[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
I find it rather funny that Hadiths which show Muhammad telling people not to write Hadiths have actually been written. It seems quite illogical but I'm sure there must be some written explanations by the people who recorded them as to why they were allowed to.

Well I think that's why they were written so long after Muhammad died, because they were just waiting for all the higher- ups (his companions) to stop enforcing the rules maybe?- Just an idea

It's even funnier when there are so many other verses in the Qur'an that also say you shouldn't follow anything else but the Qur'an.

[far far away]

(Original post by muh123)
Also another thing is if you can't speak arabic or read arabic and understand it you have no right to interoperate the quran. If you're just reading a translation and trying to understand it from that then you're blindly following what the translator is telling you. It's not that you came to a conclusion you read his interoperation and merely accepted what he interoperated.

I don't think it's up to you to tell someone that they have no right to interpret the Qur'an. YOU don't have the right to do that.

[Mehmoodd]

(Original post by Ferdowsi)
Yeah I know, they spent roughly the annual GDP of Germany achieving...what??

They are even cutting half the staff in their Baghdad super embassy, it was all an unbelievable cock up from start to finish. They didn't even manage to gain dominance on the oil contacts, and the Iraqi government has struck very harsh deals with the oil companies. Iran has gained substantially, Turkey has gained, the Kurds have gained, in the long run I think Arab Iraqis will probably have gained. The Americans on the other hand spent an entire decade bogged down in the Middle East spending trillions whilst their domestic infrastructure crumbled and China was building high speed rail and subway systems.

You could argue they've gained some strategic bases for attacks in the middle East, now that Pakistan and Iran are looking like rogue nuclear states.

But that's far-fetched and extreme.
Still a possibility though

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/12/...e-middle-east/

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by Mehmoodd)
You could argue they've gained some strategic bases for attacks in the middle East, now that Pakistan and Iran are looking like rogue nuclear states.

But that's far-fetched and extreme.
Still a possibility though

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/12/...e-middle-east/

Yeah but they no longer have those bases in Iraq now that they have withdrawn.

Also, at a cost of over 3 trillion USD they could have built about a million bases in somewhere like Saudi!

[Perseveranze]

@Aysh i'll reply to you tomorrow when I have time.

(Original post by yomomalomo)
I find it rather funny that Hadiths which show Muhammad telling people not to write Hadiths have actually been written. It seems quite illogical but I'm sure there must be some written explanations by the people who recorded them as to why they were allowed to.

Yes there is an explanation. It's called context.

1. The ban to "writing hadith" was temporary, only at the beginning, when the companians were new to how the Qur'an was revealed and its style.

When the companions became fully conversant of the style of the Holy Qur'ân and writing paper became available, this transitory measure of precaution was taken back, because the danger of confusion between the Qur'ân and the hadîth no longer existed.

(although there are other theories, none which essentially matter once you read below)

2. Whoever posted the hadith failed to post all of it, which completly refutes the original arguements of banning hadith.

This is actually the full hadith which someone failed to post;

Do not write (what you hear) from me, and whoever has written something (he heard) from me, he should erase it. Narrate to others (what you hear) from me; and whoever deliberately attributes a lie to me, he should prepare his seat in the Fire." [Sahih Muslim]

Shows even at this time, he wanted hadith to be orally transmitted.

3. Once the ban was lifted, the Prophet(pbuh) himself directed his companions to write down the ahâdîth. Some of his instructions in this respect are quoted below:

1. One companion from the Ansâr complained to the Holy Prophet that he hears from him some ahâdîth, but he sometimes forgets them. The Holy Prophet said:

"Seek help from your right hand," and pointed out to a writing. [Jâmi' Tirmidhi]

2. Râfi' ibn Khadij, the famous companion of the Holy Prophet says, "I said to the Holy Prophet [that] we hear from you many things, should we write them down?" He replied:

You may write. There is no harm. [Tadrîb-ur-Râwi]

3. Sayyiduna Anas reports that the Holy Prophet has said:

Preserve knowledge by writing. [Jâmi'-ul-Bayân]

4. And this is the icing on the cake -

I swear by the One in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad: nothing comes out from these two (lips) except truth. So, do write. [Sunan Abu Dâwud; Tabaqât ibn Sa'd; Mustadrik-ul-Hâkim]

Can read more here.

[yomomalomo]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
..

I'm sorry, but I have heard that the Quran was transmitted orally and was not written when Muhammad first recited it to others. It was instead compiled at a later date by Abu Bakr after the prophet died (from a number of people who had memorised it - Hafiz). Beside that, Hadith was also transmitted orally for a long period after Muhammad died. Surely after the Qu'ran had finished being revealed people would know (his followers at least) the difference between Quran and Hadith and would be able to start writing Hadith, while knowing the difference that the Hadith is what Muhammad says while the Quran is the direct revelation of God?

Furthermore, all of your recorded Hadith are dated from well after the prophets death and during the time Hadith was being compiled. There is no evidence from prior to Hadith compilation that Muhammad wanted any of his Hadith to be written - I hope you understand what I am getting at here (I am sorry if I'm not making much sense but I'm rather tired).

[Luxray]

(Original post by DJkG.1)
I don't think you understand the orthodox position I was trying to imply mate.

An arguably clear principle of Islam in this respect, with which a great many I believe are ready to agree, is that there is no rightful concept of the 'sect' in Islam.

Thereby, anyone proclaiming to belong to the correct 'sect' is wrong - I am not saying that my position is superior or more correct than any other.

I paraphrase a hadith which is oft-quoted: the Prophet (pbuh) said - there will be 72 (or so) sects, each will proclaim the true Islam - each will be wrong. The only correct position will be his who claims no affiliation but proclaims in his heart to follow Islam.

In this case I agree with you that no sect is more correct than any other, thats why I think we should respect or at the very least tolerate Quranists.

[Luxray]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
@Aysh i'll reply to you tomorrow when I have time.



Yes there is an explanation. It's called context.

1. The ban to "writing hadith" was temporary, only at the beginning, when the companians were new to how the Qur'an was revealed and its style.

When the companions became fully conversant of the style of the Holy Qur'ân and writing paper became available, this transitory measure of precaution was taken back, because the danger of confusion between the Qur'ân and the hadîth no longer existed.

(although there are other theories, none which essentially matter once you read below)

2. Whoever posted the hadith failed to post all of it, which completly refutes the original arguements of banning hadith.

This is actually the full hadith which someone failed to post;

Do not write (what you hear) from me, and whoever has written something (he heard) from me, he should erase it. Narrate to others (what you hear) from me; and whoever deliberately attributes a lie to me, he should prepare his seat in the Fire." [Sahih Muslim]

Shows even at this time, he wanted hadith to be orally transmitted.

3. Once the ban was lifted, the Prophet(pbuh) himself directed his companions to write down the ahâdîth. Some of his instructions in this respect are quoted below:

1. One companion from the Ansâr complained to the Holy Prophet that he hears from him some ahâdîth, but he sometimes forgets them. The Holy Prophet said:

"Seek help from your right hand," and pointed out to a writing. [Jâmi' Tirmidhi]

2. Râfi' ibn Khadij, the famous companion of the Holy Prophet says, "I said to the Holy Prophet [that] we hear from you many things, should we write them down?" He replied:

You may write. There is no harm. [Tadrîb-ur-Râwi]

3. Sayyiduna Anas reports that the Holy Prophet has said:

Preserve knowledge by writing. [Jâmi'-ul-Bayân]

4. And this is the icing on the cake -

I swear by the One in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad: nothing comes out from these two (lips) except truth. So, do write. [Sunan Abu Dâwud; Tabaqât ibn Sa'd; Mustadrik-ul-Hâkim]

Can read more here.

Are the quotes you used from the Quran or the Hadith?

[squishy123]

(Original post by Luxray)
Are the quotes you used from the Quran or the Hadith?

They are clearly Ahadeeths, and are not from the Quran.

[Luxray]

(Original post by squishy123)
They are clearly Ahadeeths, and are not from the Quran.

But how can you be 100% sure that the Hadith are correct, we can only view the Quran as the most credible source of knowledge when it comes to Islam.

[squishy123]

(Original post by Luxray)
But how can you be 100% sure that the Hadith are correct, we can only view the Quran as the most credible source of knowledge when it comes to Islam.

Your question specifically asked if those quotes were Quranic verses or Ahadeeth. There was nothing about authenticity.

[DJkG.1]

(Original post by Luxray)
In this case I agree with you that no sect is more correct than any other, thats why I think we should respect or at the very least tolerate Quranists.

My position is that 'Quranists' should not in the first place be recognised as a separate 'body of Muslims', just like the Sunni / Shi'ite divide is a baseless one in the theology of the faith.

As individuals their views should be respected, as part of a single monist body of knowledge on the truth of religion.

[Luxray]

(Original post by DJkG.1)
My position is that 'Quranists' should not in the first place be recognised as a separate 'body of Muslims', just like the Sunni / Shi'ite divide is a baseless one in the theology of the faith.

As individuals their views should be respected, as part of a single monist body of knowledge on the truth of religion.

So you think all three should not exist in the first place?
I can respect that idea.

Have you heard about this woman?:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...eo?INTCMP=SRCH

[ash92:)]

The Quran and authentic hadeeth should both be used together. Just using the hadeeth alone is not advised. But straying from sunnah isn't either. As some people have posted previously on this thread, salah etc. is not learned from the Quran, stressing the importance of the combined use of the two sources in order to learn about Islam

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Luxray)
But how can you be 100% sure that the Hadith are correct, we can only view the Quran as the most credible source of knowledge when it comes to Islam.

To believe the Hadith are incorrect is to assume some mass conspiracy is going on. As i reliterated in the thead earlier, the strength of a hadith is based on many factors such as;

- The style of the language. Does it reflect the culturalistic notions at the time of the Prophet(pbuh).
- The relation and relavancy it has to other scriptures
- The people who reported these hadith. Now, this isn't just who reported it, you need to find out who did they hear this hadith from, and who did that person hear the hadith from, right until the source. Each and every single person is analysed - what is known about them, their character, their memory, what other have said about them etc.
- How many people have reported this same type of hadith. Not only this, but have these people ever met? If they havn't, then the strength of the hadith increases.

These are just some of the most basic things, hadith science in itself is very very detailed.

That's how you see the strength of a hadith. To claim it's all a fassade is to claim a mass conspiracy, that happens to involve people during 2-3 generations, many who havn't met one another.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by nosaer)
I have. To many. Mutliple times. Guess what? No answer.

It's a totally flawed concept.

The Quran says:

Say (O, Muhammad): “If you love Allâh, then follow me, Allâh will love you
and forgive you your sins. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”}; [3:31]

So if the Allah tells us to follow his messenger in the Quran, how are we meant to do this if it were not for the sunnah and hadith?

Sunnah and hadith have nothing to do with mohammed, they were written many decades after his death without his consent. What you are following is someone elses document on islamic ritual and practice.
If mohammed wanted other people to write further guidelines, he would have asked them to be compiled when he was alive. And he wouldnt have narrated the quran stating that it is all in completeness the muslim needs to pracitice islam - would he?

[nosaer]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Sunnah and hadith have nothing to do with mohammed, they were written many decades after his death without his consent. What you are following is someone elses document on islamic ritual and practice.
If mohammed wanted other people to write further guidelines, he would have asked them to be compiled when he was alive. And he wouldnt have narrated the quran stating that it is all in completeness the muslim needs to pracitice islam - would he?

They have everything to do with Muhammad(saw). Muhammad(saw) taught the people around what was revealed to him. His actions, his words and his teachings are all things people followed. If Muhammad(saw) told one of his companions to do something or not to do something, why wouldn't we want to know this so that we can try and live our lives like he led his? The people around him followed him like the Quran instructed them to. Its through the hadiths and sunnah that his ummah can also do the same.

The Quran was compiled after Muhammad's (saw) death on the order of Umar (ra), not Muhammad (saw).

The Quranic quote is clear in that if you love Allah you must follow the prophet. This is the method of doing just that. Without it, how else do you follow the prophet?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by nosaer)
They have everything to do with Muhammad(saw). Muhammad(saw) taught the people around what was revealed to him. His actions, his words and his teachings are all things people followed. If Muhammad(saw) told one of his companions to do something or not to do something, why wouldn't we want to know this so that we can try and live our lives like he led his? The people around him followed him like the Quran instructed them to. Its through the hadiths and sunnah that his ummah can also do the same.

The Quran was compiled after Muhammad's (saw) death on the order of Umar (ra), not Muhammad (saw).

We are told mohammed told his followers to keep record of his narrations of the quran- that is all. he didnt tell them to keep record nor complie any other scripture. The quran narrations themselves stated that the quran itslef would be the sole and complete book for muslims to follow islam. Mohammad it was said, was charged to deliver this book not anyone else, nor was any other document said to be required to be produced or prophesised. The quran did not state that muslims were suppossed to ape everything mohammed did or said - he was just a man after all, not an independant source of islamic theology.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
To believe the Hadith are incorrect is to assume some mass conspiracy is going on.

Muslims are told that there was a conspiracy of corruption of once valid jewish and christian writings, who can claim that hadith didnt suffer the same, in the abscence of mohammed?

[muh123]

(Original post by far far away)
I don't think it's up to you to tell someone that they have no right to interpret the Qur'an. YOU don't have the right to do that.

Umm.. actually yes I do. The same way as I have the right to tell an engineer he has no right to preform surgery on a human. The fact he isn't qualified to do so should be enough. He could be the smartest person in the world but that doesn't mean he has the ability to preform surgery.