/* */

PDA

View Full Version : What is the value of the Hadith in Islam?



JPR
03-15-2011, 03:05 AM
I understand that they are to be studied with the Qu'ran, but are they as reliable to muslims as the Qu'ran is?

I'm trying to understand the real value of a second book in Islam apart from learning the story of Muhammad. I also understand that Sha'ria (sorry if my spelling is wrong) takes some, or most, of its power in the Hadith but again, how valuable is it?

Thanks for your answers!
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Beardo
03-15-2011, 04:24 AM
The Relationship between the Sunnah and Revelation

The Sunnah is revelation from Allah to His Prophet (peace be upon him). Allah says in the Qur’ân:

We have sent down to him the Book and the Wisdom.

The Wisdom refers to the Sunnah. The great jurist al-Shâfi`î said: “Allah mentions the Book, which is the Qur’ân. I have heard from people who I consider authorities on the Qur’ân that the Wisdom is the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him).” Allah says:

Indeed, Allah conferred a great favor on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His signs and purifying them and instructing them in the Book and the Wisdom.

It is clear from the preceding verses that Allah revealed to His Prophet (peace be upon him) both the Qur’ân and the Sunnah, and that He commanded him to convey both to the people. The Prophetic hadîth also attest to the fact that the Sunnah is revelation. It is related from Makhûl that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Allah gave me the Qur’ân and what is like it from the Wisdom.”

Al-Miqdâm b. Ma`dî Karab relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “I have been given the Book and with it something like it.”

Hisân b. `Atiyyah relates that Jibrîl (Gabriel) used to come the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the Sunnah just like he would come to him with the Qur’ân.

An opinion from the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not merely his own thoughts or deliberations on a matter; it was what Allah revealed to him. In this way, the Prophet was different from other people. He was supported by revelation. When he exercised his own reasoning and was correct, Allah would confirm it, and if he ever made a mistake in his thinking, Allah would correct it and guide him to the truth.

For this reason, it is related that the Caliph `Umar said from the pulpit: “O people! The opinions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were correct only because Allah would reveal them to him. As for our opinions, they are nothing but thoughts and conjecture.”
I would STRONGLY suggest you read the rest at the source:
http://load-islam.com/artical_det.ph...ection=Hadeeth
Reply

Woodrow
03-15-2011, 01:37 PM
Let us imagine you have a wonderful cook book that gives you the recipes for the greatest dishes on this earth. the book tells you how to make everything and gives very precise instructions that are easy to follow. to follow that cook book exactly gives you the knowledge to become the world's greatest chef.

Now how can you follow that book if you do not have the proper utensils, stoves and source of ingredients? Is following the instruction manual for your stove a violation of your cookbook as the cookbook does not tell you how to use your stove?


So it is with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is precise and easy to follow, it tells us what Islam is and fully explains why we should follow Islam.

The ahadith in turn tell us how to be Muslims by giving us examples of what our Beloved Prophet(PBUH) did.

The Qur'an is the what and why, the ahadith are the how.
Reply

Ali Mujahidin
03-15-2011, 01:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
The Qur'an is the what and why, the ahadith are the how.

Allahu Akbar! JazakuLLah brother Woodrow for presenting the purpose of the Quran and the Ahadith in such an easy-to-understand way. This is the first time I have seen it put this way. I am going to use this analogy the next time I am asked about Quran vs Ahadith. May Allah keep you always strong and safe in Islam. Insha Allah.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
JPR
03-15-2011, 02:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
So it is with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is precise and easy to follow, it tells us what Islam is and fully explains why we should follow Islam. The ahadith in turn tell us how to be Muslims by giving us examples of what our Beloved Prophet(PBUH) did. The Qur'an is the what and why, the ahadith are the how.

Very useful, thank you!

My next question might be daunting for some but to what extent has the ahadith been appropriated by humans to justify laws considered "archaic" by western standards? And I'm not talking about terrorists claiming to be muslims and using the Qu'ran and ahadith to justify their acts. I'm more interested in how the majority of muslims view things such as the sha'ria in Iran and other religious countries.

A good analogy for the Christian side would be the Catholic church claiming authority on faith and the Bible and imposing all sorts of different doctrines.

Thanks for any help on that matter
Reply

Woodrow
03-15-2011, 04:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Very useful, thank you!

My next question might be daunting for some but to what extent has the ahadith been appropriated by humans to justify laws considered "archaic" by western standards? And I'm not talking about terrorists claiming to be muslims and using the Qu'ran and ahadith to justify their acts. I'm more interested in how the majority of muslims view things such as the sha'ria in Iran and other religious countries.

A good analogy for the Christian side would be the Catholic church claiming authority on faith and the Bible and imposing all sorts of different doctrines.

Thanks for any help on that matter
A good analogy for the Christian side would be the Catholic church claiming authority on faith and the Bible and imposing all sorts of different doctrines.
Actually that is a very poor analogy as there is no central authority for Islam. We have no living human leaders nor any ordained clergy. Each of us is held accountable for verifying all we learn. we do not have the option of saying "I was following the teachings of the Church"

Our Islamic education begins at home or in the case of us reverts from the moment of saying the shahadah. Emphasis is placed on us as individuals to seek out reliable teachers and to constantly search for more. Being Muslim is a life time process of learning what Islam is. Our main sources grow as we learn. For most of us our initial learning is from the Qur'an and later from the 4 authenticated books of Ahadith. Later we may wander into the realms of Qur'anic studies, Hafiz memorization, language studies, Islamic Jurisprudence, Fiqh ul-sunnah the list is endless. But we never follow the teachings of any one person without verifying from all sources we can find.

I'm more interested in how the majority of muslims view things such as the sha'ria in Iran and other religious countries
There are no true Shariah nations. Iran is a Shi'i nation and do follow some books of Ahadith the rest of us do not consider to be authenticate. Their concept of shariah is not always in agreement with the rest of the Islamic world. Those of us who are not Shi'i do not follow the Ayatollah.
Reply

JPR
03-15-2011, 06:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
There are no true Shariah nations. Iran is a Shi'i nation and do follow some books of Ahadith the rest of us do not consider to be authenticate. Their concept of shariah is not always in agreement with the rest of the Islamic world. Those of us who are not Shi'i do not follow the Ayatollah.

On what basis are books of Ahadith chosen or deemed "authentical"? It is my understanding that the first ahadith (spelled Hadith in other places?) was written by Ibn Shihab al'Zuhri around 750 so I would assume this one would be the most accurate. But what about the rest? I know Shias and Sunnis don't accept the same standard in choosing what text is good and what is wrong.

So if to properly understand and learn how to practice Islam according to the Qu'ran you need the guidance of ahadith, then my guess is that you would need the best one. The question behind this is: "Would you still be able to practice Islam like Allah intended you to do without the ahadith?" or, put in other words: "if you want to be the most pleasing to Allah and do everything right to insure your place in Heaven, would you need the ahadith?"

I understand from the quote below that yes, I would need the ahadith. Would that be a correct assessment?

Now how can you follow that book if you do not have the proper utensils, stoves and source of ingredients? Is following the instruction manual for your stove a violation of your cookbook as the cookbook does not tell you how to use your stove?
Thanks again for the useful help!
Reply

Woodrow
03-15-2011, 06:36 PM
I should have mentioned AHadith is the plural of Hadith. That is the reason for the difference spellings.

Actually the first Ahadith were written while Muhammad was still alive. Nearly 30% of the Ahadith were from Aisha. All told over 1/2 Million Ahadith have been collected. The science of checking for reliability and authenticity is quite long and so far only the books of the First 4 Imams are accepted. Authenticity means the Hadith can be unquestionable be traced to an actual witness. Reliability means the exact same words or events are witnessed by multiple verified witnesses. The more witnesses each reporting the very same thing and the same words indicates a higher level of reliability.

The Ahadith collection by Bukhari dates back to about 240 years after the Death of the Prophet(PBUH) Bukhari collected over 300,000 Ahadith but only verified 2,602 as truly dating back to the Prophet(PBUH)
Reply

Zuzubu
03-15-2011, 07:18 PM
Not as holy as Al-Qur'an but still very high.
Reply

abjad
03-15-2011, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I understand that they are to be studied with the Qu'ran, but are they as reliable to muslims as the Qu'ran is?

I'm trying to understand the real value of a second book in Islam apart from learning the story of Muhammad. I also understand that Sha'ria (sorry if my spelling is wrong) takes some, or most, of its power in the Hadith but again, how valuable is it?

Thanks for your answers!
but are they as reliable to muslims as the Qu'ran is?

Not all.


I'm trying to understand the real value of a second book in Islam

><>< the real value is when you will come across a certain verse in Kuran for example:-

(18:7) The fact is that whatsoever is on the earth, We have made it as its adornment so that we may test the people as to which of them does best deeds.

There is a saying of Nabiina Muhammad (s.a.w) saying that al Dunia Mazraat Akheira


I also understand that Sha'ria (sorry if my spelling is wrong) takes some, or most, of its power in the Hadith but again, how valuable is it?

my dear let me put it this way; every Prophet has come with his sharia....and Muhammad (s.a.w) we call it shariat Muhammad BUT
and they are according to Kuran Kareem as tought.


how valuable is it?

they are very very valuable, if you follow Islam and its sharia, but dont be surprised to see even at this moment how Muslim leaders are;
whether valuable or ...for your eyes and heart, wa LLAH Hakeem wa ala Kulusheiyn Shahiid.
Reply

abjad
03-15-2011, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Very useful, thank you!

My next question might be daunting for some but to what extent has the ahadith been appropriated by humans to justify laws considered "archaic" by western standards? And I'm not talking about terrorists claiming to be muslims and using the Qu'ran and ahadith to justify their acts. I'm more interested in how the majority of muslims view things such as the sha'ria in Iran and other religious countries.

A good analogy for the Christian side would be the Catholic church claiming authority on faith and the Bible and imposing all sorts of different doctrines.

Thanks for any help on that matter

the majority of muslims view things such as the sha'ria in Iran and other religious countries.

I cant speak for others though they are majority, but for myself.....

None of the countries you have mentioned do abide-BUT I and you too have eyes...whats going on at the very second;
tell me WHERE ARE THE ISLAM SHARIAH
WHERE IS

S
U
L
H
..............WHAT DO WE DESERVE NOE MUSLIMS?



Muslim are the only fortunate people in the world today who have with them the Word of God completely preserved, free from interpolation and precisely in the same wording in which it was revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). And these very Muslims are those unfortunate people in the world who have the Word of God with them and are yet deprived of its blessings and its countless boons. The Qur'an was sent to them that they would read it, understand it and act upon it, and, with its help, would establish on God's earth a state which will function according to the law of God. The Qur'an came to grant them dignity and power. It came to make them real vicegerents of God on the earth. And History testifies that when they acted according to its directions, it demonstrated its power making them Imam and leader of the world. But now for them its utility is confined to keeping it in the house in order to drive away demons and ghosts, to inscribe its verses on paper and hang it round the neck or wash it in water and drink it, and read the contents unintelligibly to get some blessing. Now they do not seek guidance from it in the affairs of their life. They do not consult it to know what should be our beliefs, what should be our deeds, how should we conduct transactions, what law should we follow in contracting friendship and making enmity, what are the rights on us of our fellow-beings and of our own selves, what is truth for us and what is falsehood, whom should we obey and whom to disobey, with whom should we maintain relation and with whom not, who is our friend and who is our enemy, wherein are honour, well-being and benefit for us and wherein lies disgrace, failure and loss? Muslims have given up ascertaining all these verities from the Qur'an. Now they ask these things from unbelievers, polytheists, misguided and selfish people and from the evil force in their own souls, and follow what these elements advise. Therefore what invariably happens on ignoring God and following the precepts of others, happened to them too, and they are reaping it today in Hindustan, China, Java, Palestine, Syria, Algeria, Morocco and every where. As for the Qur'an, it is the fountainhead of supreme good. It will impart whatever and as much beneficence you seek from it. If you seek from it such, trivial, frivolous and spurious things as scaring away demons and ghosts, cure for cough and fever, success in litigation and securing of job, then you will get only these things. If you seek leadership of the world and rulership of the universe you will get that also. And if you wish to reach the pinnacle of spiritual glory, the Qur'an will take you there also. This is just a question of your own capability that you ask for two drops from the ocean, otherwise the ocean is ready to give you a gift as big as the ocean.

Gentlemen! The cruel jokes which our brother-Muslims play with the Holy Book of Allah are so ridiculous that if they themselves see anyone else doing such frolics in any other matter, they will laugh at him and even brand him as a lunatic. Tell me if somebody got a prescription written by a doctor and hung it by the neck after wrapping it in a piece of cloth or washed it in water and drank it, then what would you say about it? Will you not laugh at it, and will you not call him a fool? But this very treatment is being meted out before your eyes to the matchless prescription written by the greatest of all doctors for the merciful cure of all your ailments, and nobody laughs at it! No one tries to understand that a prescription is not an article to be hung round the neck or soaked in water and drunk, but that its purpose is to use the medicine as directed by it.


It is imperative to understand and follow Qur'an

Tell me if anyone being ill takes up the study of a book on Medicine thinking that by reading it he will get rid of his disease, what will you say about such a man? Will you not say that he is off his head and so should be sent to a lunatic asylum? But you mete out a similar treatment to the book which the Supreme Healer has sent for the cure of your diseases? You read it and think that just by scanning it all the diseases will disappear, and that it is not necessary to follow the directions given in it, nor is it essential to abstain from things which it pronounces as injurious. Then why do you not pass the same judgment about yourself which you pronounce about that man who considers mere reading of a book on Medicine as an enough cure for a disease?

If you receive a letter in a language you do not know, you run to a man who knows that language to learn its contents. You do not feel at ease until you come to know the contents. This is how you deal with letters of business which may bring you some paltry profit. But the letter sent to you by the Lord of the World describing all the benefits for you in this life and the life Hereafter is carelessly set aside without comprehending it. You do not show any keenness to understand its purport. Is this not a matter of astonishment and surprise?


Result of injustice to Allah's Book

I am not telling these things for amusement. If you ponder over these facts, your heart will testify that the greatest possible injustice in this world is being done to this book of Allah and the oppressors are the very people who assert that they have faith in it and are ready to sacrifice their life for it. No doubt they have faith in it and regard it dearer than life, but the pity is that it is they who do the greatest injustice to it. And the result of perpetrating injustice on Allah's Book is obvious! Please understand the fact thoroughly that Allah's Word is not sent to man to embroil him into ill fortune, misery and suffering.

"We have not revealed this Qur'an that you should fall into distress."

(Al-Qur'an 20:1-2)

The Qur'an is a fountainhead of auspiciousness and good fortune, not a source of viciousness and wretchedness. It is absolutely impossible that a nation be possessor of God's Word and yet wallow in misery in this world, suffer under the yoke of others, be trampled and kicked, have its neck caught in the knot of slavery of others who lead it by the nose like animals in whichever direction they like. A nation meets this doom only when it commits injustice to the Word of God. The doom of Beni Israel is before you. Taurat and Injeel were sent to them and it was said:

" If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from beneath their feet."

(Al-Qur'an 5:66)

But they did injustice to thee Book of Allah and aw it consequence:-
Reply

Ramadhan
03-16-2011, 02:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
On what basis are books of Ahadith chosen or deemed "authentical"?
The good comparison between ahadeeth is with the gospels (since you are familiar with the gospels and since this is the comparative religion section)
Ahadeeth contained the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad SAW, while the gospels contained the sayings and actions of prophet Jesus (pbuh). But their simiarity ends there.

This what Dr. Hamidullah said:
"The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith... We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?"

About DR. Hamidullah:
One of his great contributions to the hadith literature was the discovery of Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbah, the earliest hadith (from the first century Hijriah) manuscript still extant today. Two copies of it were discovered; one in a Damascus library and the other in a library in Berlin. Dr. Hamidullah published it after carefully comparing the two manuscripts. This was an important discovery for the hadith scholars. It also proved, as has always been held, that the earliest manuscripts had been absorbed in the much bigger later compilations. Hammam bin Munabbah was a disciple of Syedna Abu Huraira, Radi-Allahu unhu. It was generally known that Sahifah Hammam bin Munabah had been completely included in the Musnad Ahmed. After the publication of the Sahifah by Dr. Hamidullah, hadith scholars searched Musnad Ahmed for the presence of the ahadith from the Sahifah. They found all 138 ahadith of the Sahifah in the Musnad. There was not the slightest discrepancy in any of them!
Reply

Ali Mujahidin
03-16-2011, 02:25 AM
The Ahadith aka Traditions of the Holy Prophet (saw) is invaluable to the practice of Islam. No one can know the Quran better than the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet lived the Quran so that we would not be deceived by shaitan into making our own misguided interpretations of how we should live.

Whenever I feel tempted, which is very often, to believe that my particular personal practice of Islam is superior, I remind myself that on Judgment Day, there are 73 groups of Muslims and only one group will enter jana. I do not know which group that will be but I am sure of one thing. Anyone who believes that his personal practice of Islam is superior is definitely not going to enter jana.

Hope this is useful. Insha Allah.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-16-2011, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
It is my understanding that the first ahadith (spelled Hadith in other places?) was written by Ibn Shihab al'Zuhri around 750 so I would assume this one would be the most accurate.


Your understanding about the first hadith is most certainly incorrect.

Let's have a look at what wikipedia (generally known to have bias against Islam) says about ahadeeth:
According to Muslims, the collection of hadith or sayings by or about the prophet Muhammad was a meticulous and thorough process that began right at the time of Muhammad. Needless to say hadith collection (even in the written form) began very early on – from the time of Muhammad and continued through the centuries that followed.[1] Thus, Muslims reject any collections that are not robust in withstanding the tests of authenticity per the standards of hadith studies. This article goes through the historical evolution of the hadith literature from its beginning in the 7th century to present day.
there are a number of hadith that indicate the permissibility if not encouragement to write down hadith. From them:
  • The hadith of Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr who said, “I used write everything I heard from the Prophet wanting to preserve it. The Quraysh then prohibited me from doing so, saying, ‘Do you write down everything? And the Prophet is human who speaks while angry and pleased?’ So I refrained from writing and then mentioned this to the Prophet. He gestured to his mouth and said, ‘Write, by the one in whose hand is my soul! Nothing emanates from this except the truth.’”[9]




  • A man came to Muhammad and complained about his memory, saying: ‘O Messenger of Allah: We hear many things from you. But most of them slip our minds because we cannot memorize them’. Muhammad replied: Ask your right hand for help.[12] Muhammad meant that he should write down what he heard.


  • When Rafi‘ ibn Khadij asked Muhammad whether they could write what they heard from him, the answer came: Write, no harm!.[13] Another sources quotes Muhammad advising: "Record knowledge by writing."[14]


  • During the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad gave a sermon. A man from the Yemen, named Abu Shah, stood up and said: "O Allah’s Messenger! Please write down these [words] for me!" Muhammad ordered: "Write for Abu Shah!"[15]


  • Muhammad sent a letter which contained commandments about the blood money for murders and injuries and the law of retaliation to Amr ibn Hizam.[16] This letter was handed down to his great grandson, Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad.[4] Among other things, like some of his letters other head of states[citation needed], some scroll transferred to Abu Rafi was handed down to Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd Al-Rahman ibn Harith, belonging to the first generation after the Companions.[4]

Ibn Hajar summarized the different ways in which scholars have sought to reconcile those hadith prohibiting the writing of hadith and those permitting it, in the first of which he said, “The reconciliation between the two is that the prohibition was particular to the time in which the Quran was being sent down so that it would not become mixed up with other than it and the permission was during other than that time."[17]


Of the many companions, Abu Hurairah taught hadith to students, one of whom was Hammam ibn Munabbih. Ibn Munabbih wrote down these hadith, the original manuscripts of which are present even to this day in the libraries of Berlin, Beirut and Damascus.[22]
Reply

JPR
03-16-2011, 06:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Of the many companions, Abu Hurairah taught hadith to students, one of whom was Hammam ibn Munabbih. Ibn Munabbih wrote down these hadith, the original manuscripts of which are present even to this day in the libraries of Berlin, Beirut and Damascus.[22]

Then this should be correct, as taken from Wiki:

Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih was one of the 9 students of Abu Hurairah. Abu Hurairah used to narrate the hadith he heard from the Prophet to his 9 students. Out of all 9 students, only Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih's book has survived in manuscript form. It was later edited and published by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah in 1961 in Hyderabad, India. Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih is perhaps one of the earliest known hadith collection.


So, this is correct to say that the most influencial and used Hadith in Islam is on the authority of Abu Hurairah, kept in records by Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih. The earliest record is thus one link removed from Muhammad.

Although I tried to get confirmation on the presence of the original manuscripts but it was impossible to get anything anywhere other than on one page on Wikipedia, which I won't take for granted. It seems a certain Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah "found" some parts of the manuscripts in two different libraries and proceeded to translate them and to publish and edit them. I'm not disputing the facts that Hammam ibn Munabbih wrote some ahadith, but the fact that we might not have the original manuscript written by his hand.

I anyone could post a link to confirm the location and existence of the original manuscript, I think it would benefit everyone. It seems to me that not everyone agrees about the oldest available documents, but I found this from the Leipzig university library:

The project will set up a database-supported index and provide digital access to a group of about 55 Arabic, Persian and Turkish manuscripts. The Leipzig University Library purchased these manuscripts in 1995 and 1996. In this pioneer project, for the first time Arabic script will be integrated into a database that will also feature German and American transliteration systems. This will provide scholars of Oriental Studies worldwide with access to a hitherto unknown pool of Islamic manuscripts.


The variety of disciplines covered in the manuscript collection, the origins of some works from early periods of Islamic scholarship, the age of the copies and their historical proximity to the respective author, as well as the elaborate decoration, deserve special attention. A key place in the collection will be taken by one of the oldest known Ismaili manuscripts in the world, the Kitāb al-Zīna by the Ismaili author Abū Hātim al-Rāzī (d. 322 H. / 934 AD).

The manuscripts contain texts in Arabic, Persian and Ottoman-Turkish and show an amazingly broad spectrum as far as the content is concerned, which comprises almost all traditional Islamic fields of knowledge. With a few exceptions, the manuscripts are mostly complete and well preserved. That many of these manuscripts came from the libraries of private scholars or families is suggested in several manuscripts by the many comments, some of which span over several generations, from the previous owners. The place of origin seems to be the gulf region, Yemen and Iran.


Duration of the project: 1.5 years. Start: August 2006.


From Islamic Manuscripts website:

Jan Just Witkam, The oldest known dated Arabic manuscript on paper (dated Dhu al-Qa`da 252 (866 AD).


This is MS Leiden Or. 298. Arabic, paper, 241 ff., upright script (with application of ihmal), dated Dhu al-Qa`da 252 (f.241b; 866 AD), and thereby probably the oldest dated Arabic manuscript on paper, bound in a full-leather standard Library binding.
The volume contains an incomplete copy of Gharib al-Hadith, by Abu `Ubayd al-Qasim b. Sallam al-Baghdadi (d. 223/837), GAL G I, 107. See Voorhoeve, Handlist, p. 95. The present MS has been used as MS No. 3 by Muhammad `Azim al-Din in his edition of the text: Gharib al-Hadith li-Abi `Ubayd al-Qasim b. Sallam al-Harawi. Hydarabad 1384-1387/1964-1967 (4 vols.). On p. xvi of vol. I, he gives a short note about the importance of the MS.

It seems there are no original manuscripts of Hammam ibn Munabbih :(
Reply

- Qatada -
03-16-2011, 09:14 PM
It seems there are no original manuscripts of Hammam ibn Munabbih
In many cases, there doesn't need to be manuscripts by a compiler, so long as there is work proven to be from him through his students, with their chains of narrations recorded in later books.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-17-2011, 12:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
So, this is correct to say that the most influencial and used Hadith in Islam is on the authority of Abu Hurairah

Abu Hurairah (ra) was the most prolific narrator of ahadeeth because he was one of the earliest reverts to Islam, he was following the prophet SAW everywhere except when the prophet (SAW) was inside one of his wives' homes (which is where the ahadeeth by Aisha (ra) came in handy as the second most prolific narrator of hadith), he had unfailing memory, and he lived a long time (78 years).
And there were almost as many narrators of ahadeeth as the number of shahaba/shahabiyat.
While the most trusted compilation of the books of ahadeeth were by Bukhari and Muslim.
The methods employed by Bukhari and Muslims to collect, dissect, examine, evidence by evidence, proof by proof, along with examinations of the characters of every single transmitter of the chain were so rigorous and meticulous that would make the current modern scientific peer review look very lax. Out of hundreds of thousands of ahadeeth, they only classified around 2,000 as shahih (authentic), even though there were still many of the rest that may have been authentic but thrown out (classified as either dhaif or mawdoo) because for one transmitter in the chain who were found lying just once, no matter how insignificant the lie was.
To give you an illustration: Had the gospels been reviewed by Bukhari, all the gospel books would have been rejected as not being authentic for failing to meet the most stringent standards of transmission, transmitter (isnad, sanad) and content (mat'an), let alone other books such as those wrote by saul/paul who didn't even meet Jesus (pbuh) but only claimed to have done so in a dream/stupor and then not even a witness was there and on top of that he was found as a liar.


format_quote Originally Posted by
The earliest record is thus one link removed from Muhammad.

not the earliest record, but the earliest surviving record.
How many links and how many generations were missing from Jesus (pbuh) until the earliest surviving record of the gospels that you believe with life and death?
Shall we go by your own standard, or mine? I am fine either way.
So it is up to you, but we must stick to it, and you cannot shift your ground everytime.
And then we can compare the authenticity of gospels vs. ahadeeth
Reply

JPR
03-17-2011, 02:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
not the earliest record, but the earliest surviving record.

I just proved using muslim scholarly sources that this is not true:

Jan Just Witkam, The oldest known dated Arabic manuscript on paper (dated Dhu al-Qa`da 252 (866 AD). (See above post for the full quotation)

Here's what are believed to be the oldest Qu'ran fragments in existence:

Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence.


format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
not the earliest record, but the earliest surviving record.

False information, sorry.



format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
How many links and how many generations were missing from Jesus (pbuh) until the earliest surviving record of the gospels that you believe with life and death?

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.

Shall we go by your own standard, or mine? I am fine either way.
Mine please, the information you provide is not researched at all and taken mostly from un-reliable and highly biased sources. I take many hours to search for muslim sources to find the appropriate answers instead of going to islam-bashing christian websites and take false or manipulated information.

If anyone wants to read the article about the oldest Qu'ran fragments and see what kind of interest it has sparked around the world, for both muslim scholars and atheists scholars, you can find it on the website of The Atlantic magazine, January 1999 issue:
-I can't post links so just add the www in front:
theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran.htm

I still think the best answer to my post was given by Woodrow and any further discussion is bound to go beyond and outside the topic of the value of hadith.

Can you close/lock this thread?

Thank you all
Reply

- Qatada -
03-17-2011, 02:24 PM
:salamext:


If anyone is debating the San'a Manuscripts, they can refer to this;


The History of Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation - by Mustafa al A'zami:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36006748/T...to-Compilation

Go on p315 of the Original Book, or p334 on the book linked to above.


The pages before and after this discuss the issue in depth, with a step by step refutation to any criticism. :) I might print it out and do some reading on it insha' Allah.


The book is really good for laymen and experts alike :D (i got it from the library once!)
Reply

JPR
03-17-2011, 02:35 PM
Sorry Qatada, the link you provided doesn't work :(

It seemed like something I would be interested though
Reply

- Qatada -
03-17-2011, 02:45 PM
Keep checking it, the scribd website is slow today.
Reply

JPR
03-17-2011, 02:47 PM
Got it from another of your post!
Reply

Ramadhan
03-17-2011, 03:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I just proved using muslim scholarly sources that this is not true: Jan Just Witkam, The oldest known dated Arabic manuscript on paper (dated Dhu al-Qa`da 252 (866 AD). (See above post for the full quotation) Here's what are believed to be the oldest Qu'ran fragments in existence: Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence.
Obviously, you would bring information about Islam form wikipedia. I saw the sentences that you post above in a wikipedia page, especially the mistaken ones about the yemeni parchments.
So, obviously again, that information is false. sorry.
If you have enough money to spare, you can actually buy from Sotheby some of the earliest surviving qur'an fragments from between 632 - 656 AD:
http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/n...008-003-tx.pdf
Not to mention that you can actually buy a plane ticket and fly to Uzbekistan and Turkey to see the two copies of uthmani qur'an in the hast imam library in Tashkent and Topkapi museum in Istanbul. Two uthmani copies from the first century H are also kept in Egypt (Masjid Al-Hussain, Cairo and Darul Kutub al-Misriyya)


format_quote Originally Posted by
False information, sorry.
Yes, I have shown above, your information about earliest islamic manuscripts are false. I am glad you realize that.


format_quote Originally Posted by
Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John
False Information. sorry.
Here's the truth:
1. the size of P52 is the same as a credit card. So, is it your standard to consider a few incomplete lines on a credit card-sized papyrus as a bible?
2. P52 is not dated atr 130 AD. In fact, there's no agreement at all among many scholars about the date of the P52, ranging from early second century to early third century.
3. The author of gospel of john remains anonymous, unless you know something that the scholars do not.


format_quote Originally Posted by
Mine please, the information you provide is not researched at all and taken mostly from un-reliable and highly biased sources. I take many hours to search for muslim sources to find the appropriate answers instead of going to islam-bashing christian websites and take false or manipulated information.
Apparently your hours of search only brought you to a wikipedia page.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-17-2011, 03:54 PM
Hadith vs. Gospel : A comparison

The Hadith stretch back to the Prophet Muhammad by a chain of transmission (isnad), the Gospels have no isnad; they were borrowed from earlier sources: Q, M, L, Mark. The Gospel of Mark was the primary source for Matthew and Luke.

How do we know what Jesus (peace be upon him) said? (It is impossible to know for certain whether the sentences attributed to Jesus (peace be upon him) in the NT were actually uttered by him. This is because missionaries have no isnads to trace Jesus's (peace be upon him) words back to him!)

What is isnad? Isnad is the chain of narration. The Christians have the matn (text) of their scripture but no isnad (chain of narration). Hence it is impossible to trace back the alleged words attributed to Jesus (peace be upon him) all the way back to his mouth. How can it be known that the Christian material is not mixed with falsehood when there is an absence of isnads and no verification checks in place at all. Hence the believers in the NT are all following utter conjecture and anonymous words whose source we cannot know and neither can we trace back the words or verify them. [1]

The Christian 'hadîth' is composed of matn (text) but no isnad (chain of narration). Without isnad, as cAbdullah b. al-Mubarak said, anyone can claim anything saying that it is coming from the authority. The authorities in the case of Christian 'hadîth' are the Apostles and later day Church Fathers. But how can one be sure that the Christian 'hadîth' is not mixed with falsehood without the proper isnad and its verification? [2]

Most Greek-speaking authors heard these traditions in the Aramaic vernacular and committed them to writing in Greek. None of these writings is dated prior to the year 70 C.E.; there is not a single instance in these works where the author has cited an authority for an event or maxim attributed to Jesus (peace be upon him) in order that we might construct a chain of transmission. Furthermore, even their works have not survived. Thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were collected, but none of them is older than the fourth century C.E.; rather the origin of most of them does not go beyond the period intervening between the 11th and the 14th centuries. (Sayyid Abdul Al-Ala Mawdudi, The Message of the Prophet’s Seerah, pp. 8-9)

The oldest manuscript of the Gospels is John Rylands P52, and it’s merely a fragment. The early Christians failed to preserve the original MSS because they strongly believed Jesus would return shortly. The Church father Athanasius selected the 27 books in the year 367 CE, these New Testament books were later canonized at the Council of Hippo (393 CE) and the Council of Carthage (397 CE), over four hundred years after Jesus!

In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held... out of the three hundred or so Gospels extant at the time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the Church... It was also decided that all Gospels written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death.

According to one source, there were at least 270 versions of the Gospel at this time, while another states there were as many as 4,000 different Gospels... It was decided that all the Gospels remaining under the table should be burned... It became a capital offence to possess an unauthorised Gospel. As a result, over a million Christians were killed in the years following the Council's decisions. This was how Athanasius tried to achieve unity among the Christians. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 35)

Today, we have copies of copies of the NT books, none of which are identical. The Greek manuscripts are divided into four text-types: Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean. The oldest ‘complete’ MSS are the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, dating from the 4th century. There are no manuscripts that date from the early 2nd century.

"It is interesting to see that a non-Christian scholar says that: "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45and P75 both of the third century) contain more than a chapter." This can be verified by spending a little time at the Table of Greek Manuscripts page [3]

The events of the Council of Nicea indicate that the Pauline Church had every reason to change the four Gospels which survived. Clearly, the manuscripts of the New Testament which were written after the Council of Nicea are different from the manuscripts which existed before the Council. It is significant that publication of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, when they do not verify the post-Nicene manuscripts, have been withheld. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 196)

There are no complete pre-Nicene manuscripts; many changes were made during the Diocletian’s persecution in 303 CE.

In AD 303, a quarter of a century earlier, the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect. (Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, pp. 388-389)

Needless to say, the original MSS of the NT are lost, they were written on very fragile material called papyrus. There is a 450 year gap between the originals and the copies that exist today. The Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) are not based on original texts, none of these copies are based on original texts, and they were copied and recopied by the scribes. There are at least 250 codices that exist throughout the world.
"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors" [Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633]
"Most of the material in our Gospels existed for a considerable time in an oral stage before it was given the written form with which we are familiar." [New Bible Dictionary - Second Edition, p.436. Inter-Varsity Press: 1982]
“…This literature was oral before it was written and began with the memories of those who knew Jesus personally. Their memories and teachings were passed on as oral traditions for some forty years or so before achieving written form for the first time in a self-conscious literary work, so far as we know, in the Gospel of Mark, within a few years of 70 A.D….But oral tradition is by definition unstable, notoriously open to mythical, legendary, and fictional embellishments. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 10)
"The Old Testament includes many 'memories' older than script, and many stories stamped by the storytellers' oral style. In fact, behind every type of LITERATURE represented there, lies a longer or shorter time of oral tradition." [The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol.4, p.683. Abingdon Press: 1962]
"The common memory of the circle and the 'chain of traditionalists' were for long considered to be securer than the script. (It must be remembered that here we have to do with generations whose memory was not spoiled by magazines and dictionaries)" [The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol.4, p.684. Abingdon Press: 1962]
According to German scholar Tischendorf, Constantine ordered Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 340 CE) to prepare 50 versions of the New Testament, and the Aleph and B were allegedly among those copies. Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaticus in 1844 at St. Catherine’s monastery; he listed over 15,000 errors and discrepancies.

In contrast, the biography of Muhammad is preserved, established on historical facts, not legends and myths. The sayings of Muhammad were circulated by 100,000 companions, these traditions were soundly transmitted and passed down, some are weak, but the majority is authentic.

The teachings of the last Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) are alive, have been fully preserved and made immortal. The guidance he has shown unto mankind is complete and flawless, and is enshrined in the Holy Quran. All the sources of Islam are fully intact and each and every instruction or action of the Holy Prophet can be ascertained without the least shadow of doubt. (Abul Ala Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam, p. 58)

The teachings of those Prophets have either disappeared altogether from the world, or whatever of them remains is intermingled with many erroneous and fictitious statements. For this reason, even if anyone wishes to follow their teachings, he cannot do so. In contrast to this, the teachings of Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him), his biography, his discourses, his way of living, his morals, habits and virtues, in short, all the details of his life and work, are preserved. Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him), therefore, is the only one of the whole line of Prophets who is a living personality, and in whose footsteps it is possible to follow correctly and confidently. (ibid, p. 78)

The guidance imparted through the Prophets of the past was not complete. Every Prophet was followed by another who effected alterations and additions in the teachings and injunctions of his predecessors and, in this way, the chain of reform and progress continued. That is why the teachings of the earlier Prophets, after the lapse of time, were lost in oblivion. Obviously there was no need to preserve the earlier teachings when amended and improved guidance had taken their place. At last the most perfect code of guidance was imparted to mankind through Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) and all previous codes were automatically abrogated, for it is futile and imprudent to follow an incomplete code when the complete code exists. He who follows Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) follows all the Prophets, for whatever was good and eternally workable in their teachings has been embodied in his teachings. Whoever, therefore, rejects and refuses to follow Muhammad’s (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) teachings, and chooses to follow some other Prophet, only deprives himself of that vast amount of useful and valuable instruction and guidance which is embodied in Muhammad’s (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) teachings, which never existed in the books of the earlier Prophets and which was revealed only through the Last of the Prophets” (ibid, 79)

From early childhood to the close of his life, a large number of those who saw him, witnessed the events of his life and heard his conversations, addresses, exhortations or warnings had retained them in memory and passed them on to their successors. Some of the research scholars believe that the number of those who had passed on to the next generation eye-witness accounts or reports of events that they had heard during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) counts up to a hundred thousand people. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself dictated some commands and handed or dispatched them to certain people. These were later bequeathed to the succeeding generations. (Abul Ala Mawdudi, The Message of the Prophet’s Seerah, p. 16)

Besides, as I have mentioned earlier, the number of the Companions who transmitted orally their knowledge of the Holy Prophet’s character (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) runs into one hundred thousand, according to the estimate of some researchers. Little wonder, then if we take into account the fact that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performed his last Hajj, known as the Farewell Pilgrimage, in the company of one hundred and forty thousand people! All these persons saw him at the time of Hajj, learned from him the rituals of Hajj and listened to the addresses the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) delivered during this Last Pilgrimage. It is improbable when this assembly, who had attended such an important occasion as the Hajj, dispersed to their own homes, their relations, friends and fellow-citizens should not have questioned them on the circumstances of their journey or failed to ascertain from them the injunctions about Hajj. You could well judge from this, after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had departed from the world, how eagerly the people must have questioned those, who had seen him and listened to his speech, as regards the details of his life, his sacred utterances, commands and instructions. (ibid, p. 17)

Muslims consider the Hadith as the actions and sayings of Muhammad, based on reports of people who knew Him face to face. Scholars assert the Gospels are not the testimonies of those who knew Jesus face to face.

Jesus had no chain of transmission among his followers:
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. (Mark 16:7-9)
Muhammad (pbuh) superiorly had chain of transmission; his followers passed the traditions from one person to another:

There was a man from the Ansar (who was a friend of mine). If he was not present in the company of Allah's Apostle I used to be present with Allah's Apostle, I would tell him what I used to hear from Allah's Apostle, and when I was absent from Allah's Apostle he used to be present with him, and he would tell me what he used to hear from Allah's Apostle. (Narrated Umar, Sahih Muslim Volume 9, Book 91, Number 362)


The Gospels are based on hearsay and not historical data based on a chain of transmission. For example, the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are reliable because we can verify its authenticity by its chain of transmission! Also, we know the reporter’s name whereas the writers of the four Gospels are anonymous. Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, reported over 1,000 hadiths to us alone. She was a great scholar of Hadith and the Quran, but the Gospels are unknown, unreliable, and untrustworthy accounts which cannot even stand in the Court of Law.

The Church has failed to prove the Gospels existed before 150-160, and there’s no reference to the Gospels by name until 200 CE! The Gospels were composed decades after the eye-witnesses were dead. The entire New Testament was developed long after Jesus’ departure.

Christianity today is said to be based on revealed knowledge, but none of the Bible contains the message of Jesus intact, and exactly as it was revealed to him. There is hardly any record of his code of behaviour. The books in the New Testament do not even contain eye-witness accounts of his sayings and actions. They were written by people who derived their knowledge second-hand. These records are not comprehensive. Everything which Jesus said and did which has not been recorded has been lost forever. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 195)

The Christian can only have a point if he shows that what the Muslim says is contrary to what the Qur’an says. But he will not have a point because Islam is built on the Qur’an. Islam cannot possibly be opposite to the Qur’an. On the other hand, Christianity was not built on the Bible. Christianity began long before the Bible was written and developed independently of the Bible. Some of Christianity’s central doctrines are contrary to the Bible; herein lies the problem. (Shabir Ally, (online Source)

In AD 303, a quarter of a century earlier, the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect. (Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, pp. 388-389)

Christianity developed separately from the Bible, breaking into dozens of different sects that produced their own Scriptures. The church in Asia Minor had its own “New Testament”. The official New Testament was not made until the late 4th century, and the previous canons were abrogated. The 27 books selected at the Council were the same books accepted by the Early Church fathers. Many books were doubted by scholars throughout history, Martin Luther and Erasmus rejected the epistles 2 Peter, 2 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelations. These books have been doubted by the Church fathers, and they are still questioned today.

The history of the New Testament text is complex; the Bible has been distorted and changed over time. There are 250 codex parchments and none of them are identical. It doesn’t matter on the quantity of Greek manuscripts, the quality is most important. Scholars care less about the great quantity of manuscripts, they are troubled by the variant readings. The early Church fathers acknowledged the OT contradictions. Marcion of Sinope, the Gnostic leader of Rome, exposed the contradictions in his Antithesis. None of the early bishops mention the Gospels in written form, they never quote the sayings of Jesus from reliable sources, and they cite the Gospels from oral tradition.

The Hebrew gospels do not exist; they were destroyed by the Pauline Church because they contradicted the Trinity.

In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held. The doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the official doctrine of the Pauline Church, and one of the consequences of this decision was that out of the three hundred or so Gospels exant at the time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the Church. The remaining Gospels, including the Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered to be destroyed completely. It was also decided that all Gospels written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death. This was the first well-organized attempt to remove all the records of Jesus’ original teaching, whether in human beings or books, which contradicted the doctrine of Trinity. (Muhammad Ataur-Rahim, Jesus Prophet Jesus of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 40)

The original sayings of Jesus were obliterated and re-written for the Pauline Church. The gospels were composed by Jewish and Gentile Christians who portrayed Jesus in contradictory forms. The synoptic Gospels represent the Human Jesus, and the Gospel of John represents the “divine” Jesus.

“…This is true, of course, only of the Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Mark, Matthew, and Luke). In the Fourth Gospel, that of John, Jesus has become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose Hellenistic mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. Here the authentic Jesus has been lost in the post-Jesus myth. It is not here that we find the genuine Jesus, rooted in the Jewish religion of his time, and pursuing aims that were intelligible to his fellow Jews. (Hyam Maccoby, The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p. 44)

Nevertheless, the four Gospels were pagan documents of the sun-god myth.

There is a huge amount of evidence that the core of the spiritual tradition handed down from earliest times was incorporated into collections of the most outstanding and vital utterances spoken by the Christos figure in the cryptic dramas and rituals of the past. These collations of “sacred utterances of the divine Son of humans” were circulated, in secret, all over the ancient world under the name the Logia, or “sayings of the Lord”. Having thoroughly weighed the research, I now believe they were the root documents from which the canonical Gospels were extracted. Then, to cover deterioration and suit the various emerging communities of Christians, they were amended, interpolated, and edited by many scribes. I am convinced that this explanation is as near to being the truth of the source, origin, and nature of the Christian Gospels as can be determined. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, 140-141)
There is plenty of evidence to show that these sayings were not first uttered by Jesus or invented afterwards by his followers. Many of them were pre-existent, pre-historic, and therefore pre-Christian. They were collections of Egyptian, Hebrew, and Gnostic sayings”. (ibid, p. 140)


Obviously, the four Gospels were not written by Jewish Christians, they contain geographical errors of Palestine, which implies the authors were Gentile. The Church rejected the Law but accepted the Old Testament, they accepted the OT regardless that it contradicted the NT.

With the teaching by some, notably Paul, that the laws of the Jews need not to be followed by a Christian, contradictions began to arise between the body of newly-written Scriptures, which later became known as the “New Testament”, and the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament was retained by the established Church in spite of these contradictions, since an outright rejection of the Old Testament would have been regarded by many of the people as a rejection of Jesus himself. Confusion was the inevitable result. In the attempt to accept and reject the Old Testament simultaneously, contradictions arose within the New Testament itself, since it had to be “new” without openly rejecting the old. But, in the early days of the Church, there was no real attempt to formally arrange the books and ensure that all the accounts and doctrines tallied with each other. The leaders of the first Christian communities were free to use their discretion and to refer to those Scriptures which they thought best contained the teachings of Jesus. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, pp. 46)

On the face of it, Paul’s doctrine of Jesus is a daring departure from Judaism. Paul was advocating a doctrine that seemed to have far more in common with pagan myths than with Judaism: that Jesus was a divine-human person who had descended to Earth from the heavens and experienced death for the express purpose of saving mankind. The very fact that the Jews found this doctrine new and shocking shows that it plays no role in the Jewish scripture, at least not in any way easily discernible…There were those who accepted Paul’s doctrine, but did regard it as a radical new departure, with nothing in the Jewish scriptures foreshadowing it. (Hyam Maccoby, The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p. 12)

The reliability of Jesus’ sayings depends on the manuscripts, yet the Greek MSS are corrupted texts, they cannot be trusted.

There is naturally much more manuscript variation in the gospel sayings than in the narrative sections, since it was the sayings that were repeatedly reinterpreted. Such variants are to be expected in any text which existed only as different manuscripts for many hundreds of years before it could be printed in the form of thousands of identical copies; for every single manuscript is the artifact of an individual scribe, who could introduce errors or what he—or his patron or his particular religious community—took for improvements. (G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth, p. 4)
"There is considerable manuscript variation in what Jesus says on divorce, and whether Luke has a doctrine of the atonement depends on which manuscripts of his account of the Last Supper are to be taken as giving the original reading...The International Greek NT's apparatus of Luke provides what the Birmingham theologian D. Parker reckons to be "upwards of 30,000 variants for that Gospel, so that we have, for example, 81 in the Lord's Prayer." He adds:
"We do not possess the Greek New Testament. What we have is a mass of manuscripts, of which only about three hundred date from before A.D. 800. A mere thirty-four of these are older than A.D. 400, of which only four were at any time complete. All these differ, and all at one time or another had authority as the known text." [ D. Parker, 'Scripture is Tradition', Theology, 94 [1991], p. 12. Cf. P.M. Head's article 'Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels' (Novum Testamentum, 35 [1993], p. 111). [1]
Let us expose the following facts:
(1). None of the gospels are based on eye-witness accounts.
(2). The gospels were composed 150 years after Jesus departed.
(3). The Gospels are not mentioned by name until 200 CE.
(4). The early Church fathers never quote the Gospels from written sources!
(5). The Gospels are based on oral tradition.
(6). The Gospels contradict each other.
(7). The Gospels misquote the original Hebrew text (Matt. 2:6, Micah 5:2, 13:25, 27:9-10, Ps. 78:3, Mk. 1:2, 2:25, 10:19, John 7:38)
(8). The Gospels depend on the Septuagint, which is rejected by Christians.
(9). Jesus did not know Greek, yet the gospels are composed in Greek
(11). How do we know the NT books existed in 100-150 CE?
(12). None of the books are mentioned by name in the Apostolic period.
(13) The official New Testament canon was fixed 400 years after Jesus.
(14) The early Christian documents were not looked upon as Scripture. [1]
Reply

Ramadhan
03-17-2011, 03:55 PM
Double post. please delete.
Reply

ThePhilosopher
03-17-2011, 04:24 PM
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born". Sahih Muslim, volume 2, #3371.
[QUOTE]


how authentic is this?
Reply

Ali Mujahidin
03-18-2011, 02:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
how authentic is this?

Am I to infer, from your question, that you doubt its authenticity?

Myself, I do not know the Arabic language and I am not a Muslim scholar. I learned about the Ahadith from translations in the English and Malay languages. These are translations which were made independently from the original Arabic text. I am working on my proficiency in the Arabic language. In the meantime, I practice Islam according to the Ahadith which Muslim scholars have verified to be authentic. I don't know what you may call this way of living. I call it "living according to my capabilities". So far by doing so, I am living a peaceful, useful and meaningful life.

Can you say the same about the quality of your own life?
Reply

abjad
03-18-2011, 05:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Can you say the same about the quality of your own life?
Quran Kareem is my Book.
(18:1) All praise is for Allah, Who has sent down this Book to His Servant, and assigned nothing crooked to it.
"Islam is My Way Of Life"
Reply

greenhill
06-25-2013, 01:24 PM
Nice old thread :p

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
So it is with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is precise and easy to follow, it tells us what Islam is and fully explains why we should follow Islam.

The ahadith in turn tell us how to be Muslims by giving us examples of what our Beloved Prophet(PBUH) did.

The Qur'an is the what and why, the ahadith are the how.
Bro Woodrow, absolutely agree! This is the example I give people who question the hadiths and its role.. I give the example of prayer in the Quran where it tells people to 'bow' or to 'stand' and describes the various positions we would assume during the course of the prayer. But it does not give a complete picture or order. It does not tell what to read in those positions, nor the number of raka' etc,. How would we then know how to perform the prayers and what to say if there was no living example given?



format_quote Originally Posted by Ali Mujahidin
Whenever I feel tempted, which is very often, to believe that my particular personal practice of Islam is superior, I remind myself that on Judgment Day, there are 73 groups of Muslims and only one group will enter jana. I do not know which group that will be but I am sure of one thing. Anyone who believes that his personal practice of Islam is superior is definitely not going to enter jana.
This is a bit off topic but this 'hadith' often makes the rounds in my mind and it is very hard to shake off. Ultimately I have resigned to the fact that I don't know and I always refer back to the hadith about 'guaranteeing' our place in jannah with the 5 pillars of islam.

In addition, I added for myself, it must be done with sincerity and in no way must we err in ways that will lead to shirk. Easiest example would be like thanking a doctor for saving your life. The doctor did not save your life. Also, we must have faith and understand the 6 pillars of faith, like qada and qadr.

Peace
Reply

Ali Mujahidin
06-25-2013, 03:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by greenhill
This is a bit off topic but this 'hadith' often makes the rounds in my mind and it is very hard to shake off. Ultimately I have resigned to the fact that I don't know and I always refer back to the hadith about 'guaranteeing' our place in jannah with the 5 pillars of islam.
Good to see that you have put the word 'guaranteeing' in quotes. The truth is that even if we observe all the five pillars of Islam, there is no guarantee that we will be admitted to jana. We only enter jana by Allah's will, not by our own ability. It was related to me that there was this pious man who practiced Islam in full for 500 years. When Allah asked him why he did that, he answered,

I intend to get into jana with my amal.

When it came to his turn in akhirat, Allah threw him into hell and said,

You enter jana by Allah's will, not by your amal.

Of course, that wasn't exactly how it was said. If you want to know what the original text said in Arabic, you will have to ask the nearest maulana who is proficient in Arabic and the Quran and Hadith.

Back on topic.

Sometimes I meet people who put very little value on the hadith. If I feel inspired to do so, I would remind them that we become Muslims by making the twin declaration of faith. The first half is about Allah and the second half is about Muhammad. We cannot become Muslims just by holding to the first half and discarding the second half. In the same way, we cannot become Muslims by holding only to the Quran and discarding the hadith.

WalLahu aklam.
Reply

greenhill
06-25-2013, 05:54 PM
You are absolutely right Ali,

It is by Allah's leave Alone that we get anywhere at all. Still I won't take my chances. He has given guidance, He gave an example through the sunnah, if you don't comply there's even less chance of even smelling it. At least, first comply with His request, in the basic form. That is not negotiable. The rest is what's in your soul. and your actions in this world for the world and for the hereafter. Intentions, faith, patience and perseverance.

Ps. I was referring to the 73 sects when I mentioned about the above hadith. (Just didn't state it there as I forgot:p) When the thought - which of the 73 strand am I following makes the rounds in my mind, I go back to that, the 5 pillars. (That's why 'off topic:D ). Anyway, Allah has also mentioned it on the Quran several times in different combinations and also the sunnah. Perhaps the 'one' out of 73 are those who follow the 5 pillars and 6 pillars and the sunnah, and the balance are those who modified any 5&6 in different combinations by allowing this or disallowing that etc. Again, Allaahu'alam.

Peace
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!