One reason why sunnis dont accept information in this site
-
I was hesitating to let you know whay sunnis dont accept information in this site.Some of them says that peoples who write artikkles is not well known. They think that they are hided.Of coures problem is who God dont quide nobody will quide and we must control every information just they think they can trust sunni scolars because they are well-known D
So maybe we must "introduse" us more?? D -
I believe a big reason why Sunnis don't accept information in this website is because of the reason Jankren pointed to before. Unless they are given some problematic hadiths and informed properly as to the contradictions between hadiths and Koran they would find the reasons to question hadiths. And most of all the era and climate the hadiths were compiled, they would not find a reason why hadiths should be abandoned except that these guys here just don't believe the prophet had any authority.
Phrases like "God alone" gives the impression that these guys here just believe the prophet has no authority or believe they are not obligated to follow his teachings.
Think about it, most of us here came here gradually in our life's journey. There must have been something we went through that made us abandon hadiths. But it takes time, the home page must be informative enough to achieve that in a very short time like 15 minutes.
The latest home page is OK as it does talk about contradictions but it does not give a background as to the hadiths compilations. The political climate sorrounding those hadiths also is important such as the Ummayids and the sectarian divide each using hadiths to thump the other.
This is important because most Muslims do not know this information and think hadiths were compiled and written by the companions. A good idea also is Q&A section where people can see answers of commonly asked questions. The opening website has a little of that. Overall it assumes too much prior knowledge.
A good opener will include in my mind
Sunni/Shia Islam rely on what they refer to as the teachings of the prophet known as the Sunnah which were compiled anywhere between 150 years to 350 years after the prophet. Neither the prophet nor his companions ever left behind them any text but the Koran. They believe that only these hadiths(narrations from the prophet) can explain the Koran and its through these hadiths they have formulated a political system known as Shariah Law which contradict the Koran. The Sunnah or hadiths were compiled during the reign of the Abbasid empire which came to power about 130 years after the prophet. A scholar by the name of Imam Al Shafi was the first to argue that the Koran alone does not constitute the sole authority in Islam but another source known as the Sunnah must compliment the koran also. It was after Al Shafi that most of the hadiths were compiled. These hadith were compiled based on what these Islamic sects believe were oral traditions passed down from the prophet to his companions not written in hand. They have the same place in Islam today as the Talmud has on Judaism. The talmud is the oral traditions compiled 2 centuries after Moses the Jews believe was passed down by Moses not written by hand. The Koran condemned some of the teachings of the Talmud and so did Jesus in the Gospel. Like Judaism and the Talmud, Sunni/Shia Islam believe that these oral traditions can abrogate the Koran.
Now I think people can have some background as to why many people might question the hadiths. Because it was compiled centuries later, it was not authorized by the prophet, it has some link with some dynasty, and its similar to some heresy of some sort of the past and it seems like an innovation introduced by people later on.
Now they have a reason why hadiths should be looked at with suspicion. Another paragraph will do the trick. Citing verses from the Koran just won't do in my mind as people think there may be other verses that these guys are hiding from me. They are not Koranic scholars and might feel they are being taken advantage of. Citing verses takes up too much valuable space and does not achiev much. The forums are well qualified to deal with verses of the Koran as there is more detail available. You can't use the Koran to cancel out hadiths if the hadiths still has authority to them.
The background about hadiths must always come first. It does not matter whether the visitor is Muslim or an Atheist. This information is extremely valuable as it gives a historic and logical reasons why hadiths are to be viewed with suspicion. It also prepares people that these people have a different view of Islam because of their different interpretation of islamic history. There is far too much space in the opening page that is not being used. History is the key. The sects control the masses because they control history.
What we have in the opening page is
The gravest crime the self-appointed scholars who claimed to be Muslim made was to give authority to the traditions (Sunna) and the books of Sayings (Hadith) ALONGSIDE the authority of God and His messenger. They believe that it was God who authorized such action by commanding the people to ?obey God, and obey the messenger??
and
What is so sadly neglected is that the most critical aspects of the messenger?s life have been recorded and captured in the most detailed manner?not in the books of Hadith or tradition?but in the Holy Book itself. The questions that he was asked, and the answers (inspired by God) that he gave
It does not give adequate reasons as to why hadiths are to be suspect. It only gives an idea why Koran alone should be a guideline. But in doing so it gives the impression that hadiths are not necessary even if they are authentic. This is something that forums are capable of doing through back and forth debates. But its not something that can be persausive for someone who hadiths are intertwined with the Koran in his understanding of islam. Even among Koranist they is still debate about this. Like jankren once said, its not we are against hadiths its just we don't trust its reliability and authenticity. Its too ambitious if you ask me. But a backround about hadiths and why its controversial is an excellent way to start. The part about the differences between the Koran and sectarian islam is good. But i think it should come after the opening statement which gives a histroic background about hadiths. A very good input is to also show that the narrators of these hadiths are not even close companions and many are controversial figures. Create doubt and show why the controversy.
Like Philip Johnson who is pushing Intelligent design in schools once said "you don't have to teach them darwinism is wrong, just teach them why the controversy". It makes people more understanding and know where you are coming from. Sunnis are ignorant, so why don't we educate them.
Just my 2 cents.