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

[Samael_Khan]

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.

This is very true in my experience.

 

[Augustus]

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.

One of the very "strongest" by this methodology is that Muhammad split the moon in half. This is mutawatir, the highest possible attestation deemed nearly impossible to be fabricated.

Given this, how strong can any of the others be to a non-Muslim?

 

[sun rise]

One of the very "strongest" by this methodology is that Muhammad split the moon in half. This is mutawatir, the highest possible attestation deemed nearly impossible to be fabricated.

Given this, how strong can any of the others be to a non-Muslim?

The text is there but the meaning? Splitting of the moon has various interpretations

The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali provides three different interpretations of the verse. He holds that perhaps all three are applicable to the verse: Moon once appeared cleft asunder at the time of Muhammad in order to convince the unbelievers. It will split again when the day of judgment approaches (here the prophetic past tense is taken to indicate the future). Yusuf Ali connects this incident with the disruption of the solar system mentioned in 75:8-9. Lastly, he says that the verses can be metaphorical, meaning that the matter has become clear as the moon.[13]
...
Western historians such as A .J. Wensinck and Denis Gril, reject the historicity of the miracle arguing that the Qur'an itself denies miracles, in their traditional sense, in connection with Muhammad.[8][16]

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Israel Khan said: " It (Bukhari) is considered Sahih"

There are two parts of the Hadith in Bukhari (or any other collection of Hadith):

1. One is its (Sanad) or chain of narrators reaching Muhammad. Bukhari is termed as Sahih or authentic because of the narrators being the trustworthy persons (as per Asma-ur-Rajal or names and character of the narrators described in the chain).
2. The other part of a Hadith is the "matan" or its text or wording or the saying of Muhammad. Bukhari never said that the narrators had always conveyed the exact words of Muhammad.
3. Discussion about the correct meaning or interpretation of Hadith is termed as "darayat" or its understanding .
4. If a Hadith contradicts with Quran then either it is to be rejected forthwith or the Hadith is interpreted in such a way that the contradiction is resolved.

Right?
______________
[Quran 7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which HADITH, besides this (Quran) do they believe in?
[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.
[Quran 39:23] God has revealed herein the BEST HADITH; a book that is consistent and points out both ways (to heaven and hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for God's message. Such is God's guidance; he bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by God, nothing can guide them.
[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations (Quran) that we recite to you truthfully. In which HADITH other than God and His revelations do they believe?
[Quran 52:34] Let them produce a HADITH like this (Quran) if they are truthful.
[Quran 68:44] Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this HADITH(Quran); we will lead them on whence they never perceive.
[Quran 77:50] Which HADITH other than this do they uphold?
Hadith and the Corruption of the great religion of Islam | Submission.org - Your best source for Submission (Islam)
A hadith has two independent portions. The first is called its chain (sanad/سند ) of the narrators via whom the text has reached the muhaddith who has collected it and recorded in his book called a collection of Ahadith. The second portion is called the text (matn/متن).Jan. 26, 2016
Ibtidā' Al-Sanad/اِبْتِدَاء اَلْسَنَد [Beginning of the Chain of ...
The author collected in this book the names and biographies of all, or most, of the hadith narrators mentioned in the six canonical hadith collections. These six books are Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and the four Sunan books by Al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah. The biographies relate to the standing of each narrator relating to his narrating ability which is referred to in Arabic as `Ilm al-Rijāl.
Al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal - Wikipedia
The process of collection and validation is explained in detail in "A Textbook of Hadith Studies: Authenticity, Compilation, Classification and Criticism of Hadith" by Mohammad Hashim Kamali. Most of the validation effort concentrated on the “chain of transmission” which records how the oral information was passed down from person to person before it reached the hadith collector.
There was much less emphasis on assessing the actual text of the hadith to consider whether it was likely to be something that the Prophet (pbuh) might have said. This is discussed in "Authentication of Hadith – Redefining the Criteria" by Israr Ahmad Khan.
One unfortunate side-effect of the collection and validation effort of scholars such as Bukhari is that some Muslims think that all the hard work of validation has been done by these historic hadith collectors. The attitude is that if a hadith is in a collection such as Bukhari or Muslim, then automatically it must be a “sahih hadith” i.e. a “sound or authentic hadith.” Indeed the collections of Bukhari and Muslim are referred to as "sahih collections".

The Muslims who hold such a naive belief are not the ones who have been trained in hadith studies.

Properly trained hadith scholars (such as the authors of the books mentioned above) are well aware that the hadith in collections such as Bukhari vary from highly reliable to relatively unreliable. Instead it is Muslims who have been brought up to believe that they must accept what they are told without critical thinking who are prone to believe that if a hadith is in Bukhari, it must be accurate and true.
How reliable are Hadith? Some are contradictory.
'A number of the Companions have permitted the conveyance of Prophetic hadiths in their meanings rather than their wordings. Among them: 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abu al-Darda., Wathila ibn al-Asqa', and Abu Hurayra ( may Allah be wellpleased with them! ) Also, a greater number of the Successors, among them: the Imam of imams al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Sha'bi, 'Amr ibn Dinar, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, Mujahid, and 'Ikrima.
Ibn Sirin said: 'I would hear a hadith from ten different people, the meaning remaining one but the wordings differing.' Similarly, the Companions' wordings in their narrations from the Prophet ﷺ have differed one from another. Some of them, for example, will narrate a complete version; others will narrate the gist of the meaning; others will narrate an abridged version; others yet replace certain words with their synonyms, deeming that they have considerable leeway as long as they do not contradict the original meaning. None of them intends a lie, and all of them aim for truthfulness and the report of what he has heard: that is why they had leeway. They used to say: 'Mendacity is only when one deliberately intends to lie.'
'There is a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ relevant to the issue narrated by Ibn Mandah in Ma'rifa al-Sahaba and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir from 'Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn Aktham al-Laythi [= 'Abd Allah ibn Sulaym ibn Ukayma] who said: 'I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Verily, when I hear a hadith from you I am unable to narrate it again just as I heard it from you..' That is, he adds or omits something. The Prophetﷺ replied: 'As long as you do not make licit the illicit or make illicit the licit, and as long as you adduce the meaning, there is no harm in that.' When this was mentioned to al-Hasan he said: 'Were it not for this, we would never narrate anything.'
Imam Al-Ghazalî
The word "dirayat", taken to mean a comprehension of hadiths, has been used in contrast with "riwayat", which means the mere narration of a hadith. Such hadiths emphasize the necessity of understanding hadiths, the superiority of understanding hadiths over merely narrating them, and the low number of people who understand hadiths as opposed to those who just narrate them.
Dirayat al-hadith

 

[Samael_Khan]

Israel Khan said: " It (Bukhari) is considered Sahih"

There are two parts of the Hadith in Bukhari (or any other collection of Hadith):

1. One is its (Sanad) or chain of narrators reaching Muhammad. Bukhari is termed as Sahih or authentic because of the narrators being the trustworthy persons (as per Asma-ur-Rajal or names and character of the narrators described in the chain).
2. The other part of a Hadith is the "matan" or its text or wording or the saying of Muhammad. Bukhari never said that the narrators had always conveyed the exact words of Muhammad.
3. Discussion about the correct meaning or interpretation of Hadith is termed as "darayat" or its understanding .
4. If a Hadith contradicts with Quran then either it is to be rejected forthwith or interpreted in such a way that the contradiction is resolved.

Right?
______________
[Quran 7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which HADITH, besides this (Quran) do they believe in?
[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.
[Quran 39:23] God has revealed herein the BEST HADITH; a book that is consistent and points out both ways (to heaven and hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for God's message. Such is God's guidance; he bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by God, nothing can guide them.
[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations (Quran) that we recite to you truthfully. In which HADITH other than God and His revelations do they believe?
[Quran 52:34] Let them produce a HADITH like this (Quran) if they are truthful.
[Quran 68:44] Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this HADITH(Quran); we will lead them on whence they never perceive.
[Quran 77:50] Which HADITH other than this do they uphold?
Hadith and the Corruption of the great religion of Islam | Submission.org - Your best source for Submission (Islam)
A hadith has two independent portions. The first is called its chain (sanad/سند ) of the narrators via whom the text has reached the muhaddith who has collected it and recorded in his book called a collection of Ahadith. The second portion is called the text (matn/متن).Jan. 26, 2016
Ibtidā' Al-Sanad/اِبْتِدَاء اَلْسَنَد [Beginning of the Chain of ...
The author collected in this book the names and biographies of all, or most, of the hadith narrators mentioned in the six canonical hadith collections. These six books are Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and the four Sunan books by Al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah. The biographies relate to the standing of each narrator relating to his narrating ability which is referred to in Arabic as `Ilm al-Rijāl.
Al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal - Wikipedia
The process of collection and validation is explained in detail in "A Textbook of Hadith Studies: Authenticity, Compilation, Classification and Criticism of Hadith" by Mohammad Hashim Kamali. Most of the validation effort concentrated on the “chain of transmission” which records how the oral information was passed down from person to person before it reached the hadith collector.
There was much less emphasis on assessing the actual text of the hadith to consider whether it was likely to be something that the Prophet (pbuh) might have said. This is discussed in "Authentication of Hadith – Redefining the Criteria" by Israr Ahmad Khan.
One unfortunate side-effect of the collection and validation effort of scholars such as Bukhari is that some Muslims think that all the hard work of validation has been done by these historic hadith collectors. The attitude is that if a hadith is in a collection such as Bukhari or Muslim, then automatically it must be a “sahih hadith” i.e. a “sound or authentic hadith.” Indeed the collections of Bukhari and Muslim are referred to as "sahih collections".

The Muslims who hold such a naive belief are not the ones who have been trained in hadith studies.

Properly trained hadith scholars (such as the authors of the books mentioned above) are well aware that the hadith in collections such as Bukhari vary from highly reliable to relatively unreliable. Instead it is Muslims who have been brought up to believe that they must accept what they are told without critical thinking who are prone to believe that if a hadith is in Bukhari, it must be accurate and true.
How reliable are Hadith? Some are contradictory.
'A number of the Companions have permitted the conveyance of Prophetic hadiths in their meanings rather than their wordings. Among them: 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abu al-Darda., Wathila ibn al-Asqa', and Abu Hurayra ( may Allah be wellpleased with them! ) Also, a greater number of the Successors, among them: the Imam of imams al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Sha'bi, 'Amr ibn Dinar, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, Mujahid, and 'Ikrima.
Ibn Sirin said: 'I would hear a hadith from ten different people, the meaning remaining one but the wordings differing.' Similarly, the Companions' wordings in their narrations from the Prophet ﷺ have differed one from another. Some of them, for example, will narrate a complete version; others will narrate the gist of the meaning; others will narrate an abridged version; others yet replace certain words with their synonyms, deeming that they have considerable leeway as long as they do not contradict the original meaning. None of them intends a lie, and all of them aim for truthfulness and the report of what he has heard: that is why they had leeway. They used to say: 'Mendacity is only when one deliberately intends to lie.'
'There is a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ relevant to the issue narrated by Ibn Mandah in Ma'rifa al-Sahaba and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir from 'Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn Aktham al-Laythi [= 'Abd Allah ibn Sulaym ibn Ukayma] who said: 'I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Verily, when I hear a hadith from you I am unable to narrate it again just as I heard it from you..' That is, he adds or omits something. The Prophetﷺ replied: 'As long as you do not make licit the illicit or make illicit the licit, and as long as you adduce the meaning, there is no harm in that.' When this was mentioned to al-Hasan he said: 'Were it not for this, we would never narrate anything.'
Imam Al-Ghazalî
The word "dirayat", taken to mean a comprehension of hadiths, has been used in contrast with "riwayat", which means the mere narration of a hadith. Such hadiths emphasize the necessity of understanding hadiths, the superiority of understanding hadiths over merely narrating them, and the low number of people who understand hadiths as opposed to those who just narrate them.
Dirayat al-hadith

Thanks @paarsurrey. This is extremely helpful. It is the most detailed and to the point response that any muslim has given me on the matter of the Hadith. This makes a lot of sense.

 

[firedragon]

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.

I respect what you said.

But truly, there are many many non-muslims who quote ahadith as if they are absolutely historical.

 

[firedragon]

This sounds like an Aunt Sally to me.

Maybe "to you".

 

[firedragon]

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


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.

So you trust ahadith based on a similar methodology taken by Muslims? What you said is quite similar to eulm al hadith.

Please confirm if this is your methodology as well.

 

[firedragon]

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.

So you dont take them as historical or believe everything because "Muslims say" purely because Muslims are conflicted?

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.

This is not about you referring to it in a discussion. Thats perfectly fine. The OP is about a non-muslim quoting hadith as historical. Hope you understand.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe "to you".

Well yes, to me, obviously. But what's all this about being "in bed with the enemy"? Why does your post assume that non-muslims see Islam as some sort of enemy? Also, why does the post assume that non-muslims express an opinion on the historical authenticity of hadiths when they quote them?

I can only presume your post is a criticism of those non-muslims who try to attack Islam by quoting selected hadiths that they think portray Islam in a negative light. If so, it doesn't matter to them how strong or authentic a hadith is, only that it is a hadith, i.e. part of the body of muslim thought.

I further presume that what you want to get at is that hadith are not muslim scripture in the way the Christian bible is, and that they vary in how seriously they are taken by the muslim community.

Is that what this is about?

 

[firedragon]

Well yes, to me, obviously. But what's all this about being "in bed with the enemy"? Why does your post assume that non-muslims see Islam as some sort of enemy?

Ah. You got hooked to the heading. Thats good marketing isn't it?

Also, why does the post assume that non-muslims express an opinion on the historical authenticity of hadiths when they quote them?

Because they quote them as historical.

I can only presume your post is a criticism of those non-muslims who try to attack Islam by quoting selected hadiths that they think portray Islam in a negative light. If so, it doesn't matter to them how strong or authentic a hadith is, only that it is a hadith, i.e. part of the body of muslim thought.

Exactly. If they dont care if they are historical, they should not quote them as historical.

I further presume that what you want to get at is that hadith are not muslim scripture in the way the Christian bible is, and that they vary in how seriously they are taken by the muslim community.

That is another topic. But an interesting one.

 

[firedragon]

The text is there but the meaning? Splitting of the moon has various interpretations

The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali provides three different interpretations of the verse. He holds that perhaps all three are applicable to the verse: Moon once appeared cleft asunder at the time of Muhammad in order to convince the unbelievers. It will split again when the day of judgment approaches (here the prophetic past tense is taken to indicate the future). Yusuf Ali connects this incident with the disruption of the solar system mentioned in 75:8-9. Lastly, he says that the verses can be metaphorical, meaning that the matter has become clear as the moon.[13]
...
Western historians such as A .J. Wensinck and Denis Gril, reject the historicity of the miracle arguing that the Qur'an itself denies miracles, in their traditional sense, in connection with Muhammad.[8][16]

You missed the point mate. Completely.

Your criteria of authentication of the hadith was the Eulum al hadith criteria. According to this criteria this hadith is Sahih. Authentic. So you should take it as historical, that's it. No argument. Yusuf Ali is not a hadith scholar, and his criteria presented is not of hadith science, but a concept called Aklu kamaayarin.

You missed the whole point.

Alright. So tell me. How about the hadith where Muhammed flew a winged horse? According to your criteria this is valid and historical. Do you consider it historical???

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

"...in bed with the enemy." How are the enemy?

 

[firedragon]

Why does your post assume that non-muslims see Islam as some sort of enemy?

You misunderstood.

Its the ahadith that is their enemy they are in bed with. Thats the whole topic.

 

[Harel13]

There are non-muslims quoting ahadith as if they are assuredly historical.

Do they? Or do they just pretend ahadith are historical to show fallacies within Islam? I mean, I think that's the point of using such extra-scriptural sources: Usually, you yourself don't think those sources have any real merit, other than pointing out perceived flaws in that religion you despise. For example, many Christians regard the Talmud to be utterly meaningless, for a variety of reasons. But if it can be used to prove their points about Judaism, or even to strengthen Christianity, then you can be sure that they'll be quoting Talmudic passages left and right.

 

[firedragon]

Do they? Or do they just pretend ahadith are historical to show fallacies within Islam?

I dont know about those who pretend since I cannot read minds brother.

 

[Harel13]

I dont know about those who pretend since I cannot read minds brother.

Neither can I. Maybe one day...
Anyway, I was questioning the assumption you made. Perhaps people don't actually accept it as truth - same as they don't accept Muhammad as a real prophet, just use Quranic verses and extra-Quranic sources to undermine him and Islam.

 

[firedragon]

Neither can I. Maybe one day...
Anyway, I was questioning the assumption you made. Perhaps people don't actually accept it as truth - same as they don't accept Muhammad as a real prophet, just use Quranic verses and extra-Quranic sources to undermine him and Islam.

Not really Harel13. Sometimes, and that's a lot of times, they do quote some as historical fact. Thats the question.

 

[shunyadragon]

I respect what you said.

But truly, there are many many non-muslims who quote a hadith as if they are absolutely historical.

Again I disagree, and without documentation your accusation 'of many non-Muslims' is without foundation. Most non-Muslims are indifferent or care less as to the nature of 'a hadith' and as it functions in different divisions of Islam, and how it impacts non-Muslims. Western non-Muslims are no remotely in 'love' with quoting the 'a hadith.' Your sarcasm is noted, but you need to be more specific in supporting your accusation.

The non-Muslim academic community in the West does study the 'a hadith' and how it is believed and considered by different divisions of Islam. It is relevant here in understanding the different historical and tribal divisions in Islam, which in my studies over time do try and understand how the 'a hadith' is considered by different Muslims. An important consideration in the non-Muslim community in the West is how the individual divisions in Islam apply the 'a hadith' that impacts the relationships with the different divisions of Islam.

In Islam the problem is the understanding of the 'a hadith' and the conflicting differences as part of the problem of the divisions in Islam. In the divisions of Islam the consideration of the 'a hadith' ranges from the belief that is completely scripture to the rejection of the entire 'a hadith.' This wide range of consideration is a part of the division of Islam.

 

[firedragon]

Again I disagree, and without documentation your accusation 'of many non-Muslims' is without foundation. Most non-Muslims are indifferent or care less as to the nature of 'a hadith' and as it functions in different divisions of Islam. Western non-Muslims are no remotely in 'love' with quoting the 'a hadith.' Your sarcasm is not, but you need to be more specific in supporting your accusation.

The non-Muslim academic community in the West does study the 'a hadith' and how it is believed and considered by different divisions of Islam. It is relevant here in understanding the different historical and tribal divisions in Islam, which in my studies over time do try and understand how the 'a hadith' is considered by different Muslims.

In Islam the problem is the understanding of the 'a hadith' and the conflicting differences as part of the problem of the divisions in Islam. In the divisions of Islam the consideration of the 'a hadith' ranges from the belief that is completely scripture to the rejection of the entire 'a hadith.' This wide range of consideration is a part of the division of Islam.

This is not about Islam, or its understanding of ahadith. If you want to discuss that, please open a new thread. This is about those non-muslims who quote ahadith as historical. And as always, its said in the OP so there is no point repeating it.

I can understand that you wish to dismantle this by saying this the OP is bogus. Great attempt. If someone quotes a hadith in this same thread as historical being a non-muslim, I will quote you there so that you can see for your own eyes what you are denying because you just think I am lying. But see, I am not gonna refer to others in the forum from other threads to prove to you that it happens on a daily basis.

So you won't get your so called "documentation". And please go ahead and respond to this with another attempt at showing hypocrisy of the other but of course I will not respond to that, and then if you like again make another comment trying to expose hypocrisy, and keep doing that. Its alright with me mate.

Have a blast.

P.S. If you wish to discuss historicity of ahadith, science of ahadith, western study of hadith etc please open a new thread.