I confess I am radically changing my attitude towards the ahadith - the accounts of the life and practices of The Prophet Muhammad. I believe this is in line with the Quranic commands to use reason and intellect with regards to understanding and practicing islam.

My previous beliefs - and what I understand is the beliefs of the majority of muslims - is that the ahadith that are considered 'sahih' (sound), as determined by a reliable "isnad" (chain of transmission) - must be considered not only authentic, but a reccommended, if not compulsory aspect of the islamic religion - whether it be an actual practice, attitude or law. Overwhelmingly, these are the ahadith compiled by the two 'sahih' compilers Bukhari and Muslim. Thus if it is narrated in a sahih hadith that The Prophet said that the beard should be kept and the moustache should be trimmed - then this is either a reccommended or compulsory practice for muslim men - as stated in actual islamic law.

I am now starting to believe that the ahadith should be viewed and treated exactly for what they are - the life and times of a mere mortal man, who was issuing laws and advise as a ruler in a very specific time and place.

Muhammad's closest companion famously said when he announced The Prophet's death:

for those who worship Muhammad - Muhammad is dead. For those who worship Allah, Allah is alive

Muhammad was a mortal man who had flaws just like any other man. The Quran as well as Muhammad himself stressed this very point constantly - that Muhammad was there merely to deliver a message, not to be worshipped, and not to be elevated to anything beyond a simple man with a message. Though he was undoubtedly "the best" among men. Yet, today, the earthly practices and laws handed down by this mere mortal have been elevated by mainstream islam to something practically equivalent to the Quran. This, in my view, is tantamount to saying the words and deeds of the Prophet are divine in nature - undoubtedly a result of borrowing from Christian doctrine - whose central figure really was divine, according to Christian beleifs. Such an interpretation of islam could only be true if the laws and practices handed down personally by Muhammad were in turn handed down by Allah himself. This we can categorically reject however - the only divine revelation Muhammad received was the Quran itself, which is quite separate from the ahadith.

The islamic "school" that most closely fits this assessment is the Hanafi school. Emphasising the role of reason, this school counts as part of Islamic law the ahadith that not only have a reliable isnad, but more importantly - the ones that make sense and are relevant to both the general themes laid out in the Quran, as well as the specific earthly circumstances of any given muslim.

However I would probably go even further than Hanifa - and say that just because a hadith is not inconsistent or technically "makes sense" with the quran or my given circumstances, it still shouldn't necessarily make it a gospel truth and equivalent to Quranic (divine) law. Thus the example of keeping the beard and trimming the moustache  - it is not inconsistent with the Quran (as in the Quran makes no mention of it), and it "makes sense" insofar it is something I know how to do and can do. Yet I use reason to deduce that it is not a requirement under islamic law. This particular hadith is about a comment The Prophet made in a particular time and place. Beards were 100% universal - and it was a pre-islamic practice to have one. Thus the comment was made without any consideration to the possibility that one day men might choose not to grow beards in the first place. But more importantly, I reason that "true islam" is not defined by the outward appearances or physical attributes of individual muslims (beyond dressing modestly and not mutilating your body).

The polar opposite of the "rational" islamic schools such as the Hanafi school, is the Hanbali school, which states that every hadith determined to be sahih, must be accepted and obeyed without question. Hanbal himself took it to the furthest possible extreme and considered anything not specifically 'authorised' by Muhammad as haram (forbidden). Thus he famously would not eat watermelon because he could not find any hadith that reported The Prophet eating or specifically authorising people to eat it.

The rigid and reactionary Hanbali school is championed by the Wahabists, who dominate the rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and who conduct the most rigorous and organised evangelising program in all the islamic world. Thus this once fringe view now has a powerful influence on all corners of the muslim world. It would be inaccurate to say this school now dominated the islamic world, but it is certainly somewhere in between the rationalism commanded by the quran and the hanbali school - or in other words, far more towards the reactionary extreme than it should be.

That is not to say that Islam must exist without the ahadith - there is a wealth of sage advise and practices from the "best among men" that can beautifully compliment the divine message of the Quran. But elevating the ahadith to a complete set of divine laws in its own right that is equal and even a competitor to the Quran is tantamount to elevating the Prophet himself to something akin to a divine leader. This is effectively 'shirk' - attributing associates with Allah - and a grave sin in islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:



Wow! gandalf, Wow!






One step at a time.

Consideration of the Hadith aside, the Koran is an inerrant document, the Koran is the word of Allah - to the moslem.

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah

a beautiful pattern (of conduct)

for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."

Koran 33.21




Now to the Hadith.

Are the Hadith topical and authoritative ?

You as a moslem, must make that decision [choice].

Is that supposed to be a compliment Y?

Yadda wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:


Really? I thought you made that choice for me.

Gandalf, I will come back to address this properly later - I'm exhausted at the moment, but want to get some thoughts down.

I was always skeptical of ahadith. I once read one which I think may have been Bukhari that said that Umar directed Aisha to return to the house because she hadn't covered her hair. It didn't make sense to me because it reeked of impertinence.

The stoning to death thing in Islam - surely something as important as that would be mentioned in the Quran. It's not like the subject isn't addressed. I think you're wise to be wary of ahadith - even if just for the fact that they seem to be a result of something similar to Chinese whispers.

My ex-husband always suggested that if a hadith makes sense in the greater context of the religion, believe it. If not - disregard.

My best friend is a Muslim and she and her family think differently. They believe it's not for the layman to question whether or not something is legitimate. For them it's haram - it's innovation in a way. These decisions should be left to scholars. In my opinion, this is where the danger lies. Scholars discourage questioning and critical thinking about Islam.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:


The Koran - it is conceded by moslems themselves - is an incomplete document.

Mohammed - a goat ate my homework part of the Koran, they were revelations to Mohammed from Allah, that were to be added to the Koran - but were never added/included.

Because a goat ate them!
....it was prolly a Mossad goat, sent on a suicide mission!




Quote:


True.

ISLAM is a philosophy which insists that the moslem must uncritically obey his religion [i.e. obey the leaders of his community and instruction of ISLAM's clerics].


"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.....
Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."
Koran 5.101, 102


"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65


"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger [i.e. the clerics], and make not vain your deeds!"
Koran 47:33
 

The Ahadith have for a long time G, been considered suspect with many known to have been written well after Muhammad's death to satisfy the political needs of some ruler or other.   There is a massive and ongoing project in Turkey at the moment to examine the Hadith closely and determine their veracity.

You're taking a modernist approach, which we are informed by so many of the Islamophobes is impossible in Islam.  I'd be worried about death threats from the Islamophobes for daring to throw their claims about Islam and Muslims into doubt!   

What are the differences, for someone who isn't particularly interested in which way they face to pray?

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:


I'm still not 100% sure what you're asking.

The ahadith in their entirety are anecdotes about Muhammad. Muslims agree that lots of them are either lies or have been corrupted as they've been passed from person to person. I think the biggest difference between Quran and hadith is that the Quran is non-negotiable whereas you can sort of argue about the hadith. Most Muslims wouldn't consider it blasphemous to question hadith, but to question the Quran would get you in trouble.


ETA: So dialogue about hadith allows much more freedom of expression.