• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Non-Muslims in love with ahadith - in bed with the enemy.

firedragon

Veteran Member
This question is never properly analysed, thus it comes up again.

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical. Well, mostly some hadith that would be a seemingly super tool to make a shock-effect of course. Nevertheless, when asked "why do you think this is historical", they come up with various reasons.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

And of course, so on.

You get the gist.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
As you know, within the Muslim world, opinions about the validity and importance of the Hadith vary greatly.

When I'm discussing Islam, I like to know how the person I'm talking to regards the Hadith :)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
As you know, within the Muslim world, opinions about the validity and importance of the Hadith vary greatly.

When I'm discussing Islam, I like to know how the person I'm talking to regards the Hadith :)

This is about non-muslims as you see.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
This question is never properly analysed, thus it comes up again.

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical. Well, mostly some hadith that would be a seemingly super tool to make a shock-effect of course. Nevertheless, when asked "why do you think this is historical", they come up with various reasons.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

And of course, so on.

You get the gist.
What do you define as "historical"?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
So you accept everything a Muslim regards the ahadith as? He says one is historical, you believe it?

That's not what I said.

As a non-Muslim, when I'm discussing Islam, I like to know how the person I'm talking to (usually a Muslim), thinks about Islam. One Muslim's opinion about the Hadith is different than the next Muslim's opinion. So before I assume anything, I like to find out that particular Muslim's beliefs.

That way, I won't strawman them. :)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
That's not what I said.

As a non-Muslim, when I'm discussing Islam, I like to know how the person I'm talking to (usually a Muslim), thinks about Islam. One Muslim's opinion about the Hadith is different than the next Muslim's opinion. So before I assume anything, I like to find out that particular Muslim's beliefs.

That way, I won't strawman them. :)

That doesnt answer the OP, or the question I asked. Thanks anyway for the response.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
As you know, within the Muslim world, opinions about the validity and importance of the Hadith vary greatly.

When I'm discussing Islam, I like to know how the person I'm talking to regards the Hadith :)
Seems good and respectful to me

This is about non-muslims as you see.
You phrased that in a nice and (maybe coincidentally) correct way.
Indeed how @icehorse phrased his above quote, he does not say it's about Muslims per se
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
To be explicit, what do you define as historical proof? What is necessary for you to accept something as historically accurate?

Please open a new thread as to what I would take as historically accurate and maybe it will be an interesting discussion as well.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So what do you have to say about the OP? Do you also use one of those criteria?
I never quote from the Hadith. God provided sufficient verses in the Koran for me, so:

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
1. I am fine if others believe the Hadith to be true (No, I don't take everything Muslims believe as true (for me) )
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
2. Even if something is the most authentic, this does not necessarily mean it is true (so, No again)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
3. Authentic or correct is a big word (No, but I have trust issues, I don't easily trust stuff like this ***)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)
4. I neither reject Hadith nor accept Hadith, for me it's a "don't care" (I definitely don't base my faith on what my opponent does or does not do)

***): Even IF God tells me personally something, I only accept if it feels good for me
***): Feels "good" does not mean here, sense gratification; so, it must align with my common sense, discrimination (Buddhi), conscience...

FMI:
Ḥadīth or Athar in Islam refers to what the majority of Muslims believe to be a record of the words, actions, and the silent approval of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

FMI:
* The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.
* Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is the common name for Bukhārī's The Authentic, Abridged, Chain-Supported Collection Regarding Matters Pertaining to the Messenger of Allah, His Traditions, and His Times or more briefly The Authentic Collection
@stvdvRF
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
This question is never properly analysed, thus it comes up again.

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical. Well, mostly some hadith that would be a seemingly super tool to make a shock-effect of course. Nevertheless, when asked "why do you think this is historical", they come up with various reasons.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

And of course, so on.

You get the gist.
Islam is judged by its sources, which are Quran and Hadithes.

Regardless, if these Hadithes are historically true or false, it is correct to judge Muslims beliefs by these Hadithes, because the Muslims believe in such Hadithes.
If a Muslim, is a Quran only Muslim, he can be judged by his beliefs in Quran. However, note that, Quran is interpreted in different ways. So, how a Quranist belief is judged still depends on his interpretation of Quran.

But then, the problem is, how would a Quranist know those hadithes are false, and why should a Quranist follow his personal interpretation rather than interpretation which comes from recorded traditions?

Beside this, it may seem to a non-muslim, that, some Muslims deliberately deny some hadithes they don't like, and accept hadithes they like. Meaning whenever a hadith is in their own favour, they accept. Whenever it is not in their favour, they reject.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
This question is never properly analysed, thus it comes up again.

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical. Well, mostly some hadith that would be a seemingly super tool to make a shock-effect of course. Nevertheless, when asked "why do you think this is historical", they come up with various reasons.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

And of course, so on.

You get the gist.

Well, I am not that kind of non-Muslim, so this is irrelevant, so you can just ignore it and only engage with the non-Muslims, that you want to engage with.
We have been here before. There are non-Muslims, who shouldn't engage with Islam in the way they do. I agree, but they are not all non-Muslims.
How do you want to engage with the other groups, than those that you do engage with?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is about non-muslims as you see.

The problem is that non-Muslims are not knowledgable concerning the relationship of the of the 'a hadith' and Islam. I personally do not know many non-Muslims that quote, nor in love with, the 'a hadith.'

I am not a Muslim, and respect the scriptures of ancient religions whether I believe in them or the interpretation of many, or not.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
This question is never properly analysed, thus it comes up again.

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical. Well, mostly some hadith that would be a seemingly super tool to make a shock-effect of course. Nevertheless, when asked "why do you think this is historical", they come up with various reasons.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

And of course, so on.

You get the gist.
This sounds like an Aunt Sally to me.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical.

Since you declined to state in this thread what you took as historical, I'll use this Historical Methodology: Evidence and Interpretation - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
Historical evidence can take a variety of forms. Among the most important types of historical evidence are primary sources. Primary sources consist of original documents, artifacts, or other pieces of information that were created at the time under study. So, if we are studying World War II, primary sources would include everything from letters written by soldiers to girlfriends and wives back home to government documents to photographs to physical uniforms and equipment.

Primary sources can be wide-ranging. Battlefield film footage is a primary source because it was filmed right then and there, at that moment in history. Primary sources are usually more valued than secondary sources. Secondary sources contain useful information, but typically involve an analysis of primary source material. Books and magazines are common examples of secondary sources.

Another important type of historical evidence is oral tradition. Oral tradition consists of stories that are not written down but passed on verbally, usually from an eyewitness to succeeding generations. Oral tradition, or oral history as it is also called, is sometimes considered a primary source, although there is debate as to where it theoretically fits as a source. In a lot of ways, it is in a class of its own. Oral tradition is especially important to historians studying various ethnic groups whose history may not be well-documented in writing.

Various forms of historical evidence allow historians and other experts to gain insight into the past and propose theories. That doesn't, however, always mean their theories are necessarily correct, as we shall see.

Ahadith by this frame-of-reference fits in the category of oral tradition. So using the common definition of 'assuredly", they are not such because they can't be classified as being primary or secondary sources.

It is fair to me to classify them as either strong or weak depending on the number of sources and the reliability of those sources.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
This question is never properly analysed, thus it comes up again.

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical. Well, mostly some hadith that would be a seemingly super tool to make a shock-effect of course. Nevertheless, when asked "why do you think this is historical", they come up with various reasons.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?)
2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)
3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)
4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

And of course, so on.

You get the gist.

1. Muslims believe they are true. (Thus do you take everything Muslims believe as true?).

No I don't. Especially since I have come across muslims with conflicting views on the hadith.

2. Its in Bukhari, the most authentic hadith book (Thus do you take every hadith in Bukhari as authentic?)

No I don't, but I know muslims who do, therefore I might refer to it. It depends on their belief.

3. It is considered Sahih. (Thus, do you take every Sahih hadith as historical?)

No I don't, but apparently according to muslim scholarship Sahih hadith are authentic historically (or so certain muslims tell me) but I don't take it as 100% historically accurate for various reasons. I consider it consisting of truth and rumours but I don't know how to distinguish between the two.

4. Do you reject hadith? (Is "do you reject hadith" an answer for the question asked? Do you rely on what your opponent does to base your faith?)

Don't you mean "do you reject hadith?" as a question in response to an answer? When it comes to the history of Islam, I care more about what the scholarship says than what the faith says, which is the same as with other religion. The only reason I know to have such a strict adherents to the Hadith is from a Polemic standpoint.

 
Top