Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 04:15 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
Today at 10:06 AM

Satanic verses
Yesterday at 09:10 PM

Painted pious ladies
Yesterday at 07:36 PM

Climate catastrophe, sinn...
Yesterday at 03:08 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 20, 2019, 09:30 PM

Kashmir endgame
September 19, 2019, 02:15 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
September 19, 2019, 12:57 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
September 18, 2019, 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
September 17, 2019, 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
September 17, 2019, 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
September 17, 2019, 06:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments

 (Read 5086 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     OP - April 08, 2009, 06:42 AM

    Hello folks! Smiley

    Many Muslims we come across on this site are anti hadiths, they prefer to rely solely on the Quran. Probably they're embarassed by all the misogyny, absurdity, violence & unpleasant acts committed by Muhammad described in the Hadiths. I found this link describing the fallacies of the anti hadith position.

     http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1846

    The main thrust of this article, as I understand it is that, Muslims are supposed to not only follow the Quran but also Prophet Muhammad's conduct to the best of their ability & that is impossible without the hadiths. While I certainly consider Muhammad's character in the hadiths to be extremely unpleasant & consider him a poor role model, Muslims are advised many times in the Quran, supposedly by "Allah" to follow Muhammad as well as Allah.

    You have indeed in the Messenger of God as good example for him who looks forward to God and the Last Day and remembers God much (33:21)

    Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),

    Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).

    Notice the proximity with divinity that the Quran accords Muhammad! Since the Quran doesn't describe Muhammad's life, the only way for Muslims to learn about it & follow his example is through hadiths.  cool2

    What other fallacies can you thin of in the anti hadith position? Or is the anti hadith position theologically grounded & sound?  questions2

    One problem in the anti hadith position that I thought & that I posted on another thread is this, Muslims think that by restricting themselves to the Quran all the violence, absurdity & misogyny in their faith will simply disappear, just like Christians' think that by restricting themselves to the NT, or even just to Jesus' words, all the unsavoury elements will vanish.

    Unfortunately Allah's words in the Quran isn't some great reservoir of gender equality or  religious tolerance-& once Muslims decide to strictly restrict themselves strictly to the Quran, any unsavoury elements in the Quran will probably make themselves turn away from the faith in entirety. Tongue

    We can ask them them to stop praying five times daily & going to Hajj-I doubt they'll want to abandon these practices. If they still stick to their Quran only position, then there's the verse about wife beating-4.34, if they say that the verse says to beat with a "miswak" then point out that miswak is there in the hadiths-the Quran simply says to "beat" & there is no lightly in the original verse, till Yusuf Ali added lightly in brackets in the 20th century. Allah never said lightly in the Quran, He simply said, "beat" in the Quran, as "lightly" or "harshly" as the husband pleased. 

    Then ask them why one half of the Quran consists of somewhat more tolerant verses like, "There is no compulsion in religion..." while the later verses are full of instructions to murder "unbelievers". Probably they'll start explaining that the later verses were revealed in a war situation(unless they're Osama fans, who wholeheratedly support the later verses! ) & you can then point out that its impossible to understand a "war situation" without reference to Hadiths & left only with the Quran we come across earlier verses preaching grudging tolerance, later verses preaching murderous intolerance & the way out of this contradiction in the Quran is the doctrine of "abrogation" which cancels out the peaceful verses & leaves only the violent ones

    Ironically, this makes the "Quran only" position more intolerant than the Quran + hadiths + sira position, in the latter case Muslims can argue that Mo fought in self defence & the "Verses of the Sword" were revealed when Muslims were repeatedly attacked.  Wink





    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #1 - April 08, 2009, 06:59 AM

    I am anti hadiths, but I am also anti quran, in the sense that the quran should be rejected on the same grounds as the hadiths are.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #2 - April 08, 2009, 07:49 AM

    I have looked into it and asked the question several times, and cannot find any reason for Muslims to support the hadith 100%, even the authenticated ones.  So I guess the Quran-only muslims can be justified in saying that ALL the hadith are subject to interpretation and cross reference, or even abandonment.

    They are simply stories of events that are prone to chinese whispers and human error, whereas the Quran on the otherhand was sent by man and although written by man, it was supported by divine intervention and so Allah ensured it was correct.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #3 - April 08, 2009, 08:02 AM

    The fact is that many verses of the Koran cannot be understood except in light of the hadith:

    Quote
    Recall when your army was positioned at the less defensible brink of the valley, (the pagans') army had the more defensible higher side of the valley and the caravan was led (out of your reach) below. This situation did not take place according to your previous plans, otherwise, everything would have been different. (It was God's plan ) to place you in a vulnerable position, exposed to the enemy and it was His plan to lead the caravan out of your reach) so that His decree that you would be granted a victory by a miracle would become a doubtless fact and so that those who were to be destroyed would face destruction with a clear knowledge of the Truth and those who were to survive would also survive with a clear knowledge of the Truth. God is All-hearing and All-knowing.

    al-Anfal verse 42 (Sarwar's translation)


    And the next verse is also a favorite:

    Quote
    In your dream, God showed (the pagans' army) as being only a few in number, for if He had showed them as a great number, you would have lost courage and would have started to quarrel among yourselves concerning this matter. But God saved you from that condition; He knows what is in your hearts.

    al-Anfal verse 43


    The Prophet was misled by his own God!

    "It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries... But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah"

    -Sayyid Qutb, Milestones
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #4 - April 08, 2009, 08:08 AM

    I have looked into it and asked the question several times, and cannot find any reason for Muslims to support the hadith 100%, even the authenticated ones.  So I guess the Quran-only muslims can be justified in saying that ALL the hadith are subject to interpretation and cross reference, or even abandonment.

    They are simply stories of events that are prone to chinese whispers and human error, whereas the Quran on the otherhand was sent by man and although written by man, it was supported by divine intervention and so Allah ensured it was correct.


    Here's a Muslim site, aimed at arguing against Christianity, which lists the fallacies of the Quran only position.See if its arguments are of any use?  Huh?
     
    www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/combat_kit_for_muslims.htm

    Amongst its reasons for accepting the hadiths are "Prophesies" in the hadiths- prophesies which came to pass. And what are those prophesies? Prophesies of "jihad" & "conquest" of non Muslim nations like Egypt, Iran, India. This site also blames the later British colonizers in India for allegedly killing many Muslims-they don't care at all about the pagans killed in the Muslim conquest in India, the grinding down og the Hindu-Buddhist culture of India & the destruction of nearly all big Hindu\Buddhists monuments of much of India, not to mention the many atrocities on the non Muslim population that Islamic conquest caused in Iran, Egypt or elsewhere!

    Talk about double standards!  furious

    Well, you can combat the Quranists only by asking them how they can accept all the Quran as true-it was after all penned by various narrators who might include their personal prejudices or viewpoints into the Quran.Allah didn't pen down the Quran, nor the hadiths, nor did Jibreel, nor did "illiterate" Muhammad, who couldn't even cross check whether everything in the Quran was whatever Allah had revealed. For instance Abu Huraira narrated some of the most misogynistic verses in the Quran as well as some of the most misogynistic hadiths. Reformist scholars like Khaled Abou el Fadl for instance discredit Abu Huraira's narrations as fabrications. Also check out the arguments in Bassam Zawadi's site.  great

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #5 - April 08, 2009, 08:16 AM

    Thanks Rashna - this section from that link is useful to know;

    Some Questions to Ask the Quran-Only People



    How do you know how to pray using the Quran alone?

    How do you know how much Zakaah to pay using the Quran alone?   

    Hadn't the Quran been reached to us from the same sources we received our authentic hadith?

    Why would Allah preserve the Quran and not preserve the meaning?

     

    The Quran says that men could beat up their wives. But we know according to hadith that this is a spiritual beating and not a harmful physical. What is to stop a man from misinterpreting the Quran and beating the hell out of his wife?

    How do we know the order of the alcohol revelations? Maybe the first of the Quranic revelations said it was haram and then the later ones came saying that is was okay except during prayer times. How do you know the order of its revelations by using the Quran alone?

    In Surah 66:3, the Prophet told his wives that he knew because Allah had informed him about it. Show me a Quranic verse where Allah had informed the Prophet about it. You cannot. Does this not prove that there are revelations to Prophet Muhammad besides the Quran?

    Surah 2:173 shows that Allah (swt) gave an order for the Muslims to change their Qibla from (Bayt Al Maqdis in Jerusalem) to the Kabah in Mecca. However, there is no Quranic verse that shows the first order that Allah gave to make the Qibla towards Jerusalem. Does this not prove that there are revelations to Prophet Muhammad besides the Quran?

    The Quran is passed on to us by Mutawattir narrations. Mutawattir narrations are narrations by so many people that it is just impossible for all of them to get together and plot and lie.  How can you reject their authenticity with no objective evidence?


    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #6 - April 08, 2009, 08:29 AM

    You're welcome Islame!  Smiley

    Actually that article by Bassam Zawadi from the site "Answering Christianity" is making me so mad that I've decided to post an excerpt from it.

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/combat_kit_for_muslims.htm

    These are some prophesies of "conquests" from that article:

    ?I am assigned the keys of the treasures of Sham (Syria).?
      ? I am assigned the key of Faris (Persia) and I am presently seeing white palaces.?
    ?I am assigned the keys of Yemen. By Allaah I am seeing from here the doors of Sanaa.?
     
    This prophesy about the conquest of the above countries was made at a time when the warriors of disbelievers  were doing aggression on Madinah  and trenches were being dug-up all around. In such a prevalent situation the prophesy of so many countries? conquest is exclusive to Muhammad only. And Allaah (SWT) made it. The proofs (of miracle and/or prophesy came true) are Syria, Yemen and entire Persia as Muslim countries some of them even adopted the Arabic language as their mother tongue.
     
    III
    Prophesy of the victory over Egypt.
     
    Prophet Muhammad  said:
     
    ?They would shortly conquer the country where qeerat is the currency. Do good to those people because they enjoy the rights of  ?being under your responsibility? and privilege of seeking mercy. Then said to Abu Zarr  ?When you see that two men are quarrelling over a space of the measure of a brick- you should return from there.?
     
    Abu Zarr  saw the victory of Egypt, settled there, and saw Rabia and Abdur Rahman Ibn Shurahbil quarrelling for the space measuring one brick?s length. Thereafter he returned from Egypt. The commentary is contained in Baihiqi and Abu Naim?s from Kaab Ibn Maalik and reminded that Hajar Umm Ismail, Maria Qabtia Umm Ibrahim Ibn Rasool Allaah  are Egyptians. Again, needless to say that this prophesy also came to pass and Egypt fall under Islaam and even embraced the Arabic as its mother tongue.    
    IV
    Prophesy about wearing King of Iran?s ornament by Saraqa Ibn Maalik.
     
    Prophet Muhammad said to Surah Ibn Maalik,
     
    ?What will be thy stateliness when thou would be adorned by the ornament of Kisra) King of Persia).?
     
    In another report of Baihiqi it is said that when Umar Farooq  received the ornament of King Kisra of Persia in the booty from that country he called Saraqa Ibn Maalik??? and adored him with it (the Kangan). After decorating him Umar  said: ?Thanks to Almighty Allaah who snatched from Kisra Ibn Hermiz  (who called himself Lord of the people) these ornament and adorned Saraqa Ibn Maalik Madalji.
     
    Imaam Shafai  has commented that Saraqa was decorated with the ornament to integrate it with the forecast (prophesy) of the Prophet The shortest sentence of the prophesy (forecast) containing three events is significant for consideration (1) The integrity of the Caliphate of Umar   with the compliance of the word of Hadeeth/prophesy (2) The conquest of Persia and (3) Survival (living) of Saraqa till that time, he died in 28 Hijrah, few years later.
     
    V
    Prophesy about the conquest of India that came to pass.
     
    We find this Hadeeth in Sunan Nasai and Baihiqi about India:
     
    Prophet Muhammad assured that Muslims would head expedition to India.
     
    Sultan Mahmood of Ghazna was the first to expedite into India in 393 Hijrah about a century after the death of Imaam Nasai. Readers must know that Muslims ruled over India for over thousand years. After it was looted and occupied by Christians (British) it was and still is called jewel in the British crown. During their occupation Christians systematically committed Muslims genocide. Christians? especially killed the thousands of scholars of Islaam. 
    VI
    Prophesy about the victory of Constantinople that came to pass.
     
    This prophesy is found the Ahadeeth books of Musnad Imaam Ahmad and Sahih Muslim as reported from Abu Hurayrah  and in Sunan Abu Dawud as reported from Mauz Ibn Jabul  in context of victory of Constantinople (Qustun-tunia {today?s Istanbul/Turkey}). Imaam Humam Ahmad Hambal had died in 241 Hijrah and his book Musnad has always been before the scholars since his death. Sultan Muhammad Fateh conquered Constantinople in 855 Hijrah *1453 A.D. (sic centuries after the Book Musnad and 850 years after the Hijrat the world witnessed the eventuality as was prophesied by the Prophet Muhammad This was also the end of Roman (Byzantine) empire and birthplace of Christianity fall under Muslims? feet. Turkey is now 100% Muslim. 



    Notice the glee with which this site recounts the Muslim conquests- the destruction of even the mother tongue of Egypt & its replacement by Arabic, the conquests of Egypt & India & the fall of Constantinople which as they proudly say was the "birthplace of Christianity which fell under Muslims' feet. "  Angry They're super proud of the fact that Turkey is now 100% Muslim, thus forgetting the victims' of the Armenian Genocide less than a century ago, without whose genocide Turkey wouldn't be 100% Muslim today.

    However, they're extremely critical of the British colonizers' in India, who'd supposedly killed many Muslims & Muslim scholars.  Flaming mad

    Bassam Zawadi, perhaps inadvertently, does a far better job of exposing the ugliness & double standards in his faith than many Anti Muslim writers could do. victory




    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #7 - April 08, 2009, 08:30 AM

    It appears that the Quran-only Muslims can 'flush' out a lot of the criticism about Mo by effectively wiping out his history.  With the Quran they are just left with a handbook of rules, thus giving much less room for criticism e.g. sleeping with Aisha at 9.  On the other hand, it also gives them less arsenal to prove that it is the right religion.

    Its irritiating because these same Muslims will not drink alcohol and pray in a certain way, when if they were strictly Quran-only, then this, amongst many other things, would not apply.  Back to one of the things that irks me most, hypocrisy.

    Before embarking on any religious discussion, I guess the first question to ask is if they believe in the authenticated hadith, if they do its plain sailing, if not then it makes your work that little bit harder.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #8 - April 08, 2009, 08:33 AM

    The British weren't genocidal anyway, whatever else you can say about them. He's talking shit.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #9 - April 08, 2009, 12:31 PM

    The British weren't genocidal anyway, whatever else you can say about them. He's talking shit.


    He's certainly talking shit.  Tongue This part is really interesting.


    After it was looted and occupied by Christians (British) it was and still is called jewel in the British crown. During their occupation Christians systematically committed Muslims genocide. Christians' especially killed the thousands of scholars of Islaam

    Turkey is now 100% Muslim.


    India was systematically looted & occupied by Muslims long before Brits. Mehmood of Ghazni, an Afghan carried away tremendous booty from India in his 17 raids & destruction of Hindu\Buddhist monuments, later during the Muslim invasions many millions died. The "Christians" ie the term by which he calls the Brits never committed any systematic genocide of Muslims.

    But there was an Armenian genocide in Turkey, not acknowledged till date which turned Turkey into nearly 100% Christian.

    In the Muslim viewpoint, which Bassam Zawadi unapologetically stated, its perfectly allright, indeed its most honorable & praiseworthy, for Muslims to conquer other lands', plunder the non Muslim population & convert them to Islam. Its a sin for any non Muslim, in this case the British to conquer any lands conquered by Muslims & the death of any Muslims in colonizations is a far graver offence than the deaths of non Muslims in Muslim jihad.  GoodVsBad

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #10 - April 08, 2009, 05:26 PM

    "You have indeed in the Messenger of God as good example for him who looks forward to God and the Last Day and remembers God much (33:21)

    Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),

    Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80)."

    None of these verses endorse the authenticity of any written account of Mohammed's actions.

    So arguably he could have been a good example, but he is dead now, so these verses no longer have much merit.

    BlipsrsealedB

    My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah." -- Mike Tyson
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #11 - April 08, 2009, 05:59 PM

    We have an argument that Allah endorsed the Quran, and he says so in it. 

    But we assume authenticity of Bukhari & Muslim, without any source?  If this is the case, then we really should not quote from them as authentic Islamic literature.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #12 - April 08, 2009, 06:41 PM

    "You have indeed in the Messenger of God as good example for him who looks forward to God and the Last Day and remembers God much (33:21)

    Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),

    Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80)."

    None of these verses endorse the authenticity of any written account of Mohammed's actions.

    So arguably he could have been a good example, but he is dead now, so these verses no longer have much merit.

    BlipsrsealedB


    Well, its impossible to endorse the authenticity of the Quran too. It was written by Muhammad's companions, often on such things as camel's bones.Any companion could've made an addition, or an ommision, Allah or Jibreel didn't supervise its writing.  The Quran claims that all its instructions are for all time & Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets so it'd be impossible to follow his example without knowing his example & to do that we have to rely on hadiths.

    Also, how do we solve the contradiction of earlier verses praching tolerance & later verses abruptly preaching intolerance & genocide, without relying on hadiths which speak of the situation?

    This site also says that the hadiths have been endorsed by Allah to ensure that people follow Muhammad's example:

    http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #13 - April 08, 2009, 08:01 PM

    But all the great Islamic scholars throughout history accepted the Hadiths and Sira of the prophet as being authentic. The used them for tafseer and for formulating Sharia.

    Who are these people in this modern day time to say these scholars over a millenia had it all wrong, and they now know best?

    If Hadiths were not true, why didn't Allah inervene and put a stop to such literature currupting his Book again?

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #14 - April 08, 2009, 08:21 PM

    But all the great Islamic scholars throughout history accepted the Hadiths and Sira of the prophet as being authentic. The used them for tafseer and for formulating Sharia.

    Who are these people in this modern day time to say these scholars over a millenia had it all wrong, and they now know best?


    So the logic here is that because these "scholars" lived and died a long time ago that must be wiser and more credible than modern thinkers?

    Quote
    If Hadiths were not true, why didn't Allah inervene and put a stop to such literature currupting his Book again?


    Same reason he hasn't intervened with any other false religionious literature?


    My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah." -- Mike Tyson
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #15 - April 08, 2009, 08:32 PM

    But all the great Islamic scholars throughout history accepted the Hadiths and Sira of the prophet as being authentic. The used them for tafseer and for formulating Sharia.

    Who are these people in this modern day time to say these scholars over a millenia had it all wrong, and they now know best?


    So the logic here is that because these "scholars" lived and died a long time ago that must be wiser and more credible than modern thinkers?


    Its just an assumption that these people lived from the time of Muhammad's existence, peoples who were supposedly able to retain great amounts of knowledge mentally and recite at will, and later document and comment on events close to the time of the prophet and pass that knowledge down. Thus being able to structure society based on these doctrines for 1400 years.

    Yet now all of a sudden in the last 100 years for whatever reason a new stream of thought, possibly to sanitise Islam, is going against over 1,000 years of accepted knowledge. And with no good reason.

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: The Fallacies of Anti Hadith arguments
     Reply #16 - April 09, 2009, 04:04 AM

    Quote from: Rashna
    Bassam Zawadi, perhaps inadvertently, does a far better job of exposing the ugliness & double standards in his faith than many Anti Muslim writers could do.

    How does the saying go... "the best way to silence an idiot is to let him speak." 

    And so it is with many Islamists. No better accusation than a self-confession.

    "It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries... But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah"

    -Sayyid Qutb, Milestones
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »