Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: The Three views of Hadith

  1. #1
    Senior Member Zees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    430

    Question The Three views of Hadith

    The first or the traditionalist view of Hadith as it is held by the majority of the Muslims is that the Hadith is unrehearsed revelation and it is therefore at par with the Quran in its form and content. Hence Hadith is part of the revelational experience and is therefore indispensable to the religion of God. In other words Hadith contains the revelational content within its entire corpus and to disregard it would be tantamount to throwing away the message of God. This whole argument is based upon the assumption that the role played by the prophet in his life was of an infallible nature in its entirety. That is to say he was constantly guided by God under the agency of the angel Gabriel and was therefore not susceptible to error. If he did commit a mistake he was immediately corrected by God. Hence all his words and actions were simply the mirror of God’s will. The authority of the prophet was infallible and his words and actions are therefore binding upon all Muslims. Imam Shafi was the original proponent of this idea who argued for the prophetic Sunnah (henceforth identified as Hadith) to be given an equal footing with the Quran. Before Imam Shafi Sunnah had a broader meaning and included the Sunnah of the companions as well as the Sunnah of the later scholars. Two things that had influenced Imam Shafi in arguing for the authority of the words of the prophet were his desire to bridge the Shiite-Sunni divide and to stem the influence of the mutazilites. According to him the mutazilites would die out if the authority of the prophet’s words was accepted by the Sunni mainstream. As a result the mutazilites died out and this Shiite idea of prophetic authority became an integral part of Sunnism. Though Imam Shafi failed to bridge the Shiite-Sunni divide his idea of prophetic authority was accepted by the Sunni mainstream. Sunnism since its inception was opposed to the idea of apportioning infallible authority to men or the idea of Imamat as enjoined by the Shiites but this was a monumental exception when the very idea of the Imamat in the form of an infallible prophetic authority seeped into Sunnism through the efforts of Imam Shafi. The earlier scholars were opposed to the idea that such an authority could be given to one man but conceded defeat in the face of Imam Shafi’s stiff opposition. The Hadith henceforth became a revelation (unrehearsed revelation to be exact) binding upon men of God that is to say they were to follow it as they were to follow the book of God since it came from an infallible source of authority namely the prophet Mohammad. It mattered little that the idea is basically a Shiite import in Sunnism. Sunnism was originally founded on the premise of the infallible authority of the words of God to be progressively interpreted by the fallible words of men starting from the prophet who was likewise fallible.

    The second or modernist opinion is that while Quran is indeed the revelation of God the Hadith cannot be considered a revelation in any form. The modernists argue that Hadith or the words of the prophet simply constitute of interpretations (Ijtihad) over the original revelation. Being the first interpretation or prophetic interpretation they shape religion by giving the commandments of God practical shape so as to tell Muslims what to do in realistic terms as opposed to vague commandments in the book of God. As such they command fallible authority which is to say that as long as the element of relevance is there the prophetic commandments are to be followed. So things like rites basically are not subject to change but other decisions of his life that were case specific are indeed subject to change. Prophetic Sunnah or Hadith therefore is simply fallible interpretations over the infallible revelation of God. Now this whole argument is based upon the notion that the prophet of God was simply a fallible man who was prone to error like any other. He was first and foremost a human being given to intellect like any other and he used this intellect to explain the word of God to the men of God. This intellect was simply his own doing or the product of his own mind. In this way he was the first legislator of Islam to be followed by many. Hence the Hadith/prophetic Sunnah was simply the product of his own intellect. Human intellect is as we know it is susceptible to error. As long as the error did not reflect on the original revelation it was not corrected. The only thing infallible was the word of God and the purity of the said document was not upon the prophet but upon God himself who insured it against corruption of any sort. The fountain of ultimate authority flowed from the infallible words of God. The fallible words merely gave them earthly shape according to changing conditions and were themselves subject to change. The Hadith/prophetic Sunnah along with the later Sunnah of others simply reflected the intellect of men (legislation) whereas the Quran reflected the will of God. Without these fallible interpretations that are binding upon us as per their relevance the religion of God would all but disappear for there would be nothing to anchor the religion of God in worldly or realistic terms. The absence of these interpretations would lead to a myriad of interpretations that would prove highly divisive as is apparent among its practitioners. Hadith/prophetic Sunnah along with later Sunnah are of utmost importance to the religion according to modernists but they remain a human construct that must be subjected to criticism to extract their true worth.

    The third view that is considered heretical by many calls for the rejection of prophetic Sunnah/Hadith altogether along with later Sunnah and relies solely upon the book of God for its existence. They face the same dilemma that the earliest Muslims faced in the nascent years of Islam. Since Quran can only provide them with basics at best they must build their religion in either of two ways. They can either choose the Sunnite way or the Shiite way. That is to say they can either come to a consensus as to the divergent interpretations that exist among them and essentially choose the Sunnite way or they can designate someone as an infallible Imam and take his interpretations as authoritative. Those who adequately understand the religious phenomenon know this much that there is no other way. Either you come to consensus (Sunni way) as per the divergent interpretations that exist among you or choose an Imam (Shiite way) and stick by his and his successors interpretations. A better way though in my opinion would be to return to the original body and call for decisive reform. Sticking to the book of God only and rejecting all sorts of interpretations is basically an untenable position since the words of God do not lend themselves to a clear explanation that can be adhered to in all matters that beset man. Hence the need for interpretation. Rejecting the entire corpus of Hadith/ prophetic Sunnah because of the presence of errors in it is not the most prudent path as being human interpretations along with the manner in which they were recorded they are indeed liable to error. The wheat can easily be separated from the chaff however if the interpretations are simply judged against two benchmarks the first being the book of God and the second being reason. There is therefore little reason to throw the baby out with the bath water when the baby can easily be separated from the bath water. The bath water on the other hand should definitely be thrown out. So the choice faced by this group of believers is no different from the earliest believers but in the absence of earliest interpretations they may very well abandon the religion that they are most trying to follow.
    Last edited by Zees; 9th July 2010 at 17:31.

  2. #2
    I am around... Sadiq_b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,807

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Good post and categorization of dominant views. However I am unaware of the veracity of the view that Imam Shafii was solely responsible for subjecting infallibility to Ahadith. Also there would be various subdivisions between both the traditionalits and modernist opinions. For instance, not all traditionalists give relevational signifance to the prophet's conduct though holding his Sunnah to the degree of infallibility.
    [Offtopic] I spend my time on my Oracle Forums and my General Forums [/Offtopic]

    [Ontopic] To compare translations of the Quran and read Tafsir Jalalayn, refer Quran.com [/Ontopic]

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Nawawi619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,193

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    I think the whole beginning post is problematic because of the bias of the writer. I also dont agree with his classifications into three neat categories. There are more nuance on this issue.

    In Traditional Sunni Islam, nowhere is it claimed that the Hadith is at same footing or even considered revelation. Quran is always considered the superior source. In usul al fiqh, Quran is always the first and most superior source, THEN the Sunnah, then scholarly consensus or ijma, then qiyas or analogy. Imam Shafi'i also never articulated the Hadith was equal to Quran. In his Risala, which is the first written and systemized presentation of usul al fiqh in the Sunni tradition, he instructs those who are able to do ijtihad that they must first look at the Quran looking for clear, unambiguous verses...THEN he must turn to the Sunnah, etc etc. In other words, there is a clear sequence and priority of the sources in Islam. Had hadith been considered revelation, one would have been required to be in ritual purity to hold a book of hadith or recite hadith (although Imam Malik made it a practice to be in purity and wear the finest clothing with teaching hadith out of respect but not out of obligation).

    The only types of hadith that are equal in terms of proof or evidence in Islamic law and in belief is the hadith mutawatir. These are hadiths that have been transmitted by so many sahaba and then transmitted in continguous multiple chains of transmission to the point that it would be virtually impossible for all to have conspired to have fabricate a lie. According to most scholars, this only amounts to 200 or less hadith in the entire corpus of hadith. The rest while still rigorously authenticated are known as mashhur or ahad hadith, which are hadith transmitted by less people and chains of transmission. That is why these types of hadith are considered Dhanni as a proof not Qat'i.

    What Imam Shafi'i actually did was restrict the usage of the word Sunnah to mean that which the prophet salla llahu alayhi wa sallam said, did or approved of as found in the rigorously authenticated hadith. As noted earlier, Sunnah prior to Shafi'i included the actions and fatawa of the Sahaba, as well as the Tabi'un. An example of this is Imam Malik's support and usage of Amal ahli Madinah or the normative actions of the people of madinah. Imam Shafi'i was of the position that the other methods of discovering the Sunnah of the prophet salla llahu alayhi wa sallam were unreliable and unverifiable. This was further expounded on in his criticisim of Imam Malik in the section called Ikhtilaf Malik in his magnum opus work on fiqh Al Umm. Imam Malik on the other hand was wary of ahad hadith because he felt they might be isolated words or actions of the prophet salla llahu alayhi wa sallam. That is why he rarely acted on them as evidence unless it was further supported by the Amal of madinah. To Malik, the Amal of madinah was the normative practice of the Sunnah.

    Tradtional Sunnis do believe that all the prophets are infallible as detailed in the books of aqida from the Ashari and Maturidi schools , but Imam Shafii didnt establish this nor did he do this to bridge the gap between Shia and Sunni. Shia believed in the infallability not only of the Prophet but also the Ahlu Bayt Imams. This was never articulated in Sunni Islam. No one considered any Imams infallible in Sunni Islam.


    I also think it was erroneous to say that the other legal theorists "conceded defeat." This shows a gross ignorance on the legal theory of Sunni Islam. To this day the Maliki school still uses the Amal ahli Madinah as one of their sources. The Hanafi school also still incorporates its Ra'y school into their usul with terms like istihsan in their usul. What the schools of law did agree on was that the Sunnah should be restricted to the words, actions, and approvals of the prophet and to separate the fatawa of the sahaba, and tabi'un into separate categories.

    I've studied both Maliki and Shafi'i schools at a basic level and very familiar with their usul. I primarily follow the Shafi'i school in my acts of worship and human transactions. I also studied a basic text on usul al fiqh by Imam Juwayni called Al Waraqat. I also read two very well written dissertations one on Amal of Madinah and Maliki legal theory by Dr. Umar Faruq Abdallah (over 800 pages) and the other was by Dr. Ahmed el Shamsy who wrote on the early Shafi'i school particularly Imam Shafi'is early legal thought and his students like Imam Muzani, Imam Buwayti in the formulation of the Madhhab al Qadim and Madhhab al Jadid (about 200 pages).
    The Prophet Muhammad (Salla Llahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said, “Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray.” [Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim]

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,922

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    What I find difficult to understand is

    1. Prophet pbuh is chosen messenger of God. He recites Quran to his followers. Ensures that Quran is written and memorised in his life time. Quran are the commands from Allah and contains Shariah. States on the last Pilgrimmage that religion is complete. Nothing about Quran is concealed or hidden and the source of transmission of Quran is the ijmmah and tawatur of Companions of prophet pbuh. Then we come to the isolated reports or ahadith. Reports from individuals or a few people. Complied years after the death of prophet pbuh. I accept that we give them significance. But to make them a source of religion, I cannot understand. Source outside Quran and Sunnah( as defined by Farahi , Islahi and Ghamidi). Establish a source of religion outside them from isolated reports? How do we explain that the prophet pbuh explained part of religion to each and every follwoer, compiled Quran for everyone and then another part only told to a handful. Not until years later it surfaced that Muslims were not aware of the entire content of religion. Even today there are huge differences among Hadith, what is reliable or not. We argue on authenticity, context, circumstances. Different fractions bring there own pool of ahadith. Hadith as a source of religion , for me remains unproved and unsatisfactory.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Nawawi619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,193

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by DocW View Post
    What I find difficult to understand is

    1. Prophet pbuh is chosen messenger of God. He recites Quran to his followers. Ensures that Quran is written and memorised in his life time. Quran are the commands from Allah and contains Shariah. States on the last Pilgrimmage that religion is complete. Nothing about Quran is concealed or hidden and the source of transmission of Quran is the ijmmah and tawatur of Companions of prophet pbuh. Then we come to the isolated reports or ahadith. Reports from individuals or a few people. Complied years after the death of prophet pbuh. I accept that we give them significance. But to make them a source of religion, I cannot understand. Source outside Quran and Sunnah( as defined by Farahi , Islahi and Ghamidi). Establish a source of religion outside them from isolated reports? How do we explain that the prophet pbuh explained part of religion to each and every follwoer, compiled Quran for everyone and then another part only told to a handful. Not until years later it surfaced that Muslims were not aware of the entire content of religion. Even today there are huge differences among Hadith, what is reliable or not. We argue on authenticity, context, circumstances. Different fractions bring there own pool of ahadith. Hadith as a source of religion , for me remains unproved and unsatisfactory.
    Well that is where studying and education comes in. Well first off the hadith have always been there memorized by companions. Written compilations were done a century later because the fear of hadith scholars dying without compiling them in written form. This was similar to why the Quran was put into one book, because fear of the huffadth dying. The written compilations of hadith were a crutch to those who have yet to memorize the hadith. That is why you see titles like Hafidth fil Hadith (one who has memorized 100.000 hadith, their sanad, and their significance).

    Now the science hadith is a study on to itself. I doubt anyone on this forum has taken advanced hadith studies. I've taken very basic hadith studies like going over the work al baquniyya on hadith terminology and going over hadith works like arba'in an nawawiyah and receiving the hadith of mercy from a hadith scholar (Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi) with full isnad. But even with my limited studies I've grown to respect it as a science and source.

    The problem comes when people adhere to the theories of Ghamidi, Islahi, and others who represent revisionist and modernist understandings of Islam. Sure those who follow them like the majority on this forum will be confused because they are functioning outside of mainstream thought. Us "tradionalists" as you call us on this forum are accused of taqlid of the Islamic intellectual heritage, yet the ghamidis basically make taqlid of his world view and theory.

    Another thing is the usul al fiqh. If one studied usul al fiqh coupled with the hadith sciences, one will know how the hadiths fit. Shaykh Nuh Keller gives an example of how qualified mujtahids would answer a question about fasting when there are so called conflicting hadith:

    Most of us know the hadiths about fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa for the non-pilgrim, that "it expiates [the sins of] the year before and the year after" (Muslim, 2.819). But another rigorously authenticated hadith prohibits fasting on Friday alone (Bukhari, 3.54), and a well authenticated hadith prohibits fasting on Saturday alone (Tirmidhi, 3.120), of which Tirmidhi explains, "The meaning of the ‘offensiveness’ in this is when a man singles out Saturday to fast on, since the Jews venerate Saturdays" (ibid.). Some scholars hold Sundays offensive to fast on for the same reason, that they are venerated by non-Muslims. (Other hadiths permit fasting one of these days together with the day before or the day after it, perhaps because no religion venerates two of the days in a row.) The question arises: What does one do when ‘Arafa falls on a Friday, a Saturday, or a Sunday? The general demand for fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa might well be qualified by the specific prohibition of fasting on just one of these days. But a mujtahid aware of the whole hadith corpus would certainly know a third hadith related by Muslim that is even more specific, and says: "Do not single out Friday from among other days to fast on, unless it coincides with a fast one of you performs" (Muslim, 2.801).

    The latter hadith establishes for the mujtahid the general principle that the ruling for fasting on a day normally prohibited to fast on changes when it "coincides with a fast one of you performs"—and so there is no problem with fasting whether the Day of Arafa falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

    Here as elsewhere, whoever wants to understand the ruling of doing something in Islam must know all the texts connected with it. Because as ordinary Muslims, you and I are not only responsible for obeying the Qur’anic verses and hadiths we are familiar with. We are responsible for obeying all of them, the whole shari‘a. And if we are not personally qualified to join between all of its texts—and we have heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal discuss how much knowledge this takes—we must follow someone who can, which is why Allah tells us, "Ask those who recall if you know not."
    He also mentions:

    The size and nature of this knowledge necessitate that the non-specialist use adab or "proper respect" towards the scholars of fiqh when he finds a hadith, whether in Bukhari or elsewhere, that ostensibly contradicts the schools of fiqh. A non-scholar, for example, reading through Sahih al-Bukhari will find the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared a thigh on the ride back from Khaybar (Bukhari, 1.103–4). And he might imagine that the four madhhabs or "legal schools"—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali—were mistaken in their judgment that the thigh is ‘awra or "nakedness that must be covered."

    But in fact there are a number of other hadiths, all of them well authenticated (hasan) or rigorously authenticated (sahih) that prove that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) explicitly commanded various Sahaba to cover the thigh because it was nakedness. Hakim reports that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) saw Jarhad in the mosque wearing a mantle, and his thigh became uncovered, so the Prophet told him, "The thigh is part of one’s nakedness" (al-Mustadrak), of which Hakim said, "This is a hadith whose chain of transmission is rigorously authenticated (sahih)," which Imam Dhahabi confirmed (ibid.). Imam al-Baghawi records the sahih hadith that "the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) passed by Ma‘mar, whose two thighs were exposed, and told him, ‘O Ma‘mar, cover your two thighs, for the two thighs are nakedness’" (Sharh al-sunna 9.21). And Ahmad ibn Hanbal records that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "When one of you marries [someone to] his servant or hired man, let him not look at his nakedness, for what is below his navel to his two knees is nakedness" (Ahmad, 2.187), a hadith with a well authenticated (hasan) chain of transmission. The mujtahid Imams of the four schools knew these hadiths, and joined between them and the Khaybar hadith in Bukhari by the methodological principle that: "An explicit command in words from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is given precedence over an action of his." Why?

    Among other reasons, because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to the Prophet alone (Allah bless him and give him peace). Such as the fact that when he went into battle, he was not permitted to retreat, no matter how outnumbered. Or such as the obligatoriness for him alone of praying tahajjud or "night vigil prayer" after rising from sleep before dawn, which is merely sunna for the rest of us. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of not breaking his fast at night between fast-days. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of having more than four wives—the means through which Allah, in His wisdom, preserved for us the minutest details of the Prophet’s day-to-day sunna (Allah bless him and give him peace), which a larger number of wives would be far abler to observe and remember.

    Because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to him alone, the scholars of ijtihad have established the principle that in many cases, when an act was done by the Prophet personally (Allah bless him and give him peace), such as bearing the thigh after Khaybar, and when he gave an explicit command to us to do something else, in this case, to cover the thigh because it is nakedness, then the command is adopted for us, and the act is considered to pertain to him alone (Allah bless him and give him peace).

    We can see from this example the kind of scholarship it takes to seriously comprehend the whole body of hadith, both in breadth of knowledge, and depth of interpretive understanding or fiqh, and that anyone who would give a fatwa, on the basis of the Khaybar hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, that "the scholars are wrong and the hadith is right" would be guilty of criminal negligence for his ignorance.

    When one does not have substantive knowledge of the Qur’an and hadith corpus, and lacks the fiqh methodology to comprehensively join between it, the hadiths one has read are not enough. To take another example, there is a well authenticated (hasan) hadith that "the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) cursed women who visit graves" (Tirmidhi, 3.371). But scholars say that the prohibition of women visiting graves was abrogated (mansukh) by the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith "I had forbidden you to visit graves, but now visit them" (Muslim, 2.672).

    Here, although the expression "now visit them" (fa zuruha) is an imperative to men (or to a group of whom at least some are men), the fact that the hadith permits women as well as men to now visit graves is shown by another hadith related by Muslim in his Sahih that when ‘A'isha asked the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) what she should say if she visited graves, he told her, "Say: ‘Peace be upon the believers and Muslims of the folk of these abodes: May Allah have mercy on those of us who have gone ahead and those who have stayed behind: Allah willing, we shall certainly be joining you’" (Muslim, 2.671), which plainly entails the permissibility of her visiting graves in order to say this, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) would never have taught her these words if visiting the graves to say them had been disobedience. In other words, knowing all these hadiths, together with the methodological principle of naskh or "abrogation," is essential to drawing the valid fiqh conclusion that the first hadith in which "the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) cursed women who visit graves"—was abrogated by the second hadith, as is attested to by the third.
    From the comments I see on this forum, most people on here are casual readers of books on Islam and who have not spent a great deal of time learning Islam from scholars. Sidi Lumumba would be a big exception since he has in fact studied with scholars.

    People tend to comment without understanding all the facts and learning all the information. And any info they do acquire is through the lenses of Ghamidi and his group.

    I frankly never heard of the Ghamidis or their leader or anyone like them until I joined this forum. This shows how marginal and fringe the group is. They belong to the same category of other "modernist" movements (heavily influenced by their colonizers..i.e. western secular thought).
    The Prophet Muhammad (Salla Llahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said, “Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray.” [Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim]

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,922

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote: From the comments I see on this forum, most people on here are casual readers of books on Islam and who have not spent a great deal of time learning Islam from scholars. Sidi Lumumba would be a big exception since he has in fact studied with scholars.

    People tend to comment without understanding all the facts and learning all the information. And any info they do acquire is through the lenses of Ghamidi and his group.

    I frankly never heard of the Ghamidis or their leader or anyone like them until I joined this forum. This shows how marginal and fringe the group is. They belong to the same category of other "modernist" movements (heavily influenced by their colonizers..i.e. western secular thought).


    My question remains unanswered Bro Nawawi

    The prophet of Allah had a responsibility to pass the complete religion which entails the entire Shariah to his present followers. So why does he write and compile a Book for certain part of it and leave the other to the memory of Hufaaz to be compiled years later. Most importantly, why does Allah not provide the entire religion in Quran and leave it for Imam Bukhari to discover it years later. If Hadith are so straight forward and so clear then why do we have a difference of opinion on their authenticity? why do Sunni not believe in ahadith that Shia Muslims believe in? We do not have a difference in the acceptance of Quran ?

    Allah sends prophets to deliver certain part of religion and then His Divine scripture and takes responsibility for its preservation. Uses Gabriel to bring the Divine commands and then let individuals pass generation after generation the other aprt of religion to be compiled years later by individuals for the rest to know as integral religion. This following brings the credibility of prophet in delivering religion into Question. If hadith was such an important source of religion, one would have expected the prophet to have made sure it was compiled like Quran and left to Ummah like Quran before leaving his death.

    Today we resort to reliable and unreliable ahadith, question some, differ on others, albeit we cannot conclusively prove it to be a source of religion. How can an individuals understanding, interpretation and comprehension of what he saw or thought the prophet of God do or say become a source of religion for the rest of Muslim nation ? That question has remained unanswered from the traditional followers of Islam.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Zees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    430

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by Nawawi619 View Post

    From the comments I see on this forum, most people on here are casual readers of books on Islam and who have not spent a great deal of time learning Islam from scholars. Sidi Lumumba would be a big exception since he has in fact studied with scholars.

    People tend to comment without understanding all the facts and learning all the information. And any info they do acquire is through the lenses of Ghamidi and his group.

    I frankly never heard of the Ghamidis or their leader or anyone like them until I joined this forum. This shows how marginal and fringe the group is. They belong to the same category of other "modernist" movements (heavily influenced by their colonizers..i.e. western secular thought).
    Nawawi! Every man must seek the truth for himself and only after discerning the truth must he proceed to act upon that truth. This logic applies to all of humanity whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims. This is what God ultimately expects of us. To seek out the truth for ourselves. Is God not the one who exhorts mankind to reflect upon his signs? How can we not do that? If what you claim is indeed true than you have nothing to fear for if it is the truth than our efforts will surely lead us to it. There is no such thing as a casual reader we are all souls who yearn for the truth and with the knowledge that we have in our possession we try to discern the truth with a critical eye and are not merely content with someone telling us what the truth is and that if we believe in it as such paradise awaits. I have read what you have to say and I promise you that I will not fail to think about it. However if your logic is indeed correct that we simply bound us to the learned men than what about the learned men of other religions who do not profess faith in the one God? What about the people who choose to follow them on the basis of their knowledge? If they are wrong inspite of all their learning than cannot our scholars be prone to scholastic mistakes that we might simply be trying to discern? The sorry state of the Muslim world is proof enough of a scholastic mistake that has been made. Are we so wrong to try to understand where we went wrong so as to have led to our current affairs? We are the people of God for God’s sake the same God who created science and everything else we follow his religion and as such we don’t belong at the bottom of the food chain. It is high time you understood that.

    One more thing I am not a Ghamidi by the way and Sidi Lumumba is also a fallible man meaning what he says is also the product of his thought and as such he can also be wrong on many a things. Must you give neg rep for every post of mine?

    "Learning without thinking is futile and thinking without learning is perilous"
    Confucius
    Last edited by Zees; 13th July 2010 at 14:50.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Zees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    430

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by DocW View Post
    Quote: From the comments I see on this forum, most people on here are casual readers of books on Islam and who have not spent a great deal of time learning Islam from scholars. Sidi Lumumba would be a big exception since he has in fact studied with scholars.

    People tend to comment without understanding all the facts and learning all the information. And any info they do acquire is through the lenses of Ghamidi and his group.

    I frankly never heard of the Ghamidis or their leader or anyone like them until I joined this forum. This shows how marginal and fringe the group is. They belong to the same category of other "modernist" movements (heavily influenced by their colonizers..i.e. western secular thought).


    My question remains unanswered Bro Nawawi

    The prophet of Allah had a responsibility to pass the complete religion which entails the entire Shariah to his present followers. So why does he write and compile a Book for certain part of it and leave the other to the memory of Hufaaz to be compiled years later. Most importantly, why does Allah not provide the entire religion in Quran and leave it for Imam Bukhari to discover it years later. If Hadith are so straight forward and so clear then why do we have a difference of opinion on their authenticity? why do Sunni not believe in ahadith that Shia Muslims believe in? We do not have a difference in the acceptance of Quran ?

    Allah sends prophets to deliver certain part of religion and then His Divine scripture and takes responsibility for its preservation. Uses Gabriel to bring the Divine commands and then let individuals pass generation after generation the other aprt of religion to be compiled years later by individuals for the rest to know as integral religion. This following brings the credibility of prophet in delivering religion into Question. If hadith was such an important source of religion, one would have expected the prophet to have made sure it was compiled like Quran and left to Ummah like Quran before leaving his death.

    Today we resort to reliable and unreliable ahadith, question some, differ on others, albeit we cannot conclusively prove it to be a source of religion. How can an individuals understanding, interpretation and comprehension of what he saw or thought the prophet of God do or say become a source of religion for the rest of Muslim nation ? That question has remained unanswered from the traditional followers of Islam.
    It will continue to remain unanswered as they simply lack the answer to this particular question of yours.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Nawawi619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,193

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by DocW View Post
    Quote: From the comments I see on this forum, most people on here are casual readers of books on Islam and who have not spent a great deal of time learning Islam from scholars. Sidi Lumumba would be a big exception since he has in fact studied with scholars.

    People tend to comment without understanding all the facts and learning all the information. And any info they do acquire is through the lenses of Ghamidi and his group.

    I frankly never heard of the Ghamidis or their leader or anyone like them until I joined this forum. This shows how marginal and fringe the group is. They belong to the same category of other "modernist" movements (heavily influenced by their colonizers..i.e. western secular thought).


    My question remains unanswered Bro Nawawi

    The prophet of Allah had a responsibility to pass the complete religion which entails the entire Shariah to his present followers. So why does he write and compile a Book for certain part of it and leave the other to the memory of Hufaaz to be compiled years later. Most importantly, why does Allah not provide the entire religion in Quran and leave it for Imam Bukhari to discover it years later. If Hadith are so straight forward and so clear then why do we have a difference of opinion on their authenticity? why do Sunni not believe in ahadith that Shia Muslims believe in? We do not have a difference in the acceptance of Quran ?

    Allah sends prophets to deliver certain part of religion and then His Divine scripture and takes responsibility for its preservation. Uses Gabriel to bring the Divine commands and then let individuals pass generation after generation the other aprt of religion to be compiled years later by individuals for the rest to know as integral religion. This following brings the credibility of prophet in delivering religion into Question. If hadith was such an important source of religion, one would have expected the prophet to have made sure it was compiled like Quran and left to Ummah like Quran before leaving his death.

    Today we resort to reliable and unreliable ahadith, question some, differ on others, albeit we cannot conclusively prove it to be a source of religion. How can an individuals understanding, interpretation and comprehension of what he saw or thought the prophet of God do or say become a source of religion for the rest of Muslim nation ? That question has remained unanswered from the traditional followers of Islam.
    Again I think I answered those questions already. It all comes with education. Education on the history of the Quran for valid sources not orientalist works. Education on hadith, its history, its sciences from reliable works and scholars not orientalists and modernists who attempt to do revisionist history. Education and knowledge on usul al fiqh, the principles of jurisprudence to know what sources and proofs are valid to use and what arent.

    You have a mistaken notion about Bukhari and his role in hadith. He was among those who collected only those hadith that were agreed upon as rigorously authenticated and put it into a manageable collection. He wasnt the first to collect hadith. There were several generations before him who collected hadith like Imam Malik ibn Anas and his Muwatta. The reason why Bukhari was so popular now is because Hadith scholars in the past who have checked his work have agreed that he did a pretty good job. That is why he is on the top of the 6 canonical collections of hadith. It doesnt mean that only those six collections are sound, there are many other sound hadith out there.

    I dont know where you got the idea that people use unreliable hadith. As a rule, especially for Sunnis, one can never use fabricated hadith in Islamic law or in Islamic creed. As far weak hadith, it generally cannot be applied to Islamic law unless there are other stronger hadith that corroborate the weaker hadith. Because weakeness in hadith, if one studies hadith, can mean anything. It can mean that in that particular narration of that hadith, one person in that chain is deemed untrustworthy, or had bad memory, or was known to lie, or other factors that would weaken its authenticity. It doesnt necessarily mean that the content or the text itself is false. All it says is that because the chain of transmission isnt sound, there is reason to suspect that it may not be a reliable. This is from the very precise science of hadith criticism.

    All this discussion doesnt take away from the validity of the Prophet muhammad salla llahu alayhi wa sallam or Allah subhana wa ta'ala perfecting Islam. It is pretty clear that they did. The subject here is the hadith. The prophet salla llahu alayhi wa sallam is no longer alive to teach us, all that we have is what has been transmitted by people throughout the centuries. That is why in the past, prior to the religious anarchy we see now, people have always relied on the most learned people of our community to teach us the religion whether it be in Quran, hadith, usul al fiqh, fiqh, aqida, tasawwuf, etc. Each field had an Imams or leaders who were basically exemplars and given tawfiq from Allah.

    The people who tend to get confused about Islam and its sources are those who have never bothered to study with a qualified teacher. People nowadays just read books and go to websites and think that is enough and that their intellect alone is enough to figure it out.
    The Prophet Muhammad (Salla Llahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said, “Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray.” [Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim]

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Nawawi619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,193

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by Zees View Post
    Nawawi! Every man must seek the truth for himself and only after discerning the truth must he proceed to act upon that truth. This logic applies to all of humanity whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims. This is what God ultimately expects of us. To seek out the truth for ourselves. Is God not the one who exhorts mankind to reflect upon his signs? How can we not do that? If what you claim is indeed true than you have nothing to fear for if it is the truth than our efforts will surely lead us to it. There is no such thing as a casual reader we are all souls who yearn for the truth and with the knowledge that we have in our possession we try to discern the truth with a critical eye and are not merely content with someone telling us what the truth is and that if we believe in it as such paradise awaits. I have read what you have to say and I promise you that I will not fail to think about it. However if your logic is indeed correct that we simply bound us to the learned men than what about the learned men of other religions who do not profess faith in the one God? What about the people who choose to follow them on the basis of their knowledge? If they are wrong inspite of all their learning than cannot our scholars be prone to scholastic mistakes that we might simply be trying to discern? The sorry state of the Muslim world is proof enough of a scholastic mistake that has been made. Are we so wrong to try to understand where we went wrong so as to have led to our current affairs? We are the people of God for God’s sake the same God who created science and everything else we follow his religion and as such we don’t belong at the bottom of the food chain. It is high time you understood that.

    One more thing I am not a Ghamidi by the way and Sidi Lumumba is also a fallible man meaning what he says is also the product of his thought and as such he can also be wrong on many a things. Must you give neg rep for every post of mine?

    "Learning without thinking is futile and thinking without learning is perilous"
    Confucius
    I dont know how you ever get the correlation between the current issues of the Muslim world with classical scholarship. You really need to look into the history of the Middle East, South and Central Asia, as well as Africa to see what really happened. It wasnt because of the mistakes of the Muslim scholars but rather a multitude of different factors that lead to our current situation. Even a casual look on Post colonial studies will make that clear. One of the many factors was colonization of the Muslim world by Europe. Another is the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in battles between Russia and other countries. Another factor is European colonizers installing Missionary Schools throughout the Arab World (now they are called American Universities, i.e. in Lebanon, Egypt, and other parts). The Ottoman Tanzimat Reforms is another factor (which was instituted by the rulers not the scholars). The dismantling of the Waqf system that funded the scholarly institutions. And the list goes on. You cant oversimplify the problem by saying "oh its because of the scholars." Just from your same answers you havent done much research on it.

    I also dont know why you bring up infallible and fallible with regards to scholarship. So I'll repeat again and hopefully you will get it. No Sunni has ever said that any scholar, and I mean any scholar is infallible. So i dont know where you got such a ridiculous idea from. Nor did we say they are free from mistakes. When we talk about scholars and the islamic intellectual tradition of over 1200 years, I'm talking about the collective effort, where rulings were disgarded, some were enhanced, some where corrected, some were upgraded. Nor did I ever say Lumumba is infallible. Everyone makes mistakes but that is irrelevant in regards to the issue at hand. Everyone makes mistakes and are human yet it doesnt prevent us from driving in cars created by human beings, or flying in planes built by human beings, or using medicine made by humans. Or even going into a building or a home made by human beings. Arent the construction workers capable of error or the engineer? Yet it doesnt prevent us from using their products because the idea is the specialization. When we want a door built in our house who do we go to? we try and find the best qualified guy who can do it. Same with Islam. If a scholar is known by his peers and others as one who is learned, studied over 20 years or more in Islamic law , he is pious, good character, his legal opinions are sound etc etc then it would be good to study with him.

    Human nature gravitates to those who do things well and Islam isnt the exception. This doesnt mean we dont see with a critical eye. What bugs me about your statement is that you assume, rather falsely, that those who follow traditional sunni islam dont look at things critically. As if we are zombies running around. Apparently you have never sat in a halaqa or in a class where Islamic sciences are being taught. The problem with this mentality is usually people dont even know what they are even talking about yet think when they question or criticize without evern studying it they feel smart or intellectual. Its like a 5 year old questioning a Nuclear Physicist who has a PhD, studied for over 20 years, taught at the university, wrote peer approved research on nuclear physics.

    Even in Western education systems, one does begin deconstruction of prevailing theories until one reaches the graduate level or PhD level. When you are in your undergrad what do they do? They spoon feed you information. For example in classical sociological theory one studies the works of Durkheim, Webber, Comte, etc etc. Then you move on Marx and others. For one to be successful in the class one needs to understand all their theories and be able to explain them and write about them in a coherent manner. Imagine if an undergrad who took social theory 101 who has no lick of sociology training in him say, " well i dont think these guys are social theorists because they are not infallible and they are prone to mistakes." Not only will the class will laugh at you but the professor will think you are crazy and will probably give you an F. It reminds me of people who try to look smart only to be embarrassed by people who really know.

    Which begs the question on whether or not you even know how Islamic education works and what it entails. I recommend you go to the multimedia section of this forum and watch the video by Imam Suhaib Webb on muslim activists and he will give you a taste of what they study at al Azhar. Not only is one to undertake serious study to get deeper understanding it is also coupled with practicing what one learns in Islam.

    This doesnt mean that people cant reflect. People should always reflect on the Quran and the teachings of Islam but the issue is realizing one's limits in their understanding. The problem is some people on this forum dont know the limits of their understanding and feel they got it all figured out just by reading a couple of books on islam and going to websites.

    Well I figured you werent a ghamidi but you fit their worldview. You blame our classical heritage for the woes of the muslims now and oversimplify the reasons. As I said earlier, it is a lot more nuanced that that. I find it also insulting that you quote about learning and thinking as if people who advocated for traditional sunni islam dont think. That just shows that you havent sat in a traditional halaqah and even engaged the students let alone the scholar. I doubt you can even hang with them.
    The Prophet Muhammad (Salla Llahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said, “Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray.” [Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim]

  11. #11
    naas lovethetruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    What happens when the products of the past or qualified construction workers are unable to provide solutions to society's current construction problems?

    Does the overwhelming confidence of the qualified construction workers in their product, irrespective of the fact that they no longer cater to society's current construction issues, make it illegitimate for "laymen" to devise solutions to such problems?

    Perhaps what we need is someone who specializes in devising products catered to society's current construction issues.

  12. #12
    Veteran Member Nawawi619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,193

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by lovethetruth View Post
    What happens when the products of the past or qualified construction workers are unable to provide solutions to society's current construction problems?

    Does the overwhelming confidence of the qualified construction workers in their product, irrespective of the fact that they no longer cater to society's current construction issues, make it illegitimate for "laymen" to devise solutions to such problems?

    Perhaps what we need is someone who specializes in devising products catered to society's current construction issues.
    It all depends on what solutions one is asking about. Take for instance the advent of a interest-based world economy. How are Muslims to function economically with this new issue? Islamic Finance. There is a growing interest and diversification of Shariah compliant financial products whether it be for home mortages, investment, etc. Even some universities are starting to offer Islamic finance modules and even areas of study as part of their MBA programs.

    What about Muslims living as minorities in non Muslim lands? Several scholars have formulated Fiqh al Aqliyat or Fiqh for Muslims living as minorities.

    Scholars have provided solutions to many contemporary problems and issues. If they haven't then they are working on these issues.

    How do we produce scholars who are rooted in the tradition but can cater and solve relevent issues in America? Zaytuna College has been formed.

    How can we educate the masses of Muslims in their basics when it has been increasinging difficult for people to study with scholars overseas or have the time and resources to do so? The formation of Sunnipath, Seekers Guidance, and others. They offer online classes by qualified scholars and students in a variety of subjects whether it be Quran, Hadith, Aqida, Fiqh, usul al fiqh, logic, arabic and its sciences, marriage, divorce, inheritance, contemporary issues, etc etc. Sure it doesnt make one a scholar by taking such online courses but it gives the lay person the basic knowledge they need to fulfill their religious duties correctly.

    How do we deal with extremist fringe groups who give Islam a bad name and claim to give fatawa? The Amman Initiative- which was ratified by hundreds fiqh councils, muftis, scholars, activists from the Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Salafi sects. They laid down three points about the definition of a Muslim, respect for valid differences of opinion, and that no one may issue a legal opinion without qualifications.

    Well what about the political issues affecting the Muslim world...i.e. the dictators, the wars, the inhumane treatment, economic disarray, etc?

    Like in history, scholars had nothing do with it. Many other factors led to such a predicament. Take for instance the Mongol sacking of Baghdad of 1258 CE where over 100,000 people (virtually almost the entire city's population) were killed. In the 13th century, Islamic scholarship was still strong. For our contemporary situation, defeats of the muslim empires against europe, treaties which allowed European influence into Muslim lands, dismantling of the islamic legal system, economic system, colonization, Ottoman Tanzimat reforms, Western influenced Muslim elite undermining Islamic scholarship, The dismantlement of the waqf, the creation of government owned schools (as opposed to privately owned schools of the islamic universities), british installment of the shaykh al azhar (Muhammad Abduh), Wahhabi incursion in the 18th century, British supported Saudi regime taking over the Arabian Penninsula and adopting Wahhabi islam as the official islam of the kingdom, Muslim countries like Egypt adopting French legal and or German legal codes to replace shariah, world war 1 - which lead to the jig-saw puzzle effect the Muslim world drawn by the victors of world war 1 (creation of Iraq, Transjordan, Palestine Mandate, Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, etc), the formation of the nation-state system, israeli palestinian conflict, pan arab nationalism, etc etc were the many factors that lead the contemporary muslim world to its current condition.

    History plays a big role in understanding the problems of today. People still have questions on acts of worship and scholars have answered them. And as I listed earlier, scholars have fatawa or answers to many of the contemporary issues like banking, mortages, birth control, internet, voting, terrorism, etc etc.
    The Prophet Muhammad (Salla Llahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said, “Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray.” [Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim]

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    1.

    The deteriorization of the Muslim world, on all planes of existence, happened well before colonization, and the scholars were and are no exception to this rule. Nations were sent upon Israel because of what their own hands had accomplished and if the Israelites had remained upright to their teachings, no nation would have destroyed them, like was done in the past.

    2.

    Another point that should be understood is that scholars often bent their own rules after society had already changed. This implies that they bent to the laymen, and laymen is defined as those that aren't 'specialized' in the traditional fields, otherwise the Quran would have never been recited on loud-speaker in a masjid. What this means is that it is the scholars that resist the change first, being forced to ultimately adapt to the changes in society. Shah Waliullah was the first to translate the Quran into Persian in the sub-continent, despite the presence of Islam for hundreds of years in that region, and scholars opposed him in this matter. The need to understand the Quran was present all of this time, and the educated elite, sitting in their ivory towers, remained totally oblivious to the realities of the age. Islam was primarily spread by sufis in the sub-continent, and the sufi literature is often aimed at the orthodox elite, and their scholastic hair-splitting and excessive focus on ritualism and legalism. The irony is that these sufis are now claimed by the orthodox, which is usually what happens.

    3.

    British supported Saudi regime taking over the Arabian Penninsula and adopting Wahhabi islam as the official islam of the kingdom,
    The Hashemite rule appealed to the British way before Saud aligned himself with the British. Further, the reason the Americans had gained influence in the kingdom was because the Muslim world was totally incapable of surveying and mining, as well as extracting the oil-rich land of the Hijaz. In this case, it was clearly the total incapacity of the Muslim world to deal with recent issues that allowed the West to gain a strong foothold in the region. This was the summation of the total ineptitude of the intellectual elite of the Muslim to lead their nations in respect to this world and the next.

    british installment of the shaykh al azhar (Muhammad Abduh),
    Abduh was born and bred in the traditional schools of learning, studying the very curriculum that is preached as traditional. Further, he was a 'disciple' of Afghani, who was the strongest supported to pan-Islamism and active against the colonialist incursions into the Muslim homeland. He was part of the Urabi revolt, which was nothing but a revolt against British imperialism. The idea that he was a british pupper is most probably because of his opposition to the Turkish control of the elite positions in government, which was one of the factors in this revolt. It was Ismail Pasha, the ALbanian, installed by the Ottomans, which essentially made the Egyptians slaves, because of the amount of debt taken on in the 'modenrization efforts' of this ruler. He was appointed in 1888 to AL-Azhar and died in 1905, after Egyptian society was already on the path to absurdity. Even the Tanzimat reforms, which are mentioned above, were meant to reform the deterioration that had already begun in the Ottoman Empire. The irony is that while British support of the Saudi's is mentioned in the above, the British support of the Ottomans during this time period is not mentioned. Nobody mentions that the traditional schools were silent during this time,

    The reality is the opponents of the colonization, which include the likes of Abduh and Afghani, were all born and bred in the traditional schools. They realized the problems and did something about it.
    Last edited by ihsan; 13th July 2010 at 21:10.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  14. #14
    Veteran Member Nawawi619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,193

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    All we have to do is look through the works of historian Nikki Keddie who wrote works on Afghani also the lecture by Dr. Hatem Bazian called Broken Chain: Effects of Colonization on the Muslim world.

    Afghani wasnt even Afghani he was from Persia, he was from a Shia family. According to Keddie and Bazian he tried to get employed to be an agent for Russia. He also was considered an Atheist by Azhari Scholars of his time and ended up teaching a small circle of students at coffee houses. He even taught that the prophets were at the same level of philsophers. Abduh and Abduh's student Rashid Rida were heavily influenced by Afghani. He even remarked that "we do not cut the head of religion except through the sword of religion." Meaning in order to be in the debate within Islam, one would have to clothe oneself in the vernacular of Islam.

    SEE Sayyid Jamal Ad-Din "Al-Afghani": A Political Biography by Dr. Nikki Keddie

    So how can Abduh and Afghani be from the traditionalist school when they were not even accepted by the traditionalist schools? Afghani and Abduh were both anti taqlid as well. Afghani made a claim that he was the "Muslim Martin Luther."

    You miss my point on the whole idea of influence of the British and others on muslim governments and lands. The fact you brought out Hashemites, Ottomans and others being influenced only proves my point still of the incursion of European and British into Muslim lands.

    As far as the decline SEE Sharia: Theory, Practice, and Transformations, Part 3 of the book

    and http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm...q_shariah.html

    As far as Sufism, you got your history twisted. Sufism has always been part of Islam. All we have to do is look at the works of Imam al Junayd (9th century), Imam Abdul Qadir Jilani (10th Century), Imam Ghazali (11th century), Imam Abul Hasan Shadilli (12th Century), and the others who eventually founde sufi orders or tariqa. All these Sufi imams were also scholars in Islamic law, theology and others.

    For example Ghazali was a theologian, master of logic, Shafi fiqh scholar, as well as an Imam of Sufism. Imam Junayd who is considered a big Imam in sufism was a scholar of the now de funct school of Abu Thawr. Imam Abdul Qadir Jilani was a Hanbali. Even ibn Taymiyyah belonged to the Qadariyyah sufi order.

    Even before these Imams, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Malik have said things on sufism. For example Imam Malik said " those who learn fiqh without learning sufism corrupts his deen, while those who learn sufism without learning fiqh corrupts his religion. Only those who combine the two prove true"

    Imam Shafii said "Be both a faqih and a sufi: do not be only one of them!
    Verily, by Allah's truth, I am advising you sincerely."

    It seems like you have been duped by Wahhabi anti sufi revisionist history. Orthodoxy was never against tasawwuf or sufism. what they were against were fake sufis and sufis who committed errors that cannot be reconciled with the shariah and aqida of the Muslims. In fact if you read the classical works with the three dimensions of islam: Islam or the outward is through learning fiqh, Iman or attaining true faith is through learning aqida, and with Ihsan, one learns sincerity with Allah by learning sufism. Imam Qushayri's Risala which is a classic work on Sufism talks about the early scholars.

    For an article on traditional stance on sufism go to http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufitlk.htm

    I actually belong to a Sufi order. It called Ba Alawi. And I am fully aware that Sufis helped spread Islam to the world but that isnt the topic here. We arent talking about the spread of Islam. We are talking about Hadith and its importance on islam.
    The Prophet Muhammad (Salla Llahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said, “Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray.” [Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim]

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Let me repeat what I stated:

    The reality is the opponents of the colonization, which include the likes of Abduh and Afghani, were all born and bred in the traditional schools. They realized the problems and did something about it.
    Abduh studied all the formal disciplines of the traditional schools and Abduh was appointed the mufti of Al-Azhar well before the British had officially taken over control of Egypt. Of course he went against taqlid, but the fact remains is that they came from the tarditional schools and saw the problems. Afghani, whether he was raised sunni or shia, was also formally educated according to traditionalist principles. During their time, traditionalist scholars were still strong. If Abduh was allegedly a puppet because of British influence, then so were all the traditionalist scholars and supporters of the Ottoman Empire, when the Tanzimat reforms had begun. The idea that Afghani was an atheist is absurd, especially considering his debates with Ernest Renan over this very subject. Further, Abduh wrote the first legitimate theological tract in the modern Muslim world, with his Risalat Tawhid which dealt with the issue of proving God. It was a worth effort to restore Muslim faith on the premise of reason and not superstition, and blind faith. They clearly fought against British imperialism, and while many argue that they were agents because a majority of their activism work was done in Europe, neither you nor I, or anybody else who seeks their phDs by doing thesis on AFghani from colonialist countries have a right to complain about being agents because the two went to Europe.

    They reacted, while the trraditionalists were still sitting in their ivory towers.

    You miss my point on the whole idea of influence of the British and others on muslim governments and lands. The fact you brought out Hashemites, Ottomans and others being influenced only proves my point still of the incursion of European and British into Muslim lands.
    You want to eat the cake too. You blame the Wahhabis were being influenced by the British, praising the Ottomans andf traditionalists to no end, failing to mention that it was the Hashemite kingdom that sided with the British first, inviting their help. None of the traditionalist scholars were their arguing against the Hashemite kingdom for trying to bring non-Muslims into the Hijaz. They were busy decrying the reforms of Abdul-Wahhab, which ended a lot of exploitation of the common Muslims thorugh shrines and graves. Families often set up shop around a site that allegedly had some affiliation with the first few Muslim generations, stealing money away from the poor, who went to seek blessings. The colonialists made their incursions into the Muslim lands, because of the Muslims themselves. If this was the time of the traditionalists, which is essentially your argument, then it is the traditionalists to blame. The Ottomans were forced to adopt reforms, because their state was no longer capable of meeting the challenges of the modern age. The Americans gained control in the Hijaz, because the Muslims were incapable of extracting all the petroleum. Who allowed the Muslims to become so pathetic? These modernists arose when the deterioration had already begun.

    It's pretty much just whining in reality....
    Last edited by ihsan; 14th July 2010 at 16:35.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

Similar Threads

  1. Moderate vs. Extremist Views in the Muslim World
    By junaid in forum General Conversations
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 27th December 2009, 15:27
  2. The Evolutionary Views by Nasiraddin Tusi
    By The_Other_Admin in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 13th September 2008, 00:01
  3. Need Views
    By Hurr in forum Islamic Sects and Sectarian Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 8th September 2007, 06:40
  4. People’s Views about Understandingislam
    By Sundaram in forum Comments, Feedback and Suggestions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12th December 2003, 11:59
  5. views on this article please
    By seethelight in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29th October 2003, 10:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •