The Sunnah

[LeilaN]

Muhammed's sunna

 
The collection of Muhammed's sunna began in Medina soon after the death of the Prophet. That was in fact very characteristic for Arabs who were accustomed to follow the sunna of their ancestors, which now had become invalid, due to Islam's replacement of the ancient tribal system. The sunna of Muhammed was transmitted through narratives such as: "A told me that B heard C saying that D had heard the Companion E recite from the Prophet Muhammed that...." This is called hadith, which is usually translated as 'saying' or 'statement'. Thus the hadith is the action of the sunna, and indeed, the whole body of sunna is often simply called hadith. However, Ignaz Goldziher explained the difference between hadith and sunna by stating that hadith is "oral communication derived from the Prophet" but sunna a "religious or legal point, without regard to whether or not there exists an oral tradition for it." Thus, all hadith is sunna, but sunna does not necessarily have to be hadith.48
During the earlier collection of hadiths, no specific care was taken of the transmission, as long as the message was satisfying.  However, this system soon was unveiled as being corrupt. Philip K. Hitti states that words
were put in the mouth of the Prophet, or acts ascribed to him which, it was thought, he would have done and said had he been confronted with a particular situation. Certain hadiths ascribe to Muhammad teachings and miracles analogous to Christ's. Others are devised to add sanction to recognised principles ... The authority of hadith, be it recalled, is second only to that of the Koran.49

And there were also motives for deliberate distortion since it was not considered dishonourable to apply forged hadiths to Muhammed's mouth, if they served a good and decent purpose.  Since the importance of hadith grew as the Islamic Empire expanded, scholars and hadithic students travelled all over the Muslim world in order to 'seek knowledge'. From town to town they journeyed, asking questions and teaching hadiths they had learned somewhere else. But this increase in demand, as any modern economist would inform us, naturally resulted in increased supply.  Thus Muslims all over the Islamic Empire found profit in 'supplying' hadiths, usually by inventing them or distorting old proverbs.  Jewish and Christian sayings, such as from the Book of Proverbs, suddenly flowed out of Muhammed's mouth, and even aphorisms from Greek philosophy were described to the Prophet.

After two or three generations of forged and invented hadiths, Islamic scholars finally decided to filter the body of hadith through a systematic methodology. Now the hadith requirements were turned upside-down, and suddenly the importance of the narrative itself was relegated and the narrators were closely examined.  No hadith was now considered authentic, if the chain of authorities (sanad=support; isnad=supporting; that is A-B-C-D-E ...) did not include trustworthy persons. But most important was that the original source had to be a Companion who had heard the Prophet Muhammed speak these words. Thus the science of hadith was created.

The major requirement for the hadith scientists was to build up an adequate biographical data. The dated of birth and death of every single transmittor, his personal qualities, honour and doctrinal views were examined very carefully. They were even classified, such as Companions (first generation), Followers (second generation) and so on.  The first data of this kind, the eight volume Great Book of Classes, was published by Ibn Saad (d. 844).

During the latter half of the ninth century, the two greatest hadithic authorities, al-Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim (d. 875) systematised the science of hadith into a more advanced scholarship. Out of the hundreds of thousands of hadiths they examined, only a small minority was actually considered authentic and documented in their multi-volume publications. All of them were considered 'sound' (sahih), or 'good' (hasan), but they excluded all those classified as 'weak' (da'if). And in addition, al-Bukhari and Muslim denounced numerous hadiths without consideration, due to their obvious deficiency or even absurdity.
The sahih collection of al-Bukhari was published in 97 volumes, subdivided into 3,450 chapters (chapter=bab, lit.'door'), all devoted to special subjects. Thus we find the hadiths about marriage in specific chapters, supplemented by  the relevant koranic passages. The total number of hadiths in al-Bukhari's sahih is 7,275.

The collection of hadith did not end with the sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim, since many juristic matters were left undecided by the Koran and those two sahihs (collectors of 'sound' hadiths). Thus some weaker hadiths were incorporated along with the sound, and the strict rules of the science of hadith were compromised. Four works from the next generation of hadithic scholars have also been accepted as authoritative; the collections (sunan, that is 'good') of Abu Dawud (d. 888), al-Nasa'i (d. 915), al-Tirmidhi (d. 892), and Ibn Maja (d. 896), and altogether the 'six books' of hadith have emerged. All other works on hadiths, such as the collection of 30,000 hadiths by the noted Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), are respected and often used, but are considered weaker authorities and ranked below the 'six books'.

However, the collection of hadiths and the separation of the 'true' and 'false' was imperfect and has been subjected to strong criticism. Ever since the Hungarian scholar Ignaz Goldziher started to criticise the body of hadith at the turn of the 20th century, most Western orientalists  and many Muslim scholars have looked at them with grave suspicion.  They have questioned the authenticity of even the best-attested hadiths on the grounds that many are anachronistic in content, contradict each other or are at variance with the spirit or letter of the Koran. Joseph Schacht... argued that many of the traditions in the classical collections must have been invented shortly before their inclusion, because they were not employed at an earlier date in the course of legal discussion when 'reference to [them] would have been imperative'... Schacht insisted that positive proof of authenticity was lacking in every single hadith he examined.50

It is reasonable to assume that perhaps a large proportion of the acclaimed hadiths are forgeries, never uttered by Muhammed himself, but by Muslims who thought he would have said or done accordingly, if faced with certain circumstances. Goldziher stated that  some reports were betrayed by anachronisms or other dubious features, some contradicted others, Moreover, certain people are named outright who fabricated and spread abroad traditions to support one trend or another. Not a few pious persons admitted, as the end of life neared, how great their contribution to the body of fictive hadiths had been. To fabricate hadith was hardly considered dishonourable if the resulting fictions served the cause of the good.51

The fact is that every scholarly or political opinion in early Islam was supported by a hadith. If such was not found, it was invented. Goldziher quotes the Muslim apologist Moulavi Cheragh Ali, who admitted the hadiths imperfection:
The vast flood of traditions soon formed a chaotic sea. Truth and error, fact and fable, mingled together in an indistinguishable confusion. Every religious, social and political system defended, when necessary, to please a khalif or an Ameer to serve his purpose by an appeal to some oral traditions. The name of Muhammed was abused to support all manner of lies and absurdities, or to satisfy the passion, caprice, or arbitrary will of the despots, leaving out of consideration the creation of any standards of test.52

Even though it must hurt for Muslims to admit the imperfection of the body of hadith, that might even save them from an even larger embarrassment, namely the matun (the message of the hadith; sing. matn), which does not appear very solid. Even the most trustworthy book of hadiths, the sahih of al-Bukhari, includes a large number of hilarious hadiths. For example, it seems that Muhammed was peculiarly obsessed with urine and often spent hours teaching on that 'spiritual' subject. He for example stated that Muslims should drink camel urine as medicine, should not face Mecca when urinating or defecating and those who would get urine on their clothes or  body would be condemned to Hell in the afterlife. And most importantly, Satan urinates in your ear if you fall asleep during prayers!  Robert Morey, in his Islamic Invasion, gives us some of the more hilarious hadiths from al-Bukhari, such as:
  Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits [90 ft.] tall"
  As for resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets a discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets her discharge first, the child will resemble her."
  Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night."
  Fever is from the heat of the [Hell] fire, so cool it with water."
Also,
  Yawning is from Satan, also bad breath and passing wind.
  The jinn [spirits] eat dung and bones.
  The angel Gabriel has 600 wings.
  Muhammed commanded that all dogs should be killed, since they keep the angels away.
  The celestial stars were created by Allah to throw them at the devils.53

Added to these examples are many other similar sayings attributed to Muhammed, which have given him and the body of hadith a bad name.
Since all Muhammed's hadiths are considered divine, they all are suitable for use in the Shari'a.  Accordingly, no Muslim should urinate in the direction of Mecca, and Muslims should kill all dogs, Jews and Christians (as some hadiths state), drink camel urine when they feel sick, etc.. However, in order to rule between these hilarious hadiths and the more sensible ones, early Muslim jurists employed several methods of discerning what should, and should not, become a part of the Shari'a, and thus the usul al-fiqh (the science of the Shari'a's sources) was formed.  Also, Muhammed's sunna often failed to established a legal precedent, and thus Muslim jurists had to seek even further down into their own reasoning in order to establish Islamic jurisprudence.
However, this non-divine methodology has been debated among the various schools of law, causing Sunni Islam to be divided.

Notes:
48 Goldziher, Muslim Studies, 24pp.
49 Hitti, Islam and the West, 22.
50 Malise Rutven, Islam in the World (London, 1991), 150-151.
51 Goldziher, Introduction, 43.
52 Quoted in Goldziher, Muslim Studies, 126n.
53 Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion (Oregon, 1992), 177-210.

Article from:
http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/islam5.htm

[Sarat]

Peace,

You bring up many good pts here. You know the very reason I started questioning hadith is when I came upon the one about camel urine lol. Well I dare you to post this on a message board like ummah.com. See the response you'd get hahahaha.

[AaRoN]

peace

let us not only make an issue of the truth of the hadith, especially those which are so obviously false, but more with the necessity...

let me give an example of what i mean...

if someone came to you with a hadith that said
"narrated abu Huraira:
Aisha reported that the Prophet Muhammad said 'worship God alone'"

would you deny that at one point Muhammad had said to worship God alone? (hopefully not)

however, what is the necessity of having such a hadith, as the Quran clearly states the worship of God alone as a main point?

one of my biggest problems with frequent quoters of hadith is their inability to give credit where credit is due...for example, i have often heard that the prophet said a believer should return an equal or greater greeting when greeted by a believer...

4:86 And if you are greeted with a greeting, then return an even better greeting or return the same. GOD is reckoning over all things.[/b]

therefore, whether or not Muhammad had said this at any time is a moot point, as the credit belongs to Allah subhana wa ta'ala, who has communicated this message in the book.

so not only are the followers of hadith oftentimes following completely falsified information, they also seem incapable of giving the proper credit where it is due...so so sad

[Layth]

Message forwarded.....
-----------------------------

salaam all,

The Quran provides us with examples in the Quran. Similarily, he names certain Rasuls-Allah as examples for us.

[39:27]   We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran, that they may take heed.

The Quran has every example INCLUDED in it. it is not an open invitation to take any example we see outside the Quran as God-given. The example that we refer to are always IN THE QURAN....and there is no authority give to cite example outside the Quran!

[43:26]   Abraham said to his father and his people, "I disown what you worship.
[43:27]   "Only the One who initiated me can guide me."
[43:28]   This example (of Abraham) was rendered an everlasting lesson for subsequent generations; perhaps they redeem their souls.
[43:29]   Indeed, I have given these people and their ancestors sufficient chances, then the truth came to them, and a clarifying messenger.

Ibrahim is an example for all people! His example is cited in the Quran. We do not take heresay and gossip as an example, but only wht the Quran cites Ibrahim as doing. The Quran is the only VALID source of any example.

[43:57]   When the son of Mary was cited as an example, your people disregarded it.
[43:58]   They said, "Is it better to worship our gods, or to worship him?" They said this only to argue with you. Indeed, they are people who have joined the opposition.
[43:59]   He was no more than a servant whom we blessed, and we sent him as an example for the Children of Israel.

Jesus was sent as an example to the Bani Israel. There is no confusion in that. But the Quran is clear on the earlier reference to Ibrahim.

[60:4]  A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him. They said to their people, "We disown you and the idols that you worship besides GOD. We denounce you, and you will see nothing from us except animosity and hatred until you believe in GOD ALONE." However, a mistake was committed by Abraham when he said to his father, "I will pray for your forgiveness, but I possess no power to protect you from GOD." "Our Lord, we trust in You, and submit to You; to You is the final destiny.
[60:5]   "Our Lord, let us not be oppressed by those who disbelieved, and forgive us. You are the Almighty, Most Wise."
[60:6]   A good example has been set by them for those who seek GOD and the Last Day. As for those who turn away, GOD is in no need (of them), Most Praiseworthy.

So we see that when the Quran mentions someone as a good example, it also cites the very act that is exemplary. Surely no Rasul was free from err. Therefore, the Quran is the only authority that tells us which act of the exemplary personality is ordained as exemplary for us all!

So the MuhammadurasulAllah is the best example pertaining to the context that the verse was put in:
[33:13]   A group of them said, "O people of Yathrib, you cannot attain victory; go back." Others made up excuses to the prophet: "Our homes are vulnerable," when they were not vulnerable. They just wanted to flee.
[33:14]   Had the enemy invaded and asked them to join, they would have joined the enemy without hesitation.
[33:15]   They had pledged to GOD in the past that they would not turn around and flee; making a pledge with GOD involves a great responsibility.
[33:16]   Say, "If you flee, you can never flee from death or from being killed. No matter what happens, you only live a short while longer."
[33:17]   Say, "Who would protect you from GOD if He willed any adversity, or willed any blessing for you?" They can never find, beside GOD, any other Lord and Master.
[33:18]   GOD is fully aware of the hinderers among you, and those who say to their comrades, "Let us all stay behind." Rarely do they mobilize for defense.
[33:19]   Also, they are too stingy when dealing with you. If anything threatens the community, you see their eyes rolling with fear, as if death had already come to them.  Once the crisis is over, they whip you with sharp tongues. They are too stingy with their wealth. These are not believers, and, consequently, GOD has nullified their works. This is easy for GOD to do.
[33:20]   They thought that the parties might come back. In that case, they would wish that they were lost in the desert, asking about your news from afar. Had the parties attacked you while they were with you, they would rarely support you.
[33:21]   The messenger of GOD has set up a good example for those among you who seek GOD and the Last Day, and constantly think about GOD.
[33:22]   When the true believers saw the parties (ready to attack), they said, "This is what GOD and His messenger have promised us, and GOD and His messenger are truthful." This (dangerous situation) only strengthened their faith and augmented their submission.

What a good example Allah was referring to!!!!

[33:23]   Among the believers there are people who fulfill their pledges with GOD. Some of them died, while others stand ready, never wavering.
[33:24]   GOD will surely recompense the truthful for their truthfulness, and will punish the hypocrites, if He so wills, or redeem them. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

And Allah will recompense those people who followed THAT example.

now are you going to rip that verse from context and tell me that that that verse referred to wearing a beard?

preposterous!!!

Regards,
Khurram Chaudhry

[ayman]

After two or three generations of forged and invented hadiths, Islamic scholars finally decided to filter the body of hadith through a systematic methodology. Now the hadith requirements were turned upside-down, and suddenly the importance of the narrative itself was relegated and the narrators were closely examined.  No hadith was now considered authentic, if the chain of authorities (sanad=support; isnad=supporting; that is A-B-C-D-E ...) did not include trustworthy persons.

In my opinion, the Imams were in a no win situation. If they focus primarily on the isnad then they end up with hadiths that have perfect and mutawatir isnad but that contradicted common sense (because isnad is the easiest component of the hadith to fabricate). On the other hand, if they focus primarily on matan (content) then they are accused of accepting only the hadiths that they desire. The only way out of this dilemma would have been to use the Quran (the criterion/"al-furqan") to only accept hadiths that were in total agreement with the Quran. But then people would have said why do we need hadith if we are only accepting ones that have information already in the Quran? Why not just study the Quran directly?

It was probably not easy for the Imams after they had spent their life studying hadith to conclude that it was a waste of time. Also, in my opinion, we probably do not hear about the few Imams who may have reached that conclusion because they wouldn't have published a hadith collection that made them famous.

[themovement1]

I must agree with Ayman somewhat. Even in the event of proving a narrator untrustworthy, this would have major implications. IN this case the imaams would be insulting people's ancestors(grandfathers, fathers, uncles etc.).  I'm sure calling one's ancestor a liar would cause a great stir. I would have left the hadeeth to rumor and called them 'popular narration' or "the rumourous narration of the people concerning Muhammad(Godbless him)."

Hey, and you never know about that camel urine. There is evidence out there for self-urine therapy(where you drink your urine(usually in small amounts). I've heard that certain people from the Indian Subcontinent also drink cow urine .(or use it in a way that they consume it).

Though it may culturally disgust many of us this could be a jewel of wisdom that someone was trying to pass down to us. Many peoples eat raw fermented foods(including meats and fish), even animal dung (I saw it on television being done in Indonesia) for their health. Excepting the urine therapy these other methods are in line with the belief (which I also believe in) that bacteria and parasites eat damaged and dead tissue, and serve to cleanse the body (this may not be good for you if you live a lifestyle that promotes death and damage).

The fact that these peoples still do it to this day(meaning that it does not cause harm immediatly and irreversibly, like our Western medical presumptions infer) speaks to the possible benefit to the therapy, which causes a whole 'nother twist on the way we look at health and disease.

I will admit that I eat "matured raw meats (after a month of maturing)" and actually enjoy them!  :shock:
Chicken tastes like a sort of cheese and beef and lamb are good and have an interesting taste that clears and gives a lifting feeling in my head and my nose. I show no symptoms of disease or impairment after eating them.

All I'm saying is that many things that we think are disgusting are only so because we were raised a certain way. With most there is a fine line between cultural absurdity (stemming from cultural bias) and true absurdity.

I eat raw meats and practice a raw food diet just about 100% of the time(raw milk, raw meats, raw vegetable & fruit juices, fermented vegetable products, fermented milk, cream, butter, etc.) I had a girl tell me that

if animals had any sense they would cook their food too.

I hope this illustrates my point. But let me say to her and to all of those who may agree with her, God is always right, man is always wrong

Yeah, there is room for manipulation of this quote but you get my gist.

Godbless,
Anwar

[Tunisian Man]

Salam All,

If some one explain to me, how sects are considered as mushriks.
I do beleive they are wrong, but till considering them as mushriks, I have some doubts.

Thanks
Zoubeir

[themovement1]

A Salute to all!
Salaaman &alaal-&aami

Well that's not in this topic but I will humor you on this one.

A sect is what would be called 'fareequn' or 'fi'atun' or 'ta'ifatun' in Cl. Arabic. It also can be called 'shi&un' or 'shi&atun' or even 'hizbun.' It is just a SECTion  of a particular group or category. It depends on who is the beholder who is considered a "sect" and who is not. However sect just means a particular division or group among a wider group. In that sense 'millatun' would also fit in the sense of 'demonination.' A 'mushrik' in the Qu'ran is specifically linked to 'al-ishraaku billaahi' or 'making equals with God' as ashraka means 'to make something equal with another.' So a division or particular group amidst a wider group does not have to be a group that makes equals with God.

taa'ifatun aw shee&atun aw fi'atun laisat naasan alladheena yushrikoona billaahi taba&an.
(A group or sect or party is not a group of people that instrinsically makes equals with God)

shi&atun, heya kal-kalimati hizbun aw taa'ifatun aw fi'atun, aw millatun. ta&anee hadheehil-kalimaatu jamaa&u/jumoo&u naasin alladheena yadhunnoona wa yu'minoona mukhtalifan aw fareeqan min naasin aakhareena.

"Sect is like the word 'party' or 'group.' These words mean/communicate a group(s) of people that think and believe differently or distincly than other people.

Arjoo an fahimta maa kaatabtuka

I hope you have understood what i wrote to you.

Godbless,
Salla allahu alaika

Anwar

[Tunisian Man]

Dear brother Anwar,
Naam Ana fahimtou ma kad fassartahou li, maa ashshoukr!
so mushriks, are those who had settled equal to God, Hasha lillah
by this definition sunni or shii or ahmadi or ismaiili, etc, are not mushriks, because they do not consider prophet mohammed alayhi assalat wassalam
as equal to god, they of course want to follow his sunna as being the best example in worshipping God, even though they did it wrongly, but this is due to a bad understanding of Quraan, but sects in Islam are not worshipping Mohammad, they really worship God, they also do not associate to him prophet mohammed as a divinity.
the only community who are really mushriks in that case are christian because in their mind they merged God with a human, my God it is really a big sin.
what do you say?
Thanks
Zoubeir

[themovement1]

Forgive me tunisian man for the beginning of that post. I thought I was in a different forum.  :oops:

Godbless,
Anwar :oops:
I feel dumb

[Tunisian Man]

Dear anwar
do not care that's noting.

salam
zoubeir

[Wakas]

The God describes and defines what an idolater is in many places throughout The Quran, one of which is:

Do not eat from that upon which the name of GOD has not been mentioned, for it is an abomination. The devils inspire their allies to argue with you; if you obey them, you will be idol worshipers. (6:121)

To me, this means that if you follow religious law that goes against The God's teachings, you are an idolater.
Why you may ask? Well, it is because you are raising the status of a man-made law to a level which either equals or supercedes God's law, thus are making equals with The God, i.e. you have become an idolater, intentionally or not it doesn't matter you would still be an idolater. When I first read this verse, it honestly scared/shocked me... as I'd always assumed an idolater would be one who physically worshipped others with The God, such as statues or Jesus/Mary etc. How wrong I was...


peace,
wakas

[themovement1]

Well, you can be a mushrikoona billaahi in deed or word. You see what I meant? You can claim that you do not make Muhammad equal to God, but when you see definite contradictions nor think on what you believe and believe it despite God then you are a mushrikoona billahi. The Qur'an charges Jews and other for taking their scholars habaruhum(I believe) as their lords in disregard to God. So I would say that Muslims take their scholars as lords in disregard to God (and sometimes Muhammad) and that is what makes them mushrikoona billaahi.

Godbless,
Anwar

[confuzed]

[43:59] He was no more than a servant whom we blessed, and we sent him as an example for the Children of Israel.


If Jesus himself was an example, then that means the everything he did was an example for the Children of Israel.  Isn't it the same for Muhammad. He was an example for all of mankind.  That would mean everything he did was an example for us.  Therefor the Sunnah.  Ofcourse I have a hard time following the Sunnah because I don't know what has been fabricated.  But the way Muhammad prayed is probably the way the sunnis, shia pray for the most part.  That of course is an assumption, but what if it truely is the way he prayed?  Are we in error for not following it??

[TheNabi]

Peace

There is only one Sunnah called to be followed. The Messenger reflects this Sunnah. Then there's this thing about Muhammad and Ahmad, interesting stuff, I think I'll explain later when the issue is clearer.  :lol:

Joe