The Contrast between the Koran and the books of Hadith
Amro
sura 9 (point well taken)) and its verses
are classified as either precise or allegorical
(Muhkamat or Mutashabehat) Koran 3:7, always
open for reinterpretation. Not to mention that is
beautifully rhymed in a poetic style.
The books of hadith (Bukhari and Muslim) were
compiled around 300 yrs after the fact.
They should be treated as second hand history
if not third or fourth. Their value is to provide contrast
between the divine (the Koran) and the not so divine
DKleinecke
> The Koran is in the name of God (except for
You are placing yourself in the position of a Qur'an-only Muslim. I
don't know who was the first Qur'an-only Muslim but the idea has
gotten considerable play in the last century or so even though the
number of Qur'an-only Muslims has remained quite small.
You should not dismiss hadiths quite as cavalierly as you do. You
might look at something like Joynball's recent book on hadiths to
understand the complexity of the situation - presented, in this case,
by a man who probably has less respect for the hadiths than you do.
But conversely it seems, to an outsider like myself, foolhardy to
accept as many of the hadiths as the average Muslim scholar does
( judging by what they quote in their works ). But i am not in a
position to recommend any precise thing to do. Only that one suspend
belief.
The real question is - can a genuinely Qur'an-only Islam be formulated
as a coherent whole? Mainline Muslims will point out that a Muslim
cannot know how to pray without the hadiths - or even how often and
when to pray and what form prayer takes. The Qur'an encourages prayer
(as I read it there is no demand for prayer) but offers no explanation
of how to pray. The biggest single bit of information it provides is
the word "mosque" which is used in Qur'an and can be understood there
as a place of prayer. The word "mosque" means "place for bowing" - the
root SGD used here means to bow, to prostrate oneself and things like
that. Muslim worship, of course, includes both bowing and prostration.
It seems to me that if one takes a Qur'an-only position one needs to
actively pursue the aim of articulating what a Qur'an-only Islam
consists of. Good luck on that task.
Yusuf B Gursey
> You are placing yourself in the position of a Qur'an-only Muslim. I
> don't know who was the first Qur'an-only Muslim but the idea has
> gotten considerable play in the last century or so even though the
> number of Qur'an-only Muslims has remained quite small.
Libya (since Qadhdhafi) is a Qur'an only state in terms of *LAW*. in
other words, the laws of the state are "islamic"only within the
parameters set by the Qur'an not the Sharia rulings based on Hadiths.
in everyday practice, IIRC it is otherwise a conventional Maliki
country. Libya also holds the official position that the Qur'an is
subject to interpretation and anyone may interprete the Qur'an.
legally and de facto, however there is a special body to determine the
Qur'anic validity of the laws, and no doubt Qadhdhafi plays a de facto
role in the important decisions. it is said that this came about
because the islamic scholars gave recourse to the Hadith literature
against Qadhdhafi'sversion of socialism. also on the conservative end
of the spectrum, the Kharijites (represented currently by the Ibadis
of Oman) do not recognise many Hadith based rulings because they do
not recognise a sufficient number of "reliable" transmitters due to
the smallness of their sect. for example, I had learned fromthis forum
that they do not recognise the (Hadith based) "verse of stoning" for
adulterers.
Amro
mail.com> wrote:
> The real question is - can a genuinely Qur'an-only Islam be formulated
> as a coherent whole?
It does not have to be Quran-only if you want
to include prayers, but the hadith have grown out
of control to become a seperate culture that is
clashing with the main message. So 99 percent
Koran and 1 percent for the detail of prayers, and
the remembrence of God is greater than prayers
as mentioned in the Koran
Mainline Muslims will point out that a Muslim
> cannot know how to pray without the hadiths - or even how often and
> when to pray and what form prayer takes.
These were not written down either and I
was specific to mention the Books of Hadith
Nima Rezai
DKleinecke schrieb:
> You should not dismiss hadiths quite as cavalierly as you do. You
> might look at something like Joynball's recent book on hadiths...
> ...Mainline Muslims will point out that a Muslim
> cannot know how to pray without the hadiths - or even how often and
> when to pray and what form prayer takes.
good assertion but this fact in itself is no proof for the claim that
Ahadith are obligatory and indispensable.
Maybe the Quran emphasizes prayer but deliberately does NOT specify it
and leaves room for flexibility.
To admit: I pray many times a day when I am driving in my car or walking
in the street and it is my firm personal belief that this "unorthodox"
but honest and deep-rooted prayer is better than a sportlike routine
that "forces" me to perform it even when I am not in the mood or
otherwise unconcentrated.
I think the classical prayer mode as apparently carried out by the
prophet and companions is definitely a good way of accomplishing a
religious task, but it a) does not invalidate other forms of prayer and
b) is not strictly defined in the Quran
> The Qur'an encourages prayer
> (as I read it there is no demand for prayer) but offers no explanation
> of how to pray.
True. I think there is not a single instance in the Quran where praying
is strictly prescribed and the non-adherence threatened with punishment
OR defined as "apostacy".
My mother in law who cannot read the Quran but listens to silly "Sheikh"
TV programs in arabic claimed that the difference between a muslim and
an unbeliever is "salat" (prayer), which is to me nothing but "takfiri"
nonsense.
Nima
DKleinecke
> The Kharijites (represented currently by the Ibadis
> of Oman) do not recognise many Hadith based rulings because they do
> not recognise a sufficient number of "reliable" transmitters due to
> the smallness of their sect.
I believe the Shi'ites have what amounts to a completely hadith
tradition of their own which hardly overlaps at all with the Sunni
tradition.
I don't think I have ever seen a detailed comparison of the Sunni
versus the Shi'ite traditions. It might be interesting to see exactly
what Sunni hadiths the Shi'ite accept. I assume there are no
traditions which can be described as Shi'ite traditions that are
accepted by the Sunni.
By the by, I don't consider present Libya a rational polity.
DKleinecke
> > might look at something like Joynball's recent book on hadiths...
>
ivili...
I meant his "Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadiths" ( published in
2007 ). It is one of those books meant only for University Libraries
and priced out of the reach of ordinary mortals. But Google shows
enough of it in Google Books to make my point.
Juynboll ( my spelling error before ) has a number of publications
about hadiths. Now that al-Albani has died he seems to be the only
scholar left who really cares about isnads. I am wasting a lot of
time just now trying to help but Juynboll has been at it for the
better part of a life time. However - remember that he is not a Mulsim
nor an admirer of classical Arabic work on the hadiths.