Are All Hadiths Correct?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was reading this scholar's book on hadiths. He says there are two extreme approaches to hadith. Some people reject it because they find irrational stuff in it, and others follow it in its entirety. Both are mistaken. He says that only about 200 hadiths are authentic. The rest, all the many hundred thousands collected in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Sunan Abu Dawood, contain material that contradicts the Quran, science, and reason.

Your thoughts?

 

kickz

Engineer of Qandala
SIYAASI
VIP
There is a science to it, there are weak and strong/authentic hadith.

Rejecting it all together is rejecting the Quran as well as it commands to follow the Sunnah.
 
There is a science to it, there are weak and strong/authentic hadith.

Rejecting it all together is rejecting the Quran as well as it commands to follow the Sunnah.
Both those who follow all hadiths and those who reject all hadiths are rejecting the Quran because some hadiths in Bukhari contradict the Quran as the sheikh demonstrates. They're also contrary to basic scientific facts.
 

ArchBishopofAtheism

Intellectual saqajaan
The entire religion contradicts science. Praying "toward" the Kaaba on a spherical earth contradicts science. The tenants of the religion are premised on the belief in a flat earth.
 

ArchBishopofAtheism

Intellectual saqajaan
They're also contrary to basic scientific facts.
Allah is contrary to basic scientific facts. The Quran says a man traveled to the western end of the world and found the sun setting in a muddy spring of water. That's the Quran saying such obscene nonsense. Try to wiggle your way out of this one bidaar
 
That's Shabir Ally being his usual polite self. He's even polite about Islamophobes. All his fatwas are contrary to the Salafi outlook. He's a critic of literalism and advocates for human rights, science, and reason. See his video defending evolution and opposing laws against apostasy as just two out of many examples.
 

ArchBishopofAtheism

Intellectual saqajaan
Can you provide evidence for this?
upload_2017-9-14_12-52-29.png


This is the most favorable one. Other interpretations say he found the sun, not as if. The "people" he found wanted protection from gog and magog, so he built a wall made of iron and brass. Funny enough, this wall is nowhere to be found on earth. The wall of China is thoroughly studied and is obviously not confining billions of thirsty subhuman creatures called gog and magog.

One more thing: gog and magog apparently dig through the wall every night and just before ending for the night, forget to say "inshallah", so Allah reverses their progress and they never actually get out. In the end of days however, a clever gog and magog WILL say inshallah, Allah will get tricked and forget to reverse their progress, unleashing billions of crazy creatures on the earth. If you're a logical person, how can you believe any of this?
 
Last edited:
The entire religion contradicts science. Praying "toward" the Kaaba on a spherical earth contradicts science. The tenants of the religion are premised on the belief in a flat earth.
I had a conversation with a sheikh who had a degree in physics and actually understood something about science, which is more than can be said for most wadaads. I said, Which direction do you face toward Mecca if you're on board a space shuttle high above the earth? He said people have been worshipping Allah before Ibrahim built the Kaaba, and that it was foolish to think God much cares. So you have a point about the flat earth, but its not a very devastating one.
 

kickz

Engineer of Qandala
SIYAASI
VIP
Both those who follow all hadiths and those who reject all hadiths are rejecting the Quran because some hadiths in Bukhari contradict the Quran as the sheikh demonstrates. They're also contrary to basic scientific facts.
I mean like I said the weak hadith are weak for a reason, they are unreliable and therefore not taken seriously.

I am just vehemently against those that reject it all together and say Quran only.
 
Somalis do not follow the Hanafi school, they follow the Shafi'i school.
Not even Hanafis today follow the Hanafi school. Most schools have been corrupted by the excessively literalist Hanbali sect which is fiananced by Saudi Arabia.

This sheikh is not a Hanafi either. He's an independent thinker. Only the book under discussion is. He's among a number of scholars who press for a reassessment of medieval interpretations of Islam. Another is Israr Ahmed Khan, author of a similar book exposing faulty hadiths in so-called sahih collections. There's a good book review here:

http://www.mohammedamin.com/Reviews/Authentication-of-Hadith-Redefining-the-Criteria.html

And I'm certainly no Shafici. It's got similar problems with science and human rights as the Hanbali.
 
I mean like I said the weak hadith are weak for a reason, they are unreliable and therefore not taken seriously.

I am just vehemently against those that reject it all together and say Quran only.
There's no place for vehemence in a religious discussion my little kitten. Only fanatics lose their temper. Let us leave theological odium to the extremists.

Hadith opponents are wrong because we need hadith to understand certain aspects if Islam, bug it's those who follow everything in Bukhari who do more damage. They're the ones behind all the killing, oppression, persecution, stoning, amputation, and general barbarism in the Ummah. Quranists do not do that.

Forged hadiths in Bukhari do not come with a label saying they're forged. The book is considered holy and divine. It is not. Only the Quran is divine revelation. Sahih Bukhari was compiled over two hundred years after the Prophet died. It has sound hadiths, and it has unsound hadiths.
 
Where do you think the wadaads get their ideas? The wadaads rejection of science and logic is in accordance with Islam. Islam rejects science because 7th century Arabs came up with it.
The wadaads get their anti-scientific bent from fake hadiths and literalist interpretations of the Quran. It's not Islam's fault. It's the fault of deranged Salafi-Deobandi-Wahabbi goat rapers who've foisted their ideology on people at the point of a sword. But there have always been rational wadaads to fight them and pull their knickers down, as in the gent in this video.
 

kickz

Engineer of Qandala
SIYAASI
VIP
There's no place for vehemence in a religious discussion my little kitten. Only fanatics lose their temper. Let us leave theological odium to the extremists.

Hadith opponents are wrong because we need hadith to understand certain aspects if Islam, bug it's those who follow everything in Bukhari who do more damage. They're the ones behind all the killing, oppression, persecution, stoning, amputation, and general barbarism in the Ummah. Quranists do not do that.

Forged hadiths in Bukhari do not come with a label saying they're forged. The book is considered holy and divine. It is not. Only the Quran is divine revelation. Sahih Bukhari was compiled over two hundred years after the Prophet died. It has sound hadiths, and it has unsound hadiths.
What does holding a steadfast position have to do with violence?
I am just saying the Quranist outlook is a nonstarter as by definition you are not a Quranist if you do not follow the Hadith.
 
What does holding a steadfast position have to do with violence?
I am just saying the Quranist outlook is a nonstarter as by definition you are not a Quranist if you do not follow the Hadith.
I was just ribbing you, son. There are too many hotheads in religious discussions. Agreed, the Q boys are a nonstarter.

What do you think of the video's argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending

Top