An Ahlul Sunnah's Challenge to Quran alone : kitaballah wa sunnati !
-
During his last pilgrimage Prophet Muhammad gave a speech (recorded as well in sunni hadith and shia) in which he instructed the muslim to follow KITABALLAH and HIS SUNNAT.
Now, if Quran alone followers say that Muslim must follow only Quran because it's the Sunnat of Allah and in it, is included the Sunnat of Prophet then, how is it possible that the Prophet instructed to Muslim to follow KITABALLAH and HIS SUNNAT (2 different things)?
-
You talking about this?
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_SermonThe Sermon that has 3 alleged endings?
Hadiths report at least three different versions of the same sermon. The most notable difference is near the end of the sermon, where Muhammad states that he leaves behind two things. One version, for instance, has the statement "I leave with you Qur'an and Sunnah." The other version has the statement "I leave with you Qur'an and Ahl al-bayt" (the family of Muhammad). The third version has the statement "I leave for you the Qur'an, you shall uphold it."
These differences have theological significance for Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. Sunnis hold themselves as the followers of the sunnah or practice of Muhammad as related by his companions, the Sahaba. Sunnis also maintain that the Islamic community, or ummah, as a whole will always be guided.
The Shi'ites hold the second version of the sermon as the correct one. According to Shi'a belief, the only legitimate leadership rested in the lineage of Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Shi'ites believe that the rest of the Muslim community committed a grave error by electing Abu Bakr and his two successors as leaders.
Those who reject the entire hadith as guidance and advocate the Qur'an alone point out the inconsistencies in Hadith by referring to these differences. -
You talking about this?
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_SermonThe Sermon that has 3 alleged endings?
YES !
Even if there are 3 alleged version, but the most accepted is Kitaballah and Sunnati !
-
If the last Sermon is a Hadith, wouldn't that make your question a logical fallacy?
Example
Boss "jawad_mugniya, aalmakto says you're bullying him. I want it stopped."
jawad_mugniya "I certainly am not bullying anyone."
Boss "Then why does aalmakto say so? Stop it, or I'll have to take action." -
YES !
Even if there are 3 alleged version, but the most accepted is Kitaballah and Sunnati !
Well, the most accepted does not necessarily the correct one. And you are verifying the validity of hearsay (hadith), using another hearsay (hadith), which won't work p
-
Selam
Lets make it clear
Differences
Hadith report at least three different versions of the same sermon. The most notable difference is near the end of the sermon, where Muhammad states that he leaves behind two things. One version, for instance, has the statement "I leave with you Qur'an and Sunnah." The other version has the statement "I leave with you Qur'an and Ahl al-bayt" (the family of Muhammad). The third version has the statement "I leave for you the Qur'an, you shall uphold it."
These differences have theological significance for Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. Sunnis hold themselves as the followers of the sunnah or practice of Muhammad as related by his companions, the sahaba. Sunnis also maintain that the Islamic community, or Ummah as a whole will always be guided.
The Shi'ites hold the second version of the sermon as the correct one. According to Shi'a belief, the only legitimate leadership rested in the lineage of Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Shi'ites believe that the rest of the Muslim community committed a grave error by electing Abu Bakr and his two successors as leaders.
Those who reject the entire hadith as guidance and advocate the Qur'an alone point out the inconsistencies in Hadith by referring to these differences.
Peace
-
Now, if Quran alone followers say that Muslim must follow only Quran because it's the Sunnat of Allah and in it, is included the Sunnat of Prophet then, how is it possible that the Prophet instructed to Muslim to follow KITABALLAH and HIS SUNNAT (2 different things)?
Assuming your argument is right, how do you know you're following the "TRUE" sunnah? Isn?t it sad to assert the prophet did his job by fulfilling the message (AlQuran) but failed in sharing his sunnah adequately?
Can you find a verse of we must follow the "sunnah/sunnat" of the prophet, because i don't seem to find it, nowhere does it seem to say "follow the sunnah of the prophet Mohammed" you could find "watee3u alrrasoola" such as 2454. There is a difference between that and sunnah.
let me share a hadith i was told (I don't recall what book) didn't Aisha assert the prophet's character is the walking Quran? If we want to emulate him then i don't think there is a problem in following the Quran, it seems hadith doesn?t have a problem with that either. So what's the problem?
If people aren?t following the Quran or are struggling to do so, what?s the point in making them follow other things?
-
Assuming your argument is right, how do you know you're following the "TRUE" sunnah?
Well there are 2 ways to answer you
From Sunni perspective The religious legitimacy of the Companions is beyond doubt and they are thruthfull ; they are also those persons who everybody naturally follow. Take an example, assume you are leaving after the death of the Prophet, 13th of Hijra, who will you follow to understand Islam ? Those who are already acquainted by islamic principles means the Companions of the Prophet. Even if there are some little discrepancies between them (as like between Quran alone followers) in some matters but the general principals are same.
From Shia Twelver perspective They follow 11 imams from the closest cousin of the Prophet ie. Ali b Abi Talib. The chain of transmission of islamic knowledge (sunnat, explantion of Quranic verses...) follows a specific equation that is more accurate than of the Sunni perspective (they follow the Companions while they have no strong family relations between them and there is a high probability that one Companion would differ from the other one because of different political views, personnal and private life views...). The equation is the knowledge is transmited from the Prophet to Ali, to his 2 sons, Hassan and Hussayn, then the father (Hussayn) transmit to his son Zayn al Abidin, then from Zayn al Abidin (the father) to his son (al Baqir)...until the eleventh imam. This father-son's way of transmission is the perfect one to preserve the original knowledge of the Prophet because it removes all diffrent political, private life views, and the probability of conflicts between fathers and sons are less than of the Companions.
-
Who are the companions? There could be legit companions there were also a whole lot of hypocrites. When you follow people, you follow weakness, when you follow divine law, the only weakness is you.
The shia?s selection of companions is very sceptical however sunni sources have alleged that not all of them are reliable in their memory.
You can?t honestly believe that every single companion, family member is infallible in their memory?
BTW not all of the ?12ver? imams are father and son. So to assume that such a transmission is stronger due to family bond is false, because even sunni companions narrated from their fathers. Another thing, there is no evidence of Ali?s written works and Ali is said to be a scribe. So what happened to them? Shia hadith are not any better than sunni ones.
Both of your responses show weakness, all you were demonstrating was something called chain or isnad. It doesn?t demonstrate the ?true? sunnah. BTW shias are more up front in mentioning the weakness of hadith than sunnis. So even they recognise weakness.
-
Who are the companions? There could be legit companions there were also a whole lot of hypocrites. When you follow people, you follow weakness, when you follow divine law, the only weakness is you.
The shia?s selection of companions is very sceptical however sunni sources have alleged that not all of them are reliable in their memory.
You can?t honestly believe that every single companion in their memory?
I agree with you that the whole issue of the Companions of the Prophet beeing beyond any defects (memory-emulation of the sunnat of the Prophet) is skeptical. As far as I know, Shia don't trust in Companions for the same reasons + political reasons.
You can?t honestly believe that every family member is infallible in their memory?
BTW not all of the ?12ver? imams are father and son.
Let's see !!
Prophet - Ali ? Cousin
Ali - Hassan ? Father and Son
Ali- Husayn ? Father and Son
Husayn - Zayn al Abidin ? Father and Son
Zayn al Abidin - al Baqir ? Father and Son
al Baqir - al Sadiq ? Father and Son
al Sadiq - al Kadhim ? Father and Son
al Kadhim - al Ridha ? Father and Son
al Ridha - al Taqi ? Father and Son
al Taqi - al Naqi ? Father and Son
al Naqi - al Askari ? Father and SonAs you can see, the chain of transmission of the prophetic knowledge is very strong. And all of these persons are known for their knowledge means no defects of memory.
So to assume that such a transmission is stronger due to family bond is false, because even sunni companions narrated from their fathers. Another thing, there is no evidence of Ali?s written works and Ali is said to be a scribe. So what happened to them? Shia hadith are not any better than sunni ones.
Yes, but in Sunni narrations there are not a successive continuation of prophetic knowledge's transmission.
Their ahadith are based on only those persons who lived during the era of the Prophet Muhammad, with a gap of 2, 3 centuries untill Bukhari Muslim and others write the books of ahadith as compilation. However, the same gap is not noticeable in Shia Islam, because this gap is filled by their imams (fathers-sons relation) through a continue transmission.Both of your responses show weakness, all you were demonstrating was something called chain or isnad. It doesn?t demonstrate the ?true? sunnah. BTW shias are more up front in mentioning the weakness of hadith than sunnis. So even they recognise weakness.
Well, even if, it shows weakness but one thing is certain that from Shia imams the chain of transmission is stronger than the Sunni ones. So, there must be there (in Shia narrations) some true knowledge (sunnat of the Prophet) which is not perceived in Sunni narrations.
-
I agree with you that the whole issue of the Companions of the Prophet beeing beyond any defects (memory-emulation of the sunnat of the Prophet) is skeptical. As far as I know, Shia don't trust in Companions for the same reasons + political reasons.
Let's see !!
Prophet - Ali ? Cousin
Ali - Hassan ? Father and Son
Ali- Husayn ? Father and Son
Husayn - Zayn al Abidin ? Father and Son
Zayn al Abidin - al Baqir ? Father and Son
al Baqir - al Sadiq ? Father and Son
al Sadiq - al Kadhim ? Father and Son
al Kadhim - al Ridha ? Father and Son
al Ridha - al Taqi ? Father and Son
al Taqi - al Naqi ? Father and Son
al Naqi - al Askari ? Father and SonAs you can see, the chain of transmission of the prophetic knowledge is very strong. And all of these persons are known for their knowledge means no defects of memory.
Yes, but in Sunni narrations there are not a successive continuation of prophetic knowledge's transmission.
Their ahadith are based on only those persons who lived during the era of the Prophet Muhammad, with a gap of 2, 3 centuries untill Bukhari Muslim and others write the books of ahadith as compilation. However, the same gap is not noticeable in Shia Islam, because this gap is filled by their imams (fathers-sons relation) through a continue transmission.Well, even if, it shows weakness but one thing is certain that from Shia imams the chain of transmission is stronger than the Sunni ones. So, there must be there (in Shia narrations) some true knowledge (sunnat of the Prophet) which is not perceived in Sunni narrations.
I agree and which of the shia groups is the most authentic in their teachings as regards the original beliefs to you?
-
The imams
Ali (cousin of prophet)
Hassan (son of Ali)
Hussien (Son of Ali, brother of Hassan)
the other 9 Imams were decendants of Imam Hussein
(why not Hassan? Hassan is said to have married many times according to sunnis, and a few according to Shia?s)So then follows Ali Assajid (son of Hussein)
Mohammad al-Baaqir (son of assajid)
Jafar Son of Albaaqir
Mousa al-Kathem son of Imam Jaafar
Ali al-Ridha the son of Mousa al-Kathem
Mohammad al-Jawad son of Imam al-Ridha
Ali al-Haadi son of Imam Mohamad al-Jawad
Hassan al-Askari son of Imam Ali al-Haadi
Then Imam Mohammad al-Mahdi son of Imam Hassan al-Askari.I wasn?t entirely wrong, the prophet to cousin to son, to brothers to sons. Yes the ?lineage? is a tighter fit but it doesn?t guarantee nothing because shia hadith a very different from sunnis. They report from the prophet or ?themselves? this gives so much leeway to forgery, fault and heresy. Why is it we can?t find the imams original documents considering they lived a considerable amount of time plus with a tighter alliance you?d think such information is available but no! we have to look in the book of ?al-Kafi?. Besides AlMahdi should have guided us all by now, so just goes to show how illogical shia hadith is along with sunni hadith
Check out what wiki says about shias opinion of hadith
Khoei's opinion was not unique; practically all Shia scholars are adamant that al-Kafi is not 100% authentic, but that it is the best primary hadith book currently available . Shia Muslims do not make any assumptions about the authenticity of a hadith book; Shias believe that there are no "sahih" hadith books that are completely reliable. Hadith books are compiled by fallible people, and thus realistically, they inevitably have a mixture of strong and weak hadiths.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitab_al-Kafi#Shia_view_of_al-Kafi_relative_to_other_hadith_books
So brother while you may think well they were family so that means the hadiths are more reliable, that?s a fallacy because even the sunnis reported hadiths from their fathers for example Umar?s son and besides, a ?WIFE? would be much closer than a cousin.Also to asset no defects in memory AT ALL is to say ?they are infallible? every human is prone to error.i could relate something my parents related to me to my children and make mistakes so, bad bad bad logic.
Even IF they were "infallible" they're documentation isn't which further relates to their weakness.PEace.
-
The imams
Ali (cousin of prophet)
Hassan (son of Ali)
Hussien (Son of Ali, brother of Hassan)
the other 9 Imams were decendants of Imam Hussein
(why not Hassan? Hassan is said to have married many times according to sunnis, and a few according to Shia?s)So then follows Ali Assajid (son of Hussein)
Mohammad al-Baaqir (son of assajid)
Jafar Son of Albaaqir
Mousa al-Kathem son of Imam Jaafar
Ali al-Ridha the son of Mousa al-Kathem
Mohammad al-Jawad son of Imam al-Ridha
Ali al-Haadi son of Imam Mohamad al-Jawad
Hassan al-Askari son of Imam Ali al-Haadi
Then Imam Mohammad al-Mahdi son of Imam Hassan al-Askari.I wasn?t entirely wrong, the prophet to cousin to son, to brothers to sons. Yes the ?lineage? is a tighter fit but it doesn?t guarantee nothing because shia hadith a very different from sunnis. They report from the prophet or ?themselves? this gives so much leeway to forgery, fault and heresy. Why is it we can?t find the imams original documents considering they lived a considerable amount of time plus with a tighter alliance you?d think such information is available but no! we have to look in the book of ?al-Kafi?. Besides AlMahdi should have guided us all by now, so just goes to show how illogical shia hadith is along with sunni hadith
Check out what wiki says about shias opinion of hadith
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitab_al-Kafi#Shia_view_of_al-Kafi_relative_to_other_hadith_books
So brother while you may think well they were family so that means the hadiths are more reliable, that?s a fallacy because even the sunnis reported hadiths from their fathers for example Umar?s son and besides, a ?WIFE? would be much closer than a cousin.Also to asset no defects in memory AT ALL is to say ?they are infallible? every human is prone to error.i could relate something my parents related to me to my children and make mistakes so, bad bad bad logic.
Even IF they were "infallible" they're documentation isn't which further relates to their weakness.PEace.
One is Banu Ummaya the other is Banu Hshim. Both Quresih and both Meccans.
What do we have to do with Sunnism or Shiasm? Its a power struggle that turned to religious sects. So? What does Quran has to do with all this?
-
One is Banu Ummaya the other is Banu Hshim. Both Quresih and both Meccans.
What do we have to do with Sunnism or Shiasm? Its a power struggle that turned to religious sects. So? What does Quran has to do with all this?
Brother we all know here we have nothing to do with sects and Quran does not promote sect, their case is with God (6159). The point is this brother here, jawad believes "we need to follow his (the prophets) sunnah" so it seems he is in desperation to seek an answer. so he came up with 2 conclusions the ahl sunni wal jam3a hadith and the ahadith of the shia.
He placed more strength on the shia ahadith because of their tighter bond by kin. Though failed to recognise the shia imams can relate their own hadith so in actual fact they are creating their own "sunnah". furthermore the imams had other brothers why is it they didn't get the title of imamah? but let's forget that for a moment. Both cases are weak (sunni and shia hadith). So here i am challenging his conclusions of "authentic sunnah" because as brothers and sisters, we support each other and help each other and also come to conclusions or different directions through discussion.
peace.
-
Brother we all know here we have nothing to do with sects and Quran does not promote sect, their case is with God (6159). The point is this brother here, jawad believes "we need to follow his (the prophets) sunnah" so it seems he is in desperation to seek an answer. so he came up with 2 conclusions the ahl sunni wal jam3a hadith and the ahadith of the shia.
He placed more strength on the shia ahadith because of their tighter bond by kin. Though failed to recognise the shia imams can relate their own hadith so in actual fact they are creating their own "sunnah". furthermore the imams had other brothers why is it they didn't get the title of imamah? but let's forget that for a moment. Both cases are weak (sunni and shia hadith). So here i am challenging his conclusions of "authentic sunnah" because as brothers and sisters, we support each other and help each other and also come to conclusions or different directions through discussion.
peace.
I totally agree with sister Sarah.
They were around 10.000 witnesses at the final sermon of the prophet, and yet we can find 3 versions of it. Does it ring any bells ??
the "kitaballah and sunnati" version is the most acceptable ONLY because the sunni represents the majority in sects. And as sister sarah wrote, the majority is not necessarily the truthfulSalam
-
The imams
Ali (cousin of prophet)
Hassan (son of Ali)
Hussien (Son of Ali, brother of Hassan)
the other 9 Imams were decendants of Imam Hussein
(why not Hassan? Hassan is said to have married many times according to sunnis, and a few according to Shia?s)So then follows Ali Assajid (son of Hussein)
Mohammad al-Baaqir (son of assajid)
Jafar Son of Albaaqir
Mousa al-Kathem son of Imam Jaafar
Ali al-Ridha the son of Mousa al-Kathem
Mohammad al-Jawad son of Imam al-Ridha
Ali al-Haadi son of Imam Mohamad al-Jawad
Hassan al-Askari son of Imam Ali al-Haadi
Then Imam Mohammad al-Mahdi son of Imam Hassan al-Askari.I wasn?t entirely wrong, the prophet to cousin to son, to brothers to sons. Yes the ?lineage? is a tighter fit but it doesn?t guarantee nothing because shia hadith a very different from sunnis. They report from the prophet or ?themselves? this gives so much leeway to forgery, fault and heresy. Why is it we can?t find the imams original documents considering they lived a considerable amount of time plus with a tighter alliance you?d think such information is available but no! we have to look in the book of ?al-Kafi?. Besides AlMahdi should have guided us all by now, so just goes to show how illogical shia hadith is along with sunni hadith
Check out what wiki says about shias opinion of hadith
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitab_al-Kafi#Shia_view_of_al-Kafi_relative_to_other_hadith_books
So brother while you may think well they were family so that means the hadiths are more reliable, that?s a fallacy because even the sunnis reported hadiths from their fathers for example Umar?s son and besides, a ?WIFE? would be much closer than a cousin.Also to asset no defects in memory AT ALL is to say ?they are infallible? every human is prone to error.i could relate something my parents related to me to my children and make mistakes so, bad bad bad logic.
Even IF they were "infallible" they're documentation isn't which further relates to their weakness.PEace.
Of course, you are right. peace
-
They report from the prophet or ?themselves? this gives so much leeway to forgery, fault and heresy.
PEace.
As I was re-reading this topic, I want to add my comments about what I quoted from you.
Let's assume there are plenty of forgery in Sunni and Shia ahadiths, however, how could you explain that in both trends, the basic religious practices have the same core.
1-PRAYERS
Sunni = 5 prayers a day in 5 different time and 17 RAKAAT (2 44 34)
Shia = 5 prayers a day in 5 different time and 17 RAKAAT (according to their hadith and not according to the ijtihad of their ayatullah who permit to pray in 3 times but it changes nothing because they pray 5 different prayers in 3 times)2-SIYAM FASTING
Same method of fasting with a little difference on the time of the beginning and finishing of the fast but the main core is same !
3-HAJJ & ZAKAT
Same method of doing/giving Hajj/Zakat (2,5 %) with some little differencies but the main core is same.
These 4 main practices of a MUSLIM share the same core with little differencies due to Ijtihad from Companions or Shiites Imams. As you can see, despite forgeries in both trends, the MAIN PRACTICES have the same core and understanding.
-
So here i am challenging his conclusions of "authentic sunnah" because as brothers and sisters, we support each other and help each other and also come to conclusions or different directions through discussion.
peace.
As I showed in my previous post, there is an "authentic sunnah" (not fully authentic) which survived through oral way about the 4 MAIN PRACTICES. And it's mere impossible that all these stuff are inventions or forgeries.
SALAT-SIYAM-ZAKAT-HAJJ are sharing the same GROUND so nobody can say that we can't trust ahadith on these subjects because books of ahadith are written very late (3rd or 4th century). And this is my challenge !
-
Let me share some of my thoughts
Ijtihad gates closed after the 4 imams (shafi, hanafi, maliki, hanbali)
they established schools and opinions NOT ALL based on hadith. these opinions disbursed every since and still continue today. Why? because muslims believed that no-one had the "qualifications" or ability to be as great, or get qualification like the past "scholars" so they just kept regurgitation the practices the 4 imams believed. remember why, because ijtihad is not for the "laymen" apparently anyone who isnt a scholar in the olden times becomes a laymen.
What does this have to do with anything? well of course it has links to the fundamentals of the so called "authentic sunnah".
prayers
- sunni's pray 5 times, so do shias yep they have differences i know, does that mean it's authentic sunnah? no. hadiths on salat are sparse and have links to zoroastrians. sunnah means way? right or direction or path. if we accept it as authentic then hadith should "EXPLAIN" in appropriate detail right? but it doesn't.
besides the adding of certain things, praises to the prophets/ prophets progeny show how hadiths on such issues are not authentic. they both do it and agree with slight adjustments does it make it a true authentic sunnah or even half authentic or as you say "not fully authentic" Quran doesn't say "pray 5 times" though by all means pray 5 times if it makes you comfortable but it's not an obligation.
siyam
what's interesting is the production of the islamic calendar, i don't know much about this but it influences the notion of siyam. so muslims come up with a consensus of fasting in a particular month. does it mean they have it right? does it mean it's a sunnah?
hajj
what is the main core that is the same? afaik 2.5% didn't come from hadiths shias don't do 2.5% they do khums which is 1/5 of their possessions. some shias claim to do zakat though they do khums which is different but they associate it with zakat.
The "same core" was accepted based on ijtihad and consensus and they have difference from amongst their own sects not just comparing with shias.
They have similar understandings or practices yes, it doesn't mean it's authentic. these practices have been going on for 100's of years, do know that they had rivalry and people where basically indoctrinated to accept or argue. just because today's it's accepted doesn't mean it was like this before.
people find comfort in groups of like minds, in a community they get a sense of belonging. time has a play and a dramatic influence, it so happened that these "core" beliefs established to what they are today through times of conflict/rivalry and consensus. Does it mean it's all sunnah? no i don't believe so.
peace
-
Just my opinion.
If i'm not mistaken, the hadiths were sayings of the prophet and that they were recorded by following a chain of oral narration.By saying that the sahaba present with the prophet could not make a mistake indirectly points states they were above humanity and somewhat divine. They were human beings who had the honour of being present at the birth of Islam and they died like everyone else did. If the hadiths are meant to be made a part of Islam than followers would have to accept the prophet was a paedophile and ordered the rape of pows. These so called hadiths are in direct violation of the Quran. The word of God is the only word meant understanding. By going for the hadith, muslims insult the prophet and decline him the dignity he deserves. He's been called a paedophile, a rapist, some sort of perverted porn star and indirectly divine. People should let the poor man be. He's done his job.