Khataiy wrote:Jolthig wrote:My point is lying is impermissible no matter what. Personally, I'm not really about which Hadith is authentic or not, but rather, whether or not it's in accordance with the Quran or not. It's just like the Hadith on stoning after the Revelation after the Revelation of Al Noor. It's classified as authentic by many Sunni scholars,but yet, the Quran refutes those Hadith by saying the punishment of a slave is half of that of a Freed woman.
As well as the Hadith about Umar (ra) supposedly
saying there is a missing verse in the Qu'ran about Rajm and he and many companions saw it. Yet, it doesn't add up to the Hadiths about Zaid bin Thaybit collecting the Quran into one written book for Abu Bakr (ra) at the urgence of Umar (ra) Strange isn't it? Zaid (ra) went to many companions who knew the Quran by heart, yet somehow he doesn't collect the verse about Rajm even though he most likely went to Umar (ra) to inquire about the Quran.
While what I said of Rajm is unrelated to our conversation, I use that same reasoning of rejecting Rajm to apply to lying in the three cases you've mentioned.
In my opinion, I don't think rejecting those Hadith is bad. It only shows that the Quran is above every scripture and narration. Is it not the absolute word of God?
As I've stated, I am not about which Hadith is authentic or not authentic. But only what is in accordance with al-Quran. While, I intend to study Hadith science in the future just for the kicks, I can't really bring myself into accepting Hadith that is said to be authentic but yet, is not in accordance with the absolute word of God. Besides, these hadith are oral traditions that have been written down 200 years after the Quran came down. Also, there are thousands and thousands of hadith. I want to find the ones that are the most truthful and logical. Not Hadith that I accept because scholars say they're authentic. This may sound childish and irrational to you, but I do not think so.
By accepting Hadith as authentic that seem absurd, the Islamic world seems to deviate from the spirituality that Muhammad (saw) originally intended for his ummah. And we get movements such as Salafism arise. (Not saying this is for every Muslim).
My views are with the guidance of the founder of Ahmadiyya, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I am not intending to confuse situations. Rather, my arguments are to add emphasis to my point that lying is not permissable no matter what as I've shown. You can't mix truth with falsehood. That's just not possible. It does not matter the intention, falsehood is falsehood.
Yet against, the scholarly opinion agrees as well you can ask any Imam,Sheikh, and so on and they'll give you pretty much the same answer. I'm not a Ahmadi/Qadiani but I'm pretty sure your sect consults Bukhari,Muslim and the other Hadith books. Also the people who complied the Hadiths are the same ones who complied the Quran and kept it the way it is so to reject the authenticity of Hadiths, you would also have to question the authenticity of the Quran itself.
The reason why I do not reject the authority of the Quran is because the fact that it claims that God has taken unto Himself to be its Guardian. The companions agreed with the arrangement of the Quran by Zaid bin That it. This we agree on.
But with Hadith, all six books of Hadith; not a single one says they're divinely protected.
Ahmadi scholars accept the six authentic books of Hadith, but they take the same views I have on hadith. Mirza Bashirideen Ahmad, who made a Tafsir on the Quran rejected certain Hadith classified as authentic by Sunni scholars.
I suppose we have no common ground on the subject of hadith. So we'll leave it at that?
