Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Muslim2010

Hadith Rejectors - Muslim, Hypocrites, etc

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Those who deny the hadith of the prophet saww are called hadith rejectors . They consider normally quran sufficient alone to follow for the religion without recognizing the need to follow the sunna ie sayings or actions of the prophet saww.

What the other Muslims brothers consider these hadith rejectors?  A muslim, hypocrite, kafir, or mis-guided etc?

(Whatever is you opinion ,the evidence of it from quran or hadith may be mentioned too for information /discussion, please).

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

Those who deny the hadith of the prophet saww are called hadith rejectors . They consider normally quran sufficient alone to follow for the religion without recognizing the need to follow the sunna ie sayings or actions of the prophet saww.

What the other Muslims brothers consider these hadith rejectors?  A muslim, hypocrite, kafir, or mis-guided etc?

(Whatever is you opinion ,the evidence of it from quran or hadith may be mentioned too for information /discussion, please).

Wasalam

i did went thru their forum. in my limited knowledge, the usual "how to refute anti-hadith" does not work simply because they have their own interpretation of the quran. i got 2 such translations with me. what is interesting, they differ among themselves. something to be expected when using own opinions.

and one hardcore among them is forwarding the argument: sex before marriage is permissible. Na'uzubillah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Yes, that's true, Hadith rejectors have no place in Islam.

It is very true statement brother,

The verses provided in my last post provide clear evidence that the hadith rejecters are considered hypocrites or misguided.

Allah describes them as hypocrites, the people who turn away from the Messenger. And then Allah reminds us that He sent Messengers to be obeyed! Not just revelation, not just scriptures sent down from the heavens, but Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى sent us Messengers as well. Then He سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى tells us that true belief and submission is to make Muhammad, the final messenger, who was sent to all of mankind, a judge over their matters.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hadith rejectors will make us believe the Quran is easy to understand, and Rasulillah (pbuh@hf) mission was to only to deliver the message. Really? The fact is; with hadith rejectors the have no giudance from any scholars or Imams, where as other school of thoughts have Imams or scholars who have spent many years studying to guide the ummaah. 

Furthermore, i  won't hesitate to say, most of the worlds Muslims population cannot help the feeling that there are many verses  in the Quran whose actual meaning and intention cannot be understood by a reader of Arabic only from the words of the Quran. 

 Surah Al- Qiyamah we can see that the Almighty has given Rasulillah complete knowledge of the Quran. 

75:17 Surely it is for us to have you commit to memory and recite it

75:18 And so when we recite it, follow its recitation attentively

And this verse is very important verse 75:19 Then it will be for us to explain it.

Explain it to whom ? We know that holy Quran does not have any explanation of the verses in the Quran, therefore Allah swt  explained every verse and its meaning of the Quran to Rasulillah.

This clearly proves the Rasulillah did not receive only the revelation which is recorded in the Quran, he was also given such knowledge by revelation as it not mentioned in the Quran. These explanation of the words of the Quran that Allah had taught Rasulillah was none other than  recording of Hadith and its explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam br. @skyweb1987,

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion.

I believe hadith-rejectors or Quranists or anyone who says and believes in "hasbona kitaballah" is a munafiq - a fraud pretending to be Muslim. We can also refer to them as khawarij.

Some of them even go as far say claiming their kalima to be "La Ilahaillah" only.

They believe the Prophet (saw) was meant to only deliver the message and not even explain it to us.

I had an interesting conversation with a quranist on SC a few months ago. He stated that the Quran is sufficient for him. So I asked him if he had read any other book...ever. Of course he said yes. So I asked him if this was shirk or a sin since he read a book other than the Quran even though he believes the Quran is enough.

So his statement changed from "Quran is enough" to "Quran is enough for religion, and we can use other books for other aspects of life". So I challenged him to show where the Quran draws a line between how much we can rely on the Quran and when/where we need to look elsewhere.

Once a Quranist accepts reading another book regardless of what it is, he breaks his own rule that the Quran is enough.

The Quran is a reference guide for us to use in light of the hadeeth of the Prophet (saw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Salaam br. @skyweb1987,

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion.

I believe hadith-rejectors or Quranists or anyone who says and believes in "hasbona kitaballah" is a munafiq - a fraud pretending to be Muslim. We can also refer to them as khawarij.

Some of them even go as far say claiming their kalima to be "La Ilahaillah" only.

They believe the Prophet (saw) was meant to only deliver the message and not even explain it to us.

Brother, your view is always more logical and full of experience with different people.

The quoted view in bold is the actual interpretation in the light of the verses of quran. Your statement is correct such people are munafiq. Since they have rejected even the prophet saww for the explanation of the religion, after wards they come to the acceptance of Allah swt. alone. 

And after some time when they remain unable to get he correct meaning of quranic verses, it can potentially  lead them to atheism as they do not have a way back.

Thanks for your comments, wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the allegation that QURANISTS interpret the Qur'an friviliously or without guidance.

What do hadithists have? A golden book that explains the Qur'an ? Or numerous books that are 90-95% percent unreliable (majhool,  fabricated etc) according to Shia scholars like Syed Alkhoei Ra. 

Let's ponder on this, there were numerous Qur'an readings, yet the Imams never clarified to Shias which reading is correct. If it was clarified then it indicates how weak the hadithists position is because today no Shia conclusively knows the right reading. 

Sunni Imams were taught by Imam Jaafer Alsadiq, yet they never got the idea he was appointed by God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

We don't even know how many children the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had. 

The hadiths have unholy gaps , how can we say it is hujjah and claim it guides to the Sunnah?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way or the other , we all are "Hadith rejectors" of some sort. The Shias would reject most of the Sunni Hadiths and the Sunnis would reject the Shias Hadith. Then with in Shias and Sunnis , people would reject Hadiths based on their own subsectarian affiliations. The huge collections of Sunni and Shia hadiths have some extremely problematic Hadiths which defy Qur'an , logic , human rational and science. Pick up any book of Hadith , if you can read Arabic pick up Al-Kafi and start reading random hadiths , you shall find out that most of the Hadiths are bizarre and what we hear from the pulpits are either selective Hadiths or the watered down translations of Hadiths. I don't think so that most of the Muslim youth 50 years from now shall take Hadiths seriously , given the fact that most of the Hadith resources are available online.

There are various types of "Hadith rejectors". Some are pure pure naturalists or Deists and other are a bit moderate in their approach. I myself place myself in the later category. I think we can take Hadiths as historical references and unless the Tawatur of a Hadith is not proven , we should not extract theology from it. Thats the common sense approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

I think we can take Hadiths as historical references and unless the Tawatur of a Hadith is not proven , we should not extract theology from it. Thats the common sense approach.

Bingo. Absolutely agree on that methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Reza said:

Is this a word you made up? I've never heard this anywhere before.

Im not sure if it has been used before but I use hadithist to describe a person that gives hadith superiority over Qur'an, whether implicitly or explicitly.

It can present in two different methods:

1) Introduction of an entirely new concept , like khums as understood today and detracting Quranic Zakat by limiting it to livestock, metals etc. 

Or

2) Taking a contradictory position to the Qur'an 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fink said:

Im not sure if it has been used before but I use hadithist to describe a person that gives hadith superiority over Qur'an, whether implicitly or explicitly.

It can present in two different methods:

1) Introduction of an entirely new concept , like khums as understood today and detracting Quranic Zakat by limiting it to livestock, metals etc. 

Or

2) Taking a contradictory position to the Qur'an 

Nice term and very comprehensive reply. The above methods are exactly what bothers me.

Or ahaadith are used to give a meaning to a verse which is totally out of context or just to add something to Islam which is contradicting al-Qur'an.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fink said:

Im not sure if it has been used before but I use hadithist to describe a person that gives hadith superiority over Qur'an, whether implicitly or explicitly.

 It can present in two different methods:

1) Introduction of an entirely new concept , like khums as understood today and detracting Quranic Zakat by limiting it to livestock, metals etc. 

Or

2) Taking a contradictory position to the Qur'an 

I think most scholars and rational people understand Qur'an and hadith are studied synonymously in their proper place and context, and not creating artificial barriers. 

The "Calamity of Thursday", in my limited understanding, is a telling story of dangers of the "Qur'an is enough for us" mentality. 

Otherwise, Quranism has been dubunked extensively on this site, and I encourage others to read those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leibniz said:

One way or the other , we all are "Hadith rejectors" of some sort. The Shias would reject most of the Sunni Hadiths and the Sunnis would reject the Shias Hadith. Then with in Shias and Sunnis , people would reject Hadiths based on their own subsectarian affiliations. The huge collections of Sunni and Shia hadiths have some extremely problematic Hadiths which defy Qur'an , logic , human rational and science. Pick up any book of Hadith , if you can read Arabic pick up Al-Kafi and start reading random hadiths , you shall find out that most of the Hadiths are bizarre and what we hear from the pulpits are either selective Hadiths or the watered down translations of Hadiths. I don't think so that most of the Muslim youth 50 years from now shall take Hadiths seriously , given the fact that most of the Hadith resources are available online.

There are various types of "Hadith rejectors". Some are pure pure naturalists or Deists and other are a bit moderate in their approach. I myself place myself in the later category. I think we can take Hadiths as historical references and unless the Tawatur of a Hadith is not proven , we should not extract theology from it. Thats the common sense approach.

I agree with everything! 

Hadith a treasure troves of HISTORICAL information so I don’t reject them at all

I only disagree with one point 

Muslims even 500 yrs from now will be debating the same things , unless we have political reform in our countries 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Reza said:

I think most scholars and rational people understand Qur'an and hadith are studied synonymously in their proper place and context, and not creating artificial barriers. 

The "Calamity of Thursday", in my limited understanding, is a telling story of dangers of the "Qur'an is enough for us" mentality. 

Otherwise, Quranism has been dubunked extensively on this site, and I encourage others to read those.

Don't get me wrong,  I see nothing wrong with reading hadith, history , sunnah, biographical info etc etc but I think historically we have a real problem of super imposing inherently faulty material on the Qur'an. Then it's articulated as doctrine.

It's a serious problem. I don't deny some hadiths are closer to the truth than others, but I do read into them with a Quranic perspective. 

We also can't ignore the devastation that hadith has caused in our Ummah, from division between sects to extremism and quoting of things like "I have been ordered to fight people until they witness la illaha ill Allah..." etc 

Salam

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fink said:

Introduction of an entirely new concept , like khums as understood today and detracting Quranic Zakat by limiting it to livestock, metals etc. 

This.

This point by itself is what articulates doctrines through money, and not hadiths actually. And this is a double edged sword (as history have always proven). Clergy and Shia institutions become structures dependant on it. When it becomes a structure based on power (be it political or economical), it becomes less interested in being a structure based on wisdom.

This is, however, a relatively recent/modern phenomenom in Shia history.

Our Imams and political/economical power have never seen each other.

My point is that money and power have caused division mostly, in the bad sense. Division by itself isn't bad, we don't have to agree in everything.

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qur'an ists seem to be a product of people fustrated with sectarianism. Groups picking and choosing hadith to match there narrative. If all the groups applied each others standards on all hadith we would be left with a few hadith which are very strong. And I'm guessing we would have a much more streamed lined God centric Islam rather then "Imam" "sahba" based Islam.

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fink said:

yet the Imams never clarified to Shias which reading is correct. If it was clarified then it indicates how weak the hadithists position is because today no Shia conclusively knows the right reading. 

they said that examine every hadith by Qur'an if it was against Qur'an throw it to wall & reject it 

 

13 hours ago, Fink said:

Sunni Imams were taught by Imam Jaafer Alsadiq, yet they never got the idea he was appointed by God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

We don't even know how many children the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had. 

Sunni Imams knew their position but rejected his position because of the hypocrisy in their hearts also name of all of children of  Prophet (pbu) clearly mentioned in both Sunni & Shia books because it was important to show he didn't a boy that inherits his legacy also marrying with his daughters was an important matter for people because by marrying with his daughters people would gain high respect that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) received highst glory by marrying with lady Fatima althought all great Sahabas like as first caliph were eager to marry with her.

 

12 hours ago, Leibniz said:

I don't think so that most of the Muslim youth 50 years from now shall take Hadiths seriously , given the fact that most of the Hadith resources are available online.

currently more Muslims are relying on hadith even Christians specially anti Muslims are using hadith sources more than before but source of their attack to Prophet (pbu) & Islam is Sunni hadiths not Shia ones 

 

11 hours ago, Faruk said:

Nice term and very comprehensive reply. The above methods are exactly what bothers me.

Or ahaadith are used to give a meaning to a verse which is totally out of context or just to add something to Islam which is contradicting al-Qur'an.

 

we reject all hadiths that contradicts with Qur'an  even it comes from a strong flawless chain of narrators

 

7 hours ago, Warilla said:

Qur'an ists seem to be a product of people fustrated with sectarianism. Groups picking and choosing hadith to match there narrative. If all the groups applied each others standards on all hadith we would be left with a few hadith which are very strong. And I'm guessing we would have a much more streamed lined God centric Islam rather then "Imam" "sahba" based Islam.

if we reject Imams & righteous Sahaba it leads to become like as Khawarij that rejected everything & just sticked to Qur'an that they said " La hukm illa Allah" (there is norulling except word of Allah) that Imam Ali  (عليه السلام) said  to yhem there must be someone that applies word of Allah but you reject it  , that new version of Khawarij of our time are Quranists

Khawarij of Today | Sayyid Asad Jafri

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJWOJWLZhhY&feature=share

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

we reject all hadiths that contradicts with Qur'an

This is just a political slogan. Lets start with the basics. The punishment for a married person committing adultery in Stoning to death in both Shia and Sunni Islam. The Qur'an explicitly states that the punishment for adultery is hundred lashes but Hadiths state that the punishment for a married one is Stoning to death. Surah Noor Verse #2 

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مّـِنْهُمَا مِاْئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلاَ تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الاَخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“The fornicatress and the fornicator, scourge you each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for them withhold you from enforcing the sentence of Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”

 

There are numerous Hadiths in Shia literature but here is one from Al-Kafi 

قال أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام): الرجم في القرآن قول الله عزوجل: إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة

Dyou reject this Hadith and the punishment of stoning for adultery as it is clearly in contradiction with Qur'an?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six persons, accused of adultery, were produced before the then caliph, Umar bin Khattab. At once he sentenced them to flogging, each of them with a hundred stripes. When Ali pointed out to him that his judgement was in contravention of the divine law, Umar requested him to give his own judgement.

Ali said:

Execute the first.

Stone to death the second.

Punish the third with a hundred stripes.

Punish the fourth with fifty stripes. Warn the fifth and set him free.

Set the sixth free without any penalty.

All wondered as to why Ali gave a different verdict for each of the 6 persons tried for the same crime.

Ali explained:

The first is a dhimmi, a disbeliever under the protection of the Muslim state, who committed the crime of adultery with a believing woman, and having violated the law of Islam has ceased to be a dhimmi, therefore he must be executed.

The second is a married man whose punishment is stoning to death.

The third is to be flogged with a hundred stripes because he is a bachelor.

The fourth is a slave, so fifty stripes is his punishment .

The fifth has only been warned because he was caught in the crime inadvertently.

The sixth is insane, so the law cannot be applied on him.

Then Umar said:

"Had there not been Ali, Umar would have perished."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leibniz said:

This is just a political slogan. Lets start with the basics. The punishment for a married person committing adultery in Stoning to death in both Shia and Sunni Islam. The Qur'an explicitly states that the punishment for adultery is hundred lashes but Hadiths state that the punishment for a married one is Stoning to death. Surah Noor Verse #2 

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مّـِنْهُمَا مِاْئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلاَ تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الاَخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“The fornicatress and the fornicator, scourge you each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for them withhold you from enforcing the sentence of Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”

 

There are numerous Hadiths in Shia literature but here is one from Al-Kafi 

قال أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام): الرجم في القرآن قول الله عزوجل: إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة

Dyou reject this Hadith and the punishment of stoning for adultery as it is clearly in contradiction with Qur'an?

you don't read it carefully Qur'an talks about general ruling for everyone that does adultery not just married ones but Shia hadith talks about committing adultery after marriage الشيخ والشيخة because it's just for lust but you mistaken all because it looks like same as each other but punishment of stoning only applicable by infallible Imam for that Imam Mahdi (aj) orderd us to refer to narrators of hadiths that needs many years of education that a random guy that reads hadith book doesnt punish people on his wrong understanding  of texts.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Sunni Imams knew their position but rejected his position because of the hypocrisy in their hearts .

The four Sunni Imam are respected in zaidi circles each to varying degrees. As we also are a madhab of Ahlul Bayt I disagree that they are hypocrites. The narrative of absolute split/ black and white. Either you agree with us or are a hypocrite is a 12er narrative.

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Warilla said:

The four Sunni Imam are respected in zaidi circles each to varying degrees. As we also are a madhab of Ahlul Bayt I disagree that they are hypocrites. The narrative of absolute split/ black and white. Either you agree with us or are a hypocrite is a 12er narrative.

I prefer to be a hypocrite than being with you , I think you @Fink & @Leibniz  are one person that trolls here because you always  post continuously in support of each other

 although they respected by Shias but all four of them rejected each other at last & in reality non of 4 schools don't accept each other that they know abuhanifa like a satan that it said about it in Sunni books & he as greatest of all of them doesn't has nothing in front of Shia Imams like as Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) only reason that zaidis respect him is because of his support in uprising of Zayd (رضي الله عنه) that he somehow betrayed him at last faced light punishment from Abbasid caliph.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadith rejectors are those who name themselves as Quranist. They consider The book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is sufficient alone and they deny the sayings of chosen representatives of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) including Prophet saww (and for Shia it includes Imams). 

Shia follow the principle that every hadith should be verified in the light of Qur'an.

Those who do not fall in above definition are not considered as hadith rejectors as mentioned here in this thread.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

Shia follow the principle that every hadith should be verified in the light of Qur'an.

I think we can all agree to this, but unfortunately this is subjective in itself. I am not sure anyone is saying we should dismiss all hadith. The problem comes in picking and choosing hadith to strengthen one's narrative. In a perfect world, it would be ideal to only take hadith that pass the authentication methodologies of all sects. This would leave you with the strongest of the strongest hadiths. This would dismiss all of the crazy 12er hadith that supports wilayah-al-takweeni and the crazy Sunni hadith that support adalah-al-sahaba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I prefer to be a hypocrite than being with you , I think you @Fink & @Leibniz  are one person that trolls here because you always  post continuously in support of each other

I didn't expect that from you. I have always found your post well though out. And I have agreed with you on some points. If Fink and Leibniz agree with me they also have disagreed with me.

If the reaction was due to you feeling I offended you. Then I sincerely apologise.

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I think we can all agree to this, but unfortunately this is subjective in itself. I am not sure anyone is saying we should dismiss all hadith. The problem comes in picking and choosing hadith to strengthen one's narrative. In a perfect world, it would be ideal to only take hadith that pass the authentication methodologies of all sects. This would leave you with the strongest of the strongest hadiths. This would dismiss all of the crazy 12er hadith that supports wilayah-al-takweeni and the crazy Sunni hadith that support adalah-al-sahaba.

The root of Wilayat e takweeni lies in the Qur'an. 

Adalah al sahaba is not justified in the light of verses of Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

The root of Wilayat e takweeni lies in the Qur'an.

I firmly disagree. There is no verse that supports Allah has given the control of every atom to the Imams. You may have hadith that support it, but don’t attribute lies on the Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...