Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: The Three views of Hadith

  1. #16
    I am around... Sadiq_b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,807

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    Islam was primarily spread by sufis in the sub-continent
    This I can confirm from experience. And if it was not for the Sufis, our whole community, my family and myself wouldn't be muslims today.
    [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]

  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,641

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    An article by an Egyptian named Muhammad Qutb appeared in a Turkish religious magazine. The article, headlined "The Line of Deviation" was translated from Arabic. If the translation was done correctly, it immediately strikes the eye that its writer has not a say in the religion. See what nonsense he talks:

    "The victories which the Turks gained in battlefields honored Islam. Yet it is a reality as well that Islam lost much of its meaning in the Turks' hands. In the hands of the Turks, Islam was frozen insubstantially and its improvement was stopped. The Ottomans froze and maltreated Islam in all the fields except in military. For example, they didn't lay on knowledge as much stress as necessary. They stopped ijtihad and the knowledge of fiqh got fixed.

    "Eventually, Islam won its independence getting rid of the damning restriction of the Ottomans, and began to rush forward. This rushing is seen especially in Wahhabite movement in Hedjaz and in the movement of Mahdism led by Mahdi in Sudan. These two movements have been of as much quality as to make Islam recover its own power and its tendency towards improvement. Seeing this happy improvement in Islam, the imperialistic crusaders came into play."

    The service the Ottoman Turks rendered to Islam is a masterpiece, a monument. One has to be blind or a turkophobe not to see this gigantic monument that has been erected on the square of history. From which source were this dynamism, this morals, this patience, this heroism, which led the Ottoman Turks from one victory to another, as this Egyptian writer has to admit of it? Weren't they from the Islamic source? One cannot honor Islam. One can be honored by Islam. Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh), the honorable Amir of Muslims, said, "We used to be contemptible, low persons; Allahu ta'ala honored us by making us Muslims." The ignorant, who do not know that Islam is the source of every kind of virtue and honor, suppose that Islam is to be honored.


    The Islamic army going towards Vienna from Istanbul rested near a source of water in the neighborhood of Belgrade. The fountain was crowded with soldiers performing ablution and filling their containers with water. The priest of a church nearabouts made up and dressed beautiful girls. He gave them a bucket each and sent them to the fountain. The priest watched secretly from behind the window. As soon as the girls approached the soldiers moved aside. The girls filled their buckets easily and went back to the church. The priest, upon seeing this beautiful moral behavior, virtue, decency and mercy of the Islamic soldiers, sent a message to the crusaders' commandant, saying, "This army will never be overcome. Don't shed your blood in vain!" I wonder if this Egyptian writer makes a mistake by supposing that the Ottoman victories were barbarian invasions like those of the armies of Attilla? If he had read the British Lord Davenport's book, he would know about the truth: "Islamic armies took with them justice, virtue and civilization wherever they went. They met the defeated enemy who would surrender always with forgivingness," and he would be a little well-behaved in his writings. Those who made Islamic caliphs lead a dungeon life and who usurped their rights of caliphate from them after 'Abbasids were not ashamed of calling themselves "Sultan al-Haramain" in khutba. When Sultan Yavuz Salim Khan conquered Egypt and rescued the caliphate from slavery in 923 A.H. (1517), he silenced the orator who also called him "Sultan al-Haramain" in khutba customarily, and said, "For me, there cannot be a greater honor than being a slave of those blessed places. Call me Khadim al-Haramain!" It is written in the history books. It may be understood now whether the Egyptians or the Ottomans have frozen Islamic morals. Sultan AbdulHamid Khan It took every year a person, who finished the Faculty of Political Science with the first prize, into the palace as a clerk. Thus, he encouraged youngsters to work and study. Asad Bey who was assigned as a clerk, says in his book Hatirat-i AbdulHamid Khan Thani, "I wrote a cipher on a midnight. I knocked at the door of the Sultan's Bedroom for his signature. It was not opened. I knocked once more. It still was not open. I was about to knock for the third time, the door opened. The Sultan, who met me, was drying his face with the towel. 'Sonny! I kept you waiting. I beg your excuse! I got up yet at the first knock. I understood that you came for an urgent signature at midnight. I was without ablution. I had never signed any paper of this nation without ablution (wudu). I was late in order to perform the ablution. Let me hear,' he said. I read. He signed it pronouncing the Basmala, and he said, 'Let's hope for the best, Insha-Allah,' " The Ottoman Sultans were that much attached and that much respectful to Islam. Ayyub Sabri Pasha says in his book Mirat al-Haram-Ain, "Sultan Abdulmajid Khan, upon finding out that Mustafa Rashid Pasha was a Mason and had chosen a path not compatible with Islam, got sick of his anxiety and sorrow. He could not sit on the bed, he always lay. Only important papers were being read to him in order to take the imperial rescript. About a paper which had been waiting for its turn, he was said, 'An application of the inhabitants of Medina will be read.' 'Hold over! Don't read! Help me sit!' he said. He was helped to sit putting a pillow behind him. He said, 'They are our Master Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) neighbors. I would be ashamed of listening to their application lying down as I was. Do at once what they want! But read so that my ears may be blessed!' He passed away the following day." Here are the morals, decency of the Ottoman Turkish Sultans and their reverence to Islam.

    Can this reverence, this well-behavior of the Turks towards Islam be the same as the disrespectfulness, the indecency of the rascals who lie down like carcasses in Masjid as-Saada with their foul feet pointing towards the Qabr as-Saada?

    In the words, "Islam's improvement was stopped in the Ottomans," there smells the noxious scent of insidious hostility towards Islam. Fenari, Molla Khusraw, al-Hayali, al-Galanbawi, Ibn Kamal, Abussuud, 'Allama al-Birghiwi, Ibn 'Abidin, 'Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi, Mawlana Khalid al-Baghdadi, as-Suwaidi, 'Abdulhakim-i Arwasi and 'Allama Mustafa Sabri, who disgraced 'Abduh, and many a scholar of fiqh and kalam, and calligraphers, Mimar Sinan (architect), Sokullu and Koprulu; in which State were all these great men educated? Weren't they educated in the Ottomans? Hundred thousands of books of knowledge written by the Ottoman scholars have filled up the national libraries in every city. Their catalogues are evident. Weren't they the Ottoman Shaikh al-Islams who gave fatwa to the whole Muslim world for six hundred years and who solved every kind of problem and who were remedies for Muslims' cares and who disgraced Christians and heretical groups by writing refutations to them? Al-Hayali's commentaries of 'ilm al-kalam books, Molla Khursraw's Ad-durar, al-Halabi's Multaqa, Ibn 'Abidin's Radd al-mukhtar, Abussuud's tafsir and Shaikhzada's commentary to al-Baidawi's tafsir shed light upon the whole world today. Didn't the Ottomans educate these exalted scholars and awliya? Today also, those who want to learn their faith correctly should read these valuable books. The most valuable Qur'an commentaries are those written by Shaikhzada and Abussuud. He who wants to be useful to Muslims should translate these books into Turkish. The Qur'an commentaries of reformist writers are not so, because, with their short sight and inefficient knowledge, they have mixed with these books whatever occurred to their minds under the name of tafsir, thus adding rotten rings to the chain. He who relies on a chain with rotten rings and descends on the sea by clasping it, will certainly be mistaken and drown. Therefore, one should not read the translations of such made-up books of tafsir. The six-hundred-year-old guardians of Islam and the Sources of Islamic knowledge were always the Ottomans. Hundreds of fatwa books like Bahjat al-fatawa, in which it is written that the printing-press should be founded, showed solutions according to the requirements of each century and opened ways to improvements. As for Majalla, the masterpiece of the last century, it became a monument of laws, having no equal in the world. If the Ottoman morals, knowledge and culture survived today, no defeat would have been suffered against a handful of Jews, and the war plans of Muslims would not have been sold for a few thousand dollars by the responsible persons to the Israelite spies in London; nor would the Arabic unity have been disgraced in front of the whole world.

    The fearless, shameless aggression of the Egyptian writer Kutb to the Sahabat al-kiram and then to the real Muslim administrators of the Umayyads. Abbasid and Ottomans, is not without its purpose. He himself explains its reason. The gypsy reveals his theft while boasting of his qualities. He lets out what he has hitherto kept back and says, "Wahhabism rescued Islam from slavery." Yes, in order to praise the la-madhhabi, he speaks ill of Islamic caliphs and Islamic scholars. The plans and the policy of Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Qutb and 'Abduh are based on this fundamental. They all attack the early Muslims. They slander the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. On the other hand, they misrepresent Ibn Taymiyya and the heretics like Jamal ad-din al-Afghani as rescuers. Why do they praise the la-madhhabi? As their values pertaining to religion and knowledge are zero, so their immoralities are under zero; Sa'ud showed it to the whole world by his dissipated, dishonest and immoral behaviors and by spending millions of dollars for his pleasure and sensuality in Europe. We wonder if the Egyptian writer does not blush seeing and hearing that the adulteries, fornications, immoralities in Cairo and Riad palaces are broadcast over the world through radios? They are not ashamed to take bribes, which is hundreds of liras, from each of the millions of hajis coming from the Muslim world. They do not let their brothers-in-Islam perform their duty of hajj unless they give them hundreds of liras. Whereas, it is written in the Ottoman book Radd al-mukhtar that it is haram to levy any toll on Christians who come to visit Jerusalem. Ottomans did not ask any money even from disbelievers. But these people demand it from Muslims. If they do not pay it, they prevent them from worshiping. Allahu ta'ala declares in the one hundred and fourteenth ayat of the surat al-Baqara, "No one can be more cruel than he who prohibits to mention Mine Name in Mine mosques." Hadrat 'Ata is quoted in Tafsir at-tibyan, "This ayat descended because, on the Day of Hudaibiya, the disbelievers of Mecca would not let Muslims into the Masjid al-Haram and perform hajj. In the Qur'an, unbelievers are called 'the cruel', too." This ayat clearly describes those who do not let Muslims who cannot pay money into the Masjid al-Haram and those who praise these heretics. There were the Ottoman Muslims, whom they blame, and here are the enemies of Ahl as-Sunnat whom they praise! Also, his word "The Ottomans stopped ijtihad," is a lie. This word has become a loathsome gossip in the mouths of the enemies of Islam. The Ottomans did not close the way to ijtihad. They prevented the ignorant like Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Qutb and 'Abduh, who were the enemies of Islam, from inserting their dirty pens to Islam's chastity. If the Ottoman Turks had not protected Islam against the aggression of ignorant people like these, Islam also, like Christianity, would have been an altogether mixed-up, impure religion. As a matter of fact, it is seen with pain that Islam has been injured and made a toy in the hands of the heretics in Mecca and Egypt. Today, real Islam, as Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) had left it, has remained in Turkish people with all its cleanliness and purity. [For those who want to learn the real aspects of Ibn Taimiyya, the leader of the anti-madhhabite, and of those who are excessive in anti-madhhabism in detail. Indian scholar Muhammad Hamd-Allah ad-Dajwi's Arabic work Al-basa'ir li-munkiri't-tawassuli bi-ahl al maqabir and Muhammad Hasan Jan al-Faruqi al-Mujaddidi as-Sirhindi's Persian work Al-usul al-arba'a fi tardid al-Wahhabiyya (both were first printed in India then reproduced in Istanbul, 1375/1975) are advisable.]

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Yet, the Ottomans were stopped at the gates of Vienna. Nations rise and fall. They rise when they are just, fall when they are unjust.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  4. #19
    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 ihsan View Post
    Let me repeat what I stated:



    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 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....
    When did I praise the Ottomans? Apparently you havent listened or attended the lecture by Dr. Hatem Bazian of Berkeley on the Broken Chain nor have you read Keddie's book on Afghani (which shows he was clearly an atheist and trying to become a russian agent). Ottomans were just as bad by signing the capitulation treaties with Russia and other Europeans, by asking the germans to train them in warfare (why did the ottoman uniforms look strikingly like german uniforms? hmmmm). They got rid of the turban and replaced it with the fez cap. The Ottomans adopted reforms so they can be militarily on par with the Europeans and Russians.

    Now I'm not going to do the research for you. I've done it for myself, but I will post some points I made in another thread on this forum:

    1. European encroachment on the Muslim world and successive defeats by Muslim polities
    2. Muslim Polities allowing European free reign of trade (like the East India company)
    3. Colonization of the Muslim world in which the colonizer in order to successfully administer its project, had to reshape and change the societies of the colonized. they created the Anglo-Muhammadan Law which laid the bricks for the eventual transformation of the Muslim world into a nation state system that is at odds with shariah.
    4. The dismantlement of reproductive means in islamic education (ie being able to produce in each generation jurists, legal scholars, judges, author jurists who would revise, upgrade, reevaluate the fiqh of the previous generation) and replacing them with western law schools and the creation of a western lawyers and hierarchal courts (shariah courts were not hierarchal).
    5. Codification of the law (fiqh was never unitary and codified, it laid out a general framework that is augmented by local practices and other means which made it very diverse and flexible).
    6. Elimination of the waqf which lead to more problems. Now schools are state runned, with state strings attached.
    7. The creation of a new western worldview educated elite that tried to "reform" (ie to be more modern, which in the colonial discourse means to become civilized and european like us)

    and more...


    All this can be found in several academic books like Hallaq's Shariah, Reform in Ottoman Syria, etc etc. But of course you wont even bother to do the research or read or study unless its written by ghamidi or his ilk. I on the other hand have read books written by orientalists, academics, muslim scholars, historians, etc etc.

    Just from your regurgitation of modernist thought, it shows you havent bothered to read. My "alleged" views of abduh and afghani lol apparently you havent read the works that have documentary evidence on what abduh, afghani and rida really thought in the form of correspondance between afghani and abduh and other documents.

    In other words you are arguing from lack of research.
    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]

  5. #20
    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 ihsan View Post
    Yet, the Ottomans were stopped at the gates of Vienna. Nations rise and fall. They rise when they are just, fall when they are unjust.
    Nations rise and fall because of imperial overreach as ibn khaldun says in his muqadimah and what Dr. Kennedy wrote in his book on empires.
    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. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by Nawawi619 View Post
    In other words you are arguing from lack of research.
    Once again, your argument is that the Ottomans adopted Western ideas, which led to their defeat. My point is the Ottomans adopted Western ideas because their own ideas were no longer capable of meeting their own needs.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by Nawawi619 View Post
    Nations rise and fall because of imperial overreach as ibn khaldun says in his muqadimah and what Dr. Kennedy wrote in his book on empires.
    ibn Khaldun argues that nations succes if based upon partisanship or asabiyya, implying that when that very spirit is divested from the people, nations cannot exist. His sociology is way more profound than arguing that imperial over-reach is what led to nations rising and falling. That is just one aspect of the problem. Further, nations often over-reach imperially, because of extravagance in their own lifestyles as the Quran is abundantly clear. The implication is that the fall starts morally. Many nations have fallen that didn't have over-reaching territorial designs. The Indians were defeated by the British, right in their very hearts, by numbers much smaller than they.

    Colonization of the Muslim world in which the colonizer in order to successfully administer its project, had to reshape and change the societies of the colonized. they created the Anglo-Muhammadan Law which laid the bricks for the eventual transformation of the Muslim world into a nation state system that is at odds with shariah.
    How is the nation-state system at odds with the shariah? The nation-state system was a product of the modern age, of which the nations had to adapt. Kingdom and monarchy is surely not an Islamic version of government.
    Last edited by ihsan; 14th July 2010 at 18:29.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  8. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,641

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    Yet, the Ottomans were stopped at the gates of Vienna. Nations rise and fall. They rise when they are just, fall when they are unjust.
    Its all within the Hikmet of Allah. The just (sanctioned by treaty) seige of Vienna with swords was routed, hindering the building of Mosques for hundreds of years, nothing to do with being just or unjust ... but now recently with brooms and street sweepers in hand mosques are buing built ... once again nothing to do with being just or unjust ...

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,641

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    actually ... even economies have improved ... take Germany for example ...

  10. #25

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by DocW View Post
    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.


    Well Salaam DocW ..hope your doing fine

    The Religion has not been related entirely in the Quran is because Muhammad (saw) said in a Hadith....

    "From Adam to me Allah (swt) sent 124000 Prophets out of which 313 were Messengers (I.e were entrusted with a Book) ." (Musnad Ahmed 21257)


    Less Books and more Prophets ? Because theres a saying that Actions speak louder than words, and it can be seen why Allah (swt) sent more living examples than just words, for words are not as effective as a nations can be effected by following the living example of a True Guide. And since the book of Quran is a Book of Guidance (2:01) the best to guide in following words of Allah and showing the example was Prophet Muhammad (Saw). When asked a question as to how was the Prophet, his wife Ayesha (r.a) said "He was a Quran on two Legs."


    Most importantly, why does Allah not provide the entire religion in Quran and leave it for Imam Bukhari to discover it years later.

    One thing you have to understand Bro DocW by reading the Hadith...


    Qays ibn Kathir reported that a man came to Abu Darda (r.a) at Damascus from Madinah. He asked him, “What has brought you here O Brother. He said “I have come for a hadith which I have learnt that you narrate from Allah’s Messenger (SAW). He asked, “Have you come for no other purpose?’ He said, ‘No!” He asked, “Have you come for some business?” He said, “No! I have not come except to seek this hadith.” So, he (Abu Darda (RA) said, “I had heard Allah’s Messenger (SAW) say, He who travels on a path in search of knowledge will find that Allah causes him to travel on a path to Paradise. And the angels will lower their wings for the pleasure of the seeker of knowledge. And it is for the shcolar that all in the heavens and all on earth seek forgiveness so much so that fish is the water. And the excellence of a scholar over a worshipper is like the excellence of the moon over all the stars. The scholars are the heirs of the Prophet (SAW) and the Prophets do not leave dinar or dirham in legacy. They only leave knowledge. So, he who takes it indeed collects an abundant good fortune.”
    (Tirmizi #2691)


    The Scholars are Heirs to the Prophets and they then are duty bound to carry the Message of the Prophet across wherever it is needed to be taught. The knowledge of the Quran and the words of Prophet Muhammad (Saw) open doors to other knowledge which need to be learned for the Welfare of the Ummah and was done by such Scholars of the past. Whenever the need arises to guide people towards the right way and clear all innovations and provide details of the religion which would make Muslims and others understand better about Islam, then Allah (swt) has his men, the scholars who do this job. This is needed to be done and cannot end. The Quran and Sunnah, are not an end in itself. There is also Ijtihad which needs to be done at time by the learned persons. However, Imam Bukhari did the compilation of Hadith literature, then that was his specialization and every scholar has had his own in the past.

    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.

    Well actually bro, he never denied it either... for example take this Hadith...


    Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Amr (R.A) reports "I used to write everything i heard from the Messenger (saw) as i wanted to Preserve it. The Quraish forbade me, saying 'Do you write down everything that you hear (from him) and The Messenger is a human being who sometimes speaks in anger and joy? (that is that he may say something emotionally that may not be worth writing). So i stopped. Then i mentioned this to Allah's Messenger (saw). He pointed with his finger to his mouth and said "Write! By the One in Whose Hand is My Life! Nothing comes out of it (His Mouth) except the Truth!" [Sunan Abu Daud of Imam Abu Daud, Hadith #3161]


    Rather this Hadith and many other Traditions prove that Muhammad (saw) never denied that his words be written down, rather he encouraged their writing! And we can say that it was these written traditions by Companions of the Prophet (saw) which were compiled by the great Compilers like Imam Bukhari and Muslim.


    From what my knowledge tells me, that groups among Muslims became divided later on, as years passed and the 3 Generations of Muslims or in some Ahadith the 2 generations, were the best as described by Prophet (saw)...

    Sayyidina lmran ibn Husayn (RA) reported that Allah’s Messenger said, The best of my ummah is the generation to which 1 have been sent, then they who will follow them.’ (Tirmizi Hadith #2229)





    The ones who came after them (i.e the 2nd generation) started raising Questions about Islam and about words of Quran and words of Prophet. The disagreements which led to an increase in the division among the Muslims happened when many of later generations started to understand the words of Prophet and tried deriving their own meanings from them. Whatever was accepted to their reasoning they would accept and whatever they could not, they would reject it. Many unnecessary questioning in Islam also led to divisions among the Ummah. And so each time Scholars arose and clarified the misconceptions and made clear the benefits inherent in Quran and Sunnah for all mankind.


    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.

    Also if you would again ponder over these Words of Prophet Muhammad (saw) ...The best of my ummah is the generation to which 1 have been sent, then they who will follow them.’ and sayings like ..."Hold on to the path of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after me (the 4, Abu Bakr, Umar Uthman and Ali) (Abu Daud)... these words make it clear that Quran since was officially compiled during their era and that the .... Learned Men are Heirs of the Prophets..... and since the Companions (r.a) were all great Learned in Islam, it should be clear, that even though Muhammad (saw) delivered the Message and left it to be done by the Companions and Next generation, there was Truly in it the Wisdom of Allah (Swt)...


    Also something important to mention is that it is Well recorded in Authentic Traditions that Angel Jibrail (a.s) came and recited the Whole Quran every year with Prophet Muhammad (saw) which he had memorised and then Prophet then in turn recited with Zaid Ibn Thabit (r.a), Ubay Ibn Kaab (r.a) and Muadh Ibn Jabal (r.a). So The Prophet (saw) had faith in the Verse of Quran where Allah (swt) says... Verily We have Sent the Zikr (Quran) and it is We who are its Guardian (15:09)... and so his mission was completed , the rest was to be carried by his followers.


    Salaam

  11. #26

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Nice and useful information. Most of the Muslim scholars support the first view about Hadith.

  12. #27
    Moderator shaad_lko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wandering Dervish
    Posts
    2,657

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    Quote Originally Posted by Basit View Post
    Nice and useful information. Most of the Muslim scholars support the first view about Hadith.
    its too straitjacketed a classification to say that the majority of Muslim scholars considered Hadith equivalent to Quran - even Imam Shafii (rh) cant be of the same opinion.
    Nine things the Lord has commanded me: Fear of God in private and in public; Justness, whether in anger or in calmness; Moderation in both poverty and affluence; That I should join hands with those who break away from me; And give to those who deprive me; And forgive those who wrong me; And that my silence should be meditation; And my words remembrance of God; And my vision keen observation.- Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    227

    Default Re: The Three views of Hadith

    The Holy Qur'aan is the ( Best - Hadiyth's ) .

    The Holy Qur'aan 4 ; 87 , Reavealed In The Year 625 - 627 A.D. Says ; The Source ,
    Allah ; no Ihaaha ( Allahs ) Sources would exist , except by way of Him ( Hu -The Creative Force Of Will ) He will gather you all , unto a Day of Resurrection . There is no doubt in it , and who is more Asadaq - Truthful , than Allah's Hadiyth 'Tale ; ( not man's hadiyth ) .

Similar Threads

  1. Moderate vs. Extremist Views in the Muslim World
    By junaid in forum General Conversations
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 27th December 2009, 14:27
  2. The Evolutionary Views by Nasiraddin Tusi
    By The_Other_Admin in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12th September 2008, 23:01
  3. Need Views
    By Hurr in forum Islamic Sects and Sectarian Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 8th September 2007, 05:40
  4. People’s Views about Understandingislam
    By Sundaram in forum Comments, Feedback and Suggestions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12th December 2003, 10:59
  5. views on this article please
    By seethelight in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29th October 2003, 09:51

Posting Permissions

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