Look at Hadith Rejecters’ Claims

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

Look at Hadith Rejecters' Claims

Summary of Hadith Rejecters' Claims

1. A) We, Quranists, do not make a distinction between obeying Allah and obeying His Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Anyone who obeys the Qur'an has no other option but to obey the Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, too. Had we been living with him, we would have no hesitation in blindly following his orders. We do make a distinction but that is between Allah and Hadith collectors like Bukhari, Muslim, Nassai, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud. We accept Allah's Word that He has protected the Quran from corruption, but why should we accept the words of these hadith collectors? Are they as infallible as Allah?

1. B) Qur'an is sufficient and does not need any further explanation.

2. Hadith is the same as the gospels of Christianity. Indeed the time span between death of Messenger Muhammad, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and the compilation of Sahihs was almost the same as that between the departure of Jesus, Alayhis salam, and compilation of the Bible. How can Muslims reject one but accept the other?

3. Dr. Maurice Bucaille finds that Saheeh is as unscientific as the Bible.

4. The Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, may have elaborated on items like mode of salah. Such hadith is probably from the Messenger, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and should be obeyed. But what about the hadith that contradict the Qur'an.

5. The root cause of Muslim decay is their reverence for the hadith.

6. Allah has protected only the Qur'an -- not Islam -- from corruption.

7. Allah expects from His slaves exclusive servitude. When Sunnis talk of Quran and Sunnah, the Qur'an is undermined for its exclusivity is lost.

---

"If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." [Al-Ahzab, 33:36]
"He that obeys Allah and His Messenger has already attained the great victory." [Al-Ahzab, 33:71].

For the past fourteen centuries Qur'an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims. In every generation, the Muslims devoted the best of their minds and talents to their study. They learned both the words and meanings of the Qur'an through the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and made an unprecedented effort in preserving them for the next generation. The result: The development of the marvelous -- and unparalleled -- science of hadith, one of the brightest aspects of Muslim history.

What does it mean to believe in a Prophet except to pledge to follow him? And so the teachings of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, have always guided this Ummah. No body, in his right mind, could or did question this practice. Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some "scholars" arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target.

Another factor helped them. Today most Muslims, including the vast majority of the western-educated Muslims, have meager knowledge of hadith, having spent no time in studying even the fundamentals of this vast subject. How many know the difference between Sahih and Hasan, or between Maudau and Dhaif? The certification process used in hadith transmission? Names of any hadith book produced in the first century of Hijrah, or the number of such books? A majority probably would not be able to name even the six principal hadith books (Sihah Sitta) or know anything about the history of their compilation. Obviously such atmosphere provides a fertile ground for sowing suspicions and doubts.

They call themselves as ahle-Qur'an or Quranists. This is misleading. For their distinction is not in affirming the Qur'an, but in rejecting the Hadith. The ideas of munkareen-e-hadith evolve into three mutually contradictory strains. The first holds that the job of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was only to deliver the Qur'an. We are to follow only the Qur'an and nothing else, as were the Companions. Further, hadith is not needed to understand the Qur'an, which is sufficient for providing guidance. The second group holds that the Companions were required to follow the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, but we are not. The third holds that, in theory, we also have to follow the hadith but we did not receive ahadith through authentic sources and therefore we have to reject all ahadith collections!

Internal contradictions are a hallmark of false ideologies. How can anyone hold the first position yet profess belief in Qur'an while it says: "And We have sent down unto You the Message so that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them." [An-Nahal, 16:44]. And this: "Allah did confer a great favor on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs (Verses) of Allah, purifying them, instructing them in Scripture, and teaching them Wisdom. While before that they were in manifest error." [A'ale Imran 3:164].

How can anyone hold the second position (limiting the Prophethood to 23 years) yet profess belief in Qur'an, while it says: "We did not send you except as Mercy for all creatures." [Al-Anbia, 21:107] And, "We have not sent you except as a Messenger to all mankind, giving them glad tidings and warning them against sin." [Saba, 34:28]

The third position seems to have avoided these obvious pitfalls, yet in reality it is no different. Consider statements 1, 4, and 7 in the summary of hadith rejecters' claims. So hadith undermines Qur'an's exclusivity, yet would have been followed blindly at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Ahadith cannot be followed because they are not reliable, yet can be followed for ritual prayers.

Salah And Hadith Rejecters

But we don't need a favor for hadith about salah (coming from the same books and the same narrators who are declared as unreliable). We need an answer to this question: If the Qur'an is the only authentic source of Guidance, why did it never explain how to offer salah, although it repeatedly talks about its importance, associating it with eternal success and failure? What would we think of a communication that repeatedly emphasizes a certain act but never explains how to perform it? There are only two possibilities. Either it is a terrible omission (and in that case it cannot be from God) or another source for the how-to information is provided and it is a terrible mistake for any recipient to ignore that.

(Recently some hadith rejecters have realized the difficulty of their position on salah. But they have made a claim that is even more ludicrous, namely that the Qur'an gives details on how to offer salah. "A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid-el Haraam [the continuous practice at Mecca since the time of Abraham]," says one proponent, "specifically the 'place of Abraham (moqaam e Ibraheem).'" Let us leave aside all the practical questions about such a fluid answer. Whose Salah? When? Are we to follow anyone and everyone we find praying at Muqame Ibrahim? How are those offering salah there are to determine proper way of offering Salah? How do you resolve their differences? In his enthusiasm in proposing this innovative solution, this proponent even forgot that the Qur'an says the following about the salah of mushrikeen at the Masjid-el Haraam: "Their prayer at the House of Allah is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. (Its only answer can be), 'Taste the chastisement because you blasphemed.'" [Al-Anfal 8:35] )

The Reliability of Resources

To accept one and reject the other source on the basis of reliability (statement #2) also defies reason, unless we received the Qur'an directly from Allah. But we have received both Qur'an and Hadith through the same channels. Same people transmitted this as the Word of Allah, that as the word of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi was sallam. Even the verse claiming that Qur'an will be protected came to us through the same people. Through what logic can anyone declare that the channels are reliable for Qur'an and unreliable for Hadith? On the contrary the Quranic promise of protection must apply to Hadith as well for there is no point in protecting the words but not the meanings of the Qur'an.

Protection of Qur'an

To say that Allah promised to protect only Qur'an but not Islam (#6) is being as ridiculous as one can get. Let's ignore the obvious question regarding the point of this Heavenly act. The question is if Islam has been corrupted and its true teachings have been lost, how can anyone claim to be its follower? Moreover, Qur'an says "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" [A'al-e-Imran, 3:85]. How are we to follow the religion acceptable to Allah if it was not to be protected?

Were Ahadith Written Down for the First Time in the Third Century of Hijra?

The above proves that ahadith must have been protected. Were they? The very existence of a huge library of hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (#1A, #2) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth." He produced Sahifa Sadiqa, which contained more than six thousand ahadith. Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."

Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.

Saheeh and the Gospels

Regarding comparison of Saheeh with Gospels (#2), let's listen to Dr. Hamidullah. "The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith... We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?"

Back to Top

The Comments of Dr. Maurice Bucaille

Dr. Maurice Bucaille earned the admiration of many Muslims because of his study of some scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur'an and his testimony based on that study that Qur'an must be the Book of Allah. However he is not a hadith scholar and it is unfair to drag him into this discussion. His account of history of hadith compilation contains many errors, for example the claim that the first gathering of hadith was performed roughly forty years after Hijra or that no instructions were given regarding hadith collection. He questions about a dozen or so entries in Bukhari that he thinks deal with scientific matters. Even if all that criticism were valid, would it be sufficient ground to throw away the 9082 total entries (2602 unique ahadith) in Bukhari? He himself does not think so, for he writes: "The truth of hadith, from a religious point of view, is beyond question."

The Hadith Regarding the Sun

But even his criticism is of questionable value. Consider the hadith about the sun: "At sunset the sun prostrates itself underneath the Throne and takes permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then a time will come when it will be about to prostrate itself... it will seek permission to go on its course... it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the West." His criticism: "This implies the notion of a course the sun runs in relation to the Earth." Bucaille fails to understand the real message of this hadith. It was not meant to teach astronomy. Its clear message is that sun is a slave of Allah, moving always through His Will. The hadith brings out that message very powerfully so that even the most illiterate bedouin would understand it fully. Moreover Bucaille should know better than to criticize the implied notion of sun's rotation around earth. Even today the astronomers, when calculating the time of sunrise and sunset, use a mathematical model in which the sun revolves around the earth. If that is acceptable for scientific work as it makes calculations easier, why is it questionable, when it makes communication easier?

Also there are other ahadith which clearly demonstrate a scientific fact beyond the knowledge of the times but Bucaille has failed to take notice. For example the hadith about solar eclipse: "The sun and moon are two signs of Allah. They are not eclipsed on account of anyone's death or on account of anyone's birth." (Muslim, hadith #1966]. The eclipse had coincided with the death of Prophet's son. A false prophet would have tried to exploit the occasion. A fabricated hadith would require scientific knowledge that did not exist then.

The munkareen-e-hadith think that their beliefs are built on solid rock. Well, it is as solid as wax: The religion based on this idea can be fitted into any mold. For some hadith rejecters that was the motivation. For everyone, that is the inevitable result. But the good news is that their arguments are the same way. On the surface they appear to be solid. But faced with the light of truth, they melt away like wax.

It was not that some genius had found flaws in the hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries.

This is excactly what happened. And it doesnt even take geious, all it takes is motoringup your brain and start reading hadith.

A good example is the use of the word Ameen. Ameen does not come from Quran, and sure as hell not from the messenger(pbuh). Ameen stems form amon, amun rhrh, amon ra. Even the catholic  encyclopidia  will openly admit this fact. yet both christians and muslims alike end our prayers saying. I submnit to the Lord of the worlds...AMON! I find that to be a real problem, and it doesnt take a genious to figure out why.

It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand.

we dont understand it, so it must be from the west. its the west fault, no doubt.

Another factor helped them. Today most Muslims, including the vast majority of the western-educated Muslims, have meager knowledge of hadith, having spent no time in studying even the fundamentals of this vast subject. How many know the difference between Sahih and Hasan, or between Maudau and Dhaif?

Could anyone please show me where GOD talks about all these concepts and ideas in his books? sahih, hasan etc..
The pope have spend most of his life studying the Bible and saintly sayings. Does this mean that he is right. Or is it true that if you spend you whole life reading the wroing information, it will still make you wrong nomatter how much of it you have read?

The certification process used in hadith transmission? Names of any hadith book produced in the first century of Hijrah, or the number of such books? A majority probably would not be able to name even the six principal hadith books (Sihah Sitta) or know anything about the history of their compilation. Obviously such atmosphere provides a fertile ground for sowing suspicions and doubts.

Oh no, not at all. the books are perfectly capable themself as standing out as innovation. Bukhari alone collected more than half a MILLION hadiths. and thats just bokhari. Less than 10% of those made it to his BOOKS.

"What is wrong with your judgement? do you have another book that you read? do you find in it everything that you want?"

They call themselves as ahle-Qur'an or Quranists. This is misleading. For their distinction is not in affirming the Qur'an, but in rejecting the Hadith

no its both.

The ideas of munkareen-e-hadith evolve into three mutually contradictory strains. The first holds that the job of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was only to deliver the Qur'an. We are to follow only the Qur'an and nothing else, as were the Companions.

This is true.

And obey Allah and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our messenger <wa ma_ alar rasu_li il lal balaghul mubin (5:92)

And Allah has made for you of what He has created shelters, and He has given you in the mountains places of retreat, and He has given you garments to preserve you from the heat and coats of mail to preserve you in your fighting; even thus does He complete His favor upon you, that haply you may submit. But if they turn back, then on you devolves only the clear deliverance (of the message) <wa ma_ alar rasu_li il lal balaghul mubin. (16:81-82)

And if you (o people) reject (the truth), nations before you did indeed reject (the truth); and nothing is incumbent on the messenger but a plain delivering (of the message) <wa ma_ alar rasu_li il lal balaghul mubin.(29:18)

And obey Allah and obey the messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our messenger devolves only the clear delivery (of the message) <wa ma_ alar rasu_li il lal balaghul mubin.(64:12)

Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger; but if you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that which is imposed on you; and if you obey him, you are on the right way; and nothing rests on the messenger but clear delivering (of the message) <wa ma_ alar rasu_li il lal bala_ghul mubin. (24:54)

to take a few very obvious ones

Further, hadith is not needed to understand the Qur'an, which is sufficient for providing guidance. The second group holds that the Companions were required to follow the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, but we are not. The third holds that, in theory, we also have to follow the hadith but we did not receive ahadith through authentic sources and therefore we have to reject all ahadith collections!

i havent met a single God alone/Quran alone monotheist who had the above ideas.

Internal contradictions are a hallmark of false ideologies.

Indeed. where on the Quran can i find stoning for adultry, you cant, but you can find it in the Bible. Why does hadith parrot the story of adam and even from the bible, did the prohet stand up and urinte always or didnt he? why do i need to know?  etc..

"And We have sent down unto You the Message so that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them." [An-Nahal, 16:44]

Its a piss poor translation.

With the evidences and The Books, and We descended to you the reminder/remembrance to clarify/show/explain to the people what was descended to them, and maybe/perhaps they think.

How can this become other sources than the Quran itself? The books are taurat, injeel (not existing anymore), and Quran, and all books before them. Not hadith.

Allah did confer a great favor on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs (Verses) of Allah, purifying them, instructing them in Scripture, and teaching them Wisdom. While before that they were in manifest error." [A'ale Imran 3:164].

Aboslutely, i wholeheartedly agree with our brothers rasoning using this verse. especially seen in the light of this one

Shall I seek a Law-giver other than Allah When He it is Who has revealed to you the Book distinctly elucidated. (6:114)

How can anyone hold the second position (limiting the Prophethood to 23 years) yet profess belief in Qur'an, while it says: "We did not send you except as Mercy for all creatures." [Al-Anbia, 21:107] And, "We have not sent you except as a Messenger to all mankind, giving them glad tidings and warning them against sin." [Saba, 34:28] The third position seems to have avoided these obvious pitfalls, yet in reality it is no different. Consider statements 1, 4, and 7 in the summary of hadith rejecters' claims. So hadith undermines Qur'an's exclusivity, yet would have been followed blindly at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Ahadith cannot be followed because they are not reliable, yet can be followed for ritual prayers.

I havent seen these positions before, so i cannot answer for what other people belive to be true

But we don't need a favor for hadith about salah (coming from the same books and the same narrators who are declared as unreliable). We need an answer to this question: If the Qur'an is the only authentic source of Guidance, why did it never explain how to offer salah, although it repeatedly talks about its importance, associating it with eternal success and failure?

It does, but you have to actually read it, not use it as a sing song book. The only problem here is that the author is looking for his traditional salat as taught to him by hs fathers and their fathers. And im sorry but taht prayer is not in the Quran. The amount of raka's etc.

Observing Salaat prayer is frequently mentioned together with giving charity and thus emphasizing the social consciousness and communal responsibility of those who observe the prayer (2:43,83,110; 4:77; 22:78; 107:1-7). 

The Salaat prayer is observed to commemorate and remember God alone (6:162; 20:14). This remembrance protects Submitters from sins and harming others (29:45).  Salaat prayer should be observed continuously until death (19:31; 70:23,34).

Ablution

To observe prayer one must make ablution (4:43; 5:6). Ablution is nullified only by sexual intercourse or passing urine or defecation. Ablution remains valid even if one has passed gas, shaking hands with the opposite sex, or a woman is menstruating. A menstruating woman may observe contact prayers, contrary to superstitious cultural beliefs (5:6; 2:222; 6:114-115).

Dress Code

There is not a particular dress code for prayer, in fact, if you wish you can pray nude in your privacy. Covering our bodies is a social and cultural necessity aimed to protect ourselves from harassment, misunderstanding and undesired consequences (7:26; 24:31; 33:59).

Times For Prayer

Quran mentions three periods of time in conjunction with Salaat prayer. In other words, the Quran qualifies the word "Salaat" by three different temporal words: (1) Salaat-al Fajr (Morning Prayer), (2) Salaat-al Esha (Evening Prayer), (3) Salaat-al Wusta (Middle/Noon Prayer). The Morning Prayer (24:58) and Evening Prayer (24:58) should be observed at both ends of the day, that is, early part of the night (11:114) and the Middle Prayer (2:238). (We will discuss the times of Salaat prayers later in detail at the end of this article).

Direction For Prayer

For the prayer one must face the Sacred Masjid built by Abraham, the Ka'ba (2:125, 143-150; 22:26). To find the correct qibla a person should keep in mind that the world is a globe, far different from Mercator's flat map. Since the prayer during emergency and fear is reduced to one unit, in normal conditions the prayer should be at least two units and during the prayer one must dramatically reduce his/her contact with the external world (4:101-103). Prayers, unlike fasting, cannot be performed later after they are missed; they must be observed on time (4:103).

Congregational Prayer

Believers, men and women, once a week are invited to a particular location to pray together every Juma (Congregational) Day. They go back to their work and normal daily schedule after the Congregational Prayer which could be led by either  man or a woman (62:9-11). The mosques or masjids should be dedicated to God alone, thus, the invitation should be restricted to worship God alone, and no other name should be inscribed on the walls of masjids and none other than God should be commemorated (72:18-20). Those who go to masjids should dress nicely since masjids are for public worship and meetings (7:31).

Position For Prayer

One should start the Salaat prayer in standing position (2:238; 3:39; 4:102) and should not change his/her place except during unusual circumstances, such as while riding or driving (2:239). Submission to God should be declared physically and symbolically by first bowing down and prostrating (4:102; 22:26; 38:24; 48:29). This physical ritual is not required at the times of emergencies, fear, and unusual circumstances (2:239).

Comprehension And Purpose Of Prayer

We must comprehend the meaning of our prayers, as these are the moments in which we communicate directly with God (4:43). We must be reverent during our contact prayers (23:2). Along with understanding what we say, we can recall one of God's attributes, depending on our need and condition during the time of our prayer (17:111). Prayer is to commemorate God, and God Alone (6:162; 20:14; 29:45). Prayer is to praise, exalt and remember His greatness, His Mercy and ultimately our dependence on each of these attributes (1:1-7; 20:14; 17:111; 2:45). So that even mentioning other names besides God's contradicts our love and dependence on Him (72:18; 29:45).

Recitation During the Salaat Prayer

Prefering the Quran for recitation has practical benefits since believers from all around the world can pray together without arguing on which language to chose or which translation to use. The chapter al-Fatiha (The Opening) is the only chapter which addresses God in its entirety and is an appropriate prayer for Salaat. For non-Arabs it should not be too difficult to learn the meaning of words in al-Fatiha, since it consists of seven short verses. Those who are unable to learn the meaning of al-Fatiha should pray in the language that he or she understands. I see no practical reason for reciting in Arabic during individually observed prayers.

We should recite Salaat prayers in moderate tone, and we should neither try to hide our prayers nor try to pray it in public for political or religious demonstration (17:111). If it is observed with congregation, we should listen to the recitation of the men or women who leads the prayer (7:204; 17:111). After completing the Salaat prayer, we should continue remembering God (4:103).

Units of Prayer

The Quran does not specicify any number of units for prayers. It leaves it to our discretion. The units of the Congragational Prayer being 2 is revealing, since it is more likely to be accurately preserved.

Come again brother beard.

What would we think of a communication that repeatedly emphasizes a certain act but never explains how to perform it? There are only two possibilities. Either it is a terrible omission (and in that case it cannot be from God) or another source for the how-to information is provided and it is a terrible mistake for any recipient to ignore that.

Or it actually IS in there although not in the shape the authors ego wants it to be. and thus the Quran is the truth, and the true error would be to follow anything but what God and his last prophet (pbuh) has revealed.

(Recently some hadith rejecters have realized the difficulty of their position on salah. But they have made a claim that is even more ludicrous, namely that the Qur'an gives details on how to offer salah. "A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid-el Haraam [the continuous practice at Mecca since the time of Abraham]," says one proponent, "specifically the 'place of Abraham (moqaam e Ibraheem).'" Let us leave aside all the practical questions about such a fluid answer. Whose Salah? When? Are we to follow anyone and everyone we find praying at Muqame Ibrahim? How are those offering salah there are to determine proper way of offering Salah? How do you resolve their differences? In his enthusiasm in proposing this innovative solution, this proponent even forgot that the Qur'an says the following about the salah of mushrikeen at the Masjid-el Haraam: "Their prayer at the House of Allah is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. (Its only answer can be), 'Taste the chastisement because you blasphemed.'" [Al-Anfal 8:35] )

ehhhh??? whatever brother.

To accept one and reject the other source on the basis of reliability (statement #2) also defies reason, unless we received the Qur'an directly from Allah. But we have received both Qur'an and Hadith through the same channels. Same people transmitted this as the Word of Allah, that as the word of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi was sallam. Even the verse claiming that Qur'an will be protected came to us through the same people. Through what logic can anyone declare that the channels are reliable for Qur'an and unreliable for Hadith? On the contrary the Quranic promise of protection must apply to Hadith as well for there is no point in protecting the words but not the meanings of the Qur'an.

I read the Quran and know i my hearts its the truth. If you need humans to validate a claim made by God. thats your problem not mine, but dont point fingers, because you will have 3 pointing right back at you.

To say that Allah promised to protect only Qur'an but not Islam (#6) is being as ridiculous as one can get. Let's ignore the obvious question regarding the point of this Heavenly act. The question is if Islam has been corrupted and its true teachings have been lost, how can anyone claim to be its follower? Moreover, Qur'an says "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" [A'al-e-Imran, 3:85]. How are we to follow the religion acceptable to Allah if it was not to be protected?

Oh i see how well the muslim world is doing, cutting eachother to bits, floggin eachother for consuming alcohol and all other kinds of babarian behaviour. None of it however found in the Quran. Does it ever occour to you that regardless of all our prayers, God is not helping us because WE need to sort something out? Islam was preserved as promised, in THE QURAN, and all we have to do, is follow it to point.

The above proves that ahadith must have been protected. Were they? The very existence of a huge library of hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (#1A, #2) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth

Oh so now we are using hadith to verify hadith. thats not right. Nonmatter how you look at it, Godi s above all including the messenger. And howabout the hadiths that says "Do not write anyting down after me except this Quran" . But perhaps they are not sahih because they pose and embarrasing threat to the whole concept of hadith. So naturally that one is not sahih, thats obvious
.

Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."

are we still using hadith to verify hadith with?

Of course most of these books do not exist today.

ofcourse they dont. go figure.

Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two.

same with genesis and the sumerian cuneiform tablets found. It does hoewever not validate any of them as relgious guidence.

Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.

I am a believer, although i manifest my belief in a different way than you. Only sunnis and shias are arrogant enough to call on others faith based on story s they themself cannot agree on. or with anyone else for that matter. All sects have patented the truth *check* gotcha

Regarding comparison of Saheeh with Gospels (#2), let's listen to Dr. Hamidullah. "The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith... We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?"

No no,,this is but the tip of the iceberg. We are more concerned with the obvious plagiation from the Bible, and insertion of ideas from the Bible in direct contradiction of Quran.

the story of adam and eve, killing apostates, stoning for adultry, having to shave your nuts by law (jewsih tradition, they used to kill eachother over it), scarf, and the list just goes on, and on, and on.

The munkareen-e-hadith think that their beliefs are built on solid rock. Well, it is as solid as wax: The religion based on this idea can be fitted into any mold. For some hadith rejecters that was the motivation. For everyone, that is the inevitable result. But the good news is that their arguments are the same way. On the surface they appear to be solid. But faced with the light of truth, they melt away like wax.

Well im still waiting.

And now that we are out in a copy paste game, i will do the same for the next post.

Peace
Noah








��The messenger said, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran." (Quran 25:30)

Others see things at a still more fundamental level - his task was to introduce a completely new attitude and consciousness, from a subjective to an objective way of living, a revolution that is not yet complete. From an Islamic point of view the prophet (saw) was no ordinary man. This is shown by the existence of the Quran, which is in itself a masterpiece of literature, contains a sophisticated teaching, new heights, widths and depths of which come to light from time to time. It is also shown by the great successes against great odds that the Prophet achieved. This being the case it is unjustifiable presumption to judge the Prophet by the ordinary standards that apply to ordinary mortals. Therefore, all judgments, particularly when they go against the moral code contained in the Quran, are rejected. He was himself an exemplar of the Quran. Indeed, the Quran itself indicates in 18:61-83 how a person led by Allah differs from others. There is sufficient evidence in the Hadith to show that because his task was to raise the level of morality of a relatively primitive and barbaric people his actions and the actions he allowed were often not to his own high standards but he often had to compromise in order to accommodate the level of understanding of his followers. The materials one works with limit what can be done. Had he insisted on the standards his followers could not reach or maintain, he would not have had any followers, and no transformation would then have been possible.

The author writes: 'his actions and the actions he allowed were often not to his own high standards but he often had to compromise in order to accommodate the level of understanding of his followers'.

I am amazed that such a claim can be made against the prophet which contradicts what GOD has told us:

"If it were not that we strengthened you, you almost leaned towards them just a little bit. Had you done that, we would have doubled the retribution for you in this life, and after death, and you would have found no one to help you against us." (17:74-75)

The promise was to preserve the Quran not the Hadith (17:46). The Quran was to be regarded as the Prophet's only miracle, though he is reported to have performed several. Miracles are no proof of the truth of the teaching and give no understanding. Both the Quran and the Hadith insist that Muhammad (saw) was a human being who was fallible. Therefore, the Sunna cannot be infallible. On the other hand, Muhammad (saw) was known to be truthful and trustworthy even before his mission began, and he was guided and corrected by Allah after his mission began. Allah speaks to mankind only through prophets (2:213, 12:109, 6:125, 16:2) and we are to make no distinction between Allah and the Prophets (4:150-151). The Prophet was in complete Surrender to Allah (6:163-164). Therefore, he did not follow his own subjective opinions. He is said to have been "The Quran in Action." His life is an interpretation and application of the Quran. The Quran itself uses the word "sunna" several times for itself ( e.g. 12:111). The Quran is the best Hadith (39:23). When, therefore, we speak about the Sunna of Muhammad, this may be regarded as referring to "Quran in action" to differentiate it from the Quran as a Book or Recitation or as a theory, thought or teaching. Thus, though all genuine religion is Islam, the Sunna of Muhammad differs from that of Jesus or Moses.

Linking Mohammed to being 'truthful & honest' is meant to imply that the Sunna cannot be otherwise. Yet the author already made clear that 'much' of the Hadith was dubious or fabricated, as well as the people reporting them may have not fully understood what was really being said.

Some people point to the following verse as implying that Islam should be based only on the Quran:-

"And when you recite the Quran We place between you and those who believe not in the Hereafter a hidden barrier. And we place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness, and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Quran, they turn their backs in aversion." 17:45-46

But this refers to Allah not the Quran. Allah also sent the Torah and Injil.

Mentioned 'GOD Alone' has been clearly set as a 'criteria' for distinguishing people who believe in Him from those who associate other with Him:

When GOD ALONE is advocated, the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter shrink with aversion. But when others are mentioned besides Him, they rejoice (39:45).

The Quran, moreover, points to nature and the Universe, to human history and to human faculties and expects us to use these. Obviously we are to learn from these. It tells us to seek knowledge and follow only that of which we have knowledge, not speculation and conjecture (17:36, 10:37). The Quran does not, in fact, contain a complete Legal system, nor an Economic, Political or Cultural system, nor a Cosmology or other sciences and crafts. It contains a developmental system and requires human beings to act as vicegerents in the service of Allah using the faculties given by Him.

The first part of this paragraph contradicts the opening statements where the author told us that GOD only manifests Himself to us through the messengers (now we are told that nature and the universe are also to be looked at!).

However, in the second part the author makes some wild statements with no support (that the book does not contain a legal system or an economic system, or political system). This is clearly being done to 'undermine' the Book and give necessity to the Hadith & Sunna which will save the day. The Book of GOD has been identified as the 'ultimate judge' (6:114) in all matters. Therefore to claim it does not contain legal or economic or political guidelines is not to have read the book at all. 

There is a difference between the Quran itself and the interpretation and application of it. We do not only need the Quran but also someone who interprets and applies it. Few people can learn only from books - they usually require a teacher also. Otherwise they may interpret the Quran according to their fantasies and prejudices and select only that which they like. Because all this is well known in all fields, we have educational systems with teachers in all countries.

Again, the author compares the Book of GOD with a 'human' book which it is not...

The principles within the Book of GOD 'justice, fairplay, mercy, righteousness, etc..' are not interpreted according to 'fantasies', but are a part of the clear ethical laws which any layman willing to read the words will clearly understand...It is this which makes the 'foundation' of the message and the main point of communication that GOD continued to send through His messengers.

The Quran tells us :-

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you are in truth believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end." 4:59

Notice that if there is a dispute it should be taken to Allah and the Messenger, but not to the third kind of authority. We can take it to Allah by studying the Quran and through meditation and prayer. How do we take it to the Messenger? Obviously by studying what he had to say on the subject or how he dealt with it. In both cases we also consult those whom we consider authorities e.g. teachers, scholars or leaders of religion, Imams, Sheikhs etc.

Obeying the messenger has been subtly made into obeying the 10% of Hadith that the author has stated were collected after sifting through 700,000 narrations which had dubious origins. Where did the author get this authority to link between 'obey the messenger' and to obey the Hadith & Sunna collections?. Also, the author said that the 10% of Hadith was not all taken by the compilers (some thought this person was worthy, others did not)...So, which book of hadith does 'obey the messenger' tell us is the real one (Bukhari collection, Muslims, Tirmidhi) or ALL of them?. This interpretation obviously opens a Pandora's Box with every people making it to mean what they would like it to mean.

If the messenger has already been established to judge by the book and nothing else (6:19, 16:89, 5:48-50), then how does the author justify this leap of faith that creates a clear contradiction?.

To obey the messenger is to obey the message...To do this, leads to obeying GOD (since the messenger was the one to deliver the word of GOD).

The people who consider themselves "Quran only" are in fact following people like Dr. Khalifa who are a third authority. They form another sect. But the above verse does not consider this third authority to be qualified to settle disputes.

We are back to the use of this 'Quran Only ' phrase with a new addition 'Dr. Khalifa'...Dr. Khalifa to our research appeared with a renowned call to the Quran in the mid-70's early 80's. How he is suddenly linked to 'GOD Alone' is beyond undertsanding since this call has been at the core of GOD's message to humanity since Noah.  

It is necessary to point out that the "Quran only" people are quite right about following only the Quran. But they are wrong in supposing that if one follows Muhammad (saw) then this is not following the Quran. To obey the Prophet is to obey Allah. One could go one step further and say "We surrender only to Allah. Therefore, we will not follow the Quran. We will only follow what Allah inspires in us." We will then be free to follow our own fantasies to our hearts content as certain sects do.

This is 'illogical' to say the least. The Book of GOD has been inspired through messengers...For a person to accept the Book, he MUST accept the messenger and vice versa. Therefore, to obey GOD, the messenger is automatically accepted and obeyed as the words he relates from GOD are that which give him authority to begin with!. The author tries to make the two things separate, which they cannot be by their nature of revelation.

Some people object even to the inclusion of the second part of the Shahadah, "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" in the first Pillar and in prayer, on the grounds that we should associate nothing with Allah, despite the fact that both are taught in the Quran. They want the exact words and they do exist in the Quran - the first part of the Shahadah is found in 47:19, and the second is found in 48:29

The problem with the Sunni Shahada is a clear issue of 'what not to say' according to (63:1-2). Why would any person say the words that the 'hypocrites' are accused of using?. Is the love of Hadith so embedded that it overrides all else.

Those who do not believe that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah cannot possibly accept the Quran or vice versa - otherwise they are in self-contradiction. But if they believe it then they must bear witness to the fact. There cannot be an excuse for leaving out the second part of the Shahadah, unless they are Jews or Christians and follow Moses or Jesus. For Muslims: -

This is a clear 'leap-of-faith' once again by the author. He is linking people who follow the Book not reciting the Shahada of the hypocrites (63:1-2) with the statement 'those who do not believe Mohammed is the messenger'!. As we mentioned above, one cannot accept the Book without accepting the messenger as well (this is basic logic). People who follow 'GOD Alone' know that Mohammed is the messenger of GOD and accept him as such.

"The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves.." 33:6

Leaving out the second part of the Shahadah in prayer is usually justified on the grounds that "bearing witness" requires that you must have seen something externally through your eyes. But it can mean affirming one's faith - one bears witness to something one has seen internally by insight. It also means that we live by the instructions, thereby making our life into a witness. If it means having seen something with the eyes, then we must also admit that we cannot bear witness that "there is no god but Allah".

This argument and making a case by the author would not have been necessary if he simply did not follow the teachings of Hadith to start with (that is where the origins of the Sunni Shahada take place). People who follow the book do not bear witness because GOD has said that He 'suffices' as a witness:

"We have sent you as a Messenger and GOD SUFFICES AS A WITNESS..." Sura 4:79

 Another objection sometimes raised is that we ought not to associate anything in our prayers with Allah. Therefore, all mention of Muhammad (saw) in prayer ought to be removed. But an examination of the wording in Islamic prayer shows that it is not a prayer TO Muhammad but FOR Muhammad and his people. If this were not allowed then certainly, one could not pray for oneself or others either. Another objection arises because of some Christian arguments:- You need to pray for Muhammad only because he is a sinner and if he is a sinner you cannot follow him. But the answer to this is that prayer to a large extent is done for own good. We do not praise God because He needs it. We praise Him because it produces our own gratitude and joy and reinforces the values that we wish to cultivate. By praying for Muhammad the Muslim aligns himself with Muhammad and his followers. He follows Muhammad who was a man with human limitations. A god cannot be followed and that tops efforts.

GOD tells us not to make a 'distinction' amongst His messengers (4:150), yet the author sees no problem if he mentioned Mohammed or Abraham in the prayers to the exclusion of all others. Our prayers are for GOD and we reverence Him in our thoughts and actions.

Consider the following verses:-

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): If you love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is forgiving, Merciful." 3:31

How else can one follow the messenger, but by accepting and following that which he delivered (note: all the commands in the Quran have been given to follow the 'messenger' and NEVER to follow 'the prophet or Mohammed').

"Verily in the messenger of Allah you have a good example for him who looks unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much." 33:21

The example of the messenger is well recorded in the Book as is the example of Abraham.

"Whoso obeys the Messenger obeys Allah, and whoso turns away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them." 4:80

"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and render not your actions vain." 47:33

"And they say: We believe in Allah and the messenger and we obey; then after that a fraction of them turn away. Such are not believers. And when they appeal unto Allah and His messenger to judge between them. lo! a faction of them are averse. But if right had been with them they would have come unto him willingly. Is there in their hearts a disease, or have they doubts, or fear they lest Allah and His messenger should wrong them in judgment? Nay, but such are evil doers. The saying of true believers when they appeal unto Allah and his messenger to judge between them is only that they say: We hear and we obey. And such are the successful. He who obeys Allah and His messenger, and fears Allah, and keeps duty unto Him, such indeed are the victorious. They swear by Allah solemnly that, if thou order them, they will go forth. Say: swear not; known obedience is better. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do. Say : Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if ye turn away, then it is for him to do only that wherewith he has been charged, and for you to do only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go right. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey the message plainly." 24:47-54

Again, all the commands are to 'obey the messenger' which MUST be done before one is able to obey GOD.

Thus the Messenger has no powers of compulsion, but only to convey the message of God. He is Allah's agent, and is obeyed as such. If he was not a representative of Allah then we would have to reject his entire history. We would have to suppose that the battles he was engaged in, and all the other political and diplomatic activities he conducted by which Islam was established had nothing to do with Allah but proceeded from his own whims.

The author tries to tie battles and political deals with the issue of salvation in this life and knowing the path we must walk to reach GOD. If the battle the messenger was engaged in was called battle 'x or y' and if the number of soldiers killed were '10,000 or 50,000' will this information make one iota of difference to those seeking guidance from the message and a way to find GOD?. We must be clear that 'history' is an excellent way of looking at the past and understanding the circumstances people were in, but we must NEVER confuse 'history' with 'law' and make the two interchangeable as we see fit.

"By the star when it sets, your comrade (Muhammad) errs not, nor is deceived, nor does he speak of his own desire. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired which One of mighty power has taught him." 53:1-4

Previously, the author told us how Mohamed was just a man and was 'fallible' and that not all he spoke was 'law'. Now we are given a verse to prove entirely the opposite (which is it?). The speech mentioned in 53:1-4 above is the revelation or 'inspiration' which is clearly being given to him to convey.

"Establish worship and pay the poor due and obey the Messenger, that haply you may find mercy." 24:56

"Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loves not the disbelievers (in His guidance)." 3:32

"And obey Allah and the Messenger, that you might find mercy." 3:132

"Whoso obeys Allah and His Messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where such will dwell for ever. That will be the great success. And whoso disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where such will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom." 4:13-14

"Whoso obeys Allah and His Messenger, they are with those unto whom Allah has shown favour, of the Prophets, and the saints and the martyrs and the righteous. The best of company are they." 4:69

How could a reader of the Quran have missed the above verses that link Allah with His messenger.

Perhaps because that reader understood that the 'messenger' is related to the 'message'. Also, it may be because the reader came across all the verses which linked Mohammed with ruling and judging people by the Book and nothing but the book?.

"When our verses are recited for them, those who do not expect to meet us would say, 'Bring a Quran other than this, or change it.' Say (O Muhammad), 'I cannot change it on my own initiative. I simply follow what is revealed to me. I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the retribution of a terrible day.' ...Who is more wicked than one who invents lies about God, or rejects His revelations? The guilty never succeed. Yet, they idolize beside God those who possess no power to harm them or benefit them, and say, 'These are our intercessors with God.' ...such is idol-worship." (10:15-18)

See also the following :- 5:92, 8:1,20,24,46, 9:71, 24:52,54, 33:33,66,71, 47:33, 48:17, 49:19, 58:13, 64:12, 69:10, 71:3, 72:23

It is also necessary to note that the Quran makes a distinction between the Scripture and Wisdom (2:151,231,269, 3:48,79,164, 4:54,113, 5:110 etc.). Having a Scripture is not sufficient. The ability to understand and apply it is also essential.

More murky waters are being treaded...It seems at this stage the author has reverted back to the need for the Hadith & Sunnah and is even implying that this 'extra' revelation is actually justified when looking at GOD's book (this is the same author who first had to use a Hadith to justify the existence of Hadith as a source of law).

The 'wisdom' is merely an 'attribute' of the Book :

�These are of the Wisdom <al-Hikmati>, which your Lord has revealed to you. Take not, with Allah, another object of Worship, lest you should be thrown into hell, blameworthy and rejected� (17:39).

�We have made it a Qur�an in Arabic, so that you may use your senses. And verily it is in the Mother of The Book, in Our Presence, High, Full of Wisdom� (43:3-4)

However, it is true that the Prophet was fallible and made mistakes as the Quran itself records in 80:1-4. But Allah Himself corrected him. The Quran insists that Muhammad was a man and so were all other Prophets. The Prophet made a clear distinction between that which came to him by revelation and that which did not. His followers knew this, because he often took their advice instead of insisting on his own ideas when they were not revelations. He was instructed by Allah to consult others:-

Remember, a few paragraphs ago we were being led to believe that the prophet spoke nothing but 'inspiration' and that he did not err...This position seems to have changed once again.

"It was by the mercy of Allah that you did deal gently with them (O Muhammad), for had you been rough and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from around you. But pardon them, and ask forgiveness for them, and consult with them on the conduct of affair. As when you have resolved a matter, then put your trust in Allah; verily, Allah loves those who trust (Him)." 3:159

There is, therefore, a distinction between the Word of God (the Quran) and the words of the Prophet. This distinction makes Islam unique among religions. It is, probably, the confusion between these two aspects that led Christians theologians to think of Jesus (as) as both human and divine. Only the Quran is to be taken as infallible. Though they are required to accept the guidance of God, human beings must and are required to live by their own lights also. We also use the opinions of other men, experts in various fields, as guides even though they are fallible, because they are more likely to be true than those of people who have no such expertise. The educational system and the progress of humanity depends on this. The fact that the Quran is infallible does not mean that its interpretation is infallible since this is certainly done by man. The interpretation of the Prophet is likely to be more accurate than that of others. It is for these reasons that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is regarded as a better example to humanity than someone who is thought of as a god and was not involved in human affairs - someone who was not married and did not concern himself with the economic, political and cultural affairs of the community.

Firstly, the beliefs of Sunnis is not 'unique' amongst other religions as the Jews have also adapted the 'Talmud' to relate the sayings and doings of their holy prophet and respected scholars. The Talmud is used to view the 'Torah' which is regarded as not being able to stand on its own without this 'wisdom'. It should also be mentioned that the Jews are not mentioned favorable in the Book of GOD for their continuos disobedience and twisting of words out of context or hiding verses or not upholding the Torah...Thus the Sunnis should reflect to see if such warnings are not also applicable in their situation.

Secondly, the Quran as the word of GOD is not to be compared to any human text or books where the need for 'teachers' is used to understand information (The Most Merciful in the teacher of the Quran).

Muslims take the Quran as the infallible word of Allah, and accept Muhammad (saw) as a Messenger of Allah. The reason for this acceptance (if it is not merely an un-examined assumption) is that a study of the Quran and the life of Muhammad find some kind of harmony or compatibility with human experiences and inherent human nature. This must certainly have been the case with the early converts who cannot be accused of having been mentally conditioned by their traditions. They, therefore, accept the word of Muhammad (saw) that the Quran is a revelation from Allah, and the word of the Quran that Muhammad is the best example. They also take the word of the Quran and Muhammad that he was a human being who made mistakes, but being a Prophet, was corrected by Allah and forgiven. They accept the word of the Quran that the Quran (its teachings as originally delivered - i.e. its meaning 56:77-80) will be preserved. This promise does not cover the Hadith. The Hadith, though they contain the sunna of the Prophet, are variable in quality, reliability and interpretation. One must be cautious about them but there is no need to reject them all. We know about the history of the Prophet and the revelation of the Quran from these and some also illuminate the meaning of the verses of the Quran.

If the author has been trying all along to link 'obey the messenger' with 'follow the hadith & sunnah', why is he now warning us to use 'caution' in their reliability and interpretation!. Surely an integral part of a religion would have far more validity and a more solid foundation that all people can refer to it without doubt saying: 'this is what GOD revealed"!.

There are many controversies about the meaning of some verses in the Quran that can only be settled by reference to Hadith. Take as an example the case of Quranic phrase "the Seal of the Prophets" (33:40). We have different interpretations of it. Some say "seal" means last Prophet and no more will come. Others say it refers to the fact that religion is complete in Islam, as when a letter is sealed. Others say it is a "seal of approval or authority." and seal refers to the ring used to make the seal. In this case it refers to the fact that Muhammad (saw) confirmed the past Prophets and the religion they taught. Notice that if we interpret the Quran by the Quran then two of the meanings above are confirmed but the third (the Last Prophet) is neither confirmed nor denied. So, in order to settle the dispute we do what the Quran recommends, namely, go to Allah (in prayer or study of the Quran) and the Prophet (since he is dead, nowadays we consult his sunna). When we do the latter we find that several Hadith indicate that the Prophet himself was convinced that he was the Last Prophet before the return of Jesus and that he had laid the last stone in the House of religion. He also indicated that Islam would have inspired reformers from time to time, rather than a series of prophets as the Jews had.

The Quran which the author at least now calls 'infallible' is totally confusing if taken by itself and requires the support of outside sources to understand it.  What happened to 16:89 where the Quran is said to make all things 'clear'?.

Also, in the example of 'seal of the prophets' the word 'Khatam' in Arabic is correctly meaning 'seal'. Then why does the author refuse to be satisfied with such a clear meaning verse, and insists to force the word 'final' by referring us to the Hadith?. Is this not an attempt to silence the Quran by forcing outside meanings on otherwise clear words?. 

Again, apart from the problem of the reliability of the Hadith, there is still some doubt as to what exactly was meant. Was he referring to Jesus as the word and spirit from Allah? What was meant by descent? He did seem to indicate that it would be a man who would reform religion which would have become corrupted, and so restore Islam. If this is so, how would muslims in so far as they are adherents of the corrupted religion, recognize Jesus and Islam? The new claimants to Prophethood say they are Jesus returned. This does not contradict the Hadith.

The issue of Jesus returning is just one of the many innovations that are being forced on Islam with total disregard to the contradictions they create. The Quran says Jesus is dead and that no man shall live beyond his normal age (verses?), yet with the Hadith we must override such clear words in the belief that a man 2,000 years dead will return to save humanity from itself!.

Some people object to the Hadith on the grounds that the Quran states that it is perfectly clear (26:2, 27:1, 28:2, 36:68, 43:2). Therefore, no other guidance is required. But this is a naive understanding. In fact, the Quran speaks at several levels and also in allegories. It is not clear to those who do not read it correctly, are self-opinionated, have prejudices and a negative attitude to it rather than a receptive one. (See 2:121, 2:146, 3:7, 17:82). We need only examine the questions, disputes and numerous, often hostile, opinions of people who have read the Quran on the Islamic Internet site to see that things are not as clear as the Quran only people suppose.

Again, the words 'Quran Only' are being used to denote something that is in-itself contradictory. Muslims take the law from GOD Alone through His words as delivered by the messenger. Other than the 'law' & 'wisdom' people are to live with their surroundings and not to be trapped in the context of a book.

"Now has come unto you light from Allah and a plain scripture whereby Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness into light by His decree, and guides them unto a straight path." 5:15-16 Also 3:103

"And We have revealed the Book to you which has the clear explanation of everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit." 16:89 and 6:115

Why would people still resist?.

It makes things plain only for those who believe and ponder, those whom Allah guides and those whose ears and eyes and hearts have not been dulled. Sometimes the following verses are quoted to show that the Quran contains everything: -

"And perfected are the words of your Sustainer with truth and justice; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (6:115)

".. nothing have we omitted from the Book." (6:38).

This refers to the Book in heaven.

Yes, it is agreed that 6:38 refers to a Book in heaven, but the author seems to have overlooked the following verses also:

"Shall I seek other than GOD as a judge, when He revealed THIS BOOK FULLY DETAILED? (6:114)

"And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea (to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words of Allah would not come to an end; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise." (31:27)

This refers to Allah's knowledge. If the Quran contained everything then the Prophet would also have had all knowledge. But this is denied in the Quran (6:50).

Perhaps the author is having a problem finding 'everything' when all he needs to be looking for is the 'law'?. 

"He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - the others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking to cause dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah and those who are of sound instruction. Say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed." 3:7

Does this sound as if everything in the Quran is clear to everyone?

It sounds to me as if the essence of the Book (the law) is as clear as day, while the similar verses (obey Allah & obey the messenger) are designed to cause confusion amongst those who did not truly believe.

"And when thou recitest the Quran We place between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter a hidden barrier, and We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it and in their ears a deafness, and when thou makest mention of thy lord alone in the Quran, they turn their backs in aversion. We are best aware of what they wish to hear when they give ear to thee and when they take secret counsel, when the evil doers say: Ye follow but a man bewitched. See what similitudes they coin for thee, and thus are all astray, and cannot find a road." 17:45-48

"And verily We have displayed for mankind in this Quran all kinds of similitudes, but most of mankind refuse aught save disbelief." 17:89

"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, WHO READ IT WITH A RIGHT READING, those believe in it." 2:121

"Will they then not meditate on the Quran, or are there locks on their hearts?" 47:24

"And when We read it, follow thou the reading; then lo! Upon us rests the explanation thereof." 75:18-19

It is ironic that we find 75:18-19 here in this paper (where GOD says He will explain the revelation) yet all the time we are being pushed into believing that the messenger has this exclusivity!.

There are many verses which tell us that Allah guides not miscreants e.g. 2:26,258, 5:51 etc.

"And We reveal in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy for believers though it increases evil doers in naught but ruin." 17:82

"But it (the Quran) is clear revelation in the hearts of those who have knowledge." 29:49

'Clear Revelation'...Remember above where the author could not find any verses to say the Book was clear?. Looks like he managed after all.

It is clear not to the ignorant but those who have knowledge and a receptive heart. This, of course, also applies to the understanding of the verses that mention the prophet (saw).

Some "Quran only" people tell us that because 4:150 tells us not to make a difference between the prophets, therefore, we must not give our allegiance only to Muhammad (saw). This would be Muhammad worship. The fact, however, is that there is a difference between Prophets. All prophets are not equal.

"Of these Messengers, We preferred some above others. Of them are some to whom Allah spake; and We have exalted some of them by degrees; " 2:253 Also 17:55

Prophets are only different as far as GOD is concerned...We are commanded not to make any distinction amongst them, which means we do not say one is better that the others, nor that one has been inspired more, or less, or granted more or less...We give allegiance to GOD (that is why we are here) and not to men or angels. 

Muslims were asked to swear allegiance to Muhammad - swearing allegiance to him is swearing allegiance to God and the Quran, and to the other Prophets sent by God. (48:10,18 and 3:81). Muhammad (pbuh) was a universal or world prophet (4:79, 7:158, 34:28).

The verses the author refers to speaks of 'treaties' being made with the messenger and the consequences of breaking such agreements...If people believe that the Messenger had 'absolute' authority as an individual (and not through following GOD's words), then perhaps the following verse will shed some light:

"O you prophet, when the believing women (who abandoned the disbelievers) to seek asylum with you pledge to you that they will not set up any idols beside GOD, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor fabricate any falsehood, nor disobey you in issues of righteousness, you shall accept their pledge, and pray to GOD to forgive them. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (60:12)

We are not only told that we should not make a difference between the Prophets (since all are sent by God) but also not between the Prophets and Allah (4:150-151). Obeying the Messenger is obeying God (4:80). Thus the argument that we must obey only the Quran and not the Prophet cannot be upheld. If you obey the Quran then you must obey the Prophet.

Bravo!. The concept of obeying the messenger means obeying GOD has been understood.

The only point of argument among Muslims is whether and which Hadith are genuine and what they mean and to whom they apply. Some Hadith appear to tell us that the Prophet objected to the writing down of his sayings and doings. He wished to differentiate between the inspired words (Quran) and his own opinions (hadith) or perhaps between what was universal and what was only specific to the situation he was in. We do not know exactly what he meant. It could have applied to a particular person or episode. It could have been an advice or order or exception. It is remarkable that the ban on writing should have been written down instead of all the other hadith being erased. Other Hadith imply that he had given additional instructions or explanations that were also to be obeyed and written down. Once the revelation of the Quran was over there was no danger of confusing the Hadith with the Quran. He also said :-

This 'argument' the author speaks of is only found with the Sunnis or Shia. Muslims submit to GOD Alone and therefore do not have these issues as their source is One GOD, One Word.

"Be on your guard about tradition from me except what you know; for he who lies about me deliberately will certainly come to his abode in hell."

"I have indeed brought the Quran and something like it along with it, yet the time is coming when a man replete on his couch will say: keep to this Quran; what you find in it to be permissible treat as permissible, and what you find in it to be prohibited treat as prohibited. But what God's messenger has prohibited is like what God has prohibited."

I find the above 'hadith' to be very appropriate in dealing with this issue: 'look, we found a hadith saying that a people will come who will argue with you like this, just ignore them because the hadith has told us so!'. It's a shame they did not believe the verses where the prophet say's he cannot know the future!.

There are also apparent contradictions between Hadith which forbid innovation in religion and those which approve of good ones. This is mentioned here because it is the Traditionalists who both base themselves on Hadith and reject all innovation, while Modernists wish to reject hadith and introduce innovations.

"To proceed: the best discourse is Allah's Book, the best guidance is that given by Muhammad, and worst things are those which are novelties. Every innovation is error."

"If anyone establishes a good sunna in Islam he will have a reward for it and the equivalent of the reward of those who act upon it after him without theirs diminishing in any respect. But he who establishes a bad sunna in Islam will bear the responsibility of it and the responsibility of those who act upon it after him without theirs being diminished in any respect."

Some people quote those Quranic verses which contain the word "hadith" e.g. 7:185, 31:6, 39:23, 45:6, 52:34, 68:44, 77:50 or "sunna" e.g. 8:38, 15:13, 17:77, 18:55, 33:38, 33:62, 35:43, 40:85, 48:23. These, some people suppose, confirm that only the Quran is the correct hadith and Sunna and that none other should be accepted. This cannot, however, refer to the Sunna of those who follow the Quran, like Muhammad (saw). The words "sunna" and "hadith" have a general meaning. And if they are used to refer to the Quran then it does not follow that they cannot be used to refer to some other thing. If we use the word "chair" to refer to one object, this does not exclude another. It is also necessary to reconcile the verses with the other verses in the Quran quoted above. It is an integral part of sectarianism, indeed, its foundation, to select some verses and ignore others or to distort the meaning of words in order to support their own doctrines. Each sect makes a different selection.

Agreed. The verses mentioned previously are enough to make a case against Sunna & Hadith.

In any case it is illogical to try to prove something from the Hadith if you reject them because you would have to say that at least that hadith was true and that others might be also. It is illogical also to deny the Prophet and yet believe in Allah and the Quran. "Quran only" is an assumption which some people make first, and then wish to prove by selecting verses and interpreting them in certain ways.

No such thing as 'Quran Only'. Also, the author again makes the mistake of separating belief in the messenger with belief in the Quran (that is a physical impossibility).

But note the following Hadith:-

"In the times in which you are living anyone who abandons a tenth of what he is commanded will perish; but a time is coming when anyone who does a tenth of what he is commanded will be safe."

Obviously, not too much deviation can be allowed in the beginning of a movement otherwise as time passes the divergence like the arms of an angle become too great. Also, hopefully once the educational foundations are established greater flexibility becomes possible. It seems that the change in times was foreseen.

We hope that our comments on this paper have helped you understand the battles going on for the purification of 'Islam' being back to GOD Alone. 

One final reminder as to what the messenger preached with :

 "Say (O Muhammad), 'Whose testimony is greater?' Say, 'God is the witness between me and you that THIS QURAN was given to me to preach it to you, and to whomever it reaches.' However, you certainly bear witness that you set up other gods beside. Say, 'I will never do what you are doing; I disown your idol-worship.'" (6:19)

Other articles as well as refutations may be found at http://www.Free-Minds.Org.

Now lets stop pointing fingers and agree that only God knows the truth, and that we all want the same thing, we just disagree on small issues. (we both pray, only a small difference in the ritual itself, we both give charity and do good deeds etc..)

Peace
Noah

Edited by rami