How much information from hadith do we actually use?
-
Hi all,
Someone on the forum, I think it was Jafar or Runninglikezebras argued that all sects of Islam including the Quran alone people use hadith, we are just in denial of it.
So it's got me thinking, do they have a point? How much information are we actually reliant on the hadith and not the Qur'an? How much would we know about the existence of the prophet without the hadith and just the Qur'an?
-
I believe the Issue is not the use of Hadith for historical purposes, comparisons, Laughing at because they are so ridiculous etc. Just God forbids us from using such fabrications as Religious Law, and Prohibiting things through other than Him, Idolatry etc
-
So it's got me thinking, do they have a point? How much information are we actually reliant on the hadith and not the Qur'an? How much would we know about the existence of the prophet without the hadith and just the Qur'an?
Salaam,
ALLAH declare that HIS Quran has been dissected by the sectarions - 1590 - 91
As We have sent down on the sectarions
Those who have made the Quran into dissection
Yes the Quran had been dissected, however, all truth cannot be erased. There are many verses of the Quran that tells us the true history of the Prophet. From whom he was descended. When his era of ministry. These Quranic evidence does not negates historical evidence. If you were to compare the Traditional Sources, there are no evidences of an Arab prophet in the 7th Century and the military campaigns that was carried out by the him whatsoever.
Regards
-
Quran alone people aren't using hadiths. They are just trying to go for what is logical. Think about a word like qatal. Sectarians distorted few verses by twisting the words found in them. These days I hear that punishment for worshipping a calf should be death apparently because prophet Mosses told his followers to kill themselves after they did the whole calf worshiping thing. A sectarian here was bullying me over the word qatal by saying that Quran tells people to commit suicide and all. So I created a thread about the verse asking members to debunk the meaning. Thanks to Allah, we realized that Mosses in that story was telling his people to purify themselves. That's another meaning of qatal. So yeah, some words are twisted and by mistake sometimes we do follow them. Its no biggie because we try our best to go for the best. Anything illogical is questioned, dissected, experimented and so on. Sometimes we do fail in our understanding, but this does not disappoint us because we aren't relying on paparazzi anymore. We don't refer to hadiths. Just go to Quran section of this forum and you will have your answer.
-
Salaam,
AlQuraan alone people surely use hadith in the name of history.
If not then how they believe in the following?- Muhammad came 1400 years ago.
- AlQuraan was given to Muhammad.
- AlQuraan is the last revelation.
And many more...
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
I believe the Issue is not the use of Hadith for historical purposes, comparisons, Laughing at because they are so ridiculous etc. Just God forbids us from using such fabrications as Religious Law, and Prohibiting things through other than Him, Idolatry etc
That is right.
Hadith, no matter how good they are should not be used to derive any religious rule or commendation. But any is free just like with any other litterature to use them for whatever seems best to them. One think is denying the hatdith religious authority, another one is banning hadith altogether as forbidden litterature.
I think some people here are confusing both.
AlQuraan alone people surely use hadith in the name of history.
If not then how they believe in the following?- Muhammad came 1400 years ago.
- AlQuraan was given to Muhammad.
- AlQuraan is the last revelation.
And many more...
I question this on several grounds.
The word "believe", believe as in whatt believe in God? Believe that tomorrow there will be sunshine?
There is a trick in the use of that word. I doubt that many believe about the 1.400 years as they believe in God. In fact I think that many Qur'an aloners don't give much of a damn whether it was 1.400, 300, or whatever, just come up with a more convincing date from all sides and people w'ont give a doman either.
The other two, I think that they can derive it from the Qur'an, that we can think that the Qur'an existed previously and was also revealed it does not take from it being revealed to the Prophet when it was. On that you can discuss all you want but you cannot deny that those two things can be had from the Qur'an, and again ?believe? as in what?
And let us not forget, most of the most dangerous hadith is not from hadith but from the bible. And there is a tendency amongst some qur'an aloners to reject hadith vehemntly and at the same time take the bible on the same foot as the Qur'an or close. In fct many hadiths come straight from the bible, through the hadith.
The last expression I question is
"AlQuraan alone people surely ..."
All Al qur'an people?
On the other hand "in the name of history" so not in the name of God or of religion but in the name of history, so what people use anything in the name of history, they use history in the name of history. ?What do you want them to use? ?One is not free to use whatever for research or study purposes? ?Don't people use the bible in the name of history and to very mcuha wrong by the way, because they put faith in it?
Salaam
-
Salaam,
AlQuraan alone people surely use hadith in the name of history.
If not then how they believe in the following?- Muhammad came 1400 years ago.
No doubt he was a historical figure.
- AlQuraan was given to Muhammad.
To Muhammad and many others, by humans (judeonazarenes such as Waraqa). Not by an angel this is a later invention.
- AlQuraan is the last revelation.
It was not a new revelation. It was the belief of the Judeonazarenes which already existed centuries before Muhammad was born. The first time Muhammad is mentioned as prophet in historical records is on the coins struck by the anti-caliph Ibn Zubayr who used the figure in his propaganda against the Caliphate. Only when Ibn Zubayr was defeated the Caliphs started incorporating the "prophethood" of Muhammad in their doctrine, as a tool in their policy of totalitarian control. The Caliphs authorized their divine right to rule by identifying with Muhammad as "prophet", a strategy they learned from Ibn Zubayr, non-existing before the rebellion. Before Ibn Zubayrs rebellion there is no evidence whatsoever of caliphs calling Muhammad a prophet. John of Damascus reported in the 7th century Muhammad received the revelation in his sleep. All this is explained in detail in the translation I made of Olaf's book "the great secret of Islam revealed"
The so called Night Journey in Quran explaining Gods revelation to Muhammad is actually speaking about Moses (see 172). Evidence is found in the Sanaa inferior scripts of manipulations to fit the new doctrine of prophethood of Muhammad see http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm
-
Peace Runninglikezebras
To Muhammad and many others, by humans (judeonazarenes such as Waraqa). Not by an angel this is a later invention.
So what about that he couldn?t read and write. Do you think its another false hadith?
And what about that the Quran is without fault?
No human has produced anything like it.The Bible is books collected over hundreds of years and are not Gods word entirely. But a collection of stories, prophecies, letters and so on.
The Bible is totally corrupted. And there aint such thing as an original New Testament. In this way the Quran is unique.
Nobody back then could have made it up from a Bibical background.I aint forcing you to believe. Cause thats only between you and God.
-
Peace Runninglikezebras
So what about that he couldn?t read and write. Do you think its another false hadith?I understand "Ummi" as gentile not as illiterate.
And what about that the Quran is without fault?
No human has produced anything like it.I don't think this is true. How to measure such a thing? There is evidence however Quran used other sources for its compilation (such as the Syriac story of Alexander the Great which perfectly matches the story in Quran about Dhul Qarnayn. The story itself is total fiction however, which should raise questions about it containing only truths).
The Bible is books collected over hundreds of years and are not Gods word entirely. But a collection of stories, prophecies, letters and so on.
The Bible is totally corrupted. And there aint such thing as an original New Testament. In this way the Quran is unique.
Nobody back then could have made it up from a Bibical background.I aint forcing you to believe. Cause thats only between you and God.
The Quran itself has a majority of biblical context. The sources for those biblical contents are even documented (Waraqa, Bahira). The Quraysh were originally located in Syria and had frequent contacts with Christians and Jews. Don't get me wrong, this is not about which book is superior to me. I'm just trying to make clear a large portion of Quran has biblical sources. What makes you think the Quran itself wasn't edited, changed and manipulated like the scriptures before it?
-
Peace runninglikezebras
I don't think this is true. How to measure such a thing? There is evidence however Quran used other sources for its compilation (such as the Syriac story of Alexander the Great which perfectly matches the story in Quran about Dhul Qarnayn. The story itself is total fiction however, which should raise questions about it containing only truths).
But the Quran doesnt say that this person are the very same as Alexander the great.
So if thats the only thing to point out it seems like that the claim stays intact.
The Quran itself has a majority of biblical context. The sources for those biblical contents are even documented (Waraqa, Bahira). The Quraysh were originally located in Syria and had frequent contacts with Christians and Jews. Don't get me wrong, this is not about which book is superior to me. I'm just trying to make clear a large portion of Quran has biblical sources. What makes you think the Quran itself wasn't edited, changed and manipulated like the scriptures before it?
Off couse the Quran has Bibical context. This is a correction of the stories in the Bible and also an eyeopener for the one who knew the previous scriptures.(5.83)
I think it wasn?t edited like the Bible since there aint any proff for that like for the Bible. And again because its without any major mistakes. -
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
-
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
Do you have references/links to this evidence
-
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
Peace
And if the recent quranic fragment was similar to the text we have today, would this change your opinion?
Roshan
-
Peace Runninglikezebras.
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
I tried to look at the works for these persons.
The first and second is about one reconstruction of some hidden manuscript. In my view is very weak to rely on that reconstruction. What was it in the first place. And what was it used for. In the comparing it look like there are some lacks in the reconstruction which could indicate that the work wasn?t complete
The third is about Alexander the great. That one we have discussed. So also no point.
The fourth is some work about the hadits as I see it. here I think I could agree with you.you seems like someone with knowledge.
If you really have some valid claims why dont you argue for them then? -
The research on the Sanaa psalimpsests is still ongoing. I often feel there is no point in debating this a lot. The majority here is convinced the Quran is some divine scripture, sent down from heaven by an angel. Rational arguments often fail to convince those who have taken that leap of faith.
The most convincing text manipulation is the adding of "and the nazarenes" to the polemic aimed at the rabbinical jews. The text manipulation can be detected by the breaking of the rythm (cantillation) of the verses. Next to it, it renders the quran to contradiction. In one verse it claims the Nazarenes are most closely related to the believers, on the other hand it forbids the believers to take Nazarenes (together with Jews) as allies and pictures them as enemies.
There is the change to "?ar-r al-qudus? dropping the "al" to make it fit the later discourse of revelation by Gabriel, whereas with the "al" it can only denote the christian concept of "the Holy Ghost". This text manipulation is linked to late introduction of the myth of the night journey.
Changes to Q 289 and Q 2101 to again, grant divine origins to Quran and the Rasul.
Compare
http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses_files/1muhammed_ila_rasul.gif (From verse 144, Sura 3 in folio 6v (Paris BNF arabe 328a)
vs
http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses_files/2muhammed_ila_rasul.png (From the Samarkand folio)
All of these are documented at http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm by EM Gallez.
There are many other examples. I'm not a scholar, these topics are actively being researched by academics way more knowledgeable than I am. They not only document these differences but also explain the motives for those manipulations.
@Roshan if you are referring to the 2 pages of the birmingham quran of which only the parchment has been carbon dated, it hasn't changed my opinion.
-
Do you have references/links to this evidence
A lot of it is documented in the translation of Olaf's book "the great secret of Islam" which I translated here.
-
I'm not a Quran aloner or a Quran worshiper.
Thus I don't see anything wrong of "using information from Hadith (or any other sources)".What's wrong is
Using it (or the Quran for that matter) as an absolute evidence, bypassing common sense, facts and empirical / observable evidence.This is known as "ad verecundiam" or "appeal to authority" fallacy.
A says P
A is HOLY
Therefore, P is correct.Example
The Hadith says you must push Jews to the narrowest part of the road as they're accursed people.
Hadith is holy.
Therefore, we must push the Jews to the narrowest part of the road as they're accursed people.Because the Hadith did said so, we can more correctly deduce that
The Hadith says you must push the Jews to the narrowest part of the road as they're accursed people.
The Hadith was written around 7th or 8th century in middle east.
There is an anti-jewish sentiment growing in Middle East around 7th or 8th century. -
Peace runninglikezebras
The research on the Sanaa psalimpsests is still ongoing. I often feel there is no point in debating this a lot. The majority here is convinced the Quran is some divine scripture, sent down from heaven by an angel. Rational arguments often fail to convince those who have taken that leap of faith.
But how can you have so much faith in something that isn?t finished. In my eyes it look like speculation. Or they failed to reconstruct correct.
Dont you find it peculiarly that its so hard to find even a small thing to point at the Quran. And nobody had come up with something so far.