Do non-Muslims believe Ahadith blindly, more than Muslims?

[firedragon]

Muslims believe ahadith blindly too. Not all, but some. Sometimes they cherrypick what suits them and believe them blindly. Lets say someone wants to propagate a particular doctrine or a position of course some would cherry pick some ahadith and propagate it like blind faith. Yet Muslim scholars always had problems with ahadith. They never ever followed all the ahadith blindly nor did they ever have a doctrine where ahadith are all to be followed blindly. This is right from the beginning of what we could call modern day scholarship that in the Islamic theology began with the school of Medina, old jurisprudence in the times 8th century that being just 100 years after Muhammed the prophet.

The question still remains why non-muslims would sometimes cherry pick some ahadith and dogmatically believe them to be absolutely true historical records, undisputed, and they quote them as such.

Sometimes a non-muslim would quote a particular Hadith from somewhere most probably in order to demonise Islam or make some claim for fallacy of the theology, and when asked "why do you believe this to be true" the answer is "because Muslims told me".

I understand arguing a theology from their own sources which is a valid argument but when it comes to historicity anyone with a brain must question it and analyse rather than saying "I believe it to be historical fact because Muslims told me so".

The dogmatic quotations of some ahadith is so bad that they would neglect a thousand ahadith in the same book but believe another few are historic. I think its a very dogmatic, blind position. Is it intentional ignorance in order to make their case against a theology that they accept some stories as absolutely true historical fact with no arguments accepted or is it that they have heard it repeatedly a million times so its instilled in their minds as historic fact?

 

[Harel13]

The average non-Muslim, such as myself, doesn't know all that much about the rules of reliability of the ahadiths. As such, if it fits my argument, I'll use it. Much in the same way as non-Jews misconstrue Jewish sources to their own ends.

Yes, it's out of ignorance. It's also about cultural/religious differences. Non-Jews could come at me with Apocryphal sources as proof and say: It was written by ancient Jews, so there!
And I'll just shake my head because not everything written by ancient Jews is considered valid (unlike in some versions of the Christian Bible, which are chock-full of Apocryphal writings).

 

[Samael_Khan]

Muslims believe ahadith blindly too. Not all, but some. Sometimes they cherrypick what suits them and believe them blindly. Lets say someone wants to propagate a particular doctrine or a position of course some would cherry pick some ahadith and propagate it like blind faith. Yet Muslim scholars always had problems with ahadith. They never ever followed all the ahadith blindly nor did they ever have a doctrine where ahadith are all to be followed blindly. This is right from the beginning of what we could call modern day scholarship that in the Islamic theology began with the school of Medina, old jurisprudence in the times 8th century that being just 100 years after Muhammed the prophet.

The question still remains why non-muslims would sometimes cherry pick some ahadith and dogmatically believe them to be absolutely true historical records, undisputed, and they quote them as such.

Sometimes a non-muslim would quote a particular Hadith from somewhere most probably in order to demonise Islam or make some claim for fallacy of the theology, and when asked "why do you believe this to be true" the answer is "because Muslims told me".

I understand arguing a theology from their own sources which is a valid argument but when it comes to historicity anyone with a brain must question it and analyse rather than saying "I believe it to be historical fact because Muslims told me so".

The dogmatic quotations of some ahadith is so bad that they would neglect a thousand ahadith in the same book but believe another few are historic. I think its a very dogmatic, blind position. Is it intentional ignorance in order to make their case against a theology that they accept some stories as absolutely true historical fact with no arguments accepted or is it that they have heard it repeatedly a million times so its instilled in their minds as historic fact?

I think the problem is that they aren't in the religion so they are not sure how important hadith are to muslims. Also many muslims themselves aren't clued up on the scholarly aspects of Islam so they also give a bad impression. I think that even though we know many muslims, their religion still comes across as alien as it is very difficult to get into. I think the more muslims will come to know their religion, their texts and explain them properly to others without contradicting each other, then the more outsiders will use the hadith properly.

I think this whole use of the hadith to refute Islam is a reaction to people like Ahmed Deedat trying to refute Christianity by referring to the Bible and cherry picking verses to suit their argument. Its like a tit-for-tat. When I was a Christian I met muslims and got into this whole Christianity vs Islam thing. It seems to me like it is just two sides misrepresenting the others religion and trying to oversimplify complex ideas so that they can convert the other.

In my experience this mostly happens between Sunni muslims and Christians and not betwene Shia and Christians. This might be due to the aggressiveness of certain Sunni muslims.

 

[firedragon]

The average non-Muslim, such as myself, doesn't know all that much about the rules of reliability of the ahadiths. As such, if it fits my argument, I'll use it. Much in the same way as non-Jews misconstrue Jewish sources to their own ends.

Yes, it's out of ignorance. It's also about cultural/religious differences. Non-Jews could come at me with Apocryphal sources as proof and say: It was written by ancient Jews, so there!
And I'll just shake my head because not everything written by ancient Jews is considered valid (unlike in some versions of the Christian Bible, which are chock-full of Apocryphal writings).

Lets say you quote me a Hadith as historical fact, and I show that there could be problems with that story, would you begin to even ponder over it or would you still dogmatically hold on to your belief in this Hadith?

You see the question?

 

[firedragon]

I think the problem is that they aren't in the religion so they are not sure how important hadith are to muslims. Also many muslims themselves aren't clued up on the scholarly aspects of Islam so they also give a bad impression. I think that even though we know many muslims, their religion still comes across as alien as it is very difficult to get into. I think the more muslims will come to know their religion, their texts and explain them properly to others without contradicting each other, then the more outsiders will use the hadith properly.

I think this whole use of the hadith to refute Islam is a reaction to people like Ahmed Deedat trying to refute Christianity by referring to the Bible and cherry picking verses to suit their argument. Its like a tit-for-tat. When I was a Christian I met muslims and got into this whole Christianity vs Islam thing. It seems to me like it is just two sides misrepresenting the others religion and trying to oversimplify complex ideas so that they can convert the other.

In my experience this mostly happens between Sunni muslims and Christians and not betwene Shia and Christians. This might be due to the aggressiveness of certain Sunni muslims.

You made the divide between encounters with Sunni and Shii vs Christians. 10% or so Shii's, 90% Sunni so you would know Sunni polemics more than Shii. So its an anecdotal matter.

By the way, are you comparing the Bible to the Hadith? Since Deedat used the Bible against the Christians they are using ahadith against Muslims? Do you know that the Hanbali school teaches memory of 1,000,000 ahadith? And the Sunni school teaches thabanni warafadha or accept and reject ahadith? Christians dont teach "accept and reject bible".

I think that's the wrong analogy. And I know Christians do this but its below the standard of equity in argument. Not all Christians do this but only the uneducated evangelists. Sorry to say that but its true. If you listen to some valid and learned Christian apologists they actually dont stoop so low because Christian scholars (not evangelists) have a great system of education.

Poles apart mate.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@firedragon , it cannot be discounted that ahadiths were written by devout Muslims. And as you said some writers did mention their doubts about the authenticity of some stories. You may refute what does not suit you or others may quote what suits them. Basically I do not believe in any scripture of Abrahamic religions or even Hinduism (the Puranas). Most of what they contain is human imagination. They are edited or victors versions of what may have happened.

Again, the Napkin analogy. "Napkin religion is the only true religion because it says so right here on this napkin". (Napkin religion image on your search engine)

 

[Samael_Khan]

You made the divide between encounters with Sunni and Shii vs Christians. 10% or so Shii's, 90% Sunni so you would know Sunni polemics more than Shii. So its an anecdotal matter.

Very true.

By the way, are you comparing the Bible to the Hadith? Since Deedat used the Bible against the Christians they are using ahadith against Muslims? Do you know that the Hanbali school teaches memory of 1,000,000 ahadith? And the Sunni school teaches thabanni warafadha or accept and reject ahadith? Christians dont teach "accept and reject bible".

Well the problem here is that how does one sort out the context of the Quran. The Bible and its context is self contained, so one only has to refer to the Bible. With the Quran, the books says stuff, but then muslims refer to the hadith to interpret context and understanding. Even that is an oversimplification. If muslims refer to the hadith then Christians should as well.

I think that's the wrong analogy. And I know Christians do this but its below the standard of equity in argument. Not all Christians do this but only the uneducated evangelists. Sorry to say that but its true. If you listen to some valid and learned Christian apologists they actually dont stoop so low because Christian scholars (not evangelists) have a great system of education.

Poles apart mate.

That is very true. I only know one Christian apologist who actually genuinely tries to understand Islam properly. And he is an actual scholar. The others are not scholars but evangelists.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon , it cannot be discounted that ahadiths were written by devout Muslims. And as you said some writers did mention their doubts about the authenticity of the stories. You may refute what does not suit you or others may quote what suits them. Basically I do not believe in any scripture of Abrahamic religions or even Hinduism (the Puranas). Most of what they contain is human imagination. They are edited or victors versions of what may have happened.

I think the OP addresses people who make the exact claim you are making. Please dont make statements you dont understand.

Mate, before you make comments like why and what is done with Hadith study the subject of Usul rather than making false statements. You are more respectable than that I presume. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Well the problem here is that how does one sort out the context of the Quran. The Bible and its context is self contained, so one only has to refer to the Bible. With the Quran, the books says stuff, but then muslims refer to the hadith to interpret context and understanding. Even that is an oversimplification. If muslims refer to the hadith then Christians should as well.

Which context do you mean? Context of sociology or text? Textual context in Islamic scholarship is called "Quran bi Quran" so what you said is absolutely wrong.

So you are saying the same thing. Because Muslims said so is your argument right?

That is very true. I only know one Christian apologist who actually genuinely tries to understand Islam properly. And he is an actual scholar. The others are not scholars but evangelists.

Actually brother there are many many Christian scholars like that. They do not engage in demonising anyone or mocking anyone and they are good educated people. Many. This is a reason for me to respect Christian scholars and embark on that path.

I am not gonna mention names because as usual all of this will derail every single thread because most people just wish to go on a tantrum catching something irrelevant.

 

[Harel13]

Lets say you quote me a Hadith as historical fact, and I show that there could be problems with that story, would you begin to even ponder over it or would you still dogmatically hold on to your belief in this Hadith?

You see the question?

I personally would probably let go of my beliefs about the hadith (although if I had valid reasons to believe that your discrediting of the hadith was in itself out of a certain dogma, I might stick with it).

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would ask why would anyone choose any particular variation of belief, or interpretation of any particular text, or the validity of any particular text, etc., over any other - and which would apply to so many religious beliefs. All this seems to do is to create confusion, muddy or dilute any original messages, possibly create conflict between opposing beliefs in such, and all the rest that seems to follow. But it can be explained - because there often just isn't the evidence there for any particular thing to be definitively shown as being true. And unfortunately tends to be the way of religions - not so much based in fact but more based in belief or faith (in whatever has been written).

 

[firedragon]

I personally would probably let go of my beliefs about the hadith (although if I had valid reasons to believe that your discrediting of the hadith was in itself out of a certain dogma, I might stick with it).

You understood the OP wrong. Why do you say "your discrediting of Hadith"? can you explain?

 

[firedragon]

I would ask why would anyone choose any particular variation of belief, or interpretation of any particular text, or the validity of any particular text, etc., over any other - and which would apply to so many religious beliefs. All this seems to do is to create confusion, muddy or dilute any original messages, possibly create conflict between opposing beliefs in such, and all the rest that seems to follow. But it can be explained - because there often just isn't the evidence there for any particular thing to be definitively shown as being true. And unfortunately tends to be the way of religions - not so much based in fact but more based in belief or faith (in whatever has been written).

Okay. If you wish to be confused, stay confused, dont quote one story as if you are too sure of its historicity. Especially without analysis out of dogmatic need of wanting one story to be true.

Thats the whole point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Okay. If you wish to be confused, stay confused, dont quote one story as if you are too sure of its historicity. Especially without analysis out of dogmatic need of wanting one story to be true.

Thats the whole point.

Well I'm not the one saying any particular piece of text is any truer than any other. I can at least be honest. You, apparently, have chosen some particular version to have arrived at your beliefs.

 

[firedragon]

Well I'm not the one saying any particular piece of text is any truer than any other. I can at least be honest. You, apparently, have chosen some particular version to have arrived at your beliefs.

Which version?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which version?

You have some religious belief?

 

[firedragon]

You have some religious belief?

Now you made an accusation so maybe you are God who can read my thoughts through the internet.

So please tell me. Which version have I adopted and what have I dropped? Asking me now if I have a particular faith pathetic.

Mate. As an intellectual person have non-fallacious discussion. Address the topic of the thread.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Now you made an accusation so maybe you are God who can read my thoughts through the internet.

So please tell me. Which version have I adopted and what have I dropped? Asking me now if I have a particular faith pathetic.

Mate. As an intellectual person have non-fallacious discussion. Address the topic of the thread.

I'm merely pointing out - if you have any kind of religious belief - then you will have chosen to believe one particular set of information as opposed to some others. Which is common to all religions apparently - few escaping the splitting process - but few, if any, having anything definitive to back up such beliefs. It's all down to what you choose to believe.

 

[firedragon]

I'm merely pointing out - if you have any kind of religious belief - then you will have chosen to believe one particular set of information as opposed to some others. Which is common to all religions apparently - few escaping the splitting process - but few, if any, having anything definitive to back up such beliefs. It's all down to what you choose to believe.

Read the OP and try to be relevant.

Peace.

 

[Harel13]

You understood the OP wrong.

Ironic, considering the subject of the thread.
What did I not understand about the OP?

Why do you say "your discrediting of Hadith"? can you explain?

No real examples come to mind because I'm not too familiar with Islamic scripture, so I'll make something up:

Say I quote hadith x which says Muhammad liked the color purple. Then you come and say: impossible! Because hadith y is considered more reliable because of a, b, c reasons and in hadith y it says that Muhammad burned down all the purple tapestries he could find. Then I find out that reasons a, b, c as points of reliability for hadith y actually stem from a certain mentality that wishes to deny that Muhammad could ever love such a non-manly color. In which case, a, b, c would no longer be concrete evidence to disprove that Muhammad ever liked purple.