 

However, the Prophet is not alive today to take 'baya'a with nor are the circumstances present for the Prophet to implement the Quran's guidance. We all exist in different communities, at a different time with differing circumstances and challenges. Prophetic practice refers to the practical responses of a Prophet in his capacity as a guide sent by God to deal with the circumstances that he is presented with during his ministry. In such a capacity, a Prophet makes use of Divine guidance revealed to him and implements them in the best possible manner to his circumstances. Therefore, for the Prophet's Sunna to have any intrinsic relevance, the circumstances of 7th century Arabia that the Prophet faced would also inevitably need to exist.

 

Hence, there is no Quranic warrant to 'religiously' sanction a corpus that 'allegedly' details a practice of a people of a certain time of ancient history. Indeed, one should attempt to understand how a people attempted to implement the guidance of the Quran to their particular circumstances to gain any pearls of underlying wisdom and possible best practice. However, this should not be understood as 'religiously binding'.

 

Therefore, to draw an analogy of the Prophet simply with a 'postman' is not only unduly inappropriate and restrictive; it is also without any Quranic warrant regardless of who makes the assertion.

 

Similarly, to make use of Prophetic practice to sanction a corpus as 'religiously binding' also remains without any Quranic warrant. 

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

 

A common example is quoted from verse 59:7 of the Quran. If one consults the verse, one will note that the quote is completely devoid of context which clearly refers to the booty acquired during war.  The Quran is clearly informing the community through the Prophet that whatever of the booty the Prophet allocates, take it and whatever he withholds, abstain from it. This is with the view that the gain does not accumulate solely amongst the rich.

 

 

"And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, leave it. And fear Allah: truly Allah is severe in punishment"

 

"Whatever God has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for God and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich among you, and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) God; surely God is severe in retributing (evil)" (59:7)

[Ibn Al-Ja'abi]

bismih ta'ala

assalamu alaykum

 

maybe because im young and i dont have info and experience but im a part Quranist id say, anything that sounds illogical in hadiths i disregard it so instead i rely on Quranic verses for evidence as a primary source, how did you escape this way of thought and what convinced you enough that hadiths can and are infact true?

 

.....
I wouldn't say that you are a Qur'anist, if anything, you are following the instructions in the prologue to Al-Kafi: Any hadiths that confirms what is the Qur'an, accept it; Any hadith which contradicts the Qur'an, reject it.

 

It should be noted that contradicting the Qur'an means contradicting the Qur'an, not your interpretation of the Qur'an, nor an interpolation of many verses with additional commentary of what you think.

 

To Br. Hayder, be careful. A Hadith sounding illogical to your fallible and young ears should not be sufficient grounds to disregard, or, God forbid, reject them. Especially when one is a novice to the sciences of Hadith. Even when a Hadith "strange" (for lack of a better word) in its Matn (i.e. content) we are told to do Tawaqquf (i.e. not accepting or rejecting the Hadith), otherwise rejecting it is considered tantamount to calling the Imam (as) a liar, and as per some Ahadith, exiting Wilayah. May Allah keep us safe from such calamities.

 

Analysis of the content of a Hadith in order to better understand the meaning of it is a science in and of itself known as Fiqh Al-Hadith - or the 'Jurisprudence of Hadith'. Br. Ibn Al-Hussain has written a post on his website introducing this science. May Allah bless him. http://www.iqraonline.net/how-to-better-understand-and-study-hadith/

 

InshaAllah you find success in your journey of learning about the Madhhab, brother.

 

wa assalam

[Al Hadi]

IjazLinorAhmad, on 09 Sept 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

I will not touch all points, a few... 

 

WAS THE PROPHET OF GOD AKIN TO A POSTMAN WHO SIMPLY DELIVERS A MESSAGE?

 

In discussions and in what is written, it is often implied that the Quran-centric approach renders the Prophet into merely a 'postman' who is tasked to simply deliver a message. Such an attribution seems to be in part, a result of the limiting reading of verses such as 42:48, 13:40 and 5:99, in which the Prophetic role to deliver the message is emphasised without giving due appreciation to context and wider Quranic narratives.

If one studies such verses, one would note that such an emphasis to deliver the message is hedged with the underlying proviso that the Prophet would not be a warden over his people or be responsible for 'converting' others to the true religion. Rather, it would remain God’s responsibility as to whom to ultimately guide. Hence, it is in this context that once notes the emphasis of the Prophetic role to primarily deliver the message. 

Prophet Muhammad had TWO major roles during his ministry. His task was to deliver the revelations inspired in him by way of the Quran to mankind and in the same stroke, to IMPLEMENT ITS guidance in the complete sphere of his life during his Prophetic ministry. The Prophet made use of the Quran as a clarification (tibiana lekulli shaye 16:89) and a guide to apply to his particular circumstances where:

 

(1) He made judgments by making use of the Quran's guidance. (24:48)

(2) He was an arbitrator and settled disputes (24:51; 8:46)

(3) He was a counsellor / consultant (58:12) 

(4) He was a military leader and made use of the Quran's guidance to conduct his affairs during war (8:1; 8:7)

(5) He was a community leader (60:12) and consulted with his contemporaries to make best decisions for the community (3:159)

(6) He was the state leader of a chain of commands (4:59)

(7) He was the community's treasurer (8:41)

[8] He was a spiritual leader and was tasked to proclaim the message and deliver warnings (38:70) 

(9) He was a spiritual guide in his personal sphere (e.g. with his wives 33:33)

 

In all that he did engulfing his ministry and in dealing with his wider circumstances, the Prophet made use of God's guidance as revealed to him by the Quran. If one were alive during His ministry and took ‘BAYA'A’ (oath of allegiance) with him (60:12; 48:18), then as a believer, one would be expected to follow / obey the Prophet's commands. A 'baya'a' with the Prophet would be akin to making an oath with God Himself (48:10).

 

However, the Prophet is not alive today to take 'baya'a with nor are the circumstances present for the Prophet to implement the Quran's guidance. We all exist in different communities, at a different time with differing circumstances and challenges. Prophetic practice refers to the practical responses of a Prophet in his capacity as a guide sent by God to deal with the circumstances that he is presented with during his ministry. In such a capacity, a Prophet makes use of Divine guidance revealed to him and implements them in the best possible manner to his circumstances. Therefore, for the Prophet's Sunna to have any intrinsic relevance, the circumstances of 7th century Arabia that the Prophet faced would also inevitably need to exist.

 

Hence, there is no Quranic warrant to 'religiously' sanction a corpus that 'allegedly' details a practice of a people of a certain time of ancient history. Indeed, one should attempt to understand how a people attempted to implement the guidance of the Quran to their particular circumstances to gain any pearls of underlying wisdom and possible best practice. However, this should not be understood as 'religiously binding'.

 

Therefore, to draw an analogy of the Prophet simply with a 'postman' is not only unduly inappropriate and restrictive; it is also without any Quranic warrant regardless of who makes the assertion.

 

Similarly, to make use of Prophetic practice to sanction a corpus as 'religiously binding' also remains without any Quranic warrant. 

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

 

A common example is quoted from verse 59:7 of the Quran. If one consults the verse, one will note that the quote is completely devoid of context which clearly refers to the booty acquired during war.  The Quran is clearly informing the community through the Prophet that whatever of the booty the Prophet allocates, take it and whatever he withholds, abstain from it. This is with the view that the gain does not accumulate solely amongst the rich.

 

 

"And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, leave it. And fear Allah: truly Allah is severe in punishment"

 

"Whatever God has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for God and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich among you, and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) God; surely God is severe in retributing (evil)" (59:7)

 

The Quran itself says to follow God and his prophet.

Yes the Quran is the judge but you and I cannot understand the Quran without the guidance of the prophet and his ahlul bayt.

 

Furthermore if In Islam we where meant to just follow the Quran and not the prophet what about the prophets who came without a holy book how where their people supposed to follow them unless their commands had to be recorded somehow and followed.

[Sol 7]

Salaam.

I am not a Quranist

But...Well. To be fair. The Sahih hadiths are very contradictory. And often portray the Prophet in Immoral actions such as slavery, rape, domestic abuse, killing for disbelief , pedophilia etc directly contradictory to other Hadith. And some detail him authorizing things directly contradictory to the Qur'ans laws.

The Hadith essentially go by "Hey, I knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who heard Muhammad (pbuh) say...." this, as you can Imagine, is prone to distortion. 

Also, as the Qur'an was indeed carried by some oral tradition, it was largely written on sheepskin and camel bones in the time of the Prophet. There is overwhelming archeological evidence for this. Historically, it was collected by Ali, Abu Bakr and later, Uthman within 20 years of the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) death.

The first hadith however, were written down fully only after almost two centuries. In medieval times. Where long distance communication was next to impossible.

 

They cannot logically survive without being corrupted after that long. Anthropologically it is simply not possible.

Look. I don't reject the Hadith at all. Many of them are authentic (the ones revealed by members of the golden Chain and many other accepted Awliya especially) 

But in general, I view the Hadith more or less the same way I view the Bible and the Tanakh. In that they are corrupted by human hand. 

But offer a good view onto the Time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), if not a slightly blurry one. And are more often than not, Authentic.

I don't agree with Qur'anists at all. But they offer invaluable insight into the Qur'an at times and make very good points sometimes. 

Although its basically not possible for Islam to function without knowing some form of the Sunnah. In whatever Hadith, Sunni or Shia, availiable. And especially from the histories of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham .

Theres a huge difference between being skeptical of many Hadith and rejecting them outright.