News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

How/Why did hadiths become a second source of law?

Started by LeBelysa, October 16, 2011, 05:20:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Producer

I apologies for inexplicably, because what I've be doing, a research and experiment of an "Psychological Inquisition" or simply a "Mind Trick", that'll could neutralize Sunnis.

There has been Great and Massive Research on Allah Alone Guidance, biggest problem is getting the Sunnis close minded mind to comprehend it.

a higher Psychological method to convey the message, or in my experimental method a  Mind trick.

Student of Allah

Quote from: SNS on October 16, 2011, 12:40:06 PM
Your rebuttal sounds very interesting - anytime I mention Qur'an alone it's always 'Obey the messenger'. When will it be up?
Salam,

Well, in my paper on "Obey the messenger", I tried t reason from a new angle. I think this issue is the top most issue that comes up when you mention the Quran alone approach to Islam. The funny thing is, most of those traditional muslims dont even know that the verses usually doesnt end there.

Here is something for you to observe. When you meet a sunni/shia, invite him to discard the hadith garbage, he/she will say "Allah said in Quran to Obey Allah and rasul", you simply ask him what comes next in the same ayaat. And just look at his face. This is what happens when people start disbelieving without knowing, they put more faith in man than God:

2:171 And the example of those who disbelieve is like one who repeats what he has heard of calls and cries; deaf, dumb, and blind, they do not comprehend.

Its an amazing phenomena. These people feel bad when the world calls them terrorists because the Quran asks to kill the infidels. They try to show you the full verses,context and other quranic phrases to prove that God didnt order to go about killing infidels. Yet, these are the same people that established a complete doctrine based on few words stripped from ayaats.By the way, this should work pretty well with more than 90% of the muslims.

Peace be on you

-------------------------- Student of Allah
[url=http://studentofallah.blogspot.com/]"Student of Allah"'s blog[/url]

WhereIsTheTruth

Quote from: SNS on October 16, 2011, 12:36:43 PM
Salaam,


But sometimes, things scholars/imams say make no sense whatsoever and just go against basic morals.  Like the breasfeeding non-mahram men thing - that's just idiocy. You'd have to be a right fool to believe that. And then you have others that say it's okay to temporarily marry girls that are as young as 4 years old but you can't 'penetrate' - that goes against basic morals - how can you follow someone with views like that? What makes a person follow these types of people? Is it just self gratification?

Remember that according to general sunni belief you dont question sunni practices... if you begin to question and think for yourself you would likely be told to seek 'forgiveness' for sinning by having KUFR ideas - and who wants to be seen as a KAFIR? ........ So when you dont think for yourself you need someone ELSE to think for you, and its here when the scholers or imams come into the picture.. you depend on them fully.. so if they once a while say very weird criminal things(which rarely happens since its not what the avarage muslim of 2011 hear in the masjid) as breast feeding, slavery, terrorism etc. than you would not care about it too much or think that there are some underline wisdom in it which you dont quite understand, and than you wont bother further about it :) Thats properly most people start to follow weird types of mullahs. Simply because they fear that their inner voice would let them fall into sin, and since mullahs are ''experts'' whatever they say must be islam.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it

My contact prayer, and my rites, and my life, and my death, are all to God, Lord of the worlds.

Emil

Quote from: SNS on October 16, 2011, 05:20:01 AM
I'm just wondering how these texts became so important that in some cases they override the holy book itself. Surely, when they were first put together people would have been skeptical? They couldn't have been that stupid to believe that people would remember something word for word 2 centuries after the Prophet's death?

And why did they become so important. Were people too lazy to think on their own or what?

Salaam SNS

I think some of the very contributing reasons why hadith became so strong are

1.) Hadith follows the long time tradition of oral narrations that in the geographical area where islam was founded are strong.
2.) Illiteracy combined with the fact the holy book of Quran was scarce
3.) The simple fact of whom to believe more "I know so because I have read it" or "I know so because prophet Muhammed said it"

There is no doubt in my mind that if the people of the time had access to what we have today (school, internet etc.) the hadith would never survive, people would throw them out when they see it was contradictory to the Quran.


afridi220

yesterday a young scholar told me that for us hadiths comes first and Quran 2nd.

:confused: i called hm mushreq and he left angrily :'(


http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/the-quran-and-hadith-which-is-more-authentic/
Peace


People are often unreasonable, illogical and self-centered; forgive them anyway

youssef4342

Quote from: Radi Ashun on October 16, 2011, 06:50:13 PM
Probably the same reason the Council of Nicea threw out parts of the Bible and kept others. Also the scholars thing is similar to how in the Middle Ages the normal populace was dependent on their priest to read and interpret the Bible as most were illiterate at the time. The Vatican was and still is the authority on Biblical and religious edicts and there are many Catholics that blindly follow them to this day.
People have a tendency to believe the "experts" when it comes to religion and hence don't question the scholars. So whatever they say, people will be like "Yeah OK"
Peace Radi Ahun  :peace:
I very much agree with you ideology. I mean look at the dentists who put toxic mercury amalgams (tooth fillings) in their patients mouths, and telling them it's ok!
Also, when we look at the past Jewish ideology, we see that their made up traditions (by high chiefs/rabbis/pharisees etc) sometimes nullified the law of God Almighty (This is the case of Jesus's citation in the NT Matthew 15:6).

"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them."(Quran 17:36)

~ Blessed is his Most Blessed, Supreme, High Majesty, YHWH; The Almighty, The Most Wise ~
~ Hallel YAH! ~
   :sun:
Facebook Group
[url="https://www.facebook.com/groups/310518545650653/"]https://www.facebook.com/groups/310518545650653/[/url]

"Fear not those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear the one who can destroy both the soul and the body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

Sirius

Quote from: SNS on October 16, 2011, 05:20:01 AM
I'm just wondering how these texts became so important that in some cases they override the holy book itself. Surely, when they were first put together people would have been skeptical? They couldn't have been that stupid to believe that people would remember something word for word 2 centuries after the Prophet's death?

And why did they become so important. Were people too lazy to think on their own or what?



There were of course huge concerns regarding the authenticity of the hadiths, post-collection, which is why the vast majority of them were thrown out. But given that up until Islam, the society in question had been one that placed a lot of importance upon oral transmission - which is of course how the hadiths had been passed on prior the development of a canon - it wouldn't have been stupid to think it plausible to be able to pass on sayings or narrate incidents down through generations.

They (the hadiths) had to become important because the Muslims were trying to develop legal system (with the Quran being the theoretical base) and they believed that the messenger had been a practical embodiment of what it meant to live as a muslim thus his sunnah and sayings had to be preserved. I supposed the logic is that the messenger wouldn't have said anything untrue or behaved in a manner that contradicted the teachings of the revelation he'd been preaching....the traditions would be passed on, and later on recorded and as long as a hadith would be able to boast what appears to be a reliable chain of narration it should then be followed.

It doesn't sound entirely illogical in my opinion and given the sensibilities of that society it's not completely unfathomable, the issue (imo) is, the content of ahadith seems to be of lesser importance than the chain of narration - in descerning 'true' hadiths from unauthentic ones, the emphasis seems to have been placed on who/how many people narrated this rather than what is actually being said - an imbalance if you will.

But any way the point is, the messengers words/actions are thought to be exemplary - the things he is said to have done, prohibited, allowed  and expounded upon are thought to be important in forming the foundations for the legal system. I suppose what's important in establishing the importance of hadith is the relationship between them and the development of a some sort of juridicial authority to govern the developing religious community.
"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."

ayyub

Quote from: Sirius on November 03, 2011, 05:05:32 PM


There were of course huge concerns regarding the authenticity of the hadiths, post-collection, which is why the vast majority of them were thrown out. But given that up until Islam, the society in question had been one that placed a lot of importance upon oral transmission - which is of course how the hadiths had been passed on prior the development of a canon - it wouldn't have been stupid to think it plausible to be able to pass on sayings or narrate incidents down through generations.

They (the hadiths) had to become important because the Muslims were trying to develop legal system (with the Quran being the theoretical base) and they believed that the messenger had been a practical embodiment of what it meant to live as a muslim thus his sunnah and sayings had to be preserved. I supposed the logic is that the messenger wouldn't have said anything untrue or behaved in a manner that contradicted the teachings of the revelation he'd been preaching....the traditions would be passed on, and later on recorded and as long as a hadith would be able to boast what appears to be a reliable chain of narration it should then be followed.

It doesn't sound entirely illogical in my opinion and given the sensibilities of that society it's not completely unfathomable, the issue (imo) is, the content of ahadith seems to be of lesser importance than the chain of narration - in descerning 'true' hadiths from unauthentic ones, the emphasis seems to have been placed on who/how many people narrated this rather than what is actually being said - an imbalance if you will.

But any way the point is, the messengers words/actions are thought to be exemplary - the things he is said to have done, prohibited, allowed  and expounded upon are thought to be important in forming the foundations for the legal system. I suppose what's important in establishing the importance of hadith is the relationship between them and the development of a some sort of juridicial authority to govern the developing religious community.

Sounds similar to the view Reza Aslan gives in "No god but God".
"Do not read to contradict and refute, nor to believe and take it for granted, but to weigh and consider." - Francis Bacon

Producer

Salam, Let see the Bigger Picture,

7:185
Do they not look into the realm of the heavens and the earth and everything that Allah has created and that perhaps their appointed time has come near? So in what statement/Hadith hereafter will they believe?

Hadith is more than Jurisprudence, with hadith from heavens and the earth accepted by Allah, these Hadith, ease the Life of Muslims, these Hadiths build Islamic Civilizations.

"Past Muslims learn from the Greeks, Romans, Persians to build their Civilizations", This is the Searching Allah's Hadiths.

Sunnah-Hero is partially true Quran only Islam is not possible, Muslims need Hadith, Hadith accepted by Allah, Hadith from heavens and the earth.

What Sunni is wrong is, Hadith is only the "Sahih Hadith", exluding Hadith from  heavens and the earth, thus cause the fall of Ottoman Empire.

I've made a thread related to this topic;
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603183.msg288193#msg288193

Bigmo

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authoirty to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.

The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themsleves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.

Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. Its a betrayal and a breaking of aoth. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished by flogging just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. Its clear that the verse made it very difficult to impliment on adultery but very easy to impliment on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the porphet's wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

The Koran can not order the prohet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile.The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostated. Thats why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transfered that authority for the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transfered from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implimented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire.None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caiught and punished in this world. The sects claim that once punished the sin falls away and dissapears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be recipricol and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetraters of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someones life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder esepcially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.

To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial. There is a rumor about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder or rather the revivalist of Salafism (some call it wahhabism) stoned a women to death. This was the only time in Islamic history that we heard such a thing.

Its very unfortunant the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed many aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. Thats very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that seperates the Koran from the Sunnah. Thats why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And thats very sad.
88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe