Can Ahadith Be Authenticated

[kidcanman]

This thread is in response to a post that The Vale Lilly presented in the thread titled "What is a Moderate Muslim". The Vale posted this article in order to defend the position that Ahadith have been preserved in their original form from the time of the prophet:

Our main concern here is with the statements made by Nabia Abbott in her book Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri on the issue of isnad (i.e., chain of transmitters of the hadith) and the implications of her statements on the authenticity of hadith literature and sciencific nature of hadith sciences.

It has already been observed that Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim selected only a few authentic ahadith from their vast collection and left out many traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition. This repetition arose due to explosive increase of isnads during their lifetime.

2. Nabia Abbott On Isnad
Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature and papyri, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:

... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.[1]

Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 ahadith; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narrations to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:

... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.[2]

3. An Example
Before we begin with the implication of explosive increase of isnad, a review of fundamentals of hadith is necessary. Every hadith consists of a matn (text) and an isnad (the chain of narrators). The hadith is evaluated on the basis of the matn and isnad. Isnad, as it is well known, is unique to Islam. The purpose of isnad is the disclosure of the source of information. In the final stage, the source must lead to the person who had direct contact to the highest authority to whom the statement belonged. In other words, the principle of evaluation of the hadith is similar to what is known as the law of witnesses. This is a well-recognised principle in the courts of law all around the world to evaluate/cross-examine a person who said or saw or heard something from someone or somewhere and verify the authenticity of the person's statement. In the science of hadith, this verification takes a new dimension. The transmitters of the hadith are carefully scrutinised to make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical studies; and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man's teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death.

In order to show what Nabia Abbott really meant by explosive increase in isnad, let us take an example of the hadith on fasting. This hadith has been transmitted fully as well as in parts.[3]

Abu Huraira reported the Prophet saying: (that Almighty Allah has said) Every act of the son of Adam is for him; every good deed will receive tenfold except fasting. It is [exclusively] meant for me, and I [alone] will reward it. He abandons his food for My sake and abandons drinking for My sake and abandons his pleasure for My sake. When any one of you is fasting he should neither indulge in sex nor use obscene language. If anyone reviles him he should say, "I am fasting." The one who fasts has two [occasions] of joy: one when he breaks the fast and one on the day when he will meet his Lord. And the breath [of a fasting person] is sweeter to Allah than the fragrance of musk.

The chart below shows the transmission of the isnad of this hadith to the classical collections [to be read from right to left]:

This lengthy hadith has been transmitted by many scholars in parts. Ibn Hanbal has endorsed it at least 24 times. It is preserved in the collections of A'mash (d. 148 A.H.), Ibn Juraij (d. 150 A.H.), and Ibrahim b. Tahman (d. 168), transmitters from the students of Abu Huraira. It is also found in Shi'ite, Zaidi, and Ibadi sources.

Confining the discussion only to the third generation of narrators from Abu Huraira, who mostly belong to the first half of the second century of the Hijra, the following features appear: There are 22 third-generation transmitters-nine from Medina, five from Basra, four from Kufa, and one each from Mecca, Wasit, Hijaz, and Khurasan. These variously trace their source to 11 students of Abu Huraira, whose homes were in Medina, Basra, and Kufa. A second interesting point is that not all the Medinese, Basrites, or Kufans are the students of one man. Three of the Basrites trace the source of their knowledge to one Basrite, but the other two cite two different Medinese as their source.

This hadith is not an isolated case of such an extensive transmission. Professor al-Azami adds that:

I have demonstrated this position in three ahadith only. By going through Studies, Arabic section, 30 charts can be produced, and by going through al-A'zami, Ziyaur Rahman's work on Abu Huraira, 1000 charts can be drawn on this grand scale for the ahadith transmitted by Abu Huraira alone.[4]

It is clear from our discussion that the isnad did resulted in an explosive increase in the multiple and parallel chains of transmission of the ahadith that trace back to the Prophet(P) and the companions. The content, however, did not increase. Now what are the implications of the explosive increase in isnad?

4. The Implications
Here, we are primarily concerned about various hypotheses put forward by Joseph Schacht in his book Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence concerning isnad. Most of the issue are already refuted by Professor M. Mustafa al-Azami in his book On Schacht's Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. We will only summarize some of the refutations here, insha'allah.

"Projecting-back" hypothesis: For a careful reader of the above chart of chain of transmission, it is clear that forgery of a hadith on such a grand scale is impossible as the number of scholars and transmitters of the hadith were spread throughout the Muslim empire from Spain to India. One interesting feature of this is that it refutes Schacht's 'projecting-back' the hadith to the Prophet(P) or his companions hypothesis, i.e., someone invented the hadith and then projected it back to the time of Prophet(P). The second and third generation transmitters of the hadith are considered by Schacht to have involved in this conspiracy. As the above chart shows that if a hadith is fabricated and projected back to the earlier authorities, it would mean that the person who invented the hadith has to ask his teachers and students as well as other Muslim scholars in various parts of the Muslim world to graft the isnad which would take the hadith back to the Prophet(P) or his companions. As anyone can see, this would also require that the same hadith present in the books of earlier scholars be impugned and new isnad grafted. This means a conspiracy of monumental proportions that would involve people from different parts of the Muslim world to come together and hatch such a plot.

Here we might as well accuse Schacht of projecting his doctrines forward.

Creation of supporting traditions: In this hypothesis of Schacht, a hadith was fabricated, the isnad of constructed and was projected forward in time. Let us assume that some person from second or third generation of transmitters fabricated a hadith and perhaps made an arrangement for the duplication of isnad, entrusting his students with the secret and instructing them to ask the scholars of a hundred years later or even more to fabricate new isnads to support his false hadith, and that the request was accepted by Ibn Hanbal and Bukhari and others. Would Schacht have us believe that the originator of this fabricated hadith was able to contact scholars scattering from Khurasan to Egypt and from Syria to Yemen informing them of the need to project the doctrine back to early scholars? Collusion and forgery on so wide a scale is hard to credit.

Supression of undesirable material: In a further attempt to discredit the scholars of the time, Schacht claims that since the hadith as narrated by Hisham (d. 146 AH) shows the Prophet and `A'isha in a disconcerting light, the crucial point was formally mitigated in a version with the new isnad Malik - Yahya b. Sa`id - `Amra - `A'isha, and a shortened one with the isnad Malik - Nafi` - Ibn `Umar - `A'isha... Oddly enough, Bukhari, Muslim, `Abdur Razzaq, and Ibn Hanbal all record Hisham's version without noting or suppressing this 'disconcerting' aspect of the Prophet's behaviour. Moreover, Nafi` died 30 years earlier than Hisham, and according to Schacht, Hisham's version most probably did not exist in the life of Nafi`. Schacht thus asks us to believe that Nafi` had the foresight to see that after 30 years Hisham would present the Prophet and `A'isha in a disconcerting light, and thus mitigated the crucial point before its existence.[5]

Family isnads: According to one of the lesser theories of Schacht, all family isnads are spurious. This has lead him to reject many well-authenticated ahadith and isnads. Muslim scholars on the other hand did not claim that all family isnads are genuine, as is quite obvious from their biographical works. Some of family isnads which were denounced are:

Ma`mar b. Muhammad and his transmission from his father.

`Isa b. `Abdallah from his father.

Kathir b. `Abd Allah from his father.

Musa b. Matir from his father.

Yahya b. `Abd Allah from his father.

But one should not go too far in the dismissal of family isnads. If a statement of a father about his son or vice versa, or a wife about her husband, or a friend about a friend, or a colleague about a colleague is always unacceptable, then on what basis could biography possibly written? Professor Schacht would want us to believe that all the biographies written till now are forgeries.[6]

And Allah knows best!

References
[1] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II (Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition), 1967, The University Of Chicago Press, p. 2.

[2] ibid., p. 72.

[3] M. Mustafa al-Azami, On Schacht's Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 1996, The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies & Islamic Text Society. The discussion starts from p. 157.

[4] ibid., p. 165.

[5] ibid., p. 205.

[6] ibid., p. 197.

This is my response:


In section 3 of your post the author presented the isnads for a single hadith and he went futher
to explain how the hadith is recorded with multiple isnads, from various sources, from various parts
of the islamic world.

I agree that the combination of these variables - multiple isnad; various sources; various
locations- presents a powerful method for proving the authentication of a historical statement.

However this method is only valid if we accept the assumption that the isnad chains used in
the verification process are authentic. If the chains are not authentic then it does
not matter how many, which persons, and from which locations they came from.

This brings us to the fundemental problem with the science of hadith, and the reason why
the application of the science of isnads has in many cases produced "authentic" hadith that
have turned out to be false or contradictory (reference 1).

The isnads used to authenticate hadith do not go through the same authentication process as the
hadith themselves.

Of course it does not make sense to apply the -multiple isnad; various sources; various locations-
method to a single chain. For one, isnads do not have isnads (the notion is rediculous). Also "various
sources", means various isnads. But, again, isnads do not have isnads.

And so the problem remains: There is no legitimate method for authenticating isnads.

Isnad chains are evaluated based upon whether or not the persons in the chains are reliable,
and whether or not they could have met. But we do not have a method for determining whether or not
somebody has simply fabricated a chain that contains good people who have met.

The practice of collecting isnad chains started after the death of Uthman. But the science of
classifying hadith into sahih (authentic), hasan, and da'if did not emerge until the eigth century.
Over 100 years after the prophet's death. (see wikipedia under "Hadith Studies")

In section 4 of your post your author discussed the idea of projecting back. Your author
stated that projecting back means fabricating a hadith and then creating a chain.

That is not what projecting back is.

Projecting back is taking an existing hadith that does not have a complete or known isnad, and
then constructing an isnad.

The idea is that second and third generation scholars, before the mid
eight century, either created what they thought was the right chain for a hadith, or else they would purposefully
construct a chain that they knew was not right, in order to validate a hadith.

This is not a "hypothesis".

One of the reasons why the science of hadith exists is because
we know for a fact that many hadith and isnads were, purposefully or inadvertantly, fabricated
by scholars. (reference 2).

Let's examine the chains in your post.

What you presented are different scholars with records of acceptable hadith chains.

We know that many muslims fabricated hadith chains in the period before the mid eighth century.

If it was generally thought that your hadith was authentic during that period, then it is possible that many
scholars created acceptable chains for your hadith.

When hadith scientist examine a hadith, it does not matter if they know that many false chains are attached to the hadith.
They still take the acceptable chains, and use them to "authenticate" a hadith.

Scholars could have fabricated the acceptable chains just as scholars fabricated the false chains.

The science of hadith does not account for this fact. The science treats every chain that is acceptable as if
it was not fabricated, without any proof.

Ibn Hanball indoresed your hadith 24 times. All that means is that
Hanball found 24 different places where an acceptable chain exists. But that does not mean that the chains were not fabricated.

Al-Muwatta contains your hadith with the isnad: Yahya-Malik-Abu'z-Zinad-
Abu Hurayra; but this isnad is not included in your chart.

Where are the records of the chains that were not included in the authentication process of your hadith?
The chains that are used might have been fabricated just like the chains that were not used.




Your evidence for the authentication of hadith is a chart that contains a group of chains that come from different locations and from different sources.

That evidence is only valid if the chains in the chart are
authentic.

Where is your evidence for the chains?


References
#1
"We are not much embarrassed by the fact that well-authenticated
traditions disagree or are thought to disagree, and the specialist on traditions are not
embarrassed by traditions that are likely to be erroneous and the like of which are not
well authenticated". - page 365 of Shafi'i's "Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith"

hadith are contradictory,"only when one cannot possibly be
applied without rejecting the other"- Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith,
page 271

A hadith can be authenticated through
the science of isnads, and still turn out to be false.

#2
"he who scrutinizes the traditional foundations of the legal
doctrines with competence and accuracy, is staggard by the mursal(which means the narrator
between the successor and the prophet is omitted from the isnad) traditions of all who are
not prominent Successors" Shafi'i's "Risala" page 64.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

are these threads ever going to stop?

[kidcanman]

Of the 30,000 members on this forum, is there 1 that can objectively refute this?

[AabiruSabeel]

:sl:


It seems like you need to spend some time studying Ilm Ar-Rijaal if you are really interested in finding out how the chains are authenticated.

Isnad chains are evaluated based upon whether or not the persons in the chains are reliable,
and whether or not they could have met.

Yes, and that is just one criteria. Even wikipedia gives a long list of evaluation methods.

Methods of evaluation

Hadith scholars of the past employed various methods by which to evaluate the narrating abilities of a narrator. From these means are the following:

1. Observing that narrator's religiosity and asking others about it.
2. Requesting the narrator in question to narrator from a particular living scholar and then returning to that scholar and comparing his narrations with those of the narrator under examination.
3. If the narrator narrates from a deceased scholar, inquiring when he, the narrator in question, was born, when he met that scholar and where and then comparing the dates provided in his response to the recognized dates of that scholars death and travels. So, perhaps, the dates provided by the narrator may contradict the established dates, for example, claiming that he heard from a particular scholar after the recognized death of that scholar.
4. Comparing the narrations of the narrator with those of narrators of established reliability, comparing them seeking any distinctions that might be unique to that narrator, in particular, while contradicting the others.
5. Examination of the narrations either written or memorized by that narrator after the passage of time observing any discrepancies with their initial narrations.
6. Deliberately altering the wording of a hadith or more for the purpose of examining the ability of the narrator being examined to detect those alterations. These is considered an acceptable practice so long as those alterations are brought to light following the examination process.

If the adjacent names in the chain of transmission overlapped in life, there was certainty that they could have listened to one another. Their travels were also investigated to see if their paths could have really crossed. Biographies could be built up to show that they were honest men and spoke truly. Comparative study could be made of their reputations for veracity as acknowledged by their contemporaries or indicated by their traditions when compared. The frequency of currency through several sources was yet another element in the testing of traditions. Most important of all was the final link with the “companion,” who in the first instance had the tradition from his or her contact with the Prophet.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...authentication

But we do not have a method for determining whether or not
somebody has simply fabricated a chain that contains good people who have met.

If someone did that, it would have been known immediately to the scholars who were conducting this research following the above steps.

The science of hadith does not account for this fact. The science treats every chain that is acceptable as if
it was not fabricated, without any proof.

No, it does not accept any chain to be acceptable. There's a complete science called as Ilm Ar-Rijaal.

If a complete chain is fabricated, then that would mean the final narrator is a liar. This would be easily known by applying above steps and thus invalidate his reliability. As soon as his reliability is questioned, all his narrations are declared as not Saheeh.

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

[Abz2000]

i am not aware of kidcanman's intentions,
To raise a valid point - or to discredit with malicious intent,
But I do believe he has made some very valid points and that we should not just blindly object to his post - thereby depriving ourselves of the opportunity as laypersons to educate ourselves somewhat on the topic and be prepared to explain rather than get ripped apart like Christians and Jews with the bible. I have sometimes let them claim that the whole bible is the complete word of God with no mistakes or fabrications - and then shuffle about uncomfortably with a very embarrasing weak dismissal when shown total opposite contradictions. Totally destroys their previous arguments in front of others and the conversation ends abruptly, just like in a court of law - no further questions your honour (hah, gotcha before the jury!!!)

I myself have noticed some highly contradictory ("authentic") / authenticated ahadith in sahih Muslim and believe we should accept that human errors can occur in situations of transmission and also outright fabrications can occur.
(don't many honest people make genuine mistakes in relaying a conversation that occurred just half an hour before? and don't many honest people relay hearsay when they genuinely believe the one who relays something to them? For a recent example in our time, lets think back to "iraq's WMD" and how the deceitful mass media perpetrated the lie - and how many genuinely honest people repeated the lie as if it was established fact.

Before we use emotion to judge this situation, let's try to honestly do a bit of intellect searching,
For example:
According to Sahih Muslim; (student of Bukhari)

Sahih Muslim: Book 041, Number 7005:

Ibn Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). made a mention
of Dajjal in the presence of the people and said: … … and behold that Dajjal is blind of
the RIGHT eye and his eye would be like a floating grape.

Sahih Muslim: Book 041, Number 7010:

Hudhalfa reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Dajjal is
blind of LEFT eye with thick hair and there would be a garden and fire with him and his
fire would be a garden and his garden would be fire.

both the above Hadith are "Sahih", However dajjal is blind in ONE EYE, but it looks like a genuine mistake in transmission, I myself often forget how much an item cost five minutes later, and I definitely don't remember which eye was blind on a man I SAW myself! Let alone hearing and transmitting.

I try to always make a point of saying: "it's reported that the prophet pbuh said" rather than just say "the prophet pbuh said" even if it's authenticated.

We can't reject all ahadith and we can't accept all as 100% truth if they are obviously contradictory, there is a difference between 100% truth and "gospel truth",
This will always be a fact with narrations.
The Quran is from Allah, and the traditions are from the Prophet pbuh, both are "sadiq" (undisputable truth) but narrations can always be subject to speculation, and some are dismissed as "heresay" even in the court of man.


SadaqAllahul adhueem, wa Sadaqa rasooluhu an Nabiyy al kareem, Wa nahnu 'aladdhaalika min asshaahideen.

However we are not shaahideen of the chains of narrators the genuine mistake makers and forgetters, or of the fabricators.

It is narrated that for those who fabricated hadiths and attributed them to the prophet Muhammad, they shall enter the hell-fire:
Narrated 'Ali: The Prophet said, "Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire."
References:
****•*Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, #106, Book: Kitab al-Iilm (Knowledge); Page 41, #106 (Arabic version)


Narrated 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair: I said to my father, 'I do not hear from you any narration (Hadith) of Allah s Apostle as I hear (his narrations) from so and so?" Az-Zubair replied. l was always with him (the Prophet) and I heard him saying "Whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then (surely) let him occupy, his seat in Hell-fire.
References:
****•*Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, #107, Book: Kitab al-Iilm (Knowledge); Page 41, #107 (Arabic version)


Narrated Anas: The fact which stops me from narrating a great #of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: "Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."
References:
****•*Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, #108, Book: Kitab al-Iilm (Knowledge); Page 41, #108 (Arabic version)


Narrated Salama: I heard the Prophet saying, "Whoever (intentionally) ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."
References:
****•*Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, #109, Book: Kitab al-Iilm (Knowledge); Page 41, #109 (Arabic version)


Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, ... And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."
References:
****•*Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, #110, Book: Kitab al-Iilm (Knowledge); Page 41, #110 (Arabic version).

If we are to reject all Hadith based on heresy clause, we would also have to reject all history in text books, and I'm sure anyone would agree that that's a foolish solution.

verse 18 of chapter 39. الزمر in the Holy Quran

الَّذينَ يَستَمِعونَ القَولَ فَيَتَّبِعونَ أَحسَنَهُ ۚ أُولٰئِكَ الَّذينَ هَدىٰهُمُ اللَّهُ ۖ وَأُولٰئِكَ هُم أُولُوا الأَلبٰبِ

English-YusufAli translation
______________________________

Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.


Please pray that Allah forgives me for any mistakes I may have made, and add any corrections which can be rectified as this is no small topic to play with
Peace,
Your brother in Islam.

[kidcanman]

:sl:
[indent]If the adjacent names in the chain of transmission overlapped in life, there was certainty that they could have listened to one another. Their travels were also investigated to see if their paths could have really crossed. Biographies could be built up to show that they were honest men and spoke truly. Comparative study could be made of their reputations for veracity as acknowledged by their contemporaries or indicated by their traditions when compared. The frequency of currency through several sources was yet another element in the testing of traditions. Most important of all was the final link with the “companion,” who in the first instance had the tradition from his or her contact with the Prophet.

You did not address my point.

I understand that the chains are scrutinized in order to confirm that the people are honest and that there are no anachronistic contradictions.

What I am contending is the fact that the chains are not, and cannot be scrutinized in order to confirm that they were not simply made up.

Let alone for a moment whether or not the hadith is made up.

If a single scholar in the 8th century "projected back" a chain that contained honest people who are anachronistically valid, there is absolutely no way to objectively scrutinize the accuracy of that scholar's projection. And therefore there exists the possibility that countless "authentic" chains exist that actually were fabricated. But we have no way of determining whether or not the chains were fabricated.

We have a "science" to test if the hadith were fabricated, but no science to check if the chains were fabricated.

So there is a serious fault in the "science".

[Abz2000]

[quote]If a single scholar in the 8th century "projected back" a chain that contained honest people who are anachronistically valid, there is absolutely no way to objectively scrutinize the accuracy of that scholars projection. And therefore there exists the possibility that countless "authentic" chains exists that we have no way of determining whether or not they were simply fabricated.[\quote]

From what I saw, it seems you yourself didn't pay much attention the original post where the writer explains your issue, the writer gave a tree diagram of several different narrators directly from the prophet pbuh, chains which ended up in different parts of the world through several different branches,
The author also explained that it would be very difficult if not impossible for someone to project back to the prophet without having been in all those parts of the world or sending different dispatches to project back through different direct first hand witnesses. Also communication was not as it is today and motive to do something so tremendou (especially considering the value of some of these ahadith to a liar) is almost non-existent. Considering cost / effort vs value coupled with motive.

I'm not saying everything is guaranteed 100% watertight other than the Quran but doesn't the God given intellect tell one that it's quite foolish to assume that a liar would go to the effort of travelling the planet in the eight century in order to be able to project a fake Hadith through 9 different direct conveyors of the same message and then split them planet wide?

It is not through the Quran that you know the name of khadijah (ra) or how to even pray, it would require a high amount of paranoia to just try to brush it all off as fake,
I'm not saying believe it all or reject it all, use ur common sense.

The Quranic verse in the previous post gives a little light.

[kidcanman]

From what I saw, it seems you yourself didn't pay much attention the original post where the writer explains your issue, the writer gave a tree diagram of several different narrators directly from the prophet pbuh, chains which ended up in different parts of the world through several different branches,
The author also explained that it would be very difficult if not impossible for someone to project back to the prophet without having been in all those parts of the world or sending different dispatches to project back through different direct first hand witnesses. Also communication was not as it is today and motive to do something so tremendou (especially considering the value of some of these ahadith to a liar) is almost non-existent. Considering cost / effort vs value coupled with motive.

I'm not saying everything is guaranteed 100% watertight but doesn't the God given intellect tell one that it's quite foolish to assume that a liar would go to the effort of travelling the planet in the eight century in order to be able to project a fake Hadith through 9 different direct conveyor of the same message and then split them planet wide?

You did not read my reply to the original post carefully. I addressed projecting back in my original reply.

The writer misrepresented what "Projecting Back" is.

I read Schacht's hypothesis of projecting back. It does not mean that a person created a hadith and then had to corroborate the isnads.

Projecting back applies to a hadith that already existed but did not have a full isnad. That case was only relevant to the earliest of hadith scholars.

The writer has made up a false case, where isnads already existed, and then a person created a hadith to fit the isnads. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

But to address your point that the chains are located in different parts of the world. I addressed this too but I will expound upon my previous idea.
It is not as if isnads come to scholars as divine revelations. The scholars in different parts of the world did not each get an individual revelation whereby a later scholar can check and see that these are independent sources.

The chains of narration took place in a single location and then each chain spread. So all of the chains came from a single source. But the practice of classifying ahadith did not begin until over 100 years after the death of the messenger (sas). And so the people in one area could have gotten their source from a scholar that projected back; and the people in another area could have gotten theirs from the same scholar.

And the chain of the scholar could be wrong.

All it would take is for an early prominent scholar to endorse a particular isnad, and of course his chain would have spread like wildfire in the Muslim world. But whose to say that he did not make a mistake or have a certain agenda or ideology to promote?

[Abz2000]

All it would take is for an early prominent scholar to endorse a particular isnad, and of course his chain would have spread like wildfire in the Muslim world. But whose to say that he did not make a mistake or have a certain agenda or ideology to promote?

If the same scholar gave the isnad, would the chain not be the same?
And for the scholar to make up different chains would require complicity on the part of the last narrators in every chain who were alive at the time of recording - in the cases of the more authenticated ahadith, yes there are some obvious flaws which got through the rigorous filters in some cases - something which is unavoidable in cases of narrations through multiple mouths, but overall these scholars seem to have genuinely gone to a lot of effort to cast aside anything doubtful and bring caught colluding in Hadith fabrications was a heavily punishable crime- and the narrators at the end of these chains were tested quite well for honesty. Also for one scholar to make up whole totally different chains from the source downwards - especially in the case of the first 9 along with their different respective conveyors seems quite incredible.

They always did their best to maintain a strict discipline in narrations and it is recorded that their motto was: haatoo rijaalakum (produce your men i.e witnesses).
It is recorded that Umar (ra) would grab people by the collar if he became suspicious of a narration and get them to send for confirmers, this was even in the first generation. He is reported to have icily asked Abu huraiyrah (ra) where he got so many ahadith from and Abu huraiyrah had to explain his case.
It also happened that he grabbed someone and they sent someone to a group of companions who all confirmed it and sent the youngest of them to go to him to confirm, he sadly admitted that he had been busy in the market while others spent time listening.
The science of ahadith may not be invincible but it isn't anywhere near the doubtful notion you seem to have acquired.

It wasn't like CNN or fox with its constant "unconfirmed sources", and criminal agenda.

Their intentions were pure and they did their best as early as they realised the importance of recording it literally,
People would travel from Yemen to basrah just to confirm one Hadith.


Peace

[kidcanman]

If the same scholar gave the isnad, would the chain not be the same?

Yes. You've made my point exactly. If the same scholar gave the isnad then it doesn't matter if it appears in a billion different parts of the world...the chain would be the same.

However there is no method to scrutinize whether or not that same scholar fabricated (intentionally or unintentionally) the chain.

And we know for a fact by the amount of unauthentic Ahadith that this has happened COUNTLESS times.

And for the scholar to make up different chains would require complicity on the part of the last narrators in every chain who were alive at the time of recording

No it would not. Many of these chains are just 3 or four people long...

The last narrator was dead by the time categorizing came into practice. If that same original scholar simply said out of his own volition that Umar (ra) was the last narrator, there is no process by which to disagree with him.

So in that case we would have a made up chain, that contains reliable narrators, found in different parts of the world.

And I repeat, IT IS A FACT THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED COUNTLESS OF TIMES FOR THE AHADITH THAT ARE JUDGED TO BE UNAUTHENTIC.

Also for one scholar to make up whole totally different chains from the source downwards - especially in the case of the first 9 along with their different respective conveyors seems quite incredible.

You have fabricated or mistaken my point again; I never made this assertion.

It wasn't like CNN or fox with its constant "unconfirmed sources", and criminal agenda.

Their intentions were pure and they did their best as early as they realised the importance of recording it literally,
People would travel from Yemen to basrah just to confirm one Hadith.

All of their intentions were pure and they did their best, and yet we know for certain that there have existed countless fabricated or otherwise unauthentic chains...

[kidcanman]

The science of ahadith may not be invincible but it isn't anywhere near the doubtful notion you seem to have acquired.

Actually the problem we have now is that we have mimicked the disbelievers in the way we practice our religion. Just as the Christians believe that their scholars have accurately preserved the bible. Muslims believe that our scholars have accurately preserved ahadith books. And there are even people who equate ahadith with quran.

Allah the greatest has instructed us to follow the prophet (sas) and the prophet's teachings. But Allah (swa) did not give Muslims the authority to claim that any book is authentic besides the quran.

Both the christian and the muslim scholars are men; and by that fact alone we can automatically dis-include anything they produced as being authentic.

[Zafran]

Actually the problem we have now is that we have mimicked the disbelievers in the way we practice our religion. Just as the Christians believe that their scholars have accurately preserved the bible. Muslims believe that our scholars have accurately preserved ahadith books. And there are even people who equate ahadith with quran.

Allah the greatest has instructed us to follow the prophet (sas) and the prophet's teachings. But Allah (swa) did not give Muslims the authority to claim that any book is authentic besides the quran.

Both the christian and the muslim scholars are men; and by that fact alone we can automatically dis-include anything they produced as being authentic.

salaam

hadiths are history - to reject them is to reject history.

peace.

[kidcanman]

salaam

hadiths are history - to reject them is to reject history.

peace.

Can you take a book from a public school history class and say this is from Allah (swa). Will you say that such a book is as accurate as the quran? I don't reject ahadith; a totally agree with you. I view them as man made...as history.

[Zafran]

Can you take a book from a public school history class and say this is from Allah (swa). Will you say that such a book is as accurate as the quran? I don't reject ahadith; a totally agree with you. I view them as man made...as history.

salaam

Indeed hadiths are a human project in trying to understand what the prophet (Pbuh) said about the deen. The Quran is God's word end of story.

However one cannot reject a hadith which is as certian as a historical fact - like the Normans invaded England in 1066. Many hadiths are historical facts.

peace.

[kidcanman]

Many hadiths are historical facts.

Yes or no question: Are ALL "authentic" ahadith historical facts?

[Zafran]

Yes or no question: Are ALL "authentic" ahadith historical facts.

Salaam

There are variants of authentic hadiths as well eg ahad hadith (isolated) and muttawair (corroborated). Hadiths are authentic because of a sound reasoning. Indeed they would be factual unless one can prove otherwise.

peace

[kidcanman]

Indeed they would be factual unless one can prove otherwise.

peace

Then you see my point, and agree with my position...

It is impossible to prove what comes from Allah (sws) otherwise...

What comes from Allah (sws) are FACTS!!!!

Yes or no question: would you make the statement "unless you can prove otherwise" when it comes to quran.

No.

You would say: "it is impossible to prove otherwise"

[kidcanman]

you never prove facts otherwise

[Zafran]

Then you see my point, and agree with my position...

It is impossible to prove what comes from Allah (sws) otherwise...

What comes from Allah (sws) are FACTS!!!!

Yes or no question: would you make the statement "unless you can prove otherwise" when it comes to quran.

No.

You would say: "it is impossible to prove otherwise"

Salaam

so whats the problem?

[kidcanman]

Salaam

so whats the problem?

This is a forum. There is no problem.


my evidence is still there....

[Ramadan90]

Since the authenticity of the Quran, being the un-corrupted word of God, is not a matter of dispute by any Muslim, then it would make better sense to assess the authenticity of any hadith by determining whether this hadith is in harmony with Quranic truth or whether in fact it is in violation of Quranic truth.

[AabiruSabeel]

Before we use emotion to judge this situation, let's try to honestly do a bit of intellect searching,
For example:
According to Sahih Muslim; (student of Bukhari)

Before copy-pasting material from the internet, please do some own research.

Scholars have written volumes explaining the apparent contradiction between Ahadeeth based on the study of the context and taking in to account all the other Ahadeeth on the same subject. If you know Arabic, then please search for الجمع بين النصوص المتعارضة

There's always some wisdom behind the different wordings of Ahadeeth. Sometimes it indicates the permissibility of an action in certain conditions, or the possibility of more than one observation/explanation etc.


As for the two Ahadeeth that you have quoted, Mufti Rafi Uthmani has mentioned in the footnotes of Alamaate Qiyaamat aur Nuzoole Maseeh, pg 68-69, that both the eyes of Dajjal will be defective and that he is completely blind in one eye while the other will be functional but defective. He has explained this based on the different wordings used in Arabic to describe his eyes. Of course, you cannot see the difference when you simply rely on the copy-pasted translations.


This is the reason why we should study the Religious Texts under the tutelage of a scholar. If someone reads all the books of Civil Engineering, he won't become a Civil Engineer, unless he studies under the guidance of professors at the university. There would be some parts which can be easily understood but for most of the cases, there would be a need of professional guidance.
Similarly, Sahih Bukhari, Muslim etc are all reference books of Hadeeth. They are not meant for every layman. For the laymen, there are other compilations such as Riyadh As-Saliheen, and books on different acts of worship, Aqeedah and other aspects of Deen.


Anyway, this is off topic here.

If a single scholar in the 8th century "projected back" a chain that contained honest people who are anachronistically valid, there is absolutely no way to objectively scrutinize the accuracy of that scholar's projection. And therefore there exists the possibility that countless "authentic" chains exist that actually were fabricated. But we have no way of determining whether or not the chains were fabricated.

We have a "science" to test if the hadith were fabricated, but no science to check if the chains were fabricated.

So there is a serious fault in the "science".

You mean to say that if Imam Bukhari fabricated a chain to include a Hadith in his compilation, then nobody would know that his chain is fabricated? Why not?
There were his contemporaries who tested him a number of times, and if he (or any other Hadith scholar) had fabricated anything, then it would have known immediately. Why would all his contemporary scholars approve of a fabrication?


It is like when you write a research paper and fake a citation. When you submit your paper for publishing, the reviewers would check the quotations to ensure whether it exists in the referenced material or not. If they don't find it, then your paper would be rejected.


Similarly, all the contemporary scholars of the Hadith compilers have endorsed their compilations. Had they found any fabrication, they would have indicated that.


There's no fault in the science of Hadeeth, rather the fault is in your understanding of it.


Funny how some people don't even know the Arabic alphabets in sequence yet they set to scrutinize the acclaimed Scholarships.

[kidcanman]

Funny how some people don't even know the Arabic alphabets in sequence yet they set to scrutinize the acclaimed Scholarships.

You remind me of the Mekkans who thought that they were too educated to reason with the prophet (sas) because he was illiterate.

There is a strong possibility that I have more knowledge about the deen than you sir.

[جوري]

You remind me of the Mekkans who thought that they were too educated to reason with the prophet (sas) because he was illiterate.

There is a strong possibility that I have more knowledge about the deen than you sir.

You compare yourself to the prophet for doing nothing more than casting doubt on scholarship while offering nothing to evince your doubts save that of poisoning the well and casting doubt on entire chains of Isnad?
If you've more knowledge especially of Arabic then prove it.
Umar Ibn Ilhtaab :ra: said, learning Arabic will teach you wisdom perhaps you should start there and launch your career!

best,

[kidcanman]

You mean to say that if Imam Bukhari fabricated a chain to include a Hadith in his compilation, then nobody would know that his chain is fabricated? Why not?

No. That is not what I mean to say.

There were his contemporaries who tested him a number of times, and if he (or any other Hadith scholar) had fabricated anything, then it would have known immediately. Why would all his contemporary scholars approve of a fabrication?


It is like when you write a research paper and fake a citation. When you submit your paper for publishing, the reviewers would check the quotations to ensure whether it exists in the referenced material or not. If they don't find it, then your paper would be rejected.


Similarly, all the contemporary scholars of the Hadith compilers have endorsed their compilations. Had they found any fabrication, they would have indicated that.

The problem is that at the time of Imam Bukhari there were numerous chains that were endorsed by scholars that Imam Bukhari himself discarded as being, intentionally or unintentionally, inaccurate chains.

If the contemporaries of scholars immediately checked on each others work and corrected it, then so many inaccurate chains would not have existed, and Bukhari's work would have been easy.

Furthermore most of the projecting back happened before Bukhari assembled his collection. The problem with Buckari's collection is that he has no way of discerning whether or not the chains that he used to authenticate ahadith were constructed by the method of projecting back.

[kidcanman]

If you've more knowledge especially of Arabic then prove it.

I've presented my evidence. If you are such a scholar then prove it wrong.

[جوري]

I've presented my evidence. If you are such a scholar than prove it wrong.

You've done nothing but bring personal assertions.. correction actually I have read them before from Sacht's especially your last sentence which to sum up is reverse Isnad and if you've done yourself the grand favor to read the orientalists claims and take them and impose them on us as facts then do us all a favor and read how they were refuted!

best,

[kidcanman]

You've done nothing but bring personal assertions.. correction actually I have read them before from Sacht's especially your last sentence which to sum up is reverse Isnad and if you've done yourself the grand favor to read the orientalists claims and take them and impose them on us as facts then do us all a favor and read how they were refuted!

You did not present any counter arguments. You just told me to read a book.

I have read it

[جوري]

You did not present any counter arguments. You just told me to read a book.

I have read it

You've read nothing but the orientalist allegations, that's if you in fact read it and didn't browse meaningless snippets from the web.

I happen to have a number of his books and if indeed you've read it please do tell me what are the first three lines in page 166 third paragraph?
show us how well read you're and what your true objections are not assertions in question form!

best,

[kidcanman]

You've read nothing but the orientalist allegations, that's if you in fact read it and didn't browse meaningless snippets from the web.

I happen to have a number of his books and if indeed you've read it please do tell me what are the first three lines in page 166 third paragraph?
show us how well read you're and what your true objections are not assertions in question form!

best,

Anybody can go to the internet and copy and paste this...

This is not a thread about how much knowledge we have. Address my argument if you have a counter argument

[جوري]

Anybody can go to the internet and copy and paste this...

Indeed. You've not elicited a logical cohesive query from what you've read.
You've simply rearranged non truths in the method of your choosing.

So, I am going to ask you again per your statement:

what does it say

I have read it

what does it say on page 166 third paragraph, how about simply the first three words and not sentences if to loan your alleged scholarship credence?
Let's not waste each other's time I haven't asked for a summary but something far simpler and it should reflect how well read you're on the topic!

best,

[kidcanman]

Here is what it says:

"2. Isnads were put together carelessly and arbitrarily by those who
wanted to "project back" their doctrines into the mouths of ancient
authorities."

And I will not continue to follow this line of argument. This is not a thread about how much knowledge we have.

If you can refute my evidence then do it.

[جوري]

That's not what it says in the book but what it says on the net. Very good! Continue reading the book then in whatever format and your nonarguments will be answered. I went back to your original for good measure to see what it is your quandry and I see nothing but baseless assertions- anybody can say anything about any person or any content. Merely suggesting that an incident didn't occur in history although there are several sources on the matter doesn't mean that the incident didn't occur. Just means you've no desire to subscribe to the fact that it happened, either you don't like the characters in play, or the content of what it says or it doesn't appeal to what you view as logical but hearsay is hearsay at the end of the say so I am not sure really what you want?
You don't wish to subscribe to hadith or you desire for us to play along your personal delusions .. the actual origins of Isnad and the science of hadith starts on that page hence I referenced you to it. Start reading from there & then pose some true questions not merely parrot what an uneducated moron said!

best,

[kidcanman]

العنود

Your point is just to label my arguments as baseless without providing any counter arguments.

That's fine

I'm content with you not attempting to address them

Never the less, they still have not been refuted.

[AabiruSabeel]

You remind me of the Mekkans who thought that they were too educated to reason with the prophet (sas) because he was illiterate.

There is a strong possibility that I have more knowledge about the deen than you sir.

It wasn't directed at you in particular but if you are really interested in the subject then why don't you leave your home and travel around the world in search of Hadith scholars who would answer your questions instead of asking us illiterates?
Surely it is much easier to travel these days than the 8th century when the Students of Knowledge would travel days and nights, weeks and months, riding as well as walking, just to hear a single Hadith from a scholar.

[kidcanman]

It wasn't directed at you in particular but if you are really interested in the subject then why don't you leave your home and travel around the world in search of Hadith scholars who would answer your questions instead of asking us illiterates?
Surely it is much easier to travel these days than the 8th century when the Students of Knowledge would travel days and nights, weeks and months, riding as well as walking, just to hear a single Hadith from a scholar.

I didn't ask a question. I provided evidence to support my answer to the question of whether or not ahadith can be authenticated.

But out of my 30,000 contemporary scholars that are members of this forum, so far there is not one with enough technical knowledge to refute my position.

[Insaanah]

But out of my 30,000 contemporary scholars that are members of this forum, so far there is not one with enough technical knowledge to refute my position.

Let's not get too cocky eh, and lets get back to basics. You and we both accept the Qur'an as the exact words revealed to Prophet Muhammad :saws:. You don't accept hadeeth, but we do.

When the Qur'an was revealed, it's transmission was primarily orally, by mortals, men and women, with some verses being written as well. The Qur'an was collected together after the Prophets :saws: death.

When Jibreel :as: revealed the verses to the Prophet :saws:, he :saws: recited them, those around him heard and learned, memorised, taught others etc, and some wrote them down.

Allah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur'an, but how do you know that that verse or indeed any other, is correct?

Since you are of a doubting nature, you need to know about the transmission of every verse in the Qur'an, who transmitted it, how it was known that person was trustworthy etc, and all the other methodology used.

Please provide an isnaad and transmission details for every verse in the Qur'an, bearing in mind you only believe in the Qur'an, and that nothing in the text of the Quran explicitly mentions in detail how the text of the Quran has come from Allah to the reader in an authentic way.

Thanks.

[جوري]

Ha glad I didn't lose sleep over this!
OP parroting baseless ASSERTIONS as put forth by orientalists doesn't an argument make much less an evidence based one!
Do you know the difference between hearsay and facts?
If a fool is content per your statement then surely you're one who draws satisfaction out of overly simplistic conclusions.
I can sit here just the same accuse you of bein illegitimate cast doubt on your lineage and parentage just the same go ahead then and get DNA testing provide your birth certificate and exhume bodies from the grave!
Truly that's how moronic and nonsensical you come across!

Best,

[kidcanman]

You don't accept hadeeth, but we do.

I don't "accept" ahadith? Accept them as what? The word of God?

Which rational person does?

Do I accept them as being inerrant? i.e. authentic?

That reminds me of the argument of the christians. They have a book (the bible) that their scholars have collected.

That men have collected.

And they say it's authentic. But Jesus did not endorse it, or collect it.

Did the Prophet (sas) collect Bukhari or Muslim? Did Allah (swt) reveal Tirmizi?

And yet, like the christians, people ascribe perfection, to something that is man made. On who's authority? Scholars!!?

And wallahi, there are Muslims who put ahadith collections on the same level of the quran and they say that both are inerrant.

Do you have any common sense.

No. You're right. I don't accept ahadith to be inerrant.

When the Qur'an was revealed, it's transmission was primarily orally, by mortals, men and women, with some verses being written as well. The Qur'an was collected together after the Prophets :saws: death.

When Jibreel :as: revealed the verses to the Prophet :saws:, he :saws: recited them, those around him heard and learned, memorised, taught others etc, and some wrote them down.

Allah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur'an, but how do you know that that verse or indeed any other, is correct?

Since you are of a doubting nature, you need to know about the transmission of every verse in the Qur'an, who transmitted it, how it was known that person was trustworthy etc, and all the other methodology used.

Please provide an isnaad and transmission details for every verse in the Qur'an, bearing in mind you only believe in the Qur'an, and that nothing in the text of the Quran explicitly mentions in detail how the text of the Quran has come from Allah to the reader in an authentic way.

Thanks.

By the grace and mercy of Allah (swt) on us. We don't need to be a scholar to authenticate the quran. You don't have to elevate a scholar (a man), and say, "he did not make any mistakes or he did not lie because he's perfect".

Allah (swt) says if it came from any besides Allah then you would find in it many contradictions.

This lets me know that you WILL find contradictions in hadith books.

And Allah (swt) says if you think he forged it then produce a surah like it.

And there are also other ways to confirm the Quran in which you don't need to rely on a man made "science", that has an important flaw.

[kidcanman]

That's not what it says in the book but what it says on the net.

Of course. The book is available on the internet..

Very good! Continue reading the book then in whatever format and your nonarguments will be answered.

Continue?...I read it.

Al Azami's entire book is not focused on proving how Ahadith are authentic; although he does touch on that. His main focus is to prove why Schacht's arguments aren't entirely sound.

My question is, did you read it?

And if you did, then why haven't you presented the brilliant counter arguments that you found in the book instead of just asserting that my arguments are baseless and that I need to read a book?

[جوري]

Continue?...I read it.

If you've why do you continue on with the psycho babble?
the rest of your garbage can be binned. I don't know how many times I need to repeat to you so you'd understand that I don't indulge personal opinions presented as facts!
You don't wish to accept ahadith, don't. But you must also not accept the Quran because they're indeed a package deal!

best,

[جوري]

There is no legitimate method for authenticating isnads.

This is the 'evidence' that your alleged argument comes down to? What is legitimate in your learned opinion?

[kidcanman]

If you've why do you continue on with the psycho babble?
the rest of your garbage can be binned. I don't know how many times I need to repeat to you so you'd understand that I don't indulge personal opinions presented as facts!

You've been very disrespectful to me and my intelligence, but I don't mind.

I won't reciprocate.

[جوري]

What's your 'intelligence'? Where have you made an intelligent well presented argument that doesn't deal with generalities or borrow from anti islamic rhetoric that has been thoroughly refuted!
In fact I'd been generous to cl blanket statements an argument at all!

[kidcanman]

This is the 'evidence' that your alleged argument comes down to? What is legitimate in your learned opinion?

Of course if you seriously examined my evidence you would not have asked this question.

If there were a way to determine if a chain used in the authentication process, was not a product of one of the earliest scholars "projecting back" then the authentication method would be more complete and more legitimate.

[Insaanah]

By the grace and mercy of Allah (swt) on us. We don't need to be a scholar to authenticate the quran.

You haven't answered my question, which I'll repeat again.

You accept the Qur'an as being what was revealed to the prophet :saws: but don't accept the hadeeth as what the prophet :saws: said.

When the Qur'an was revealed, it's transmission was primarily orally, by mortals, men and women, with some verses being written as well. The Qur'an was collected together after the Prophets :saws: death.

When Jibreel :as: revealed the verses to the Prophet :saws:, he recited them, those around him heard and learned, memorised, taught others etc, and some wrote them down.

Allah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur'an, but how do you know that that verse or indeed any other, is correct?

Since you are of a doubting nature, you need to know about the transmission of every verse in the Qur'an, who transmitted it, how it was known that person was trustworthy etc, and all the other methodology used.

Please provide an isnaad and transmission details for every verse in the Qur'an, bearing in mind you only believe in the Qur'an, and that nothing in the text of the Quran explicitly mentions in detail how the text of the Quran has come from Allah to the reader in an authentic way.

[kidcanman]

Allah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur'an, but how do you know that that verse or indeed any other, is correct?

As I stated:

"The quran does not have any contradictions".

There are other reasons why I know, but this is one answer to your question. If you don't agree with it then show me why.

Since you are of a doubting nature, you need to know about the transmission of every verse in the Qur'an, who transmitted it, how it was known that person was trustworthy etc, and all the other methodology used.

I just showed you one way how to determine that the quran is from God without all of this...

Please provide an isnaad and transmission details for every verse in the Qur'an, bearing in mind you only believe in the Qur'an, and that nothing in the text of the Quran explicitly mentions in detail how the text of the Quran has come from Allah to the reader in an authentic way.

You don't need this to authenticate the Quran. Allah (sws) provided better ways. One of which I showed you in answer to your question

Isnaads are what man created to authenticate ahadith.

[جوري]

Of course if you seriously examined my evidence you would not have asked this question.

If there were a way to determine if a chain used in the authentication process, was not a product of one of the earliest scholars "projecting back" then the authentication method would be more complete and more legitimate.

What does this mean exactly? or are you throwing random **** in the air hoping it would hit the fan and stick where it can't be removed?
Do you have a specific Hadith in question that is bothering you? Do you have a person in mind whose character you wish to cast doubt upon or you just want to waste time being oh all so pseudo intellect on us?

best,

[kidcanman]

What does this mean exactly?

You've been insulting my position and putting down my arguments and this whole time you don't even understand them.

I've gone into enough detail. Go read carefully, my initial post; my exact arguments are there; still awaiting refutation.

[جوري]

You've been insulting my position and putting down my arguments and this whole time you don't even understand them.
I've gone into enough detail. Go read carefully, my initial post; my exact arguments are there; still awaiting refutation.

Thank God for your brilliant mind .. what's the matter don't you know how to break down your brilliant 'argument' for us simpletons?

[kidcanman]

Read the original post carefully. It is there; broken down.

[جوري]

I already have, I broke it down to exactly one sentence, the sentence was thoroughly refuted. Establishments of schools for Sunnah & teachings of the prophet were started in Medina shortly after his arrival and his sunnah can be traced to his person and in very first post you quoted and tried to take apart but couldn't although we enjoyed your laughable attempt. Every tradition can be traced back exactly to the prophet himself.
can be verified here:
http://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d2/shla_e.pdf
If you've a particular issue with a hadith then bring it for ahel al'ilm to shed light. You make blanket statements that are borrowed from folks so undereducated that a fifth grader can take it apart with a mere example.. so that makes you what by proxy?
What are you afraid of? If you truly had something substantive then stand by it and prove it, don't drop accusations and run away from explaining yourself when it comes down to the nity gritty!

best,

[AabiruSabeel]

Of course if you seriously examined my evidence you would not have asked this question.

Evidence? You have not provided anything until now except for hypothetical assertions.

[جوري]

Evidence? You have not provided anything until now except for hypothetical assertions.

To be honest I don't think he quite understands the difference!

:w:

[kidcanman]

I already have, I broke it down to exactly one sentence

Right

the sentence was thoroughly refuted.

Wrong.

You referred me to a book. A book that I have already read and one that I'm not impressed by.

It appears as though you did not read the book, because if you did, and if the book has such concrete refutations, then you would have presented them.

You have not personally refuted a single one of my points.

Establishments of schools for Sunnah & teachings of the prophet were started in Medina shortly after his arrival

Schools for Sunnah?...which schools for Sunnah? Shortly after the prohet's (sas) arrival in Medina huh?

I think you made that up.

and his sunnah can be traced to his person

That is what an isnad is!! A chain that is traced back to the prophet (sas). And that is what is in dispute.

Every tradition can be traced back exactly to the prophet himself

Of course, all "authentic" traditions are traced back to the prophet. We're discussing whether or not the tracing is legitimate.

can be verified here:
http://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d2/shla_e.pdf

I'm not interested in another book that you probably have never read. If you learned some insight from this book then present your arguments here.

If you've a particular issue with a hadith then bring it for ahel al'ilm to shed light. You make blanket statements that are borrowed from folks so undereducated that a fifth grader can take it apart with a mere example.. so that makes you what by proxy?
What are you afraid of? If you truly had something substantive then stand by it and prove it, don't drop accusations and run away from explaining yourself when it comes down to the nity gritty!

best,

All of this is irrelevant to the discussion.

[جوري]

Right

Yup!

Wrong.

That's your opinion which is irrelevant!

You referred me to a book. A book that I have already read and one that I'm not impressed by.

We can't help what impresses you or doesn't impress you, what matters is that it is historical, accurate and properly referenced!

It appears as though you did not read the book, because if you did, and if the book has such concrete refutations, then you would have presented them.

Present what to what exactly? You proclaim the ahadiths aren't authentic. That's your opinion you've not evidence based that opinion in a scholastic, historical verifiable fashion!

You have not personally refuted a single one of my points.

As stated and repeatedly you haven't presented any points. Everyone else is telling you the same thing perhaps you ought to take heed over your wounded pride you might learn something!

Schools for Sunnah?...which schools for Sunnah? Shortly after the prohet's (sas) arrival in Medina huh?

I think you made that up.

It is right there in the book that you allegedly read properly referenced with a long chain of narrators not unlike the first post which you've paid no attention to!

That is what an isnad is!! A chain that is traced back to the prophet (sas). And that is what is in dispute.

You've not disputed, you've rebuffed it aside. You said it was unimpressive a little later said I was making it up even though it is right there in the book which I linked which you'd allegedly read!

Of course, all "authentic" traditions are traced back to the prophet. We're discussing whether or not the tracing is legitimate.

And you've not shown its illegitimacy. You've cast doubt on the characters involved with a mere sentence would you like to evince what you say either about the ahadiths in questions or the characters involved?

I'm not interested in another book that you probably have never read. If you learned some insight from this book then present your arguments here.

It is clear you're projecting just given your previous statements. At least exonerate yourself by clicking on the link and reading partial content before writing to loan your position some credence!

All of this is irrelevant to the discussion.

That's an adequate assessment of what you're attempting here!

best,

[kidcanman]

Evidence? You have not provided anything until now except for hypothetical assertions.

Actually when i stated in my original post that,"the application of the science of isnads has in many cases produced "authentic" hadith that have turned out to be false or contradictory".

I cited Imam Shafi'i. Who is considered by sunni muslims to be the founder of Islamic jurisprudence. In his book, "Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith", on page 365, the founder of Islamic jurisprudence states, "We are not much embarrassed by the fact that well-authenticated traditions disagree or are thought to disagree, and the specialist on traditions are not embarrassed by traditions that are likely to be erroneous and the like of which are not well authenticated"

Is that a hypothetical assertion? Or is it evidence

And when addressing the idea of "projecting back" I also cited Imam Shafii where the founder of Islamic jurisprudence said in his book "Risala" on page 64, "he who scrutinizes the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines with competence and accuracy, is staggard by the mursal(which means the narrator between the successor and the prophet is omitted from the isnad) traditions of all who are not prominent Successors"

This is EVIDENCEthat scholars did indeed project back.

[جوري]

by the way this is for the other members because it is clear I am wasting my time with this guy:

this is what he proclaims I am making up, or that I haven't read at all while he read and it unimpressed him!

[جوري]

And when addressing the idea of "projecting back" I also cited Imam Shafii were he said in his book "Risala" on page 64

btw here are the entire explanation to imam Shafi' 'Arisaala!

this is one video out of the entire series
perhaps you can show us how imam shafi 'scrutinizes the traditional foundation for competence & accuracy''? You're of course well versed and well schooled and your Arabic is stellar so I'll be waiting!

best,

[kidcanman]

[QUOTE=العنود;1582588]

"He used to tell the questioner to stay with him and learn by observing him practice"

Is that a school for Sunnah?...
Did the prophet (sas) practice studying Isnad chains?

"Schools were established by the prophet in madina very soon after his arrival"

Were those Schools for sunnah?... FOR Sunnah? Were the purpose of those schools to teach sunnah?

Or did they learn how to recite and study Quran? Did they study the meaning of the Quran?

I don't doubt that the practices of the Prophet were taught there as well, but those schools were not created just to teach Sunnah.

Did they study isnads there?

No they didn't

That was a later thing

[جوري]

This is not scholarly work.

Because you said so? & who are you?

Is that a school for Sunnah?...

They're schools to teach Islam as taught by the prophet, he's after all the one who taught us such things as how to make prayers so yes!

Did the prophet (sas) practice studying Isnad chains?

What does this even mean?
This showcases that the Sunnah of the prophet goes back to his time, both oral & written traditions and actual active teaching of it!

Were those Schools for sunnah?... FOR Sunnah? Were the purpose of those schools to teach sunnah?

To Teach people. Sunnah means tradition of the prophet, what he taught us, what he explained and expounded on from the Quran!

Or did they learn how to recite and study Quran? Did they study the meaning of the Quran?

And I thought you read the book?

I don't doubt that the practices of the Prophet were taught there as well, but those schools were not created just to teach Sunnah

Again, your doubts, opinions, impressions, are your own problem not ours!

Did they study isnads there?

No they didn't

That was a later thing

They were the source. Isnad means in support of, more than one person heard it, learned it and passed it along. Isnad comes in tawatur and uhad oh learned one, your writing becomes more nonsensical as the night goes on.

btw I am still waiting for you to show us in the mother tongue of Al-shafi, whose school of jurisprudence I follow, and whose mother tongue is Arabic as well mine a corroboration of what you've written above.
I wasn't taking you seriously enough before - I just thought you were a joke, I still think you're but you ticked me off and so I'll be waiting for your epiphanies to unravel one by one!

best,

[kidcanman]

btw here are the entire explanation to imam Shafi' 'Arisaala!

I'm not reading books that you probably never read, and I'm not watching videos that you probably never watched.

If you learned something from them, then present your arguments here.

[جوري]

If you don't want to read books or do your homework then shut your bazoo & quit wasting our time. I have already demonstrated with an excerpt what you denied was a reality just a post earlier and what you proclaimed you'd read and wasn't impressive or scholastic.
It is obvious which one of us isn't read or learned. You can delude yourself but everyone sees through this charade!

best,

[kidcanman]

Like I showed, the founder of Islamic jurisprudence stated that, "well-authenticated traditions disagree or are thought to disagree". And he also said,"he who scrutinizes the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines with competence and accuracy, is staggard by the mursal(which means the narrator between the successor and the prophet is omitted from the isnad) traditions of all who are not prominent Successors"


The gist of my argument is that

It can not be determined if "projecting back" occured when evaluating an isnad chain.



If anybody has books or videos then present the arguments that you learned from them

[جوري]

Like I showed, the founder of Islamic jurisprudence stated that, "well-authenticated traditions disagree or are thought to disagree". And he also said,"he who scrutinizes the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines with competence and accuracy, is staggard by the mursal(which means the narrator between the successor and the prophet is omitted from the isnad) traditions of all who are not prominent Successors"


The gist of my argument is that

It can not be determined if "projecting back" occured when evaluating an isnad chain.



If anybody has books or videos then present the arguments that you learned from them

I don't want what you show. I want what imam shafi rahimhu Allah said, and wrote, I made it easy for you but guess you'll have to go find it on your own- Bring it to me in Arabic.. I want to see the entire passage and read his commentaries!
You haven't established credibility in my book for me to go by anything you allege.
As for the Isnad, I have already shown multiple times that it goes back to the times of the prophet (as in those whom we refer to as narrators) all the names and their relations are right there page one of this debacle!

best,

[kidcanman]

go to page 365 in "Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith"

And Page 64 in "Risala"

If you don't have the books, find them on the internet.

[AabiruSabeel]

Actually when i stated in my original post that,"the application of the science of isnads has in many cases produced "authentic" hadith that have turned out to be false or contradictory".

I cited Imam Shafi'i. Who is considered by sunni muslims to be the founder of Islamic jurisprudence. In his book, "Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith", on page 365, the founder of Islamic jurisprudence states, "We are not much embarrassed by the fact that well-authenticated traditions disagree or are thought to disagree, and the specialist on traditions are not embarrassed by traditions that are likely to be erroneous and the like of which are not well authenticated"

Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith is available in Arabic here: http://archive.org/download/waqalom/alom10.pdf

I checked the book but could not find page 365. Can you please show where the quoted text is in the original Arabic book? If not, then at least point us to an English translation where I can find page 365.

And when addressing the idea of "projecting back" I also cited Imam Shafii where the founder of Islamic jurisprudence said in his book "Risala" on page 64, "he who scrutinizes the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines with competence and accuracy, is staggard by the mursal(which means the narrator between the successor and the prophet is omitted from the isnad) traditions of all who are not prominent Successors"

This is EVIDENCEthat scholars did indeed project back.

Ar-Risaalah is also available for download here: http://s203841464.onlinehome.us/waqf...ks/07/0639.rar

Again, can you please point where did you find the above quote?

The gist of my argument is that

It can not be determined if "projecting back" occured when evaluating an isnad chain.

It is impossible for more than one narrator to fabricate the same Hadith and project it back to the Prophet :saws:. Most of the Ahadeeth have Shawahid. Your argument can only hold true for Ghareeb Hadeeth. But then again, scholars have further classified Ghareeb Ahadeeth into “Hasan Gharib Sahih” , “Sahih Gharib,” “Gharib Hasan,” “Jayyid Gharib Hasan,” “Hasan Jayyid Gharib,” “Jayyid Gharib.” Each of these terms denote a different level of authenticity.
They have carefully studied all the narrators in the chain and perfectly classified each of them. There's no room left for further disagreement.


If you were familiar with the Science of Hadith (as you claim) then you wouldn't have made such baseless accusations. I advise you again to leave your home and go in search of Hadith scholars to study it properly before coming back with such claims.

[kidcanman]

I'm busy today. I'll respond tonight inshaallah.

[جوري]

Kitab Ikhtilaf Al-Hadith is available in Arabic here: http://archive.org/download/waqalom/alom10.pdf

I checked the book but could not find page 365. Can you please show where the quoted text is in the original Arabic book? If not, then at least point us to an English translation where I can find page 365.




Ar-Risaalah is also available for download here: http://s203841464.onlinehome.us/waqf...ks/07/0639.rar

Again, can you please point where did you find the above quote?




It is impossible for more than one narrator to fabricate the same Hadith and project it back to the Prophet :saws:. Most of the Ahadeeth have Shawahid. Your argument can only hold true for Ghareeb Hadeeth. But then again, scholars have further classified Ghareeb Ahadeeth into “Hasan Gharib Sahih” , “Sahih Gharib,” “Gharib Hasan,” “Jayyid Gharib Hasan,” “Hasan Jayyid Gharib,” “Jayyid Gharib.” Each of these terms denote a different level of authenticity.
They have carefully studied all the narrators in the chain and perfectly classified each of them. There's no room left for further disagreement.


If you were familiar with the Science of Hadith (as you claim) then you wouldn't have made such baseless accusations. I advise you again to leave your home and go in search of Hadith scholars to study it properly before coming back with such claims.

:jz: I fell asleep last night. Excellent job

[AabiruSabeel]

And when addressing the idea of "projecting back" I also cited Imam Shafii where the founder of Islamic jurisprudence said in his book "Risala" on page 64, "he who scrutinizes the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines with competence and accuracy, is staggard by the mursal(which means the narrator between the successor and the prophet is omitted from the isnad) traditions of all who are not prominent Successors"

This is EVIDENCEthat scholars did indeed project back.

Found the quote under the chapter "Authentication of Single-Individual Traditions". In this chapter, Imam Ash-Shaf'i is explaining the authenticity of the individual traditions (in other words, Hadith Ghareeb), and why such Ahadeeth cannot be discarded. He mentions several instances from the life of the Sahabah to validate his point that single-individual narrations are also as important as other narrations.

Then he mentions the Mursal traditions and the above quote is found there. But did you stop reading further on this quote? Imam Shaf'i has explained how to deal with such narrations. Carefully read the continuation below:

The sentence you have quoted is not an evidence of projecting back or interpolation. All it says is that there are Mursal narrations accepted by some scholars from lesser known Tabi'een.

If what you are asserting was true, then those scholars would have filled the gap in those mursal traditions by faking an isnad. In that case, there would be no mursal tradition left. The existence of mursal Ahadeeth is in itself a proof against your invalid claim.

I don't "accept" ahadith? Accept them as what? The word of God?

Which rational person does?

Do I accept them as being inerrant? i.e. authentic?

Nobody is asking you to accept them as words of Allah. Ahadeeth are actions and saying of the Prophet :saws: and Allah :swt: Himself says about the Prophet :saws:
[53:3] Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.
[53:4] It is not but a revelation revealed,

That reminds me of the argument of the christians. They have a book (the bible) that their scholars have collected.

That men have collected.

And they say it's authentic. But Jesus did not endorse it, or collect it.

Again, your statements indicate your ignorance of the methods of authentication used for authenticating Ahadeeth. You are trying to compare the scholars of Hadith to those of the Bible! SubhanAllah


Read Ar-Risaalah of Imam Ash-Shaf'ii again. Read how they used to authenticate the Ahadeeth. Read how they only took the narrations from trustworthy narrators. Read how they discarded the narrations from anyone who is accused of lying or deception. Read how they graded the narrations of those whose memory was found to be weak. Read how they graded the narrations of lesser known and unknown people.


When people of piety and large groups of people bear witness to the trustworthiness of a narrator, then how can you even assume that he might have faked his chain?

How can you compare them to the scholars of Bible, when nothing is known about them except for a little bit while complete details are clearly documented for each and every narrator of Hadith. Their names, dates of birth and death, the names of teachers, their students, their piety, their truthfulness, their memory, everything that you need to establish their veracity is clearly documented. Do you find such details for any other historical record other than the Sahabah, Tabi'een, their successors and prominent Muslim scholars?

Did the Prophet (sas) collect Bukhari or Muslim? Did Allah (swt) reveal Tirmizi?

We did not except such absurd questions from you. Aren't Bukhari and Muslims collections of the words of the Prophet :saws:? Aren't the contents of Tirmizi sayings of the Prophet :saws: about which Allah :swt: Himself says "It is not but a revelation revealed,"?

And yet, like the christians, people ascribe perfection, to something that is man made. On who's authority? Scholars!!?

Read Ar-Risaalah again! How ignorant your claims are!

There is no doubt that Allah :swt: gave the authority to deliver the Message to the Prophet :saws:. Then the Prophet :saws: gave the authority to the Sahabah :rahm: to carry out his Message and to teach those coming after them. The Sahabah taught the Tabi'een and they in turn taught their successors. This is clearly explained in the Risaalah of Imam Ash-Shaf'ii. Only if you read it with open eyes.

The authority of the scholars is directly coming from the words of Allah :swt:
فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
[16:43] So ask the people of the message if you do not know.

People of the message (Ahl Azh-Zikr) are the scholars.


And the Prophet :saws: himself said:

The superiority of the learned man over the devout is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets leave neither dinar nor dirham, leaving only knowledge, and he who takes it takes an abundant portion. [Sunan Abi Dawud 3641]


What else do you need to establish the authority of the scholars?


Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullaah, said:

"Every nation, before the sending of our Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, then their scholars were the worst of them, except for the Muslims. For indeed their scholars are the best of them, and they are the successors of the Messenger sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam in this nation."

The basis of his statement is the Words of Allah :swt: (meanings)
[5:62] And you see many of them hastening into sin and aggression and the devouring of [what is] unlawful. How wretched is what they have been doing.
[5:63] Why do the rabbis and religious scholars not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.

and the Words of Allah :swt: (meanings)
[2:78] And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.
[2:79] So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

and the Words of Allah :swt: (meanings)
[3:78] And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.



I don't think there is anything left to dispute now. I have already refuted your claim of "projecting back" and constructing fake isnad above. I don't think I would be able to spend any more time with you.

:w:

[kidcanman]

I'm going on a trip. ill probably b free thursday

[جوري]

you got owned.. take as long a trip as you need :D

[kidcanman]

It is impossible for more than one narrator to fabricate the same Hadith and project it back to the Prophet :saws:. Most of the Ahadeeth have Shawahid.

Shawahid ahadith = multiple witnesses and Gharib ahadith = basically a single witness. These are simple ahadith classification terms that you stated in arabic in order to make them seem complicated.

Your argument is incorrect because you still don't understand what projecting back is.

Projecting back does not mean that you fabricate a hadith. If you fabricate a hadith then, like you said, no other scholar will even know about that hadith so how could they have a chain to corroborate your chain if they don't even know about the hadith. That's impossible like you pointed out.

But that is not what projecting back is. That is the straw man that you created in order to dismiss the idea.

What projecting back really means is to take a hadith that already exist, and is already in circulation and one that already has a partial chain. But you don't have the complete chain for it. At the time of the early scholars, the hadith was popular, but multiple scholars did not have the complete chain. So what did they do? They completed the chain with what they thought to be the complete chain, or maybe with what they heard a different prominent scholar thought was the complete chain. And just like that, the hadith has the same chain in different places.

This is possible for a shawhid hadith and for a gharib hidth. And for whatever other fancy arabic word type of hadith you bring.

Why did the hadith collectors discard countless chains that were chronologically impossible? That is because their predecessor scholars created chains; I repeat scholars created chains that were chronologically impossible (they projected back) and collectors like Bukhari discarded these chains. These were "shawhid" chains, that were discarded because the predecessor scholars GOT IT WRONG.

But how can Bukhari know that the hadith with chains that are chronologically right were not created from projecting back as well? There is absolutely no way to tell.

And a powerhouse of knowledge like Imam Shafi'i stated that some "authentic" ahadith contradict each other. These are "shawhid" hadith where one of them is incorrect. But if the chains were not fabricated, and they all trace back to the prophet, then what happened? Did the prophet contradict himself? Astaghfirullah.

And you say that it is impossible? that the scholars made a mistake.

But Allah (swt) says,"if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions".

I know Imam Shafi'i agreed with that.

[جوري]

Would you like to evince what you write above? Multiple times folks told you, they're not interested in your personal opinion, and your argument using Imam shafi3 has been taken apart to the point that no amount of padding will help you save face.
Ibn Adam hasn't used fancy words and by the way gharib = strange not 'single witness' How can you argue against something when
1- you have no examples
2- You have no understanding of the language of hadith
3- Under the impression everyday language that is used to provide scholarship is 'complicated'
4- unwilling to concede when your argument has been completely taken apart with one that is unassailable & simply to be objectionable

what are you doing here exactly? convincing us or yourself of this drivel?

[kidcanman]

Found the quote under the chapter "Authentication of Single-Individual Traditions". In this chapter, Imam Ash-Shaf'i is explaining the authenticity of the individual traditions (in other words, Hadith Ghareeb), and why such Ahadeeth cannot be discarded. He mentions several instances from the life of the Sahabah to validate his point that single-individual narrations are also as important as other narrations.

Then he mentions the Mursal traditions and the above quote is found there. But did you stop reading further on this quote? Imam Shaf'i has explained how to deal with such narrations. Carefully read the continuation below:

The sentence you have quoted is not an evidence of projecting back or interpolation. All it says is that there are Mursal narrations accepted by some scholars from lesser known Tabi'een.

In this passage Imam Shafi'i explained why he only accepts mursal ahadith (hadith where a narrator is missing) from PROMINENT successors.

That does not negate the fact that Imam Shafi'i was staggered by the mursal traditions from NON PROMINENT successors contained in the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines.

So you presented a passage were Shafi'i states that he accepts mursal ahadith from prominent successors. What does that have to do with my evidence?

The fact remains that in the TRADITIONAL FOUNDATION OF ISLAMIC LEGAL DOCTRINE there contains ahadith with holes in the chains that were narrated from non prominent successors.

Who put those ahadith there? Scholars.

What that is proof of is the fact that at the time of Imam Shafi'i, there existed ahadith that were excepted by important scholars of the Islamic world as a whole and by Imam Shafi'i's standards these ahadith were not well authenticated.

And furthermore it is proof that, because Shafi'i was staggered by the number that existed, there were plenty of ahadith floating around at that time that were popularly used, but did not have the completed chain all the way to the prophet (sas). And in fact many of them were popular even though they had holes in the chain, and the narrator was not prominent.

If what you are asserting was true, then those scholars would have filled the gap in those mursal traditions by faking an isnad. In that case, there would be no mursal tradition left.

They did fill the gaps. That's why the science of ahadith exist: because there are so many chains that scholars created, that don't make sense.

The very existance of the science of ahadith is proof that the scholars made a lot of mistakes.

The existence of mursal Ahadeeth is in itself a proof against your invalid claim.

Is that sound logic? The fact that some mursal ahadith exist means that not a one was filled in?

[kidcanman]

I'm going on a trip overseas tonight for 1 month brothers. I may not be able to get online where I'm going. May Allah (swt) be with you.

[AabiruSabeel]

Shawahid ahadith = multiple witnesses and Gharib ahadith = basically a single witness. These are simple ahadith classification terms that you stated in arabic in order to make them seem complicated.

Shawahid literally means multiple witnesses but in Hadith terminology it is used to refer to the multiple chains of narration for a Hadith. Whereas a Ghareeb Hadith has a single chain of narration.
These are simple terms commonly used and anyone who has studied the Science of Hadith would know it. If my use of these terms seems complicated to you, then it further casts doubt on your claim of knowing the Science of Hadith.

Your argument is incorrect because you still don't understand what projecting back is.

Projecting back does not mean that you fabricate a hadith. If you fabricate a hadith then, like you said, no other scholar will even know about that hadith so how could they have a chain to corroborate your chain if they don't even know about the hadith. That's impossible like you pointed out.

But that is not what projecting back is. That is the straw man that you created in order to dismiss the idea.

What projecting back really means is to take a hadith that already exist, and is already in circulation and one that already has a partial chain. But you don't have the complete chain for it. At the time of the early scholars, the hadith was popular, but multiple scholars did not have the complete chain. So what did they do? They completed the chain with what they thought to be the complete chain, or maybe with what they heard a different prominent scholar thought was the complete chain. And just like that, the hadith has the same chain in different places.

I know exactly what projecting back is. False projecting back can only be applied on fabricated Hadith, not on authentic ones.

Let me explain how. If a Hadith is famous among different scholars living in different cities then it is not possible that this Hadith is a fabrication because we are speaking of 7th and 8th century here. There was no internet at that time and fabrications could not spread so easily without a fast means of communication.

Even if this famous Hadith had only partial chains with each scholar, then they would check where these partial chains combine. If they combine on a Sahabi, then they check the Tabi'ee(s) who took the Hadith to different cities. They study their biography to find out the years when they took the Hadith from the Sahabi and when they traveled to different cities. Similarly they study the biography of all the narrators in each chain and try to confirm their dates of traveling, names of their students, names of their teachers etc. It can be easily confirmed by finding out whether they have narrated few more Ahadeeth from the same Sahabi or not. Also by finding out which of their students have narrated Ahadeeth from him and their place of residence, travel dates etc.
So once they find that a particular famous Hadith has different chains in different cities, then each of these chains support each other in authenticating the Hadeeth.

But if that famous Hadith was a fabrication, then it is not possible for a fabrication to have multiple chains in multiple cities. Since it is a fabrication, all the chains would go through a single fabricator. By studying the lives of narrators, the fabricator can be easily identified and Hadeeth can be declared as fabricated.

Even if someone tried to project back the isnad, it would still go through the fabricator. It is not possible to bypass the fabricator because multiple people have heard this from him and transmitted to different cities.

This is possible for a shawhid hadith and for a gharib hidth. And for whatever other fancy arabic word type of hadith you bring.

As I said above, it is not possible to project back the chains for a Hadith that has Shawahid. Otherwise it would mean that all the shawahid chains have been projected back which is not possible. If one scholar falsely projects back the isnad then that doesn't mean that everyone would do the same. Are they all working in some sort of conspiracy to produce false chains? You are simply casting doubt on the character of the scholars without any proof.

By the way, a Hadeeth is not classified as Shawahid Hadeeth. Shawahid is a term used to indicate that a Hadith has multiple chains. A Hadith has Shawahid means it has multiple chains, but a Hadith itself cannot be called as Shawahid Hadith.
Again, this shows your lack of understanding of the Science of Hadith.

The term used to classify a Hadith that has Shawahid is Azeez, Mashhoor, or Mutawatir, depending how many Shawahid it has.

Why did the hadith collectors discard countless chains that were chronologically impossible? That is because their predecessor scholars created chains; I repeat scholars created chains that were chronologically impossible (they projected back) and collectors like Bukhari discarded these chains. These were "shawhid" chains, that were discarded because the predecessor scholars GOT IT WRONG.

The defect in the chains was because of the fabrication, not because of projecting back. Once someone fabricated a Hadith, he had to create a chain for it. He did that and got caught.

But how can Bukhari know that the hadith with chains that are chronologically right were not created from projecting back as well? There is absolutely no way to tell.

Studying the chronology is not the only way to weed out a fabrication. Go and study the Science of Hadith first.

And a powerhouse of knowledge like Imam Shafi'i stated that some "authentic" ahadith contradict each other. These are "shawhid" hadith where one of them is incorrect. But if the chains were not fabricated, and they all trace back to the prophet, then what happened? Did the prophet contradict himself? Astaghfirullah.

And you say that it is impossible? that the scholars made a mistake.

But Allah (swt) says,"if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions".

I know Imam Shafi'i agreed with that.

As I said in my earlier posts, contradiction in Saheeh Ahadeeth has a number of reasons which includes possibility of more than one incidents, explanations, permissibility of a forbidden act in certain conditions etc. You have to study the background and the context to identify the source of contradiction. Scholars have written volumes explaining such Ahadeeth. Below are some of the compilations which you can go through if you want:

اختلاف الحديث للشافعي .
تأويل مختلف الحديث لابن قتيبة .
شرح مشكل الآثار للطحاوي .
مختلف الحديث بين الفقهاء والمحدثين لنافذ حسين .
منهج التوفيق والترجيح بين مختلف الحديث لعبد المجيد السوسوة .
مختلف الحديث وموقف النقاد والمحدثين منه لأسامة خياط .
أحاديث العقيدة التي يوهم ظاهرها التعارض في الصحيحين لسليمان الدبيخي .

Your above claim also indicates that you have not properly studied the book Ikhtilaaful Hadeeth of Imam Ash-Shaf'ii as well. If time permits, I can refute you using Imam Ash-Shaf'ii's book itself :ia:. But as they say, no amount of proof can convince the skeptic.

[AabiruSabeel]

In this passage Imam Shafi'i explained why he only accepts mursal ahadith (hadith where a narrator is missing) from PROMINENT successors.

Yes. Now where does he say that people have projected back the chains to fill the gaps?

That does not negate the fact that Imam Shafi'i was staggered by the mursal traditions from NON PROMINENT successors contained in the traditional foundations of the legal doctrines.

So you presented a passage were Shafi'i states that he accepts mursal ahadith from prominent successors. What does that have to do with my evidence?

Well, you presented this passage as your evidence. But since your evidence was not found here, your claim is still a hypothetical assumption.

The fact remains that in the TRADITIONAL FOUNDATION OF ISLAMIC LEGAL DOCTRINE there contains ahadith with holes in the chains that were narrated from non prominent successors.

Who put those ahadith there? Scholars.

Scholars simply do not put Ahadeeth in there. They narrate the Hadith from their teachers, along with their chain of narration. If there are holes in the chain, that would be a mursal Hadeeth. Again, there's no proof of projecting back.

What that is proof of is the fact that at the time of Imam Shafi'i, there existed ahadith that were excepted by important scholars of the Islamic world as a whole and by Imam Shafi'i's standards these ahadith were not well authenticated.

There's no problem in that. Imam Bukhari did not include many Ahadeeth in his book. That does not mean that they were all inauthentic. Each scholar had his own standard and methodology and if it did reach his standard of authenticity then he would not include it in his book.

And furthermore it is proof that, because Shafi'i was staggered by the number that existed, there were plenty of ahadith floating around at that time that were popularly used, but did not have the completed chain all the way to the prophet (sas). And in fact many of them were popular even though they had holes in the chain, and the narrator was not prominent.

Again, this indicates that there were many mursal Ahadeeth. This does not prove your point of projecting back.

They did fill the gaps.

Where's your proof?

That's why the science of ahadith exist: because there are so many chains that scholars created, that don't make sense.

The very existance of the science of ahadith is proof that the scholars made a lot of mistakes.

Rather, the existence of Science of Hadith indicates the amount of efforts scholars have undertaken to authenticate each and every Hadith. Mistakes were done by laymen, and people who fabricated things for their worldly gains. You are accusing the scholars of something which you will be answerable for on the Day of Judgement. How can you assume that the ones who took pains and spent their lives to authenticate and verify each and every word of Rasoolullah :saws: would create a false chain themselves? سُبْحَانَكَ هَٰذَا بُهْتَانٌ عَظِيمٌ Exalted are You, [O Allah ]; this is a great slander [24:16]

I'm going on a trip overseas tonight for 1 month brothers. I may not be able to get online where I'm going. May Allah (swt) be with you.

أَسْتَوْدِعُ اللهَ دِينَكَ وَأَمَانَـتَكَ ، وَخَوَاتِيمَ عَمَلِكَ
I entrust to Allah your religion, and your trusts, and the last of your deeds [Tirmidhi]

[facethetruth]

Too long to read if you are this interested in Ahadeeth go and learn Ahadeeth in Egypt with Al howaini or Jordan with arnaoot and I am sure there are some scholars in Saudi but I dont know them

[kidcanman]

Shawahid literally means multiple witnesses but in Hadith terminology it is used to refer to the multiple chains of narration for a Hadith. Whereas a Ghareeb Hadith has a single chain of narration.
These are simple terms commonly used and anyone who has studied the Science of Hadith would know it. If my use of these terms seems complicated to you, then it further casts doubt on your claim of knowing the Science of Hadith.

Your use of these terms are as simple and straight forward as the "science" of ahadith. But you stated the term in Arabic in order
to scare people who don't speak Arabic into thinking that you have a technical understanding of Ahadith. Just as you use the phrase "science of hadith" in order to bolster the weight of your arguments, even though the "science" is extremely simple and straight forward.

I know exactly what projecting back is. False projecting back can only be applied on fabricated Hadith, not on authentic ones.

Wrong. Actually a hadith can be projected back, and yet, if the people that are in it are trusted and have met, that hadith would be considered authentic according to the hadith "science".

If a Hadith is famous among different scholars living in different cities then it is not possible that this Hadith is a fabrication because we are speaking of 7th and 8th century here. There was no internet at that time and fabrications could not spread so easily without a fast means of communication.

This statement is not true when it comes to the history of islam. In actuallity Muslims from all parts of the Islamic world have ALWAYS been eager to know EVERYTHING about what the Prophet (mahh) said and did. And we always were willing to travel far and wide to learn this information and spread it, in order to gain spiritual direction in every single detail pertaining to our lives. So after the Prophet's death, ahadith spread like wildfire.

However, the practice of categorizing these hadith did not become popular until 100 years after his death. So you're wrong on that point.

Even if this famous Hadith had only partial chains with each scholar, then they would check where these partial chains combine. If they combine on a Sahabi, then they check the Tabi'ee(s) who took the Hadith to different cities. They study their biography to find out the years when they took the Hadith from the Sahabi and when they traveled to different cities. Similarly they study the biography of all the narrators in each chain and try to confirm their dates of traveling, names of their students, names of their teachers etc. It can be easily confirmed by finding out whether they have narrated few more Ahadeeth from the same Sahabi or not. Also by finding out which of their students have narrated Ahadeeth from him and their place of residence, travel dates etc.
So once they find that a particular famous Hadith has different chains in different cities, then each of these chains support each other in authenticating the Hadeeth.

But if that famous Hadith was a fabrication, then it is not possible for a fabrication to have multiple chains in multiple cities. Since it is a fabrication, all the chains would go through a single fabricator. By studying the lives of narrators, the fabricator can be easily identified and Hadeeth can be declared as fabricated.

Even though you speak arabic you still were not able to understand the concept of projecting back.

My whole point is that when a hadith is projected back,.... IT DOES NOT GO THROUGH A FABRICATOR. It goes through a well trusted Muslim, but then it stops there;

the chain is not complete,

but the last person on the chain is well trusted.

Then a scholar will fill in the rest of the chain in the way that he "thinks" it should be.

Now you talk about how shcolars would check this and that; but the practice of doing thorough checks of the chains was not standard until 100 YEARS AFTER THE PROPHET'S DEATH.

Between that time scholars could construct ENTIRE CHAINS that contained trusted Muslims, and there is
no way, in the complicated "science" of hadith, to find out.

As I've stated, the "science" focuses on verifying if the people in the chain are honest and have
met etc.

BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO CHECK IF THE CHAIN WASN'T SIMPLY MADE UP!

So actually what i'm saying is that we can't simply put our faith in the scholars.

And of course Imam Shafii agrees with me. Because in his same book Risalah (I could not find my copy but luckily I was able to find it at http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_...ul_al_Fiqh.pdf) On page 281, verse 460, imam Shafii states,

"My experience with certain scholars indicates that there are groups with [two] opposite tendencies: Some are satisfied with meager knowledge and want to derive knowledge from only one source, neglecting similar or more reliable ones. These are the ones who are lacking in knowledge. Others, who have criticized this approach and aspired to a broader and thorough knowledge [of tradition], have been driven by this [desire] to accept traditions from transmitters from whom it would have been better not to accept. I have noticed that most of them are inclined to be unreliable, because they accept [traditions] from the same transmitters whose similar and better traditions they have rejected. They accept traditions that are interpolated, as well as those from unreliable sources if they agree with their opinions, while they reject traditions from reliable transmitters if they happen to contradict their opinions."

[kidcanman]

Where's your proof?

Shafii's Risalah; http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_...ul_al_Fiqh.pdf
page 281 verse 460.

"Interpolations reach some of these poeple from various sources. He who scrutinizes the knowledge [of traditions] with competence and care is shocked by the [number of] interrupted traditions from those who are not well-known Successors"

Mistakes were done by laymen, and people who fabricated things for their worldly gains. You are accusing the scholars of something which you will be answerable for on the Day of Judgement. How can you assume that the ones who took pains and spent their lives to authenticate and verify each and every word of Rasoolullah :saws: would create a false chain themselves? سُبْحَانَكَ هَٰذَا بُهْتَانٌ عَظِيمٌ Exalted are You, [O Allah ]; this is a great slander [24:16]

As I cited above, Imam Shafii stated that "certain scholars...accept traditions that are...from unreliable sources if they agree with their opinions."

[AabiruSabeel]

Please read my previous replies #67, #70, #77 and #78. I don't have the time to repeat everything all over again.

If you know Arabic, please read the original passage in Arabic and try to understand it yourself.

[kidcanman]

Please read my previous replies #67, #70, #77 and #78. I don't have the time to repeat everything all over again.

I obviously read and responded to those posts as everyone can see. You make no point in repeating yourself. My responses are clear for anybody to see.

If you know Arabic, please read the original passage in Arabic and try to understand it yourself.

The knowledge of Arabic does not have an impact on this debate. I'm sorry but knowing Arabic doesn't somehow mean that I am somebody; it's totally irrelevant to this discussion. How about you read my responses in English and try to understand them yourself.

[AabiruSabeel]

My whole point is that when a hadith is projected back,.... IT DOES NOT GO THROUGH A FABRICATOR. It goes through a well trusted Muslim, but then it stops there;

the chain is not complete,

but the last person on the chain is well trusted.

Then a scholar will fill in the rest of the chain in the way that he "thinks" it should be.

Relevant parts of my previous replies which have already addressed your point:

It is impossible for more than one narrator to fabricate the same Hadith and project it back to the Prophet :saws:. Most of the Ahadeeth have Shawahid. Your argument can only hold true for Ghareeb Hadeeth. But then again, scholars have further classified Ghareeb Ahadeeth into “Hasan Gharib Sahih” , “Sahih Gharib,” “Gharib Hasan,” “Jayyid Gharib Hasan,” “Hasan Jayyid Gharib,” “Jayyid Gharib.” Each of these terms denote a different level of authenticity.
They have carefully studied all the narrators in the chain and perfectly classified each of them. There's no room left for further disagreement.

As I said above, it is not possible to project back the chains for a Hadith that has Shawahid. Otherwise it would mean that all the shawahid chains have been projected back which is not possible. If one scholar falsely projects back the isnad then that doesn't mean that everyone would do the same. Are they all working in some sort of conspiracy to produce false chains? You are simply casting doubt on the character of the scholars without any proof.

Suppose, for arguments sake, you are living in an era before Imam Bukhari :rh:, and you project the chain of a Hadith and ascribe it to Sufyan bin 'Uyaynah Al-Hilali :rh: (one of the trustworthy narrators in the first Hadeeth of Jame' As-Saheeh).
Now you write down the Hadith along with your projected chain in your book, say HWPC (Hadith with Projected Chains), and you also teach this Hadith to a number of students to spread it far and wide. This is how a projected chain must pass through the fabricator himself. It is impossible for you as a fabricator to bypass yourself and ask your students to narrate the Hadith directly from Sufyan, a trustworthy narrator.

A few years later, Imam Bukhari is born. He hears of your book HWPC and the Hadith that you had projected back from Sufyan :rh: and tries to verify it.
Let's leave the book aside because the book will make it very obvious that you have narrated that Hadith from Sufyan.
So Imam Bukhari learns of this Hadith from his teacher 'A' who in turn was your student and has directly recorded it from you, and you are narrating it from Sufyan.


Sufyan :rh: is known to be trustworthy, and all the narrators in the projected chain are trustworthy, as attested by their contemporaries. Now only you and your students are left to be scrutinized.
Now if you are not listed among the students of Sufyan, then you are automatically cast aside and all your narrations are deemed suspicious.

But in case you were smart enough not leave any trace behind, and has actually been one of his active students, then Imam Bukhari will look for the same Hadith narrated by another student of Sufyan. If he couldn't find it, then it means that you are the only one who knows this Hadith (since you are the one who has projected its chain from Sufyan). In this case, he will classify this Hadith as Ahad or Khabar Wahid. It will be further classified in to Ghareeb since all chains travel through you and Sufyan only.

Now for its authenticity, it will remain doubtful until another chain or until a supporting Hadith of similar words is found. If found (which cannot be the case in your fabrication), it will be classified into one of the following:

• Saheeh li-Ghayrihi - صَحِيْح لِغَيْرِه - Saheeh due to support of others,
• Hasan li-dhaatihi - حَسَن لِذَاتِه - Hasan on its own, and
• Hasan li-Ghayrihi - حَسَن لِغَيْرِه - Hasan due to support of others.

I hope it is clear now that you cannot project a chain and bypass it yourself. It has to go through the fabricator himself at certain point. Don't make me repeat it again later on.

"Interpolations reach some of these poeple from various sources. He who scrutinizes the knowledge [of traditions] with competence and care is shocked by the [number of] interrupted traditions from those who are not well-known Successors"

This was also clarified earlier. Please see the following quote from one of my previous posts:

The sentence you have quoted is not an evidence of projecting back or interpolation. All it says is that there are Mursal narrations accepted by some scholars from lesser known Tabi'een.

If what you are asserting was true, then those scholars would have filled the gap in those mursal traditions by faking an isnad. In that case, there would be no mursal tradition left. The existence of mursal Ahadeeth is in itself a proof against your invalid claim.

[Muhammad]

But you stated the term in Arabic in order to scare people who don't speak Arabic into thinking that you have a technical understanding of Ahadith. Just as you use the phrase "science of hadith" in order to bolster the weight of your arguments, even though the "science" is extremely simple and straight forward.

The knowledge of Arabic does not have an impact on this debate. I'm sorry but knowing Arabic doesn't somehow mean that I am somebody; it's totally irrelevant to this discussion. How about you read my responses in English and try to understand them yourself.

If you are going to make mighty claims about a subject, it is first presumed you actually know something about it. It is telling a great deal if you are upset when someone uses the proper terminology in that subject, or asks you to read a source in its original language whose translation and interpretation is being used to support your claim. Knowledge of Arabic has everything to do with the debate when your very sources are written in Arabic! Regarding the term 'science of hadeeth', only someone completely ignorant or in complete denial would argue against that. Here's a quote from Dr. Jonathan Brown, a western ḥadīth scholar from University of Washington:

“I have never been more impressed with anybody in history in my life than with Muslim ḥadīth scholars. I mean, when I first started studying ḥadīth I was very skeptical, I though it was all made-up and bogus but the more you study it the more you just appreciate the intense brain power of these people. I mean they memorized thousands and thousands of books and then they were able to recall all the different versions of ḥadīth from these books, and then they were able to analyze them and put them all together and figure-out where they all connect and make judgments about the authenticity of these ḥadīth. I mean even nowadays with electronic databases, and computers and word processing, I have hard time following even their discussions of the ḥadīth - let alone their original mastering that they were drawing on. It's almost unbelievable... It's almost unbelievable, and if you didn't have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn't believe it personally....”
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/brown.html

Now, how about you give us reason as to why we should spend much more time on this discussion when you clearly have no regard for it?