The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Kowani]

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.

Islamic Protestantism?

[Herskerstad]

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.

Islamic Protestantism?

Exegeting a Quran which is not even a chronological piece without any other basis than itself would likewise be a nightmare.

[Dahyan]

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.

Which is why we need strict scrutiny of the ahadith. There is no need to throw away the child with the bathwater, but we do have to get rid of ahadith that go against basic Qur'anic scripture.
Things like killing people for disbelieving alone, or executing adulterers (while the Qur'an clearly mentioned the exact punishment for adultery already) are quite simply in violation of the message of Islam.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Hadiths are a spook

discuss

Are you a Muslim?

[Saranidia]

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.

Which is why we need strict scrutiny of the ahadith. There is no need to throw away the child with the bathwater, but we do have to get rid of ahadith that go against basic Qur'anic scripture.
Things like killing people for disbelieving alone, or executing adulterers (while the Qur'an clearly mentioned the exact punishment for adultery already) are quite simply in violation of the message of Islam.

true

[Herskerstad]

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.

Which is why we need strict scrutiny of the ahadith. There is no need to throw away the child with the bathwater, but we do have to get rid of ahadith that go against basic Qur'anic scripture.
Things like killing people for disbelieving alone, or executing adulterers (while the Qur'an clearly mentioned the exact punishment for adultery already) are quite simply in violation of the message of Islam.

I wish you the very best in trying to do so, but something sounding to be in accordance with the Quran as the gold standard is not a strong exegetical starting point. The criterion of embarrassment is incredibly valuable for discerning truth, as is looking at Islam how it developed from it's earliest time and followers, which, mind you, was a time of significant expansion, internal strife and violence. Not surprisingly we find messages that relate to all the above.

[Dahyan]

Which is why we need strict scrutiny of the ahadith. There is no need to throw away the child with the bathwater, but we do have to get rid of ahadith that go against basic Qur'anic scripture.
Things like killing people for disbelieving alone, or executing adulterers (while the Qur'an clearly mentioned the exact punishment for adultery already) are quite simply in violation of the message of Islam.

I wish you the very best in trying to do so, but something sounding to be in accordance with the Quran as the gold standard is not a strong exegetical starting point. The criterion of embarrassment is incredibly valuable for discerning truth, as is looking at Islam how it developed from it's earliest time and followers, which, mind you, was a time of significant expansion, internal strife and violence. Not surprisingly we find messages that relate to all the above.

The fact that things developed as they did should not by itself mean that that is the way things are supposed to be. The Qur'an is, at the end, the only certain criterion Muslims have.

But I agree, such scrutiny is very difficult. Not in the least because of the hostility it will likely face from those who are fanatically adherent to certain ahadith.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Updated my factbook

[Jolthig]

I mean, that's literally what Sunni Hadith does for the latter.


Yeah. Last summer, the Belgian Jammat just had its Jalsa.

I know that the Sunni Hadith compilations indeed try to trace back to the Ahlulbayt and Sahaba, but this doesn't always succeed. Which leads to the issue of Hadith that seemingly contradict or "abrogate" the Qur'anic message.

As I said in my replies to Pilar and Neg, it should only be in accordance with Quran and Sunnah, and of course the consistent chain of narration.

Anything that contradicts the quran and Sunnah should be discarded.

[Jolthig]

When narrating a Hadith, it should come not only with a consistent chain of narration going back to the closest companions of the prophet (saw), but also in accordance with the Holy Qu'ran and Sunnah. Because the best way the Arabs memorized traditions was by practicing them and of course, their excellent memories.

[Dahyan]

I know that the Sunni Hadith compilations indeed try to trace back to the Ahlulbayt and Sahaba, but this doesn't always succeed. Which leads to the issue of Hadith that seemingly contradict or "abrogate" the Qur'anic message.

As I said in my replies to Pilar and Neg, it should only be in accordance with Quran and Sunnah, and of course the consistent chain of narration.

Anything that contradicts the quran and Sunnah should be discarded.

In that case we are in agreement.

[Jolthig]

As I said in my replies to Pilar and Neg, it should only be in accordance with Quran and Sunnah, and of course the consistent chain of narration.

Anything that contradicts the quran and Sunnah should be discarded.

In that case we are in agreement.

Coolio.

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.

Well, there's Quranism lol

[Dahyan]

I actually went through a Quranist phase for a bit, as I'm sure some members on here will still remember.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I actually went through a Quranist phase for a bit, as I'm sure some members on here will still remember.

I almost fell into that trap as well. AlHamdulillah I was guided back.

[Jolthig]

I actually went through a Quranist phase for a bit, as I'm sure some members on here will still remember.

I for sure do. I think we may have debated once on hadith.

For me, I'm just a balance between a Quranist and someone who's obsessed with which hadith is authentic or not.

But the best approach is if it's in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah as the Sunnah is the practice of our Prophet (saw) and he was the recepient of the Quran. It would make sense that he would make commentaries on Quranic verses as he was the recipient of them.

If I wrote a book and people asked me for the interpretation of the passages, I would tell them what they mean. It's not different from Muhammad (saw) receiving divine revelation and being given the meaning. So it's not that the Quran is incomplete as Pilarcraft earlier asserted, but it's that people need a teacher to guide them. You can't just get a book and except people to know it. You gotta teach them! That's the case with the Torah, Gospel, and all past scriptures.

The way divine law works is that Allah always sends prophets, saints, or anyone with wahi to guide them back to worshipping him. They come with all sorts of knowledge such as rational argumentation accompanied by divine revelation, and how to rule on certain matters.

[Dahyan]

I actually went through a Quranist phase for a bit, as I'm sure some members on here will still remember.

I for sure do. I think we may have debated once on hadith.

For me, I'm just a balance between a Quranist and someone who's obsessed with which hadith is authentic or not.

But the best approach is if it's in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah as the Sunnah is the practice of our Prophet (saw) and he was the recepient of the Quran. It would make sense that he would make commentaries on Quranic verses as he was the recipient of them.

If I wrote a book and people asked me for the interpretation of the passages, I would tell them what they mean. It's not different from Muhammad (saw) receiving divine revelation and being given the meaning. So it's not that the Quran is incomplete as Pilarcraft earlier asserted, but it's that people need a teacher to guide them. You can't just get a book and except people to know it. You gotta teach them! That's the case with the Torah, Gospel, and all past scriptures.

The way divine law works is that Allah always sends prophets, saints, or anyone with wahi to guide them back to worshipping him. They come with all sorts of knowledge such as rational argumentation accompanied by divine revelation, and how to rule on certain matters.

Well said brother. And yes, I do believe we had a debate once, if I remember correctly which your nation name back then was.

Indeed, rational argumentation and basic human sense are important, especially when anaylzing ahadith. The absence of rationality has led some Saudis to start drinking camel urine, to give but an extreme example.

Of course, ratio can't transcend above divine truth, but that only counts for the divinely revealed text of the Qur'an. The mistake many people make is de facto ascribing infallibility to the ahadith as well.

[Jolthig]

I for sure do. I think we may have debated once on hadith.

For me, I'm just a balance between a Quranist and someone who's obsessed with which hadith is authentic or not.

But the best approach is if it's in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah as the Sunnah is the practice of our Prophet (saw) and he was the recepient of the Quran. It would make sense that he would make commentaries on Quranic verses as he was the recipient of them.

If I wrote a book and people asked me for the interpretation of the passages, I would tell them what they mean. It's not different from Muhammad (saw) receiving divine revelation and being given the meaning. So it's not that the Quran is incomplete as Pilarcraft earlier asserted, but it's that people need a teacher to guide them. You can't just get a book and except people to know it. You gotta teach them! That's the case with the Torah, Gospel, and all past scriptures.

The way divine law works is that Allah always sends prophets, saints, or anyone with wahi to guide them back to worshipping him. They come with all sorts of knowledge such as rational argumentation accompanied by divine revelation, and how to rule on certain matters.

Well said brother. And yes, I do believe we had a debate once, if I remember correctly which your nation name back then was.

Indeed, rational argumentation and basic human sense are important, especially when anaylzing ahadith. The absence of rationality has led some Saudis to start drinking camel urine, to give but an extreme example.

Of course, ratio can't transcend above divine truth, but that only counts for the divinely revealed text of the Qur'an. The mistake many people make is de facto ascribing infallibility to the ahadith as well.

My nation name has remained the same.

Yeah blindly following things isn't logical. The same can be said about rajm how Umar (ra) supposedly said there's a verse in the Quran regarding rajm, but never included; yet, the Hadith of Zaid bin Thabit says he collected all the verses from all the companions he could find. Hence, the Quran in its written volume was completed.

[Dahyan]

Well said brother. And yes, I do believe we had a debate once, if I remember correctly which your nation name back then was.

Indeed, rational argumentation and basic human sense are important, especially when anaylzing ahadith. The absence of rationality has led some Saudis to start drinking camel urine, to give but an extreme example.

Of course, ratio can't transcend above divine truth, but that only counts for the divinely revealed text of the Qur'an. The mistake many people make is de facto ascribing infallibility to the ahadith as well.

My nation name has remained the same.

Yeah blindly following things isn't logical. The same can be said about rajm how Umar (ra) supposedly said there's a verse in the Quran regarding rajm, but never included; yet, the Hadith of Zaid bin Thabit says he collected all the verses from all the companions he could find. Hence, the Quran in its written volume was completed.

Umar was a ... controversial figure, let's say. I believe he generally meant well, but he surely made mistakes that throughout the ages have grown into misdeeds of extensive proportions.

Stoning was commonplace in pre-Islamic Arabia as well as in Judaic law, but has absolutely no basis in the Qur'an. As such, it must be disregarded by Muslims and condemned an an un-Islamic and barbaric practice.

[Jolthig]

Which is why we need strict scrutiny of the ahadith. There is no need to throw away the child with the bathwater, but we do have to get rid of ahadith that go against basic Qur'anic scripture.
Things like killing people for disbelieving alone, or executing adulterers (while the Qur'an clearly mentioned the exact punishment for adultery already) are quite simply in violation of the message of Islam.

I wish you the very best in trying to do so, but something sounding to be in accordance with the Quran as the gold standard is not a strong exegetical starting point. The criterion of embarrassment is incredibly valuable for discerning truth, as is looking at Islam how it developed from it's earliest time and followers, which, mind you, was a time of significant expansion, internal strife and violence. Not surprisingly we find messages that relate to all the above.

I don't think using the Quran (and Sunnah too as I and Alsheb both mentioned in our arguments) isn't a very strong argument as you assert. While, I understand your arguments to judge Islam through history, and I agree we should look at Islam that way too, but scholarly history also tells us that using the Quran and Sunnah to judge Hadith is a reliable way to determine Islamic Canon. Imam Muslim argued in his introduction and even narrated several hadith that the companions of Muhammad said to only take from them (the righteous and most excellent in memory, since they were with Muhammad). Muslim also based this from the Quranic verse of "do not follow that of which you have no knowledge" and "when a matter is brought by a person before you, investigate it" (paraphrased).

Hence, this is how the companions were inspired to tell others to only narrated hadiths from companions and people who were known for good memories, righteous conduct, and piousness. This was the example of Muhammad, and in turn, the companions, and the generations after them were to follow this example.

Of course we get people who fabricated Hadith over time and that's why we get scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Salah, etc. to help progressively develop the science of Hadith.

This, in my humble opinion, is a witness to why we can trust the Quran and Sunnah to be a judge of hadith so I don't completely agree with you on your observations.

Yes, the Islamic world had its strifes, but those righteous people who lived through the violence helped to preserve the hadiths narrated by Bukhari and Musl as well as the other scholars through practicing the Sunnah of Muhammad because the best way to memorize something was to practice it. This was how the Muslim best remembered the Sunnah before the hadith in their written forms came around.

As for those who sought to forge reports (including during the civil wars), their abominable narrations were spotted by ulama who best knew Hadith. Even in that era.

[Frievolk]

My nation name has remained the same.

Yeah blindly following things isn't logical. The same can be said about rajm how Umar (ra) supposedly said there's a verse in the Quran regarding rajm, but never included; yet, the Hadith of Zaid bin Thabit says he collected all the verses from all the companions he could find. Hence, the Quran in its written volume was completed.

Umar was a ... controversial figure, let's say. I believe he generally meant well, but he surely made mistakes that throughout the ages have grown into misdeeds of extensive proportions.

Stoning was commonplace in pre-Islamic Arabia as well as in Judaic law, but has absolutely no basis in the Qur'an. As such, it must be disregarded by Muslims and condemned an an un-Islamic and barbaric practice.

Rajm was, at least according to five different Sahih (and higher) hadiith, reported to have been used at least once for a case regarding Zina-ye Moshen during the Prophet's time too tho.
I mean, I realize that hadiith by nature is almost always bullshit, but almost all of the Hudud are based on Hadiith (as the Quran doesn't generally assign punishment for what it criminalizes)

[A m e n r i a]

I for sure do. I think we may have debated once on hadith.

For me, I'm just a balance between a Quranist and someone who's obsessed with which hadith is authentic or not.

But the best approach is if it's in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah as the Sunnah is the practice of our Prophet (saw) and he was the recepient of the Quran. It would make sense that he would make commentaries on Quranic verses as he was the recipient of them.

If I wrote a book and people asked me for the interpretation of the passages, I would tell them what they mean. It's not different from Muhammad (saw) receiving divine revelation and being given the meaning. So it's not that the Quran is incomplete as Pilarcraft earlier asserted, but it's that people need a teacher to guide them. You can't just get a book and except people to know it. You gotta teach them! That's the case with the Torah, Gospel, and all past scriptures.

The way divine law works is that Allah always sends prophets, saints, or anyone with wahi to guide them back to worshipping him. They come with all sorts of knowledge such as rational argumentation accompanied by divine revelation, and how to rule on certain matters.

Well said brother. And yes, I do believe we had a debate once, if I remember correctly which your nation name back then was.

Indeed, rational argumentation and basic human sense are important, especially when anaylzing ahadith. The absence of rationality has led some Saudis to start drinking camel urine, to give but an extreme example.

Of course, ratio can't transcend above divine truth, but that only counts for the divinely revealed text of the Qur'an. The mistake many people make is de facto ascribing infallibility to the ahadith as well.

Saudis? You mean fundamentalist Indonesians?

But yea, I agree. Why would God give us sentience if He doesn't want us to think? Not to mention following one's heart is important.

[Jolthig]

My nation name has remained the same.

Yeah blindly following things isn't logical. The same can be said about rajm how Umar (ra) supposedly said there's a verse in the Quran regarding rajm, but never included; yet, the Hadith of Zaid bin Thabit says he collected all the verses from all the companions he could find. Hence, the Quran in its written volume was completed.

Umar was a ... controversial figure, let's say. I believe he generally meant well, but he surely made mistakes that throughout the ages have grown into misdeeds of extensive proportions.

Stoning was commonplace in pre-Islamic Arabia as well as in Judaic law, but has absolutely no basis in the Qur'an. As such, it must be disregarded by Muslims and condemned an an un-Islamic and barbaric practice.

I still have yet to study more of his life, but I disagree, he was a pious man and did many great things for the khalifat. Even showing kindness to the Jews and Christians after he conquered Jerusalem.

And agreed. Though I believe Muhammad (saw) did stone before the revelation of al-Noor. This is the view of the scholars of my community.

[Jolthig]

I'll admit. I may have misread your post, Heks or at least the context of your post.

Still, it can be proven with Hadith why the narration of rajm being in Quran is incorrect. Of course the rajm narrations did happen, but as is the view of my community, it happened before the revelation of al-Noor.

[Sassinia]

Hadiths are a spook

discuss

Are you a Muslim?

hurr durr quranists are kafirs

yes I am a muslim alhamdulillah

[Herskerstad]

I'll admit. I may have misread your post, Heks or at least the context of your post.

Still, it can be proven with Hadith why the narration of rajm being in Quran is incorrect. Of course the rajm narrations did happen, but as is the view of my community, it happened before the revelation of al-Noor.

The problem with going with that standard is is multiple and I can name but a handful of them, and I am speaking as someone whom absolutely uphold scripture above traditions.

While the memory of the Arabs like so many tribes that valued oral traditions can rightfully be praised for their memory, one thing arabs did not inherently hold was incorruptibility. It persisted during Muhammad's life and lives on today. Given that the earliest renditions we have of Muhammad's life is to such a degree of length of time removed they make us entirely dependent on them to get any kind of concrete image of the man. The hadiths are also quite key in understanding the chronology of the quran which itself is not a chronological book and if read as such quickly becomes less than approachable. Texts which relate to such, given the image they present, can quickly come in to distort what we have in that regard.

However, If we are, hypothetically speaking, only left with the Quran. That itself invites certain problems. Firstly, it tells exceptionally little about Muhammad and his followers, where the hadiths go into fairly deep details. I've learned a lot more of about Aisha's menstruation cycles than I ever wished to know going through some hadiths, and if the Quran alone becomes the standard then Muhammad can very easily fade to be more of a mystic than a historical figure, and there are problems associated with this. You will see schools of thoughts multiply like wildfire for one. There's already some of that and more is going to come, but it's not nearly reached it's peak. It erases the known footprint and leaves much open to interpretation. I am not saying that there is not the nuance of hermenutic practices left, but much of said practice is dependent upon the earliest recollections which, at least in a modern lens, do not paint the most favourable picture for the times and discarding them simply because they look bad would not pass the smell test.

The quran itself in it's compilation had Muhammad's own, personally named, best scholars of the quran quibble about it. Not just in the odd word here and there, but the amount of verses. Other sources, though they are from the hadiths, outright state that Aisha herself lost some only remaining manuscripts. Arabic itself developed, in part from the quran. The original quran on fragments would not have used verses with diacritics for one as that came to fit the language of the verses themselves as Arabic during that time did not posses such, pluss we do not possess a single original piece that Muhammad had commissioned. Muhammad sanction some recollections with regional language differences (dialects) which were also used later to justify more radical differences by others. There are tons of problems with both the status quo and the solution and Quranic studies under modern scrutiny is still in it's infancy. We are yet to see the greatest critiques or defences from what we have today. I did see a lecture on Arabian languages and while I would be unwilling to say anything concrete on the issue now, there are concerns that arise from those which can become relevant to the language of the quran itself.

Now I absolutely think and do hope standard Sunni hadith methodology changes radically. There are plenty of reasons why. Texts sometimes were compiled from traditions which pre-existed the very narrations. There is significant reason to suspect regionalism, some of the hadith collectors only compiled that which they felt they had sufficient evidence for, when less than secure sources could be used as evidence or counter-evidence. History is more generous in regards to the caliphates themselves, problem is it was a period of significant strife and conquest and that makes a poor image for peacetime concerns. You above all probably know more about that than anyone here.

Either way, it's exciting, and I do hope we will find new treasures in particular those that predate the Uthmanic recention.