Are Bukhari and Muslim to be Trusted?
Joihn Eristu
Much has been said about Hadith.
Is it trustworthy as a source of guidance?
There are many questions that must be tackled first.
1. Hadith is the work of mere men, not prophets or any special men. Its
value is assumed on the basis that the topic is the sseratunnabi.
However it is not equal to the seerah, it is merely one man's take on
seerah. There are more details that are not covered than those that are
covered. It is never determined if the part that is not covered would
overwhelm any value that the covered part would seem to claim for itself
in the mind of muslims.
2. The criteria of hadith merely address the chain of narrations. It
does not address sensibility of the topic. It does not include other
desirable criteria that are necessary for an information to be useful as
a roadmap.
The only sensible thing left to do is the following. Take each hadith at
its value, and feel free to accept it or reject it or simply ignore it.
This is what most muslims are doing today in their practice. But it
needs to be formally acknowledged and recognized as the right practice
(ijmaa).
Benoīt EVANS
Joihn Eristu <Eri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(...)
> 2. The criteria of hadith merely address the chain of narrations. It
> does not address sensibility of the topic. It does not include other
> desirable criteria that are necessary for an information to be useful as
> a roadmap. (...)
The evaluation of a particular hadith is based on more than the
reliability of the chain.
First of all, we must understand what we are talking about. Sometimes
the terms "sunnah" and "ahadith" are used interchangeably. In fact they
are not identical.
In establishing shar'iah, there are two primary sources: the Qur'an and
the sunnah (way) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). The Qur'an
is the revealed word of God. The sunnah is made up of the words and
deeds of the prophet (what he said or did or refrained from doing).
After the death of the Prophet, there was no original source for his
sunnah. He left no writings, no video or audio recordings. His
companions, as witnesses to his sunnah, reported what they had seen and
heard. Their reports were passed down over time. The great collectors of
those oral traditions, such as Bukhari, tried to bring together all the
traditions that could be found and to publish only those that were
deemed by them to be "authentic" or reliable. The term hadith
specifically means what the Prophet said or did (i.e. his sunnah);
generally it means the RECORD of what he said or did.
The chain of transmission is important since the continuity of a hadith
and the trustworthiness of the transmitters is very important. However,
there are other criteria for judging hadith. Even if a hadith passes the
test of the chain of transmission (isnad), it must be excluded if the
contents (matn) do not meet the test of at least 6 other criteria:
1. A hadith cannot be contrary to the text or teaching of the Qur'an or
the accepted basic principles of Islam.
2. A hadith must not be contrary to to reason or the laws of nature and
common experience.
3. A hadith must be contrary to other hadith whose authenticity is
beyond dispute.
4. A hadith that sings the praises of a particular tribe, place or
person must generally be rejected.
5. A hadith that contains dates and minute details of future events
("prophecies") must be rejected.
6. A hadith that ascribes to the Prophet Muhammad words or actions that
are contrary to the Islamic belief concerning prophethood or that would
be unseemly words or actions for a Prophet of God must be rejected.
Even if all the criteria are met, a hadith may be rejected if there is
evidence that it is maudu, that is untrue or fabricated.
The accepted ahadith are classified on the basis of their degree of
authenticity as sahih (sound) or hasan (good) or daif weak). Men like
Bukhari published collections of the ahadith that they deemed to be
sahih. Today, their collections are generally accepted without little or
no question. However, they were ordinary men and they were not
infallible. Some of the ahadith that they accepted may not be authentic.
In fact, that is a minor problem. The major problem is our knowledge (or
lack of knowledge) about the context of a hadith. When were the words
said or the actions undertaken, where, in relation to whom or to what?
The proper understanding of a hadith depends on knowing the answers to
those questions.
Peace to all that seek God's face,
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Zuiko Azumazi
news:3aaqkiF...@individual.net...
<snip> ...
> Much has been said about Hadith.
> Is it trustworthy as a source of guidance?
> There are many questions that must be tackled first.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I would say that both Bukhari and Muslim should be 'trusted' as reliable
compilers of collections of historically valid hadiths. It's an entirely
different question whether all the six canonical books of hadith are
inerrant. Also, the science of hadith underpins the whole concept of the
Islamic system of jurisprudence, if one dismisses these fundamental canons,
where does this place the 'legal system' as practised in the various parts
of the Muslim world? Is there a viable alternative that isn't fraught with
the same human propensity to possibly error?
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slime Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
digi...@hotmail.com
happened in the past.
It's pretty much the same as history books. It could be true or not.
As to be trusted or not.
Well... If it doesn't violate any of the things mentioned in the
Qur'an, it's pretty much all right to follow it. If it violated the
things in the Qur'an, then it's pretty much safe to say that those
Hadits shouldn't be followed.
As for to accept or reject or ignore a Hadits.
Well... What ever happen, one shouldn't reject a Hadits that fits
accordingly with the Qur'an and in the same time accept a Hadits that
is contradict the Qur'an.
And since that there are too many Hadits to remember, it might be
better to just follow the Qur'an if there are doubts in the Hadits.
As for "to be formally acknowledged and recognized".
Really... There''s no such thing formality in religion, the concept of
formality in religion is nothing more but a way devise by people who
are against God. The same goes for 'official' religious organizations.
In religion, each is on his or her own.
Joihn Eristu
>
> Comment:-
> I would say that both Bukhari and Muslim should be 'trusted' as reliable
> compilers of collections of historically valid hadiths.
The trust question was raised for the Hadith material.
The trust question about the two men is a much more complex issue.
Fortunately we do not have to decide that, because that is for Allah.
> It's an entirely
> different question whether all the six canonical books of hadith are
> inerrant.
No. The question is whether any of them are inerrant. And the answer is no.
> Also, the science of hadith underpins the whole concept of the
> Islamic system of jurisprudence,
No it does not need to.
Jurisprudence is a man made system.
> if one dismisses these fundamental canons,
> where does this place the 'legal system' as practised in the various parts
The part that is practiced in Muslim world, has no value what so ever.
Examples of this practice are 1. Cutting of hands of thieves, 2. Stoning
the adulterers to death, 3. Declaring other muslims as non muslims, 4.
Establishing Secterianism.
These are more trouble than they are help.
> of the Muslim world? Is there a viable alternative that isn't fraught with
> the same human propensity to possibly error?
The biggest source of judgement is your human faculties. Use them. And
of course Quran is available.
>
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> The trust question was raised for the Hadith material.
Comment:-
Hearsay is hearsay, (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around
by word of mouth, can anyone change this defining characteristic? Hadith are
no exception to this rule? Consequently, Muslims either take on authority
(trust) (i.e Bukhari or Muslim) the vast majority of claims to truth that
come our way, or suspend our judgement about them. Doesn't orthodoxy mean
right opinion, Islamic or otherwise? In some respects, it's just a matter of
taste?
Whether one likes or dislikes what a hadith says it doesn't imply that, as a
statement, it's origin is cognitively true or false. How do you propose, in
the here and now, that we check or verify authorship or veracity of these
sayings?
To paraphrase in a similar vein, is 'Joihn Eristu' to be trusted? Is he not
but a fallible man? Does the suggested Islamic 'neo-orthodoxy' provide
invariable certitude? Or, is it just another personal opinion, an emerging
schism, or sectarian viewpoint?
<snip> ...
> No. The question is whether any of them are inerrant. And the answer is
> no.
Comment:-
If none of the recognised 'six canonical books of hadith' are inerrant (i.e.
not liable to error), then their claim to knowledge must be trusted, so,
what's the
problem?
<snip> ...
> > Also, the science of hadith underpins the whole concept of the
> > Islamic system of jurisprudence,
> No it does not need to.
Comment:-
I agree, but that's a matter of opinion. However, regardless of what we
think, it doesn't alter the fact that 'the science of hadith underpins the
whole concept of the Islamic system of jurisprudence'?
> Jurisprudence is a man made system.
Comment:-
That's self-evident. Is there any viable alternative that you can suggest as
a man that doesn't involve man in its practice?
> The biggest source of judgement is your human faculties. Use them. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But I'm mortal, just a mere man just like you!
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain. [Hippocrates: The
first Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Uncle_Sinbad
Do you are others (perhaps any historians) know if the "Science of
hadith" passes the test of modern criteria of reliable historical
material, and if not why?
How do non-muslim historians look at the hadith literature?
Kamal
Joihn Eristu
> Comment:-
> Hearsay is hearsay, (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around
> by word of mouth, can anyone change this defining characteristic? Hadith are
> no exception to this rule?
I think I disagree. Hadith is much more sophisticated in its scrutiny of
what it reports, compared to historical material, which has almost no
scientific criteria. So you see history written and rewritten. Attitudes
formed and reformed. But Hadith is very methodical and almost scientific.
So my conclusion is that Hadith is far more trust worthy than historical
books.
The difference is our attitude. If we were merely writing history, than
Muslims have done an almost impossible job of ensuring accuracy, far
beyond history can ever hope to achieve.
The problem arises when Muslims start using Hadith as binding for their
conduct. The lives are at stake, the future of nations is at stake. For
that kind of application, the Hadith is neither accurate nor fully
covering of its subject.
>
>>No. The question is whether any of them are inerrant. And the answer is
>>no.
>
>
> Comment:-
> If none of the recognised 'six canonical books of hadith' are inerrant (i.e.
> not liable to error), then their claim to knowledge must be trusted, so,
> what's the
> problem?
> <snip> ...
>
I think I was too much in a haste to have avoided misunderstanding. I
was saying that none of the Hadith books out of the six regarded as
SAHIH are inerrant.
>
>>The biggest source of judgement is your human faculties. Use them. ...
>
> <snip> ...
>
> Comment:-
> But I'm mortal, just a mere man just like you!
>
One problem is that we are too afraid to make a mistake. Not because we
think to err is not human, but we are too scared of consequences in the
framework that Mulim imams have woven for ordinary muslims.
Quran asks us to observe, analyse, and learn wisdom. Quran even tell us
about Ibrahim, how he thought the Sun, the moon, the stars were Gods.
But eventually his struggle led him to Allah. So it was just fine to err
on the part of Ibrahim. It is also fine for us to err. In fact we must
struggle, and we must recognize that uring our struggle we will err. God
does not punish this error, God loves it.
Joubin Houshyar
> Much has been said about Hadith.
> Is it trustworthy as a source of guidance?
>
> There are many questions that must be tackled first.
>
. By Name of Allah ArRahman ArRaheem [Q.4.1]
...
4: 60.
!!! O ye who believe !!!
obey ALLAH
and obey His Messenger
and those who are in authority among you
. And if you differ in _anything_
. > Refer it to
!!!ALLAH!!!
+and+
~!!His Messenger!!~ <
*** if ***
you are believers
in ALLAH
and the Last Day.
>That<
is
!!! best !!!
+and+
~!! most commendable !!~
in the end!
[Understood?]
4: 61.
Hast thou not seen those who assert that they believe in what has been
revealed to thee and what has been revealed before thee ?
They desire
to seek judgment
from the evil one,
although
they were commanded
not
to obey him.
And sheitan desires
to lead them
far astray.
4: 62.
And when it is said to them,
. `Come ye to what ALLAH has sent down
. and to His Messenger,'
thou seest the hypocrites turn away from thee
with aversion!
4: 63.
Then how is it ?
that when an affliction befalls them
# because of what their hands have sent on before, #
they come to thee
swearing by ALLAH,
saying,
. `We meant nothing but
"!!!"the doing of good "!!!"
+and+
"~!!"conciliation."!!~"'
4: 64.
These are they,
! the secrets of whose hearts ALLAH knows well !
*** So turn away from them ***
+and+
@@@ admonish them @@@
and speak to them
@@@ an effective word @@@
concerning themselves!
4: 65.
And WE have sent no Messenger
but
that he should be obeyed !
by the command of ALLAH!!
And if they had come to thee,
when they had wronged their souls,
and asked forgiveness of ALLAH,
+and+
the Messenger also had asked forgiveness for them,
they would have surely found ALLAH
Oft-Returning with compassion,
and
Merciful.
4: 66.
But no!
by thy Lord
they will not be true believers
*** until they make thee judge ***
*** in all that is __in dispute__ between them"
+ and +
then find not in their hearts
*** any *** demur
concerning that
which thou
decidest
+and+
submit with full submission!
4: 67.
And if WE had commanded them:
Slay your people
or
leave your homes,'
they would not have done it
except a few of them;
and
if they had done what they are exhorted to do,
it would
surely
have been better for them
and
conducive to greater strength;
[& is that not a Fact?]
4: 68.
And then
WE would have
surely,
given them a great reward
from Ourselves!
4: 69.
And
WE could
surely
have guided them
in the right path!!
4: 70.
And whoso obeys ALLAH and this Messenger
shall be
~!! among those on whom ALLAH has bestowed HIS blessings !!~
. the Prophets,
. the Truthful,
. the Martyrs,
. and the Righteous.
. ~!! And an excellent company !!~ are they!
4: 71.
This grace is from ALLAH
and ALLAH suffices
as One
Who is
All-Knowing!
James Dowdeswell
> > different question whether all the six canonical books of hadith are
> > inerrant.
>
> No. The question is whether any of them are inerrant. And the answer is no.
These Hadith (along with the Qur'an) are a major source of Muslim
belief. If Muslims 'know' their belief system is based on flawed
books (as well as the Qur'an) then why do some Muslims try to
demonstrate that the Bible is, to a degree, "flawed" as a basis for
undermining the Christian belief system?
Warm regards,
James.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> But Hadith is very methodical and almost scientific. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I don't necessarily disagree.
> So my conclusion is that Hadith is far more trust worthy than historical
> books. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I don't necessarily disagree. However, both 'hadith' and 'history' use
somewhat different 'scientific' methods which often lead to irreconcilable
conclusions. The choice of 'method' then becomes a matter of taste.
> The problem arises when Muslims start using Hadith as binding for their
> conduct.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As I've tried to explain, in neutral terms before, there is one point about
authority, hadith or otherwise, that is fundamental: No matter how reliable
an authority may be, and no matter how often his statements have turned out
to be true when examined, authority cannot be a primary source of knowledge.
Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum.) Isn't that the underlying paradox?
--
Peace
--
Speculation, theory, what are they but thinking? Can man disdain
speculation, can he disdain theory, without disdaining thought as well?
[Bentham 1824]
--
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
ahlulbayt786
some important info about some of the narrators relied upon
by Bukhari and/or other Sunni major compilations of hadeeth:
Fact
`Umar b. Sa`d
`Umar b. Sa`d needs no introduction for those aware of the
details of the
tragedy of Karbala. This son of Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas, the
companion of the
Prophet (s), led the troops on the ground against Imam
al-Husayn (a).
al-Tabari quotes Ibn Sa`d, after the Imam (a) had been
mercilessly killed:
Then `Umar b. Sa d called out among his followers, "Who will
volunteer
[to go] to al-Husayn and make his horse trample on al-Husayn
s body?" Ten
volunteered. Among them was Ishaq b. Haywah al-Hadrami, who
was the one
who stole al-Husayn s shirt and later got leprosy, and
Ahbash b. Marthad
b. Alqamah b. Salamah al-Hadrami. They trampled on the body
of al-Husayn
with their horses until they had crushed his back and his
chest. I
learned that some time later an arrow from an unknown
direction hit
Ahbash b. Marthad as he was standing in a battle. It split
his heart, and
he died. (Al-Tabari, al-Ta rikh, translated into English as
History of
al-Tabari The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu awiyah , Howard, pp. 163)
Some example of the Prophet s (s) hadith quoted my Sunni
scholars on the
authority of `Umar b. Sa`d!
* Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, kitab sifat al-janna `an
rasulillah, volume 4,
page 678
* Al-Nasa i, al-Sunan al-mujtaba, kitab tahrim al-dam,
volume 7, page
121
* Al-Nasa i, al-Sunan al-kubra , volume 6, page 263
* Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-kubra, volume 3, page 375
* Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Tabarani, and others.
Fact : `Abd al-Rahman b. `Abza
`Abd al-Rahman b. `Abza (or `Abzi) al-Khuza`i was a
companion of the
Prophet (s). He was present in the troops of Ibn Ziyad who
fought and
killed Imam al-Husayn (a). (See al-Dinawari, al-Akhbar
al-Tiwal, page
298). See some of the narrations by him in:
* Al-Bukhari, Sahih, kitab al-tayammum, volume 1, page 129
* Muslim, Sahih, kitab al-hayd, volume 1, page 280
* Al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Maja, and many others
Fact: al-Harith b. Yazid al-Kufi
Al-Harith b. Yazid al-`Akali al-Taymi al-Kufi seems to the
al-Harith b.
Yazid b. Ruwaym on whose services Ibn Ziyad called upon by
sending him
from his own base in Kufa to join `Umar b. Sa`d s army (See
al-Dinawari,
al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, page 254). No other al-Harith b. Yazid s
in rijal
lexicons seem to hail from Kufa. See his narrations in:
* Al-Bukhari, Sahih, kitab al-`itq, volume 2, page 898
* Muslim, Sahih, kitab fada il al-sahaba, volume 4,
page 1957
* Al-Nasa i, Ibn Maja, and others.
Fact: Shabath b. Rib`i
Abu `Abd al-Quddus Shabath b. Rib`i al-Tamimi al-Yarbu`i was
a man with a
checkered background. A companion of the Prophet (s), he
used to be once
on the side of Imam Ali (a), then joined the Khawarij and
later was part
of Ibn Ziyad s troops in Karbala fighting Imam al-Husayn
(a)! See:
* al-Dinawari, al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, page 254;
* al-`Asqalani, al- Isaba, volume 3, page 376
* al-`Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, volume 4, page 266.
From al-Tabari, from the scene of the battle of Karbala:
He (i.e.`Umar b. Sa`d) put `Azrah b. Qays al-Ahmasi in
command of the
cavalry and Shabath b. Rib`i al-Yarbu`i in command of the
footsoldiers.
(Al-Tabari, al-Ta rikh, translated into English as History
of al-Tabari
The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu awiyah , Howard, pp. 121)
Some narrations from Shabath in:
* Abu Dawud, Sunan, kitab al- adab, volume 4, page 315.
* Al-Nasa i, al-Sunan al-kubra , volume 6, page 204.
Fact: Qadi Shurayh
Abu Umayyah Shurayh b. al-Harith b. Qays al-Kindi was a
judge in Kufa. He
connived with the Umayyad authorities in Kufa in suppressing
the Shi a
and supporters of Imam al-Husayn (a) from rallying to the
call of Muslim
b. `Aqil and Hani b. `Urwa shortly before the onset of the
battle of
Karbala. He had a share in the responsibility for the murder
of Hani by
Ibn Ziyad (See al-Dinawari, al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, page 238).
Shurayh
narrates traditions in:
* Al-Nasa i, Sunan, kitab al-`umra, volume 6, page 277
* Ahmad b. Hanbal s al-Musnad, and other books.
Those who cursed and hated Imam Ali (a) in Bukhari and other
major Sunni
books
The following is a list of individuals who were known to
possess the
despicable attribute of nasb, implying that they openly
manifested their
hate for Imam Ali (a), such as by cursing him or by aligning
themselves
with the Khawarij who fought him. Yet they found themselves
honoured by
Sunni compilers of hadith. The names have been gathered from
several
sources, particularly al-Hasani s work (see bibliography).
Unlike the
individuals mentioned so far, these ones have not been
researched in
detail for the purpose of this study. The list is in no
particular order.
Hurayz (or Hariz) b. Uthman
Busr b. Artat
`Urwah b. al-Zubayr
Abu Bardah b. Abu Musa al-Ash`ari
Ishaq b. Suwayd b. Hubayrah
Husayn b. Numayr al-Wasiti
Dawud b. al-Husayn al-Madani
Muhammad b. Ziyad al-Alhani, Abu Sufyan al-Himsi
al-Mughirah b. Muqsim, Abu Hisham
`Abdullah b. Salim al-Ash`ari al-Himsi
Qays b. Abi Hazim al-Bajali
Thawr b. Zayd al-Daylami
al-Walid b. Kathir bar Yahya al-Madani
Walid b. `Uqba
`Abdullah b. Abi Sarh
Ash ath b. Qays
Marwan b. al-Hakam
Abu Bakra Nafee` al-Thaqafi
Ahmad b. Abdah Musa Janabi
Ishaq b. Suwayd b. Hubayrah al-`Adwi al-Taymi
Isma`il b. Samee` al-Hanafi
Thawr b. Yazid Kala i al-Himsi, Abu Khalid
Jarir b. `Abdullah al-Bajali
Habib b. Maslama
Khalid b. Salamah al-Kufi
Khalid b. Abdullah al-Qasri
Rashid b. Sa`d Maqrahi
Rafi` b. Khadeej
Ziyad b. `Alaqah
Sa`id b. al-`As al-Umawi
Sa`id b. al-Musayyab
Samurah b. Jundab
Shaqeeq b. Salamah al-Asadi
`Abd al-Rahman b. Habib (Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Aslami)
`Abdullah b. al-Zubayr
`Abdullah b. Zayd Abu Qalaba
`Abdullah b. Salim
`Abd al-`Aziz b. Marwan
`Abd al-Malik b. Marwan al- Umawi
`Uthman b. `Asim
`Umar b. Thabit al-Ansari al-Khazraji
`Imran b. Husayn
`Amr b. `Abdullah, Abu Ishaq al-Sabi I
Masruq b. Ajdah
Nafi` b. Amr, Abu Sa`ud al-Ansari
Hisham b. Isma`il
>>Bibliography
>>
>>Al- Amini, al-Ghadir fi l kitab wa l-sunnah wa l-adab,
Beirut, (11 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-kubra, Makka, 1994 (10 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Bukhari, Al-Ta rikh al-kabir, Beirut, 1986, (8 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Bukhari, Jami` al-Sahih, Beirut 1987, (6 volumes).
>>
>>Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Beirut, n.d., (4 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Dhahabi, Al-Kashif fi ma`rifa man lahu riwaya fi kutub
al-sitta,
>>Jeddah, 1992.
>>
>>Al-Dinawari, al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, Baghdad, n.d.
>>
>>Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, al- Isaba fi tamyiz al-sahaba,
Beirut, 1992, (8
>>volumes).
>>
>>Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Lisan al-Mizan, Beirut, 1986, (7
volumes).
>>
>>Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Ta`jil al-manfa`a, Beirut.
>>
>>Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, Beirut, 1984,
(14 volumes).
>>
>>Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari sharh Sahih
al-Bukhari, Beirut, 1379
>>hijra, (13 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Hasani, Hashim Ma`ruf, Dirasat fi l hadith wa l
muhaddithin, Beirut, n.d.
>>
>>Ibn Manzur, Mukhtasar Ta'rikh Dimashq, Damascus, 1988,
(25 volumes).
>>
>>Abu al-Mahasin al-Husayni, Al- Ikmal fi dhikr man lahu
riwaya fi Musnad
>>al- Imam Ahmad min al-rijal, Karachi, 1980.
>>
>>Al-Majlisi, Bihar al- Anwar, (107 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Milani, `Ala Difaf al-Ghadir, Mashhad, 1403 hijra.
>>
>>Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, Beirut, 1980, (35 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Mufid, Kitab al-Irshad, translated into English as The
Book of
>>Guidance , Howard, London, 1981.
>>
>>Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, Sahih, Beirut, 1953 (5 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Nasa i, al-Sunan al-kubra , Beirut, 1991, (6 volumes).
>>
>>Al-Nasa i, al-Sunan al-mujtaba, Halab, 1986, (8 volumes).
>>
>>Abu Rayya, Adwa `ala al-sunna al-Muhammadiyya, available
in English as
>>Lights on the Muhammadan Sunnah, Qum.
>>
>>Al-Safadi, al-Wafi bi l wafayat, Wiesbaden, 1931-93, (22
volumes).
>>
>>Al-Tabari, Dhayl al-mudhayyal min ta rikh al-sahabah wa
al-tabi in,
>>translated into English as Biographies of the Prophet s
Companions and
>>Their Successors, Landau-Tasseron, SUNY Press, 1998.
>>
>>Al-Tabari, al-Ta rikh, translated into English as History
of al-Tabari
>>Volume XIX The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu awiyah , Howard,
SUNY Press, 1990.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > No. The question is whether any of them are inerrant. And the answer is no.
>
> These Hadith (along with the Qur'an) are a major source of Muslim
> belief. If Muslims 'know' their belief system is based on flawed
> books (as well as the Qur'an) then why do some Muslims try to
> demonstrate that the Bible is, to a degree, "flawed" as a basis for
> undermining the Christian belief system?
If we were to talk about "flawed" books and the belief based on it then
your faith is an epitome of it. I think you have heard of B. M. Metzger's,
"The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And
Restoration" (1992, Third Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press:
Oxford (UK)). The name of the book itself suggests more than what it says.
As far as the NIV Bible is concerned, it is based on the "restored" text.
This "restored" text restores our claim about the Bible's corruption. More
at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/nivorigins.html
As far as the hadiths are concerned, they are transmitted via the isnad.
The purpose of isnad is the disclosure of the source of information. In
the final stage, the source must lead to the person who had direct contact
with the highest authority to whom the statement belonged. The difference
between the assessment of Islamic literature and Biblical literature is
like the difference between night and day. In Islamic literature, the
disclosure of sources is akin to the law of witnesses. The witnesses are
examined according to their moral uprightness and chronology. If one
applies this methodology to Biblical literature, not a single sentence
could be proven to be authentic due to the absence of disclosure with
regard to the source of information.
That is, how the information was transmitted from one person to another.
The transmission of knowledge in Islam was also through ijaza. It means,
in short, the fact that an authorized guarantor of a text or of a whole
book (his own work or a work received through a chain of transmitters
going back to the first transmitter or to the author) gives a person the
authorization to transmit it in his turn so that the person authorized can
avail himself of this transmission. The ijazas often having indications of
dates and places and details of the names of the persons who formed links
in the transmission-which precede, frame or follow not only the texts of
hadith, of fiqh or of tafsir, but also theological, mystical, historical
and philological works, and even literary collections, of both prose and
poetry.
In other words, the ijaza system was a way of controlling who could make
copies of someone's work and what uses they could put it to. If the copier
didn't display the proper permission from the original author, by way of
the chain of authorities on the ijaza, people would regard the copier as a
forger or thief. As mentioned earlier, this system was extensively used in
the transmission of Islamic literature. For its use in the transmission of
major hadith collections, please see, J. Robson, "The Transmission Of
Muslim's Sahih", Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1949, pp. 49-60; J.
Robson, "The Transmission Of Abu Dawud's Sunan", Bulletin Of The School Of
Oriental And African Studies, 1952, Volume 14, pp. 579-588; J. Robson,
"The Transmission Of Tirmidhi's Jami`", Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental
And African Studies, 1954, Volume 16, pp. 258-270; J. Robson, "The
Transmission Of Nasa'i's Sunan", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1956, Volume
I, pp. 38-59; J. Robson, "The Transmission Of Ibn Majah's Sunan", Journal
Of Semitic Studies, 1958, Volume III, pp. 129-141.
Regards
Saifullah
John Eritsu
> Comment:-
> As I've tried to explain, in neutral terms before, there is one point about
> authority, hadith or otherwise, that is fundamental: No matter how reliable
> an authority may be, and no matter how often his statements have turned out
> to be true when examined, authority cannot be a primary source of knowledge.
> Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum.) Isn't that the underlying paradox?
I do not remember hearing this before from you.
But I think that is the situation and I agree with your basic point,
with one important caveat.
If god comes to me and speaks to me as an authority, I will have no
problem with that. God is an authority, and as such He will know exactly
what He needs to do to speak to me in a way that I will accept with all
my heart.
Similarly if Mohammad was around and spoke to me, I will have no problem
in getting a direct command from him.
The problem only arises when mere mortals, like Altway, try to claim
that they speak for the Prophet or for Allah because they throw some
written word at me. I will not consider that kind of authority. I have
much better sources that my Creator created me with. I would rather use
them than follow some one like Altway and his likes among the so called
scholars of Islam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:108c7fef.05040...@posting.google.com...
<snip> ...
> ... then why do some Muslims try to
> demonstrate that the Bible is, to a degree, "flawed" as a basis for
> undermining the Christian belief system?
Comment:-
Since this is a dedicated Islamic newsgroup it's important to examine your
Christian response by using similar apologetic means. How should Muslims
react to a veiled attack on their Islamic 'belief system'? Should they try
and understand as well as being understood, in the spirit of Islam? Can
God's revelation be simply reduced to a 'fundamentalist' battle over
scriptural authority and 'flaws'? How should we react to the following
examination, are there any lessons to be learned on both sides of
monotheistic divide?
Some Muslims, as you say, are only reiterating what many contemporary
Christian, intellectuals and theologians, say about the 'flawed' nature of
the Bible (Tillich, Barth, Brunner, Bonhoffer, Robinson, et al).
As Kantzer says in "The Authority of the Bible":- " ... Christ, not the
Bible, is the proper object of religious faith. Fundamentalists, they say,
reverse this order, thereby, erecting the Bible into an idol. For them
belief in the Bible comes first; and because the believe in the Bible they
also believe in Christ." Does this summarise the contemporary Christian
"belief system" situation honestly?
Another axiomatic example is: Does your version of the Bible contain the
Apocrypha? Q.E.D.
Therefore, is Protestantism, or perhaps more appropriately, (Hyper)
Calvinism, as creeds, reflective of universal Christianity (if there is such
a thing), or are they misguided 'ideologies'? This is the paradox that
confounds most Muslims and apparently many 'Fundamentalist Christians' as
well.
--
Peace
--
An ideology is a body of widely held but false beliefs that has the effect
of making practice and institution that is not legitimate seem so. [T.
Eagleton - "Ideology- An Introduction"]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:d2pc65$nho$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
<snip>...
> If god comes to me and speaks to me as an authority, I will have no
> problem with that. God is an authority, and as such He will know exactly
> what He needs to do to speak to me in a way that I will accept with all
> my heart.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
God always speaks with authority because He is the 'primary' source of all
knowledge. Nothing more can be said.
<snip> ...
> Similarly if Mohammad was around and spoke to me, I will have no problem
> in getting a direct command from him.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
God has spoken to us through many messengers, it's still God that's
speaking, as the 'primary' source of knowledge, not the messenger per se.
Scripture is God's revealed word and no one else's. The medium is the
message so to speak.
"The problem only arises when mere mortals" encapsulate it all, man qua man,
the human tastes and 'claims to knowledge' of so-called experts,
specialists, pundits, etc., well-meaning or otherwise, is part of
inquisitive human nature. Whatever they are they aren't God or His Prophets,
hence, they are fallible and imperfect. It's all part of the Islamic mosaic,
is it not?
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Altway
"James Dowdeswell" <dowde...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> These Hadith (along with the Qur'an) are a major source of Muslim
belief. If Muslims 'know' their belief system is based on flawed
books (as well as the Qur'an) then why do some Muslims try to
demonstrate that the Bible is, to a degree, "flawed" as a basis for
undermining the Christian belief system?
Comment:-
(1) The Christian NT being reports by third parties is like the Islamic
Hadith,
except that the Hadith have undergone much research.
(2) The Hadith cannot displace the Quran which is a revelation. Hadith must
either not be interpreted as contradicting the Quran or else be rejected.
(3) If the various books in the NT contain ideas that contradict the
teachings of Jesus then Muslims would expect that these are rejected or not
interpreted as contradicting the teachings of Jesus
(4) Unfortunately, as another article (by "Alan Cossey" -Its good friday...)
shows Christians
have replaced the teachings of Jesus with speculations by other people.
Hamid S. Aziz
James Dowdeswell
> > belief. If Muslims 'know' their belief system is based on flawed
> > books (as well as the Qur'an) then why do some Muslims try to
> > demonstrate that the Bible is, to a degree, "flawed" as a basis for
> > undermining the Christian belief system?
...
> I think you have heard of B. M. Metzger's,
> "The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And
> Restoration" (1992, Third Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press:
> Oxford (UK)). The name of the book itself suggests more than what it says.
Read Lee Strobel's 2nd interview with Bruce M. Metzger in "The Case
for Christ", p.57-71, one gets a very different "impression" from the
one you're trying to give:
- - - - - - -
As we stood, I thanked Dr Metzger for his time and expertise. He
smiled warmly and offered to walk me downstairs. I didn't want to
consume any more of his Saturday afternoon, but my curiosity wouldn't
let me leave princeton without satisfying myself about one remaining
issue.
"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of
delving into the minutiae of the New Testament text - what has all
this done to your personal faith?" I asked.
"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased
the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these
materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of
which are very, very ancient."
"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith-"
He jumped in before I could finish the sentence. "On the contrary,"
he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've
dug into the text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with
confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed."
He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. The he added, for
emphasis, "VERY will placed."
- - - - - - -
"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than
substantive?"
"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to
resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more
significant variantions do not overthrow any doctrine of the church.
Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant
readings of any consequence. But again, these are rare."
- - - - - - -
Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix say:
"The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts
than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer
form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5% pure".
How does that compare to the Qur'an and Hadith?
(What I'm trying to do is get a sense of PERSPECTIVE on this issue).
> As far as the hadiths are concerned...
You seem to have a great respect for the hadith. Let me ask you the
following question. (I've already asked you something similar but my
recollection is that you chose to avoid answering).
On the basis of Muhammad's words below, do you think women are
(generally speaking) less intelligent than men and more likely to end
up in hell?
(1) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
On 'Id ul Fitr or 'Id ul Adha Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to
the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and
ordered the people to give alms. He said, "O people! Give alms." Then
he went towards the women and said. "O women! Give alms, for I have
seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women)."
The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He
replied, "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your
husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and
religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man
astray." Then he left...
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541)
(2) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o
'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said,
"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers
of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's
Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to
your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence
and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by
some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient
in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of
two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the
affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her
menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the
deficiency in her religion."
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301)
Let me share something:
On and off, I've been quoting hadith and issues on this newsgroup that
for me would be problematic were I to become a Muslim. I want to see
how Muslims rationalise them.
I make no pretence, I am a Christian and happy to be so. There was a
point in my life when Islam presented a very real challenge to my
faith - when I could just as well have converted, and very nearly did!
However, that time has long since passed, and to be frank, the more I
have learned the more I'm pulled deeper into Christianity and repelled
from Islam.
Central to this is that Jesus Christ (in the Bible) is someone so, so,
special. There aren't *questionable* things in his life or teaching
to be embarassed about. And, ultimately, his love and self-sacrifical
example leave me in awe of him. I feel like I could live a thousand
lives and never approach his level of goodness. And, most
importantly, I *can* put my hand on my heart and say that with 100%
sincerity.
Can you say that about Muhammad Dr Saifullah? Of course, you will
defend him, but, what about when you've finished typing the words?
I'm very aware that you have been trying to "humiliate" me. That's
fine. For example, in your most recent post you call me a fool - and
congratulations on getting that one past the moderators! They must
have been asleep. (No matter, leave it there now). However, let me
make this explicit: My goal is *not* to humiliate you! If you ever
become a Christian the last thing in the world I would want is for you
to look back and think badly of me.
I pressed *you* on the Aisha thing because I expect that were I a
Muslim I'd approach Islam in the same way as you. I'm not a liberal
at heart. I also know I too wouldn't be able to answer the question
that you kept avoiding. But, fortunately, I'm a Christian and not a
Muslim so I have the luxury of being able to point that out.
Warm regards,
James.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > I think you have heard of B. M. Metzger's,
> > "The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And
> > Restoration" (1992, Third Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press:
> > Oxford (UK)). The name of the book itself suggests more than what it says.
>
> Read Lee Strobel's 2nd interview with Bruce M. Metzger in "The Case
> for Christ", p.57-71, one gets a very different "impression" from the
> one you're trying to give:
The best that you would come up with is an apology from Lee Strobel.
Honestly, I feel that Christians like you should go and learn about how
your Bible originated rather than quoting us those sound-bites. Metzger is
surely involved in the textual criticism of the New Testament. The
interesting thing is that he is one of the scholars of the Committee who
decide upon which reading goes into the Greek New Testament. The decision
is made on the basis of voting. A good picture of the Committee at work
decided what constitutes the "Word" of God is at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/nivorigins.html#4a
Now what the Muslims are asked to believe is in a text which was decided
by the Committee to be the "Word" of God. This is beyond belief! And
Strobel comes and claims that Metzger believes that the New Testament is
restored to its "original" and perhaps even "inspired". This reminds me of
the verse in the Qur'an that says:
"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then
say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to
them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby."
[2:79]
The reality being nobody know what the New Testament actually looked like,
Metzger included.
> Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix say:
>
> "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts
> than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer
> form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5% pure".
A devastating refutation of such claim is made at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/nivorigins.html#6
Dowdeswell, you are certainly doing us a favour by quoting the apologists
who have no clue about the textual criticism of the New Testament. This is
how you unravel yourself. This is the best defence that you could muster!
Do not worry; we have more stuff for you if you want to tread this line
once again.
> How does that compare to the Qur'an and Hadith?
Comparing apples with oranges? Get real!
Regards
Saifullah
kha...@sbcglobal.net
James Dowdeswell wrote:
> You seem to have a great respect for the hadith. Let me ask you the
> following question. (I've already asked you something similar but my
> recollection is that you chose to avoid answering).
>
> On the basis of Muhammad's words below, do you think women are
> (generally speaking) less intelligent than men and more likely to end
> up in hell?
Dear James.
Do you think that Muslims like their mothers,their sisters,their
aunts,and Grand mothers,to be treated as "less intelligent" ?
If you dont have a Hadith Master to explaine to you the
science of understanding Hadiths,then I dont blame you for
arriving to that misunderstanding.
Here is a site where those Hadiths are explained.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/wmnc_e.html.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
James Dowdeswell
> >
> > "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts
> > than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer
> > form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5% pure".
>
> A devastating refutation of such claim is made at:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/nivorigins.html#6
Is it? It doesn't strike me as being particularly "devasting" Dr
Saifullah. You would do well to let other people accolade your work
rather than doing so yourself.
Kindly explain to us how your document "refutes" the claim of Geisler
and Nix above.
> Dowdeswell, you are certainly doing us a favour by quoting the apologists
> who have no clue about the textual criticism of the New Testament.
And they have "no clue" just because you say they don't right?
> > How does that compare to the Qur'an and Hadith?
>
> Comparing apples with oranges? Get real!
Get real? How about you actually answer the question. As said, I'm
trying to bring a sense of perspective to this issue.
Warm regards,
James.