Muslim brothers and sisters, pleases come in.

[government]

You have to know were bukhri took the hadith from for example the hadith that says aisha was 9 was taken from a Persian guy and that guy likely heard it from people around him and since most of Persia are Shia and don't like aisha I take that hadith with a grain of salt

 

[somebody]

All those things have been done by Islamic scholars in the past. The hadiths that have a sound chain of narration are considered sahih.

But just because a Hadith is authentic doesn't mean it would be used in Islamic law. That's why we have Fiqh.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/splendi...isguidance-except-for-the-fuqaha-jurists/amp/

But who verified these ahadith? And why can't we just verify them again ? Why are there different madhabs and why do they have different rulings for the same topic? Aren't these madhabs dependent on ahadith? Their opinions should be respected, but they should shouldn't be left unchallenged.

 

[somebody]

There's a sect called Quranism in Islam. They're the only ones I endorse along to Sufis and Ahmadiyyas.

Maybe you should do some proper research.

 

[merka]

But who verified these ahadith? And why can't we just verify them again ? Why are there different madhabs and why do they have different rulings for the same topic? Aren't these madhabs dependent on ahadith? Their opinions should be respected, but they should shouldn't be left unchallenged.

They've been verified by scholars since the beginning. Even the biographies of the narrators are recorded and whether they were considered trustworthy or not.

You can verify them again but after 1400+ years it would be difficult to come up with a different viewpoint.

Madhabs are dependent on Hadith but there are other sources of Islamic law that they consider as well. You can't just read a Hadith and say you must practice it without considering it's context and if it can be applied correctly.

It requires many years of studying with qualified scholars to be able to do this. Most Muslims will just follow the opinion of a scholar they trust.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Essentially, from my understanding, what you have an issue with is not the authenticity but rather the content. It's strikes me as a bit too suspicious that all the Hadiths you question are those that contain questionable claims. You must understand that from a historians perspective, you can't trust the Hadiths as they're authenticity is built upon the supposed goodness of the characters of its chain of narrators.

 

[somebody]

They've been verified by scholars since the beginning. Even the biographies of the narrators are recorded and whether they were considered trustworthy or not.

You can verify them again but after 1400+ years it would be difficult to come up with a different viewpoint.

Madhabs are dependent on Hadith but there are other sources of Islamic law that they consider as well. You can't just read a Hadith and say you must practice it without considering it's context and if it can be applied correctly.

It requires many years of studying with qualified scholars to be able to do this. Most Muslims will just follow the opinion of a scholar they trust.

I will look at the biography of some the narrators in the chain. I know that the hadith is not the only thing they look at before they make a rule.I know whatever the scholars have agreed on cannot simply be swept under the carpet. I will do a research and have a thought about it.

 

[somebody]

Essentially, from my understanding, what you have an issue with is not the authenticity but rather the content. It's strikes me as a bit too suspicious that all the Hadiths you question are those that contain questionable claims. You must understand that from a historians perspective, you can't trust the Hadiths as they're authenticity is built upon the supposed goodness of the characters of its chain of narrators.

Yes, the content is the main reason for me questioning the authenticity of the Hadith. I will study the way the Hadith has been transmitted for myself and think about it.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Yes, the content is the main reason for me questioning the authenticity of the Hadith. I will study the way the Hadith has been transmitted for myself and think about it.

The problem with the Hadiths and the biographies is that they rely on Isnads (chain of narrations) take that away, and you have nothing to corroborate them. No matter how rigorous the process, it's essentially just an example of a generation long Chinese whispers. The character of the narrators isn't really what's in question but rather the accuracy and authenticity of the information. The human brain isn't really good at remembering things. You must also understand that the whole thing is further clouded by supposed supernatural occurrences, which may be fine for a Muslim but problematic to any of those wanting real direct evidence for such 'miracles' like the angels coming in to help the prophet in the battle of badr. Another thing you must consider is the context of the era they were collected. Much of the Hadiths were clear fabrications to strengthen the claims of conflicting caliphs. It was a power source.

Lastly, this may help you, but some early sources of the accounts of the prophets life come mere 12 years after the prophets death. The papyrus of Mohammed, which dates only to 12 years after his death, contradicts the traditional Muslim narrative of the date that the battle of badr took place. The date it provides, is not in Ramadan as the traditional accounts suggest i.e. The Hadiths.

 

[Arman]

Maybe you should do some proper research.

I don't see any contradictions....

 

[Sakandari]

Imam Bukhari lived more than 200 years AFTER the events who wrote about occurred. As any competent historian will tell you, these documents are not reliable. The most reliable historical documents are those written by live witnesses. And no, the so-called Islamic "isnad" or chain narration is not sound substitute. These chain of narrations don't establish the truthfulness of the actual stories.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/r..._of_the_prophet_and_therefore_are_unreliable_

 

[Sakandari]

Hadiths still plays an important role in Islam. I am just upset that how some people believe if a hadith comes from Bukhari or Muslim means that it cannot be challenged or questioned.
This one is in saheeh muslim:
'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i.e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (May peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (puberty) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah's Apostle (May peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.
Book number 8 number 3425.

I just wished that the so called scholars could start a reseach to test the truthfulness of each hadith and the chain of narration and just pond on the soundness of each hadith.

Read this.

 

[Sakandari]

This one is from sunan abu dawuud but it is still considered authentic by many if not the majority of scholars.
"A blind man had a female slave who had borne him a child (umm walad) who reviled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and disparaged him, and he told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she paid no heed.
One night she started to disparage and revile the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so he took a dagger and put it in her stomach and pressed on it and killed her. There fell between her legs a child who was smeared with the blood that was there.
The next morning mention of that was made to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allaah the man who did this to stand up.”
The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said: O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it. She used to revile you and disparage you, and I told her not to do it but she did not stop, and I rebuked her but she paid no heed. I have two sons from her who are like two pearls, and she was good to me. Last night she started to revile you and disparage you, and I took a dagger and placed it on her stomach and I pressed on it until I killed her.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness that no retaliation is due for her blood.” "
Number 4361.
There is just so many things that I feel is wrong with this hadith. I remember hearing this hadith for the first time from the radio from a sheikh and then the sheikh concluded that the ruling for blasphemy is death penalty, EVEN IF THE PERSON REPENTED.

https://islamqa.info/en/111252

 

[oday1kenobi]

You have to know were bukhri took the hadith from for example the hadith that says aisha was 9 was taken from a Persian guy and that guy likely heard it from people around him and since most of Persia are Shia and don't like aisha I take that hadith with a grain of salt

Persia was a staunch Sunni nation right up to the 16th century until the Safavid Shah Ismail I made Shia Islam the state religion similar to how king Henry VIII (also in the same period) made Protestantism the state religion replacing Catholicism.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Persia was a staunch Sunni nation right up untill the 16th century when the Safavid Shah Ismail I made Shia Islam the state religion similar to how king Henry VIII (also in the same period) made Protestantism the state religion replacing Catholicism.

Just goes to show how religion can change just like that.

 

[government]

Persia was a staunch Sunni nation right up untill the 16th century until the Safavid Shah Ismail I made Shia Islam the state religion similar to how king Henry VIII (also in the same period) made Protestantism the state religion replacing Catholicism.

Oh I totally forget about That thanks for reminding me

 

[government]

Just goes to show how religion can change just like that.

Why are you in the religion section a lot. we get it you are atheist and don't like religion

 

[The_Cosmos]

Why are you in the religion section a lot. we get it you are atheist and don't like religion

I drop a few comments where I think it's suited, just so happens to be in the religious corner most often.

 

[government]

I drop a few comments where I think it's suited, just so happens to be in the religious corner most often.

You are trying to shove your atheism on us I've seen your comments they always have an insult to religion in them

 

[The_Cosmos]

You are trying to shove your atheism on us I've seen your comments they always have an insult to religion in them

Hardly insults, they're mostly just facts. However it is true that I do throw around a few insults here and there at the heat of the moment but usually as a reaction to insults. My intentions are beyond that.

 

[Raamsade]

Out of 600k hadiths Bukari collected, he only considered 7k to be true.

Corrections: the 7K (I thought it was 6K?) are what those that passed Islam's "chain of narration" or "isnad" criteria. Non one knows how many of them are actually true.