Why do you reject hadiths

rameez

Just a little side not

Not all Sunnis agree with the doctrine of abrogation, check out what my favorite commentator, Muhammad Asad says

2106
Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar
ones. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

87 The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical
dispensation by that of the Qur'an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many
Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message&quot occurring in this, context is also used to
denote a "verse;" of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message).
Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage
that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the
revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion -
which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs
of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not
exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of
the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation"
may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage
with another a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in
question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no
unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and
how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this
alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context
of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it.
In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must
be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic
passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as "message",
and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews
and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible
for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to
any part of the Qur'an itself.

I have not read His work. All mainstream sunni schools agree on the concept of abrogation.

Here are top commentaries on 2106 , after commentaries I will post Hadiths.

Tafsir Ibn Abbas
Then Allah mentions what was abrogated of the Qur'an and that which was not abrogated, as a direct reference to the claim of the Quraysh who said to the Prophet O Muhammad! Why do you command us to do something and then forbid it, saying (Such of Our revelations as We abrogate) We do not erase a verse that was acted upon before and which is now not acted upon (or cause to be forgotten) or leave unabrogated so that it is acted upon, (We bring one better) We send Gabriel with that which more profitable and easier to act upon (or the like) in reward, benefit and action. (Knowest thou not) O Muhammad (that Allah is Able to do all things?) of the abrogated and unabrogated.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Ibn Abi Talhah said that Ibn Abbas said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We abrogate. Also, Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We erase. Also, Ibn Abi Najih said that Mujahid said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We keep the words, but change the meaning. He related these words to the companions of Abdullah bin Masud. Ibn Abi Hatim said that similar statements were mentioned by Abu Al-Aliyah and Muhammad bin Kab Al-Qurazi. Also As-Suddi said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We erase it. Further, Ibn Abi Hatim said that it means, "Erase and raise it, such as erasing the following wordings (from the Qur'an), The married adulterer and the married adulteress stone them to death,' and, If the son of Adam had two valleys of gold, he would seek a third.' Ibn Jarir stated that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever ruling we repeal in an Ayah by making the allowed unlawful and the unlawful allowed. The Nasakh only occurs with commandments, prohibitions, permissions, and so forth. As for stories, they do not undergo Nasakh. The word, Nasakh' literally means, to copy a book'. The meaning of Nasakh in the case of commandments is removing the commandment and replacing it by another. And whether the Nasakh involves the wordings, the ruling or both, it is still called Nasakh. Allah said next, (or Nunsiha (cause it to be forgotten)). Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn Abbas said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh or Nunsiha) means, "Whatever Ayah We repeal or uphold without change. Also, Mujahid said that the companions of Ibn Masud (who read this word Nansa'ha) said that it means, "We uphold its wording and change its ruling. Further, Ubayd bin Umayr, Mujahid and Ata' said, Nansa'ha' means, "We delay it (i.e., do not abrogate it). Further, Atiyyah Al-Awfi said that the Ayah means, "We delay repealing it. This is the same Tafsir provided by As-Suddi and Ar-Rabibin Anas.Abdur-Razzaq said that Mamar said that Qatadah said about Allah's statement, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten) "Allah made His Prophet forget what He willed and He abrogated what He will. Allah's said, (We bring a better one or similar to it), better, relates to the benefit provided for the one it addresses, as reported from Ali bin Abi Talhah that Ibn `Abbas said,
(We bring a better one) means, "We bring forth a more beneficial ruling, that is also easier for you. Also, As-Suddi said that,
(We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We bring forth a better Ayah, or similar to that which was repealed. Qatadah also said that,
(We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We replace it by an Ayah more facilitating, permitting, commanding, or prohibiting.

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his Companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed And whatever verse (m is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not ; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning ? We command you or Gabriel to abrogate?, or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading is nunsih, from ?to forget? so ? or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart?; the response to the conditional sentence is We bring a better, one that is more beneficial for servants, either because it is easier or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting ? (the interrogative here is meant as an affirmative).

Mariful Quran
Verse 106 speaks of Allah abrogating certain verses or making men forget others.The first phrase of the verse , thus covers all the possible forms in which a verse of the Quran can be abrogated.

If Yousuf Ali do not accept abrogation and he is a sunni , then how he interpret the following hadiths

Sahih Bukhari 66034
Narrated Salama
When the Divine Revelation
"For those who can fast, they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day," (2.184) was revealed, it was permissible for one to give a ransom and give up fasting, till the Verse succeeding it was revealed and abrogated it.

Sahih Bukhari 66053
Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair
I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."

Sahih Bukhari 66060
Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair I said to 'Uthman, "This Verse which is in Surat-al-Baqara "Those of you who die and leave widows behind...without turning them out." has been abrogated by another Verse. Why then do you write it (in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "Leave it (where it is), O the son of my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e. the Quran) from its original position."

Sahih Bukhari 66068
Narrated Ibn 'Umar This Verse--"Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it.." (2.284) was abrogated.

MASOOMboy

Peace Rameez,

Let us try to understand the concept in a different way ..

Let me start by asking you a very simple question ?

Which is more important of the two , A) Message B ) Messenger ?

Its really common sense that messengers are required only If their is a message.
Their has to be a message for the messenger to deliver or else nobody needs a messenger without a message.

Coming back to your argument of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" Its a message in literal sense. Now , Is Allah directly commanding/ sent us that message or the Qur'an was revealed in a form of book on a mountain top ? No right ? Allah is ordering us through a messenger, So first of all people need to believe that a Person X is a messenger of Allah and he is delivering a certain message from Allah.
As per our knowledge of history , how many people during the time of Prophet Mohammed were atheist ?
Let us find out,

Jews were not atheist
Christians were not atheist
City Arab were not atheist
Nomad Arabs were also not atheist

So, it means that more than 99% of population around Prophet Mohammed were believers in God.
Now Imagine God Telling those Believers- in- God that "Only Obey God/Allah"
what do you think they would have said ? For sure they would have told that we already Obey God.
nobody would have listen to Prophet Mohammed or would have taken him seriously because they could have thought that we are already "Obeying God". What about the message of Qur'an then ?
That's the reason Allah is Ordering people that If you Obey/Believe in God/Allah then Obey/believer the Messenger as well.
So once people believe in a messenger then they will obey his message and that message is Qur'an.
the fact of the matter is if someone is Obeying the Qur'an then he is Obeying the messenger as well as The Allah / GOD

Regards,

Andya_Primanda

You are correct about hadith , but you misunderstood that ruling of niqab is derived from this hadith alone. And niqab is not fardh by jamhoor. Those who make it necessary argue using different hadiths and the verse of Quran.

As far as that hadith is concerned, it defines the female aurat as the face and hands, and Abu Dawud himself said it is mursal. Most traditional Muslims I know consider that hadith as authoritative in defining the female aurat, and they do not consider the niqab (face veil) as mandatory.

Well, you asked for a weak hadith followed by the majority, and I give you that. I think I have made my case, and we agree that Asma's female aurat hadith is weak. It is not me that said the hadith is weak, it is the collector himself, Abu Dawud. God knows why that weak hadith becomes so popular and followed by millions. If only the millions knew what they were following.

See, even with hadiths that has been filtered, Muslims still disagree.

Bigmo

Peace Rameez,

Let us try to understand the concept in a different way ..

Let me start by asking you a very simple question ?

Which is more important of the two , A) Message B ) Messenger ?

Its really common sense that messengers are required only If their is a message.
Their has to be a message for the messenger to deliver or else nobody needs a messenger without a message.

Coming back to your argument of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" Its a message in literal sense. Now , Is Allah directly commanding/ sent us that message or the Qur'an was revealed in a form of book on a mountain top ? No right ? Allah is ordering us through a messenger, So first of all people need to believe that a Person X is a messenger of Allah and he is delivering a certain message from Allah.
As per our knowledge of history , how many people during the time of Prophet Mohammed were atheist ?
Let us find out,

Jews were not atheist
Christians were not atheist
City Arab were not atheist
Nomad Arabs were also not atheist

So, it means that more than 99% of population around Prophet Mohammed were believers in God.
Now Imagine God Telling those Believers- in- God that "Only Obey God/Allah"
what do you think they would have said ? For sure they would have told that we already Obey God.
nobody would have listen to Prophet Mohammed or would have taken him seriously because they could have thought that we are already "Obeying God". What about the message of Qur'an then ?
That's the reason Allah is Ordering people that If you Obey/Believe in God/Allah then Obey/believer the Messenger as well.
So once people believe in a messenger then they will obey his message and that message is Qur'an.
the fact of the matter is if someone is Obeying the Qur'an then he is Obeying the messenger as well as The Allah / GOD

Regards,

Most of the obey the messenger verses of the Quran has been abrogated by both Sunni and Shia authorities since the same verses limit the prophet's authority to impose himself on those who wish not to believe in him. So the sets wanting to create an Islamic theocracy with the ruler enjoing absolute authority over the masses abrogated those verses relying on verse 9.5. Most Quranist may not be ware of that. It is impossible for the Sunni auhority to accept those verses since it means there is freedom to disbelieve.

479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe

So the same verses that tells us to obey the messenger are the same verses that tells the prophet to respect people's freedom and limits his authority to impose himself. This means people have the freedom to believe or not which means there is absolute freedom. The sects of course reject that completely so they abrogated those verses. Now the uranist have arrived they are trying to revive those verses but in doing so they will also highlight the contradiction between the Quran and themselves. They are stuck.

So I think in time they will focus on the Quran and wisdom verses.

good_logic

Peace rameez.

I am back! just briefly.

You convinced me to consider " hadith"? I found this hadith for you to ponder!

Shown below are two such Hadiths taken from the Hadithists' most reliable sources, Sahih Muslim and Is-haah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

The Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran."

This Hadith states that the prophet maintained his anti-hadith stand until death.

Hadith rejecting all "hadiths"? Or has this hadith been abrogated as well? ( In it you can find anything you want?)

Peace and thank you.

rameez

As far as that hadith is concerned, it defines the female aurat as the face and hands, and Abu Dawud himself said it is mursal. Most traditional Muslims I know consider that hadith as authoritative in defining the female aurat, and they do not consider the niqab (face veil) as mandatory.

Well, you asked for a weak hadith followed by the majority, and I give you that. I think I have made my case, and we agree that Asma's female aurat hadith is weak. It is not me that said the hadith is weak, it is the collector himself, Abu Dawud. God knows why that weak hadith becomes so popular and followed by millions. If only the millions knew what they were following.

See, even with hadiths that has been filtered, Muslims still disagree.

Who says that Abu Dawud has 100% authentic hadiths ? That is why you have all people of knowledge stating that it is "weak" . And you didn't read the links I provided, I said "Ruling of face veil is NOT BASED on this Hadith". Kindly read the links and you will get the idea what i was saying

rameez

Peace Rameez,

Let us try to understand the concept in a different way ..

Let me start by asking you a very simple question ?

Which is more important of the two , A) Message B ) Messenger ?

Its really common sense that messengers are required only If their is a message.
Their has to be a message for the messenger to deliver or else nobody needs a messenger without a message.

Coming back to your argument of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" Its a message in literal sense. Now , Is Allah directly commanding/ sent us that message or the Qur'an was revealed in a form of book on a mountain top ? No right ? Allah is ordering us through a messenger, So first of all people need to believe that a Person X is a messenger of Allah and he is delivering a certain message from Allah.
As per our knowledge of history , how many people during the time of Prophet Mohammed were atheist ?
Let us find out,

Jews were not atheist
Christians were not atheist
City Arab were not atheist
Nomad Arabs were also not atheist

So, it means that more than 99% of population around Prophet Mohammed were believers in God.
Now Imagine God Telling those Believers- in- God that "Only Obey God/Allah"
what do you think they would have said ? For sure they would have told that we already Obey God.
nobody would have listen to Prophet Mohammed or would have taken him seriously because they could have thought that we are already "Obeying God". What about the message of Qur'an then ?
That's the reason Allah is Ordering people that If you Obey/Believe in God/Allah then Obey/believer the Messenger as well.
So once people believe in a messenger then they will obey his message and that message is Qur'an.
the fact of the matter is if someone is Obeying the Qur'an then he is Obeying the messenger as well as The Allah / GOD

Regards,

Its your point of view which is based on confusion and interpreting in a way you want. I don't agree with this.

Can you please tell me the definition of Shirk ?

rameez

Peace rameez.

I am back! just briefly.

You convinced me to consider " hadith"? I found this hadith for you to ponder!

Shown below are two such Hadiths taken from the Hadithists' most reliable sources, Sahih Muslim and Is-haah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

The Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran."

This Hadith states that the prophet maintained his anti-hadith stand until death.

Hadith rejecting all "hadiths"? Or has this hadith been abrogated as well? ( In it you can find anything you want?)

Peace and thank you.

This link has sufficient explanation
http//www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_from_hadith_in_which_the_prophet_says__do_not_write_down_anything_from_me_except_qur_an__

That is why Quran asks you to "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger and those who are in authority". (459)

Quran orders believers not all should go in battle , but some must learn "religion".

And it is not for the believers to go forth all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious. (9122)

rameez