TOPIC: Books >> Haqiqat e Hadith
Q.How valid are Hadith and do they contradict the Quran?
By: William On: 12/7/2010

1.It is said that the title “Historian” of the modern day, should be reserved for those who have academic accreditation or relevant experience within a given field. Today, there are several methodologies and techniques employed, to carry out investigations and analysis, many of which earlier historians may not have utilised.  
 
Certain historians, when analysing a scripture, may use exegesis and hermeneutics. This can go against the scientific method for establishing standards of proof; they may purport their own ideas rather than factual evidence. One of the functions of the modern day historian is to validate and verify or negate earlier historical accounts.  
 
Anthropologists, social scientists and archaeologists do not refute the methods of exegesis and hermeneutics; however they require the evidence provided to be scrutinised in every possible way, removing all forms of scepticism.  
 
Palaeography, Archaeology, Forensic document examination, provides many methods to analyse scriptures, including Carbon 14 dating; which determines the age of a document.  
 
Hadith are scriptures; a collection of narrations which allegedly hold account of actions and words of the prophet Muhammad. There are many different books of Hadith including Sahi Bokhari (a book compiled by the author Bokhari). These narrations are based on anecdotal evidence.  
 
Hadith collated by Bokhari were never authenticated by an actual governing body, nor was it validated as reputable material by any authority. It is said that Bokhari collated 600,000 Hadith of which several thousand were used in his book.  
 
The book was just introduced into the mainstream and was never questioned. There is no visible archaeological evidence available to suggest that the scriptures are from the 6th or 7th century that provides a back bone to Bokhari findings.  
 
In an academic situation, a researcher must provide clear factual evidence that the information presented is based on sources of primary or secondary research / workings (possibly of another author) and is not conjured-up. It is also necessary to reference citations as to deter one from thoughts of plagiarism (to intentionally imitate the work of others).  
 
Any research submitted to a reputable and renowned academic institute would require much deliberated analysis, logic and verified data to support the core ideology. Citations are also used to support the line of reasoning in a given statement. The source of information acts as an instrument which validates the claims and endorses the author’s theory. Bokhari’s work was never scrutinised or challenged. It was not academically assessed.  
 
Furthermore, if these statements were written testimonies, there should be records; signatures, seals of approval, or fingerprint impression made to declare acceptance and validation.  
 
The Narrations that was provided were never authenticated by the narrators mentioned, nor were they validated by the persons mentioned who had heard or seen the prophet’s actions, nor were the Hadith validated by the prophet himself. Yet these Hadith are taken as solemnly authentic.  
 
An affidavit is an official statement, in a prescribed form containing facts and details. It is a sworn witness account; signed by the affiant (the declarant) agreeing that the content provided is nothing but the truth. The signing of the document is observed and administered by Notary Public who authenticates the execution of the document, as it may be required for court proceedings.  
 
Similarly, a witness to a crime may give a formal statement which he/she will then sign. Everything is recorded as it may be used as evidence in court.  
 
Testimony is a form of providing evidence and is obtained from the witness who makes the factual declaration under oath. All of what is said is recorded by a court reporter. This can be taken as anecdotal evidence; however the members of the court along with the court records which are all signed off hold this evidence accountable.  
 
Islam, as we have come to understand today, is more so the interpretation and perception of the so called Islamic scholars and not actual doctrine (Quran). The Hadith (which are based on hearsay), arguably contract the Quranic teachings.  
Comments by: William On: 12/7/2010

 
2.My dear William: You are 100% right in your claim,but there is no any way or scientific technique ,which may make understand to the dumb followers of dogmas in the religious world. If your effert is for rational thinkers then the only ALFURQAN (the most scientific laboratory ) see the verse 3/3-4,2/185 is more than enough to discreminate HAQQ from BATILL.May Allah bless you.
Comments by: moazzam On: 12/7/2010

 
3.Dear William,  
 
You are correct, but you forget that the mullahs have conjured up the "science of hadith" to validate their hadis, every sect having their own method, thus the blind leading the blind.  
 
Two links for those who want to study more about hadith.  
 
http://groups.google.com/group/Truthandonlytruth/web/actual-status-of-hadith  
 
http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/4/hadiths_and_sunna.htm
Comments by: Maniza On: 12/8/2010

 
4.Dear Maniza,  
 
The "Science of Hadith" has no substance - this is a form of categorization: a manner of sorting and classifying certain statements. It is a methodology based on statements of hearsay. This could be done in the present time with posts on this very blog! The significant question arises... as part of the original validation process, were each individual Hadith compared to the Quran? (Obviously not!)  
 
The accounts given were not actually certified by any witnesses that are claimed to be apart of the given transmission. Therefore the value and validity of each statement becomes null and void regardless of the "Science of Hadith"  
 
Its as though I gathered home remedies for the flu from various locations, noted them down in a book that gets published without ever verifying its contents. None of the recopies’ have any medicinal affect on the patient whatsoever... yet millions believe it works.  
Comments by: William On: 12/8/2010

 
5.Dear Brother William, (Sis Maniza)  
 
Yours is a scholarly outlook on the question of authentication of Ahaadith. It is a question of history and history always drags me towards it with an irresistible appeal.  
 
It is true that this collection of hearsay was never scrutinized on Government level. It was not OPENLY authenticated either. On the contrary, all historical events suggest that it was still the Government that systematically encouraged its propagation and dissemination through paid agents of the Government, the Mullas of the time, called IMAAMS. The penal code widely used by the courts under Banu Umayyad and Banu Abbas regimes, was strictly based upon injunctions of Ahaadith and the Jurisprudence of the four Imams of Fiqhi schools of thought.  
 
There were, however, some scholars who in their personal capacity carried out detailed investigation, probing, rejection and condemnations. Those Scholars are called “A’imma e Jirah o Ta’deel”. Since Ahaadith were collected from narrators, so the antecedents and credibility of narrators were put to strict scrutiny. The results were not unexpected. Most of those investigated proved to be of weak credibility, out right liars, imposters, characterless persons, felons, foreign affiliates, fabricators, frauds, intriguers, etc. There is a whole array of legal terminology used about them in those times.  
 
You would certainly like to know some of the names of those remarkable investigators.  
 
In the Age of Companions and the first generation of their Successors:  
 
IMAM SHO’BI, IBN-E-SIREEN and SAEED BIN AL-MUSAYYIB.  
 
In the Middle of 2nd century AH:  
 
IMAM A’MUSH, IMAM MAALIK, etc. started investigating the narrators of weak credibility. Then MOAMMAR, HISHAM WASTOWAAI, IMAM OWZAAI, SUFYAAN THURI, IBN AL-MAJISHOON, HAMAAD BIN SALAMAH, etc. continued the work.  
After that, IMAM YAHYA BIN SAEED AL-QATTAN (D.198 AH) and IBN AL-MAHDI were widely recognized as authorities in this field.  
 
In the 3rd century AH:  
 
Writing of books on this subject mainly started in this century. The most prominent personalities of that period are two : IMAM YAHYA BIN MOEEN (d. 233 AH) and IMAM AHMED BIN HAMBAL (d. 241 AH).  
 
Afterwards, this work expanded widely. Hundreds of Imams in the art of JIRAH-O-TA’DEEL (Investigation and Rationalization) surfaced, and thousands of books were written.  
 
But look at the tragedy! None of the big names above are known to have appointed Quran as the CRITERION for ascertaining the truth, or otherwise, of Ahaadith. Their main focus of attention unfortunately was the character and antecedents of narrators. They did establish some principles for authentication of Hadith called “USOOL-E-HADITH” which, in practice, were not actually acted upon. Had they been properly acted upon, all the books of Ahadith would actually have disappeared from the scene. You might like to know what these principles are :-  
 
1. Hadith should not be opposed to nature.  
2. Hadith should not be opposed to rationality.  
3. Hadith should not be opposed to Quran.  
4. Hadith should not be opposed to History.  
5. It should not be against the normal routine phenomena.  
6. It should not be from a Raafzi (Shi’ite) reporting in condemnation of Khaarijis, Companions or (in praise of) Ahl-e-Bayit.  
7. It should neither promise great rewards for actions of minute nature, not should it warn of terrible torment for minor sins.  
8. It should not be a story, although conforming to common observations, but being reported by only one person.  
 
Unfortunately all “authentic” books of Ahadith stand in blatant violation of above Usool-e-Hadith.  
 
Thank you.  
Comments by: aurangzaib On: 12/8/2010

 
6.Dear brother Aurangzaib: regards, If AHADITH followers might observed their own established ONLY THREE " USOOL-E-HADITH,as you mentioned in your post,that " 1. Hadith should not be opposed to nature.  
2. Hadith should not be opposed to rationality.  
3. Hadith should not be opposed to Quran.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you are 100% right in your prediction, that, all the books of Ahadith would actually have disappeared from the scene.  
 
We proud to be the 1st one, to act upon at these three usool-e-hadith, as a THREE IN ONE, that is "THE HADITH SHOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO QURAN" therefore, all the stuff (ahadith books) has been disappeared from our scene  
 
 
 
Comments by: moazzam On: 12/8/2010

 
7.  
Dear Brother Moazzam,  
 
Very true indeed. Hadith owes its existence to the royal patronage of that time. It served their purpose well. Till date, it shields the atrocities of despotic rulers and their lackeys, the Mullas. How amazing! How identical it is to the history of the Church and the Royalty in the Christendom.
Comments by: aurangzaib On: 12/8/2010

 
8.Dear William,  
 
of course I know there is no such thing as "science of hadith" other wise I would not be here :) u miss understood my post.
Comments by: Maniza On: 12/9/2010

 
9.Hi Maniza,  
 
Apologies, I think I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick...  
 
My post was just a suggested response that could be used if mullahs ask “why Hadith are not credible, when the science of Hadith demonstrates authenticity”.  
 
Thanks  
 
William  
Comments by: William On: 12/15/2010

 
10.This is a complex question. Are hadith valid ? well some of them are and some are not. Some are graded as weak or unreliable , others are rated as good and others rated as very strong.  
 
It is important to remember that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) lived in a day and time where literacy was extremely low. Most people could not read and write and so there was a strong oral tradition. This is how history was recorded and passed down. This is still evident today. Just look at how the Arabs name themselves. Abu (father ) of such and such Ibn (son of ) thus and so. They can often trace back their lineage for not only decades but sometimes centuries because they include the names of their ancestors in their own names.  
 
HADITH IS NOT SCRIPTURE. It is history usually history pertaining to the Prophet Muhammad (saws). It is a historical record of things he said and did. The fact that much of it was either not written down or at least not collected into books for a couple of centuries doesn't make it any different than the rest of the history we have from that period.  
 
Sure there are some things that are myth or legend or exaggerated but most of the hadith rated as sahih or mutawatir are not only plausibly believable but were witnessed by lots of people. The mutawatir rating , for instance, is only attained by having some 50 reliable chains of narration or more. That's nothing to sneeze at.  
 
In any case , due to the fact that we know the Qur'an is perfect while hadith is not, any hadith which contradict the Qur'an should be ignored /discarded. And Allah knows best
Comments by: Iqra07 On: 7/9/2014

 
11.dear Iqra07,  
 
How do you know that Qur'an is perfect?  
 
cheers,  
./burberrie
Comments by: burberrie On: 7/14/2014

 
12.I beg your pardon Sir, but this is not a complex question at all. The ahadith are 100% invalid.  
 
Mr. Bukhari embarked upon a journey to find a VERY SMALL HANDFUL of people to record his ahadith from. So the question is WHY did he have to travel so FAR AND WIDE to find those small, minute, handful of people from whom to listen to ahadith? The answer for me is obvious; because ahadith were NOT a part of The Islamic Program of Socio-Political reform. That is why he had to FIND those handful of people to get his ahadith from.  
 
Also, according to the history, Mr. Bukhari came approximately 200 years AFTER The Rasul of Islam left The Qur'an with the 6th Century Arabians. That is 200 years. So here is another question to ask: WHAT were the people reading and following for 200 long years BEFORE Mr. Bukhari (The Persian) came along with this hadith business?  
 
Bottom Line; If the ahadith were important and were meant to be an integral part of the Islamic Agenda then the people would not have went 200 long years without them and there would have been more than a handful of people who "supposedly" knew ahadith. I deliberately put the word "supposedly" in quotation marks because in all actuality Mr. Bukhari (The Persian) did not collect a single hadith; he concocted them and got the backing of the corrupt Abbasid Empire to IMPOSE these ahadith on the people against their will. The punishment for rejecting ahadith (just as it is today) range from ridicule to death!!  
 
Salaam,  
Damon.
Comments by: Damon On: 7/15/2014

 
13.Iqra07! remember the history is always biased.  
Aastana.com neither blindly-believes in Quran nor blindly deny the Ahadith or any personal quote, each and every claim must be analyzed on rational grounds. Results speaks, so we take the truth and nature as an absolute authority being the criteria to judge right from wrong.  
we rejected so called Islamic holy history (ahadith) because these are self contradictory, contradictory with quran and contradictory with nature as well, thus not come up to the merit as given criteria, whereas we accept Quran as an absolute standard because we see it in phase with nature.
Comments by: moazzam On: 7/23/2014

 
14."How valid are Hadith and do they contradict the Quran?"  
 
Do Hadith contradict Quran? Which Quran? The one everyone knows as Quran? It is all hadith based, as the current understanding of Quran, which is the translation is done based upon hadith.  
 
The text above which no body understands, is the real Quran.  
 
The real Quranic text contradicts all Hadith and its own current understanding and translation based upon Hadith by just one word.  
 
Allah meaning "One who is not at all a deity for worship".  
 
Isn't all hadiths and hadith based current Quranic understanding revolves around supporting: Allah as the one and only deity for worship?  
 
A DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR MOST, BUT IS THE KEY FOR CHANGING THE REALITY.  
 
Regards
Comments by: bkanwar2 On: 7/31/2014

 
 AASTANA.COM © 2005-2010