Can Ahadith Be Authenticated

[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?