Al right folks,

I wanna clear somethings up.

There are two conversations in this one topic. We have to discuss one or the other.

1. That every order of Muhammad peace be upon him including those that are not included in the Quran is incumbent on us to follow.

2. The validity of some hadith collections such as Imam Bukhari and Muslim.

The people here at free-minds.org are perpetually confusing these two making conversations with them extremely convoluted and confusing that's why we can't go anywhere with this.

#1 does not mean #2, and #2 does not mean #1.

Why is this true? Take Imam Malik, one of the pillars of the sunni faith. Born some 95 years after Muhammad peace be upon him, he believed that the orders of Muhammad peace be upon him could be seen by observing the actions of the people of Medina. So by rarely using hadith he was able to build a whole school of thought by this. Only much much later did people in his school use hadith to show that what he affirmed can be verified by hadth also.

Another example is that many sunni people wrote criticsms of Imam Bukhari's collection. Although they were refuted in the books of his supporters, they were never considered non-muslims. In fact they were admired and debated with. Its just that most muslims realized that the rejecters had no case and dismissed them.

Another example to prove my point. What about the years between Muhammad peace be upon him and Imam Bukhari? What did they do? If the people at free-minds here think that sunnis think that Imam Bukhari collection is a holy book, what did his predecessors without the "holy book" do? They believed in #1, so they either sought out hadith themselves by making little collections that dealt with issues in their lives, or they went and travleled hundreds and hundreds of miles to learn with great scholars, like the sahaba, the tabieen, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafii, and many others who knew many hadith (not then collected by Bukhari) by heart. By going to the Sahaba some of them learned the orders of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) first hand from eye witnesses.

I could keep on giving examples but just don't confuse the two!

Sunni's do not beleive that Imam Bukhari is a prophet or is his book his holy. Not beleiving in the validity of a collection doesn't take you out of the fold of Islam. (Its just make you look stupid.)

Not believeing in all of the orders of Muhammad (peace be upon him) does takes you out of the fold of Islam. Why? Because this beleif violates the Quran!

So don't confuse point #1 with point #2. Both of them have nothing to do with each other.

I already posted this in another topic but just wanted to make it its own topic too.

Hello all,

I have two questions

1. What is the anti-Hadith postion on Muhammad (peace be upon him)?

2. Is the basis for taking only the Quran as a source of religion either For this question pick either A or B. B overrides A.

a) The hadith aren't reliable, so we can't follow the orders of the Prophet, so we must now stick to only the Quran. This means that you believe that following the Prophet is necessary but now impossible today.
b) Or that following the orders of the Prophet is not a necessary requirement of the religion Islam. This means that it doesn't matter if the Hadith are true or not, no one is obligated (by Allah) to do what the Prophet says.

five-oh