the dhikr explains the quran and complets it
- Status
Denying the Hadiths is essentially denying the Qur'aan. They're both related through the same set of people. If they're unreliable then the Qur'aan is aswell. If they're reliable, then the Sunnah is aswell. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Moreover, in Surah An-Nahl it says:
"[We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought." [16:44]
The companions, native to the land, had the Qur'aan explained to them by the Prophet as evident by the verse. Now, I, a non-native to the arabic tounge, is in more need to have the Qur'aan explained.
1. Where is the prophetic explanation to the Qur'aan for the companions?
2. How can I successfully understand the Qur'aan without explanation when the natives themselves needed it?
Moreover, in Surah An-Nahl it says:
"[We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought." [16:44]
The companions, native to the land, had the Qur'aan explained to them by the Prophet as evident by the verse. Now, I, a non-native to the arabic tounge, is in more need to have the Qur'aan explained.
1. Where is the prophetic explanation to the Qur'aan for the companions?
2. How can I successfully understand the Qur'aan without explanation when the natives themselves needed it?
It is important to understand the difference between teaching the people the linguistics of the Quran, as opposed to guiding the people to the correct understanding of the message of the Quran.
If you read the thread you will see that I have said that I do believe that people should use the hadith to further understand a verse. I just don't agree with the standard it's held at.
Yes, the Quran and the hadiths were related through the same people however god vowed to protect the Quran and not the hadiths.
dhikr means remembrance and god was obviously not talking about hadiths as they may contain error. Again, Sunnah means tradition and the sheikh is saying that Allah is referring to the Sunnah, the tradition, as the dhikr, the remembrance. the traditions of the prophet were derived from the Quran. Since yall believe in Hadith, Aisha narrated that the behaviour of the prophet was according to the Quran, again the Sunnah, his tradition is according to the Quran.
You guys are acting like there is one hadith that step-by-step explains how to pray. The Quran does explain how to pray, just not in one verse.
YourBroMoe
Ｗｈｏ ｔｈｅ ｆｕｃｋ ａｍ Ｉ？ ギくェズー
They would never do it. No Islamic state would. It'd destroy the need for a theocracy. There'd be no authority for the religious if people can simply read and interpret the Quran for themselves. They'd have no purpose anymore. They wouldn't sacrifice that power and authority.
the understanding of the prophet is better than ours, yes. I am not claiming that we don't need him. I am just saying that we should hold the Quran over the hadith and not on the same level.
What you fail to understand is, how can you be sure that it is indeed Allaah that vowed to protect the Qur'aan, when that very Qur'aan was related to us by the same men that related the Sunnah?
Let me give you an example: I today speak to ten people and ask them to convey my message which consists of two parts. Those ten convey my two messages. Now, those two messages are related by the same set of people and the same method. One cannot argue for the unreliabilty for one of them and not the other.
In the same way, the Sunnah which was transmitted to us in the same way and by the same people must be reliable, or else the Qur'aan is not reliable. Which means that it was not necessarily Allaah that vowed to protect the Qur'aan.
It is a double-sided sword. Either they are both reliable or non is.
Not really, because first of all we already know that there is a lot of false hadith that contradict the Quran. So with that logic, you might as well not believe in the Quran neither cuz we already know that ALL hadiths are not reliable.
Secondly, if we use the Quran as the primary source. Then we can easily dismiss all contradicting hadith,
The people that transmitted the hadiths and are not the only ones who recited and learned the Quran.
Your logic is flawed because you already decide from the get-go that the Qur'aan is reliable. I say, take a step back and see how both were transmitted; the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. You will see that the Qur'aan and a lot of the Sunnah was transmitted in the same way and by the same persons. Thus, they are either both reliable or not. A double-sided sword. No third option.
As for the false Hadiths, they are only from those that are not transmitted in the same way as the Qur'aan and therefore outside my argument.
No, the Quran was thought to everyone not only the people who transmitted the hadith.
The hadith usually came from people who were close to him like his wife, Aisha bint Abu Bakr. Whilst the Quran was thought to everyone, the prophet used to preach and spread Islam by spreading the word of god.
Do you consider all hadiths in Bukhari to be outside your argument? You either believe in all hadiths or none.
The Hadith were also not confined to only those that transmitted it. What's your point.
I must believe in the hadiths that are transmitted in the same way as the Qur'aan. Those that are not transmitted in this way are one of two:
1. The narrators are reliable, met eachother, and the chain in which it was transmitted is free from shuduudh and 'Illah qaadiha. In this case, yes I'm obliged to believe in it.
2. One which is not transmitted by the same method as the Qur'aan and/or is not transmitted in the same procedure as in no.1, then that Hadith is not authentic and I do not follow it.
But that is about the method of authenticating the Hadiths, which is a topic we can discuss later if you want. What I'm arguing for now is the impossibility to accept the Qur'aan and reject the Hadith that were transmitted in the same way.
Now let me switch your argument on yourself. Consider a man that in the companions time made up verses and said it belonged to the Qur'aan. Are you obliged to follow them too? Or are you only following that which can be proven to be part of the original Qur'aan? Your answer to this question is my answer to yours.
Listen, Allah already says in the Quran:
[Quran 4:82] ............If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.
If what you said to that man contradicts the rest, then obviously it should be dismissed!
And how does that answer my question to you? If a bunch of hadiths, not only contradict each other but the Quran and they also have to go thru an authentication system (which is flawed) shouldn't then they be dismissed as well?
You're not understanding. How do you know Allaah said it? It went through an authentication system. Those hadith that followed the same system are by necessity also authentic. That's my first point.
Secondly, you are only dismissing the added part? Why not the whole Qur'aan? Your answer here is my answer aswell. Why? Because you did not dismiss the whole of Qur'aan because of a false, later on added, part. And likewise I'll not deny the authentic Hadiths because of false, later on added, parts.
The Quran is a miracle in itself, How do I know that Allah said it. Because the information in the Quran couldn't come from a human being: Plus, believing in a god is a natural instinct. Without any outside influence ones normal thought would be " Why am I here" and "who put me here". Normally we no that EVERYTHING we see has a creator. So we naturally think that we, like everything, have a creator also.
How do we now that Allah is the creator then? Simple, the Quran! like I said, the Quran is a miracle hence to why people believe in it. When you establish that. That you believe that Allah is your creator and the Quran which is full of miracles (which makes it divine). Then you already have your answer regarding if I knew it was from Allah or not.
The authentication system doesn't take the Quran into consideration, but only links. What if someone lied in the first place? What if the first link or person was lying?
When you say later on added, you do realize that the whole Quran came down before the prophet died. Whilst hadith kept "coming" even after he died. Even the sahaba didn't want the hadith to be put on the same level as the Quran. That is was Umar r.a under his reign banned hadiths!
The hadith is not divine, they are alleged sayings that people transmitted. The Quran, if you believe in it, is.
you are falsifying the quran and you probably don't speak arabic so please stop spreading this false interpertation of our religion.
How am I falsifying the Quran and spreading false interpretation?
My whole point thru out the discussion was that the Quran is nr.1 and hadith shouldn't be put up on the pedestal it's on and that I'm okay with the use of hadiths to further understand a verse and that hadiths that contradict the Quran should be dismissed.
So, again how am I falsifying anything?
It is a very simple point I'm making. The Qur'aan is miraculous. But that doesn't remove the possibility that the part were Allaah said he'll protect the Qur'aan is added on later as in the earlier example. Or that some of it has been changed as with the earlier, also miraculous, scripts. To be sure this is not the case, the authentication process is the must. You are arguing against a strawman here.
Ironically, you are referring to Umar ra as if that is relied upon by something other than what the hadiths rely upon. You can't use a narration to falsify another narration when they are both the same in nature. Stop contradicting yourself.
I am not contradicting my self. Hadiths are referred to narrations of the PROPHET. The documentation of what Umar r.a did after the prophets death has nothing to do with hadith. So how am I contradiction myself?
Like I said the Quran came down before the prophet died. How do you know that those links are true tho? I can easily claim that I heard Person A say this to Person B, so on and so forth. Someone could have come 200 years ago, knowing of history and made up a link.
As for the Quran, If the majority of the people were thought one version, and someone pops up with another version with an added verse in it, then obviously it should be dismissed. The hadith can't be held on the same standard because hadiths don't have the same structure as the Quran. Do you know how many hadiths there are? hundreds and thousands. it's rare to find people, if any at all, that have memorized all hadiths(even only the authentic ones). So no one can interject except the Quran. The hadiths should be judged based on the Quran. If it contradicts the Quran then get rid of it, if it doesn't then keep it. Is that hard?
And btw the reason why the Quran is reliable is that it doesn't have a single contradiction in the Quran.
Why are you guys attacking her instead of telling her what is right this is not Muslim behavior @Life I'm sorry about them regarding your question the Quran is also followed by the Sunnah of the prophet their are different kinds of hadith with different strengths of the Hadith based on where it came from if a hadith is against the Quran then it's should not be used also their are culmaa that their job is to look at where the Hadith came from also their are many kinds of hadith their is Hadith quudsi which Allah told the prophet and their is Hadith of something the prophet said and then finally there is Hadith of someone mentioning what the prophet did also their are many things the sahaba say that people say it's Hadith even though Omar or Abu bakr said it so you have to be careful with reading where the Hadith came from I hope this helped you sis
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
But what you're doing in essence is negating the role of the Prophet (PBUH) when it comes to following him as the Quranic role model . Following the Prophet (PBUH) is synonymous to following the Quran, this is the basic belief of muslims. There's no way you can follow Quran without following Him. In fact the Quran instructs you to not only follow but also Obey Him.
The level of distinction that you're trying to impose on the Quran and Hadith only exists in your mind, it is true that people have tried to fabricate hadith for their own gains but this does not take away the credibility of hadith as there are ways to authenticate them.
- Status
Trending
-
Uprising in Syria! Ahlu Bayt Muslims protest in multiple cities- Started by TekNiKo
- Replies: 61
-
serious question, do you ever see somalia becoming developed in 20 or 30 years?
- Started by Leonardo7373
- Replies: 69
-
