Muslim scholar argues that 653 hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih are false
-
Only 653?!
I really do not care even if he says 3000 hadiths are false, as long as he does not attack those hadiths at the basis of shari3a law, such as inheritence law, divorce, right of children custody.... where verses are mis-interpreted and bias is evident.
Are those Sharia Laws based on Quran? If not, do they contradict the Quran? In my opinion, Any Law that contradicts Quran, whether hadith,sunnah or other, need to be thrown out.
-
Dear jibbo
Bukhari is a jew sent traitor of Islam. Circumcision is a jewish tradition, not followed by christians, the next generation to Musa and the immediate generation to Muhammad. The jew Bukhari brought this custom to muslims through his hadith. Next in his hadith, Bukhari the jew, writes in his hadith that muhammad was manhandled by a jew in the centre of the road by a jew loan giver when muhammad failed to pay back the money as promised. This hadith is to degrade the prophet muhammad. And further tells that muhammad thought it is better to believe and get a loan from a jew rather than believing the muslim sahaabas infested around him. Then the next hadith is when a jew dead body is taken to the burial, muhammad had to stand to honor the dead jew.
Bukhari is none but a jew send traitor to denigrate islam and prophet muhammad. His story always links muhammad with the jews and not with the christians casts doubts that hadith is the plot against islam by jews.
.
I have noticed that alot of people in this forum still use hadith. They act like they don't when they are in here, but I have had contact with them outside and they argue that there still are legit ones. FACT - God told use to use nothing BUT the Qu'ran.
-
I have noticed that alot of people in this forum still use hadith. They act like they don't when they are in here, but I have had contact with them outside and they argue that there still are legit ones. FACT - God told use to use nothing BUT the Qu'ran.
We can use any source we want. Depends entirely if what your speaking of is when they take non-Quranic information as compulsory.
The term "Quran alone" is a simplified misnomer, unless it is understood properly. It has never meant "only Quran and no other source". If "Quran alone" is understood correctly, then it is obvious Quran itself does not limit knowledge or methodology to itself.
-
We can use any source we want. Depends entirely if what your speaking of is when they take non-Quranic information as compulsory.
Whats the point of being on this site/forum then, if you use the hadith for religious practice and worship? After all, thats what this place is for!!
The hadith were notated via chinese whispers 300 - 800 years after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) which would make it highly inaccurate.
Say, "I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is revealed to me. (The Qu'ran) I am no more than a profound warner. (ie - the message in the Qu'ran)" 469
So why would Muhammed (pbuh) deliver something so different and contradicting to what God issued him with. One big example is Ablution. It's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CLEAR and simple to understand, yet people differ.
-
Whats the point of being on this site/forum then, if you use the hadith for religious practice and worship? After all, thats what this place is for!!
The hadith were notated via chinese whispers 300 - 800 years after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) which would make it highly inaccurate.
Say, "I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is revealed to me. (The Qu'ran) I am no more than a profound warner. (ie - the message in the Qu'ran)" 469
So why would Muhammed (pbuh) deliver something so different and contradicting to what God issued him with. One big example is Ablution. It's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CLEAR and simple to understand, yet people differ.
It seems you did not understand what I said, despite my underlining and making bold the word "compulsory".
For example, in the example you gave, it is only a problem if the person said you MUST do the ablution in other than what The Quran says.
Please note the underlined and bold word.
As I said, we can consult any source we want, but when non-Quranic information is taken as compulsory or to over-rule The Quran, then that's a problem.
-
It seems you did not understand what I said, despite my underlining and making bold the word "compulsory".
For example, in the example you gave, it is only a problem if the person said you MUST do the ablution in other than what The Quran says.
Please note the underlined and bold word.
As I said, we can consult any source we want, but when non-Quranic information is taken as compulsory or to over-rule The Quran, then that's a problem.
Sorry I wasn't reading it write, was in a hurry at the time. Yes you can, but for religious law and practice, the only source should be Qu'ran.
-
Samia what are you talking about ?
I meant that quality, not quantity of hadiths is what they should emphasise. If someone really believes that the prophet affectionately held a weeping tree until it stopped crying, how would this affect the soicety or someone else, or even this person who believes in it? Such hadiths do not bother me. What should bother us are hadiths that are claimed to "abrogate" verses of the qur'aan and are used as source of Islamic law; or hadiths that simply are contrary to the principles of freedom and equality and are also incorporated in civil law and used for fatwas.
-
Yeah at first I thought "653" was a lot, but according to what's in those books reeking of poo it really isn't.
All of Bukhari's hadith are false until proven otherwise. As the Quran tells us, we should not accept any information until we verify it for ourselves. Has anyone ever tried to verify Bukhari's books? Or did the muslims just blindly accept them because they got scared by their parents and scholars? It is only God who we should fear, likewise it is his words that we are not to question, and anything that comes out of anything else needs severe scrutiny, especially if you're being told they're from God, but with sufficient knowledge of Quran you will know that all of God's words are in the Quran, anyway.
It has been proven literally hundreds of hadiths from Bukhari are against the teachings in the Quran.
-
Most of the things in hadhis are false...My most I mean about 85-90%
-
I don't understand the term "law" of inheritance or "law" of whatever. What does it mean to say law? Is everthing the Koran tells the prophet and the people of medina to do divine law? If you Samia believe that the Koran did not give us a specific sets of religious rituals we are to follow what makes you believe that the Koran then gives us a specific "law" to govern a community of believers? I have come up with a thread about Hukm in the Koran where I showed how the Koran uses the term hukm very differently from the way we do. Anyways its not the job of the prophecy to create a legal framework for societies to follow and it is impossible for anyone to do so anyways. The Koran doesn't tell us how to secure our borders and run our economies or how to establish ministries etc.
I gave examples of what areas of law are corrupted by hadith, especifically the family code. This is detailed in the qur'aan. Just look at the commandments in the qur'aan to write a will and how this has been abrogated by a hadith and rendered void. I did not talk about establishing ministries or securing boarders, and was not even on mind. Please read carefully.
-
how interesting if more traditionalist became aware of "scholarly" opinion of the falsehood of hadith i think it'll make them wonder.
yeah! bravo
-
But they don't care. They shun the crystal clear contradictions and falsehoods in the hadith because they fear people will neglect the "sunna of Muhammad" and therefore become misguided alchohol-drinking sex addicts! Even though it's the hadith that promotes sleeping with 9 year olds and marrying up to 4 wives "if you can" laugh. And how the hell do you follow them if you're a woman laugh? Maybe this is why the hadith hates them so much because they can't follow Muhammad! It is then NO WONDER that the ONLY sunna is that of God's as stated in the Quran. You can follow God's sunna regardless of your gender
They're either ignorant "scholars" not aware of the Quranic proofs shunning the so-called hadiths of Muhammad or they're disbelievers in God's words.
-
But they don't care. They shun the crystal clear contradictions and falsehoods in the hadith because they fear people will neglect the "sunna of Muhammad" and therefore become misguided alchohol-drinking sex addicts! Even though it's the hadith that promotes sleeping with 9 year olds and marrying up to 4 wives "if you can" laugh. And how the hell do you follow them if you're a woman laugh? Maybe this is why the hadith hates them so much because they can't follow Muhammad! It is then NO WONDER that the ONLY sunna is that of God's as stated in the Quran. You can follow God's sunna regardless of your gender
They're either ignorant "scholars" not aware of the Quranic proofs shunning the so-called hadiths of Muhammad or they're disbelievers in God's words.
No, they fear their own authority will erode. Without hadiths, there is no fiqh, without fiqh there is no clerics. Clerics, even more than Islamist parties, fear hadith erosion.
-
No, they fear their own authority will erode. Without hadiths, there is no fiqh, without fiqh there is no clerics. Clerics, even more than Islamist parties, fear hadith erosion.
This is 100% correct.
In the hadith you can find that "Clerics" is the successor of Prophet or Prophethood!.
In the Quran, Clerichood / Clerical systems was discouraged (5727).If you're a cleric; losing your own authority thus followers will be your worst nightmare!
You will do anything to stop that from happening! Even murder!
That is also what happen to Jesus and John anyway... murdered by advice of the clerics...Salam / Peace
-
Most of the things in hadhis are false...My most I mean about 85-90%
It is nearly impossible to statistically determine the probability of truth or falseness of a fact given in the hadiths.
Due to the mechanism to determine the truth / falseness is also improper and irrelevant.In Year 0 Steve said X = Y
In Year 200 Desmond claim he hear from John who claim he hear from Robert who claim he hear from Gerrard who claim he hear from Steve that Steve said X = Y.
In Year 200- Desmond is still alive
- John is still alive
- Robert has past away
- Gerrard has past away
- Steve has past away.
There are two things to validate here
- Whether Steve really said X = Y
- Most important whether X=Y is really True.
Objective no 1 is IMPOSSIBLE to validate due to
-
Steve had past away..
The fact that Robert and Gerrard has past away is actually irrelevant.
Even if Robert and Gerrard are still alive, and it is directly validated that the statement that Desmond made is true and John, Robert and Gerrard really validate them. But John, Robert and Gerrard is not the subject to be validated. It is Steve's opinion. -
Even if Steve is still alive; and he really state that opinion; doesn't necessarily X=Y is actually true. Thus the mechanism of 'validation' above does not applicable for goal number 2.
To validate objective no 2, we have to provide 'good enough' empirical evidences to prove X = Y.
The same mechanism being applied on scientific society.For Example
It is claimed that Muhammad said "You must follow the directions of khulafa Ar-Rhasidin".
The statement above is impossible to be made by Muhammad; as khulafa Ar-Rhasidin is non-existent during his lifetime.Even if Muhammad really said those thing; the statement above need more clarifications as
- Who is khulafa Ar-Rashidin being mentioned?
- And specifically what are the directions that being made by khulafa Ar-Rashidin that need to be followed?
If the directions are true, sound, wise and good then we shall follow them!
If the directions are false, silly, bad and evil then we shall abandon them!
Having said that; to me the Hadith book really beneficial for us today to really dig into the history of what actually linger in the mind and heart of middle-east people in 800 AD. Thus most probably the hadith really true in that context. Those thing that being stated in the hadith, is actually what they believed! This is a 'rare gem' if you dig into Anthropology field. If somebody wrote the same materials on the rumours that linger within Japan society on 700 AD, that would also be a gem to gain insight of their culture at that time.
But most certainly it is not a proper-source to differentiate between what's good and what's evil or the source / guidance for our law and public policy.
Salam / Peace
-
It is nearly impossible to statistically determine the probability of truth or falseness of a fact given in the hadiths.
Due to the mechanism to determine the truth / falseness is also improper and irrelevant.In Year 0 Steve said X = Y
In Year 200 Desmond claim he hear from John who claim he hear from Robert who claim he hear from Gerrard who claim he hear from Steve that Steve said X = Y.
In Year 200- Desmond is still alive
- John is still alive
- Robert has past away
- Gerrard has past away
- Steve has past away.
There are two things to validate here
- Whether Steve really said X = Y
- Most important whether X=Y is really True.
Objective no 1 is IMPOSSIBLE to validate due to
-
Steve had past away..
The fact that Robert and Gerrard has past away is actually irrelevant.
Even if Robert and Gerrard are still alive, and it is directly validated that the statement that Desmond made is true and John, Robert and Gerrard really validate them. But John, Robert and Gerrard is not the subject to be validated. It is Steve's opinion. -
Even if Steve is still alive; and he really state that opinion; doesn't necessarily X=Y is actually true. Thus the mechanism of 'validation' above does not applicable for goal number 2.
To validate objective no 2, we have to provide 'good enough' empirical evidences to prove X = Y.
The same mechanism being applied on scientific society.For Example
It is claimed that Muhammad said "You must follow the directions of khulafa Ar-Rhasidin".
The statement above is impossible to be made by Muhammad; as khulafa Ar-Rhasidin is non-existent during his lifetime.Even if Muhammad really said those thing; the statement above need more clarifications as
- Who is khulafa Ar-Rashidin being mentioned?
- And specifically what are the directions that being made by khulafa Ar-Rashidin that need to be followed?
If the directions are true, sound, wise and good then we shall follow them!
If the directions are false, silly, bad and evil then we shall abandon them!
Having said that; to me the Hadith book really beneficial for us today to really dig into the history of what actually linger in the mind and heart of middle-east people in 800 AD. Thus most probably the hadith really true in that context. Those thing that being stated in the hadith, is actually what they believed! This is a 'rare gem' if you dig into Anthropology field. If somebody wrote the same materials on the rumours that linger within Japan society on 700 AD, that would also be a gem to gain insight of their culture at that time.
But most certainly it is not a proper-source to differentiate between what's good and what's evil or the source / guidance for our law and public policy.
Salam / Peace
This is 100% correct.
In the hadith you can find that "Clerics" is the successor of Prophet or Prophethood!.
In the Quran, Clerichood / Clerical systems was discouraged (5727).If you're a cleric; losing your own authority thus followers will be your worst nightmare!
You will do anything to stop that from happening! Even murder!
That is also what happen to Jesus and John anyway... murdered by advice of the clerics...Salam / Peace
These are excellent points you bring up. I have noticed that many academics who tried to sift through the hadiths to arrange them in chronological order or try to seperate whats fact or fiction have failed. This is because it is impossible to know the origins of the hadith and to what extent its isnad is fabricated or accurate. Juynboll spent almost 40 years studying hadiths yet he in the end said that even Schacht's attempt to create a chronology of hadith emergence is not possible therefore agreeing with Goldziher's initial thesis that hadiths are a jungle of texts impossible to arrange.
I also agree that hadiths can give us a good example how the early Muslim communities and the ones after it understood issues but to try to arrange them as to which is a hadith from the prophet and which is hadith from the companions and which was spoken by someone else or even which was completely fabricated is impossible as of now.
As far as the clerics they remind me of the pharisees and their fear of Jesus
John 11 44-49 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man does many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
John 182-3 "Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons"
Mathew 12 10-15 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
-
Muslim scholar argues that 653 hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are false
taken from
http//www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024226.phpOnly 653? Hopefully they will find more in the future.
