[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by squishy123)
Care to reference?

Sahih Muslim: "Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire." Book 42 7147

(Original post by Reform)
I just want to say that this is when the companions of the Prophet were unsure of the style of the Quran and so the prophet forbid them from writing his speech at the time so that the two do not get mixed up. It was pretty much to avoid confusion at the time.

I'm sure someone else will expand on this.

Well, he appears to be right on that one.

[DJkG.1]

(Original post by Luxray)
Wrongful collection of sects? So which sect is right? That to me sounds like 'I'm right, you're wrong'. Can't we have mutual respect between each 'sect'?

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.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by ak137)
The chapter has only just begun...

No, occupation is over. The US won't bleed itself any further in Iraq, they'll do what they need to do via Syria and the Gulf Arabs.

[squishy123]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Sahih Muslim: "Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire." Book 42 7147

The Quran is the Quran. Anything else uttered by the Prophet is to be attributed to him, as duly done by the Hadiths. That is what the Hadith is saying.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Fair enough, but I have come across a fair few Quranists who knew their stuff.

Feel free to send them my way.

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
I think I've read that page before- looks familiar!

But this still does not explain why there are some problems with the Sahih hadith...

There's nothing wrong with Sahih, which generally involves a strong analysis of the reporters themselves.

There's always more then one "extremely trustworthy" reporter in a Sahih Hadith and the chain is always linked.

Sahih - sound. Imam al-Shafi`i states the following requiremetts for a hadith, which is not Mutawatir, to be acceptable "each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthtul in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and to report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning".

For a hadith to be Sahih, it must meet the following requirements;

1. Each narrator in the chain of narration must be verytrustworthy.
2. Each narrator must be reliable in his ability to preserve that narration – be it in his ability to memorize to the extent that he can recall it as he heard it, or, that he has written it as he heard it, and has preserved that written document unchanged.
3. The isnād must be connected, muttasil, in that each narrator could have at least conceivably heard from the previous narrator.
4. That the hadith, including its isnād be free of an 'illah or hidden, but detrimental, flaw – such as it being established that two narrators, while having been contemporaries, never, in fact, met thus causing a break in that 'chain'.
5. That that hadith be free of irregularity, meaning that it not contradict another hadith better established than it.

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by squishy123)
The Quran is the Quran. Anything else uttered by the Prophet is to be attributed to him, as duly done by the Hadiths. That is what the Hadith is saying.

There is also another translation of that verse:
"Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it"

Which one is right?

Also, there are others pointing towards that they shouldn't have been written"
From Ibn Hanbal;

Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " The messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith,"

Abu Hurayra said, the messenger of God was informed that some people are writing his hadiths. He took to the pulpit of the mosque and said, "What are these books that I heard you wrote? I am just a human being. Anyone who has any of these writings should bring it here . Abu Hurayra said we collected all these and burned them in fire.

Abu Hurayra said I asked the messenger of God a permission to write his hadiths, but he refused to give me permission."

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Ali1991)
Hadith "science" is a late invention full of flaws. The prophet himself nor the Quran mentions how to grade hadith in this detailed way, yet many Muslims especially Salafis still act as if it anything more than guesswork.

You are clueless. "Hadith Science" is a terminology used to critically evaluate the authenticity of a reported text.

It's like Science, Logic, Rationality, failtesting or any other method one might use to establish truth. It's just another tool, but excusively used with understanding the authenticity of hadiths.

The method itself has nothing to do with the Prophet(pbuh) or the Qur'an and it's not suppose to.

It's like saying; "Don't use Science, it's not mentioned in Quran". The heck?

[ak137]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
No, occupation is over. The US won't bleed itself any further in Iraq, they'll do what they need to do via Syria and the Gulf Arabs.

And that makes it ok....facepalm.

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by Perseveranze)

There's nothing wrong with Sahih, which generally involves a strong analysis of the reporters themselves.

There's always more then one "extremely trustworthy" reporter in a Sahih Hadith and the chain is always linked.

Sahih - sound. Imam al-Shafi`i states the following requiremetts for a hadith, which is not Mutawatir, to be acceptable "each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthtul in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and to report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning".

For a hadith to be Sahih, it must meet the following requirements;

1. Each narrator in the chain of narration must be verytrustworthy.
2. Each narrator must be reliable in his ability to preserve that narration – be it in his ability to memorize to the extent that he can recall it as he heard it, or, that he has written it as he heard it, and has preserved that written document unchanged.
3. The isnād must be connected, muttasil, in that each narrator could have at least conceivably heard from the previous narrator.
4. That the hadith, including its isnād be free of an 'illah or hidden, but detrimental, flaw – such as it being established that two narrators, while having been contemporaries, never, in fact, met thus causing a break in that 'chain'.
5. That that hadith be free of irregularity, meaning that it not contradict another hadith better established than it.

Well, there are a few. The main one that springs to mind is the age of Aisha at marriage. The Hadith say 6 or 7 (and so can't decide between themselves here) but yet some have worked out her age given events occurring at the time, and have found she may have been in her teens.
The other one is the Qur'an stating "there is no compulsion in religion" and then the Hadiths stating apostates can be killed. And then there are other things about the Prophet hitting Aisha across the chest, and not punishing two men who murdered women who were saying bad things about the Prophet.

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by ak137)
In theory, there are no sects in Islam. And it is not hostile:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)

Considering you're self hating Arab, Im not surprised.

ahm you should do some research into the 73 sects of Islam...

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
I'm not self-hating. Again, I don't know where you get that idea. The fact is, the era of Western occupation of Iraq is over. They're gone and they're not coming back. They left with nothing except a huge bill and a list of dead soldiers. That chapter is closed.

I think the invasion of Iraq was quite possibly the biggest strategic blunder the USA ever made.

[yomomalomo]

I believe there is a quranist website called www.submission.org
I suppose most of the information for why they follow said specific path is there, so both sides can get a better understanding.

I can sort of understand quranists, amongst some Hadith there are many contradictions, many vague areas, and further areas that although might not contract other Hadith or crop up in the Quran, have questionable use. They want something they believe is complete, pure and unquestionable so they prefer to take the Quran, they believe God said the Quran was complete and entailing all what is required so why should they not believe him?

Unfortunately, without Hadith, it seems difficult that they can find details to practice parts of their religion. But with Hadith they instead gain erroneous details which makes it difficult to practice parts of their religion!

It seems that the Quran itself is not as simple as they would like to believe. Written in classical Arabic, without a very good grounding in it, many would believe it is difficult to understand it (even as a modern Arabic speaker) wholly anyway (let alone the translations). Then there are issues in it such as words which seemed to have been loaned either from other languages or dialects whose meaning cannot be decisively agreed upon by scholars and commentators. There are areas where it is not understood why a certain case is used instead of what would be expected and so on. If anything, sometimes it would seem that Hadith indirectly aids in understanding the possible meaning the Quran envelopes. If it entails any of the meaning people believe it does at all.

Ultimately, I think Quranists just want to be able to take a piece of scripture they love and follow it purely without anything else. They want to be their own personal guide, make their own interpretations, decisions, and take the ideas they believe to be true. They don't want to be in the position that other muslims are - reliant on scholars who may or may not be wrong, and whose interpretations might be liable to their own life experiences, backgrounds/cultural traditions or political agenda. The rest of the Muslims, however, want to follow precisely what the prophet did, feeling his existence to be the best examples for all humans. They believe in the authenticity of Hadith and the depth of their religion and encourage scholarship in the subject. This is to find the exact and correct way to rule, to live, to judge and to love in this life.

I don't fully understand why most muslims consider them (quranists) not to be muslims (and vice versa even) but then again I doubt my idea of a god (if existent) is similar to yours. For muslims this is a possible heaven or hell situation, so it is obvious that there will be quite a bit of opposition towards each others views, it wouldn't be so much of a problem though if the nature of your God (how some of you see it) wasn't that of a crazy sadistic tyrant.

[yomomalomo]

(Original post by Ferdowsi)
ahm you should do some research into the 73 sects of Islam...

I suggest he also looks at some Hadith which entails the death penalty for apostasy... Also, I believe (to AK) the general consensus on that ayah from al Bakarah is to apply only to non-muslims only e.g you can't force a Christian to become a muslim.

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
I suggest he also looks at some Hadith which entails the death penalty for apostasy... Also, I believe (to AK) the general consensus on that ayah from al Bakarah is to apply only to non-muslims only e.g you can't force a Christian to become a muslim.

Yes this is indeed true.

http://www.islamhelpline.com/node/3459

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by ak137)
And that makes it ok....facepalm.

I didn't say it's ok. I said it's what the US will do to further their interests.

[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.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Ferdowsi)
I think the invasion of Iraq was quite possibly the biggest strategic blunder the USA ever made.

They really messed up, and I don't think they'll recover from it.

[ak137]

(Original post by Ferdowsi)
ahm you should do some research into the 73 sects of Islam...

Yes, there are 73 sects in Islam but that wasnt stated in the Quran and that's why I put "in theory" because in practise, its different, evidently.

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
I didn't say it's ok. I said it's what the US will do to further their interests.

It will take years for Iraq to recover from years of interference (since 63) but hopefully it will.

[Ledzeppelin]

Well to reject the concept and ideas presented by Hadiths is wrong in my view, because what ever the Prophet (PBUH) said was the word of Allah. Hence to accept what Allah said in the Qu'ran and to reject what Allah said through the Prophet would be very illogical. But may it be so they are still Muslims and deserve my full respect

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
They really messed up, and I don't think they'll recover from it.

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.