Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[titus]

It is a description of Hadith.

These were stories passed down from generation to generation, then over 200 years later were written down. That is why there is debate between people on whether certain Hadith are genuine or not because the way that it is determined is based on who is believed to have told the story to someone else who told someone else who told someone else, etc.

That is why you will also find "Quran only" Muslims who do not follow them because they do not believe they are accurate, although the vast majority of Muslims do. Shia and Sunni also follow different Hadith because they find different people reliable.

 

[Insaanah]

It seems to me that basing a major part of a religion on eyewitness reports handed down orally over a number of generations and then written down over 200 years later is hardly the epitome of accuracy. And then to use as your standard who it was that was rumored to have passed them down? An unbiased person cannot help but scoff at the accuracy of such parts of a religion.

If I may say so, I think an unbiased person should get their facts straight first.

It is a description of Hadith.

These were stories

You need to correct your understanding of what a hadeeth is first.

The term "hadeeth", used in the context you are using it, means "whatever is transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him) of his actions, sayings, tacit approvals, or physical characteristics."

then over 200 years later were written down.

Ahadeeth (plural of hadeeth) were recorded in writing even during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The process of writing them took on a new importance after his death because he was no longer there to consult when problems arose.

It was about 90 years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that the caliph Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez ordered the scholars to compile the traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

The scholars had already begun composing books containing biographical data on the various narrators of hadeeth in order to expose any spurious narrators.

Once the name of the narrator was known, it was possible to investigate whether he was trustworthy or not and whether he actually heard the person from whom he was reporting. Criticism of this nature later came to be known as ‘Ilm al-Jarh wat-Ta‘deel (The Science of Validation).

The ahadeeth underwent critical research and came under careful scrutiny.

Every hadeeth consists of two sections. The first section is a list of all those who transmitted the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) beginning with the last transmitter to the one who collected it in his book and ending with the companion who narrated it from the Prophet (peace be upon him). The second section is the narrated saying, action, approval or physical description of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The first portion is known as the isnaad or the sanad (chain of narrators) and the second is called the matn (text).

From these early efforts the science of hadeeth (‘Ilm Mustlah al-Hadeeth or ‘Ilm Usool al-Hadeeth) evolved to distinguish between authentic narrations and spurious ones. The scholars of hadeeth have dealt with each hadeeth as an independent case, subjecting both its isnaad and its matn to close scrutiny according to the fundamental principles of this science.

Some of the factors taken into account are:

The continuity of chain
Integrity of the narrator
The soundness of their memory, and their written accuracy
The conformity to similar ahadeeth
The absence of hidden defects that appear only after close investigation

The process of compiling and systematically collecting into texts continued, as did critical research, scrutiny, and validation into them. Scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim had collected hadeeths into even larger volumes about 200 years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

There is a whole science to the study and classification of hadeeth, and what I have explained here is grossly simplified and very brief.

Also, to clarify, a sahaabi (plural sahaabah) is a person who had the privilege of meeting the Prophet (peace be upon him) and died believing in him. The companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are the most famous sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them).

Peace.

 

[Zafran]

Salaam

Thank you Insaanah for explaining some basic points - before people even talk about hadiths they should learn how they are used and what they are.

peace

 

[Ramadhan]

Thank you Insaanah for explaining some basic points - before people even talk about hadiths they should learn how they are used and what they are.

I agree.

The post by sis Insaanah should be made as compulsory reading for non-muslims who wish to participate in comparative religion discussions.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I agree.

The post by sis Insaanah should be made as compulsory reading for non-muslims who wish to participate in comparative religion discussions.

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

 

[Ramadhan]

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

Are you kidding me?

Mayber it is your arrogance attitude, your blindness or our patience and hospitality to make you feel welcome here that you forgot this forum is ISLAMIC board.

Only when I decide to go to christian sites and make dakwah there, I will learn "bible textual criticism", which seems pretty much useless anyway for you folks who are willing to accept such erroneous and contradictory books as your guidance (which in itself is staggering as no one would use erroneous street map to get to their destination, let alone one who gets you either to hell and paradise).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Are you kidding me?

Mayber it is your arrogance attitude, your blindness or our patience and hospitality to make you feel welcome here that you forgot this forum is ISLAMIC board.

Only when I decide to go to christian sites and make dakwah there, I will learn "bible textual criticism", which seems pretty much useless anyway for you folks who are willing to accept such erroneous and contradictory books as your guidance (which in itself is staggering as no one would use erroneous street map to get to their destination, let alone one who gets you either to hell and paradise).

And thus you will continue to make comments regarding the Bible that are blantantly false because you are would prefer to live in a self-imposed state of ignorace with regard to that which you do not know, but fool yourself into thinking you do. I give Yusuf and aadil credit for taking the time to actually be informed with regard to that which they criticize.

Regarding arrogance, in thinking that you know what you are talking about when you don't but remain resolved to continue uneducated, you display the greater arrogance. Even Hugo showed more respect for Islam than that.

 

[GreyKode]

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

Why don't you take this opportunity and explain to us some of the sciences used in determining the authenticity of the biblical texts and so on? like textual criticism and say ethnography.

 

[titus]

Some of the factors taken into account are:

The continuity of chain
Integrity of the narrator
The soundness of their memory, and their written accuracy
The conformity to similar ahadeeth
The absence of hidden defects that appear only after close investigation

It still comes down to, basically, hearsay, that was not compiled until generations after the death of Muhammad.

You may call it a science if you wish, but there is very little science involved as far as I can see. It is determining who you want to believe and following what you believe they said about someone else. While some may have been written down during the lifetime of Muhammad most were transmitted orally, that is why you have a "chain" that is used to help determine their validity. I am sorry, but when you have a sanad of multiple people I find it difficult to believe it can be accurate, especially decades afterwards.

Notice also that one of the criteria is conformity to other Hadith. Why is this a criteria if all the others are found correct? The only reason would be that there are contradictions, and the scholars simply reject the ones that do not "fit" properly. Yes, that is an oversimplification but it is accurate.

Know that my intent here is not to disparage Islam, but simply to point out what I see as a form of hypocrisy when disparaging other religions.

 

[جوري]

in that case any event in history if not recorded on TV is hearsay .. you are so funny ;D ;D

 

[titus]

No. But something that you heard from Bob who heard it from Joe who heard it from Bill who heard it from Mary who heard it from George that happened 60 years ago? Yes, that is hearsay and I find it extremely difficult to defend as an unassailable fact, especially as one of the foundations of a religion.

 

[Ramadhan]

And thus you will continue to make comments regarding the Bible that are blantantly false because you are would prefer to live in a self-imposed state of ignorace with regard to that which you do not know, but fool yourself into thinking you do

Let's see.
Most religious scholars equate the NT with hadiths, at best (albeit with dramatic difference: while the narrators of hadiths are known and the transmissions can be traced back with records all the way to the prophet, the authors of NT are unknowns not to mention the sketchy transmissions and the abominable translations) . As for the OT, even christians regard it as nothing more than a history book, and not even actual one at that.
Now, I know what bible is (at the very least), and I may actually know more about bible than your average christian.
Meanwhile, you don't even understand the meaning of hadith let alone its explanations, its classifications, its narrations, its method of transmissions and its chains of transmission, the sanad, the mat'an.

You coming here to ISLAMIC board, with NO knowledge of BASIC info about hadith (and I am not even talking about the Qur'an), and then saying things like:

the terms that get thrown around here

to refer to hadiths as if hadiths is of nothing important in the discussion about Islam is indeed ignorance and arrogance at staggering proportion.

It would be like me going into christian discussion forums, telling them about their bible, while knowing NOTHING about what bible is let alone its contents.
It would be like me accusing that bible is the actual words of god.
You would be insulted no? (because christians themselves acknowledge that bible is not the words of god).

Regarding arrogance, in thinking that you know what you are talking about when you don't but remain resolved to continue uneducated, you display the greater arrogance.

I am tickled by the fact the adjective "arrogance" is thrown at me by someone who forced god to come down to earth to be born of a woman, suckled the milk from a womans breasts, soiled himself, nailed him to a cross bleeding and dying and dead, basically degraded himself to the level of human just to be able to forgive the sins of his own creation.
How's that for arrogance?

Even Hugo showed more respect for Islam than that.

Are you blind?
the fact that Hugo is banned shows that he has less respect for Islam than minimum required.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Why don't you take this opportunity and explain to us some of the sciences used in determining the authenticity of the biblical texts and so on? like textual criticism and say ethnography.

Because I can't do it as succintly as Insaanah did. But, GreyKode, if there is interest, I thought I would start a thread to describe it and post some material there.

 

[*Hana*]

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

Peace to you Grace Seeker:

I would be interested in reading that article actually. When you find a free moment, would you mind sending either the article or a link to it.

Thanks!
Hana

 

[جوري]

No. But something that you heard from Bob who heard it from Joe who heard it from Bill who heard it from Mary who heard it from George that happened 60 years ago? Yes, that is hearsay and I find it extremely difficult to defend as an unassailable fact, especially as one of the foundations of a religion.

Everything that comes to you in books that is non-fictional and has some credibility, usually bears more than one witness. The more witnesses the more credible, It isn't Chinese whispers, it is a corroboration of events.

You comment as someone who has positively no idea what he is talking about. Not only have you ignored everything that Sr. Insaanah wrote, but you have no examples with which to evince the reasons for your all too frequent protests. I think you hate to be caught in a blond moment which seem to happen frequently for you!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Let's see.
Most religious scholars equate the NT with hadiths, at best (albeit with dramatic difference: while the narrators of hadiths are known and the transmissions can be traced back with records all the way to the prophet, the authors of NT are unknowns not to mention the sketchy transmissions and the abominable translations) . As for the OT, even christians regard it as nothing more than a history book, and not even actual one at that.
Now, I know what bible is (at the very least), and I may actually know more about bible than your average christian.
Meanwhile, you don't even understand the meaning of hadith let alone its explanations, its classifications, its narrations, its method of transmissions and its chains of transmission, the sanad, the mat'an.

You coming here to ISLAMIC board, with NO knowledge of BASIC info about hadith (and I am not even talking about the Qur'an),

What's sad is that you've convinced yourself that the above is all true, when it simply isn't even close to reality. For instance, I did know what a hadith is. What I didn't know was that "ahadith" was the plural form of the word. That might be basic to you, but it is a different language to me. I knew about the role of companions and I learn from Insaanah the technical terms.

I have never referred to ahadith as if they were not important to Islam. Rather, I understand them to be received my Muslims as virtually on par with the Qur'an as scripture. This, even though they are not the recitation of God's word; they are those things that the prophet said, did, or gave silent approval to. It is this characteristic that causes people to make a rough comparison between the Gospels and the Hadith, but that comparison is rough and one would hardly continue it with regard to the rest of the NT. So, I sincerely doubt that "most religious scholars equate the NT with hadiths."

Elsewhere, I believe you also stated that the hadith where recorded during the Prophet's lifetime. While that's true, you make it sound as if it was throughout his life, and that simply was not true. During the time in Mecca and the early time in Medina, Muhammad forbid that anyone should write down his personal sayings. It was only near the end of his life that he relaxed this prohibition.

to refer to hadiths as if hadiths is of nothing important in the discussion about Islam is indeed ignorance and arrogance at staggering proportion.

Again, I did no such thing. To say that I did is to fabricate truth for your own ends.

I am tickled by the fact the adjective "arrogance" is thrown at me by someone who forced god to come down to earth to be born of a woman, suckled the milk from a womans breasts, soiled himself, nailed him to a cross bleeding and dying and dead, basically degraded himself to the level of human just to be able to forgive the sins of his own creation.
How's that for arrogance?

The problem is again that you post as factual things that no one has done. No one forced God to come down to earth. Muslims say he never did it. And Christians say that he chose to do it of his own volition. But no one other than you says that anyone force God to do anything.

And I certainly don't call telling the story of God doing what he did for humanity an act of arrogance either on our part in telling the story or in Christ's part in actually doing what he did. Rather, I call Jesus' actions one of complete humility, but NOT humiliation.

Are you blind?
the fact that Hugo is banned shows that he has less respect for Islam than minimum required.

You're right. Hugo didn't show the minimum level of respect to Islam. My point is just that. You show others with whom you disagree even less respect than Hugo showed to Islam.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hana, GreyKode, I will do my best to find and post a few things for you to read yet this weekend. Should I start a new thread for it, I'll send you a PM or post here where to find it.

 

[Insaanah]

You may call it a science if you wish, but there is very little science involved as far as I can see.

Not as far as you can see, but as far as you want to see. I made clear that my post was grossly simplified and very brief:

There is a whole science to the study and classification of hadeeth, and what I have explained here is grossly simplified and very brief.

so of course I cannot show you the whole science in that post, nor in a number of posts.

It still comes down to, basically, hearsay, that was not compiled until generations after the death of Muhammad.

Read my first post again, as to when hadeeth were written. Writing, and compiling volumes, are two different things.

I am sorry, but when you have a sanad of multiple people I find it difficult to believe it can be accurate, especially decades afterwards.

Seeing as early history was written in books not written at the time of the events, I take it you discard most of history too, and dismiss it as hearsay, because most of history wasn't written as it was happening, but decades afterwards.

But something that you heard from Bob who heard it from Joe who heard it from Bill who heard it from Mary who heard it from George that happened 60 years ago? Yes, that is hearsay and I find it extremely difficult to defend as an unassailable fact, especially as one of the foundations of a religion.

I am happy to correct your (mis)understanding.

It is not a case of Bob, Joe, Bill and Mary all playing Chinese whispers. "Oooh! Guess what I heard George say!"

Hadeeth circles were widespread. Regular records of attendance were kept. After a book was read, a note was written by the teacher or one of the famous scholars in attendance in which the names of those who heard the whole book, part of the book, the dates and places, were written.

During the era of the Taabi‘oon (students of the Sahaabah),students usually memorized the whole Qur’aan and studied Islamic Law and Arabic grammar before joining the circles of the hadeeth scholars around the age of twenty.

With every generation the numbers of teachers and students grew exponentially. In the time of the Taabi‘oon, scholars like ath-Thawree, Ibn al-Mubaarak and az-Zuhree made reference to hundreds of teachers. Az-Zuhree himself had over fifty students who recorded ahadeeth in writing from him.

Muslims came to consider the isnaad an indispensable part of the ahadeeth and developed it. They gave it a firm foundation by introducing the chronological method, assembling biographies of the transmitters, and establishing a science for determining the value of its contents and the authenticity of its channel of transmission.

The practice of specifying the isnaad, not only of the hadeeths but also the books in which they were collected, was of immense value in preserving the integrity of books in an age in which printing was unknown, and in which the creation of spurious and distorted works was a relatively easy task. Hadeeth literature employed a thorough and systematic method of source identification. Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts rarely, if ever, supply us with such a wealth of information about a book’s origin and use.

The isnaad system, while originating in connection with the hadeeth literature, was in due course extended by Arab authors to many other genres, including geography, history, and prose fiction.

Even if a student knew ahadeeth through books, he was not entitled to transmit them or use them in his own collections until they had been consistently read back to the teacher and his transmission of them approved.

Take the following hadeeth, for example:

Nasr ibn ‘Alee al-Jahdamee and Haamid ibn ‘Umar al-Bakraawee informed us saying: Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal informed us from Khaalid, from ‘Abdullaah ibn Shaqeeq from Abu Hurayrah that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “If anyone among you wakes up from sleep, he must not put his hand in a utensil until he has washed it three times, for he doesn’t know where his hand was during sleep.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1, p. 114, no. 163 and Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, p. 166, no. 541).

At least thirteen students of Abu Hurayrah transmitted this hadeeth from him.
8 out of the 13 were from Madeenah
1 was from Kufah
2 from Basrah
1 from Yemen
1 from Syria

There are sixteen scholars who transmitted this hadeeth from the students of Abu Hurayrah.
6 out of the 16 were from Madeenah
4 from Basrah
2 from Kufah, Iraq
1 from Makkah
1 from Yemen
1 from Khurasan (Iran)
1 from Hims (Syria)

Here is a chart showing all the narrators of this hadeeth (sorry it is not very clear):

At the very right is the Prophet (peace be upon him), then those who heard it directly from him are Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Umar, Jabir, A'isha and Ali (May Allah be pleased with them), and then those who heard/wrote it from them.

There are many, many chains of narration for this hadeeth, as you can see (especially from Abu Hurayrah), and at any point, there is full traceability for this hadeeth.

Notice also that one of the criteria is conformity to other Hadith. Why is this a criteria if all the others are found correct? The only reason would be that there are contradictions, and the scholars simply reject the ones that do not "fit" properly. Yes, that is an oversimplification but it is accurate.

No, it is not accurate in the least. I would strongly advise you to study hadeeth carefully before passing uninformed comment, as you have done in this post and the last.

If a so-called hadeeth came to the attention of the scholars that appeared not to be in conformity with other ahadeeth on the subject, alarm bells would ring. The scholars would examine the "narrator" first and his biography together with who else heard that "hadeeth", what was their status, they would closely examine the text of his so-called hadeeth and look at other ahadeeth on the subject (among many other factors) and, with all the fcators considerd, would be easily able to expose him as a fabricator. I think most people would agree that is the correct course of action. That is the whole point of the rigorous checking system, so that spurious hadeeth can be known.

Know that my intent here is not to disparage Islam

Good. Glad to hear it.

Peace.

 

[titus]

Seeing as early history was written in books not written at the time of the events, I take it you discard most of history too, and dismiss it as hearsay, because most of history wasn't written as it was happening, but decades afterwards.

Much of History is hearsay, you are corrrect. I have a degree in History and I know that the writings of Herodotus, Livy (Titus Livius, who I get my board name from), Plutarch and others are merely books of rumors and out and out fabrications. I don't rely on them to be truthful because they are stories passed down generations later. Most likely they contain a mix of truth and fiction.

The same goes with Hadith. The same goes with the Bible.

Scholars have had to debate which Hadith are authentic and which aren't, and even this science can easily get it wrong, as a true Hadith can be dismissed because the scholars didn't believe them enough. As I have already mentioned you also have different Muslims that believe different Hadith, which shows that part of this "science" is simply opinion.

Read my first post again, as to when hadeeth were written. Writing, and compiling volumes, are two different things.

So what percentage, roughly, of hadith were written down when they happened? Or when Muhammad was still alive?

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

you obviously have no knowledge what a scholar of hadith does. or the conditions required for a hadith to be accepted as authentic or non-authentic, etc. or just anything really associated with this branch of knowledge...you seemed to have made one complete generalization based on zero knowledge and in the process "shot down" any effort any scholar has put towards this branch of science based on your lack of knowledge.

if you doubt (and judging by your post, you do) the integrity of the scholars, then of course anything that comes from him/her, you will also doubt.

you need to state solid evidence to back your claim "which shows that part of this "science" is simply opinion."

you also need to learn the difference between a ordinary Muslim/layman and a scholar. they are worlds apart. you cant possible put the 2 in the same "breath" and then claim that the science of hadith is mere opinion. you haven't even made distinction between these 2 types of people, but readily and hastily make your claim.

and using the bible to support your point?! are you serious?

peace.